Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[PureX]

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

No, I defined the parameters of the unknowing.

But that does not mean that we cannot define what we are lacking.

Sometimes, we can, and sometimes we can't. In the case of "God", we can't. Though a lot of people will create an idea-image, and then adopt is as their definition.

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.

Of course. But this difficulty does not negate the import, the value, or the logical justification of our endeavoring to do so in spite of the difficulties.

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

No, I'm saying that within the great mystery of being that we humans generally call "God", lay our own unique purpose.

 

[Curious George]

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

Except that i have and do seem to be able to do just that. Potatoes are not intelligent. Therefore no potato is a god. Cars are not intelligent, therefore no car is a god. You seem to want the definition to be incoherent. Consequently, your dismissal is what is incoherent.

 

[Tambourine]

No, I defined the parameters of the unknowing.
Sometimes, we can, and sometimes we can't. In the case of "God", we can't. Though a lot of people will create an idea-image, and then adopt is as their definition.
Of course. But this difficulty does not negate the import, the value, or the logical justification of our endeavoring to do so in spite of the difficulties.

I think this import and value is almost entirely assumed on your part, given what we just discussed regarding God-as-unknowable vs. God-as-conceptual-artifact/idea-image, for a similar reason why, I would argue, most people would not be comfortable with the philosophy of existentialism.

No, I'm saying that within the great mystery of being that we humans generally call "God", lay our own unique purpose.

Does that mean our own unique purpose is unknown, unknowable, undefinable, and in fact may not exist at all?
If so, then I think I can agree.

 

[blü 2]

Except that i have and do seem to be able to do just that. Potatoes are not intelligent. Therefore no potato is a god.

As I keep saying, you don't know that. God may resemble a potato in all ways except having 'godness'. And since you don't know what the real quality 'godness' is, you can't tell whether any potato is God or not, but nor have you any basis for dismissing it as a candidate.

Cars are not intelligent, therefore no car is a god.

A car that has 'godness' may be supremely intelligent, or some other kind of intelligent. Since you know neither what a real god is nor what real godness is, you can't determine whether any candidate is God or not, but nor do you have any basis for dismissing any candidate.

You seem to want the definition to be incoherent. Consequently, your dismissal is what is incoherent.

I point out that it's incoherent. That's not my fault.

As I said before, there's no coherent definition of a real god such that we could determine whether any suspect is God or not, and there's no coherent definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist (or anyone else) would lack.

It's the point of this thread, and so far no one's come up with anything.

The only gods that are known exist in the conceptualizing / imagination of individuals. And the world behaves just as if that were the case.

 

[izzy88]

As I said before, there's no coherent definition of a real god such that we could determine whether any suspect is God or not, and there's no coherent definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist (or anyone else) would lack.

It's the point of this thread, and so far no one's come up with anything.

The only gods that are known exist in the conceptualizing / imagination of individuals. And the world behaves just as if that were the case.

I'm going to posit something to you that I mentioned elsewhere but was met with disagreement (no argument as to why they disagreed; they simply didn't like my definition).

The term 'god' merely denotes that a thing is worshipped; it is a title which is both based on and dependent on a relationship between a subject and an object, like the term "father" or "pet." It describes a object's role in a relationship of worship. This is how the term has been used historically, and we'd do away with so much confusion if we simply used it this way again.

A thing can be said to be a god if it is an object of worship to one or more individuals. That's it; no other characteristics are necessary. That way, people can no longer use the term as a catch-all for an entity with whatever qualities they believe "a god" should possess, so that when a group of people are discussing "god" they're no longer all unknowingly talking about different things. Then if we want to discuss the possible existence of an intelligent creator of the universe, all of its characteristics must be explicitly defined from the outset, leading to much less needless disagreement and confusion like what's been seen in this thread.

 

[Heyo]

I'm going to posit something to you that I mentioned elsewhere but was met with disagreement (no argument as to why they disagreed; they simply didn't like my definition).

The term 'god' merely denotes that a thing is worshipped; it is a title which is both based on and dependent on a relationship between a subject and an object, like the term "father" or "pet." It describes a object's role in a relationship of worship. This is how the term has been used historically, and we'd do away with so much confusion if we simply used it this way again.

