Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[blü 2]

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

By what means did you determine that the potato, which might or might not be God, was not intelligent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Seems you're implying that gods are incapable of taking the form of something unintelligent. Care to unpack this assumption for us?

 

[Curious George]

By what means did you determine that the potato, which might or might not be God, was not intelligent?

By means of noting that it is a potato. By what means would i note that a potato can't jump?

 

[Curious George]

Seems you're implying that gods are incapable of taking the form of something unintelligent. Care to unpack this assumption for us?

Yep, shape-shifting isn't a thing last i checked. But hey, introduce me to a shape-shifter and i will accommodate just fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By means of noting that it is a potato. By what means would i note that a potato can't jump?

If deduction isn't enough to establish that a god doesn't exist, I'm not sure how it would be enough to establish that a jumping potato can't exist.

 

[Curious George]

If deduction isn't enough to establish that a god doesn't exist, I'm not sure how it would be enough to establish that a jumping potato can't exist.

Inductive reasoning will do fine here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep, shape-shifting isn't a thing last i checked. But hey, introduce me to a shape-shifter and i will accommodate just fine.

How about you show us a god that can't shape-shift.

... or any god at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inductive reasoning will do fine here.

All right... with inductive reasoning, please establish for us that no potatoes can jump.

Edit: if induction is enough to establish the non-existence of jumping potatoes, I trust you'll agree that it's also enough to establish the non-existence of gods, right?

 

[PureX]

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?

Nevertheless, I do not have to assume that functionality defines truth. When humans believed the world was a flattened disc, that belief functioned for them very well for a very long time. And yet it appears, now, not to have been true. So, although I recognize the apparent function of presuming there is an "objective reality", I do not assume it to be the truth, as you appear to be doing.

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

But it is not able, within itself, to determine when it's being "misapplied". Which is why it can be used to mislead us in the first place. Reason generates it's own bias, every time. And therefor cannot be reliably used to determine the presence of bias.

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.

You can't see out of a room with no windows. And no one else can open that room up, but you.

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?

What is "real"? You have taken your presumption of "objective reality" as the definition of what is real and what isn't (i.e., that closed room I referred to) so that no other possibilities can exist for you. Yet those parameters are too narrow for myself, and for many others to answer within. We cannot tell you what you cannot hear.

My answer is 'real compared to what?'

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.

I think what I think is just what I think. I think my thoughts about existence do not define what exists, or what doesn't. But that doesn't mean I reject the functionality of my thoughts (though I certainly do, sometimes).

Yes, of course. 'As though they were'. And so far so good. If you wish to demonstrate they're false, ...

Since I do not presume to know the truth, I cannot logically presume to determine an untruth. All I can do is determine the relative functionality of a proposed truth, and go with that. But "going with that" does not mean I have to accept the proposition as being anything more than apparently functional. So I don't.

 

[Tambourine]

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?

But these people do not adhere to the same conception of the divine as you do. Wasn't it you who pointed out that most people confuse the, in your words, "conceptual artifact" for the divine? Especially considering that "God" and "divine" are simply placeholder terms for what you have conceived as an unknowable mystery.

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.

I don't think religions being "more easily understood" has anything to do with that - if you're familiar with Christian theology, then you know well that there is nothing "easily understood" about it. And the pursuit of enlightenment for its own sake is not something that relatively few people appear to be drawn to, even in communities and traditions of belief where this pursuit is being encouraged.

I do believe that, unlike philosophy, religion offers a sense of community, and following the ritualistic practices typically demanded of religious followers can help instill a sense of purpose. I think this is also one reason why the movement of Secular Humanism has found such attraction among atheists especially in America - I imagine that it does offer a similar sense of belonging to people as many religions tend to do.

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.

And we have already established that people will grasp at anything as long as it gives them a semblance of control in the face of the terrible sense of unease that not knowing something brings with itself. So I don't see why we should give these practices more importance and validation than other, more secular, endeavours that may have a similar psychological effect.

 

[Tambourine]

All right... with inductive reasoning, please establish for us that no potatoes can jump.

Edit: if induction is enough to establish the non-existence of jumping potatoes, I trust you'll agree that it's also enough to establish the non-existence of gods, right?

The problem with inductive reasoning is that it cannot yield statements that are "perfectly and absolutely" true, only statements that are true "as far as we know".

