as i read all the replies about GOD, i am amazed how people choose complications over simplicity. The word, "god," is a label attached to (allegedly) divinity...Someone who has greater knowledge of infinity vs. limited ignorance/explosive chaos. Just because there isn't a "Santa Claus" does not mean there isn't an intelligent supreme being (known by many names other than God.) Debating what is/isn't, causes a division instead of unity. The law of opposites can either balance/destroy a thought/vision that creates a haven of refuge to guard against a closed mind. ( debates have conclusion, i wonder if a vote is taken what the result would be?)

Imagine the following scenario: Someone comes up to you with a closed opaque box in his hand and says, "what's in this in box?" The only answer you can give has to be a guess, a blind guess. Then this person shows you a second box and says, "there's something in this box. It's not an animal. what's in it?" Here, you have some information to go on and although you may ultimately have to make a guess, certain possibilities are ruled out, no? In other words, you employ logic with the second box, an option unavailable to you with the first box. I think the issue of god's existence is akin to the second box scenario. — TheMadFool

How is the second scenario any less a blind guess than the first...even with the "information?"

And what "information" do you have to make the answer to the question "Is it more likely there is at least one god...or is it more likely there are no gods."

Kenosha Kid
17
Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."

Please deal with that.
— Frank Apisa

I did. I even explicitly bring it back to the quote within the text. Did you not really read it?

I did read it.

Too long?

It was not too long. It just was not germane to the text of mine that you quoted.

— Kenosha Kid

Brevity is not my strong suit.

Either way, the assertions regarding relative likelihood are poorly chosen, patently false in fact. That is my gist. If you want the details, refer to my previous response.

Thank you. I'll pass.

EricH
139
god(s) exists
— Frank Apisa
In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth value
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" (or gods)? 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.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence?

Going back to the two schools of thought I referenced earlier? You might say that of course fictional characters do not exist so this sentence is false - but to my way of thinking any sentence in the form "[some-non-existent-fictional-character] exists" is incoherent based on the definitions of the words.

I cannot make a blind guess about the sentence"God exists" any more than I can make a guess about "[n-leggedness] drinks procrastination". Does at least one [n-leggedness] drink procrastination? Do no [n-legednesses] drink procrastination? All are nonsense questions. — EricH

The part of your response that I made bold is the problem, Eric.

"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists?

Thank you. I'll pass. — Frank Apisa

Your dime. I'll bear it in mind for next time.

Thank you for sharing what you "believe — Frank Apisa

Why is "believe" in quotation marks here? It's not exactly up for debate whether beliefs exist nor whether my belief is as permissible as anyone elses. Comes across a little sarcastic/standoff-ish but I dunno I could be reading too much into it. I just gave a perspective on the commonalities between scientific endeavour and religious endeavour.

Benj96
74
Thank you for sharing what you "believe
— Frank Apisa

Why is "believe" in quotation marks here? It's not exactly up for debate whether beliefs exist nor whether my belief is as permissible as anyone elses. Comes across a little sarcastic/standoff-ish but I dunno I could be reading too much into it. I just gave a perspective on the commonalities between scientific endeavour and religious endeavour. — Benj96

I put the words "believe" and "belief" in quotation marks just about EVERY time I type either. You would see that by inspecting my posts here in Philosophy Forum...and any of the other half-dozen fora where I participate. (I've posted tens of thousands of comments in various fora over the last two plus decades.)

There is nothing sarcastic about the quotation marks. I have explained my disdain for those two words when used in discussions of this topic on many of occasions...and simply show the disdain by using the quotation marks.

You are totally entitled to "believe" anything you want. Lewis Carroll, who apparently had the same thoughts about "beliefs" as I, had the Red Queen mention that she "believed" as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Many of the things people "believe" are correct...but many are totally incorrect.

