I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe.
Angelo CannataJune 03, 2022 at 22:42#7047730 likes
Putting god/s inside the frame of existent/non existent condemns us to limit the discussion inside that frame, preventing a widening, expansion of horizons beyond that frame, preventing us from thinking about god/s with ideas really worth to be applied to god/s. If you think your god/s exist/s, then you have put your god/s in a cage; if you think that god/s do not exist, you have put your atheism in a cage as well.
probability (noun) · probabilities (plural noun)
the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case.
Another issue with the OP is that the God of monotheism is not *a* God, one God amongst many. Believing in the Gods, as polytheistic religions do, is quite a different thing to faith in God, at least according to monotheism. They would insist that the Biblical God is not simply an instance of a type.
It should also be mentioned that 'existence' is the wrong word for God. 'What exists', as far as we can know, are phenomena, 'that which appears'. In classical philosophy and theology, the first principle/umoved mover/first cause is not 'something that exists' - to say that 'it exists' is to relegate it to the domain of appearances, a being among other beings or thing among things. That gets into the domain of apophatic theology which is probably too specialised for this forum, but ought to be noted.
Sorry, but I think such speculations are ridiculous.
Agree.
Reply to Wayfarer As an aside, wasn't it theologian Paul Tillich who said god doesn't exist? This would locate god in the quotidian and rob the 'ground of being' of its transcendent significance.
Reply to Tom Storm Yes, exactly. But the first place I encountered articulation of the idea was in Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkin's The God Delusion:
[quote=Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching; https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching]Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.[/quote]
(It was that review which led to my discovery of Internet Forums, around 2008 or so.)
Surely there could be arguments for and against god/s that adjust the likelihood we should put on their existence?
I think the problem is the specificity of the idea of god. It is a very common tradition on Earth and we are acclimated to thinking about the notion. But if you were to hear the idea for the first time, you would have a lot of questions. There are good reasons why we search religious texts looking for the accounts of witnesses.
If we have little/no information, then why would we jump to that specific conclusion?
Why is it a single being instead of millions of beings? Wouldn't a god be just as likely to champion evil concepts? Why does a god need to usher us into another existence right after we die?
We have already decided what we want these answers to be prior to asking the questions. Sounds less like an unbiased investigation and more like fulfilling our needs.
I deleted my last post to @Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. I then realized that when posting in response to a post I disagree with, I should be très poli lest I'd be labeled picking a fight, which is not my intention. Sometimes, posts that disagree could come across as impolis.
[quote=L'éléphant]First try to understand what a probability is.[/quote]
[quote=SpaceDweller]think the most reasonable percentage is 50%[/quote]
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
So, out of 100 universes, 50 have a god and 50 don't! In other words, god isn't a necessary being (true for all worlds). Theists should be leaping with joy! :snicker:
When considering philosophical arguments for and against god it may nudge us a further 10% or so, one way or the other?
If you're trying to turn this pool into average % that's a clear bias because the result will be positive regardless of how many people vote for 0% :smile:
Another issue with the OP is that the God of monotheism is not *a* God, one God amongst many. Believing in the Gods, as polytheistic religions do, is quite a different thing to faith in God, at least according to monotheism. They would insist that the Biblical God is not simply an instance of a type.
It should also be mentioned that 'existence' is the wrong word for God. 'What exists', as far as we can know, are phenomena, 'that which appears'. In classical philosophy and theology, the first principle/umoved mover/first cause is not 'something that exists' - to say that 'it exists' is to relegate it to the domain of appearances, a being among other beings or thing among things. That gets into the domain of apophatic theology which is probably too specialised for this forum, but ought to be noted.
You cannot imagine nor experience heating-up above a limit, your mind can only create the experience of a limited pain prior to dying or entering a overdriven state.
To be at the sun pinpoint as any sort of mind would evidentially result in death or with physicality melting away by some degree.
Thus, God exists, as the benefactor of good engineering.
Any clarity on our inability to take too much pain is but an example, others include: the stability concerning life-form, death, etc.
This quintessence is all interlinked, as is life as a whole. I'm saying this is because of one thing, the benefactor of good engineering.
You know what I mean?
