How can God not exist

@Aedes,

Quote:

And hence an argument for God's existence is, in the end, equivalent to the argument against it. The meaningfulness of both positive and negative assertions about God melt away in the face of an infinitude we can't comprehend.

Sort of. We have to be careful about the purpose of discussion about the existence of God. Approaching theories that attempt to establish the existence of God in the same way we approach arguments about the existence of gravity, for example, is to mis the point. We need to approach these philosophical attempts to "prove" God as meditations on the existence of God in the same way we approach Zen paradoxes.

So, arguments for God and not equivalent to arguments against God unless we expect arguments, in of themselves, to enlighten us about God. It's the contemplation spurred by the argument that shows the way to God. These arguments should be fingers pointing the way, not the end of the path.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

We need to approach these philosophical attempts to "prove" God as meditations on the existence of God in the same way we approach Zen paradoxes.

That's an outstanding point. I wish everyone would ponder God that way, rather than being so concrete about God proofs.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I'm not concrete about God's 'proofs':whistling:.

I just feel that its existence should be defined through reasoning more so than anything else at the moment.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

But if we consider God to have qualities of infinitude or limitlessness, and we consider our reason to be inherently limited, then why should we think it's possible to define him through reasoning?

Are you familiar with the Zen koans that Didymos Thomas was mentioning? In various forms of Japanese Buddhism, most famously Zen, there is an emphasis on moments of paradox when your mind is just sort of stunned into silence.

This takes various forms, such as the Zen garden. But a famous form is the koan, which is a kind of paradox. The best known is "What is the sound of one hand clapping".

The moment of pause when thinking about that for a second is exactly the goal of that exercise. And I agree with Thomas that this would be a worthy goal of ponderings on God's existence. This is so underemphasized in Western religious traditions, except perhaps among monastic orders.

So what we could do is focus on the limitless, incomprehensible, unanswerable things and ponder them.

Unfortunately what's done instead is people try to mitigate the centrality of faith by focusing on reason. But all that changes is that you exert blind faith in reason instead, which becomes a proxy for your faith in God.

(not you, per se)

1 Reply

@Aedes,

No, it would mean me probably. I can't really see a point to believing in God though. I could believe in God for no reason, not logical basis, just as an outcome of some overall introspectral conclusion; whether it be through qualia, spiritual experiences (as Didymos likes to point out) but that doesn't matter to me. I still feel compelled for reason.

How is reason blind? Without rationalism, empiricism is useless. What proxy supports your faith if you have one? Or is the whole point to avoid speaking for what is transcendent? That makes more sense to me, so I am best to just live my life through the assumption that I can make wise choices.

So it is best no to have faith in the transcendent b/c it has no effect upon us. Let faith be something simple?

I tried the paradox, by clapping my one hand... it made a sound, I don't get it. I didn't think I just tried.

I realise rationalising the transcendent is all speculation, but its fun.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

No, it would mean me probably.

It didn't. I don't know what you believe. I can just only use the neutral pronoun "one" for so long, though. Surprised

Quote:

I can't really see a point to believing in God though. I could believe in God for no reason, not logical basis, just as an outcome of some overall introspectral conclusion

I'm the same way. I practice and identify with a relatively conventional religion, I am highly spiritual, but I don't particularly personally care about the God question. I don't believe he actually exists, but I don't care enough to personally explore the question either.

That's not to dismiss its importance in a case-by-case way, though, which is probably why you and I both participate in this kind of conversation.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Personally I know you wont like this but to attempt to rationalize God, as the incomprehensible and limitless being God is, almost seems arrogant. If we can't comprehend It to rationalize It would be just as foolish of an endeavor. (By the way I refer to God as an It and not Him because I see God as a being incomprehensible to our eyes and thus has no sex so usually I say It even if 'it' is usually used as a demeaning term.) I think there is logic to support God and logic against God but in order to find God you must go beyond the logic presented. I respect not be willing to do that and follow the logic purely. Logical and deductive reasoning is in my opinion the most important tool to have in life.

1 Reply

@TheRedMenace,

TheRedMenace wrote:

Logical and deductive reasoning is in my opinion the most important tool to have in life.

A hammer is a useful tool, but not if you use it to brush your teeth.

No tool is useful unless you understand its limitations.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

A hammer is a useful tool, but not if you use it to brush your teeth.

No tool is useful unless you understand its limitations.

Wrong. What do you brush your teeth with?:sarcastic: Laughing

You are a genius, comrade. I completely agree. That puts some things into perspective for me. And makes my beliefs feel more justified.

2 Replies

@TheRedMenace,

Or getting a shave.

0 Replies

@TheRedMenace,

TheRedMenace wrote:

Wrong. What do you brush your teeth with?

