So, a lot of the dynamics of the debate are in some ways unstated or assumed, because they're, in effect, an aspect of the collective psyche, not a matter of individual choice. — Wayfarer

Thanks for continuing to enrich the analysis by helping us see how we got where we are. Everything you're saying here makes sense to me, though I don't know the history well enough to say it myself.

I would phrase it that most of the time we don't think things through for ourselves but rather reference some authority, typically some slice of the group consensus. So for example, if we see lots and lots of very smart famous people operating within the boundaries of the typical God debate, we may tend to assume that this is the way we should approach the subject as well. While this is very understandable in human terms, it's not all that interesting or productive because the same going nowhere discussions tend to get recycled over and over again, as is easily observed on any philosophy forum. So, this thread is attempting to escape that small circle to the degree it is possible, for the few who may be interested in attempting that.

Whereas a proper sacramental relationship is defined in terms of 'I-thou' (pace Martin Buber) - again, a relationship with a real being or power, not simply an abstract philosophical concept. — Wayfarer

For the purposes of exploration, we might note that even the term "relationship" assumes two separate things. This may be an appropriate conception, or perhaps not. The various possibilities seem worthy of investigation.

Catholic doctrine suggests that God is ever present in all times and places, which if taken literally would mean God IS all times and places. But, best I can tell, Catholics don't take it that far, and preserve the division between "God" and "everything else".

Space is ever present in all times and place, so if space were to have some quality of intelligence the Catholics may be on to something. But as explored above, our concept of intelligence seems hopelessly small in comparison to "all times and places" the scope of most God claims.

Which leads to another underlying dynamic, which is that in the pre-modern world, the Universe was intuitively felt to be alive — Wayfarer

This seems an important insight which I hope to address in more detail as we proceed together. For now I would just suggest that such an experience is still available, because what is obstructing it is not some collection of modern philosophies, but instead thought itself.

Whereas the overwhelming feeling of modernity is that of exile, otherness, separation, being cast out into a meaningless universe as a result of chance - a theme underlying a lot of 20th Century literature and drama. It is the plight of modernity. — Wayfarer

In my view, this is addressed quite directly in the Garden Of Eden story written some 3,000 years ago. Although that story has too much of a children's fairy tale style to appeal to many moderns, if one can get past that and translate the story in to one's own preferred language, it seems interesting to note that the modern predicament is not a new phenomena, but just an acceleration of a long existing process.

In my view, the experience of exile, otherness, separation etc arises directly out of the divisive nature of thought (ie. the apple of knowledge). And so as thought has gradually become a more dominant part of the human condition the experience of division has increasingly taken center stage.

If it is true that the experience of separation arises not so much from the content of thought (such as modern philosophies) but from the nature of thought itself, that can be very good news. None of us can steer the course of history, but we can learn how to better manage our relationship with thought.

Again, this is a consequence of the way in which the whole issue was posed by Christian orthodoxy: that God exists, and you either believe it (yes = saved) or don't (no = damned). So it's understandable to wish to side-step the entire dilemma! — Wayfarer

Yes, very understandable. But 500 years after the dawn of the Enlightenment, rejecting the ancient Catholic formula you refer to is no longer all that interesting, in my view at least.

In our time we might better invest our energy in challenging the new dogmas which modernity is generating. For just one example, recall my thread regarding challenging our "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

It's also interesting to contrast this with the formulation of the Buddhist 'middle way' principle: — Wayfarer

Please educate us further here if it interests you. I'm sure that wherever this thread is heading somebody has probably already been there. It would be helpful to see what's come before.

I reject the idea that the question can only be answered "yes" or "no." As has been pointed out by others, it can reasonably be answered "I do not know."

But I do agree with you that "are there any gods or not" is probably the wrong question. It is probably a false question.

The question ultimately has to do with the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and what we humans can accurately say about it. The answer to the false question seems to require saying that "X" (in this case, a creator god) MUST exist...or that (a creator god) CANNOT exist.

My reasoning is that one cannot logically answer the false question "yes" unless the "god" MUST exist, because there is no way to determine IF it exists. The "yes" answer prevails only if the god MUST exist.

