The "God exists" paradox

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.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 12:25 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 10:55 am
anonymous66 wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 9:10 am
Aristotle used logic and reason to try and determine how the universe came to be the way it is. He wasn't trying to create a view of God that was consistent with any form of theism.

Another thing about Aristotle is that he was open to change his views whenever new evidence came to light.

Are you making the assertion that all "unimpressive and useless" conceptions of God were created by individuals who first were (some kind of) theist? If so, you need to define "unimpressive and useless". Your assertion is also vulnerable to counterarguments- all we have to do is to find one person who created a "unimpressive and useless" conception of God, without having first been a theist. I'm still not convinced that Aristotle was ever a theist. Aristotle himself may be a counterexample.
I'm not making the assertion at all that theists are the ones that produce "unimpressive and useless" definitions of God. Atheists ridicule the absurdity of God definitions ad nauseum.

This is the assertion I'm making (and where the paradox lies): the God that theists believe in (mostly) is idealistic, superlative and perfect, in at least some number of aspects (e.g., love, power, goodness, wisdom, stability, etc). The combination of these aspects may vary from theist to theist, but the idealistic, superlative and perfect degree of the aspects in question remains the same across the board. In the event that such a theist decides to logically make a case for the existence of such a being in reality, either the degree of perfect of the aspects necessarily decline, or the aspect itself is abandoned. The "provable" version of God is never the original idealistic version that was initially believed in, but an unsatisfactory version with less than ideal attributes.

This doesn't mean that the only individuals that can define God in less than ideal terms are theists, or even theists wishing to logically discuss God. Anybody can define God in less than ideal terms. Even a caveman could do it.
I have already defined God is the highest of terms, even 'perfect', if you like. I have also shown exactly how God exists. So, what is there to disagree about with me?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 12:49 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:40 pm
anonymous66 wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 11:13 am
@Prof Bulani

If there is a God, and sometimes theists, or anyone for that matter, change their view of God from a less accurate conception of God to a more accurate conception of God- isn't that a good thing?

You seem to have a preconceived notion of what "good" and "bad" conceptions of God are, or should be.
There are no good or bad conceptions of God. If God exists, whatever God is it what God is. The discrepancy between a God that is preferred and a God that is logically coherent isn't that one is better than the other. The point is that the discrepancy, and hence the paradox, occurs.

I want God to be defined as accurately as possible, because that's the only definition that would be true.
Was there/is there any inaccuracy in my definition of God?

If yes, then where was/is it exactly, and what exactly is it, and, probably more importantly, why is 'it' an inaccuracy?

Also, why did you not mention this earlier?

But if no, then God has already been defined as accurately as possible, and thus is the only definition that is true, and not just "would be true", well for the time being anyway.

Now, if you would like to look for any discrepancies between my definition of God and any other definitions of God offered up by anyone else, and then discuss those, apparent to you, "discrepancies", then feel free to put them forward. Then I can also see if there is an actual discrepancy or not. Until then my definition of God stands as prove that God actually does exist, correct?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:40 pm
I personally have no preference about any definition of God, as all are equally falsifiable.
And/or are they equally verifiable as well?

Or, are definitions of God only open for being fallible, to you?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:40 pm
I have a serious issue with multiple conflicting definitions of the same God held by the same person, as this is clearly an irrational stance.
Do you have a serious issue with multiple conflicting definitions of the same 'Word', held by the same person, as much as you have a serious issue in relation with the word 'God'? Or, is your serious issue with having multiple conflicting definitions for the same 'Thing', held by the same person, as this is "clearly an irrational stance", only in relation to the 'God' word only?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 12:56 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:56 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 12:24 pm
OK, I think we have all seen your core point, but it does hno harm at all to reiterate it. Thank you.

The problem I see with this is the definition of God. Not that theists see God as someone or something to be defined, but as philosophers, it helps if we have some idea what we're talking about. 😉 And - please correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to me that every theist sees God a little differently, and so has a different definition of the God they venerate. If this is so, then your topic becomes difficult to address.
Yes, like I said, the definition of God tends to vary from theist to theist.
Does the definition of God tend to vary from "atheist" to "atheist", or only from "theist" to "theist"?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:56 pm
This I don't mind. As long as on an individual basis the definition of God doesn't vary within the same theist. And that's what I'm pointing out here. Starting from the point of theist and moving to the point of theist proving the existence of God invariable results in that theist changing their own definition of God. They can prove the existence of a "realistic" God, but in doing so it forces them to dismantle their "idealistic" God. The process forces the theist to come to the realization that the idealistic definition of God is logically incoherent.
But this happens for each and every person who believes something to be true, which obviously cannot be logically and reasonably explained.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:56 pm
As much as I love philosophy, I have actually discouraged theists from attempting to define God in a logically coherent way. I personally have no desire to remain in a blissful emotional state by forgoing the pursuit of truth. But I can't speak for everyone. It's rarely an easy process.
What is supposedly not an "easy process"?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:56 pm
To start with, I was quite amused. 🙂🙂🙂 Then I realised your "crappy conception of God" is pretty close to the God I venerate, and whom I call Gaia, at which point I became just a little less amused.... 😉
There is nothing "crappy" about this definition of God at all. Not only is it logically analogous, it is actually a common definition.

