Arguments for God

[Jac3510]

1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?

1. No. He can't mate with dogs.

Fine, we agree here. So you agree that a man is not a dog.

2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?

2. No

We strongly disagree here. You are saying that what a thing is, is what it is made up of. So consider a house. It is made up of wood and bricks. So why isn't a pile of wood and bricks a house, since what a thing is and what it is made up of the same thing? Or further, since the wood and bricks are just atoms, and you are made up of atoms, why are you not a house, since what you are and what you are made up of are the same things?

3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

3. No

Again, we strongly disagree here. what you are saying is that a thing is, is the same thing as the stuff that it is made up of. "Existence" just refers to "stuff." But that is obviously not the case. If it were, then the sentences "Stuff exists" (that a thing is) and "stuff is stuff" (what a thing is made up of) would mean exactly the same thing, and they obviously don't. Likewise, the sentences "Dogs exist" and "Dogs are dogs" would mean exactly the same thing (since in your view, what a thing is made up of and what it is are the same thing), which they don't. Or again, saying "Unicorns exist" would mean exactly the same thing as "Unicorns are unicorns," which they don't.

I'm not hung up on any words.  I know what "what a thing is" is.  It's a figment of the imagination.  Just because we observe that dogs aren't men doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "what a thing is".

Right, so what I said before was exactly the case:

If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

That is both the logically necessary conclusion of your position, as well as the position you've admitted to here. Men aren't really men. They aren't really dogs. Men are dogs and dogs are men, even though that contradicts your answer to my first question.

I have 3 questions for you.

1. Is a horse a zebra?

2. Is a tiger a lion?

3. Is a a wolf a dog?

If not, explain why.

In the first two, no. They are not the same thing precisely because they are not the same thing. It doesn't get any more basic than that. Horses, zebras, tigers, and lions are all their own thing. My mind recognizes them as much, and so I distinguish between them.

Now, the zebra is part of the horse family, so you can say in a sense that a zebra is a horse (not necessarily that a horse is a zebra). Tigers and lions are both cats, but tigers are not lions and cats are not necessarily tigers or lions. Wolves are part of the dog family, so we can say that a wolf is a dog. We cannot say, however, that a dog is a wolf. This is all pretty standard predicate nominative type stuff. Consider this example:

John is a football player. Football players are athletes. Athletes are people.

From this, we can say that John is a football player, an athlete, and a person. We can say football players are athletes and people. We cannot say that people are athletes, football players, or John. Nor can we say that athletes are football players or John. Nor can we say that football players are John. (As an aside, however, in your scheme we would be required to make just such statements!)

Taking this further, we can distinguish these because there are differences (differentia) between them. I am not a dog because there are differences between me and a dog. For instance, the dog is part of the canine family and I am not. But this doesn't really help in our discussion, because then we have to ask, why am I not a part of the canine family? What is the difference there? And the answer, of course, is that things are just different. It is evident. Things are what they are and they are not what they are not. I am perfectly content holding that to be a simple fact. Stars are not planets. The universe is not an atom. And this isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't as if in the "real world," the sun is earth and earth is the sun, but that my mind just makes up a distinction. Now, if you want to hold that to be true, there's really nothing more we can say. I would just ask why the blazes you think anything so patently absurd would be true? I mean, honestly, you are telling me that the sun and the earth are the same thing. Come on. Really . . .

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

In order to correctly say that a thing has a trait or property, we'd have to identify a thing that does not have that trait or property.  If all men were bald, there wouldn't be such a thing as bald men, because baldness only exists relative to heads with hair on them.

Existence is not a trait or property.  Everything exists. You exist.  I exist. The word Unicorn exists. The idea Unicorn exists.  We can't say anything about the idea of a unicorn combined with idea existence and matter.  The very notion of trying seems past absurd.

Horses are not zebras because there are predictable and consistent observable differences between them.  Likewise for lions and tigers.  Wolves are not dogs for the same reason.  However it seems you have it backwards, dogs came from wolves, so in the that sense, according to you, all dogs are wolves.  

These are not quite the same as John the footballer.  By definition, a footballer is a person.  We know this because we invented the game.   We didn't make any animals, so we can't define them.  We can only classify them based on predictable and consistent observable differences.  There is no way to know a lion logically the way you can know a bachelor or a footballer.

[Jac3510]

I think our disagreement is rather clear, although I don't think you are considering the problems with your position that I have pointed out.

First, it is evident that things are not the same as what they are made up of, which you affirm.
Second, it is evident that the fact that things are is not the same thing as what they are made up of, which you affirm.

Your argument that everything exists is just wrong. Unicorns don't exist. They may exist as an idea, but they themselves do not exist. It is a false statement to say "Unicorns exist." We can say "Unicorns exist in my mind, but not in reality," but that statement proves that existence is a property of a thing. It is not a property that adds to a concept--unicorns are still unicorns, conceptually speaking, whether or not they have their existence in themselves--but it is still a property. In other words, to assert that something does not exist is on one hand to acknowledge its cognitional existence (otherwise, we couldn't talk about it) but to deny its existence in reality. That is a property, man. Unicorns have cognitional, not real, existence. The only way that sentence is meaningful is if there is a distinction between existence and essence, in which the former is a property of the latter.

