Is this proof that God exists?

[TygerTyger]

Does Spinoza prove that God exists?

Proposition XI. God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.

Proof. – If you deny it, conceive, if it be possible, that God does not exist. Then (Axiom VII) his essence does not involve existence. But this (Proposition VII) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists. Q.e.d.

Axiom VII. The essence of that which can be conceived as not existing does not involve existence.

Proposition VII. Existence appertains to the nature of substance.

Discuss!

[Xentor]

No, because it postulates the assumption that god has essence, and fails to prove that. Without essence, existence no longer is required.

[TygerTyger]

I agree.

I think the problem is that Spinoza was working from a position of a man who already believed in the existence of God because of his Jewish inheritance. As he could not conceive of God’s non-existence he found it impossible to believe that anyone else could do so seriously.

This causes me a problem as my Pantheism is based upon Spinoza’s theory of existence being constituted by one substance and that substance is God. Spinoza does, indeed, fail to prove the existence of God, and he’s not the first, which raises a second question;

Is the existence of God a question better suited to faith that to reason?

[Toby Stimpson]

Whether God exists or not.. cannot be proven logically.

If you say that you believe in God, you are commiting a fallacy because there may not be proof evident.

If you say you do not believe God exists because o the fact that there's no proo... you're commiting a logical fallacy.

God is illogical... but being illogical doesn't state whether you exist or not.

Its a puzzling question.

[Shaman7]

Is the existence of God a question better suited to faith that to reason?

There is no other choice. If it is not be accepted by reason, it must be accepted by faith, if it is to be accepted at all. You can not have it both ways. If it is reasonably proven, then there is no need for faith. If there is faith, then it does not need proven. One necessarily negates the other.

[cheddarsox]

I wrote a long response to this yesterday...then deleted it. Because it dealt with NOT being able to prove the existence of anything by logic, or "necessity".

then I thought that maybe you wanted to play by Spinoza's rules, accepting his premises as "given"...and I wasn't interested in doing that. But now that other people have brought up the issue that the excercise itself is faulty...I can throw my hat into the ring.

What I got to thinking about yesterday is that for some people...perhaps God IS necessary. They may truly be unable to function without something in that role in their mind.

Maybe that is true of all/most humans. It may be something that evolved that helps us live in societies. A mental "need" that causes us to bond together in ways that are useful for survival. Maybe some of us just plug something other than a "being" into that space. Though, from an evolutionary standpoint, the idea of it being a "being" makes sense...to imagine it as something like a human, something we can relate to, etc.

In that sense...maybe God is necessary, and in enough people believe, the concept has so much power that it exists in practice, if not in ultimate reality. The people themselves, by their behaviors, make God real. They begin to fill in the blanks, to be the hands, mind of God.

Judgements, punishments, shunning, acceptance based on belief, etc are examples of people acting LIKE the God they say exists.

So...as a parallel...Democracy...does it exist?

The fact that people live and act and work together Democratically...does that make Democracy real?

But it is always practiced imperfectly...so does that mean it is NOT real...but just an ideal, or an idea?

I think God is like that.

An idea or concept that people can "make" real through their agreement to live it. Whether or not that satisfies our concept of "reality" depends on how we define "real".

Of course there are aspects to most deities that people cannot will into reality...the afterlife for instance. There are probably some aspects of Democracy that can't be willed into existance either, they are beyond the scope of humans to practice, though not beyond our ability to imagine.

cheddar

[TygerTyger]

Cheddarsox,

I am looking at Spinoza's Ethics again as this was the book that inspired me to become a Pantheist but I haven't considered his views in depth for sometime, however, I'm more than happy for this thread to pursue any point of debate relevant to the main area of my interest.

I am aware of your argument, it has some anthropological substance, perhaps you are right and our psyches need a god-like being to exist, even if only in the imagination, in order for us to deal with the realities of existence? Religion is a curious phenomena that seems to cross all cultural boundaries suggesting that it is an attribute of being human.

As to democracy, well, everything that we produce is imperfect, if it wasn’t we’d be divine!

[Infinite Grey]

Is the existence of God a question better suited to faith that to reason?

Faith, unequabily faith. Until someone can provide evidence naturally.

Whether God exists or not.. cannot be proven logically.

If you say that you believe in God, you are commiting a fallacy because there may not be proof evident.

If you say you do not believe God exists because o the fact that there's no proo... you're commiting a logical fallacy.

