The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, you say [below is the post of concern reproduced], pay attention to the line in bold from me:

“For instance, if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord, yet some immortal entity was able to interact with this universe as a play thing we would still recognize such an entity as a god conceptually.”
​

Do you notice that you are making an impossible supposition in that line in bold, so you have to remove that kind of a thought from your mind and heart, because it is not an intrinsically self-coherent and self-consistent thought for a supposition.

Next, I suggest you don’t make any suppositions at all but always talk from what is reality as we experience it when we are conscious and intelligently active with our mind and heart.

That is what in philosophy – as it should be, we humans must be into, namely, reality - instead of suppositional scenarios in particular scenarios which are intrinsically self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, thus altogether of no useful purpose except perhaps for self-amusement on the part of the would-be thinker.

Interesting, the supposition is stated as an if statement. If you believe that it is not possible, then you would need to show howhat such is the case. For, if you are going to limit the scope of discussion to say we must assume the universe came into existence of another things accord, then you will have to show why this is necessitated by the universe's existence.

Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, you have committed the very error you had thought I had made. I am not making a faulty assumption here. Rather I am saying that this is only a possible case of many and I don't see any reason to exclude such as a case. I am certainly not saying such is the case.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, thanks for being a curious person.

Now, in your statement, "if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord," you don't see that it is not self-coherent and self-consistent, intrinsically?

I ask you, Can something not existing bring itself to existence?

Now, let you bring one statement from me, just one for the present, any one, which you find to be NOT self-coherent and self-consistent, intrinsically.

I am curious, are you online 24/7?

I can be online 24/7 because I don't have a regular job but get my income from having earlier placed my savings in investment funds, and I sleep at most only some three or even just two hours continuously every 24 hour day, in particular during the night hours, otherwise I get to bed when I get tired and sleepy any time of the day, for a wink or two.

I really appreciate your goodness in not getting annoyed with me, that is what I find atheists to be into, regularly with me, owing to the way I write which I want to see, is the way I think, and I have this bias that I think according to reason and observation, into intelligent conclusion.

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, thanks for being a curious person.

Now, in your statement, "if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord," you don't see that it is not self-coherent and self-consistent, intrinsically?

I ask you, Can something not existing bring itself to existence?

Now, let you bring one statement from me, just one for the present, any one, which you find to be NOT self-coherent and self-consistent, intrinsically.

I am curious, are you online 24/7?

I can be online 24/7 because I don't have a regular job but get my income from having earlier placed my savings in investment funds, and I sleep at most only some three or even just two hours continuously every 24 hour day, in particular during the night hours, otherwise I get to bed when I get tired and sleepy any time of the day, for a wink or two.

I really appreciate your goodness in not getting annoyed with me, that is what I find atheists to be into, regularly with me, owing to the way I write which I want to see, is the way I think, and I have this bias that I think according to reason and observation, into intelligent conclusion.

I see no reason to conclude why something cannot "bring itself into existence."

Any number of possibilities present themselves. Your presumption that such cannot be the case is based on inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning. But in any such case we needn't dwell too long on the subject, we could say that the universe always existed. The point here was focused on how we can strip a god of the creative ability and they are still recognized by us as a god.

 

[Curious George]

I see no reason to conclude why something cannot "bring itself into existence."

Any number of possibilities present themselves. Your presumption that such cannot be the case is based on inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning. But in any such case we needn't dwell too long on the subject, we could say that the universe always existed. The point here was focused on how we can strip a god of the creative ability and they are still recognized by us as a god.

Though I believe I said come in and out of existence of its own accord

 

[Sanmario]

Please, dear Curious George, are you insisting that something that does not exist brings itself into existence.

 

[Curious George]

Please, dear Curious George, are you insisting that something that does not exist brings itself into existence.

I am suggesting that something that does not exist can come into existence spontaneously, or that something that does not exist in our physical dimensions could bring itself into our physical dimensions and for all intent and purpose "bring itself into existence." The first scenario was what I was referring to originally, the second scenario I suggested was also a possibility after you changed "of its own accord" to "bring itself into existence"

 

[Sanmario]

Well, dear Curious George, I really want us to be simple and not densely complicated.

Suppose you ask me this question:

Dear Sanmario, Are you insisting that a nothingness can turn itself into a somethingness?

So, please ask me that question, so that with my answer to the question, we will have a proposition in our respective mind on which we concur, namely, the said proposition.

I am not into proving the existence or non-existence of something, not yet - at this point in time, I just want to get you and me to concur in our minds on a proposition in our respective mind.

It's like we are asking ourselves, Are you thinking what I am thinking?

