Both. Plain and simple. — 3017amen

I thought I was clear in my question - obviously not. I'll try again.

Is there some supernatural aspect of your "God".

What transcends pure objectivity? — 3017amen

More poetry here.

I thought I was clear that the problem has nothing to do with self reference. Rather is because the sentence is incoherent - it makes no sense.

it is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.

Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.
Etc

We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences.

So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? I am not highly knowledgeable about all the different philosophical movements, but I believe that there are two schools of thought on this topic.

One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"

The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.

I go with that second line of thinking.

I have not read through the entire thread, so apologies if this point has already been made.

Maybe I'm being naive or missing the point, but I use the word "truth" pretty much as it is used in a court of law. When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that your words and sentences will - to the best of your ability - describe facts. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the different schools of philosophy, but I'm pretty certain that this is some variation of the Correspondence Theory.

So when you say "This sentence is false"? In order for for this sentence to have any meaning, the pronoun "this" must refer to some statement that makes a factual assertion about reality/existence/the universe/etc. In this case, no such assertion is being made, hence the sentence is meaningless and cannot take a truth value.

This would equally apply to many variations.

"This sentence is true"
"The sentence 'Quadruplicity drinks procrastination' is false".
etc

Dang - somehow this posted twice - if there's a way to delete a post it ain't obvious

There are many different threads in your post - way too many to respond to. E.g. you spend a lot of time talking about hostility & anger of non-theists towards theists. I'm gonna skip this - but if you are really interested, suggest you open up a new topic - make sure you are clear in your OP that you are not interested in debating specific theistic issues but instead want to discuss the hostility and anger you are seeing. Of course it is likely that this conversation will end up embroiled in theological disputes anyway. :smile: But I think you will get some useful information out of it.

, the concept of a God indeed broaches . . . the many domain's of philosophy, — 3017amen

And here is the key point that I keep trying to communicate. The concept of a God used to be a philosophical hot topic - but as many people have tried to explain to you in different ways - in the 20th century philosophers finally figured out what previous philosophers had struggled with - namely that the whole concept is either self contradictory and/or incoherent - and thus has no place in any philosophical discussion.

Words have meanings/usages - and if you have a different meaning/usage for a particular word, then we need to understand those differences in order to communicate. Otherwise we are talking past each other and wasting precious time.

Let me try this approach. Frank Apisa & I have been having a long back & forth conversation about how to define/use the word "God". Frank has his own unique definition - when he uses "god" (and he uses lower case) he is referring to a natural phenomena - as opposed to supernatural.

Natural vs. supernatural

What do we mean when we say something is a natural phenomena? In it's simplest form we mean that this phenomena is part of the physical universe we live in and can observe. Matter & energy & space & time.

But of course we all recognize that our current knowledge and abilities are limited - likely we understand as much about the workings of the universe as ant ant crossing a football field understands what a false start is (that's an American Football term). So when I refer to something as natural I'm talking about a phenomena that we can at least hypothetically observe, measure, touch, smell, or whatever new sense us frail human beings manage to develop in the millennium to come.

So what about supernatural? In order to talk about the word supernatural I am going to have to switch to poetry - and to indicate this I will use italics. If something is supernatural, the implication is that that there is more to the universe than the physical universe we can either observe - there is a non-physical spiritual realm which is beyond anything that us mortals can ever measure or observe.

I'm sure there are people out on the forum who can explain the distinction much better than I.

So my question to you is very simple - when you use the word "God" - are you referring to a being/entity who is completely in the natural world - or does "God" have some supernatural aspect?

My hunch is that your "God" has some supernatural aspect to it - after all your "God" "existed" before the natural world existed - so your "God" is at least in some respect "outside nature"

So when you respond, please start off by being direct. Is your "God" "natural" or "supernatural". Of course you can add any additional explanations that you wish to make things clear. :smile:

@amen3017 @Punshhh
I address this not only to you but to any sincere theists who may be reading this.

I have very friends who are deeply religious, and I can see how it provides them with both a source of comfort as well as a way to structure their lives. One of then posted this on Facebook:

Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***

This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy.

Throughout history, some of the smartest people who have ever lived - people much smarter than anyone here - have attempted to understand/explain/deal with this “God” notion - and yet none of them agree with each other. And I’m talking strictly about the theists - people who think the sentence “God exists” is not merely a poetic notion but that it actually means something. These efforts have failed and will always fail for the simple reason that by the plain language definition of the words "God" and "exists", the sentence “God exists” breaks the Law of noncontradiction.

