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:

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

Im having some trouble with the words here. I agreed with frank that everything that exists is part of existence. And I thought this would be the same as saying 'everything that exists is part of nature.'. But there seems to be a subtle difference to this?

I remember long ago reading a snippet of theology wherein they argue that things that are natural are bound by the laws of nature. If I jump off a platform I will fall and adhere gravity. Then you had things like preternatural which they would view things that were not bound entirely to natural laws but did have natures of their own. Angels, for example, would be able to perform "miracles" that defy natural laws. And then you had the supernatural. Which they would classify only God in because to them (Im not entirly sure if it was aquinas thats why Im sayint them) God was not bound by and natural law or even any nature.

This confuses me however because nowadays its not uncommon to see people say that God has a nature of his own. So that confuses me.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that I equated supernatural with existence. If something exists its part of existence. But if something exists, must it be part of nature? Or otherwise, must it be part of the physical universe?

But If I ignore all that and say that if I follow your definition of natural then yes God as classically understood is supernatural?
All if this is very confusing for someone who hasnt a clue :joke:

I have a gut feeling that

— Wayfarer

may know a thing or two about this.

Edit: Didnt know how to ping so I did a quote :sweat:

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. — EricH

That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."

IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it.

Essentially, something we humans cannot detect...is merely a thing (or things) that we cannot detect...not something that is "other than natural" or supernatural.

Therefore anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.

That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides.

We've all (including me for the most part) have been making a nomenclature mistake by using the term.

If there are gods (i,e, if a god exists or if gods exist) which is something we do not know...then the question of whether the gods are supernatural makes no sense. It is something we must eliminate from the equation. Eliminating it from both sides of the conversation is a must.

The people positing the possible existence of gods must accept that if gods exist...THEY EXIST. They are not "supernatural." They are simply things that exist...but that humans cannot detect.

People positing that the existence of gods is impossible...are, in effect, positing that a circle cannot have corners.

To which the only answer should be..."I agree, but so what? I agree that if gods exist, they EXIST, which means they are as much a part of nature as apples or hills or thoughts."

Insofar as a theists suggests that their god exists, they are acknowledging that it is natural...NOT supernatural. The term supernatural is more a substitute for "but cannot be detected by humans."

(ASIDE: As was pointed out earlier, the god of the Bible CAN be detected by humans...or at least by some humans.)

That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."

I entirely agree. Some people think though that the supernatural element is the creation of something out of nothing.

... anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.

That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides. — Frank Apisa

How do you know this? Why do you define "supernatural" this way?

Maybe all that "super-natural" means is higher dimensional e.g. 3-d sphere in relation to a 2-d square? or gas vapor in relation to solid ice? or noise in relation to signal? where the first term has more (countable or even uncountable) degrees of freedom than the second term.

I agree that 'impossible objects' do not exist in so far as their predicates are self-contradictory or they contain inconsistent properties (Meinong); but - if by "nature" what's meant is an ordered dynamic self-generative (computable) system complex enough for self-aware agent-subsystems to emerge - that does not preclude 'nature beyond nature' such as, for instance, 'our nature nested within greater natures' like matroyshka dolls.

If there are "gods", Frank, to say they are "super-natural" might mean only that such entities exist at near-infinite distances (Epicurus) from us, from Earth, from the Milky Way, from this universe, which, maybe once upon an eon ago, they somehow left to traverse the multiverse (or "the bulk" that is between and encompasses countless "branes"). I don't see anything conceptually problematic with calling travelers between universes - cosmic nature-systems - "super-natural" in this sense (rather than in the woo-woo "occult" or "religious" senses) and therefore call them "gods" (certainly in relation to flatlanders like human beings).

Punshhh
2k
↪Frank Apisa
That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."
I entirely agree. Some people think though that the supernatural element is the creation of something out of nothing. — Punshhh

Yup...the something out of (a special kind of) nothing...has always been a bugaboo with me too. If the idea of gods seems absurd to a person, how does the idea of something coming from nothing not also seem absurd?

180 Proof
1.6k
... anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.

That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides.
— Frank Apisa
How do you know this? Why do you define "supernatural" this way?

Maybe all that "super-natural" means is higher dimensional e.g. 3-d sphere in relation to a 2-d square? or gas vapor in relation to solid ice? or noise in relation to signal? where the first term has more (countable or even uncountable) degrees of freedom than the second term.

I agree that 'impossible objects' do not exist in so far as their predicates are self-contradictory or they contain inconsistent properties (Meinong); but - if by "nature" what's meant is an ordered dynamic self-generative (computable) system complex enough for self-aware agent-subsystems to emerge - that does not preclude 'nature beyond nature' such as, for instance, 'our nature nested within greater natures' like matroyshka dolls.

