Does God exist?

[Storm]

God must be logically consistent.

I wouldn't go that far. Logic is a human system for human functioning.

I would agree, however, that God-concepts should be logically consistent. Logic may or may not be universal, but it's all we got.

 

[Walkntune]

I have never once heard anyone but you say that God is what remains when you subtract everything and nothing from the universe.

So far, I don't even think it's a logically coherent idea.

Actually I believe God is the substance that holds all existence together and sustains life.
I believe just as the cells in our body are self correcting so is the universe as it tries to keep us in line as we become resistant. I believe this is what morality and instinctual behaviours evolve from.Everything is under the same laws in this huge ball of energy called the Universe.

 

[PolyHedral]

Purely of curiosity (not that I do not believe "God" is logically inconsistent or anything), why?

Also, what part of God must be logically consistent? Attributes, personality, nature (if the Divine has any of these), all of them, other things?

All of it, and if God isn't consistent, then you can't assume that the rest of the universe is consistent either. I'll explain why this is a bad thing in a moment.

I wouldn't go that far. Logic is a human system for human functioning.

I had this discussion with Meow Mix, and it didn't go very well. Have a look here from post #70 onwards. It's true that logic is a human system, but a logically inconsistent God/universe is both incoherent and impossible. (Because, among other things, you can prove that God/universe doesn't exist. ) The whole idea of "truth" hands in its resignation, and you're left with... well, nothing.

 

[Storm]

All of it, and if God isn't consistent, then you can't assume that the rest of the universe is consistent either. I'll explain why this is a bad thing in a moment.


I had this discussion with Meow Mix, and it didn't go very well. Have a look here from post #70 onwards. It's true that logic is a human system, but a logically inconsistent God/universe is both incoherent and impossible. (Because, among other things, you can prove that God/universe doesn't exist. ) The whole idea of "truth" hands in its resignation, and you're left with... well, nothing.

Well, I disagree, but I understand if you don't want to rehash.

 

[PolyHedral]

(from xkcd)

That is why the universe must be consistent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I disagree, but I understand if you don't want to rehash.

The way I see it, reality is consistent with itself. Are gods part of reality? If they exist, then yes.

 

[Storm]

The way I see it, reality is consistent with itself. Are gods part of reality? If they exist, then yes.

Oh, I agree with that. I just don't agree that reality must be consistent with our models. Not saying that it isn't, either.

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that in this usage, the term "God" is entirely useless. In meaning anything and everything, apparently, it means nothing.

It doesn't mean anything or nothing. It just means god.

I disagree. Just because part of the definition of "image" isn't testable doesn't make it not part of the image. You may not be able to confirm that any image does relate to its object, but this doesn't mean that it's valid to start calling something the "image of" an object when you know that it has no relationship to it at all.

I seem to have thrown you some sort of red herring, because your response doesn't seem to me to follow what I'd said. Suffice it to say that I do mean that an image does relate to its object --it is the understanding we have of that object.

And you don't see any need to make a distinction between your imagination and the real world?

Not sure where "imagination" entered the conversation, though it's not entirely unrelated to the topic. Let me ask you this: how would you distinguish between your understanding of the world and the real world --including your understanding that this distinction is necessary?

I have never once heard anyone but you say that God is what remains when you subtract everything and nothing from the universe.

Okay.

So far, I don't even think it's a logically coherent idea.

Probably not. Especially as 'logical coherence' is something.

From my point of view, my existence is axiomatic. Nobody else's existence is "an utterly necessary and essential part of the picture"... not my picture, anyhow.

Yours is the only one that should matter to you in this regard.

 

[Willamena]

God must be logically consistent.

If you say so.

 

[Willamena]

...but a logically inconsistent God/universe is both incoherent and impossible.

Despite all contradictions, the world still exists. (Go figure.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I seem to have thrown you some sort of red herring, because your response doesn't seem to me to follow what I'd said. Suffice it to say that I do mean that an image does relate to its object --it is the understanding we have of that object.

That's precisely what I'm trying to say, but it seems to me that your last post argued the opposite.

Not sure where "imagination" entered the conversation, though it's not entirely unrelated to the topic.

You talked about "the mental entity and an objective reality, with no necessary distinction". Imagination refers to a mental entity that does not relate to objective reality. If you make no distinction between the mental entity and an objective reality, then you're making no distinction between imagination and the real world.

