God is Real: a dialogue

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
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Thomyum2 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 11:21 am
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am Yes, you get it. Yes, the tree falls in the forest out of earshot. Does it fall in silence?
In this regard we could talk about color as well as beauty, I think.
What constitutes silence? Without hearing, could it be said that there even are such things as sounds or silence? From an evolutionary viewpoint, organisms developed the ability to hear because of the value – because it is pragmatic to be able to distinguish sound from silence.
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am
To think that the tree falls in silence contradicts common sense. It also contradicts a basic scientific assumption about the world.
I mean, the absurdity is easily illustrated by giving our tree conundrum another turn: if a tree falls in a forest out of eyeshot, does it fall?
I don’t think it contradicts science, as science is only concerned with what is observed, not with what is not or cannot be observed.

But yes, it does contradict a basic assumption. I think the ‘tree falls’ question is one of the most revealing, and gets at one of the core ideas of philosophy, precisely because how we answer it does reveal our underlying assumptions. The assumption here being that certain things exist, and events happen, independent of whether or not we observe them. But we only assume this because we value it; we call it true because we find it useful to us to understand what changes or what remains the same when we are not observing. Value drives what we assume, not the other way around.
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am However, your idea of the priority of value is too interesting not to explore further. As I understand your view, value is prior -- logically and temporally prior -- to both the subjective and the objective elements of a particular experience. Have I read you aright? Do I get your point?
I’m glad you find it interesting and yes I think you’ve understood, although I wouldn’t say ‘logically’ or ‘temporally’ prior (which is why I put ‘precede’ in quotes, since that word normally has a temporal sense). Rather I might say ‘existentially’ prior. To continue on with our tree falling example, valuing a distinction between sound and silence – growing or learning or becoming able to make this distinction – brings these concepts into existence, and this occurs apart from time. When we come to be able to distinguish something, and our awareness of it may extend into past, present and future....
I shall address your generous comments on the God Question in a separate post.

On the question of value, let me say straightaway that your thoughts are cogent and profound. That the riddle of the tree applies to silence as well as sound is a brilliant insight. My compliments. And you certainly get to the heart of the matter in the following passage:
The assumption here being that certain things exist, and events happen, independent of whether or not we observe them. But we only assume this because we value it; we call it true because we find it useful to us to understand what changes or what remains the same when we are not observing. Value drives what we assume, not the other way around.
If our view is that the tree falling unobserved in the forest raises a question about silence as well as sound, then the meaning of the riddle broadens and it is no longer simply about this or that particular perception but more generally about experience -- namely, about whether anything that is not directly experienced can be known to exist. The riddle becomes a parable of empiricism. And perhaps this is what it was all along. Of course, the tree may be said to make an inferential sound, and this inferential sound is based on many direct experiences of trees falling, or even just of things falling. But an inferential sound is not a sound. An inferential sound is the thought of a sound. And the thought of a sound relies on an assumption, not unlike the assumption made by science in its empirical pursuits. Value, you say, drives both what we experience and what we assume, and "not the other way around."

But surely we must acknowledge a difference between an experiential sound and an inferential sound, and with that acknowledgment draw a distinction between value perceived and value conceived that corresponds to the difference between perception and conception -- and based on that distinction, differentiate respectively between the real and the pragmatic in the matter of value. Whereas value appears to be "existentially" prior in the case of value conceived, it seems intuitive that in the case of value perceived the matter must be "the other way around."
Image
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Terrapin Station »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 26th, 2020, 3:12 am
At this point in our exchange of posts it becomes clear that we are simply opposing different definitions of "proposition": proposition as semantic content (yours) and proposition as true/false object of attitudes (mine). As philosophy at large has not settled this dispute I see no point in our continuing to oppose our different subscriptions. By my lights, your reliance on propositions makes your nominalism inconsistent; by your lights, reliance on propositions does not compromise your nominalism in any way. So be it.
I'm not disagreeing that propositions are the "true-value bearing objects of 'attitudes.'" It's just that the truth-value bearing objects of attitudes are the semantic aspect of statements. The reason they're considered the semantic aspect of statements is simply this: we can express the same proposition in different languages. What I disagreed with above was your suggestion that what we're believing when we say something like "The cat is on the mat" is a proposition. We're not believing the proposition (we're not "believing the meaning" of the sentence 'The cat is on the mat'"), we're believing that the cat is on the mat--that is, we're believing a particular state of affairs (note the presence or absence of quotation marks). The state of affairs is not identical to the meaning of a sentence about the state of affairs--that is, they're not literally the same thing (just like the word and/or the concept "cat" are not literally the same thing as a cat--you can't give a bowl of milk to the word or concept (at least not so that it can drink it)).