A thing can be said to be a god if it is an object of worship to one or more individuals. That's it; no other characteristics are necessary. That way, people can no longer use the term as a catch-all for an entity with whatever qualities they believe "a god" should possess, so that when a group of people are discussing "god" they're no longer all unknowingly talking about different things. Then if we want to discuss the possible existence of an intelligent creator of the universe, all of its characteristics must be explicitly defined from the outset, leading to much less needless disagreement and confusion like what's been seen in this thread.

Well, that is a god concept that is coherent. It is also not very specific.

 

[blü 2]

I'm going to posit something to you that I mentioned elsewhere but was met with disagreement (no argument as to why they disagreed; they simply didn't like my definition).

The term 'god' merely denotes that a thing is worshipped; it is a title which is both based on and dependent on a relationship between a subject and an object, like the term "father" or "pet." It describes a object's role in a relationship of worship. This is how the term has been used historically, and we'd do away with so much confusion if we simply used it this way again.

Thanks for that.

I take it you're referring to the way the term 'God' is used in (for example) anthropology and sociology?

If that's not right then please correct me.

If that's right then all that the term God refers to in that context is a set of cultural concepts, not to beings with objective existence, entities that can be brought into the lab.

By contrast, my concern is with the claim that God is / gods are real, not solely imaginary or conceptual. For that claim to be correct, God (leaving it singular for convenience) must exist in reality, which we can also call the world external to the self, or nature, or the realm of the physical sciences (&c). And then it appears to me that there's no definition of a real God such that we could tell whether any real candidate or suspect were God or not. Nor so far has anyone offered one.

And since that doesn't seem to bother many people, I take it that everyone sort of knows that God isn't real in any material sense and it doesn't worry them that the only thing God can be other than material is solely imaginary / conceptual.

 

[Curious George]

As I keep saying, you don't know that. God may resemble a potato in all ways except having 'godness'. And since you don't know what the real quality 'godness' is, you can't tell whether any potato is God or not, but nor have you any basis for dismissing it as a candidate.
A car that has 'godness' may be supremely intelligent, or some other kind of intelligent. Since you know neither what a real god is nor what real godness is, you can't determine whether any candidate is God or not, but nor do you have any basis for dismissing any candidate.
I point out that it's incoherent. That's not my fault.

As I said before, there's no coherent definition of a real god such that we could determine whether any suspect is God or not, and there's no coherent definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist (or anyone else) would lack.

It's the point of this thread, and so far no one's come up with anything.

The only gods that are known exist in the conceptualizing / imagination of individuals. And the world behaves just as if that were the case.

I have given a definition of god. With this definition one can exclude both cars and potatoes categorically, and regarding your "godness" an entity would need to possess all of thos attributes in order to possess "godness." Much the same way we could give a list of attributes for a man and one would need to possess all of those attributes to have the quality of "man-ness."

Were i to come across an intelligent, immortal potato or car, i could then rethink my categorical assumptions about potatoes and cars, but i have no reason to do such at this time. You want to hang on to the possibility that a potato could be intelligent, then please by all means elaborate on why we should hold this as a real possibility.

You have been given a coherent definition of a god in that for any entity you can come up with, we can discern whether or not it is or is not a god.

If you want to dream up a potato that has the characteristics within this definition of god, that is fine. That potato would be a god. However, no such potato or car exists and there is no reason to believe one does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks for that.

I take it you're referring to the way the term 'God' is used in (for example) anthropology and sociology?

If that's not right then please correct me.

If that's right then all that the term God refers to in that context is a set of cultural concepts, not to beings with objective existence, entities that can be brought into the lab.

By contrast, my concern is with the claim that God is / gods are real, not solely imaginary or conceptual. For that claim to be correct, God (leaving it singular for convenience) must exist in reality, which we can also call the world external to the self, or nature, or the realm of the physical sciences (&c). And then it appears to me that there's no definition of a real God such that we could tell whether any real candidate or suspect were God or not. Nor so far has anyone offered one.

And since that doesn't seem to bother many people, I take it that everyone sort of knows that God isn't real in any material sense and it doesn't worry them that the only thing God can be other than material is solely imaginary / conceptual.

Yes, it doesn't bother me. You in effect have a subjective set of rules to evaluate your experiences and I have another.
The end game is that it is real that you can believe as you do and I can believe as I do.
In practice you can believe in a material world and I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and we are apparently both parts of in part a shared reality.
So let me explain it as simple as possible: You have a rule for testing what is independent of your mind as you understand that. The rule is not independent of your mind. The rule makes sense to you and allows to use the word "real".
I use another rule in part of what it means to say, what is independent of my mind and what that is. Further I use "real" and "existence" differently.