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:25 am
I have already defined God is the highest of terms, even 'perfect', if you like. I have also shown exactly how God exists. So, what is there to disagree about with me?
Your definition of God isn't idealistic. For starters, the God you propose isn't an intelligent and autonomous agent. The universe is the sum of all matter and energy as configured in space and changing along time. The collection of all knowledge in the universe is sum of all the configurations themselves, and the natural laws that govern the changes in those configurations. As such, God, by this definition, is a collection of reference material, not a living entity per se. The God you define cannot be ascribed qualities such as goodness, benevolence, wisdom, intention, free agency, etc. In fact, by your definition, nothing about God is supernatural. Therefore it's not a definition theists would be even slightly interested in believing exists.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 18th, 2020, 3:35 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:49 am
Was there/is there any inaccuracy in my definition of God?

If yes, then where was/is it exactly, and what exactly is it, and, probably more importantly, why is 'it' an inaccuracy?

Also, why did you not mention this earlier?

But if no, then God has already been defined as accurately as possible, and thus is the only definition that is true, and not just "would be true", well for the time being anyway.

Now, if you would like to look for any discrepancies between my definition of God and any other definitions of God offered up by anyone else, and then discuss those, apparent to you, "discrepancies", then feel free to put them forward. Then I can also see if there is an actual discrepancy or not. Until then my definition of God stands as prove that God actually does exist, correct?
If it became unanimously agreed upon that the word "God" was mapped on to the definition you provided, then there would never be a point of question about whether God exists or not. Per that definition, God exists. End of story, no debate.

Stating that your definition proves that God exists requires clarity. Your definition proves that God, per your definition, exists. This caveat is important. Don't go running around claiming that you've proven that God exists (lol I don't imagine that this was actually your intention), you've only proven that God, as you've defined it, exists. Because that's not the definition that is commonly communicated when the word God is mentioned.
Do you have a serious issue with multiple conflicting definitions of the same 'Word', held by the same person, as much as you have a serious issue in relation with the word 'God'? Or, is your serious issue with having multiple conflicting definitions for the same 'Thing', held by the same person, as this is "clearly an irrational stance", only in relation to the 'God' word only?
Having multiple conflicting definitions about any term is an irrational stance. When a term is communicated, the goal is to actually communicate the associated meaning, not merely the sound of the word. If the communicator is ambiguous about his own definition of a term at the time it is being communicated, then effective communication cannot occur (unless intentional as in a pun or other literary device). And this goes for self communication as well as interpersonal communication. You have to at least understand your own concept before you can evaluate if it's a valid concept.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 5:25 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:25 am
I have already defined God is the highest of terms, even 'perfect', if you like. I have also shown exactly how God exists. So, what is there to disagree about with me?
Your definition of God isn't idealistic. For starters, the God you propose isn't an intelligent and autonomous agent. The universe is the sum of all matter and energy as configured in space and changing along time. The collection of all knowledge in the universe is sum of all the configurations themselves, and the natural laws that govern the changes in those configurations. As such, God, by this definition, is a collection of reference material, not a living entity per se. The God you define cannot be ascribed qualities such as goodness, benevolence, wisdom, intention, free agency, etc. In fact, by your definition, nothing about God is supernatural. Therefore it's not a definition theists would be even slightly interested in believing exists.
You appear to have completely forgotten my definition of God, misinterpreted it, taken it out of context, or changed it to suit your own purpose and/or beliefs?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
Your definition of God isn't idealistic.
How do you define the word 'idealistic'?

Is something 'idealistic' even possible?

If yes, then why is my definition of God not idealistic?

But if no, then absolutely every definition of God that you call "idealistic" is not even possible to be true from the outset. So, from your perspective, ONLY those definitions of God that you do not call "idealistic" are even possible to be true.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
For starters, the God you propose isn't an intelligent and autonomous agent.
Can you please explain how, to you, the Mind is not an intelligent and autonomous agent? I might need to actually explain more fully what the Mind is exactly?

