I respectfully disagree. At the current time we live in a default theistic society. That is, it takes zero original thought to belong to (your parent's) religion. Many if not most "believers" are not all that invested in religion, its just something that everyone they know does on Sunday. OTOH, to be an atheist in a theistic society requires some form of active thought, some realization of the complexities of the universe that goes well beyond Iron Age fables. That is why, in my experience the average atheist has a firmer grasp on the logical possibilies than the average theist.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 11:35 pm LuckyR:
Typical theists exhibit philosophical dishonesty in their inability and refusal to entertain the possibility that God does not exist so yes, there's fault on both sides.
While your comment is true enough, it's omission of the significantly greater reticence to show (the above) honesty by typical theists, makes your post misleading at best.
But that does not change the fact that by and large (perhaps on a scale greater and with more complexity than the dishonesty exhibited by theists?) atheists hold the irrational belief(s) that:
1. Brains create consciousness
2. There is something other than or that is not first-person subjective experience that is the material substance of brains and everything that is not consciousness.
a. There is something other than or that is not subjective experience that existed before atoms formed cells and cells formed brains.
b. Something other than or that is not subjective experience will continue to exist when consciousness no longer exists due to the destruction of the solar system, causing the extinction of brains and life.
c. Only brains (and non-biological computers or other mechanisms that can perform the consciousness-creating function of biological brains) create consciousness, so that no moment or instance of consciousness can exist that does not correlate to or is not generated by some neural circuit in the brain.
By and large atheists express these irrational beliefs as though they were irrefutable fact as opposed admitting these are beliefs about states of affairs that may not exist...given existence only appears in the form of subjective experience.
The "God exists" paradox
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The "God exists" paradox
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The "God exists" paradox
So there is no illusory or hallucinatory experience?phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 12:19 am One can know something definitely and irrefutably exists by experiencing it.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The "God exists" paradox
It is a bit distracting. Less would be more, perhaps?
"Who cares, wins"
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Even if one feels there are good reasons to believe that P, objectively, P may not exist. The existence of P is not caused by one feeling there is good reason to believe that P. P either exists or it doesn't independent of and unaffected by justification.Justification obtains when one feels there are good reasons to believe that P.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:46 pm
How is the belief justified
Something is true if it objectively exists.Truth obtains when one judges a proposition to have a particular relation (depending on one's preferred truth theory) to something else (such as states of affairs)and true
It seems to only be justified, true belief if one says it is...for those beliefs one holds to be true. The person is only making up that a belief is justified and true, when P may not objectively exist.It's not just belief, it's justified, true belief. And propositional knowledge isn't based solely on phenomenal experience.That is "we believe that mind-independent rocks exist" because we can't experience mind-independent rocks.
Thus the belief is in something that may be false, as justification and truth in regard to the belief are entirely arbitrarily granted without evidence.That's it the case.I might add, the belief is unsupported by evidence
It's patently obvious. Nothing appears except a person experiencing. What is appearing that is not a person experiencing?There's no good reason to believe that.as existence only manifests in the form of a person and that which the person experiences,
I'm incapable of accepting that belief can simply be called "justified" and "true" or that it can be knowledge. It's imagination in the face of lack of evidence one merely asserts is a way of knowing.It's starting to seem like you're incapable of learning. It has to be justified, true belief to be knowledge. It can't be just belief.Can something exist or be known to exist simply by believing it exists, despite the fact it may not exist?
Proof is irrelevant to the creation of a false notion of truth to (delusionally) deny the manifest.Proof is irrelevant. It's a red herring to worry about it.Propositional knowledge (belief) is certainly not proof
In other news...
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: The "God exists" paradox
The brain creating consciousness and the existence of something that is not and that is other than subjective experience are probably logically impossible.I respectfully disagree. At the current time we live in a default theistic society. That is, it takes zero original thought to belong to (your parent's) religion. Many if not most "believers" are not all that invested in religion, its just something that everyone they know does on Sunday. OTOH, to be an atheist in a theistic society requires some form of active thought, some realization of the complexities of the universe that goes well beyond Iron Age fables. That is why, in my experience the average atheist has a firmer grasp on the logical possibilies than the average theist.
In other news...
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: The "God exists" paradox
As there is not such thing as nonmental or nonexperiential objects and events, illusory or hallucinatory experience, like dreams, are "off-topic" existences made up of subjective experience. "On topic" existences are those experiences that reflect or are doppelgangers of the pertinent content of the mind of God. Although "off-topic" consciousness, like dreams and hallucinations, are also doppelgangers of non-pertinent (?) content in the mind of God.So there is no illusory or hallucinatory experience?phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:19 pm
One can know something definitely and irrefutably exists by experiencing it.
In other news...
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The "God exists" paradox
False.
Love dogs is true.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The "God exists" paradox
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
gad-fly wrote: ↑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.
The environment on the earth is very different to that on the moon. Both the earth and the moon exist within the same reality. Reality isn't localized. It means the state of things as they are.
Feel free to argue that the environment that God exists in may be very different from earth's environment. It would be incorrect to refer to different environments or even different realms they actually exist as different realities. Because they are not. They are just parts of reality.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
Fair enough. Faith-based knowledge is still knowledge, and can undergo tests that forms of knowledge are prone to undergo. I don't see faith based knowledge as being exempt from validation and consistency.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 10:14 amOK. 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 basedProf 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.
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[/quote]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".
You are making claims about God here. Therefore you are implying a/several definition(s) of God.
God: an entity that is beyond us
God: a being about which we (believers) cannot understand
God: the female gender
If you wish to insist that God has no definitions, stop making claims about God.
