The Philosopher will not find God

gevgala

“In an argument/research, the Philosopher will not find God. He is trying to untangle the cord but cannot find the beginning.”

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. Philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God using logical arguments, but these arguments ultimately have flaws and fall short. The pursuit of God is fundamentally different from scientific research. Science relies on observation and experimentation, while the pursuit of God is often based on subjective experience and personal conviction. This does not necessarily make the pursuit of God meaningless or futile, but it does mean that it is not subject to the same standards of evidence and proof as scientific inquiry.

In addition, the concept of God may be too complex for human beings to fully understand. As finite beings with limited cognitive capacity, we may not be able to comprehend the full scope and nature of God. This is a challenge that has been recognized by philosophers and religious scholars throughout history and in many religious traditions, the concept of God is viewed as transcendent and beyond human understanding. God is often portrayed as infinite, eternal, and all-knowing, while human beings are limited, finite, and fallible. This means that there may be aspects of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend or grasp.

There are many concepts in science and mathematics that are difficult or even impossible for humans to fully understand. For example, the concept of higher-dimensional space, like 5D, is difficult to visualize and comprehend, even for trained mathematicians and scientists. This suggests that there may be limits to our cognitive abilities and our ability to understand complex concepts, even within the realm of science.

Therefore, the pursuit of God is like trying to untangle an untraceable cord. Philosophers may spend their entire lives attempting to prove the existence of God, but they will never be able to provide conclusive evidence. Despite thousands of years of philosophizing, the number of philosophers that have been able to provide conclusive evidence for or against the existence of God is 0. The concept of God is too complex and too multifaceted to be reduced to a single logical argument or observation. Instead, the pursuit of God is a deeply personal and meaningful journey that is often based on faith and intuition rather than logic.

180 Proof

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. — gevgala

Which "concept of God"?

There's more than one concept and countlessly more instantiations of those concepts.

Tom Storm

The concept of God is too complex and too multifaceted to be reduced to a single logical argument or observation. Instead, the pursuit of God is a deeply personal and meaningful journey that is often based on faith and intuition rather than logic. — gevgala

Everything you've argued could also lead to 'so who cares?' I guess the next part of this is establishing what faith and intuition actually mean. There's pretty much no belief going that can't be held by faith and intuition, from alien abduction to Bigfoot.

Wayfarer

'This World is not Conclusion.
A Species stands beyond -
Invisible, as Music -
But positive, as Sound -
It beckons, and it baffles -
Philosophy, don't know -
And through a Riddle, at the last -
Sagacity, must go -
To guess it, puzzles scholars -
To gain it, Men have borne
Contempt of Generations
And Crucifixion, shown -
Faith slips - and laughs, and rallies -
Blushes, if any see -
Plucks at a twig of Evidence -
And asks a Vane, the way -
Much Gesture, from the Pulpit -
Strong Hallelujahs roll -
Narcotics cannot still the Tooth
That nibbles at the soul'

Emily Dickinson

Banno

↪gevgala

The Pope and an atheist are having a discussion...

and it slowly gets more and more heated until eventually the Pope can't take it anymore and he says to the atheist - "You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there."

The atheist laughs and says - "With all due respect, we sound awfully similar. You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there but the difference is you think you have found it. — Dave Alen

T Clark

Emily Dickinson — Wayfarer

It's always satisfying when poetry does philosophy well.

T Clark

Everything you've argued could also lead to 'so who cares? — Tom Storm

I can understand why someone wouldn't care. I wouldn't care myself except for all the people who hate religion and care very deeply. I don't include you in that group.

T Clark

↪gevgala

An even-handed and generally reasonable post. I agree with a lot, but not all, of it.

Agent Smith

The si-comprehendis-non-est-deus theistic argument, despite its appeal, is still vulnerable for while it indeed restores the possibility of God it still doesn't prove the existence of God.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

Yeah, but is theism – its sine qua non claims – true or not true?

Noble Dust

↪Wayfarer

@T Clark @180 Proof

Makoto Fujimura on Emily Dickinson

Wayfarer

↪Noble Dust

Thanks for that. I know next to nothing about her, but happened upon the volume of her poetry whilst organising my books, and it fell open on that one, which really resonates with me (it's currently pinned to my profile page). There's a recent movie on her life, although the reviews aren't great. I'll read that essay with interest.

