God May Exist

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 10, 2009

Storm said:
I don't think they're set. Or, I should say, I don't think they're agreed upon. I've frequently been told that my God doesn't qualify, but nobody ever says why.

I'm not even looking for agreement; I'd settle for some sort of established bound: some sort of conceptual circle that lets us say "okay - it's safe to declare that everything outside this is not a god". Then we could look at the common characteristics of everything inside the circle, even if it includes a lot of stuff that a lot of people don't call "god".

Storm said:
LOL! :bow:

I'd say yes, actually. When I had my theophany, I just knew.

Hmm. So, then, is the thing to do just to throw up our hands and say that claims and arguments about God are inherently invalid?

Storm said:
Because, despite our speculations on its nature, we really don't know what we're talking about, any of us.

Then if we take "God does not exist" to really mean "whatever anyone means by 'God', they're full of crap", would we be pretty close to accurate?

Storm said:
I think you're familiar with my basic Godiverse concept.

Vaguely. I can't remember the details.

Storm said:
I also believe we're the "child" of another Godiverse. I consider our Creation to be a natural phenomenon, so yes.

But isn't this more that you believe your god is a natural phenomenon? Would you consider any natural phenomenon that anyone posited as the cause of the universe to fit into a valid definition of "god"?

Storm · Aug 10, 2009

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I'm not even looking for agreement; I'd settle for some sort of established bound: some sort of conceptual circle that lets us say "okay - it's safe to declare that everything outside this is not a god". Then we could look at the common characteristics of everything inside the circle, even if it includes a lot of stuff that a lot of people don't call "god".

I don't see the difference. Doesn't that require agreement?

Hmm. So, then, is the thing to do just to throw up our hands and say that claims and arguments about God are inherently invalid?

I don't think we should throw up our hands, but yes we should always bear in mind that we haven't a leg to stand on.

Then if we take "God does not exist" to really mean "whatever anyone means by 'God', they're full of crap", would we be pretty close to accurate?

LOL, I wouldn't go that far.

Vaguely. I can't remember the details.

My mistake. Basically, I believe that God is a sapient organism whose body is the cosmos.

But isn't this more that you believe your god is a natural phenomenon?

Yes, I do. I see them as linked but separate claims.

Would you consider any natural phenomenon that anyone posited as the cause of the universe to fit into a valid definition of "god"?

No, I don't think so.

sandandfoam · Aug 10, 2009

atotalstranger said:
On the other hand, I have no problem saying that I am highly confident that no concept of god invented by humans is correct. It seems clear to me that the idea that these concepts grew out of various psychological and sociological phenomena sufficiently explains the formation and development of human god-concepts and religions.

That's a really good point. I do believe in God. I also agree wholeheartedly with you.

Kilgore Trout · Aug 10, 2009

9-10ths_Penguin said:
And that's fine to an extent. I'm not saying that a theist has to state their god's shoe size, favourite colour and nostril diameter with certainty before we can declare it to be valid or complete. All I am saying is that for the term "god" to be meaningful, we have to have some way of distinguishing a god from other things. For example, is a two-slice toaster a god? If not, why not?

Probably not, but if any two-slice toasters want to convince me of their godhood, I'm open to their arguments.

9-10ths said:
Okay... but why? Apparently it would meet some sort of requirement for the definition, but what are the requirements of the definition?

My point of this was that it's possible that the requirements of the definition might not be known prior to gaining knowledge of this "god." Only upon recognition might the definition be clear.

9-10ths said:
Why is god unknown by definition?

Because nobody knows any god(s), or even whether any god(s) exist. God is unseen, unheard, and unmeasurable. Seems quite unknown to me.

9-10ths said:
Okay... but what's that role?

Again, in this case I'm pointing out the possibility that whatever idea of that role I have now, might not be applicable if any god ever made itself known to me. I'm simply open to the possibility that my current concepts may be too limited to accurately describe something which I haven't seen or met.