Conversely, one cannot logically answer the false question "no" unless the "god" CANNOT exist, because there is no way to determine IF it exists. The "no" answer prevails only if the god CANNOT exist.

My take (which I have shared many times) is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Every "Proof" someone provides of the existence of god, whether it's accompanied by a description or definition or none, begins with the assumption that god exists. Logic and reason don't function properly when they begin by assuming something exists in the absence of its demonstration. Logic has been pathologically misused for many centuries in this way.

I hear you continually claim that there are many "Proofs" for god and none against it. This is because those who argue on behalf of the existence of god make bold irrational and illogical claims and attempt to disguise them as rational and logical, and confirmation bias on the part of the reader can result in belief regardless how nonsensical the thing believed is then rationally and logically demonstrated to be.

Does the Empire State building exist? In our everyday experience at human scale the practical sensible answer is obviously yes. But if we look closer at what physics tells us a more accurate answer seems to be that 99.99% of Empire State building doesn't exist according to our definition of existence. — Jake

Doesn't this rather completely dismiss relations and processes?

The Empire State Building doesn't exist as anything like the Empire State Building if the matter in question isn't in particular relations, undergoing particular processes. Relations and processes do exist, by the way. It would be misconceived to say that 99-point-whatever of the Empire State Building doesn't exist while only point-zero-whatever of it does exist. The properties that make it the Empire State Building supervene on not only the exact matter in question but the relations and processes of that matter. Properties of anything are a factor of all "three" of those things, with "three" in quotation marks because nothing really seems to be able to exist sans matter, relations or processes--so those "three" things are all really just different sides of the same coin.

Does the space which makes up most of the Empire State building exist? — Jake

On my view space isn't something that exists "on its own" per se. It's definitely nothing like a substance, a container, etc. Space is rather another way of talking about relations of matter. Or we could say that space supervenes on the fact that matter can be relationally separated from other matter (via extensional relation more specifically).

So what we can learn using only observation of reality led by scientific experts is that the question of existence is no where near as simple as almost all God debates assume it to be. Most of reality can not be neatly filed in to either an "exists" or "doesn't exist" box. — Jake

I don't agree with that, actually. It's rather that our concepts and beliefs often don't match up with the world very well, but we don't want to let go of those concepts/beliefs. They're at least pragmatically useful to us/it would be too much work to let go of them (and thus have to develop alternate concepts/theories). An example is the rather baffling beliefs that people have about meaning (in the semantic sense) being something other than an activity that our individual brains do (of course often in response to many environmental and social things, but nevertheless the phenomenon in question is something that our individual brains do).

I hear you continually claim that there are many "Proofs" for god and none against it. — whollyrolling

What I'm claiming is:

- there are many proofs that a first cause exists
- there are some things we can deduce about the first cause

You could try to come up with some specific counter arguments.

The only proof of God I know that starts with God exists is French philosopher Jean Buridan's(c. 1300 – 1358):

- God exists.
- None of the sentences in this pair is true.

You have to assign true/false value to the above pair so that you don not get a contradiction.

What I'm claiming is:

- there are many proofs that a first cause exists — Devans99

There are absolutely NO PROOFS that a first cause exists.

NONE WHATSOEVER.

You keep claiming that...but it simply is not so.

There are absolutely NO PROOFS that a first cause exists. — Frank Apisa

There are 10 given here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

There are proofs in the sense of:

(1) If P, then there is a first cause.
(2) P
(c) Therefore, there is a first cause.

Which goes to show us just how much value proofs are.

Those all have promises with their premises, such as "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another"

The only axiom used generally is cause and effect (and not even that for some of the proofs).

Those all have promises with their premises, such as "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another" — Terrapin Station

That is only the prime mover argument - 1 of 10 and anyway, that seems a good axiom to me. Everything is put in motion by something else. It looks like everything was put in motion by the Big Bang so he was right.

Everything is put in motion by something else. — Devans99

There's no way to know whether that's the case or not.

Terrapin Station
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa


There are proofs in the sense of:

(1) If P, then there is a first cause.
(2) P
(c) Therefore, there is a first cause.

