God belongs to what existence category?

[heusdens]

Although any discussion concerning this three-letter word, should be placed in the designated sub-topic of this Philosophy forum, the debate on this forum shows a large amount of post that are in concern of this aformentioned three-letter word.

So the topic of this thread then is a debate about the existence category which suits the three-letter word 'God'.

Let us define first a primary category of existence. The reason we define it as primary is because other categories of existence are dependend on it.

The first category of existence is therefore the category of material existence. This category of existence implies that the things that belong to this category exist in a timely, spacely fashion, and undergo change/motion, etc. The consequence of this category of existence is that all things which belong to this are never self-equal, because they undergo change and/or motion. Never are things equal to themselves when they belong to this category of existence, cause that would require things to exist without change and/or motion, or would require time to not exist, which is in contrast to the fact that things belonging to this category of existence DO exist in time and space, and do undergo change and/or motion.

Well there are plenty of things that belong in this catgeory of existence, as for instance your computer, the earth, the stars and planets, all living animals (and also the dead ones), etc. We can easiliy detect that these things do exist in a timely and spacely manner, and undergo change and/or motion.

The first question we then adress: does the three-letter word, denoted as 'God' belong to this category of existence?

In other words: is it in accordance with the definition of God that God exists in a timely, spacely way, and undergoes change and or motion? If so, we can then ask ourselves questions like:
- where does God exist, in what extend of space does God have existence
- when does God exist, in what extend of time does God have existence.

The where and when question clearly contrast any known definitions of God, that is: as far as I know of definitions of God. (which define God as existing without change and/or motion, and thus outside of time and space).

So my assumption would be that God then would not belong to the primary category of existence.

Are there other categories of existence?
Well yes there are, and they can be designated to have existence as well, because we can define this category of existence within our mind.

What kind of things belong to that category of existence, the category of the mind?

Well we can think of many things. Mathematical concepts, geometrical concepts, poems, etc. All these things, that exist outside of space and time, and exist without change, can be said to belong to this category of the mind.
A point in space, as a geometrical concept, is something that clearly does not change in time. It is the modeled space, the geometrical concept of space, that carries such points, but outside of our mind, such points do not really exist. There might be things in reality that come close to this (things like point-masses, etc) but in a crucial way, they do not exactly fit the description of the geometrical concept of a point in space.

The essence of the category of mind, is that it is not an independend category of existence. The mind can not exist on it's own, that is without the material reality as such. Our minds are based on the way our brain as a material organ functions. The existence of a mind without a material reality would be a baseless assumption. It would be just as baseless as the existence of the "nothingness" (the absolute negation of all of existence).

It is my strong assumption that the three-letter word written out as 'God' is a concept, that can only belong to this category of existence: the mind.
Which means, that it does not exist outside of the mind (there is nothing there in the material reality, that fits the definition of the term 'God') and is dependend on the mind, which itself is dependend on the material reality.

 

[wuliheron]

Your definition of God is an ethnocentric and fundamentalist one. For example, Pantheists can be religious Atheists who worship material reality as somehow Divine, possessed of all the power, beauty, mystery, etc. one could ask for in a God. It is an entirely non-anthropomorphic vision of God.

Plato was the first to formalize the common western image of God as infinite, idealized, and being most clearly perceived cognitively and emotionally. This is a kind of compromise between the extremely rational materialistic Pantheistic visions and the irrational paradoxical ones of many shamanistic faiths. Where as Pantheist religions can empower the individual with situational ethics and Shamanism allows for an incredible number of interpretations, Plato's vision supports fundamentalist moralities handed down from on high that maintain the statis quo.

It's odd that an infinite cognitive view of God should support black and white views of the world, but then, the finite and infinite define each other.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Although any discussion concerning this three-letter word, should be placed in the designated sub-topic of this Philosophy forum,


The first question we then adress: does the three-letter word, denoted as 'God' belong to this category of existence?

Actually, the first question ought to be to define what you mean by the word "god". Once you do this then understand that the points you make may not apply to any other definition. I think Wuli was saying something similar to you. Your comments above about this thread being in the sub-topic gives us clues as to what you think the definition is because I don't think that all discussions about "god" necessarily imply religion. And I perceive that particular forum to be about God as it relates to religion.

I really don't have anything specific to say about your points except to say that they try to make sense of things based on concepts as they are currently understood. You have neatly divided reality into categories of material and mind. Then based on an unproven assertion that mind is completely dependent on material existence, you make certain points. Overlooking the materialist spin, I think this approach is limited by the same types of things I see all the time. Ideas like "Reality is either this way or it is that way". It amazes me that we conveniently have the concepts to explain all the possibilities for reality. This idea translates to ideas like "Either a god personality exists or reality is just an accidental box full of rocks". I have a hard time believing that reality is this simple. My question is "what possibilities might lie in between these 2 extremes? We cannot discuss these possibilities because we have no words to describe them. The word "god" has too many associations with the extreme. In my opinion, this same thing happens when we try to understand cutting edge science. Theories like quantum mechanics generate much debate on their interpretation because "interpretation" means trying to make it fit into our conceptual framework for reality when perhaps it does not.

