• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are God Concepts Incoherent?

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I can only observe, not direct. Sorry.
Very selfless of you!

But you must be able to point me to another alternative not less credible, surely?

Because I assure you that if it's backed with sufficient evidence, I'll listen.

Or do you agree with my finding that there isn't any?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That IS the bias. That evidence is sufficient, and that you can gain "sufficient" evidence.
I'm in favor of evidence. It helps me to make sure that when I make things up, I know what I'm doing.

The bias in favor of evidence is of course one of the basics of reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, and scientific method is the reason that the earth can for the time being support its population of humans. Religion has helped add mindlessly to the population, but science does all the heavy lifting to deal with the consequences.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I accept that it's unprovable ─ I address that by my assumption that it exists.

Okay. I add that Idealism explains the 'phenomenal consciousness' more parsimoniously than materialism.

Do you mean qualia? If so, I've never seen what the fuss was about. If you remember Arnie's Terminator I, i...

So, a film character has to tell me that there is nothing non-computational in the feeling that I get with diverse experiences?
...

I fail to understand why blind faith in philosophical materialism stops you from questioning your own assumptions?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
@Mikkel You seem to argue that because there is no absolute truth with regards to an outside reality, applying logic is futile, is that correct?

Well, I disagree. Regardless of whether there is something else out there - and I do think that there has to be, because without something else we would be unable to grasp our selfhood-as-self - the rules of logic are self-contained and self-coherent and do not need an outside force or external reality to remain valid:

As a Kantian, you should be aware that the axioms of formal logic are internal to our subjective minds rather than external phenomena. The only thing our mind-logic is lacking is structured sensory data necessary to construct logical statements - but for the purposes of formal logic the certainty or uncertainty of truth-values contained by such statements is largely irrelevant. In addition, logic is incapable of affirming truth values in the first place - at best, it can explicate and extrapolate from existing truth values.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
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.
You are conflating my individual self with the entire cosmos.

The Big Bang is not my individual origin, it's the origin of the universe we live in.

Besides, knowing why I exist (because my father had sex with my mother, and my mother chose to bear me and keep me as her child) does not necessarily infer any further purpose to my own life, unless you subscribe to a very strong version of determinism that dismisses any and all forms of self-direction. But if I am self directed, then this still begs the question why the circumstances of my birth are supposed to infer anything about by future purpose in life (if I am given an external purpose and do not create one for myself).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You are conflating my individual self with the entire cosmos.
We are part-in-parcel. The limitations controlling the expression of energy created you and I, and everything else (everything else, first, of course). They determine what exists and what does not. The mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of that energy, and of the limitations that control it's expression, is the ultimate heart of the mystery. And how we react to that mystery defines who we are as individual humans, and as a collective.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
We are part-in-parcel. The limitations controlling the expression of energy created you and I, and everything else (everything else, first, of course). They determine what exists and what does not. The mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of that energy, and of the limitations that control it's expression, is the ultimate heart of the mystery. And how we react to that mystery defines who we are as individual humans, and as a collective.
I'm starting to think that you are simply recycling Christian conceptual artefacts and framing them in scientific-sounding language.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm starting to think that you are simply recycling Christian conceptual artifacts and framing them in scientific-sounding language.
I'm trying to focus on the substance of how we relate to the mystery, and not get confused by the artifice. So, now that you're realizing this, what are you thinking about it?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to focus on the substance of how we relate to the mystery, and not get confused by the artifice. So, now that you're realizing this, what are you thinking about it?
I'm thinking that you are allowing what you claim is "the artifice" to make you follow a specific way to grasp your relationship towards the mystery.

The reason why I've come to this conclusion is your continued attempts to conflate mysteries/philosophical questions that, in my opinion, need not be conjoined into a singular concept of divinity the way you seem to advocate. I would even go so far as to argue that treating these disparate issues as a singular problem/mystery carries the danger of obscuring ways we can relate to them in unique and diverse ways not tread by the Western majority religion.

My life's purpose is not the universe's origin. The origin of the universe is not the limit of my knowledge. The limit of my knowledge is not my life's purpose.

