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.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by LuckyR »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 2nd, 2020, 11:35 pm LuckyR:

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.
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.

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.
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.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 12:19 am One can know something definitely and irrefutably exists by experiencing it.
So there is no illusory or hallucinatory experience? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Consul wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 1:09 am
phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 12:31 am...
+++By the way, you should remove that picture from your posts, because it's too big and too loud!+++
It is a bit distracting. Less would be more, perhaps? 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 125
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti »

Terrapin Station:
phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:46 pm

How is the belief justified
Justification obtains when one feels there are good reasons to believe that P.
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.
and true
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)
Something is true if it objectively exists.
That is "we believe that mind-independent rocks exist" because we can't experience mind-independent rocks.
It's not just belief, it's justified, true belief. And propositional knowledge isn't based solely on phenomenal experience.
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.
I might add, the belief is unsupported by evidence
That's it the case.
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.
as existence only manifests in the form of a person and that which the person experiences,
There's no good reason to believe that.
It's patently obvious. Nothing appears except a person experiencing. What is appearing that is not a person experiencing?
Can something exist or be known to exist simply by believing it exists, despite the fact it may not exist?
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.
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.
Propositional knowledge (belief) is certainly not proof
Proof is irrelevant. It's a red herring to worry about it.
Proof is irrelevant to the creation of a false notion of truth to (delusionally) deny the manifest.
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
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 125
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti »

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.
The brain creating consciousness and the existence of something that is not and that is other than subjective experience are probably logically impossible.
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
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 125
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by phenomenal_graffiti »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:19 pm
One can know something definitely and irrefutably exists by experiencing it.
So there is no illusory or hallucinatory experience? 🤔
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.
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: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 4th, 2020, 8:15 am
Something is true if it objectively exists.
False.
Love dogs is true.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 4th, 2020, 8:23 am
phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 4th, 2020, 8:15 am
Something is true if it objectively exists.
False.
I Love dogs is true.
User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Prof Bulani »

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.
"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 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 29th, 2020, 10:14 am
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
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.
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[/quote]
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 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.
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.

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.
"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 »

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.
When did atheists become the authority on truth? If it is true that God exists, is that now an atheist point of view?
"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 »

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.
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.

Bear in mind that as human understanding expands, this God proportionately contracts.
"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 »

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.
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.

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.
"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 »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 3rd, 2020, 7:25 pm Can one conflate experience with belief?
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?
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: The "God exists" paradox

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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!
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021