Now comes the joke. We are both apparently part of reality. Now please explain how it is so, that we in part can make sense differently of reality and yet both be in reality. That is where the fun is. How is it possible that we in part can believe differently and yet it seems to work in both cases.
All that jazz about objective is all fair and well, but the fun starts at the subjective. In effect we are subjectively different, so how is that possible?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I have given a definition of god.

You haven't given a sufficient definition of a real god such that we can use it to determine whether any potato is God or not. And your definition is deficient anyway in that it contains an imaginary quality, 'eternal'.

With this definition one can exclude both cars and potatoes categorically

No, you can only do that AFTER you've determined each is not God. If God looks like a potato, then define God accordingly, and tell us what distinguished God from other potatoes, in particular what is godness? Otherwise your definition will not serve.

and regarding your "godness" an entity would need to possess all of thos attributes in order to possess "godness."

How on earth do you know that since you have no definition of godness?

Much the same way we could give a list of attributes for a man and one would need to possess all of those attributes to have the quality of "man-ness."

We can do that genetically. (Helpful hint: if you can find a person descended from the Jesus of the author of Matthew or the Jesus of the author of Luke, both those authors necessarily imply that Jesus had, at the least, God's Y-chromosome.)

Were i to come across an intelligent, immortal potato or car, i could then rethink my categorical assumptions about potatoes and cars

What test for intelligence did you use on the potato that it failed? Just that it didn't respond tells you nothing.

You want to hang on to the possibility that a potato could be intelligent, then please by all means elaborate on why we should hold this as a real possibility.

I point out that your definition is insufficient to identify God as a real being, and since you don't know what godness is, you, like me, have no idea what we're supposed to be looking for in reality.

 

[atanu]

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.

No. We have evidence of dead brains showing no trace of consciousness. OTOH, we have overwhelming evidence that we can control states of the brain. And I am bumping a thread I made detailing many indicative pieces of evidence of 'Consciousness first'. The posts are included in the thread:

Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

The empirical evidence that idealism offers a more parsimonious explanation than materialism is presented in posts 81 to 89.

Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

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.
For that you need a real wave, a real whirlpool, a real ocean. What has research found?
Again, those must all arise within physics (biochemistry, bioelectricity, &c) to be real. Otherwise they're imaginary.

What childish claim. The material that science studies is on account of consciousness. The ability to study is on account of conscious. It is not the other way around. Stones and chemicals do not do science.

What you say is simply a reflection of your blind commitment to Philosophical materialism -- if something is not within the grasp of mind-senses it is non-existent. This philosophy is self-refuting since the conclusion of absence is not empirical.

Furthermore, your branding something as imaginary is evidence of existence of consciousness. Stones do not imagine.

...

 

[blü 2]

You have a rule for testing what is independent of your mind as you understand that. The rule is not independent of your mind. The rule makes sense to you and allows to use the word "real".

I explained to you my three assumptions.

I explained why they were assumptions.

I pointed out that it was implicit in your conduct that you shared those assumptions.

I assume, first, that a world exists external to the self.

And second, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world.

And third, that reason is a valid tool.

So, on the basis of those assumptions, which you share, I have a basis for knowing about the world external to the self, and with the help of reasoned enquiry, examining it.

If you don't think you have such a basis, that's a matter for you.

In earlier discussions I've described my view of the problem of subjectivity, and the need to maximize it as far as possible.

I've also told you the test I use to determine whether a statement is true or not ─ the extent to which it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

And I've told you that since science proceeds by empiricism and induction, its conclusions can never be final; and in general that there are no absolute truths.

All of that is consistent with my three assumption and is not possible without them.

There you have it.

 

[blü 2]

No. We have evidence of dead brains showing no trace of consciousness.

But this is simply one point at which our different views of what consciousness is, overlap.

OTOH, we have overwhelming evidence that we can control states of the brain.

That's to say the individual can voluntarily produce various effects, generally not available voluntarily, after various forms of training. As I said, that has a strong analogy to teaching oneself a new physical skill. Juggling or slack-wire walking are examples.

And I am bumping a thread I made detailing many indicative pieces of evidence of 'Consciousness first'. The posts are included in the thread:

Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

The empirical evidence that idealism offers a more parsimonious explanation than materialism is presented in posts 81 to 89.

Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...y-than-materialism.224422/page-5#post-6326653
Having a full plate at the moment, I may have a look at that at a later time.

