Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[ecco]

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

Have you already forgotten this exchange?

ecco:

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

Izzy:

One.​

ecco:

Is worship the only reason to consider something a God?​

Izzy:

Yes.
​

According to you in this exchange anything worshipped by even one person is a God.

Then you went on with...

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

First, you say anything worshipped is a god, then you say the creator of the universe, which is something worshipped by many, is not a God.

I said you were confused. Perhaps it's something deeper than that.

 

[ecco]

... 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...

My comment was directed at someone who insists nothing is real. Dashing his head on solid ground would prove him wrong.

 

[ecco]

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).

Don't flatter yourself.

 

[ecco]

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

There ya go again, jumping into the middle of a conversation between other people. Are you that desperate to try to find something to say?

 

[izzy88]

Have you already forgotten this exchange?

ecco:

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

Izzy:

One.​

ecco:

Is worship the only reason to consider something a God?​

Izzy:

Yes.
​

According to you in this exchange anything worshipped by even one person is a God.

Then you went on with...


First, you say anything worshipped is a god, then you say the creator of the universe, which is something worshipped by many, is not a God.

I said you were confused. Perhaps it's something deeper than that.

Here, I'll help you:

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.

This is what I was replying to; did you forget what you had said?

"No one knows of this God, no one worships Him."

In your hypothetical scenario, where no one knows of the God that created the universe, no one worships Him, then in that case the creator of the universe is no one's god.

Next time someone tells you to go back and read the context, I really suggest you do so instead of doubling down and making yourself look even sillier.

 

[Curious George]

You shall refer to me as a son.

You seem to have missed the point. Calling someone "son" is using son in a different manner. It is a pejorative use of the word instead the common definition.

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 you want; the questions were rhetorical devices used to illustrate that words have multiple definitions.

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

You do not see the irony in worrying over equivocation of the word exists, but then equivocating with the word "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.

So, if something was worshipped but you were unaware that is was so, would it still be a god?

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?

They are not contradictory. "To them" is shorthand for consider by them or viewed by them whilst "to me" is shorthand for considered by me or viewed by me. It demonstrates a contradiction in views, but the sentence itself is not contradictory. If i said that piece of paper is blue to them but green to me, would the sentence be contradictory, or would it communicate a very real possibility that I am telling you the state of affairs for a colorblind person and me.

Depends on what you mean by "exists."

Zeus, of Greek mythology, is not nor was not instantiated.

You have not demonstrated that in any way.

When someone refers to their object of worship as a god are they then just acknowledging that they worship this entity? Or, is this object worshipped because it is believed to be a god?

If the latter is the case, then "god" cannot merely mean object of worship.

 

[Curious George]

The appearance matters because without it you can't tell whether the potato is God or not. For all you know, God looks like a potato.

Or a piece of gravel. Or a crow. Or a shrimp. Or a 1957 Ford Customline. Or a pair of nylon underpants. You don't know what a real god is, which is the point of this thread.

Sure you do. Are potatoes intelligent? Are crows? Are cars?

We can weed out entire classes. Though if i were to come across an intelligent 1957 Ford Customline, I might need to adjust my schema.

Classification is something humans do rather well, if I were to give you a list of attributes i would be very surprised if you could not quickly go through and discern what has those attributes and what does not. Yet here we are.

 

[izzy88]

You seem to have missed the point. Calling someone "son" is using son in a different manner. It is a pejorative use of the word instead the common definition.

I didn't miss the point; your point is irrelevant.

Apparently I need to remind you what this conversation is about:

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.

"A potato is not a god."

That is what we're discussing; you did not say that a potato is not your god, you did not say that a potato is not God, you said a potato is not a god.

equivocating with the word "god."

Good grief...

You are equivocating with the word 'god' - that has been my point this entire time. I legitimately don't know how else to explain it to you.

When someone refers to their object of worship as a god are they then just acknowledging that they worship this entity? Or, is this object worshipped because it is believed to be a god?

If the latter is the case, then "god" cannot merely mean object of worship.

The former is the case.

 

[atanu]

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.

Yes, we are far apart. I will point out that in all cases you presume that consciousness is a product of the material brain when this is the point that needs proving. See the above statement. I am on the hand proposing that physical manifestation is a process of consciousness even as a whirlpool is a process of the river or a wave is process in an ocean.

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.
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.

