Unless God has touched you or done something supernatural which you EXPERIENCED in your life, I agree with Acolyte to the extent that, without claiming to have proof of a higher power or the lack of one, there isn't one here now and it isn't offering me divine revelations on how to live my life or having any other impact on my EXPERIENCE. So effectively, I'm working alone here and there is no higher power.

Sure one 'could' exist--It's not something I can PROVE doesn't exist. But just like the flying pink unicorn (or invisible pink bunnies that always hide behind you--which you should be familiar with from logic courses! it's my favorite example to use. Yes, they're invisible. AND they hide behind you. It's so unnecessary. That's what makes it fun! People who think they're smarter than they are get all tripped up with the double!), I'm operating under the assumption that it doesn't exist. Operating under the assumption that it CERTAINLY doesn't exist is the same thing. It's not here.

You can conceptualize about ANYthing you want. But to live life assuming there is an invisible pink unicorn in the sky or invisible pink bunnies behind you at all times (not sure what effect they'd have, but let's presume they had some impact on your life, the unicorn or bunnies) or some other psychotic thought would be... psychotic. It'd be a point of mental illness. You'd be living a life based on what's not there. Or here. Or anywhere. In anyone's experience it doesn't exist except as a psychotic episode or externally-introduced concept.

I've studied Catholic Studies, Theology, and Philosophy at major universities. Based on what you've spouted, you haven't. Based on what you're spouting, you haven't been educated much and what educatoin you have received has been by some religious authority or individual which expected you to believe what you were reading, even if the author wrote what he did (at a time when the church would do bad things to him if he didn't... like kill him) in order to keep his life.

While I think the idea of a higher power is nice and all, and while there's a point in that all of this stuff didn't just HAPPEN TO BE HERE, (What luck that would be; I know, right!?), the answer is certainly not known, conceptualized, understood, or explained enough that I would ever call it a "higher power" or "god."

Frankly, to claim that the answer to the question could or should be called any of these things is IGNORANT. It's narrow-minded. It closes your brain from trying to figure the TRUTH. It's framing the question with categories of answers that NO evidence or logic narrows the answer down to.

To claim that wikipedia is logically going to prove that you're right with your ignorant response is all the evidence of your ignorance that we need to excommunicate you!

BTW, Descartes' proof of god is AWFUL. That's why no one talks about it seriously.

"To claim that wikipedia is logically going to prove that you're right with your ignorant response is all the evidence of your ignorance that we need to excommunicate you!"

and your claim that people that beleive in God are psychotic is just as arrogant...

Justinian I: "In that case you lowered the bar for what constitutes as knowledge. I keep to the traditional conception that I can only know something if it is truth-correlative, and that means having very limited knowledge."

It means having NO knowledge. It is impossible to have absolute certainty about anything concerning the physical universe, or even that the physical universe exists at all.

"Yes, I would admit I'm not sure and therefore would suspend judgment about the flying pink unicorn. I'm a philosophical skeptic. I don't actually know if I have a hand with five fingers, only that I experience a hand with five fingers."

In that case, you have raised the bar for "knowledge" so high that you have become useless to society. Science has been humanity's greatest success precisely because it charts a reasonable, logical course for epistemology, rather than accepting the absurd (as religion does, by taking "personal revelation" as knowledge) or rejecting the unavoidable (as solipsism does, by rejecting anything that cannot be known with absolute certainty). Congratulations.

Acolyte,

Yes, we know very little according to my standard of knowledge, which is actually the traditional conception. It's not that I am apathetic or anything, but I pursue a very different project than knowledge. And yes, I highly value science and dismiss anything that is not non-scientific, I wanted to make that clear. The empirical method is both reliable and powerful. Think of David Hume who was a skeptic, but was also an empiricist.

Btw, solipism is the idea that only you exist. I think you really meant skepticism, which is the idea that we do not know if we know anything.

Thebes,

Well here's the thing about the first cause argument. If you want to call it God, then you also have to apply various properties such as that dude who is watching the world, issues moral laws, and communicates his will through prophets etc. For all we know, this prime mover is a mad scientist from another realm with laws we can't even conceive of, who created our universe as a 5th grade science project and he doesn't even care about us anymore. As such, I don't think it's fair to automatically equivocate this prime mover with God.

As for Descartes' argument, I was referring to his five meditations. I forget where the circle is, but I remember there was one in one of my philosophy classes. There is also another critique from Bertrand Russell who said that he only proved there is thinking, not that he exists. Without the conclusion he exists, his entire argument terminates.

Right on about Anselm .