If you brush your teeth with a hammer you'll never have to worry about dental hygiene again :a-ok:

0 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

I remember making these same points a couple pages back, it seems like we haven't gone anywhere!

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Then you limit god, for by limiting the possibilities in his creation you limit his ability to create. It is implicitly so. i suggest you take after protoman as I have seen you commenting on his very similar thread, and realize how nonsensical it is to try to prove and define god by using somthing(logic in this case) which by definition is god's creation and since god is omnipotent he is not bound by it lest he be bound at all and thus limited. .

Zetetic11235 wrote:

It seems to me absurd and bizzarely arrogant to define somthing as beyond you and then conjecture upon its nature as though it were not. But I suppose that is just me, as you have so clearly pointed out by example that you are immune such contradictions.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Then Just like a cup can't be defined by a handle, if all that can be considered is the handle, you cannot arrive to a description of the cup.

Speaking of god not deing definable by a part of itself,e.g. logic.

That was from a post way back on page 6 and now we are here again!!:brickwall:

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

I remember making these same points a couple pages back, it seems like we haven't gone anywhere!

Speaking of god not deing definable by a part of itself,e.g. logic.

That was from a post way back on page 6 and now we are here again!!:brickwall:

Oops. I apologize. I was foolish in not looking back at all the posts. Well your my hero is all I got to say. Looking back those posts, very well articulated. Better said than mine.

1 Reply

@TheRedMenace,

Hero eh?

Thanks for the kind words:flowers:, however I simply want to move the topic along to new territory!:poke-eye: If we keep chatting in circles, we get to spinning around, we get dizzy and forget what direction we were going in the first place! And that is simply not :a-ok:. Its just silly. :disappointed:

I like the idea of viewing attempts at logical verification of god as sort of koans. It seems to me though, that sutras or meditations are a more direct parellel to these proofs. The hindu texts are very logically and philosophically dense.:Glasses:

0 Replies

@OntheWindowStand,

The whole "there is no answer, so the answer must be God" really doesn't hold water.

1 Reply

@iMaximilian,

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect. :rules:

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events. :poke-eye:

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, :detective: and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect.:smartass:

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Ok I probably haven't read all the post on this God argument(a thank you to all those who believe that you didn't go into fundamentalist 'you'll all burn in hell' rant like i've seen all to many times) but have we even defined what God were are arguing about? Are we arguing the Christian God, or God with various rules and laws or just some entity that created the universe with no moral objective for humans?

0 Replies

@Master Pangloss,

Master Pangloss wrote:

First of all, I don't think the Metaphysics of Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Secondly, what is this "loop" nonsense? The entire point of "rational" inquiry is to arrive at a proof, not an analogy. It makes no sense to claim that we can "rationalize" about something, while also admitting that a proof is ultimately unreachable. We might as well jump in a car and drive to nowhere.

There is a lot that we can think about, and we can make reasonable conjectures about, without being able to prove what we think. For example, there are a number of cosmological theories. The steady state theory; the Big Bang theory. And, at this time, the latter seems to be the best explanation for the origin of the universe. However, no one has proved it is true, and it may never be proved at all. That doesn't mean that we cannot think reasonably about it. We do.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

That's right - let's all be reasoanble about God - except for those who believe that there's a ghost on high who will burn you forever in a firey pit if you dare doubt his existence. Let's be unreasoable about religion - let's say that anyone who goes to church is a racist child molester. It's unreasonable - but so what?

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

1.---1.All thought's that I can think.
-----2.All thought's that I cannot think.

2.---1.All that I can see.
-----2.All that I cannot see.

3.---1.All thing's that I can feel.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot feel.

4.---1.All thing's that I can smell.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot smell.

5.---1.All thing' that I can hear.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot hear.

6.---1.All thing's that I can tase.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot taste.

7.---1.All that is my self.
-----2.All that is not my self.

For this is a short list of what I have defined my "god" as, which are the main 7 section's of one's self.(presented as a duality)

Yet...

8.---1.All thing's and thought's I can define with my mind.
-----2.All thing's and thought's I cannot define with my mind.

So for my "god" can, and cannot be defined, for that is the duality of my my "god's" existence...for I need no book to show me what my "god" is and is not, for one only need's to look at one's self and the self around one's self, for that is the true book that has defined what my "god" is and what my "god" is not.

The last duality...that bind's alll other duality's that portray what my "god" is and what my "god" is not.

9.---1.All that is nothingness.
-----2.All that is not nothingness.
____________________________________________
For man is it's consciousness.
For what is not man is it's sub-consciousness.

For this is what I have defined and not defined my "god" as.

A "god" that has not been made know to me by a book made by the hand's of man.

But, from the very fact of my existence, has such been made.

1 Reply

How can God not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know