I see these as separate existential problems - or, if you will, mysteries - and I believe that many of us Westerners see these as intertwined because they parallel specific monotheistic conception of God that has its roots in the Abrahamic traditions of theology and religious practice. But I see no inherent need for them to be treated as such.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm thinking that you are allowing what you claim is "the artifice" to make you follow a specific way to grasp your relationship towards the mystery.
The mystery exists because we humans exist as we do. And as humans, we have to deal with it one way or another. For most of us the question of causation and the question of a possible purpose are inextricably linked. Especially when what has been 'caused' (the whole of the universe) is the result of an imposition of 'control parameters'.
The reason why I've come to this conclusion is your continued attempts to conflate mysteries/philosophical questions that, in my opinion, need not be conjoined into a singular concept of divinity the way you seem to advocate. I would even go so far as to argue that treating these disparate issues as a singular problem/mystery carries the danger of obscuring ways we can relate to them in unique and diverse ways not tread by the Western majority religion.
How do you imagine that the human concept of divinity is NOT inextricably linked to the great existential mystery? Is there any version of the God concept that does not begin in the mysterious origins of existence, or become the ultimate return/fulfillment of it in the end?
My life's purpose is not the universe's origin. The origin of the universe is not the limit of my knowledge. The limit of my knowledge is not my life's purpose.
I don't know what any of those statements mean, or how an human could honesty presume to know them to be true.
I see these as separate existential problems - or, if you will, mysteries - and I believe that many of us Westerners see these as intertwined because they parallel specific monotheistic conception of God that has its roots in the Abrahamic traditions of theology and religious practice. But I see no inherent need for them to be treated as such.
Logically, there can be no state of condition as a "separate existence". That which exists defines a 'full (single) set'. That which does not exist defines an infinite (empty) set.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I don't know what any of those statements mean, or how an human could honesty presume to know them to be true.
These are the mysteries you conflate to a singular one, conspicuously in the exact same manner as Christians relate to their God. It's almost as if your relation to the Mystery was a conceptual artifact of Christian theism. ;)
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Logically, there can be no state of condition as a "separate existence". That which exists defines a 'full (single) set'. That which does not exist defines an infinite (empty) set.
We are dealing with concepts that exist outside the confines of regular logic. Unless


How do you imagine that the human concept of divinity is NOT inextricably linked to the great existential mystery? Is there any version of the God concept that does not begin in the mysterious origins of existence, or become the ultimate return/fulfillment of it in the end?
There is no singular existential mystery. There are many mysteries which you conflate into a singular conceptual God-artifact.

Who says that God is the inevitable answer to not only my life's purpose, but also the limits to my knowledge and also the origin of the universe? Christians, of course, because the conflation of these existential problems into the singular question of "Does the Christian God exist" is an artifact of their God-concept.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
These are the mysteries you conflate to a singular one, conspicuously in the exact same manner as Christians relate to their God. It's almost as if your relation to the Mystery was a conceptual artifact of Christian theism. ;)
Or, Christian theism is a legitimate response to a legitimate mystery.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We are dealing with concepts that exist outside the confines of regular logic. Unless



There is no singular existential mystery. There are many mysteries which you conflate into a singular conceptual God-artifact.

Who says that God is the inevitable answer to not only my life's purpose, but also the limits to my knowledge and also the origin of the universe? Christians, of course, because the conflation of these existential problems into the singular question of "Does the Christian God exist" is an artifact of their God-concept.
Existence is an indivisible state, by definition. The mystery of existence, at least until it is resolved, is a similarly universal condition. We can, however, delve into that mystery from a multitude of perspectives.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Existence is an indivisible state, by definition. The mystery of existence, at least until it is resolved, is a similarly universal condition. We can, however, delve into that mystery from a multitude of perspectives.
We cannot delve into a multitude of perspectives when we have defined the Mystery as Being-as-One.

I see the concept of Existence as indivisible Being-as-one is fundamentally sterile - I mean "sterile" here as the opposite of "fertile" or "productive", because we cannot derive anything logically from an atomic and featureless concept of Being-as-One.

"Existence exists" is a tautology that tells us nothing and cannot open up any further inquiries, because as you correctly argued, this concept of Being is indivisible and therefore cannot yield the vast diversity and multitude that are humanity, human society, science, nature, the universe, and so on.

In short, my argument here is that, when we contain the Mystery in this logical concept, we close all forms of inquiry and render it philosophically and existentially fruitless, we reduce a potential multitude of meaning to a singularity. Existence can be seen as divisible, and in fact infinitely divisible, if we do not let ourselves be shackled to this form of logical reduction.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Or, Christian theism is a legitimate response to a legitimate mystery.
I am argueing that the mysteries are not singular, but a multitude, so a Christian theism would be reducing this mystery and closing off inquiries, rather than opening them. The Christian God is a conceptual artifact, remember, not the mystery-in-itself.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
"According to some cognitive scientists,
what we perceive with our brain and our senses does not reflect the true nature of reality.

Thus, while evolution has shaped our perceptions to guide adaptive behavior, they argue,
it has not enabled us to perceive reality as it actually is.
"
 
Top