Hmm, I haven't visited this forum for quite a while, so you'll have to forgive me if this is something that's already been discussed to the death... anyway, what hasn't?

Descartes tried to prove, logically, that God exists. I thought his strongest argument was that man, who is finite and limited, could not dream up or imagine God, who is omnipotent and infinite - simply because man's imagination was limited to things he encountered in the real world. Thus, to actually come up with the concept of an omnipotent being, man had to have knowledge of such a being existed implanted into him. Basically, as I understand it, he's saying there's no smoke without fire, and that the concept of God couldn't appear out of nowhere.

Well, what do you think of this? This didn't make me believe in God, but it is a strong argument. I think the fact that different cultures around the world independetly (sp?) came up with some concept of a God-like entity, could support Descartes' argument.

(By the way, if I just completely misinterpreted his philosophy... well, oops!)

I think you've got it pretty spot-on, but it doesn't make too much sense to me. Where there is smoke there is indeed fire, but you don't always know whats being burned just by the smell.

^

Yes - obviously this does not prove that the omnipotent being would be the Judeo-Christian God. And as I said, this didn't actually convince me to believe in God, but I've yet to hear a good explanation why he (Descartes) is wrong.

Assuming man's knowledge is limited to what he encounters.

That's a stupid argument.

It's like saying that Man is limited to experience information at the speed of light or slower and thus could never imagine faster than light communication. Thus the fact that it appears in many sci fi shows proves that not only is it possible but that that knowledge has been implanted into our brain.

If that really is Descartes' argument, no wonder he was a mathematician and not an artist since he has such a sad outlook on human creativity.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

That's a stupid argument.

It's like saying that Man is limited to experience information at the speed of light or slower and thus could never imagine faster than light communication. Thus the fact that it appears in many sci fi shows proves that not only is it possible but that that knowledge has been implanted into our brain.



That's not the same thing. You grasp the concept of speed because you run into it every day. You also witness recieving information. You're just combining and stretching two things that exist in the every day world. However, nothing you witness bears the slightest resemblance to an almighty, omnipotent being.

Sci-Fi just takes familiar life concepts and combines them with others. I can make up a creature with seven heads and five dicks... But I only used images I already have of these things.

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

^

Yes - obviously this does not prove that the omnipotent being would be the Judeo-Christian God. And as I said, this didn't actually convince me to believe in God, but I've yet to hear a good explanation why he (Descartes) is wrong.

I wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God at all; I was hinting towards the possibility that the idea of an omipotent creator who conveniently resides outside any possible observation could easily have been implanted by the first sage-humans to be smart enough to think up such an elaborate memetic virus.

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

That's not the same thing. You grasp the concept of speed because you run into it every day. You also witness receiving information. You're just combining and stretching two things that exist in the every day world. However, nothing you witness bears the slightest resemblance to an almighty, omnipotent being.



It could be easily argued that most religions did exactly that. They took concepts they were familiar with such as kings and fathers and life and stretched them into a sky daddy.

Basically the whole argument rests on the belief that humans aren't creative and must be based on reality and that the concept of God is not based on reality.

The first idea doesn't stand well when you think of all the things man has created that don't have equals in reality, from imaginary numbers to optical illusions, etc.

The second is pretty much impossible to disprove and thus useless. Since you can always claim that whatever concept man created God from was created by God (when you can bend God to your will, he is a rather useful tool http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

However, the idea that man couldn't have come up with the concept of an omnipotent being is rather flakey and you just proved why. The stretching of an idea. If I can say that I am very powerful, then there stands no reason why I can't say X is the Most powerful (omnipotent). If I can be loving or vengeful I could just as easily say that X person is the most or ultimate loving or vengeful.

^^

That's actually a pretty good point. I guess that's the main weakness in the argument - it defines omnipotent as "stronger than humanly imaginable"... and a human could invent the abstract concept of "just beyond imaginable", though not it's specific form.

