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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
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.... 🤔
I disagree that believers make no claims about God. I pointed out that the statement "God exists" is a claim. If you believe in God, as in believe something about God to be true, then you are implying a claim.

Anyway, I won't belabor the point. Your position that belief in God requires God to be something that cannot possibly exist is essentially the argument I started this thread with. (You may disagree that that's your position, but that's actually what it boils down to.) A God that can possibly exist in reality always turns out to be a God not worth believing anyway, so if you want to remain a believer, stick with a God that cannot possibly exist.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

gad-fly
Posts: 668
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by gad-fly » January 24th, 2020, 11:57 pm

Prof Bulani wrote today 2:25 pm.:

"This is all well and good if we maintain that an entire separate reality is required for God to have a plane to exist in. . . there can be no second or third reality."

One's reality is what one truly experiences and believes to be the case. If you live on Earth before the space age, you are likely to take as your reality that what goes up must come down; if you live at the bottom of a well, the sky must be a round screen with ever-changing image. Indeed, what you have realized as reality may be reality defined only in a given frame of space and time. Call Going-up-coming-down the first reality; call going-up-not-coming-down the second reality. Both can hold.

"If God created us, who created God? That's a legitimate question."

That is a loaded question. It presumes God must be created in the first place. If I am forced to answer, I would say: I don't know. Perhaps by someone, or perhaps by none. Both are possible. Allow my refusal to pick one.

By assuming the reality that we are created by God, must our creation reality apply to God's reality as well? Can he come not through creation? We can dismiss the likelihood as fantasy, based on our reality, but we can also be more open-minded, giving the likelihood some benefit of doubt. Do I believe in God? That is another issue. Whatever, my argument applies that the paradox should be kept open.

creation
Posts: 1128
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 2:17 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 11:19 am
creation wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 9:01 am


Why do you say some things will remain unknown?
Because there is no evidence available, nor any prospect thereof.
So, if no evidence exists for you, in some year, which is just not even a 'blink' in relation to forever more, then supposedly this proves that some things will never be known, forever more, correct?
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 11:19 am
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.
If you are going to use this as an example of some thing that will forever more remain unknown, then what example will you provide of things that can be known, for sure, with 100% certainty?
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 11:19 am
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".
Okay. If you say so, then it must be 100% absolutely true, correct?
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 11:19 am
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.
Not really.

If you are a brain in a vat, I am still curious as to how how you know some knowledge, which you are inferring here is absolute irrefutable Truth?

And, I am still curios as to where this knowledge came from?

If, for example, you are a brain in a vat, then how do you know, for absolute certainty, that you will never, forever more, know that you are a brain in a vat?

In other words, How can you be so absolutely certain that your knowledge will hold True, forever more.

creation
Posts: 1128
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 2:27 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
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.
If, to you, this is a legitimate question, then here is a legitimate answer.

God, the Universe, obviously created 'us', human beings.

So, who created God, the Universe, is Its Self.

God, the Universe, did never created some thing and just stopped. The Universe is in continual always-constant creation HERE-NOW. This Creation is eternal. But what actually creates the Universe, God, Itself, is the very two fundamental things that have always co-existed. They are something and nothing, or some thing and no thing, or matter (some thing) and space (no thing).

For absolutely any thing to be created at least two things, coming together, prior are needed. God, the Universe, is no different. The two things though that create or make the Universe, what It is, have always existed. In fact each are needed for the other to exist, and without one of them then absolutely nothing could be created.

Only through there being matter, and a space for matter to move freely about, then matter can interact, and it is from interaction that creation happens.

God, the Universe, is just in constant Creation, through change, or evolution. Evolution is just change, and it is the through the evolutionary process of change that God, the Universe, is Creating, Its Self, always (and in all ways, it could be argued).