It might help to look at the history. 'God' or more specifically the concept of god was invented by man. No question. Hence only the concept of god exists. End of story. — A Seagull
Okay...now prove that the concept of god was invented by man...rather than instilled in man by a god of some sort. — Frank Apisa

OK good point. My best answer would be along the lines that I don't believe in magic. And by 'magic' I mean something that defies logic, analysis and understanding. Instilling an idea into man by God requires magic. Man inventing the idea of God does not require magic.

OK good point. My best answer would be along the lines that I don't believe in magic. And by 'magic' I mean something that defies logic, analysis and understanding. Instilling an idea into man by God requires magic. Man inventing the idea of God does not require magic. — A Seagull

Aside from the fact that what you "believe"should not enter the picture at this point...

...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic.

Or...anyone here can take a shortcut to showing that I am dead wrong on this issue by simply coming up with a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods.

2) Therefore there is at least one god.

3) Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

4) Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.

Okay I appreciate the clarification. Thanks :)

...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic. — Frank Apisa

I would argue that the installation of a concept of God into humanity is not by magic but rather necessity and furthermore does not strictly work unidirectionally - that is to say by artifcial construction/creation by human minds and applied to the universe, but also from the universe applied to the development and evolution of first perception, then language, and intuitive questioning.

Perhaps some conscious ideas are archetypes that occur naturally without the influence of culture or societal constructs. For example "pattern". I doubt "pattern" is a culturally developed /artificially manufactured idea but rather something a). Necessary for the evolution of conscious beings and b). A quality of the universe which is observable and useful as a natural platform for which aspects of language can be based to qualify such a phenomenon which inherently exists.
Also words like "mother" which naturally derive from the biological parameters required for sexual reproduction and thus continuity if life. Or "cycle" or "food", "sun", "light", "power". All of these things are both required to form life and words constructed by life to identify what contributed to their own existence.

In that sense "God" - though difficult to define and heavily loaded with added cultural annotations and societal revision could have originally been a simple and effective definition for energy, consciousness, origin, creation, continuity, subjectivity, awe, wonder etc. All of which are now considered somewhat associated to general descriptions of the entity/ experience of the universe.

The universe created us. Whether intentionally or by progresive natural physical processes or emergence. In either case, considering the lack of knowledge our earliest ancestors had regarding just about anything non- instinctive or habitual it's quite incredible to develop such a concept as a definition for all of space (omnipresence), all information and perceivable data (omniscience) and all energy, potential and capacity (omnipotence).

Let alone a definition which has remained applicable to this day millennia later.

Aside from the fact that what you "believe"should not enter the picture at this point...

...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic.

Or...anyone here can take a shortcut to showing that I am dead wrong on this issue by simply coming up with a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods.

2) Therefore there is at least one god.

3) Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

4) Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion. — Frank Apisa

You are making the implicit assumptions that 1. Beliefs are not a part of philosophy and 2. that syllogisms are.

I disagree with both.

That particular question was directed to A Seagull...who asserted what you see above.

You are making the implicit assumptions that 1. Beliefs are not a part of philosophy and 2. that syllogisms are.
I disagree with both. — A Seagull

At no point have I suggested "beliefs" are not a part of philosophy...nor have I inferred it. It would be an absurdity to do so. My comment dealt with YOUR "beliefs" about magic...and about something that "YOUR 'belief'" tend to show a defiance of LOGIC.


The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.

Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.

Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion?

show [ ... ] a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods. — Frank Apisa

Predicates define X,
X lacks predicates,
X is undefined;
~X (i.e. "there is not X").

There are gods,
"gods" lacks predicates,
"gods" is undefined;
~gods (i.e. "there are no gods")

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.

DEEEstroyed, Frankie. :sweat: Been there, done that. :victory:

"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists? — Frank Apisa

Indeed. Humanity has been around in it's present form for, let's say, 40K years. it's only in the last 400 years or so that we're beginning to grasp our place in the universe and our knowledge seems to be exponentially expanding. Likely we know as much about the nature of the universe/existence as an ant walking across a stadium field understands the rules of football. OK, maybe a bit more.

So we can hypothesize that there may be whole modalities (for want of a better word) of experience or existence (for want of better words) that we are not equipped for or ready to understand.

