Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[Typist]

Hmm logic systems are necessary to construct coherent and consistent communication. For instance, you say space. If we do not use a logical system then by space u could very well mean a collection of floating pink elephants.

It's indisputable that logic is very useful for very many things, no debate there. But imho, there's really no compelling evidence it is useful in regards to questions regarding the ultimate nature of everything, a realm which almost certainly transcends our ability to comprehend.

It's very common, and understandable, to make an unwarranted leap from the fact that human reason is very good for very many things, to an unexamined assumption it must therefore be good for everything. I'm not willing to make that leap.

Instead, I examine the evidence, and see this inquiry appears to be stalled right about where it was thousands of years ago. Some people believe in god, some don't, nobody can prove anything, and there's lots of yelling back and forth anyway. Same old thing. Where is the evidence that continuing this pattern will accomplish anything beyond ego inflation and nerd entertainment?

While I love your colorful language, let us dissect it. What is a suicidal species? What is a planet? How can we k.is that we are talking about the same thing... Well logical systems. Systems are everywhere, and everything is part of a system. A system has parameters. We work within those parameters to find truth. If we go outside of those parameters we destroy the system.

If a system is not useful for a particular inquiry, or even counterproductive, then setting that system aside is, well, logical. So to that degree, your point is taken.

Consequently we cannot rely upon that system. So, though you speak about disregarding the system, that is fine (many have before you), to get rid of the system without replacing it leads to unintelligible thought, and certainly not communicable thought.

You're assuming here that thought is the most appropriate method for this particular job, advancing this inquiry.

What I see is that a focus on thought shifts our attention away from the real world, in to an inner conceptual realm that can never fully and accurately represent the real world, just as a photo of our friend can only serve as a crude pointer to the real friend. Why should we spend so much time looking at the conceptual photos, when the real thing is all around us all the time?

You want to say god both exists and does not exist.

Not quite. I'm saying space, most of reality, both exists and does not exist. Thus, that possibility should be added to the list of options regarding gods.

And by doing so, and seeing how baffling this option is, we may then more seriously question our ability to analyze our way to an answer to such questions.

Well in a system without non contradiction truth can equal not truth. So how are we going to prove such a statement? We are left without anything on which to rely.

Yes, that's it, we are left with nothing.

And in what may not be a coincidence, we can then observe that the overwhelming vast majority of reality is... nothing.

I am proposing that as philosophers, we are like the astronomers. We spend almost all of our time examining the "somethings" in the sky, thereby ignoring the vast majority of reality, which is nothing.

If we don't take these steps to set up a system we literally get nowhere.

In regards to this set of questions, nowhere is perhaps where we should be trying to go. Here's another way to say that....

In science, observation is used as a means to the end of theories and conclusions.

I am proposing we've basically tried this method in regards to the big religious type questions and have gotten nowhere, even though this investigation is arguably the largest cultural event in human history. The scale of this failure argues for trying something different.

What if we reverse the equation above? What if theories and conclusions are used as a means to the end of observation? We examine all our theories with reason, see that they all suck, and thus eventually discard them all. Which leaves us with only observation.

If we are observing without the theories and conclusions, then we are no longer distracted by the conceptual realm, and can be fully focused on the real world. I am proposing that whether one is a theist, atheist or agnostic, the real world is the most productive place to direct our attention.

THANKS for enduring all my words. As you can see, I have a long way to go to get to nothing myself.

 

[Shad]

The existence of those molecules and atoms can be challenged in the very same way. At best they're all convenient designators that refer to collections of other things. Molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are made of quarks. There's no level of microscopic reality at which the essence of anything can be found. If anything, the smaller things get, the less reality resembles the illusion of solidity that we take for granted on the macroscopic level.

Which is only reducing the argument down by using reductionism and an eliminativist view point.

On the contrary, it points out the problem of suggesting that something exists in an objective sense when the very category that is being said to exist or not is subjective to begin with.

Same point above.

Reductionism in this context is philosophical position, not a fallacy. There's no objective sense in which it can be refuted. Nobody denied that "glass" is a convenient designator with practical applications, but it's hard to defend the idea that it has some kind of essential existence. If it did, we wouldn't be able to take it apart (or rearrange its parts to be something other than "glass").

