Can you imagine....?

[SlaveofChrist]

Well, I think there is a possibility of this being a valid argument for the existence of God.
I obviously didn't think of this by myself, but I am unsure what the complete argument is, so feel free to add on all you theists out there.
Basically as far as I know the argument goes like so....
Humans cant imagine something not based on something that already exists. For example, imagine a new color, you cant.
If that assertion is true, then God must exist.
:shrug:

[Piebald]

I don't see how it follows ... :huh:

[Sher]

:eek:


:huh:

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120922#post120922)
SlaveofChrist:

Well, I think there is a possibility of this being a valid argument for the existence of God.
I obviously didn't think of this by myself, but I am unsure what the complete argument is, so feel free to add on all you theists out there.
Basically as far as I know the argument goes like so....
Humans cant imagine something not based on something that already exists.
Sure they can. They imagine a God that is not based on something that already exists.


For example, imagine a new color, you cant.
Of course not, because "color" has already been defined as the entire spectrum of visible light. All colors fall within that range. The very definition precludes an addition to the range.

Yours,
Garth

[FirstSunday33ad]

Humans cant imagine something not based on something that already exists. For example, imagine a new color, you cant.
If that assertion is true, then God must exist.

I think I understand your logic, but it doesn't work because the objection would go like this:

Caveman Bob sitting in his cave looks up at the stars. “They must be fires” says Bob “fires of people like me only stronger because they live in the sky”. In the morning Bob sees an even bigger sky-fire, the sun, which extinguishes the fires of the stars, “this is the strongest of them all” Bob says.

Add in a few hundred millennia and Greek poet Bob is writing epics of Zeus and Hera. Add a few more and Renaissance Bob is painting creation on the ceiling of a chapel.

That at any rate is the explanation for why humanity “created” God that is put forth by some I’ve read.

[b488]

But perhaps just as elusive arg. turns not on what can be conceived (which is basically a crude from of the ontological arg.) but on fundamental human desire (which can be taken partially, i think from a 'religion as a priori' sort of arg.)

And it goes a little something like this:

There are legitimate human needs.
Humans seem to have a need to transcend the finite. The expression of religious belief is a universal in the cultures of humanity.
If true, transcending the finite is a legitimate human need.
It seems to make sense to say that what people need actually exists.
And if this is so, there must be an object which satisfies the need to transcend the finite.
God seems to be that object which satisfies humans desire to transcend the finite.
Trandscending the finite with God as as the objective is a legitimate human need.


This is hoplessly muddled and sloppy, but i'm going to throw it out there just for fun :smile:


Ciao!

[SlaveofChrist]

I like the finite need argument, I think it has potential. And I think my argument may as well. I think this is an example of the insufficiency of words. I understand my thoughts but translating them to words is difficult.
Anyway, another attempt....
God is not really based on anything human. He exists outside of time. There is no other human thing outside of time. You can say that is the opposite of God being inside of time, but what else has an opposite. What is the opposite of a tree. What is the opposite of water?
God is an infinte being which has always existed. I just dont see how we can take the things that surround us, and put together this description of God. But maybe we can, I dont know. This whole post makes me sound terribly unintelligent :help:

[ACow]

Forgive me if i cannot remember the name of the first arguement (is it the ontological one?), i can never remember the name of those things.

Anyway....

Humans cant imagine something not based on something that already exists.

The easiest way out would just be to say "nuh-uh" to this bit. i don't really think that's very strong, so i'll move on....

For example, imagine a new color, you cant.

That is because colour is the definition of the images our eyes interpret from the spectrum of visible light. We can't think of new colours because the definition of colour denies us that option. however, i also think this is kinda skipping the main point, that we only know colour because we have experienced it. It would be interesting to bring up a child in a world where they never see the colours green and gold and silver ,just to see what happens, but i doubt it would be ethical.
But i'll stop rambling now, and address the main point which is:


If that assertion is true, then God must exist.

Either that, or every concept of god a human can have comes from something that exists (or combinations of said things, and if you use your imagination, its not that hard to come up with examples.)

[QUOTE]It seems to make sense to say that what people need actually exists.QUOTE]

My response to the "need" arguement will be much more to the point, because it is much easier to disregard.

The wish for something i think i need doesn't make that particular thing exist, or neccesarily be accessable to me.

That there are things greater than us isn't really an issue, one need only look up into the sky at night in order to convince themselves of that.

