Belief in God

[wolly.green]

The are loads of alternatives. God could be both material and immaterial, beyond comprehension, strictly material but imperceptible, etc.

Oh I see. In that case, there is no real need to ask about those alternatives. It is sufficient to show if an object A can obtain knowledge about object B, then it is necessarily the case that object B can obtain knowledge about object A.

Suppose this were not true. That is, suppose A can know about B, but B can not know about A. This means A and B are not completely isolated from each; information can travel back and forth between the two. But if information can travel back and forth between A and B, then the only way B can never know about A is if B is somehow limited by its cognitive apparatus. If B is somehow prevented from knowing about A due to some cognitive limitation. This would mean that there are things that are unknowable to B. But since the unknowable (A in this instances) affects the knowable, B can not really have knowledge about anything. Which is not true.

Therefore, if god (A) is real, we (B) can know and ask questions about God. QED

 

[Actual]

Oh I see. In that case, there is no real need to ask about those alternatives. It is sufficient to show if an object A can obtain knowledge about object B, then it is necessarily the case that object B can obtain knowledge about object A.

Suppose this were not true. That is, suppose A can know about B, but B can not know about A. This means A and B are not completely isolated from each; information can travel back and forth between the two. But if information can travel back and forth between A and B, then the only way B can never know about A is if B is somehow limited by its cognitive apparatus. If B is somehow prevented from knowing about A due to some cognitive limitation. This would mean that there are things that are unknowable to B. But since the unknowable (A in this instances) affects the knowable, B can not really have knowledge about anything. Which is not true.

Therefore, if god (A) is real, we (B) can know and ask questions about God. QED

*claps* I love it.

Ever studied Alvin Plantinga's work?

I'm a bit rusty (life got in the way), but at least I can understand most of this.

 

[wolly.green]

*claps* I love it.

Ever studied Alvin Plantinga's work?

I'm a bit rusty (life got in the way), but at least I can understand most of this.

Haha thanks. And no I haven't, who is he?

 

[Actual]

Haha thanks. And no I haven't, who is he?

American analytic Christian philosopher. He's getting a bit old, but has some fantastic arguments and defenses of concepts crucial to Christianity and applicable to other faiths.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

That said, I am with Descartes (among others) who states that the problem of belief is with the will and not the intellect.

I can explain that, but don't want to hijack the thread futher. Easy enough to find that argument though.

In any case, cheers!

 

[Ucenna]

Given that God exists I see two options:
Either A)
He exists but isn't bound by rational laws. Be that the case, any debate attempting to prove or disprove his existence is basically pointless. If God is not bound by the rules of logic, then he can not be understood via logic.

Either B)
The alternative is to believe he is bound by logic, at which point the debate of his existence becomes meaningful.

Seeing as A is unprovable and B has not been disproven, I side with B.

God is understood to be infinite. Being infinite, science would also need infinity to understand him by. Lacking infinity does not imply that we can not understand God, it simply means we cannot completely understand him. We have a finite understanding of an infinite being, and thusly an incomplete one.

I don't see any problem with asking a question that we can't be sure of finding a perfect answer for. Isn't that what science is about? Asking questions and answering them in so far as we are able. Humanity has been learning almost since the beginning of it's existence, asking questions and finding imperfect answers. But those answers still shed light. And as more knowledge is found, our answers get closer to perfection, closer to truth. Time allows finite things to draw closer to infinity.

 

[Actual]

Given that God exists I see two options:
Either A)
He exists but isn't bound by rational laws. Be that the case, any debate attempting to prove or disprove his existence is basically pointless. If God is not bound by the rules of logic, then he can not be understood via logic.

Either B)
The alternative is to believe he is bound by logic, at which point the debate of his existence becomes meaningful.

Seeing as A is unprovable and B has not been disproven, I side with B.

God is understood to be infinite. Being infinite, science would also need infinity to understand him by. Lacking infinity does not imply that we can not understand God, it simply means we cannot completely understand him. We have a finite understanding of an infinite being, and thusly an incomplete one.

I don't see any problem with asking a question that we can't be sure of finding a perfect answer for. Isn't that what science is about? Asking questions and answering them in so far as we are able. Humanity has been learning almost since the beginning of it's existence, asking questions and finding imperfect answers. But those answers still shed light. And as more knowledge is found, our answers get closer to perfection, closer to truth. Time allows finite things to draw closer to infinity.

I'm more of a theologian than a philosopher, but I'll add a variant:

A/B hybrid:
God cannot be understood by logic, but God's *revelation of Himself* CAN BE. i.e. God is outside logic, but a revelation of God doesn't have to be. It's still not the same as God by any means, but the best we can understand.

And that revelation could have ended up as a man 2k years ago and into a tome for us as a personal communication from an otherwise unknowable God to humankind.

Possible? Certainly. Once you realize that the communication had to be written by someone outside of time due to the prophecies fullfilled in it and verifiably written hundreds of years before said events occurred, it becomes even more probable. (Not to derail thread, but it is generally relevant.)

 

[Ucenna]

I'm more of a theologian than a philosopher, but I'll add a variant:

A/B hybrid:
God cannot be understood by logic, but God's *revelation of Himself* CAN BE. i.e. God is outside logic, but a revelation of God doesn't have to be. It's still not the same as God by any means, but the best we can understand.

And that revelation could have ended up as a man 2k years ago and into a tome for us as a personal communication from an otherwise unknowable God to humankind.

Possible? Certainly. Once you realize that the communication had to be written by someone outside of time due to the prophecies fullfilled in it and verifiably written hundreds of years before said events occurred, it becomes even more probable. (Not to derail thread, but it is generally relevant.)

I also consider myself a theologian. Though I favor philosophy when I don't know others opinion on religion. Granted I'm probably more of a philosopher, but I respect theology. Theology seems to be intimately entwined with philosophy. Being a religious man, I apply philosophy to my religion as well.

Divine revelation is interesting. Still, God revealing himself wouldn't mean much if he wasn't logically consistent. Logic can give us an indication of what the revelation means but if God is outside of logic, what meaning would that indication truly have? If God isn't logically consistent, then his revelations must be equally inconsistent.

Actually....
If God isn't logically consistent, there's no reason for his creations to be logically consistent. And yet they are.
Certainly it must follow then that since this world is logically consistent either A:
God is logically consistent
or B:
Everything is logically consistent by accident.

 

[Actual]

If God isn't logically consistent, there's no reason for his creations to be logically consistent.

I don't see how this premise can stand as it is. If God is not logically consistent then anything is possible, including a creation bound by rules that God is not bound by.

Even the purported revelation from God (Bible) contains paradoxes and mysterious doctrines that have puzzled mankind from their beginning.

 

[Ucenna]

I don't see how this premise can stand as it is. If God is not logically consistent then anything is possible, including a creation bound by rules that God is not bound by.


Even the purported revelation from God (Bible) contains paradoxes and mysterious doctrines that have puzzled mankind from their beginning.

I must concur. In hindsight it is a poorly phrased premise.
It lacks a backbone. I feel that there is a way to prove it, but I haven't found it. I’ll further consider it and come back later.


As far as your counter argument, I do agree. Given that God doesn't follow logical rules then the logical rules we have incidental. If I were to continue arguing with out further defining my premise, I’d aim for a reductive approach:
Logic being incidental seems unlikely considering that logic has never been known to be defied.
Given that logic is not incidental,
God must be logical.


However that is still a bit shaky. I’ll see if I can't refine things a bit more.

 

[Actual]

I must concur. In hindsight it is a poorly phrased premise.
It lacks a backbone. I feel that there is a way to prove it, but I haven't found it. I’ll further consider it and come back later.


As far as your counter argument, I do agree. Given that God doesn't follow logical rules then the logical rules we have incidental. If I were to continue arguing with out further defining my premise, I’d aim for a reductive approach:
Logic being incidental seems unlikely considering that logic has never been known to be defied.
Given that logic is not incidental,
God must be logical.


However that is still a bit shaky. I’ll see if I can't refine things a bit more.

One thing that is interesting is that theologically (Bible), true miracles (i.e. clear violations of natural laws as we know them at least are VERY VERY RARE). And they were always done to verify that something or someone was indeed from God (but often also fulfilling a purpose at the same time). Like a stamp of authentication.

