What is the most absurd thing you can think of?

  • Thread starter Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the absurd, particularly in relation to the existence of God and the nature of knowledge and perception. Participants explore philosophical arguments regarding what can be known, the implications of absurdity, and the relationship between perception and existence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that the absurd consists of things that cannot exist due to a lack of causal connection with the known world, positing that God is an example of the absurd.
  • Another participant counters that logical reasoning cannot definitively prove God's non-existence, asserting that the existence of the world implies the existence of God.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that absurdity itself could be the cause of God, challenging the need for coherent explanations in all cases.
  • One participant introduces the idea that absurd perceptions, such as those of God or fantasy, have real effects on individuals, thus asserting that the absurd exists in a different form.
  • Another participant distinguishes between existence in the mind versus physical existence, using the example of fictional characters to illustrate this point.
  • Formal logical arguments are presented to question the validity of inferring God's existence from the existence of the observable world, suggesting that alternative explanations could also be valid.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the absurd and its implications for the existence of God. There is no consensus on the arguments presented, with multiple competing perspectives remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants engage with complex philosophical reasoning, and the discussion includes various assumptions about existence, perception, and the nature of absurdity. The arguments presented rely on differing interpretations of logical implications and definitions of existence.

  • #31
Originally posted by heusdens
My argument is an argument from a given definition, in which God is defined as an actor outside and apart from time, matter and space.

I does not necessarliy mean that God can not be defined in another way, nor that there can not be a definition of God that could be less absurd.
Either that or He exists "within" matter and space (another dimension), in which case that might be a different story.


As long as that is only a statement (of faith, or belief) it does not proof anything. If you come to that conclusion however from a position of knowledge of any means, then we can look into that.
If in fact God exists in another dimension which, can only be accessed through the human mind, then you will have to be willing to take into account one's "personal experience." So it sounds like science will have to come up with a better methodology in order to take this into account.


That is not how we deal with such matters, cause how do we know then that such a statement is trustworthy? Anybody can make any claims about reality, which does not - in itself - proof something.

Who knows what might come up in someone's brain, if we have to take all such claims serious, without any objective evidence

There are people who claim to have been kidnapped by UFO's, or people who claim to be paranormal, and other such things. Do we have to take all those people serious, when there is no objective evidence?
And yet the idea of God or "mystical beings" is an idea that has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe. So this isn't something which is isolated to just one or two brains.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Either that or He exists "within" matter and space (another dimension), in which case that might be a different story.

Don't play tricks. God is the omnipotent, omniscient consciouss creator of all there is. So this makes it clear that God (a being in consciouss form) was there before there was matter.


If in fact God exists in another dimension which, can only be accessed through the human mind, then you will have to be willing to take into account one's "personal experience." So it sounds like science will have to come up with a better methodology in order to take this into account.


Or you would have to conceed with logic and reason that there is and can not be a God, since matter is primary and consciouss is secondary.


And yet the idea of God or "mystical beings" is an idea that has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe. So this isn't something which is isolated to just one or two brains.

Any idea has to be tested against reality itself.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by heusdens
Don't play tricks. God is the omnipotent, omniscient consciouss creator of all there is. So this makes it clear that God (a being in consciouss form) was there before there was matter.
And what does it say in the Bible? ... "The kingdom of heaven is within." Need I say more than that?


Or you would have to conceed with logic and reason that there is and can not be a God, since matter is primary and consciouss is secondary.
Afraid it would be the other way around if the "invisible God" existed first.


Any idea has to be tested against reality itself.
And yet you're obviously not referring to the internal "spiritual reality."
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what does it say in the Bible? ... "The kingdom of heaven is within." Need I say more than that?

It sure looks like the theists wants us to believe that the universe itself came into being by the act of this creator.

What you say now, would limite the 'acts of the creator' to only the 'creation' of consciouss awareness of the material world.
God would then reside nowhere but in the mind itself.

That is what I suspect what God is : a concept within the mind itself.


Afraid it would be the other way around if the "invisible God" existed first.


By your remark above, that can't be the case. Or are you allowing to contradict yourself, or changed opinion?

It is obvious a contradiction to claim that anything consciouss could exist without there being a material objective world in the first place. One can only be consciouss of something, if there is something (outside, independend and apart) of oneself to be consciouss of.
You can only be self consciouss if you can distinguish between self and not-self.
Consciouss must be based on the material world existing in first instance, to base one's consciouss upon. There can only be subjectiveness when there is first and in primary instance an objective, primary world.

That means God has no place outside of the human consciouss, as a human concept.


And yet you're obviously not referring to the internal "spiritual reality."

You mean mindly concepts or patterns, that exist within one's consciousness.
 

Similar threads

High School Is there an inside to a Black Hole?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
High School Michelson Morley experiment and the Doppler effect
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
How Can You Think Like a Scientist?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Can a causal or time-like structure emerge without assuming a metric?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
What is Absurdism and how does Albert Camus approach it?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Graduate Quantum interpretations reduced to absurd, in a nutshell
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School The infinite and the infinitesimal
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School Trying to understand what "time" is (layperson)
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Measure of existence? (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K