9-10ths said:
Say a natural phenomenon created the universe. Would you be inclined to call that phenomenon "god"?

At this point, no, I would not, because it does not meet my current criteria for what I would describe as "god." However, I may not have the correct concepts or a complete enough picture to correctly make this judgment.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 10, 2009

Storm said:
I don't see the difference. Doesn't that require agreement?

I suppose it does, but not to the same level.

For example, a Christian and a Jew might not agree whether God has a Trinitarian nature, and the two of them might disagree with a panentheist about whether God is personal, but all three of them might be able to agree that certain things and classes of things are not God.

Note: I know that the panentheist would likely consider anything within the universe to be part of God, but I'm talking about the claim that a given thing is God in its entirety.

Storm · Aug 10, 2009

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I suppose it does, but not to the same level.

For example, a Christian and a Jew might not agree whether God has a Trinitarian nature, and the two of them might disagree with a panentheist about whether God is personal, but all three of them might be able to agree that certain things and classes of things are not God.

Note: I know that the panentheist would likely consider anything within the universe to be part of God, but I'm talking about the claim that a given thing is God in its entirety.

Hmm.

I can't think of anything that includes all God concepts, sorry.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 10, 2009

atotalstranger said:
Probably not, but if any two-slice toasters want to convince me of their godhood, I'm open to their arguments.

And on what basis would you accept or reject that toaster's claims of godhood?

atotalstranger said:
My point of this was that it's possible that the requirements of the definition might not be known prior to gaining knowledge of this "god." Only upon recognition might the definition be clearly definable.

So, then, the term "god" is meaningless in the here-and-now?

atotalstranger said:
Because nobody knows any god(s), or even whether any god(s) exist. God is unseen, unheard, and unmeasurable. Seems quite unknown to me.

I don't think the definition of God requires being unknown, unseen, unheard or unmeasurable. Just about every religion that's ever existed has claimed that God has been heard, known or seen in some way or another, or that he'll be heard, known or seen at some point in the future.

atotalstranger said:
Again, in this case I'm pointing out the possibility that whatever idea of that role I have now, might not be applicable if any god ever made itself known to me. I'm simply open to the possibility that my current concepts may be too limited to accurately describe something which I haven't seen or met.

But the label "god" is a product of those current concepts. Are there other words we use detached from their true meanings, or is the word "god" the only one?

Personally, I look at it a different way: the term "god" has some meaning. What meaning it has may vary from person to person, but it does have a meaning. If we encounter some amazing, stupendous entity that's so ___________ that our definition of the term "god" doesn't fit, then the term "god" itself doesn't fit. At that point, it would be time to find another term instead of shoehorning this new entity into a new definition for an old word.

Dunemeister · Aug 10, 2009

These are about the only cogent (negative) criticisms I've ever heard against Christian belief in particular or religious belief in general:

atotalstranger said:
It seems clear to me that the idea that these concepts [of God] grew out of various psychological and sociological phenomena sufficiently explains the formation and development of human god-concepts and religions.

Here, atotalstrager appeals to Freud or Marx. Freud thought that religious belief was a result of the workings of our cognitive establishment, all right, but the modules responsible for religious beliefs are not aimed at truth. Rather, they are aimed at providing comfort in the face of a cold, barren, hostile world. Now that we know this, we should give up childish notions such as religious beliefs.

Marx, on the other hand, holds that beliefs in God are caused by a dysfunctional social order that suppresses or inhibits man's natural reason, which, if it weren't for the dysfunctional social order, wouldn't form religious beliefs at all.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
all claims about the existence of god(s) by humanity were most likely caused by something other than a god.

Here .9Penguin says roughly the same thing but more vaguely.

Nepenthe said:
And I'm a weak atheist when it comces to the deistic concepts of god since there's more you exclude god(s) from leaving their fingerprints on the universe, the less examinable they are and become increasingly removed from any substantial inquiry.

