Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[izzy88]

That's the direction the evidence is pointing in, yes.

What evidence? Can you provide some sources?

Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

Certainly; because we do not have any empirical evidence that it is possible. In science, theories must be proved, not disproved.

 

[blü 2]

Wouldn't the definition provided allow you to determine whether or not a potato meets it? Are potatoes intelligent? If not, right there we've falsified the hypothesis that potatoes meet this definition of a god.

How can you tell whether anything is immortal, potato or otherwise? We still don't know what real thing the word 'God' is intended to denote, and we can't answer that from George's proposal. We still have no idea what we're looking for, because no one, it seems, knows.

Which strongly suggests to me that the only thing Gods can be is imaginary, and the idea of a real god is incoherent, can't be turned into a description of something real that we can go looking for.

And what is 'godness' anyway?

 

[blü 2]

That's for you to decide based on whether something happens to you based on your decisions and not just mechanically.

Things happen to me and to the world arising from my decisions, but I haven't run across God out there, or anyone who can point [him] out in the crowd.

 

[blü 2]

Mormonism is one of the notable exceptions to the "God is conceived as non-physical" trend.

Now that's interesting! Do we have a photo?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Me telling you what I'm thinking is an expression in physical terms, isn't it? I'm not attempting a mind meld here.

Physical:
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a range of physical and mental challenges"
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"the physical world"

Do you accept that as a fair explanation of what physical is? If so, then please do the following with the word "fair".
Explain how you know something is fair. Relate it to the body or mind. If of the physical world, tell what fair looks like or give other sensory experiences of it. If it is a property of thing, say like the color of a thing, explain that. If it is a thing, explain what kind of thing. Explain how it is tangible or concrete.

Do you get me now? I don't want you to keep repeating "physical terms". I want you to apply physical terms to e.g. the word "fair". I don't want you to say that fair is physical. I want you to explain how you know that fair is physical.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't need to establish this.

If a theist wants to argue that their god is somehow exempt from empirical investigation, this still doesn't automatically mean that their belief in the god is justified. Maybe the theist can do it and maybe they can't, but until they actually justify their beliefs by some sort of sound method, their beliefs are unjustified.

The question that matters is whether justification has happened, not whether justification is possible.

"You have not conclusively ruled out that my beliefs could potentially be justified by something other than empirical evidence" does not equal "I have justified my beliefs without empirical evidence."

You guys do it all the time. Justification is itself not empirical. I want you to justify for the word "justify" only using empirical evidence. You can't. You can't, because the word justify is not empirical.
You in effect use a non-empirical idea "justification" and claim all justification must be empirical. Take the words "all justification must be empirical" and explain the meaning of that sentence in empirical terms.

I want you to justify how all justification must be empirical only using empirical evidence.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Curious George]

My point is that no test will tell you whether the potato is God or not, because there's no coherent definition of a real god. And that's because no one uses a coherent definition of God appropriate to a real God, one who exists in nature.
Ah ─

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.​

That doesn't define the 'entity' in any way that would allow us to identify real candidates, so it's not a definition appropriate to a real being, at least not as it stands. I want the test that will determine whether the potato, or my keyboard, or radiation in the green band, or any other real thing, is God or not. I want to know what real thing we're hunting.

And 'immortal' may be fine for an imaginary God, since immortal is an imaginary quality, and as a claimed aspect of reality has no test that could establish whether the entity was immortal or not. The same would be true were someone to say the entity was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, self-created, and so on. (Indeed, how does God know [he]'s omniscient? Know that there aren't things he doesn't know?)

I think you are mistaken. Is a potato an entity? Yes. Is a potato immortal? No. Is a potato intelligent? No we needn't move any further. A potato is not a god.

 

[izzy88]

You guys do it all the time. Justification is itself not empirical. I want you to justify for the word "justify" only using empirical evidence. You can't. You can't, because the word justify is not empirical.
You in effect use a non-empirical idea "justification" and claim all justification must be empirical. Take the words "all justification must be empirical" and explain the meaning of that sentence in empirical terms.

I want you to justify how all justification must be empirical only using empirical evidence.

Regards
Mikkel

Exactly this.

If you claim that something can only be considered true if it's empirically proven, you are logically contradicting yourself, because the principal that something can only be considered true if it's empirically proven cannot be empirically proven, and so the rule actually disproves itself.

 

[Curious George]

No, but I lack belief that you are interested in understanding my position.
I also lack belief that this conversation is going to lead anywhere productive. Goodbye.

As you will. I meant no offense.

Cheers.

 

[izzy88]

I think you are mistaken. Is a potato an entity? Yes. Is a potato immortal? No. Is a potato intelligent? No we needn't move any further. A potato is not a god.

I know I'm just jumping into this conversation, but I'm hoping I can help. "God" is a relational term, like "Father" or "pet" - it can only be understood in the context of a relationship. This means that a thing cannot be considered a god in and of itself; it can only be described as a god if it is worshipped. So, a potato absolutely could be a god if it was worshipped.