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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 25th, 2020, 5:16 am

gad-fly wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 11:57 pm
One's reality is what one truly experiences and believes to be the case. If you live on Earth before the space age, you are likely to take as your reality that what goes up must come down; if you live at the bottom of a well, the sky must be a round screen with ever-changing image. Indeed, what you have realized as reality may be reality defined only in a given frame of space and time. Call Going-up-coming-down the first reality; call going-up-not-coming-down the second reality. Both can hold.
No. One's perspective is what one experiences and believes. There is no such thing as "your reality" or "my reality". Reality is the objective state of time, space, energy and matter as it actually is. What you believe and experience occurs in your mind. Do not interchange the subjective perspective with objective reality.
That is a loaded question. It presumes God must be created in the first place. If I am forced to answer, I would say: I don't know. Perhaps by someone, or perhaps by none. Both are possible. Allow my refusal to pick one.

By assuming the reality that we are created by God, must our creation reality apply to God's reality as well? Can he come not through creation? We can dismiss the likelihood as fantasy, based on our reality, but we can also be more open-minded, giving the likelihood some benefit of doubt. Do I believe in God? That is another issue. Whatever, my argument applies that the paradox should be kept open.
Why are you presuming that reality was created by God? How is the presumption that reality was created any more legitimate that the presumption that God was created?
"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 25th, 2020, 5:31 am

creation wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 8:47 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm

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.
We are going in circles here.

The universe does not have "unlimited power". In scientific terms, the energy of the universe is finite. In religious terms, the universe doesn't have the "ability to do anything", such as violate the laws of physics and so on, as is ascribed to God.

The universe in a state of creation doesn't imply it created anything. God is never described as a thing being created, evolving or changing.

You defined Mind as the ability to learn things. Are you now changing this definition? An ability is not an entity. It is, at best, an attribute of an entity. An ability cannot therefore be a thing with attributes itself. The Mind, as you defined it, cannot have things like knowledge, benevolence, morality or agency. Because it's an ability. Either stick to the definition you provided, or come up with another definition and stick to that.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

creation
Posts: 1128
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 8:47 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
creation wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 8:47 am


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.



'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.



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"?



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.



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.



As above.
We are going in circles here.
I am not.

So why are you going in circles.

Do you think you are seeing something that I am not?

From what I am seeing my definition of God is more closer to your common definitions of God than I had realized previously
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
The universe does not have "unlimited power". In scientific terms, the energy of the universe is finite.
That is because, to some, in the scientific community, the Universe is finite.

And, if you want to claim that the Universe does not have "unlimited power", because, in scientific terms, the energy of the Universe is finite, then, if in scientific terms it is finally discovered that actually the Universe is infinite, and the energy of the Universe is in fact infinite, then would that mean the Universe now does have 'unlimited power'?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then why not now?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
In religious terms, the universe doesn't have the "ability to do anything", such as violate the laws of physics and so on, as is ascribed to God.
But if all of the Universe was sucked into a black, which the Universe created, and where the laws of physics, on human beings terms, by the way, do not exist, then does that mean that the Universe does actually have the "ability to do anything"?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then why not now?
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
The universe in a state of creation doesn't imply it created anything.
Obviously absolutely 'every' thing 'has to' be created. Things do not just come to exist without being created.

What creates absolutely every thing is ultimately God, the Universe, Itself. Obviously absolutely every thing came from two other things, which were not the whole Universe, Itself, but ultimately every thing is created from God, the Universe, Itself.

Absolutely every thing is created. For example, human bodies are created by two human bodies coming together, and forming one thing. Now, think about absolutely every thing else, and where it came from, what will be discovered is it came from at least two other things coming together.

Now, absolutely every created thing, evolves. Through things reacting with other things, things change/evolve, and are further created. Things reacting is creating. Every action causes a reaction, and it is this continual reaction process, which is just what creation is, and is exactly how the Universe works. The Universe is just One reacting-evolving process, also known as Creation, Itself. Through evolution the Universe creates every thing. Every thing is created because of just how the Universe actually works.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
God is never described as a thing being created, evolving or changing.
What do you mean that God is NEVER described as a thing being created, evolving or changing, when I obviously and clearly just described 'this', this exact way. You would not have said what you just said if I had not described 'this' this way. Therefore, God IS described as a thing being created, evolving or changing.