The manifold we call experience links everything in such a way- and that linkage is ultimately good(the previous affirmations). There is something that connects us in an acceptable amount of security and power. We're not at risk, and how that works is God.
We were created by the negativity of something, rather than the positivity of nothing.
Reply to Down The Rabbit Hole
God and gods again and again and again ... I wonder for how more long we'll have to hear about this useless subjet, the main purpose of which is to force morality, fear and discipline on people ...
How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation?
Rocks and bodies are spatial/object-like: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, movable, locatable, breakable (under conservation), ...
Eddies and minds/experiences are temporal/process-like: come and go, occurs, interruptible (interaction/event-causation), ...
[sup]Say, my supper is locatable, movable, breakable (spatial/object-like), my experiences thereof occur, are interruptible (temporal/process-like). Say, stomachs are spatial/object-like, left to right, and digestion (say, starting with chewing and salivating) occurs, comes and goes (temporal/process-like).[/sup]
• Suppose x is defined as non-spatial, "outside of space". Well, then x is nowhere to be found, no place. Cannot have any volume/area/length extent, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
[sup]• objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, top to bottom, locatable, movable, breakable (under conservation)[/sup]
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
[sup]• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation)[/sup]
The closest in the literature of not spatiotemporal seems to be abstracts, maybe like sterile inhabitants of Platonia.
Minds partake in the world, interact (both ways), are active, are parts of the world. Fairly uncontroversial in science (evidence-based) and philosophy. Special pleading no good.
Down The Rabbit HoleJune 08, 2022 at 18:10#7066780 likes
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation)
You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.
You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.
Like before/after, earlier/later, past/now/future, ...? :brow:
You could have ordering (-1 < 0 < 1), but not temporal without time.
Unless I misunderstood something?
Down The Rabbit HoleJune 08, 2022 at 19:16#7067130 likes
Using induction you can weigh the probabilities for and against the premise "God exists because (x)" and them somehow combine them mathematically to determine the final probability of a creator of the universe existing. This will be a final theory till evidence otherwise appears and adjusts the probability of a creator existing. Since I am too much of a sluggard myself, and do not come equipped with decent mathematical skills, I fail to do this inductive exercise.
What data you are obtaining here is personal belief or lack thereof in the premise "God exists." It only arrives at a statistical conclusion of what percent of people believe something. It is not the same as evidence for a proposition/hypothesis.
Comments (53)
Quoting 180 Proof
I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe.
First try to understand what a probability is.
Quoting jgill
Surely there could be arguments for and against god/s that adjust the likelihood we should put on their existence?
Quoting L'éléphant
Probability is the extent to which something is likely to be true or false etc. We can do a rough calculation of this.
Incorrect. Please try again.
probability (noun) · probabilities (plural noun)
the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case.
That's not what you said in your previous post.
Quoting L'éléphant
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Almost word for word. What are you picking a fight for?
Another issue with the OP is that the God of monotheism is not *a* God, one God amongst many. Believing in the Gods, as polytheistic religions do, is quite a different thing to faith in God, at least according to monotheism. They would insist that the Biblical God is not simply an instance of a type.
It should also be mentioned that 'existence' is the wrong word for God. 'What exists', as far as we can know, are phenomena, 'that which appears'. In classical philosophy and theology, the first principle/umoved mover/first cause is not 'something that exists' - to say that 'it exists' is to relegate it to the domain of appearances, a being among other beings or thing among things. That gets into the domain of apophatic theology which is probably too specialised for this forum, but ought to be noted.
:up:
Agree.
As an aside, wasn't it theologian Paul Tillich who said god doesn't exist? This would locate god in the quotidian and rob the 'ground of being' of its transcendent significance.
[quote=Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching; https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching]Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.[/quote]
(It was that review which led to my discovery of Internet Forums, around 2008 or so.)
I think the problem is the specificity of the idea of god. It is a very common tradition on Earth and we are acclimated to thinking about the notion. But if you were to hear the idea for the first time, you would have a lot of questions. There are good reasons why we search religious texts looking for the accounts of witnesses.
If we have little/no information, then why would we jump to that specific conclusion?
Why is it a single being instead of millions of beings? Wouldn't a god be just as likely to champion evil concepts? Why does a god need to usher us into another existence right after we die?
