• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God is real; an axiom?

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
I’m reading an essay on epistemology and it got me thinking
An axiom is a truth that proves itself in the attempt to deny it. "Man acts" is an axiom that is important Austrian economics.
If you try to deny that "man acts", you will be taking an action. Hence, it is an axiom.
Epistemologically, "man acts" is also a synthetic A priori.
Statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic claims depends on nothing more that definitions I.e. tautology. “All bachelors are unmarried men” is an analytic claim. A synthetic truth is one that reveals something beyond what may be inferred from the individual definitions of the words.
Epistemologically speaking as well, claims can be divided into A priori and A posteriori. A priori knowledge is attained by reasoning and reflecting on what is necessarily true. It can be reached prior to any particular empirical evidence. A posteriori knowledge requires empirical evidence before it can be reached; it cannot be reached by logic alone.
The synthetic A priori, “man acts” is the pillar on which free market economics is built on. It has a lot of implication.
I was wondering if there are any theological synthetic A priori truths.
I propose that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic as well as a synthetic A priori.
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a God. Let’s say this hypothetical God has the attributes of Brahman; omnipresent, infinite consciousness. This Brahman in this hypothetical world sustains all life and consciousness. Without it, there would be no universe or conscious beings.
Now that we are in this world, the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. For in the act of denying God’s existence, you are relying on Brahman to enable you to make that conscious denial. The air that you breathe is sustained by Brahman. Every word of your denial would be fully dependent on God itself, making it axiomatic.
Would the claim “God is real.” be a synthetic A priori in this hypothetical world? It isn’t analytic, that’s for sure. And you wouldn’t require empirical evidence for it, or rather there would be none readily apparent? I’m not sure.
I believe we live in this hypothetical world. Therefore, though I have no evidence, I hypothesize that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. Furthermore, I hypothesize that it is also a synthetic A priori.
Edit: it can be analytic, depending on the definition of God that is used. I dunno
Edit: I say synthetic because you don't require any particular experience for it to be logically sound that God is real. The fact that you are having experience itself is self proving, making it synthetic. I think
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
"God exists" is not an axiom in my opinion because it's too vague. "God" the word exists as an axiom. "God" as a theoretical proposition exists as an axiom. "God exists" as a stated belief, exists as an axiom. But God, itself, is not defined sufficiently to qualify as axiomatic.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
"God exists" is not an axiom in my opinion because it's too vague. "God" the word exists as an axiom. "God" as a theoretical proposition exists as an axiom. "God exists" as a stated belief, exists as an axiom. But God, itself, is not defined sufficiently to qualify as axiomatic.
Is it possible to define God for this specific claim and context? Perhaps different definitions of God can be used for the same claim. I made some attempt of defining God for the hypothetical scenario I proposed.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I’m reading an essay on epistemology and it got me thinking
An axiom is a truth that proves itself in the attempt to deny it. "Man acts" is an axiom that is important Austrian economics.
If you try to deny that "man acts", you will be taking an action. Hence, it is an axiom.
Epistemologically, "man acts" is also a synthetic A priori.
Statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic claims depends on nothing more that definitions I.e. tautology. “All bachelors are unmarried men” is an analytic claim. A synthetic truth is one that reveals something beyond what may be inferred from the individual definitions of the words.
Epistemologically speaking as well, claims can be divided into A priori and A posteriori. A priori knowledge is attained by reasoning and reflecting on what is necessarily true. It can be reached prior to any particular empirical evidence. A posteriori knowledge requires empirical evidence before it can be reached; it cannot be reached by logic alone.
The synthetic A priori, “man acts” is the pillar on which free market economics is built on. It has a lot of implication.
I was wondering if there are any theological synthetic A priori truths.
I propose that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic as well as a synthetic A priori.
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a God. Let’s say this hypothetical God has the attributes of Brahman; omnipresent, infinite consciousness. This Brahman in this hypothetical world sustains all life and consciousness. Without it, there would be no universe or conscious beings.
Now that we are in this world, the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. For in the act of denying God’s existence, you are relying on Brahman to enable you to make that conscious denial. The air that you breathe is sustained by Brahman. Every word of your denial would be fully dependent on God itself, making it axiomatic.
Would the claim “God is real.” be a synthetic A priori in this hypothetical world? It isn’t analytic, that’s for sure. And you wouldn’t require empirical evidence for it, or rather there would be none readily apparent? I’m not sure.
I believe we live in this hypothetical world. Therefore, though I have no evidence, I hypothesize that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. Furthermore, I hypothesize that it is also a synthetic A priori.
Surely you can't really believe this gets you anywhere, can you?

You say: "Hypothetically, let's say there is a God" and on the basis of that, you say, er, there must therefore be a God! So that establishes nothing at all and might as well not have been written.

Then you say "I believe we live in this hypothetical world". So it's a hypothesis, not an axiom.

An axiom is a self-evident truth, something that can be accepted without proof.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree that 'man acts' is a priori. It is something validated by observation and testing, not by mere thought.