This can also be explained very simply and very easily through, and with, logic and reason.
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:31 am
You defined Mind as the ability to learn things. Are you now changing this definition? An ability is not an entity. It is, at best, an attribute of an entity. An ability cannot therefore be a thing with attributes itself. The Mind, as you defined it, cannot have things like knowledge, benevolence, morality or agency. Because it's an ability. Either stick to the definition you provided, or come up with another definition and stick to that.
In a sense I regret writing that the way I did, without clarifying that it is not the one and only definition. But considering there are probably 100 to 200 thousand more words that may be needed to explain just this one part so that it is fully understood to some people, do you really expect me to make just one definition and stick to that definition solely and completely?

How many words in just any, of the many, dictionaries, all with different definitions for the same word by the way, just have one and only definition to which they stick to?

That definition of 'ability to learn' in relation to Mind, is in reference to how the Mind is completely OPEN to ALL things.

Now, just as there is a 'being', in a 'human being', which is more or less the entity, so to is the Mind, the Being of the Universe, in the sense of this is the Entity of the living Being, God, the Universe. But as I was saying, to explain all-of-this, so that it is all fully understood, all depends on the one reading or listening. Some will understand this with far less words than others will. And, at this stage of the evolutionary process of Life, this is only at the very first stages of just being heard, let alone being listened to and understood, let alone being fully understood, accepted, and agreed with.

The Mind, which is Truly OPEN, is the Thing that allows ALL things to be learned, or provides all human beings with the 'ability to learn' ALL things.

The Mind can also be seen as and known as the living Spirit, within ALL.

There is also the Mind's Eye, which can see, or understand, ALL things.

The Truly OPEN Mind can be seen as and known as where ALL knowledge comes from.

But for all-of-this to be truly understood and accepted there might be many more words needed to be used to explain this fully. But this explanation can be done.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1092
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 25th, 2020, 11:13 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
I disagree that believers make no claims about God.
And maybe you're right. When I think about it, I see that some believers seem to claim God's existence. I think (hope) they mean to say that they believe that God exists (which is not a claim that others should follow), but phrase it as an easily-misunderstood claim. To claim that God has existence in the scientific spacetime universe is rash and unjustifiable, as far as I can see. That, at least, is close to a simple matter of fact, and not a vague spiritual point.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
If you believe in God, as in believe something about God to be true, then you are implying a claim.
No. A claim, which we might also call an assertion, is a call to others that they should accept whatever-it-is that you're claiming. A statement of my personal belief does not carry with it the call for others to agree. It simply states my belief; a factual remark.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
Anyway, I won't belabor the point. Your position that belief in God requires God to be something that cannot possibly exist...
No, that's not my position, although it does illuminate many of the comments I've made in this topic. Because it's your take on my position!

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
(You may disagree that that's your position, but that's actually what it boils down to.)
I'm sorry, but this is arrant and arrogant bluster. We autists have something of a reputation for this kind of thing, but you are equalling or exceeding the best of us here, in this topic. It is your view and your belief that "that's actually what it boils down to"! Please do not place your words into my mouth, or your thoughts into my head. I place significant value on mental hygiene. Thank you.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
A God that can possibly exist in reality always turns out to be a God not worth believing anyway, so if you want to remain a believer, stick with a God that cannot possibly exist.
More offensive blather. More intentionally-offensive blather. But worst of all: little or no significant semantic content. Just untruths repeated until they become true, a la Blair, Bush and Trump. Repetition doesn't actually create truth, you know? It's only Trump that thinks so.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

gad-fly
Posts: 668
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by gad-fly » January 25th, 2020, 3:48 pm

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 5:16 am
One's perspective is what one experiences and believes. There is no such thing as "your reality" or "my reality". Reality is the objective state of time, space, energy and matter as it actually is. What you believe and experience occurs in your mind. Do not interchange the subjective perspective with objective reality.