 

[Curious George]

I know I'm just jumping into this conversation, but I'm hoping I can help. "God" is a relational term, like "Father" or "pet" - it can only be understood in the context of a relationship. This means that a thing cannot be considered a god in and of itself; it can only be described as a god if it is worshipped. So, a potato absolutely could be a god if it was worshipped.

So you would say gods unequivocally exist, based on your definition of gods?

I understand your opinion, i disagree with your definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But isn't the state (and contents) of your mind dependent on physical states in your brain, Mikkel?

No, they are dependent on the belief that the external world, as I experience it, is there in itself as it appear to me. I.e. that "das Ding an sich" is in itself as it also appear to me.

This whole thread is one big mess of metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology rolled into one big claim of "the world is physical". It is free floating folk philosophy.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ecco]

The question is actually how do you stop believing there is a God? Of course there are many reasons. But studies have been done and a child has an inherent belief in God. It takes brain-washing to get the idea out of them.

You have that completely backward. A child has no inherent beliefs in anything. Everything a child comes to know comes from those around the child. That includes learning a or more languages, learning to count, learning to read and write, learning to socialize and, in most families, learning there is a Santa, an Easter Bunny, and a GOD. Children's brains are like sponges in that they absorb everything. They believe there is a Santa and an Easter Bunny until their older siblings and their parents finally tell them there aren't. Most parents never tell their children there is no God. Quite the opposite, they constantly reinforce that belief and teach the child that their God and the way they worship Him is the only way. That's why we have Catholics and Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Sunnis and Shiites. Do you really believe that a child decides he wants to be a Protestant or a Catholic?

Your comments are indicative of one who was indoctrinated early and heavily.

You said "studies have been done" but failed to post a link to any of these so-called studies.

What makes a person realize there is not God is when rational thought overcomes childhood indoctrination. Most people never completely overcome it. If the indoctrination was strong into absolute belief in the Christian Bible, the child becomes a fundamentalist, believing in Adam and Eve and Satan and the Flood. The same is true for any religion.

 

[izzy88]

So you would say gods unequivocally exist, based on your definition of gods?

I understand your opinion, i disagree with your definition.

Several cultures have worshipped the sun as their god. Others have worshipped the earth. The sun and the earth exist, and they are indeed gods to some people. If I have a child, but you are not my child, I am still a father even if I am not your father.

You're free to disagree with my definition, though; I just think it would make things a lot easier if we defined terms based on the way they're actually used.

How do you define the term "god"?

 

[ecco]

I'm not a hard atheist. I can be persuaded to other views by evidence. However the consistent conclusion from all the evidence leads me back to materialism every time.

What was the definition of a real god that you mentioned?

That was not addressed to me. But if that is rephrased as: "What was the definition of a real god all gods that you mentioned?", then the answer clearly is: The creations of man's imaginings.

 

[Left Coast]

What evidence? Can you provide some sources?

That we have mapped which parts of the brain are responsible for particular mental processes: Human brain - Wikipedia

That neurotransmitters affect mental states like mood and cognition: Influence of Tryptophan and Serotonin on Mood and Cognition with a Possible Role of the Gut-Brain Axis

That suffering brain damage can cause significant changes in mood and cognition, even completely altering people's personalities: TBI 101: Behavioral & Emotional Symptoms | BrainLine

That stimulating specific parts of the brain alters cognitive processes: Direct Brain Stimulation Modulates Encoding States and Memory Performance in Humans - ScienceDirect

That's a decent start.

Certainly; because we do not have any empirical evidence that it is possible. In science, theories must be proved, not disproved.

We don't have any empirical evidence it's impossible, either. And all available evidence indicates that minds are a function of brain activity. Which suggests strongly that if we gain enough information about brain activity, we'll be able to accurately predict and or translate thoughts.

 

[ecco]

This means that a thing cannot be considered a god in and of itself; it can only be described as a god if it is worshipped.

Worshipped by whom?
How many people need to worship it before it becomes a God?
Is worship the only reason to consider something a God?

What if an omniscient, immortal entity with 1001 eyes and green and yellow skin and halitosis created this universe? No one knows of this God, no one worships Him. Therefore, by your definition, this real God is not a God.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

What if an omniscient, immortal entity with 1001 eyes and green and yellow skin and halitosis created this universe?

How could an entity be God?
Unless you're being facetious that is......

 

[ecco]

This means that a thing cannot be considered a god in and of itself; it can only be described as a god if it is worshipped.

Millions of people worshipped Zeus.
Millions of people worshipped Odin.

Were they Gods back then? Are they no longer Gods because no one worships them now?

Is Allah a true God just like Jesus because millions worship them?

 

[izzy88]

That's a decent start.

It's not. Mood and cognition are not thought, emotion, and imagination. Nothing you cited gives evidence that these things can be empirically measured; what you're doing is making leaps in logic and equating the physical processes of the brain with the qualia of the mind, which simply proves that you don't have an accurate understanding of either.

We don't have any empirical evidence it's impossible, either.

"We don't have any empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, either."

I assume you've heard this ridiculous argument that poorly-educated theists often make? You're committing the exact same fallacy here.