God belongs to what existence category?

[Netme]

god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

I believe existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
The process is far from being abstract, and neither are you, though the reasoning process itself uses abstract categories of the mind.

I'm afraid all you can really do is speak for yourself here.

 

[Netme]

god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Netme
god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Netme
god-creator of creation
existence-product of creation

existence may not apply to god. If god created us what makes god have to exist under the same rules as our existence. What if god didnt even "exist" but rather just was, as a form itself not bounded by the existential rules we follow. If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

And yet if "everything" were God then that wouldn't hold true ... By the way did you know the number 479 (your member ID) is the number of validation? If you don't believe me then follow the link ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

 

[Iacchus32]

Existentialism

How does existentialism fit into your schools of thought Wu Li? Would that be more in the order of "supply and demand?" Or, that everything has an "express purpose" -- no more, no less? Does it fit into one of the other categories?

Originally posted by Netme
If this is true, Physics is and will always be a big waste of time.

Actually I think Netme has a point here, because it's not altogether different from my own point of view (although I think it's gotten obscurred since I logged on to PF). If in fact the key to existence is to "experience" the fact that we exist, then what else is there to do, except "experience" the fact that we exist? How much more simpler could it be than that?

And why would it then be necessary to send a rocket ship to the moon? What or who's purpose would that serve?

This is pretty much all I do, is "live for today."

 

[BoulderHead]

Actually I think Netme has a point here..

So do I, actually.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How does existentialism fit into your schools of thought Wu Li? Would that be more in the order of "supply and demand?" Or, that everything has an "express purpose" -- no more, no less? Does it fit into one of the other categories?


Actually I think Netme has a point here, because it's not altogether different from my own point of view (although I think it's gotten obscurred since I logged on to PF). If in fact the key to existence is to "experience" the fact that we exist, then what else is there to do, except "experience" the fact that we exist? How much more simpler could it be than that?

And why would it then be necessary to send a rocket ship to the moon? What or who's purpose would that serve?

This is pretty much all I do, is "live for today."

Life has a purpose? You mean, I've been mislead all these years? My kids are merely the product of my being mislead? They need some higher purpose in order to validate their existence? ****... and all this time I thought I thought they simply justified their own existence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Life has a purpose? You mean, I've been mislead all these years? My kids are merely the product of my being mislead? They need some higher purpose in order to validate their existence? ****... and all this time I thought I thought they simply justified their own existence.

Okee dokee, phenokee in the pokee!

Actually I've never cracked open a book on existentialism. I just figured if there was any merit to it I wouldn't need to. And, based upon what I've heard, existentialism is defined by a state of "just being" (i.e., in the moment). Which is to say, things happen as a matter of course and it isn't necessary to become "the conductor" in the orchestra pit, so to speak.

Aside from that, what else can I say? ... Wasn't Jesus Christ an existentialist? ... Or so, this is what I've heard.

 

[wuliheron]

The sermon on the mount and the Lillies of the field are about as close as Jesus ever came to expressing existentialism, but if anybody ever believed life has a purpose he did.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

Yes.

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

Actually, you are using the term "biologist" to mean someone who only knows biological facts. I'm sure that there are biologists that are philosophically adept, and can see the need to acknowledge conceptual existence (as you and I have, with just slightly different views).

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

Yeah. I agree.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

Yes it is. You already said "...it is meaningful to say that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind". This means that he exists. Sure, in some (perhaps most) conversation, it is necessary to use "existence" to only denote physical existence, but in some (perhaps most) conversation it is necessary to use the word "computer" to only denote man-made computers. It's all about context, IMO.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by wuliheron
OK, a non-existent God who always was and always wasn't sounds good to me. Super...supernatural to be more explicite. Beyond physics, supernatural, exists yet doesn't exist. Ok, is there a sales pitch involved in this? Unless you can come up with something a little more meaningful and useful than physics... I'll stick with what is tried and true. Call me conservative, but I'm really attached to results.

