Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[ecco]

God reveals himself today by means of his word.

Is His word COVID-19?

That not all are granted faith in God, does not mean he does not exist. It simply means he has chosen for whatever his reason is not to reveal himself to that individual or group.

But He has revealed himself to you. I wonder what made you so special.

There is a time that is coming when everyone will have to acknowledge God's existence.

Believers like you have been saying that for 2000 years. It even says that in your inerrant Bible.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree. It isn't possible. That is why God in the Bible uses what we term anthropomorphic terms to explain himself to us in a way that we can understand.

Paul said that while we are human we don't fully comprehend him. But when we go to heaven, that is, those who are called to heavenly spirit life, as they cannot go while alive, they must die, and then will be raised in immortal spirit bodies like that of God, only then will we see him as he is, face to face:

"For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known.
-1 Corinthians 13: 9-12.

That's interesting. So if it's not possible for us to understand the way God exists, how did you come to believe it in the first place?

 

[rational experiences]

Hi George!

I don't think there is necessarily one atheist answer to that question. All the evidence I'm aware of to date indicates that consciousness is a function of brain activity. What makes you say that we can't understand consciousness physically? Granted, we don't have all the details worked out. But I'm curious how you determined such a thing is impossible?

First of all no machine created our life.

God the history of is natural stone, not melted and converted into a metal mass, as part of the design to support transmitted signals.

If you got attacked in your brain by your human being male designs of machine, and human control of the machine. The part none of you conclude in your arrogant science assumptions.

If a human bio life brain owner was not controlling the said machine, the machine could not attack and harm my human brain whilst you research for what you claim is a signal for God.

If a bio brain and its chemical cellular body did not form, then you own no experiment and no condition to lie either.....yet everyday you do.

 

[Eyes to See]

That's interesting. So if it's not possible for us to understand the way God exists, how did you come to believe it in the first place?

The question is actually how do you stop believing there is a God? Of course there are many reasons. But studies have been done and a child has an inherent belief in God. It takes brain-washing to get the idea out of them.

Man is created with an innate spiritual need. Just as we need to eat food and drink water to live, we have a spiritual need that is only filled by worship to God.

Jesus said:

“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them."
-Matthew 5:3.

So it requires a consciousness of the spiritual need within us. Those who are not conscious of it live empty lives. Those who ignore it as well. Those who pay attention to it will be happy because they will be given water that bubbles up in them for everlasting life:

"Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”
-John 4:14.

 

[osgart]

You would have to be able to come to a logical conclusion that realities, apart and beyond our own, must, by necessity exist. Namely an Unconditioned reality of infinite eternal, inerrant intelligence, and inerrant, perfect virtue. The Unconditioned reality would be also perpetual, and self sufficiently independent for its own existence. The Unconditioned reality must be infinite in all directions. You must prove that our existence is contingent upon that foundational reality.

God would be of that reality. God would be of none beginnings, and none able end. God would be eternally content with God's own personal Truth. There would be no other truth that could ever parallel or equal God's. God's character would be perfect and none changing, and none able nor ever desired to change. God would be personal, and relatable. The Master of life and living and unbounded in all facets of power would be God. God can only be Innocent and able to live in every possible way. The only thing impossible is that God would ever desire, nor able change into anything evil.

On matters of character God does not change. That's not to say that in other areas of living God doesn't change.

Human character would be utterly predictable to an infinite, supreme mind. God would not live in a predetermined future. God would learn as events unfold as do humans. No future is set in stone.

That to me is a coherent concept of God.

Of course not everything coherent is actual. And perhaps lesser God's are why we are here.

 

[Left Coast]

The question is actually how do you stop believing there is a God? Of course there are many reasons. But studies have been done and a child has an inherent belief in God. It takes brain-washing to get the idea out of them.

I'm curious what research you're referencing. Babies and small children don't have the cognitive ability to believe in things like gods; that capacity develops with time just as their other cognitive abilities do. This is even acknowledged from within the Christian tradition.

