Which Position Intuitvely Makes the Most Sense to You?

[Sunstone]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

 

[icehorse]

ha! #1 is more intuitive.

#2 is a real parsing puzzle

 

[Jedster]

ha! #1 is more intuitive.

#2 is a real parsing puzzle

#2 would apply to a person who has no concept of god.

 

[Windwalker]

Number 2 seems more intuitively clear to me.

 

[Windwalker]

#2 would apply to a person who has no concept of god.

Exactly No concept, being key here.

 

[PureX]

#2 better expresses the mystery of it, I think.

 

[Heyo]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

I can't answer that intuitively as I have thought too much about it already.
When I still had an intuition, I would have answered 1 as Aristotelian logic is simpler, more intuitive.

 

[SalixIncendium]

For me, one is no more correct than the other.

 

[PureX]

I can't answer that intuitively as I have thought too much about it already.
When I still had an intuition, I would have answered 1 as Aristotelian logic is simpler, more intuitive.

I think #2 is more intuitive because it encompasses the binary possibilities of #1, and yet instinctively adds infinitely more.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

#2 would apply to a person who has no concept of god.

Oh. That's me then @Sunstone

 

[Heyo]

I think #2 is more intuitive because it encompasses the binary possibilities of #1, and yet instinctively adds infinitely more.

I agree with your analysis (#2 adds more possibilities) but because of that I draw the opposite conclusion. At least to my juvenile mind the simplicity of the binary logic of #1 was more intuitive.
Today my answer would be #3 What is a god? (so very much more #2) but that is because I have reflected about the questions. It isn't intuitive.

 

[Koldo]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

#1.
Actually, I would go so far as to say that I wouldn't trust the intuition of anyone that answered differently.

 

[Koldo]

#2 would apply to a person who has no concept of god.

Not really. A person that has no God concept wouldn't have any intuition about God.

 

[PureX]

I agree with your analysis (#2 adds more possibilities) but because of that I draw the opposite conclusion. At least to my juvenile mind the simplicity of the binary logic of #1 was more intuitive.

I don't see simplicity is being intuitive. Just the opposite. I believe intuition is about perceiving depth and complexity very quickly and unconsciously.

Today my answer would be #3 What is a god? (so very much more #2) but that is because I have reflected about the questions. It isn't intuitive.

The more time I have to contemplate the question, the more mysterious the realm of the potential 'answer' becomes. I agree. It's that instinctual and profound mystery that that I 'intuit' before engaging in the process of consciously contemplating it.

 

[ChristineM]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

If i can't choose option 3 then i am stuck with 1

 

[ameyAtmA]

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

The first statement is not a pending question for me.
Regarding the 2nd statement :

This "neither exists not does-not-exist" is from the ancient Upanishads (VedAnta) , and is also mentioned the Bhagvad Geeta Chapter 13 : nasadAsaditi uchyate

To split the SaMskRut -- na sat na asat iti uchyate.

Bramh is described as neither Sat not aSat (its opposite).

Exists is too simple a translation for Sat because more background is required.

Sat means existential truth -- but in VedAntic terms it refers to that which is eternal, non-changing, continuously true.
So Sat or true or real in this context cannot include for instance -- the garden chair.

'asat' = either nonsensical non-existent ideas (like horns on a rabbit or grapes on a rose tree) OR things that are not eternally true, non-existent in the absolute sense.
​

The garden chair falls in the category of 'asat' because it does not have eternal and absolute existence.

IF there is a fire or flood ,the garden chair will not remain. If humans move it , dismantle it, trash it , recycle it - it won't remain "as a garden chair" .

So how is Bramh neither Sat nor aSat ?
1. It is obvious that Bramh is not aSat.
All those things that appear to exist, only have a transient existence -- those are not really Bramh. (that is the whole physical world of appearant objects including living beings).
Non-existent illusions like a rabbit's horns or mistaking a rope for a snake are falsities and are out of question.

2. Why 'neither Sat ' ? In this context -- it means Bramh is beyond that continuously ever-changing energy that keeps transforming from one form to another, but , although it never perishes ( => it is eternal, hence Sat), this energy belongs to Bramh but is not Bramh i.e. Bramh is beyond the energy, propells the energy into action, triggers the energy.

This is how Bramh (or for those who are willing to call Bramh God) , is not only beyond the transient appearances of this world, but also beyond the eternal (but ever-changing) energy.

Related to this concept is also the Bhagvad Geeta verse where Shri KRshNa says --
That which does not exist cannot come into being and that which is eternal never stops existing.

1. So the eternal Truth i.e. Bramh is without beginning and end - anAdi-ananta - and never "comes into existence" because Bramh always IS.
2. What appears to us as the universe is not the original form of reality -- it is an appearance, a by-product of energy transformation. It is simply Bramh's energy that keeps transforming from one form to another (Law of thermodynamics.) There is no new 'material' that comes into being out of nowhere. i.e. the garden chair can be traced back to its Source i.e. Bramh.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

Most definitely 1.

2 is, for everything that one might think of as "real," a logical inconsistency. Substitute anything ostensible for "God" and you will instantly see what I mean.

 

[SomeRandom]

Number 2. But that’s because that was how the “godhead” was explained to me as a child.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

I just see it as
1 - grammatically this is much easier to read and a much better sentence.
2 - meaning is clear but it may require readers to step back and do a quick mental diagram to accurately piece it together due to the amount of negatives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which position, if either, intuitively sounds more likely to you:

1) God either exists or does not exist.

2) God neither exists nor does not exist.

1. No question.

2 violates the law of the excluded middle and can't possibly be true.