Which goes to show us just how much value proofs are. — Terrapin Station

If you want to continue to claim something as a proof...that OBVIOUSLY is not a proof...
...nothing can be done about that except to call the error to your attention.

I've done that.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Everything is put in motion by something else. — Devans99


There's no way to know whether that's the case or not. — Terrapin Station

Exactly.

All motion can be traced back to the Big Bang. Animate things are put in in motion by other animate things which are ultimately put in motion by inanimate things (the creation of life)... its all one big inverted hierarchy with the primer mover at the bottom. If there was no first movement, then there would be no 2nd. If no 2nd, then no 3rd movement. And so on to the conclusion that there is no movement. But we have movement.

Are you suggesting two simultaneous 'first' movements?

There are no valid arguments or counter arguments concerning something that is presently impossible to determine. There is evidence, or there is a lack thereof. You talk about proof as if stringing words together is incontrovertible by default. If this is the case then you are both correct and incorrect at all times and so is everyone else.

There is no evidence of what you call first cause. There is certainly no proof of it. There is presently no way to determine it. There will probably never be a way to determine it.

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. There has never been a motive apart from such conditions as overactive imagination, desperation for meaning, lack of awareness or assertion of dominance to proselytize this ideology you deem as proof.

There is no scenario in which attempted logic will ever succeed after beginning with a blind assumption.

To search for something for which there's no reason to search and through means that are incapable of discovering it is unconditionally unproductive and no string of words can demonstrate otherwise. To attempt to dissuade others from such a search is potentially productive.

There are no arguments and no counter arguments concerning something that is impossible to determine — whollyrolling

The question 'was the universe created or not?' is imminently determinable.

There is no evidence of what you call first cause — whollyrolling

I gave you a load of evidence and you have not rebutted it. Put it this way, can you construct a model of the universe that does not have a first cause?

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. — whollyrolling

The Big Bang?
Eternal Inflation?
These are first cause based models.

I already posited a model with no first cause, but all you heard was the inside of your own head. The question can't presently be answered. You haven't given a shred of evidence.



Also, the models you presented don't demonstrate cause.

Sorry I must of missed that, can you give me a link?

All motion can be traced back to the Big Bang. — Devans99

We actually have no idea if that's the case, either.

Everything is moving apart from everything else so everything must have once been one. We have evidence of this from the redshifts of galaxies and the CMB radiation.

Even the leading multiple universe theory (eternal inflation) posits a first movement.

Devans99
1.6k
↪Terrapin Station
Everything is moving apart from everything else so everything must have once been one. We have evidence of this from the redshifts of galaxies and the CMB radiation.

Even the leading multiple universe theory (eternal inflation) posits afirst movement. — Devans99

First movement!

Gotta be Freudian!

I'm not sure what are you implying?

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not sure what are you implying? — Devans99

Just busting chops, Devans.

The word "movement" has lots of meanings.

My thought after reading your post went to the euphemism, BM...initialization of "bowl movement."

No nastiness meant.

To me it was a humorous thought. I laughed...and then shared it.

I see! No offence taken.

I had not thought of it like that... a first movement... the prime mover... not awfully respectful!

I believe that certain ancient religions associated creation with the bodily fluids of certain gods (Egypt), pretty sure none of them posits God taking a crap as the birth of the universe though!

Though obviously when life is getting you down, maybe you could imagine...

Actually it could make sense in terms of if pantheism holds initially - God is everything at the start - in order to make the universe he needs to take a part of himself and use that as the material for the universe. Rather than dismembering himself, using excrement might make sense (I am trying to put myself in the place of the ancients and imagine what they were thinking).

I would phrase it that most of the time we don't think things through for ourselves but rather reference some authority, typically some slice of the group consensus. — Jake

I went through a strong rejection phase against any form of organised religion and what I saw as 'consensus reality'. But my views have softened, because I have begun to appreciate the vast diversity and depth of the Christian tradition. It encompasses all kinds of perspectives, some dogmatic and brutal, others refined and nuanced.

Second, and I'm certainly not claiming any attainments, I have had epiphanies of sorts at various times of my life. Of course the implications of these are extremely hard to communicate, and I find that when I try to do so, I'm often completely misunderstood. But I make the point because I think such episodes have opened up perspectives about these questions which cast them in a new light.

