Arguing about God's existence is nonsensical

[manatee]

I use the word nonsensical not to indicate an agnostic view, but rather as something more fundamental. What I mean is simply that, under most definitions of God, it really does make no sense whatsoever to argue either for or against its/her/his existence. For now, I will keep the term God simple: God is defined simply as an omnipotent being.

Consider, then, the proposition: "God exists."
In the human conception of reality, an object that exists must necessarily have properties (at a minimum, the property of existence), nothing else would make sense. An object that has a particular property cannot at the same time have the opposite property. Thus, existence itself implies impossibilities and limitations. How can the proposition that a being that can act without limitations exists make any sense when this is so? Clearly, if one is arguing that something exists, it cannot be God that one refers to.

Now, on the other hand, arguing that God doesn't exist does not make sense either.
If one is developing a thesis that an omnipotent being does not exist, one premise of this argument must be that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, then an omnipotent being can't exist. By even postulating the proposition one assumes that there is something that God cannot do, that it's possible to trap God within the web of reason and confine him to non-existence. How is it possible to argue for the non-existence of an omnipotent being when the argument itself presupposes that the being isn't omnipotent? I'm not sure what you're actually talking about if you argue that God doesn't exist, but it ain't God.


Point being, while the concept of a God and believes about him may be as essential and worthwhile as anything, any attempt at constructive discussion about his existence will inevitably end up being a cognitively meaningless mess.

 

[Kmal]

information /= object

you can't touch, smell, hear, or see information, eh?

aside from that, YOU can't tell people what their definition of god is, and that is where the disconnect is-- you're saying meow, and they're saying bow-wow.

edit: haha, arguing about arguing about god is much better than just arguing about god.

 

[randomsomeone]

I agree....most attempts at logical argument I have seen are far too linear, and far too limited, and based on faulty assumptions to begin with. That doesn't mean there is ill intent, it just means a whole other way of thinking is ultimately required.

One can only approach God with the mind to a certain degree...and certain progress can be made here. But in the end one must also employ other faculties to approach understanding (but only glimpses of comprehension). This may be seen as a problem, but I suggest it really could not be otherwise, not really.

The vastness of the universal connectedness of "God" is only matched (and perhaps even surpassed) by the vastness of the Love that emaniates from His very existence. This "love" again bends (and breaks) all definitions we may know of. "Love", in reference to God, probably needs to coexist with dozens of other words/ideas just to begin to approach a more comprehensive picture.

 

[manatee]

information /= object

you can't touch, smell, hear, or see information, eh?

But if information exists, it has properties, no?

aside from that, YOU can't tell people what their definition of god is, and that is where the disconnect is-- you're saying meow, and they're saying bow-wow.

I did have the caveat "under most definitions of God" in there

edit: haha, arguing about arguing about god is much better than just arguing about god.

Do you want to start arguing about it? xD!

 

[Kmal]

But if information exists, it has properties, no?

then doesnt god? I dont understand what you're trying to convey. like a person who sees a ghost, they saw it, even if it was just a 'hallucination.'

i'm not sure what limitations youre talking about-- think of your mind as mind, and your mind which contemplates the mind as mind, and the mind which contemplates the mind contemplating the mind as mind, ad infinitum. the idea is unlimited-- do ideas have properties?

 

[manatee]

then doesnt god? I dont understand what you're trying to convey. like a person who sees a ghost, they saw it, even if it was just a 'hallucination.'

Yes, and the ghost had the properties common to ghost (whatever that means), which implies that it cannot have the opposite properties to those of a ghost, meaning that this ghost cannot be referred to as omnipotent, since it is referred to as supposedly existing.

i'm not sure what limitations youre talking about-- think of your mind as mind, and your mind which contemplates the mind as mind, and the mind which contemplates the mind contemplating the mind as mind, ad infinitum. the idea is unlimited-- do ideas have properties?

The idea is very strictly limited - since the idea is the idea, it cannot at the same time not be the idea. What makes the idea the particular idea that it actually is is that it possesses the properties associated with this specific idea - two identical things must have properties that are exactly alike. This means that the idea cannot at the same time have properties opposite to the idea itself, meaning that if the idea exists, it cannot be referred to as omnipotent.
You feel me?

 

[Galileo]

humans believe in all kinds of things that have no physical existance...

justice, mercy, love, etc.

 

[Kmal]

The idea is very strictly limited - since the idea is the idea, it cannot at the same time not be the idea. What makes the idea the particular idea that it actually is is that it possesses the properties associated with this specific idea - two identical things must have properties that are exactly alike. This means that the idea cannot at the same time have properties opposite to the idea itself, meaning that if the idea exists, it cannot be referred to as omnipotent.
You feel me?

The length of the idea is infinite, in theory, as in it can keep going forever (much like the infiniteness attributed to 'god') . If you think the idea is limited because of your own understanding of what 'is' is, that's your problem.