You miss my point...
If god "existed" under the same rules we exist by, god would also have needed a creator in order to exist. In our existential law, to be existent one must have a creator. This proves that either our god is not "all mighty" or our existential rules do not apply to god. Either way a lot of our philosophical thought on this subject including religion cannot be true based on this.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
You miss my point...
If god "existed" under the same rules we exist by, god would also have needed a creator in order to exist. In our existential law, to be existent one must have a creator.

Where did you get that conclusion from?
Material existence needs no 'creator' it just needs time, space and motion/change to exist.

This proves that either our god is not "all mighty" or our existential rules do not apply to god. Either way a lot of our philosophical thought on this subject including religion cannot be true based on this.

No. The only possible explenation is that 'God' is the wrong concept!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it is. You already said "...it is meaningful to say that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind". This means that he exists. Sure, in some (perhaps most) conversation, it is necessary to use "existence" to only denote physical existence, but in some (perhaps most) conversation it is necessary to use the word "computer" to only denote man-made computers. It's all about context, IMO.

And therefore it is very meaningfull and important that 'God' as a concept of thought/mind restricts itself to that very same category of existence, and is not 'there' in the world outside of the mind.

If 'God' would be 'there' in the outside world, then the same issue applies to this material shaped 'God', as for the whole of the outside world itself, as to what/who 'caused' or 'created' it. The concept of 'God' is very much linked to the issue of what caused the material world to be and to exist. But if 'God' would belong to the (category of existence of) the material world, then we needed to conclude that 'God' would have to be it's own 'creator'. But it can be stated that either God exists, in which it doesn't need to be created, or God does not exist, in which case God can not create anything. Then the only way out of it would be to say, God would exist for eternity. But if we allow this for God, why wouldn't we allow this for the world itself?

This just urge us to conclude that for the material world to exist, no 'creator' or 'outside cause' is necessary, cause it can be shown that in every possible way, we do not need the concept of 'God' to in fact explain that a world exists in the first place.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Does Donald Duck exist?
Yes.

Just to be sure here. How do you know? From what do you conclude Donald Duck exists?


And to make it even more difficult. To what category of existence does 'a thought, a process of thinking' belong? (tricky!)

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where did you get that conclusion from?
Material existence needs no 'creator' it just needs time, space and motion/change to exist.



No. The only possible explenation is that 'God' is the wrong concept!

If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?
By god i mean the higher being that put us here. Even material existence needs a creator.. Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?
By god i mean the higher being that put us here. Even material existence needs a creator.. Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

I see.

You are obviously confused.

For the material world to exist, no creator/creation is needed.

You really don't "solve" anything, by pointing to a "creator" (cause it would for the SAME reason, rais the question: who created the creator).

You have to realize that the question, which you implicitly ask is, why does there exist something, instead of nothing. Why is there a universe, a material world, where does it "come" from?

This question is also referred to as "The fundamental question" (See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876")

The answer to this is however, very simple. The universe, the totality of matter,time&space, doesn't come from somewhere, cause it always existed. Matter, the universe, just changes it's form eternally, without begin or end.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Netme
If there is no god how do you explain our presence here? How do you explain the universe? And why do we not know of any origen to our existence?

Santa Claus made universe (out of clay).

Name for me one thing that can create itself on its own.

Atom. Place a wave in 1/r potential, and you got an atom.

 

[Netme]

What creates a atom? Or what causes it to appear? Saying that nothing causes it to appear defies the rules of existential law for nothing is non existent.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Netme
You know ****s ****ed up when the tallest man is cool person, the best golfer is a cool person, the best rapper is white trash, france is calling us ignorant, and germany don't want to go to war.

How in the hell do you expect someone to listen to a racist?

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
I see.

You are obviously confused.

For the material world to exist, no creator/creation is needed.

You really don't "solve" anything, by pointing to a "creator" (cause it would for the SAME reason, rais the question: who created the creator).