If there are "gods", Frank, to say they are "super-natural" might mean only that such entities exist at near-infinite distances (Epicurus) from us, from Earth, from the Milky Way, from this universe, which, maybe once upon an eon ago, they somehow left to traverse the multiverse (or "the bulk" that is between and encompasses countless "branes"). I don't see anything conceptually problematic with calling travelers between universes - cosmic nature-systems - "super-natural" in this sense (rather than in the woo-woo "occult" or "religious" senses) and therefore call them "gods" (certainly in relation to flatlanders like human beings). — 180 Proof

I understand what you are saying here, 180...but I stand by what I wrote.

If a thing exists...it exists. If it is outside the realm of what humans can discern...it still exists; it is as much a part of nature as the smallest and largest of the matryoshka dolls are part of a Matroyshka Doll.

My point on this issue is that using the term "supernatural" as evidence that "gods" do not exist...is useless. I stipulate that supernatural things do not exist...if "supernatural" is absurdly defined as "anything that humans cannot perceive or sense."

But to suppose that EVERYTHING that actually exists CAN be perceived or sensed by humans is itself absurd.

IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it. — Frank Apisa

I think the usage of supernatural here is doing us a disservice. It seems more as if you guys are actually talking about reality as a whole. i.e if something exists it is part of reality.

I feel like the definitions of natural and supernatural here are extremely weird. If you define natural as only physical things and then say that is all that can exist then you are basically just asserting physicalism.

Something existing outside of reality would be a contradiction. But something nonphysical existing outside our 'plane of existence' does not seem contradictory. Or a different matroyshka doll outside another. So God and exist would not seemingly violate the law of non-contradiction. 180 is right on point with what i'm trying to argue.

Much like God, I have noticed, nature/natural has many definitions with many applications.

DoppyTheElv
69
IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it.
— Frank Apisa
I think the usage of supernatural here is doing us a disservice. It seems more as if you guys are actually talking about reality as a whole. i.e if something exists it is part of reality. — DoppyTheElv

I

If you think it helps to substitute "is a part of REALITY" for "exists"...fine with me, D.

My argument remains the same.

If a thing is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive it or not. If a "god" is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive or sense it. The ability of humans to perceive it is not more significant to that than the fact that an ant in the backyard cannot.

Nothing that "is a part of REALITY" is supernatural...just as nothing that exists is SUPERNATURAL.

Not sure of what that changes about my argument, but if I am missing something, give me indication of what it is and I'll respond.

Yes Frank. I was in part also replying to Eric who is trying to argue for a contradiction between God and exist. Sorry.

I agree with the main gist of what you are saying. If something exists then it must be part of reality. And since it seems that your definition of supernatural here is something outside of reality then it is nonsense. I simply take issue with the usage of natural and supernatural here. And it's less against (In a friendly way) you but more against Eric. You just seemed to take the same definitions and I find it to be a mistake. The way that Eric seems to be arguing is that anything that is physically observable is natural. And that only empirically verifiable concepts or things are real philosophy. And then he goes on to say that supernatural things, things that are not physical , not empirically testable and beyond our universe are not philosophy but poetry.

Now my guess is that he would argue that if God is supernatural then on the basis of the definitions he, or the talking about him, is bad philosophy and more like poetry. And somehow then concludes that 'God exists' breaks the law of non-contradiction. To me the key problem here is with natural which asserts physicalism and empiricism. And also apparently that another realm outside of the universe (Think of the dolls 180 brought up) must be supernatural i.e. Nonphysical.

Now to most of you guys who have made up their mind about a lot of these things the assertions might bother you less. But to me, someone who hasn't got any steadfast beliefs at all, it does. Other than that all of this is just a sort of game where I test my ability and learn a whole ton in the process. I'm sure that when Eric comes back he'll whoop my ass.

180 is right on point with what i'm trying to argue. — DoppyTheElv

Good. I think

drawing a conceptual analogy from SUPER-natural to HIGHER dimensional and thereby that lower dimensions are nested within higher dimensions (e.g. russian dolls) which suggests a hierarchy of natures, or SUPER-nature, is ontologically consistent (i.e. a possible world)

just bounced off of Frank's incorrigibly hard head.

Nothing that "is a part of REALITY" is supernatural...just as nothing that exists is SUPERNATURAL. — Frank Apisa

Assertion without argument again. Fine if you define "supernatural" this way, but definitions are neither true nor false; they're either useful or not for helping advance arguments which themselves are either true or not. What you're saying here, Frank, just seems wholly arbitrary and even tautological. Also, using "reality" and "existence" interchangeably confuses more than clarifies your point.