More generally, I don't think there is such a thing as 'synthetic a priori'. It is a phrase with no referents.

So, for example, the phrase 'God exists' is not synthetic: it takes more than mere thought to establish it (even once the definitions are agreed upon). it requires some information about the universe as it actually is.

But, more generally, your view of axioms is a bit outdated. No longer are they simply 'self-evident truths' or views that cannot be denied. Instead, they are simply the basic assumptions of your system of thought. And as such, they may be subject to skepticism and require some sort of demonstration.

For example, in mathematics (the originator of the axiomatic system), we no longer consider Euclidean geometry to be synthetic a priori. It is an axiom system that can be adopted or not to study for its own sake. But whether it applies to the 'real world' is a matter of observation and testing. The same can be said of other aspects of mathematics and even of logic.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The point of a philosophical system is that it is convincing to anyone who agrees about its axioms. Further the goal of philosophical systems is to attempt to gather people on the basis of logical thought, to gather us together and to make us of one mind. It only partially succeeds, however its goal is to unify and to connect us.

Axioms are assumptions that everyone will agree with, without any arguing or testing.

It does not work when trying to get people to agree about God. If your axiom is that God is real, then you are only trying to convince people who already agree with that axiom. You might, based on that axiom, be able to prove to some people that God must therefore have property X. You would not, however, be able to prove that to people who do not agree God is real.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The point of a philosophical system is that it is convincing to anyone who agrees about its axioms. Further the goal of philosophical systems is to attempt to gather people on the basis of logical thought, to gather us together and to make us of one mind. It only partially succeeds, however its goal is to unify and to connect us.

Axioms are assumptions that everyone will agree with, without any arguing or testing.

Given the nature of philosophers, I strongly doubt such assumptions exist.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I propose that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic as well as a synthetic A priori.
That can only be meaningful AFTER we have a satisfactory definition of a real God, such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.

If we don't have such a definition then we don't know what we're talking about ─ we're just waffling (as my Mancunian nana would have said).
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a God. Let’s say this hypothetical God has the attributes of Brahman; omnipresent, infinite consciousness.
Those are not real qualities ─ they're all imaginary.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
That can only be meaningful AFTER we have a satisfactory definition of a real God, such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.
God: a being that is omnipotent and omnipresent.
God: a being that is omnipresent
God: a being that is omnipotent
These are three different definitions of God I can think of. I suppose if a being fits one of these definitions, it would be considered God, but perhaps not.
And then perhaps God is not any of the definitions I listed. Do you suppose any of these definitions is a satisfactory one for God?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God: a being that is omnipotent and omnipresent.
God: a being that is omnipresent
God: a being that is omnipotent
Once again those are all imaginary qualities.

If God is real then God exists in the world external to the self, nature ─ that's what 'real' means.

And if [he]'s out there, then [he] has a description in real terms, like any other real thing.

Of course, if [he] only exists as a concept / thing imagined, those requirements don't apply, just as they don't apply to Sherlock Holmes or Spiderman.

I suspect that gods are something humans have found useful, both for accounting for, and perhaps controlling, the apparently inexplicable in the world, and for tribal solidarity. That would explain why there have always been so many of them.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
God: a being that is omnipotent and omnipresent.
God: a being that is omnipresent
God: a being that is omnipotent
These are three different definitions of God I can think of. I suppose if a being fits one of these definitions, it would be considered God, but perhaps not.
And then perhaps God is not any of the definitions I listed. Do you suppose any of these definitions is a satisfactory one for God?

Other definitions:

God: A necessary being
God: The creator of the universe
God: The giver of morality
God: A being that is omniscient
God: The being described in the Bible, Koran, or some other text(s)
God: Some combination of the above

This is the *short* list.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I’m reading an essay on epistemology and it got me thinking
An axiom is a truth that proves itself in the attempt to deny it. "Man acts" is an axiom that is important Austrian economics.
If you try to deny that "man acts", you will be taking an action. Hence, it is an axiom.
Epistemologically, "man acts" is also a synthetic A priori.
Statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic claims depends on nothing more that definitions I.e. tautology. “All bachelors are unmarried men” is an analytic claim. A synthetic truth is one that reveals something beyond what may be inferred from the individual definitions of the words.
Epistemologically speaking as well, claims can be divided into A priori and A posteriori. A priori knowledge is attained by reasoning and reflecting on what is necessarily true. It can be reached prior to any particular empirical evidence. A posteriori knowledge requires empirical evidence before it can be reached; it cannot be reached by logic alone.
The synthetic A priori, “man acts” is the pillar on which free market economics is built on. It has a lot of implication.
I was wondering if there are any theological synthetic A priori truths.
I propose that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic as well as a synthetic A priori.
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a God. Let’s say this hypothetical God has the attributes of Brahman; omnipresent, infinite consciousness. This Brahman in this hypothetical world sustains all life and consciousness. Without it, there would be no universe or conscious beings.
Now that we are in this world, the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. For in the act of denying God’s existence, you are relying on Brahman to enable you to make that conscious denial. The air that you breathe is sustained by Brahman. Every word of your denial would be fully dependent on God itself, making it axiomatic.
Would the claim “God is real.” be a synthetic A priori in this hypothetical world? It isn’t analytic, that’s for sure. And you wouldn’t require empirical evidence for it, or rather there would be none readily apparent? I’m not sure.
I believe we live in this hypothetical world. Therefore, though I have no evidence, I hypothesize that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. Furthermore, I hypothesize that it is also a synthetic A priori.
Edit: it can be analytic, depending on the definition of God that is used. I dunno
Edit: I say synthetic because you don't require any particular experience for it to be logically sound that God is real. The fact that you are having experience itself is self proving, making it synthetic. I think