So, dear readers, let us sit back and await the latest reaction from Curious George, to my latest thinking, the invitation for him and me to work in our respective mind as to concur on a proposition, namely:

"A nothingness can turn itself into a somethingness."

 

[Curious George]

Well, dear Curious George, I really want us to be simple and not densely complicated.

Suppose you ask me this question:

Dear Sanmario, Are you insisting that a nothingness can turn itself into a somethingness?

So, please ask me that question, so that with my answer to the question, we will have a proposition in our respective mind on which we concur, namely, the said proposition.

I am not into proving the existence or non-existence of something, not yet - at this point in time, I just want to get you and me to concur in our minds on a proposition in our respective mind.

It's like we are asking ourselves, Are you thinking what I am thinking?

So, dear readers, let us sit back and await the latest reaction from Curious George, to my latest thinking, the invitation for him and me to work in our respective mind as to concur on a proposition, namely:

"A nothingness can turn itself into a somethingness."

Suppose we were looking at an item with only 2 dimensions such that it existed on the x and y axis but not on the z axis. Now if we were to rotate that item in space we could now say it exists on the z axis where before it did not.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, you are again into making unrealistic suppositions, you can make realistic suppositions like Suppose you are not here and I am not here, that is a realistic supposition because there are people who are not here, and we two can go away and thus not here anymore.

You want to make the supposition that there are only two dimensions, that is not realitic at all, because the reality outside of our mind, is that we live not in two dimensions but in three [or even more].

You see, unrealistic suppositions are just good for only self-amusement in your mind, outside your or our mind they don't serve any purpose by which service they can make our life better or worse: because there is no existence that can be in objective reality outside and independent of our mind, corresponding to the un-realistic supposition.

Will you connect with me, please?

Take this supposition, is it realistic or unrealistic?

"Suppose the default status of things in the totality of reality is non-existence instead of existence, will we two be still around to exchange thoughts on what exists or what does not exist?"

If you were me, then you should to be realistic, you will remind me that there can never be ever a default status of things in the totality of reality which is non-existence: because existence is never ever going to become non-existence.

You see, you don't have the correct idea that nothing is nothing, but you want to use the word of nothing as already denoting something, that for you will change into another thing, in which case you are not into literally nothing, but only in an improper meaning of nothing, because you use the word but in an exactly diametrically opposite of its genuine meaning.

Of course, there are two kinds of nothingness, one is a nothingness of something specific in a particular situation, like there is nothing of money at home; the other kind of nothingness is total complete exhaustive nothingness, and such a nothingness can only exist in our mind, in objective reality there is never ever going to be at all complete total exhaustive nothingness.

Existence is never ever going to become non-existence.

Perhaps and almost certainly mankind will self-extinguish sooner or later, but existence is still around, can you get what I am trying to reach you with?

Next post you write here, please: no more unrealistic suppositions.

Suppose we were looking at an item with only 2 dimensions such that it existed on the x and y axis but not on the z axis. Now if we were to rotate that item in space we could now say it exists on the z axis where before it did not.

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, you are again into making unrealistic suppositions, you can make realistic suppositions like Suppose you are not here and I am not here, that is a realistic supposition because there are people who are not here, and we two can go away and thus not here anymore.

You want to make the supposition that there are only two dimensions, that is not realitic at all, because the reality outside of our mind, is that we live not in two dimensions but in three [or even more].

You see, unrealistic suppositions are just good for only self-amusement in your mind, outside your or our mind they don't serve any purpose by which service they can make our life better or worse: because there is no existence that can be in objective reality outside and independent of our mind, corresponding to the un-realistic supposition.

Will you connect with me, please?

Take this supposition, is it realistic or unrealistic?

"Suppose the default status of things in the totality of reality is non-existence instead of existence, will we two be still around to exchange thoughts on what exists or what does not exist?"

If you were me, then you should to be realistic, you will remind me that there can never be ever a default status of things in the totality of reality which is non-existence: because existence is never ever going to become non-existence.

You see, you don't have the correct idea that nothing is nothing, but you want to use the word of nothing as already denoting something, that for you will change into another thing, in which case you are not into literally nothing, but only in an improper meaning of nothing, because you use the word but in an exactly diametrically opposite of its genuine meaning.

Of course, there are two kinds of nothingness, one is a nothingness of something specific in a particular situation, like there is nothing of money at home; the other kind of nothingness is total complete exhaustive nothingness, and such a nothingness can only exist in our mind, in objective reality there is never ever going to be at all complete total exhaustive nothingness.

Existence is never ever going to become non-existence.

Perhaps and almost certainly mankind will self-extinguish sooner or later, but existence is still around, can you get what I am trying to reach you with?