Assertion without argument again. Fine if you define supernatural" this way, but definitions are neither true or false; they're either useful or not for helping advance arguments which themselves are either true or not. What you're saying here, Frank, just seems wholly arbitrary and even tautological. Also, using "reality" and "existence" interchangeably confuses more than clarifies your point. — 180 Proof

Thank you for teaching me new words and things. :joke:
Added: I had suggested the usage of reality here. It probably should have just been something that exists is part of existence as a whole. And something that is real is part of reality. That seemed to be what Frank is saying.

Good points everyone.

But back to the question asked in the title of the thread:

My position on the arguments for "God" (if a god exists) is the same as my position on the arguments for "there are no gods"...namely, both of those positions are merely guesses about the REALITY.

Gods may exist...or there may be no gods.

We do not know...and I can think of no way to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

I respect the guesses of others...and acknowledge that more than likely, one of them (There is at least one god/There are no gods) is correct.

For me...I'll stick with "I do not know everything that does or does not exist in the REALITY."

If the idea of gods seems absurd to a person, how does the idea of something coming from nothing not also seem absurd?

Quite, we are all in the dark about our origins, which means there are a large number of questions, or issues which we can't answer, or resolve.

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. — EricH

I already did one. Check my profile and you'll see... . The resulting consensus related to grudges against religion from childhood, etc.. Thus your comment about sentience... ,it's real stuff.

And so, you really haven't addressed your own comments about sentience and my comment about subjectivity.

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: — EricH

Both. Plain and simple. The concept of God has to be, otherwise, it is pointless to posit same. In the case of Christianity Jesus/God concept, conscious existence, self-awareness, etc. supports something that seemingly transcends pure reason, objectivity, (objective truth's, mathematical truth's/cosmology...).

What transcends pure objectivity?

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.

What transcends pure objectivity? — 3017amen

Isn't it philosophy (if not, why not)?

You still have not answered the question.

Is there some supernatural aspect of your "God". — EricH

I already answered your question, thank you. (The concept of God is both natural and super-natural.) What don't you understand about that?

And I'll keep asking you: What transcends Objectivity (?). Is it poetry or philosophy (if it's not philosophy, why isn't it?)

The concept of God is both natural and super-natural. — 3017amen

So we're agreed that there is some supernatural aspect to your concept of "God". Next you need to define the word "exists". Then you need to explain how these two words form a coherent sentence.

What transcends Objectivity? — 3017amen

The ephemeral beauty of transcendence,
Will last beyond eternity.
It will rise from the grave of uncertainty
To grow to the heights of the one and only Objectivity.
Nay! In it's all knowing indefinable one and only Truth,
It will last forever!

This might make pretty good lyrics to a hymn, no?

What transcends Objectivity?
— 3017amen
The ephemeral beauty of transcendence,
Will last beyond eternity.
It will rise from the grave of uncertainty
To grow to the heights of the one and only Objectivity.
Nay! In it's all knowing indefinable one and only Truth,
It will last forever! — EricH

I'm not following that, are you saying that Objectivity is poetry?

Mmmm, let's see... want to try and break that down first, maybe? Let's start with the quick philosophical meaning, then we can explore some other ideas. Unless of course you're married to poetry/athesm/theism, etc.. :

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

And so, what do you think transcends Objectivity?

More poetry here. — EricH

I don't think this is a correct statement. But you can probably change my mind.
See my reply to frank above. It's also aimed at you.

Frank Apisa & I have been having a long back & forth conversation about how to define/use the word "God". — EricH

I usually find definitions - talk about and use - of a/the deity wholly arbitrary and subjective, barely or not at all related to traditional religious (or philosophical) usage which alludes to what most believers actually have always confessed to believing in and that are either undefined or vague to the point of being useless to discuss.

For clarity's sake, designating which deities are at issue in 'for / against arguments' or (mere) avowals, I've compiled an inventory of the most common deity-TYPES (i.e. conceptions of divinity):

(A) Creator only (e.g. deism; pan-en-deism)

(B) Intervener only (e.g. animism; paganism)

(C) both Creator and Intervener (e.g. poly/heno/mono-theism; pan-theism; pan-en-theism)

(D) neither Creator nor Intervener (e.g. pan-deism, a-cosmism)

NB: By 'intervener' I understand agency that causes changes in or to the (scientifically) observable, physical, world (i.e. nature), independent of the agency's alleged provenance (i.e. whether natural or super-natural), which are therefore also (scientifically) observable. E.g. "parting the Red Sea", "raising the dead", "curing incurable diseases via intercessionary prayer", "flooding the world", "creating the world c6000 years ago", "being on both sides in a co-religionists' sectarian / civil / holy war", ... IN GENERAL: "suspending conservation laws with each 'miraculous' transformation of a natural person place or thing", etc — 180 Proof

The crux of the matter in these "god discussions" is fourfold:

(i) Which are you undecided about - A, B, C, D or all (skip to (iv))?