God is illogical... but being illogical doesn't state whether you exist or not.

Its a puzzling question.

Actually you're only half right. Believing in god is a fallacy, but not believing in god is not. Why? You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can prove something does exist.

A person can submit the premise that chairs exist, and can prove it by presenting a chair as observable evidence. Or equally a person can prove the possible and/or potential existence of a chair by providing a sound blueprint of a chair.

There are many things that are hypothetically possible, but are based on data that indicates or suggests their existence; a supernatural higher power doesn't even have that (as far as I know). It is not illogical to deny the existence of these objects (i.e dark matter, exotic matter, bison particle) as there is no, or little empirical evidence to prove their existence. There is no burden of proof laid on the "unbelievers", it the job of those that make the claim to prove existence.

If both you premises are true, that would mean in a law setting people would both innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent.

[TygerTyger]

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes

Infinite Grey’s quote from Arthur Conan Doyle sums it up nicely. I think that Spinoza’s system of logic is very elegant but that it contains a fundamental weakness in that he uses his faith as data upon which he basis his theory.

Having spent the past couple of weeks re-reading Spinoza’s Ethics I’ve come to the conclusion that it made an interesting starting point from which to examine Pantheism but that it does not make a suitable basis for a spiritual path. In fact, during this re-reading I’ve encountered some serious doubts as to what I thought I believed. My first reaction was one of despondency but now I see it as an opportunity to seriously think things through.

As I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic God existing separately from the universe but rather as an essential part of it, however, I have no proof of this! In order to look for any such proof I think that I have to examine the following two questions;


Of what is the universe made?

What is the nature of existence?
I have modified the first question to include trying to identify what the relationship between matter and energy is and how they come to interact with each other.

After an initial consideration of the second question it seems to me that existence is both immediate and transitory. We experience existence now, at this moment and no other. However, that moment passes and we move onto the next without any obvious indication of the transition.

These are big questions but then that is what attracted me to Philosophy and I have been very inactive as a philosopher for the past few years. My initial negative feelings following my re-reading of Spinoza have been replaced by something more positive, I’m back on the trail in pursuit of knowledge!

[Eleisawolf]

What I got to thinking about yesterday is that for some people...perhaps God IS necessary. They may truly be unable to function without something in that role in their mind.

Maybe that is true of all/most humans. It may be something that evolved that helps us live in societies. A mental "need" that causes us to bond together in ways that are useful for survival. Maybe some of us just plug something other than a "being" into that space. Though, from an evolutionary standpoint, the idea of it being a "being" makes sense...to imagine it as something like a human, something we can relate to, etc.

In that sense...maybe God is necessary, and in enough people believe, the concept has so much power that it exists in practice, if not in ultimate reality. The people themselves, by their behaviors, make God real. They begin to fill in the blanks, to be the hands, mind of God.

Judgements, punishments, shunning, acceptance based on belief, etc are examples of people acting LIKE the God they say exists.

So...as a parallel...Democracy...does it exist?

The fact that people live and act and work together Democratically...does that make Democracy real?

But it is always practiced imperfectly...so does that mean it is NOT real...but just an ideal, or an idea?

I think God is like that.

An idea or concept that people can "make" real through their agreement to live it. Whether or not that satisfies our concept of "reality" depends on how we define "real".

Of course there are aspects to most deities that people cannot will into reality...the afterlife for instance. There are probably some aspects of Democracy that can't be willed into existance either, they are beyond the scope of humans to practice, though not beyond our ability to imagine.

Well, put, Cheddar. This puts into words something I've been feeling for a long time. I call it the difference between subjective and objective realities. God(s)/dess(es) (and democracy, and whatever else) may not exist in objective reality that can be measured and quantified and etcetera, but they do exist through those who believe in them. They are part of the collective memes of society, just as our physical traits are part of the genes.

I know of those who would not be living, happy human beings today without their belief in God. I know that if I had maintained that same belief, I would not be the living, happy human being I am today. (Okay, so you all know that at present I'm not entirely happy--and yet all my railing at the universe and its absolute lack of bias that pisses me off so much right now doesn't negate my belief in the beauty of the universe as it is; I'm just a human expressing my human emotions and getting through them... ;))

So perhaps subjective reality is important after all.