Negative. The fallacy is that a description of an object at one level, atoms, invalids the description of another, glass. The is your basis for glass does not exist view and your contradiction you claim exists. Beside one could take such a fallacy to the absurd by pointing out we do not exist since we are merely a collection of atoms merely called human for conveniences sake.

As for "word games," the problem of semantics is key to this question. If we can't even analyze what something is, then how can we determine whether it exists? Dodging that and pretending that these words have objective meaning amounts to dodging the entire question.

The word games are that you think your descriptions show contradictions which they do not. Glass is a chemical composition just like our bodies. Planets are just a composition of elements thus are not real but real. These words do have objective meaning, merely trying to reduce a description down to it's basic parts does not invalidate what glass is nor it's objective meaning. Just as with planet. A true contradiction is one within the same context. By moving glass to the molecular you have changed the context thus is not a contradiction.

It was not about the question, it was about your claimed contradiction. Beside if we follow reductionism to basic components we eliminate the need for the question completely as God is usually defined as being transcendence. Thus we have nothing to reduce the concept of God to as basic parts. No basic parts, no existence.

 

[Shad]

Not quite. I'm saying space, most of reality, both exists and does not exist. Thus, that possibility should be added to the list of options regarding gods.

Space exists, it is a physical dimension of the universe. This is standard General Relativity. Thus this point is invalid and not a good example in comparison to gods

 

[Typist]

Space cannot be simultaneously nothing and something.

According to rule systems created by human beings, you are right. According to reality, space is indeed both nothing and something, as has been discussed above. To you perhaps, the rule systems are a kind of "god". To me, reality is a better god.

The problem here is that the rule systems you are referencing were created by an information medium with a profound bias for division, and space is neither a this or a that. Thus, the rule systems throw up an error when considering the observable reality of space.

The problem is that while the rule systems are indeed useful on a human scale, they begin to break down when applied to all of reality.

As example, the word "nature" is really another way of saying "everything". Everything is neither a this or a that, but all this's and all that's. We assume everything is the opposite of nothing, but everything contains nothing too.

We have created an ambiguity with language by switching the definitions in order to try to say that space is both nothing and something.

Who cares? Again, the problem is not with space, but with an inherently divisive information medium (and it's primary expression, language) which due to it's inherently divisive nature is unable to comprehend the unified nature of reality. I am attempting to provide an example of that unified nature, as existence and non-existence are unified in the phenomena of space.

If we keep the same definition the whole way through which the law of non contradiction demands we see that space is not both but rather either something or not something.

I am asking readers to consider who it is that invented the law of non-contradiction, and how small they are in relationship to that which is being investigated. Humans are to reality what an amoeba is to the ocean, and that's putting it generously.

 

[Shad]

The law of non-contradiction is about propositions. The propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both be true in the same sense and way, but they can both be true.

It is still a contradiction. Both existing and not existing are proposition, statements, which contradict each other. There is only one context provided which is existence,this fulfills the requirement to be a contradictory statement. If one were to say God does not exist but the concept of God does this is not a contradiction as the statements are in a different context. Until the parameters of context are change the contradiction still stands.

 

[Typist]

Space exists, it is a physical dimension of the universe. This is standard General Relativity. Thus this point is invalid and not a good example in comparison to gods

Some members keep making these hit and run comments, without ever being willing to tell us how much a cubic foot of space weighs. I wasn't going to remark on this, but it's becoming a pattern.

Thus, I now propose the Invisible Pink Unicorn also exists, even though it has no weight, no mass, nothing which can be observed, or accessed by any of our senses. If members wish to assert such things exist, then they've opened the door to assert the existence of literally anything. This is likely to be a problem for our atheist members in particular.

 

[Typist]

We only have thought to understand reality. We cannot step back and find another tool.

Here you are making the assumption I referenced above, which is very common and very understandable, and shared by almost all theists and atheists. You are assuming that understanding, knowing, creating conceptual objects should be the point of this inquiry, the goal, the method etc.

I am only pointing to the real world evidence developed over thousands of years, which strongly suggests this is not working. I am proposing that doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results is as Einstein claimed, insane.

 

[Shad]

Some members keep making these hit and run comments, without ever being willing to tell us how much a cubic foot of space weighs. I wasn't going to remark on this, but it's becoming a pattern.