The bolded is exactly what I mean-- it is, but it isnt. Two identical things, agreed on through language, may be completely different in a subjective reality; as demonstrated in this discussion.

"what is 'reality' ''?
"not that! not that!" the distinction referring to the external label assigned by a language (limited) to something internal (unlimited.)

that map used to demonstrate the territory is not the territory itself.

 

[manatee]

The length of the idea is infinite, in theory, as in it can keep going forever (much like the infiniteness attributed to 'god') . If you think the idea is limited because of your own understanding of what 'is' is, that's your problem.

It is infinite, therefore it isn't finite; it is what it is, not what it is not.

The bolded is exactly what I mean-- it is, but it isnt. Two identical things, agreed on through language, may be completely different in a subjective reality; as demonstrated in this discussion.

"what is 'reality' ''?
"not that! not that!" the distinction referring to the external label assigned by a language (limited) to something internal (unlimited.)

that map used to demonstrate the territory is not the territory itself.

Two persons using the same word referring to different things aren't taking about identical things.

I don't deny the inherent flaws of language - the only way for me to try to find out whether the meaning I attach to the symbols (words, facial expressions etc.) in my language (broadly defined as including bodily language etc, basically all modes of communication) is to receive information from you, transmitted through language. That is to say, in order for me to verify if the two of us can successfully communicate is to assume that we can. So, clearly, I can't ever know if you ever understand a thing of what I write, and this is something I acknowledge. However, the only possible way for me to communicate with you is language! If I am to engage in discussion with anyone, I have to assume the validity of language, since it's the only framework within which I can discuss anything with anyone, even though (unfortunately) this framework cannot validate itself.

The same goes for human reason in general, of course. I can acknowledge, within the framework of my reason and consciousness (defined as the faculty through which we interpret existence), that I cannot every externally validate this framework, since it is the only framework that I can interpret, analyze, experience, or do whatever. Since this is the case, I acknowledge the inherent uncertainty associated with everything I think, but at the same time, if I want to exist in existence, I have to assume that this faculty of mine is valid. Get what I'm say'n?

So, once it is established, within the frameworks of language and consciousness, that language and consciousness necessarily have to be seen as valid for existence and discussion, then my initial assertions can probably be examined with a more sober look, I'm hoping.

 

[Resonance]

I like the question 'what is existence?' better.

 

[manatee]

I like the question 'what is existence?' better.

Discussing this question is nonsensical, since the only way to discern a particular concept from other concepts is to differentiate it from other concepts, and what is not existence must be non-existence, and non-existence cannot be meaningfully contemplated by humans, since by the act of considering non-existence we assume that it exists; therefore non-existence cannot be meaningfully discussed, and since this is the case, the corollary 'existence' cannot either be meaningfully discussed!

And, and, since everything that exists must be part of existence, and existence can't be properly debated, that which exists cannot be meaningfully discussed; and all that doesn't exist either must be part of non-existence, or have the property of non-existence, meaning that it exists since what has properties must necessarily exist, therefore making also what does not exist part of existence, so that in any case, that which does not exist cannot either be meaningfully discussed!

wait wat

 

[Resonance]

Discussing this question is nonsensical,

Exactly They go in circles until a question mark pops out of their head like you just did. And then we all just agree that 'existence' is meaningless and we can go about our day content in the fact that we have eliminated a whole category of life's great questions.

 

[Feelings]

Erm u r overreaching in your definition and logic gymnastics. From your OP the key word to hone in on is 'omnipotent'. Your entire argument is held together by that crux. Once the word 'omnipotence' is used in a less strict way, or once the definition of God is slightly revised, your argument is dead.

 

[manatee]

And, similarly, once the definition of 'wrong' is revised, my argument might stop being it.

Point being, of course my argument is off base if the definitions I used are changed. But I'm curious: how would you define omnipotence?

 

[Candice_XX]

I think you are confusing the impact that the omnipotence has on the existence with the impact that omnipotence has on the arguments for the existence.

In fact, what I am getting to understand from your argument is more a atheist or agnostic view than a pro-God one. I mean:
The fact that omnipotence is contrary to existence does prevent me from accept such existence. However, I may be always wondering if there's something my non-omnipotent mind does not know about the properties of omnipotence.
At the end though, the fact that omnipotence means that everything is possible does not prevent me from arguing and maybe concluding with basic arguments that need not be produced by an omnipotent mind that omnipotence is not possible.

Concluding, I am supporting logic applied to every issue even on meta-physics. Logic can not end up being a cognitively meaningless mess (contrary to inroads of faith or emotion which may end up being one cognitively meaningless mess).

 

[the]

Somehow everything asked of you is too nonsensical to discuss. how exhausting.

