User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 97

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    My perception of the worlds of God, godliness, and spirituality is... people with Fe have an easier time recognising God as real. Seems like, ENFJs and INTPs in particular. (And moving even further out on the limb, if TJs are believers, it's usually with some mechanistic hypothesis, God as Prime Mover.)

    Faith being faith, proof is nice but beside the active point. So really the principle path to God is feeling, right?


    It's not too terrible to say God is alienated feeling. ("Alienated" in the Marxian sense.) It's not the same as saying God doesn't exist. It's the same as saying feeling has been rendered "out there" and objectified. And saying that that feeling is about something real, that's faith, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I've never found St Anselm's argument that convincing.

    I would not say God is alienated feeling, nor would I say the people with strong Fe have a leg up on faith.
    Well, if Kalach's assessment is correct that makes sense. I do know a number of NFs and INTPs that find it quite compelling, however. What you've shared with us is quite interesting thus far as well, but it still presents those of us who aren't on board with the notion of a god (of any sort) with a number of difficulties.

    The thing about the ontological argument is that it is entirely logical. There is just some dispute about what existence consists in or whether existence is even a predicate. The version of god you've presented doesn't hold together logically and, is in that sense, less compelling. The ontological arguments cannot be tossed out on the basis of logical reasoning, they are sound. The best one can do is what Eck, SW, and Gaunilo have done and just say they suck. Sadly, this isn't a fair move for philosophers. If a philosopher wants to dispense with the ontological argument he/she has to establish how that second premise is false. The mathematician or logician (see Descartes, Leibniz, Goedel...) recognizes that there are things that may exist without a material "form". For these guys, an empirically real god wasn't the answer but they were all on board with some version of the ontological argument.

  2. #72
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Well, if Kalach's assessment is correct that makes sense. I do know a number of NFs and INTPs that find it quite compelling, however. What you've shared with us is quite interesting thus far as well, but it still presents those of us who aren't on board with the notion of a god (of any sort) with a number of difficulties.

    The thing about the ontological argument is that it is entirely logical. There is just some dispute about what existence consists in or whether existence is even a predicate. The version of god you've presented doesn't hold together logically and, is in that sense, less compelling. The ontological arguments cannot be tossed out on the basis of logical reasoning, they are sound. The best one can do is what Eck, SW, and Gaunilo have done and just say they suck. Sadly, this isn't a fair move for philosophers. If a philosopher wants to dispense with the ontological argument he/she has to establish how that second premise is false. The mathematician or logician (see Descartes, Leibniz, Goedel...) recognizes that there are things that may exist without a material "form". For these guys, an empirically real god wasn't the answer but they were all on board with some version of the ontological argument.
    I think the problem is that it assumes there is nothing better than physical existence. Maybe physical existence and ideal existence are only parts of Existence. It's like good-better-best. Just a thought. At any rate the whole thing is so abstract, and most likely not the most effective way of finding God.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I think the problem is that it assumes there is nothing better than physical existence. Maybe physical existence and ideal existence are only parts of Existence. It's like good-better-best. Just a thought. At any rate the whole thing is so abstract, and most likely not the most effective way of finding God.
    That it does not. The empiricists who do not like the argument assume it does however. There is nothing in the argument itself that describes a physical material requirement. The "real" here probably referred to a Platonic form of sorts (again why the mathematicians listed found it so compelling). There is absolutely nothing in any of the ontological arguments that tell us the being in question is to be found in the physical/material plane. There is still, however, that little problem of what is meant by existence...

    You are right about the abstract thing. There seem to be a lot of people who prefer this way of thinking about god as indicated by the responses here. Does abstractness make it less plausible? How do we know the number (not the numeral) four exists?

  4. #74
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    The thing about saying God is "alienated feeling" is it doesn't say too much about the nature of God. It says rather more about the nature of this end of the stick, us. It doesn't say God does not exist. It does say something like whoever it was once said, we all have a God-shaped hole in us, needing to be filled. We locate the God by identifying what we will feel for that God, and more or less that's all we genuinely do directly for God.

    And, more or less, does anyone really have to do any more than that? The act of faith is an act of love--fraught, vexed, beatific, spontaneous, whatever--and does it truly need to know much more than the content of the love? And when I say "need", I mean "logically need".