A somewhat tongue-in-cheek illustration: imagine if you were from a world where there was no sound. Everything was communicated visually. You mount an interstellar mission and land on earth, and happen to fetch up in a concert theatre, where an orchestra is playing. What in heaven are these people doing? you would wonder. What are those things they're holding, what purpose do they serve? If you were an anthropologist, you could even come up with an ornate theory about the visual meaning of their actions - look how well synchronised their movements are! But of course without understanding the nature of sound, you would have no idea.

So, interpreting the 'nature of religious experience' is analogous to this. Often when you read of such things, what you're encountering is a second-hand account of an epiphany. But the person who has that epiphany might see something or understand something quite outside ordinary experience - another dimension of experience altogether. 'What "dimension"?', you might demand. But without an inkling of that experiential dimension, you can only conjecture. 'Oh well, she's making it up', is quite an understandable reaction.

You could argue that a great deal of what is put under the umbrella term of 'religion' are the records of just such 'encounters with the numinous'. But then when they're encoded in symbolic form, they become like a two-dimensional depiction of a three-dimensional object. So something becomes lost. And now, with the incredibly rapid transformation of culture and society - we are living through the greatest rate of change that the planet has ever seen - the original intent or meaning of these symbolic forms is now almost entirely lost. So maybe what you're engaged in, is a kind of 'reimagining' of what the original intuition was before it became encoded in the cultural tropes of what we now see as 'religion' (as I myself have devoted a lot of time to.)

To which end, have a read of John Hick's 'who or what is God?'

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. — whollyrolling

What you're not seeing here, is that the 'extensive and intensive methods' you're referring to, are those of modern science, which was defined in such a way as to specifically exclude any ideas of first, final or formal causes. The whole point of modern scientific method is to proceed wholly in terms of what can be empirically observed, quantified and explained in line with current physico-mathematical hypotheses. So while it may be true that Devans99 exhibits confirmation bias in his arguments, this is no less the case for yourself, who is essentially arguing from the general perspective of positivism.

It isn't that way by design, it's that way by ignorance of its design. When conducted properly, it should be objective, or as close to objectivity as possible with the information available. The problem isn't science, it's people. I don't accept the views of every celebrity scientist who takes to a stage, neither should many of them stand up to public scrutiny.

There's no confirmation bias where there's nothing to confirm or deny and no reason to attempt to confirm or deny it.

It isn't that way by design, it's that way by ignorance of its design. When conducted properly, it should be objective, or as close to objectivity as possible with the information available. — whollyrolling

The problem is, nothing is 'wholly objective', right? Science, scientific method, and indeed knowledge itself, runs up against limits. I mean, science has failed to discover an ultimate material unit, 'the atom'. At the other end of the scale, debate is boiling about whether there is or is not a multiplicity of universes, and whether this is even a scientific question at all.

But even that is beside the point, in some way. If you become familiar with the meaning of the idea of the first cause, then it becomes clear that such ideas are excluded from science as a matter of principle. Modern science simply has nothing to say about it, and shouldn't have, as a matter of principle; it starts by saying, 'let's not consider such things as 'first causes'. But then, as 'science' is now the 'arbiter of what is real', then for a lot of people, if science has nothing to say about it, then it's not meaningful. Which means, you're back at positivism.

Sometimes things are excluded as a matter of efficiency. How much would science have failed humanity if it had spent its entire history chasing unicorns? It would just be another religion, and maybe for some it is. But it isn't conceptually a failure, it's rather a good idea. Either way, I don't rely indiscriminately on science. And I use the term "objective" very loosely.

But it [science] isn't conceptually a failure, it's rather a good idea. — whollyrolling

It makes many indispensable things, and I wouldn’t contemplate living without it. However while science is neither philosophy nor religion it tends to occupy the space that was previously accorded to them in today’s secular-scientific culture. Understanding the implications of that takes a lot of study, for example, in philosophy of science and related subjects. But meanwhile, it is often simply assumed that science has proven or shown that the axioms of traditional metaphysics are empty or false when really it’s done no such thing.