No, still not to sure what you are doing. Sorry.

Tillich; something a bit new. — Banno

It's hard to determine whether this idea of God as ground of being is useful or not. Always struck me that Tillich was embarrassed by Christianity and wanted to rebrand it in a way that appealed more to intellectuals and those who like wanking about oneness. To me it's a way of redefining God to make the idea less easy to lampoon and heads towards a kind of pantheism. No doubt there were earlier ideas of higher consciousness in antiquity that Tillich probably had in mind as a model.

To me it's a way of redefining God to make the idea less easy to lampoon and heads towards a kind of pantheism. — Tom Storm

My impression, too. But lets see.

It seems to be an answer to what was once called "ontological shock" - the sort of thing that inspires posts such as 's recent thread. But it looks a bit like the "theistic leap" - "and this we call god" as the arguments for his existence end.

The thread is here because I have the gut feeling that there must be something wrong with the argument in the OP; it's just too obvious. But I don't see what the eror is. — Banno

The error is that you invented the argument in the OP. It's not part of any existing theistic religion.

Why is it a true statement?
— Daniel
Because I say. — Banno

There you go. Your say-so doesn't make a statement true.

No, I'm saying nothing can be reasonably said about god. — Banno

Of course it can, provided one doesn't just invent things about God.

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak.

But this isn't how actual religious theists operate. They operate from the assumption of divine revelation, ie. top-down.

For theists, God reveals himself; it's not the case that man would discover God on his own, without God's revelation.

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of this; but it is a matter of valid reasoning about God. Otherwise, you're just busying yourself with the god of philosophers, a fiction.

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak. — baker

Oh, not at all. I'm painfully aware that the philosophical contrivances of our theistic friends are post hoc. That's what explains why they are so poor.

@Banno

Reminds me of when the caste system would justify poor people through ideology.

Maybe the Palestinians should be shamed for being theists,and not up to bannos secular religion and caste system.

That made no sense. What reminds you...?

@Banno
The old play dumb card. Predictable.

Hu?

Reminds me of when the caste system would justify poor people through ideology. — Protagoras

What reminds you of that? You didn't link to a quote, but to me directly.

If there is no God, everything is permitted — Dostoevsky

Everything is permitted must, in my humble opinion, include that contradictions are true. That, in classical logic (categorical, sentential, and predicate logics) is a big no-no! This implies the nonexistence of God entails a contradiction, an impossibility which is just another way of saying there is no world in which God doesn't exist. Ergo, God must exist in all possible worlds i.e. God is a necessary whatever.

It gets complicated though. Everything is permitted is just another name for chaos. Thus, Dostoevesky's statement can be rephrased as If God doesn't exist then chaos = G. Taking the contrapositive of G, we get if order then God exists. Thus any world in which there's order, God must necessarily exist. Our world "has" order. Using the Dostoevesky statement (If there is no God, everything is permitted = if there is no God then chaos = if order then God exists), we can conclude that God exists (in this universe which has order).

Nevertheless, temporary order can arise in chaos (periods of time in which there are laws (laws of nature &, most importantly, the law of noncontradiction) which can and may revert to lawlessness). It bears mentioning that the problem of induction makes this issue explicit (bless Hume's soul). Thus, the Dostoevesky statement can't get off the ground for the antecedent (order) can never be determined with certainty - is it true order or is it an ordered phase in chaos?

There's also this: a contradiction entail chaos (more contradictions) [ex falso quodlibet].; Ergo the nonexistence of God, for Dostoevesky, is a contradiction. In other words, If chaos then God doesn't exist.

Let's tie up all the loose ends.

1. IF order THEN God exists [the Dostoevsky statement]

2. IF chaos THEN God doesn't exist [contradiction = nonexistence of God]

3. True order can't be distinguished from an ordered section of true chaos [the problem of induction]

We're in a tight spot, no?

@Banno
Your explanation about theists being poor because of their beliefs.

Do keep up old boy.

Your explanation about theists being poor because of their beliefs. — Protagoras

I don't think I gave such an explanation.

Can you provide a link? 'Cause I'm not at all sure what you are referring to.

@Banno
Link!!!! It's your short post 23 mins up to baker.
Just scroll up.

:rofl:


This?

Oh, not at all. I'm painfully aware that the philosophical contrivances of our theistic friends are post hoc. That's what explains why they are so poor. — Banno

Oh, I see.

No, it's the philosophical contrivances that are poor, not the theists.

Made my night, that did.

@Banno

The boot fits. Nice wriggle.

You know how people waltz in and start criticizing some well worn bit of physics in a way that's just stupid, and you just shake your head and move on?

Same thing here

If there is no God, everything is permitted — Dostoevsky

Yeah, but flip the pillow over to the cool side ...

The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. "Everything is permitted" does not mean that nothing is forbidden. — Albert Camus

(Emphasis is mine.)