Thus, I now propose the Invisible Pink Unicorn also exists, even though it has no weight, no mass, nothing which can be observed, or accessed by any of our senses. If members wish to assert such things exist, then they've opened the door to assert the existence of literally anything. This is likely to be a problem for our atheist members in particular.

Gravity warps space, if space does not exist it can not be effected by gravity. Time Dilationis also evidence that space is a real physical dimension as well. We do not need to weigh space for evidence of it's existemce when there are two experiments which provide evidence space exists. Thus space-time. It is not a problem for those informed of modern physics. We can not directly see quantum particles, gravitons, but we can detect these using tools available. It opens the door to nothing as there is evidence for space existing.

 

[Typist]

Gravity warps space, if space does not exist it can not be effected by gravity. Time Dilationis also evidence that space is a real physical dimension as well. We do not need to weigh space for evidence of it's existemce when there are two experiments which provide evidence space exists. Thus space-time. It is not a problem for those informed of modern physics. We can not directly see quantum particles, gravitons, but we can detect these using tools available. It opens the door to nothing as there is evidence for space existing.

Again, sorry to repeat this, but my opening post claimed that space exists.

The problem members are having is with my contention that space also does not exist. That is, some are insisting it must either exist or not-exist, one or the other.

In order to do this, they have to torture the meaning of "exist" in to a form we would not accept for any other phenomena. The loyalty is to the human created rule book, and not to observable reality, which is immeasurably larger than anything human.

It's like the physics experts who claim dark energy and matter must exist, because otherwise their calculations don't come close to working. Wouldn't it be easier to just admit "our calculations probably suck" than to propose things which can't be observed?

 

[Shad]

Again, sorry to repeat this, but my opening post claimed that space exists.

The problem members are having is with my contention that space also does not exist. That is, some are insisting it must either exist or not-exist, one or the other.

In order to do this, they have to torture the meaning of "exist" in to a form we would not accept for any other phenomena. The loyalty is to the human created rule book, and not to observable reality, which is immeasurably larger than anything human.

It's like the physics experts who claim dark energy and matter must exist, because otherwise their calculations don't come close to working. Wouldn't it be easier to just admit "our calculations probably suck" than to propose things which can't be observed?

Observation do not require direct sight based observation but can be inferred. We could not observe the atoms which make up "air" but we could detect air by wind or changes in temperature. Dark matter has observation evidence as well and is not longer an explanation for possible flawed calculation. Space is not a hypothesis which Dark matter is. Thus it is not a fair comparison.

Members have issue when people propose two view which form a contradiction. It is not their issue but an issue with your logic.

 

[Typist]

Members have issue when people propose two view which form a contradiction. It is not their issue but an issue with your logic.

Ok, fair enough, I don't object to being challenged. To challenge in turn...

What you've not addressed is that even perfect logic may be inadequate to fully comprehend and describe reality due to the inherent nature of thought, the medium both logic and the logician are made of.

It can of course be discussed and debated what the properties of thought are, and the degree to which those properties may introduce distortion in to our observations and calculations. I am not claiming to have the final answer to such questions, only that such an investigation is likely merited.

I am making this suggestion based on the evidence of thousands of years of god inquiry, which appears to have accomplished little. From the beginning it's always been the case, and remains to this day, that nobody on any side can prove much of anything.

When any investigation routinely fails over a long period it seems time to step back, dig below the surface, and attempt to rethink the problem in a more fundamental manner, which is what I'm trying to do.

Typically these issues are addressed at the level of the content of thought, this idea vs. that idea. And then participants often attach their personal identities (ie. ego) to some idea, which tends to introduce a great deal of distracting emotional agenda.

And so the process becomes like a merry-go-round. The illusion of movement is created with many blinking lights and much carnival music, but if one steps back just a bit, it is seen the merry-go-round is a stationary object going around in a small circle. There is no evidence that continuing to ride this merry-go-round is leading anywhere, thus...

A more fundamental investigation would address itself to a deeper issue, the nature of thought.

Such an investigation seems merited given that all philosophies, and all philosophers too, are made of thought. Thus, whatever the properties of thought may be, it seems reasonable to propose they would have a profound influence on the investigation.