"Reality" is a term I quoted from your original post. Fine to replace it with 'perspective". So "perspective" is what one experiences and believes in his mind. Then how does he attains "objective reality", if not from what he has experienced and believes in? From the perspective of others which must also be subjective?
Why are you presuming that reality was created by God? How is the presumption that reality was created any more legitimate than the presumption that God was created?

No, I have not presumed that reality was created by God. Reality should govern all, including God. The present paradox is on the presumption that God was or was not created. It is not about the legitimacy of the presumption. Prop it up or shoot it down: it is up to you.

"If God creates us, who creates God?"
"Perhaps someone; perhaps no one. Who knows."
"How can he come around without being created?"
"Perhaps he can; perhaps not. Who knows."
"But you say we can be created by him."
"Perhaps we are; perhaps not. Who knows."
"You are evasive."
"I am? Perhaps. My doubts abound. I am prepared to give in to the benefit of the doubt."
r

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2845
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 » January 25th, 2020, 3:54 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 11:13 am
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
I disagree that believers make no claims about God.
And maybe you're right. When I think about it, I see that some believers seem to claim God's existence. I think (hope) they mean to say that they believe that God exists (which is not a claim that others should follow), but phrase it as an easily-misunderstood claim. To claim that God has existence in the scientific spacetime universe is rash and unjustifiable, as far as I can see. That, at least, is close to a simple matter of fact, and not a vague spiritual point.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
If you believe in God, as in believe something about God to be true, then you are implying a claim.
No. A claim, which we might also call an assertion, is a call to others that they should accept whatever-it-is that you're claiming. A statement of my personal belief does not carry with it the call for others to agree. It simply states my belief; a factual remark.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
Anyway, I won't belabor the point. Your position that belief in God requires God to be something that cannot possibly exist...
No, that's not my position, although it does illuminate many of the comments I've made in this topic. Because it's your take on my position!

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
(You may disagree that that's your position, but that's actually what it boils down to.)
I'm sorry, but this is arrant and arrogant bluster. We autists have something of a reputation for this kind of thing, but you are equalling or exceeding the best of us here, in this topic. It is your view and your belief that "that's actually what it boils down to"! Please do not place your words into my mouth, or your thoughts into my head. I place significant value on mental hygiene. Thank you.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 7:48 pm
A God that can possibly exist in reality always turns out to be a God not worth believing anyway, so if you want to remain a believer, stick with a God that cannot possibly exist.
More offensive blather. More intentionally-offensive blather. But worst of all: little or no significant semantic content. Just untruths repeated until they become true, a la Blair, Bush and Trump. Repetition doesn't actually create truth, you know? It's only Trump that thinks so.
I'm puzzled at the attack.
If you think what he says is false then why not give some of your own examples that counter what he has been saying?

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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 25th, 2020, 9:56 pm

@ pattern-chaser, your position has been that you believe in God, and arguably even believe that there may be things about God that are true. However, you are saying that you make no claims about God (i.e., statements of knowledge about God). Further, you insist (on fallacious grounds) that no knowledge about God can possibly be obtained.

The reason that, based on these arguments, you align with the position in my op that this God of your belief is one that cannot possibly exist, is simply because the word "God" in your comments has no associated concept. When a word is used, what is communicated is a concept that is linked to the word, i.e., the word's definition. When you use the word "God", no concept is linked to it. You are, at best, referring to a non-entity.

