Does a 'God' exist?
Does a 'God' Exist? God is said to be this supremely loving, good, knowing and powerful being, but this entails some serious contradictions and issues. Existence is the idea that something has an objective state of being. Based on empirical evidence, how can we be sure that God does have an objective state of being? Is it enough to say that 'God is everywhere' to be able to prove his objective state of being?
It is not convincing to me that there is an ultimate being watching over everything that is able to pop in and out of time. But I would like to hear your thoughts.
It is not convincing to me that there is an ultimate being watching over everything that is able to pop in and out of time. But I would like to hear your thoughts.
Comments (89)
1) Empiricism. Is it true that if we have not apprehended X with our senses, then X does not exist? Look for counterexamples.
2) Experience. If we can experience an unappehended (with our senses) X, what is the ontological status of X?
3) Evidence. What is evidence? Is an experience (even if unapprehended by our senses, or communicable to others) evidence?
Another item in the list, which is beautifully alliterative, is "Evil", but that is better left for a later stage.
1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.)
In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God).
I can see X'. It's right there in the computer screen. And I can see GreyScorpio's post, in the same place, a bit above.
Since I can see them, they exist -- right?
But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X. Any interpretation of X exists because there is an interpreter who conveys the interpretation (using instruments that reach our senses, such as pixels and sounds). But what about X?
I don't agree on that. GreyScorpio is clearly referring to our (or actually a group of people in a specific religion) interpretation of God. Not the "actual" God that supposedly exists.
I understand that you want to talk about the "actual" God, but that is not the case here, so you are basically off-topic.
Imagine the people that saw Auroa Borealis for the first time and are without the knowledge of what it is. They ended up calling it something to do with an omnipotent being. I also believe the social security that came with all believing in a higher being for those that needed a group to feel inclusive is another valid reason for why God exists. For the matter dealing with evil- if you commit evils against what god came to you in a fiery blaze told you during a moderately high opiate trip then you can decipher who is with god and who is against god so we can choose who to burn at the stake without really knowing.
I do refer to God as a whole, bringing both the religious aspect in along with God himself. As he cannot be God without the religious aspect, therefore we cannot exclude it from the OP. I do believe that we cannot apprehend X by itself as there are many other qualities combined to create X. Yet, we know nothing of the qualities of God (Primary and Secondary). Therefore, can we really say that we can apprehend God? Some might say that you don't need to see God to believe in him. But that just means that they are putting full faith into something that is not real. Believing and knowing what is real/the truth are two very different things.
Quoting Mariner
I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. However, an interpretation lacks a certainty of truth does it not? But it does bring about a belief. Perhaps this is what people do with the issue of God. Instead of thinking of him directly, they think of how they interpret him to be leading them to develop a belief that this is the correct thing to believe in, resulting in the existence of X. However, I disagree with this because again, A belief is not always a truth.
Quoting Donny G
I agree this may also be the case!
If we can't, does that mean that X does not exist? Is "apprehensibility" a requirement for existence? (Note, you can say yes or no :D. Both possibilities are in play).
Quoting GreyScorpio
If we cannot see X, does that mean that it is not real?
Search for counterexamples. I'll give you a few members of the class of "stuff which cannot be seen, but which is real". Justice. Seven. British.
Quoting GreyScorpio
Sure. An analysis of belief (an epistemological issue) must follow upon the ontological inquiry. Belief is another member of that class, incidentally.
Quoting GreyScorpio
Well, now you are exploring "certainty", which is a third concept. We have truth, belief, and certainty, and they are quite independent. But all of this is epistemology. Ontology must come first -- we must get to the heart of what exists, how it exists, how it comes into existence and ceases to exist, before we approach the question of how do we know about it.
Of course, our only avenue into those questions is through our intellectual acts; the ontological enquiry places epistemology "on hold", but it surely must return to it, sooner or later. However, it is quite harder to deal with epistemology if we don't begin by presuming the correctness of our intellect (a naive approach) and explore the world before we turn our focus into our intellectual processes.
Indeed, I believe that if something has the ability to be apprehended, in any way, must be real and therefore exist. What reason does it have not to be. Saying something exists because it is there is not a contradiction. But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? I think of a chicken (For lack of a better example). The chicken is there and I can apprehend it. Therefore, I believe that it exists. The chicken somehow is not there when I look again. I believe that the chicken is still there. Is this a rational belief? I cannot be because this is a contradiction and is therefore impossible.
Quoting Mariner
Agreed, but these things you have listed are concepts. Things that are unreachable by the senses. Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation.
Quoting Mariner
Indeed, So how does God exist then? If he does then he cannot cease to exist otherwise he wouldn't be God. Yet we don't know about it for certain. I have shown how God could possibly exist, and yet I still cannot approach the question of whether I am certain of this or not because there is no validation.
Well, "if A then B" (if apprehended, then existing) is a reasonable rule of thumb. But does it imply "if not-A, then not-B"? You later referred to concepts. Do they exist? How do they exist? Compare "British" and "Seven". Can we say that Seven existed before there was any mind that could count up to seven? Will it still exist if all of those minds are extinguished? And how about British (or, British-ness), did it exist before the Big Bang, and will it exist after the heat death of the universe?