[happyukatheist]

Oh sweet an ontological argument for the existence of god.

Circular arguments really make my head hurt.  

The premise relies of the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

And doesn`t accually prove anything.

Anyone got a asprin please.

[humblesmurph]

I think our disagreement is rather clear, although I don't think you are considering the problems with your position that I have pointed out.

First, it is evident that things are not the same as what they are made up of, which you affirm.
Second, it is evident that the fact that things are is not the same thing as what they are made up of, which you affirm.

Your argument that everything exists is just wrong. Unicorns don't exist. They may exist as an idea, but they themselves do not exist. It is a false statement to say "Unicorns exist." We can say "Unicorns exist in my mind, but not in reality," but that statement proves that existence is a property of a thing. It is not a property that adds to a concept--unicorns are still unicorns, conceptually speaking, whether or not they have their existence in themselves--but it is still a property. In other words, to assert that something does not exist is on one hand to acknowledge its cognitional existence (otherwise, we couldn't talk about it) but to deny its existence in reality. That is a property, man. Unicorns have cognitional, not real, existence. The only way that sentence is meaningful is if there is a distinction between existence and essence, in which the former is a property of the latter.

Chris, did you read my posts?  I never said that Unicorns exist.  I said the exact opposite of that.  I never affirmed that things are not the same as what they are made up of.  I said the exact opposite of that.  I never affirmed that the fact that a thing is is not the same thing as what it is made up of.  I said the exact opposite of that. Anyway, concerning [strike:26gzoyn5]conditional[/strike:26gzoyn5] cognitional  existence:

You just arbitrarily decided that the idea of a thing that exists is the same as the idea of a thing that doesn't exist.  Why?   It seems to me that they are quite different.

Unicorns do not exist in my mind.  They wouldn't fit.  The idea of Unicorns exists in my mind. This, according to you, shows that Unicorns have  cognitional existence. We couldn't speak of Unicorns otherwise. Correct?

Dogs do not exist in my mind.  They wouldn't fit.  The idea of dogs exists in my mind.  This, according to you, shows that dogs have  cognitional existence.  We couldn't speak of dogs otherwise. Correct?

They seem like the same thing.  When I close my eyes and think of a dog, I see a dog in my mind's eye.  I can think of a Unicorn in the same way.  As a matter of fact, I can think of the dog and Unicorn frolicking together in a grassy meadow with a lovely rainbow in the background.  There is no discernible difference between the idea of a dog and  the idea of the Unicorn.  They are both equally real in my mind.  They both have cognitional existence.  Are we still on the same page?

This seems all neat and tidy, but you have philosophical training.  You know what I'm about to type.  You could have saved me a lot of time by just highlighting this concept for me so we could discuss it.  You made me figure it out for myself.  Shame on you smarty pants.  Here goes:


The idea of Unicorns is fundamentally different from the idea of dogs.  You just choose to assign the label cognitional existence to both ideas.

How did the idea of a Unicorn get into my head?  somebody made it up

How did the idea of a dog get into my head?  dogs

See the difference?  Of course you do. You've seen it all along.  This is our fundamental problem.  Your position is that the idea of a Unicorn is the same type of thing as the idea of something based on consistent predictable observable traits.  This is extremely counter intuitive.

[deekayfry]

A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[deekayfry]

What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

[i_am_i]

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

Because if we didn't there would be a lot of out-of-work professors?

[humblesmurph]

A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Thanks deekayfry.  This is part of the regularly scheduled program.  I didn't know that they were genetically identical.  The info you just provided highlights the fact that the division between dogs and wolves has nothing to do with anything inherent about either animal.  Their division is just a product of human categorization based on observable predictable differences.  Wolves do not possess wolfness and dogs do not possess dogness.

[deekayfry]

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

Because if we didn't there would be a lot of out-of-work professors?

God, I would kill to sit around all day and do this!

[humblesmurph]

What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

To defend religion.

[deekayfry]

What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

To defend religion.

Okay folks!  Last post of the night.  I will sign off and do NOTHING

*drum roll*

I already defend religion!

Okay folks last call is over, don't forget to leave your tip at the door and kiss the barmaid on the way out.

[KDbeads]

Yeah right......  guaranteed I'll have to harass him of the computer in a hour.....

[Davin]

A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

This is one of the problems with relying on mental concepts as reality, we as humans often create an idea of what something is, which doesn't always match reality. Nothing really wrong with that, it made communication easier. As children we have an understanding of what a dog is (we are shown a dog or pictures of a dog) and as get older we correct and add onto the concept of what a dog is (we see other things that look similar and understand them also as a dog, as well as other biological facts like the eye of a dog lacks the amount cone cells humans have, so they can see yellow and blue, but not as well as humans can but they can't see red).

I think the problems exist when people try to make the easy to identify mental concept more important than what the thing really is. Take the mental concept of a snake, and then look at a legless lizard. If someone said look at that snake when pointing at a legless lizard, I probably wouldn't blame them since it matches most of the mental concepts of a snake, however in reality, genetically they are very different than snakes.

[panflutejedi]

Hello Jac3510 ,

Rather than your use of stultifying language to prove your deity exists, I have another idea:

Let's make a bargain, shall we? You pray to your god, and we'll start believing in him the moment he shows up.