That what we percieve as our "need" to become greater than ourselves however in no way means that need must, will or can be fullfilled. I wish to fly, but i cannot. An aids sufferer needs a cure, but there isn't one. Humans need shelter, but they often can't get it.

My main objection to this, i guess you could say, is that the concept that there are things humans "need" essentially presupposes the existance of god. It is the only thing that can really give the authority to say that such things are needs. Otherwise, they can be thought of as "needs if a certain effect is to follow". Ie. I "need" to eat if want to live. Of course this doesn't mean it will happen.

Now taking the "need" of a human to transcend the finite, there are a multitude of atheists and materialists out there that prove this wrong.

[livlovmo]

Well, needs can be a good argument if you phrase it right. You have to remember that talking about our spiritual need is different than our physical need. Our body is not the thing that gets saved after death, our soul is. So while we are here on Earth our needs include food, water, and shelter, etc. But why do you think that God uses the spiritual parallel of "everlasting water"? He is talking about the finite ability to last forever with a different kind of need. God is our number 1 need here on earth because he superceeds all of the other needs.

[ACow]

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121661#post121661)
livlovmo:

You have to remember that talking about our spiritual need is different than our physical need.

Presupposes the existance of spirit, and by extension god.

That doesn't mean god/spirit hence doesn't exist, it just means you've assumed the spirit (and hence the god that put it there)(unless your talking about spirit in an atheistic sense, which i doubt) in your arguement, and hence it isn't valid.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I think I agree with the statement “what humans need must exist” simply because we don’t miss what we never had. I don’t miss breathing under water. I don’t miss being able to fly. The opposite of this is not “what humans don’t need must not exist” it is “what humans don’t need must not be something that exists for humans”.

Now, if there is no god, then there is no human need to transcend ourselves; there is simply superstition and fear of the unknown. But superstition depends on cause and effect and given enough evidence that it is groundless the vast majority of us abandon our superstitions. Fear of the unknown vanishes once that which is unknown becomes understood.

Applying this to my caveman Bob objection, I can find the flaw in that response. Caveman Bob may have decided that the beings in the sky were stronger than he, but that is still a long way from worshiping them to fulfill a need. Why did caveman Bob decide that burning animals on a pile of rocks was what was necessary to ensure good weather, victory in battle or a bountiful harvest? What was it that kept caveman Bob believing this to be true?

Imagine the scenario. Bob wants to stop storms from destroying his house so he sacrifices his best goat to the storm god. A storm then destroys his house. So he sacrifices his best horse. A storm destroys his house. So he sacrifices his first-born son. A storm destroys his house. At some point, Bob is going to conclude that the sacrifices are pointless – that either there is no storm god or that it is so capricious that it doesn’t matter what Bob does. Bob would then stop sacrificing or believing in a storm god.

But this has not happened. Humans still need something that transcends them and this is true with materialists and atheists as well. For them; science, the universe - cold hard "reason" - is something greater than themselves. In a sense they “worship” at these alters. So as this is an apparent need in humanity, it can be legitimately argued that it is a need for something that exists.

[garthoverman]

FirstSunday33AD:“what humans don’t need must not be something that exists for humans”Do humans need to die? Do humans need terminal illnesses? Do humans need 256 channels on TV? Do humans need boy bands? If they do not, then they must not exist for humans. But they obviously exist, so humans must need them.

If humans need death and debilitating illness, why don't they want them?

Humans still need something that transcends them and this is true with materialists and atheists as well. For them; science, the universe - cold hard "reason" - is something greater than themselves.
I don't need something that transcends me. Why would I? Be careful not to beg the question in formulating your response.

Additionally, I can prove that human cognition already transcends all possible systematic models of it via Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, so it is quite erroneous to propose that science or "cold hard reason" transcend me.

Yours,
Garth

[FirstSunday33ad]

Do humans need to die? Do humans need terminal illnesses? Do humans need 256 channels on TV? Do humans need boy bands? If they do not, then they must not exist for humans. But they obviously exist, so humans must need them.

If humans need death and debilitating illness, why don't they want them?

Why is the assumption made that because we need something we must want it? I would argue that we do need 256 channels, boy bands, etc – NOT specifically – but generally. We do NEED to be entertained – to laugh, to imagine, to fantasize. These are merely vehicles to satisfy this need.

We also need death. Without it we would soon overpopulate our planet. Death, I argue is a recognized and accepted need. Perhaps we all would like to delay it for a certain time but I doubt there are any of us who long to live on this earth forever.

