The Philosophical God

  • Thread starter mrmason
  • Start date

mrmason

How can one extol the existence of God and not sound like a zealot, deny Him and not profess to be an athiest, or shrug one's shoulders in ignorance to reveal an agnostic point of view? Do these labels make God as a topic of intellectual discussion less relevant or imperative? This doesn't have to be a "religious" viewpoint, as religion seems to perplex a great number of pseudo-intellectuals. God seems to be an unknown in a sea of equations. Does He become a non-entity in your pursuit of knowledge out of your inability to define or assign parameters to His existence? Try this...He is, He exists, He is all. Until we reach a level of intelligence to realize and incorporate this ultimate truth; our attainment of knowledge/technology will be void of a moral temperence and maturity and will ultimately pervert into a horror that we will not be able to erase. Michael Mason, 6/3/03, Texas
 

Alexander

God almost seases to exist because it nowadays became practically undefined.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Reality is not something that can be known a priori, and it is not subject to logical or mathematical definitions. One cannot declare that something exists simply because one can conceive of it, and one cannot declare that something does not exist simply because one cannot so conceive of it.

That is only true of ideal forms. But we are not idealists, are we Alexander?
 

Eh

671
1
Does the mighty sdghsgsh exist?
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by Eh
Does the mighty sdghsgsh exist?
Yes. Do you know why? Because if science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right, you, me and everyone else, and rightfully so! Because we're the ones who own the "original equipment." This is how we "know," at the very least, that we have a soul and, that a soul doesn't exist without a greater reality or, "spiritual dimension" that it extends into. Don't let anyone else fool you!
 
73
0
God can indeed seem like an unknown in a sea of equations. The concept of God means different things to different people. If you are discussing the God of the Bible then the task of understanding becomes a lot easier because there is much information about God's qualities, his personality and nature in the Bible. But I guess before you could accept the truth of what the Bible tells us about God you would have to accept that there is a God and the Bible is his inspired word.

I think of God as the ultimate reality. Before the universe existed, before anything else there was only God. All creation could pass away but there will still be God. He is the one constant in an ever-changing universe.
 

BoulderHead

Yes. Do you know why? Because if science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it.
Uh, all science claimed in your example was that it couldn’t discern the matter. What is wrong with that, I mean, it’s not like science was lying to you was it?
 
1,596
0
As far as I can adress meaning to the existence of God, God is just a fixation of thought, and does not have real existence.

I could add that for some, in a way of trying to understand 'it all', the concept of God is a catalysing entity for the mind, to think about the reality in total. If one tries to understand the universe for instance, and asks questions 'where does it come from?' and in this way postulating an implicit assumption that such a question can have a meaningfull answer, and that 'reality' or 'the universe' have something like a 'cause', then one 'invents' in ones own mind an answer to this, in the form of God.
The line of thought goes like this: assume the universe, the chain of causal events, has a beginning, then God must be thought of as the first cause.
But it can be cleared out, that such is not very meaningfull, cause we could still ask then: and what about the cause of God? This is answered then with: God has no cause, or is eternal, and has no begin or end.
But then it is immediately clear, our first assumption, the universe has a begin, there was a first cause, is then a wrong assumption, cause we still come up with the concept of eternity, that is a causal chain without begin or end.
And that is of course what causality is: it has no begin or end, cause ever cause is at the same time an effect, and every effect is at the same time a cause.
The conclusion then is that we need to think about the universe as not having any begin or end, cause the negation of this assumption (the universe or cauality having a beginning) will result in a contradiction.
So the concept of the world we have then in conclusion, will be a world without the need or help of a 'creator'.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Uh, all science claimed in your example was that it couldn’t discern the matter. What is wrong with that, I mean, it’s not like science was lying to you was it?
Let me put it another way, you obviously can't bring the weight of science to bear upon the matter which, is what so many (i.e., scientifically inclined) people try to do anyway. This is what I mean by "lousy excuse." Take for example, Heusdens' reply above.
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes. Do you know why? Because if science says it can't discern the matter because it's "too subjective," then obviously you can't trust science. In which case it becomes a piss-poor excuse to accept Science's word for it. So guess who becomes the expert by default then? That's right, you, me and everyone else, and rightfully so! Because we're the ones who own the "original equipment." This is how we "know," at the very least, that we have a soul and, that a soul doesn't exist without a greater reality or, "spiritual dimension" that it extends into. Don't let anyone else fool you!
Oh wow, did you ever miss the point.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by Eh
Oh wow, did you ever miss the point.
And yet 25 years of personal experience tells me otherwise. It's just like anything else, if you don't work with it, you "won't" get it. So please tell me who's more qualified here? ... Well, actually you can't, unless of course I say "appears" to be more qualified. So what else is new?
 

Eh

671
1
I don't care if you have 25 years experience in basket weaving - your reply had nothing to do with the point.

Just to clarify, the point was that before answering if sdghsgsh exists, you must define what the word sdghsgsh means. It had nothing to do with the drivel you posted in response.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by Eh
I don't care if you have 25 years experience in basket weaving - your reply had nothing to do with the point.

Just to clarify, the point was that before answering if sdghsgsh exists, you must define what the word sdghsgsh means. It had nothing to do with the drivel you posted in response.
And yet it's obvious that I can't depend on "you," or anyone else to confirm anything! By the way, what does "drivel" mean?
 
2,224
0
How Do I Know?

What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgement of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything? Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.

So what could that possibly suggest? ... that the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it.
 

akhenaten

Originally posted by heusdens
As far as I can adress meaning to the existence of God, God is just a fixation of thought, and does not have real existence.