But in these hypothetical futures would there even be such a thing as sentences, grammar, semantics, etc? Would there be any way to even express the sentence "God exists"?

Of course there is no answer to this question - since this question is just as incoherent as the original sentence "God exists"

The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.

Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.

Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion? — Frank Apisa

Certainly logic is important but it needs to be rigorous. Syllogisms are not, IMO, logically rigorous.

See earlier thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/414510

180 Proof
1.3k
show [ ... ] a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods.
— Frank Apisa

Predicates define X,
X lacks predicates,
X is undefined;
~X (aka "there is not X").

There are gods,
"gods" lack predicates,
"gods" are undefined;
~there are gods (aka "there are no gods")

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.
DEEEstroyed, Frankie. :sweat: Been there, done that. :victory: — 180 Proof

Not even close.

In fact...there is not even a mention of "therefore there are no gods" because you know the "logic" is missing. Your syllogism would be laughed at by any logician.

But thanks for trying. I've not had many who even gives it a shot.

:kiss: you too, Frankie.

EricH
140
"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists?
— Frank Apisa

Indeed. Humanity has been around in it's present form for, let's say, 40K years. it's only in the last 400 years or so that we're beginning to grasp our place in the universe and our knowledge seems to be exponentially expanding. Likely we know as much about the nature of the universe/existence as an ant walking across a stadium field understands the rules of football. OK, maybe a bit more.

So we can hypothesize that there may be whole modalities (for want of a better word) of experience or existence (for want of better words) that we are not equipped for or ready to understand.

But in these hypothetical futures would there even be such a thing as sentences, grammar, semantics, etc? Would there be any way to even express the sentence "God exists"?

Of course there is no answer to this question - since this question is just as incoherent as the original sentence "God exists" — EricH

Eric, I truly appreciate your intellect and attempt to deal with the problem here, but if you look at your attempt carefully, you will see it as a variation on "I cannot show either side logically, so better to just say that the question itself is incoherent or unworthy."

The question of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...is both coherent and worthy of consideration...even though it is obvious that at this moment in our evolution...we humans are unable to answer questions to which people, for some reasons, want to pretend they know the answers.

Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question.

A Seagull
492
The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.

Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.

Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion?
— Frank Apisa

Certainly logic is important but it needs to be rigorous. Syllogisms are not, IMO, logically rigorous.

See earlier thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/414510 — A Seagull

My point is that one cannot get to X using logic.

Countering that you are essentially claiming that logic is not rigorous enough for the task.

In one way you are defending my position...in another you are unnecessarily and inappropriately maligning LOGIC!

C'mon, AS.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa :kiss: you too, Frankie. — 180 Proof

Not sure what that was supposed to mean.

But I do not like the sound of that "Frankie" you are using.

I will be 84 years old in a few weeks. I think I deserve better.

So does my impeccable logic. Respect goes both ways. Don't be a spoiled sport, Frankie; it's not like it's the first time I've blown down your silly house of cards. Btw, I'll be 57 in a few months. Call me "kid" if that makes you feel better. :smirk:

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa So does my impeccable logic. Respect goes both ways. Don't be a spoiled sport, Frankie; it's not like it's the first time I've blown down your silly house of cards. Btw, I'll be 57 in a few months. Call me "kid" if that makes you feel better. :smirk: — 180 Proof

The "logic" in the post in question was not logic...the syllogism was an abomination.

If you consider that an insult...consult a logician (any nearby college or university), and he/she will tell you that there is no logic in what you supposed to be logic.

I do not create a "silly house of cards"...and you have not made a dent in any arguments I have made.

Plus, you did not even attempt to get at any of the C's I proposed.

Lastly, if you refer to me as Frankie, again, I will simply ignore any comments you write from that point on...and that will be a permanent ignore. I hope you do not do it. I enjoy reading what you write, but this stuff stops immediately.