Her liquid faith took her to a liminal arena, an in-between space between faith and doubt, art and science, poetry and life. For such a liminal journey, the most significant symbol is the dash - ; the dash between words, in this case, between “yes,” “no” and at the end of her life a definitive “Yes.”

I noticed all the lines separated by dashes in the poem I quote.

Wayfarer

↪gevgala

Having sidetracked the thread with the Dickinson poem, I should comment on your OP. My spontaneous response is - yes, so what? Are you preaching to believers, trying to shake their faith? You're not really putting forward a philosophical argument. Sure, the quest for knowledge of the divine, if I could put it that way, operates by different standards to empirical science and peer-reviewed journal articles. But there are domains of discourse, communities of faith, within which that quest is intelligible, and which contain those quite capable of judging whether an aspirant is progressing or not.

Instead, the pursuit of God is a deeply personal and meaningful journey that is often based on faith and intuition rather than logic. — gevgala

'And through a riddle at the last-
Sagacity, must go'.

Agent Smith

Yeah, but is theism – its sine qua non claims – true or not true? — 180 Proof

The OP did say "unprovable and unverifiable". Speaking for myself, I'm with you up until si comprhendis non est deus, then you're on your own mon ami.

Metaphysician Undercover

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. — gevgala

Every material object has a cause. The cause is prior in time to the object. Therefore the cause of the first material object is not material. This immaterial cause is what is known as "God".

T Clark

Makoto Fujimura on Emily Dickinson — Noble Dust

Thanks. Interesting article. I am generally suspicious of articles about poets, poetry, and poems. Writers like to pick them apart and turn them into something else, as if they knew what the poet was trying to do better than she did. This one didn't. It was insightful and respectful.

ucarr

Every material object has a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things?

The cause is prior in time to the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think the {cause ⇒ effect} relationship always implies a temporal sequence? For example:

This immaterial cause is what is known as "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal?

Alkis Piskas

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. — gevgala

I would rather say that the existence of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable, since concepts are abstract ideas, not objects, hypotheses or facts to undergo proof.

the pursuit of God is often based on subjective experience and personal conviction — gevgala

Indeed, the existence of God --any god and as a commonly shared concept-- cannot be proved. "By definition", as we say.
Usually, for the persons who really believe in (a) God, i.e. they do not pretend to or superficially believe because of tradition and various religious elements in the society, have come to that belief from personal experience and/or conviction. God can only be experienced.

In addition, the concept of God may be too complex for human beings to fully understand. — gevgala

Indeed. However, I don't think that humans really try to understand such concept. We cannot even imagine e.g. how an omnipotent being would look and act like. Imagination is at full play here.

So people have simplified that concept using subtraction or deduction. They get some abstract idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity and they use it when they are talking about God. Then, they also compare it to things they consider very valuable, e.g. "God is Love", "God is Light", etc.
All these are enough for creating different "images" of God that produce pleasurable and in general positive feelings to people, giving them hope in life and so on.

In short, although the concept of God may be complex --we must never forget that it is ourselves who have created!-- for most people actually is something very simple, something that exists in their everyday life.

As for the pursuit of God that you are talking about, I have no much to say. I know it exists but I have no examples in mind.

Philosophers may spend their entire lives attempting to prove the existence of God — gevgala

I don't have any one in mind. Do you?
I believe that most philosophers --and philosophy in general-- are not much concerned about God's existence or have a direct sense of God.

180 Proof

si comprhendis non est deus — Agent Smith

Translate ...

Tom Storm

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things? — ucarr

I know this is to someone else but it interests me to some extent.

I think causality is a provisional human understanding which seems to fit some matters. I don't think we know enough about reality or the universe to know that all things have causes or even what causality amounts to. I am not confident that we can look at our experience of our world and derive from this anything approaching a totalizing truth claim. At best, what we have are some testable, sometimes useful claims, but no overarching, demonstrable metanarrative. I think this gap or tension propels some of us into theism/mysticism/quantum woo or even radical politics, as the emotional need for universal narratives that can save humans and make sense of everything constantly overwhelms us.

