Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[robocop (actually)]

Speaking as a materialist, I ask, Why you do think we're not part of the universe?

I meant to say that there was a God in the Universe making choices based on ours, not just a mechanical Universe, as evidence of God.

 

[osgart]

The only thing non physical is the abstract. It's calling upon the spiritual. The spiritual does not have to be in a literal place. The spiritual can be in many places at the same time or no place at all but its own realm. The realm is interactive with the normal physical.

You can be subject to the spiritual realm. God would be the sole authority of the spiritual realm.

Qualities of the spiritual realm would be of the heart and mind, and entities with attributes.

I personally don't hold to a non physical realm of spirit.

It has to have an essence to exist. That essence would supercede our physical; it would be supraphysical. Like non locality it would have relationships, causes and effects regardless of distance. The supraphysical would be unbounded by normal physicality. Newly created beings are subjects of it not authorities. Space and time would be secondary qualities, and below that normal matter and energy.

The only reason I entertain the idea of the spiritual is the discovery of superposition and non locality, the phenomenon of consciousness, the intelligent form that is the human body, and the contingency and finitude of our universe. There are certain arguments that lead some kinds of people to suspect an intelligeñt source. Fr. Robert Spitzer puts out many good arguments for the existence of an intelligent eternal reality. Some of his arguments fit with my intuition strongly.

 

[Tambourine]

I didn't say that agnosticism was about lack of beliefs, hell i don't even think atheism is about lack of beliefs (despite quite a few RF posters' insistence).

That said, knowledge is a particular type of belief. So when you suggest that agnosticism is about knowledge orthe lack thereof then you are acknowledging that agnosticism is too about belief.

I suggested that agnosticism is about a lack of certainty in knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist if you feel like it (in fact, I am an agnostic atheist) because the certainty or uncertainty of your knowledge does not preclude an act of belief (or rejection of belief) in spite of uncertainty.

 

[Tambourine]

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that God is basically and foremost a mystery. It can't be defined the way you want it to be because it is a mystery. In fact, it is the ultimate mystery. It is the mystery of being, itself. It is the unknown source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

And no one needs to prove that mystery exists, because it's existed since the moment we first realized the profundity of our own unknowing. And it has remained a part of our reality ever since.

Yet there are millions of people convinced that they know their Gods and their God's Will. Are their Gods fake because they are insufficiently mysterious to them? Are they doing religion wrongly because they are centering their lives around a set of known beliefs and practices rather than the fundamental unknowability of reality, and the terrifying uncertainty and nihilism of all existence?

In short, are practicing theists, in your opinion, working with an incorrect definition of God?

 

[izzy88]

That was much more long-winded and probably confusing than I intended.

Not at all; the more in-depth and detailed we can be when discussing philosophical issues, the better.

We've covered the idea that concepts "exist" in people's minds but not outside them, so obviously God could be said to "exist" as a concept

But to say that a concept exists in someone's mind doesn't meet your criteria for existence being physical/material, matter or energy. Not only are the concepts themselves not physical, but the mind isn't physical either. If you're implicitly granting that the mind exists, you've already answered your own question. 'God' as traditionally conceived of by philosophers and by Judeo-Christian theology is essentially a disembodied mind; he/it exists "outside" or "apart from" the universe in much the same way that our minds do.

If you cut open my head, would all of my thoughts come spilling out? When doctors dissect brains, do they find little ideas inside? Obviously not, but these things exist, yes? So where are they?

Thoughts and ideas - and the mind itself - do not exist in the sense that you're talking about, so you can either say that they truly don't exist, or you can change your criteria for what constitutes existence.

You cannot examine my mind, you cannot measure my ideas, you cannot poke my emotions with an instrument, and yet I know these things "are" - which is to say that they exist. If we had to say that the mind and thoughts and ideas and emotions don't exist because they aren't empirically measurable, it would really just be redefining the word "existence" to fit with a materialist worldview.

 

[blü 2]

I meant to say that there was a God in the Universe making choices based on ours, not just a mechanical Universe, as evidence of God.

So this God is a physical being and lives in our universe?

 

[Left Coast]

Not at all; the more in-depth and detailed we can be when discussing philosophical issues, the better.

But to say that a concept exists in someone's mind doesn't meet your criteria for existence being physical/material, matter or energy. Not only are the concepts themselves not physical, but the mind isn't physical either. If you're implicitly granting that the mind exists, you've already answered your own question. 'God' as traditionally conceived of by philosophers and by Judeo-Christian theology is essentially a disembodied mind; he/it exists "outside" or "apart from" the universe in much the same way that our minds do.