The thing is, subjective reality can grow and change with us and with our perceptions and understanding of life, the universe, and everything. (Is it really 42?) But that doesn't make it any less real to those who live with it. That is precisely what makes people who they are. I am changed by my beliefs--that is a major aspect of What Is.

Peace

PS: All this to say that what you said really said it all for me. Thanks.

[TygerTyger]

God being necessary for the mental health of the human mind is one thing; God being necessary for the existence (and continued existence) of the universe is another!

The interesting point that Cheddarsox raises, for me at least, is whether or not people can will God, or a god, into existence?

I understand that there is a belief amongst some Buddhist monks that they can create beings from pure thought, although I’ve not found much evidence of this actually happening. Nevertheless, the principal seems to be the same, or at least along the same lines.

Life is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, although it can be transmuted; where does the energy go from a person’s body when they die?


Does consciousness survive, in the form of energy, the decay of matter that was the body?

Does energy coalesce?
If the answer to the two questions above is ‘yes’ then could there exist in the universe a body of combined human consciousness in the form of energy?

[Cassie]

Does consciousness survive, in the form of energy, the decay of matter that was the body?[/LIST]

Does energy coalesce?
If the answer to the two questions above is ‘yes’ then could there exist in the universe a body of combined human consciousness in the form of energy?
Peronally I believe the answer to all three of those questions is a resounding yes.
However, I don't think there is any undisputable material evidence nor any arguement of reason that can proove such things.

[airmist]

God being necessary for the mental health of the human mind is one thing; God being necessary for the existence (and continued existence) of the universe is another!...Life is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, although it can be transmuted; where does the energy go from a person’s body when they die?...Does consciousness survive, in the form of energy, the decay of matter that was the body?...Does energy coalesce?...If the answer to the two questions above is ‘yes’ then could there exist in the universe a body of combined human consciousness in the form of energy?

Like Cassie, my emotional/spiritual response is yes to those questions. At least, those possibilities provide a rational understanding of the divine to me. I continue to seek a rational understanding of that about which I have very little spiritual or emotional doubt. So I appreciate the contributions being made by everyone here.

[cheddarsox]

whether or not people can will God, or a god, into existence?

This is how I speculate that it works...if enough people believe and act as if a concept is true, then for the most part the society will behave as if that concept is true. Even if it isn't. So it has the effect of being real, in that it impacts human behavior.

But it does not control the forces outside of the human mind. Our belief in a weather god does not allow us to control the weather. I think that is where a great deal of theology arises, to explain the discrepencies between reality/experience and belief.

A shared concept can have an enormous amount of power over human behavior and interaction with our surroundings, but it does not ultimately change how the Universe behaves back.

I don't think our consciousness is a type of energy, that survives intact after bodily death. The energy that once caused our consciousness, I expect, dissipates, much as the atoms that once made up our bodies did.
Sometimes we made such an imprint on the consciousness of others that they continue to interact with that imprint, after we are gone. Sometimes we make such an impression on shared concept, that humanity continues to interact with our imprint after we are gone.

I don't think deity exists outside of the minds of believers, but that still gives a great deal of power over the believers, but not over the rest of the Universe.

[TygerTyger]

Cheddarsox, that’s an interesting theory and one I would like to explore. However, at the moment I’m interested in a more physical examination of the universe.

I’ve done a bit of research and one of the most striking things about what I’ve read is just how much of it is theoretical! Actually most of what science claims to know about the universe is theoretical, which means that there’s plenty of room for other people, as in non-physicists, to expound theories of their own!

Actually I found this quite frustrating as so much science is talked about as if proven fact I though that confirming the nature of the universe didn’t seem so big a problem; wrong!

On the other hand it is also quite fascinating, I’m learning some interesting stuff about what we think is the nature of the universe and my own ideas, although I am the first to admit that others seem to have similar ideas too, do not seem to be out of place with what is known.

The universe is made up of energy and matter, that much seems to be agreed, although the constitution of matter seems to be open debate and occasionally depends on what you are talking about. Energy seems to be the key to my own idea and my next step is to look at the dissipation of energy, as suggested by Cheddarsox, to see if how this occurs and if there are any alternatives.

If anyone has any similar ideas, questions or observations please feel free to post, you never know, we might get to the truth of the matter before Stephen Hawkins!

[TygerTyger]

This is both fun and interesting!

http://www.ebtx.com/index.htm

I haven't had chance to read it all but I enjoyed what I did consume.

Have a look!