Well, it’s proof of my God. I’ve defined my God, and then showed that the definition exists. What more ‘proof’ do you want?



Well, that a whole other ball game.

I never said that I could 'explain' God's existence.

I didn’t realizing that being able to explain how my God exists was a requirement to acknowledging that she exists.

I don’t know of any religious philosophy that actually explains how their God exists. They just define what God is like. So that’s all I’m doing.

I’m simply adding the fact that, by my definition of what God is like, I can prove that my God exists (by the very definition that I used to describe her)

Now you want me to turn the nectar into honey.

If you’re secretly looking for the answers to unanswerable questions I’m afraid I don’t have those.

However, if you want the answer to the riddle of life I’ll gladly share that with you.

James...don't you get mad at me...

It is just logical discussion... nothing more... nothing personal...



I described why it does not work in the last post...

No, no, no.


That wasn't my reasoning. I'm not saying that I exist, therefore the unviverse exists.

I was simply making a statement that I can prove that the universe exists at least to the same extent that I can prove that I exist. I didn't mean to imply that the universe exists because I exist.

On the contrary I would say just the opposite is true.

Who's getting mad? I'm just trying to converse to topic.



No, you just misunderstood a comment I made thinking that it was some sort of statement of proof, when it wasn't.

We first must agree that the existance of 'God' as a creator cannot be proven...

Can we agree here?


EDIT:

Ok... my mistake... I just wanted to remain not mad...

Can it be disproved?

Exactly...

Smarty pants!!!

Sure. But I'm not sure how productive this will be or where you expect it to lead.

I can't prove that my "God" created herself. Or that she existed before any point in "time", or that she herself, did not have a "creator". I don’t think any religion can address those issues. They can only make unwarranted claims that there God always existed. But they certainly can’t prove it.

However, having said that, I can give arguments using Einstein’s relativity that the time we experience as human’s is an illusion and that for my God there is no flow of time, there is only a primal “now” that persist eternally. Therefore there was never a time when my God could not have existed.

In other words, the question is moot to me. Because I can see that time is moot to God.

We think in terms of before and after. And therefore we need to believe that God had to have a beginning. But that may not be the case. Clearly if its not the case then it would it would not be provable anyway since it isn’t even true!

So, I will agree that it can't be proven that God 'created' herself.

However I’m not convinced that it cannot be shown that she is the creator of illusion. This may very well be provable. Unfortunately I don’t have a convincing proof off the top of my head. But I do have some ideas about how someone might go about that. Although, those proofs would necessarily be associated with understanding God’s true nature (i.e. quantum physics). And at the moment we don’t have a full understanding of this nature of God.

So yes, I agree that it can’t be proven that God created herself. I'm not even sure if the question even makes sense.

James to further address your last post...



That is the philosophy of it, using what we do know to arrive at the conclusion... right? It has to begin somewhere.



That 'proof' does not work though James... it is after the fact and based on your sensory perception... not a priori, which is independant of sensory experience...

It is truly no different an argument than Christianity uses with their 'proof'... see look 'X' is proof that God had a hand in it...

Do you see what I mean here?



Secretly?... Quite openly James... quite openly...



Isn't that what we are doing?

James our posts overlapped...

I will not be able to respond for a while...

Later I will indeed address your last post and more of your first...

'abra' wrote:




There it goes again!!! Straight out of wack!!!

:)

Where's is the OP when you need him?!?!?!


:)

What is the premise of this thread, and what is the first question being raised on that premise.

My understanding of the premise from the OP was:

'the philosophy of religion, and its application'.

Which requires much clarifying.

Furthermore, the OP proposed some conditions:

- The philosophy of religion (PoR) does not include scriptural references.

- The participants to the 'PoR' '... should attempt to stray completely away from applying human emotion to the notion of 'God'.

- The participants to the 'PoR' agree to use '... concise language will help to build a good conversation...'

- The participants to the 'PoR' agree to '... keep the personal attacks out of the realm of discussion...'

- The participants to the 'PoR' agree to apply '... Logic to their propositions...'

- The participants to the 'PoR' agree to '... Keep an open mind, voice a logical thought with supporting notions... and have a clean and orderly discussion... not a battle of personal slams... a civil 'chat-room' as it were...'

(while the intent is noble, there is a need for clarification as to how one enforces such subjective notions! The OP for each thread should be the person whom negotiates and establishes with participants the rules of engagement!)

As for a debating question, none were offered by the OP.

On the other hand, 'abra' jumped right in with a long list of potential questions, all open for debate, along the 'philosophical definition of 'god'. Presupposing and questionning perhaps, the nature of 'god's existence from a philosophical standpoint, which addresses the OP premise.

So far so good.

Now, in order to address the OP conditions of '... have a clean and orderly discussion...' it is essential to have a logical and well defined opening question, from which to build the infamous 'orderly discussion'.

The first questions proposed by 'abra' was:

"... is it possible to have more than one “God”? If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’..."

... is a worthwhile first take at this huge question of 'god's existence.

On the other hand, while 'Can we prove the existence of god' may well be the underlying premise, it is not a question anyone can debate straight on!!! The answer to the question can only be NO!!! A bit like looking at the sun directly, you can't see it for the blindning glare!!!

So, taking a philosophical sideway stab at that big question from the angle proposed by 'abra' : '... is it possible to have more than one god...', while it may not answer the ultimate puzzle, it may bring up some very interesting perspectives on the nature of 'god's existence for most people.

