Define God

Oh, you're welcome.

0 Replies

Ok, let's simplify:

>If God exists
>If God is all powerful
>If God deliberately created the universe

>THEN God has free will.
>AND his power permits him to screen off knowledge of the future acts of sentient beings.
>THEREFORE, he is capable of endowing those sentient beings with free will.

If God exists, that is.

If this doesn't follow from your definition of God, let me know which is incorrect.

0 Replies

It's consistent with my definition.

0 Replies

Wasn't sure. Thanks.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The proposition that a conscious entity deliberately created the universe and can interact with it in any way he sees fit is either true or false, but not both, and not neither. As far as matters of fact go, you can believe any old thing you want, but if you want to be correct, you need to use evidence and logic. If you just go around believe what you like, you are going to be wrong about a lot of things.

'Matters of fact' are not the same as 'beliefs.' What I believe is not something I apply to things that have outcomes of 'right' or 'wrong.' Which, to me, are judgment calls, anyway, but that's another thing altogether.

Beliefs are not 'correct' or 'incorrect.' They are what a person's sanity depends upon--and while you might say that the logic and evidence have shown you, without a doubt, that there is no God--I could truly say the same to the effect that there is a God. And neither one of us is being dishonest, or one 'right' and the other 'wrong.'

That's why I said belief is not something formulated. Because inevitably, it is our inner convictions that color what we see as evidence and logic to a shade that is less than objective. There is no way around that, and hence, I do not feel justified in asking another to 'prove' their belief to be 'true.'

0 Replies

QA,
A belief is merely something which someone concludes to be true. The process of arriving at this 'belief' differs for all, depending on their personal standard of evidence.
Joe sees smoke come out of the volcano, and for him that is evidence enough to formulate a belief in volcano-gods.
Frank sees the same smoke and concludes nothing but the presence of smoke.
Fundamentally different conclusions based on same evidence. Beliefs do not spawn in a void, they are all 'formulated', although rarely are they arrived at by choice.

0 Replies

queen annie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The proposition that a conscious entity deliberately created the universe and can interact with it in any way he sees fit is either true or false, but not both, and not neither. As far as matters of fact go, you can believe any old thing you want, but if you want to be correct, you need to use evidence and logic. If you just go around believe what you like, you are going to be wrong about a lot of things.

'Matters of fact' are not the same as 'beliefs.' What I believe is not something I apply to things that have outcomes of 'right' or 'wrong.' Which, to me, are judgment calls, anyway, but that's another thing altogether.

Beliefs are not 'correct' or 'incorrect.' They are what a person's sanity depends upon--and while you might say that the logic and evidence have shown you, without a doubt, that there is no God--I could truly say the same to the effect that there is a God. And neither one of us is being dishonest, or one 'right' and the other 'wrong.'

That's why I said belief is not something formulated. Because inevitably, it is our inner convictions that color what we see as evidence and logic to a shade that is less than objective. There is no way around that, and hence, I do not feel justified in asking another to 'prove' their belief to be 'true.'

You are incorrect. Try determining the structure of a molecule with just "belief." See how you do. If you assert that "love is good," then you are not in the realm of objective fact, but when you define God and then make the assertion that one exists, then, if your definition is clear, you are either right or wrong. When you say that the universe was created deliberately by a conscious being, you are either right or wrong, just as if I say, "Bill was in the meeting today," I am either right or wrong. In the realm of determining facts about the world, such as the origin and structure of the cosmos, either you use evidence and logic or else you will be wrong very frequently. Try predicting the outcome of tosses of dice with just belief devoid of evidence and logical reasoning and see how reliable a method it is. I may believe that the moon is made of cheese, but it's false.

0 Replies

All respondents above are assuming that "logic" can of itself solve epistemological problems. Godel showed that it can not, because in any "reasoning system" there is at least one axiom that cannot be derived from the system itself. This in essence constitutes a "belief".