We get back to how do X's exist, come into existence, and fade away.
Quoting GreyScorpio
"A concept" has many aspects. It exists in minds, sure, but it also has extra-mental references (if it did not, it couldn't be communicable). The "concept of God" is not merely (or even particularly) what is written in books about Him, or what is present in minds about Him, but it is also a symbol for the experiences that sustain it (the concept), and these experiences are the core of the "God-phenomenon". What must be explored is the experiences that lead people to God-talk, rather than God-talk itself.
Quoting GreyScorpio
Validation is an epistemological matter too. Look back at my first reply to you. Empiricism, Experience, and Evidence -- that should be the order of inquiry. Is reality restricted to what can be perceived with our senses? What is the status of experiences? And what counts as evidence? We are getting to the second question now.
I still think that these are concepts, things that do not exist to the extent that they are apprehend able. I cannot go over to the corner of my room and pick up a seven and place it in my hands. I cannot go and push British and I cannot stab justice (not a metaphor).
Quoting Mariner
Sorry, I am straying from the main point a tad. I just feel as though some sort of validation is in order for us to put so much faith in this 'being'. I think, yes, reality is something that is restricted to our senses because it has no truth or certainty value, again. (This may be a stray). I am seeing your point and agree with you to some extent. But this still doesn't prove why validation or apprehension of God must be excluded from the question of whether he exists or not.
Sure, but they exist in some other way. right? They don't exist "to the extent of...", but, somehow, they exist. Right?
"Reality is not composed only of stuff that can be grasped by the senses." Can you agree with this sentence? Note the dilemma here -- if you disagree, you will basically shut down communication (which is done through concepts which cannot be grasped by the senses), but if you agree, then you'll have to explore the gradient of reality; some things are "more real" than others.
Note that this is still far from looking at the matter of validation and evidence. You must explore this situation by yourself; I won't be able to give you validation, or evidence, that shows that reality has a gradient. All I can do is to form some sentences that plant the seeds of inquiries into your mind.
This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation?
Quoting GreyScorpio
"There" implies a particular spatial location. But concepts are apprehended without having any particular spatial location, so it is incorrect to say that something must be "there" to be apprehended, and therefore must be "there" to exist. We apprehend concepts through the means of sensible objects, which are "there", but the concept which is apprehended is not there. This is called abstraction.
Quoting GreyScorpio
God is known to have the same type of existence as a concept, i.e. immaterial, but this does not mean that God is a concept. A concept is one type of immaterial object, the type produced by the human mind. Plato and the Neo-Platonists demonstrated the need to assume other immaterial objects, Forms, which are not themselves human concepts. So God is like these, an immaterial object which is independent from the human mind, not a concept.
Quoting GreyScorpio
It is a complex, metaphysical, ontological issue, one which is not readily understood. The issue must be approached with a philosophical attitude, a mind which is open to the forcefulness of logic, despite what one's intuition might tell oneself. To state it simply, Aristotle demonstrated with logic, that "what" an object will be, must precede the existence of that object. This is because the object comes into existence as the object which it is rather than as something else. The existence of an object is not the feat of randomness. Therefore the "form" of the object must exist prior to the material object itself, in order that when the material object exists, it exists as the object which it is, and no something else. The Neo-Platonists used this principle to support the idea of separate Forms, having immaterial existence, being necessarily prior to material existence.
Which is impossible because then you are implying that the premise X' = X. Any interpretation arising from God is X' in any religion and disproving this does not disprove X at all. Then either the OP question itself needs to be revised so that we can actually talk about X like you intended, or that we just talk about how X' is wrong.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Let's make this clear.
First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true.
If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not.
I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this.
An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted.
Quoting FLUX23
Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist.
Quoting FLUX23
I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. However, if we are talking about an "interpretation", rather than a fiction, then it is assumed that the thing exists, in order that there is an interpretation of that thing. Perhaps you think that we should determine more clearly whether we are talking about an interpretation or a fiction?
Nor do I believe there is enough evidence for us to assume there isn't a supernatural entity of which we would call God.
Methodological naturalism requires conditional atheism, but I have my doubts about metaphysical naturalism. It seems almost as much of an extraordinary claim to say there is no God, whatsoever, as to say that there is a God.
Probably the best position to hold is disinterested agnosticism. See where inquiry takes us and evaluate as we go along. But let's not pretend either theism or atheism are motivated purely by rational deliberation, because almost certainly they are not and indeed, if I am correct, cannot.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).
Maybe I should've said "interpreted God" or something.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?
For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation.
This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there.
Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.
(Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories).
Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object".
You are right.
But for me, most of the "evidence" that they claim to be as one is expedient, otherwise downright wrong. One example is "probability". Probability is probably one of the common defense that I see people use to justify intelligent design (usually by a god) because the chance of the Earth happening is extremely slim. This is such a bad argument because 1) they seem not to understand what "probability" (precisely, what unit) they are talking about, and 2) they are lacking basic knowledge in statistics and is making a hilariously wrong interpretation of probability.
I am surprised especially when one of those person was studying statistics. So like you said, one can use it to support contradictory theories. Honestly, to me, what they do is more like a double standard.