    And when I say "we", I don't mean me. Just so we're clear. See, I can't help but view the world through a processes and reasons lens, and God on such a view is an otiose and sufficiently unformed addition to the world's ontology that I can't honestly feature it as a substantial, substantive component of what it is to be here in this time for me. This, I probably believe, somehow or other, is of no consequence to the existence of God's love and other people's love for God. They are the source of their own love for God and as such they make it, at least, something of substance.

    Maybe.

    It is, however, kinda annoying having this big, unprovable thing hanging around.

  5. #75
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    That it does not. The empiricists who do not like the argument assume it does however. There is nothing in the argument itself that describes a physical material requirement. The "real" here probably referred to a Platonic form of sorts (again why the mathematicians listed found it so compelling). There is absolutely nothing in any of the ontological arguments that tell us the being in question is to be found in the physical/material plane. There is still, however, that little problem of what is meant by existence...

    You are right about the abstract thing. There seem to be a lot of people who prefer this way of thinking about god as indicated by the responses here. Does abstractness make it less plausible? How do we know the number (not the numeral) four exists?
    1) This seems like it limits real objective existence ("physical") to true or false, which I like. It then ascribes true objective existence to God out of necessity, due to the quality of perfection, which implies true objective existence. Works for me I guess, but still seems a little circular.

    2) Very abstract, which is fine for those who like abstract stuff. To me it's just like walking a semicircle to get from point A to point B instead of a straight line. Still gets you there though.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  6. #76
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    The thing about saying God is "alienated feeling" is it doesn't say too much about the nature of God. It says rather more about the nature of this end of the stick, us. It doesn't say God does not exist. It does say something like whoever it was once said, we all have a God-shaped hole in us, needing to be filled. We locate the God by identifying what we will feel for that God, and more or less that's all we genuinely do directly for God.

    And, more or less, does anyone really have to do any more than that? The act of faith is an act of love--fraught, vexed, beatific, spontaneous, whatever--and does it truly need to know much more than the content of the love? And when I say "need", I mean "logically need".




    And when I say "we", I don't mean me. Just so we're clear. See, I can't help but view the world through a processes and reasons lens, and God on such a view is an otiose and sufficiently unformed addition to the world's ontology that I can't honestly feature it as a substantial, substantive component of what it is to be here in this time for me. This, I probably believe, somehow or other, is of no consequence to the existence of God's love and other people's love for God. They are the source of their own love for God and as such they make it, at least, something of substance.

    Maybe.

    It is, however, kinda annoying having this big, unprovable thing hanging around.
    Ok. I think there is more we can do for God than that, but that is not really relevant here. It's just like juggernaut said though--can you prove the existence of four? No, but you still believe and use it. Just plug God in for four.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  7. #77
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

    You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?
    For one, the definition in "3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way" might not be correct, depending on what we attributing to God if we try to move from a vague abstract view to a practical/real one. IS there a being that is infinitely great and perfect, and how is "perfect" being defined?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #78
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Juggernaut, thanks. This is a more interesting thread than most of the ones revolving around religion. I was pleasantly surprised (because it means I won't have to repeat it ) to see my point of view covered so well in the first 20 posts or so already.

    But you are right, something is logically lacking about the use of the term "God" for something that already has a term. ERM made a good post about how the meanings of words often overlap or are redundant, and I think he may be right, but I'm going to think about whether there's more to it than that. (more to post later)

  9. #79
    Junior Member Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, or did miracles doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the manner in which people historically flocked to him, were astonished by what he taught and the authority in which he carried his message to the existing government. If you want to find out more about the man then the best place to begin in my opinion is by living his teachings, and see if your life and others' lives become better.
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friend View Post
    Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, or did miracles doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the manner in which people historically flocked to him, were astonished by what he taught and the authority in which he carried his message to the existing government. If you want to find out more about the man then the best place to begin in my opinion is by living his teachings, and see if your life and others' lives become better.
    No, but thank you. I just want to know what god is today. Jesus is dead and the oldest religions in the world don't consider him god (and never have) anyway. I'm not disputing whether we should try to live our lives in a manner consistent with the way the man lived his life, but that's really a separate question. I'm interested in the existence of god/gods.

Similar Threads

  1. What is the significance of this dream, do you suppose?
    By Oberon in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 07:31 PM
  2. Who, or what, is this "God"?
    By Iriohm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:09 PM
  3. What is the god of this world?
    By Risen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-23-2010, 01:43 AM
  4. [INTP] What is this fun you speak of?
    By Cerpin_Taxt in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 12:46 PM
  5. What is this indicative of?
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO