My sole contribution to this interesting conversation: Musical Chairs

And just to demonstrate that I am a man of my word?

I give everyone else responding to my post the last word . . . . :grin:

If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? — Harry Hindu

For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing.

It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. — Harry Hindu

If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person.

And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin.

If you disagree with me then do your own random poll of, say, 10 black people and get back to me.

Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share. — Harry Hindu

Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth.

There's an expectation that if you start a new discussion then you should take part. Other than that it's entirely up to you.

Did someone post something that left you confused? Ask a question.

Did someone post something you think is really off? Hmmm. Now things get interesting. Does this poster sound knowledgeable? How much free time do you have? Does (s)he curse out other posters who disagree with them? Are you OK with being insulted? Etc.

Just seeing this discussion for the first time. I joined up about 2 years ago - mostly just to learn and pick up new things. I've bumped heads with a few folks here and there, but on the whole my experience out here has been positive for the most part. Your mileage may vary.

Before settling in here I checked out some of the other philosophy forums - the signal to noise ratio seems much higher here than the others. My 2 cents. . . . .

It may claim an inner logic or consistency, but that must remain internal, because it makes no claim to knowledge. — tim wood

I could be totally misreading them, but AFAICT 3017 is claiming that at least some portion of the Bible is factually correct. Of course you are correct.

Whether you're Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.- all these groups believe in an underlying natural law. The only dispute is over the details but the existence of an inherent natural law is a premise that is common to all of them. — Ram

You're onto something here. If all these groups would simply get together and work out their differences - that would be an amazing event that could change the course of world history.

I suggest that instead of engaging in pointless on-line debates you do something to make this happen. Start a GoFundMe to - I would enthusiastically donate to that worthy cause.

No one who has read and understands the Bible even a little bit supposes it a history book. — tim wood

Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. Of course one could counter that by saying that such people do not truly "understand" it, but now we're getting into No True Scotsman territory.

the so-called historical account of Jesus — 3017amen

Every once in a while you say something that I agree with and here you are correct. There is virtually no historical account of Jesus. The Bible is a work of fiction with a few historically accurate references.

Please allow me to introduce you two nice people to each other.

@nyimislam - Apologies if I have misinterpreted you, but you seem to have some sort of theistic beliefs.
@3017amen - You certainly have theistic beliefs.

Assuming I'm correct in that nyimislam has some sort of theistic beliefs, how's about you folks talk amongst yourselves - have a side conversation just the 2 of you.. Here is the topic of conversation: "How can we coherently discuss God in a way that people of all faiths can agree on?"

Please get back to the rest of us when you have the answer.

I was trying to talk him out of repeating the same thing over and over again

No, the usages of words, not words alone, have meaning or not. Read e.g. Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, both by Ludwig Wittgenstein. — 180 Proof

There can be no doubt that early Wittgenstein - circa Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - would have agreed with my assessment that religious language does not make any logical sense. What can be said at all can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

Later W modified his views - difficult to summarize in a paragraph or two since he's all over the map - but the short version is that later W considers religious discourse to be a particular language game with it's own internal rules & logic.

Here is a good summary: Wittgenstein on God

If you are interested in W's views on religion, I suggest you open up a new line of discussion. There are many people on this forum who are very knowledgeable & articulate about both early & later W.

If I were to accept your opinion that “God exists” is a nonsense poetic comment…I would have to accept that my take on the question, “I do not know if any gods exist” is also a nonsense poetic comment. — Frank Apisa

I am baffled at how I have said repeatedly over and over multiple times that - with your definition of "god(s)" as being a natural phenomena - I have no problem with your view.

Under your definition of "god(s)" it is hypothetically possible to assert a truth value. It is when you get into the realm of the supernatural that things morph from philosophy into poetry.

I was not ignoring you. To answer your comment - you and 180 & 3017 are asserting both P and ¬P.

What are you talking about exactly? — 180 Proof

I'm gonna start by going meta-conversation for a few minutes.

- - - - - - - - - - -
[Meta-conversation]
Even tho we are all using (or attempting to use) the English language to communicate here - in fact your world view and mine are so far apart that we can be using the same words yet we can be meaning entirely different things.

I am attempting to bridge the difference. This is an extraordinarily difficult task. To illustrate just how difficult this is, I'll give you an example.

