Ok. Thanks.
Are you saying that the question about the existence of god is part of a larger complex network of meaning that has to be mapped before such a cuestion can be addressed?
Cyracuz,
Not quite. I am saying that the hypotheical "truth value" of a single atomic statement is insufficient to account for, or overturn the paradigm in which that statement is enmeshed.
Thus "God exists" has inumerably semantic linkages to concepts of "divinity" and "existence" . Such linkages ae embodied in the social systems and linguistic convention to the extent that the "existence" of tangible structures like the Catholic Church are de facto defining "the existence of God" irrespective of any "physical evidence".
(As Kuhn pointed out, a single counter-example would not topple "a theory" because that theory was enmeshed in a much larger paradigm.)
This has lead me to the conclusion that "existence" is about "relationship" not "truth" which is itself a matter of consensus. Ultimately an appeal to "physical reality" is really an appeal to "global consensus" since "physicality" is mutually inferred from common species specific perceptual systems. One need only consider the "existence " of "the colour red" with respect to a colour blind species to get the gist.
...in other words the question cannot be addressed without addressing the meaning of "existence"....and that analysis tends to dissipate the question !
Intersting. Truth is a matter of consensus. I agree with that, and also with your statement that existence is about relationship.
So I am thinking that the question of god's existence is unanswerable until we establish a concept of god we can relate to; a concept that ressonates as we act towards it...
Feel free to sink my ship if I'm sailing off... :wink:
Oops.. you sneaked that last post in there while I was writing my reply...
You are not sailing off...according to this view only "concepts" have "existence". They are structural nodes of interrelationship with "the shared world" and "each other." The fact that atheists have a negative or neutral relationship evoked by the "God concept" does not affect its "existence".
In other threads I have presented an idea I have that god does indeed exist as an abstract concept; a constructed reference point for categorizing abstract ideas and "entities" so that we can relate to them... This seems to go over well with what's presented here...
Come to think.. "I" exist also only as an abstract concept...
Correct...but "abstraction" merely implies another form of relationship not a "lack of reality".
One could argue that all we can ever relate to are abstract concepts.
I agree, but note that "we" already confirms that in this view "social reality" is axiomatic/a priori. This is in line with "abstract" not being the antithesis of "physical" but implying a nondualistic position neither "physical" nor "mental".
I think that I can answer this with a series of three definitions:
A exists in relation to B if A and B are in the same universe.
A and A are in the same universe.
If A and B are in the same universe, and B and C are in the same universe, then A and C are in the same universe.
If A and B have a casual relation, then A and B are in the same universe.
If A affects B, then A and B have a casual relation.
At this point, the defining terminates with "affects".
I could also use the word "exists" to mean "exists in relation to me (or you, since you are in the same universe as I).
Using these definitions, something always exists in relation to itself.
Using these definitions, other universes do not exist, since they are not in the same universe as I.
"In the same universe" is not symmetric.
I think that these definition area bit problematic, but they shall suffice, since this is not a quantifier. It is, instead, just decribing the "networks of things which affect each other."
I think that the idea of God has nothing to do with omnipotentence or omniscience or the creation of morality. I think that it has to do with justice. God is the "final arbiter" who shall bestow justice upon us all. It acts with accordance to our "sense of justice." There is, of course, no reason to believe that such a thing exists.
Joseph Campbell told a story about a minister who asked him whether he believed in a personal god. Campbell replied to the negative. The minister replied that they was probably no way then that he could prove to Campbell the existence of god. Campbell replied that if he could, what would be the use of faith.
coluber2001, it doesn't matter, because you haven't defined "God" and "exists."
I shall then define an object as "a set of 'rules' for determining future senses." Objects can never be reliable, because the universe can always be more volatile. "God" is essentially an unbounded object: it's rules say that there are no other, since it is omnipotent (see into "theodicy": if God is good, then he is not all powerful; if God is all powerful, then God is not good). Therefore, any sense manifestation can be the result "God." Therefore, all "God" is is a random set of sense manifestations and maniuplations of other objects.
What, indeed, is the use of a random set?
The problem here is that "the definer" and "the defined" are in constant flux. Static set theory doesnt work hence nor does binary logic.
A reading of "fuzzy logic theory" indicates the nuances. The "hungry guy" and "the apple" co-define each other. As the hungry guy gets less hungry the apple gets less apple-ish until the relationship of co-existence dissipates....neither is "left". A third party tends to see nothing of this "dynamic of existence". His snapshot half way through the proceedings might see "Fat guy chewing apple core" . The persistence of "things" is a myth evoked by the persistence of linguistic categories like "apple". Such persistence of "set membership" is functionally evoked for the purposes of prediction and control relative to human lifespans. The persistence of "a paternalistic caring God" is an expression of the desire to have ultimate prediction beyond the grave.