Next post you write here, please: no more unrealistic suppositions.

Unfortunately, you have missed the point. Though you seem to accusing me of equivocation, I hold that it was not. You and I were discussing existence and non-existence of our reality. That some other reality can exist separate from the one you and I know is not of consequence to the truth that our reality does not exist. Just as existence from plane z did not exist in for our two dimensional object, perhaps our 3 or more dimensional space did not exist in an object that could have preceded us.

You seem to be missing the point at large. We have now three different scenarios which could give rise to our reality without the invocation of a creator. That is that our reality came into its existence of its own accord. First, we have that through some mechanism something in another reality shifted and created something in ours, something occurred spontaneously and snowballed from there, or everything has simply always existed. The point of this exercise has deviated greatly from our original discussion.

If you want to proceed down this path, I am more than happy to oblige, but after you dismiss one possibility there will always be another, and another etc. The point is that if we take a universe that in some way existed without a creator, we see that the term "creator" is superfluous to any conceptual god.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, we have to sort out our thoughts, things are getting labyrinthine like.

What is your scenario of concern, in your mind or outside your mind?

My scenario is outside my mind but also inside my mind.

It's like this: The scenario in the mind is of broadly ideas, while the scenario outside the mind is of concrete reality, like for example a concrete wall which you know to be existing outside and independent of your and my mind, by banging our head hard against it, thereby experiencing the reality of the concrete wall.

We navigate the scenario outside our mind with the scenario inside our mind; of course there are mindless persons who therefore are consigned for their own safety and also society’s safety in mental asylums.

Now, there are all kinds of ideas no matter how absurd in our mind, and the way to filter absurd ideas from realistic ideas is to validate them with seeking the realities that correspond to the ideas of them in our mind.

If we don’t find realities corresponding to the ideas of them in our mind, then we have to just put these ideas on the mental shelf of what I might call unverified ideas [for the present].

But there is a sure way of judging an idea as valid or invalid, namely, by examining it to discern whether it is intrinsically self-coherent and self-consistent among its components.

When we ascertain that the idea we have in our mind is self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, then we already need not bother to search for verifying experience of it in the realm of existence outside our mind; unless we want to know also in addition to the validity of the idea, that there is in fact something existing outside of ideas in our mind, in the realm of existence outside ideas in our mind, that corresponds to the idea in question which idea is a valid idea

Thus a vehicle cruising in space but not on land nor on or in water, namely, an airplane, it is a valid idea as ideas go, but there was no airplane until the Wright brothers invented it.

Anyway, in what scenario are you talking about when you use the word nothing?

Tell me, where is nothing and where is something?

We will now us both examine where is nothing and where is something, so no need to go into another matter, please.

I welcome you to ask me a question, but first in your next post, please tell me where is nothing and where is something, okay?

Annex

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

#1 Sanmario, Mar 18, 2017, post #1

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, we have to sort out our thoughts, things are getting labyrinthine like.

What is your scenario of concern, in your mind or outside your mind?

My scenario is outside my mind but also inside my mind.

It's like this: The scenario in the mind is of broadly ideas, while the scenario outside the mind is of concrete reality, like for example a concrete wall which you know to be existing outside and independent of your and my mind, by banging our head hard against it, thereby experiencing the reality of the concrete wall.

We navigate the scenario outside our mind with the scenario inside our mind; of course there are mindless persons who therefore are consigned for their own safety and also society’s safety in mental asylums.

Now, there are all kinds of ideas no matter how absurd in our mind, and the way to filter absurd ideas from realistic ideas is to validate them with seeking the realities that correspond to the ideas of them in our mind.

If we don’t find realities corresponding to the ideas of them in our mind, then we have to just put these ideas on the mental shelf of what I might call unverified ideas [for the present].

But there is a sure way of judging an idea as valid or invalid, namely, by examining it to discern whether it is intrinsically self-coherent and self-consistent among its components.

When we ascertain that the idea we have in our mind is self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, then we already need not bother to search for verifying experience of it in the realm of existence outside our mind; unless we want to know also in addition to the validity of the idea, that there is in fact something existing outside of ideas in our mind, in the realm of existence outside ideas in our mind, that corresponds to the idea in question which idea is a valid idea

Thus a vehicle cruising in space but not on land nor on or in water, namely, an airplane, it is a valid idea as ideas go, but there was no airplane until the Wright brothers invented it.

Anyway, in what scenario are you talking about when you use the word nothing?

Tell me, where is nothing and where is something?

We will now us both examine where is nothing and where is something, so no need to go into another matter, please.

I welcome you to ask me a question, but first in your next post, please tell me where is nothing and where is something, okay?

