In considering whether or not God exists I am not sure that I need variations of logical arguments. For example in this video he has “the cosmological argument”, which is basically argument for a first cause. There is also “the ontological argument”, or Anslem’sontological argument, which basically says that because we can think ofGod then it necessarily must exist; I think the argument goes something like this: think of the largest category that can exist, and then think of the category that contains all categories beyond which we can conceive, this category that goes beyond all categories must be God, or something like that.
I’m sure there are all sorts of arguments for the proof of the existence of God coming from all cultures and all sorts of philosophical thinkers. I suppose that among the Myriads of people thinking and putting forth various proofs, after a while they kind of figured that basically people are making the same arguments over and over again and so we have general classifications that we know for shorthand of the various ways that people go about presenting proofs for the existence of God.
I stated in the beginning with I’m not sure that these proofs are really necessary. What I mean by this is that I don’t think they really go anywhere to proving to me, or I should say, to making me believe or not believe in the existence of God. These logical proofs the logical ways that people want to come to some sort of rationality or prove to themselves or prove the other people that God might exist or might not exist, to me, really don’t say much, they really don’t affect me as to whether I will believe or not believe in the existence of God.
I will go into that more in a minute. But let me first say that I must admit that there are people who look to these logical methods to situate themselves or to orient themselves in space and or the world. There are people who more directly like to hang onto these Logix and look to these logical reasoning, look to their capacity or attribute to use logic in order to come to their sense of what they believe and their identity in the world. They ask themselves “does God exist?” And then they go through various permutations of logic to there by convince themselves, or in a certain dialectic with other people, that God may or may not exist and depending on the arguments presented come to a position that they believe that that proof does not work or that proof does work, I believe this because of that, I believe that because of this I don’t believe that because of this logic etc.
There are people that decide upon existence in what is true for them in that kind of manner. I’m not discrediting that or argue against that method. But I would argue that people that go by that method do indeed impose it upon people such as me maybe, and say that I’m an idiot or I’m not logical or my beliefs are incorrect because of the logic and etc. Such people have to maintain that what they have come to know through logic and stuff says that it’s true or false such that this logic is evidencing truths to them, albeit argumentatively, tend to say that those people who do not use this method are inherently stupid or wrong or dance or have on reflected believes or a religious or any number of disclaimers of the other person to establish themselves as having an ontologically sound truth.
As well, there are people who only tacitly use this kind of logic, The people who have a believe and then go on to have to assert it to other people through various modes of logic. For these people, perhaps, something is intact in them, for example God, and then they go out and use logic in various forms in order to prove God’s existence to other people. Likewise atheists do the same thing.
So really either people have a belief or a conviction before hand and then go out and try to prove to other people through logical formulations, then other people have a question and then they go out and logically ask questions through that method to come to what might be the truth of the matter. I’m sure there are other variations on this fame, but pretty much they both rely on some sort of outside source – and I say “outside “not to indicate some dichotomy necessarily between some thinker and some other Ness, i’m using the term outside in a sense that for the moment dismisses it self from all these philosophical a priories. I’m using it in the sense that if I have a situation of knowledge then I’m attempting through these logical motor structures to prove it to other people; and if I had a question then I can answer the truth of it through these Logical modes.
I’m not getting into all the details of various arguments and stuff that might fall out side or inside of these large commodes here.
I’m simply trying to make a point that these logical staples of argument for the proof of the existence of God affect me in no way as to whether or not I think that God exists, but also there are people that it does affect in that way.
While such logical method works well for having me understand things and know things I might not be directly privy to, such as 1+1 does not equal 5, in that this math does not arise intuitively but must be taught, The logical arguments for or against An existence of God does nothing for my consideration of God except as a logical excersize, as a way to excersize a brain. But I think the key element in this is that there are people for whom such logic does function to allow them to believe or not believe — for all things that can be; every possibility is put to the test of logic.
