God doesn't "exist as a concept" (and neither does anything else)

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't come up with this challenge, but I really like it:

Draw a bicycle.

Pretty much everyone has a concept of a bicycle... so draw it in as much detail as you can manage. Draw either a specific bike that you have in mind or a "generalized" bike that you dreamed up yourself.

Whenever you decide you're done, hit the spoiler button below.

Spoiler

All right. Now that you're done, look at it critically and ask yourself a few questions:

- would this bike actually function? Would the wheels turn? Would the pedals propel you? Would the brakes work? Would the gears shift properly?

- (if it was a depiction of a real bike): does this drawing look like the real bike? Are there any differences between the real thing and your drawing? Did you get the scratch on the fork or the scuff on the crank correct?

When asking yourself these questions, feel free to make reasonable allowances for your drawing ability (or lack thereof), but please be honest with yourself and don't pretend that you were conceiving of details that you really didn't.

We think in mental models. These models are not the entirety of the things they represent; they're only the details we think are important... and even then, only the details we recognize.

Just as your mental model of a bike isn't actually a bike "existing in your mind," your mental model of God isn't actually God existing in your mind, either. It's an action figure version of God. A Potemkin Village God.

The idea of God "existing as a concept" is a foundational part of the Ontological Argument. It also gets used occasionally for snark thrown at atheists ("what do you mean God doesn't exist? *I* believe in God, so God at least exists as a concept"... that sort of thing).

... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.

Thoughts?

Draw nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And so does the Loch Ness Monster.

And so does useful. Now draw useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you clarify for me? I think everyone gets it but me? Are you saying god is a concept? Or are you saying god is a concept and also real? I’m not sure, but I feel left out lol.

It is variation over the following problem: Only that, which is objective, is real. The problem is that the meaning/referent of the sentence is not objective and thus not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would ask you if you can verify if the idea of "cat" represents a set of actual animals. I suspect you will acknowledge you can, because "cat" is a category of animals that we can point to and observe existing. Can anyone verify that the idea of "god" represents anything actual? Do the concept correspond to anything real in a way that we mortals can verify?

So does a concept describe something real, or is it created or manipulated?

Is real real and how does it exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're asserting God is imaginary.

Yes, just as the imagery idea of human rights. Now draw human rights.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm saying that concepts are only representations of objects; they aren't the objects themselves.

Now draw your sentence and reference all words and its meaning to objects alone.

 

[PureX]

And so does the Loch Ness Monster.

Yes. And so does "objective reality".

 

[PureX]

So you're asserting God is imaginary.

Everything is imaginary. Everything exists, to us, as a concept derived from experience.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Emily Dickinson, possibly America's most enigmatic poet, had this to say about the relationship the inner world has with the outer. The last stanza won't be to everyone's liking, but a few word's from Emily are always worth a read imo.

The Brain – is wider than the Sky –
The Brain – is wider than the Sky –
For – put them side by side –
The one the other will contain
With ease – and You – beside –

The Brain is deeper than the sea –
For – hold them – Blue to Blue –
The one the other will absorb –
As Sponges – Buckets – do –

The Brain is just the weight of God –
For – Heft them – Pound for Pound –
And they will differ – if they do –
As Syllable from Sound –

 

[Polymath257]

And so does useful. Now draw useful.

'Useful' isn't a noun.

 

[Polymath257]

Draw nonsense.

Don't have to. This is a good example.

 

[Polymath257]

Everything is imaginary. Everything exists, to us, as a concept derived from experience.

I always wonder when someone says something like this. Do you not see a difference between the table in front of you and something like an elf? One exists independently of us. The other is completely in our imagination.

You are confusing the fact that we are all experiencers as saying that is all of reality.

 

[PureX]

I always wonder when someone says something like this. Do you not see a difference between the table in front of you and something like an elf? One exists independently of us. The other is completely in our imagination.

You are confusing the fact that we are all experiencers as saying that is all of reality.

l am equally amazed by how many people don't understand what it means to "see a table". That seeing is as much an imaginary conceptualization as it is an objective experience.

