Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Proof of God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 18th, 2018, 1:48 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 9:12 pm
In the case of completeness, note Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in the perspective of mathematics and reality. According to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, completeness is an impossibility.
You've arrived at the wrong conclusion. Godel was stating the expression of completeness is impossible in that it will never be complete.
Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 9:12 pm
Thus,
If health is a more fundamental fulfilment, then what does health fulfill?
The answer is at the fundamental level to fulfil a healthy state is to prevent premature death.
In general you cannot stop at fulfilment of health but there are further objective beyond health to be fulfilled subliminally if not consciously, i.e. avoidance of premature death.
Logic has limitations but illogic is unbounded. Consider health a relative state of being. It's how efficiently we metabolise. The being has aspects generally known as mind, body and spirit. Wellness relies on each of these aspects to be in a state of health but the fact is they each rely on the other. That is the conundrum of health.
Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 6:41 am
jerlands wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 11:03 am

Know Thyself - This ancient Greek aphorism was derived, as so much of their knowledge, from Egypt that taught man was the microcosm of the universe and within man lay all the functions of creation. Man, the crown of creation. To know man is to know the universe.
I quote 'Know Thyself' very regularly but I personally take the effort to know more of myself.
As I have asked you before, how much do you know about your own brain and how it works, especially why you believe God exists as real?
From what you have posted, there is a lot to know about your own self.

Btw, you can question me on what you think I do not know about my self.
"Know Thyself" is an eternal quest I believe because man is a mere reflection. We can hold ourselves in a moment of time but that is just about it. What the human body is, what the mind is, what the spirit is?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am

jerlands wrote:
March 18th, 2018, 1:48 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 9:12 pm
In the case of completeness, note Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in the perspective of mathematics and reality. According to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, completeness is an impossibility.
You've arrived at the wrong conclusion. Godel was stating the expression of completeness is impossible in that it will never be complete.
What do you mean wrong?
If you cannot express completeness how can you ever know completeness in its absolute term.
The Oxford's dictionary of complete [verb] refer to completing and complete in the relative sense.
When one state one has complete a task to completion or fulfilled and realized one's ambition, that is so subjective.
Note we are in a philosophical forum and thus what is defined in the dictionary is very limited if without context.

I stated the more refined fundamental purpose of why people pursue health and wellness is to ensure they do not die prematurely.

It is the same reason why people eat food and good food;
the more refined basic purpose of why people pursue eat food and good food is to ensure they do not die prematurely.

This is the same with why people believe in a God [illusory and impossible] and do all sorts of things in the name of God believing they are doing their divine duty to please God. That is false. The fundamental purpose why theists believe in an idea of God is they do not die prematurely and want to avoid eternal death in hell.
It is also the same for others who suffer from some degrees of the existential crisis.
Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 9:12 pm
Thus,

In general you cannot stop at fulfilment of health but there are further objective beyond health to be fulfilled subliminally if not consciously, i.e. avoidance of premature death.
Logic has limitations but illogic is unbounded. Consider health a relative state of being. It's how efficiently we metabolise. The being has aspects generally known as mind, body and spirit. Wellness relies on each of these aspects to be in a state of health but the fact is they each rely on the other. That is the conundrum of health.
You beat around the bush with the above, but
the more refined basic purpose of why people pursue health and wellness is to ensure they do not die prematurely.
Spectrum wrote:
March 17th, 2018, 6:41 am
I quote 'Know Thyself' very regularly but I personally take the effort to know more of myself.
As I have asked you before, how much do you know about your own brain and how it works, especially why you believe God exists as real?
From what you have posted, there is a lot to know about your own self.

Btw, you can question me on what you think I do not know about my self.
"Know Thyself" is an eternal quest I believe because man is a mere reflection. We can hold ourselves in a moment of time but that is just about it. What the human body is, what the mind is, what the spirit is?
You are beating around the bush.
As I have asked you before, how much do you know about your own brain and how it works, especially why you believe God exists as real?
Say, if you are feeling anxious, what [where, how, when] is going inside your brain and body.