What does the word 'Mind' mean, to you, exactly?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
The universe is the sum of all matter and energy as configured in space and changing along time.
That is 'your' definition of the 'Universe'. It certainly is not my definition.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
As such, God, by this definition, is a collection of reference material, not a living entity per se.
Where does the collection of all 'reference material' exist, or where did it come from? Is that thing a living entity?

And, what is the 'collection of reference material', or just a 'body of knowledge', if it is, as you say, not a living entity, itself?

If a 'body of knowledge' is not changing, and thus a living thing, or entity, in and of itself, then what is 'it'?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
The God you define cannot be ascribed qualities such as goodness, benevolence, wisdom, intention, free agency, etc.
But the God I defined can exactly be ascribed qualities such as goodness, benevolence, wisdom, intention, free agency, et cetera. Where do you think all these things exist, and come from, if not the Mind, Itself?

If goodness, benevolence, wisdom, et cetera does not come from the Mind, then where does these things come from?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:11 am
In fact, by your definition, nothing about God is supernatural. Therefore it's not a definition theists would be even slightly interested in believing exists.
A Thing that can create everything that was once said to be absolutely impossible would be something that might be defined as "supernatural". A
Absolutely everything that human beings have created, and will continue creating, was once, and is, seen and believed as being absolutely impossible, and so to these people, if and when these things come into reality, and exist, then could that be a definition of being 'supernatural'?

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing that exists, which is above, beyond, or separate from the Natural. So, how are you defining 'supernatural' here?

For all you, and I, know "theists" might actually be very interested in anything that backs up and supports their beliefs.

My definition of God might actually be far more inclusive of things than you could have ever imagined being possible, previously.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 5:46 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:35 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:49 am
Was there/is there any inaccuracy in my definition of God?

If yes, then where was/is it exactly, and what exactly is it, and, probably more importantly, why is 'it' an inaccuracy?

Also, why did you not mention this earlier?

But if no, then God has already been defined as accurately as possible, and thus is the only definition that is true, and not just "would be true", well for the time being anyway.

Now, if you would like to look for any discrepancies between my definition of God and any other definitions of God offered up by anyone else, and then discuss those, apparent to you, "discrepancies", then feel free to put them forward. Then I can also see if there is an actual discrepancy or not. Until then my definition of God stands as prove that God actually does exist, correct?
If it became unanimously agreed upon that the word "God" was mapped on to the definition you provided, then there would never be a point of question about whether God exists or not. Per that definition, God exists. End of story, no debate.

Stating that your definition proves that God exists requires clarity. Your definition proves that God, per your definition, exists. This caveat is important. Don't go running around claiming that you've proven that God exists (lol I don't imagine that this was actually your intention), you've only proven that God, as you've defined it, exists. Because that's not the definition that is commonly communicated when the word God is mentioned.
But how is my definition of God any different from most of the definitions/s that are "commonly" communicated when the word God is mentioned?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:35 am
Do you have a serious issue with multiple conflicting definitions of the same 'Word', held by the same person, as much as you have a serious issue in relation with the word 'God'? Or, is your serious issue with having multiple conflicting definitions for the same 'Thing', held by the same person, as this is "clearly an irrational stance", only in relation to the 'God' word only?
Having multiple conflicting definitions about any term is an irrational stance.
Okay, but have you had a thorough look in a dictionary?

There are many words with many different definitions, with some of those words having completely opposing conflicting definitions.

For one example, your use the word 'paradox' in a, paradoxically, completely opposing way of how I use that word.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:35 am
When a term is communicated, the goal is to actually communicate the associated meaning, not merely the sound of the word.
Not in all cases.

My goal sometimes is to actually communicate not the perceived meaning at all. I do this for a very specific purpose, to highlight and show just how quickly and easily people can misinterpret what is said or written, and take things completely out of context. I am actually communicating the associated meaning, but people can all too quickly misunderstand what I was really meaning.

But on another note, how do you actually communicate the 'associated meaning' of a word, when the associated meaning can be in complete conflict with its own self?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 3:35 am
If the communicator is ambiguous about his own definition of a term at the time it is being communicated, then effective communication cannot occur (unless intentional as in a pun or other literary device). And this goes for self communication as well as interpersonal communication. You have to at least understand your own concept before you can evaluate if it's a valid concept.
if this the case, then how do you understand your own concept of the word 'God'?

Are you able to evaluate if that is a valid concept?

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 614
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by chewybrian » January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:20 am
But in a sense you can see the real 'you' inside a human body.

The 'you' may not be able to be seen with the physical eyes directly, because of what a 'you', or 'person' is made up of exactly, but the 'you' can be seen by the words that are expressed from a body. The 'you' can also be seen/understood.

The 'you' can also be seen by the Mind's Eye, and thus also therefore known.
This is debatable, or at least desperately difficult and very rare, to really see the other person. And, you never know for sure when or if you do. Existential isolation is very real. Only you can live your life and die your death, and nobody shares your concerns to the same extent you feel them.

Society is a collective attempt to crush and conceal this real you. Do others share your worry about your impending death, or do they encourage your to 'celebrate' with a birthday party? Do they share your concern about being able to find meaning in life, or do they want you to watch a football game, and pretend to find purpose there? Do they help you bear the burden of your freedom? Do they feel the weight of the things you have done, could have done, plan to do?

Hell is other people, right? They will unwittingly attempt to see you as an object, to classify and define you in somewhat static terms, barely and rarely able to see that you are always evolving. They will see you in terms of their own understanding of reality, assuming that their own priorities are yours, too, or that they would be if you knew what they think they know.

Think of the real you as a bolt of lightning. People can see it for a brief flash, and it is alarming to them, and jolts them out of their waking sleep for a second. But, the vacuum it creates in the atmosphere of 'normal' is quickly filled by the thunder of social norms that are built to deny and conceal our existential reality, and 'protect' us from it, as if we could escape it by wishing it away.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 7:28 am

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:20 am
But in a sense you can see the real 'you' inside a human body.

The 'you' may not be able to be seen with the physical eyes directly, because of what a 'you', or 'person' is made up of exactly, but the 'you' can be seen by the words that are expressed from a body. The 'you' can also be seen/understood.

The 'you' can also be seen by the Mind's Eye, and thus also therefore known.
This is debatable, or at least desperately difficult and very rare, to really see the other person. And, you never know for sure when or if you do.
I know for sure I do, and know for sure when I do. But I do not expect anyone to accept this, yet.
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Existential isolation is very real. Only you can live your life and die your death, and nobody shares your concerns to the same extent you feel them.
This is very different to what I was talking about.
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Society is a collective attempt to crush and conceal this real you.
I do not dispute this at all.

But the one that is actually real, is not the 'you' that I was just talking about.

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Do others share your worry about your impending death, or do they encourage your to 'celebrate' with a birthday party? Do they share your concern about being able to find meaning in life, or do they want you to watch a football game, and pretend to find purpose there? Do they help you bear the burden of your freedom? Do they feel the weight of the things you have done, could have done, plan to do?
If they, and I, want to, then yes I guess.

But this is all very subjective compared to what I was talking about.
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Hell is other people, right?
Not to me.
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
They will unwittingly attempt to see you as an object, to classify and define you in somewhat static terms, barely and rarely able to see that you are always evolving. They will see you in terms of their own understanding of reality, assuming that their own priorities are yours, too, or that they would be if you knew what they think they know.
If you say so, but where is this leading to exactly?

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Think of the real you as a bolt of lightning.
But I KNOW the real Me, already. I do not have to "think" of anything.
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
People can see it for a brief flash, and it is alarming to them, and jolts them out of their waking sleep for a second. But, the vacuum it creates in the atmosphere of 'normal' is quickly filled by the thunder of social norms that are built to deny and conceal our existential reality, and 'protect' us from it, as if we could escape it by wishing it away.
Social norms are people's worst enemy. So, it is therefore social, so called, "norms" that need to change.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 614
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by chewybrian » January 18th, 2020, 7:40 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:28 am
If you say so, but where is this leading to exactly?
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
Think of the real you as a bolt of lightning.
But I KNOW the real Me, already. I do not have to "think" of anything.
I think we could have a separate debate about how easy it is for you to know the real you.

But, you said that others could know the real you, and implied that it was as easy as expressing your feelings or concerns to them. I am making the case that this is difficult if not impossible. This is the essence of existentialism, which is, arguably, an honest attempt to see subjective reality as we really find it, and to determine and act upon the implications of what we find.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 7:51 am

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:40 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:28 am
If you say so, but where is this leading to exactly?



But I KNOW the real Me, already. I do not have to "think" of anything.
I think we could have a separate debate about how easy it is for you to know the real you.

But, you said that others could know the real you, and implied that it was as easy as expressing your feelings or concerns to them. I am making the case that this is difficult if not impossible. This is the essence of existentialism, which is, arguably, an honest attempt to see subjective reality as we really find it, and to determine and act upon the implications of what we find.
You are completely misunderstanding what I have said so far.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 614
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by chewybrian » January 18th, 2020, 8:11 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:51 am
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:40 am


I think we could have a separate debate about how easy it is for you to know the real you.

But, you said that others could know the real you, and implied that it was as easy as expressing your feelings or concerns to them. I am making the case that this is difficult if not impossible. This is the essence of existentialism, which is, arguably, an honest attempt to see subjective reality as we really find it, and to determine and act upon the implications of what we find.
You are completely misunderstanding what I have said so far.
The irony is delicious, but maybe you can restate what you think I missed.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 8:32 am

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:11 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:51 am


You are completely misunderstanding what I have said so far.
The irony is delicious, but maybe you can restate what you think I missed.
From when I was saying that it is possible to see the real 'you' inside of a human body. I think you missed what I was actually referring to as the real 'you'.

You wrote:
God is the universe, which is to God as your body is to you. I can see your body, and the effects it creates, as I can see the universe, and the effects it creates. But, I can't see the real you inside, the most important, only important part.

I can see the real 'you' inside, and of, that body, as I can see God inside, and of, the Universe. But, if we want to discuss this, then best we take this to another thread. If you want you to start one, then I will join in.

I prefer to keep my discussion in this thread only about God, Itself.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 614
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by chewybrian » January 18th, 2020, 8:46 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:32 am
chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:11 am


The irony is delicious, but maybe you can restate what you think I missed.
From when I was saying that it is possible to see the real 'you' inside of a human body. I think you missed what I was actually referring to as the real 'you'.

You wrote:
God is the universe, which is to God as your body is to you. I can see your body, and the effects it creates, as I can see the universe, and the effects it creates. But, I can't see the real you inside, the most important, only important part.

I can see the real 'you' inside, and of, that body, as I can see God inside, and of, the Universe. But, if we want to discuss this, then best we take this to another thread. If you want you to start one, then I will join in.

I prefer to keep my discussion in this thread only about God, Itself.
OK, then I don't think that I missed your point, but that I simply disagree. For example, do you know that the thoughts I am expressing here represent my real thoughts and feelings at all, that I might not have some agenda besides honest discussion? If I am telling you that my reality is isolation, and you are telling me that yours is not, are we really seeing each other at all, or can we? Existential isolation is not about being alone, but about being the only one able to experience your subjective reality. I dispute the idea that any human interaction or communication can completely break down that wall of isolation.

I don't know if you missed my point, or just disagree, or both. I may start something separate about existentialism, or existential isolation, some other time.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 5:54 pm

chewybrian wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:46 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:32 am


From when I was saying that it is possible to see the real 'you' inside of a human body. I think you missed what I was actually referring to as the real 'you'.

You wrote:
God is the universe, which is to God as your body is to you. I can see your body, and the effects it creates, as I can see the universe, and the effects it creates. But, I can't see the real you inside, the most important, only important part.

I can see the real 'you' inside, and of, that body, as I can see God inside, and of, the Universe. But, if we want to discuss this, then best we take this to another thread. If you want you to start one, then I will join in.

I prefer to keep my discussion in this thread only about God, Itself.
OK, then I don't think that I missed your point, but that I simply disagree. For example, do you know that the thoughts I am expressing here represent my real thoughts and feelings at all, that I might not have some agenda besides honest discussion? If I am telling you that my reality is isolation, and you are telling me that yours is not, are we really seeing each other at all, or can we? Existential isolation is not about being alone, but about being the only one able to experience your subjective reality. I dispute the idea that any human interaction or communication can completely break down that wall of isolation.

I don't know if you missed my point, or just disagree, or both. I may start something separate about existentialism, or existential isolation, some other time.
There was not an actual point I was making that you could have missed, nor anything to really disagree with exactly either. I was just expressing what I can observe, see, and understand. I also do not disagree with you.

What you are doing, and correct me if I am wrong, is talking 'you', from the subjective point of 'you', which I agree is much harder and much more difficult to fully understand. But what I was talking about is the 'you', from the objective point of 'you'.

You were talking about the 'who' of the 'you'. Whereas, I was talking about the 'what' of the 'you'.

'What' 'you' are is literally the whole set of 'thoughts', within an human body. This 'you' can be seen and understood, literally, through the written and spoken words.

'Who' 'you' are is the individual 'thoughts', within an individual human body. This 'you' is always continually changing, so fully understanding, who you are, is near impossible.

Post Reply