I think the concepts used here "Material" and "Mind" also struggle with definition. Broad labeled categories like this inevitably incorporate other concepts that themselves cannot be properly defined or understood completely ie. "time".

I hope this post is clear. I'm not really disagreeing with any of your points here. I'm just presenting thoughts that I ponder on as I read threads like this. Carry on.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
So the topic of this thread then is a debate about the existence category which suits the three-letter word 'God'.

Let us define first a primary category of existence. The reason we define it as primary is because other categories of existence are dependend on it.

Much in the way water seeks its own level and is the essence of life, God is the essence of being, and is supportive in every single last detail.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Much in the way water seeks its own level and is the essence of life, God is the essence of being, and is supportive in every single last detail.

That's all good and well, but then you need to define "essence" or your definition cannot be distinguished from what has already been presented.

No matter what definition of God you use, by the standards of logicians they are all paradoxical or, at the very least, extremely vague.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Your definition of God is an ethnocentric and fundamentalist one. For example, Pantheists can be religious Atheists who worship material reality as somehow Divine, possessed of all the power, beauty, mystery, etc. one could ask for in a God. It is an entirely non-anthropomorphic vision of God.

It is not "my" definition of God. I took the most common definition I know of, and which have been discussed on this forum (while in fact they do not belong on this forum, but in the religion department, since there is bo obvious reason, philosophy should assume the existence of God) over and over.

if that one isn't good, then please provide me a better definition of God. Or would you say there are more definitions, and even contrasting definitions of God? I do not mind how you define God.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's all good and well, but then you need to define "essence" or your definition cannot be distinguished from what has already been presented.

No matter what definition of God you use, by the standards of logicians they are all paradoxical or, at the very least, extremely vague.

Would you have me pinpoint it and destroy it, as the entomologist destroys the butterfly?

What does it say in the dictionary by the way?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Actually, the first question ought to be to define what you mean by the word "god". Once you do this then understand that the points you make may not apply to any other definition. I think Wuli was saying something similar to you. Your comments above about this thread being in the sub-topic gives us clues as to what you think the definition is because I don't think that all discussions about "god" necessarily imply religion. And I perceive that particular forum to be about God as it relates to religion.

You're quite right about that. I used a definition which I found most often on here, which defined God as not having existence in a timely/spacely manner, and neither in a changing/motionly way.
I take it that that is just "one" way to define the existence of God, and there must be others. It even might be the case there are contradictionary definitions of God.

Same hard perhaps it would probably be to define the human mind.

I really don't have anything specific to say about your points except to say that they try to make sense of things based on concepts as they are currently understood. You have neatly divided reality into categories of material and mind. Then based on an unproven assertion that mind is completely dependent on material existence, you make certain points. Overlooking the materialist spin, I think this approach is limited by the same types of things I see all the time. Ideas like "Reality is either this way or it is that way". It amazes me that we conveniently have the concepts to explain all the possibilities for reality. This idea translates to ideas like "Either a god personality exists or reality is just an accidental box full of rocks". I have a hard time believing that reality is this simple. My question is "what possibilities might lie in between these 2 extremes? We cannot discuss these possibilities because we have no words to describe them. The word "god" has too many associations with the extreme. In my opinion, this same thing happens when we try to understand cutting edge science. Theories like quantum mechanics generate much debate on their interpretation because "interpretation" means trying to make it fit into our conceptual framework for reality when perhaps it does not.

I think the concepts used here "Material" and "Mind" also struggle with definition. Broad labeled categories like this inevitably incorporate other concepts that themselves cannot be properly defined or understood completely ie. "time".

I hope this post is clear. I'm not really disagreeing with any of your points here. I'm just presenting thoughts that I ponder on as I read threads like this. Carry on.

Any definition is a strugle of course. It is true for matter, mind, space, time, etc. But in a way, I think, these terms are easier to understand then any definition I have heard of God.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is not "my" definition of God. I took the most common definition I know of, and which have been discussed on this forum (while in fact they do not belong on this forum, but in the religion department, since there is bo obvious reason, philosophy should assume the existence of God) over and over.

if that one isn't good, then please provide me a better definition of God. Or would you say there are more definitions, and even contrasting definitions of God? I do not mind how you define God.

Interesting, looking through dictionary definitions of God I did not see a single one with much resemblance to yours. In addition, philosophy deals with all kinds of issues including the possibility of God. Spinoza's Pantheism being a particularly dramatic case in point.

As for a decent definition of a God, I would say God(s) are deities or divinities people worship.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Interesting, looking through dictionary definitions of God I did not see a single one with much resemblance to yours. In addition, philosophy deals with all kinds of issues including the possibility of God. Spinoza's Pantheism being a particularly dramatic case in point.

As for a decent definition of a God, I would say God(s) are deities or divinities people worship.

It's not "my" definition of a God, but just one I picked up on here.

Is the worshipping thing a way for these divine entities to exist, i.e. would their existence come to a halt, when they would no longer be worshipped?

What happened to Wodan for instance? Or Ra?

 

[wuliheron]

I would add here seperately that there are five basic states of existence attributed to God(s) that I know of:

1) Imminant--god is here, now. God is not merely in everything, God is everything. (Pantheism)

2) Transcendent--god came, did their thing, and split. (Theism)

3) Imminant & Transcendent--god is somehow both. (Panentheism)

4)Paradoxical--god is nonsensical, yet obviously true. (absurdism)

5)Ineffable--exactly what god is and isn't is impossible to say, yet it can be said. (mysticism)

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
It's not "my" definition of a God, but just one I picked up on here.

Is the worshipping thing a way for these divine entities to exist, i.e. would their existence come to a halt, when they would no longer be worshipped?

What happened to Wodan for instance? Or Ra?

Whether or not God(s) need to be worshiped for them to exist just depends upon your point of view. Some people today, by the way, still worship Wodan and pagan (i.e. not christian) religions are making a come back in the west.

What is certain, is that Gods are worshiped either out of fear or love or both. It is a pointedly emotional relationship for all believers no matter what rational differences they might have.

 

[Iacchus32]

This one's for you Wu Li:

Excerpt from Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts ...

Philosophically, we do not think of God as having the peculiar personal characteristics of a tribal patriarch, nor yet of an Oriental despot of uncertain temper and undoubted power, whose every whim is law and before whom all must grovel in the dust. Even when this awesome creature is endowed with a sense of perfect justice and mercy, he does not fit our philosophic conception, because he is still very much of a man -- ridiculous in that he takes himself too seriously. Nearer to our intellectual idea of God is the type of emperor envisaged by Lao-tzu, who advised the would-be ruler to be like the Tao, governing his sujects without letting them know that they were being governed ...

The great Tao pervades everywhere, both on the left and on the right.

By it all things come into being, and it does not reject them. Merits accomplished, it does not possesses them (or, lay claim to them).

It loves and nourishes all things but does not dominate over them...

Because it never assumes greatness, therefore it can accomplish greatness.

Therefore the Sage (as ruler), in order to be above the people, must in words keep below them;

In order to be ahead of the people, he must in person keep behind them.

Thus when he is above, the people do not feel his burden; When he is ahead, the people do not feel his hindrance. Therefore all the world is pleased to hold him in high esteem and never get tired of him.

Because he does not compete, no one competes with him.

 

[BoulderHead]

God belongs to what existence category?

How about the category of 'unproven'?

Originally posted by wuliheron
5)Ineffable--exactly what god is and isn't is impossible to say, yet it can be said. (mysticism)

I like this category too.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I would add here seperately that there are five basic states of existence attributed to God(s) that I know of:

1) Imminant--god is here, now. God is not merely in everything, God is everything. (Pantheism)

This would indicate that the definition of God then conforms to that of the material reality. The only difference is the used terminology.

2) Transcendent--god came, did their thing, and split. (Theism)

The definition is a bit poor, and can (at least) be seen in two different ways:

A. One way of regarding this defintion is to assume that God is placed outside of the material world, and from there (some form of 'eternal/unchanging existence') "created" all of matter, space and time, etc. This is: God is seen as the reason of existence, and cause of existence of all of the material world, the universe, etc.
It is one way of answering the "Fundamental Question" and is the exact opposite as to answer that this question is totally meaningless, or unanswerable (from the very nature of the question). God is then a way for providing an answer to a question that can either be held as without meaning (there is no 'alternative' for an existing world) or unanswerable (any well-founded reason for stating 'X is the case' must be an answer in the form 'because Y is the case', yet the very nature of the question urges us to assume that no such Y can exist).
This would place the concept of God into the category of the mind.


B. Another way of regarding this concept is from considering that the known material world, is only a tiny fraction of a much broader material reality, which had no beginning in time, and has no edge or boundary and can be thought as infinite in spatial-temporal extend.
All of that reality, which we do not yet have real knowledge about, and never will have total knowledge about despite the fact that our knowledge of the world can and ever will be increasing, can be denoted under the term 'God'. The current material reality then has it's origin in an unknown preceding material form (for instance, from the point of view of our current knowledge, we could call the Big Bang our horizon, and have no actual knowledge about the pre-existing material reality).
The distinction is then based on the part of material reality we actually know about, and the infinite material reality, we do not have
actual knowledge about. We can shift our 'horizon' of knowledge, but we will always be confronted with the fact that an infinite part of material reality, we do not have actual knowledge about. We can only 'assume' some material reality had always and will always exist, but it will be quite difficult to make a comprehensible description of material reality far behind our present horizon of knowledge, for instance 'before' the Big Bang, outside of our spatial observed universe, or beyond our knowledge of physical laws and physical reality. Even when -in principle- there is no theoretical limit in the understanding of this, material reality can never be understood in full or in an absolute sense.

This places the concept of God into the category of the material reality.

3) Imminant & Transcendent--god is somehow both. (Panentheism)

The question is in what way God can be defined under both definitions.

From the previous definition (Transcedent), this does not conflict the first definition (Imminant), if we use the second concept (B).

A combination of God as all of material reality and God is the reason or cause of the material reality itself, is at first in conflict with each other.
But it then can be said that the material reality itself, contains it's own reason and cause. The actual material reality negates the fact that such a material reality is not existing, the world states it's own existence.

Both ways of looking at it, place God in the category of material existence.

4)Paradoxical--god is nonsensical, yet obviously true. (absurdism)

Paradox as an absurd contradiction. We need to be aware that material reality as such is not without contradiction itself.
For instance: since matter doesn't have a begin or end, it requires us to regard time as infinite. The convept of infinity itself however is a contradiction, and one we cannot get rid of, without running into deeper and more profound contradictions.
Even absurd ones.

This places God in the category of existence of the mind.

Perhaps we need to add here: an absurd mind. An absurdity which is in fact not necessarily, but comes from incomplete understanding of the material reality, in our attempt to avoid contradictions.
Provided we do not neglect the fact that the material world and also the mind, can never be comprehended and fully understood without contradiction, and our way of reasoning about material reality should include the concept of contradiction. That is: we need to take a dialectical approach to our understanding of the material reality.

5)Ineffable--exactly what god is and isn't is impossible to say, yet it can be said. (mysticism)

This is to say, that God is undefinable, and all attempts to define it, will always fail. Like the soap we never can grab.

Because of the feauture of mysticism this would place God in the category of the mind, together with fairy tales and mythology.

But it can be argued as well, that our very research into the depths of material reality, confronts us with very intruiging concept of reality, which do not stand very far from what mysticism describes.

If our argument would be that the material world would have to be describable in ordinary terms, it comes out that as seen from that perspective that material reality itself is quite 'mystical'.
Electrons are in some place, but in the same instance can not be in some exact place at a given time, which confuses our ordinary understanding of some thing that is at a certain and exact place in a certain and exact time. An electron is in a place and is not in a place, at the same time. Etc.

So, it can be argued that this definition of God, could for this reason as well form ground for asserting that this definition of God places it in the category of matter.

The argument against that, is that an actual and more profound understanding of material reality, will get rid of any form of mystical concepts which come from applying our ordinary understanding of the world around us, to either the very big or very small physical world.


Btw:
Are these all the known and possible definitions for God?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
How about the category of 'unproven'?

This is besides the issue.

If I claim the existence of for instance a planet orbiting a certain star, which thus far is not backed up by any observational evidence, it could be said that the claim is not proven.

But this does not contradict the fact that we talk here about a category of existence which is material.

Which is quite different then the claim that a planet exist in my imagination (having vivid imagination I could even think of the existence of intelligent beings there, the possibility that they have visited earth, etc), circuiting the same star.

Because then the planet from it's definition has existence only in the mind, and not outside of that.

I am not investigating the 'proof of God', I merely try to find out, from the (formal) definition of that entity, to what category of existence it would belong.


I could for instance have my own definition of God, and state that God is the material world beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
From that definition, it would place God into the realms of material existence. Further it follows from the definition that an actual proof for the existence of God, is always beyond human reachability, independed of the fact that our understanding and knowledge of the world, can increase without any limit. It's the world beyond human knowledge and comprehension. We have good grounds for stating that such a material reality (the part we do not -yet- have actual knowledge of) actually exists (in the same way as the subatomic particles we now know of, do exist, but were in previous times outside of human knowledge), while at the same time, that is something that can not be directly proven (by definition).
The basis for our grounds on which we do assume a material reality exists outside our current horizon of knowledge, is because we never witnessed an actual limit to our knowledge, thus far we were always able of acquiring more and deeper understanding of the material world.
Furher, any concept of a material reality, would need to comprehend of the material world, as having no limit or end, or boundary or edge.
The "no boundary proposal" (Hawking) is the very minimum, but is in fact a too minimal approach. It still entails a possible beginning of the world in real time, and the possibility of a finite size universe.
This is not how I think of the material reality, which in my vision, does not have a finite extend. Both space, time and matter are infinite in extend.

 

[wuliheron]

I think BH was at least partly joking. Whatever the case I agree with you that it is not the issue on the table.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I think BH was at least partly joking. Whatever the case I agree with you that it is not the issue on the table.

That was probably the intention of the remark.

Nevertheless, for avoiding misunderstanding, I placed a serious comment on that.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
That was probably the intention of the remark.

Nevertheless, for avoiding misunderstanding, I placed a serious comment on that.

Heusdens, all good and fine then, for as suspected it was largely a jest. I still favor the #5 option posted by Wu Li. Here is the progression I see in this thread;

1) You wish to put God into some sort of category.
2) It has become apparent that in order to perform step number one God must first be defined.
3) There is no definition that will satisfy all of the members here at PF (or anywhere else).

This is where I give up, and why I favor the Ineffable/mystical ‘category’.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Heusdens, all good and fine then, for as suspected it was largely a jest. I still favor the #5 option posted by Wu Li. Here is the progression I see in this thread;

1) You wish to put God into some sort of category.
2) It has become apparent that in order to perform step number one God must first be defined.
3) There is no definition that will satisfy all of the members here at PF (or anywhere else).

