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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by gad-fly » January 26th, 2020, 11:23 pm

That R2 exists is not an assumption. It is the reality that governs our existence on earth.

"It has been established that there are non such things as God's reality and our reality." No, such has not been established. Simply, we cannot know.

This is not about "creating a new reality." No one can have the power. This is about a reasonable doubt that there can exist another reality given a different frame of time and space, as in the reality difference when on the Moon and when on Earth.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 27th, 2020, 7:54 am

Prof Bulani wrote:
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.
I started by admitting that some believers might unthinkingly, or at least unwisely, use the term "claim". And I stated that I didn't agree with such usage, as it refers to the objective existence of God in the spacetime universe that science describes so well. I didn't point out that we agree, because we don't.
Prof Bulani wrote:
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.
Yes, I do insist that knowledge of God - knowledge that meets the objective, scientific demands that you seem to be placing on this discussion - is unavailable, and will forever remain so. To the best of my knowledge, God is scientifically indetectable, and therefore unmeasureable. To science, God does not exist, and so there can be no evidence and no knowledge (of God) gathered. Not scientific knowledge, that is. Spiritual knowledge is another matter, perhaps.

Prof Bulani wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 9:56 pm
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...
No, I do not align or agree with anything you say or suggest here. I certainly have not said, and do not agree, that "this God of [my] belief is one that cannot possibly exist".
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 3:54 pm
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?
I don't think what he says is false. I think this topic is (yet) another anti-theist thread. Not an atheist thread, explaining and promoting the glories and benefits of atheism. No, it just sets up straw men, one after another, and then destroys them to 'prove' how the point of the OP must be so. It keeps on telling us what believers say and do, but these assertions are fabricated to support the straw-man-army. I comment, and attack, in the end, because of the straw men. The whole topic is composed of them. It is not acceptable in a philosophy discussion to simply state that the people you disagree with say A, B and C without providing some sort of quote to confirm that believers do indeed say and mean such things. There is no "paradox", as the title proclaims. This is just a theist-bashing thread, and that's why I felt the need to comment.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2799
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 » January 27th, 2020, 1:59 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 7:54 am
I don't think what he says is false. I think this topic is (yet) another anti-theist thread. Not an atheist thread, explaining and promoting the glories and benefits of atheism. No, it just sets up straw men, one after another, and then destroys them to 'prove' how the point of the OP must be so. It keeps on telling us what believers say and do, but these assertions are fabricated to support the straw-man-army. I comment, and attack, in the end, because of the straw men. The whole topic is composed of them. It is not acceptable in a philosophy discussion to simply state that the people you disagree with say A, B and C without providing some sort of quote to confirm that believers do indeed say and mean such things. There is no "paradox", as the title proclaims. This is just a theist-bashing thread, and that's why I felt the need to comment.
As an atheist I see not problem here. But still find your position confusing as you agree with him yet reject him.
Since for most of us in the West growing up with the assumption that there is a God, it often takes some serious reverse engineering of this kind to come to a sensible and defensible position of atheism. So I find your objections all the more puzzling.
This is not anti-theist, its just straightforward common sense. And what you like to call "straw men" are all out there amongst the theists who see incapable of running those ideas through a filter of reason. They own more to themselves than empty faith.

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

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani » January 27th, 2020, 3:30 pm

@pattern-chaser, I'll point out here that "spiritual knowledge" would be considered a form of knowledge, and subject to the scrutiny that all forms of knowledge must undergo. Furthermore, to claim that spiritual knowledge of God can be obtained (a claim you haven't made, so I'm presupposing) means that God would have a definition, at the very least "God: a thing about which spiritual knowledge can be obtained".

As to the point of believing that God cannot possibly exist, consider this. Suppose I told you that a plinky, by definition, is something that can only exist in the imagination. No physical or detectable information about a plinky can ever be obtained. Now, let statement p = "a plinky can possibly exist in reality". Note that the statement isn't suggesting that the plinky actually exists, it's a statement about the possibility that a plinky could exist.

Would you say that statement p is true, false, or cannot be evaluated? And give a reason for your answer.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 1:59 pm
...what you like to call "straw men" are all out there amongst the theists who see incapable of running those ideas through a filter of reason.
If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
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 28th, 2020, 12:11 pm

Prof Bulani:

Let me conclude by saying that if reality on Earth and on the Moon, like gravity and oxygen, are different, we have no right to superimpose what governs our reality on what governs God's reality. In this respect, a reasonable doubt on God's existence must be allowed.

You and I can have more in common than what you think. I hide what I believe in, not because there is a need to hide, but because my belief should have no bearing on an intellectual debate.

Thanks for the thought-provoking debate. The pleasure is mine.