Btw, try to stick to the point in the direction of the OP instead of beating around the bush. But I don't expect you will do that because your belief in God is groundless, thus GIGO in your arguments.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 19th, 2018, 6:57 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
jerlands wrote:
March 18th, 2018, 1:48 am
You've arrived at the wrong conclusion. Godel was stating the expression of completeness is impossible in that it will never be complete.
What do you mean wrong?
If you cannot express completeness how can you ever know completeness in its absolute term.
Man knows completeness within himself, at least the reflection of it. That statement is hypothesis formed under the assumption that man is the crown of creation and within man lay all the functions of creation. This is an ancient teaching superseding the Bible but an indirect teaching therein. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem simply stated (or questioned) that there were no absolute proofs. The fact that any form of expression is merely a reflection and not the substance itself should clearly illustrate the problem. You see, man is but a reflection of God as is a dog a reflection of God although not as complete as man.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
The Oxford's dictionary of complete [verb] refer to completing and complete in the relative sense.
When one state one has complete a task to completion or fulfilled and realized one's ambition, that is so subjective.
Note we are in a philosophical forum and thus what is defined in the dictionary is very limited if without context.
To complete a round trip journey to London you start at point A -> get to London -> and return to point A. That aspect of the journey is objective. How much of anything you experienced in London is subjective. The entire package rolled into one is the complete deal, objective and subjective.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
I stated the more refined fundamental purpose of why people pursue health and wellness is to ensure they do not die prematurely.

It is the same reason why people eat food and good food;
the more refined basic purpose of why people pursue eat food and good food is to ensure they do not die prematurely.
This is not true. Many people look to health to enhance their quality of experience.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
This is the same with why people believe in a God [illusory and impossible] and do all sorts of things in the name of God believing they are doing their divine duty to please God. That is false. The fundamental purpose why theists believe in an idea of God is they do not die prematurely and want to avoid eternal death in hell.
It is also the same for others who suffer from some degrees of the existential crisis.
Isn't it just sensical to you that there are repercussions in actions? There are actions that lead to positive outcome and there are actions that lead to negative outcomes. That notion should be subconsciously embedded in your being simply through the evolutionary process.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
Logic has limitations but illogic is unbounded. Consider health a relative state of being. It's how efficiently we metabolise. The being has aspects generally known as mind, body and spirit. Wellness relies on each of these aspects to be in a state of health but the fact is they each rely on the other. That is the conundrum of health.
You beat around the bush with the above, but
the more refined basic purpose of why people pursue health and wellness is to ensure they do not die prematurely.
Again, good health enriches our experiences and allows us to function better but it very possibly will improve longevity also.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
"Know Thyself" is an eternal quest I believe because man is a mere reflection. We can hold ourselves in a moment of time but that is just about it. What the human body is, what the mind is, what the spirit is?
You are beating around the bush.
As I have asked you before, how much do you know about your own brain and how it works, especially why you believe God exists as real?
Say, if you are feeling anxious, what [where, how, when] is going inside your brain and body.
The body is not just the brain. I don't know why you worship that particular organ so highly. Your body is a symphony and the heart is the conductor. The neural network is a communication pathway.
Spectrum wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 3:04 am
Btw, try to stick to the point in the direction of the OP instead of beating around the bush. But I don't expect you will do that because your belief in God is groundless, thus GIGO in your arguments.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” ― Albert Einstein
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
jeffersin
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: December 23rd, 2017, 9:04 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jeffersin » March 23rd, 2018, 1:14 am

There are two questions here. Question 1: Is the argument you give a faithful reconstruction of the biblical verse? Question 2: Is the argument you give sound, i.e., valid with true/plausible premises. I think the answer to Question 1 is yes, and the answer to Question 2 is no. The reason the argument fails to be sound is that, while it is valid, it contains a questionable premise, viz., the claim that God is love (or that if love exists, then God exists). This premise is as questionable as the conclusion it purports to establish. And therefore, the argument is question begging. I hope that helps!

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3138
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by LuckyR » March 23rd, 2018, 3:22 pm

If a "god" could be proven through the working of a mortal human level mind's actions, then wouldn't that sort of "god" be very inferior to the typical omniscience/omnipotent version that many suppose?

Therefore the fact that gods can't be proven, doesn't eliminate their possibility, while such "proofs" essentially eliminate them.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
jkg20
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 11:01 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by jkg20 » April 1st, 2018, 11:15 am

If you are going to provide an argument that God exists, you had best start off with a definition of terms. If you take "God" simply to mean "love", then it will indeed follow that if love exists, so does God. I'm cynical by nature, but even I'm prepared to allow that there is some love in the world, so if I accept the definition of God, then provided I value consistency, I have to admit that God exists as well. However, that doesn't get you very far, and certainly nowhere near what most people want to prove when they attempt to prove that God exists. Let's remember that those who first started trying to give proofs were Christians (arguably, St. Anselm got their first) and what they were trying to do was to prove the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, personal God, which implies a very, very different definition of the term "God" than just that God=love.