This is where I give up, and why I favor the Ineffable/mystical ‘category’.

What I wish for, and what can be done, are two separate things.

I agree with #2. We can only proceed in this, if some well founded definition is being put forwarded.

From #3 I would conclude we have to consider, the entity for which we seek a definition, is multiple, i.e. has separate and distinct definitions, that probably do not match up to one solid defined being.

So, we can in that case proceed, as if they were separate entities, each having their respective definitions, and not assume from the fact that people consider it to be part of a same and undividable sub-category of existence under the name of 'God', and proceed for each individual definition.

Or, and that is maybe what you suggest, consider them all as denoting the same entity, which is however attributed with distinct and separate definitions. The proceedings then run first into the trouble of making sense of those separate definitions, which when combined make even less sense as each separate definition alone, and might even show up as showing both from the inside (from one individual definition) and from the outside (the combination of the separate definitions) an absurd and confusing case.

I hold it however, that the separate definitions that exist and that we so far have come across in this thread, is to be treated as that each entirely denotes and defines the entity, for which we want to discover the category of existence to which it might belong, in full, and that we should simply ignore the fact that distinct and contradictionary definitions exist for this entity, despite the fact that each definitions claims that it is the same entity. This is to say: we treat them as conquerring definitions.

As a sidetrack, it might be worthwhile to find out where each definition originates from, and so, and further if something relevant can be said about the development of such definitions.

 

[BoulderHead]

The ineffable Name of God…
The ineffable Definition of God?

Where my thoughts are taking me would likely divert the intent of this topic. I will consider starting a separate thread dealing with them, perhaps.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The ineffable Name of God…
The ineffable Definition of God?

Where my thoughts are taking me would likely divert the intent of this topic. I will consider starting a separate thread dealing with them, perhaps.

What does "ineffable" in fact mean?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
What does "ineffable" in fact mean?

I'd like to take a sideways approach to answering that after the topic I just started in philosophy (God...to define is to destroy?) has had a few days to be looked at.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I'd like to take a sideways approach to answering that after the topic I just started in philosophy (God...to define is to destroy?) has had a few days to be looked at.

You could have placed the post of that new thread in this thread.

Now you destroy this thread by creating a sideways thread :(

And besides, I think your conclusion is wrong, because at least God can be placed in the existence category of the mind, without problem.
Even if the definition of God would suggest it would not just be a concept of the mind.

If the definition of God fails to adress a proper category of existence, what shows up is that we just came across an improper concept. This isn't bad or wrong, human history shows plenty of examples where mankind had improper concepts, which were proven wrong.

What in my opinion is the case, is that any concept of God, needs to fit into the general concept of reality we have. Since we don't have and never will have a complete and absolute concept of reality, this would in my mind not imply that ultimately any definition of God would fail to fit into our concept of reality.

 

[BoulderHead]

You could have placed the post of that new thread in this thread.

Now you destroy this thread by creating a sideways thread :(

Your post is about the existence category that best suits the three-letter word ‘God’. My post assumes that God must be material in order for science to discover and dissect him, with the main thrust of it asking what the consequences of a material God would be in regard to human attitudes. I think there is enough difference for it to stand on its own, but I’m sorry that you feel this thread has been destroyed. I do not, however, think it has.

And besides, I think your conclusion is wrong, because at least God can be placed in the existence category of the mind, without problem.
Even if the definition of God would suggest it would not just be a concept of the mind.

I suppose, but this seems all too easy to me and this line of thought might be applied to any number of things. Without having god at our disposal to examine, who can truly say what god may or may not be, and isn’t this likely to be the exact same reason why so many people have so many different concepts of god? I will tell you up front that if there is a god I have no idea what it is made of. For obvious reasons my first feeling is that a god must be at least in some way a physical creature, and if god is not physical then it quickly becomes impossible for me to imagine what it might be. There are problems that I see with a physical god (lack of respect from science, as mentioned in the thread I started, being just one of them). Eventually I am left to ponder that god may be something I cannot understand, or to quote A. Camus;

"I don't know whether this world has a meaning which transcends it. But I do know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch - what resists me - that is what I understand. And these two certainties - my appetite for the absolute and for unity, and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle - I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?"
-Albert Camus

If the definition of God fails to adress a proper category of existence, what shows up is that we just came across an improper concept. This isn't bad or wrong, human history shows plenty of examples where mankind had improper concepts, which were proven wrong.

What in my opinion is the case, is that any concept of God, needs to fit into the general concept of reality we have. Since we don't have and never will have a complete and absolute concept of reality, this would in my mind not imply that ultimately any definition of God would fail to fit into our concept of reality.

Are you suggesting humanity holds a view of god that may change to suit the needs/knowledge of man?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Your post is about the existence category that best suits the three-letter word ‘God’. My post assumes that God must be material in order for science to discover and dissect him, with the main thrust of it asking what the consequences of a material God would be in regard to human attitudes. I think there is enough difference for it to stand on its own, but I’m sorry that you feel this thread has been destroyed. I do not, however, think it has.

I did not mean that. It was just a way in which a reaction towards your pitty about 'destroying God'.

