• The Meditations by Descartes: The Existence of God and the Argument From Evil
    132 replies, posted
Wouldn't that argument assume God exists already? God exists and is perfect, therefore his perfection exists, therefore he is perfect, therefore he exists?
[QUOTE=Hellduck;34637340]That's not god's existence then, that's god's non-existence. Which is not the same thing. In fact it's the exact opposite.[/QUOTE] Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34637841]Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.[/QUOTE] good god
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34637001]Yes, its non-existence actually.[/QUOTE] surely you're not as silly as to believe existence is the same as non-existence [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;34637841]Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.[/QUOTE] erm nah
If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist? For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.
maps aren't territories
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34640962]If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist? For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.[/QUOTE] You think Superman exists? [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] your ontology is slightly insane.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34640962]If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist? For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.[/QUOTE] Ok, now this is coming from a philosophy minor, so bear with me here: Your logic and deductive reasoning skills are utter crap.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34641911]You think Superman exists? [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] your ontology is slightly insane.[/QUOTE] yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34642259]yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.nndb.com/people/954/000044822/Russell-2.jpg[/img] really?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34642259]yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.[/QUOTE] haha, beautiful logic.
yes, really. I don't even see how you could disagree with that, or call it a logical fallacy or invalid deduction or whatever the fuck.
we don't have to go as far as calling it a logical fallacy you're just wrong
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34647952]yes, really. I don't even see how you could disagree with that, or call it a logical fallacy or invalid deduction or whatever the fuck.[/QUOTE] It's not a logical fallacy or invalid deduction it's just a bad ontology. If you have ontological commitment to fictional characters, you're being way too liberal. There is no entity in the world that is superman. If I could survey the whole world, I wouldn't find any X that is he. There have been philosophers in the past who have tried to argue for the subsistence of non-existent objects (Meinong comes to mind) but [I]very[/I] few philosophers take these seriously.
I never said Superman or God entities exist anywhere in the world (be it our world or the external world) [b]for real[/b], but there is an entity called "Superman" as well as "God" and "Batman", they are all entities that exist, but obviously I'm not saying like there is an actual Gotham City or Eve's Garden/Paradise somewhere, because there isn't.
You sound very linguistically confused. In contemporary philosophy, if something exists it is an object. Unless you're some kind of platonist (lol) and you're arguing for a realm of abstract objects, there are no such things as objects that exist outside of spacetime.
If something existing has to be an object (obviously), then God, Batman and Superman don't exist. Which is also fine by me of course.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34649347]If something existing has to be an object (obviously), then God, Batman and Superman don't exist. Which is also fine by me of course.[/QUOTE] so why were you arguing that god and batman do exist?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34649387]so why were you arguing that god and batman do exist?[/QUOTE] Earlier you said "nah" to when I said "God's existence is non-existent" so.. I don't know. And can't you realize that Batman does exist in comic books, films and as materialistic action figures. So to me that is Batman existing. I was just basically arguing [b]how[/b] these characters exist, even if they don't exist as REAL living beings like you and me.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34649448]Earlier you said "nah" to when I said "God's existence is non-existent" so.. I don't know.[/quote] I would assume he said that just because that claim is self contradictory [quote]And can't you realize that Batman does exist in comic books, films and as materialistic action figures. So to me that is Batman existing. I was just basically arguing [b]how[/b] these characters exist, even if they don't exist as REAL living beings like you and me.[/QUOTE] The films and comic books exist. That doesn't mean batman exists. Holy books exist, and that also doesn't mean god exists.
Of course not. So they exist in literature/films/whatever.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34649699]Of course not. So they exist in literature/films/whatever.[/QUOTE] Surely you must agree that existence of something in literature/films does not translate to its existence in reality. It seems your definition of "exist" is misleading.
Yes I agree that Batman existing in comic books does not translate to Batman existing in reality. So yes my definition of "exist" is something else, misleading even. But I think my definition of "exist" is also reasonable; Because if there's thousands of pages of literature about God ranging back hundreds of years, people talking about God every day, people talking TO God (Being crazies) then God does indeed exist within us. Which on the other hand is crazy, because by your normal definition, God doesn't exist.
It's a very misleading way of talking, to the point you should shun that whole meaning of the word. Consider the sentence, does the 10 foot pink elephant exist? Obviously not. But then I write a short story including Sam the 10 foot pink elephant and his adventure to hell. According to your silly notion of existence, 'the 10 foot pink elephant exists' is suddenly true, which is huuuuugely unintuitive. According to Grice's Razor, we shouldn't multiply the meanings of words unnecessarily, so we should just drop the whole notion of existence having two senses.
