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
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8232
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Steve3007 » January 23rd, 2020, 9:50 am

Before that: unencumbered by paragraph breaks. Without those I find it harder to work out whether any part of it is encumbered by logic.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1217
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by h_k_s » January 23rd, 2020, 10:22 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 8:40 pm
h_k_s wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 1:39 pm
No one is trying to stop you from being atheist, not even caring.

But the hollow arguments and fallacies of the atheist argument are what is offensive to logic, especially on a Philosophy forum, which by its nature is reverent to Aristotle and his invention of both logic and of the argument for the Prime Mover.
I distinctly remember asking you from early on if you'd be willing to actually examine the arguments of the philosophers you blankly name-drop in these threads as some sort of basis of validity for your position. You never acknowledged my offer.

Do you really understand Aristotle's argument? Do you have any idea what was the definition of God Aristotle's proof led him to?

Aristotle was truly a great philosopher, as he not only was able to accurately deconstruct the arguments of others, he was also able to deconstruct his own.

He starts off with the premise that all of reality is in motion, each motion being the subsequent effect of some former motion, i.e., a cause for every effect. He posits that all motion must have had an origin, which he labels as the Prime Mover. He immediately realizes that the existence of his Prime Mover contradicts his premise, so he adjusts for this: the Prime Mover is itself immovable and unchangeable. To address the problem "how does an unchanging and immovable entity move things", Aristotle posits that this immovable unchanging entity only thinks, and ultimately is only thought, as it is also immaterial. The act of thinking somehow exerts an attractive force on physical reality, and so motion occurs as a result. (Note that Aristotle doesn't account for the Newtonian law that for every force exerted by an object, an equal opposite force is exerted on that object.) So what can an immovable unchangeable entity think about in such a way that it doesn't change? If the Prime Mover thought about the events subsequent to itself, it would be a changing entity, which, by definition, it can't be. Therefore, the Prime Mover can only be aware of itself.

This is the God that Aristotle concluded exists: an unchanging thought that is unaware of anything but itself. If this is not the definition of the God you propose exists, then Aristotle's proof doesn't support your proposal in the slightest.
Aristotle's ideas about "God" are still current in Modern Philosophy today, and the late Sir/Dr/Prof Roger Scruton in England practically quotes Aristotle as such in his book "Modern Philosophy."

I highly recommend the book as an update to philosophical thought as it stands today.

User avatar
Scottmilligan
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: July 5th, 2018, 3:05 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Scottmilligan » January 23rd, 2020, 11:40 am