I suppose, but this seems all too easy to me and this line of thought might be applied to any number of things. Without having god at our disposal to examine, who can truly say what god may or may not be, and isn’t this likely to be the exact same reason why so many people have so many different concepts of god? I will tell you up front that if there is a god I have no idea what it is made of. For obvious reasons my first feeling is that a god must be at least in some way a physical creature, and if god is not physical then it quickly becomes impossible for me to imagine what it might be. There are problems that I see with a physical god (lack of respect from science, as mentioned in the thread I started, being just one of them). Eventually I am left to ponder that god may be something I cannot understand, or to quote A. Camus;

"I don't know whether this world has a meaning which transcends it. But I do know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch - what resists me - that is what I understand. And these two certainties - my appetite for the absolute and for unity, and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle - I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?"
-Albert Camus

Are you suggesting humanity holds a view of god that may change to suit the needs/knowledge of man?

If it follows from your point of view that when looked and explored into the issue of God in a scientific way, we can set ourselves free of any concept of God, as it then becomes unnessary.

When you explore into the many concept of God, and the many religions, one could certainly say that at least some religions adapted their concept of God to fit in the real world.
One for the first persons to put forward the idea of the Big Bang, for instance, was a belgian priest named George Lemaitre, who thought of this cosmic event as something that was in accordance with the christian view of God. Religion struggles also for it's survical in this world, which has changed a lot due to scientific explorations.
So the old concepts and definitions of God, need therefore to eb changed, to catch up with our understanding of reality.

My claim would be is that, as long as they change the definition and concept of God accordingly, they may catch up, and can preventy their religion or concept of God to be outdated and be nothing more as a reliqui of ancient history of mankind.

The reason why I think that is quite simple. Scientific knowledge provides us good and deep insight of how the world actually works. But this knowledge is never finished, or complete. Absolute knowledge is something quite contradictionary to science. That means there are always things we do not yet know about or do not yet understand.
That is where religion can make it's stand, and show us the other side of knowledge: the fact that our knowledge and understanding is never complete.

If that in the long run would make much sense, holding up a religion or a concept of God, is perhaps something different. But as of yet we have to face the fact that the great discoveries of science are not common concepts for all of humanity. For instance even in a country as the USA many people still hold up to their christian / fundamental beliefs, and do doubt evolution theory for example, at least to the extend that they see no reason to give up their belief.
There is still a large gap between the scientific understanding of the world, and the understanding of common people. At least it would necessitate governments to spend more money in scientific education.

 

[BoulderHead]

I did not mean that. It was just a way in which a reaction towards your pitty about 'destroying God'.

You may be misreading me here. I have no pity for a god, only for humans. You made a good point in that other thread but I’ll save my comments to post over there.

If it follows from your point of view that when looked and explored into the issue of God in a scientific way, we can set ourselves free of any concept of God, as it then becomes unnessary.

Yes, you are correct, though this doesn’t mean we must do it.

With regard to changes within religion, I have stated before and maintain my ‘prediction’ that what the future holds will be the abandonment of fundamentalist views and the adoption of a religious view that can, and will, change to suit the needs of man…

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
You may be misreading me here. I have no pity for a god, only for humans. You made a good point in that other thread but I’ll save my comments to post over there.

Yes, you are correct, though this doesn’t mean we must do it.

Perhaps you should explain why you think that we should not get rid of a concept of God. I have some idea why you are saying so, and I know of 'some attempts' to do so in philosophical respect, that are not very appealing to me (f.i. Nietsche, who can be seen as the founder of the nazi-ideology).

With regard to changes within religion, I have stated before and maintain my ‘prediction’ that what the future holds will be the abandonment of fundamentalist views and the adoption of a religious view that can, and will, change to suit the needs of man…

A kind of 'world religion' binding all human beings together in one human outlook on reality?

Or communism?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
Perhaps you should explain why you think that we should not get rid of a concept of God. I have some idea why you are saying so, and I know of 'some attempts' to do so in philosophical respect, that are not very appealing to me (f.i. Nietsche, who can be seen as the founder of the nazi-ideology).

One very simple reason is that the bulk of humanity will not accept the non-existence of god at this time.

A kind of 'world religion' binding all human beings together in one human outlook on reality?

It would be tempting to say yes, but I think it would be more like a 'world religion' that binds all human beings together while allowing for unique and individual outlooks on reality.

Or communism?

Socialist most likely.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
One very simple reason is that the bulk of humanity will not accept the non-existence of god at this time.
It would be tempting to say yes, but I think it would be more like a 'world religion' that binds all human beings together while allowing for unique and individual outlooks on reality.

And what about humanism?

Socialist most likely.

Of course. Just one step at a time. Socialism is an necessary and intermediate step.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
And what about humanism?

Which type?
http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men...the master of superstition is the people; and arguments are fitted to practice, in a reverse order."
-Sir Francis Bacon

Of course. Just one step at a time. Socialism is an necessary and intermediate step. [/B]

I suspect this Socialism may be totalitarian in nature.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I suspect this Socialism may be totalitarian in nature.

