I would like to offer a few propersitions in order to provoke debate amongst us all...
So here we go for part 2.
I propose, 'God' requires reality/mankind to make sense, man kind/reality does not require 'God' to make sense.
Thoughts...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I'm not sure I understand the reason for your premises.
A Necessary Premise is only necessary if it exists.
Randomhero1982
Proposition 2 - What is required?
I would like to offer a few propersitions ****in order to provoke debate**** amongst us all...
Breezy "I'm not sure I understand the reason for your premises."
I've placed it in asterisks for you. It's in his first sentence, though I'm deducting half a point for that rather novel spelling of propositions. I propose we never spell it like that again.
In order to falsify his first premise all you need to do is evidence a concept of deity that didn't involve any human input.
comprehend john, comprehend
Sorry, I just don't.
1. What is this "reality/mankind" thing? The slash implies they're somewhat parallel or synonymous, or at the very least separate things. But mankind is redundant and included in reality. Is it an "either/or" type thing?
2. The qualifying "making sense" category is a subjective human attribute. We decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Thus, of course God needs mankind to make sense. Unless there are other beings with similar mental abilities as us, there would be no one to decide if God makes sense. It's the same as when ppl ask if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is no, sound is a psychological property, it requires a listener.
3. Does God require reality? I don't know, does water require wetness? The question doesn't make sense ironically enough.
4. I suppose man doesn't require God in order to make sense. But children don't need parents in order to make sense either. A stork offers a pretty good explanation of where babies come from. Things that make sense don't have to be true. Didn't we invent irrational numbers to make sense of things, despite reality have no representation of irregular numbers?
"1. What is this "reality/mankind" thing? The slash implies they're somewhat parallel or synonymous, or at the very least separate things. But mankind is redundant and included in reality. Is it an "either/or" type thing?"
Are rocks real John? Now do rocks require humans in order to be real? If there were no humans do we have any reason or evidence to believe rocks would be less real? There are rocks whose antiquity predates the evolution of humans if that helps any.
"A stork offers a pretty good explanation of where babies come from. "
No it doesn't.
"Things that make sense don't have to be true. "
Are sensible claims more or less likely to be true than nonsensical claims in your experience?
" Thus, of course God needs mankind to make sense. Unless there are other beings with similar mental abilities as us, there would be no one to decide if God makes sense. It's the same as when ppl ask if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? "
Except for the obvious difference that we can demonstrate evidence for the existence of trees, and the sound they make when they fall.
"The answer is no, sound is a psychological property, it requires a listener."
Well I'm no philosopher, as I always assumed the purpose of that question was to demonstrate an epistemological dichotomy that could not be conclusively solved? As in there is no reason to believe a falling tree doesn't make a sound when no one is there to hear it, but epistemology means we can't make a definite claim. Do sound waves only travel when ears capable of hearing them are present then? I'd like to see you demonstrate some evidence for that please? Keep it simple as my formal education was fairly mediocre.
The proposition stems from a theists arguement during a debate that man kind or what we consider as reality cannot be explained without god.
I propose however, that you need a conscious human to envisage a 'God(s)', where as the universe does not require a 'god(s)' in order to make sense of it to the best of oir current knowledge.
Or to approach it in a different way, there are no questions, facts or assertions regarding the universe that require theism... where as 'god(s)'
Certainly do require humanity to make any sort of sense.
Apologies if the OP wasn't clear, I did rush it during my commute and the trains Wi-Fi was woeful.
Do you make a distinction between what is "required" in order to understand and explain something, and what reality is actually like? Or do you view one as our best attempt to represent the other?
"a distinction between what is "required" in order to understand and explain something, and what reality is actually like? "
Can you point to something real that we can explain without knowing what is required to explain it?
"Or do you view one as our best attempt to represent the other?"
You mean like "our" best attempt to explain lightning bolts, coming from Zeus before we knew a supernatural deity was not "required" in order to explain the reality of lightning?
yes, it makes logical sense that the notion of a god requires a human mind to comprehend it.
whereas the universe can be understood without bringing a god into the equation.
I am not sure what ""God makes reality make sense"" means.
Yes. Mankind does not need god to make sense of reality. Yes. God needs mankind to make sense of God. I don't see anything debatable here.