Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 1.8 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
My problem with the "I think, therefore I am" mentality of #2 is that Descartes couldn't yet conceive of a world with advanced technology. Our ability to perceive and ponder and be self-aware is proof that we exist to Descartes. But what about artificial intelligence? A completely programmed personality with the ability to react and consider and think isn't yet perfected, and in movies it always seems to lead to global robot domination, but it's a legit concept. Once we are capable of making Portal-esque AI intelligence, existing only within the confines of a computer program, i.e. simulated reality, doesn't that make #2 incorrect?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2013 03:45 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 03:33 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  My problem with the "I think, therefore I am" mentality of #2 is that Descartes couldn't yet conceive of a world with advanced technology. Our ability to perceive and ponder and be self-aware is proof that we exist to Descartes. But what about artificial intelligence? A completely programmed personality with the ability to react and consider and think isn't yet perfected, and in movies it always seems to lead to global robot domination, but it's a legit concept. Once we are capable of making Portal-esque AI intelligence, existing only within the confines of a computer program, i.e. simulated reality, doesn't that make #2 incorrect?

I think his line of reasoning is that I perceive god. What I perceive becomes real. This reality is real because things that are not real can not be perceived. Therefore god is real because I perceive him.

But then he throws in things that are unreal but perceived are hallucinations. So how does he distinguish a false perception from a real one?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
28-04-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
Repost from the double topic :
If I look into the dark, and my cat's eyes are glowing, but I perceive it to be a Jaguar with a gun, that doesn't mean it's real. It means I think it's real, when in reality it is not a jaguar with a gun.

If there is nothing and you see God, that doesn't mean there is God, it means you think God is there and real.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Question's post
28-04-2013, 04:02 PM
 
Veridican Argument for God: Axiom #4
4. That which is unreal can never be proven to be real.

There will always be a context in some manner in which the real thing should apply and does not. This I call, “necessary inconsistency” (or NI for short)
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for God: Axiom #4
(28-04-2013 04:02 PM)Egor Wrote:  4. That which is unreal can never be proven to be real.

There will always be a context in some manner in which the real thing should apply and does not. This I call, “necessary inconsistency” (or NI for short)

Welcome to atheism. Thumbsup

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like fstratzero's post
28-04-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for God: Axiom #4
(28-04-2013 04:02 PM)Egor Wrote:  4. That which is unreal can never be proven to be real.

There will always be a context in some manner in which the real thing should apply and does not. This I call, “necessary inconsistency” (or NI for short)

Doesn't that seem ironic that you include this in your argument FOR God?

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Question's post
28-04-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: Veridican Argument axiom #3
(28-04-2013 02:55 PM)Egor Wrote:  3. The perception of something unreal is either illusion or hallucination.

An illusion is the perception of something unreal presented to that which perceives it. Hallucination is the perception of something unreal generated by that which perceives it.

So far so good.

I think I know where this is leading, but I haven't read down the thread yet and will reserve judgement for the moment.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
Am I missing something, here? How can a logical argument be premised upon that which is unreal? Is there some philosophy I need to study Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
28-04-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
One summation of Descartes argument, pay specific attention to the last sentence.

" In metaphysics, he provided arguments for the existence of God, to show that the essence of matter is extension, and that the essence of mind is thought. "

"God and error

In discussing the mark of truth, Descartes suggested that the human intellect is as reliable as it is because it was created by God. In discussing the functioning of the senses to preserve or maintain the body, he explained that God has arranged the rules of mind–body interaction in a manner that is conducive to the good of the body. Nonetheless, in each case, errors occur, just as, more broadly, human beings make poor moral choices, even though God has given them a will that is intrinsically drawn to the good (1:366, 5:159, Princ. I.42).

Descartes responded these problems differently. He explained cognitive and moral errors as resulting from human freedom. God provides human beings with a will, and wills are intrinsically free. In this way, there is no difference in degree in freedom between God and man. But human beings have finite intellects. And because they are free, they can choose to judge in cognitive or moral situations for which they do not have clear and distinct perceptions of the true or the good. If human beings restricted their acts of will to cases of clear and distinct perception, they would never err. But the vicissitudes of life may require judgments in less than optimal circumstances, or we may decide to judge even though we lack a clear perception. In either case, we may go wrong.

Matters are different for the errors of the senses. The senses depend on media and sense organs, and on nerves that must run from the exterior of the body into the brain. God sets up the mind–body relation so that our sensations are good guides for most circumstances. But the media may be poor (the light may not be good), circumstances may be unusual (as with the partially submerged stick that appears as if bent), or the nerves may be damaged (as with the amputee). In these cases, the reports of the senses are suboptimal. Since God has set up the system of mind–body union, shouldn't God be held accountable for the fact that the senses can mislead? Here Descartes does not appeal to our freedom not to attend to the senses, for in fact we must often use the senses in suboptimal cognitive circumstances when navigating through life. Rather, he points out that God was working with the finite mechanisms of the human mind and body, and he suggests that God did the best he could (7:88)."

Descartes works with the best knowledge of the time, I think that if he were live today he'd be an atheist. The fact that "he suggests that God did the best he could" implies a non-omnipotent God shackled by limitations. Pfft.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#GodErr

“I suppose our capacity for self-delusion is boundless."
― John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley: In Search of America
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 04:21 PM
Information RE: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God
(28-04-2013 04:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Am I missing something, here? How can a logical argument be premised upon that which is unreal? Is there some philosophy I need to study Consider

He hasn't got to the end of his logical chain yet.

Right now he's leading toward a defining of terms and a framework for deciding what is or is not real.

So far, debatable but not original. Remember, this is supposed to be something blindingly obvious once he lays it on us.

Please wait for the "therefore God" part before being a meanie.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: