Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[blü 2]

Oh, i didn't say immaterial. I believe last time we had this discussion your issue was that a "super scientist" or alien could fit within my definition of god, and you therefore deemed the definition not god worthy. Ignoring that one would need a god concept to articulate such a sentiment, you have been given a coherent god concept. By an atheist, nonetheless.

Ah, I think it falls into place. If I remember correctly, you think 'God' is a title bestowed by humans on certain other humans, yes? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

[blü 2]

II find that meanings such as honesty are very much realities regardless of judgment errors I may have.

As I said, the virtues are abstractions, hence concepts, hence only found in particular brains. Just as there are no uninstantiated twos running around the streets, there is no uninstatiated kindness, though there may be countless acts judged to be kind. The acts are real, the abstraction is only conceptual.

 

[blü 2]

Would you consider a thought to be real?

Yes, thoughts are physical, brainstates. However, just as a drawing of a unicorn doesn't make unicorns real, neither does the thought of a unicorn make them real.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, thoughts are physical, brainstates. However, just as a drawing of a unicorn doesn't make unicorns real, neither does the thought of a unicorn make them real.

So your contention is that thoughts are real because they can be measured by electrical signals in the brain. I can agree with this assessment. So let's take it a step further...

Would you say it's thought that initiates a dream in REM sleep? If so, would that make the dream real?

 

[blü 2]

So your contention is that thoughts are real because they can be measured by electrical signals in the brain. I can agree with this assessment. So let's take it a step further...

Would you say it's thought that initiates a dream in REM sleep? If so, would that make the dream real?

The dream is real in the sense of being a set of related brain states. Again, the contents of the dream are not real things, though they may draw on concepts or memories of real things. I don't know the particular answer to the question, but given REM sleep is usual in humans, it would arise from evolved sequences of processes in the brain, analogous perhaps to the way the sleep state itself arises.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The dream is real in the sense of being a set of related brain states. Again, the contents of the dream are not real things, though they may draw on concepts or memories of real things. I don't know the particular answer to the question, but given REM sleep is usual in humans, it would arise from evolved sequences of processes in the brain, analogous perhaps to the way the sleep state itself arises.

Even though they're not real things from our waking state, in the context of the dream, they're quite real. It's not until we awaken from the dream that we perceive them as "not real."

Considering that we have two different realities, and while experiencing one or the other, either is perceived as real, is it not conceivable that there might be yet another reality that is more real than our perceived waking reality that is yet to be awakened into?

Yeah, I know my spitballing is kinda leading us off the track of the incoherence of the God concept topic, and I assure you it was unintentional, but I really don't believe in God in the traditional sense; I'm speaking more along the lines of Brahman here, and I'm known to go off on tangents. If you wish, we can break this off here into a separate thread.

 

[atanu]

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.

If I understand correctly, you are assuming that we have the power of cognition that is independent on its own and is capable of knowing its own origin. How valid that assumption is?

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.

As per the Vedas, 'The Truth is one, sages call it differently'. I understand that the Truth or Reality is called variously and God is one such name. As per the Vedas, the intrinsic nature of the Truth is infinity-existence-intelligence. Vedas also conclude 'That Thou Art'. The Truth or God is the subject. IT IS FOOLISH for an ego-mind to claim that "God does not exist since I cannot see-sense it" since the seeing-knowing-sensing-feeling-sensing is the intrinsic nature of the Consciousness-Truth itself.

So, different religions designate the "I am" awareness as the unborn Truth. I see no incoherence in this at all. We can direct our attention to the "I am", away from the constant chatter of "I am this" or "I am that" and verify for ourselves the truth of the Vedic saying "That Thou Art". Yeah. This is not easy for most.

OTOH, a chArvAka like philosophy that what we can sense that alone constitute the truth of the universe is incoherent and self-contradicting. It is self-contradicting since the conclusion that the truth is only limited to the sensually apprehended objects is not empirical -- it is not established upon any empirical observation.
...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God can and does reveal himself. In the past he did so by supernatural revelations and miracles. The parting of the Red Sea when he freed the Isrealites from slavery to the Egyptians is very real proof he is real. It was recorded in the Bible for our benefit.

God reveals himself today by means of his word. A human cannot prove the supernatural to another human. But God can and does reveal himself to those whom he so chooses by means of his word and his holy spirit, the most powerful force in existence.

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.

There is a time that is coming when everyone will have to acknowledge God's existence. But by then it will not be in a good way for them.

Read what you wrote again...because what you said in your last paragraph directly implies that this god you think you love will punish those who he already set up for punishment for his own reasons, not for anything they were responsible for.

 

[blü 2]

Even though they're not real things from our waking state, in the context of the dream, they're quite real. It's not until we awaken from the dream that we perceive them as "not real."

I'm not sure that's correct. For example, if a dream becomes too distressing, or contains a shock, some watchdog in the brain returns us to the awake state. Or it does for me. (Not that I'm a good example ─ I only rarely remember dreams, or even that I dreamed.)

Considering that we have two different realities

A dream wouldn't count as a different reality to me, since it's internally generated. Reality is the world external to the self.

and while experiencing one or the other, either is perceived as real

I experience dreams in a different way to reality. In dreams I'm not reacting to sensory data, only to memory and miscellaneous junk in my association-of-ideas box. In waking dreams I can sometime interact with the story, which is why for me these are the only dreams that have ever had anything like a plot instead of a fragmented sequence of incidents.

is it not conceivable that there might be yet another reality that is more real than our perceived waking reality that is yet to be awakened into?

The fabled door to another world? If we omit coffee and alcohol, and many years ago nicotine, I'm naive about drugs, but those again are the brain interacting with itself rather than with reality ─ or so all the evidence says.

I really don't believe in God in the traditional sense; I'm speaking more along the lines of Brahman here, and I'm known to go off on tangents.

I gather from various conversations over the years, most on the net, that Brahman is different things to different people. For example, if the idea is that Brahman is the single consciousness, how come I can't read anyone's mind? That there is infinite anything, not limited to bliss or truth, is not my view at all. But yes, as you say, maybe that's a topic for another time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So here we go again.
Since last time, I get you now.
The definition of "real", which you use, is an idea in your brain as imaged by you. I know this because "real" is not a property of a real thing as a part of nature. How do I know that? Well, I can test for it. I can't see or otherwise have external sensory experience of it. It has no weight, dimensions and there is no instrument, which can measure it. There is no international scientific measurement standard for it and there is no scientific theory of real.
In short, it is an idea in your brain and nothing else. Real is not physical in any sense as related to science or objective empirical evidence.

You are using an idea in your brain no different than god. There is no evidence of real what so ever. You are in effect religious and properly hold real as dogmatic as characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts; something held as an established opinion or a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
On the evidence, I don't think real exist in nature and it is not different as an abstract concept like god. It only works if you believe in it, hence you are religious in the following sense as per supernatural - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

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

So no, blü 2, just as you don't believe in a god, I don't believe in real things.

So on to existence. And now I test for that. I can't see or otherwise have external sensory experience of it. It has no weight, dimensions and there is no instrument, which can measure it. There is no international scientific measurement standard for it and there is no scientific theory of real.
In short, it is an idea in your brain and nothing else. Existence is not physical in any sense as related to science or objective empirical evidence.

And all the rest of what I said about real applies to existence. Don't claim, that you are skeptical, because you are apparently unable to check your own thinking.
We are playing philosophy and you have to be better at that, than just taking your own thoughts for granted. Learn to check your own thinking.

You really have to learn to understand the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism, if you want to claim, that you are skeptical.

Mikkel

 

[Dave Watchman]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the difficulty is in imagining what it means for something to "exist" in a way that's not physical. Since everything around us that we say "exists" is something physical. Existence seems to require both space and time.

It's not that difficult to imagine.

It's why God created the universe, so that He could interact with us, His creation, in both space and time.

Demons are also invisible spirit beings who began their existence in the family of God.