If you cut open my head, would all of my thoughts come spilling out? When doctors dissect brains, do they find little ideas inside? Obviously not, but these things exist, yes? So where are they?

Thoughts and ideas - and the mind itself - do not exist in the sense that you're talking about, so you can either say that they truly don't exist, or you can change your criteria for what constitutes existence.

You cannot examine my mind, you cannot measure my ideas, you cannot poke my emotions with an instrument, and yet I know these things "are" - which is to say that they exist. If we had to say that the mind and thoughts and ideas and emotions don't exist because they aren't empirically measurable, it would really just be redefining the word "existence" to fit with a materialist worldview.

I'm not prepared to concede that minds are non-physical. All available evidence indicates that minds are functions of brains. We have zero demonstrated examples of minds existing independent of living brains. We have literally mapped which parts of the brain are responsible for which cognitive processes. We also know that abundance, deprivation or difficulties with neuronal reuptake of particular neurotransmitters can cause mental changes (this is how psychotropic medications work).

So I'm prepared to concede that God could just be a concept inside people's minds that has no correlate outside their minds in the "real" world. But theists generally think God "exists" in a way that's more than that (and yet is non-physical). So, what does that mean?

 

[izzy88]

I'm not prepared to concede that minds are non-physical. All available evidence indicates that minds are functions of brains. We have zero demonstrated examples of minds existing independent of living brains. We have literally mapped which parts of the brain are responsible for which cognitive processes. We also know that abundance, deprivation or difficulties with neuronal reuptake of particular neurotransmitters can cause mental changes (this is how psychotropic medications work).

So I'm prepared to concede that God could just be a concept inside people's minds that has no correlate outside their minds in the "real" world. But theists generally think God "exists" in a way that's more than that (and yet is non-physical). So, what does that mean?

You're equivocating two separate ideas: that minds are non-physical, and that minds can exist independently of brains. Whether the latter is true has no bearing on the former, which is what we're discussing. In other words: even if the mind cannot exist without the brain, that does not necessarily imply that the mind is therefore physical. On the contrary, the mind is - by definition - non-physical, so you really cannot argue that point. You could argue that the mind does not exist, but what would that actually mean? That all of my thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc. are, indeed, physical objects? Then I ask you again: where are they?

 

[Curious George]

I'm not a hard atheist. I can be persuaded to other views by evidence. However the consistent conclusion from all the evidence leads me back to materialism every time.

What was the definition of a real god that you mentioned?

Well there is a problem with the question you ask. I believe no gods exist. However, this doesn't prevent me from having a coherent god concept whereby i can judge whether or not some proposed entity is a god or is not; lest, i be forced to admit a potato is a god.

Look for definition of a god in post 50.

 

[Left Coast]

You're equivocating two separate ideas: that minds are non-physical, and that minds can exist independently of brains. Whether the latter is true has no bearing on the former, which is what we're discussing. In other words: even if the mind cannot exist without the brain, that does not necessarily imply that the mind is therefore physical. On the contrary, the mind is - by definition - non-physical, so you really cannot argue that point. You could argue that the mind does not exist, but what would that actually mean? That all of my thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc. are, indeed, physical objects? Then I ask you again: where are they?

First - if your definition of God is that he is a disembodied mind, and minds can't exist independent of brains, then isn't your definition of God incoherent?

Second - I concede that I can't "see" your thoughts (although an fMRI seems awfully close), but that doesn't indicate they're not physical. I can't "see" gravity, merely its effects. Yet you would consider gravity a physical law, would you not? Gravity is a function of physical mass and distance. Similarly, minds appear to be a function of brain activity.

 

[Curious George]

I suggested that agnosticism is about a lack of certainty in knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist if you feel like it (in fact, I am an agnostic atheist) because the certainty or uncertainty of your knowledge does not preclude an act of belief (or rejection of belief) in spite of uncertainty.

So you lack belief in your belief?

I understand what you are saying. It is your choice to make this more complicated.

At the end of the day, we are discussing beliefs you hold. Whether you want to qualify those beliefs by saying you also believe them to be unjustified is your choice.

The problem i see is that people espouse this "uncertainty" but then later act or argue in spite of it. It makes me wonder if it really exists at all.

 

[izzy88]

First - if your definition of God is that he is a disembodied mind, and minds can't exist independent of brains, then isn't your definition of God incoherent?

Yes, but that's irrelevant to this conversation, and I never claimed either of those things were the case.

