Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[Curious George]

What I meant was that existence is a two sided coin, at least from human perspective. There isn't a possible way for a thing that upholds existence to at the same time not uphold existence.

Existence would be presented as 1. Lack of existence would be 0.

X cannot equal 0 and at the same time equal 1.

Sure it can. We see x equal any possible combination of numbers in sets. For example a simple parabola will yield x=0 and x=1. However we have now defined x as 0;1 But that is why I don't think math is the best way to intuitively describe violations of the law of non contradiction. Rather it is better to assume the contradiction as truth the way we do the classical axioms of logic. So if we take for instance the statement we know nothing as axiomatic, then we have a system that has not exploded due to the violation of the law of non contradiction. However it is much easier just to do away with the law of the excluded middle. Wherein we can have neither or unknown instead of true or false.

 

[Shad]

I agree. If we look at the space example we see semantics at play. The concept only works when we define exist or not exist in a non mutually exclusive manner, thus beg the question. However I would like to point out that logical systems can survive without the rule of non contradiction. Usually however it is the law of the excluded middle that is dropped. Thus, if we change the OP question to is it possible that God exists is neither true or false, we can keep the theme of the op and remain logically coherent in some systems.

EM is the position that either A is true or it's negative is true, not neither true nor false. For the sake of the OP two view should be presented as axioms. God does not exist /discuss. God does exist /discuss. The example of space is also flawed as space has become a physical thing since General Relativity was accepted known as space-time.

 

[Shad]

Ok, so that brings us to the obvious next question from that point of view.

If it has to be one or the other, does space exist, or not exist?

Space exists if one accept General Relativity. It is now called space-time. It can be distorted by gravity thus is physical rather than the absence of objects as per your definition.

 

[Shad]

On the contrary, it only violates Aristotelian logic. In Buddhist logic it's perfectly sensible, since the categories themselves are largely arbitrary and negotiable. Therefore something can logically be said to exist in once sense and not in another.

If one actually analyzes what "existence" means, one will find that this is always the case, as there's no universally accepted definition of "existence." It's something we take for granted in order to get through the day, thus it's a very useful conceptual fiction, but it's also entirely illusory and falls apart on any rigorous analysis.

Does this glass exist? Yes, I just drank from it.

Does this glass exist? No, it's really a complex of silicate molecules that only look like a single thing because the naked eye can't see its constituent parts.

Does this glass exist? Yes, it is one manifestation of the category "glass," which I recognize for its utility.

Does this glass exist? No, the very concept of "glass" is a mental construct that does not exist independently of the human mind that conceives of it.

2. Is flawed as the atoms and molecules which form the object we call glass does exist. Glass is just one of the many forms these atoms and molecules can take. It is a composition which we have named.

4. Is flawed for the same reason

Both are the reductionist fallacy.

Your Buddhism logic are not an example of a contradictions. It is the fallacy I pointed out above and word games.

 

[Awoon]

Is the Bible God or any God a Being or a Principle of actions? Is God jealous or zealous? Is God all-inclusive or choosy? Is God Love or Judgment? Is God moral or Amoral? Has any God evolved with Humankind throughout history of Humankind. Does any God that anyone has, see, worship, heard or demonstrate those attributes or do Humans do them outside their Holy Books?

 

[Typist]

The example of space is also flawed as space has become a physical thing since General Relativity was accepted known as space-time.

The original post and followups clearly agreed that space exists. And also doesn't exist. Both.

Some members are struggling to maintain the dualistic either/or paradigm that they are familiar with. This is completely understandable given that what we are made of, thought, inherently attempts to create such conceptual divisions. I'm doing the same thing myself by comparing the dualistic paradigm to a non-dualistic paradigm, that comparison being itself yet another dualistic paradigm.

The problem of course is that reality is far bigger than the information medium installed in one half insane species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies.

The space example is intended to illustrate that while we humans have a huge built-in bias in favor of dualistic divisions such as "exist vs. non-exist" reality is not bound by the properties which define our fundamental human nature.

Just because we are wearing the pink tinted sunglasses of thought doesn't mean reality is obligated to be pink.

Space is not going to either exist or not-exist, just because we want it to.

 

[Typist]

Space exists if one accept General Relativity. It is now called space-time. It can be distorted by gravity thus is physical rather than the absence of objects as per your definition.

Again, I clearly said in all my posts that space exists, so I'm not sure who or what some members feel they are arguing against. My point is that space ALSO doesn't exist. Exists AND doesn't exist.

If members wish to assert that space ONLY exists, then the burden falls upon them to tell us how much a cubic foot of space weighs. This is a very reasonable demand which we would present to any other claim of existence.

Finally, I hope members might journey beyond this space example.

We might observe how for endless centuries both theists and atheists, including some extremely bright people on all sides of the question, have assumed that god either exists or doesn't exist, one or the other, when the overwhelming vast majority of observable reality strongly suggests it could be not one or the other, but both.

What the "god vs. no god" debate may reveal is that we are observing reality and analyzing reality with an information medium with an extremely strong built in bias for division distortion. If true, this seems very important to understand.

Consider the astronomer who has a speck of dirt on his telescope. As the astronomer observes the heavens with this telescope everywhere he looks he sees this mysterious huge object which never goes away. And so for centuries astronomers debate the nature of this huge ever present mystery object. The astronomers line up in to different camps, get their egos really engaged in their respective positions, and yell at each other for centuries....

Over nothing.

This is the kind of hilarious trouble one can get in to when one is not willing to understand the tools one is using to conduct one's investigations.

Whatever the properties of thought may be, those properties will have a profound influence on every investigation we conduct with the "telescope" of thought. Let's not be the lazy astronomer who can't be bothered to examine his lens for a speck of dirt.

 

[Curious George]

EM is the position that either A is true or it's negative is true, not neither true nor false. For the sake of the OP two view should be presented as axioms. God does not exist /discuss. God does exist /discuss. The example of space is also flawed as space has become a physical thing since General Relativity was accepted known as space-time.

Struggling to understand what you are driving at. Either god exists or god -exists. Is the a statement which if both were true simultaneously would violate the law of non contradiction. If we question whether it is possible that neither is true then we are questioning the excluded middle, because neither the statement nor its negative are true. I believe The question "is the statement 'god exists' neither true nor false entails the questions "is 'god exists' true, and "is 'god does not exist' true? However I could be quite mistaken, if so let me know.

 

[Typist]

Struggling to understand what you are driving at. Either god exists or god -exists. Is the a statement which if both were true simultaneously would violate the law of non contradiction. If we question whether it is possible that neither is true then we are questioning the excluded middle, because neither the statement nor its negative are true. I believe The question "is the statement 'god exists' neither true nor false entails the questions "is 'god exists' true, and "is 'god does not exist' true? However I could be quite mistaken, if so let me know.

We might observe how we are struggling to make reality comply with our human logic rules, instead of observing reality clearly without bias, and accepting it as it is.

1) Space is there.
2) It is nothing.
3) Space is the biggest part of reality BY FAR, as best we can tell.

Thus, it seems reasonable to propose the following possibilities for a god.

1) Exists
2) Doesn't exist
3) Both

If we had to pick one, it seems #3 would be the most likely answer, given that it most closely matches our observation of the real world, most of it anyway. Not proof for sure, but at least a reasonable guess.

If true, if a god could both exist and not exist too, that would render centuries of debate pointless, seriously denting many highly inflated egos on all sides, which forms another possible source of extreme bias we should be alert to.

Again, I urge readers to turn their attention to the tool, thought, which is being used to make the observations and do our calculations. Any distortion introduced by this tool could infect EVERYTHING it produces, so it's a rather big deal.

And a reminder, the word "tool" is a poor choice, as it implies there is some non-thought entity which is using thought, as a carpenter swings a hammer.

But there is no carpenter, we aren't using thought, we are thought.

This might explain why escaping any built-in distortion introduced by the properties of thought could be incredibly difficult, rendering us essentially blind to some aspects of reality. Hopefully the space example may shed some light on such a possibility.

 

[Curious George]

We might observe how we are struggling to make reality comply with our human logic rules, instead of observing reality clearly without bias, and accepting it as it is.

1) Space is there.
2) It is nothing.
3) Space is the biggest part of reality BY FAR, as best we can tell.

Thus, it seems reasonable to propose the following possibilities for a god.

1) Exists
2) Doesn't exist
3) Both

If we had to pick one, it seems #3 would be the most likely answer, given that it most closely matches our observation of the real world, most of it anyway. Not proof for sure, but at least a reasonable guess.

If true, if a god could both exist and not exist too, that would render centuries of debate pointless, seriously denting many highly inflated egos on all sides, which forms another possible source of extreme bias we should be alert to.

Again, I urge readers to turn their attention to the tool, thought, which is being used to make the observations and do our calculations. Any distortion introduced by this tool could infect EVERYTHING it produces, so it's a rather big deal.

And a reminder, the word "tool" is a poor choice, as it implies there is some non-thought entity which is using thought, as a carpenter swings a hammer.

But there is no carpenter, we aren't using thought, we are thought.

This might explain why escaping any built-in distortion introduced by the properties of thought could be incredibly difficult, rendering us essentially blind to some aspects of reality. Hopefully the space example may shed some light on such a possibility.

The space example is an equivocation still. My understanding of your post though is suggesting we think critically about how thought can color or limit our understanding of reality. I like the sentiment behind this. I believe that systems which tolerate non contradiction are developed by making the contradiction an axiom for the system. Is that what you are going for? Or are you trying to explode a system with an exception to non contradiction and then pick up the pieces? While systems can be non contradiction tolerant, we cannot have meaningful system without the law of noncontradiction. We can however have systems without the law of the excluded middle.

 

[Willamena]

This view violates the law of noncontradiction. Something can not exist and not exist as these are mutually exclusive views.

The law of non-contradiction is about propositions. The propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both be true in the same sense and way, but they can both be true.

 

[Curious George]

The law of non-contradiction is about propositions. The propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both be true in the same sense and way, but they can both be true.

I think that was his point, but what about contradiction tolerant models of paraconsistent logic? A contradiction can exist in some systems without exploding the system.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

We can however have systems without the law of the excluded middle.

My own predilection is for fuzzy logic, which is about reasoning with fuzzy sets, which does away with the law of the excluded middle. Fuzzy logic deals with traits, such as warmer and cooler, which can be partial and relative, rather than absolute temperatures, which are specific. In the set of things that are to some degree God-like, most things are only partially God-like: Gravity apparently operates everywhere in the universe, for example, and so is partially God-like. In that set of things that are to some degree God-like, there is only one thing that can be fully God-like--God. But there may be many things that are close to or somewhat God-like, but are not God. In that sense, the fuzzy-set sense, God can Exist and not Exist at the same time, because we are looking at shared/similar traits of entities, and not a sharply defined entities.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

He is the Ever-Living

 

[Vishvavajra]

2. Is flawed as the atoms and molecules which form the object we call glass does exist. Glass is just one of the many forms these atoms and molecules can take. It is a composition which we have named.

The existence of those molecules and atoms can be challenged in the very same way. At best they're all convenient designators that refer to collections of other things. Molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are made of quarks. There's no level of microscopic reality at which the essence of anything can be found. If anything, the smaller things get, the less reality resembles the illusion of solidity that we take for granted on the macroscopic level.

4. Is flawed for the same reason

On the contrary, it points out the problem of suggesting that something exists in an objective sense when the very category that is being said to exist or not is subjective to begin with.

Both are the reductionist fallacy.

Your Buddhism logic are not an example of a contradictions. It is the fallacy I pointed out above and word games.

Reductionism in this context is philosophical position, not a fallacy. There's no objective sense in which it can be refuted. Nobody denied that "glass" is a convenient designator with practical applications, but it's hard to defend the idea that it has some kind of essential existence. If it did, we wouldn't be able to take it apart (or rearrange its parts to be something other than "glass").

As for "word games," the problem of semantics is key to this question. If we can't even analyze what something is, then how can we determine whether it exists? Dodging that and pretending that these words have objective meaning amounts to dodging the entire question.

 

[Typist]

The space example is an equivocation still.

Ok, could you explain why please? I decided I should look up the word equivocation, and I found this:

"the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication."

Is that what you mean? If yes, perhaps you could highlight the ambiguous language you find problematic?

My understanding of your post though is suggesting we think critically about how thought can color or limit our understanding of reality. I like the sentiment behind this.

Ok cool, and yes, that's it. And I'm sure you'll see the problem here. By thinking critically we are using the very same process we are investigating, thus any distortions which may be introduced by thought will be introduced in to this investigation too.

I believe that systems which tolerate non contradiction are developed by making the contradiction an axiom for the system. Is that what you are going for? Or are you trying to explode a system with an exception to non contradiction and then pick up the pieces? While systems can be non contradiction tolerant, we cannot have meaningful system without the law of noncontradiction. We can however have systems without the law of the excluded middle.

My understanding of logic terminology does not match yours, apologies, so I'll try to explain "what I'm going for" with words I do understand.

Let's imagine you are trying to repair your car. You have a solution in mind and try to apply it. But it doesn't work. So you try again. Still no luck. Again and again you try, and no matter how much you try you're just not getting anywhere.

At some point you will step back from the job, and begin to suspect you are are operating from some unexamined assumption which is incorrect.

This is how I see god vs. no god inquiries. They've been going on for centuries, led by some of the brightest minds among us on all sides, and still nobody can prove anything. We are now in the process of doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein claimed is the definition of insanity. So it seems time to step back from the job and look for unexamined assumptions.