Disease is a straw man since you simply avoided the point. If humans feel a need for something – that is recognize and desire a particular thing – it stands to reason that that thing must be something that is real. If we don’t feel the need for something, that doesn’t mean that that thing therefore doesn’t exist, it simply means we feel no need for it. But to say we can feel a need for something – that is, desire a particular thing – that doesn’t and never has existed is where your logic falls apart. How can we feel a need for something that never existed?

I don't need something that transcends me. Why would I? Be careful not to beg the question in formulating your response.

Additionally, I can prove that human cognition already transcends all possible systematic models of it via Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, so it is quite erroneous to propose that science or "cold hard reason" transcend me.

That you don’t recognize this need does not mean that it doesn’t exist. You clearly do respond to this need in your response when you speak of “proving human cognition already transcends all possible systematic models”. You have named your need – REASON. This is something you are elevating to a higher place, something greater than you or I – in a word; it is your Deity.

[b488]

is not that there is a god, but that religion is a transcultural phenomenon. Yes, religion is expressed in a variety of ways across all cultures with respect to time and place, and this seems to indicate that there is an innate desire to express/celebrate numinous experience through the religious expression of it, however culturally conditioned that expression may happen to take.

My point: religion is a cultural construct, the personal experiences that generate religious expression in people is not. It is something that is sensed perhaps by some faculty beyond the others that we normally consider. It is something that must be dealt with on its own terms and not be reduced by attempting to explain it away by any other field of study (the social sciences) without mistaking the cultural expression of the experience for the experience itself.

ACow: I fail to see how saying that food is a human need in someway presupposes a god. It is a physical need. People meet that need in a variety of ways, but will satisfy it with stuff we call food (the object which satisfies the need) Because the desire to transcend the finite seems to come from a source grounded in what it is to be a human being and not in any particular cultural constructs we can point to, one can then come to the notion that follows: humans possess at least one need that is not physical (or 'natural', if you like).

[garthoverman]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122263#post122263)
FirstSunday33ad:

Why is the assumption made that because we need something we must want it? I would argue that we do need 256 channels, boy bands, etc – NOT specifically – but generally. We do NEED to be entertained – to laugh, to imagine, to fantasize. These are merely vehicles to satisfy this need.
So basically what you've asserted is that we need everything that exists, or IOW everything that exists is needed by humans, because if it is not needed by humans, then it must not exist (for humans).


Disease is a straw man since you simply avoided the point.
No, it is you who is dodging. Please explain to me why humans need debilitating diseases. Why do humans need malaria, or ebola, or alzheimers?


If humans feel a need for something – that is recognize and desire a particular thing –
Didn't you call into question my assumption that needs implied desires? Why then do you build your argument upon an implication you yourself called into question?


it stands to reason that that thing must be something that is real. If we don’t feel the need for something, that doesn’t mean that that thing therefore doesn’t exist, it simply means we feel no need for it.
Yet by your original statements things that humans don't need do not exist for humans. Are you saying that humans need things for which they do NOT feel the need?

But to say we can feel a need for something – that is, desire a particular thing – that doesn’t and never has existed is where your logic falls apart. How can we feel a need for something that never existed?
I would think that needs can precede the existence of things. Don't you think humans had a need for computers before computers were invented? Don't you think humans had a need for toothpaste before it was invented? Right now, I feel a need for a teleportation device, yet none exist.


That you don’t recognize this need does not mean that it doesn’t exist. You clearly do respond to this need in your response when you speak of “proving human cognition already transcends all possible systematic models”. You have named your need – REASON. This is something you are elevating to a higher place, something greater than you or I – in a word; it is your Deity.
I don't need reason, and reason does not transcend me, because reason is a part of me.

Yours,
Garth

[PostHoc]

Yesterday @ 01:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121714#post121714)
ACow:



Presupposes the existance of spirit, and by extension god.




I read something interesting once. It talked about why the author thought animals had souls. His argument went kinda like this.

He said that there are certain activities in our mental life that are clearly defined but clearly not physical. These include beliefs, desires, and intentions. These intentions and desires applies to animals too, they possess the characteristics of soulish beings which include mental activity that consist of beliefs, intentions, desires, sensations . . .

The author went on to say that human souls and animal souls are different... but all this to say that it is hard to disprove "spiritual things", even in animals.

[Tennisbuff]

We are getting a little of subject. Branching off of the tree one might say. The original argument of humans being limited to understanding objects which do actually exist does not seem very potent to me. Look at computors today. A person five hundred years ago never would have thought of even electricity to run this computor. I do not see a computor even being based on an object which existed five hundered years ago.