The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, I have thought that it be best for us all to work as to concur on what we mean by existence, because existence is the last frontier which will prevent us from straying on and on endlessly without getting connected at all.

So, what do you say, an example of an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of existence is the nose in our face?

Once we get to concur on many things as objects corresponding to the concept of existence in our mind, then we already have a common understanding of the concept of existence: yes? no?

It seems to me that we are now discarding the whole conversation up until this point in favor of pursuing a concept of existence. Is that correct?

I would agree that a nose is an example of something we accept to exist.

 

[Sanmario]

I will be back in one hour's time.

Corrigendum: Be back later.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

My concept of God is something far greater than my concept of God.

Or something far less.

 

[Sanmario]

Sanmario, Yesterday at 6:38 AM

Dear Curious George, I have thought that it be best for us all to work as to concur on what we mean by existence, because existence is the last frontier which will prevent us from straying on and on endlessly without getting connected at all.

So, what do you say, an example of an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of existence is the nose in our face?

Once we get to concur on many things as objects corresponding to the concept of existence in our mind, then we already have a common understanding of the concept of existence: yes? no?

You see, everyone reading this thread, the most difficult task to achieve when we have a conversation, it is that we are talking about the same thing(s); otherwise there is no conversation but all each ones are talking past the head of everyone else - which is a cacophony.

That is why I am now into trying to get everyone to concur on what we mean by existence, with from my part giving an example of something having existence, namely, the nose in our face.

So, please everyone, present an example of something in existence; then we will eventually sooner than later come to concurrence on what we mean with the word/concept , existence.

 

[Curious George]

You see dear readers, often times a person will want to change the subject entirely mid way through a conversation.

 

[columbus]

I am demonstrating something for you @Sanmario .
If you put an @ directly in front of someone's screen name, they will get a little notification of the post and a link to it.
Tom

 

[Sanmario]

I am demonstrating something for you @Sanmario .
If you put an @ directly in front of someone's screen name, they will get a little notification of the post and a link to it.
Tom

Thanks, appreciate that!

 

[Sanmario]

What I know and I hope I am not mistaken here, there are posters here who read new posts, or look for new posts which they like to react to.

My OP reproduced below is about the distinction between the what I call objectival realm and the conceptival realm.

Please read the OP, and tell me whether that is a useful distinction in our quest for correct knowledge.

Then I give an example of the conceptival realm, namely, my concept of God, and ask posters to also present their concept of God.

"So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."​

I hope to get everyone to work together as to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God, so that we will debate on His existence or non-existence in regard to the concept of God we have concurred on.

So, let us each one present his concept of God.

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[Curious George]

What I know and I hope I am not mistaken here, there are posters here who read new posts, or look for new posts which they like to react to.

My OP reproduced below is about the distinction between the what I call objectival realm and the conceptival realm.

Please read the OP, and tell me whether that is a useful distinction in our quest for correct knowledge.

Then I give an example of the conceptival realm, namely, my concept of God, and ask posters to also present their concept of God.

"So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."​

I hope to get everyone to work together as to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God, so that we will debate on His existence or non-existence in regard to the concept of God we have concurred on.

So, let us each one present his concept of God.

Are we back to defining god in the conceptual realm??? I gave you a fantastic definition. You gave your definition, I objected to requiring "creator" for the definition. Are we going to proceed with the discussion?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George

[From George]
Are we back to defining god in the conceptual realm??? I gave you a fantastic definition. You gave your definition, I objected to requiring "creator" for the definition. Are we going to proceed with the discussion?​

#49 Curious George, Yesterday at 5:46 PM
​

I am sponsoring my concept of God which I hold is the one that is intended to be taken seriously by all genuine thinkers on reason, observation, and hence into drawing intelligent conclusion.

Here is my concept of God again:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
​

Dear George, do you have a concept of God which is in your heart and mind all the time, that when you are asleep and someone wakes you up and ask you:

"Tell me quick, what is your concept of God, in 50 words or less, quick!"

I am that guy, so please, tell me: "Tell me quick, what is your concept of God, in 50 words or less, quick!"

This thread is on The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

I am going to keep up with you until you leave me, okay?

The same also with Jeremiahcp on his Probability of God's Existence.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George

[From George]
Are we back to defining god in the conceptual realm??? I gave you a fantastic definition. You gave your definition, I objected to requiring "creator" for the definition. Are we going to proceed with the discussion?​

#49 Curious George, Yesterday at 5:46 PM
​

I am sponsoring my concept of God which I hold is the one that is intended to be taken seriously by all genuine thinkers on reason, observation, and hence into drawing intelligent conclusion.