From your perspective, the positions of @Frank Apisa & myself are likely so similar that for all intents and purposes they are identical - or at least they are kissing cousins. Yet, if you look back through this discussion you'll see that Frank Apisa & I had a very long side discussion about what Frank meant when he was using the word "god(s)". It took us a long time to get on the same page (more or less) and even now we disagree on some nuances.

So if two people who are philosophically close to one another can have difficulty communicating, I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to understand what I am saying - since it would require you to restructure your thinking.

The fact that after I have been repeating the same thing over & over - and yet you ask me what I am talking about? That illustrates as well as anything just how difficult this task is that I have assigned myself.

Unlike many others on this forum, I do not think you are a stupid person. It is clear that you are reasonably well read and articulate.
[/Meta-conversation]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So with all that, I will attempt to take a different approach for a while. Let's talk about these words "true/truth" & "false/falsehood".

<Side-discussion>
When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. If you are a witness in a court of law and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that the words coming out of your mouth will - as accurastely as you are capable of - describe facts/events in the real/physical world that we live in.

A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not. This is basically the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

In order for a sentence to have truth value it must describe a potential fact.

The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located at the time the statement is made

But - and here's a key thought I'm trying to communicate - It is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.

Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The moon was a ghostly galleon
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.
Etc

We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are either poetic in nature and/or nonsense sentences.

So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? To my knowledge there are two schools of thought on this topic.

One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"

The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.

I go with that second school of thinking. You cannot assign a truth value to nonsense (or poetic or religious) sentences.
</Side-discussion>

- - - - - - - - - - -

And now we loop back to the same thing I have been repeating over and over.

Words have meanings/usages.

Under your usage/definition of the word "God" and under the standard usage/definition of the word "exists"? The sentence "God exists" is a nonsense (or poetic) sentence.

Can you come up with a formulation under which this sentence can take a truth value - so we can communicate? I think that is an impossible task.

But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc.

Perhaps you can come up with a different usage/definition of the words "true" & "false" and "exists" under which two people of different religions can hold a religious conversation and agree on what they are talking about. Just as in science there is the scientific method to further our knowledge - maybe there is a "religious method" under which people of different faiths could find a common language/method to further religious beliefs.

That would be an historic achievement. Go for it!

I am offering you and 3017 the opportunity to give coherent explanation of how you can meaningfully talk about or assign truth values to statements about words that do not point to anything real.

I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).

I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc.

I realize that what I'm about to say next will sound disparaging - maybe there's a way to say this in a less personally critical manner but that is beyond my skills - so I apologize in advance for making disparaging comments.

For some reason, your religion & faith are not enough for you - your are not content with living your life according to the tenets of your beliefs. You feel the need to give some sort of logical reasoning, some additional support structures, to buttress up your faith. Notice that these are all poetic notions here.

I took Philosophy 101 & 102 in college, so I am familiar with the broad outlines of the history of philosophical thought. Do I recall the details of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. No. And I don't need to, because Ignosticism has resolved all these issues - albeit it not in a way that you approve of.

I'll use a poetic metaphor here- Ignosticism unties the historical Gordian Knot of all discussions about "God"

All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry. You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning.

I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists".

You have erected internal mental walls that block you from being able to comprehend that "God exists" is an incoherent concept.

For the record I will repeat my response to 180 Proof above.

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. — EricH

Now if you want to take Frank's definition of "god(s)" - the word "god(s)"is a placeholder for some hypothetical totally natural phenomena - then you are inside the boundaries of a philosophical discussion - you can have fun hypothesizing the "nature" of this hypothetical natural phenomena.

But once you invoke the supernatural? You are outside the metaphorical boundaries of logical discussion.

By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.

The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk:

But not all is lost. You may have the key to get out. Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?

Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.

If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it!

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.

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.

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?

You still have not answered the question.

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

If it doesn't make sense in this case, why not? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm repeating myself, but I'll try again. When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not.

The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located.

The cat undermined indecisiveness Under the standard/common'/dictionary definitions of the words, this sentence is neither true nor false since it does not assert anything that could be a fact/event.

A sentence has to make a potentially factual assertion in order to take a truth value.

This sentence is false. <-- This sentence just to the left does not make a factual assertion. It does not take a truth value.
The cat is on the mat. <-- This sentence just to the left makes a factual assertion. It is either ture or false.