You don't have to take my word for it. There are now over 1K comments in this thread and a substantial majority of those posts consist of different people trying to explain this to you in as many different ways as they can think of. I realize that this concept is extraordinarily difficult for you to comprehend. For some reason, it seems like you are insecure about your faith and you feel the need to buttress it up with some sort of pseudo philosophical "logic". But not only are these efforts are doomed to failure - they miss the point. Your faith should be sufficient.

To use another metaphor: Bringing poetry to a philosophical discussion is like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.

Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life”

That is certainly something to consider.

A Psalm of Praise.
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting: and his truth endureth to all generations.

Make a joyful noise! Dang. What a wonderful expression. This is beautiful literature. Those guys King James hired to translate the Bible certainly knew how to turn a phrase. But this is The Philosophy Forum you’re on - and these passages are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion.

I personally have no illusions that a metaphorical light bulb is going to light up over your heads upon reading this and that you're going to say "Oh, now I get it". My hope is that I have planted a seed that may grow in the fullness of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*** I don’t have the time to find the original source of this statement, but I’m sure if you google it you can find who wrote this.

Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God? — Punshhh

You have not given a coherent definition of the word "God".

You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. — Punshhh

I am pointing out that all discussions of a supernatural god are poetic in nature and have no semantic content.

Again - I am not dismissing your faith. But faith is irrational and illogical.

Here. I'll use a poetic simile. Using logic to prove "God exists" is like using an octopus to fly to the moon.

OK. I'll concede that it's not great poetry. You got me there. . . .

am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.

Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean. — Frank Apisa

At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since. — Frank Apisa

We're looping around yet again in this conversation.

You have repeatedly referred to yourself as an agnostic. But you are an agnostic only with respect to your unique definition of the the word "God" - since you have also asserted that the concept of a supernatural god is illogical. This is ignosticism - or some variety thereof.

I cannot make myself any clearer. I'll give you the last word. Oh OK - at least in this particular line of discussion :grin:

You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity. — Frank Apisa

Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.

When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.

My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.

Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:

when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter. — EricH

Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"

Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.

That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest

One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.

If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:

My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".

In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/437971

You first made the claim that consciousness is necessary for existence. I made counter claim.

It is you who made a claim that consciousness is not necessary for existence. — Punshhh

Your response was that we do not understand consciousness nor existence.

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.

With that in mind, I was wrong to say that consciousness is not necessary for existence. I withdraw that statement and correct myself.

The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.

Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic? — 3017amen

How to Analyze the Use of Metaphors in Literature Scroll down to see a discussion of metaphors

Analysing a Metaphor

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that? — Frank Apisa

I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.

And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence.

This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness. — Punshhh

So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?

Please check out my response to 3017amen just above.

Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic? — 3017amen

This is a poetic word salad not an objective fact. The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both.

This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic.

"The moon was a ghostly galleon"
"Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist."
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"

These are all poetic metaphors.

Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!! — 3017amen

I have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors.

We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.

Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"

So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.

If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.

However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.

You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist. — Frank Apisa

Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.

So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position.

Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically. — Punshhh

The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"

Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth. — 3017amen

I have no problem with metaphors. All the religions in the world can duke it out with dueling metaphors.

But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation..

On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

This is more poetry. Here - I'll add a couple of more lines. I can't figure out what poetic metre this is in. The first two lines seem to have one strong beat and 3 weak beats. Do you know?

Consciousness itself is a mystery
and logically impossible to explain.
Thus doth God up in heaven,
makes that it must be.
And so the rain falls,
and sorrow is upon the earth.

It takes sort of a sad turn at the end. . . .

OK. Now we can proceed. Here's what we got:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?
3017amen - A conscious being, AKA Jesus.

And so now we can put these 2 together and we have. . . . . . .

God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

This is poetry, not a definition.

It seems a bit redundant. If it's "a conscious being AKA Jesus", then wouldn't it be simpler to just say "Jesus"?

So here's where we are:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?

A conscious being; Jesus. — 3017amen

I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."?

A Small Secular Prayer

I hope & pray that everyone involved in this discussion engages in productive and fulfilling activities in the real world. I hope and pray that you do not obsess about these conversations. I hope there is some joy and happiness in your lives. Have a good weekend. Tell your loved ones that you love them.