What I wrote above applies for this too. "I", the awareness, wherein the mental and physical processes (related to brain) are manifesting can influence the both these processes. The mediation, yoga, biofeedback etc. are the evidences.
...

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

I do not buy or sell or work on money-things (although today there was a very easy thing to do so I just did it). I take the sacrament. I try to be reverent and listen to reverent music. I stay in the company of friends. Once a month I fast. I spend a lot of time on scripture every day. I like to play chess on Sunday. I like to read.

 

[atanu]

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

How can anyone deny one's existence? A statement such as "I do not exist", is the assertion of existence.

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

Yes. In the Vedantic view, and also in view of many other theologians. I had shared the below video before.

...

 

[ecco]

Here, I'll help you:



This is what I was replying to; did you forget what you had said?

"No one knows of this God, no one worships Him."

In your hypothetical scenario, where no one knows of the God that created the universe, no one worships Him, then in that case the creator of the universe is no one's god.

Uh huh. Let's review.

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.

​

I wasn't raising the question of whose god it was. I pointed out that, by your definition, it was not a God although it had created the universe.

Your attempt at sidestepping the issue is not as clever as you thought it was. I'm quite used to people trying to dodge or deflect from an issue by posting responses that sidestep the issue.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't miss the point; your point is irrelevant.

You say that yet you insist on a very particular definition of god. While we do use the word god for relationship "did they have a god," we also use the word as an abstract class "do gods exist?"

Apparently I need to remind you what this conversation is about:

No need, but perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel it is necessary to remind me.

"A potato is not a god."

That is correct.

That is what we're discussing; you did not say that a potato is not your god, you did not say that a potato is not God, you said a potato is not a god.

Yes, i did say that. A potato is not a god. The Sun is also not a god, despite being considered as one by at least some people.

Good grief...

You are equivocating with the word 'god' - that has been my point this entire time. I legitimately don't know how else to explain it to you.

No, i put forth a very straightforward definition of god, and have not equivocated that. In fact, if I have used god in another manner, i have been very careful to point out that fact.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the word equivocation, not all are familiar with it. When you use a the ambiguity of language in order to deceive, obfuscate, or conclude incorrectly, you are engaging in equivocation.

Thus, if someone said do you believe gods exist, and you, relying on the definition object of worship, replied "yes," while fully knowing they were not asking you "do you believe there are entities that people worship," then you would be equivocating.

The former is the case.

I have rarely found that to be the case. In fact, i am pretty sure that the sentence "why do you worship him, he is not a god" would be readily understood by most people. Yet, if we hold to your definition, such a statement would be incoherent.

 

[izzy88]

You say that yet you insist on a very particular definition of god. While we do use the word god for relationship "did they have a god," we also use the word as an abstract class "do gods exist?"

No need, but perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel it is necessary to remind me.


That is correct.

Yes, i did say that. A potato is not a god. The Sun is also not a god, despite being considered as one by at least some people.

No, i put forth a very straightforward definition of god, and have not equivocated that. In fact, if I have used god in another manner, i have been very careful to point out that fact.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the word equivocation, not all are familiar with it. When you use a the ambiguity of language in order to deceive, obfuscate, or conclude incorrectly, you are engaging in equivocation.

Thus, if someone said do you believe gods exist, and you, relying on the definition object of worship, replied "yes," while fully knowing they were not asking you "do you believe there are entities that people worship," then you would be equivocating.



I have rarely found that to be the case. In fact, i am pretty sure that the sentence "why do you worship him, he is not a god" would be readily understood by most people. Yet, if we hold to your definition, such a statement would be incoherent.

Yeah...I'm done.

Goodbye.

 

[izzy88]

Uh huh. Let's review.

​

I wasn't raising the question of whose god it was. I pointed out that, by your definition, it was not a God although it had created the universe.

Your attempt at sidestepping the issue is not as clever as you thought it was. I'm quite used to people trying to dodge or deflect from an issue by posting responses that sidestep the issue.

Is this a joke?

It's incredible how many people in this thread are demonstrating the exact same behavior. You spend the entire discussion moving the goalposts around, contradicting yourself in the process, to avoid ever admitting that you were wrong or that someone else was right.

It's like trying to reason with a child.

Goodbye.

 

[Left Coast]

How can anyone deny one's existence? A statement such as "I do not exist", is the assertion of existence.

Anatman - Encyclopedia of Buddhism

Yes. In the Vedantic view, and also in view of many other theologians. I had shared the below video before.

...