Re claiming that propositions are real abstracts (and also universals), you've done nothing whatsoever to support those claims. You've only claimed it.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by h_k_s »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:28 pm
h_k_s wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:13 pm
Dirt is a natural resource.

It is not immortal.

It did not always exist.

The space clutter we see through our telescopes is not dirt.

The space clutter consists of accretions of matter that resembles asteroids. These rocks appear to be molten, not dirt.

It takes billions of years to make some dirt starting with the accretions of asteroid matter.

Once you have dirt, you can then grow potatoes, onions, trees, and flowers.

But not until then.
But then yes, no?
This is much ado about nothing, it seems to me. A whimsical reply to an antagonistic post. That's the gravamen here.
Your flowery language is not conducive to good philosophy.

You should try to write more technically.

That's important for philosophical inquiry. It's not whimsical.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Belindi »

Whatever happens when we call it "A tree fell in a forest" it happens whether or not an event is perceived by a man or a mouse.

The huge being called God perceives everything and more to the point He makes everything what it is. It is not for men or mice to know what events are in themselves.

It is for mice and men to try to make order out of chaotic events, which we do continually, in order that we may live.It is vanity for men to believe human perception reflects event in themselves. If there be this huge being commonly called God then He would perceive infinitely more order and events than do mice or men.

Each perception is real, including the perceptions of madmen and mice. However there are unknown possibilities that can't be perceived by any known or knowable perceiver. That is why God was invented, to make order out of the chaos of possibilities.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7914
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by LuckyR »

Belindi wrote: September 30th, 2020, 3:00 am Whatever happens when we call it "A tree fell in a forest" it happens whether or not an event is perceived by a man or a mouse.

The huge being called God perceives everything and more to the point He makes everything what it is. It is not for men or mice to know what events are in themselves.

It is for mice and men to try to make order out of chaotic events, which we do continually, in order that we may live.It is vanity for men to believe human perception reflects event in themselves. If there be this huge being commonly called God then He would perceive infinitely more order and events than do mice or men.

Each perception is real, including the perceptions of madmen and mice. However there are unknown possibilities that can't be perceived by any known or knowable perceiver. That is why God was invented, to make order out of the chaos of possibilities.
Exactly. There are two issues about gods being real or not. The first is an acknowledgement that entirely separate from whether gods actually exist, humans would have (and actually did) invent gods. They are a psychological imperative for a low information human. The second, unrelated question is: given that gods must be invented by humans, could there actually be gods? Sort of depends on your definition of god. If you use the rather common historical definition of a being much more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, then there are almost certainly numerous species of gods in the universe. If you use the "cloud fairy" definition, the chance is much lower, statistically.
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Belindi »

LuckyR wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 12:17 pm
Belindi wrote: September 30th, 2020, 3:00 am Whatever happens when we call it "A tree fell in a forest" it happens whether or not an event is perceived by a man or a mouse.

The huge being called God perceives everything and more to the point He makes everything what it is. It is not for men or mice to know what events are in themselves.

It is for mice and men to try to make order out of chaotic events, which we do continually, in order that we may live.It is vanity for men to believe human perception reflects event in themselves. If there be this huge being commonly called God then He would perceive infinitely more order and events than do mice or men.

Each perception is real, including the perceptions of madmen and mice. However there are unknown possibilities that can't be perceived by any known or knowable perceiver. That is why God was invented, to make order out of the chaos of possibilities.
Exactly. There are two issues about gods being real or not. The first is an acknowledgement that entirely separate from whether gods actually exist, humans would have (and actually did) invent gods. They are a psychological imperative for a low information human. The second, unrelated question is: given that gods must be invented by humans, could there actually be gods? Sort of depends on your definition of god. If you use the rather common historical definition of a being much more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, then there are almost certainly numerous species of gods in the universe. If you use the "cloud fairy" definition, the chance is much lower, statistically.
If you use the rather common historical definition of a being much more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, then there are almost certainly numerous species of gods in the universe.
I wonder if polytheism would attract adherents. It would advance the cause of religious toleration, until it became politicised.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7914
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by LuckyR »

Belindi wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 2:36 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 12:17 pm