Still, it's strange how this standard idea of God evolves in most cultures.

Actually, it didn't. The concept of the all-powerful God that you are referring to is mostly Jewish or descended from Judaism. The Hindu worldview is very different, as is the Buddhist and Sumerian and [insert African tribal religion here], etc. etc. etc.

"Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’.

And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking,

‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’

and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him."

-douglas adams

^ http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



We can dream up infinity as a concept - we use it all the time in maths (and descartes of all people should have known that!)

Also we can imagine things we don't encounter in the real world - geometric objects, for a start. Well done Descartes, I thought you were bright!

its an interesting approach to the argument, but i don't think its an argument that holds a lot of water as-is.

Especially today, with movies like The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. It seems the mind is capable of imagining new abstracts without a concrete form. You could argue that those examples are just variations on concretes, but then, so is God.

I really don't know what to say other than, no conceivable piece of evidence could prove or disprove that argument, so you can not accept it as true.

http://tinyurl.com/bk577

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

I really don't know what to say other than, no conceivable piece of evidence could prove or disprove that argument, so you can not accept it as true.

http://tinyurl.com/bk577

Oh dear, that generic, meaningless statement sure sealed THIS argument!

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

Oh dear, that generic, meaningless statement sure sealed THIS argument!



I didn't attempt to seal it.

Visit the link.

So, I don't know shit about Descartes, but if the thread starter is telling the truth, then this is the argument:

Man is finite and limited.

Man can not imagine things that he does not encounter in the real world.

God is omnipotent and infinite.

Man does not encounter God and/or omnipotent, infinite beings in the real world.

Man knows of the idea of a "God".

Hence, The only way for man to know of God and/or an omnipotent, infinite being is if that being implanted the idea of itself in his head, because man does not experience such a being in real life.

Inti's thoughts:

Man grasps the idea of "power".

Man grasps the idea of "being".

Man grasps the idea of "infinity" (as a quantity).

Therefore, man grasps the idea of a being with no limit to power. It becomes a matter of the amount of power, which in this case is defined as infinite.

The real problem with my argument is that it assumes that man grasps the idea of "infinity". Since we do not experience infinity, we can not truly know it, other than as a quantity. HOWEVER, the idea that this God implanted the idea of itself in my head implies that, since the God is infinite, my IDEA of God is infinite. So if you try to argue that my argument is wrong because it assumes that we grasp infinity, then you are also arguing against yourself, because you claim we know of this infinite God.

Even if Descartes was correct, it really doesn't mean much. If no conceivable piece of evidence proves or disproves the God's existence, it's a meaningless statement, even if you can "logically" prove it.

EDIT: Sorry guys, that logic probably sucked, I'm a noob at logic / philosophy and I haven't even gotten through algebra.



[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 10-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Inti:



I didn't attempt to seal it.

Visit the link.

So, I don't know shit about Descartes, but if the thread starter is telling the truth, then this is the argument:

Man is finite and limited.

Man can not imagine things that he does not encounter in the real world.

God is omnipotent and infinite.

Man does not encounter God and/or omnipotent, infinite beings in the real world.

Man knows of the idea of a "God".

Hence, The only way for man to know of God and/or an omnipotent, infinite being is if that being implanted the idea of itself in his head, because man does not experience such a being in real life.

Inti's thoughts:

Man grasps the idea of "power".

Man grasps the idea of "being".

Man grasps the idea of "infinity" (as a quantity).

Therefore, man grasps the idea of a being with no limit to power. It becomes a matter of the amount of power, which in this case is defined as infinite.

The real problem with my argument is that it assumes that man grasps the idea of "infinity". Since we do not experience infinity, we can not truly know it, other than as a quantity. HOWEVER, the idea that this God implanted the idea of itself in my head implies that, since the God is infinite, my IDEA of God is infinite. So if you try to argue that my argument is wrong because it assumes that we grasp infinity, then you are also arguing against yourself, because you claim we know of this infinite God.

