Does God exist?

Quoting Raef Kandil

Does God exist...If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need.

Welcome to the forum. I enjoyed your post.

The forum is a fraught place to take up the existence of God. Most people here, or at least the loudest, are committed atheists. I don't think they will care much for your nuanced views. Many will see your position as irrelevant to the question of God's existence. My thoughts are in sympathy with yours, although I see things a bit differently.

For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world. For me, it represents the fact that many humans experience the world as a living thing. Although I am not a theist, I have no particular religious belief, I often find myself thinking that way. I feel grateful for the world and all the things it has given me. I think many religious believers feel that living connection much more strongly than I do.

I find the metaphysical basis of those feelings consistent with the way I see things. If, as you note, much of our reality is constructed by us, that means the idea of objective reality is misleading. The world as we see it is half human. That's not really all that radical a view. The writings of philosophers like Kant and Lao Tzu point in that direction. My understanding of my readings in psychology and cognitive science tell me that the structure of our minds and our thoughts is not just a function of the world outside, but also of our physical nature, our bodies, our nervous systems, our humanity.

Look, I might view things differently. I don't get what is constructed and what is not? When you say, it is all a function of the mind and neurones and the physical world, I think it is your decision to stop somewhere so that you don't get lost. For me, I refer to it as "the experience" and I don't decide to dwell in my body which is a product of my perception of the world. So, lef us say it is all physical as you said. Only substance. Are you that our spectrum of vision is very limited. Are you aware that you cannot view infra red. Are you aware that our most advanced physical equipment cannot capture the full "physical" world. Are you aware that there could be a physical creature standing right next to you but your physical senses cannot capture. You are terrified of the prospect. So, you decide to hang on to what you decide to call physical which is also what your senses can grasp. Much like someone who doesn't know how to swim hangs on to the fence of the pool.

Reply to Raef Kandil

Is this a response to me? It's hard to tell. Here's a link to a page that will show you how to tag your responses to posts and specific quotes.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13892/forum-tips-and-tricks-how-to-quote/p1

Quoting Raef Kandil

So, lef us say it is all physical as you said. Only substance.

I didn't say that.

Quoting Raef Kandil

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. Call it "The Matrix", "Superman" or "God" or "The cosmos". If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need.

Pre-science, primitive people were at the mercy of natural forces. They were confused by & fearful of the exigencies & vicissitudes of Nature, that did not demonstrate any concern for the welfare of Rational beings. So, those beings applied their reason to the problem of wild & unruly Nature, with no apparent purpose. Since humans instinctively organized themselves into hierarchies with a decisive strong-man at the top (civilization), it would seem that Nature might work more efficiently with a super-hero in control : a strong Fascist leader makes the trains run on time.

But their real-world experience with human rulers should teach us that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In practice, even after prayers & sacrifices to the imaginary alpha-male in charge, Nature continued to work against their wishes. So, an equally powerful opponent for the the "good god" became necessary to blame when things went wrong, and to make sense of the continued misfortunes of humanity. Sometimes, a nurturing female counter-part was added to neutralize the macho bosses' excesses.

Over time, the pantheon of Nature gods expanded to suit every perceived human need. Still, after all the religious efforts to tame Nature from the top-down, She remains at best neutral to human preferences. So today, we are dependent on Culture & Technology to force Nature to conform to our own needs & wishes. Hence, the perceived necessity for divine succor is less today. Yet, we still feel the need for some protection from Nature's evils, or from the pinching constraints of our Cultural shields. Even The Matrix seemed to be a techno-fix for all that was wrong with both Nature and Culture. . . . . until it decided to serve its own needs above those of its biological creators.

Ironically, "If everything else is created", and the creation itself becomes a problem, then perhaps the world Creator did not intend to create a heaven-on-earth, but a heuristic (trial & error) program to search for the best compromise solution to an open-ended problem. If so, can we expect the designer to intervene every time the cosmic system fails to conform with our local personal needs? Isn't it apparent that the natural world is not a perfected Garden of Eden, but an incomplete system evolving via dog-eat-dog competition? Maybe the savior of mankind will be ever-learning humanity --- a self-serving system within the system --- instead of the absentee Creator. Perchance, we have met the Deity, and he is us. :smile:

Bishop Whalon says No

Reply to Raef Kandil

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? There is no evidence that companies exist but we wanted for them to exist and bam, they existed because we needed for them to exist. Who decided that Microsoft logo would actually refer to Microsoft. It is all a piece of our creation. Just like when we dream, we decide for our environment to be different, and bam it is different. We even decided not to call it a dream and when we dream, we decide to call it real life while we are dreaming. How far our creativity goes is totally unknown. But I know this, to every fiction there is an element of truth. Microsoft is fake, but people's need to be enabled by extensions to themselves is real. If everything else is created, Microsoft answers to real needs.

Right, and there is evidence of Microsoft, how else do you explain PCs all functioning the same way, the huge corporate HQ, the very real dividends in Bill Gates' account?

By the same token, evidence of God is everywhere. Even small towns here (the US) have several churches. About 100 million people here attend a mosque, synagogue, temple, or church on any given weekend.

IMO, an attempt to say complex entities like religions, recessions, states, etc. aren't real is fundementally flawed. We just need better tools to express HOW they are real.

This is completely aside from God as a metaphysical issue. Rather, just empirically we can speak of these things.

Quoting Raef Kandil

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean?

Many contemporary atheists would not say that. There's plenty of evidence, from The Koran to personal experience. As an atheist I would simply say the evidence available has me unconvinced that there are gods. Most believers in one god use the same tools as atheists do to dismiss all the gods of other religions and perhaps to jettison belief in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions or ghosts.

The question of god/s existing is not about physicalism, or what we can create using our imaginations, it's about whether we have sufficient reasons to accept the proposition or not. Generally this will be tied to specific versions of god and the concomitant scriptures and traditions of belief.

For me the debate should switch focus from whether there are gods or not, to the question why should we care if there are gods? Which gods and for what reason?

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. There may be a legitimate philosophical issue at stake, but the wording is poor and the reasoning specious. I'm flagging the thread for deletion.

I think the problem is: religion. Anything that is dogmatic is dead and whatever turns into religion, becomes spoiled. Mindlessness is a state corruption. Take Islam for example, it has been highly misrepresented as there was no such a thing as Islam during the prophet Mohamed's life. Islam was not a religion, it was a cult. And in the Quraan, they would refer to it as such. It was so far away from dogmatic. Verses would reverse the meanings of other verses, based on a different situations in a a very short time. The Quraan doesn't deny it. By the meaning there is a verse in the Quraan that says: "we don't reverse verses or make it forgotten unless we come up with new better verses or a similar one." New verses, meant new ways of doing things and new rules and better techniques. Unfortunately, it was very easy to become a Muslim. All you had to say was a very short phrase, "there is no God but God and the prophet Mohamed is the prophet of Allah", and you are in. That made the quality of people who join this cult were not the kind that would argue. Because they got the kinds of people nobody else would accept and he or she would be grateful for any kind of belonging. I don't think any Muslim would be able to quickly state the names of 50 of the prophet's companions who they speak so highly of and there is a reason to that. They were essentially ,except for very few of them, nobodies. We find Umar Ibn El Khattab argues a lot and he is one of the most prominent prophet companion's figures, because he was actually someone and the prophet Mohamed before he joined he prayed that "the Islam would be strong with one of the two Omar's". When Omar ruled, he actually changed things that were actually stated in the Quraan when others didn't dare to do it. Long story short: the prophet Mohamed, because of this model, enjoyed supreme powers that I doubt anyone enjoyed on earth throughout history. He became the supreme, most powerful figure in his troop with a divine connection. He would be a judge and a commander and they would teach people how to sleep with their wives and how to purify themselves after going to the toilet. And this is why after he died, these nobodies had to turn everything he said or did as a must-do. They knew.they just lost the source of their power and had to retain it somehow and they had to turn Islam into a religion. This is why Muslims until now are one of the most close-minded people of all times. They used to believe and they still do believe that following the prophet's orders as the source of their power. Having said that, the prophet Mohamed was among the most consciences, humane man of all times. Would clearly see that from the way he never tried to abuse their powers, his fairness and the unparalleled rights that he gave to women.

You can blame it on Islam, the prophet and Muslims so much but arguably anything that is successful and people don't know how to maintain it will turn into religion and ultimately lead into failure. Take the extreme leftist movement of the west as an example. This is how big companies like Kodak fail. People tend to become dogmatic when they are afraid.

Talking about science and evolution, well I don't see contradiction between evolution and the existence of God. Evolution just means that whoever is most powerful will control the world so supreme higher powers could have found their way to power through coincidence. We are hierarchical, so we must appreciate Gods sitting up there and maintaining the order. Things don't seem as chaotic as they should have been if such a hierarchy didn't exist.

The word "God" refers to an anxiety rather than an entity.

Reply to Tom Storm :up:

Reply to Raef Kandil

Hey @Raef Kandil , welcome to the forum.

A pointer - state your points, and link them with argument. When you're writing a post, try to make the different parts of your position link up. There's more than a few themes in your post, like the Matrix, control, gods, gods' realities being entailed by people's needs for an explanation. You also reference a distinction between what it means for a corporation to exist, a logo to refer, and a god to exist, and seem to use all of them at once. Ranging over so many topics like this, without much explanation, makes your post very hard to follow.

In addition, please try to break up large paragraphs, like:

Quoting Raef Kandil

I think the problem is: religion. Anything that is dogmatic is dead and whatever turns into religion, becomes spoiled. Mindlessness is a state corruption. Take Islam for example, it has been highly misrepresented as there was no such a thing as Islam during the prophet Mohamed's life. Islam was not a religion, it was a cult. And in the Quraan, they would refer to it as such. It was so far away from dogmatic. Verses would reverse the meanings of other verses, based on a different situations in a a very short time. The Quraan doesn't deny it. By the meaning there is a verse in the Quraan that says: "we don't reverse verses or make it forgotten unless we come up with new better verses or a similar one." New verses, meant new ways of doing things and new rules and better techniques. Unfortunately, it was very easy to become a Muslim. All you had to say was a very short phrase, "there is no God but God and the prophet Mohamed is the prophet of Allah", and you are in. That made the quality of people who join this cult were not the kind that would argue. Because they got the kinds of people nobody else would accept and he or she would be grateful for any kind of belonging. I don't think any Muslim would be able to quickly state the names of 50 of the prophet's companions who they speak so highly of and there is a reason to that. They were essentially ,except for very few of them, nobodies. We find Umar Ibn El Khattab argues a lot and he is one of the most prominent prophet companion's figures, because he was actually someone and the prophet Mohamed before he joined he prayed that "the Islam would be strong with one of the two Omar's". When Omar ruled, he actually changed things that were actually stated in the Quraan when others didn't dare to do it. Long story short: the prophet Mohamed, because of this model, enjoyed supreme powers that I doubt anyone enjoyed on earth throughout history. He became the supreme, most powerful figure in his troop with a divine connection. He would be a judge and a commander and they would teach people how to sleep with their wives and how to purify themselves after going to the toilet. And this is why after he died, these nobodies had to turn everything he said or did as a must-do. They knew.they just lost the source of their power and had to retain it somehow and they had to turn Islam into a religion. This is why Muslims until now are one of the most close-minded people of all times. They used to believe and they still do believe that following the prophet's orders as the source of their power. Having said that, the prophet Mohamed was among the most consciences, humane man of all times. Would clearly see that from the way he never tried to abuse their powers, his fairness and the unparalleled rights that he gave to women.

into smaller ones. Where possible. Also, do try to make consecutive sentences talk about the topic, or what you're responding to. The ideal conduct here is to discuss issues.

Quoting Wayfarer

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather.

:up:

I am not sure why is my arguments not clear or they lead to meaningless internet blather. Because you are not offering counter-arguments. Probably because you have none. Can you focus on what I said rather than how I said it? Also, when you make a claim, can you support it and tell me how it could be done better with examples if you have any?

Quoting Wayfarer

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. There may be a legitimate philosophical issue at stake, but the wording is poor and the reasoning specious. I'm flagging the thread for deletion.

I don't think it's reasonable to delete this thread. It's true it was a bit unclear, but I thought it was interesting. [T Clark's usual spiel] There have been many atheist threads much less clear than this. Religious threads should be treated the same.[/T Clark's usual spiel]

Reply to T Clark consensus was, leave it, as there have been responses already. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the subject matter, only on the grounds of quality, or absence thereof.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I am not sure why is my arguments not clear or they lead to meaningless internet blather

It's been explained to you by fdrake, above. I suggest you read his post carefully and see if you can implement his suggestions.

Quoting Wayfarer

consensus was, leave it, as there have been responses already. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the subject matter, only on the grounds of quality, or absence thereof.

You're right, given it was you, I shouldn't have played the anti-religion card.

There seem to be two approaches – I won't call them arguments – in the OP. The first part is perhaps about institutional facts, and hints at the notion that god is a bit like Microsoft in being a result of our social rules. The second seems to be an expression of a desire for to be dominated.

There's a difference between nuance and lack of clarity.

Putting them together we get something like that god is a social institution that is desirable because it dominates.

Odd.

20.3k
There seem to be two approaches – I won't call them arguments – in the OP. The first part is perhaps about institutional facts, and hints at the notion that god is a bit like Microsoft in being a result of our social rules. The second seems to be an expression of a desire for to be dominated.

There's a difference between nuance and lack of clarity.

Putting them together we get something like that god is a social institution that is desirable because it dominates.

@Banno

This is a very common misconception. God is not an oppression tool. And we don't want to be dominated. But, God is at the top of the hierarchy because He is the best and He is the strongest. Fair and square. And we are willing to accept it because we know it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it. You can have an ambition to be at the position of your boss, but that doesn't make you him. But, if you are willing to put on a fair fight to get promoted, who is stopping you? However, to say that you not at your level now because you want to be dominated is just wierd and lame.

Quoting Raef Kandil

God is not an oppression tool.

Quoting Raef Kandil

The Matrix represented a higher, oppressive power controlling us. Isn't that what God is all about?

Quoting Raef Kandil

the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need.

Trying to be nice, for Reply to T Clark.

But your stuff in the OP seems to contradict your last post. Nor is it apparent what this has to do with Quoting Raef Kandil

Who decided that Microsoft logo would actually refer to Microsoft. It is all a piece of our creation.

So, to put it politely, could you summaries any argument you have here? I'm not seeing it.

@Banno, okay, so the need to submit to higher powers is real. It is like when dogs are together, they have to bark on each other to find out who is the alpha dog. But, it doesn't mean they do it because they like to get dominated. They just realise it as the only way to restore order. And It is the
same for humans. We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it.

Quoting Raef Kandil

We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it.

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

Reply to Raef Kandil I'm not a dog. Such an argument by analogy is ...unconvincing.

Also, turns out the research behind the "alpha" wolf stuff was biased by being restricted to caged animals, and that wild wolves do not rely on any such structure.

The idea that order is only ever the result of a hierarchy is also ...problematic.

So I don't agree that there is no way around it.

Quoting Banno

Trying to be nice, for ?T Clark.

Thank you.

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

@Tom Storm

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem.

I'm not a dog. Such an argument by analogy is ...unconvinci

@Banno

Yes you are partially in the making. Funny how you choose to be scientific or not scientific just to win an argument.

Also, turns out the research behind the "alpha" wolf stuff was biased by being restricted to caged animals, and that wild wolves do not rely on any such structure.

Where do you bring this information from? Wolves are extremely hierarchical. Sometimes, they have alpha wolves. Sometimes, they have alpha partners and sometimes, they even have beta wolves.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Yes you are partially in the making. Funny how you choose to be scientific or not scientific just to win an argument.

What?

Quoting Raef Kandil

Where do you bring this information from?

https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-alpha-wolf-idea-a-myth/
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10
...and so on. Quoting Banno

The idea that order is only ever the result of a hierarchy is also ...problematic.

And this? Order does not come only from Hierarchy.

Quoting Raef Kandil

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem.

I've worked in the area of suicide prevention and have supported many suicidal people over decades and have not often seen this. But it is the case that sometimes distressed and unhappy people need to find comfort in a belief or a galvanizing idea to help them through difficult times. This belief might be religious but it could also be a hope for family reconciliation, renewed involvement in a hobby or in education or a sport.

I think the problem you describe probably starts with the presuppositions you hold. I don't consider death a preoccupation or concern, so it holds no special fascination for me. Unfairness? Well you can help disadvantaged communities to tackle unfairness through work or volunteering. The things you can't control may be best understood through a more Stoic philosophical response.

Quoting Tom Storm

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

:fire:

As a possibility, probably not.

Quoting Banno

https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-alpha-wolf-idea-a-myth/
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10
...and so on.

I'll talk about this because it's an interesting aside.

