Does God exist?

[PolyHedral]

If subtracting everything and nothing nets you 'the entire universe and nothing at all' then I don't think you've succeeded in the first step.

Then what strange version of "subtraction" are you using? Because any sensible version I can think of says that taking away nothing gives the thing you started with, and taking away what you started with leaves you with nothing.

Ooh, but it's an issue of free will. Is that you in there ('knock, knock' on skull) doing things, or is it just the universe at play?

Both.

 

[Storm]

Hi, folks. Been out of commission for a while, so forgive me for not reading the entire 23-page thread.

This thread is to debate the question of the existence of God.
I hope we can have reasoned, civilized conversation about this important issue.

So:
Does God exist?

I am convinced it does. That said, I am also convinced that the ONLY good reason to believe is personal experience. Without that, agnosticism/ weak atheism is the only logical choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you rephrase the question?

If it doesn't make sense to you, then it might be more useful to for you to rephrase your previous answer.

Here's my take on our last bit of conversation:

- you said: "God" (by some images of "God") is what is left when you subtract everything and nothing from the universe.
- I asked how this is an image of God.
- you responded with: It is an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond').

This implies, AFAICT, that "what is left when you subtract everything and nothing from the universe" is an image of God because "t is an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond')." IOW, it implies that "an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond')" is an image of God.

If this is what you're trying to suggest, I'd like to know how you think this works.

If it's not what you're trying to suggest, then I don't see what bearing your previous reply has on the discussion.

 

[Willamena]

Then what strange version of "subtraction" are you using? Because any sensible version I can think of says that taking away nothing gives the thing you started with, and taking away what you started with leaves you with nothing.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a matter of taking away "the thing you started with" and nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example?

Again, I find it hard to believe that a human can display absolute control over anything, however limited. I mean, even our hamsters escape.

Yes, because our absolute control is limited.

I think that limited absolute control (as you imply when you say "absolute control over some aspect of reality") really just implies limited control, full stop. It's like that cologne from the movie Anchorman (I think it was Anchorman): "70% of the time, it works every time"... this is just another way of saying that it works 70% of the time.

For example?

Zeus: he doesn't kill people with his thoughts, he strikes them down with lightning bolts.

Do you have a different qualifier in mind that would work?

I already gave my definition of "god" a couple pages back. Here it is:

A god is an entity "above" humanity, usually considered to be (but not necessarily) conscious, intelligent and personal, who is believed in and worshipped by human beings.

Based on the discussion since then, I might be willing to include the criteria that a god has (or perhaps had) some sort of control over some aspect of natural reality.

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a matter of taking away "the thing you started with" and nothing.

Sorry, I'm not a quantum mechanic. One operation at a time, please.

Unless you have a coherent idea of what "the thing you started with and nothing" is?

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, because our absolute control is limited.

I think that limited absolute control (as you imply when you say "absolute control over some aspect of reality") really just implies limited control, full stop. It's like that cologne from the movie Anchorman (I think it was Anchorman): "70% of the time, it works every time"... this is just another way of saying that it works 70% of the time.

But that's not quite the same: if you had absolute control over the working of the cologne, it would work 100% of the time (if that's what you wanted). The limited simply refers to your domain: cologne. Within that domain, you must have absolute control.

Zeus: he doesn't kill people with his thoughts, he strikes them down with lightning bolts.

And how does he create the lightning bolts?

I already gave my definition of "god" a couple pages back. Here it is:

Based on the discussion since then, I might be willing to include the criteria that a god has (or perhaps had) some sort of control over some aspect of natural reality.

What exactly does "above humanity" mean? I take it to mean "greater power" or "control".

 

[PolyHedral]

And how does he create the lightning bolts?

By increasing the potential difference between the clouds and the ground?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's not quite the same: if you had absolute control over the working of the cologne, it would work 100% of the time (if that's what you wanted). The limited simply refers to your domain: cologne. Within that domain, you must have absolute control.

What if my domain is "the cologne... some of the time"?

And how does he create the lightning bolts?

I don't know; does it matter?

What exactly does "above humanity" mean? I take it to mean "greater power" or "control".

It could be, but I was keeping it general. All I meant was that in whatever hierarchy exists, whatever it is, a god is higher than a human being.

I think that we would get into difficulty if we defined a god to be in control of humanity, since that might conflict with certain religions' idea of free will.

 

[Willamena]

IOW, it implies that "an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond')" is an image of God.

Right. (It doesn't imply it, though, it states it.)

If this is what you're trying to suggest, I'd like to know how you think this works.

There you go; now you've rephrased the question.

It works for me. j/k

(Edit: I'll answer later. In the middle of a pillage right now.)

 

[Autodidact]

I beg your pardon, but I highly doubt you have absolute control over anything, even yourself.