I suspect mankind is able of learning from history, and can learn from their mistakes. Somewhere between utopian and totalitarian there must be a way that can lead to real social progress and human development, which does not conflict with human nature and nature itself.

 

[wuliheron]

Look guys, what's up? Are the Jehovas' witnesses moving into the philosophy forum or what?

Talking about the possible existent states of Gods is one thing, but this is social darwinism that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Look guys, what's up? Are the Jehovas' witnesses moving into the philosophy forum or what?

Talking about the possible existent states of Gods is one thing, but this is social darwinism that has nothing to do with the topic.

It was a sidetrack.

Back to the topic.

 

[Mentat]

Please forgive me for not having read all of the other posts in this thread, but I feel compelled to answer this one now:

Originally posted by heusdens
Although any discussion concerning this three-letter word, should be placed in the designated sub-topic of this Philosophy forum, the debate on this forum shows a large amount of post that are in concern of this aformentioned three-letter word.

So the topic of this thread then is a debate about the existence category which suits the three-letter word 'God'.

No offense, but you are right in assuming that such discussions belong in the Religion Sub-Forum.

The first question we then adress: does the three-letter word, denoted as 'God' belong to this category of existence?

It depends on which "God" you are talking about. If you mean the God of the Bible, then my answer is: Possibly.

In other words: is it in accordance with the definition of God that God exists in a timely, spacely way, and undergoes change and or motion? If so, we can then ask ourselves questions like:
- where does God exist, in what extend of space does God have existence

He exists in as much space as your mind does. Your mind doesn't take up any space, and neither does God (at least, not the God of the Bible, Jehovah). However, His "active force" (often referred to as the "Holy Spirit" is supposed to be the energy by which He created all things, and thus is everywhere (since all physical things are energy).

- when does God exist, in what extend of time does God have existence.

In all of it (again, I'm referring to the Bible's God here, I am not speaking for any other form of theism). He is supposed to have existed since the beginning of time. In fact, He would be the creator of time itself.

The where and when question clearly contrast any known definitions of God, that is: as far as I know of definitions of God. (which define God as existing without change and/or motion, and thus outside of time and space).

Actually, the common conception of Jehovah is that He does change. In fact, if you really study the Bible, you will realize that He doesn't know the entire future, and has changed the path by which He accomplishes His purposes numerous times.


Another point: I don't like the huge gap that you place between conceptual existence and physical existence. As I've tried to explain to wimms, in another thread, concepts interact with physical entities all of the time (in our brain, for example). Therefore, there cannot be such a large difference between those two forms of existence.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Look guys, what's up? Are the Jehovas' witnesses moving into the philosophy forum or what?

Just a feeling out process.

Talking about the possible existent states of Gods is one thing, but this is social darwinism that has nothing to do with the topic.

Wu Li, of the 5 states of existence attributed to God(s) you mentioned, what might be your leaning?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Just a feeling out process.
Wu Li, of the 5 states of existence attributed to God(s) you mentioned, what might be your leaning?

My learning is that It is what it is, whatever that is. Instead of attempting to pin it to the board like a butterfly specimen I take a more pragmatic approach and watch the butterflies in action. Likewise, instead of attempting to pin my own feelings and behavior down to a single thought system and paradyme, I just go with the flow and see what works. To quote Grocho Marx, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." :-)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
No offense, but you are right in assuming that such discussions belong in the Religion Sub-Forum.

Yes, But since so many discussion ae going on within this forum about God, and not in the forum that is attributed for it, I thought I could as well discuss this topic here, to really find out what people mean with their notions of God.

He exists in as much space as your mind does. Your mind doesn't take up any space, and neither does God (at least, not the God of the Bible, Jehovah). However, His "active force" (often referred to as the "Holy Spirit" is supposed to be the energy by which He created all things, and thus is everywhere (since all physical things are energy).

In all of it (again, I'm referring to the Bible's God here, I am not speaking for any other form of theism). He is supposed to have existed since the beginning of time. In fact, He would be the creator of time itself.

That is something contradictionary. If one claims on one hand that God exists in time, and on the other hand, God created time.
Since he must have done that at a 'time' in which there was no time.

Actually, the common conception of Jehovah is that He does change. In fact, if you really study the Bible, you will realize that He doesn't know the entire future, and has changed the path by which He accomplishes His purposes numerous times.

That could fit reality, as it might turn out this universe (spacetime bubble) coming out of the spacetime/quantum foam, is one in an eternal chain of coming and going of universes, in a fractal 'landscape' of universes.

Another point: I don't like the huge gap that you place between conceptual existence and physical existence. As I've tried to explain to wimms, in another thread, concepts interact with physical entities all of the time (in our brain, for example). Therefore, there cannot be such a large difference between those two forms of existence.

Who claims that there is a huge gap between material existence and the existence in the mind? I even claimed that the existence category of the mind is dependend on the material existence category, and that therefore they are somehow connected to each other.

The gap is just as large as between (for instance) my experience/sensation of a chair, and the chair itself.