This complaint, that God is "removed from any substantial inquiry" is less impressive IMO. My memory about what I ate for breakfast last week is also removed from any substantial inquiry. Science cannot determine its truth, yet we're not so skeptical of memory. Why, then, this special sort of skepticism for religious experience?

I personally think that belief in God is warranted as a result of religious experience (under the right conditions, which of course are hard to specify exactly or unequivocally). My religious experience IS evidence of a god's existence; whether my testimony is probative or valuable, well, that's another matter. That will depend on my state of mind (not to mention that of my interlocutor) and whether I have the skill to effectively explain that experience.

Part of the problem is that, even if you are convinced that my testimony provides evidence for God's existence, this usually isn't enough to form in the listener the belief that God exists. For that, the listener has to have her own experience. And for that, she generally needs some assistance from those who have had that experience (not to mention a genuine interest in having the experience -- as the Good Book says, God resists the proud).

Just_me_Mike · Aug 10, 2009

atotalstranger said:
I think you misinterpreted the post, but thanks anyway.

Nah I got your post. I was just praying for you.

Man of Faith · Aug 10, 2009

Great post and I agree with the OP that no one can logically say that God does not exist. However someone can logically say that God does exist if they have met him through a supernatural experience.

fantome profane · Aug 12, 2009

Dunemeister said:
This complaint, that God is "removed from any substantial inquiry" is less impressive IMO. My memory about what I ate for breakfast last week is also removed from any substantial inquiry. Science cannot determine its truth, yet we're not so skeptical of memory. Why, then, this special sort of skepticism for religious experience?

The fact that it is removed from inquiry is only one part of the reason you may be skeptical of a claim, the other part can be seen in the claim itself. If you told me you had scrambled eggs for breakfast last week I would have little reason to doubt your testimony. If you claimed to have had Eagle eggs for breakfast I would be somewhat skeptical. If you claimed to have eaten Dragon eggs for breakfast I would be extremely skeptical. I think it is quite clear why there is a special sort of skepticism for religious experience, and I think it is quite appropriate.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 12, 2009

Dunemeister said:
Here .9Penguin says roughly the same thing but more vaguely.

No, I'm saying that there are plausible, non-supernatural explanations for religious belief, and therefore there's no pressing need for a person to "hop to it" and adopt religious belief without that belief being justified on its own merits.

Dunemeister said:
This complaint, that God is "removed from any substantial inquiry" is less impressive IMO. My memory about what I ate for breakfast last week is also removed from any substantial inquiry.

It's also removed from any meaningful impact on my life, anyone else's life, or even your life beyond lunchtime on the day you had it.

Dunemeister said:
Science cannot determine its truth, yet we're not so skeptical of memory.

Speak for yourself. I'm very skeptical of memory.

Dunemeister said:
Why, then, this special sort of skepticism for religious experience?

It's not a special sort of skepticism; it's the normal, regular skepticism. It's the same kind that doctors use to reject demonic posession as the cause of an illness, or that detectives use when they dismiss the possibility that God was the perpetrator of an unsolved murder.

MdmSzdWhtGuy · Aug 12, 2009

Man of Faith said:
Great post and I agree with the OP that no one can logically say that God does not exist. However someone can logically say that God does exist if they have met him through a supernatural experience.

Huh? What, exactly is a supernatural experience? Explain how it is different than a daydream, or a wish, and maybe we can begin an actual discussion.

And I totally disagree that someone can say logically that "God does not exist." You used the capitalized version of "God" which tends to mean Abraham's god, or the god of the Bible, Torah, Q'uran, who has certain characteristics which can be shown not to logically be possible, or not to factually be possible.

Now given that no god, God, or gods have ever been proven to exist, and because so many people allow so much leeway in the definition of god, God, or whatever you want to call your version, then I'm sure you, or somebody else who reads this, will come up with some sort of slippery definition of god, or God, but if you go with the basic idea of an all knowing, all good, all wise, etc. etc. etc. creator of all of existence, then yes, you can, and I do, logically state that there is no God.

God May Exist

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

sandandfoam

Veteran Member

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member