Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 150 (164785)
12-02-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
12-02-2004 7:08 PM


Linguistic Legerdemain
The reason that it's not a very impressive proof is that "the greatest thing in the universe", in a universe that does not include all possible things, might not be very great. Certainly not as great as what "God" is commonly used to refer to.
All you've done is essentially define God to be the greatest thing in the universe, but if there's nothing greater than a hot fudge sundae in the universe, you've just redefined "God" to be nothing more than a delicious dessert.
Another way to put what I'm saying is, consider the set U. If we define "God" to be "the largest number in the set U", but U only contains the numbers 1, 2, and 3, then "God" isn't any more than 3, even though we might expect "God" to be considerably larger than that.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-02-2004 11:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 12-02-2004 7:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by General Nazort, posted 12-03-2004 9:30 AM crashfrog has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 17 of 150 (164791)
12-02-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by General Nazort
12-02-2004 8:15 PM


Technically speaking, its also impossible for you to prove to me that YOU exist.
Yep. That's because I don't exist! And neither do you. We are just temporary arrangements of molecules that store memory and behaviour and then after a spell we are transformed into something else and the memories are gone.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by General Nazort, posted 12-02-2004 8:15 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-02-2004 11:43 PM lfen has replied
 Message 25 by General Nazort, posted 12-03-2004 8:59 AM lfen has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 150 (164793)
12-02-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by lfen
12-02-2004 11:33 PM


and then after a spell we are transformed into something else
And I know the spell.
It only takes one kiss from your Princess Daughter to turn a Prince into a Frog.
But back towards the topic, is there some reason that when it comes to believe systems, if they are personal and do not infinge on the rights or beliefs of others, that they should be consistent or rational?
Is there some reason I should like the same food as anyone else, love the same people as everyone else, have the same favorite flower, color, scent?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by lfen, posted 12-02-2004 11:33 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Gilgamesh, posted 12-03-2004 12:11 AM jar has not replied
 Message 20 by lfen, posted 12-03-2004 12:15 AM jar has not replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 150 (164799)
12-03-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
12-02-2004 11:43 PM


Jar wrote:
is there some reason that when it comes to believe systems, if they are personal and do not infinge on the rights or beliefs of others , that they should be consistent or rational?
(Italics mine)
IMO, No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-02-2004 11:43 PM jar has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 20 of 150 (164801)
12-03-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
12-02-2004 11:43 PM


No reason
Apart from aesthetics I know of no reason, but why are you asking me? I don't see how these questions arise from my post.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-02-2004 11:43 PM jar has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 150 (164824)
12-03-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by General Nazort
12-02-2004 8:19 PM


Re: A proof of God
Ontological "proofs" are a bit more cunning than that.
The standard one relies on mixing up the concept of God with God Himself. It defines God as the greatest thing imaginable.
The modal version relies on conflating "possible" in the sense of modal logic with epistemic possibility -and can be easily changed into an equally (in)valid "proof" that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by General Nazort, posted 12-02-2004 8:19 PM General Nazort has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 22 of 150 (164825)
12-03-2004 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mikehager
12-02-2004 5:17 PM


Re: A proof of God
Mike,
I didn't reply to Lam's post because I thought it would lead the topic in a way you weren't intending. But... I guess you're cool with the direction.
Lam is referring to St. Anselm's "Ontological Argument" (click here for a definition). Here's a more complete version of the argument:
http://www.self-realization.com/prooffor.htm writes:
Men believe God to be the Being than which none greater can be thought. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than to exist in the understanding alone. Therefore, it is contradictory to hold that God exists only in the intellect, for then the being than which none greater can be thought is one than which a greater can be thought, namely, one that exists both in reality and in the understanding.
You can find a list of more 'proofs' of God's existence at that same webpage (page down to the 'examples' section).
As for this proof... I don't remember what was said about it in my philosophy class when we studied it, but reading it now, it strikes me THUSLY:
Anselm hasn't shown that God exists at all. He's talking about what men, and specifically men who believe in God, must believe. I think his proof shows that, IF a man believes in God, AND he believes that that God is 'the Being than which none greater can be thought', THEN, in that man's conception of God, God must be thought to exist.
Of course, this proof says nothing about those who DON'T believe in God, about those who believe in Gods that are NOT 'the Being(s) than which none greater can be thought', and, probably most crucially, ANYTHING that actually exists in the world.
If only it were that easy... that my thinking about something brings it into existence. Well... interestingly enough, Anselm's mistake is actually in a direction that psychology is tending to take (that 'reality' is, in some meaningful sense, defined by the mind)... but that's a different story for a different time.
Well, anyway, I hope that adds some value for you.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mikehager, posted 12-02-2004 5:17 PM mikehager has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 23 of 150 (164826)
12-03-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
12-02-2004 5:10 PM