> avogadro wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

> Well here's the thing about the first cause argument. If you want to call it God, then you also have to apply various properties such as that dude who is watching the world, issues moral laws, and communicates his will through prophets etc.

No. God by definition doesnt have to be watching over us, or issue moral laws to us or communicate his will through prophets...>>

Well I don't think people will identify with the definition of God as being just a prime mover.

well, justinian, with the great power to create, and to create in such a way that he did, it follows that the first cause is 1. all-powerful, and 2. intelligent.

i don't necessarily agree that it means he is necessarily a moral law giver at this point in the conversation.

all that recognizing his power and intelligence is recognizing what it would take to create the universe that we live in, and to recognize the order and harmony with which it was created (laws of nature, physics and so forth)

The question is, presuming all of existence as we know it doesn't just happen to be here magically, what more is there to explain everything that's here that's clearly beyond our knowledge. I wouldn't presume to call it a higher being or a force. Now read the rant about how labelling it these limiting terms is narrow-minded and ignorant again. If your concern is the truth, you're not doing yourself a favor by calling things descriptive names before you have any indication that they can be described by such.

You mentioned Descartes' (among others') proof of god. I was referring to the one you referred to.

I didn't mean any offense, Elysian Thebes. I apologize if I was an asshole. You see, I get used to retards who won't respond to subject matter but cry about never responding to subject matter. You hit the subject matter AND milked the cows. Hillarious.

>>and your claim that people that beleive in God are psychotic is just as arrogant...<<

You're the one living your life based on the belief that there are invisible pink uncorns in the sky that will punish you unless you do what they magically told crazy people to write down to guide humanity's actions thousands of years ago. Don't do anything like tell me specifically what about my explanation of why I don't alter my life based upon myths with NO evidence to support their claims you find fault with. That would be too intellegent and we could both learn where we disagree and why. Then we might actually respect one another and have a discussion. Just post saying "you're arrogant for saying you see this behavior as crazy! asshole!" and leave it at that. Very enlightening. You're a great communicator!

>>first cause is the original definition of the gods<<

Only so far as the gods are necessarily human-like creatures with mega powers and human traits. I have a hard time accepting that. That's a big redefinition of what we actually know (or rather, don't know).

"For all we know, this prime mover is a mad scientist from another realm with laws we can't even conceive of, who created our universe as a 5th grade science project and he doesn't even care about us anymore."

Justinian I has demonstrated this point much more humorously than I could have hoped to.

Anyone referring to a prime mover as "he" is already accepting some of those traits we're saying there's no reason to presume.

And inviltrist wraps things up nicely so I don't have to question your recognition of "order and harmony". Because I don't recognize them. Sure we survive in the current temperature range. But looking to evolutionary theory as the most likely useful theory in explaining life in its current states, this is a result OF the temperature range--not an indication that the temperature range was decided FOR our survival.

lol Yeah, we don't need to equivocate anymore on God and He and such. We've cleared that up I do believe. I'll start calling it IT or something.

If it didn't have that drive in some form or other it would not survive well as what did. It is an evolutionary advantage, so evolution theory explains it easily.

let's not suppose. just explain why all life feels an inherent, dominating need to pass on it's genetic material? evolution isn't a why, it's a how. i think evolution is a satisfactory explanation of how.

where did someone point out the circularity of the prime mover, first cause? as far as i know, v kemp, justinian both acknowledged the logic of those concepts.

it's not a question of circularity, i think you were just throwing that word out there b/c you are unfamiliar terrain. it's not a matter of circularity, (wrong shape) it's a matter of infinite regression. take a minute and think about this question: what started the big bang? what started the starter of the big bang? what started that? how far does that go on? the shape you should have recognized is a line, not a circle. logically, there has to be some start, somewhere. something that was, and wasn't started, caused, or created by anything else.

philosophy calls that god, not the god referred to by theologies, but god nonetheless, that which is above all else, beyond matter, space, cause, effect, change, and hence time.

"At some point you have to accept the eternal. Remember, even time itself is linked to matter and space. Universe expanding and collapsing in on itself for eternity. At some point we reach a limit of human knowledge. I like Camus's philosophy of the absurd;  man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternity. I leave it at that."

wait, who's trying to hide truth? the religious looking for truth and the beginning of the atheist calling any attempt absurd?

yes, matter, space, and time are all linked. whatever came first couldnt be physical anyways because to be comprised of something is to have come after it. so this first action cant be purely physical, it has to be metaphysical.  in reality its science that has reached its limit, not human knowledge. because science has no place in the metaphysical, but humans do.