Hell, you could say the pink 10-foot elephant exists in your mind. But it's nothing of.. importance, of course.
Hell no. [editline]17th February 2012[/editline] (LOL you're discussing about the existence of God and won't even agree about what does "existence" means)
Ok, about these discussion about what does the question "does X exist?" means, I think that the meaning of the question depends on the context and on the meaning of "X". For example, if you ask if the 10-foot pink elephant exist you are asking if there 10-feet pink elephant is or isn't in the world. If you ask if love exists then you are not asking if there is 'love' in the world, or, the same, if there is something which we can encounter that coincides with what we previously defined as 'love'. Of course we won't find 'love' as as physical object. But humans can 'encounter' love and other abstract concepts in their lives, and if WE DEFINE IT AS AN ABSTRACT OBJECT, then the proposition "love exists" can be true. just what I think, btw.
I'm necroposting here just to point out what I think is the worst possible approach to philosophy ever. You're all thinking of Descartes, Anselmo d'Aosta, Kant or whatever, like: A) You are their contemporary: that means you see their theories as something you have to disprove cause you do not agree with them. That's wrong. Philosophy is dead, you don't have to disprove anything. Actually, you're the only one who are taking the proof of existence of God as an actual factual demonstration that God exists. Cartesius didn't think it that way, Scholastics scolars didn't think it that way, even Thomas Aquin didn't think it that way. It's not that you ACTUALLY have to prove that God exist. In scholastic, medieval and protomodern mindset, God exists period. You don't have to actually prove his existence, you just might need it for theological, logical, metaphisical or whatever studies. B) They used to think as you do now. That's the worst possible thing you can do while studying history, philosophy or any kind of litterature: another age means another line of thought, and sometimes it can be COMPLETELY different. Take the Greeks: they thought of the finite as the most perfect thing, while we think the exact opposite. Or Saint Augustine: the soul of a person is NOT his personality, his experiences or his emotions, and just as before, we think the exact opposite (and, incredibly, thanks to Descartes and his "res cogitans"). So actually all this conversation it's just a big, long, sterile lesson on the ontological argument.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;35084505']I'm necroposting here just to point out what I think is the worst possible approach to philosophy ever. You're all thinking of Descartes, Anselmo d'Aosta, Kant or whatever, like: A) You are their contemporary: that means you see their theories as something you have to disprove cause you do not agree with them. That's wrong. [B]Philosophy is dead[/B], you don't have to disprove anything. Actually, you're the only one who are taking the proof of existence of God as an actual factual demonstration that God exists. Cartesius didn't think it that way, Scholastics scolars didn't think it that way, even Thomas Aquin didn't think it that way. It's not that you ACTUALLY have to prove that God exist. In scholastic, medieval and protomodern mindset, God exists period. You don't have to actually prove his existence, you just might need it for theological, logical, metaphisical or whatever studies. B) They used to think as you do now. That's the worst possible thing you can do while studying history, philosophy or any kind of litterature: another age means another line of thought, and sometimes it can be COMPLETELY different. Take the Greeks: they thought of the finite as the most perfect thing, while we think the exact opposite. Or Saint Augustine: the soul of a person is NOT his personality, his experiences or his emotions, and just as before, we think the exact opposite (and, incredibly, thanks to Descartes and his "res cogitans"). So actually all this conversation it's just a big, long, sterile lesson on the ontological argument.[/QUOTE] I may agree with most of what you said there, but what are you talking about when you say that philosophy is dead? As long as there is a human living in the world there will be some kind of philosophy.
[QUOTE=matsta;35087252]I may agree with most of what you said there, but what are you talking about when you say that philosophy is dead? As long as there is a human living in the world there will be some kind of philosophy.[/QUOTE] What I mean is that philosophy, as a discipline, is already dead. It has been for almost half a century (I think the last one could be Wittgenstein, but it's all rather blurry to discern). There are no more important thoughts formed or minds at work. What you study is not philosophy in itself, it's just history of philosophy. With that said, just interrogating yourself on things is not sufficient to call yourself a philosopher, even of some sort. I could understand while someone might think that, but that's just lowering a noble discipline to banal, everyday metaphisical questions that everyone, at some points of his life, happens to make, like "What are we?", "What is the sense of life?" and so on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.