God as a Mental concept

[Beaudreaux]

Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing, people usually just say "Oh you just don't understand" which I don't disagree with, but I wish they would help me understand by giving me a clear definition of god. it's really quite frustrating

Anyway, does anyone else believe that god makes perfect sense as a conceptual idea and much less sense in the aspects of actually existing?

God makes no sense either as a physical being OR a mental aspect. The mental paradoxes that naturally arise out of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, invisible being are numerous and nontrivial.

 

[Beaudreaux]

"God" is as much a mental concept as "mental concept" is a mental concept.

And everything else.

What a concept!

 

[Beaudreaux]

I would agree that God is a mental concept, but what do we experience isn't? How can we experience anything without it being a mental concept, and how is something being in our heads difference from something outside our heads when our heads (inside and all) appear (appear) to be inextricably a part of the outside?

In other words, where do we draw the line between concept and non-concept when we first have to conceptualize non-concept?

Empirical, shareable data.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The OP, I think, takes for granted that we all have notions of "God." By calling these notions "mental", I think the OP is arguing that it makes more sense to think of our having these notions in nonrealistic ways. That is, we don't have these notions because we encounter an actual being "out there" that is God. Rather, we have various other psychological experiences and on the basis of them form beliefs in God. But the psychological experiences themselves are not caused by any such being as God. They might be caused by myriad other causes: lack of food, undigested beef, following certain religious practices such as prayer, fasting, chanting.... But those practices and experiences don't put us in touch with God. Rather, they provide us with experiences that we interpret as coming from God. And it would be better for us to realize this than to wallow in the ignorant assumption that our concepts of God answer to anything in the real world.

At least, I think that's what the OP means.

That's what I took it to mean. I still maintain that God makes no sense whether a concept or a reality.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's what I took it to mean. I still maintain that God makes no sense whether a concept or a reality.

What do you mean "makes no sense"? In what sense does it make no sense (if that makes any sense )

 

[Dunemeister]

God makes no sense either as a physical being OR a mental aspect. The mental paradoxes that naturally arise out of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, invisible being are numerous and nontrivial.

The only one I've ever heard of is the so-called deductive problem of evil, which, IMHO, is extraordinarily underwhelming in force.

 

[logician]

God makes no sense either as a physical being OR a mental aspect. The mental paradoxes that naturally arise out of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, invisible being are numerous and nontrivial.

Of course, it can be proven that an omniscient or omipotent, benevolent god concept is illogical.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Of course, it can be proving that an omniscient or omnipotent, benevolent god concept is illogical.

And has been. On this site. Recently.

An omnipotent benevolent god is impossible - unless - and this was the defense raised unless you follow Dr. Pangloss. IF you make that assumption then god is just such a nice lovable fellow who killed 99% of the human race cause it was the best thing to do. And continues to let the rest of the race suffer cause that is just the best thing to do. And continues to guide direct and control all the universe including all evil cause that is the best thing to do.

And how do we know that is the best thing to do? Cause god does it.

QED.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Empirical, shareable data.

Which is still conceptualized.

Yes, it is useful and practical to empirically find patterns, but the model of an atom exists in the same way as the concept of God.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

God makes no sense either as a physical being OR a mental aspect. The mental paradoxes that naturally arise out of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, invisible being are numerous and nontrivial.

The named God is not the Eternal God.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And has been. On this site. Recently.

An omnipotent benevolent god is impossible - unless - and this was the defense raised unless you follow Dr. Pangloss. IF you make that assumption then god is just such a nice lovable fellow who killed 99% of the human race cause it was the best thing to do. And continues to let the rest of the race suffer cause that is just the best thing to do. And continues to guide direct and control all the universe including all evil and cause that the best thing to do.

And how do we know that is the best thing to do? Cause god does it.

QED.

You forgot omniscient. An all-powerful God need not be aware of evil if all It knows is good.

 

[Dunemeister]

And has been. On this site. Recently.

An omnipotent benevolent god is impossible - unless - and this was the defense raised unless you follow Dr. Pangloss. IF you make that assumption then god is just such a nice lovable fellow who killed 99% of the human race cause it was the best thing to do. And continues to let the rest of the race suffer cause that is just the best thing to do. And continues to guide direct and control all the universe including all evil and cause that the best thing to do.

And how do we know that is the best thing to do? Cause god does it.

QED.

When was the last time you created a universe populated by free creatures that, despite your omnipotence, you have resolved not to coerce? When you accomplish that, then and only then are you in any position to understand the issues involved in doing so, and then and only then are you in any position to criticize God (on the assumption God has created). Then and only then is the problem of evil not extremely, magnificently underwhelming. The so-called inconsistent triad is not actually inconsistent. Only an omnisicent person is in a position to say it is.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Ah yes, poor ignorant mortal sinful Man. Barely able to reason his way out of a paper bag. A flawed being totally incapable of deciding not only it is best for him but even knowing what "best" means.

Male bovine excrement. Piled high.

I don't care how many universes and how many different sentient races your god thing is said to have created. Or did IN FACT create. They are OUR lives. Its we who live and suffer and die. Your god thing just watches bemused.

WE will decide want is BEST of us and if we are wrong SO BE IT. We will learn and do better next time.