That is of course, one example. I am definitely not going to go through tons of other examples because I don't have the willpower and time to do so.
Quoting Mariner
This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.
And yet you are. Irony abounds with you.
One point that is often overlooked in this secular age is that it seems widely assumed that the Bible, and texts of religious revelation from other cultures, are to be disregarded as evidence or testimony, and then the question asked anew, as if nobody had ever asked it before, as if there were literally no evidence in the sense of testimony and history.
I think, from such a naive perspective, there would be no reason whatever to believe in anything divine, unless you yourself had some kind of epiphany or vision which was sufficient to convince you of its reality. And they are known to happen - an example - but they're exceedingly rare, and also in the absence of a broader interpretive context, they might not even be lastingly meaningful.
So what is it you're wondering about placing your trust in? If you approach a Christian church, they will have a good deal more than simply a gesture towards some alleged 'invisible being'. That contextualises and grounds the idea in history and in a community of faith. From within that perspective, there are reasonable grounds for faith. If, for example, one really believes the resurrection narrative, then it is grounds to believe that there is some cause for that to have happened.
Whereas asking the question in the abstract, as it has been here, simply reduces it to abstractions.
What is lost here (in the abstract existence of some abstract God) is pretty much everything God is good for ---- away from systematic philosophy. I can cook up a new abstract God every evening if anyone's buying. Of course some ideologists do in fact make a living this way, but they seem to have no choice but to sell a less potent if more plausible substitute. We might call it "pep talk." I don't resent the existence of this pep talk. That's largely what life-philosophy is, even if it's grim like Schopenhauer's. It's still an ideology that functions like aspirin or caffeine.
But the God that's not just ideological preference is the embarrassing God, the God of miracle and providence, the anti-scientific God. In short, this personal God that bends the rules of nature is the God whose existence matters or not, at least to the non-philosopher. We annoying philosophical types have all written (and continue to write) our own precious little theologies within the limits of the usual laws of nature. (Not too many around here challenge science on its own turf. Instead there's just gang war over the margins.)
Quoting GreyScorpio
Is the God which you are trying to prove one that exists inside or external to the natural, physical world? For example, the Ancient Greeks believed in Gods which existed in the physical world along with them (on Mount Olympus), whereas the Christian God is believed to exist outside the universe (or at least partially such).
If your answer is the latter, then it is impossible to prove the existence of such a God (or lack thereof), because he/she exists outside of our observable universe. Science cannot understand things beyond our universe, as all its laws may be no longer applicable. In other words, Science can only help us understand everything in the physical, natural world (such as the existence of Gods within our world, which have been disproved), but it cannot reveal anything about the external world to our universe (if it exists).
Quoting GreyScorpio
Have a look at this: The Three Spectra of Morality.
Basically, it poses that there exists a hierarchy of spectra through which certain events/actions are perceived to be good or evil. We, as Humans, use Sociological Morality, and are unable to comprehend Omniscient Morality (that being the uppermost echelon of ethics), which, presumably, is the morality possessed by an all-knowing God.
As such, the 'evils' which we see in the world could possibly actually be 'good' events in the long run (even if only minimally) when perceived from an omniscient perspective, with us as Humans being unable to interpret them as being so because we are not omniscient. Hence, we must use our own, flawed morality to perceive these events/actions, and thus come to the realisation of them being evil.
Sorry for the delay in response Flux. What I meant here is not that we haven't defined what it means to be X (this or that type of rice, or whatever), but that we haven't defined what it means to exist. That's why we can't prove the existence of anything, we just take it for granted that things exist. So we see this or that type of rice, and we assume that these things exist, but we have no way of proving that they exist, because we have no specific definition of what conditions must be fulfilled to qualify as existing.
Quoting FLUX23
So the point made already, is that things like concepts exist, but we don't meet them, we don't even sense them at all. And a concept need not be derived from an actual object. We have the concept of a circle, and pi, which relates the circumference to the diameter. But there is no actual circle, precise to the definition of pi, which expresses an irrational ratio.
1. If 'God' is used in the manner of natural theology to refer to whatever the answers might be to the biggest metaphysical questions -- 'Why is there something rather than nothing?', 'What was the first cause?', 'What is the fundamental substrate of being itself?' 'Where did the universe's rational order come from?' -- then I would have to call myself an agnostic. I don't know the answers and what's more, I don't think that any human being does. I'm not convinced that the 'something-from-nothing' question is even answerable in principle.
2. If 'God' is used to refer to particular figures from human religious mythology, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna or whoever, I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that whatever the ultimate principles of reality might be, that they will correspond to one of these personalized anthropomorphic figures. So when it comes to the deities of the religions, I'm essentially an atheist I guess.
[quote=Mariner]
1) Empiricism. Is it true that if we have not apprehended X with our senses, then X does not exist? Look for counterexamples.
2) Experience. If we can experience an unappehended (with our senses) X, what is the ontological status of X?
3) Evidence. What is evidence? Is an experience (even if unapprehended by our senses, or communicable to others) evidence?
[/quote]
1) I assume there are plenty things I've never perceived, many more than what I have perceived for sure. Novelties. I sure am not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.