 

[Eyes to See]

I'm curious what research you're referencing. Babies and small children don't have the cognitive ability to believe in things like gods; that capacity develops with time just as their other cognitive abilities do. This is even acknowledged from within the Christian tradition.

A good question. It was an off the cuff remark. I don't have a reference handy, it was awhile ago I remember reading such. I probably won't get around to it today, but I'll try and remember to look for it and post a reference. I hope my memory was correct.

 

[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?

It may help to read about my proposal of the classification of modes of existence here: 5 Planes of Existence

 

[Left Coast]

You would have to be able to come to a logical conclusion that realities, apart and beyond our own, must, by necessity exist. Namely an Unconditioned reality of infinite eternal, inerrant intelligence, and inerrant, perfect virtue. The Unconditioned reality would be also perpetual, and self sufficiently independent for its own existence. The Unconditioned reality must be infinite in all directions. You must prove that our existence is contingent upon that foundational reality.

God would be of that reality. God would be of none beginnings, and none able end. God would be eternally content with God's own personal Truth. There would be no other truth that could ever parallel or equal God's. God's character would be perfect and none changing, and none able nor ever desired to change. God would be personal, and relatable. The Master of life and living and unbounded in all facets of power would be God. God can only be Innocent and able to live in every possible way. The only thing impossible is that God would ever desire, nor able change into anything evil.

On matters of character God does not change. That's not to say that in other areas of living God doesn't change.

Human character would be utterly predictable to an infinite, supreme mind. God would not live in a predetermined future. God would learn as events unfold as do humans. No future is set in stone.

That to me is a coherent concept of God.

Of course not everything coherent is actual. And perhaps lesser God's are why we are here.

For purposes of this post, I'm not necessarily interested in debating if god(s) actually exist(s), just whether the concept of their existence as non-physical entities is coherent. Thanks for your description, I think it's an interesting and relatively mainstream understanding. While I might quibble that parts of the definition seem to conflict, if we fixed those I think the overall concept seems coherent.

 

[Left Coast]

It may help to read about my proposal of the classification of modes of existence here: 5 Planes of Existence

Thank you! So in your way of organizing things, God concepts would probably be in category #2, ideals that we conclude exist by logical necessity a priori, even if we can't detect them physically.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

Great Question

From what I have found I see God can never be comprehended by our limited mind. Any concept we can have of God are but thoughts given to us from the way God has chosen to make his 'Self' known to us.

The word Creation to me indicates that it is contained, thus I see the God that created us is outside of that container and not limited by it. As such for the unconstrained to make the attributes known within the container (The essence can not be contained), God manifests something we can relate to, a chosen human and gives that human all the attributes that God wants us to know and become.

Each of these people we know as the Prophets and Messengers and each of them tell us they are not made up from the clay of this earth as we are made, they gain life from the 'Spirit' given of God to the Messengers and we gain life from that Spirit, we gain life from the Prophets and Messengers.

So that lays the foundation as how can we define God? It is by those Messengers we see the 'Self of God', it is through them we can see all we can know of God, any thought outside of who they are, how they live and what they tell us, is not of God and is not God.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

Thank you! So in your way of organizing things, God concepts would probably be in category #2, ideals that we conclude exist by logical necessity a priori, even if we can't detect them physically.

I think gods are in category #5 (Illusions) but it would be very interesting to discuss/debate god(s) as an ideal. Nobody here has done that yet.

 

[George-ananda]

Hi George!

I don't think there is necessarily one atheist answer to that question. All the evidence I'm aware of to date indicates that consciousness is a function of brain activity. What makes you say that we can't understand consciousness physically? Granted, we don't have all the details worked out. But I'm curious how you determined such a thing is impossible?

As I said, I was answering from my Advaita perspective. Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and not created. This belief comes from the mystic insight of many spiritual masters.

From a more practical angle beyond philosophy and mysticism, my position that consciousness is not a product of physical processes comes from my study of the paranormal and psychic. Many types of activity suggest non-physical consciousness.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I'm starting this thread as a jumping-off point from a discussion that @blü 2 and I have been having here:

Why are you an Atheist?

Blu said:



If I understand the point correctly, the argument is that anything real, anything that exists, has defining features that we can identify if we look out in the world for them - presumably physical features. Since God is generally proposed to be non-physical, it seems incoherent to say God(s) "exist(s)" as anything more than a concept in our minds.

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?

Particularly interested in thoughts from @atanu, @PureX, and @Vouthon, but all are welcome to participate.

God is Reality itself, Unmanifest.
And we are inside it's "creation"/manifestation.
You can't see the back of your own head without two mirrors.

 

[Left Coast]

I think gods are in category #5 (Illusions) but it would be very interesting to discuss/debate god(s) as an ideal. Nobody here has done that yet.

I think that would basically be the (neo-) Platonic view. It's too late tonight to start that train of thought in my head, haha. I'll ponder it and come back to it tomorrow.

 

[Heyo]

I think gods are in category #5 (Illusions) but it would be very interesting to discuss/debate god(s) as an ideal. Nobody here has done that yet.

Some of the properties of gods have stunning similarities to ideals. Gods are often described as "out of space and time" while ideals are "timeless and spaceless". (I.e. the number "1" is always 1, was always 1, will be always 1 and would be 1 in any other universe (or no universe).) So, they are unchangeing (also attributed to gods). They can have representations in the real world. (Symbols, avatars?) Almost all cultures have "discovered" them (albeit differently presented like in decimal, duodecimal or sexagesimal).

But with such a god image one has to let go of a bunch of other properties like agency or reality. I guess that makes it approachable for deists but out of the question for theists.

 

[blü 2]

Whatever else is the case, I think it is obvious that the word "existence" means different things when applied to physical things than it does when applied to at least some spiritual things. This can be shown if one asks "How do I know x exists?" because that question not only gives us a direct answer (at least in theory) but it also indirectly answers what we mean by "exists".

In other words, the operational meaning of the word "existence" varies depending on whether one is talking about material or immaterial, physical or spiritual, things.

I agree with that.

A thing may exist as a real thing, a part of nature.

And a thing may exist solely as a concept / abstraction / thing imagined in the brain of an individual.

(The case of concepts of real things isn't relevant here.)

On the evidence, I think that God doesn't exist in nature, but exists as a range of concepts that will likely vary from individual to individual. And since supernatural beings are found in every culture, it may be that they're the product of an evolved tendency in humans, perhaps the instinct to answer questions instantly (a good survival tool), and perhaps to do with tribal bonding, along with having a common language, customs, and stories.

 

[Heyo]

I agree with that.

A thing may exist as a real thing, a part of nature.

And a thing may exist solely as a concept / abstraction / thing imagined in the brain of an individual.

(The case of concepts of real things isn't relevant here.)

On the evidence, I think that God doesn't exist in nature, but exists as a range of concepts that will likely vary from individual to individual. And since supernatural beings are found in every culture, it may be that they're the product of an evolved tendency in humans, perhaps the instinct to answer questions instantly (a good survival tool), and perhaps to do with tribal bonding, along with having a common language, customs, and stories.

Hmmmm ... That makes me wonder if I have missed a category in my list of forms of existence: the archetype. Common to most humans but not as universal as ideals while being more than a construct. I have to think about that.

 

[blü 2]

Hmmmm ... That makes me wonder if I have missed a category in my list of forms of existence: the archetype. Common to most humans but not as universal as ideals while being more than a construct. I have to think about that.

If you mean Jungian archetypes, I don't think the idea is wholly fictitious; but I also don't think it's a reliable guide to anything. You'll decide that for yourself, of course.

 

[blü 2]

Ehh, i have posted my concept of god/gods and they are perfectly coherent. That i am an atheist is however consequence of the fact that i do not believe such an entity does exist.

There's no problem with imaginary immaterial or supernatural beings and things ─ they can be whatever pleases the imaginer. The problem is to define a real god.

Regarding existence, i think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that non-physical things exist apart from our minds.

For example?