Here is my concept of God again:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
​

Dear George, do you have a concept of God which is in your heart and mind all the time, that when you are asleep and someone wakes you up and ask you:

"Tell me quick, what is your concept of God, in 50 words or less, quick!"

I am that guy, so please, tell me: "Tell me quick, what is your concept of God, in 50 words or less, quick!"

This thread is on The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

I am going to keep up with you until you leave me, okay?

The same also with Jeremiahcp on his Probability of God's Existence.

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.

There you go. Less than 40 words.

But this is where we left off. I gave you this concept. You offered no objections. You gave me your concept. I objected.

Now ideally you would lay out a coherent logical explanation of why "creator" is not superfluous to the definition of god. But instead I had to offer exceptions that illustrated how the term is unnecessary. But here is an interesting question for you. Assuming a god exists and that God created something, was that god not a god before that god partook in the act of creation?

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George


Here is your concept of God:

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.​

And here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
​

You want to point out to me that

1. creator is superfluous in my concept of God.​

And also you tell me of your assumption and question, namely:

2. Assuming a god exists and that God created something, was that god not a god before that god partook in the act of creation?​

To your No. 2 concern, tell me what answer you think to be one that you will find acceptable to yourself.

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.

There you go. Less than 40 words.

But this is where we left off. I gave you this concept. You offered no objections. You gave me your concept. I objected.

Now ideally you would lay out a coherent logical explanation of why "creator" is not superfluous to the definition of god. But instead I had to offer exceptions that illustrated how the term is unnecessary. But here is an interesting question for you. Assuming a god exists and that God created something, was that god not a god before that god partook in the act of creation?

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George


Here is your concept of God:

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.​

And here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
​

You want to point out to me that

1. creator is superfluous in my concept of God.​

And also you tell me of your assumption and question, namely:

2. Assuming a god exists and that God created something, was that god not a god before that god partook in the act of creation?​

To your No. 2 concern, tell me what answer you think to be one that you will find acceptable to yourself.

If I am not mistaken you have responded to my question by asking what I think an acceptable answer would be.

I would imagine that given these assumptions anyone would likely agree that if a god exists then that God was a god before they created anything. This would illustrate how "creator" is unnecessary for the definition.

 

[columbus]

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

@Curious George and I seem to disagree with you for opposite reasons. Isn't that curious?

My meaning for the word God is more like "God, in concept, is simply the Creator of the universe, man, and everything with a beginning ". Although I definitely wouldn't phrase it that way. It's the "and Operator " part of your definition that I don't see any reason to believe.

To me, God is simply the answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing? " The reason I am not a theist is that I don't find the usual descriptions of God, provided by religious people, the least bit satisfactory. Just the opposite, the descriptions seem more like Rorshach tests and better describe the holder than God. Humans regularly create Gods in their own image and then expect others to worship that image.

I believe that the way to learn about God is through science. Science is simply the best methods we have devised to ascertain the truth about the reality we call "Creation" , nothing more but nothing less. Religion is the study and practice of substituting fictional accounts and concepts of God for the reality.
Reality is what doesn't change regardless of what people believe.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George and I seem to disagree with you for opposite reasons. Isn't that curious?

My meaning for the word God is more like "God, in concept, is simply the Creator of the universe, man, and everything with a beginning ". Although I definitely wouldn't phrase it that way. It's the "and Operator " part of your definition that I don't see any reason to believe.

To me, God is simply the answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing? " The reason I am not a theist is that I don't find the usual descriptions of God, provided by religious people, the least bit satisfactory. Just the opposite, the descriptions seem more like Rorshach tests and better describe the holder than God. Humans regularly create Gods in their own image and then expect others to worship that image.

I believe that the way to learn about God is through science. Science is simply the best methods we have devised to ascertain the truth about the reality we call "Creation" , nothing more but nothing less. Religion is the study and practice of substituting fictional accounts and concepts of God for the reality.
Reality is what doesn't change regardless of what people believe.
Tom

I haven't got to operator yet.

 

[Willamena]

​

You see, everyone reading this thread, the most difficult task to achieve when we have a conversation, it is that we are talking about the same thing(s); otherwise there is no conversation but all each ones are talking past the head of everyone else - which is a cacophony.

That is why I am now into trying to get everyone to concur on what we mean by existence, with from my part giving an example of something having existence, namely, the nose in our face.

So, please everyone, present an example of something in existence; then we will eventually sooner than later come to concurrence on what we mean with the word/concept , existence.