User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 123
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti » January 29th, 2020, 5:36 am

God=a human consciousness that is the external world as opposed to something finite occupying the external world.
We are currently living within the mind of Jesus Christ as he is currently being crucified. One may think there is no God, or if one believes in God, one thinks one lives outside the mind of Christ in a post-crucifixion present.

In other news...

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2799
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 » January 29th, 2020, 9:54 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 1:59 pm
...what you like to call "straw men" are all out there amongst the theists who see incapable of running those ideas through a filter of reason.
If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
They seem to have hidden themselves under a rock.
They are often seen massaging each others faith right here on this Forum.
I rather them defend themselves, but they have proven incapable.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2799
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 » January 29th, 2020, 9:55 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am

If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
eg All you tend to get is this sort of flim-flam...

God=a human consciousness that is the external world as opposed to something finite occupying the external world.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 29th, 2020, 10:14 am

@Prof Bulani - To begin with, I offered the reply below to @Sculptor1, but it applies as much, or more, to you too.
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 1:59 pm
...what you like to call "straw men" are all out there amongst the theists who see incapable of running those ideas through a filter of reason.
If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
==================================
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 3:30 pm
@pattern-chaser, I'll point out here that "spiritual knowledge" would be considered a form of knowledge, and subject to the scrutiny that all forms of knowledge must undergo.
OK. Then I will point out here that spiritual knowledge is qualitatively different from knowledge such as you refer to. It is not treated in the same way. It is not subject to the same rules. It does not offer the same benefits that plain old knowledge does. Spiritual knowledge, like many things spiritual, is primarily faith-based.


==================================
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 3:30 pm
Furthermore, to claim that spiritual knowledge of God can be obtained (a claim you haven't made, so I'm presupposing) means that God would have a definition, at the very least "God: a thing about which spiritual knowledge can be obtained".
The basic point to grasp here is that God cannot be defined in a way that you would find adequate. Believers have as many different impressions of God as there are believers. If you think about it, this is to be expected. God is not human. Ways of understanding and judging humans do not apply to God, any more than they would apply to any other non-human being. We (believers) do not understand God, or what She is. She is beyond us. And, frustratingly, we cannot define Her in a way that investigative thinkers might prefer. God is a being "about which spiritual knowledge can be obtained", but bear in mind what I just wrote about spiritual knowledge, above.

==================================
Prof Bulani wrote:
January 27th, 2020, 3:30 pm
As to the point of believing that God cannot possibly exist, consider this. Suppose I told you that a plinky, by definition, is something that can only exist in the imagination. No physical or detectable information about a plinky can ever be obtained. Now, let statement p = "a plinky can possibly exist in reality". Note that the statement isn't suggesting that the plinky actually exists, it's a statement about the possibility that a plinky could exist.

Would you say that statement p is true, false, or cannot be evaluated? And give a reason for your answer.
I can't make sense of this. If a plinky "can only exist in the imagination", then how can a plinky "possibly exist in reality"? Presumably, this could only make sense if you consider your imagination to be part of "reality"? It is unclear to me how your statement p can or should be considered.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 29th, 2020, 10:21 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
January 29th, 2020, 9:54 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am


If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
They seem to have hidden themselves under a rock.
They are often seen massaging each others faith right here on this Forum.
I rather them defend themselves, but they have proven incapable.
Once again, as @Prof Bulani also does, you ascribe certain beliefs to believers, without providing evidence, or specific quotes. No believer can respond to such straw men; they are works of imaginative fiction, and they are too vague for a cogent response to be offered. They seem to refer to stereotypes, but without evidence or quotes, it's difficult to tell....


Sculptor1 wrote:
January 29th, 2020, 9:55 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am

If this is the course this topic must take, I think it would be reasonable to quote actual believers, and offer them the chance to respond to your views on their beliefs, don't you? Or will you just make up stories about believers - straw men - and write about how stupid they all are? Do you want this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
eg All you tend to get is this sort of flim-flam...

God=a human consciousness that is the external world as opposed to something finite occupying the external world.
And again: as above.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 29th, 2020, 10:26 am

To @Sculptor1 and @Prof Bulani, and to any others who hold a similar position, I ask this question again.
Pattern-chaser wrote:
January 28th, 2020, 5:52 am
[Is] this topic to be a place where anti-theists can congragate and laugh at the poor deluded believers, or is there a philosophical discussion to be had here?
🤔🤔🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 123
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti » January 29th, 2020, 10:44 am

eg All you tend to get is this sort of flim-flam...
God=a human consciousness that is the external world as opposed to something finite occupying the external world.
You write this definition of God off as "flim-flam", but if you remove the lens of ontological prejudice, you can see it is perhaps the most logical definition that can exist.

Why?

Because existence only appears or manifests in the form of consciousness, er, first-person subjective experience. You can readily see this for yourself. It's the only form existence takes.