 

[AhSver]

Logic is a tool of science, the ideas about omnipotence and their causality belong to the spheres of metaphysics. Where logic doesn't play such a crucial role, but I agree with [MENTION=3521]Candice_XX[/MENTION]: logic still is very important, at least in terms of building correct arguments. For example lots of religious themes in works of philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Descartes still relied on logical arguments to develop their ideas, even though they dealt with metaphysics that can be discarded with the hard logical approaches since Ludwig Wittgenstein made logic to be an even more powerful tool.

It is important to recognize the Holy and the Profane. I think it's a pretty good divide between the two worlds. Religion talks in symbols, science in facts. Omnipotence as a term doesn't not belong in science.
I agree with those that think there's no point in discussing the thread question: these are two different worlds, people. That's why it is OK to have both a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry, or any other hard science and treat both subjects with equal respect and perceive religion more than just folklore or mythology.

I am an atheist, or a Pantheist to make it sound a little bit better, but I still believe that the two should have existence of their own but both must be guided by a strong common ground. For example I will never understand people who let their children die here in the U.S. because of diseases treated easily with antibiotics as they were expecting the intervention of God and relied on healing properties of prayers.

 

[Kmal]

Two persons using the same word referring to different things aren't taking about identical things.

If I am to engage in discussion with anyone, I have to assume the validity of language, since it's the only framework within which I can discuss anything with anyone, even though (unfortunately) this framework cannot validate itself.

The same goes for human reason in general, of course. I can acknowledge, within the framework of my reason and consciousness (defined as the faculty through which we interpret existence), that I cannot every externally validate this framework, since it is the only framework that I can interpret, analyze, experience, or do whatever. Since this is the case, I acknowledge the inherent uncertainty associated with everything I think, but at the same time, if I want to exist in existence, I have to assume that this faculty of mine is valid. Get what I'm say'n?

So, once it is established, within the frameworks of language and consciousness, that language and consciousness necessarily have to be seen as valid for existence and discussion, then my initial assertions can probably be examined with a more sober look, I'm hoping.

I'm not even sure what we're discussing now. Is discussing the existence of god nonsensical? Sure. Do humans do many nonsensical things? Yes.

A semantic discussion about semantics. You'll need to make your argument more straightforward and clear for me please. I'm a little slow.

Is discussing a nonsensical thing and how nonsensical it is nonsensical?

 

[manatee]

I think you are confusing the impact that the omnipotence has on the existence with the impact that omnipotence has on the arguments for the existence.

Well, what I've written might very well be simply a generally meaningless mess, but the point of my argument was to consider the relationship only between omnipotence and arguments about existence. If I slipped into an argument about God's actual existence, it was pure accident: I simply meant as regards subjective discussion, disregarding any connection to actual reality. I think.

In fact, what I am getting to understand from your argument is more a atheist or agnostic view than a pro-God one. I mean:
The fact that omnipotence is contrary to existence does prevent me from accept such existence. However, I may be always wondering if there's something my non-omnipotent mind does not know about the properties of omnipotence.
At the end though, the fact that omnipotence means that everything is possible does not prevent me from arguing and maybe concluding with basic arguments that need not be produced by an omnipotent mind that omnipotence is not possible.

Sure, you might argue that, logically, omnipotence is impossible. Does it follow from this that a being defined as omnipotent does not exist? I'd contend that it doesn't: if one of the most fundamental properties of a being is specified as omnipotence, and omnipotence+logic does not blend, then how wrongheaded would it not be to apply logic to this being? Any discussion of it is beyond the reach of logic.

The thing is, if you let whatever logical obstacle you've set up for God trip ithimher, then, you're no longer discussing God (assuming God is defined as omnipotent). The argument that 1. Omnipotence is impossible, 2. God is omnipotent, Conclusion: God is impossible is not valid, since the premises are not internally compatible. If God is omnipotent, then nothing for ithimher can be impossible. The result of applying logic to God seems to be nothing short of illogical. You dig?

I'm not even sure what we're discussing now. Is discussing the existence of god nonsensical? Sure. Do humans do many nonsensical things? Yes.

Of course, nonsensicalness does not imply that one shouldn't partake in it.

A semantic discussion about semantics. You'll need to make your argument more straightforward and clear for me please. I'm a little slow.

That's the thing! We can't discuss semantics outside of semantics, our only vehicle for verification goes through semantics, and since this is the case, semantics can never be validated by anything by itself, and of course, self-validation is preposterous, therefore, we can never trust them! But, the ironic thing is that I'm denouncing semantics using them, and the reason for this ironic action of mine is that, like I previously said, it's my only vehicle, which means that, while acknowledging its fallibility, I have to accept it as valid to function!

Is discussing a nonsensical thing and how nonsensical it is nonsensical?

Yeah, pro'lly.

 

[randomsomeone]

An object that has a particular property cannot at the same time have the opposite property.

I'd like some clarification on this as well because in certain cases, and from certain perspectives, this could indeed be possible in God.