Exactly. There are two issues about gods being real or not. The first is an acknowledgement that entirely separate from whether gods actually exist, humans would have (and actually did) invent gods. They are a psychological imperative for a low information human. The second, unrelated question is: given that gods must be invented by humans, could there actually be gods? Sort of depends on your definition of god. If you use the rather common historical definition of a being much more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, then there are almost certainly numerous species of gods in the universe. If you use the "cloud fairy" definition, the chance is much lower, statistically.
If you use the rather common historical definition of a being much more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, then there are almost certainly numerous species of gods in the universe.
I wonder if polytheism would attract adherents. It would advance the cause of religious toleration, until it became politicised.
Historically polytheism was more popular, perhaps because small bands with small gods got together to form large societies and felt better with their local god joining the pantheon of gods just as their tribe was assimilated into a larger civilization. There is little such social pressure to do such a thing now. Unless hostile aliens landed here on Terra, then a pantheon of current monotheistic gods might serve a Terran force to repel the invaders.
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Belindi »

LuckyR wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 7:00 pm
Belindi wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 2:36 pm



I wonder if polytheism would attract adherents. It would advance the cause of religious toleration, until it became politicised.
Historically polytheism was more popular, perhaps because small bands with small gods got together to form large societies and felt better with their local god joining the pantheon of gods just as their tribe was assimilated into a larger civilization. There is little such social pressure to do such a thing now. Unless hostile aliens landed here on Terra, then a pantheon of current monotheistic gods might serve a Terran force to repel the invaders.


Yes, gods of place and tribe. I was thinking more of gods of fertility, reason, communication, misrule, wine, war, wisdom, the oceans, the seasons, new beginnings, home and hearth, journeys and roads, the sun, and the moon, sort of thing.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by h_k_s »

Calepiaro wrote: September 19th, 2020, 8:28 am
h_k_s wrote: September 18th, 2020, 2:51 pm
I would have taught you to be more technical and precise in your undergrad upper division technical writing class in college, had I been your professor.
I believe that the lack of introduction to the characters is crucial for the dialogue and the ideas presented in it. The characters lack introduction, description or characteristics because they are meant to represent a class, a type of people and therefore any details are not supported.
I consider the fact that the skeptic denies God in front of angel a very nice touch, expressing how oblivious one can be in front of the obvious.
So you love fiction more than philosophy?

Rhetorical question. Obviously you do.
baker
Posts: 605
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by baker »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 17th, 2020, 5:38 amSkeptic: There is no God!
A skeptic wouldn't say that.
Your whole dialogue is miguided and misleading from the onset.
User avatar
Do Not Duplicate
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 11th, 2021, 7:17 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Do Not Duplicate »

This may seem like a non sequitur and it comes late in the game as I see the last posting here was in December, but I've come to realize that it's more useful and perhaps more philosophically informed to say that "God exists" rather than "God is real".

It's a complex issue which I don't necessarily want to get into deeply here, only to say for now that I base this in part on how the word "reality" from its Latin root means "thingliness" -- a word fraught with materialism and connoting material objects or things. And since God should not be reduced to a material object or to the facticity of the material realm, "reality" would not be an appropriate ascription for God.

On the other hand, "existence" nicely fits with the concept of radical transcendence which in terms of the highest form of theology, negative theology, is most appropriate theologically. Derived from the Greek, existence literally means "standing outside" -- hence, transcend. What does God stand outside? As Creator, He stands outside Creation. But of course, one cannot mean "outside" literally in terms of materialistic spatiality. One can only indicate that He must transcend everything, insofar as "Creation" signifies everything.

I'll leave it at that, lest I get sucked into more webs of complexity this issue cannot avoid when it is probed on a deeper analytical level.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Belindi »

Do Not Duplicate wrote: February 12th, 2021, 3:42 am This may seem like a non sequitur and it comes late in the game as I see the last posting here was in December, but I've come to realize that it's more useful and perhaps more philosophically informed to say that "God exists" rather than "God is real".

It's a complex issue which I don't necessarily want to get into deeply here, only to say for now that I base this in part on how the word "reality" from its Latin root means "thingliness" -- a word fraught with materialism and connoting material objects or things. And since God should not be reduced to a material object or to the facticity of the material realm, "reality" would not be an appropriate ascription for God.

On the other hand, "existence" nicely fits with the concept of radical transcendence which in terms of the highest form of theology, negative theology, is most appropriate theologically. Derived from the Greek, existence literally means "standing outside" -- hence, transcend. What does God stand outside? As Creator, He stands outside Creation. But of course, one cannot mean "outside" literally in terms of materialistic spatiality. One can only indicate that He must transcend everything, insofar as "Creation" signifies everything.

I'll leave it at that, lest I get sucked into more webs of complexity this issue cannot avoid when it is probed on a deeper analytical level.


But for most theistic religionists God is at least reified and often even personified.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021