And always clearly miraculous. No ambiguity. (Unlike the acts of the sick and evil charlatans flying around in their Gulfstreams)

The miracles (at least public ones) stopped once the communication from God was finished (book of Revelation) as there was no longer a need for this stamp of authentication anymore to prove the veracity of the communication.

Just something interesting related to this from a theological perspective.

 

[wolly.green]

I must concur. In hindsight it is a poorly phrased premise.
It lacks a backbone. I feel that there is a way to prove it, but I haven't found it. I’ll further consider it and come back later.


As far as your counter argument, I do agree. Given that God doesn't follow logical rules then the logical rules we have incidental. If I were to continue arguing with out further defining my premise, I’d aim for a reductive approach:
Logic being incidental seems unlikely considering that logic has never been known to be defied.
Given that logic is not incidental,
God must be logical.


However that is still a bit shaky. I’ll see if I can't refine things a bit more.

Actually, you can say something much stronger than this. In philosophy and mathematics, logic is defined as a means of obtaining true conclusions from some set of premises. When one says a conclusion C follows logically from some set of premises P, what he is really saying is that whenever P is true, C is true. Another way of thinking about logic is to see it as a kind of formalization of what people do when attempting to reason about the world. As an attempt to impose structure onto the world. From here it is easy to see that your questions can be reformulated as follows: Are there any counterexamples that show logic does not guarantee the truth of conclusions, and if god defies logic, does this mean we can never ask questions about him. My answers are maybe and no.

 

[CosmicINFJ]

I'm not sure if god exists, at least not in traditional ways of thinking, that he is a he or looks like a man. There is something greater than us that encompasses everything and you can call this god if you want to. I'm not sure it is god. I do not stay awake at night wondering about the existence or non existence of a god. This does not cause me any consternation. I accept that I don't know and that most of the people that profess to know, don't know either.

I am aware of my own soul and I wonder what part it plays in all of this. I do the best I can. I care for my friends and family, I revere the planet that we live on and try to do as little harm to it as possible. I care about humanity and civilization and I pray that we don't fuck it all up. Who am I praying to?

 

[Ryso89]

God is subjective of course, specific to the individual. I'll never condemn someone for their interpretation of what God is to them.


It is my understanding and belief that god is within each one of us and certainly not some entity that is above and beyond the laws of physics that govern the universe. We are masters of our own realities - more so than we were ever taught to believe. The ruling establishment facilitates an environment of subservience and indoctrination, keeping the creative and wandering minds of the thinking child into a state of repetitive test taking. We are never taught our true potential in school. Only after and as a direct execution of interest in pursuing the ways of the world will anyone actually learn and put to use their minds to achieve great, powerful things. The power of quantum mechanics does not lie; we are both god and the devil, and as our spiritual selves enter into higher vibrations within the universe, the more energy we acquire and reflect back into the universe itself, the more we are able to manifest, and at higher speeds. This is god. We are god.

 

[Ifur]

Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.

Metaphysics question about the logic surrounding a concept, this would have brewed up a storm on INTJ-Open.

Think I'll try and answer this as a riddle!

Creation/existence and the cosmos, and therefore physics, follow natural laws that all things follows and come from.
Something that is everywhere, and has the logical potential for everything knowable, is everything and nothing at the same time.
Beings are living, but consciousness is ephemeral and transient; if everyone has an emotional centre in the core of their being.
Why is it called "Deus" rather than "Dei" in latin? And why is the shield of trinity, dealing with mind, body and identity not the hand (manus dei).

Who are you in your mind? "Them?", all the parts of your mind, what to "they" call YOU? More than a dead thing!

What's forbidden?-- Not possible to truly deal with this in any way that doesn't involve self discovery.

What's worse than discussing semantics? Metaphysics! in the former one can define and agree, and in the latter one can only circle around; and at the end of the day it's always plural.

When I discuss these things I tend to try and make a clear distinction between physical and natural processes and information in the form of language and philosophy.

Dictionary definitions and reading from scripture is death to self-discovery and spirituality.
And let me be clear, ignoring any idea of anything physical and it makes slightly more sense as a coherent philosophy, word and concept.