I don't wish to sound like I'm merely preaching dogma or anything so I'll re-clarify. I'm not saying this point proves any particular example of 'God' but the arguments provide evidence for a theistic God as opposed to one where people define God in pantheistic terms for example. So, let's take the act vs potency point I made. This distinction was formulated to combat parmenides' argument against change. So let's say that change is not the process of actualising a potential. How is it that something is capable of change. An acorn before it becomes the specific oak tree it will become is not that unique oak tree and therefore that specific oak tree does not exist in any way until the acorn becomes that oak tree. But to not exist is to not have being and how is it possible to speak of something that has no being? Everytime you speak the name of something which has non-being it obviously must have being because otherwise your words are describing or pointing at anything but you merely have meaningless words. Even a concept has being of sorts but it is being in a mental sense rather than physical. What's more how is it possible for something with non-being to come into being since nothing comes from nothing and non-being is by definition nothing. It's alright to explain the science behind change but then that evades the point. The science of the growth of a tree merely describes the process of change without how the change is even logically possible in the first place. Parmenides' also pointed out that to move in space in to go from one point into a point of currently empty space. But what is empty space? Can it be said to be something? If so what? Parmenides thought empty space was another way of saying non being so he argued against the existence of empty space and thereby the idea of 3d space entirely and thereby motion. Aristotle said the only option is to say the oak tree has being in the potential of the acorn. So the acorn which has actuality i.e. it is in actual existence this moment has the potential to be that tree and thereby the potential, which is a type of being of such, is capable of coming about from within the acorn. But here's the thing. An acorn cannot actualise its own potential to become a tree. This is evident because the acorn does not cause itself to become a tree but it needs that potential actualised by something already actual e.g. the soil, the sunlight, water, oxygen. He also said empty space has being as an area of potentiality where things that are actual can be. Now if we take the example of something continuing to exist through time this involves change since every second everything including our bodies is changing through time, our cells are dying and we age, matter and atoms move around in space going from actually here and potentially over there to actually over there. So now here is the thing. Because traversing time involves change. And we have already discussed why change must be act and potency it follows to ask what is actualising my potential to continue existing. So the answer would be the operating of my organs which keep me living. But then I will ask what is actualising their potential to continue existing as organs as opposed to something else. Think of it this way. The atoms that make up my organs are arranged in such a way that they continue to be organs. But why? Why shouldn't it be that the atoms randomly transform over time into something else considering all the change life constantly undergoes. The atoms could quite easily be imagined to arrange themselves in the form of something else but they dont and neither does anything randomly transform into anything else at a macroscopic level on its own. But why? There is nothing contradictory in the idea of it. Well because the atoms that make up my organs are being held together by chemical bonds you may say. But what is actualising their potential over time to continue that as opposed to not. The four fundamental forces that bind matter? What about their potential to stop working which they obviously have. We can talk about Hume's problem of induction. On what basis are we justified for imaginging because the four fundamental forces have always continued existing they will thereby continue to. Now, this is a hierarchical series existing in the here and now and not a linear series stretching back into infinity. A hierarchical series cannot be infinite because it goes down the ladder in this present moment rather than back in time because I'm asking what is keeping me existing in this exact moment and the next and the next. If it was infinite in nature then nothing could exist because there would be not starting point for anything to continue existing through time from this very moment in the first place since everything that exists would depend on it's continual functioning through time on another and that on another and so on with no beginning. Nothing with both act and potency can actualise itself without another. So at the bottom of reality at this very moment and the next and the next the thing which actualises everything must be pure act because otherwise you haven't reached the bottom you've just reached another thing who's potential needs to be actualised for it to continue existing. If you disagree with the idea of something else needing to actualise something with potential then think about what it would mean if something could do this. Let's take any material substance we can think of. If that matter could actualise its own potential to continue existing through time then it would be a necessarily existing thing because nothing would be needed outside of itself to keep it existing other than itself. But then we have a vicious cycle because the potential for continual existence within that thing is obviously dependent on the actual continual existence of the matter which the potential exists in, but the matter is dependent for its actual existence on the continual actualisation of its own potential. So both are dependent on the other and thereby we have a contradictory cycle where neither could exist without the other. So 1 is dependent on 2 and 2 is dependent on 1 and yet both 1 and 2 exist both ag the same time. So the only explanation is nothing of both act and potency can actualise itself.

So now pure act must be necessarily existing because it is not subject to any potential and that includes potential for continual existence through time. It cannot be subject to time because for something to exist in time means to have ones potential for continual existence actualised. It cannot be material because all matter is confined to time.

If my logic is flawed somewhere please someone point it out?

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1225
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 4:34 pm
If you cannot define God, then don't. Just don't make any claims about God either. And that includes the claim that God exists. Because that claim requires God to have a definition.
So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time. But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.

I don't think it's possible to make thinking about these vaguely-defined things any easier. Such metaphysical things are difficult to get our heads around, and (as you observe) difficult to define or describe. If we want easier problems, then I think we need to do what science does, and only address the simpler questions, for which there is evidence available, giving rise to falsifiable (and therefore investigable) theories. This is an acceptable, if limited, course to plot (IMO). But it's not the only way. If we can manage to think a little more flexibly, we can think about much more....
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Scottmilligan
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: July 5th, 2018, 3:05 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Scottmilligan » January 23rd, 2020, 1:58 pm

Ps you guys should check out Edward Feser's book 5 arguments for the existence of God. Its well worth a read and he goes more into these arguments than I do

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8232
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Steve3007 » January 23rd, 2020, 5:20 pm

Paragraph breaks, Scott. Paragraph breaks.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 7:20 am

Thomyum2 wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:12 pm
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:45 pm


You seem somewhat disappointed that I haven't challenged your definition of God. There's no need to. I've pointed out that your definition is very different from what God is commonly defined as, and that no theist (including yourself, since you're also not a theist) would adopt such a definition.

creation's definition of God may not be a 'commonly' held one, but I don't think it is without precedent. It brings to mind the Christian Science Church's definition of God, as was written by its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, more than a hundred years ago: The great I Am; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; Substance; Intelligence.
And where does 'intelligence' come from if not from or through a truly Open Mind?

Mind, is also invisible just like a Spirit is, and like the soul is as well.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 8:47 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
creation wrote:...my definition is just about the EXACT SAME as those definitions of God either specifically proposed by theists, or definitions of God generally defined in mainstream.
No, it isn't.