An assumption at the heart of the religious inquiry, agreed to by both theists and atheists, is the notion that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, come to a knowing, create a conceptual object which accurately reflects reality. Theists and atheists differ only in what answer they feel is most likely.

What if that assumption is incorrect? What if a search for an answer is not how this inquiry can best be advanced? If true, continuing to endlessly pound away on the same old conversations would seem pointless.

The space example may serve to illustrate that our search for answers to such enormous questions may be hopelessly doomed, due to limitations and distortions built in to the information medium, that we are.

1) If thought is inherently divisive in nature, it that is it's primary property...

2) And if reality is not a this or a that, but a single thing containing no divisions...

3) Then we are unlikely to fully grasp reality using thought.

By pointing to space I am attempting to offer a concrete and very large example of a phenomena which is neither a something, or a nothing, but both. The divisions between "exist" and "not exist" that thought desperately wants to impose on space simply aren't there.

Ok, that's too many words for now. Sorry, just trying to live up to my screen name. Over to you, your input is most welcomed.

 

[Typist]

I think that was his point, but what about contradiction tolerant models of paraconsistent logic? A contradiction can exist in some systems without exploding the system.

Respectfully to all, because this is hardly an easy topic...

Who cares about the system?

Logic systems were invented by human beings, a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a half insane species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, an ever pending self extinction event it rarely finds interesting enough to discuss. That's the author of all these logic systems, a suicidal species only recently living in caves, a species relentlessly destroying it's own niche.

Why should we be surprised if our logic systems can not accurately model reality??

 

[Curious George]

Respectfully to all, because this is hardly an easy topic...

Who cares about the system?

Logic systems were invented by human beings, a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a half insane species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, an ever pending self extinction event it rarely finds interesting enough to discuss. That's the author of all these logic systems, a suicidal species only recently living in caves, a species relentlessly destroying it's own niche.

Why should we be surprised if our logic systems can not accurately model reality??

Hmm logic systems are necessary to construct coherent and consistent communication. For instance, you say space. If we do not use a logical system then by space u could very well mean a collection of floating pink elephants.

While I love your colorful language, let us dissect it. What is a suicidal species? What is a planet? How can we k.is that we are talking about the same thing... Well logical systems. Systems are everywhere, and everything is part of a system. A system has parameters. We work within those parameters to find truth. If we go outside of those parameters we destroy the system. Consequently we cannot rely upon that system. So, though you speak about disregarding the system, that is fine (many have before you), to get rid of the system without replacing it leads to unintelligible thought, and certainly not communicable thought. Let us take the violation of non contradiction without setting up another system but leaving the classical system in place for language alone. You want to say god both exists and does not exist. Well that is fine and dandy, but can we say this is truth? Well in a system without non contradiction truth can equal not truth. So how are we going to prove such a statement? We are left without anything on which to rely. Sure you provide the space analogy. But let us go through your analogy. You say space is there; is it? Why is it there? How do we know it is there? Because matters take up space? Well without non contradiction matters can also not take up space. So because other matter is there doesn't mean we can assume space is there. But how do we even know other matter is there? Because we can feel it and see it? Well without the law of non contradiction we can also feel and see matter that is not there. So we can't even trust our senses in order to say space exists in the first place. This is what happens with an exploded system literally anything becomes possible and everything is speculation. Hopefully this is clear enough to understand why systems are necessary. We take certain things for granted because we have to in order to proceed (think Descartes and his whole I think therefore I am). If we don't take these steps to set up a system we literally get nowhere.

 

[Curious George]

Ok, could you explain why please? I decided I should look up the word equivocation, and I found this:

"the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication."

Is that what you mean? If yes, perhaps you could highlight the ambiguous language you find problematic?



Ok cool, and yes, that's it. And I'm sure you'll see the problem here. By thinking critically we are using the very same process we are investigating, thus any distortions which may be introduced by thought will be introduced in to this investigation too.



My understanding of logic terminology does not match yours, apologies, so I'll try to explain "what I'm going for" with words I do understand.

Let's imagine you are trying to repair your car. You have a solution in mind and try to apply it. But it doesn't work. So you try again. Still no luck. Again and again you try, and no matter how much you try you're just not getting anywhere.

At some point you will step back from the job, and begin to suspect you are are operating from some unexamined assumption which is incorrect.

This is how I see god vs. no god inquiries. They've been going on for centuries, led by some of the brightest minds among us on all sides, and still nobody can prove anything. We are now in the process of doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein claimed is the definition of insanity. So it seems time to step back from the job and look for unexamined assumptions.

An assumption at the heart of the religious inquiry, agreed to by both theists and atheists, is the notion that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, come to a knowing, create a conceptual object which accurately reflects reality. Theists and atheists differ only in what answer they feel is most likely.

