You're not going to answer the question I asked you?chewybrian wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 4:44 pmI'm not sure if I am following you. If I have an idea "I would like to build a cabin", I say the idea is a real thing that can impact the world. So, I spend a year building a cabin, and the cabin is real enough.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 12:45 pm
Okay, so predictions and direct observations?
So you'd say that radioactive decay of a particular atom, for example, isn't a physical phenomenon based on that? We can't predict decay of a particular atom and we don't directly observe it, either.
Now, you seem to be asking, is "I am a year older" a real thing? It would be a true fact, yes, but it is an observation, not a thing that impacts the world (I think).
The "God exists" paradox
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The "God exists" paradox
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Since the initial gods were not typically felt to be omniscient nor omnipotent, this fits quite nicely into an imagined meeting between stone agers and extraterrestrials. The simple fact that there is not a commonly used descriptor of a living being smarter than a human, says a lot about our inexperience with such beings.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 5:19 amGood. It is very much within the realm of the possible for beings who are an order of magnitude smarter and/or stronger or more powerful than the smartest and strongest (most powerful) human to exist. I would even argue that they quite likely to exist. There may be several planets throughout the universe where such beings exist. The existence of such beings, while not necessarily relevant on earth, is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. There would be no paradox in demonstrating that it is possible for such beings to exist. And since these beings, by this definition, are falsifiable, the only issue would be that of providing evidence to support the belief that they interact with earth.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Say what? I asked you if you believe that radioactive decay of a particular atom is a physical phenomenon, because we can't predict it and we don't directly observe it. You said those were your requirements for verification, which you give as a requirement for asserting that something is a physical phenomenon.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 4:44 pmI'm not sure if I am following you. If I have an idea "I would like to build a cabin", I say the idea is a real thing that can impact the world. So, I spend a year building a cabin, and the cabin is real enough.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 12:45 pm
Okay, so predictions and direct observations?
So you'd say that radioactive decay of a particular atom, for example, isn't a physical phenomenon based on that? We can't predict decay of a particular atom and we don't directly observe it, either.
Now, you seem to be asking, is "I am a year older" a real thing? It would be a true fact, yes, but it is an observation, not a thing that impacts the world (I think).
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Sorry but my mind is slipping a bit on whether the decay is a material thing or not. The atom is material, and the radiation, but I am not sure how to classify the decay. I was making an analogy to our aging. Is 'aging' a material thing, or more of an observation or something else?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 6:41 pmSay what? I asked you if you believe that radioactive decay of a particular atom is a physical phenomenon, because we can't predict it and we don't directly observe it. You said those were your requirements for verification, which you give as a requirement for asserting that something is a physical phenomenon.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 4:44 pm
I'm not sure if I am following you. If I have an idea "I would like to build a cabin", I say the idea is a real thing that can impact the world. So, I spend a year building a cabin, and the cabin is real enough.
Now, you seem to be asking, is "I am a year older" a real thing? It would be a true fact, yes, but it is an observation, not a thing that impacts the world (I think).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The "God exists" paradox
So per physics, processes are physical things. Physics mostly deals with processes, and arguably all material objects are just as much processes as anything else. Atomic decay, aging, etc. are processes (of material things). And of course they're physical. Atomic decay, however, is not predictable (for a particular atom, at least), and it's not directly observable. So it wouldn't fit your "verification" requirement. But it would be very odd to say that it's not physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 7:20 pmSorry but my mind is slipping a bit on whether the decay is a material thing or not. The atom is material, and the radiation, but I am not sure how to classify the decay. I was making an analogy to our aging. Is 'aging' a material thing, or more of an observation or something else?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 6:41 pm
Say what? I asked you if you believe that radioactive decay of a particular atom is a physical phenomenon, because we can't predict it and we don't directly observe it. You said those were your requirements for verification, which you give as a requirement for asserting that something is a physical phenomenon.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Definition of Reality: What we found around us to hold true.
Imagine we are all jigsaw puzzles. We see one another already assembled, piece by piece. Who has done it? We don't know, but there must be someone. What is the reality? Every thing is a jigsaw puzzle. Hence God must also be a jigsaw puzzle, right? If so, he must be have been assembled by someone. Therefore he cannot be the first being. He is only one among us.