What you say is simply a reflection of your commitment to Philosophical materialism -- if something is not within the grasp of mind-senses it is non-existent. This philosophy is self-refuting since the conclusion of absence is not empirical.

What definition of 'real' do you use?

What test results from that which will tell you whether something is real or not?

What test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not?

(As you know, I use the so-called correspondence test.)

Furthermore, your branding something as imaginary is evidence of existence of consciousness.

Definitions again.

Stones do not imagine.

It's true that none has ever told me that it did.

 

[Curious George]

You haven't given a sufficient definition of a real god such that we can use it to determine whether any potato is God or not. And your definition is deficient anyway in that it contains an imaginary quality, 'eternal'.

My definition was plenty sufficient for categorically excluding potatoes.

Further, my definition did not have "eternal" in it.
[/quote]
No, you can only do that AFTER you've determined each is not God. If God looks like a potato, then define God accordingly, and tell us what distinguished God from other potatoes, in particular what is godness? Otherwise your definition will not serve.
[/quote]
Except i have done just that.

How on earth do you know that since you have no definition of godness?

Sure i do, possessing all attributes of a god, as found in the definition.

We can do that genetically. (Helpful hint: if you can find a person descended from the Jesus of the author of Matthew or the Jesus of the author of Luke, both those authors necessarily imply that Jesus had, at the least, God's Y-chromosome.)

And what is this genetic definition other than a larger more specific list of attributes? As i explained this is exactly what I have done. I have given you a definition that is both coherent and exclusive to gods.

What test for intelligence did you use on the potato that it failed? Just that it didn't respond tells you nothing.

Oh boy...do you have reason to believe a potato is intelligent. If so please give us that instead of trying to fall back on the "you can't prove a potato is not intelligent"

I point out that your definition is insufficient to identify God as a real being, and since you don't know what godness is, you, like me, have no idea what we're supposed to be looking for in reality.

Except i do have an idea, and have explained it. So clearly imho that i am wondering what exactly you do not understand. You keep jumping to the assertion that i can't exclude anything with the definition i provided. That is very obviously an untrue statement you are making. Saying something is so does not make it so.

 

[blü 2]

My definition was plenty sufficient for categorically excluding potatoes.

Here is what appears to be a potato.

Talk me through the process by which you establish whether it's God or not.

Step by step.

 

[PureX]

I think this import and value is almost entirely assumed on your part

The fact that BILLIONS of humans proclaim this import and value for themselves stands as very reasonable support for this assumption, don't you think? Or do you feel that know better than they what is valuable and important to them?

... given what we just discussed regarding God-as-unknowable vs. God-as-conceptual-artifact/idea-image, for a similar reason why, I would argue, most people would not be comfortable with the philosophy of existentialism.

Most people are not intellectually sophisticated enough to grasp such difficult and complicated philosophical concepts. Which is why religions provide them with more easily understood and accessible conceptual representations of them, and why so many of then confuse these representations with the actual profound mystery that they are confronting.

Does that mean our own unique purpose is unknown, unknowable, undefinable, and in fact may not exist at all?
If so, then I think I can agree.

Yes, it does mean that. And yet most humans deeply and profoundly want to find and believe that they do have such an existential purpose. And how they conceptualize and characterize "God" helps them to do that, within, and for themselves. Which is why wrangling with the "God" mystery is so valuable and important to so many people.

 

[PureX]

I explained to you my three assumptions.

I explained why they were assumptions.

I pointed out that it was implicit in your conduct that you shared those assumptions.

I assume, first, that a world exists external to the self.

Yes, you do.

And second, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world.

You are assuming that the nerve input that you experience in your brain is being cause by an external stimulus that is not "you", yes.

And third, that reason is a valid tool.

But do you also recognize that it can very easily be a tool used to mislead oneself? And that you could, in fact, be using it as such, right now?

So, on the basis of those assumptions, which you share, I have a basis for knowing about the world external to the self, and with the help of reasoned enquiry, examining it.

We do not all share in these assumptions. Just because we act in accord with your reasoning does not mean we share your assumptions.

If you don't think you have such a basis, that's a matter for you.

In earlier discussions I've described my view of the problem of subjectivity, and the need to maximize it as far as possible.

I've also told you the test I use to determine whether a statement is true or not ─ the extent to which it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

You have accepted your assumptions as though they were not just assumptions, but are the truth. And as a result of this you are blindly presuming that "objective reality" (your assumption) has become a truth that everyone else must/should recognize as such.

