about my beliefs. He claims he is an atheist, he studies developmental and evolutionary biology. He also suspects that I believe in spaghetti and unicorns (?), whatever it means.
Let me just concentrate on the most "important" (at least to some people) question: does God exist ?
There are many opinions on God existence, a lot of them.For me personally the question if "God exist" is simply ill-defined. Consider the word "exist", Webster's dictionary definition gives: "to have actual being, be". What it means? For me, not much. We just replaced a word "exist" with "be". Some people like to discuss "do we exist?" as well. They can do that, although I'm a big proponent of using the word "exist" only in a context (in fact it is a secondary definition in this dictionary). We say "between any two real numbers, at least one more real number exists". We can also ask if real numbers exist ? If so, where "they" exist ? They are part of our universe, dreams or what ? (Hint: they exist in a set of all sets) The same reasoning we can apply to God: where could God exist ? The answer is pretty obvious to me today: God exists between any two real numbers... in hell :P
21 comments:
Well, you need to realize that there is a difference between existence of an object in physical world and existence of a concept. You can say that the Moon exists and you can say that Sherlock Holmes exists. But it's not the same 'exist'. You won't solve anything by confusing those two.
The meaning of the word 'exist' is always the same. What I was trying to say: some people tend to confuse the usage and the meaning of this word and you are the living example!
In your examples the word 'exist' has the same meaning, just is put into a different sentence/context. Although those sentences have obviously different meanings (note again: sentences, not the word 'exist').
> But it's not the same 'exist'.
How come ?
Consider two examples:
The Moon exists as a concept? Yes.
The Moon exists in a 'physical world'? Yes.
Where is that difference in the meaning of the word 'exist' you are talking about?
I can't see it.
That's why I'm a big proponent of using the word 'exist' only with a context, to avoid potentially wrong assumptions about the 'default context' (that are often made with 'does God exists?' question).
What you missed about my example is that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character and thus exists only as a concept. So the word 'exist' was used in two different meanings there. And yes, it is important to make the context and meaning clear. Though in case of a question about existence of god no one would assume that it refers to existence of the concept as there is obviously no question that the concept exists.
Again, in my opinion, the word 'exist' has the same meaning in your examples (S.Holmes and the Moon), but indeed we can guess (using external knowledge) if this is a conceptual or real-world reference/instance/quantification.
I also insist that you can not say that the "concept exist". This phrase doesn't make much sense. Unless you are trying to say that concept exist in your mind (or any other medium).
Anyway, you must realize that most people don't expect that God is a part of the universe we can sense/measure/observe. They expect that God exist in some kind of "outer world" (just think about Matrix The Movie). And this "outer world" is a concept. Even more! It is a fictional "place" that they believe exist in a "higher-level" reality. The deepness of the "unknown" is infinite. If we would measure/observe a part of our reality that was previously hidden, we can always say there could be some more hidden parts. Thus there exist some hidden parts in the "unknown reality" that we will never be able to discover (under assumption that discovery events are enumerable).
However, what I am trying to say is that phrases like "unknown reality exist" or "higher-level reality exist" or "outer world exist" or "God exist" or even "universe exist" doesn't make any sense. Again, no reference, i.e. our reality exist in our reality? What does it mean? Although, all of them could exist in our brains as concepts, we can say that, but not much more! Conclusion is: why people are still asking questions that doesn't make any sense ?
I think they simply don't understand what they are asking (and answering). You seem to be one of them, Guhru.
Concepts _exist_, deal with it. The meaning of words is always considered in a context - this is obvious and trivial. Now, you may argue that 'exist' has the same meaning no matter whether you apply it to a concept or physical object, but it's not going to be very fruitful and is going to be rather silly since the word 'meaning' itself depends on the context. But first of all this thread misses the whole frackin' point.
>Anyway, you must realize that most people don't expect that God is a part of the universe we can sense/measure/observe.
Wrong. The overwhelming majority of believers wants to believe in a god that can influence events in our universe, their lives in particular, otherwise they don't have much interest in it. And yes, many theologians do claim that God is outside the universe, beyond the reach of detection by science and so on. If they claim that he has no influence on the world this is more or less what is called deism. The most you can do with it is say that this neither scientific, nor parsimonious claim. But they usually go further and still claim that God, even though he is outside universe, has influence on what happens in 'our world'. And this is a contradiction. If he can influence laws of physics here, he can be detected, plain and simple. But, if this is what you meant, you're right about one point - discussing existence of a god is pointless without definition. But keep in mind, that there is a common understanding of word 'God' as an agent having super powers, influencing the natural course of events in the world.
> Concepts _exist_, deal with it.
Yeah right, what do you mean by "deal with it" ? Should I be scared or something ?
Anyway - you seem to be picky: if I would replace "most people" with "some people", it will make you more happy ?
I was talking about specific concept of God - no influence, no way to detect, but it could probably affect you after you are dead. It is unprovable by definition, so we shouldn't think much about it - people who thinks they know something about "Him" or any other unknown/undetectable things are idiots by definition.