 

[Pin]

I don't have any beliefs about God.

God could exist, not exist. It doesn't really make a difference to me as long as I can live a great life.

 

[Ren]

I don't have any beliefs about God.

God could exist, not exist. It doesn't really make a difference to me as long as I can live a great life.

What is the understanding/definition of God you have in mind when you say this? A religious god, a Platonic god, an Aristotelian god...?

I suppose that if you are a (philosophical) materialist, then this solves the issue: no god, unless you're a pantheist.

 

[wiredandwound]

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)?

Yes. That is from the point of view of physics, God would be on the Y axis of the complex/imaginary plane. The imaginary plane is where magnetism lives, which is perpendicular to everything else, (which is why it is "imperceivable" to us that exist on the "Real" plane). The 90 degree phase shift (changing from the x axis to the y), is what allows polarizers to block light, and antennas to radiate EM waves. What most people forget about is that it only takes another 90 degree phase shift to allow humans to perceive the phenomena (which will be as a force).
I am not sure that you are a math/physics person, but this will make complete sense if you are. I am, and that is why I am using it as my example.

I believe deeply that their is certainly a "Creator". After decades of thought, there seems to be no other way (Ananke), as the Egyptians would say.
I have also studied the Bible intensely for many years (in spite of dogmatic rhetoric of the institutions), to the point where it makes perfect sense to me. I've never lost a battle in explaining the meanings of what it says. Unlike most people, I don't care about the incidental names and places, but I care about what it actually means.

 

[just me]

Well.......do you believe in the Trinity? How do you explain a spirit force on the x axis as part of the y? Maybe the Trinity would better be represented as the whole?

The polarized lenses I used, with a light underneath both, would allow light to pass in a form showing both axis........when holding a temprossed or heat-treated glass lense in between the polarized lenses. It formed a maltese cross.

Cannot find the correct picture,

 

[wiredandwound]

Well.......do you believe in the Trinity? How do you explain a spirit force on the x axis as part of the y? Maybe the Trinity would better be represented as the whole?

The polarized lenses I used, with a light underneath both, would allow light to pass in a form showing both axis........when holding a temprossed or heat-treated glass lense in between the polarized lenses. It formed a maltese cross.

Cannot find the correct picture,

The image you are using is a multi-phase polarizer. The type that I'm am talking about is a single-phase - (reference polarizers in photography/physics).

The "Trinity" is a construct of the institution, not the Word. It is not mentioned. BUT, it does not mean that it is not relevant. The Trinity has its roots in Greek Philosophy.

All physics is the measure of forces and interactions. The point that I am making is that when forces interactions become perpendicular to the senses/transducers, they become unknowable/intelligible, by nature. This is Platonic Logic. It does not mean that they stop existing. They just exist on a different plane. Plato calls this the Intelligible Plane - (reference Plato's Divided Line).

I agree with your statement that the "WHOLE" would represent the Trinity. In Ohm's Law, the Trinity is Voltage, Current, and Resistance. The "whole" is Power.

Ohm's Law follows this same principal. Power cannot be experienced on the real plane without Resistance. Even though Power may be present, without a resistance, there can be no observation of it.

 

[Skrimpshidy]

The way people equate love to a mere chemical reaction drives me insane. What a cold way to view anything so precious.

I would argue, a parent’s love for their children is far deeper than a mere chemical reaction. One second, you can’t stand the little jerks. At the same time, you would set yourself on fire to cure them of even the smallest of heartaches.

I believe, this is achieved with other humans as well.

With the god question. The physical human brain, along with imposed logic, and experiences from other brains, (which is arguably different than the mind, or being), tends to attempt to anthropomorphize that which is not readily attainable in this physical reality.

It’s not a question if there is a god. It’s merely a question of a personal belief in something no one can prove along with deeply personal experiences.

The same time, we can argue quantum physics in which, theoretically, we create our own reality, and as a consequence, bring immaterial things to be material, non existing, to existing. Including other dimensions and supposed afterlife.

It’s entirely plausible to create a lake of fire for your eternity. Same as gawd damned Candy Mountain for your eternity. At least, until you manifest another reality.