Lam,
Thanks for the response. I know this argument (I just posted a reply with some more details). I think they're interestering academically, and kind of like brain teasers--can you find the unstated assumption that produces the mind-bending conclusion?
I think you bring up a good thought (that, let's say, proof of God is provable), and to think about how that affects us all. Faith and belief are, really, irrational. Some people do their best to align their belief with logic, but it's just impossible. We live in an ill-defined world--one where all 'knowledge' is inductive, not deductive (note to self: using the word 'all' here is dangerous! Try not to do that!).
Because of this, I really think that belief and faith are only partially related to truth, fact, or proofs. And this is hardly a bold statement. I think most Evos here have been complaining about this property of some people who discuss here!
So I'd say... for some people, proof of God would change belief. And for some, it simply wouldn't. Those people wouldn't work with logic in their metaphysical beliefs.
Did I make any sense? Well, ... the JLPT is two days away, and I started studying (two days ago)! So... I better GO DO THAT. You're stuck with this post as is
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 12-02-2004 5:10 PM coffee_addict has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 150 (164832)
12-03-2004 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mikehager
12-02-2004 3:12 PM


Are we allowed to attack the premiesies?
Are we allowed to challenge the premisies? Because I have a problem with 2 and 3.
2. Unprovability is an absolute quality. I.e. one thing cannot be more or less unprovable then another.
3. The existence of a divine being or beings is unprovable.
Why is the exsistance of divine beings unprovable? Or perhaps I should say any less unprovable than anything else?
And why are all unprovable things eaqualy unprovabe? Let's say it is unprovable that I had lunch today, no matter how hard I try, I cannot prove that I had lunch today. If just a few more pieces of evedence were avalable to me I would be able to prove it.
Though my lunch is unprovable it is not AS unprovable as something that would require many more pieces of evidence. Like that someone in the andromida galaxy had lunch today. My lunch thing is unprovable but just out of reach, whereas the andromida galaxy guys lunch is way way out of reach.
So it seems like there are degrees of "unprovableness" am I missing something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mikehager, posted 12-02-2004 3:12 PM mikehager has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 150 (164855)
12-03-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by lfen
12-02-2004 11:33 PM


Yep. That's because I don't exist! And neither do you. We are just temporary arrangements of molecules that store memory and behaviour and then after a spell we are transformed into something else and the memories are gone.
That's not exactly what I meant - you can't prove that the molecules exist, either. I was thinking more along the lines of The Matrix, in which everything in an illusion. Other people - the entire word - doesn't really exist - all of it is just pictures put into your head.
Since we can't prove that the world is not an illusion, then according to mikehager, if you believe in the world, then you have to believe in leprechauns
So Mike do ya believe in leprechauns or are you being inconsistent?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by lfen, posted 12-02-2004 11:33 PM lfen has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 150 (164857)
12-03-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
12-02-2004 11:09 PM


Re: Linguistic Legerdemain
Another way to put what I'm saying is, consider the set U. If we define "God" to be "the largest number in the set U", but U only contains the numbers 1, 2, and 3, then "God" isn't any more than 3, even though we might expect "God" to be considerably larger than that.
Ya, thats a good way to put it - nice explanation.
I wonder what God would be defined as with this "proof" if God doesn't actually exist - a black hole or supernova perhaps? What is the "greatest" thing in the universe? hmmm.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2004 11:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2004 11:00 AM General Nazort has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 27 of 150 (164858)
12-03-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mikehager
12-02-2004 3:12 PM


