Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[blü 2]

Categorical exclusions allow me to do that. Potatoes are not intelligent.

You're not looking for pototoes. You're looking for a real god. If a real god looks like a potato, you won't find that god by assuming anything that looks like a potato is a potato and not God.

So you have to have a test that will distinguish whether the potato-seeming thing is God or not.

And if God is real, then there's no reason in principle why there shouldn't be such a test.

 

[Tambourine]

The mystery is universal and existential: the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is (including us).

Why do you link these disparate areas together? Where is the point in conflating the purpose in human life, and the physical origin of the universe?

 

[Curious George]

You're not looking for pototoes. You're looking for a real god. If a real god looks like a potato, you won't find that god by assuming anything that looks like a potato is a potato and not God.

If ever there is cause for me to reevaluate my conclusion that potatoes are not intelligent, then i will spend a little extra time on them. Currently, i can safely conclude that no potato is a god.

So you have to have a test that will distinguish whether the potato-seeming thing is God or not.

A potato seeming thing is different than a potato. Currently i am talking about potatoes.

And if God is real, then there's no reason in principle why there shouldn't be such a test.

God is not real, but i am not sure why you think a god's existence entails a test for "potato seeming things."

 

[blü 2]

If ever there is cause for me to reevaluate my conclusion that potatoes are not intelligent, then i will spend a little extra time on them. Currently, i can safely conclude that no potato is a god.

I say again, you're not looking for potatoes, you're looking for God and you don't know whether God looks like a potato or not so you can't dismiss any potato until you've devised an objective test for God and the potato in hand has failed it.

What's that objective test again?

 

[ecco]

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.

Yeah. It's us. It's not you.

 

[ecco]

If ever there is cause for me to reevaluate my conclusion that potatoes are not intelligent, then i will spend a little extra time on them. Currently, i can safely conclude that no potato is a god.

You are, of course, correct in stating that potatoes are not gods. However, inanimate objects have been worshipped.

People living on a remote island saw planes for the first time and created a religion based on them
A religion that worships aircraft was started by a group of people who saw their first plane fly over Vanuatu, a remote island in the South Pacific of Australia, during the Second World War.

After the planes delivered food and supplies to the islanders, the group began to believe that cargo would be brought to them by a Messiah. Consequently, whenever they saw a plane fly overhead they would build a replica - in the hope of more bounty.

The islanders did not know where the objects were coming from; which led them to believe that the objects derived from magic. The religion was first discovered in 1946 by Australian government patrols, and there are a few but diverse number of cargo religions left.​

 

[atanu]

Anatman - Encyclopedia of Buddhism

Yeah. Sighs.

Well, let us look beneath the words. Do you know the Word (Vak in Sanskrit) is a lady? You know how knowing that **** and **** are stinking we may still be induced to imagine that some ladies **** icecream and **** honey? It is like that.

Now. Vedanta teaches "Neti Neti" -- "Not This Not This" -- so eventually you arrive at the source of "I", the brahman, which is infinite, boundariless, and knowledge. In Buddhism, you drill down, rejecting every object as anatman only to attain Nirvana, which is unborn, unformed, uncreated and because of which the sage discerns the escape from the samsara.

Now. Spot the difference/s.

 

[Yatristhan]

Lord Rama and Rama Setu floating stone have always been in the discussion because science does not accept these claims, but there is some such incident and Hindu belief in our mind creates its earthly faith.

The science of science and the belief of God is always different, but your opinion on the Ram Setu floating stone will always remain in doubt.

Whenever it is said that whether it is omnipotent or not, then it creates doubt.

 

[atanu]

But this is simply one point at which our different views of what consciousness is, overlap.
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.
Having a full plate at the moment, I may have a look at that at a later time.
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.)
Definitions again.
It's true that none has ever told me that it did.

Okay. When you have time and if you wish you may read through:

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

...

 

[izzy88]

I have to assume three things, because I can't demonstrate they're correct without having first assumed them

Yeah... that's not how it works.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your comment because you didn't even acknowledge the bulk of what I said, which explains why what you said originally - and just repeated here again - is nonsense. It's like you stopped reading half way through my comment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@blü 2 @izzy88 @PureX @Tambourine

Now blü 2 and Tambourine, this is philosophy, not science. We haven't establish how science works, because we haven't established the axioms needed to do science yet.

So what do you know in an absolute sense as to X or non-X? I am establishing base logic for the LNC. That you can't experience X and non-X in the same sense at the same time. Deny that and you can't use reason and logic. So that is the first assumption.
We can then use that - if you doubt everything, then what can't you doubt? That you doubt, because you can't doubt and not doubt something at the same time and in the same sense.
So let us look closer - I doubt X. What does that imply? That there are 3 factors at play; "I" "doubt" "X". Now look at this one - I know X. Again 3 factors. Then we go general and strip away the particulars - "a doer" "doing" "in relationship to something else than the doer and doing".
That is Charles Sander Peirce. But it is even more fundamental. It applies also to words as signs. A word is itself a sign, it is about something and it has a meaning. Again 3 factors.