By the way, apparently someone is going to be giving us a new proof of God soon - not sure when, but it looks intriguing: [link deleted - see policy on links]

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1182
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » April 16th, 2018, 5:28 pm

Philosch wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 4:36 pm
So I'm sure Mr. Spectrum will give you a very cogent answer but since I've been off for a while I thought I would make a comment or two in regards to this topic and this last post.

The statement that the "subjective abstract idea of God is too big to discard so quickly as better definitions may apply" is a statement of the formation of the "God" of the gaps argument so to speak. The term god has a primitive meaning and then as one learns more, as science progresses, the meaning becomes more and more abstract and unrecognizable to those holding on to the more primitive notion. I can understand sensitive and compassionate human beings not wanting to let go of a word like "god" but it's time to do just that. There are indeed better definitions or rather scientific and psychological descriptions of the "subjective" state of being where one "feels" compassion and love and connection for your fellow beings and where one experiences bliss, ecstasy, oneness or other so called spiritual states. Also where one experiences deep mystery and awe when peering into the night sky or a sunset.

Neuroscience is slowly unlocking these mysteries and as it does the original meaning for "God" continues to recede farther into the gaps. The temptation to keep reusing the word, to reshape the common usage is really sentimentality. I would say it's just a word and therefore harmless to do this "redefining" or reorienting it to fit the new scientific paradigm but then "God" has the connotation of authority associated with it. This IMO renders the word NOT so harmless and therefore it is time to let it go. Use a Hindu term like Brahman to describe or represent the mystery of "being" or the "source" of being which is really the mystery of the experience of the subjective "self" on a universal scale, as that term lacks the connotation of authority and is therefore less able to be used to subjugate and control others.

"Hindus acknowledge that, at the most fundamental level, God is the One without a second — the absolute, formless, and only Reality known as Brahman, the Supreme, Universal Soul. Brahman is the universe and everything in it. Brahman has no form and no limits; it is Reality and Truth."

-taken from "Hindu for Dummies" LOL

If you must have a term for the source of creation use a term that lacks any hint of judgment or authority or of any kind of ethics or morality as this creation itself, raw nature has no inkling of such things. As soon as any kind of moral foundation is implied in the term used, you get the beginning of an authoritative system which is inherently a bad road to go down. Much better to simply recognize that the great mystery of your very existence is completely unknowable and that there is some comfort and even freedom in that fact for the intrepid soul. I also know there is great fear and anguish for those who are uncomfortable contemplating such mystery but such is life.

In the end this notion you speak of needs no word, as a matter of fact no one word could possibly suffice, just like no word or group of words no matter how large can adequately convey your subjective experience.

It's also imperative to recognize that our subjective experiences are unique (by definition) as you have alluded to above because this realization also frees us from the yoke of others who would claim their experience is superior, absolute or universal.

Sorry for being so long winded.
Thanks and sorry for the delayed response.
I can see your point. The idea that God as a word has too much cloud to be useful, could be argued by fanatical spiritual and Atheist alike. However, imagine all you wrote, but exhanging your use of God with Love (the bible does define God as Love). By throwing up your hands as if to say, “Love is too complex so no more saying the word!” isn’t useful either.

Taking your argument to the extreme, it might be suggested that ALL words are open to too many various interpretations and miscommunications - so no more using words! The meaning of God has evolved and will continue to as many other words have. And as words like Love and beauty, God’s definitions miss the mark the more a specific standard is demanded. This applies to either extreme - demanding all see the highest GOoD as they do, or demanding nobody mention the word, “God.” Each person understands everything including God (or whatever they label or think of as higher power, consciousness, Intelligent design etc) as they uniquely do. Still, I see the need in shining the focus on healthier interpretations of God rather than pretending there is no centuries-accumulated collective unconscious of I AM THAT I AM; or that there is no intelligence throughout this world’s designs. As Buddha and Christ taught, “The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you.” Considering the powerful (placebo) effect of belief, besides finding healthy motivation, peace, etc., it makes sense to explore and understand this as much as possible, even with our limited vocabulary.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1344
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » April 17th, 2018, 2:25 pm

Of what use is faith if there was proof? Of what use is light if there was no dark?