That is not necessarily true.. How do you know god exists under the same existential rules we exist by? If god were to create existence god would not have to abide by the same rules since he created it in the first place. What if existence applied only to our being and the being of god was true and unquestionable in terms of our definition of existence. If we actually have a creator, the fundamental rules it exists by cannot be known for sure which makes your absense of creator theory ultimitly unproven.

 

[Adam]

Coz I was curious...

Etymology of the Word "God"

(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).

God can variously be defined as:

• the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
• the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
• the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."

P.J. TONER
Transcribed by Tomas Hancil

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI

Don't know how accurate it is, but there's something to read for a couple of minutes.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
That is not necessarily true.. How do you know god exists under the same existential rules we exist by? If god were to create existence god would not have to abide by the same rules since he created it in the first place. What if existence applied only to our being and the being of god was true and unquestionable in terms of our definition of existence. If we actually have a creator, the fundamental rules it exists by cannot be known for sure which makes your absense of creator theory ultimitly unproven.

I don't need to proof anything. If you claim God exists, instead it is you that needs to proof things.

The world without creation/creator, as a material process evolving in all of eternity, is a conceiveable, and from our inquiries on the material causes of a wide range of phenomena, previously unknow, we know from science the material causes. We know how life evolved, and how simple organisms in the course of time developed into more complex human beings, we know how stars evolve, we have some idea how the universe evolved from a previous more dense, and more hot and compacter state, we know what matter is composed of, etc. etc.
All facts that proof how good the assumption of materialism really is, and no need for a creator there.

So the material reasoning is without any competition, since there has not been nor will ever be any proof for the existence of God.

The concept of God is too vague for it ever being disprovable, but that does not constitute one bit of proof for the existence of God.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't need to proof anything. If you claim God exists, instead it is you that needs to proof things.

The world without creation/creator, as a material process evolving in all of eternity, is a conceiveable, and from our inquiries on the material causes of a wide range of phenomena, previously unknow, we know from science the material causes. We know how life evolved, and how simple organisms in the course of time developed into more complex human beings, we know how stars evolve, we have some idea how the universe evolved from a previous more dense, and more hot and compacter state, we know what matter is composed of, etc. etc.
All facts that proof how good the assumption of materialism really is, and no need for a creator there.

So the material reasoning is without any competition, since there has not been nor will ever be any proof for the existence of God.

The concept of God is too vague for it ever being disprovable, but that does not constitute one bit of proof for the existence of God.

What started the material process?
Surely there must be a beggining to all this and how would you explain the begginings of the universe if there were no creator to start it.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Netme
Surely there must be a beggining to all this and how would you explain the begginings of the universe if there were no creator to start it.

How would you explain the begginings of the creator?

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
How would you explain the begginings of the creator?

Time may not apply to our creator.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
Time may not apply to our creator.

Therefore existence might not apply to the concept of this "creator"

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
Therefore existence might not apply to the concept of this "creator"

Ive already given a explanation for that.
You show no explanation of your theories and it looks to me like you just criticize others without good reason or thought.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by heusdens

The first category of existence is therefore the category of material existence. This category of existence implies that the things that belong to this category exist in a timely, spacely fashion, and undergo change/motion,

Are there other categories of existence?
Well yes there are, and they can be designated to have existence as well, because we can define this category of existence within our mind.