It makes sense that animal hierarchies reduce given additional space where they don't have to directly compete for resources. The weaker ones would likely go find their own place to roam, find food, mates, safe spots and so on without having to go head to head with the bigger members of the group. I think about my chickens, and the pecking order really most displays itself in the coop, but while they're out and about in the yard less so.

If getting fed means searching out bugs from far away or from knocking you down and taking the food you seek from the feeder, I'm going to do whichever is easiest for me.

What can be extrapolated from chicken behavior to human societies and how this explains capitalism and competition (for example), I don't really know, but it's chicken feed for thought.

The role of the rooster in the chicken society is also an interesting one. More food for thought.

Now y'all can return to the God discussion, whatever exactly it is.

Quoting Raef Kandil

But I know this, to every fiction there is an element of truth.

This is absolutely correct. The best fictions mimick the truth closely, or contain plausibility as their fundamental premise.

This is likely why so many conspiracies exist and why some of them are very popular, and it is also why the best fiction novels read well. Because the fiction is logically built up within the world of that book/film and based on the rules of that world.

Bad fictions or terrible lying highlights the truth too, not because it contains it, but from subtraction, because it makes the differences stark and obvious. Bad logic.

Everything in the "true world" (reality regardless of how we individually perceive it) has elements of truth or interacts with it/is in a some form of relationship with it.

As for "God" and its or his or her existence, I leave you with this sentiment: "If everyone has a unique concept of the word God and what it means, if every atheist has a specific term for god for which they reject, and every believer has a specific notion of god for which they accept, and they are all different and particular definitions, then what exactly are we talking about when we discuss the term? What is the standard? "

Are we simply talking cross purposes? Discussing different ideas as if they were the same idea?

The difficulty with determining the existence of God or Gods is one of definition. We can all agree that some definitions of God can be confidently rejected.

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility.

And perhaps, just maybe, there is one definition so accurate both logically and morally - all encompassing, that denying it would be as deluded as accepting that God is a singing karaoke banana.

That search continues to this day for such a definition so that we may decide whether to accept or reject it. Whether it satisfies all logic, reason and moral to accept it so.

Even then, probably not everyone will agree.

Quoting Benj96

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility.

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share.

Quoting finarfin

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share.

I see what you mean. New religion unlocked: the church of the floating ginger karaoke banana.

I think any credible definition for a believable God is one where it has the qualities neccesary to manifest the entirety of existence. As well as both logic and irrationality as existants (phenomena) that occur.

Physics is one means of interpreting such a universal god and it would cite that the energy contained in a banana is not sufficient to precipitate the existence of everything else.

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being.

Energy would probably serve better than a singing banana as a means to explain not only the universe but also the irrational products of energy (the notion of the singing banana)

Quoting Benj96

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being.

So long as it doesn't contradict itself, logic, or science, the aesthetics really don't matter, though some assumptions would certainly be more likely (than the flying spaghetti monster, as an example). And of course, there are ways of sidestepping the problems that arise when god is brought into the equation, which requires some assumptions of its own. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail.

Quoting finarfin

. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail.

Yes agreed. Many conventional religions do fall far short of factoring in the elegant tool that is scientific method into their inquiry into the universe. I think philosophy is less rigid than religious dogmas in this respect.

This is because most conventional religions developed a long time ago in a different social landscape - without the knowledge elucidated by science. In essence they did the best with what they had to hand.

But religions come and go. New ones are developed. Old ones are lost to the annals of time. Because their texts are static, whilst the meaning and use of language is not, it evolves. So any texts that are copied hundreds of times over centuries, becoming ever more inaccurate, corrupted by errors and interpretative - the exact nuances of their meaning lost to changes in how we use languages as well as context, some languages too are dying or obsolete or getting there.

This doesn't preclude new theistic views. Ones that can try to integrate science, philosophy, intuition and spiritual archetypes into a framework where they don't all directly oppose one another but are in some sensible relationship.

All of these things are techniques of understanding reality. And whilst I have the highest regard for science, technology and their abilities, they are not without their own dogma and limitations.

That proof is only that which is repeatable, observable and measurable. This does not lend itself to any proofs of rare things, immeasurable things, unquantifiable things, scientific explorations that require being unethical or ones that try to objectify "subjectivity." Or singular unreproducible things - such as the unique individual, or the present moment. Neither are reproducible nor measurable in their entirety. If they were then all things could be predicted.

