Agnostics, what would make you believe in God?

[Demujin]

[QUOTE=II Gyan II]
How are these limits derived?

Limits are embodied in the metalogical definitions employed to create the relevant logic - such as the Law of Non-Contradiction in Aristotle and the Law of the Excluded Middle. As you point out there are paraconsistent logics that have more expansive limits than the high orthodoxy of Aristotleon logic – but I haven’t seen them employed here. I’ve been a proponent of non-trivial dialetheism since my college days nearly thirty years ago, albeit on an intuitional basis rather than a formal propositional calculus. I simply don’t have the training to go there on that basis - so pardon my lack of a formal defense.

@II Gyan II

So, it’s not established that God is beyond logic, but that you believe so.

Correct, I am simply stating my belief that it is a valid assertion. Feel free to prove me incorrect. I will do my best to defend it rhetorically – it should be interesting and probably informative for me.

@II Gyan II

Elaborate this. Are you saying that, by assuming God exists and then contemplating its properties, the question of existence is moot?

@II Gyan II

This necessity isn’t clear, at all. How?

Also (mostly) correct. I propose that if one supposes God necessarily precedes Creation, then the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) cannot apply to God since Creation is the event in which the properties of identity (as we express it in logics) obtain. Prior to Creation the properties of A and not A are meaningless. Also assuming that God is (remains) atemporal, while gaining identity as Creator (the Ground of Being), God remains undefined in other ways, thus A and not A, existant and non-existant both, existant by virtue of contrast to Creation, but incomparably Uncreate in every other way. As Christian theology would have it, Creation was an ex nihilo event (out of nothing - using none of God’s substance ,so to speak, as material for the event). Hindu theologies differ by having every particle as divinely instilled substance (immanence). Existence itself being derivative upon God’s act, cannot account for God’s own intrinsic nature. We do not (and may not ever) have a definitive concept for God’s state of Being except that it transcends what we understand as existence. Or so it seems to me.

@II Gyan II

Insistence may be illogical, but the boundaries of logic haven’t been fixed. In the last few decades, paraconsistent logics have appeared where contradictions are acceptable.

@II Gyan II

Logic is the embodiment of the analysis of patterns of experience. It’s not an a priori platonic tool selected at random. Whatever is parsimonious should be considered as ‘logic’.

Bravo for the introduction of paraconsistent logics, but there are limits to every logic in that they all have rules or boundaries else they wouldn’t be able to function in a meaningful way. I grant that the limits vary between logics, but even Occam’s Razor has a limit. As Einstein remarked, “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I am willing to work with you in that context.

Regards,

Steve

[Demujin]

@lhovis73

If this is not a funny way to put it, I think my atheism would be challenged if I did not live in a world filled with human beings whose problems magically go away when they invent gods for themselves. E.g. the problem of death (with God, no problem at all, without God, big damn problem…)

I don’t understand the example given (death), but prior to that, your objection to God’s existence is the (mis)use that is made of it? Does that mean if people were to drive badly, you’d disavow the existence of cars? I really don’t follow that, but I welcome an elaboration. I think the existence of God is separate/different issue from what behaviors people espouse for both themselves and God.

Cheers,

Steve

[lhovis73]

Let’s say you had a child who persistently did something naughty (say, always spilled his juice on the rug). Let’s say further that this kid claims, whenever he’s caught red-handed (juice all over him, and no other reasonable cause of spillage in sight) that the Juice Gnome (a three-foot tall creature from Mars who delights in causing trouble for little boys) magically appeared and spilled the juice, not him…and further, he’s the only one who can see the Juice Gnome. Given a choice between (a) accepting that such a creature might exist, versus (b) reasoning that a naughty child might make up a lame story to get out of trouble, you’d choose (b), obviously. And you certainly wouldn’t feel close-minded for doing so…

Likewise, if I’m faced with a choice between believing that (a) people invent their gods to solve certain problems (to make themselves feel loved by some transcendent power, to gain power for their sects or tribal groups, to have no fear in the face of inevitable death, etc.) versus (b) God exists, but no one in human history has ever produced a single scrap of evidence for this existence, well, I’m going to choose (a).

My earlier point was that the all-purpose usefulness or convenience of god for solving certain perennial human problems (like the usefulness of this trouble-making gnome that I just invented) makes me highly skeptical (well, to be honest, absolutely skeptical) that God exists.

