Define God

Brandon,

Your assertion "there is an objective reality" says it all. You choose to be philosophically handicapped.

I'll leave you with Einstein's celebrated riposte.
"Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one".
(thanks to queen annie for reminding me)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

Your assertion "there is an objective reality" says it all. You choose to be philosophically handicapped.

I'll leave you with Einstein's celebrated riposte.
"Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one".
(thanks to queen annie for reminding me)

You cannot support your belief with anything except some crap about the universe being unknowable. I'm just about done with the likes of you.

0 Replies

In my opinion, belief about anything "divine" can not be defended by logical analysis. But if someone admits his belief is based on intuitive feeling only, I would consider that valid.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

In my opinion, belief about anything "divine" can not be defended by logical analysis. But if someone admits his belief is based on intuitive feeling only, I would consider that valid.

It depends on what you mean by valid, but intuition is not effective, when used as the sole means of discovering the truth, in matters of this sort.

0 Replies

brandon,

I guess by "valid" I mean an honest basis for a belief. (sorry to be so abstract)

0 Replies

Brandon,

Presumably "the likes of me" includes Einstein then with such further quotes as:

"As far as the laws of mathematics (logic) refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
(Parenthesis mine)

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

Presumably "the likes of me" includes Einstein then with such further quotes as:

"As far as the laws of mathematics (logic) refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
(Parenthesis mine)

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Throught these past few posts, you have most often tried argument by testimonial from an authority, which is an invalid way to argue.

0 Replies

Brandon.

So according to you the "correct way" to argue is to dismiss major contributions to our understanding of reality by using the language of the inarticulate like "mumbo-jumbo" and "crap" ? :wink:

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

In my opinion, belief about anything "divine" can not be defended by logical analysis. But if someone admits his belief is based on intuitive feeling only, I would consider that valid.

Thanks for interrupting the avalanche of erudition with a simple and understandable statement.

Intuitive feeling may be a legitimate starting point, but the battlefields of the world are crimson with intuitive beliefs. More is needed.

The discussion between fresco and Brandon has so far been mostly a display of recondite chest thumping of the I follow Einstein - you use a beer stein variety.

Not to say they are not both highly intelligent individuals; they most certainly are. But, if God exists, is it not intuitively obvious that he should be explainable to those most ordinary?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Intuitive feeling may be a legitimate starting point, but the battlefields of the world are crimson with intuitive beliefs. More is needed.

....if God exists, is it not intuitively obvious that he should be explainable to those most ordinary?

I am sure the "most ordinary" have an intuitive feeling about whether God exists or not. Whether the nature of God can be adequately explained is something that we should not expect (in my opinion).

0 Replies

neologist,

Good word "recondite" !

Actually I've had to be pretty selective with Einstein because he does ultimately side with the "believers" even if he did scientifically pave the way away from naive realism.

As for your "God of the ordinary man" there is surely a sinister connection between "simplicity" and "naivity" which could account for the worst sociopathic excesses mentioned above. The premise would therfore appear to be antithetical to the normal concepts of "existence of God as a benign entity" unless of course you evoke "Satan" as "malignant entity" as well !

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Not to say they are not both highly intelligent individuals; they most certainly are. But, if God exists, is it not intuitively obvious that he should be explainable to those most ordinary?

Maybe so--if the word 'God' were still mostly 'undefined' by the world, in general, and in particularly the Abrahamic religions...

But God has been defined historically--in various ways which don't apply to everyone's intuition.

Personally, my intuition didn't ever concur with what was already defined--although intuition didn't immediately formulate a new definition. Instead, it led me to search for a definition that didn't contradict what I can observe with my eyes and know with my brain--such as things that happen in nature on a consistent basis. But such a definition is usually scorned by the religious (idealist) as well as the scientific (pragmatic) types.

0 Replies

I'll have to admit it is an act of my faith that I believe God has brought himself to our level to the point where ordinary people can understand his purpose.

As for a definition, I marvel at the meaning of the word Jehovah: "He who causes to become"

I am prone to speculate about God's transcendant nature, his ability to manipulate space and time, etc. I have interesting conversations with believers and non believers alike. But the end result of it all is what part of "love your neighbor as yourself" do I not understand?

Now, enough of my off topic ranting. Are folks satisfied with the definitions of God so far proposed? Anything to add?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon.

So according to you the "correct way" to argue is to dismiss major contributions to our understanding of reality by using the language of the inarticulate like "mumbo-jumbo" and "crap" ? :wink:

No, according to me, the correct way to argue is to take a specific assertion of mine which you maintain is incorrect, and give your own argument for why it is incorrect. Saying that some smart guy agreed with you is not valid debate.

0 Replies

Agreed. Argument from authority should be used sparingly.

0 Replies

Brandon,

I have not said your assertions are "incorrect". I have merely said that "correctness" is a matter of negotiation and I have supported my view IN THE NORMAL MANNER by suggesting references to you which might ring a few bells. Your belief in "an objective reality" precludes your consideration of such a position. Unless you are prepared to follow up my references or experiment on your own with the concept of a "social reality", you will never understand the point.

0 Replies

neologist,

I've had this argument about references before.

What do you want - a bunch of boring barber shop kibbitzers or an informed discussion of contemporary ideas ?

0 Replies

I'd much prefer to hear your own ideas punctuated by authoritative reference, than reference upon reference. Otherwise, we could simply exchange links.

But, you can cite references all you want for me. Most of them I will understand. The rest I will ask you to explain in your own words.

0 Replies

Whatever definition I come up with for "God" will be the product of what I know to be my self. If my "self" is undefined, then I cannot be sure of the motives that drive my investigation of "God", nor should I expect to be satisfied with the results. If I do not start by defining the "self", then I lose the key element of objectivity, and anything I come up with will be baseless.
But, then, is it possible to define the "self" before defining "God"?
Is this like the "chicken and egg" thing?
(I don't know, guys. I almost want to apologize for this post...I'm getting pretty lost, here.)

0 Replies

echi,

Don't worry! Your "confusion" has led philosophers like Wittgenstein to investigate this very process of "definition" and to arrive at the position that definitions cannot be separated from particular social contexts and purposes. Both the context and the "selves" engaged therein are subject to dynamic shifts. Where there is consensus of purpose, there will be consensus of definition.

Consider this trivial exchange which illustrates my point:

(Mugging Scene from Crocodile Dundee)
Girl: Watch out ...he's got a knife!
Dundee: Call that "a knife" ...(Pulling out his own)...
.....now THAT'S "A KNIFE".

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know