Even if Descartes was correct, it really doesn't mean much. If no conceivable piece of evidence proves or disproves the God's existence, it's a meaningless statement, even if you can "logically" prove it.

EDIT: Sorry guys, that logic probably sucked, I'm a noob at logic / philosophy and I haven't even gotten through algebra.



Wunderbar. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

its an interesting approach to the argument, but i don't think its an argument that holds a lot of water as-is.

Especially today, with movies like The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. It seems the mind is capable of imagining new abstracts without a concrete form. You could argue that those examples are just variations on concretes, but then, so is God.

Heh, and The Matrix is pretty much Descartes' cogito in film form!

quote:The real problem with my argument is that it assumes that man grasps the idea of "infinity". Since we do not experience infinity, we can not truly know it, other than as a quantity. HOWEVER, the idea that this God implanted the idea of itself in my head implies that, since the God is infinite, my IDEA of God is infinite. So if you try to argue that my argument is wrong because it assumes that we grasp infinity, then you are also arguing against yourself, because you claim we know of this infinite God.

We can have direct acquaintance with infinty. There are an infinite number of points between me and the computer monitor. Any continuum is infinite in some sense.

Besides, even if we couldn't, we could still be familiar with it's nature - you have a pretty good idea what a circle is even though they don't really exist, right?

So Descartes is wrong, and he should've known that because he was a good mathematician and a good philosopher.

The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

How we understand God to exist is where differences occur.

quote:Originally posted by stringalong:

The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

How we understand God to exist is where differences occur.

Flying, pink, invisible unicorns (yes, pink AND invisible) could never be imagined were there no flying, pink, invisible unicorns.

quote:The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

I can imagine a circle.

Show me a circle.

quote:Originally posted by stringalong:

The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

How we understand God to exist is where differences occur.

You're making a leap between "discover" and "imagine".

quote:Originally posted by stringalong:

The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

How we understand God to exist is where differences occur.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Flying, pink, invisible unicorns (yes, pink AND invisible) could never be imagined were there no flying, pink, invisible unicorns.

I hate to say it, but,

pwned

[This message has been edited by conjuror (edited 10-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by stringalong:

The relationship of the Pythagorean Theorem pre-existed the discoverer or it could have never been discovered.

Relativity could have never been discerned had the relationship not already existed.

God could never have been imagined were there no God.

How we understand God to exist is where differences occur.

And another thing, I thought you people were always on about how incomprehensible and illogical God is, surely He CANT be imagined?

This is a time when I miss Digital_Savior.

I've always felt that Bishop Berkeley made a stronger argument for God because Descartes simply dealt with pure reason alone. But in order to believe Berkeley you must accept that matter does not exist.

I like Idealism. It's the ultimate excuse to say "oh well, everything is moot because this is all ideas in the mind of God and there's no real causality except what He decides" etc etc. But, I like Common Sense Philosophy even more and that's why I always say that I'm an atheist because I can see how God could exist, but it's so unlikely it's silly, and I'm talking less likely than that my entire body will shift through the floor in tact due to quantum uncertainty.

I mean, this is the kind of argument that makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster possible. To quote Thomas Paine: "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

This is a time when I miss Digital_Savior.

Where did she go? I'm out of the loop around here.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

its an interesting approach to the argument, but i don't think its an argument that holds a lot of water as-is.

Especially today, with movies like The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. It seems the mind is capable of imagining new abstracts without a concrete form. You could argue that those examples are just variations on concretes, but then, so is God.

If you call The Matrix and Star Wars "abstract", then you indeed are fucking retarded. Religious freaks are such low IQ morons, it's almost considered a universal constant.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

If you call The Matrix and Star Wars "abstract", then you indeed are fucking retarded. Religious freaks are such low IQ morons, it's almost considered a universal constant.

Well, The Matrix is pretty much the meditations in film form. Moron.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

an elaborate memetic virus.

Couldn't have put it better.