So let us test the reality independent of the mind. If reality is independent of the mind, then there is no "I" and no "know", there is only X. But it is incoherent to say I know X independent of that I know X. So claim to know something independent of knowing it, is to claim a contradiction. I know and don't know X.

So in the history of philosophy at the most fundamental level, there are 2 versions of philosophy:
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

So we are 2 sides here - those who talk of the the whole as the whole in itself and those of us, who know that we can only talk of the whole as supernatural. How? Well, it is simple - supernatural means - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. Reality in itself is an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe!
How? Because it is beyond the visible and observable. Reality in itself as it follows from the words is a supernatural existence.

So here it is for 3 versions of what we can do:

1. Reality in itself is from a religious God.
2. Reality in itself is material/physical/natural.
3. Reality in itself is a place holder for something unknown and beyond human experience, hence God as a theoretical placeholder since it is supernatural and requires belief and is beyond knowledge.

I use God here in the non-religious sense and not in the standard theistic understanding, but as a philosophical term derived from the unknowable and supernatural.
That God can be natural or religious as for personal belief, but most people believe in that God in one or another sense.
So back to this - "...of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience." That is phenomenology and science is a form of that.
Science is not the study of the whole as the whole in itself. That is another kind of philosophy.
In other words - science as methodological naturalism is a form of phenomenology. It says that when you claim something with science, you claim a relationship as "I test X". Science is not about the whole as the whole in itself.

So this is not about the atheists. That is something else. It is about the believers, who deny, that they are believers, because they in effect claim they know something, they can't know. They know the unknowable. They deny that, but in effect they do it, when they start with "real", "existence as physical in the fundamental sense ", "objective reality" and all that supernatural jazz.

And that is it. I can't use reason and logic to establish the whole as the whole in itself, other than it is in itself(That is Kant and "das Ding an sich"). I can only believe in that and I know the limit of reason and logic.
So for the actual God I believe in, I have given the definition: God is the whole as the whole in itself. And that can't be tested, but apparently it is real, right!!!

So something personal as with feelings - I hate, yet not really, but I do hate these non-believing believers, because they claim reason and logic, yet don't understand the limit of the human existence and experience. In the end they claim a Knowledge, that only belongs with God.
So for atheists, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with all beliefs system, which in the end effectively claim a Knowledge, that is not in practice knowledge as "I know X" and that is not limited to religious Objective Authority. Some people do that without a theistic God and they in general don't get it, because they use Reason, Logic and Evidence as in effect absolute, because it can't be doubted. It is, that it can't be doubted, which makes it absolute for them.

Those of us, who can do that, have in some sense in common, that we have tested in philosophy the limit of what that "I" can do and figured out that, we can't do reality without "I" but that it is also a limit to what can be said about reality, because it is a relationship - I know reality - can't be reduced further down, because then you end up in a contradiction.
So you 2, blü 2 and Tambourine, if you want to claim logic, learn the limit of using logic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Yeah... that's not how it works.

How does it work?

 

[Curious George]

I say again, you're not looking for potatoes, you're looking for God and you don't know whether God looks like a potato or not so you can't dismiss any potato until you've devised an objective test for God and the potato in hand has failed it.

What's that objective test again?

But i know that a potato is not a god. It seems a little peculiar start looking through what appear to be potatoes thinking one is not, in fact a potato. Is there cause for me to believe that what appears to be a potato is not in fact a potato? You haven't seem to give one except for the notion that a god could look like a potato but not be a potato. That sounds rather silly. I suppose it is possible but so too is it possible that one was something other than a potato or a god. Still, when i see a bunch of "what appear to be potatoes," i have never been given cause to assume that they are something other than that. If you have a reason to assume they are, share it. So far you are just grasping at straws.

However, upon inspection i suppose i would find that the potatoes are in fact potatoes and therefore not gods. I imagine that you might argue that they could still be something else. And, you could play this solipsistic game for quote some time. But, i see what looks to be a potato and assume it is precisely that unless i am given reason to think otherwise. This is what your example is lacking: a reason to suppose what appears to be a potato is anything but a potato.

 

[Curious George]

You are, of course, correct in stating that potatoes are not gods. However, inanimate objects have been worshipped.

People living on a remote island saw planes for the first time and created a religion based on them
A religion that worships aircraft was started by a group of people who saw their first plane fly over Vanuatu, a remote island in the South Pacific of Australia, during the Second World War.

After the planes delivered food and supplies to the islanders, the group began to believe that cargo would be brought to them by a Messiah. Consequently, whenever they saw a plane fly overhead they would build a replica - in the hope of more bounty.

The islanders did not know where the objects were coming from; which led them to believe that the objects derived from magic. The religion was first discovered in 1946 by Australian government patrols, and there are a few but diverse number of cargo religions left.​

Indeed. And were we to not have a god concept we couldn't very well say they were wrong because we would have no basis on which to declare that the inanimate objects were not gods.