(ii) Which do you disbelieve - A, B, C, D or all (skip to (iv))?

(iii) Which do you believe in - A, B, C, D or none (either same as (i)-all or (ii)-all)?

(iv) Assuming you agree that beliefs, disbeliefs or doubts require sufficient grounds without which we're just groundlessly, idly, gassing, on what grounds do you answer (i, ii & iii) above?

The stumbling block for most, on all sides, is question (iv) the answers to which, in the end, separate freethinkers from apologists (i.e. philosophers from sophists) & dialogic from trolling.

And so, what do you think transcends Objectivity? — 3017amen

I have no problems with your definition of the term objectivity (allthough for some weird reason you insist on capitalizing it). There are countless discussions about objectivity on this forum. If you want to engage someone in a deeper conversation regarding objectivity (or Objectivity as you put in) I suggest you join in on one of those discussions - or open your own if none of them suit you.

But "transcends Objectivity"? Transcends is a religious/poetic concept. So you asked me a poetic question and I gave you a poetic answer.

But if you want to engage in a philosophical discussion about the sentence "God exists" you first must give a coherent explanation of what this sentence means.

Words have meanings/usages.

Yep, ↪Punshhh makes a good point to ponder. He/she is basically saying you don't even understand your own conscious existence, so how can you, through logic, deny another's conscious existence (Jesus)? — 3017amen

If you had taken anything away from my discussion I had with you we are left with concepts that pragmatically match to our interactions (epistemology) with the greater reality that remains within our immediate perceptual awareness (idealism). We cannot go outside of our experiences to see how they truly (in a philosophical sense being independent of skeptical challenges) came to be or reveal their true nature. . . HOWEVER. . . this means that we at the very least the most we can do is analyze these experiences (ones we "control" or do not "control") while giving them names to denote their properties or relations between each other. Through this we could come to the assessment that it could have been more or less probable that at some point in time previous there was an individual who we could have experienced in the same way we do a close family member but not in the same way you would imagine doing so purely within your "head". The challenge here is for you to make such a conclusion using only the relationships between your experiences (past or current) with their accompanying properties to make such an inductive assessment of Jesus existence.

I have no problems with your definition of the term objectivity (allthough for some weird reason you insist on capitalizing it) — EricH

I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity.

Is the concept of God an objective truth or a subjective truth, or some other kind truth? Or, is it even considered a truth?

One might also say that the notion that the singularity in the Big Bang event popped into existence from nowhere, is a poetical flourish in spite of how illogical that is. — Punshhh

Are you in favor of this particular vapid ex nihilo interpretation of the big bang theory? Given the only people I here espouse it are pop-science journals (to layman) and perhaps also creationists or rather poorly literate apologists.

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. — 3017amen

Claims you would have to support through logical argumentation. Showing something is logically necessary is basically just the axioms of classical logic being elaborated on (the logically necessary statement is a tautology).

And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. — 3017amen

Nope, physical laws are just descriptions of the phenomenon that are our experiences with the relationships that present themselves. To think otherwise would be to make the greater world is not mysterious (unknown) which is as far from what you have advocated to be your position.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? — 3017amen

They already lie outside our (and especially your) thinking because of the issues that epistemologically pragmatic idealism brings to the philosophical forefront. We can only understand the relationships between certain experiences or the properties of one or in general (creating abstractions or greater connective webs of existence) but always remaining surface level. In this case the greater experiences or models created seem to indicate the sort of evolutionary development that you abhor. . . there is a strong relationship there.

The "ultimate question of existence" is as useless as asking "what is the TRUE nature of our experiences" in which both remain unanswered because of the heel that is philosophical skepticism.

You "deity types" categories split things up on what "God does or does not do". That does not clarify what the sentence "God exists" means.

Frank defines "god)s" as hypothetical real entities that are part of the natural order of things. that - at least can hypothetically - can be scientifically observed, measured, etc. That definition allows you to construct coherent sentences.

As we have seen from my discussions with 3017, the standard definition of "God" (and I capitalized here) involves some notion of a supernatural spiritual realm. Supernatural means it is NOT part of nature - it does not physically exist. That is the key differentiator. And - as both Frank and I have pointed out - the word "existence" means existence in the natural physical world.