We have already decided what we want these answers to be prior to asking the questions. Sounds less like an unbiased investigation and more like fulfilling our needs.
My mind tells me God doesn't exist P(G) = 0%
P(G) = The probability that God exists.
I think the most reasonable percentage is 50%
Because there is neither proof nor the other way around.
That is, does God exist? maybe.
That seems about right to me.
When considering philosophical arguments for and against god it may nudge us a further 10% or so, one way or the other?
Results suggest the opposite? :grimace:
[quote=SpaceDweller]think the most reasonable percentage is 50%[/quote]
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
So, out of 100 universes, 50 have a god and 50 don't! In other words, god isn't a necessary being (true for all worlds). Theists should be leaping with joy! :snicker:
If you're trying to turn this pool into average % that's a clear bias because the result will be positive regardless of how many people vote for 0% :smile:
It's metaphysically possible.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Yes, the poll is just to see how people assign probability.
All but a couple of respondents have a solid belief as to the existence/non-existence of god/s.
Gotcha. I'm not sure how professional pollsters deal with those that would prefer a particular option being more/less likely to respond to the survey.
We must....press on! :up:
Correct.
Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place.
Quoting Agent Smith
I agree, everyone is an agnostic. Wish I could find a good excuse to believe in something.
Thanks. But don't give me too much credit. I'm in the process of changing my approach to responding to posts I disagree with. :halo:
As an antitheist, I'm only agnostic about (nontheistic) pandeism & acosmism
Quoting 180 Proof
Inasmuch as the question whether matter produces consciousness or consciousness produces matter is a toss-up I'd have to say 50/50.
You cannot imagine nor experience heating-up above a limit, your mind can only create the experience of a limited pain prior to dying or entering a overdriven state.
To be at the sun pinpoint as any sort of mind would evidentially result in death or with physicality melting away by some degree.
Thus, God exists, as the benefactor of good engineering.
Any clarity on our inability to take too much pain is but an example, others include: the stability concerning life-form, death, etc.
This quintessence is all interlinked, as is life as a whole. I'm saying this is because of one thing, the benefactor of good engineering.
You know what I mean?
The manifold we call experience links everything in such a way- and that linkage is ultimately good(the previous affirmations). There is something that connects us in an acceptable amount of security and power. We're not at risk, and how that works is God.
We were created by the negativity of something, rather than the positivity of nothing.
God and gods again and again and again ... I wonder for how more long we'll have to hear about this useless subjet, the main purpose of which is to force morality, fear and discipline on people ...
I guess sentient is implicit...?
[sup](barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking)[/sup]
I'd say bad, mediocre, and good engineering exists.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting jorndoe
Yes, I think god/s in any meaningful sense would have to be sentient. Otherwise we are just talking about the universe.
Quoting jorndoe
How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Rocks and bodies are spatial/object-like: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, movable, locatable, breakable (under conservation), ...
Eddies and minds/experiences are temporal/process-like: come and go, occurs, interruptible (interaction/event-causation), ...
[sup]Say, my supper is locatable, movable, breakable (spatial/object-like), my experiences thereof occur, are interruptible (temporal/process-like). Say, stomachs are spatial/object-like, left to right, and digestion (say, starting with chewing and salivating) occurs, comes and goes (temporal/process-like).[/sup]
• Suppose x is defined as non-spatial, "outside of space". Well, then x is nowhere to be found, no place. Cannot have any volume/area/length extent, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
[sup]• objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, top to bottom, locatable, movable, breakable (under conservation)[/sup]
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
[sup]• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation)[/sup]
The closest in the literature of not spatiotemporal seems to be abstracts, maybe like sterile inhabitants of Platonia.
Minds partake in the world, interact (both ways), are active, are parts of the world. Fairly uncontroversial in science (evidence-based) and philosophy. Special pleading no good.
Quoting jorndoe
You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.
Like before/after, earlier/later, past/now/future, ...? :brow:
You could have ordering (-1 < 0 < 1), but not temporal without time.
Unless I misunderstood something?
Yes an order of events without a time associated with it.
Such as the infinite series of big bangs proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. One bang gives rise to the next, but outside of time.
And doesn't seem to have much to do with sentient all-creators.
:fire: