God (Part 1): Anti-God Reasoning Blunders

I yet will argue, that the matter here, is the English language, and that alone...regarding the terms being used.

The English word 'god,' in fact, was not a proper noun (a name) and only became to be such by an inadvertant adaptation of Jewish superstition--to use adhonai or elohim. The word god became capitalized so as to indicate, primarily, the 'true' god as opposed to false 'gods.'

'ha el' is always YHWH, where as a simple 'el' is not. This is the model that was the original Jewish system (at least around the time of the Second Temple). In the English speaking portion of Christendom, the capitalized word 'God,' became the substitution for THAT god-model alone! There are numerious god-models--no need to mention that--but when the average English speaker comes across the word 'God,' they are most usually going to think of the Biblical god-model; YHWH.

This model is very fixed by the documents which describe/prescribe it, therefore to assert that YHWH is synonymous with the content of those same works is a very fair given. It is a fact that every god, is a god--a countable noun--and thus the need for articles. However, for any god which has a name (a proper noun) we would best use that name to identify that particlular god so as not to lead to any confusion.

The specific name of the god that is modeled by the Jewish writings, is without any doubt whatsoever, YWHW. And, that particular name became replaced by the English word "God," as opposed to "god." My argument, therefore, is actually one of consistency. We should use names to be consistent, and when speaking of some general, cosmic, unknown, un-named force, or whatever, should not use the word "God," but rather "god."

I enjoyed reading your OP, LW. I'll soon be moving on to Parts 2 & 3. But first I have a comment and a question.

With respect to Didymos' comment on aseity, he does have a point. . . . . The bottom line is that, regardless of how hard one tries to argue either for or against God, the argument can always be skewered on a point of logic somewhere. So, as good as your list is, and as much as I agree with it, I also have confidence in the creativity of atheists, and someone will eventually determine a way to refute your list.

That is why I rarely participate in "God exists/no he doesn't" type debates. If the goal is to poke holes in the argument, a way will be found - on both sides. If curiosity is at the root of the question, the discussion can be very interesting.

That leads to my question. Earlier in the thread you offered to discuss this with boagie elsewhere. Did that happen? I didn't find it, and thought I would take a peek if the event transpired - hoping, of course, for a discussion of the second kind.

Aseity is impossible to ever observe and so impossible to confirm

With respect to your two types of people, I consider myself analytical rather than intuitive. And yet I believe in God (I assume you meant that intuitive people are more likely to believe).

For that reason I long thought I could connect with other analytical people and explain experiencing God on their terms. I no longer think that - and for theological reasons I long ignored

God is certainly impossible to confirm through "observation" as you use it in the scientific context. That's a whole topic in and of itself, and I'll resist diving in too far.

But parallel concepts, such as infinity, when placed within a mathematical structure, are not impossible to work with. Unfortunately, it seems many people have a poor grasp on what infinity really means.

Even though we both believe there is something more to existence than physicalness/mechanics, I'm going to disagree with you quite a bit. Why? I think a great deal of God concepts don't make sense, and that is a big reason why thinking people disbelieve.

I still don't quite see that. Because one claims God has always existed doesn't mean God has.

But, non-believers are not required to submit to how believers see things. If an objective discussion is the goal, we can't force participants to accept our premises unless we can support them with evidence.

Evident to whom? To you and I, yes; to the atheist, no.

I believe it is on those who think God is evident to make their case; but not with an argument from the theist belief system, but with evidence of actual experience of what's claimed to be true.

Okay, but that atheist argument is normally dependent on showing how physicalness can create itself. That, in fact, is the physicalist claim, exaggerated to the hilt in terms of the self-organizing ability of physicalness or (in E-theory) the creative ability of adaption to bring a single cell along to human consciousness.

Why? Aren't we after the nature of reality? Whatever helps reveal that is relevant to discovering truth.

My major point is (which you'll find if you read all three parts of this thread series), the epistemology for knowing physicalness is very different from the epistemology for knowing God.

Both are part of the ONE reality, it's just that each requires a different approach to discovering them.

If I were an all powerful, all knowing God, I would have done it better. Why is it a problem if God doesn't know all and isn't omnipotent?

One day this reality may very well be perfected. Kids will be born into families totally clear what life's purpose is. Right now, relatively few people understand that. How is that "perfect."

This creator still spent 11-13 billion years evolving a creation to help us come into being as individuals. Perfection may be a few hundred years away, but then maybe we are part of the perfecting process.

How do you know this? Maybe the goal is to be conscious and happy, and when a person is truly conscious and deeply happy, they automatically turn into a saint.

If that is the progression, then trying to be a "saint" before attaining enlightened consciousness and self-reliant bliss is like trying to be healthy without first eating right and exercising properly.

We can indeed form the concept of God as 'that which cannot but exist'; but that concept could be wrong. There may be nothing that actually fits that description. To conclude that God must exist begs the question. (In the same way, we can conceive of something that 'cannot but be the present King of France'; but that does not prove that there is a present King of France.)

Even if it does, you do not appear to have considered the possibility that other possible set-ups could also offer us a perfect opportunity to be saintly. There is no logical rule that says perfection has to be unique.

But they clearly do not! Even if saintliness is taken to include thoughts as well as deeds, how can a person act saintly if he/she is asleep, or in a coma, or insane?

Furthermore, this reality does not seem to be an obvious candidate to provide equal opportunity for saintliness, given the huge inequalities in different people's circumstances.

What I meant was that people seem predisposed to evaluating and trusting primarily through one avenue or the other. But all people are in possession of both avenues, and some of us switch back and forth, or even maintain both rather equally.

For example, all the supernatural claims I think are totally wrong. You just cannot find things happening that aren't following laws. That doesn't mean, however, that "natural" is only physical (as many assume because physical is all natural). If we define "natural" as obeying inviolable laws, then we've expanded natural from merely being physical. If God could move outside some more basic inviolable laws, then why doesn't it show up in the workings of reality?

My view is that we need two things 1) a "plausible creator" model (panpsychism seems interesting), something that would explain why reality appears as it does so at least there is some sort of analytical test, and 2) to focus on those throughout history who focused on experiencing God rather than continuing to focus on those who want to philosophize and theorize about God without their own deep-seated experience to reference.

Ya know, I think I'm going to like you despite where we likely disagree.

I can understand your sentiment, but be careful. I'll let God be who he is, and I'll let him explain himself.

A great deal of God concepts do not make sense, and I agree that this is a huge reason why thinking people disbelieve. . . if someone argues against the Catholic conception of God while ignoring the concept of aseity, their argument will necessarily fail because they are not addressing the Catholic notion of God, but are instead arguing against a watered down Catholic conception of God.

We are after reality, but we have to understand that religion and science address different aspects of reality. Science addresses physical reality, while religion addresses certain basic human needs like giving meaning to life, something science simply cannot do.

You say you would have "done it better", but that sets you up as better than God.

Now, you did not address my points: to say that this world could be better assumes that whatever changes you would make would not, inadvertantly, make things worse. . . . consider how drastically we would have to alter the laws of nature in order to eliminate mosquitos, tsunamis, and viruses. In such a world, humans would not exist: and that certainly is no improvement. The same mechanisms which allow for human existence allow for the existence of those things you would have not exist.

If it is by this process that "perfection" is reached, then reality as it is must be perfect because it will allow for some sort of "true perfection".

What did you think it is to be a saint but to be enlightened?

[Before I answer, the last three quotes you attributed to me were actually contributed by ACB.]

I understand and respect your point of view, but it strikes me as strange that you admit intelligent people (some anyway) are turned of by seemingly nonsensical God beliefs, but you then insist people argue against something no one knows is even true.

Beyond that, what difference does it make if God has always existed or is infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient . . . if God produced this universe and us, and there is a way to experience/know that creationary being, then what else matters? In fact, the less questionable dogma one has to accept the more easy it is to discuss what there actually might be to know of God.

Why should anyone accept what the Church decided was true about God anyway? Jesus was the only master as far as I know (i.e., associated with Christianity), and the only person I'd listen to if he were to give us details about God.

I used to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses when they'd brave knocking on my door, but I had a condition. I'd say, "I'll talk to you, but the only quotes you can use from the Bible are those attributed to Jesus."

I got some pretty good reactions to that requirement, from being called an idiot (no lie) to Witnesses really being stumped at how to proceed. Those who gave it a try found themselves really hampered to not be able to rely on Revelation and selected OT verses.

I mention this because I'm not sure if Jesus would be a Christian given some of the stuff being taught in his name. Now if your intent is converting someone to your religion rather than turning them toward God, then it seems you'd have to start out arguing Church dogma to get'em hooked. :shifty:

True, but I think you don't take it far enough, which is HOW science addresses an aspect of reality versus HOW religion tries it.

The thing is, there actually is a body of experience, but religion, like most people who debate at sites like this one, are not interested in the real investigator's of the God claim. They prefer to argue about it and decide who's team they are on based on the conceptual model that appeals to them most.

Among the devoted practitioners of turning inward there is a saying about how the concept of drinking water will not quench your thirst, only the experience of drinking water will.

No it doesn't, I said IF I were all knowing and all powerful . . . i.e., IF I possessed the same qualities some religious insist God has, then I would have made creation so everyone who arrives knows why they are here, and I would have made it so unnecessary suffering could be avoided (and no mosquitos!!!)

Look, I mean IF I was all powerful and all knowing, then I could do things anyway I wanted. I would be subject to no rules, nothing would not be possible. So humans would exist, because I say so, and the "laws" of nature are any damn way I say they are going to be. But then, why put a bunch nasty killer stuff down here that really do end up hurting a lot of people?

My only point along those lines is . . . why must God be perfect?

That sounds like sophistry. The common argument I am challenging is the insistence that God is omnipotent, omniscient and therefore perfect. This is pure imagination on our part about how we want God to be, but it is utterly unnecessary to carry around this requirement for belief in God. And if you look at reality, it doesn't look like God can do anything.

On the other hand, what God can do is freaking amazing, and so who cares if God is perfect?

Well, this is an interesting question isn't it?

Do you think you know what the experience of enlightenment is?

Something you said makes me suspicious of your definition: being saintly.

I know a lot of people think the way to enlightenment is being saintly, but I am just as certain they have it backwards; that is, I believe the way to saintliness is through enlightenment. Yes, while practicing the methods of enlightenment one is as good as one can be, but it is very difficult to overcome one's conditioning without enlightenment. Since a great deal of non-saintly behavior derives from conditioning (what the Buddha called the "acquired self"), a person ends up fighting a monster that just won't go away.

But enlightenment solves the problem automatically if you understand enlightenment is peace, inner peace. When the mind is made still, how can it think of bad things to do? The enlightened consciousness has returned to its original nature, free of past conditioning and fully in the experience of the light. Is that light God? Well, the Buddha refused to say, he just said to practice and find out for yourself what that light is.

In any case, what enlightenment is is an interesting question isn't it?

Well, you are mixing up two ideas. A science proof is a different beast than a math proof.

A "proof" about the nature of reality is not what correct math proves. Correct math is a tautology, and only proves it has obeyed its own rules to reach a conclusion.

So while correctly-done math may give us clues for where to look, for science it doesn't relieve us of the requirement to observe what we hypothesize, mathematically or otherwise, is so.

At any rate, the idea of some consciousness creating everything always seemed quite backward to me, as an approach. In science, we're after the explanations--things that are complicated and apparently quite chaotic explained by simpler more orderly things. But if you're willing to accept some omnipotent being capable of creating the universe by will, who needs explanation? If anything this "God" requires much more explanation than the universe it's used to explain. It's like paying one hundred dolloars to get one dollar.

It's interesting that you equate proving God with science rather than math. Many don't see it that way. In fact, most arguments in philosophy of religion would treat the issue as if we're dealing with conceptual tautologies or contradictions. For example, if God's attributes are x, y, and z, and if these concepts logically necessitate w, and w doesn't hold, then... See, that's like math, rather than science, as the issue has to do with the concepts and what logically follows.

Even the argument of evil may seem like it's appealing to experience, but is really about the logical necessities involving the God-concept and evil. Now these arguments may "work" if the God-concept is rich enough to have logically impossible consequences (thus a tautological argument); otherwise, no. But then we're back to what exactly one means by "God."

If one just means "some creative force" responsible for the universe, heck for all I know there might be such, and that, in just those terms, seem poor enough (conceptually) to not have logically impossible consequences and therefore out of the realms of "conceptual proofs." But the more vague and conceptually poor we get about "God" the less meaningful the labels of "atheists" and "theists" become.

With regard to say "some creative force responsible for the universe" I have no beliefs one way or the other. You'd have to get much more explicit in your concept before I might have some opinion one way or another. At any rate, the idea of some consciousness creating everything always seemed quite backward to me, as an approach. In science, we're after the explanations--things that are complicated and apparently quite chaotic explained by simpler more orderly things. But if you're willing to accept some omnipotent being capable of creating the universe by will, who needs explanation? If anything this "God" requires much more explanation than the universe it's used to explain. It's like paying one hundred dolloars to get one dollar.

ACB, the issue isn't whether a concept is simple or complex, but whether it makes any sense, and if so whether it can be used to explain a great numbers of things otherwise unexplained.

So many objections arise from just three "simple" concepts like omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence which are, really, just three of the ways philosophers have tried to unpack "perfection."

LW, I don't know anyone ever had an "epistemology of pure rationality."

You use reason when reason is applicable; you use experience when experience is applicable; sometimes you use both. For example, I may reason that I went to the pub on Thursday night because I saw a TV show there that only happens on Thursday nights. This is using both experience (of seeing the TV show) and reason (this show they have on only Thursday nights, therefore this must have been a Thursday night). Is it infallible? No. It's possible they showed this program on a different day; it's possible you saw the wrong show or misrember or maybe drug/hypnosis induced to think you saw, etc. Is it generally reliable? Yes.

What about God is OBSERVABLE? Can you see it? Smell it? Touch it? Can you measure its density? Gravitational properties? Electromagnetic properties? If it's some kind of pure consciousness (lacking any physical manifestation), how do you observe such a consciousness?

But then you ask what does a creative force have to be like to produce what we see in the universe today (including consciousness). Ok, now we're engaging in reasoning, but I don't see how reason could tell you what creative force would have to be like. . . . So logic, reason, can't give you God. What then?

The biggest obstacle that I see, if you see God as pure consciousness with no physical manifestation, is coming up with any kind of model that makes sense in which pure consciousness creates something, anything, other than its own thoughts. . . . I don't subscribe to physicalism. But I cannot explain this seemingly simple, dualistic interaction between thought and physical objects. I'd think a solution to this would be necessary before you could tackle a much bigger issue of consciousness affecting the physical universe in such a large scale so decisively, NOT to mention affecting/creating other consciousnesses as well.

For example, because we know the universe exists where once it didn't (or so experts believe), we also know something brought about creation. We can logically infer too that what created the universe and its contents had to have been there before the creation it generated.