A nose is an example of something existing, but the implications of what that means can differ widely, and wildly. For some, everything exists, because to be a "thing" is to exist: for others, some things do not exist, because "existing/not existing" is allowed to be a state of things.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear George, you tell me:
"I would imagine that given these assumptions anyone would likely agree that if a god exists then that God was a god before they created anything. This would illustrate how "creator" is unnecessary for the definition."

I agree with you.

On the other hand, you see I put words which to you seem superfluous, in order to forestall readers from asking me whether I also include God explicitly as creator.

So, my regularly repeated concept of the God, namely:
"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning," can be concisely and precisely shortened into this brief sentence:

God is creator of everything with a beginning.


Now, we talked about in another thread how it follows from my submission that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, how it follows that God exists in concept as:

God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You maintain that it is a non-sequitur.

I tell you, No, because
1. Existence is ultimately of two kinds.
2. Permanent existence or transient existence.

Wherefore, it follows that transient existence depends upon the permanent existence i.e. God to impart to it existence.

I like to read again how you denied my sequitur, in effect still insisting that it is a non-sequitur.

Thanks, everyone for your contributions, let's focus on how the concept of God when it is validly enunciated as in very brief language, the creator of everything with a beginning, it follows that everything we see in existence is evidence of God in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

Starting with the nose in our face, of course we can start with anything at all that is in the objectival realm of reality, like the nose in our face.

I will be back later in the afternoon, so please don't go away, and no one please don't resort to telling others that they can't read when he is requested to explain his words.

If I am not mistaken you have responded to my question by asking what I think an acceptable answer would be.

I would imagine that given these assumptions anyone would likely agree that if a god exists then that God was a god before they created anything. This would illustrate how "creator" is unnecessary for the definition.

 

[1137]

To me a god is a Platonic Form that is one or more of, but not limited to, the following: necessary, self aware and willful, foundational to reality, capable of interaction with humans, etc. Pretty much basic concepts of gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

If God exists, I have to go with a more apophatic God of the Baha'i Faith, the Source in some Buddhist beliefs, the Tao, and in some ways the Brahman of Vedic traditions, without the cultural trappings of lesser Gods.

If it were not for the unifying concept of an apophatic God of the Baha'i Faith I would be an agnostic or weak atheist, because there would be no coherent argument for for the existence of Biblical God(s).

The concept of God in the scripture of the Bible and Roman/Hellenist Christianity is too inconsistent and burdened by cultural human views as to what God is. There are too many trappings of mythical polytheism in these beliefs, and Babylonian/Ugarite/Canaanite mythology tied up here.

From age to age cultures and societies conceive from their own mythical notions as to what God(s) are, and this fails to convince the honest skeptic.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear readers here, thanks for your presence, and also to posters who have contributed to this thread, thanks a lot.

Okay, everyone, what do you say now about my two statement put in bold by me below in ANNEX, but I will reproduce them here for your immediate viewing.

[...]

[ Item one ]
So, my regularly repeated concept of the God, namely:
"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning," can be concisely and precisely shortened into this brief sentence:

God is creator of everything with a beginning.

[...]

[ Item two ]
Thanks, everyone for your contributions, let's focus on how the concept of God when it is validly enunciated as in very brief language, the creator of everything with a beginning, it follows that everything we see in existence is evidence of God in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

[...]

So, dear Curious George and Columbus and everyone else, let us read of your thinking in re the above two items from me put in bold.


ANNEX

[...]

So, my regularly repeated concept of the God, namely:
"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning," can be concisely and precisely shortened into this brief sentence:

God is creator of everything with a beginning.


Now, we talked about in another thread how it follows from my submission that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, how it follows that God exists in concept as:

God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

You maintain that it is a non-sequitur.

I tell you, No, because
1. Existence is ultimately of two kinds.
2. Permanent existence or transient existence.

Wherefore, it follows that transient existence depends upon the permanent existence i.e. God to impart to it existence.

I like to read again how you denied my sequitur, in effect still insisting that it is a non-sequitur.

Thanks, everyone for your contributions, let's focus on how the concept of God when it is validly enunciated as in very brief language, the creator of everything with a beginning, it follows that everything we see in existence is evidence of God in concept as creator of everything with a beginning.

Starting with the nose in our face, of course we can start with anything at all that is in the objectival realm of reality, like the nose in our face.

I will be back later in the afternoon, so please don't go away, and no one please don't resort to telling others that they can't read when he is requested to explain his words.