 

[Polymath257]

l am equally amazed by how many people don't understand what it means to "see a table". That seeing is as much an imaginary conceptualization as it is an objective experience.

But the fact that our brains filter and process the information doesn't mean there is no table there.

 

[PureX]

But the fact that our brains filter and process the information doesn't mean there is no table there.

There is no "table" there. There is only undifferentiated phenomena. There isn't even a "there" there. That, too, is an imaginary concept that we apply to otherwise undifferentiated phenomena.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no "table" there. There is only undifferentiated phenomena. There isn't even a "there" there. That, too, is an imaginary concept that we apply to otherwise undifferentiated phenomena.

I disagree. There are differentiated phenomena. We don't have access to all of the information about the external world, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[blü 2]

I didn't come up with this challenge, but I really like it:

Draw a bicycle.

Pretty much everyone has a concept of a bicycle... so draw it in as much detail as you can manage. Draw either a specific bike that you have in mind or a "generalized" bike that you dreamed up yourself.

Whenever you decide you're done, hit the spoiler button below.

Spoiler

All right. Now that you're done, look at it critically and ask yourself a few questions:

- would this bike actually function? Would the wheels turn? Would the pedals propel you? Would the brakes work? Would the gears shift properly?

- (if it was a depiction of a real bike): does this drawing look like the real bike? Are there any differences between the real thing and your drawing? Did you get the scratch on the fork or the scuff on the crank correct?

When asking yourself these questions, feel free to make reasonable allowances for your drawing ability (or lack thereof), but please be honest with yourself and don't pretend that you were conceiving of details that you really didn't.

We think in mental models. These models are not the entirety of the things they represent; they're only the details we think are important... and even then, only the details we recognize.

Just as your mental model of a bike isn't actually a bike "existing in your mind," your mental model of God isn't actually God existing in your mind, either. It's an action figure version of God. A Potemkin Village God.

The idea of God "existing as a concept" is a foundational part of the Ontological Argument. It also gets used occasionally for snark thrown at atheists ("what do you mean God doesn't exist? *I* believe in God, so God at least exists as a concept"... that sort of thing).

... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.

Thoughts?

How then does Sherlock Holmes or Superman or Gandalf or Hermione Granger exist? Not as something real ─ therefore as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain with no real counterpart, surely?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How then does Sherlock Holmes or Superman or Gandalf or Hermione Granger exist? No

They're literary characters. There's nothing to them but the model.

 

[F1fan]

Everything is imaginary. Everything exists, to us, as a concept derived from experience.

That is an exceptionally inaccurate statement.

Energy/matter is not imaginary. Now you may be confusing how our minds sense the rest of the universe, and that perception is processed in our minds as representations. This doesn't mean what we sense is imaginary. We know what tomatoes are from experience, but when we pick a tomato from our garden, slice it, and eat it, we aren't relating to a concept of a tomato, we are having an experience with a real tomato that isn't subject to our imagination.

Now we can imagine eating one of our tomatoes before they are ready and ripe. That is an imaginary experience. You can use your prior experience of eating actual tomatoes to create an imaginary experience. You might even salivate. You could have other physical responses like your reward center of your brain releasing hormone into your blood and you feel a bit of euphoria. This is how powerful our imagination can be. This is much like Pavlov's Dog.

What can be confusing is if our brains have distorted perception, like being tired or low blood sugar and how this affects brain functioning. When our brains are out of whack we can believe we sense things that aren't real. Even heightened states of fear can distort what we think is happening around us. Look into the God Helmet experiments as it shows that the brain can have an imbalance and subjects believe they are having a spiritual experience. Our brains have a lot of flaws and to keep perception accurate requires a good deal of learning and understanding.

 

[Segev Moran]

... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.
Thoughts?

I wouldn't say it is nonsense. Today, more than ever, we know that reality is subjective.
Subjective truth is not something that can be debated
BUT, as the concept of bikes depicts a less (or more) complicated description of real bikes, it can also be claimed that the subjective concept of God is actually an attempt to describe the actual God.
As there is no information whatsoever about what God is (and there never will be), the only things people describe are the Impacts of God.