If there is no God, everything is permitted
— Dostoevsky
Yeah, but flip the pillow over to the cool side ...
The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. "Everything is permitted" does not mean that nothing is forbidden.
— Albert Camus
(Emphasis is mine.) — 180 Proof

Indeed, how right you are! IF everything is permitted THEN, IF contradictions are permitted THEN everything is permitted & some things are not permitted (some things are forbidden = "does not mean that nothing is forbidden"). This is precisely what Dostoevesky's talking about!

wut

wut — 180 Proof

Nuthin' :rofl:

, Anselm's God was a self-identical intervening/interacting intelligence. Most are.

Tillich and Eagleton, on the other hand, have abstracted all life out of God.

God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue God exists is to deny Him. It is as atheistic to affirm God as it is to deny Him. God is being-itself, not a being. — Tillich

God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. — Eagleton (link updated)

I'm not quite sure this qualifies as theism. Here God is an abstract idea, relegated out of it all, something else that's a prerequisite for existence (except the word "something" is invalid). We might call this referent-free idea anything, doesn't have to be related to theism in particular. What can coherently be said thereof, that's of relevance to religious adherents (or to anyone for that matter)? Some parts of this stuff read more like plays on words, or an expression giving an exercise that might be interesting to ponder for a bit.

(As an aside, compare with the Olympians. Once they weren't found on Mount Olympus, they were reassigned to "otherworldly realms". Compare with Sagan's garage dragon.)

Anyway, the original idea isn't that hard to follow. Someone declares G a necessary being, which is in fact a definition by way of the modal terminology. This allows us to reason about G, and that shows G doesn't exist as declared. If we toss logic, then we toss the modal logic. Is that really needed in order to maintain gods/God?

All explanation consists in trying to find something simple and ultimate on which everything else depends. And I think that by rational inference what we can get to that’s simple and ultimate is God. But it’s not logically necessary that there should be a God. The supposition ‘there is no God’ contains no contradiction. — British (Christian) theologian Richard Swinburne (2009)

But this isn't how actual religious theists operate. They operate from the assumption of divine revelation, ie. top-down.

For theists, God reveals himself; it's not the case that man would discover God on his own, without God's revelation.

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of this; but it is a matter of valid reasoning about God. Otherwise, you're just busying yourself with the god of philosophers, a fiction. — baker

I could be wrong, but I believe there are folks out here who would strenuously disagree with that - e.g. @Bartricks (my apologies if I have misrepresented your position)

FYI, there are all kinds of (lengthy) docs about modal logic out there.

Modal Logic (SEP)
Modal logic (Wikipedia)
Modal Logic: A Contemporary View (IEP)
Modal logic (Britannica)
The impact of modal logic (Routledge)

We typically uphold self-identity and consistency in general (or meaning is forfeit). Modal logic introduces possible and necessary. Possible worlds are self-consistent. For something to be possible it holds in a possible world (∃ quantifier), and for something to be necessary it holds in all possible worlds (∀ quantifier).

Can anyone come up with a shorter description? :)

(As an aside, possible things might lend themselves to verification, and necessary things lend themselves moreso to falsification.)

We may also speak of p being necessary or sufficient for q, but that's a different matter.

A "necessary fact" is only true in (all) impossible worlds. — 180 Proof

Unless you include the abstracs that were presupposed by the logic itself in the first place (like consistency), I guess.
But who the heck ever worshiped, assigned mind to, personified, chatted with, wrote religious scriptures about "the law of consistency"?

There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. Note that the first entity in this list is a concrete entity, while the rest are abstract entities. — God and Other Necessary Beings (SEP)

God is supposed to be a necessary being. Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world.

There is a possible world in which god does not exist.

Hence, god is not a necessary being. — Banno

This is Spinoza's argument: God must be everything otherwise he is not perfectly infinite. These are very Platonic ideas and they have no true answer

No doubt there were earlier ideas of higher consciousness in antiquity that Tillich probably had in mind as a model. — Tom Storm

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/abs/nonexistence-of-god-tillich-aquinas-and-the-pseudodionysius/948612DB4E9C89584C01B08AAF02C58E

No, sir. Just the facts.

God is supposed to be a necessary being. — Banno

I think these definitions were more of a church public relations matter. Or the necessary starting point for debating with theist. There are a lot of people that seem to believe they have some experience of God, so maybe there is a natural phenomena that can be mistaken for the storybook God. Considering how wide spread the belief seems to persist it must be something fairly common to the human mind. I would conjecture the frontal lobe of the brain regulates and maintains the illusion of a single mind in order to facilitate social exchange while still having the physical capacity for dialectic thought. In addicts and other recovering individuals the idea of giving up power to God seems to initiate a degree of self regulation; which is evidence-flavored in support of the idea. Which is the notion of God is actually the experience of one's frontal lobe. Do you consider yours necessary?

Yes. It is just an ad hominem point anyway. It doesn't matter how any particular theist arrives at their belief, what matters is whether it is true and the quality of the evidence that can be provided for it.
But yes, I am a theist who started out as an atheist and became a theist on the basis of the evidence. It may be relatively rare, but that's because most people determine what's true on other grounds.