Here's your definition: God is defined as the Universe, and the Mind. The Mind is the ability to learn.

Here's the mainstream definition: God is defined as the omnipotent, eternal creator of the universe, a spiritual being in form, invisible and all-knowing, and the final judge of morality and justice.
Okay great. Now we have something to work with.

Would you like me to wait for you to now tell me what these words mean, or would you like me to tell you how they fit in with my definition of God first?

Because communicating in these forums is extremely slow. I will explain how those words fit in with my definition of God now, but if you prefer to tell me what those words mean, to you, first, then just ignore what I wrote below. But, if you do not want this, then just read what I wrote.

If, 'omnipotent' means something like; having unlimited power, then obviously God, the infinite and eternal Universe, has unlimited power.

'Eternal creator of the Universe' means that God, the Universe, is in eternal creation. The Universe is creating Its Self always. Always has been and always will be, or eternally. Because of the way the Universe fundamentally exists, and works, It has always been in eternal Creation. God, the Universe has always being in Creation.

'A spiritual being in form' is God, the Mind, which is an invisible thing that provides human beings with the ability to learn and understand absolutely any and every thing.

'Invisible and all-knowing' is God, the Mind, which is invisible, and from where ALL-Knowing comes from. The Mind Knows, whereas the brain only thinks.

'Final judge of morality and justice' is God, the Mind, through this One Mind morality and justice is already Known. Just not yet consciously known by most people. Who has the actual ability to finally judge what is morally right for ALL, and justice for ALL?

Nothing other than ALL, as One. Only in agreement by ALL as One, for ALL, will that be the 'final judge of morality and justice'. Obviously there is no one person or thing other than ALL, which could decide and judge for ALL. The Mind is what transcends ALL, and what allows each of us to gain and have empathy with each and ALL others. Being able to put "ourselves into the shoes of others" is how we can already Know what is morally right, and justice for ALL.

Only when we are thinking and doing for ALL, as One, then we have a final Judge of morality and justice. That Judge is ALL of us united as One.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
Other popular definitions of God include benevolent, demanding of worship, intolerant of disobedience and grantor of petitions.
'Benevolent' happens from God, the Mind, which has empathy for ALL, equally as One. When we are doing for ALL, which is just ourselves anyway, when we are doing the same as we want for our individual self, equally, then we are doing for our True Self, which is just ALL-OF-US, united as One.

'Demanding of worship', is God, the Mind, which does not 'demand' worship in the sense of any one having to look up to and worshiping 'another'. But just us looking up to and worshiping our own True Self, which is just us, or ourselves, when we are united as One. When we are doing what is right in Life for every one, and thus creating the one truly peaceful world in harmony together with each other, which we ALL Truly want anyway, then we are not 'demanding' worship, we are just worshiping who we Truly ARE, anyway.

'Intolerant of disobedience' is God, the Mind, which, although allows human beings to 'freely' do whatever it is that they want to do, God, the Universe, sorts out what is 'disobedient' by just wiping out 'that' what is not living in harmony with Nature, or Life, Itself. If, and when, human beings have been to disobedient, then the earth cannot sustain them anymore, and the Universe just keeps doing what It does, which is just keeps evolving, and creating, for eternity. The Universe, God, has no tolerance, nor absolutely any care at all, for any species at all, especially one that destroys its own "mother" or its own necessary home, for their survival. The Universe, God, will just take away what It gave, because of their disobedience. The Mind, God, is 'intolerant of disobedience', which can be seen in the way human beings treat each other when they are 'intolerant of disobedience' they have and show towards each other.

'Grantor of petitions', i have not heard of before.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
Neither the Universe nor the Mind is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, in spirit form, created the universe, has an opinion about sin, demands worship or judges immorality.
Are you absolutely sure of this?

To me, the Universe, and the Mind, are both obviously eternal, omnipotent is obviously universally powerful, the Mind is where ALL-knowledge comes from, the Mind, is God, in spirit form, invisible. The Universe creates It Self, always. The Universe was never created at one moment and that was it. The Universe is still in Creation, NOW. Sin, can just mean 'missing the mark', as well as many other things to many people. The Mind Knows what is right. The Mind judges immorality. Why do you think ALL people are punished for doing "wrong"?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
The only attribute the Universe shares with the mainstream God is that they may both be considered omnipresent (although God is often described as existing beyond the bounds of the universe).
How could that even be possible?