Didn't watch, but am familiar with David Bentley Hart and read his book The Experience of God. Bright guy, no doubt.

 

[Heyo]

So, if you believe in God(s), in what sense does he "exist?" What defining features could we identify her/him/it/they by? Is it coherent to say that something non-physical exists outside our minds?

I've tried to follow the discussion but I resigned around page 8. (I want my nn back. Seriously, we had more advanced news readers in the '80s.)
So, if this has been pointed out before, please ignore this.

I think to answer the titular question it would be good to go back to the basics.

What is a (god) concept?
A set of statements believed axiomatically about an entity and rules that apply to it. It can be seen as a system like mathematics or formal languages.

When is a system coherent?
When the axioms are without contradiction and operations according to the rules don't lead to contradictions and operations according to the rules lead to unambiguous statements.

(Tangent: this only doesn't say anything about the power of the system (thing about which the system can talk) and to the completeness of the system.)

Such a system can be perfectly abstract. I.e. it doesn't have to say anything about the real world. (If it did, we'd also demand that it is coherent with the observed reality but I think that is already off the table?)

So, could such a god concept be coherent?
I see no reason why it couldn't.

Is there a god concept that is coherent?
I don't know of any. This is mostly because the believers are greedy. In an attempt to answer questions a god concept isn't made for, they add axioms and rules to make the system more powerful and add potential for contradictions.

 

[Left Coast]

I've tried to follow the discussion but I resigned around page 8.

You are vastly wiser than me.

 

[Tambourine]

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.

And yet you just defined the mystery we are talking about.

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

But that does not mean that we cannot define what we are lacking. Definitions are formed in the negative, i.e. we define our terms by that which they are not. Like I said, I was lacking the information what I was going to make for dinner.

It seems that by wondering what I was going to eat, I have grasped a portion of the Divine Mystery, as God seems to be whatever we can't know (and since we can't know the future, I guess that means the future is God, or an element of God). Or is that take too silly and prosaic for a discussion about God?

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.

What are you trying to say here? What is "extreme" about what I just wrote? Where am I talking about "absolutes"?
It seems more like you are grasping at words to frame what you want to say, but haven't thought through the implications of the terms you have been using so far.

Not that this reflects badly on you, mind you, it underlines the difficulty of circumscribing such a nebulous subject. But it also kind of vindicates my earlier statement concerning the inability of human speech to grasp the concept of an undefinable and unknowable God.

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.

So God is my dinner, after all!

More seriously, are you trying to say that God is one's life purpose?

 

[blü 2]

Sure you do. Are potatoes intelligent? Are crows? Are cars?

If it's God it may well be. If God is a collective ─ like some slime molds, perhaps ─ they rather than it may be. You don't know because there's no coherent concept of a real God.

We can weed out entire classes. Though if i were to come across an intelligent 1957 Ford Customline, I might need to adjust my schema.

You can't rule anything out, because you don't know.

Classification is something humans do rather well, if I were to give you a list of attributes i would be very surprised if you could not quickly go through and discern what has those attributes and what does not. Yet here we are.

You don't have a list of attributes appropriate to a real being, only to an imaginary being ─ eg immortal.

This is the point. A real God is a real thing. God may look like a potato or a Ford or a field of corn or moldy bread, or a herd of five-legged sheep, on and on, but you don't know what a real god is, you don't even know what 'godness' is, so you can't tell a real potato from the real God, or a real shoal of herrings from the real God or a phial of coronavirus from the real God and so on.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, we are far apart. I will point out that in all cases you presume that consciousness is a product of the material brain when this is the point that needs proving.

On the one hand we have the evidence of no brain, no awareness, and damaged brain, damaged awareness (and similar illustrations). On the other hand, consciousness is a matter under active study and we may learn its actual nature as a physical phenomenon.

It may be that my use of consciousness above is different from yours in some important way. However, it will still need to be a phenomenon within physics or else it can only be imaginary.

See the above statement. I am on the hand proposing that physical manifestation is a process of consciousness even as a whirlpool is a process of the river or a wave is process in an ocean.

For that you need a real wave, a real whirlpool, a real ocean. What has research found?

What I wrote above applies for this too. "I", the awareness, wherein the mental and physical processes (related to brain) are manifesting can influence the both these processes. The mediation, yoga, biofeedback etc. are the evidences....

Again, those must all arise within physics (biochemistry, bioelectricity, &c) to be real. Otherwise they're imaginary.