GOD EXISTS
The worst error and misguidance of the students of philosophy, the people of unbelief and the instinctual soul, lies in not recognizing God. Just as in the preceding story the trustworthy man said, "there can be no letter without a scribe, no law without a legislator," we too say the following:
A book, particularly one in each word of which a minute pen has inscribed another whole book, and in each letter of which a fine pen has traced a poem, cannot be without a writer; this would be entirely impossible. So too this cosmos cannot be without its inscriber; this is impossible to the utmost degree. For the cosmos is precisely such a book that each of its pages includes many other books, each of its words contains a book, and each of its letters contains a poem. The face of the earth is but a single page in the book of the cosmos. See how many books it contains. Every fruit is a letter, and every seed is a dot. In that dot is contained the index of the whole tree in its vastness. A book such as this can have been inscribed only by the mighty pen of a Possessor of Glory Who enjoys the attributes of splendour and beauty, and Who is the holder of infinite wisdom and power. Faith, then, follows inevitably on the observation of the world, unless one is drunk on misguidance.
Similarly, a house cannot arise without a builder, particularly a house adorned with miraculous works of art, wondrous designs, and amazing ornaments. As much art has been put into one of its stones as into a whole palace. No intelligence will accept that it could arise without a builder; definitely it needs a master architect. Moreover, within the building, veritable rooms take shape and change each hour with the utmost order and ease, just as if clothes were being changed, or as if scenes were passing across a cinema screen. We can say even that numerous little rooms are constantly being created in each of those scenes.
In like manner, the cosmos also requires an infinitely wise, all-knowing and all-powerful maker. For the magnificent cosmos is a palace that has the sun and the moon as its lamps and the stars as its candles; time is like a rope or ribbon hung within it, on to which the Glorious Creator each year threads a new world. And within the world that He thus threads on the string of time He places three hundred and sixty fresh and orderly forms. He changes them with the utmost orderliness and wisdom. He has made the face of the earth a bounteous spread that He adorns each spring with three hundred thousand species of creation, that He fills with innumerable kinds of generous gifts. This He does in such a fashion that they all stand apart from each other, quite separate and distinct, despite their being at the same time so close and intermingled. Is it possible to overlook the existence of the Maker of such a palace?
Again, to deny the existence of the sun, on a cloudless day at noon, when its traces are to be observed and its reflection is to be seen in every bubble on the surface of the ocean, in every shining object on dry land, and in every particle of snow - to make such a denial would be to rave like the deranged. For if one denied and refused to accept the existence of the single, unique sun, he would be compelled to accept the existence of a whole series of minor suns, each real and existent in its own right, as numerous as the drops and bubbles of the ocean, as countless as the particles of snow. It would be necessary to believe that each minute particle contains a huge sun, even though the particle is large enough only to contain itself. It would be an even greater sign of lunacy and misguidance to refuse one's assent to the attributes of perfection of the Glorious Creator, even while beholding the well-ordered cosmos that is constantly changing in wise and regular fashion, that is being ceaselessly renewed in disciplined manner. This, too, would be like the ravings of a lunatic, since it would then become necessary to believe and accept that absolute divinity is present in all things, even a particle. For every particle of air is somehow able to enter and work its effects upon every flower, fruit and leaf, and unless the particle be entrusted with this task by a Creator, it must know of itself the structure and form of all the objects it penetrates and affects. In other words, it must possess all-encompassing power and knowledge.
Every particle of soil is potentially capable of giving rise to all the different seeds that exist. If it is not acting under command, it must contain within itself equipment and instruments corresponding to all the various trees and plants in the world. Or, to put it differently, one must attribute to the particle such artistry and power that it is aware of the structure of each of them, knows the forms that each of them is caused to assume, and is capable of fashioning those forms. The same is true with respect to the particle and other realms of creation.
From this you can understand that in all things there are numerous and manifest proofs of God's Unity. To create all things from one thing, and to make all things into one thing, is a task possible only for the Creator of all things. Pay heed to the sublime declaration: "There is naught but proclaims His Glory with praise." For if one does not accept God, the One and Unique, one must accept gods as numerous as created beings.
belikenother: must you cut-and-waste indiscriminately? have you no thoughts of your own?
yawn...don't you just love cut-and-paste dogmatics that don't even quote their source?
So, rather than argue about the possibility of proof existing, why not have those who claim that proof *does* exist, provide said proof ?
USAFHokie80 wrote:So, rather than argue about the possibility of proof existing, why not have those who claim that proof *does* exist, provide said proof ?
Because there is no proof, at least not the type of proof that you are asking for. We see the type of universe that we ask for. If we are existential or atheist in our beliefs, we see a cruel, uncaring universe without a God. If we are disposed toward faith, we receive some kind of confirmation of our faith, but not objective proof. If we seek experience of God, it comes as internal spiritual experience. We all seem to get what we want.
Is there a way to ban people who cut and paste long screeds on this forum? I'm sure that people who post spam are banned, but shouldn't cutting and pasting be disallowed also? Its nearly as disruptive and doesn't contribute much to the sharing of ideas since nobody reads them.
