Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[izzy88]

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?

Every figure you just mentioned is a god, yes. Why is that controversial?

 

[ecco]

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.

Jump off a high cliff. Just as your head begins to touch the earth, there may be a nano-second in which you realize that the world is physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Numbers don't exist. All you have are apples (in the materialist's concept of reality). And yet somehow, you are relating the apples to each other as individuals, and as groupings, and experiencing, as 'real', the "equality" of one grouping with another. How can this be when all that can exist are the physical apples?

Numbers have no physicality. Therefor they cannot exist in a materialist's reality, because in a materialist's definition of reality, existence is defined by it's physical presence.
Equal means equal. It doesn't mean not equal or somewhat equal. Equality is an ideal state (imagined, but unattainable) that logically cannot physically exist. And yet it clearly does exist as an ideal, and we use it that way, successfully, all the time. So, apparently. the proposition that existence is defined by and limited to physicality is wrong.
You would be seeking a state or condition of "equilibrium", in that instance, not of "equality". A state of equilibrium is physically possible. A state of equality is not.
What is the physicality of equality when it cannot, logically, physically exist?

Something personal to start this off.
In my journey through life I was taught not just to act, but to reflect upon my thoughts, feelings and actions. There is psychology in that as how to cope and use cognitive modification of one's own mental states and to be aware of that one is thinking. Not just be one's own thinking but to hold, examine and understand one's own mental states.

The fancy words are in part mentalization and meta-cognition. What I learned was that, before I could do that reliable and "on the demand", I would "react and be my mental states" without considering them.
So we are playing a game of the ability to check one's own thoughts, feelings and actions and not just take them for granted. That connects to philosophy as critical thinking, suspension of judgment, to doubt one's own assumptions and indeed to find one's own assumptions.

So let me give an example. Justification in the strong sense is not possible because of Agrippa the Skeptic's 5 modes. But to learn that requires in the end that you can reflect upon your own thoughts and feelings and not just be them.

So in practice some people can't do that on demand. They are in effect unable to get behind the flow of their thoughts and check what they are doing.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

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?

People do worship them now though, hundreds of thousands. And they represent forces of nature which are known to objectively exist, so even if they aren't worshiped - the things they represent will still be there in human experience.

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

Allah etymologically means THE-GOD It's a freakin tautology dude.


Jesus is a different situation and the only religion of it's kind with it's trinity. Jesus was a man but is consequently seen by mainstream Christians to be "co-equal" with "The Father" and "the Spirit". That's a rabbit hole. It's very problematic, depending on which Christian denomination you ask, the Yahweh of the Old Testament (Tanakh) may be the Father or the Son, nobody really knows cause the Trinity is a later concept not in the New Testament.

 

[Left Coast]

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

I, again, am genuinely having difficulty knowing what will be an "acceptable" answer to you and what won't. Fairness:

"impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination." Fairness | Definition of Fairness by Lexico

So for example, if we're kids in a classroom, and there is a rule that no child may leave the classroom without asking the teacher's permission, if the teacher enforces that rule the same way for all students, she is behaving fairly. However, if she allows little Mikkel to leave the classroom any time he likes with no consequence, and doesn't do so for other students, she is behaving unfairly. A simplistic example, but hopefully it adequately illustrates the idea?

For sake of clarity, do you think fairness is non-physical? If so, what does it mean, and what use does it have?

 

[ecco]

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

My comment would have been better understood if you had read what I was responding to.

Nevertheless, why would a god, if there were such things, not be considered an entity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Jump off a high cliff. Just as your head begins to touch the earth, there may be a nano-second in which you realize that the world is physical.

Yes, here is how I have lived for the past 25 years, since I was given that example. I am not writing this. All the time I have been sitting at the edge of a high cliff and wondering if I should jump. The world is nothing but that. Me sitting at the edge of a cliff. You win, because you are not reading this. You are also sitting at the edge of a cliff. The world is sitting at the edge of a cliff.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Nevertheless, why would a god, if there were such things, not be considered an entity.

Because entities are created things and therefore cannot be the originator of entities of which they themselves are. What you allude to goes back to the classic "Gnostic-Problem" - between "The One vs The Demiurge".
An entity will always be an angel, a djinn, an archon, an aeon - but not The Absolute/the ultimate/the creator/the ground of reality. Plus the idea of God being "omnipotent and omnipresent" itself should make this blatantly obvious to your mind.
God is always going to be something beyond-deity and non-entity, but which theophanizes via intermediary entites (such as angels which are so prevalent for a reason in the Abrahamic religions)

This is providing we are speaking of monotheism/monism and not Polytheism - which are diametrically different theological and ontological religious schools of thought.
When you speak of the monotheistic/monist "God", you are typologically speaking of a completely different kind of concept or belief in comparison to a Polytheistic concept or belief.

 

[Left Coast]

It's not. Mood and cognition are not thought, emotion, and imagination.

They literally are, though...cognitive science is literally the study of thought and thought processes. "Mood" is another way of saying, "emotion."

"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.

I'm not asserting that it's true simply because it hasn't been shown to be impossible. I'm saying we can't declare that it's impossible simply because it hasn't been shown to be possible. And all available evidence shows us that mental activity occurs as a function of brain activity.

