Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[randix]

I personally don't like to use the word "god" to describe my own view of the subject, because that word has so many connotations.

It seems to me that characteristics defining something need not necessarily be what we regard as physical characteristics. Even physical reality itself is starting to seem less and less substantial or concrete, the more we ponder its foundations and delve into the theoretics and hypotheses of quantum mechanics, probabilities, the absence of time and space (in singularities, for example), the creation of other possible universes from the energetic, volatile potential of the subatomic or quantum realm where phenomena seem to spring into existence or disappear from existence, etc.

My own view is that everything that exists, exists within a consciousness of some sort, and is in some way, in some conformation, composed of that consciousness, including physical reality. This view of reality is a long way from the orthodox Christian views of my youth, but it now seems to me that everyone's experience is primarily composed of their conscious awareness of it, their conscious reactions to it and their conscious interactions with it. In other words, while it seems that we have physical experience in a physical body, what we are really experiencing is just conscious activity within a physical context. Physical reality may extend beyond our individual conscious perception, but our experience of physical reality is primarily within our psyche, within our consciousness.

So I think that just as we are individual conscious beings, "God" is also a conscious being in which all other known consciousness, including our own, resides.

That's just my personal view.

 

[PureX]

Mystery can be the accurate name for real states of affairs, yes. And it can be logical to call some particular state of affairs a mystery.

But give me an example of a mystery that is of itself "logical".

Any time we need or desire information that we do not have, we label that lack of information, and how it would effect us if we were to know it, a 'mystery'. What do you find illogical about this?

 

[atanu]

Yes, of course. We've been through this before. I acknowledge that science must ultimately have a subjective element, noting too that science well knows this and does its best to maximize objectivity; but that the winning quality of science is that it works.

Good.

Now stop avoiding the question and state clearly what this Something Else of yours is. It needs to be on the table too.

Or are you too ashamed of it to say it out loud?

'Something Else'? As I understand, based on the Vedanta, there is no something else, separate from your own "I am".

 

[atanu]

I don't think I'd say it's incoherent, just unfalsifiable. Similar to the way a non-physical god is.

Okay. So, the concept of a non-physical reality may not be incoherent after all. But no one can deny one's existence as "I am" prior to anything else. That 'Existence-Consciousness' is the Truth according to Vedanta. You can yourself ascertain that.

 

[atanu]

I'll leave it to the people who study these things to tell me the answer.
Do you mean at death? Because the answer is that brain and body function ceases at death. Or do you mean something else?
I recall that consciousness is thought to arise from the interaction of various of the brain's specialized functions, but that it's not fully understood.

Okay. This is reasonable. But we know that they do not know the answers to these questions.

You and I continue to differ as to whether the word 'consciousness' is appropriate for the sleep states. I say it's not. Indeed, I'm aware that experiments show that the conscious mind is the last to know what the brain has already decided to do and has already embarked on putting into action.

Exactly. We mistake the conscious manifest thought as the consciousness but it is not. Consciousness is the ability to discern, think, feel, and imagine. Much of that is not in the realm of conscious intellect. Throughout the three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping the ability to discern and the discernment is intact. For example, in a deep sleep state, one is aware of 'No-Thing'. The consciousness of 'identity' and its memory baggage continues through the three states.

I hope you will review and reconsider.

I was intrigued by your video, but they said again and again that no one knows the meaning or significance of what they've found (greatly increased 'gamma' brain wave activity).

Actually. there is no intrigue. What the speaker said was that science has no answer to the kind of gamma-ray stabilisation that meditators are able to attain consciously. Te point is that we can choose to believe that chemical interactions are masters. Or we can believe that we can control the behaviour of the brain.

 

[blü 2]

Since I don't believe in coherent nor real like you do, I don't find that a problem.

Then there's nothing here of interest to you. Have a nice day.

 

[blü 2]

Any time we need or desire information that we do not have, we label that lack of information, and how it would effect us if we were to know it, a 'mystery'. What do you find illogical about this?

As I said, it may be reasonable to label some state of affairs 'a mystery' but mysteries are not of their own nature 'reasonable'. To call something a mystery is to say there's a question to which you don't know the answer.

So labeling it a mystery is not a solution, not a resolution to anything.

 

[blü 2]

'Something Else'? As I understand, based on the Vedanta, there is no something else, separate from your own "I am".

Well, there's you, for a start.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I didn't say it was.

You in effect use a non-empirical idea "justification" and claim all justification must be empirical.

No, I really didn't.

I said that if you use a non-empirical method of justification of your beliefs, I'll need to see that the method is sound before I'll accept that your beliefs have been justified. IOW, I've left my mind open to any non-empirical method of justification as long as it really does what it claims to do.

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.

And I want people to read and understand my posts before replying, but we don't always get what we want.

 

[blü 2]

Exactly. We mistake the conscious manifest thought as the consciousness but it is not. Consciousness is the ability to discern, think, feel, and imagine.