Fair enough, Frank. Anyway, saying my "syllogism was an abomination" doesn't make it so; more show, less tell works best when defending or criticizing arguments.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Fair enough, Frank. Anyway, saying my "syllogism was an abomination" doesn't make it so; more show, less tell works best when defending or criticizing arguments. — 180 Proof

Thank you, 180.

All I can suggest is that you ask a logician about the syllogism that you suppose destroyed my contention. It is fatally defective. All I can do here is to mention that it is. The arguments necessary to establish the validity of my criticism essentially require a detailed lesson in how syllogisms work...which is way beyond what I want to do. If you truly want to check this out...just copy and paste your post above into an email and send it to a professor of logic at a local university.

You certainly can Google "syllogisms valid or invalid" and get a sense of what I mean...but they go on forever.

In any case, as to predicate: I have identified what I mean when speaking about "god/gods" in these discussions. Several times, in fact.

Here are two:

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature, no matter the fact that we cannot perceive them.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

#2


What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”

Predicates:
It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question. — Frank Apisa

And how do we define the word "gods" and "reality" in such a way that the question makes any coherent sense?

Other folks on the forum have said this better than I - all religious talk is a form of poetry. Now I think that I appreciate a good poem as much as the next person. Poetry can be beautiful and it can inspire people to do great and/or terrible things. But the words "true" and "false" do not apply to a poem. We cannot subject a poem to the sort of "either this or that" analysis that you are attempting to do.

Anyway, as you can see, we're looping around here saying the same thing in different words. I'll give you last word here - if you want it that is . . . :smile:

Oh - and thank you for the kind words of praise.

EricH
141
Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question.
— Frank Apisa

And how do we define the word "gods" and "reality" in such a way that the question makes any coherent sense?

Other folks on the forum have said this better than I - all religious talk is a form of poetry. Now I think that I appreciate a good poem as much as the next person. Poetry can be beautiful and it can inspire people to do great and/or terrible things. But the words "true" and "false" do not apply to a poem. We cannot subject a poem to the sort of "either this or that" analysis that you are attempting to do.

Anyway, as you can see, we're looping around here saying the same thing in different words. I'll give you last word here - if you want it that is . . . :smile:

Oh - and thank you for the kind words of praise. — EricH

If you truly want to suspend discussion on this topic...makes no sense for me to reply to the questions in your first sentence. I have answered both of those items by giving MY definitions...and would gladly extend those comments. We could then discuss the issue with those definitions in play. (We could have another discussion afterward using your definitions if you choose.)

I do not want there to be a "last word." This is a discussion of something that has captured the imagination and considerations of some of the most learned and intelligent people who have ever lived on the planet...unfortunately to precious little avail.

This is just a discussion of what I consider an extremely interesting topic.

If you would like to continue it...great. If you prefer to drop it...fine.

The most common use of the term "God" (by far) is in reference to whatever religious scriptures.
Not sure how to calculate the probability of those old, sumptuous stories being literal history, but I'd say rather unlikely.
As (mere) characters in stories, a whole lot of fantastic, fictional beings exist, that come to life in the heads of people.

Diametrically opposite, if you will, surely there's plenty unknown to us, so that, in itself, is about certain.
Whatever that may be, perhaps it could include superbeings of sorts, which would then be a "who the heck knows"?

Since this is a philosophy forum, there are other special uses of the term "god" (or in plural), though they'd have to be related to the most common use in some way or other, yes?
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference; otherwise we're asked to calculate the plausibility of the independent existence of whatever vague, nebulous entities that come to mind when invoking the words.
Or, are we just talking (ontologized) abstract objects (Platonia style)?

Ignosticism (Wikipedia)
Theological noncognitivism (Wikipedia)
Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Not that I'm a mathematician or a logician or anything worth its salt but Baye's Theorem seems to come up with the goods insofar as the OP's query is concerned:

H = Hypothesis (that god exists)
E = Evidence observed

P(X) = probability that X is true

P(X/Y) = probability that X is true given thaf Y is true

P(H/E) = [P(H) × P(E/H)]/{[P(H) × P(E/H)] × [P(~H) × P(E/~H)]}