God is an example of what I call a "whole term" meaning it is a term used to describe the set of all things. Like consciousness and the Universe or reality.

These terms are like infinity in that they are practically boundless and the tend to produce non-useful logical deductions.

Clearly there are things and therefore their must be a set of all things and we can call this God or ________.

But there is a problem that arises from the fact that us knowers use certain processes to produce and store knowledge and this "representation" is not the thing represented.

Our brains create knowledge through contrasts which are seen as complimentary opposites. These complimentary opposites then get talked about as if each end of the spectrum are two distinct things...like left and right or light and dark. But these are not really two distinct things. We can't help but look at the world through "brain-colored glasses".

I would recommend looking at how a priori claims can be made successfully for simple contexts which are then easy to transcend to an extent that those a prior concepts fail. Then reverse that process for the "set of all things" and use the small case as an analogy for the large one. What might you argue is true for the "whole term" based on the simple system and its axioms?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I’m reading an essay on epistemology and it got me thinking
An axiom is a truth that proves itself in the attempt to deny it. "Man acts" is an axiom that is important Austrian economics.
If you try to deny that "man acts", you will be taking an action. Hence, it is an axiom.
Epistemologically, "man acts" is also a synthetic A priori.
Statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic claims depends on nothing more that definitions I.e. tautology. “All bachelors are unmarried men” is an analytic claim. A synthetic truth is one that reveals something beyond what may be inferred from the individual definitions of the words.
Epistemologically speaking as well, claims can be divided into A priori and A posteriori. A priori knowledge is attained by reasoning and reflecting on what is necessarily true. It can be reached prior to any particular empirical evidence. A posteriori knowledge requires empirical evidence before it can be reached; it cannot be reached by logic alone.
The synthetic A priori, “man acts” is the pillar on which free market economics is built on. It has a lot of implication.
I was wondering if there are any theological synthetic A priori truths.
I propose that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic as well as a synthetic A priori.
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a God. Let’s say this hypothetical God has the attributes of Brahman; omnipresent, infinite consciousness. This Brahman in this hypothetical world sustains all life and consciousness. Without it, there would be no universe or conscious beings.
Now that we are in this world, the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. For in the act of denying God’s existence, you are relying on Brahman to enable you to make that conscious denial. The air that you breathe is sustained by Brahman. Every word of your denial would be fully dependent on God itself, making it axiomatic.
Would the claim “God is real.” be a synthetic A priori in this hypothetical world? It isn’t analytic, that’s for sure. And you wouldn’t require empirical evidence for it, or rather there would be none readily apparent? I’m not sure.
I believe we live in this hypothetical world. Therefore, though I have no evidence, I hypothesize that the claim “God is real.” is axiomatic. Furthermore, I hypothesize that it is also a synthetic A priori.
Edit: it can be analytic, depending on the definition of God that is used. I dunno
Edit: I say synthetic because you don't require any particular experience for it to be logically sound that God is real. The fact that you are having experience itself is self proving, making it synthetic. I think

The existence of God is not always hypothetical like "lets say Brahman exists" and move on to other arguments in a hypothetical world. There are logical arguments for God, and it's an age old philosophical approach called natural theology. It's an a priori. Of course. The axiomatic approach to God has two aspects. First, you have to establish what axioms in rational thinking or logic you adhere to. Without them, you cannot practice logic or natural theology. Impossible. So this process has to be gone through. Only after that, you can establish the axiomatic approach the third step, after establishing the existence of God as an axiom.

Thats is not building a hypothesis.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I suspect that gods are something humans have found useful, both for accounting for, and perhaps controlling, the apparently inexplicable in the world, and for tribal solidarity. That would explain why there have always been so many of them.

That is also an imagination of yours because you have not presented empirical evidence. Its your suspicion as you correctly pointed out.

Isn't it?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is also an imagination of yours because you have not presented empirical evidence. Its your suspicion as you correctly pointed out.

Isn't it?
Not completely a flight of imagination, but a solution to a visible problem that I'd argue was a good candidate explanation.

When it comes to accounting for why there have been and are so many gods, what explanation do you prefer?
 
Top