We are far apart on this. As I said, the 'shark's brain' reflexes barely get to the threshold of the brain at all, and other forms of discernment are just about instantaneous too (while others may be the result of contemplation.

I don't mean either of us is wrong, but on this topic we don't have a vocabulary in common. Our concepts of consciousness are notably different.

Te point is that we can choose to believe that chemical interactions are masters. Or we can believe that we can control the behaviour of the brain.

What we can sometimes do is learn how to trigger chemical reactions that would not normally be within our conscious reach; but the effect will down to the same neurochemicals. I take it to have strong parallels to learning a physical activity, training the brain to do things it hasn't done before. I'm reminded of a friend years ago who was waiting for someone and meanwhile had free access to play with a lie detector; and discovered he could beat it by a particular kind of half-swallowing action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are no "unreal beliefs". All beliefs are real. They really exist. However, many beliefs are inaccurate. And that inaccuracy may inhibit actualization.

Well, as far as I can tell there are no witches(religion/folk beliefs), but you can still burn a human for being a witch.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say it was.


No, I really didn't.

I said that if you use a non-empirical method of justification of your beliefs, I'll need to see that the method is sound before I'll accept that your beliefs have been justified. IOW, I've left my mind open to any non-empirical method of justification as long as it really does what it claims to do.


And I want people to read and understand my posts before replying, but we don't always get what we want.

Thanks for keeping your patience with me.
But I will stop here.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then there's nothing here of interest to you. Have a nice day.

Okay.

 

[Left Coast]

Okay. So, the concept of a non-physical reality may not be incoherent after all. But no one can deny one's existence as "I am" prior to anything else. That 'Existence-Consciousness' is the Truth according to Vedanta. You can yourself ascertain that.

I think our Buddhist friends would take exception to this, as they dogmatically deny it, as I understand.

Is this "Existence-Consciousness" what you would identify as "God" in your view?

 

[Tambourine]

They have just confused the conceptual artifice they use to represent the unkowable in their minds, and enable them to 'interact' with it in whatever ways they feel they need to.
There is no "incorrect definition of God", because we cannot define God. People adopt whatever definitions and characterizations of God that suits them; because it suits them. Most religions try to remind their adherents that God is a/the great incomprehensible mystery, but people fear what they can't understand, because they can't control it. So they prefer to conceptualize the unknowable in ways that allow them to imagine that they have some sort of control. They usually personify it, because doing that helps them feel that they can 'interact' with it, and thereby gain some sort of understanding and control of it.

Is this "wrong"? There's no way for us to know.

If we cannot define God, then the word "God" denotes everything in existence and nonexistence, as well as nothing in particular. Lacking definition makes any conversation on the subject impossible, which is where my confusion as to your actual position in this debate comes from, I think.

Like, what is "the unknowable" supposed to mean? I don't know what I'll be having for dinner, does that mean God is my dinner? Does ignorance constitute a spark of the Divine? Somehow, I don't think you'd make that argument.

In addition, framing God as "the unknowable" already frames God as something specific, something definable, as opposed to the undefinable nothingness/everythingness we started out with, so framing God as "the unknowable" doesn't seem to work here, conceptually.

Either we can talk about God, in which case we can talk about what God is or isn't i.e. we can define God in some manner or other.

Or God is undefinable, at which point any discussion centering around the divine becomes futile and absurd: God is everything, God is nothing, God exists and doesn't exist, we can and cannot believe in God, God is both a mystery and everything we know - all and none of these statements are both true and false in unknown measure (we cannot even say whether they are equally true or not). It literally defies any and all human understanding, which in turn means that it defies human speech and communication. To quote Wittgenstein, "About what one can not speak, one must remain silent."

Taking the latter position seriously entails that there can be no such thing as a conception of God, nor even a word that denotes God, as God transcends any and all concepts, including the presence and absence of any sort of divine entity. The logical conclusion, then, is that the word "God" does not actually denote God, since words imply definitions (or at the very least, delineations) and God cannot be defined.

 

[izzy88]

You are also a son, shall I refer to you as "son" even though you are not my son?

You shall refer to me as a son.

Is a priest necessarily a father, even if he has sired no children, merely because he is called father by his parishioners?

Am I really just telling you the definitions of words, now? Yes, a priest is a Father, because that is another definition/use off the term "Father."

If someone asked whether you believe multiple gods exist and you said yes only to later disclose that you believe multiple god exist because you acknowledge the existence of multiple entities that are/were worshipped by other people, then i would accuse you of equivocation.

If someone asked me whether I believe multiple gods exist, I'd ask them what exactly they mean by "exist" and go from there.

The problem here is that we have a term god which certainly denotes worship, yet needn't always denote worship. Namely, would Zeus still be considered a god, even if he had no worshippers? Does lack of worshippers remove one's status as a god?

I didn't say that in order to be considered a god something needs to be worshipped currently; if something has been worshipped at some time in the past, yet is no longer, it may still be referred to as a god.

