Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[Willamena]

Its existing which is every objects default property. It is being some specific object which I s not default and requires an observer. Without an observer everything is just being.

It's debatable if existence is property. Rather, properties exist.

 

[`mud]

How about twisthiest !
~
'mud

 

[MagickIsChaos]

I believe that all souls make up an oversoul and similar thoughts within this oversoul created reality therefore the thought of individuality caused the individual but seeming as many believe in something it can make it true in this created "reality" however that would not make a god exist in the first but it could make it where a similar entity exists right now. The subconscious is better at this than the conciseness (explaining magick) and the more that reinforce this idea the more powerful it is (explaining why ceremony Magick is so effective) our subconscious knows what is going on but it seems that the more aware we are of this "reality" the more set in stone it is.

So in shortIi believe that Zoroastrianism started this being's development and it then developed into Kabbalah, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However it is just a glorified thought form it has no more power than we give it or let it have.

 

[`mud]

I repeat.....twistheist
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

I do go along with the chaotic aspect though,
kinda like the Cosmos, or these threads !
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I repeat.....twistheist
~'mud

Mistheist?

 

[`mud]

'mud

 

[Salek Atesh]

So if I wanted to be both atheist and theist what would I call myself? Ortheist? Northeist?

Taoist. Lol.

 

[Typist]

I am an anti-ism-ist!

 

[RedDragon94]

And so we might take a few steps back from the routine of debating the "exist or not?" question, and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

Do you know of any examples of a thing that does exist and does not exist at the same time? If you're speaking about something like time travel I would say that falls into the category of science fiction. Now if we were to put God into that category I would just have one question. (And maybe this is off topic, sorry!) What is the origin of the people group called the Jews? If God only exists in our minds then he wouldn't be much of a God in the first place, and the Jewish people are evidence that an actual spirit being helped them. If God only exists in the mind then what does this mean about our evolution? Is it uncaused?

 

[Shad]

I wasn't talking about God, but about existence.

Existence is purely the ability to distinguish a object from it's environment/background.

And no, I don't doubt it.

That's debatable.

Our ability to detect distinction between an object and it's background is debatable, not existence.

It has to do with my comments.

The argument is addressing a point never about the issue you are addressing.





That consciousness exists isn't at issue.[/QUOTE]

Because the tools available only leave two options. Yay or Nay.

 

[Shad]

Me too. Logic. The invention of a single half insane species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Is logic useful for very many things? Yes, proven beyond doubt. Are the rules of logic binding everywhere in all of reality? Not proven at all. Logic says a thing can not both exist and not exist and yet arguably space, the vast majority of reality, does just that.

Logic must be binding as logic reflect reality. Logic, like religion and math, is built on accept axioms one of which being logic is applicable at all times. I have already addressed space, it exists, it follow General Relativity and experience prove space is a physical property of the universe. Your point about space is invalid and unsound thus is a flaw in your argument.

Rejection is based on something, a reference to an authority of some kind. If a fundamentalist Christian rejects gay marriage, they are doing so by referencing their chosen authority, probably the Bible. By trying to sell their point of view they are making a claim that their chosen authority is qualified for the subject at hand. If that claim can not be proven, they are operating from faith.



If this person has a very deep and sincere yet unexamined faith in their chosen authority, they may not realize they are making a claim, as they may take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given. This is often the case with many atheists, they may believe without questioning that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, and thus they sincerely don't realize that they are making a counter claim when they reject religious beliefs, or at least when they try to sell their rejection.

Which brings us back to this. Even though this inquiry has been searching for The Answer for thousands of years, we are still in a position where all claimed answers from every side can be successfully challenged. If one should listen to that huge pile of evidence, the theist vs. atheist debate begins to fall away, as it starts to become clear that debate serves no useful purpose beyond entertainment.

The issue in my opinion is on the theist side. It is the fractured concept of God in comparison to scriptures/religious views which are the issue. The atheist is just one pointing out that theist have failed to provide a unified concept. The dialogue between the two is entertainment but the fundamental view of the atheist is not

Nor any proof that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, the scope of the god proposal. And without such proof, a lack of evidence means little. If the rules of poker can not be shown to be binding in all of reality, then the fact that some God idea violates a poker rule is of little use to us.

It is proven all the time by individuals, groups by scientists and philosophers. Again all your are doing is providing a double-standard to hide behind, sorry.