Are there only two catagories of existence? I submit that there is at least one more that none of you have so far mentioned. The spiritual category of existence. I realize that such a plane of existence cannot be proved (unless your a spiritualist or mystic, shaman etc.) The spirit plane by definition exist outside of space time. It is devoid of matter and physical energy and time. The buddhist and other asian religions refer to it as the Void. Some christians think of it as heaven. Suppose that God exists in the spirit world but can when he wants or sees the need transcend it and communicate or influence the Material world as well as the mental world of existence.
How can I prove that such a world exists? I can't by any scientific, materialistic evidence. By subjective evidence I personally testify to it existence as well as millions of others possible including yourself, heusdens. This of course is not acceptable truth or evidence and I won't pursue that line any longer.
How do I know God exists? Simply for the same reasons that I know you exist. I ask you a question and you answer with information that I did not previously know. I ask God, "ask and you shall know",
and then I knew. I knew the complete answer, knew it to be true and knew many if not all of the implications and ramifications of the answer. That for me was enough 'kicking the rock' to be sure it existed though I've done it many times.
Is this enought to prove that God exists? No, not by any means other than to myself.
Am I self delusional? Possibly but I can't figure out how I deluded myself into knowing and understanding something that I did not know or understand before. Am I a liar? Possibly, but prove it. Can you reproduce the experiment and get the same or comperable results to validate my experience? I don't know. Try it and see. Ask a question of God. Meditate or contemplate or do nothing about it for a while and see for yourself if your question is answered. Let me know.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by Royce
Are there only two catagories of existence? I submit that there is at least one more that none of you have so far mentioned. The spiritual category of existence. I realize that such a plane of existence cannot be proved (unless your a spiritualist or mystic, shaman etc.) The spirit plane by definition exist outside of space time. It is devoid of matter and physical energy and time. The buddhist and other asian religions refer to it as the Void. Some christians think of it as heaven. Suppose that God exists in the spirit world but can when he wants or sees the need transcend it and communicate or influence the Material world as well as the mental world of existence.
How can I prove that such a world exists? I can't by any scientific, materialistic evidence. By subjective evidence I personally testify to it existence as well as millions of others possible including yourself, heusdens. This of course is not acceptable truth or evidence and I won't pursue that line any longer.
How do I know God exists? Simply for the same reasons that I know you exist. I ask you a question and you answer with information that I did not previously know. I ask God, "ask and you shall know",
and then I knew. I knew the complete answer, knew it to be true and knew many if not all of the implications and ramifications of the answer. That for me was enough 'kicking the rock' to be sure it existed though I've done it many times.
Is this enought to prove that God exists? No, not by any means other than to myself.
Am I self delusional? Possibly but I can't figure out how I deluded myself into knowing and understanding something that I did not know or understand before. Am I a liar? Possibly, but prove it. Can you reproduce the experiment and get the same or comperable results to validate my experience? I don't know. Try it and see. Ask a question of God. Meditate or contemplate or do nothing about it for a while and see for yourself if your question is answered. Let me know.

What praying or meditating does is it forces you to focus on certain things And to help you think more clearly that is all.

 

[Royce]

No that is not all.
First praying is the opposite of meditation. When we pray we talk to God. When we meditate God talks to us. I've said this before in other posts but it bears repeating.
I am talking about actually coming to know previously unknown things. Actually gaining new information as well as understanding.

One thing I do want to point out and make absoluely clear is that I am not talking about seeing or predicting the future or asking God or whatever what will be oe what will come to pass.

 

[heusdens]

Royce:
Like I alreay explained, we can distinguish between material existence and that of consciousness, mental existence, but fact is, that the second is dependend on the first. So, I could as well state there is only one category of existence, which is material existence.

We can of course create as many catagories of existence as we need or find usefull, in our mind. This doesn't mean that something out of material existence does exist, but only we can think about it.

About asking question and getting answers. I know I can ask myself a question, and dig into my consciousness. But even when labelling this experience as "asking God", still I don't see any reason to suspect that outside of my mind, God exists.

It is not possible to proof that something that doesn't exist, does not exist, so I would not try the impossible.

 

[Royce]

If, as you say, heusdens, that all that exists is material and consciousness is nothing more that a product of the material universe and that is the all inclusive everything that is, then, of course, you are right. The discussion is now ended as are most philosophical discussions. It is all material and the imaterial is, in a word, immaterial ie. nonexistant and irrelative.

The absaence of proof does not prove anything, however, especially when we refuse to look for proof; or, if it does show up, refuse to accept it and continue to deny its existence.