What we WILL NOT do is give some invisible mental construction whose existence can't even be demonstrated - let alone any other characteristics - we will not hand over to such an amorphous imaginary being - even if NOT imaginary - OUR lives to be its plaything.

Ain't gonna happen. Not now - not EVER.:shout

 

[Beaudreaux]

The only one I've ever heard of is the so-called deductive problem of evil, which, IMHO, is extraordinarily underwhelming in force.

Well, you are in the significant minority there. The greatest religious thinkers in history have struggled with theodicy. They certainly recognized the force of the argument. To summarize, Christianity (and most other monotheistic religions) make three claims:

1. God is Good and by definition opposes evil.
2. God is all powerful and by definition there is nothing He cannot do.
3. Evil and suffering are real and plentiful in the world today.

The crux of the problem is that, if 2 is true, how can 1 and 3 both be true? This is sound deductive reasoning whether one is underwhelmed by it or not.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Which is still conceptualized.

Yes, it is useful and practical to empirically find patterns, but the model of an atom exists in the same way as the concept of God.

The two are not even close. We have mounds of scientific data and two recovering Japanese cities to support the Atom concept. There is no such support for the concept of God.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The named God is not the Eternal God.

Uhhh....what?

 

[Beaudreaux]

When was the last time you created a universe populated by free creatures that, despite your omnipotence, you have resolved not to coerce? When you accomplish that, then and only then are you in any position to understand the issues involved in doing so, and then and only then are you in any position to criticize God (on the assumption God has created). Then and only then is the problem of evil not extremely, magnificently underwhelming. The so-called inconsistent triad is not actually inconsistent. Only an omnisicent person is in a position to say it is.

Ahhh, the fourth solution to the problem of evil: "Mystery". We simply are not capable of understanding why the three statements of theodicy are completely consistent because we do not have God's knowledge.

Or the shorthand version: "Only God can understand why this proof God does not exist is wrong." Elegantly circular, but not at all compelling...

 

[Willamena]

So they are not using the same concept. So they are not inconsistent. Fine. But if they are using the same concept, then you've got the problem I illustrated.

There is no "same concept" between them. One person may descirbe a concept (A1) and another person recompose it as their own (B1) but the two will never be the same. They can only ever be similar.

It's relevant to the issue of incoherence. If I say "God exists" and you say "God doesn't exist" and you and I are using the same concept "God", it follows that we can't both be right. Period. End of story. To assume otherwise takes a great deal of mental gymnastics (which I am beginning to observe).

We could never be using the same concept "God". You have yours and I have mine, and na'r the twain shall meet.

Not quite. A1 and B1 exist as concepts. The question is whether those concepts answer to anything in the real world independent of anyone thinking about them (or otherwise having concepts about them).

The question for you, perhaps.

Why not?

Because your concepts are yours alone, as for each of us. We might,through communication, decide we have similar concepts, but there any resemblence would end.

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, you are in the significant minority there. The greatest religious thinkers in history have struggled with theodicy. They certainly recognized the force of the argument. To summarize, Christianity (and most other monotheistic religions) make three claims:

1. God is Good and by definition opposes evil.
2. God is all powerful and by definition there is nothing He cannot do.
3. Evil and suffering are real and plentiful in the world today.

The crux of the problem is that, if 2 is true, how can 1 and 3 both be true? This is sound deductive reasoning whether one is underwhelmed by it or not.

I'll just explain why I find this argument profoundly underwhelming. I don't intend to debate this because it goes beyond the concerns of this thread. It is logically possible for a good God to have sufficient reasons for allowing the severity and pervasiveness of evil that he does. We may have no access to those reasons. Our ignorance may be part of what gives the problem its force. Moreover, the Christian story (at least) is that God has dealt with evil (the death of Jesus is seen as the victory of God over evil) and will deal with evil (at Judgment Day, God will set all things to rights). So on the one hand, the so-called deduction conceals a dubious premise (A good God couldn't possibly have any good reason or justification for permitting the distribution and severity of evil we observe). And on the other hand, the Christian story claims that the problem is being dealt with. (Clearly some of us are not pleased with the way God's handling it. To them I simply say that creating and running a universe with free creatures is no simple task, and it's not obvious to me that the gerrymanders I -- or anyone else -- would make to the world would cause more harm than good.) I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but I'm quite sure you don't have anything more to say to me than I've already heard a bazillion times. As I said, I'm not interested in debating this. As a courtesy, I've explained why I find this argument underwhelming.

 

[Dunemeister]

There is no "same concept" between them. One person may descirbe a concept (A1) and another person recompose it as their own (B1) but the two will never be the same. They can only ever be similar.

That's not obvious to me.

We could never be using the same concept "God". You have yours and I have mine, and na'r the twain shall meet.

Again, not obvious. If I define what I mean by "God", you may not believe in God so defined. But we can both employ that same concept and discuss whether God, so defined exists. If we can't do that, we can't speak to each other (about anything).

The question for you, perhaps.

It's the question for anyone who wants a meaningful conversation about a topic.

Because your concepts are yours alone, as for each of us. We might,through communication, decide we have similar concepts, but there any resemblence would end.

Emphasis added.

Why? You keep saying this, but you don't argue for it. It's not intuitively obvious to me, and I'm going to need some sort of argument from you to even make sense of it.