Solutions to epistemological problems have included:
(1) to give accounts for "logic" itself as a by-product of cognitive development (Piaget),
(2)replacement of binary logic by multivalued or "fuzzy logic" which disputes the law of the excluded middle (non-contradiction),
(3) the recognition that any "words", especially like "God" cannot stand for "things" with consistent set membership, but are nodes of meaning in a fluctuating intersubjective social network(Wittgenstein.."meaning is usage"....Bateson "words are merely action co-ordinators")

So what, we may ask, is the import of the instruction "define God" ?

IMO it is the attempt to renogotiate the social relationship in which "God" is a semantic node. Atheists such as myself would like to see the "evaporation" of this node because it has clear historical connections with sociopathic events, whereas theists wish to reinforce this node for psychological security reasons. This is a dynamic process in which static concepts of "truth", "falsity" and "facts" have limited value except as temporary "agreement markers" within the negotiation process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piaget needed to use "non-causal" explanation which itself contributes to the futility of the "causality debate" in which a god might be deemed a "prime mover".

By "node" I have in mind the intersection of waves familiar to physicists in which matter such as " an electron" can pictured as such an intersection of "energy waves" ... hence the description of such particles as "wave packets", and the elusive nature of their "precise location etc" due to the energy exchange occurring in the process of "observation". By extrapolation "things/concepts" are "the intersection of relationships" whose precise nature is elusive by virtue of the nature of observation process

Neologist might note (2) and (3) are contra to your Galileo tag

0 Replies

fresco,

Your analysis is based on twentieth century epistemology. Would it be considered valid to believe in a divine but at the same time to hold that the divine can not be adequately understood by the human mind nor adequately explained using human language?

0 Replies

Have you met my alter ego friend, Joe Sixpack? He is the quintessential common man.

Together, he and I have concluded that, if there is a God similar to the one described in the bible, then he would, of necessity make his personality, purpose, and instructions clearly understandable to the unlettered and ordinary.

We could be wrong about this.

a] There may not even be a God.

b] Or if there is a God, then he would be knowable only to a select few, a priesthood.

We have seen the 'sociopathic events' associated with the latter proposition. If it were true, I would certainly hope there not to be a God at all.

I am left, IMHO, assuming that if God exists, the truth would be evident to Joe. And then, perhaps with additional effort, he might be understandable to smart folks like youse guys. :wink:

I see that, while formulating this response, wandel has offered proposition 'b' above. Surprised

I shall maintain my signature so nearly identical to the one used by apatheist Phoenix: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Ayn Rand

BTW, Joe makes the best barbecue ribs in Snohomish County, maybe the world. You should come over some time and pop a few with us. In the past, many on the board have taken us up on the invitation and have even sent recipes (which we use) in their posts.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/cheers.gif

0 Replies

wandeljw.

Wittgenstein certainly seemed to believe in "the divine" and Heisenberg was a church-goer despite his "uncertainty principle" underpinning some aspects of non-duality at the atomic level. For my part, I cannot rule out the possibility of a "spiritual level" in which the "self" is subsumed as part of a "holistic consciousness". This implies no "deity" separate from "ourselves"....we and all life ARE "the divine". However I am not fully convinced about the status of "higher consciousness" as being an a priori to life itself.

neologist

Thanks for that invitation !

It is certainly the case that some contradictions can be resolved by Hegelian dialectic (thesis antithesis synthesis) and that such "transcendence" is also a feature of mystical branches of mainstream religion (notably Sufism and Kabbalah). But Sixpack Joe isn't going to get too far down that track when he realises he needs to dismantle "existence" and leave the pieces with the border guards.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's consistent with my definition.

We have then, with but a few lines of reason, totally incinerated the reprobationist philosophies of Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, and all other flotsam and jetsam of the religious elite.

Come sit by the fire and have a Starbucks. Smile

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

All respondents above are assuming that "logic" can of itself solve epistemological problems. Godel showed that it can not, because in any "reasoning system" there is at least one axiom that cannot be derived from the system itself. This in essence constitutes a "belief".

Solutions to epistemological problems have included:
(1) to give accounts for "logic" itself as a by-product of cognitive development (Piaget),
(2)replacement of binary logic by multivalued or "fuzzy logic" which disputes the law of the excluded middle (non-contradiction),
(3) the recognition that any "words", especially like "God" cannot stand for "things" with consistent set membership, but are nodes of meaning in a fluctuating intersubjective social network(Wittgenstein.."meaning is usage"....Bateson "words are merely action co-ordinators")

So what, we may ask, is the import of the instruction "define God" ?

IMO it is the attempt to renogotiate the social relationship in which "God" is a semantic node. Atheists such as myself would like to see the "evaporation" of this node because it has clear historical connections with sociopathic events, whereas theists wish to reinforce this node for psychological security reasons. This is a dynamic process in which static concepts of "truth", "falsity" and "facts" have limited value except as temporary "agreement markers" within the negotiation process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piaget needed to use "non-causal" explanation which itself contributes to the futility of the "causality debate" in which a god might be deemed a "prime mover".

By "node" I have in mind the intersection of waves familiar to physicists in which matter such as " an electron" can pictured as such an intersection of "energy waves" ... hence the description of such particles as "wave packets", and the elusive nature of their "precise location etc" due to the energy exchange occurring in the process of "observation". By extrapolation "things/concepts" are "the intersection of relationships" whose precise nature is elusive by virtue of the nature of observation process

Neologist might note (2) and (3) are contra to your Galileo tag

This doesn't mean that reasoning and evidence can't be used to solve any problems. In addition, I am only looking for strongly suggestive evidence, not proof. Your philosophy above, even if true, does not give you free reign to go around claiming whatever pleases you is true, at least not if you want a good chance of being correct.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

. . . Sixpack Joe isn't going to get too far down that track when he realises he needs to dismantle "existence" and leave the pieces with the border guards.

We are not attempting to prove the existence of God. That may not be possible, especially in a traditional scientific sense.

The purpose of the topic, for me, was to garner other folks' definitions and descriptions of God, whether they believed or not.

As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, he is quite certain of his own existence, believes wholeheartedly in God's existence and sometimes wonders whether I am for real. I didn't ask him what he believed about you, but he did say he would throw on a few extra. So, I guess you're OK.

0 Replies

Brandon,

You may be missing a major point..."objectivity" is being denied and replaced by "consensus". "Existence of a thing" is deconstructed and replaced by consensual relationships between communicators.

Your position (the claim that the concept of "an interactive God" is open to "logical analysis") is limited if you realize that what constitutes "evidence", "proof", and even "the problem" are also negotiated. Even in "hard" science where consensus is most prevalent entrenched positions are resistant to the the acceptance of "counter evidence" (Your profile indicates you may be familiar with Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"). When you move to the area of "psychology" or "sociology" involving attitudes to "deities", consensus is parochial and subject to linguistic conditioning.
(You might already know that your oblique reference to "probability" in terms of degrees of supporting evidence is reflected as in the revision by Popper of his "falsifiability principle" as a criterion for "scientific statements". Probabilistic science is one of factors behind the rise of "fuzzy logic" and the decline of the absolutes "truth" and "falsity").

I obviously do not claim "truth" for an epistemological position where "truth" is under analysis. Like any theory "truth" or "proof" do not come into it...the position must be judged on such factors as "elegance", "range of application", and "depth".

Neologist,

The "existence" of Joe Sixpack, rocks, unicorns or gods is not in dispute!They all "exist" by virtue of their conception within our web of interationships. If those relationships extend to BBQs so much the better (provided we are careful with the rocks and unicorns !).

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

You may be missing a major point..."objectivity" is being denied and replaced by "consensus". "Existence of a thing" is deconstructed and replaced by consensual relationships between communicators.