A debate between competing ideas is like comparing fish in the sea. I am suggesting that is not working. So perhaps we might acknowledge this, and shift our focus to examining the ocean all the fish swim in.

 

[Shad]

Ok, fair enough, I don't object to being challenged. To challenge in turn...

What you've not addressed is that even perfect logic may be inadequate to fully comprehend and describe reality due to the inherent nature of thought, the medium both logic and the logician are made of.

It can of course be discussed and debated what the properties of thought are, and the degree to which those properties may introduce distortion in to our observations and calculations. I am not claiming to have the final answer to such questions, only that such an investigation is likely merited.

If the tools available to humans are inadequate there is little point of discussion until we resolve the issue with said tool or develop a new one. We can not play a flip/flop game in which we can use logic to understand certain concepts of God while using the defense we can not understand God because logic is flawed or inadequate. Either we use these tool or we do not.

I am making this suggestion based on the evidence of thousands of years of god inquiry, which appears to have accomplished little. From the beginning it's always been the case, and remains to this day, that nobody on any side can prove much of anything.

When any investigation routinely fails over a long period it seems time to step back, dig below the surface, and attempt to rethink the problem in a more fundamental manner, which is what I'm trying to do.

An issue is in the past we used invalid tool such as personal revelations when addressing the concept of God. This tool has evidence showing how unreliable it is but many religions require this as a core foundation. This was a step back we took centuries ago by moving toward philosophy and discarding revelation. Perhaps it is time to take a step back but this would require a new tool, a new method of thinking. We can not look at a concept from a different view if the thinking behind this view is vague, undefined or still based on inadequate tools

Typically these issues are addressed at the level of the content of thought, this idea vs. that idea. And then participants often attach their personal identities (ie. ego) to some idea, which tends to introduce a great deal of distracting emotional agenda.

And so the process becomes like a merry-go-round. The illusion of movement is created with many blinking lights and much carnival music, but if one steps back just a bit, it is seen the merry-go-round is a stationary object going around in a small circle. There is no evidence that continuing to ride this merry-go-round is leading anywhere, thus...

An issue is the very concept of God is part of a personal identity especially if one is religious or has spiritual attachment with the concept/belief. The concept is already taught as fact by so many to such a scale that it can become impossible to divorce the concept from the person at times.For many even suspending belief is a taboo, sin or evil. This merry-go-around issue is not a problem with the process or concept, it is what is taught as fact by many religions before even such a discussion if brought forward.

A more fundamental investigation would address itself to a deeper issue, the nature of thought.

Is logic an adequate tool for addressing this concept? If so we can have a discussion. If not propose a new method of thinking.

Such an investigation seems merited given that all philosophies, and all philosophers too, are made of thought. Thus, whatever the properties of thought may be, it seems reasonable to propose they would have a profound influence on the investigation.

A debate between competing ideas is like comparing fish in the sea. I am suggesting that is not working. So perhaps we might acknowledge this, and shift our focus to examining the ocean all the fish swim in.

Same as above.

 

[Typist]

If the tools available to humans are inadequate there is little point of discussion until we resolve the issue with said tool or develop a new one. We can not play a flip/flop game in which we can use logic to understand certain concepts of God while using the defense we can not understand God because logic is flawed or inadequate. Either we use these tool or we do not.

As you can see, I am using thought and logic to explore the limits of thought and logic. BTW, I'm not a theist, and am not promoting or defending god proposals, just so you know.

An issue is in the past we used invalid tool such as personal revelations when addressing the concept of God. This tool has evidence showing how unreliable it is but many religions require this as a core foundation.

Yes, agreed. Again, I am not selling personal revelations or the concept of god, so we need not debate that together.

This was a step back we took centuries ago by moving toward philosophy and discarding revelation. Perhaps it is time to take a step back but this would require a new tool, a new method of thinking.

If we abandon the seemingly failed search for The Answer, thinking may not be required at all, in fact, it may be an obstacle. I'm just offering this as something to consider. The act of thinking shifts the focus of our attention from the real world to the inner realm of symbols.

As example: If someone proposes that there are shoes in my bedroom, the place to look to investigate their claim would be the bedroom, not the garage. Point being, if we're not finding something, anything, in the real world the problem may be that we're not looking in the real world, but at symbols in our head.

