In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God). — FLUX23
But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X — Mariner
"my problem with God" (not "with other people's interpretation of God", or some similar expression). — Mariner
But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X. — Mariner
also believe the social security that came with all believing in a higher being for those that needed a group to feel inclusive is another valid reason for why God exists. — Donny G
Therefore, can we really say that we can apprehend God? — GreyScorpio
Some might say that you don't need to see God to believe in him. But that just means that they are putting full faith into something that is not real. — GreyScorpio
Believing and knowing what is real/the truth are two very different things. — GreyScorpio
However, an interpretation lacks a certainty of truth does it not? But it does bring about a belief. Perhaps this is what people do with the issue of God. Instead of thinking of him directly, they think of how they interpret him to be leading them to develop a belief that this is the correct thing to believe in, resulting in the existence of X. However, I disagree with this because again, A belief is not always a truth. — GreyScorpio
If we can't, does that mean that X does not exist? Is "apprehensibility" a requirement for existence? (Note, you can say yes or no :D. Both possibilities are in play). — Mariner
If we cannot see X, does that mean that it is not real?
Search for counterexamples. I'll give you a few members of the class of "stuff which cannot be seen, but which is real". Justice. Seven. British. — Mariner
Ontology must come first -- we must get to the heart of what exists, how it exists, how it comes into existence and ceases to exist, before we approach the question of how do we know about it. — Mariner
I believe that if something has the ability to be apprehended, in any way, must be real and therefore exist. What reason does it have not to be. Saying something exists because it is there is not a contradiction. But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? I think of a chicken (For lack of a better example). The chicken is there and I can apprehend it. Therefore, I believe that it exists. The chicken somehow is not there when I look again. I believe that the chicken is still there. Is this a rational belief? — GreyScorpio
Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation. — GreyScorpio
I have shown how God could possibly exist, and yet I still cannot approach the question of whether I am certain of this or not because there is no validation. — GreyScorpio
You later referred to concepts. Do they exist? How do they exist? Compare "British" and "Seven". Can we say that Seven existed before there was any mind that could count up to seven? Will it still exist if all of those minds are extinguished? And how about British (or, British-ness), did it exist before the Big Bang, and will it exist after the heat death of the universe?
We get back to how do X's exist, come into existence, and fade away. — Mariner
Validation is an epistemological matter too. Look back at my first reply to you. Empiricism, Experience, and Evidence -- that should be the order of inquiry. Is reality restricted to what can be perceived with our senses? What is the status of experiences? And what counts as evidence? We are getting to the second question now. — Mariner
I still think that these are concepts, things that do not exist to the extent that they are apprehend able. — GreyScorpio
1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.) — FLUX23
But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? — GreyScorpio
Agreed, but these things you have listed are concepts. Things that are unreachable by the senses. Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation. — GreyScorpio
I just feel as though some sort of validation is in order for us to put so much faith in this 'being'. — GreyScorpio
I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. — GreyScorpio
This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true. — FLUX23
If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not. — FLUX23
I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this. — FLUX23
I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. — GreyScorpio
I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist. — Metaphysician Undercover
Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). — FLUX23
The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice).
You are right.Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.
(Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories). — Mariner
This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object". — Mariner
I'm not going to argue with you — GreyScorpio
I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. I am interested on all of your views, don't be afraid to comment. — GreyScorpio
I sit and wonder how and why would it be possible for 'an all powerful being' to exist if we, ourselves, have not seen him. — GreyScorpio
Thus comes the problem with evil, Why would he allow evil to exist if he is an 'all-loving being' it would be expected that he would want the best for us all, and therefore eliminating all evil. — GreyScorpio
Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?
For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation. — FLUX23
This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there. — FLUX23
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.