You extrapolate personal consciousness to the size of the external world, you get God. Not only that, but a God based on empirical evidence, re: the existence of consciousness, which, again, is the only thing that manifests or demonstrates its existence.
We are currently living within the mind of Jesus Christ as he is currently being crucified. One may think there is no God, or if one believes in God, one thinks one lives outside the mind of Christ in a post-crucifixion present.

In other news...

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1075
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser » January 29th, 2020, 10:56 am

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
January 29th, 2020, 10:44 am
God=a human consciousness that is the external world as opposed to something finite occupying the external world.
You write this definition of God off as "flim-flam", but if you remove the lens of ontological prejudice, you can see it is perhaps the most logical definition that can exist.

Why?

Because existence only appears or manifests in the form of consciousness, er, first-person subjective experience. You can readily see this for yourself. It's the only form existence takes.

You extrapolate personal consciousness to the size of the external world, you get God. Not only that, but a God based on empirical evidence, re: the existence of consciousness, which, again, is the only thing that manifests or demonstrates its existence.
Your personal view of God is interesting, although a little different from my own. [Not all THAT much. 😉] I could try to offer my own view of God, but that isn't what this topic is about. This topic presents a "paradox" which is not a paradox. It basically says that when believers are directly confronted with the One and Only (atheist) Truth, they back down from their beliefs. I do not believe this is the case in practice, for real believers in the real world.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 123
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti » January 29th, 2020, 11:32 am

Your personal view of God is interesting, although a little different from my own. [Not all THAT much. 😉] I could try to offer my own view of God, but that isn't what this topic is about. This topic presents a "paradox" which is not a paradox. It basically says that when believers are directly confronted with the One and Only (atheist) Truth, they back down from their beliefs. I do not believe this is the case in practice, for real believers in the real world.
Yeah, that's absolute balderdash. The Atheist Truth that we must all come to grips with, know in our hearts is true, and cannot forever deny is this:

1. Consciousness, er, first-person subjective experience magically comes into existence after previously being something that does not exist.

2. Consciousness (first-person subjective experience) is something that can magically wink out of existence.

3. Consciousness (first-person subjective experience) comes from or "airbag deploys" from 100 billion star-shaped pieces of meat lumped together into the organ called "The Brain" (or subtract from 100 billion the number of star-shaped pieces of electrified meat forming the neocortex, as according to Slyvia Mader the cerebral cortex is the only portion of the brain responsible for consciousness). Consciousness magically comes into existence after previously being something that does not exist if the outer, higher-energy electrons in the outer shells of atoms making up the star-shaped pieces of meat being to play "Musical Chairs" with atoms forming other star-shaped pieces of meat clumped inside a skull.

4. There was a time when brains, and thus consciousness, did not exist. What existed when there was no such thing as first-person subjective experience which, by the way, is the ONLY thing that appears, manifests, or demonstrates that it exists? Why, non-subjective experience, or the "whatever" that is not and that is something other than consciousness (first-person subjective experience).

5. We supposedly experience non-experience or objects and events in the external world made up of non-experience, but anyone using just a gram of common sense can see this makes no sense. You can only experience experience. How can one experience non-experience, as non-experience isn't experience? Thus objects and events not made up of consciousness cannot logically or rationally have anything to do with the existence and content of consciousness as, well, they are not consciousness or made up of consciousness. In order for you to experience anything, it must be made up of subjective experience. Anything not materialistically composed or made up of subjective experience--- specifically, anything not materialistically composed of YOUR subjective experience (isolated from and as opposed to the subjective experience of any other being in existence), cannot be experienced.

6. Atheists mock the theist's faith in the existence of God, but they ironically use faith to believe (and worse, assert the "irrefutable truth of") in non-experience, and objects and events in made up of non-experience (in short, objects and events not created by the brain, that exist in the external world).

The upshot?

It may be that only consciousness (first-person subjective experience) exists, as we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of non-experience or non-experiential objects, and non-experience and non-experiential objects cannot logically use themselves to come up with experience...something they are not.

Thus, it may very well be that there are no such things as non-experiential or mind-independent objects and events, and only persons exist.

If God exists, he is the External Person, with the external world being not an infinite space but the inner mind of an infinite, external person. We exist within God, in the same way that Stephen King's characters exist inside him, in the form of ideas that have tiny consciousnesses of their own within a larger, surrounding consciousness (Acts 17:28).

This makes farrrrr more sense than brains magically creating consciousness, anything magically coming into existence and going out of existence (there is only consciousness, rather than physical matter and energy [which does not exist] changing form), or non-experience (something that is not or that is other than first-person subjective experience, the only thing that has ever appeared and the only thing that has ever demonstrated it exists) having anything to do with subjective experience, as non-experience is not subjective experience.
We are currently living within the mind of Jesus Christ as he is currently being crucified. One may think there is no God, or if one believes in God, one thinks one lives outside the mind of Christ in a post-crucifixion present.

In other news...

Post Reply