In Matthew 8, Jesus cast them out of a man in the Gadarenes. Notice the terror they express in returning to the spiritual realm. They would find it preferable to inhabit a herd of pigs than to be cast out into the spiritual realm.

"And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.”​

Spirit beings.

Begging to be put into a herd of physical pigs.

They know that the pigs won't live very long.

But they'd rather have that, even for a limited time, than to be disembodied "spirits" floating around.

The big bang, the foundation of the physical universe, is testimony to God being here now.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Kenny]

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.

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.

Sunstone has a good point here.

Then we also have laws that exist that we can't "see physically" but we can see the results or the manifestation of what we can't see.

Take, for example, the quantum physics that causes an electron particle to actually go in the direction that one decides where you want it to go.

What drives that capacity if you can't see it? Is there a spiritual realm that has a physical manifestation?

It is the "God factor". IMV.

 

[blü 2]

The definition of "real", which you use, is an idea in your brain as imaged by you.

Yo Mikkel!

What definition of 'real' do you use?

I know this because "real" is not a property of a real thing as a part of nature. How do I know that? Well, I can test for it. I can't see or otherwise have external sensory experience of it. It has no weight, dimensions and there is no instrument, which can measure it. There is no international scientific measurement standard for it and there is no scientific theory of real.

Let me talk you through it.

'Real' means existing in reality. Reality is the world external to the self, also called nature, the realm of the physical sciences, and so on. It's where things in nature, things with objective existence are found. You can tell whether something is real or not by seeing whether it exists in reality or not.

You are using an idea in your brain no different than god.

I'm using an idea in my brain, yes. Where do you keep your ideas?

And what do you mean, 'God' and is whatever you mean found in nature?

So no, blü 2, just as you don't believe in a god, I don't believe in real things.

Or you don't know what you mean by 'real', since we seem to be conversing well enough out here in reality.

So on to existence. And now I test for that. I can't see or otherwise have external sensory experience of it. It has no weight, dimensions and there is no instrument, which can measure it.

You're speaking of 'existence' as though it were a thing. It's not a thing, it's a concept, an abstraction, found only in individual working brains.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure that's correct. For example, if a dream becomes too distressing, or contains a shock, some watchdog in the brain returns us to the awake state..

Yes. The watchdog.

 

[blü 2]

Yes. The watchdog.

The part of the brain that monitors the whole thing when you're asleep ─ hears loud noises or the baby crying or notes you've twisted your foot in the blankets &c.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I don't think that all theists across the board. I also don't think that it's only applied to gods; I've heard similar claims about ghosts, for instance.

Overall, I take these sorts of claims as excuse-making and not as real, honest arguments. If we do take these claims at face value, they run into problems right away.

For starters, anything with physical effects can be investigated empirically regardless of what the thing itself is. The people I most often see saying that "God isn't physical" to exempt him from rational inquiry will turn around and also claim all sorts of physical effects of God, from coming to Earth in human form to shrinking someone's tumour.

And the theists who really do argue that God has no physical effects (e.g. some deists) don't have it any easier. Their "non-physical" God may have been designed so that it can't be refuted by rational inquiry, but that's not enough to justify belief. In the process of making their god unfalsifiable, they also threw away any way they could rationally justify belief in their god.

 

[PureX]

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.

The problem with this whole debate is that materialism is based on a biased tautology. "Existence is defined by physicality, because if it doesn't physically exist, it isn't real." Hence, their own conception of reality is being defined by physicality, and then being used to define what's 'real' to them. And anything else must therefor be "unreal" (i.e., doesn't really exist). But of course this is untrue, as many things "exist" that are not physical. Equality, for example. Or beauty. Or even peace. The materialists try to rationalize these experiences by pointing to the physics that enable their effect, thus excusing (ignoring) the existence of the effect, itself. Because the effect, itself, is not physical, and therefor cannot 'really' exist (according to their truth-paradigm). But we all know that such effects do exist, even though they don't exist, physically.