I also again insist that question "does God exist?" doesn't make any sense. I can't see why you argue with it.
And for "concepts exist" again - you can say some concept exist in many different contexts (like in a concept-book), but I still don't understand what "concept exist" alone really means.
It's like saying "obviousness is obvious" or "let x be a natural number, therefore x exist" (we created "x", it surely "exists" in our temporary memory, but the statement "therefore x exist" can be removed, it provides no information at all).
I would never say "I don't believe in God" or "God doesn't exist" as well as the opposite - those sentences just doesn't make any sense to me = gives no information!
> people who thinks they know something about "Him" or any other unknown/undetectable things are idiots by definition.
You are correct in saying that a human cannot find God out of his own power. But while God is beyond our understanding, that does not mean we cannot know about him. You see, it is not the person that chooses God, but God that chooses the person. He reveals himself to only those He sees fit, since He is God. Those who do not believe/know about Him are those He has yet to reveal Himself to. You might find this interesting:
http://rrodgers.110mb.com/files/bible.zip
Read the book "John", and then the rest of the New Testament from "Matthew". You will find John at around line 96870.
I think that these should aid your understanding in why there are so many questions regarding the "existence of God":
From "1 Corinthians":
001:018 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
001:019 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
001:020 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?
001:021 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to
save them that believe.
I rather think that those verses explain the situation very nicely. It is written in an old style of English, but I think the message is very clear. Hope that helps you, Tom.
Hi Robert,
I think we should clarify what do we mean by a God, and I think you mean:
1. Something we can't comprehend/understand (so we don't know what it is) and it is related to a lot of unknows, i.e. what happens after our death? did we "exist" somewhere before we were born? who are we?
2. Something we were told from the Bible (written by some people that knew/heard God voice and we assume they are not cheating us).
So I think "God existence" question could be rephrased for you: if the people who wrote in the Bible about experiencing/hearing God are cheating us or not (and if they are cheating us, why? they are plain crazy and hear voices in general? they did it on purpose? or maybe both?).
Mathematician could tell you that he saw a triangle or pentagon yeasterday floating in the air and he heard its voice, would you believe him?
Anyway, I was rather thinking about different "God exist" question - thinking about the kind of God that is not showing off to anyone.
Anyway I can refer to
Godel ontological proof.
And I mostly claim that proof can be misunderstood - I would interpretate it as "God exist in understanding" or in other words "God exist in our brains as a signal/neural structure".
I also add my 2 cents: asking if "God exist" in general (without refering to any set/reality) doesn't make sense (the same goes with any mathematical question, we should rather ask "if an object has some property" i.e. if set of all sets can be defined within a given set of axioms, IMHO word "exist" is commonly overused).
PS I have troubles posting URL here, just click on "a lot of them" in the begining of second paragraph of my blog post.
OK, here is what I mean by God:
He is the Creator of the universe, therefore it is subject to Him. He is a personal being of infinite power, and was not created by anything else. He is therefore not merely a concept. He exists outside the universe, but also inside. He cannot be seen/detected since He is a Spirit. And we are using physical tools (such as eyes/ears) to detect Him, and physical devices cannot see into the spirit world. We have spirits ourselves (body, soul and spirit), but we are not aware of it because the link was separated by God during the fall of man (read Genesis). God can speak to us via our spirits.
Now you should have a clearer definition of what God is.
> if the people who wrote in the Bible about experiencing/hearing God are cheating us or not
I know they are not cheating us because I have experienced the power of God myself. So have other people that I know. I also know about people who have heard God speak to them, and I can assure you they are perfectly sane.
Of course, I can only provide you with my personal experiences. It was God's plan that He could not be found through logic reasoning or proof, as I have written in my previous post. He does, however, promise salvation to those who believe in His Son, Jesus. (Read John). I think this trial by faith may be a type of filtering process that He uses. However, I should add that the names of those who are to be saved have been recorded before the universe was created. (God is not limited by time, it is one of His creations, and He can therefore see into the future without limits.)
But the question "does God exist" is rather ambiguous, and many people have the wrong idea when they are asking or answering it. As you have said, "exist" does not make much sense to use. Since you could say: pentagons exist. That is true. But you cannot say: I can hear the pentagon talking to me. A pentagon is a shape, and cannot speak. People should define what they mean by God. God as a concept, or as a being, or as something else.
Ok. So it is a matter of believing that your (biblical) story about things we can't experience is true and any other alternative story is false i.e. people are computational experiment and "gods" are scientists that are programming the universe.
There could be also hierarchy of gods, parallel universes etc.. I can write a book about it, and those people who hear voices will have different background for their interpretation (they can only interpretate voices by reason, and reason is subjective and sometimes fail, as you also said).
So basically you believe in their subjective interpretation of some voices/experiences. I know there is a story about a girl that was not reading Bible and didn't hear about God and she experienced Him, but that's the only case you can try to believe in (I wonder what they have asked her: did you see God? and she said: oh, yes, it was definitely God!). Not mentioning there are millions of other weird stories out there that you could try to believe.