Let me ask you this: how would you distinguish between your understanding of the world and the real world --including your understanding that this distinction is necessary?

By testing that understanding. By making predictions about the real world and seeing whether or not they're correct.

Probably not. Especially as 'logical coherence' is something.

And you don't see this as a problem?

Yours is the only one that should matter to you in this regard.

So the existence of God is not axiomatic in the only frame of reference that should matter to me. There is no reason to assume by default that God exists.

 

[Willamena]

You talked about "the mental entity and an objective reality, with no necessary distinction". Imagination refers to a mental entity that does not relate to objective reality. If you make no distinction between the mental entity and an objective reality, then you're making no distinction between imagination and the real world.

Ah, I see. I was talking about the mental entity "image," though, which does relate to objective reality in that it is our understanding of objects. (It is composed by the same faculty that paints imagination, but uses as its brush "truth".)

By testing that understanding. By making predictions about the real world and seeing whether or not they're correct.

But wouldn't each test result in you understanding the world? So in testing "your understanding," you arrive at "your understanding".

And you don't see this as a problem?

Only if what I said earlier about what to subtract is ignored.

So the existence of God is not axiomatic in the only frame of reference that should matter to me. There is no reason to assume by default that God exists.

Right. I assume you don't hold an image of "God" (don't understand god). Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, I see. I was talking about the mental entity "image," though, which does relate to objective reality in that it is our understanding of objects. (It is composed by the same faculty that paints imagination, but uses as its brush "truth".)

I'm not sure I get your intended meaning.

But wouldn't each test result in you understanding the world? So in testing "your understanding," you arrive at "your understanding".

But it would be a different understanding. It would have changed since the point at which you asked me to distinguish my understanding from reality, so it couldn't have been the one you asked me to distinguish it.

My understanding yesterday plus my experiences of today is not equivalent to my understanding yesterday.

Only if what I said earlier about what to subtract is ignored.

No, it's still a problem. If the "everything and nothing" that you're subtracting includes things like the concept of logical coherence, then it presumably includes other things... such as the concepts of meaning or identity. At that point, you can no longer rightly call what's left "God", because you can no longer rightly call anything anything.

Right. I assume you don't hold an image of "God" (don't understand god). Right?

I wouldn't say that. I hold plenty of images of "God" ("God as metaphor", for instance).

 

[PolyHedral]

Despite all contradictions, the world still exists. (Go figure.)

What contradictions? I mean, it'd be rather worrying if there was a contradiction in physics. :areyoucra

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure I get your intended meaning.

Our images compose the world-as-we-know-it. The world-as-we-know-it is the sum our understanding it --our worldview.

But it would be a different understanding. It would have changed since the point at which you asked me to distinguish my understanding from reality, so it couldn't have been the one you asked me to distinguish it.

My understanding yesterday plus my experiences of today is not equivalent to my understanding yesterday.

Understanding happens now. Not yesterday, not a minute or a second ago. Now. The world-as-we-know-it is here, now.

No, it's still a problem. If the "everything and nothing" that you're subtracting includes things like the concept of logical coherence...

Those are part of everything.

...then it presumably includes other things... such as the concepts of meaning or identity.

No. Everything. Subtract meaning, identity, everything. Even (the very meaningful and identified) nothing.

At that point, you can no longer rightly call what's left "God", because you can no longer rightly call anything anything.

Yes! Finally, we're approaching god. "God" cannot be said to be anything or nothing. Yet, the world remains.

The Tao that is spoken is not the eternal Tao.

I wouldn't say that. I hold plenty of images of "God" ("God as metaphor", for instance).

Or are those concepts of "God"? We understand (hold an image of) concepts, just as we hold an image of everything else in the world.

 

[Willamena]

What contradictions? I mean, it'd be rather worrying if there was a contradiction in physics. :areyoucra

Contradictions are a priori.

 

[PolyHedral]

Contradictions are a priori.

What do you mean?

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean?

Physics isn't affected by it, any more than it is by logic.

 

[PolyHedral]

But physics is mathematics, which is part of logic. Any universe containing a logical contradiction can't exist, otherwise all sorts of things break.

 

[Willamena]

But physics is mathematics, which is part of logic. Any universe containing a logical contradiction can't exist, otherwise all sorts of things break.

'Contradiction' is a conclusion. When we encounter a contradiction, we set out to figure out what we did wrong, not why the universe is broken.