An issue is the very concept of God is part of a personal identity especially if one is religious or has spiritual attachment with the concept/belief.

Yes, ok, often true, agreed.

This merry-go-around issue is not a problem with the process or concept, it is what is taught as fact by many religions before even such a discussion if brought forward.

What I see is that neither theists or atheists have proven that their chosen authority is qualified to deliver credible proven conclusions about the most fundamental nature of reality. Each side attempts to build a logical structure upon a faith based foundation. Thus, neither side can prove anything, which keeps the merry-go-round eternally spinning.

Is logic an adequate tool for addressing this concept? If so we can have a discussion. If not propose a new method of thinking.

Yes, logic is adequate for addressing the long history of this inquiry, and coming to some reasonable conclusions about it's effectiveness.

No, logic has not been proven adequate for settling the questions the inquiry has attempted to address. In order to do this we would first have to prove that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality (the scale of god proposals) which no one has been able to do.

To make things even more difficult, few to none are willing to even try to prove reason's qualifications for issues of this scale. Instead, what the majority of commentators do is make an unwarranted leap from the fact that logic is useful for very many things, to the unexamined assumption that it is therefore useful for everything.

EXAMPLE: Can we use logic to fall in love, a process of great importance to most people? No, not really. Logic can be helpful in targeting our search, but in the end a non-logical leap is required.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Negative. The fallacy is that a description of an object at one level, atoms, invalids the description of another, glass. The is your basis for glass does not exist view and your contradiction you claim exists. Beside one could take such a fallacy to the absurd by pointing out we do not exist since we are merely a collection of atoms merely called human for conveniences sake.

I explicitly said that it did not invalidate the description. However, it does mean that the glass is not an essentially existent thing. It's at best a conventionally existent thing. The point is that "existence" is a relative concept.

And reduction of "human" to the level of atoms is not absurd; it's an equally valid means of perceiving what we conventionally call "humans." It's not a superior means, but it's also not incorrect. "Human" is in fact something that we designate for convenience's sake, not something that exists absolutely. That should be clear on analysis.

The word games are that you think your descriptions show contradictions which they do not. Glass is a chemical composition just like our bodies. Planets are just a composition of elements thus are not real but real. These words do have objective meaning, merely trying to reduce a description down to it's basic parts does not invalidate what glass is nor it's objective meaning. Just as with planet. A true contradiction is one within the same context. By moving glass to the molecular you have changed the context thus is not a contradiction.

The problem is that "existence" has no objective definition, so there is no single context in which to frame the question. "God" and "existence" are both abstractions without even an operational definition that would allow us to deal with them in a logical manner. The equivocations you're pointing out are the result of the failure of the semantic models to represent the reality in a comprehensive way.

It was not about the question, it was about your claimed contradiction. Beside if we follow reductionism to basic components we eliminate the need for the question completely as God is usually defined as being transcendence. Thus we have nothing to reduce the concept of God to as basic parts. No basic parts, no existence.

Ultimately there are no basic parts. There are constituent parts to every perceptible thing, but those parts can also be analyzed and so forth. It's not clear that an ontology can be constructed in any case. It's a question of which model one prefers to employ at the moment, which has to do with utility, not objective reality.

As for God, the problem is that there's no real definition to work from in the first place. "Transcendence" is pure abstraction, basically the equivalent of taking everything that's a part of human experience and just saying "not this." Forget about reductionism, there's no conceivable rubric by which we could possibly judge whether something transcendent in that way could be said to exist or not exist. If anything, by existing it would exist outside of our world and experience, which is also a way of saying that it would not exist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

As for God, the problem is that there's no real definition to work from in the first place. "Transcendence" is pure abstraction, basically the equivalent of taking everything that's a part of human experience and just saying "not this." Forget about reductionism, there's no conceivable rubric by which we could possibly judge whether something transcendent in that way could be said to exist or not exist. If anything, by existing it would exist outside of our world and experience, which is also a way of saying that it would not exist.

On the other hand, many believe that God/the Gods are immanent (pantheism, panentheism, pluralism), in which case deity exists as an integral inherent part of what we experience. There is therefore no way to separate deity from the material, because the material is deity. Again, this goes to the fact that we have many concepts, abstractions, that do not necessarily correspond to reality in a testable way. If deity is immanent in everything, how could we tell it was there? There is nothing where deity isn't to compare it to.