For "pentagon exist" - in my opinion it's bloated sentence. You don't have to add it "exist", because you already defined it by the word "pentagon". I know it's hard to understand at first, but please try. I think: something exist = something is well defined.
>He exists outside the universe, but also inside. He cannot be seen/detected since He is a Spirit. And we are using physical tools (such as eyes/ears) to detect Him, and physical devices cannot see into the spirit world.
Robert, in your belief system, does prayer have absolutely no effect? If it had any, it would make Him easily detectable and contradict your definition.
> does prayer have absolutely no effect? If it had any, it would make Him easily detectable and contradict your definition.
No it would not. Since the universe is subject to God, He can manipulate it in any way He wishes. Even without breaking the natural laws He implemented. Example: If, in a dry area, someone prays for rain, and his prayer is answered, it will begin to rain. Now, if he tells everybody that it rained because of his prayer, they could ridicule him because: rain is a natural occurrence, or they think he is crazy. Therefore, whether or not God is detected depends on whether He wants to be detected.
> There could be also hierarchy of gods
The Bible is very definite about there being only one God. And we are not exactly experiments, either, because God has already planned everything in His infinite wisdom.
> Not mentioning there are millions of other weird stories out there that you could try to believe.
That is true. They can either be:
a. made up
b. from Satan
c. from God
Satan frequently tries to deceive people by using his demons to appear in the form of angles, etc. But that is a different subject and not relevant to this discussion. The point is that there is no sure way of knowing if somebody else's experiences are genuine or not. Again, this is consistent with 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 in that faith, and not human wisdom, is how God wants people to discover Him with.
>> does prayer have absolutely no effect? If it had any, it would make Him easily detectable and contradict your definition.
>No it would not. Since the universe is subject to God, He can manipulate it in any way He wishes. Even without breaking the natural laws He implemented. Example: If, in a dry area, someone prays for rain, and his prayer is answered, it will begin to rain. Now, if he tells everybody that it rained because of his prayer, they could ridicule him because: rain is a natural occurrence, or they think he is crazy. Therefore, whether or not God is detected depends on whether He wants to be detected.
This would certainly be the case before we developed scientific method. We now have objective tools to analyze statistical effects of prayer, independent on single case experiences! Consider testing whether those who are prayed for recover more quickly from disease or have better survival rate than those who are not prayed for. Such study can be performed relatively easily and unambiguously on thousands of people and in fact major studies on prayer were performed like this. Do I have to say that they failed to detect effect of prayer? Now you may claim that God purposefully ignored those prayers to avoid detection. This would be pretty much unfair to whose who were prayed for, but well, some may still like such god. Maybe He altered the memories of people that took part in the experiment? If so, what if we started comparing correlations between health and religion, based on various historical data (and European churches have lots of those)?
Your example with rainfall is much more difficult to analyze but not hopeless. We could try looking for correlation between rainfalls that were not predicted by our weather models and the amount of prayer people performed in the given region. Not detecting correlation would mean that the prayer had no effect.
The point here is that you simply cannot perform miracles that would go completely undetected. Unless you remove all traces of it, including rewiring people’s brains. So we have to choose between two explanations to our observations – either prayer is simply ineffective or He alters our minds and material objects so we could not find out about prayer’s effectiveness.
Robert: You seem to be very resonable person, so it's hard for me to understand, why you use such irrational arguments. Are you afraid that God will punish you for even trying to think the "wrong" way ?
As I have posted before:
1 Corinthians:
001:018 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I know my arguments sound irrational. Read verse 18 carefully and you should see that it has been written that the preaching sounds foolish to the world. There is not much more I can say regarding this, I am not sure if I can rephrase my arguments to make more sense, either.
And verse 18 refers to "the preaching of the cross", regarding the Son of God, which I have not even started on yet. But if my arguments regarding God do not make sense to you, then I do not know if I can achieve anything by continuing.
To Guhru:
Read this, from Matthew:
017:015 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
017:016 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
017:017 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
017:018 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
017:019 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
017:020 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
If you are going to compare the results of prayer, then remember that faith plays a big factor in whether the prayer is going to be answered. As far as I know, most Christians lack that type of faith when they pray, there could always be a grain of doubt as to whether God will actually do what they ask for. Jesus (Son of God) pointed out the extreme importance of faith where any miracle is concerned.
Actually, I think there is no problem with our reasoning. The problem is: we are starting from different axioms (well, I actually try to minimize the number of them).
Your axiom is: The Bible = a lot of assumptions.
All I want say is: we really don't know nothing, all we hear are "unproven urban legends", so we shouldn't fixate on them so much.
Anyone can say: what I believe [insert any irrational believe here] may sound foolish, but wisdom and reason is nothing compared to the power of Lord and the prize I will get etc...
And doesn't change anything?
If I say this, does it make my beliefs more real?
Post a Comment