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal? — ucarr

The problem with any claim like this - 'Leprechauns are self caused and are only seen by people who believe in them,' - are that seem to be more a jumble of words than statement about the world.

Is it not fairly dubious to claim self-creation for something which can't be demonstrated to be extant in the first place?

180 Proof

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? — ucarr

Create or destroy some matter.

ucarr

I don't think we know enough about reality or the universe to know that all things have causes or even what causality amounts to. — Tom Storm

I agree with you. Reality? Whew! It's one of the important reasons I go to bed every night. "I don't wanna be conscious right now." 'Course I have dreams whilst mind is vacationing. I must say, however, my nightmares are few and far between. Causality: Hitchcock made a fortune blowing fog over it.

...the emotional need for universal narratives that can save humans and make sense of everything constantly overwhelms us. — Tom Storm

Yeah. It's at my throat more often than not. That's why I pay money to the sales-person. Happiness around the next bend for the price of a ticket is just exactly what I wanna hear.

ucarr

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? — ucarr

Create or destroy some matter. — 180 Proof

Yes, sir! On it, sir!

Ciceronianus

si comprhendis non est deus, — Agent Smith

Si ENIM comprehendis, non est deus. Roughly, "if you can comprehend it, it isn't God."

That was Augustine, of course. Never let comprehension get in his way.

180 Proof

That was Augustine, of course. Never let comprehension get in his way. — Ciceronianus

:smirk:

si ENIM comprhendis non est deus, — Agent Smith

No doubt an inferior version of

The Dao that can be spoken
is not the eternal Dao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name. — Laozi

All else is idolatry.

gevgala

↪Wayfarer

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify my position. My intention of this post was not to challenge the faith of believers, but rather to explore the challenges that non-believers and philosophers face in trying to understand the concept of God. I agree that the pursuit of God operates by different standards than empirical science, and that there are domains of discourse and communities of faith where the pursuit of God is intelligible. However, it is also true that even the most devoted religious person may not fully understand God or the reasons why things happen. In fact, different religious leaders may offer different interpretations of tragic events based on their personal interpretations of scripture and religious teachings. For example, following the recent earthquake in Turkey/Syria, I have seen different Islamic preachers offer various explanations for the event. Some have interpreted it as a test of faith and resilience, while others have viewed it as a form of divine punishment or a reminder of the temporary nature of life. Still, others have simply emphasized the importance of trusting in God's plan and refraining from questioning His wisdom. While there may be different interpretations of tragic events like natural disasters, what remains constant is the importance of turning to God and striving to live a life that is guided by moral and spiritual values. The pursuit of God can provide individuals with a sense of purpose, meaning, and connection to something greater than themselves, even if it is not subject to the same standards of evidence and proof as empirical science. My main point is that we as human beings will never be able to fully understand God and my main message is to non-believers who choose not to believe in God because the concept of God does not make sense to them.

Wayfarer

↪gevgala

Thank you for that explanation, it makes your intent much clearer. And I agree with what you’re saying.

180 Proof

↪gevgala

Again, which "concept of God" are you referring to?
Mono / duo / poly theism?
Panentheism?
Pantheism?
Deism?
Panendeism?
Pandeism?
Acosmism?
Animism?

Metaphysician Undercover

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things? — ucarr

That might be true, but under the Aristotelian conceptual structure matter has no existence without form. Matter without form is an unintelligible and incoherent idea. So what some claim about matter, that "matter is neither created nor destroyed" is completely irrelevant, because when we talk about material objects we are talking about matter with form, and form is what is created and destroyed.

Do you think the {cause ⇒ effect} relationship always implies a temporal sequence? — ucarr

Yes.

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal? — ucarr

I would say "God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory.

180 Proof

self-caused — ucarr

This is synonymous both with 'uncaused to exist' (i.e. eternal) and with 'self-organizing' (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, biological evolution).

ucarr

self-caused — ucarr

This is synonymous both with 'uncaused to exist' (i.e. eternal) and with 'self-organizing' (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, biological evolution). — 180 Proof

This is helpful. Thank-you.

The Philosopher will not find God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions