Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:07 am There is no sarcasm, neither is there any ad hominems in Bulani's post.
By contrast - that is all that yours actually contains.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 11:52 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 7:47 am But if the truth or falsehood of a proposition cannot be determined, as in this case, then stating that it must be true or false is unhelpful. ... ... No, it's not just unhelpful, it's wrong and misleading. In practice - i.e. outside of theory and ivory towers - a proposition that can neither be verified nor falsified is indeterminate, and not "true" or "false". This is a helpful and meaningful summary of our case, not a theoretical and misleading (because it is theoretical) one.

Who's making the claim that the truth or falsehood of the proposition cannot be known? You? To state that YOU don't know if the proposition is true or false is a reasonable statement to make. But to say that it cannot be known is an absolute statement that requires you to have knowledge of the future. Is this your position?

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:02 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:01 am I don't think it's at all clear that Aristotle did what you're claiming rather than employing a common rhetorical device (basically an informal version of a reductio ad absurdum) designed for agreement about what, exactly, he wants to claim.

So yeah, it would be helpful to provide clearer examples, and with hks, we can just directly ask him if he's positing a God with properties that he'd say can't exist in reality.

Aristotle believed that God exists. The God that Aristotle initially believed in was the mainstream God defined by social convention. Not necessarily the biblical/Catholic deity, but at the very least the benevolent designer and creator of reality, morality and goodness. In his discourses, he describes God in these attributes repeatedly.

Being the astute philosopher that he was, Aristotle attempted to reconcile this belief with observation and rational induction. When Aristotle's proof was complete, the definition of God had scarce resemblance to the God he initially believed existed. The God that emerged after being distilled by logic was an unknowing, unchanging thought. It's existence and self contemplation resulted in the unintentional origin of the causal chains that produced the universe as it now is. Since God has no awareness of the universe he accidentally created, God is neither benevolent nor good, and must necessarily be indifferent to things that may or may not exist, of which he necessarily remains unaware. And since the universe and all reality is the unintentional outcome of the force exerted by God thinking about itself, God can hardly be considered a designer or creator, as no design or creation of the universe occurred. The only characteristics that God remained with at the end of the process that were there in the beginning were God being eternal and immaterial.

Examining every other classical or contemporary proof of God's existence through logical induction meets the same outcome. The God that can be proven to exist never matches the God that is initially believed to exist. I'll be happy to go over the others.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:16 am

anonymous66 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:01 am I read your OP as the assertion: "If God exists then many problems arise- because that means God is limited by the physical". I am merely pointing out that many believe that God is not physical- and those same people make very few claims about God. They believe that all that we can say about God is what God is not.

Not all definitions of God are paradoxical in the way you suggest.

Fair enough. That was neither my assertion nor my implication. And to clarify, I explicitly stated that the problem isn't giving God a non-physical definition. That's not what the paradox is about. It is evident now that I could have been clearer in my op. The paradox doesn't exist in the case of any one single definition, but rather it is the discrepancy among the two definitions that arise when someone attempts to prove that God exists: namely the initial definition, and the logically consistent definition. For the most part, it's unnecessary to define God in a logically consistent way to merely believe that God exists. This is by large the normal way people believe in God. It's only when an individual is challenged to use some form of solid logic to argue that God actually exists, taking as objective an approach as they can, that they must abandon this idealist definition and modify it to something that actually is logically consistent. The paradox occurs within the mind of the one doing the proving, as a God that can be demonstrated with logic to exist in reality is always an unimpressive and often useless God, far removed from the definition they idealized originally.

In my last few comments I expounded on Aristotle's proof of God, and the transition his definition of God underwent. Very likely I'll go into other cases of logical proofs of God as examples of the same paradox occurring.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 8:34 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:04 am Perhaps you would be so kind as to outline the specific characteristics of existence that would negate an existent God?

A characteristic that is self contradictory is impossible to exist. A characteristic that is premised on a falsehood is impossible to exist. By extension, any entity who is defined as bearing a characteristic that is impossible to exist must also itself be impossible to exist.

If at this point you disagree with the above, let me know.

If God is defined as having the characteristic of omnipotence, i.e., the ability to do anything, then that would include the ability to disable his own abilities (e.g., the rock that is too heavy to lift). As such, omnipotence is self contradictory. If God is defined as having the characteristic of omniscience, i.e., the knowledge of all things, including future things, then God cannot choose, and free will doesn't exist even for God. Omniscience contradicts almost all other characteristics commonly ascribed to God. If God is defined as being timeless, then, by the definition of existence (persistence of being), God cannot exist, as existence requires duration.

In order to define God as a spirit, the premise that spirits are things that exist must be established to be true first. Defining God as benevolent would require God to demonstrate benevolent acts. Defining God as an intelligent designer would require evidence of intelligent designs. Defining God as the creator of the universe would require that the universe was created in the first place. Defining God as the author of objective morality would require that objective morality is a thing that actually exists. If any of these conditions are evaluated as false, God, per that definition, cannot possibly exist.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:57 am This is a side issue, but many theists would say that logic only exists insofar as God created it, and its exact nature is determined by, and could be altered by, God.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 8:34 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 6:04 am Perhaps you would be so kind as to outline the specific characteristics of existence that would negate an existent God?

A characteristic that is self contradictory is impossible to exist. A characteristic that is premised on a falsehood is impossible to exist. By extension, any entity who is defined as bearing a characteristic that is impossible to exist must also itself be impossible to exist.

If at this point you disagree with the above, let me know.

If God is defined as having the characteristic of omnipotence, i.e., the ability to do anything, then that would include the ability to disable his own abilities (e.g., the rock that is too heavy to lift). As such, omnipotence is self contradictory. If God is defined as having the characteristic of omniscience, i.e., the knowledge of all things, including future things, then God cannot choose, and free will doesn't exist even for God. Omniscience contradicts almost all other characteristics commonly ascribed to God. If God is defined as being timeless, then, by the definition of existence (persistence of being), God cannot exist, as existence requires duration.

In order to define God as a spirit, the premise that spirits are things that exist must be established to be true first. Defining God as benevolent would require God to demonstrate benevolent acts. Defining God as an intelligent designer would require evidence of intelligent designs. Defining God as the creator of the universe would require that the universe was created in the first place. Defining God as the author of objective morality would require that objective morality is a thing that actually exists. If any of these conditions are evaluated as false, God, per that definition, cannot possibly exist.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 10:05 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:57 am This is a side issue, but many theists would say that logic only exists insofar as God created it, and its exact nature is determined by, and could be altered by, God.

So why would any god sustain a system of logic that acts to refute god's existence?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:57 am

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:16 am
Fair enough. That was neither my assertion nor my implication. And to clarify, I explicitly stated that the problem isn't giving God a non-physical definition. That's not what the paradox is about. It is evident now that I could have been clearer in my op. The paradox doesn't exist in the case of any one single definition, but rather it is the discrepancy among the two definitions that arise when someone attempts to prove that God exists: namely the initial definition, and the logically consistent definition. For the most part, it's unnecessary to define God in a logically consistent way to merely believe that God exists. This is by large the normal way people believe in God. It's only when an individual is challenged to use some form of solid logic to argue that God actually exists, taking as objective an approach as they can, that they must abandon this idealist definition and modify it to something that actually is logically consistent. The paradox occurs within the mind of the one doing the proving, as a God that can be demonstrated with logic to exist in reality is always an unimpressive and often useless God, far removed from the definition they idealized originally.

In my last few comments I expounded on Aristotle's proof of God, and the transition his definition of God underwent. Very likely I'll go into other cases of logical proofs of God as examples of the same paradox occurring.

This is a side issue, but many theists would say that logic only exists insofar as God created it, and its exact nature is determined by, and could be altered by, God.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 10:00 am All agreed. But I think you will find that Spinoza basically answered all these questions. However, he clearly offered his readers a version of God that few wanted to accept. One reason he was excommunicated by his own Jewish community.
Spinoza's god answers all the problems you outline, but necessarily defines god as a thing that has no care, nor, desire, cannot have a plan for you, love you or give any kind of damn about you since this all points to a weakness.
This is pretty much the reason why, despite him "proving" god's existence, is widely regarded as an atheist writing sub rosa (to appease others to preserve his own life).

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 10:49 am ...this is another example of proving that God exists makes it necessary to abandon the definition of God that theists prefer...

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:44 am There is no evidence - none at all - of God's existence, and no prospect of ever obtaining any. Without evidence there can be no analysis, or serious consideration of the matter, and therefore no conclusions can logically be drawn. So does God exist? This question can be answered only with (logically unfounded) belief, faith and/or opinion. Beyond this, no conclusion can be reached. The logical conclusion must be that the answer to the question is indeterminate; if there is an 'objective' answer, we cannot - and do not, and will never - know it.

Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 10:46 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2020, 9:57 am
This is a side issue, but many theists would say that logic only exists insofar as God created it, and its exact nature is determined by, and could be altered by, God.

Considering that you're versed in the subject of logic and philosophy, I'm sure you would agree that this view of logic is not how logic works.