Provability is orthogonal to truth (as Godel proved) thus limiting yourself to provable facts then you are limiting yourself to a subset of all truth. And 'Proof' itself contains a spectrum of varying levels.
I also disagree with items 3, 4 and 4b. I believe the existence of a divine being would be provable were there one, and the existence of leprechauns would be provable should they exist. I do not see any justification at all for 4b.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mikehager, posted 12-02-2004 3:12 PM mikehager has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 150 (164870)
12-03-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mikehager
12-02-2004 3:12 PM


Leprechaun;
Word History: Nothing seems more Irish than the leprechaun; yet hiding within the word leprechaun is a word from another language entirely. If we look back beyond Modern Irish Gaelic luprachn and Middle Irish luchrupn to Old Irish luchorpn, we can see the connection. Luchorpn is a compound of Old Irish l, meaning small, and the Old Irish word corp, body. Corp is borrowed from Latin corpus
God;
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.
God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. --John iv.
A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power
The differemce in trying to define God, is that there are so many ways to define him. Some describe him as a supernatural, or a power and/or ruler of [this] universe. Whereas a Leprechaun is a simple defined concept.
It seems Leprecahun and God, are two very different concepts. (For arguments sake, I'll say God is a concept, though obviously this is an agreed premise only for the sake of argument).
I disagree with 4a. " Therefore, the existence a divine being or beings and the existence of leprechauns are equally unprovable. "
Because God is eternal by definition, and ruler of the universe, and transcends it and is supernatural, whereas a supposed leprechaun is not defined this way. Since God is defined as ruler of this universe, creator OF IT, all things prove God. He is defined as making everything, everything testifies of him.
4b says " It is illogical and inconsistent to accept one while dismissing the other when both are equally unprovable. "
(Let's assume your argument is correct for a moment)It isn't illogical or inconsistent, because one must assume that the unprovability of a concept - if equal, renders two concepts equal.
Example;
1. I killed my grandmother - there's no way to prove it now.
2.I ate lunch four months ago - there's no way to prove it now.
Most people would accept number 2, with being logical and consistent.
One gives more credibility to the one which is more likely, despite them being both equally unprovable.
Just like my example, There are many scriptures, and hundreds of authors and witnesses to God, and he is a concept of the origin of all things, the meaning of life, which is far more important than a mgical Leprechaun.
Even Christ didn't make magic signs to please unbelieving people. And God is more important to people than Leprechauns. I hope you understand.
PS. I think your argument is well ordered though, and logical. I don't accept it - but I still think you done a cohesive job.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-03-2004 10:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mikehager, posted 12-02-2004 3:12 PM mikehager has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 29 of 150 (164873)
12-03-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
12-02-2004 7:08 PM


Re: A proof of God
OK Here is a thought.
1) The greatest thing in the universe must exist.
2) God is the greatest thing in the universe.
3) Therefore, God must exist.
This logic seems to be flawed at its heart.
If God actually created the entire universe then he isn't going to be actually in it at all. He would have been there before the universe existed and therefore he must exist outside of his creation. Doesn't it stand to reason that any creator (of anything) must be greater than his creation?
This would make the proof oh his existance even more untenable since if his hand is in everything then it becomes like the matrix subtraction of an analytical experiment. Like C in the equation Y=MX+C (commonly used in a concentration equation. Y is the measured responce while X is the concentration and M is the slope). If C is equal in everything then how is it possible to know its magnitude?
Oh sorry. That was logic and we have already established that logic isn't really applicable here.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 12-02-2004 7:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 150 (164881)
12-03-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by General Nazort
12-03-2004 9:30 AM


Re: Linguistic Legerdemain
I wonder what God would be defined as with this "proof" if God doesn't actually exist - a black hole or supernova perhaps? What is the "greatest" thing in the universe?
That's another failure of the proof - it hinges on terms that are so vague as to be meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by General Nazort, posted 12-03-2004 9:30 AM General Nazort has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024