In your effort to evade the issue by arguing that God cannot be defined, you are now associating God with a conceptual void. By your own argument, God is nothing. The word, having no definition, has no meaning. In your lexicon, God is as nonexistent as a duguesxvhyd or thargdaev or any other meaningless string of characters that can be typed with no associated definition or concept.
"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 25th, 2020, 10:13 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 11:13 am
And maybe you're right. When I think about it, I see that some believers seem to claim God's existence. I think (hope) they mean to say that they believe that God exists (which is not a claim that others should follow), but phrase it as an easily-misunderstood claim. To claim that God has existence in the scientific spacetime universe is rash and unjustifiable, as far as I can see. That, at least, is close to a simple matter of fact, and not a vague spiritual point.
Interesting that you'd start your reply with this, then spend the rest of your comment arguing that this isn't what you mean. You are clearly stating here that in your view it is "rash and unjustifiable" to argue that God can possibly exist in reality. Now that I'm rereading your reply I'm confused as to why you would be offended by me pointing out that we agree on this and that's what my post was talking about to begin with.
"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 25th, 2020, 10:28 pm

gad-fly wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 3:48 pm
"Reality" is a term I quoted from your original post. Fine to replace it with 'perspective". So "perspective" is what one experiences and believes in his mind. Then how does he attains "objective reality", if not from what he has experienced and believes in? From the perspective of others which must also be subjective?
Your comment proposed that we assume that "our reality" is R1, and "God's reality" is R2, and that R1 is a product of R2. That's why I pointed out that there is no such thing as different realities. Reality is objective, and we experience it subjectively. Hence we never experience reality completely, and will probably never have a full and accurate model of objective reality in our minds. There are two reasons why this doesn't matter. First, whether it is possible to attain objective reality or not doesn't change the fact that reality (matter, energy, time and space arranged as they actually are) is what it is. Really isn't contingent on our ability to perceive it. And second, for the purposes of survival and replication, living things do not need to perceive all of objective reality completely. Our survival depends on us perceiving reality accurately, but we do not need a fully detailed and precise model of space, time, matter and energy in order to accomplish this.
gad-fly wrote: No, I have not presumed that reality was created by God. Reality should govern all, including God. The present paradox is on the presumption that God was or was not created. It is not about the legitimacy of the presumption. Prop it up or shoot it down: it is up to you.

"If God creates us, who creates God?"
"Perhaps someone; perhaps no one. Who knows."
"How can he come around without being created?"
"Perhaps he can; perhaps not. Who knows."
"But you say we can be created by him."
"Perhaps we are; perhaps not. Who knows."
"You are evasive."
"I am? Perhaps. My doubts abound. I am prepared to give in to the benefit of the doubt."
Like
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

gad-fly
Posts: 668
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by gad-fly » January 26th, 2020, 10:38 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 10:28 pm
Your comment proposed that we assume that "our reality" is R1, and "God's reality" is R2, and that R1 is a product of R2. That's why I pointed out that there is no such thing as different realities.

"R1 is a product of R2." How so? I said God is governed by R1, and we are governed by R2. I throw a stone vertically up, and it returns to hit my head under Earthly R2. God throws a stone vertically up under Space Station R1, and it will keep flying away from him. Let me fly to the Moon, where I can jump higher than anyone on Earth, but I would be doomed if I have forgotten to carry oxygen alongside. It all comes to show that different realities exist, and we can ignore them at our own risk. I do not pretend to know what R! reality governs God's existence.

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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 26th, 2020, 7:56 pm

gad-fly wrote:
January 26th, 2020, 10:38 am
"R1 is a product of R2." How so? I said God is governed by R1, and we are governed by R2. I throw a stone vertically up, and it returns to hit my head under Earthly R2. God throws a stone vertically up under Space Station R1, and it will keep flying away from him. Let me fly to the Moon, where I can jump higher than anyone on Earth, but I would be doomed if I have forgotten to carry oxygen alongside. It all comes to show that different realities exist, and we can ignore them at our own risk. I do not pretend to know what R! reality governs God's existence.
Why assume that an R2 exists? I think it has been already established that there are no such things as "God's reality" or "our reality", as reality encompasses everything that is. Creating a new reality that cannot possibly exist just to invent a realm for God to exist in doesn't make it possible for God to exist.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

Post Reply