 

[Vishvavajra]

On the other hand, many believe that God/the Gods are immanent (pantheism, panentheism, pluralism), in which case deity exists as an integral inherent part of what we experience. There is therefore no way to separate deity from the material, because the material is deity. Again, this goes to the fact that we have many concepts, abstractions, that do not necessarily correspond to reality in a testable way. If deity is immanent in everything, how could we tell it was there? There is nothing where deity isn't to compare it to.

Yes, in that case it's not really an argument about existence, but about whether "God" is an accurate descriptor of what is already taken to exist, which is a different sort of question.

 

[Typist]

On the other hand, many believe that God/the Gods are immanent (pantheism, panentheism, pluralism), in which case deity exists as an integral inherent part of what we experience.

While taking no position on such claims, they might be compared to the discovery of the microscopic, sub-atomic and quantum realms. These realms are obviously just as real as the human scale realm, but were invisible and incomprehensible to us for most of human history.

While I have no idea what other such invisible realms may exist and be discovered, it seems plausible that we're not done discovering them. It also seems plausible we may never discover some of them.

To further speculate...

It's at least possible that there are some rare highly talented end of the bell curve type people in religion, such as Mozart in music, or Einstein in science, who are capable of glimpsing realms which the rest of us can't.

But they just get a glimpse of something very different, so this theory goes, and thus their explanations of what they've seen come across as gibberish. As example, consider what typically happens when scientists try to explain the quantum realm to us today. Most of us scratch our heads and go "WFT??"

So, in conclusion, this post convincingly proves beyond all doubt that the Holy Ghost sits on the right hand of God, and not the left as is often claimed.

 

[Typist]

Yes, in that case it's not really an argument about existence, but about whether "God" is an accurate descriptor of what is already taken to exist, which is a different sort of question.

The word "God" presumes, as all nouns do, that there is some separate thing which can be assigned a label. This illustrates a bias for division built-in to thought, and thus language. It's almost impossible to discuss this or anything else without implying that such divisions are real with every other word.

What if division isn't real? What if separation is a pattern of illusion imposed upon reality by an inherently divisive information medium?

If we are dealing with distortion at such a fundamental level the most logical rational thing may be to throw our hands up in the air, admit that we are screwed, and enjoy a good belly laugh at our expense.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The word "God" presumes, as all nouns do, that there is some separate thing which can be assigned a label. This illustrates a bias for division built-in to thought, and thus language. It's almost impossible to discuss this or anything else without implying that such divisions are real with every other word.

What if division isn't real? What if separation is a pattern of illusion imposed upon reality by an inherently divisive information medium?

If we are dealing with distortion at such a fundamental level the most logical rational thing may be to throw our hands up in the air, admit that we are screwed, and enjoy a good belly laugh at our expense.

On the one hand, it's true that the divisions that we assign things by means of semantics have no absolute reality to them; they're based on utility and vary considerably from one language to another, or even one person to another. Some languages have no distinction between green and blue, or gray and blue. Some use the same word for the hand and the forearm. Others have words that represent finer divisions than English would recognize. If I wanted to be facetious, I might coin a word that refers strictly to the bottom half of a book. Is the bottom half of a book now a discrete entity because I named it? Is a wheel a wheel, or is a wheel a car? It's part of a car, isn't it? Or is it separate from the car? If a car has no wheels is it really a car? Pretending that there is essential reality to our subjective semantic categories is folly.

On the other hand, there's a middle ground between essentialism and nihilism, which is to acknowledge that words and language and discursive thought are merely tools, models that we employ to interact with reality. But not reality itself. Yes, separation is illusory in some sense, but it's also useful in many ways. The trick is realizing that there is no ultimate reality to our habitual patterns of dividing reality up into neat packages, so we feel free to use a different categorization scheme where appropriate—or even none at all, if we've decided to meditate and lay it all down for a while.

 

[Typist]

Well said, well said, I can vote for all that. It's very helpful that we have a variety of people here who can say these things in a variety of ways.http://www.religiousforums.com/members/vishvavajra.56621/