tiny question on descartes/logic/philosophy - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-30-2002, 11:35 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Sorry, I came back to this thread to jot down some thoughts, and came up with new ones. Hope you guys haven't lost interest.

QUOTE]Originally posted by speedracer:
1. It is greater to exist both in mind and in reality than in the mind.
2. God is the greatest possible being.
3. God exists in the mind.
4. If God did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

speedracer, I think that whole argument falls apart because fact #1 isn't logically sound? Why must we ascertain the existence of a 'great' thing in reality and in the mind? How about something is greater if it exists in reality and isn't a figment of the mind? Isn't that how it's supposed to go?


foray is offline  
Old 01-30-2002, 11:42 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Truly:

Now I agree with the first part of that argument, but not the second part. I don't think anyhting created God. but then how did He get there? I don't know.
Truly, I think I know why God wasn't created by anything. It's because He stands outside of Time (which is also why he can 'see' our 'futures', for want of a better expression). According to a Mr. C.S. Lewis, to be in time means to undergo change. So, if God doesn't exist within Time (or maybe He has one foot in, the other foot out, I dunno), He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Well, if we think about it, God probably created/invented Time, so it could be possible that He does stand outside of it. To elaborate even further, maybe if we replace the word 'God' with 'Love', we could see how this Something can be eternal, for we all know that Love is unchanging throughout the ages.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Bleh......


[This message has been edited by foray (edited 01-30-2002).]

foray is offline  
Old 01-31-2002, 12:39 AM   #18
Jesus Online
Angela Harlem's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:00 PM
How can something exist in the mind if it hasn't been seen? I think fors already said this. Does anyone have a tangible notion of God anyway?

This is about as circular as infinity and the meaning of the universe.

Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-05-2002, 06:31 PM   #19
War Child
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: BIG GOB'S BED
Posts: 933
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Originally posted by foray:
UV, are you talking about Plato's innate ideas? I don't think Descartes is associated with innate ideas usually, anyway.

Why do you say there is no perfect circle? A bubble is a perfect sphere because of the even pressure all round inside.

Just because it appears to be a perfect circle does not mean it is. The atoms will be moving and not all symetrical as the should be in a PERFECT circle.
UV2001 is offline  
Old 02-05-2002, 06:46 PM   #20
love, blood, life
melon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Well, humans do and can imagine something out of nothing. How would Descartes have explained away the rise of telephony? Computers? The internet? Television? Radio?

He can't either. Do any of these things, when invented (think back to the late 19th century with radio and the early 20th century with television) look or act remotely like anything that previously existed? For Descartes' time, his logic could have made sense, but time has since proved him wrong.

As for the "God" debate going on here, you can't prove God philosophically, because philosophy, innately, tries to justify on a scientific basis. Many have noblely tried this brand of Christian philosophy--St. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind--but with advances in scientific knowledge, a lot of this philosophy falls apart. I do believe in the existence of God, but I know I can't prove him. Science relies on the concrete and material world, even if that concrete portion is incredibly tiny (i.e., subatomic particles). Speaking of heaven and hell and God and souls has no concrete portion in our plane of reality. Just as televisions and the internet, etc. had no concrete portion in Descartes' reality. I guess I like to never say never, because who knows what the future might hold.


"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

melon is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com