Human beings have a habit of seeing things that really are not even possible, let alone ever being true.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
The Mind, being an ability and not an entity in itself, shares no attributes with God, which is defined as a entity.
The soul, which is just the invisible thoughts and emotions, is the person, the you, the self, the entity 'human being'. Whereas, the Mind is thee Spirit, the Real and True Self, which is the entity of ALL, Being One.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm
What are the similarities you are seeing between your definition of God and the mainstream definitions?
As above.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 8:52 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:47 pm
Thomyum2 wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:12 pm
@creation's definition of God may not be a 'commonly' held one, but I don't think it is without precedent. It brings to mind the Christian Science Church's definition of God, as was written by its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, more than a hundred years ago: The great I Am; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; Substance; Intelligence.
I agree. There are many that share @creation 's concept of God. What I said is that his definition isn't similar to the mainstream definition of God. Even the list of attributes of God you've listed here doesn't correspond to creation's definition. Mind is the ability to learn. It isn't a store of knowledge or center of thought, it's the ability that allows learning to occur. That's not what is being referred to when Eddy refers to God as "Mind".
The list of attributes of God listed here correspond perfectly with my definition.

What happens with the 'ability to learn'. Knowledge, or wisdom, come to light. ALL-Knowing exists because of the Mind.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 9:01 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 4:34 pm
If you cannot define God, then don't. Just don't make any claims about God either. And that includes the claim that God exists. Because that claim requires God to have a definition.
So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time.
Why do you say some things will remain unknown?

How do people know this knowledge?

Where does this knowledge come from, and how can they be so absolutely certain of this, forever more?
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am
But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.

I don't think it's possible to make thinking about these vaguely-defined things any easier. Such metaphysical things are difficult to get our heads around, and (as you observe) difficult to define or describe. If we want easier problems, then I think we need to do what science does, and only address the simpler questions, for which there is evidence available, giving rise to falsifiable (and therefore investigable) theories. This is an acceptable, if limited, course to plot (IMO). But it's not the only way. If we can manage to think a little more flexibly, we can think about much more....

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1225
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 24th, 2020, 11:19 am

creation wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 9:01 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am


So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time.
Why do you say some things will remain unknown?
Because there is no evidence available, nor any prospect thereof. For example, consider the old example that we could be brains in vats. If we were, we could not distinguish it from the situation we think we are in. And there is no extra information that we could access to add more to our considerations. So, no more evidence means that whether we are brains in vats will "remain unknown".
creation wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 9:01 am
How do people know this knowledge?

Where does this knowledge come from, and how can they be so absolutely certain of this, forever more?
I hope the above answers this too.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 24th, 2020, 2:25 pm

gad-fly wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 12:41 pm
Call the reality governing God’s existence and our existence respectively as R1 and R2. We know about R2 but not R1. Likely they are different. In R2, we cannot find out how life comes about, and we are tempted to believe that we are created by some God, but is God in R1 also created by someone else in turn? Not necessarily. God may have permanent existence, or he may have come around accidentally, as when ferrous oxide comes about when a meteor containing iron drops into an atmosphere containing oxygen. Thus God in R1 may have no beginning and no end, or may have a beginning but no end. In this sense, life for God in R1 may not be relevant as what we understand as life, which must also involve death. In this respect, we cannot categorically deny God’s existence simply on what we cannot exist.
This is all well and good if we maintain that an entire separate reality (what does that even mean?) is required for God to have a plane to exist in. You touched on the two main objections to this proposal. First, what's stopping is from assuming that an R3 exists with a bring that accounts for the existence of R2. And we can extrapolate this reasoning infinitely. The second is of R2 is eternal, why would we not assume that R1 is eternal? What about R1 necessitates that it had a beginning? Note that reality simply equates to what is, not necessarily what exists within the universe, but simply what exists (which is why there can be no second or third reality).
Take earthquake. Until recently, we could not understand how it comes about. It is in order for the challenged mind to speculate on various causes. In turn, the inquisitive mind will take over trying to shoot down each cause one at a time. It would be futile to ask: If earthquake shakes us, what shakes earthquake, and what shakes that which shakes earthquake, and come to the conclusion that there is no cause on earthquake, and that it can come and go as it pleases.
An earthquake isn't a thing that shakes. It is the shake itself. This isn't really an apt analogy. But I think I see the point you're trying to make. However, this isn't a solution to the problem of infinite regress in logic. We don't get to assert that "it would be futile to ask": if God created us, who created God? That's a legitimate question.
"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 24th, 2020, 2:46 pm