Annex

Surely. When we speak of nothing or non existence we only refer to that reality as we know it. Therefore nothing is referring to a specific conceptualization of something. If there was no three dimensional space from our perspective we would conclude that it was nothing. This however does not mean nothing from any perspective, only that of our perspective.

But again, I encourage you to see past this difference in thought to address the point at hand. Let us put these ideas and any others on a mental shelf and you can concede that without discussion of these ideas first and foremost there is no reason to attach creator to the definition of god. Once this is done let us then return to examine these ideas again and see if a notion of our reamity entails a creator. If we can conclude that, then perhaps we can connect the two ideas to add to the definition of god. But for now, either you agree that creator is not necessary iff these scenarios are possible, or you demonstrate that in spite of these scenarios creator is still necessary for the concept of god.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, if I may, let us talk about existence.

Tell me something you know about exsitence which you hold that I will concur with you on.

 

[columbus]

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

It seems clear to me that you are inexplicably switching from the latter, God is a concept, to the former, God is an object. Why are you doing that?
Tom

ETA. ~It occurred to me that conversing with you on both of these similar threads will be too confusing. I will stick to one or the other. Do you have a preference? ~

 

[psychoslice]

God is a concept which we measure our pain; John Lennon

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, if I may, let us talk about existence.

Tell me something you know about exsitence which you hold that I will concur with you on.

Absolutely, you may once we square away our concepts. I would expect you to agree that the logical progression is to deal with our first topic or leave it at an point for later. So, I await your response.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear folks here, now we are at this point in time four here in this thread of mine.

Just exercise your discretion to react to my thinking here or there in my other threads or wherever you find me to be also engaged in, or both here and there and everywhere, because the more we write the more we get our thoughts more clear and precise.

I am sure that we will get to concur on things as we exchange thoughts together, so don't leave me, okay?

So, let us all work at this point in time as to concur on the concept and the object of existence, and we have to use words, the first word of course we will work on is existence.

What is our concept as represented by the word existence?

Be patient, because things which seem so clear to us could be totally by each of us into anything respectively with each of us, that we in fact are talking past each other's head, and thus not getting connected at all on what we should be focused on together, namely, the same thing.

The concept of existence represented by the word existence is in our mind, do we concur on that?

So, all four of us: Curious George, Columbus, Psychoslice, Sanmario, and whoever should have dropped in while I am writing this post, do we concur on this statement from yours truly:

"The concept of existence represented by the word existence is in our mind, do we concur on that?"

Now, when you anyone here wants me to concur with you on anything at all, please be my guest, okay?

As I am the author of this thread, I feel that I am obliged to be the initiator of the exchange of thoughts here.

But be my guest when you want to initiate something, okay?

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Sanmario, Mar 18, 2017

 

[Curious George]

Dear folks here, now we are at this point in time four here in this thread of mine.

Just exercise your discretion to react to my thinking here or there in my other threads or wherever you find me to be also engaged in, or both here and there and everywhere, because the more we write the more we get our thoughts more clear and precise.

I am sure that we will get to concur on things as we exchange thoughts together, so don't leave me, okay?

So, let us all work at this point in time as to concur on the concept and the object of existence, and we have to use words, the first word of course we will work on is existence.

What is our concept as represented by the word existence?

Be patient, because things which seem so clear to us could be totally by each of us into anything respectively with each of us, that we in fact are talking past each other's head, and thus not getting connected at all on what we should be focused on together, namely, the same thing.

The concept of existence represented by the word existence is in our mind, do we concur on that?

So, all four of us: Curious George, Columbus, Psychoslice, Sanmario, and whoever should have dropped in while I am writing this post, do we concur on this statement from yours truly:

"The concept of existence represented by the word existence is in our mind, do we concur on that?"

Now, when you anyone here wants me to concur with you on anything at all, please be my guest, okay?

As I am the author of this thread, I feel that I am obliged to be the initiator of the exchange of thoughts here.

But be my guest when you want to initiate something, okay?

I am still waiting for you to agree that as of this point in our discussion, we have no reasoning by which we can include the term "creator" in the definition of god.

Have you given such reasoning and I have missed it? If not, then let us proceed to a discussion on existence with the agreement that we thus far have no reasoning for the addition of the term creator to the definition of the term god.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, I have thought that it be best for us all to work as to concur on what we mean by existence, because existence is the last frontier which will prevent us from straying on and on endlessly without getting connected at all.

So, what do you say, an example of an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of existence is the nose in our face?

Once we get to concur on many things as objects corresponding to the concept of existence in our mind, then we already have a common understanding of the concept of existence: yes? no?

 

[Sanmario]

I will be back in one hour's time.