Although, if it helps, Copernicus did add the qualifier: " By "control", I mean that the god can manipulate that aspect of reality merely by willing a change to happen."

That's interesting. I would call that "magical power." So a god is a being with absolute magical power over some aspect of reality? Anyone like that definition?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi, folks. Been out of commission for a while, so forgive me for not reading the entire 23-page thread.


I am convinced it does. That said, I am also convinced that the ONLY good reason to believe is personal experience. Without that, agnosticism/ weak atheism is the only logical choice.

Doesn't this lead to a strong possibility of error. When the only experiential evidence is personal experience, isn't it just as likely to be a delusion or even hallucination?

 

[Storm]

Doesn't this lead to a strong possibility of error. When the only experiential evidence is personal experience, isn't it just as likely to be a delusion or even hallucination?

It's far from perfect, but I genuinely believe it's all we've got.

I've never heard a compelling argument for or against. There's no evidence, either way (unless you count the mountains of anecdotal evidence in favor, but you just handily pointed out the problem with that. ). We can't even agree on what "God" means!

So, what else are we left with? There's not one opinion on God on the face of the earth that's anything more than that: opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never heard a compelling argument for or against. There's no evidence, either way (unless you count the mountains of anecdotal evidence in favor, but you just handily pointed out the problem with that. ). We can't even agree on what "God" means!

I personally think there are ways of looking at the issue that certainly suggest (IMO) that God is at least irrelevant:

- non-theistic worldviews and mental models can have very good agreement with the world and what we observe.

Note: I recognize that theists will probably say the same thing about their mental models of the world. However, if changing an initially assumed factor (e.g. the existence of God) doesn't make the model any better or worse, then we can safely say that this factor can be ignored because it doesn't affect what we observe.

- IMO, there are good arguments against the idea that humanity has knowledge of God .

These two points exclude most of the popular conceptions of god(s). All that's left is some concept of god that has zero or negligible effect on anything we observe and that humanity has no knowledge of. Could such an entity, if it exists, be rightly called a "god"? Not by my definition of "god", but I suppose by some definitions of the word, it might be. But does such a "god" matter to us? Not at all.


As for the evidence you mention, I personally do take some stock in it... like the old joke goes, the plural of "anecdote" is "data". It is evidence for something... but evidence for what? Just because people attribute various experiences to god(s) doesn't mean that they're correct (or even necessarily justified) in doing so.

 

[Storm]

I personally think there are ways of looking at the issue that certainly suggest (IMO) that God is at least irrelevant:

That wasn't the question, though. I'd be inclined to agree with the statement "God is irrelevant." Even assuming that some form of God exists, it obviously isn't putting much effort into getting us to believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't the question, though.

Not exactly, but it has a bearing on the original question. An irrelevant god is a god that no religion preaches and no person believes in. It's one that nobody has any knowledge of whatsoever. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that such a god exists. There's not even any reason to hypothesize that it might exist.

 

[Storm]

An irrelevant god is a god that no religion preaches and no person believes in.

I think "irrelevant" is a fair description of my God, actually. One premise down.

It's one that nobody has any knowledge of whatsoever.

Non sequitur. The position that God isn't micromanaging the universe in no way implies that it can't be known.

There is absolutely no reason to conclude that such a god exists. There's not even any reason to hypothesize that it might exist.

Sure there is: personal experience (my original answer).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Non sequitur. The position that God isn't micromanaging the universe in no way implies that it can't be known.

The position that God has no perceivable or measurable effect on the universe whatsoever does imply that it can't be known. This is what I'm suggesting, and that's what I mean when I say that God is irrelevant.

I would not call your beliefs (to the extent that I know them) belief in an irrelevant god.

 

[Storm]

The position that God has no perceivable or measurable effect on the universe whatsoever does imply that it can't be known. This is what I'm suggesting.

That's not what ir/relevant means, though.

1. having direct bearing on the matter in hand; pertinent

IOW, rainbows are utterly irrelevant to my life. That has no bearing on the question of their existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what ir/relevant means, though.

1. having direct bearing on the matter in hand; pertinent

Yes, and I'm saying that God (actual God, as opposed to people's beliefs about God) does not have any bearing on any matter.

IOW, rainbows are utterly irrelevant to my life. That has no bearing on the question of their existence.

You really feel that way? Rainbows don't have much relevance to my life, but they do have some relevance occasionally.

Edit: and the question of the existence is part of the point I was trying to make. Strictly speaking, I don't (and can't) exclude the possibility that there exists in some corner of the universe unknown to humanity some sort of supernatural entity that a person, if he knew about it, might be inclined to call a god. But I do make the point that we don't even have the first reason to hypothesize that such a creature even exists. I also make the point that since (IMO) one of the prerequisites for calling a thing "god" is that it's the focus of human worship, then such an entity would not be a god.