What if that assumption is incorrect? What if a search for an answer is not how this inquiry can best be advanced? If true, continuing to endlessly pound away on the same old conversations would seem pointless.

The space example may serve to illustrate that our search for answers to such enormous questions may be hopelessly doomed, due to limitations and distortions built in to the information medium, that we are.

1) If thought is inherently divisive in nature, it that is it's primary property...

2) And if reality is not a this or a that, but a single thing containing no divisions...

3) Then we are unlikely to fully grasp reality using thought.

By pointing to space I am attempting to offer a concrete and very large example of a phenomena which is neither a something, or a nothing, but both. The divisions between "exist" and "not exist" that thought desperately wants to impose on space simply aren't there.

Ok, that's too many words for now. Sorry, just trying to live up to my screen name. Over to you, your input is most welcomed.

First the equivocation thing: you are trying to point to an example of simultaneously something and nothing. I understand that. But you are switching the meaning. Which is the equivocation. So if nothing is not something. Space cannot be simultaneously nothing and something. Let us define something as things that are Able to be observed by the senses. You cannot touch space, you cannot see space, you cannot feel space and you cannot hear space, you cannot taste space. Therefore space is not something. In order to make space something let us define something as anything upon which the fundamental forces act in a measurable manner. Since gravity acts upon not just matter but also the space which matter occupies space is now something. Going with this latter definition we say space is something. In order to say space is nothing we switch back to the first definition. We have created an ambiguity with language by switching the definitions in order to try to say that space is both nothing and something. If we keep the same definition the whole way through which the law of non contradiction demands we see that space is not both but rather either something or not something. The reason we cannot change definitions is because we are talking about a specific thing when we say x=a if we switch a to b part way through we have not shown that x=a and simultaneously x=-a but rather we have shown x=a and x=b. If we are trying to prove x=a and x=-a showing that x=b does nothing for this effort.

 

[Curious George]

Ok cool, and yes, that's it. And I'm sure you'll see the problem here. By thinking critically we are using the very same process we are investigating, thus any distortions which may be introduced by thought will be introduced in to this investigation too.



My understanding of logic terminology does not match yours, apologies, so I'll try to explain "what I'm going for" with words I do understand.

Let's imagine you are trying to repair your car. You have a solution in mind and try to apply it. But it doesn't work. So you try again. Still no luck. Again and again you try, and no matter how much you try you're just not getting anywhere.

At some point you will step back from the job, and begin to suspect you are are operating from some unexamined assumption which is incorrect.

This is how I see god vs. no god inquiries. They've been going on for centuries, led by some of the brightest minds among us on all sides, and still nobody can prove anything. We are now in the process of doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein claimed is the definition of insanity. So it seems time to step back from the job and look for unexamined assumptions.

An assumption at the heart of the religious inquiry, agreed to by both theists and atheists, is the notion that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, come to a knowing, create a conceptual object which accurately reflects reality. Theists and atheists differ only in what answer they feel is most likely.

What if that assumption is incorrect? What if a search for an answer is not how this inquiry can best be advanced? If true, continuing to endlessly pound away on the same old conversations would seem pointless.

The space example may serve to illustrate that our search for answers to such enormous questions may be hopelessly doomed, due to limitations and distortions built in to the information medium, that we are.

1) If thought is inherently divisive in nature, it that is it's primary property...

2) And if reality is not a this or a that, but a single thing containing no divisions...

3) Then we are unlikely to fully grasp reality using thought.

Ok, that's too many words for now. Sorry, just trying to live up to my screen name. Over to you, your input is most welcomed.

"If you only have a hammer you tend to see everything as a nail"

If you are proposing the third of these in a more assertive fashion that we cannot understand reality, then we are screwed, because understanding entails thought.

We only have thought to understand reality. We cannot step back and find another tool. Sure we can go all touchy-feely metaphysical and come up with words like "heart or intuition" but these phrases ultimately describe mental processes. There is no other tool for discovery or understanding beyond thought. All other actions are compulsory (many argue thought is compulsory). If however we can account for the decisive nature of thought and adjust accordingly we can understand reality. This is the practice in which many engage. They critically analyze thoughts and try to distill Truth. If it is possible it will be done perhaps it already has been done. Regarding concepts of oneness perhaps you would enjoy learning about Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. However while you proposed worthwhile critical thought, let me propose one to you. What if the next time we smash our head against the wall we finally breakthrough? Sure we may be a little crazy but does whether we ever come to an answer or agreement regarding the issue of whether god exists or not really matter for our suicidal species on this lonely speck of space in this infinitely small time?