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » April 18th, 2018, 12:35 am

Dark Matter wrote:
April 17th, 2018, 2:25 pm
Of what use is faith if there was proof? Of what use is light if there was no dark?
Depending on whether it is an empirical or a logical proof.
While logical proof do not need faith, empirical proof still requires faith, albeit of low degrees, say 1 to 10%.

Those who rely on a logical proof of God can be 100% certain with a confidence level of 100%. If there is any degree of faith, it is faith regarding their competence of using logic.
No matter how confidence one is of their logical argument of God, I have shown that such a logical God is an impossibility in an empirical-rational reality.

Those who insist on an empirical God, and because it has empirical elements [anthropomorphic or otherwise], there is a always a possibility [very slim indeed] that such an empirical God may exists somewhere subject or awaiting empirical evidence to confirm its empirical existence. Ever since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness there has been no convincing evidence to support the existence of God as something real and by its expected qualities it is not likely for god to exist empirically.

Nevertheless there is a serious inherent psychological compulsion for the majority of people to incline towards an idea of God and that God exists as a crutch to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

To fill up the psychological-need gap and the empirical gap that God do not exists [empirical evidence no likely at all) theists has to rely on faith -loads of it, i.e. 100%.

I have no issue if theists understand their circumstances precisely, i.e. they recognize they have an unavoidable psychological issue and they have no choice but to rely on 100% faith to believe in an impossible and illusory God.

I only have issues with theists who insist their God is 100% real empirically and had delivered a message through a human agent for all humans which include commands for believers to feel very superior over, dominate, suppress, oppress, and slay non-believers.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Philosch
Posts: 428
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch » May 1st, 2018, 1:38 pm

Newme wrote:
April 16th, 2018, 5:28 pm
Philosch wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 4:36 pm
So I'm sure Mr. Spectrum will give you a very cogent answer but since I've been off for a while I thought I would make a comment or two in regards to this topic and this last post.

The statement that the "subjective abstract idea of God is too big to discard so quickly as better definitions may apply" is a statement of the formation of the "God" of the gaps argument so to speak. The term god has a primitive meaning and then as one learns more, as science progresses, the meaning becomes more and more abstract and unrecognizable to those holding on to the more primitive notion. I can understand sensitive and compassionate human beings not wanting to let go of a word like "god" but it's time to do just that. There are indeed better definitions or rather scientific and psychological descriptions of the "subjective" state of being where one "feels" compassion and love and connection for your fellow beings and where one experiences bliss, ecstasy, oneness or other so called spiritual states. Also where one experiences deep mystery and awe when peering into the night sky or a sunset.

Neuroscience is slowly unlocking these mysteries and as it does the original meaning for "God" continues to recede farther into the gaps. The temptation to keep reusing the word, to reshape the common usage is really sentimentality. I would say it's just a word and therefore harmless to do this "redefining" or reorienting it to fit the new scientific paradigm but then "God" has the connotation of authority associated with it. This IMO renders the word NOT so harmless and therefore it is time to let it go. Use a Hindu term like Brahman to describe or represent the mystery of "being" or the "source" of being which is really the mystery of the experience of the subjective "self" on a universal scale, as that term lacks the connotation of authority and is therefore less able to be used to subjugate and control others.

"Hindus acknowledge that, at the most fundamental level, God is the One without a second — the absolute, formless, and only Reality known as Brahman, the Supreme, Universal Soul. Brahman is the universe and everything in it. Brahman has no form and no limits; it is Reality and Truth."

-taken from "Hindu for Dummies" LOL

If you must have a term for the source of creation use a term that lacks any hint of judgment or authority or of any kind of ethics or morality as this creation itself, raw nature has no inkling of such things. As soon as any kind of moral foundation is implied in the term used, you get the beginning of an authoritative system which is inherently a bad road to go down. Much better to simply recognize that the great mystery of your very existence is completely unknowable and that there is some comfort and even freedom in that fact for the intrepid soul. I also know there is great fear and anguish for those who are uncomfortable contemplating such mystery but such is life.

In the end this notion you speak of needs no word, as a matter of fact no one word could possibly suffice, just like no word or group of words no matter how large can adequately convey your subjective experience.