I believe if a fundamental truth is singular, and manifests all existants, it cannot be fully measured as an object/in an objective way, nor as something repeatable due to the diversity of distinct phenomena that arise from it. It can only be measured based on the presumption or character/restriction of the measurement being used.

Any decent modern approach to theism must acknowledge science and its ability to objectify and standardise features of the universe. It then has to be able to incorporate a mechanism for consciousness, beliefs, subjectivity, art, creativity and imagination - things science finds difficult to reduce to a scientific paradigm alone.

Finally we must accept that scientific paradigm is also not static nor final but always open to more reasoning, experiment and refinement. That paradigm has shifted several degrees many times, completely changing how we see the universe. For example the advent of eisnteins theories revolutionised many previously problematic or irreconcilable measurements.

Reply to Raef Kandil :halo:

"God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm)

Quoting 180 Proof

God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm)

If something exists as "all things", can it's existence be characterised/reduced to "one" thing?

How do we go about that?

Can "potential" for example, be measured directly? Or only through what it does (indirect measurement).

Can energy be fully quantified through direct measurement - when both the act of measurenent, the observer and the measuring device, also contains and uses energy.

These are the limitations of quantification and qualification of a system from within the system using the system to do it.

When we talk about whether God exists. Do we mean as a singular object, thing or person? Do we talk about it as having a locality in space-time, or as the fabric of space-time itself? Do we aporoach it as a concept that applies to the full scope of reality?

If we take the premise does God exist? We already assume that existence is a larger concept that may or may not contain a God as a product which we must find evidence for "within" the universe- time, locality/space, matter (objectivity) and energy (ability).

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?" , and instead the sensible questions we would ask is "how does it exist?"

Quoting Benj96

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?"

:up:

Quoting 180 Proof

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?"
— Benj96
:up:

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other.

Quoting prothero

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other.

:up: :up:

Btw, Welcome back!

Quoting Raef Kandil

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean?

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people claim there is (or isn't) "evidence" that God exists. It leads to unproductive discusions. Most generally, evidence = a body of facts that are used to support a position. Arguments for God's existence typically depend on metaphysical assumptions that they treat as the "facts" and proceed to show how it entails a deity. So they can claim there is "evidence" for God. Atheists deny the metaphysical assumption(s) and thus deny there is evidence.

Quoting Raef Kandil

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created.

Sounds circular- if we treate "create" as an intentional act. IF everything else is created, then there's a creator. But why think anything is created?

OTOH, if we equate "created" with "caused" - we could consider a causal chain that has a beginning (a "first cause") but it's perfectly coherent to see this as a perfectly natural state of affairs.

Quoting prothero

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other.

I propose defining "God" in a minimalist way as the entity that is ostensibly entailed by one or more deistic arguments. E.g. The Kalam Cosmological Argument allegedly proves there to have been an intentional agent who somehow caused the natural world to exist.

Quoting Wayfarer

I'm flagging the thread for deletion.

So you are taking it upon yourself to have deleted everything everyone else has to say? How philosophical.

Quoting T Clark

For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world.

As a concept, "God" plays many roles, and has many definitions. By some definitions, Satan is a god, and some envision a cloven-footed creature running amok in the world. But for me, the only relevant role of G*D for a non-theist, is to explain the existence & order of the physical world. Since that definition places the creator outside of the creation, it is unknowable by empirical means. Hence, it is necessarily a "metaphysical" (mental) conjecture, not a physical (material) object. So, we may never know the final answer.

A non-physical First Cause of the physical world, literally doesn't matter. So what difference does it make, if god does not exist in any meaningful sense? For example, some thinkers have postulated god-substitutes (e.g. Multiverse) that assume the essential attributes of a world creator (e.g. intelligence, intention, creative power) are self-existent properties of space-time and matter-energy. Hence, nothing special. That is indeed a "way of looking at the world", but leaves the crucial "why?" unanswered --- not to mention "how?". Does a contingent world require a reason for being? Why ask "why"? Why not just "shut up and calculate"? Why do philosophers ask "why?", and argue endlessly over un-provable postulations? :smile:

Quoting Gnomon

Why ask "why"?

Indeed – the only ultimate answer to "Why?" which doesn't beg the question is that there is no ultimate answer. Philosophers are often 'bewitched by language', as Witty points out (& Freddy too), uttering words that only look like, but do not function as, questions.