I could add that for some, in a way of trying to understand 'it all', the concept of God is a catalysing entity for the mind, to think about the reality in total. If one tries to understand the universe for instance, and asks questions 'where does it come from?' and in this way postulating an implicit assumption that such a question can have a meaningfull answer, and that 'reality' or 'the universe' have something like a 'cause', then one 'invents' in ones own mind an answer to this, in the form of God.
The line of thought goes like this: assume the universe, the chain of causal events, has a beginning, then God must be thought of as the first cause.
But it can be cleared out, that such is not very meaningfull, cause we could still ask then: and what about the cause of God? This is answered then with: God has no cause, or is eternal, and has no begin or end.
But then it is immediately clear, our first assumption, the universe has a begin, there was a first cause, is then a wrong assumption, cause we still come up with the concept of eternity, that is a causal chain without begin or end.
And that is of course what causality is: it has no begin or end, cause ever cause is at the same time an effect, and every effect is at the same time a cause.
The conclusion then is that we need to think about the universe as not having any begin or end, cause the negation of this assumption (the universe or cauality having a beginning) will result in a contradiction.
So the concept of the world we have then in conclusion, will be a world without the need or help of a 'creator'.
Agreed.
 

akhenaten

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way, what does "drivel" mean?
'Drivel' is vague nonsense very much along the lines of what you've been saying.

Since you gave exactly the same answers on the 'conscious universe' thread and with equal irrelevance, I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a chat bot.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by akhenaten
'Drivel' is vague nonsense very much along the lines of what you've been saying.
Oh it's so easy to dismiss rather than to disprove now isn't it? That's fine with me, I can accept that.


Since you gave exactly the same answers on the 'conscious universe' thread and with equal irrelevance, I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a chat bot.
Well you know, there's only so much of me to go around. Besides, I hate to repeat myself ... in the sense that I have to re-invent the wheel all over again. Most of my posts "are" original though.
 

akhenaten

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh it's so easy to dismiss rather than to disprove now isn't it? That's fine with me, I can accept that.
I answered identical points on the other thread, but you failed to grasp the need for reason.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by akhenaten
I answered identical points on the other thread, but you failed to grasp the need for reason.
And yet all I have heard from you is of my "inability to reason." I only go with it because it works ...

Have started a new thread by the way, called https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764" If you would like to continue arguing (discussing) this then perhaps we should go there. I don't think we need to take up any more space here. Don't be too alarmed though, because it's a repost! Actually I have to admit, it is one of my better posts, really! I'm sure you'll recognize it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,596
0
Re: How Do I Know?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is it about me that "knows" what it knows? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the acknowledgement of truth is inborn? If not, then how can we acknowledge the truth of anything? Even if it's the truth that science reveals to us? Science is still a by-product of the human endeavor, meaning it's still subject to human interpretation which, by nature is "subjective." Therefore, how do we get around the fact that we're human? Is it possible? Not according to science.

So what could that possibly suggest? ... that the answers has, and always will be, contained within the parameters of being human. Meaning, if we want to "know" the truth, then we must look within (ourselves) in order to find it.
Why can't you admit that through science we know a lot more about what being human is, where humans came from, how our bodies and brains were formed in billions of years of evolution, how human societies have formed through human history, etc.

This is something we should acknowledge. Through science (and education) we have a possibility of taking our lives and society into our own hands, and built a better world for everybody, to end wars, starvation, poverty, exploitation, lack of healtcare, etc.
 
2,224
0
Re: Re: How Do I Know?

Originally posted by heusdens
Why can't you admit that through science we know a lot more about what being human is, where humans came from, how our bodies and brains were formed in billions of years of evolution, how human societies have formed through human history, etc.
And yet it's the "inner reality" that "observes" the outer reality. So you tell me which is more real? Whereas if my inner reality ceased to exist, there would no longer be an outer reality (at least for me anyway).


This is something we should acknowledge. Through science (and education) we have a possibility of taking our lives and society into our own hands, and built a better world for everybody, to end wars, starvation, poverty, exploitation, lack of healtcare, etc.
I don't doubt that science is not without merits, to say the least, I just can't get over the fact that it continues to overlook something which is so inherent to human nature.
 

akhenaten

Re: Re: Re: How Do I Know?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet it's the "inner reality" that "observes" the outer reality. So you tell me which is more real? Whereas if my inner reality ceased to exist, there would no longer be an outer reality (at least for me anyway).
The 'inner reality' is a set of models of 'outer reality' and representations of its own information mapping. What do you mean 'real'? If you mean 'apparent' or 'phenomenologically real' then, yes it is real. But by that count, everything we can conceive is real. If you think it guarantees truth, then you are wrong, because there are many instances where our perceptions can be shown to be fallible and those errors explained by reference to 'external reality'.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by akhenaten
The 'inner reality' is a set of models of 'outer reality' and representations of its own information mapping. What do you mean 'real'? If you mean 'apparent' or 'phenomenologically real' then, yes it is real. But by that count, everything we can conceive is real. If you think it guarantees truth, then you are wrong, because there are many instances where our perceptions can be shown to be fallible and those errors explained by reference to 'external reality'.
A bird in the hand ... Real is "tangible." And yet it's entirely possible to grasp an idea, whether tangible in the material sense or not, and it still becomes tangible, so long as you have a means by which to sum up the details (evidence). Whereas the key factor here becomes experience, for to the extent that you work with something, and apply what you know, you then begin to get the jist of what it's about.
 

akhenaten

Seeming real is not the same as being real, not to a grown up anyway.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by akhenaten
Seeming real is not the same as being real, not to a grown up anyway.
Everything is real, even "My kingdom" -- "Is-rael!" ... Sorry, I had to add that! :wink: And it's all just a matter of when you come to "real"-ize it. :wink:
 

Related Threads for: The Philosophical God

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • Posted
6 7 8
Replies
186
Views
18K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
12K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top