See you Monday?

Amen

Here's an abbreviated summary of the conversation:

EricH - What do you mean by the word "God"?
3017amen - A God who designed consciousness.

EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What do you mean by the word that - who or what does "that" refer to?
3017amen - It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.

EricH - You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.

[

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen

You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular

One of the great things about this forum is that there are a lot of pretty articulate & intelligent people here. I've gotten a lot of good feedback - even from people who I completely disagree with. If I get a response that is completely at odds with what I thought I was saying, then perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly and there's a better way.

Of course there will be many situations where the differences are so great that there is no communication possible - in which case I gently bow out.

Anyway, with that in mind? I think we're sort of saying the same thing in different words. So please take what I'm going to say not a criticism of your views but rather as suggestions on how you can better express what I think you're trying to say. Of course I could be totally off base here, but even then we will have learned something.

I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job. — Hippyhead

I am not qualified to be a plumber, although I would likely be a decent plumber if I had training. Reason is a tool. So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job".

We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

There's a similar problem here with these formulations. Books are not qualified to do anything. One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. They all disagree with one another so at best only one is correct, and there is no way that you can use reason to tell which - if any - of these books is accurate"

We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

Likewise.

BTW - if you think there's a better way for me to express my thoughts I accept all constructive criticism. :smile:

you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods — Hippyhead

I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing this. While I would phrase it differently, I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying?

God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen

Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean?

Not too shabby. I liked the way you responded to Frank's asking you to define "definition" and "coherent". Much better than anything I would have come up with.

Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen

You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor.

I like to think that I appreciate a good poem at least as much as the average person you'd meet on the street. One of my favorite metaphors is that old cliche I was taught in junior school -

"The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas"

Oooooh. It's a classic line that conjures up all sorts of visual images. Alfred Noyes must have patted himself on the back when he came up with that one. But of course we all know that the moon is not really a ghostly galleon - it's a huge hunk of rock orbiting around the earth.

Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives.

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational.

Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure.

God is consciousness. — 3017amen

What is consciousness?

We seem to be in agreement on certain things.

1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?
2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?
3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested? — Hippyhead

I believe we both answer no to these questions.

But you seem fixated on on this space thing. Not sure how to help you here. Space is part of the universe - it is part of nature.

The way theists use the word, there is some aspect of God that is outside of nature. After all God created the natural world - so God could not have been a part of the natural world until it was created. God must have some supernatural (outside of nature) feature - otherwise God is just a natural phenomena that is hypothetically subject to scientific analysis.

Both agnostics & atheists appear to use some variation of this definition.

A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen

You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition.

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen

The fact that Jesus as a person may have existed is irrelevant. Billions of people have existed throughout history.

Jesus was known to be part God. — 3017amen

And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"?

If I were to say to you "Jesus was know to be part poiuyt" you would be justified in asking me for a definition of "poiuyt".

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen

No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent.

For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like. — 3017amen

Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God.

The topic of this thread is "What are your positions on the arguments for God?" You seem to be arguing that God exists - thus it is up to you to provide an explanation that makes some sense. What do you mean by "exists"?

Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. — 3017amen

You have correctly identified the agnostic position, but an ignostic would never say this.

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts".

If I were to say to you "I don't know if Granwtyrt grimoooqts or doesn't grimoooqts" you would be perfectly justified in asking me WTF I'm talking about.

It would be up to me to provide you with reasonably clear definitions/usages of "Granwtyrt" and "grimoooqts" - AND - I'd also have to explain what it means for "Granwtyrt" & "grimoooqts" to appear in the same sentence.

:clap: :ok:
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. :grin:

I am not playing any games. I have been trying to understand your positions, to attempt to put them in my own words, and to explain where our differences lie.

It is obvious that I have failed spectacularly in that attempt. I apologize if I have given offense - none was ever intended.

As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB? — Hippyhead

Your assumption is incorrect. "does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?" is not a question - it is a meaningless jumble of undefined words.

I am trying to respond to your questions as truthfully & accurately as possible within the limits of my capabilities - and it will help me to understand the context of your questions.

My guess is that you are Christian and believe in the Bible, but I want to make sure. If you are an atheist/agnostic I would respond very differently.