What if he is not a jigsaw puzzle? What if he is not that reality that we hold true?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Yes, OK, but the only thing that has mass is matter, and nothing but matter has mass, so I'm not especially confused or mistaken, am I?Consul wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 12:11 pmTo be precise, he taught us that mass and energy are equivalent.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 9:54 amAnd Einstein taught us, with e = mc2, that matter (physically existent) and energy (physically nonexistent) are equivalent.
The Equivalence of Mass and Energy > Misconceptions about E = mc2
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The "God exists" paradox
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.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 2:05 pm Regardless of what existence means, it is necessarily true that either x exists or x doesn't exist.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Instead of claiming that others feel and think in a particular way - something you can't know, so must necessarily guess at (straw man alert!) - why don't you tell us what you think and feel, and why?Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 3:08 pm The claims that are made by God believers about God are...
"Who cares, wins"
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
This is the crux of our disagreement. You don't see logic as a set of objective and universal laws, but rather as something that depends on cognizance of the communicators. Obviously my asserting that "that's not how logic works" would be pointless. I would urge you to review what logic means, though, so that in the future we can use the word with a common understanding. In the interim, let's take the concept of universal objective laws that form the basis of all truth evaluation and couple it to a different word, for example terracity. So the terracity of a statement isn't subject to an individual's intellectual capacity. It either is the case or isn't, objectively. I'm willing to stick to that term if logic isn't the right fit. Is that cool with you?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 3:36 pm In my view, by the way, belief in realism (objectivity) for logic/mathematics, or any belief in real (objective) abstracts has similarities to and as ridiculous as belief in gods.
Or is it the concept of objectivity in and of itself that is the issue here?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The "God exists" paradox
I'm just a couple years shy of having done this stuff (philosophy, philosophical logic, etc.) for 50 years.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:25 am
This is the crux of our disagreement. You don't see logic as a set of objective and universal laws, but rather as something that depends on cognizance of the communicators. Obviously my asserting that "that's not how logic works" would be pointless. I would urge you to review what logic means, though,
What I'd agree with is that there are objective facts. That is, objective states of affairs.so that in the future we can use the word with a common understanding. In the interim, let's take the concept of universal objective laws that form the basis of all truth evaluation and couple it to a different word, for example terracity. So the terracity of a statement isn't subject to an individual's intellectual capacity. It either is the case or isn't, objectively. I'm willing to stick to that term if logic isn't the right fit. Is that cool with you?
The problem is that the way you framed this topic, it was all about what people believe, what they feel, etc.:
"people who claim to believe that God exists "
"I have never met someone who argues that God exists and is simultaneously comfortable with God being in the category of things that exists."
So that's the perspective from which I addressed this.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Fair enough. The notion that extraterrestrial visitors with advanced technology/knowledge would be defined as God/gods creates no logical paradox.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 6:28 pm Since the initial gods were not typically felt to be omniscient nor omnipotent, this fits quite nicely into an imagined meeting between stone agers and extraterrestrials. The simple fact that there is not a commonly used descriptor of a living being smarter than a human, says a lot about our inexperience with such beings.
The paradox I'm describing here isn't a logical one, per se, but rather it invariably creates an internal conflict in the one attempting to demonstrate the proof, whilst also believing that the proof is true, i.e., believing that God exists. The belief that God exists carries with it a significant emotional investment. A God-believer expects God to be superlatively ideal, so ideal that it exceeds realism. In other words, God is necessarily "too good to be true". The paradox arises when the God believer tries to demonstrate that this too good to be true God is true. In doing so, they must modify the definition of God down a few notches to become a God that could be true. And while doing so might allow them to successfully demonstrate that God per that definition exists, it's no longer the God they initially committed their belief to.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Is this definition of God self contradictory under initial analysis? Defining God as outside the jigsaw puzzle (which you haven't done, I'm just speculatively expanding) doesn't exactly solve the problem, it merely puts God in a separate jigsaw puzzle, in which himself and the whole puzzle (as well as the table the puzzle rests on and the room the table is in) are parts. So the question we can ask is who created that puzzle?gad-fly wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 1:58 am Definition of God: The very first being that creates all other beings.
Definition of Reality: What we found around us to hold true.
Imagine we are all jigsaw puzzles. We see one another already assembled, piece by piece. Who has done it? We don't know, but there must be someone. What is the reality? Every thing is a jigsaw puzzle. Hence God must also be a jigsaw puzzle, right? If so, he must be have been assembled by someone. Therefore he cannot be the first being. He is only one among us.
What if he is not a jigsaw puzzle? What if he is not that reality that we hold true?
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
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?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.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023