BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, maths exists only as concepts in brains, and in the modern sense of maths, only in educated brains. The mathematical objects such as the numbers have no real counterpart, have no objective existence, are not real, only conceptual. As I said, you can stare out the window all day and you may see two cars, two cops, two carbines, but you won't see an uninstantiated two anywhere.
Yes, the tokens of formal logic are also concepts with no real counterpart. They too have no objective existence, are not real, only conceptual.
If that's what you want to say, then you can of course say it. God will therefore be only conceptual, not real, not a being with objective existence.
On the contrary, in the very sentence where I asked you for a definition of a real god, I pointed out that to be real the god so defined would have to have objective existence. That's the definition I lack, the one I turn to you for, because I want to be able to tell whether any real person or thing or phenomenon is God, or a god, or not ─ whereas a purely conceptual god is anything the conceiver wants it to be from time to time, and that's not useful.
Yes, of course they exist, the same way Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter exists ─ as concepts. However, they lack objective existence, so they're not real, but purely conceptual.
The trouble with that definition is that the transcendent is not real either, doesn't have objective existence, is purely conceptual. Otherwise you could show it to me. In just this fashion an uninstantiated two is purely conceptual, otherwise you could show me that as well.
I hope I've made the difference between real and purely conceptual clear; if so, we should be there.
Then God has no objective existence, is purely conceptual, is not real, is imaginary ─ and being imaginary, potentially has as many definitions as imaginers.
Name something that objectively exists, so I can help you.