2) Phenomenological. If I day/dream hallucinate fantasize feel love remember imagine, then whatever those are, they're part of me (when conscious). Referring back to (1), qualia is my personal end of perceiving something extra-self. Paraphrasing Searle, if anything significant differentiates perception[sup](1)[/sup] and hallucination[sup](2)[/sup], then it must be the perceived.
3) Evidence could be anything. It's not pre-defined, it's shown.
1: there is no god
2: your god is not omni-benevolent
Due to god designing the world to create evil
i may have also missed what you think god "is" exactly ? .Because he seems to be many things to many people.
There are many different conceptions of "God" and a variety of attributes assigned to those conceptions. It is hard to meaningfully talk about God and perhaps the most astute religious individuals take a rather mystical approach, "behind the veil of perception" or "through a glass darkly". The weakest forms of religion in my view attempt to "put God in a box" or "confine God to human cognitive abilities".
In the end I think the concept of God is about the search for larger meaning and purpose both in individual lives and in the larger world and universe. For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals and that is all there is and that is enough. Many, however, hope to find larger meaning and purpose in both their own lives and in the world at large. The notion that the universe is in the final analysis accidental and purposeless just does not satisfy the longing that humans have for larger purpose and meaning and flies in the face of our perception of the world as imbued with beauty, form, striving and creative advance.
Sure, the hope for life after death can play a role, and the security of having an answer to things we do not understand is there. Humans are in the end meaning and purpose seeking creatures and the notion of God plays a part in telling them how to live and where they fit into a larger picture.
Are you speaking of something specific or is this just another placeholder for God.
Can you enumerate the Laws of Physics for me? What are you referring to? Are they proscriptive or descriptive? Have they existed forever or do they change?
Regarding your last question. Really? Do the laws of physics change? A law is something that IS not might or could be so no the laws of physics don’t change they’re just discovered giving the illusion of change to a person who beleived something was and know knows something is because it was proven however the latter always was and always will be. Furthermore I would like to invite you to create a new discussion on the proscriptive vs descriptive question as I would like to go into more detail with you on this topic page on which it is more relevant to the question.
I think that you’re getting off on the wrong foot here, humans know how to live because we have a moral compass. We do not need God to live well nor do I go into the street to kill and maim because I don’t believe in a god. People are hardwired to want to be good and yes maybe some people do bad things and don’t have remorse but aren’t some of those people Christians who believe it’s okay to be bad as long as you apologise to god?
Gravity is a phenomenon not a Law. We (our minds) observe this phenomenon. The phenomenon actually behaves differently at the micro and macro levels.
Quoting Joel Bingham
I know if nothing in n science that precludes God. Rather science had to fabricate the concepts of the Big Bang and The Laws of Physics as placeholders for God. I listen to scientists throw around these concepts all the time hoping that the audience didn't notice that they are just words used as substitutes for God and Genesis.
Quoting Joel Bingham
All the time. Just read the history of scientific thought and theories. And this only for a few hundred years. Do you have a theory or proof for the immutability of whatever is called the Laws of Physics? The term itself is undefinable.
Quoting Joel Bingham
Illusions begat illusions.
Do not conflate a psychological inquiry with a philosophical one. People often do that with religion and ethics.
Define "God" and define "exists". If you start a thread, you've got to put more effort than that. Atheism is nowadays equivalent to intellectual laziness.
Religion has always been equivalent to intellectual stupefaction.
Quoting prothero
Dear Prothero,
Yes, well put, and I agree. As Aristotle famously observed, "human beings desire to know". Not only this, but they are the only creatures who know that they know.
What do humans desire to know? The answer must be that they desire to know the truth; that truth is the proper object of knowledge. As Saint Augustine teaches us:"I have met many men who wanted to deceive, but none who wished to be deceived".
The truth, I think, initially comes to human beings - it initially approaches us - as a question: "What is the meaning of life?"," Why do I exist?", "Is there a life after death?" At first sight human existence may seem completely meaningless. We do not need Albert Camus or other philosophers of the absurd to doubt that human life has meaning. The daily experience of suffering - in one's own life, and that of others, and the myriad facts we are aware of that seem utterly inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded. Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, I think that the search for a full answer is inescapable. Do you agree ? Am I right, that is, in assuming that you experience both the desire and the duty to know the truth of your own destiny? You desire to know if death will be the definitive end of your life, or, if there is something beyond - if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not ? You feel obligated - "duty-bound" - to know this . Right?
It seems to me that no one can avoid this questioning neither the philosopher nor you nor I nor any other human being. The answer we give is critical, for it will determine whether or not it is possible to attain universal and absolute truth;this is the most decisive moment of the search. Every truth - if it really is a truth - presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. Beyond this universality, however, do you agree that people (human beings) are driven to seek an absolute truth, one which might give a meaning and a final, complete answer to all of their searching - something conclusive and ultimate which might serve as the ground of all things. Or, to put it another way, would you agree that we all seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and puts an end to all questioning. As you suggest in your post, - and I agree -, hypotheses may fascinate, but they do not satisfy; and I think that whether we admit it or not, there comes for us all a time - a moment - when personal existence must be anchored to to a truth recognized as final, an ultimate, absolute truth which confers a certitude that is no longer open to doubt. (On a personal note, I find I am increasingly inclined to believe that his final, absolute truth is the divine,supernatural, transcendent and eternal being those who are Christians call "God" - "God the Father Almighty").
