"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
"Quote from ddunbar:
Imagine a supreme being - the greatest of all beings.
Now try to imagine a being greater than that.
You can't "
---------------------------------------
Ok, lets see if I can do this.....Well I have to admit it is hard to visualize..Maybe if I start "small" and work my way up to it..
Alright so, I will visualize going to Taco Bell and ordering a Taco Supreme"...Okay I am imagining a Taco Supreme...Taco meat, cheese, lettuce, hot sauce, sour cream....got it.
Now I am trying to imagine something greater than a "Taco Supreme", so I am thinking of a "Burrito Supreme" with extra cheese, Yep that is definitely "greater".....
Okay, got it....Supreme, then "greater than Supreme". Yes it is sort of like getting extra cheese on your burrito.....
This doesn't seem that hard.
Imagine a supreme being - the greatest of all beings.
Now try to imagine a being greater than that.
You can't "
---------------------------------------
Ok, lets see if I can do this.....Well I have to admit it is hard to visualize..Maybe if I start "small" and work my way up to it..
Alright so, I will visualize going to Taco Bell and ordering a Taco Supreme"...Okay I am imagining a Taco Supreme...Taco meat, cheese, lettuce, hot sauce, sour cream....got it.
Now I am trying to imagine something greater than a "Taco Supreme", so I am thinking of a "Burrito Supreme" with extra cheese, Yep that is definitely "greater".....
Okay, got it....Supreme, then "greater than Supreme". Yes it is sort of like getting extra cheese on your burrito.....
This doesn't seem that hard.
Quote from steve46:
"Quote from ddunbar:
Imagine a supreme being - the greatest of all beings.
Now try to imagine a being greater than that.
You can't "
---------------------------------------
Ok, lets see if I can do this.....Well I have to admit it is hard to visualize..Maybe if I start "small" and work my way up to it..
Alright so, I will visualize going to Taco Bell and ordering a Taco Supreme"...Okay I am imagining a Taco Supreme...Taco meat, cheese, lettuce, hot sauce, sour cream....got it.
Now I am trying to imagine something greater than a "Taco Supreme", so I am thinking of a "Burrito Supreme" with extra cheese, Yep that is definitely "greater".....
Okay, got it....Supreme, then "greater than Supreme". Yes it is sort of like getting extra cheese on your burrito.....
This doesn't seem that hard.
LOL. Of course it doesn't seem hard. That's simply because you haven't yet imagined a Taco Bell menu item to which nothing greater can be conceived.
Proof #8 - Think about Near Death Experiences
Many Christians find the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) to be proof that "God" and the "afterlife" exist. As described in this article, an NDE contains these characteristics:
The sudden awareness that one has had a 'fatal" accident and not survived.
An out-of-body experience. A sensation of floating above one's body and seeing the surrounding area.
Pleasant feelings, calmness.
A sensation of moving upwards through a tunnel or narrow passageway.
Meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures
Encountering a being of light, or a light (possibly a religious figure, i.e. Jesus, God, Buddha)
Being given a life review
A feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return
Things like heart attacks, near-drowning and severe loss of blood can all trigger near death experiences.
NDEs have been experienced by thousands of people and have been widely cataloged in a variety of books. Many of these books are "spiritual" or "religious" in nature.
What is not mentioned is that there is a drug called Ketamine that produces all of the elements of an NDE when it is injected into normal, non-dying people. In other words, an NDE is a natural, chemically induced state that the human brain enters. The trigger for an NDE is lack of oxygen to the brain and body. If you read scientific papers like these, you find that there is a completely chemical and completely non-spiritual reason for the features of every NDE.
Is this a direct proof that God is imaginary? No. However, it is a direct proof that the NDE (which many people use as "indisputable" proof that God and eternal life exist) has no supernatural meaning. We can scientificaly prove NDEs to be chemical side-effects rather than "a gateway to the afterlife" as many religious believers claim.
Many Christians find the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) to be proof that "God" and the "afterlife" exist. As described in this article, an NDE contains these characteristics:
The sudden awareness that one has had a 'fatal" accident and not survived.
