KingEbukasBlog:


God is eternal

This is known as the special pleading fallacy. Your own argument states that perception is necessary for existence, it is illogical to suspend the principle behind your own argument to conclude that God exists.

KingEbukasBlog:


God is eternal ?

Wrong answer, the universe might as well be eternal if we go from the possible eventualities of the Big Bang cosmological model.

The correct answer should have been, God as the ultimate mind perceives himself, just like Descartes perception of himself proves to him that he is. I think therefore I am.

Anyway is really nonsensical to assert things can only exist if there be a mind to perceive them, I do think that's consonant with reality and it's a premise that also has to make a lot of assumption and then base an argument of reality based on that personal assumption.

CoolUsername:


This is known as the special pleading fallacy. Your own argument states that perception is necessary for existence, it is illogical to suspend the principle behind your own argument to conclude that God exists.

The argument isn't really Ebuka's idea so you don't expect Ebuka to defend it that well

CoolUsername:


This is known as the special pleading fallacy. Your own argument states that perception is necessary for existence, it is illogical to suspend the principle behind your own argument to conclude that God exists.

Its not special pleading . Its only a logical inference that affirms the existence of God . Just like the moral argument , the Cosmological Argument etc. You only draw the logical conclusion which is God's existence .

GB uses an argument by elimination. What could cause my sensory ideas? Here are possible causes : other ideas, myself, or some other spirit. The first option which is 'other ideas' is eliminated with a new argument :

1. Ideas are passive - there are no activities in them
2. But because of the mind-dependent status of ideas, they cannot have any characteristics which they are not perceived to have.
3. Therefore , ideas have no causal power

Option 2 is eliminated with the observation that although I can cause some ideas at will Example Stan Lee caused the idea of Spider Man which is imaginary, there are sensory ideas which are involuntary; they present themselves whether I wish to perceive them or not and I cannot control their content . Example : The primary and secondary properties of your mobile device

We are now left with option 3 which is that my sensory ideas must be caused by some other spirit , the creator of our sensory ideas. This creator must be eternal and infinite in other to create and sustain the complexity and orderliness of our sensory ideas . The argument is on the creator of our sensory ideas which are involuntary ,presenting themselves whether they are perceived or not .

johnydon22:


Wrong answer, the universe might as well be eternal if we go from the possible eventualities of the Big Bang cosmological model.

The universe is not eternal . Its not even a possibility .

But let's assume that the universe is eternal , it does not still affect the argument . Mathematical/Abstract objects are uncreated but they still exist in the mind of God . Instead , the new stance on the argument is that sensory ideas which are involuntary or not created by my will simply exist in the mind of God as abstract object do but they -sensory ideas and abstract objects - still depend on the will and intellect of God.

The correct answer should have been, God as the ultimate mind perceives himself, just like Descartes perception of himself proves to him that he is. I think therefore I am.

The argument is on sensory ideas and their causes since Berkeley sees his idealist world as a mind-dependent world .

Anyway is really nonsensical to assert things can only exist if there be a mind to perceive them, I do think that's consonant with reality and it's a premise that also has to make a lot of assumption and then base an argument of reality based on that personal assumption.

The argument impugns the existence of matter , attacking the materialist perspective of the world. Its a highly intellectual piece of work that needs great scrutiny - applauded by the greats though - and its blatantly arrogant to call it 'nonsensical' .

johnydon22:


The argument isn't really Ebuka's idea so you don't expect Ebuka to defend it that well

Well , its not my idea but it does not mean that I won't or can't defend it well . I love the idealist's perspective of reality , its really impressive . And it seems like you are now considering the nature of reality of unembodied minds - keep it up , you'll find the truth .

KingEbukasBlog:


The universe is not eternal . Its not even a possibility .

Alright another confident remark on a naive point of view, let me stretch this a bit then - pray tell how it is impossible for the universe not to be eternal

But let's assume that the universe is eternal , it does not still affect the argument . Mathematical/Abstract objects are uncreated but they still exist in the mind of God . Instead , the new stance on the argument is that sensory ideas which are involuntary or not created by my will simply exist in the mind of God as abstract object do but they -sensory ideas and abstract objects - still depend on the will and intellect of God.

lmao

The argument is on sensory ideas and their causes since Berkeley sees his idealist world as a mind-dependent world .

assumes is the word

The argument impugns the existence of matter , attacking the materialist perspective of the world. Its a highly intellectual piece of work that needs great scrutiny - applauded by the greats though - and its blatantly arrogant to call it 'nonsensical' .

Doesn't really make it any less assumptive to derive a premise, No?

KingEbukasBlog:


Well , its not my idea but it does not mean that I won't or can't defend it well . I love the idealist's perspective of reality , its really impressive . And it seems like you are now considering the nature of reality of unembodied minds - keep it up , you'll find the truth .

I'm rather growing tired of meaningless squabbles, busy man i am with less time to spare these days while trying my best to avoid making confident remarks in uncertainties as you lot do here

Only meaningful and sensible contributions please

KingEbukasBlog:


Its not special pleading . Its only a logical inference that affirms the existence of God . Just like the moral argument , the Cosmological Argument etc. You only draw the logical conclusion which is God's existence .