Second - I concede that I can't "see" your thoughts (although an fMRI seems awfully close), but that doesn't indicate they're not physical. I can't "see" gravity, merely its effects. Yet you would consider gravity a physical law, would you not?

I didn't say you can't "see" them, I said they aren't empirically measurable. Gravity is, clearly, empirically measurable.

Gravity is a function of physical mass and distance. Similarly, minds appear to be a function of brain activity.

What exactly do you mean by "a function of"?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, but that's irrelevant to this conversation, and I never claimed either of those things were the case.

It seems very relevant to me, since I'm interested in talking about God concepts that theists actually believe in, and you said, "'God' as traditionally conceived of by philosophers and by Judeo-Christian theology is essentially a disembodied mind; he/it exists "outside" or "apart from" the universe in much the same way that our minds do."

Is that not the God you believe in, as a Catholic? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I didn't say you can't "see" them, I said they aren't empirically measurable. Gravity is, clearly, empirically measurable.

I'd say thoughts are very much empirically measurable. The whole field of cognitive science is concerned with the empirical measurement of thought.

What exactly do you mean by "a function of"?

It's a way of saying something is in a dependent relationship to something else. If you know the mass of an object, and its distance from another object, you can calculate the force of gravity the first object will exert on the second. If you change the mass, or the distance, the force of gravity will by necessity change. I see the relationship of minds and brains similarly. The condition of a brain allows us to predict the mind that will result (or lack thereof). Change the brain, and a change in mind results.

 

[blü 2]

Well there is a problem with the question you ask. I believe no gods exist. However, this doesn't prevent me from having a coherent god concept whereby i can judge whether or not some proposed entity is a god or is not; lest, i be forced to admit a potato is a god.

My point is that no test will tell you whether the potato is God or not, because there's no coherent definition of a real god. And that's because no one uses a coherent definition of God appropriate to a real God, one who exists in nature.

Look for definition of a god in post 50.

Ah ─

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.​

That doesn't define the 'entity' in any way that would allow us to identify real candidates, so it's not a definition appropriate to a real being, at least not as it stands. I want the test that will determine whether the potato, or my keyboard, or radiation in the green band, or any other real thing, is God or not. I want to know what real thing we're hunting.

And 'immortal' may be fine for an imaginary God, since immortal is an imaginary quality, and as a claimed aspect of reality has no test that could establish whether the entity was immortal or not. The same would be true were someone to say the entity was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, self-created, and so on. (Indeed, how does God know [he]'s omniscient? Know that there aren't things he doesn't know?)

 

[Left Coast]

My point is that no test will tell you whether the potato is God or not, because there's no coherent definition of a real god. And that's because no one uses a coherent definition of God appropriate to a real God, one who exists in nature.
Ah ─

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.​

That doesn't define the 'entity' in any way that would allow us to identify real candidates, so it's not a definition appropriate to a real being, at least not as it stands. I want the test that will determine whether the potato, or my keyboard, or radiation in the green band, or any other real thing, is God or not. I want to know what real thing we're hunting.

Wouldn't the definition provided allow you to determine whether or not a potato meets it? Are potatoes intelligent? If not, right there we've falsified the hypothesis that potatoes meet this definition of a god.

 

[izzy88]

I'd say thoughts are very much empirically measurable. The whole field of cognitive science is concerned with the empirical measurement of thought.

If you know the mass of an object, and its distance from another object, you can calculate the force of gravity the first object will exert on the second. If you change the mass, or the distance, the force of gravity will by necessity change. I see the relationship of minds and brains similarly. The condition of a brain allows us to predict the mind that will result (or lack thereof). Change the brain, and a change in mind results.

So, if I were sitting here imagining something, playing out a scenario in my mind, you believe that if you had enough empirical data you could somehow see what I was imagining? Watch it like a movie?

 

[Tambourine]

So you lack belief in your belief?

No, but I lack belief that you are interested in understanding my position.
I also lack belief that this conversation is going to lead anywhere productive. Goodbye.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So this God is a physical being and lives in our universe?

That's for you to decide based on whether something happens to you based on your decisions and not just mechanically.

 

[Left Coast]

So, if I were sitting here imagining something, playing out a scenario in my mind, you believe that if you had enough empirical data you could somehow see what I was imagining? Watch it like a movie?

That's the direction the evidence is pointing in, yes. Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

 

[Left Coast]

So this God is a physical being and lives in our universe?

Mormonism is one of the notable exceptions to the "God is conceived as non-physical" trend.