God belongs to what existence category?

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
56
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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.
 
56
0
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.
 
Last edited:
1,927
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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

1,927
0
Re: Existentialism

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.
 
2,224
0
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.
 
1,927
0
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.
 
3,754
2
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God belongs to what existence category?

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.
 
56
0
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 alot of our philosophical thought on this subject including religion cannot be true based on this.
 
1,596
0
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 alot 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!
 
1,596
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God belongs to what existence category?

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.
 
Last edited:
1,596
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God belongs to what existence category?

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!)
 
56
0
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.
 
1,596
0
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 realy 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
 
56
0
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 dont wanna go to war.
How in the hell do you expect someone to listen to a racist?
 
56
0
Originally posted by heusdens
I see.

You are obviously confused.

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

You realy 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.
 
15
0
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.
 
1,596
0
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 realy 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.
 
Last edited:
56
0
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 realy 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.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: God belongs to what existence category?

  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
31K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
24K
Replies
222
Views
12K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
Replies
134
Views
14K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Top