It's also imperative to recognize that our subjective experiences are unique (by definition) as you have alluded to above because this realization also frees us from the yoke of others who would claim their experience is superior, absolute or universal.

Sorry for being so long winded.
Thanks and sorry for the delayed response.
I can see your point. The idea that God as a word has too much cloud to be useful, could be argued by fanatical spiritual and Atheist alike. However, imagine all you wrote, but exhanging your use of God with Love (the bible does define God as Love). By throwing up your hands as if to say, “Love is too complex so no more saying the word!” isn’t useful either.

Taking your argument to the extreme, it might be suggested that ALL words are open to too many various interpretations and miscommunications - so no more using words! The meaning of God has evolved and will continue to as many other words have. And as words like Love and beauty, God’s definitions miss the mark the more a specific standard is demanded. This applies to either extreme - demanding all see the highest GOoD as they do, or demanding nobody mention the word, “God.” Each person understands everything including God (or whatever they label or think of as higher power, consciousness, Intelligent design etc) as they uniquely do. Still, I see the need in shining the focus on healthier interpretations of God rather than pretending there is no centuries-accumulated collective unconscious of I AM THAT I AM; or that there is no intelligence throughout this world’s designs. As Buddha and Christ taught, “The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you.” Considering the powerful (placebo) effect of belief, besides finding healthy motivation, peace, etc., it makes sense to explore and understand this as much as possible, even with our limited vocabulary.
Indeed Newme, the semantics and philosophy of language get to the heart of trying to adequately describe the "meaning" of even mundane subjective experience let alone words as charged as "god" and "love". Love also means many different things to many people. It is a word that attempts to label a whole constellation of feelings and actions with each person believing one or another of these characteristics to be paramount with no universal agreement. I would contend that Love only exists as a subjectively experienced construct in a human brain and thus can not be pinned down. In the same way god exists as a subjectively experienced construct in human minds. Dr. Jodi Azzuni would contend these terms are real in the sense that they represent a series of electro chemical stimulations in the brain but as standalone material objects they do not exist any more than mathematical numbers do. They are descriptions of subjective states. For this reason we cannot adequately communicate about anything unless we have a consensus in regards to our subjective experience and that is a hallmark problem in many a thread on this very forum.

Objectively the ontological status of words is limited to bio-electrochemistry. These statements are entirely compatible with the notion that "god" as well as his kingdom are within you at least metaphorically. I was only arguing that the word "god" as used by theists in forums like this and in churches tends to represent some "object" that has a "real" existence in the material world outside of human constructs and thus has a measure of authority associated with it. While I might agree that psychologically it may be important to harbor spiritual constructs to help provide meaning to an otherwise challenging existence, giving that idea "objective" credence opens the door for authoritarianism of the religious type.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Felix » May 1st, 2018, 4:25 pm

Spectrum said: "Those who rely on a logical proof of God can be 100% certain with a confidence level of 100%. If there is any degree of faith, it is faith regarding their competence of using logic."

There can be no valid logical proof of God, since God by definition transcends logic. One can have a noetic or experiential proof of God (a.k.a., Absolute Being) but it is purely subjective so implausible to those who have not had it.

Spectrum: "No matter how confidence one is of their logical argument of God, I have shown that such a logical God is an impossibility in an empirical-rational reality."

Au contraire monsieur, Gods are not only possible but quite numerous in empirical-rational realities, we call them.... scientists.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » May 7th, 2018, 11:52 pm

Felix wrote:
May 1st, 2018, 4:25 pm
Spectrum said: "Those who rely on a logical proof of God can be 100% certain with a confidence level of 100%. If there is any degree of faith, it is faith regarding their competence of using logic."

There can be no valid logical proof of God, since God by definition transcends logic. One can have a noetic or experiential proof of God (a.k.a., Absolute Being) but it is purely subjective so implausible to those who have not had it.
Note the use of transcendental logic to deal with transcendental elements e.g. a transcendent God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1182
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » May 28th, 2018, 5:01 pm

Philosch wrote:
May 1st, 2018, 1:38 pm
Newme wrote:
April 16th, 2018, 5:28 pm

Thanks and sorry for the delayed response.
I can see your point. The idea that God as a word has too much cloud to be useful, could be argued by fanatical spiritual and Atheist alike. However, imagine all you wrote, but exhanging your use of God with Love (the bible does define God as Love). By throwing up your hands as if to say, “Love is too complex so no more saying the word!” isn’t useful either.