Throughout the centuries philosophers have sought to discover and articulate such a truth, giving rise to countless systems and schools of thought. And beyond these systems of thought people have always sought to shape a "philosophy" of their own, - in personal convictions and experiences, in the traditions of family and culture, or in journeys in search of life's meaning under the guidance of a master. What inspires all of these is the desire to reach the certitude of the truth and the certitude of its absolute value.
My point is this...
It is unthinkable , is it not, that a search so deeply rooted in human nature would be completely vain and useless? The very capacity to search for truth and to pose questions itself implies the rudiments of a response. Surely, human beings would not even begin to search for something of which they knew nothing or something which they thought was wholly beyond them. Surely, It is only the sense that we can find an answer that leads us to take the first step? The same must be true of the search for truth when it comes to ultimate questions - namely, those big, radical questions we ask about the meaning of life and death.
The thirst for truth is so deeply rooted in the human heart that to be obliged to ignore it would cast our very existence into jeopardy. Everyday life shows well enough how we are each preoccupied by the pressure of a few fundamental questions and in the soul of each of us there is at least an outline of of the answers. One reason why the truth of these answers convinces is that they are no different in substance from the answers to which many others have come. Naturally, not every truth to which we come has the same value, but the sum of the results achieved confirms that in principle human beings can arrive at the truth. Right ?
So it seems to me, that sooner or later we all - each of us in our own different ways - arrive at a point in our lives where we must make a choice. We will be called to choose between either "God" (absolute, ultimate, final truth) [b]or Nothingness ( living a life stripped of any authentic meaning or value, an existence that is merely a ridiculous, absurd prelude to the oblivion of eternal death)"[/b]. However much we may TRY to deny it,TRY to lie to ourselves about it, TRY to dismiss it, TRY to delude ourselves that it is not the case, the hour of decision will come. (And) when it does, we must either confirm with all sincerity in our hearts and minds the existence of one, ultimate, absolute truth - the one truth that has the power to end all of our questionings - and then strive to know that truth,or, opt to live an existence of desperate lies, delusions and evasions in order to distract ourselves from the inevitability of a death where we have resigned ourselves to the grim conviction that death is death.
When you suggest that:
"For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals, and that is all there is and that is enough".
I don't think for such persons that this is ever "enough". Rather, I think they always sense that there is, within their DIY world-view, something deeply unsound and unsatisfactory. Something consequently, that never really permits them any genuine peace of mind (?) They are the typically the ones who exhort us to "lighten up" and never to take the meaning of life too seriously. Sit back, they tell us and to enjoy the brief "ride" that is human life for what it is, - a mere stream of fleeting, ephemeral sensations. Learn how to laugh, they say, at the preposterous caper that is the human condition - though such laughter, whenever I hear it, always seems to me, unmistakably, a gallows humour.
What do you think?
Regards
Dachshund
To think about existence of God, we can approach the problem in the following way:
What does the concept of God serve. There are a number of fundamental questions/ metaphysical questions answers to which are not satisfactorily known yet. Like some assumptions/ hypothesis in a scientific procedure, the concept of God can temporarily solve these problems and human being can carry on with regular business.
However there are many limitations of concept of God itself, I had posted in some other chain of posts:
Is God an intelligent being and creator of everything, why should He do so?
If He has created out of pleasure, then He is too irresponsible to break the perfect symmetry
If He has created out of kindness/ pity, then question is for whom was this kindness (there was nothing before in perfect condition), the unnecessary kindness is akin to ridicule/ mockery to His own creation
If He has created out of no reason, then He is an Idiot
What is the form of God?
If God is without a form/ body, it itself cannot initiate any creativity. If God is ultimate intelligent being, there must be someone more intelligent who created God. That's an infinite loop.
Overall, I would prefer to keep it simple and imagine that all matter, universe and the physical laws always existed.
PS: These are philosophical thoughts of early Indian Philosophers during 7th century BC (Buddhism, Jainism, some factions of Mimamsa etc.)
Just one more point, It is rather difficult to make philisophical claims without mentioning psychology in some way as the two are very closely related. So even if I was mixing the two it still put across my point of finding it hard to believe in a being that we have no empirical evidence of.
Not sure there is a logical argument that if God exists, we would be able to understand God's nature. It seem man tries to understand a God, in human terms man can understand, and then propose this view of God is not valid. There may well be a very large cognitive distance between what God is and what we can understand.
However, I thought to introduce a bit of chaos by stating:
If 'GOD' does not exist, why create HIM/HER/IT?
The reason for this is that recently while observing the social trends of our world, it became a concern that with time history will become more dim than fiction. So far history seems to fade away faster than fiction and the parts of history that seem fresh in the average person's mind are those incorporated into fiction. So I wondered, will there come a time when 'superman' is more real than 'Hitler'? Or worse, when 'Hitler' is just another bad-guy in the 'Superman' story?
Think about it, more of what people say about 'GOD' hinges on fiction. They say 'GOD is all-powerful' yet our everyday lives is a testament to the contrary with the many limitations and evils of society not only affecting the non-religious but also the religious.
I think if 'GOD' isn't fictitious, then HE/SHE/IT is more practical than those who claim such faith. And if 'GOD' acts according to our faith, then we should realize we are in the driving seat and sober up quick.
Bottom line is => Before 'GOD' there seems to be us.
We need to work on our lives instead of assigning the responsibility of our faults to some fictitious element of our own making.
I agree completely. However, I don't believe that God is a metaphore for life, but instead perhaps something that people can place faith in to cope with the dismay of life. However, you can see the contradiction here of why would God create this dismay just to get people to follow him. It takes away his benevolence and, therefore, doesn't make him God anymore.
I personally don't believe that there are arguments that are logical enough to prove the existence of God without entailing a problem. God apparently cannot do anything that is illogical but his existence is entirely illogical, therefore, he cannot exist.
But all the major religions agree that we should not be able to sense God.
In other words, this objection is talking about something other than "the major religions' God". As a matter of fact, there is agreement between, for lack of a better term, "religionists" and "atheists" on that point: God is not the kind of being that we can sense. The divergence then is, what kind of being is God? Atheists reply, "an imaginary being". (Note that this is not the same thing as "nothing"). Religionists reply, "a transcendent being".
The locus of the disagreement is the notion of transcendence and its relationship with (a) imagination and (b) empirical being. Atheists claim that "transcendence" is a species of imagination, and therefore that it is bounded by the same constraints as imagination (in most atheists' worldview, this includes a human consciousness, dependent on a brain for existing, etc.). Religionists claim that transcendence is a subdivision of being-in-general; that, along with immanence (and perhaps other subdivisions, it varies a bit), it maps out being-in-general.
Which is why any investigation about God necessarily begins elsewhere, in an investigation about things and concepts and abstraction and the psyche. As Plato famously said (paraphrased), one must study geometry before metaphysics.
Unfortunately, most contemporary discussions about this take for granted too many shaky presuppositions that almost guarantee a misunderstanding. Witness the so-called "New Atheists" books.
Interesting, I didn't think of it this way. However, if this were the definitive answer then there would be no argument as to whether God exists or not. Even so, atheists may think that God is an imaginary being but they still believe that Religious people are putting their dependence and faith into something that is not real, whether it be transcendent or not.
I think that atheists are entirely separated from the fact that there is a being that is not physical 'out there' even if God is transcendent, that still implies that his some type of being. Linguistically, the word being means existence or even the essence of a PERSON which would imply physicality also. So under any circumstances Christianity always refers back to God being physical, transcendent or not.
That is precisely the issue. When A says that X is "not real, whether it be transcendent or not", he is presupposing a notion of "reality" that R disagrees with. "Transcendent yet not real" is an oxymoron in a R's worldview. If something is transcendent, then it is real, with a reality that is actually "more real" than the reality of everyday objects (observable through the senses).
"This does not make any sense", says A. However, the issue cannot be decided before the criteria of reality are settled between the disputants. What is real, in what form or shape is an imaginary being (to use A's worldview) "real"? After all, an imaginary being is not nothing, i.e., it is something.
These words -- reality, being, existence -- are very slippery. And the problem with A-R debates is that both sides presuppose that their worldview is "obvious" (a dangerous word) and refrain from doing the hard work of examining their worldview through philosophical reflection.
Quoting GreyScorpio
"Physical" is another slippery word. Christian dogma is adamant that:
a) God is not physical
b) Jesus was/is physical
c) Jesus is God
This can be dismissed as mere contradictory sentences, or studied as a meditative tool (akin to a Zen koan).
completely disagree - theism is not illogical
Definition of transcendent
1 a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent
4 : universally applicable or significant
We see a common theme: words being used to point at something beyond words. (Exceeding limits, beyond comprehension). But the common theme is, of course, empty if one does not presuppose that reality is already composed of "perceivables and non-perceivable", "comprehensibles and non-comprehensibles", "experienciables and non-experienciables", etc.
Dictionaries can help us from straying into fruitless discussions when we are not really speaking the same language, but they can't solve the problem itself, since this problem is about the limits of language (even though we may be speaking the same language all along).
A good way to address transcendence is Platonic philosophy. The Socratic discussions in the early dialogues, about "the nature of" virtue, piety, justice, etc. are attempts to bring "into language" the problem of being-beyond-ordinary-experience. They are also good in that they emphasize that the roots of this being are present within ordinary experience itself: Socrates is not a preacher, someone who brings revealed truth; he is the midwife that helps something "in seed" to burst into conscious being.
In the context of this thread, I pointed out some notions, way back at the beginning, that could be explored as exemplars of "being-beyond-ordinary-experience". The notion of britishness, of sevenness, were mentioned. What kind of being is britishness? Is it "merely imaginary"? Does it, er, transcend the people and the isles, or does it not? Etc.
I believe that God's existence is illogical. You would first need to consider where he comes from? How does he exist? This is the root of what God is, or it should be, and if we try and answer these questions, eventually we always lead to a logical contradiction which suggest that he doesn't exist. For example, St Anselm's attempt to prove that God must exist with the ontological argument. He says that God is the greatest concievable thing. Anything is better if it exists in our minds and in reality, if God only existed in our minds then he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable thing. So, using this, Anselm deduced that God must exist. However, the issue with this is that this could be used for literally anything you could think of being the greatest conceivable thing. Therefore, suggesting that God's qualities are nothing but imaginative powers which make his existence fictitious.
Thank you! So, I'm guessing that you are referring to the definition that I have quoted? If so then I'm also guessing that 'transcending the universe or material existence' also means that he is beyond material comprehension?
What does "material comprehension" mean? I am not familiar with that expression.
Yep, I see no problem with that assertion (and neither do the major tradition religions, including Christianity).
It is important to observe that God is far from being the only member of the set of "notions which cannot be comprehended in a material/physical sense". The Socratic problems alluded to earlier (virtue, knowledge, justice, piety) are all about this kind of notion.
you are more than free to disagree, and there are very logical arguments against, but in no way can you make a reasoned case that the ontological, cosmological, or arguments be design are illogical.
no -
In another attempt, if God cannot be comprehended in a physical sense, then what sense do we comprehend such a being to be able to parade his existence. "God is watching over us", "God is speaking to me" implying that he is interacting with the physical and this seems to be entirely impossible and God cannot do the impossible. So what are we to believe?
Fallible was the wrong word to use here. Couldn't think of the other one. Sorry :lol:
Would you apply this reasoning to "justice", "beauty", "knowledge", "virtue", etc? None of them can be comprehended in a material/physical sense, but they appear to have lots of effects on human experience.
Quoting GreyScorpio
This presupposes a meaning of "physical" that turns the sentence above into something tautologous. If we eschew this meaning and examine the issue more closely (see observation above), we see that the non-physical interacts with the physical all the time, non-stop.
Quoting GreyScorpio
Quite simply, we should re-examine the dogma :D that the non-physical cannot interact with the physical. Let's do it by steps. What does "physical" mean?
Ah, But are these concepts interacting with us, or are they just concepts that we posit to understand what we are talking about. Just like what we do with the word 'God'. I admit that these concepts show that they are able to have an impact on our experiences but are they correct to use in this sense? "Justice", "Beauty" and "Knowledge" are all concepts that don't necessarily effect us directly like the impact of a quickly moving train, or a hard hit on the head from a ball. The way in which these concepts and sensations are used are completely different. For someone to say "I feel beautiful" is not the same as feeling a piece of wood for the first time.
Quoting Mariner
"Physical" is something relating directly to the senses. Something that we directly observe.
Precisely. They are different, which is not a reason to consider one of them more fundamental than the other, to try to reduce one to the other, or to disregard one of them.
Remember: A's and R's agree that God is not detectable through the senses. The question is where do we go from here. To claim that "since God is not detectable through the senses, he does not exist" is a problem of ontology and epistemology (not of theology); one must try to defend the principle "only what is detectable through the senses exist", which is the hidden major premise in that claim, before espousing it.
But the examples of beauty, justice, knowledge, etc., run counter to the premise -- and you agree with that. Beauty, justice, and knowledge exist -- though they exist in a different way than pieces of wood, trains and balls.
Quoting GreyScorpio
So, examples of notions which are not referring to physical objects, besides the aforementioned beauty, justice, virtue, knowledge, would be:
Triangularity
Britishness
The United States
Atoms
Right?
After all we do not directly observe any of those. To see a triangle is not the same as seeing triangularity; to see a british city (or a british person) is not the same as seeing britishness; and no one has ever seen "the United States" with the naked eye. At most one has seen some lines in a drawing that purport to represent the United States. But one can play that game with gods, angels and demons too.
Atoms is a cute one too.
The subjacent reason for so much vitriol in God-debates is that the participants are not addressing God's existence per se, but what follows from it. A God-debate in the format "Does God exist?", in principle, is no different from a hobbit-debate. Do hobbits exist? In some senses, yes, in other senses, no. But we don't see people disagreeing vehemently over the issue. That is because the existence or non-existence of hobbits does not impinge on, say, other people's freedoms, or on the organization of society, or on the meaning of life, or on the destiny of souls.
God (for people on both sides of the debate) is a powerful little word. It addresses much more than dogma and history.
One observation (quite empirical) that sheds some light on what is going on in God debates is that we don't have to explain to toddlers what God is. They appear to have an innate notion of, let's say, "external and universal authority"; and this is the crux :D of the God debates. The discussion is much more about authority vs. liberty than about the definition and properties of God. (In other words, we don't have to have a clear notion of God to use the notion in an instrumental fashion -- as toddlers do).
I think in large measure, people talk past each other when they are not clear on the basis of what they believe to be true. You can believe things to be true by either, fact, reason or faith.
Often in "God exists" discussions one party is arguing from a basis of reason against another party arguing from a basis of fact. Or one is arguing a point based on faith.
it is not a matter of fact that God is,
it is reasonable to believe that some definitions of "God" is, or at least was
it is a matter of faith that the God of the Bible, or the Torah or the Koran, or the fill in the blank - exists.
At the basis of all three there is experience.
(This is not a disagreement. It is just an observation that explains how one can transition from one mode to the other without discontinuity. They have a common root).
I completely agree with this. The stigma around the word God is the main problem with 'Does God exist?' debates.