GB uses an argument by elimination. What could cause my sensory ideas? Here are possible causes : other ideas, myself, or some other spirit. The first option which is 'other ideas' is eliminated with a new argument :

1. Ideas are passive - there are no activities in them
2. But because of the mind-dependent status of ideas, they cannot have any characteristics which they are not perceived to have.
3. Therefore , ideas have no causal power

Option 2 is eliminated with the observation that although I can cause some ideas at will Example Stan Lee caused the idea of Spider Man which is imaginary, there are sensory ideas which are involuntary; they present themselves whether I wish to perceive them or not and I cannot control their content . Example : The primary and secondary properties of your mobile device

We are now left with option 3 which is that my sensory ideas must be caused by some other spirit , the creator of our sensory ideas. This creator must be eternal and infinite in other to create and sustain the complexity and orderliness of our sensory ideas . The argument is on the creator of our sensory ideas which are involuntary ,presenting themselves whether they are perceived or not .

Option three is still problematic. It completely dispels the reasoning that perception is necessary for existence by assuming that a mind must be eternal and infinite to perceive the universe, which is finite itself. This amounts to a non-sequitur, there is no logical progression between the two and you are using God as an arbitrary break in the logic flow.

In other words, if your argument (that perception is necessary for existence) is true, it invariably leads to an infinite regress. Therefore, your argument is necessarily false.

CoolUsername:


Option three is still problematic. It completely dispels the reasoning that perception is necessary for existence by assuming that a mind must be eternal and infinite to perceive the universe, which is finite itself. This amounts to a non-sequitur, there is no logical progression between the two and you are using God as an arbitrary break in the logic flow.

In other words, if your argument (that perception is necessary for existence) is true, it invariably leads to an infinite regress. Therefore, your argument is necessarily false.

Infinite regress ? Where ?

More contributions please .

More contributions please ...

KingEbukasBlog:


Another shallow comment . Man in the course of understanding the existence of God created different concepts and theological positions to explain His existence . That explains the false concepts of God in different religions .

Apart from the Christian and scientist who answered you on the first page, I noticed something. The main point here is that humans are 'wired' to believe in God for survival, right?
Why God? Believing in a supernatural being that watches over them and protects them isn't God. By definition, God is the creator of the universe. Or, is there any way believing in an imaginary creator of the universe without physical evidence aids their survival?

AnonyNymous:

Apart from the Christian and scientist who answered you on the first page, I noticed something. The main point here is that humans are 'wired' to believe in God for survival, right?
Why God? Believing in a supernatural being that watches over them and protects them isn't God. By definition, God is the creator of the universe. Or, is there any way believing in an imaginary creator of the universe without physical evidence aids their survival?

I use different terms to suit the audience I'm interacting with . I used God to represent the various religious beliefs , ritual practices , and the supernatural or something beyond our own plane of existence. This induces a sense of hope , used to strengthen cohesion within a group etc of course to aid our survival . But of course looking at different theological and philosophical positions, we can see how deficient that definition- God being a creator of the universe - is ; 'God/god' is used to relate to just anything that has been elevated to a divine status . And not all religious beliefs or ritual practices were had or done for the worship or veneration of a deity like in non-theistic religions.

Another thing we have to bear in mind is that not all religions see what is considered elevated or supernatural as that - the Natural religions - whereby everything is seen as part of Nature be it God the creator , spirits etc .

The main point is : Whichever or whatever we are wired to believe there's more to what we can perceive with our senses . And as man grew in knowledge, he began to rationally justify this belief using logic , philosophy , science etc .

@AnonyNymous

There's more ways humans have used ritual and cult-like practices because of our inclination towards the elevated or spiritual. Eg Lesbian seductress Natalie Barney uses this strategy to seduce women.

During her time, women who had repressed lesbian sexual desires had this burden of guilt on them ; Natalie would use spiritual lures like ritual practices , making them join a cult , visit holy sites etc . Soon these women would now develop a sense of spirituality which made this burden of guilt ease away slowly and she'd make her move and when she does , her sexual acts on them would seem natural and sinless .

The point of bringing this up is to show that rituals , religion made man feel elevated , taken away from the realms of the physical to the realms of the spiritual . So cults , rituals ain't necessarily for or tied to a deity or god .

dalaman:


Men starterted all forms of theism, from polytheism to monotheism. Even the type of thiesm your were indoctrinated with was invented by men.

WHO STARTED ATHEISM? GHOST!

hopefulLandlord:
No One is Born Believing in any God, You have to be Indoctrinated and Brainwashed into Believing Something with No Evidence Whatsoever.

When viewing a religious demographics map based on census data, this point becomes very obvious. The vast majority of believers believe their version of the "one true religion/god" simply because of where they were born and raised.

I only choose not to believe what others are trying to convince me of. That they don't have a convincing argument or evidence means I am making a rational decision. They are brainwashed and are simply tryna do the same to me

That you ve not been convinced might mean any of these:

That you ve not weighed the evidence available objectively

That you ve not gotten a strong evidence is not a prove that there is none. There are many, I think most atheists just want to take the other way. I see no reason to be an atheist.

There are 7 billion people in this world. That they believe differently in India than in the US is very telling. Religion and beliefs are cultural.

This is not accurate. The Igbo's for example would have nothing to do with the xten God because that was not there cultural god. Nor was xtenity ever there making. It was evangelism, missionary service that brought ir to south east and many other parts of the world. Enlightenment and persuasion made xtenity spread.

Superstition and spirituality are part of the human mind for some reason. People fear death and they want answers for things they can't find answers to. So people make things up.

Like kingebuka wrote it is innate to believe in the supernatural. If not, why the story of the supernatural in the first place?