Your position (the claim that the concept of "an interactive God" is open to "logical analysis") is limited if you realize that what constitutes "evidence", "proof", and even "the problem" are also negotiated. Even in "hard" science where consensus is most prevalent entrenched positions are resistant to the the acceptance of "counter evidence" (see Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"). When you move to the area of "psychology" or "sociology" involving attitudes to "deities", consensus is parochial and subject to linguistic conditioning.
(BTW you oblique reference to "probability" in terms of degrees of supporting evidence is reflected in the revision by Popper of his "falsifiability principle" as a criterion for "scientific statements". Probabilistic science is one of factors behind the rise of "fuzzy logic" and the decline of the absolutes "truth" and "falsity").

I obviously do not claim "truth" for an epistemological position where "truth" is under analysis. Like any theory "truth" or "proof" do not come into it...the position must be judged on such factors as "elegance", "range of application", and "depth".

Neologist,

The "existence" of Joe Sixpack, rocks, unicorns or gods is not in dispute!They all "exist" by virtue of their conception within our web of interationships. If those relationships extend to BBQs so much the better (provided we are careful with the rocks and unicorns !).

What other people commonly do or have done is irrelevant. I am enunciating basic principles which are true regardless of the actions of people. Deciding matters of fact based on wishful thinking, without using evidence and solid reasoning can be shown to produce correct conclusions only randomly. You can try to obscure me with all the Philosopy 101 mumbo jumbo you want, and it won't change the simple fact that making assertions of fact without evidence doesn't work.

0 Replies

Brandon,

That was philosophy 102 !

Philosophy 101 was about unravelling word salad like "the simple fact that making assertions of fact without evidence doesn't work"
(See Russells Paradox.......or maybe not ! Laughing

)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

That was philosophy 102 !

Philosophy 101 was about unravelling word salad like "the simple fact that making assertions of fact without evidence doesn't work"
(See Russells Paradox.......or maybe not )

One could easily set up an experiment in which the technique of making assertions about facts without evidence was tested for its success rate. All that would be reuquired would be to give people a multiple choice test with questions about which they could not possibly know anything. Got any guesses as to the average statistical result?

0 Replies

Brandon,

Don't you see that "knowledge" "facts" and evidence" cannot be seen as separate entities.

And the "test" would be a test of "what" precisely ?
a departure from "real life" which gives a confirms an abstract tautology ?

In reality nobody makes "assertions" except within particular social contexts (including self with self).
Those who assert "God caused X" where X is (a) "a miracle" or (b) "an unusual event" ,have a ready consensus (a) of "believers", and another consensus (b) of "detractors" who say the "scientific evidence" is yet to be forthcoming.
All that really matters is what happens next in terms of the dynamics of relationships NOT the assertion. The catch all assertion for believers has been of course "life is a miracle" but now Prigogine and others have "scientific evidence" to the contrary.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

Don't you see that "knowledge" "facts" and evidence" cannot be seen as separate entities.

And the "test" would be a test of "what" precisely ?
a departure from "real life" which gives a confirms an abstract tautology ?

In reality nobody makes "assertions" except within particular social contexts (including self with self).
Those who assert "God caused X" where X is (a) "a miracle" or (b) "an unusual event" ,have a ready consensus (a) of "believers", and another consensus (b) of "detractors" who say the "scientific evidence" is yet to be forthcoming.
All that really matters is what happens next in terms of the dynamics of relationships NOT the assertion. The catch all assertion for believers has been of course "life is a miracle" but now Prigogine and others have "scientific evidence" to the contrary.

There is an objective reality, and once you have defined God, then either there is a God or there isn't. If this entity created the universe, and keeps his hand in it on Earth, presumably there would be some real evidence to suggest it. In the absence of such evidence, there is no sound basis for believing that this entity exists and created our universe. If I asserted that there was an alien spaceship orbiting the solar system just beyond our ability to detect it, and that it contained the alien race that built the ship doing surveillance on us, then at any given moment that assertion would be either true or false. Since I have no evidence it is true, I would be a fool to believe it. The history of science has demonstrated that the most effective way of learning what is true is to use evidence and logic. If you give someone a multiple choice test containing questions each of which is true or false, but on topics with which the test taker cannot be familiar, then you will see clearly how well belief without evidence works. It is a false technique which does not work.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know