Yet there is little point in trying to illuminate the materialist regarding this failure of logic, because they will only fight harder to maintain their biased tautology by applying it to every idea or circumstance presented to them. They are "true believers", caught in the closed circle of their own truth paradigm. And I am often struck by how similar they are in this way to the theistic 'true believers' we find in various religions.

 

[Left Coast]

OTOH, a chArvAka like philosophy that what we can sense alone constitute the truth of universe and self is incoherent and self-contradicting. It is self-contradicting since the conclusion that the truth is only limited to the sensually apprehended objects is not empirical -- it is not established upon any empirical observation.
...

This was the point I kept coming back to as well. Even if we agree on the effectiveness of empirical data to help us navigate the world, empirical data can't establish that empirical data is all there is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yo Mikkel!

What definition of 'real' do you use?

Let me talk you through it.

'Real' means existing in reality. Reality is the world external to the self, also called nature, the realm of the physical sciences, and so on. It's where things in nature, things with objective existence are found. You can tell whether something is real or not by seeing whether it exists in reality or not.
I'm using an idea in my brain, yes. Where do you keep your ideas?

And what do you mean, 'God' and is whatever you mean found in nature?
Or you don't know what you mean by 'real', since we seem to be conversing well enough out here in reality.
You're speaking of 'existence' as though it were a thing. It's not a thing, it's a concept, an abstraction, found only in individual working brains.

So you are a skeptic. Now please solve Cartesian skepticism as relevant for your claims.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

I have been studying this subject and referencing biblical scripture -as well as basic logic and scientific fact.

Biblically, God is 'the most high', "I AM THAT AM", "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty", "the first and the last", etc...

Generally, all such scriptures taken together indicate that God is literally the sum of all things -which actually includes us. All which exists is his body -and part of that body is a mind. We were made in his image, so God is similar -but we are each a portion -rather, a logical separation, and God is all-inclusive -which makes the following quite literal.....
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Though it is not directly stated -and the complete history of God is not revealed, it is definitely indicated that God DEVELOPED.

This idea makes many "believers" uncomfortable, but it actually makes perfect sense.
One question it raises is "How can God be eternal and also have developed?"

However, it is actually basically the same as asking how anything which has developed could exist in the first place.
The best answer science has come up with thus far is "It simply was" -and that is exactly how God could be eternal -and also have developed.

Scripture does not actually state that God has eternally existed in the same state -as a complex creator. Even the act of creation itself indicates development.

As for God being physical or not, God would have existed before the PRESENT laws of physics -and is credited with authoring those laws.
As the basis of physics AT OUR LEVEL once did not exist -and atoms, etc., came to exist as such by the singularity/big bang, etc., it is logical to conclude that physical things which now exist are a new arrangement of that which previously -and ALWAYS -existed (simply were).

Heb 11:1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Or... things which ARE seen WERE MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR/ARE NOT VISIBLE). (which is exactly how an electron could be known to exist without ever having "seen" one)

So -God would be "real", but on a more basic level. If God developed from the most simple state of "everything" possible, it would also explain God-like abilities and, somewhat ironically, God's position as "most high". Our "physical" makeup -and position (the way we interface and the point from which we individually interface) -are actually the source of our LIMITATIONS. Such would not be the case with a God who developed in -OR AS -the pre-physical/pre-singularity environment. We -and all things -would all be made of the same most basic components as God -but differing by arrangemen/position, etc. -and it could be said that we are literally composed of "God".

Mathematically/logically, there can be only 1 "everything" -and as something can not logically come from ABSOLUTE nothing, "everything" likely "always" existed.
Everything = 1. If that "1" is subdivided, math and logic ensue. If that one everything can somehow be infinitely subdivided, infinite creation is EFFECTIVELY possible -without the necessity for any actual new "material".

As we see from our own example -at our level, some things are possible before the development of awareness, self-awareness, self-determination, creativity, etc. -lead to such -and such then make other things possible. All things must be preceded by that which generally -then specifically -makes them possible. The same would be true at any level.