-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God as a Mental concept
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
I wouldn't.
But I can say my Image of God is most definately not "a physical being that can defy, alter, or transcend the natural mechanics of the universe and all
forces within it as physics observes, knows, and defines them today."
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Can you define your "god"
It's inevitable. "God" is defined in the Image of God.
logician
Well-Known Member
For most people, that means in the image of man.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Are you your own god?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
How come no one answers my questions?:sad4:
We know things by their characteristics, and the sum of those characteristics makes them a unique thing amongst things. A horse is a horse, is a horse of course.
What makes a horse a horse? It is horse-shaped, but so, remotely, is a zebra or a donkey. It has horse DNA, but let's just talk everyday measurments. It has horse-functions --riding, galloping, neighing. It walks, talks, and looks like a horse; then it's a horse (of course).
We know things by their characteristics, and their characteristics are the bits we know them by. The sum of all the bits we know them by compose an image --in this case, the image of a horse (of course).
The world is present to us in images; and the world, as presented to us, is an image. It is the-world-as-we-know-it. Images of sight; images of sound, smell and taste; the wind blowing through our hair is image; the laughter of a girl next door is image; the meaningful recognition of a friend's sorrow is image. Belief, knowledge and understanding are of these images. We each understand the-world-as-we-know-it.
When we have acquired no image of "God" except as another's word, we do not understand "God". When we understand "God", we have acquired an image of "God" and just as a horse is defined in its image, "God" is defined in its image.
logician
Well-Known Member
Higher than what?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Weird. Most people define "supernatural being" as a being that is non-physical. Or by "physical" do you just mean "actual"?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I never said that.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Well, that's a contradiction and therefore necessarily false.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
When I use the term "God" (as opposed to "god"), I refer to the god described in the Old and New Testaments and that was particularly revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.
. . . for you.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Nope. Period.
It's fine to say person A has the concept C and B has the concept C, and also note that A affirms that the concept C answers to something in the real world and B denies it. In this case, A and B are using the same concept C in order to talk about states of affairs in the real world. Even if we say that the concept qua concept exists only in the peoples' minds, only A is saying that C answers to something in the real world. B says that it doesn't. And "answering to something in the real world" is what we ordinarily mean when we say "X exists." We don't mean that "X is a concept some people have." We mean "X is a feature of the real world whether anybody thinks about it or not." When we say "X doesn't exist" we mean "X is not a feature of the world regardless whether anyone thinks it is or not."
When speaking about whether God (however defined) exists, disputants may hold the same concept in mind. In fact, that's extraordinarily helpful to the discussion. If one disputant says God exists, and the other says he doesn't (again, assuming they are working with the same definitions), it's simply illogical, unreasonable, and contrary to good intellectual practice to say they are both right. A thing cannot both exist (in the real world) and not exist (in the real world) at the same time and in the same fashion. This is the bedrock of rationality. To give this up is to give up on thinking rationally altogether.
Stop there; the rest of the post is actually irrelevant. A more accurate model would be that Person A has concept A1 and Person B and has concept B1.
Let's call it X, shall we?
B denying that concept A1 answers to X is not really relevant to B having a concept B1, but okay.
As I said, the above is a better model in that A and B cannot share the same concept.
. . . in your scenario. Not really relevant, though.
True! However, off-topic: we were talking about A1 and B1 existing.
I wasn't. Were you? Perhaps therein lies our differences (d'uh?).
That's not possible.
Last edited:
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
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.
Sure, why not?
Right, because they are not using the same concept (on your retelling). But then you've defined the problem away. Kinda cheap.
Why not?
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).
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).
Maybe, but I think the problem is deeper.
Why not?