An out-of-body experience. A sensation of floating above one's body and seeing the surrounding area.
Pleasant feelings, calmness.
A sensation of moving upwards through a tunnel or narrow passageway.
Meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures
Encountering a being of light, or a light (possibly a religious figure, i.e. Jesus, God, Buddha)
Being given a life review
A feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return
Things like heart attacks, near-drowning and severe loss of blood can all trigger near death experiences.
NDEs have been experienced by thousands of people and have been widely cataloged in a variety of books. Many of these books are "spiritual" or "religious" in nature.
What is not mentioned is that there is a drug called Ketamine that produces all of the elements of an NDE when it is injected into normal, non-dying people. In other words, an NDE is a natural, chemically induced state that the human brain enters. The trigger for an NDE is lack of oxygen to the brain and body. If you read scientific papers like these, you find that there is a completely chemical and completely non-spiritual reason for the features of every NDE.
Is this a direct proof that God is imaginary? No. However, it is a direct proof that the NDE (which many people use as "indisputable" proof that God and eternal life exist) has no supernatural meaning. We can scientificaly prove NDEs to be chemical side-effects rather than "a gateway to the afterlife" as many religious believers claim.
It's simple. You failed to conceive of a being of which no greater being can be conceived. Once you conceive a being to which no greater being can be conceived, it's impossible to conceive of one greater. If you manage to do it, the one prior obviously wasn't the greatest.
Therefore, you demote God as being the greatest conceived being by adding a need for this God. Greatest conceived being cannot have a need for its being.
The analogy you're using here anthromorphizes God. I have a need for oxygen because I am not self-sustaining nor make any claims that I am. Something similiar for my thoughts.
Whereas, with God, He is self-sustaining. He requires nothing external because there is nothing external. There can't be any thing or concept that is "outside" God because he's omnipresent. (meaning, there is no "outside" to God. Everything is inside God.) And his omnipresence doesn't just apply to his ubiquitous nature in the material world, but in whatever realm exists beyond the material and whatever we can or haven't yet conceived. Therefore, the "need for existence" that you are assigning God is derived from God since there is no "place" that God can draw upon other than himself to satiate any requirements he "might" have. Therefore, even the very concept of existence comes from God. That's why God is said to be self-existent.
In circular flair: (conceptually speaking b/c there's no proof of the following) God exists because God exists. Existence, even as we have come to recognize it, is a function of God's being. Not a requirement.
Ok, so you asked how does that make existence greater than God? Existence would have to be "larger" than God for God to exist if it were something he required that is not an integral part of his being. He would have to "draw" upon it. In other words, God's omnipresence would have to be limited (meaning, he might only be omnipresent in one respect while not so in the grand scheme of things) in order to accomodate existence as something which allows him to exist. That makes God's existence a relative one instead of an absolute one. Relative to existence's existence. Which also would imply that God actually has a beginning for how else under these circumstances could he exist unless existence preceded him?
Here's a little quote from Thomas Aquinas on the subject:
It is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its existence, if its existence is caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God his existence should differ from his essence.
You don't also want to go on record and say that God requires essence to have his essence? Because that is what you are saying when you say that God requires existence to exist.
So, before God created anything, He only existed to himself. He was only self aware. So you can really say that He was just self-concious. Using our parlance, he was always self aware because he always was. He wasn't even an individual because there was nothing relative to himself to make him an individual. The concept of individuality does not yet apply. Neither then would existence as defined by the relative understanding that something is. Perhaps why God called himself when ask what his name was in Exodus, "I AM." He just was and is.
But once God created, he brought the concept of existence as we understand it, into being. Now there is something distinct from God, though derived from God. The relative construct of existence is in place. And when he created a sentient being with some of his qualities (like angels), God became an individual. And that created individual can now recognize its own self-awareness as well as the existence of God and the other things God created.
Best I can do on the subject for now. Don't want this thread to drag along with this much more because LKH's posts aren't getting any mileage. That's got to be frustrating to him/her. I don't know, but it's my guess that LKH would like some discussion focused on the posts he/she has been making.