Scottmilligan wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 1:05 pm
God is existence itself who bestows his existence upon other things which exist and upholds their existence.
If I understand this premise correctly, in order for something to exist, it requires existence, which is God? Wouldn't this necessity for existence also apply to God itself? How would God exist without existence, which is God?
We can understand this through seeing that the essence of a thing and its existence are necessairly separate. For example, if you were to say that the existence of a thing was included in its essence then you would be stuck with saying that that thing has necessary and thereby eternal existence because it is the very nature of the thing to not not exist.
Here's why this makes no sense. If a thing's "nature" or "essence" is to exist, then that thing would exist. You would need to provide examples of things that exist whose "nature" is to not exist, and vice versa. Otherwise you have no grounds upon to make such an assumption.
Now if God is existence itself then we can ascribe to him many of the dicine attributes traditionally attributed to him.
No, we can't. "Existence itself" doesn't imply intelligence, agency, creativity, benevolence, or any other ability or attribute other than existence. You need to justify stretches like this.
So existence must of necessity be eternal. To be eternal means to be without change. But to exist as matter or to exist within time is by definition to be changeable.
It don't see how being eternal implies being unchangeable. It simply means existing for an infinite duration of time. Unless you have a very strange definition of existence, things don't stop existing when they change.
This is because change is merely, as Aquinas points out, to go from a state of potentiality to actuality. So I am potentially in the future and now am actually in the future. But anything which does not possess necessary existence must be upheld by existence itself in order for it to progress into the future. This means God must not have any potentiality since to have potentiality by definition involves the possibility to change so therefore he id pure act.
To act is to change. You're creating a complex self contradiction here. I'm familiar with Aquinas's argument and his hilarious definition of God as a being who cannot change, and therefore cannot act.
Now every material thing is composed by definition of act and potency so God cannot be material. But to not be material and to be eternal is to not exist within spacial dimensions since to exist in spatial dimensions would involve Existence itself existing within an external world. So God is spaceless. If he God is pure act then he is the cause of all change since no thing can actualise itself without first being actualised by another. But since he is the first actualiser, as pure act itself, he bestows the actualisation which other things use. Now this means that all the actualising capacity of any thing originally derives from God. And since power is merely the ability to actualise something, for example a bomb can only explode by having potential to explode before exploding actualised by another and another and so on, God must be all powerful because he contains all possible actualisations imaginable since everything derives its actualising capacity originally from him and could not have it without him, and thereby God has all power imaginable. I could go on but you get my drift :p
See above. Is God defined as a being that cannot act?
"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 24th, 2020, 2:56 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am
So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time. But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.

I don't think it's possible to make thinking about these vaguely-defined things any easier. Such metaphysical things are difficult to get our heads around, and (as you observe) difficult to define or describe. If we want easier problems, then I think we need to do what science does, and only address the simpler questions, for which there is evidence available, giving rise to falsifiable (and therefore investigable) theories. This is an acceptable, if limited, course to plot (IMO). But it's not the only way. If we can manage to think a little more flexibly, we can think about much more....
As I pointed out to creation, there is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" definition of God. I don't make any judgements about definitions other than are they logically consistent or not. A logically consistent definition doesn't imply a "right" definition, nor a logically inconsistent definition a "wrong" definition.

If you make a claim, any claim, about God, you are implying that you have, at least in part, a definition of God. For example, implicit to the claim "God exists" is the definition "God: a thing that exists". A claim about something is a statement of knowledge about something. You cannot argue that something about which claims are being made is unknown. That's a self contradiction. There can be no claims without a definition.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1225
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 24th, 2020, 3:45 pm

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 2:56 pm
If you make a claim, any claim, about God, you are implying that you have, at least in part, a definition of God.
But I, and many believers like me, make no claims. We believe in God, but we are aware that scientifically/objectively/etc we're on shaky ground. So we make no claims, but we do admit happily to our beliefs, logically and objectively unfounded though they are. And we sometimes speculate further, but also in the context of belief, not a formal "claim".

You are trying here to shackle our beliefs in the machine of science and logic, but these are inappropriate tools for this particular job. Beliefs are just that. Some are well-founded, and some are (logically speaking) wholly unfounded. That's the way with human beliefs and belief systems. Your crusade to pillory belief and believers with logic cannot work. It can't work because of what real-world humans believe, and the way(s) they believe. Simple empirical observation confirms that we believe all knds of crazy things, often without reason. If this is your target - the logical imperfection of human beings - say so, and aim openly at it.... 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Post Reply