[Demujin]

@lhovis73

My earlier point was that the all-purpose usefulness or convenience of god for solving certain perennial human problems (like the usefulness of this trouble-making gnome that I just invented) makes me highly skeptical (well, to be honest, absolutely skeptical) that God exists.

I sympathize highly and sincerely. I had decided rather early in life that I’d rather have no God if my only choice was that which had been described by my Pentecostal and Baptist elders and presumably like Montezuma, I didn’t want to go to heaven if it was going to filled with Christians. Up til that time I hadn’t met a single Christian I could honestly respect. Their behaviors didn’t match (to my mind, admittedly an immature mind) their supposed redemption status. It seemed a wretched and hypocritical cover-up for the failures resulting from foolish choices and reckless/selfish behaviors. I stewed in that attitude for a few years, but after speaking with a wider variety of people, and reading the Bible several times (initially looking for inconsistenties), I began to wonder why exactly so many people believed in what I had classified a load of, uh, tripe.

Even through my personal distance from religion I developed a fascination for it. The variety of beliefs, theistic, deistic, polytheistic, non-theistic, atheistic intrigued me. I found that what was espoused, in many cases, at the esoteric level was quite different from what was spread around in the churches, synagogues and temples. I read heavily in the philosophy of religion. William James’s On The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study of Human Nature was one of the first volumes I read and it’s had a lasting impact on my thinking. Philosophy of religion led to philosophy of science (science being my earlier refuge from religion and God), then on through the other philosophies of ‘X’. It was quite an education.

I studied and practiced (for the benefit of the experience initially) a range of religions, most notably Taoism and Buddhism – but from the tenets of the philosophies, not in temples. My then wife was raised as a Buddhist, in the temples, and when I tried to discuss the concepts I’d learned from the philosophies of different sects (interpretations), she hadn’t a clue as to what I was talking about. The Eightfold path and the Four Noble Truths were not a part of her religious education evidently, only ceremonies and recitations. So it goes in most religions at the popular level – go through the steps and salvation is supposedly assured. Discussing this disparity with priests and masters I was told that the people actively resist any deeper understandings or aren’t equipped to understand the deeper meanings of their (presumably) chosen faith.
I’ve had a hard time comprehending this line of reasoning, but I’ve encountered it firsthand quite a number of times in religious discussions with supposed adherents.

To shorten what is becoming a long story, through study and experience I’ve developed an appreciation for religious thought, including theistic reasoning. Churches still turn me off - not because I’m a snob, but because they don’t seem to advance my understanding in any significant way.

What I’d like to impart to you is that you needn’t accept the beliefs, practices, behaviors of others or their characterizations of God as your own – discover your own, if you wish. Or not if that suits you best. Belief in a deity is a personal decision (though you may never be able to explain your choices to certain people to their satisfaction), but I believe a philosophy or religious practice should make your life better in some appreciable way or it’s not worth your time.

Regards,

Steve

[Demujin]

@Measure for Measure

---

Furthermore, if you accept the existence of evil, then God can’t be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. So pure omnipotence isn’t really a necessary characteristic of God.

What if you accept that God is responsible for all existence, including that of evil?

Not that it proves anything, but if you’ve the inclination sometime check out Isaiah 45 (King James I believe – others differ) where God explicitly states that He has created good and evil.

To further the idea, just because He creates something, in this case evil, doesn’t mean or imply that He participates or promotes it. It is precisely this point that leads me to question the essential attribute of omnibenevolence as proposed by Christian theologians. But neither does it prevent it (omnibenevolence) from being a ‘chosen’ attribute. For that matter, omnipotence would presumably make whatever attributes He has a matter of choice – even omnipotence, once possessed of it, he could give it up, if He wanted to. Omnipotence is a tricky concept.

Regards,

Steve

[lhovis73]

@Demujin

For that matter, omnipotence would presumably make whatever attributes He has a matter of choice – even omnipotence, once possessed of it, he could give it up, if He wanted to. Omnipotence is a tricky concept.

Which brings us back to the old question, could God make a rock so big that He couldn’t lift it?

[Demujin]

@lhovis73

Which brings us back to the old question, could God make a rock so big that He couldn’t lift it?

Not really – That translates to Can He do what He can’t do, which is meaningless.

Regards,

Steve

[Demujin]

@lhovis73

Which brings us back to the old question, could God make a rock so big that He couldn’t lift it?