 

[blü 2]

But i know that a potato is not a god.

You don't know that God is not a potato. Or something indistinguishable from a potato.

Therefore you can't assume anything that looks like a potato ─ or anything else ─ is not God.

We're talking what's real here.

Is there cause for me to believe that what appears to be a potato is not in fact a potato?

Yes, as I keep hammering. You need to know what real thing God is, and you don't, so you don't know

(a) whether he's indistinguishable from a potato
(b) whether he IS a potato, or
(c) neither of the above but something else entirely.

and you have to remove these doubts before you move on to the next potato, ant, peanut, or any other real thing.

And so on through everything else in the universe. Until you know what a real God is, such that you can distinguish a real god from everything else, including our superscientist, you still don't have, and you're still looking for, a sufficient definition of God and the sufficient test or tests that will determine whether any candidate is God or not.

And if God is indistinguishable from a potato, you need a definition of (real) godness, and the test that will determine whether any candidate possesses it.

 

[blü 2]

Indeed. And were we to not have a god concept we couldn't very well say they were wrong because we would have no basis on which to declare that the inanimate objects were not gods.

No, anyone can have a god concept. But no one seems to have the concept of a real god ─ only imaginary ones.

You need a definition of a real god. Just like you'd need to find a real cow, a real potato, on and on.

 

[Curious George]

You don't know that God is not a potato. Or something indistinguishable from a potato.

Therefore you can't assume anything that looks like a potato ─ or anything else ─ is not God.

You seem not to understand that i have no reason to assume that what appears to be a potato is anything more than a potato and i have already determined categorically that potatoes are not gods. So, until there is reason to assume otherwise, i can logically, reasonably, and coherently conclude that even what appears to be a potato os not god.

We're talking what's real here.
Yes, as I keep hammering. You need to know what real thing God is, and you don't, so you don't know

(a) whether he's indistinguishable from a potato
(b) whether he IS a potato, or
(c) neither of the above but something else entirely.

and you have to remove these doubts before you move on to the next potato, ant, peanut, or any other real thing.

You seem to think there is a deductive way to move through the world. There is not.

And so on through everything else in the universe. Until you know what a real God is, such that you can distinguish a real god from everything else, including our superscientist, you still don't have, and you're still looking for, a sufficient definition of God and the sufficient test or tests that will determine whether any candidate is God or not.

And if God is indistinguishable from a potato, you need a definition of (real) godness, and the test that will determine whether any candidate possesses it.

Yes, i have already shown i can do this, and that is why you are falling back on solipsism arguments insisting that i don't really know.

 

[Curious George]

No, anyone can have a god concept. But no one seems to have the concept of a real god ─ only imaginary ones.

You need a definition of a real god. Just like you'd need to find a real cow, a real potato, on and on.

The irony, how do you know the cow or potato you see in the real world is actually a cow or potato?

 

[PureX]

In many places on these boards I've pointed out that there are no absolute statements, and included in my examples that it was once true that the earth is flat and the sun (&c) goes round it, and now it isn't true; and that thus truth is not absolute but it is retrospective. (Other examples are that Newton's gravity operated instantaneously, that fire was due to phlogiston, that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, that the earth's crust was unitary and solid (&c) but now they're not so; and that the Higgs boson was hypothetical until 2012 and after that at least one variety of it was real.)

But do you honestly recognize that the Earth may not be a sphere, as we all currently believe? If not. Then as I suspect, you DO take your beliefs to be absolute. Even though you are claiming that you don't.

I'm not the only one to observe that science is constantly self-testing and self-correcting, and that religions are not ─ though it's true the Abrahamic God has changed [his] mind about slavery and, largely, divorce, and is presently confused about homosexuality.

Self-correcting is not the issue. The issue is that no matter how many times we 'self-correct' we remain just as likely to be wrong as we were without self-correcting. And I don't think you honestly understand or agree with this.

Reason doesn't generate gods or religion.

Of course it does. It just wasn't your current course of reasoning.

The human instinct to devise an explanation when none is available is a survival tool of some value and may be relevant to gods. Or they arise from our acculturation and emotions, and, likely, from our evolved traits as gregarious primates benefiting from tribal solidarity and cooperation.

The same instincts that developed religion, developed science. They both have the same ultimate goal, and they both follow a very similar process. The only real difference is that science limits itself to the realm of physical interaction, and practices falsification. This may make it somewhat more accurate, but unfortunately it's also frustratingly narrow in scope. Which is why science cannot replace philosophy, art, and religion.

 

[PureX]

Why do you link these disparate areas together? Where is the point in conflating the purpose in human life, and the physical origin of the universe?

The question of our existence includes the question of why we exist. There's no avoiding it. And the question of 'why' involves the question of a possible purpose. I know you don't like this because purpose implies some sort of intention, and as an atheist, you want to eliminate that possibility. But that's your issue to resolve, not mine. Most humans are asking themselves why they exist, and in doing so must contemplate the possibility of purpose.