Then, oddly, for such ‘logic religionists’, logic itself is not put to the test; this is to say that the capacity to think and use logic is not logically questioned and is not put to the test of logic itself. This is the meaning of transcendental faith: Logos. (I’m not getting into the extension of all this here)
So what I’m really saying though, is that for the example of this video and this guy’s post above, there is evidence of a certain type of orientation upon the world. And this orientation basically says that there is some sort of capacity or ability for human beings to intuit what is true of the universe through a particular route of meaning, within or by what we could call a kind of mental mechanism. There is definitely an aggregate of human beings, and very critical philosophical deep thinking philosophers at that , that view themselves within the capacity of the mind and thinking to get beyond itself. And for them, arguments about the possibility of metaphysical truths abound.
So these people have a question and then they can apply a traditional historical method and find out whether or not it’s actually true to their for align their thinking and their centrality soul for lack of a better word to this actual truth truth. They can compare various arguments, decide which one works for them, why, and have themselves a position.
I’m not really going into the actual particulars in the extensions of these arguments to actually give a whole picture what’s going on here. This is to say in this post I’m really giving you like the chocolate sprinkles of the whole cupcake.
Nevertheless, what I’m presenting very simply, and this post is another statement of how there are two routes upon objects.
If we look at things mathematically, and particularly statistically, at least from a kind of functional approach, if we can begin to look at humanity itself this way, at the presentations of philosophy in this way, we might begin to have a whole new view upon what philosophy is doing and actually instead of having some sort of meta-discourse that perpetually resorts or otherwise falls back into metaphysical discussions about real ontological possibilities, we might look at philosophy in the context of what is moving and what is not moving, and then begin to analyze such philosophies as a sort of “higher level “” thinking.
And this is to say that perhaps philosophy has been working at all times at or towards that level, if I can bring in the computer analogy,, of the Windows platform, or the OS of Apple systems. Such that metaphysical discourses are always part of the ‘user platform’ because people are constantly attempting to create higher and higher languages to have simpler and simpler platforms upon which everyone can then perform their agency.
I believe that we have got to a point in philosophy that we can actually kind a get to a lower level (in programming terms) language, a lower level description of what’s really occurring.
We should not confuse this with “primitive” ideas. We might be able to see that by the time consciousness arose it was already functioning on a kind of Windows platform, and we could even go on to say that what philosophy throughout history has been doing is trying to situate itself as windows, trying to look at the window through the window to find the truth of the platform. Its been involved in developing higher forms of knowledge, better windows, better statistical framings, better ways of presenting the information that is real, indeed higher forms of what they were given in the beginning as consciousness: The window functions to create ‘higher’ forms of windows. The reason we can say this is because consciousness did not develop its self through and unfolding of logical premises. Logic is something that we applied backwards; logic is something that we came up with as a higher form and then applied it retroactively as a method. In these arguments for God it is because of this lineage, this tradition, that this method, that sees itself not nearly as a tool but as indeed the manner by which truth is discovered, as indeed a tool that is bestowed from God on high to us lowly children, such that we could use it to become gods ourselves, this progress thus viewed as totally necessary. And indeed inescapable. These cosmological and ontological and other modes, all types of Logix for God’s existence in the proof of existence assumes that this logic has been given us in some manner because it gives us true things along the true progression of a higher knowledge: God by any other name is just as powerful, even if we posit it in the context of “does not exist”.
But this then brings in the question of identity, a discussion to be had elsewhere.
Even the philosophical “death of God” is still a progress in this transcendental knowledge of God.
Perhaps we have reached our philosophical Heights and we don’t want to come down; perhaps that’s what “realism” has stemmed from; finding ‘realism’ just as tentative and based in central agencies, perhaps we need to concentrate more on discovering lower level languages.
So it is that I say in order to do this we have to quit reconciling our investigations into the synthetic higher knowledge of modern enlightenment and basically the human historical lineage of progress.
indeed we might be making progress, but in order to make progress in this area perhaps we have to stop attempting to reconcile it with the perpetual higher synthesis of philosophical knowledge. If only because those great thinkers of philosophy for our day will perpetually think that such a lower language is beneath them, and if we continue our rebuttals against these high thinkers will never get anywhere but “windows”. As an analogy we have to stop thinking pictures and links and URLs and shopping in the spread of ideas and blogging and Instagram, and we have to get down to the ones and zeros. If we are to do that we need to see that there is no possible windows relations between itself and its ‘machine language’.
And as well, we have to admit that Windows had to be de-monopolized to make it fair. This was not an ‘automatic’ capitulation; it is a mandated and enforced state.