I think you got the point. Logic allows us to rule out the possibility of something based on how it is defined. If a plinky is defined as something that cannot possibly exist, then the statement "a plinky can possibly exist" cannot be true. Because that's how logic works.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.
We get to evaluate whether something can possibly exist, or not, based on its definition, and how that definition aligns with the definition of exists. And while proving that something can possibly exist doesn't imply that it does exist, proving that something cannot possibly exist necessarily implies that it does not exist.
By the way, I'm not saying that I've proven that God exists or doesn't here. I'm saying two things: one, you're not avoiding a definition of God, so don't waste your time, and two, God's definition is sufficient to determine whether God can possibly exist or not.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
When did atheists become the authority on truth? If it is true that God exists, is that now an atheist point of view?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 10:56 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.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
This is a fair definition, and in many ways the fundamental definition, of God. If we define God as the overarching label for things which humans do not understand, then God, per this definition, exists.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 8:06 pm Say we suppose that words like "god" are a label (but not the only label) for things far beyond current human understanding, such that we don't currently have the ability to reliably detect and/or observe them.
First are we in agreement that things beyond our understanding likely exist?
Second if they do, it is illogical that we would be able to go into detail on the intricacies of the exact status, form and behavior of such entities. Such that attempts to claim detailed knowledge is (by definition) speculation at best.
Third it is also illogical to try to use the lack of detailed knowledge of them as some sort of "evidence" of their nonexistence.
Bear in mind that as human understanding expands, this God proportionately contracts.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
I know you expanded on this argument at length earlier, but I'll address it here. Objective reality exists. And it is not subjective or confined to perception. The fact that we may never have the capacity to fully and accurately experience or interact with reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Not only is such a position illogical, it it's actually quite an ironic position coming from a theist.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 10:33 pm This, in my view, is "philosophical honesty". Stating one's beliefs and owning up to the fact that they are just beliefs is the most honest thing a person does. Atheists, meanwhile, seem reticent to show the same honesty, particularly in their belief that the brain creates consciousness, or that something other than persons and first-person subjective experience exists.
Let's say we have no idea what lies beyond the individual first-person mind. It could be a software simulation, a brain in a vat, a matrix of plugged in corpses, a dreaming giant, or an absolute empty void of nothing. Regardless of our inability to perceive the real exterior of our minds, that exterior exists. And that is reality. If our minds exist (and we all agree cogito ergo sum), then our "not minds" must also exist. That is, the concept "in our minds" can have no meaning without the required complement "outside our minds". Whatever is outside of our minds is objective reality. And it is independent of what you perceive.
With that said, we have compelling evidence that our perception creates a reasonably accurate model of reality based on sensory input. I can go into that evidence if you want. But even if all that evidence was illusory, it would still hold that an exterior to the mind, and therefore an objective realm, exists.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: The "God exists" paradox
In a context where only subjective perception exists, how does one distinguish experience from belief? If there is no objective reality, what exactly does one experience? If everything being experienced comes from within the mind, how is that different from something that is made up within the mind?
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: The "God exists" paradox
There are and have been theists whose dieties are limited by things like logic and even more. Certainly the polytheists. You argument works with Christians who follow their silly medieval predecessors who deciding that God had literally infinite power and mathematical perfection, but not with theism in general.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 7:49 am There is an interesting paradox that occurs when people who claim to believe that God exists are made to logically follow the ramifications of this claim. If the statement "God exists in reality" is true, this necessarily puts God into the category of "things that exist in reality". Being in this category imposes its own limitations, which God-believers immediately become uncomfortable with. And that's the paradox. You cannot define God as something that exists without imposing the limitations of existence upon God. Removing those limitations will automatically remove God from the category of things that exist.
Further it seems like you are assuming that that which exists must have limitations. Perhaps what exists is a set that includes things such as deities that, from our perspective, have no limitations. IOW they are on the end of the spectrum of things where there is tremendous freedom, even from things that we consider part and parcel with existing.
Or perhaps God is both trancendent and immanent, the transcendent not limited to the either/or distinction that seems, I say seems, like it has to hold but doesn't, perhaps, for all we know.
This kind of deductive 'proof' is just hubris. As if we know what is possible. So we can comfortably worry little syllogisms and draw conclusions about anything at all, we have nothing to learn.
Several points here. The bolded portion is precisely the kind of hubris I mean. We'll or in this instance you'll decide if it can exist. Just via an through experiment. Think of all the things we now know to be the case via science that such thought experiments would have determined could nto exist. Particles in superposition, that space is relative, epigenetic effects (once Darwinian ideas took hold this was not just counterintuitive but heresy, and then it wasn't) and so on. Right now there are paradigmatic and specific assumptions about reality and those will affect your judgement when you rule out as impossible this or that definition of God. And, heck, most people's definitions of other people are problematic and limited. There are still many things we don't know about what makes us tick. We sit here incomplete knowledge and do our best, but often, ironically, people critical of religions, decide that they are ominicient, armchair deducers, who without leaving their living rooms can decide what is and what is not possible, forget scientific epistomology, I can tell you what cannot be. And when confronted they will say, but I am working from their definitions of words we know the limits of. Yeah, like we knew what space meant and was and was not or time or particles vs. waves and so on.Here's an exercise I invite everybody to participate in. Provide a definition of God. Then let's examine that definition to determine if such a definition allows for God to exist in reality. If such a God can possibly exist, we'll keep that definition. If such a God cannot possibly exist, we'll throw out the definition. Then we should have a good idea of what kind of God can actually exist, and how that definition aligns to the God that believers would like to exist.
How wonderful that some small subset of modern human atheists have this divine and complete knowledge, there not possibly being anything they can't weigh in finally on!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023