Try and preshot Leo's 10 God proofs

[Loveeee]

For example the usual mind-body problem basically asks the question of consciousness's place in a material world like there should be none, but while we have proof of consciousness we don't for matter since this could be a dream, so the better question is what place is there for matter, and the answer is none 

Is that a proof OR just a pointer though 

Edit : or

Edited Saturday at 04:15 PM by Loveeee

[Leo Gura]

Nope, nope, nope.

[Loveeee]

  On 3/29/2025 at 3:11 PM, Leo Gura said:

Nope, nope, nope.

Why ?

[Leo Gura]

Doesn't offer any logical necessity for God.

[sujaykc-01]

@Loveeee

In "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge," George Berkeley argues that reality is fundamentally composed of ideas and spirits (minds/souls), rejecting the existence of material substance independent of perception, a core tenet of his subjective idealism. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Subjective Idealism:

Berkeley's philosophy, known as subjective idealism, posits that all that exists are ideas and the minds that perceive them. 

Rejection of Material Substance:

He argues against the existence of material objects as independent entities, claiming that they are merely collections of ideas perceived by the mind. 

Focus on Perception:

Berkeley emphasizes the importance of perception in shaping our understanding of reality, suggesting that what we perceive is what exists, at least for humans. 

God as the Ultimate Perceiver:

He suggests that God is the ultimate perceiver, ensuring the continuous existence of the world through his constant perception. 

Influence of Empiricism:

Berkeley, like other empiricists, believed that knowledge comes from experience, but he took it a step further by arguing that the objects of experience are themselves ideas. 

Critique of Locke:

Berkeley's treatise largely seeks to refute the claims made by his contemporary John Locke about the nature of human perception, particularly Locke's concept of material substance. 
 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:21 AM by sujaykc-01

[JoshB]

@Loveeee @Leo Gura

The best explanation for God is one that cannot be explained 

[sujaykc-01]

Theurgy was the embodied realization of this union, for in theurgy the “one of the soul” united with the hypercosmic gods just as the “helmsman” joined the disembodied soul to the supercelestial realm. Iamblichus said the soul was capable of this unification because there subsists in its very essence an innate knowledge of the Gods. Iamblichus admits that he uses the term gnosis inexactly, for the highest aspect of the soul could not possibly “know” the gods any more than the helmsman could “see” them. Defining this innate knowledge, Iamblichus says:

[It] subsists in our very essence, is superior to all judgment and choice, and exists prior to reason and demonstration. From the beginning it is united to its proper cause and is established with the soul’s essential desire (ephesis) for the Good. But if one must speak the truth, contact with the divine is not knowledge. For knowledge is separated [from its object] by otherness. But, prior to the act of knowing another as being, itself, “other,” there exists a spontaneous [. . .] uniform conjunction suspended from the Gods.

It is a contact, Iamblichus says, established by the gods, and the soul’s very existence depended on it, “for we are enveloped in it, even more, we are filled by it, and our existence itself we possess by “knowing” (eidenai) the Gods”. This essence-making knowledge, like the gaze of the helmsman, is not of one to another; it is a unifying contact. And since the “principles (archai) of reason and life” can never be grasped by the orders they establish, it is through the soul’s preconceptual contact with the gods that it sees and knows them.