I can see you are intent on participating in a theist vs. atheist debate. As you can see by now, I'm neither a theist or an atheist, and see little evidence that debate is going anywhere. I'm not arguing against the theist or atheist position so much as I am arguing against the contest between them. In other words, I am a party pooper. But given all my too many words, perhaps I am more accurately labeled a Fundamentalist Party Pooper.

I rarely take part in the debt since the debt is mostly theists rehashing the same arguments while being obvious to the rebuttals which are taught in philosophy right after the proof argument is provided. My discussion about athiesm is merely to define the difference between positive/hard and soft/negative atheism. My comments were about the errors I see you making. The difference between faith and trust per my religious example.

If we discard a search for The Answer, we no longer need evidence. However we may need evidence that discarding such a search is the best course of action.

Never suggested we should stop. What I am suggesting is that the attempts to ignore logic and reason is just a double-standard due to the inability of the theist to provide logical proof or evidence of their answer. There are other answers if not as complete of one religion provides.

This is of course a leading argument for God. Sorry, cheap shot, my bad.

It was just an example of using rational empiricist view point, nothing more.

Yes, imho, this is pretty much the situation for both committed theists and atheists. There is a strong need for some authority which can be trusted, something which can be relied on, a rule book to follow, an answer. And thus, participants may choose to ignore the fact that the qualifications of their chosen authority have not been proven.

Depends on the authority. Some forms of authority cover a scope well beyond a narrow authority of X religion. Logic and philosophy is just such a field.

Assuming that the beliefs they derive from their chosen authority aren't hurting anybody else, and are enhancing their own lives, such a faith based operation can be considered reasonable, if not meeting the highest most ideal standards of investigation procedure. Life is short, life can be hard, everybody gets through however they can.

An issue is how is believing in a falsehood beneficial beyond a placebo effect? This is flawed thinking as it allows delusions to be valid but also one can take the grounds we should not treat such illnesses since it harms no one. An issue is how can the person in question evaluate the harm their own delusions causes if there mind is already in a delusional states or allows flawed thinking. Is hearing a voice in one's head beneficial/harmless? Is it only this way until the voice influences a person to negative acts? I put forward to such allowance are harmful as a state of being and as a method of valid thought.

It appears my primary need is to keep the keyboard keys a clacking, to trumpet the glorious sound of my own little voice throughout the nerdosphere, for I am Typist.

I should try to type more clearly, for we are talking past each other to a degree. You wish to participate in a theist/atheist debate it seems, while my goal is to discard what I see to be a proven failed process in order to continue the age old inquiry by hopefully more promising methods. But this is just a goal, not a demand, and Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.

Well, we're on page five already, and there hasn't been a big shootout among participants yet. Good for us, free beers for everybody!

No I am merely proposing your need to discuss possible answers and methods of discovering these answers could be an overriding facet of yourself. Food for thought so to speak


Sorry for the delayed replies. I am enjoying my 3 weeks off of teaching until the summer semester starts. I am using the time for prolonged "brain draining/dumping" but as religion is part of the courses I teach. So coming back to this topic can be counter-productive. My posts will pick up during the last week of April as I begin setting up course loads again.

Do not consider my comments about theism vs atheism but as one opposed to the idea that logic is flawed. I am just trying to communicate this views. By doing so I am pointing out how you have not provided any new method as of yet. No new principles, axioms, laws, etc.

 

[Typist]

Do you know of any examples of a thing that does exist and does not exist at the same time?

Um, yep, see opening post.

 

[Typist]

Hi again Shad,

Logic must be binding as logic reflect reality.

This is a matter of faith, as it can not be proven. And I feel we have reached a point where I should accept and respect your faith as I try to do with the religiously faithful. A wise sentiment I will now probably completely ignore, not being wise myself.

Again all your are doing is providing a double-standard to hide behind, sorry.

It's hardly a double standard to request that all parties to the debate prove the qualifications of their chosen authority.

What I am suggesting is that the attempts to ignore logic and reason is just a double-standard due to the inability of the theist to provide logical proof or evidence of their answer.

Before we require the theist to provide logical proof and evidence, we first have to prove that logical proof and evidence are binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality. Once it becomes clear this can not be done, the theist vs. atheist debate comes tumbling to the ground. The theists don't win, the atheists don't win, and everybody is likely thus disappointed.

No I am merely proposing your need to discuss possible answers and methods of discovering these answers could be an overriding facet of yourself. Food for thought so to speak

Oh I don't need to think about that one, as it is most clearly true. And as a Fundamentalist Agnostic, I believe I have found the answer. Nobody knows.

Sorry for the delayed replies. I am enjoying my 3 weeks off of teaching until the summer semester starts.