Taking your argument to the extreme, it might be suggested that ALL words are open to too many various interpretations and miscommunications - so no more using words! The meaning of God has evolved and will continue to as many other words have. And as words like Love and beauty, God’s definitions miss the mark the more a specific standard is demanded. This applies to either extreme - demanding all see the highest GOoD as they do, or demanding nobody mention the word, “God.” Each person understands everything including God (or whatever they label or think of as higher power, consciousness, Intelligent design etc) as they uniquely do. Still, I see the need in shining the focus on healthier interpretations of God rather than pretending there is no centuries-accumulated collective unconscious of I AM THAT I AM; or that there is no intelligence throughout this world’s designs. As Buddha and Christ taught, “The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you.” Considering the powerful (placebo) effect of belief, besides finding healthy motivation, peace, etc., it makes sense to explore and understand this as much as possible, even with our limited vocabulary.
Indeed Newme, the semantics and philosophy of language get to the heart of trying to adequately describe the "meaning" of even mundane subjective experience let alone words as charged as "god" and "love". Love also means many different things to many people. It is a word that attempts to label a whole constellation of feelings and actions with each person believing one or another of these characteristics to be paramount with no universal agreement. I would contend that Love only exists as a subjectively experienced construct in a human brain and thus can not be pinned down. In the same way god exists as a subjectively experienced construct in human minds. Dr. Jodi Azzuni would contend these terms are real in the sense that they represent a series of electro chemical stimulations in the brain but as standalone material objects they do not exist any more than mathematical numbers do. They are descriptions of subjective states. For this reason we cannot adequately communicate about anything unless we have a consensus in regards to our subjective experience and that is a hallmark problem in many a thread on this very forum.

Objectively the ontological status of words is limited to bio-electrochemistry. These statements are entirely compatible with the notion that "god" as well as his kingdom are within you at least metaphorically. I was only arguing that the word "god" as used by theists in forums like this and in churches tends to represent some "object" that has a "real" existence in the material world outside of human constructs and thus has a measure of authority associated with it. While I might agree that psychologically it may be important to harbor spiritual constructs to help provide meaning to an otherwise challenging existence, giving that idea "objective" credence opens the door for authoritarianism of the religious type.
Hi Philosch,
Thanks for your reply. You made a good point about being careful not to apply objective ideas onto that which is personally subjective. That really sums up so much in religion, atheism, spirituality, psychology and philosophy! Of course we’re speaking about God and spirituality, but I don’t think there is much of a dividing line between most of those as long as religion is symbolically, rather than literally, interpretated. Once you realize archetypes and other ancient symbols- much of the bible and other religious stories and ideas take on a much more profound meaning! Jordan Peterson’s bible series, Bill Donohue and others like Carl Jung, have helped me realize this, though I may not agree with them on all counts.

The way I consider God/Love is like glasses through which I view the world and my and others’ potentials for GOoD. So, though it isn’t a tangible thing, it’s still real, maybe more real than anything else, given the constancy of it (the goal for the highest GOoD) amids constant change.

I don’t want to get caught up on one focus of GOoD, when there are so many - even just in my little circle of influence. I want to keep the big picture in mind and not objectify or make an idol out of this higher GOoD. Yet, action is generally by little, not big, steps. So I try to ask myself often, “what is the highest GOoD I can make happen right now?” and “What do I really want?” Then it’s like chess - multiple complex steps that keep changing the possibilities, and involve sacrificing one thing for another. Life is short, so time, focus and energy need to be wisely put to use.

What is the highest GOoD you can imagine?

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Proof of God

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 6th, 2018, 11:27 am

Jaded Sage wrote:
August 27th, 2015, 10:45 am
1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God


Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
Existence is love. God is existence. Existence is relationship. So yes God is love and is the foundation for all our relationships.
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Proof of God

Post by Thinking critical » June 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:27 am
Jaded Sage wrote:
August 27th, 2015, 10:45 am
1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God


Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
Existence is love. God is existence. Existence is relationship. So yes God is love and is the foundation for all our relationships.
Not proof of gods, proof that humans can define there own version of gods to a certain parameter so that the belief itself appears less illogical.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Post Reply