I can not sit on my experiences of a chair, I can only sit on the chair itself. But al I see and ever witness about the chair, are experiences and sensations of a chair.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
My learning is that It is what it is, whatever that is. Instead of attempting to pin it to the board like a butterfly specimen I take a more pragmatic approach and watch the butterflies in action. Likewise, instead of attempting to pin my own feelings and behavior down to a single thought system and paradyme, I just go with the flow and see what works. To quote Grocho Marx, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member." :-)

For me, if nobody else, I find option 5 to allow for such a view.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, But since so many discussion ae going on within this forum about God, and not in the forum that is attributed for it, I thought I could as well discuss this topic here, to really find out what people mean with their notions of God.

Very well. If Kerrie sees fit to move it, that'll be her business.

That is something contradictionary. If one claims on one hand that God exists in time, and on the other hand, God created time.
Since he must have done that at a 'time' in which there was no time.

Not exactly true. For example, BB theory dictates that there was a singularity, at the "beginning of time". However, there was no time before the "beginning of time". These thing never "come into existence" because there was absolutely 0 time "before" them.

Who claims that there is a huge gap between material existence and the existence in the mind? I even claimed that the existence category of the mind is dependend on the material existence category, and that therefore they are somehow connected to each other.

The gap is just as large as between (for instance) my experience/sensation of a chair, and the chair itself.

I can not sit on my experiences of a chair, I can only sit on the chair itself. But al I see and ever witness about the chair, are experiences and sensations of a chair.

Good points, I hope Lifegazer can restrain himself from attacking them.

I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
For me, if nobody else, I find option 5 to allow for such a view.

Lao Tzu himself supposidly said he was not a Taoist even though he invented the term. I suppose he too held the attitude that he'd never join a club that would have him as a member, but that doesn't stop people from labeling and catagorizing him as a Taoist and mystic. Oh well, I suppose I've been called worse by better people. :0)

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Lao Tzu himself supposidly said he was not a Taoist even though he invented the term. I suppose he too held the attitude that he'd never join a club that would have him as a member, but that doesn't stop people from labeling and catagorizing him as a Taoist and mystic. Oh well, I suppose I've been called worse by better people. :0)

But Wu Li, number 5 fits me. Would I deliberately insult my stupid self?

Seriously though, it was never my intention to negatively label anyone other than myself.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not exactly true. For example, BB theory dictates that there was a singularity, at the "beginning of time". However, there was no time before the "beginning of time". These thing never "come into existence" because there was absolutely 0 time "before" them.

I think there is some misunderstanding here on what the Big Bang theory in fact claims, and what not. Your reference to the sigularity and the beginning of time thing, is an interpretation, if you want, and extention, to the Big Bang theory. The debate in theoretical physics and cosmology is still going on as what happened at and or before the Big Bang. The BB theory itself cannot state more then that the current observable universe was in the past in a more dense, more hot and smaller state as it is now, and we can calculate back from now to perhaps the 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the projected singularity, but there physical theories break down.
At least 3 possible scenarios exist to explain the phenomena:
1. Instanton-pea (Hawking-Turok these). Time was near the beginning of the Big Bang "space-like", and which implements in a certain sense the 'beginning of time'.
2. Brane cosmology. We reside on one brane, and another brane collided on our brane, causing the Big Bang. In this model, neither a beginning of time is required.
3. Eternal Inflation. The universe comes out of a process called Inflation (exponentional growth of space-time); inflation can reproduce itself, and once started, never stops. This removes the need for a beginning of time.

Me personally have sufficient doubt about the first hypothese. In theory it might look good, it portrays the 'begin of time' like the North pole, which is a place one cannot go any further to the north, and is not a special point. However it conflicts drastically with our experience of time, and the theory asks us to adapt the concept of imaginary time. In imaginary time, the singularity disappears.

Most convincing to me sounds the idea of eternal/chaotic/open inflation, hich makes the best predictions about the current state of the observable universe.

Good points, I hope Lifegazer can restrain himself from attacking them.

We will see that. Meanwhile, I am having the sensation of sitting on a chair, but nevertheless I sit on a real chair, which is independend of my experience of that chair.

I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

Yes, they can be all said to be existent, nevertheless it is important to denote the difference in the way they exist.
Same way as one should not mix fairy tales with reality, or dreams with reality. If I have a dream, and meet in my dream a person, I will not assume that when in reality I meet that person, he/she has actually knowledge about the meeting in the dream.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".

Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But Wu Li, number 5 fits me. Would I deliberately insult my stupid self?

Seriously though, it was never my intention to negatively label anyone other than myself.

I was just kidding. Taoist humor tends to be dry and subtle. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner. :0)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.

So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it ...

An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...

Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

With whom do you think the burden of proof lies anyway? Is it up to you to get me to accept what you're saying without question? If so, then how could I ever acknowledge the truth of anything? While the same holds true for you or anyone else. You see, this is the only possibly way you can accept the idea of God, because when you get right down to it, it's the only possible way you can accept anything, Period.

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free ..."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

Now now Icky, play nice. But not too nice. :0)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

The process is far from being abstract, and neither are you, though the reasoning process itself uses abstract categories of the mind.