Uh-oh, sorry – I see what you’re getting at – yes, I guess that it does in that He could make the rock, then choose to lose the ability to lift it. Still, traditionally, this form of question is technically meaningless.

Nice point all the same.

Regards,

Steve

[lekatt]

@DSeid

Once again, precisely.

You are a fairly hard atheist (despite your self characterization as agnostic), because a god concept has no utility for you. There is virtually no evidence that could convince you other than being forced to believe by having God zap your brain and remove your free will (assuming it actually exists, but that’s another ongoing debate! :))

The other end is occupied by the Leakatts, whose entire worldview depends upon their god concept. God has a lot of utility for them. Their entire value system depends upon that belief and fear of punishment in an afterlife. No amount of evidence could convince them that God does not exist. Anything that disputes that belief in any way is suspect at best.

The point (and I do have one) is once again just that no amount of imaginable idence could convince an agnostic that God exists. The issue is just not an evidentiary one. It is one of utility. What would convince the agnostic is experiencing a strong utility for possession of a god belief. Proverbially the no atheist in a foxhole concept. One looks if one has a need and if one has a need one will believe. No need, no search, no belief.

Just a slight correction on the Lekatt’s worldview.

What I believe, I have experienced, different than faith.

But our God is unconditional love, there is no reason to fear Him at all.

The goal is love, not avoiding punishment.

[Nature_s_Call]

@lekatt

What I believe, I have experienced, different than faith.

Not necessarily so. As we’ve seen in this discussion two people can have very similar experiences but come away with very different explanations. It takes faith to attribute experiences like that to God.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Demujin

Correct, I am simply stating my belief that it is a valid assertion.

See, I can’t tell whether it is valid or invalid. Taking either stand, seems like idle speculation or gut instinct.

if … God … precedes Creation, then the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) cannot apply to God since Creation is the event in which the properties of identity (as we express it in logics) obtain.

Isn’t this logical?

but incomparably Uncreate in every other way.

The problem is that you have strung these words together, but I’ve no idea what they mean , since language is basically a (albeit complex) combinatorial carrier of metaphors and analogies, and the idea of some entity i.e. “ground of being” existing in some sense while “being Uncreate” in “other ways” doesn’t translate to a coherent semantic proposition. Such a description seems to correspond more to a description of a peak experience on acid; experienced but ineffable, yet in this case, unexperienced.

[Demujin]

@II Gyan II

See, I can’t tell whether it is valid or invalid. Taking either stand, seems like idle speculation or gut instinct.

There is an intuitional element involved, though I believe that it could be made explicit and less equivocal in symbolic logic.

@II Gyan II

Isn’t this logical?

A Karnap would rip me a new one, but a Wittgenstein might recognize it as rational but illegal.

@II Gyan II

The problem is that you have strung these words together, but I’ve no idea what they mean , since language is basically a (albeit complex) combinatorial carrier of metaphors and analogies, and the idea of some entity i.e. “ground of being” existing in some sense while “being Uncreate” in “other ways” doesn’t translate to a coherent semantic proposition. Such a description seems to correspond more to a description of a peak experience on acid; experienced but ineffable, yet in this case, unexperienced.

Yeah, it’s a problem and it centers on the atemporal condition – being a special condition that we don’t (consciously) participate in, we’ve developed no language for it, other than what the mystics have offered. It’s somewhat similar to where Hawking and Penrose are forced to stop in describing the Big Bang. There is no information or description available before the beginning of temporal events except the term singularity. A theory of quantum gravity might help, but I can’t envision anyway to get there. I’ve heard rumors of a fellow in Australia working on a theory where time is done away with (as a dimension) entirely, I’m guessing by making it a derivative attribute of gravity or space.

The best I can do at the moment is there is Condition A, an indeterminate boundless state. Condition A precipitates Condition B, a finite but infinitely changing (possibly n-dimensional) state. Condition A is unchanged by this precipitation, though a relationship now exists between the two. Condition B owes it’s existence to Condition A, but Condition A owes nothing to Condition B.

It is the indeterminate boundless state that cannot be said to exist or not exist in which there is no meaning (in terms of logic) but has meaning after the relationship with the finite everchanging (at least most current theories hold) is created. In our conceptualization Being itself is dependent upon time – it requires a ‘place’ to Be. Before time, no Being in a meaningful sense. Having a relationship to something that cannot be said to exist is a non-trivial contradiction, ergo rational but not traditionally logical.