Finally, discussing 'god', and discussing 'My god', are totally two different questions. Besides the fact that the 'My god' discussion is 'off topic', in that it contravenes the
'... should attempt to stray completely away from applying human emotion (personnal convictions) to the notion of 'God'...' rule prpoposed by the OP!!!

So what do you say OP!!! WHat do you say people!!!

Do we agree on the premise and conditions???
Proposed by the OP.

Do we agree on the OP's role???
Moderate the exchage in accordance to the premise, conditions, and purpose of the topic and question at hand.

Do we agree on the opening question???
"... is it possible to have more than one “God”? If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’..."

:)

I don’t believe that there is any such thing as ‘truth’ beyond ‘sensory’ experience. So if you’re looking for a discussion on that you’re not going to get very far with me.

Truth has no meaning outside of experience as far as I'm concerned. What we refer to as ‘truth’ is indeed nothing more than explanations of our experiences.

I know that there were many philosophers who claimed to believe that we can figure everything out using nothing more than pure thought. As far as I’m concerned those idealistic notions have no merit in and of themselves. Even those philosophers were fooling themselves because they would always begin with something they believe they know from their own ‘experience’ of existence.

You mentioned in the OP:



But the very essence of the issues that you are inquiring about defy logic.

The very fact that anything exists at all defies ‘logic’.

It is illogical that anything could have gotten started. Or that a 'starter' could have preexisted.

So it’s perfectly clear (to me anyway) that logic clearly will no apply.

Ultimately the universe is a mystical place as far as humans are concerned. It always will be.

The study of physics has brought us closer to an understanding of the true nature of our universe than anything humankind has ever pursued. But even it reaches a dead end and must ultimately presume the preexistence of the ‘quantum fields’. Once those are postulated to preexist, then we can build up a universe on that foundation. But to explain how the quantum fields came to be appears (at least for now) to be an utterly impossible question to answer. Even String Theory completely avoids that question. String theory just postulates the existence of the quantum fields, then describes their least activity (i.e. strings) and move forward from that point.

As far as I’m concerned, the kind of questions you are asking are truly unanswerable. About the best you can hope to do is prove that they are indeed unanswerable, in fact, I believe some philosophers have already done that.

This is why many people turn to religion. They go bananas trying to answer these questions themselves and so they imagine that there is a supreme being who knows all the answers to everything, even its own nature! Then they don’t need to think about it anymore.

I’ve chosen a differnet path. One that Richard Feynman also chose:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." – Richard Feynman

I learned very early on the value of postulates and premises. These are things that we accept as basic truths without proof, and then we build from there. We can always go back and change the premises. But we can never prove them. They are inherently unprovable.

I’ve chosen to put my time an energy into things that are provable.

If you conclude that the existence of God is unprovable, where do you go next? Would it even make sense to continue to discuss something that you've just proven is unprovable?

I'm just curious.

I do to some degree.
The mere fact that the world is, it's the biggest proof of God's existance. Now, It's up to each one of us to get to know God by our own ways. The way I chose is catholicism.

I would say not. Just for the fact that there must be just one creative source for everything that was, is, and will be. That creative source is just one, and its name is God.
All others are creations of the human mind to satisfy their individuals and collective voids.

I'm sorry, Sir. I can't agree with that.

Now please don't come out and say, that I'm saying that Jesus is also a creation to fill a void. I'm not saying that because I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and God in essence

Oh my what have I started...


God will be defined by this...

The a priori substance of all existance as we know it, completely independent and consisting of every possible attribute and/or affection thereof.

This is what we must use...



How's that Voile? Abra? Miguel? Artsy? Whomever else?

There are many things that people accept on faith, that is: there is something in me that is convinced of something I cannot prove. I may reason that something brought order out of disorder so I would conclude that a force acted on the universe contrary to the laws that govern it. Even in life, the theory of evolution is it itself contruary to the law that everything goes from order to chaos. So there is a force that is conceivable which many would name as God.

Some claim God has communicated to us through prophets and words inspired of God. Many even think that God has written laws upon men's heart that it is wrong to kill and to steal. So many think that God has created in us a conscience that is to guide us in right and wrong. If we were to look at the chance that life could just happen, that this life that just happened would be able to survive in an enviroment that would have the necessary items to sustain it, and not only this but that it could reproduce itself or at some point have a mate of different physical makeup where the two could reproduce after their kind.

Perhaps God is the simplest answer to such things. Yet it is not proof. I have not seen God nor touch Him. His existence can be debated without conclusion, yet the same is true about God not existing. What we believe or conclude will not determine what the truth is, it remains untouch by our attempts.

Perhaps what is better is what is the purpose of man, what is His duty to the world and to his fellow man, what could man become if he could work in harmony with others for the good and advanment of all. What could we become if we reasoned and expanded each others thoughts, just how far could we go. Perhaps this is God's goal for us, if we are of the mind to believe in Him.

agreed as far as just the logics and syllogistical approach.
but what I have experienced is much more bigget than a mere syllogism

The a priori substance of all existance as we know it, completely independent from initial cause and consisting of every possible attribute and/or affection thereof.



This is the premise concerning the definition of 'God'... logically and without anthropomorphism attached...


This is the starting point...

If one can show logical and just cause to disallow this definition in a concise manner then do so... without the personification of God(anthropomorphism)


EDIT:

I added the italicized section... for clarity...