The sun exists, but is not a god. Someone worshipping the Sun may make make it a god to them, but not to me.

These two sentences are contradictory. If it is a god to them, it is a god. As I said already, if I have a child but am not your father, I am still a father, aren't I?

I can recognize the Zeus as a god, butthat doesn't mean i believe he existed/exists.

Depends on what you mean by "exists."

For these reasons, object of worship, fails to encapsulate the word god

You have not demonstrated that in any way.

 

[PureX]

If we cannot define God, then the word "God" denotes everything in existence and nonexistence, as well as nothing in particular. Lacking definition makes any conversation on the subject impossible, which is where my confusion as to your actual position in this debate comes from, I think.

We can't define the mystery that the concept of "God" embodies. But we can define our unknowing: the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Just because we can't have the answer doesn't mean we don't have the question.

Like, what is "the unknowable" supposed to mean? I don't know what I'll be having for dinner, does that mean God is my dinner? Does ignorance constitute a spark of the Divine? Somehow, I don't think you'd make that argument.

It means that the information we desire, but are lacking, is probably not attainable (by us).

In addition, framing God as "the unknowable" already frames God as something specific, something definable, as opposed to the undefinable nothingness/everythingness we started out with, so framing God as "the unknowable" doesn't seem to work here, conceptually.

You are deliberately confusing yourself by grasping at absolutes and extremes. Such ideals are like lighthouses. They work well as landmarks to steer BY, but they are disastrous to steer directly AT.

Either we can talk about God, in which case we can talk about what God is or isn't i.e. we can define God in some manner or other.

We have. God is defined as the representation of what we don't/ and probably can't know, but want to. God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

Or God is undefinable, at which point any discussion centering around the divine becomes futile and absurd: God is everything, God is nothing, God exists and doesn't exist, we can and cannot believe in God, God is both a mystery and everything we know - all and none of these statements are both true and false in unknown measure (we cannot even say whether they are equally true or not). It literally defies any and all human understanding, which in turn means that it defies human speech and communication. To quote Wittgenstein, "About what one can not speak, one must remain silent."

Well, that's just not the way we humans work. As a species, we survive and thrive by understanding the world around us, so that we can anticipate and manipulate it to our own advantage. Which means we become vulnerable and frightened when we find ourselves confronted with any significant lack of information. And the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, is the most significant lack of information we can conceive of. It is therefor the lack of information that we most want to overcome, by whatever means we can muster. Which is why so many of us give this mystery so much attention, and reverence, and work so hard at finding ways of perceiving it that allow for the illusion of some sort of understanding and control.

 

[izzy88]

In the same post, you said a something that even one person worships is a god. Then you state that the creator of the universe is no one's god. There are many people who are deists. Therefore there are many people who worship the creator of the universe. You seem very confused.

Go back and read the post I was replying to; it is obviously you who's confused.

Which makes this...

You have a habit of jumping into the middle of other people's conversations, not understanding the context and making irrelevant asinine comments.

...quite ironic.

But believe it or not, I had followed the conversation up to that point and was fully aware of the context - hence why I also said it was the "dumbest" thing I've read here. You were trying to argue for materialism by telling someone to contact something solid; it's ridiculous, and it shows either a lack of understanding about what materialism is, or that you're too lazy to come up with legitimate arguments and would rather use every opportunity you have to throw petty insults at strangers online (which, based on your two replies to me, seems to be the more likely case).

 

[ecco]

I would say if you obey the commandments you will come to know Him.

Hmm. Do you follow the Sabbath?

Catholicism and the Ten Commandments - dummies

10 Ways to Keep the Sabbath Holy
1. Do not work.

If a work event comes up on the Sabbath, you decline. If you don’t get all your work done before the Sabbath, you plan for an early morning the next day. When thoughts about work pop into your head, promise yourself you will deal with it tomorrow (if you need to, write a quick note so you won’t forget about it). By not working on the Sabbath, you are saying, “God is more important than my job.”

2. No TV.

Remember the Sabbath is about being with God. I don’t know about you, but I don’t often experience God’s presence while watching Television.

3. No social media.

Similar to TV, social media is a distraction from God. Cutting out these types of distractions will go a long way in keeping your Sabbath day holy.

4. Only listen to Christian music.

Setting your music to Christian radio is like setting the mood for the day. It draws you into God’s presence and keeps you focused on His goodness.

5. Spend extra time reading your Bible and praying.

One of the best ways to build a relationship with God is through direct communication with Him. Be intentional about seeking more time to talk with and learn from God.​

Do you follow all those?

Have you never envied the other man's Corvette?

I've probably obeyed most of the same commandments as you have. With the exception of the Sabbath thing, I had obeyed all the commandments by the time I realized that gods were made up nonsense just like the characters from my comic books. That was around age ten.

 

[izzy88]

Do you follow all those?

Have you never envied the other man's Corvette?

If you think that Catholicism teaches that we're all expected not to sin, you do not understand Catholicism.