Does that help? Please don’t make me do Heidigger! Hegel ok, Heidigger - I don’t wanna!

Regards,

Steve

[II_Gyan_II]

@Demujin

Yeah, it’s a problem and it centers on the atemporal condition – being a special condition that we don’t (consciously) participate in, we’ve developed no language for it, other than what the mystics have offered.

How do we know this condition ‘can exist’? It just seems to be a concept entirely based on the negative space of a concept that we do experience.

The best I can do at the moment is there is Condition A, an indeterminate boundless state. Condition A precipitates Condition B, a finite but infinitely changing (possibly n-dimensional) state. Condition A is unchanged by this precipitation, though a relationship now exists between the two. Condition B owes it’s existence to Condition A, but Condition A owes nothing to Condition B.

Sounds like the Vedanta in modernspeak.

It is the indeterminate boundless state that cannot be said to exist or not exist in which there is no meaning (in terms of logic) but has meaning after the relationship with the finite everchanging (at least most current theories hold) is created.

Well, condition A still has predicates in ‘some way’. Would it make sense to talk about it as ‘boundless’ or ‘indeterminate’ or ‘state’ or any metaphor of form or function?

Before time, no Being in a meaningful sense.

In our semantic-space. Maybe there ‘exist’ others. BTW, what does, “before” time, mean?

[Demujin]

@II Gyan II

How do we know this condition ‘can exist’? It just seems to be a concept entirely based on the negative space of a concept that we do experience.

Strictly speaking, we can’t, and yup, assuming you mean space in a figurative sense. The only reason I can attribute for even contemplating it is because it is uncomfortable living in asymetrical universe. The consequences for many are flight into religion or psychiatric care.

@II Gyan II

Sounds like the Vedanta in modernspeak.

Again, on the money. Same sort of language you’d hear from Erwin Schroedinger explaining quantum mechanics to the general public. BTW, did you know that Bohr’s coat of arms contained a yin-yang symbol?

@II Gyan II

Well, condition A still has predicates in ‘some way’. Would it make sense to talk about it as ‘boundless’ or ‘indeterminate’ or ‘state’ or any metaphor of form or function?

But they are artificial predicates for the purpose of communication. No it would not. As Meister Eckart said, “Anything you say about God is wrong, so close your yap.” and enjoy what you can (paraphrasing the last part).

@II Gyan II

In our semantic-space. Maybe there ‘exist’ others. BTW, what does, “before” time, mean?

Possibly so. As you know the negation of none is at least one, possibly some (not all as some believe). Before Time™ is a new product previously known as Condition A, predicated on the great sales success of the Ultima II line.

Regards,

Steve

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Demujin

It is precisely this point that leads me to question the essential attribute of omnibenevolence as proposed by Christian theologians.

Broadly speaking, the Problem of Evil has three solutions:

1. God is not omnipotent.

or

2. God is not omnibenevolent

or

3. Evil doesn’t really exist.

I maintain that evil does indeed exist. From that I conclude that, assuming God exists, either 1 or 2 or both apply.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil

[lekatt]

@Nature's Call

Not necessarily so. As we’ve seen in this discussion two people can have very similar experiences but come away with very different explanations. It takes faith to attribute experiences like that to God.

I don’t think we learned anything at all from that thread. I posted links to some NDEs, that illustrated what those spiritual experiences consisted of and the thread stopped cold without any discussion of real near death experiences taking place.

[monavis]

I think the basis of the argument is the definition of the word God, If one looks at the word as being all that exists, there is no dispute, God would have no boundries, so all would be a part of God, looking at God as the totality of what exists. To say there is “a” God sets us apart and makes God like the ancients precieved a god to be, and so there were considered many gods,with many purposes.Each culture had it’s own god and argued whose god was the greatest.If we see ourselves as a part of a greater whole, we can see our dignity and the dignity of others,and indeed we are truly equals. working for the greater good of all mankind and realizing the importance the rest of life on earth and make it a better world for all to enjoy.

Monavis

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

@monavis

I think the basis of the argument is the definition of the word God, If one looks at the word as being all that exists, there is no dispute, God would have no boundries, so all would be a part of God, looking at God as the totality of what exists.

I think we can all agree that what exists, exists. What does calling what exists “God” tell us about anything?