What is experience? (not saying I disagree with you, but this term itself must be clarified)
We can describe it, of course. (Which is not the same thing as explaining it). "Have you experienced X?" means, "did you, as a conscious subject, become aware of the presence of X?" But this description is already mixing the concepts of consciousness and awareness -- and we know (by experience!) that experience does not require, absolutely, either acessory notion. (We can experience a kick in our face while asleep. And we will wake up with a big pain in our face, perhaps missing teeth, etc. All of them aftereffects of the kick: but they are not the kick itself).
In some sense, our consciousness can retrieve unconscious experiences, going back (at least) to early childhood. What is the nature of that which is being retrieved? The fundamental blocks of our lives (not merely mental lives). I can't go further than that.
Here's a question (playing devil's advocate now).
If God exists in a similar sense that justice, truth, beauty, etc. exist, then why is it that some cultures and religions have no notion of God (in a transcendent sense, I'm not talking about the immanent Devas) - for example, Buddhism? How could they have missed it?
That is a questions that requires an understanding of what is the basis for the truth claim, for either answer. If, as per the discussion above, the only valid truth claim you would accept is fact, that God could be proven as some being that occupies space at some point in time, can be measured and weighed. Or a predictable force or wave that the effects are subject to repeatable experiments where there is sufficient evidence to be explanatory as scientific theory. Than the answer would be there is no proof that God, per that definition, either exists or does not exist. The only scientific acceptable answer to that proposition is there is no answer. Science only confirms existences that are proved or disproved, science makes no claim on the unproven.
If the basis of the truth claim is reason, than the question would be better framed as is it a reasonable belief that God exists. And this is not a dichotomous condition. There a reasonable arguments that God does and does not exist. This is the realm of Philosophy, not science.
If the basis of the truth claim is faith, than there is no argument with the claim. People can belief by faith what they wish. Or chose not to believe what they wish by faith. This is in the realm of Theology.
I don't think that God exists in a similar sense that justice, truth, beauty etc. exist. Those are merely examples to underline the point that "X exists" is equivocal, that X may exist in many different modes.
The apophatic theology has it right. God is not a proper subject of any sentence; we cannot speak of Him without falling into equivocation. The best that one can hope for is fruitful analogies (and these depend on experiences, of both speaker and listener).
The teachings of Pythagoras about the Monad and the Dyad are probably the best non-Christian attempt to refer to God as He is (as opposed to God as He reveals Himself to us). Are you familiar with them?
As for the point about Buddhism, I would have to have some evidence that they have truly "missed" the Pythagorean Monad. As far as I know (which is not a lot), the Buddha-nature shares some traits with the Monad. If that is correct, then there is nothing being missed.
Not very, do you have a reference?
Perhaps the SEP entries on Pythagoreanism and associated notions can shed some light.
Using a symbolic language to summarize the point:
Being comes from Nothing, i.e., 1 comes from 0.
The begetting of Being (1) begets polarity (2), automatically, as a result of the coexistence of Being and Nothing, and later as Being becomes individualized in a variety of modes (all of them dependent on polarities for existing).
When someone understands being and nothing as "partners in existence", this understanding, by conjoining both partners, supersedes them (and is symbolized by 3).
Pythagorean tradition goes on in this fashion up to 10. The set of insights (one associated to each integer up to 10) is called the Pythagorean tetractys.
To lead the discussion back to your question in the thread, God is not 1, he is 0. The creative abyss our of which all Creation sprang forth. 1 would be something like the Platonic Demiurge, rather than the Christian God.
Whether they acknowledge it within their own doctrine is no indication that they have no notion of the concept.
The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales is space. Now let's apply the presumption. Does space exist or not, yes or no?
There is "something" between Earth and Moon or they would be one. But this "something" has none of the properties we would normally associate with existence. It's invisible, has no weight or mass, color or shape etc. Not being a physicist I'm making no claims here other than to suggest the question of existence would seem to be rather more complicated than the simplistic dualistic "yes or no" nature of the question at the heart of the God debate.
We might continue from there to observe that while the paragraph above is basically just common sense available to any thoughtful person, high profile experts on both sides of the God question have been earnestly debating the God question based on the "yes or no" presumption for centuries, a process which continues to this day. Such an observation might cause us to deepen our skepticism of authority, leaving us little other option than to think such things through for ourselves.
Ah, but upon what basis would we do that? If order to think this through for ourselves we would need to reference some methodology which we judge qualified to evaluate the question. So before we do anything else we must first prove that whatever methodology we have chosen is qualified for the task at hand.
If we choose holy books as our methodology, before we dive in to quoting scripture we must first prove that holy books are qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. If we choose reason as our methodology, before we dive in to doing logic calculations we must first prove that the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies is capable of developing credible answers regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (scope of god claims) an arena which that species can not begin to define in even the most basic manner such as size, shape etc.
If one follows this trail in an intellectually honest manner one will likely arrive at the understanding that there is no methodology which can be proven qualified for questions of such enormous scale as god claims. At this point the God debate collapses in on itself and we arrive at the truth, we are ignorant.
And then the useful question becomes, what is our relationship with this asset which we have in such abundance, our ignorance?
:clap: Well said!