Once you conceive a being to which no greater being can be conceived, like it or not, you will also conceive of something with a limitation ie:
You will demote God as being the greatest conceived being, simply by conceiving It.
Yet another thing God cannot do. It cannot be greater.
God demotes Itself. It's very conception is It's own demotion.
" It is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, " -Thomas Aquinas
And so it is confirmed, God is not Existence- according to Thomas Aquinas, no less.
God requires existence as existence cannot be a constituent part of God .
God presupposes existence.
QED
The rest of Aquinas's idea contradicts his own principle, he obviously thought no one would notice if he tried to turn God's existence into God's essence.
It has been an interesting discussion ddunbar and I agree, neither of us wants to derail lkh's thread (if it is being ) by any particular conversation on the side.
Ah yes, Aquinas -- the guy who thought heretics should be killed. Guess he didn't like folks who saw the huge, gaping holes in every single one of his supposedly irrefutable arguments.
As Hume demonstrated, to even believe an irrefutable argument exists is a sign of ignorance. No statement is safe from a sufficiently motivated skeptic or sophist.
Much of philosophical semantics is masturbation, folks. Brain teasers. Self-recursive feedback loops. Moderately entertaining, for a few minutes, but not actually useful. The Greeks showed this a long time ago.
Zeno's paradox: Achilles can never catch the tortoise, because before he can travel half the distance, he must first travel half of half the distance, and before that half of that, and so on ad infinitum.
The liars from Crete paradox: "This statement is false." Do I speak true? Then I lie. Do I lie? Then I speak true.
And then of course the classic, "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big he himself can't lift it?"
All kinds of smart-ass answers to this one, including "Well technically God is holding up the universe, so the real question is how he could put the rock down in the first place."
All right then, if God is all powerful can he figure out how to put the rock down somewhere?
Or how about, if God is all powerful, would it be possible for him to take the form of Morgan Freeman and transfer his powers to Jim Carrey for a while?
When dealing with infinite series, as Zeno showed, semantics can quickly become bullshit. Of course Achilles can catch the tortoise; Zeno merely shows a flaw in our logic, and demonstrates how discussion of an infinite series can break the logic set.
The statement "I am lying" is not something magical or mystical because of its true / false duality, but a simple example of how logical assertions can be turned in on themselves.
Thus again, the value of this semantical hoopla is... what. Logical constructions have the tendency to self-destruct when turned inward just so, and don't handle infinite series all that well. What does it matter.
At the end of the day, theists and atheists are still arguing about who or what is behind the door at the end of the universe. Theists say one thing, atheists say another. Using semantics to bolster a hypothesis is like trying to peek behind the door. But there is no peeking allowed. Maybe Urkel runs the universe, and he came to earth temporarily to star in a TV show. But unless he opens the door, we simply won't and can't know. And semantics don't help.
That's why I believe it is far, far more interesting, and useful, to try working with the evidence we have. (I suspect, but cannot confirm, that the creator of this thread would agree.)
Most theists believe that God did more than create; they believe that he actively intervenes. This is the important point, not whether God exists. If God exists but does not intervene--sleeping, dead, couldn't care less, etc--then the atheist position is more pragmatically correct than the theistic one.
Most atheists look around and see strong evidence that God does not intervene; they doubt his existence because there are an infinite number of possibilities that do not deserve to be taken seriously. They see making room for God as akin to making room for Ghosts and Leprechauns and Tooth Fairies. But again, whether a first mover actually exists does not have to be all that important to an atheist, does it? If, as we postulated before for example, God is nothing but a manifested series of universes, what's the practical difference between that and no intervening God at all? There is no discernible difference.
Who or what is behind the door (including the possibility of nothing) is not as important as whether or not there is a sentient being outside our closed system who regularly intervenes. And that is a topic that can be debated on meaningful grounds, as opposed to all this empty wordplay, based on real world observations.
It is also possible, and potentially fruitful, to debate the major historical, conceptual, and philosophical flaws that every popular religion is saddled with. 'Cause remember, even if one accepts the possibility of a first mover, there are millions to choose from. Anthropologists estimate man has created something on the order of 100,000 religions in his time on earth so far. And the possibility remains that every single one so far is wrong.