Of course, deductive reasoning, by contrast, cannot say anything about the empirical reality of its arguments at all.

 

[Left Coast]

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.


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.


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).

I see what you're saying. In fairness, I wouldn't say theists are being dishonest in calling their God non-physical, or solely trying to evade falsification. In general they reason that their God is non-physical because God is the cause of spacetime or the ground of being, a la some form of cosmological argument. But I grant you that if you say God interacts with the physical world, in some sense that's like saying your god is physical. Otherwise how does the non-physical produce effects that are physical? It's a fundamental problem that substance dualism has.

 

[Curious George]

How about you show us a god that can't shape-shift.

... or any god at all.

Well that i have a coherent god concept does not entail i think a god exists to show you.

 

[Curious George]

Seems you're implying that gods are incapable of taking the form of something unintelligent. Care to unpack this assumption for us?

Thought i would unpack this a little more:

Something appearing as a potato is not the same thing as a potato. You are equivocating

 

[Curious George]

The problem with inductive reasoning is that it cannot yield statements that are "perfectly and absolutely" true, only statements that are true "as far as we know".

Of course, deductive reasoning, by contrast, cannot say anything about the empirical reality of its arguments at all.

You seem to think this is a problem why?

 

[PureX]

I see what you're saying. In fairness, I wouldn't say theists are being dishonest in calling their God non-physical, or solely trying to evade falsification. In general they reason that their God is non-physical because God is the cause of spacetime or the ground of being, a la some form of cosmological argument. But I grant you that if you say God interacts with the physical world, in some sense that's like saying your god is physical. Otherwise how does the non-physical produce effects that are physical? It's a fundamental problem that substance dualism has.

"God" interacts with the physical world by being the source of both the energy that manifests itself as the physical universe, and the limitations governing that expressed energy that determines the nature of the universe as it exists. And keep in mind that the exact nature of the existential universe is still unknown to us. So the exact nature of God's influence on it is also unknown. It may have ended the moment the universe exploded into being, or it may be absolute and eternal. Or it may be some degree or combination of these.

 

[Tambourine]

You seem to think this is a problem why?

It's a problem if you want empirical verification to "prove" something definitely and finally.

 

[PureX]

But these people do not adhere to the same conception of the divine as you do.

I see no relevance to my observation regarding the value and importance of the God mystery in the lives of billions of humans.

I don't think religions being "more easily understood" has anything to do with that - if you're familiar with Christian theology, then you know well that there is nothing "easily understood" about it. And the pursuit of enlightenment for its own sake is not something that relatively few people appear to be drawn to, even in communities and traditions of belief where this pursuit is being encouraged.

Religions tend to allow for as much complexity as their adherents want to invest themselves in. There are Catholics who hold to a deeply complicated and even mystical idea of and relationship with God, and there are Catholics who hold to an almost childishly simplistic idea of and relationship with God. Neither of these practices are being particularly encourage or discouraged by Catholicism.

I do believe that, unlike philosophy, religion offers a sense of community, and following the ritualistic practices typically demanded of religious followers can help instill a sense of purpose. I think this is also one reason why the movement of Secular Humanism has found such attraction among atheists especially in America - I imagine that it does offer a similar sense of belonging to people as many religions tend to do.

And we have already established that people will grasp at anything as long as it gives them a semblance of control in the face of the terrible sense of unease that not knowing something brings with itself. So I don't see why we should give these practices more importance and validation than other, more secular, endeavours that may have a similar psychological effect.

The needs being fulfilled are of great importance to a vast majority of humans. Why should we ignore or seek to diminish this value and importance?

 

[Tambourine]

"God" interacts with the physical world by being the source of both the energy that manifests itself as the physical universe, and the limitations governing that expressed energy that determines the nature of the universe as it exists. And keep in mind that the exact nature of the existential universe is still unknown to us. So the exact nature of God's influence on it is also unknown. It may have ended the moment the universe exploded into being, or it may be absolute and eternal. Or it may be some degree or combination of these.

So God is Thermodynamics? I thought God was the mystery of the purpose of human existence?

 

[PureX]

So God is Thermodynamics? I thought God was the mystery of the purpose of human existence?

Is Thermodynamics the purpose of human existence?

C'mon. You can do better then that.