No problem at all, breaks are good, I'm about to take one myself.

Do not consider my comments about theism vs atheism but as one opposed to the idea that logic is flawed.

I understand. My point is not that logic is flawed, it is clearly very useful. My point is that logic, like everything else, is limited. It's not infinite in scope. It's not a god.

By doing so I am pointing out how you have not provided any new method as of yet. No new principles, axioms, laws, etc.

I agree my contributions in that direction have been limited, by design. It's not warranted to try to offer new methods when readers are convinced beyond all doubt that the methods they already have are entirely adequate. Should they come to a different conclusion on that, should they really actually be looking for new methods on their own, that might be an appropriate moment to try to offer one.

If a reader feels the theist vs. atheist merry-go-round is going somewhere other than around and around in a tiny stationary circle, they'll be unwilling to jump off.

 

[vos]

better hope he exists cuz if he doesn't the worlds' gone

 

[RedDragon94]

Um, yep, see opening post.

Okay, so we know that there is a void outside of our atmosphere, so the void exists. There are also other planetary structures that exist within the void, so at the same time that the empty spaces of space are void we know that the cosmos is full of all kinds of beauty. So in a way space is not completely empty. Therefore space is an entity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

1 and 0

Yeah, in two separate equations.

In the same equation, X can't be both numbers. 1^2=0 makes no sense

 

[Godobeyer]

Philosophical discussions on the topic of religion often revolve around a central question, does a God exist, or not?

It's perhaps interesting to observe that those on both sides of this question seem to accept the dualistic, yes/no, on/off, exist/not exist nature of this question without complaint.

If the question "does God exist?" is itself flawed, then it seems all discussion arising from that question would also be inherently flawed, rendering all arguments pro and con, for and against, to be perhaps essentially meaningless.

And so we might take a few steps back from the routine of debating the "exist or not?" question, and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

If this is possible that may mean that theists and atheists are both right, and wrong as well. Such an outcome would totally spoil the debate game of course, but those concerned primarily with advancing understanding have no reason to fear that.

And so we proceed to the question of evidence. Is there compelling evidence of anything that could both exist and not exist, at the same time?

I ask all this because it has recently occurred to me that the overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

I am referring of course to space.

There certainly is space between the Earth and Moon, that space is there, or the Earth and Moon would be one thing. But that space is defined as an empty void, a nothing. It exists, and yet doesn't exist, at the same time.

If one feels that one's point of view should be grounded in observation of observable reality, we can observe the seemingly impossible to be a dominant characteristic of reality.

Weird, huh?

why going out of space
could someone touch his own brain in seperate position with his body ?

 

[`mud]

hey Typist,
I think you're confusing 'void' and 'space' as the same thing.
'Space' is the bath in which that the Cosmos exists, planets, moons, suns, stars, meteors, and whole galaxies.
'Void' is thought to be outside of the present inflation of the expanding Cosmos.
It is thought to have happened when the original big bang was created by something, maybe God.
But.....'Space' is not a 'void'.
~
P.S. I don't believe the single singularity ever happened,
nor do I believe in the big bang theory.
~
There have been many, many "big bangs", and resulting singularities,
the Cosmos is like a large pop-corn popper, never stops, never really started !
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

Philosophical discussions on the topic of religion often revolve around a central question, does a God exist, or not?

It's perhaps interesting to observe that those on both sides of this question seem to accept the dualistic, yes/no, on/off, exist/not exist nature of this question without complaint.

If the question "does God exist?" is itself flawed, then it seems all discussion arising from that question would also be inherently flawed, rendering all arguments pro and con, for and against, to be perhaps essentially meaningless.

And so we might take a few steps back from the routine of debating the "exist or not?" question, and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

If this is possible that may mean that theists and atheists are both right, and wrong as well. Such an outcome would totally spoil the debate game of course, but those concerned primarily with advancing understanding have no reason to fear that.

And so we proceed to the question of evidence. Is there compelling evidence of anything that could both exist and not exist, at the same time?

I ask all this because it has recently occurred to me that the overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

I am referring of course to space.

There certainly is space between the Earth and Moon, that space is there, or the Earth and Moon would be one thing. But that space is defined as an empty void, a nothing. It exists, and yet doesn't exist, at the same time.

If one feels that one's point of view should be grounded in observation of observable reality, we can observe the seemingly impossible to be a dominant characteristic of reality.

Weird, huh?

Yes, nothing and something existing simultaneously in a void of nothingness which is something is much more likely than my theism.