And I've told you that since science proceeds by empiricism and induction, its conclusions can never be final; and in general that there are no absolute truths.

And yet you appear to have accepted "objective reality" as an absolute truth. And you presume that we all should be doing the same. Am I wrong in positing this observation?

 

[Curious George]

Here is what appears to be a potato.

Talk me through the process by which you establish whether it's God or not.

Step by step.

Step one: potatoes are not intelligent therefore not a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I concede that not every god concept is non-physical. I'm only interested, in this moment, in discussing god concepts that are non-physical, as I think they're more common, and, frankly, more interesting for philosophical and religious discussion.

My point is just that when someone makes the claim that their god is "non-physical," they're doing just that: making a claim. Maybe they can defend it and maybe they can't, but this "my god is non-physical by definition, so I don't have to justify this is so" stuff is just dishonesty, IMO.

Produce is a physical thing. Food is a physical thing. Selling is a physical thing. Stores are physical things. What part of the definition of any of those things includes anything non-physical? At the very least, physicality seems necessary to the definition of the terms. Not so with (most) deities.

It's not that "non-physical" is included in the definition; it's that it's generally not excluded.

BTW: how do you know that food, for instance, is a physical thing? It's by its effects: light bounces off an apple as if it's a solid thing, you can taste it as if it really does have chemical compounds interacting with your taste buds, you derive caloric energy from it as if it really is broken down by the physical and chemical processes of your digestive system.

We can tell whether a thing is physical by the fact that it interacts with the physical world. Anything that has physical effects is physical itself for all practical purposes.

If and how non-physical things interact with the physical world is a whole other can of worms that I'm not addressing here. And I grant you it's a problem that needs addressing. I'm simply concerned here with whether it's coherent at all to say gods exist in a way that's non-physical (and not merely conceptually inside of people's minds).

I think I might not be communicating my point well. I'm saying that when something interacts with the physical world, this is evidence that it itself is physical.

It implies a contradiction in terms just as much as it would if someone said that the shape they're calling a circle is definitely not a square, but it still has four right-angled corners.

Edit: IOW, I'm saying that anyone arguing for a god that's "non-physical" but interacts with the world as if it's physical has an incoherent god-concept.

Edit 2: another way of looking at this: generally, when people argue that their god is "non-physical," it's part of an attempt to excuse their god from normal evidentiary standards by arguing that it can't be tested empirically. However, anything with physical effects can be tested empirically, so their god is still testable (unless they also want to argue that all of the miracle claims of their religion are false).

 

[blü 2]

You are assuming that the nerve input that you experience in your brain is being cause by an external stimulus that is not "you", yes.

You recognize, of course, that if you didn't think there was a world external to the self, and that your senses could tell you about it, you wouldn't be posting here, of course?

But do you also recognize that it can very easily be a tool used to mislead oneself?

It's a tool. If you misapply it, you get an answer accordingly.

And that you could, in fact, be using it as such, right now?

I've been inviting people on this site, and on this thread, to show me my errors, for as long as I've been here.

For example, do you think God is real? If you do, what objective test will tell us whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not? On what definition of a real God is it based on?

We do not all share in these assumptions. Just because we act in accord with your reasoning does not mean we share your assumptions.

If you don't think a world exists external to you, do you think you're talking to yourself here? If you don't think your senses can tell you about the world, do you think you're typing on your forearm? If you don't think reason is a valid tool, why are you trying to present an argument in an apparently reasoned form? Talk me through it. Make it clear to me what you actually think instead.

You have accepted your assumptions but are the truth.

Yes, of course. 'As though they were'. And so far so good. If you wish to demonstrate they're false, lay it on me, aware that you'll be using all three assumptions to do so.

And as a result of this you are blindly presuming that "objective reality" (your assumption) has become a truth that everyone else must/should recognize as such.

Not blindly at all. Aware of the position I take. Apparently much more aware than you are of your own position.

And yet you appear to have accepted "objective reality" as an absolute truth.

I said out loud that there are NO absolute truths. *sigh*

And you presume that we all should be doing the same. Am I wrong in positing this observation?

I think you don't have a definition appropriate to a real god that will yield an objective test to tell me whether my keyboard is God or not.

And I don't think you know what 'godness' is, the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist (&c) would lack. If that's wrong, tell me the objective test that will distinguish the two.