Edit to add: a way to falsify the hypothesis that mental activity is a function of brain activity would be to discover a mental activity that occurs independently of brain activity. Do you know of one?

 

[izzy88]

Worshipped by whom?

Anyone.

How many people need to worship it before it becomes a God?

One.

Is worship the only reason to consider something a God?

Yes.

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.

No, by my definition the creator of the universe is no one's god.

 

[izzy88]

Jump off a high cliff. Just as your head begins to touch the earth, there may be a nano-second in which you realize that the world is physical.

This is both the dumbest and most mean-spirited thing I've read in my short time here. Congratulations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You act as if you do. That you post here at all shows you assuming the first two (that a world exists external to you, and that your senses can inform you of it); and you present arguments in reasoned form (assume reason is a valid tool) so that shows you acting on the basis of all three.

No, we have been here before. That you act in your mind as if the world is real, doesn't mean that the world is real. You use a belief in real to say that other beliefs are not relevant because of your beliefs, which are not really beliefs.
That is what we are playing. Your belief in real is not really a belief.

 

[izzy88]

They literally are, though...cognitive science is literally the study of thought and thought processes. "Mood" is another way of saying, "emotion."

You are wrong on all accounts.

I'm saying we can't declare that it's impossible simply because it hasn't been shown to be possible.

I never said we could; I simply said that I'm not going to accept something as true when there isn't convincing evidence for it. You obviously find the evidence convincing, but you've also demonstrated that you do not have an accurate understanding of either the science or the philosophy involved. I suggest you stop arguing this topic with people and go "back to school", so to speak. You have a lot more you need to learn about this subject if you want to understand it. Learning about qualia would be a good jumping off point, I think.

But that's just my advice; take it or leave it.

 

[Left Coast]

You are wrong on all accounts.

What do you think cognitive science is the study of? What do you think moods are?

I never said we could; I simply said that I'm not going to accept something as true when there isn't convincing evidence for it. You obviously find the evidence convincing,

What I specifically said was, that's the direction the evidence is pointing. I didn't say we were there yet. The indication is we'll likely get there, some day.

but you've also demonstrated that you do not have an accurate understanding of either the science or the philosophy involved. I suggest you stop arguing this topic with people and go "back to school", so to speak. You have a lot more you need to learn about this subject if you want to understand it. Learning about qualia would be a good jumping off point, I think.

But that's just my advice; take it or leave it.

This would be the time to educate me, since you think I need more education. Other than just saying, "you're wrong," perhaps explain how you think I'm wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

For sake of clarity, do you think fairness is non-physical? If so, what does it mean, and what use does it have?

Take the word "stone" as hard solid non-metallic mineral matter of which rock is made, especially as a building material versus the word "no".
Now look at a stone, hold it. Doing other things with it. Test it using physics and chemistry.
Now look at no, hold it. Doing other things with it. Test it using physics and chemistry.
Do the same with "what does it mean?" and "what use does it have?". You are doing something non-physical as mental processes.

Here it is for words in general. All words are signs with a meaning about something. The word "no" is about something you can't do that same with as with a stone. No is mental and stone is physical.

We can get to metaphysics in due time. But you have to learn that not all words have physical referents, before we can continue.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

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.

Then describe what real thing we're looking for when we look in reality for God, such that we can distinguish God from all other natural things.

Because that description is, as far as I can tell, entirely lacking.

 

[Left Coast]

Take the word "stone" as hard solid non-metallic mineral matter of which rock is made, especially as a building material versus the word "no".
Now look at a stone, hold it. Doing other things with it. Test it using physics and chemistry.
Now look at no, hold it. Doing other things with it. Test it using physics and chemistry.
Do the same with "what does it mean?" and "what use does it have?". You are doing something non-physical as mental processes.

Here it is for words in general. All words are signs with a meaning about something. The word "no" is about something you can't do that same with as with a stone. No is mental and stone is physical.

We can get to metaphysics in due time. But you have to learn that not all words have physical referents, before we can continue.

Regards
Mikkel

I would agree that all concepts don't have physical referents. That's Blu's whole point actually, that gods either exist physically (like a stone) or exist conceptually in people's minds. Is there another way things can "exist", and if so, what is it?

 

[blü 2]

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.

Yes, you're spot on ─ the word 'real' is the entire problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you think cognitive science is the study of? What do you think moods are?



What I specifically said was, that's the direction the evidence is pointing. I didn't say we were there yet. The indication is we'll likely get there, some day.



This would be the time to educate me, since you think I need more education. Other than just saying, "you're wrong," perhaps explain how you think I'm wrong?

In effect you treat all words as concrete for what they are about. Not all words are about something physical, tangible, concrete.
As long as you do that to the following effect of a mental idea: Only that which is physical is real. And as long you don't understand that "only that which is physical is real" is neither physical nor real as physical, we will be going in circles.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would agree that all concepts don't have physical referents. That's Blu's whole point actually, that gods either exist physically (like a stone) or exist conceptually in people's minds. Is there another way things can "exist", and if so, what is it?

If all concepts don't have physical referents, then how can you see all thoughts as physical in the brain?

Regards
Mikkel