I hope this helps I don't know if I can make it any clearer.

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.

I thought I was clear that the problem has nothing to do with self reference. Rather is because the sentence is incoherent - it makes no sense.

it is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.

Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.
Etc

We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences.

So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? I am not highly knowledgeable about all the different philosophical movements, but I believe that there are two schools of thought on this topic.

One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"

The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.

I go with that second line of thinking.

I have not read through the entire thread, so apologies if this point has already been made.

Maybe I'm being naive or missing the point, but I use the word "truth" pretty much as it is used in a court of law. When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that your words and sentences will - to the best of your ability - describe facts. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the different schools of philosophy, but I'm pretty certain that this is some variation of the Correspondence Theory.

So when you say "This sentence is false"? In order for for this sentence to have any meaning, the pronoun "this" must refer to some statement that makes a factual assertion about reality/existence/the universe/etc. In this case, no such assertion is being made, hence the sentence is meaningless and cannot take a truth value.

This would equally apply to many variations.

"This sentence is true"
"The sentence 'Quadruplicity drinks procrastination' is false".
etc

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

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:

@amen3017 @Punshhh
I address this not only to you but to any sincere theists who may be reading this.

I have very friends who are deeply religious, and I can see how it provides them with both a source of comfort as well as a way to structure their lives. One of then posted this on Facebook:

Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***

This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy.

Throughout history, some of the smartest people who have ever lived - people much smarter than anyone here - have attempted to understand/explain/deal with this “God” notion - and yet none of them agree with each other. And I’m talking strictly about the theists - people who think the sentence “God exists” is not merely a poetic notion but that it actually means something. These efforts have failed and will always fail for the simple reason that by the plain language definition of the words "God" and "exists", the sentence “God exists” breaks the Law of noncontradiction.

You don't have to take my word for it. There are now over 1K comments in this thread and a substantial majority of those posts consist of different people trying to explain this to you in as many different ways as they can think of. I realize that this concept is extraordinarily difficult for you to comprehend. For some reason, it seems like you are insecure about your faith and you feel the need to buttress it up with some sort of pseudo philosophical "logic". But not only are these efforts are doomed to failure - they miss the point. Your faith should be sufficient.

To use another metaphor: Bringing poetry to a philosophical discussion is like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.

Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life”

That is certainly something to consider.

A Psalm of Praise.
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting: and his truth endureth to all generations.

Make a joyful noise! Dang. What a wonderful expression. This is beautiful literature. Those guys King James hired to translate the Bible certainly knew how to turn a phrase. But this is The Philosophy Forum you’re on - and these passages are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion.

I personally have no illusions that a metaphorical light bulb is going to light up over your heads upon reading this and that you're going to say "Oh, now I get it". My hope is that I have planted a seed that may grow in the fullness of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*** I don’t have the time to find the original source of this statement, but I’m sure if you google it you can find who wrote this.

Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God? — Punshhh

You have not given a coherent definition of the word "God".

You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. — Punshhh

I am pointing out that all discussions of a supernatural god are poetic in nature and have no semantic content.

Again - I am not dismissing your faith. But faith is irrational and illogical.

Here. I'll use a poetic simile. Using logic to prove "God exists" is like using an octopus to fly to the moon.

OK. I'll concede that it's not great poetry. You got me there. . . .

am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.

Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean. — Frank Apisa

At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since. — Frank Apisa

We're looping around yet again in this conversation.

You have repeatedly referred to yourself as an agnostic. But you are an agnostic only with respect to your unique definition of the the word "God" - since you have also asserted that the concept of a supernatural god is illogical. This is ignosticism - or some variety thereof.

I cannot make myself any clearer. I'll give you the last word. Oh OK - at least in this particular line of discussion :grin:

You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity. — Frank Apisa

Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.

When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.

My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.

Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:

when I use the word "God" - 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. — EricH

Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"

Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.

That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest

One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.

If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:

My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".

In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/437971

You first made the claim that consciousness is necessary for existence. I made counter claim.

It is you who made a claim that consciousness is not necessary for existence. — Punshhh

Your response was that we do not understand consciousness nor existence.

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.

With that in mind, I was wrong to say that consciousness is not necessary for existence. I withdraw that statement and correct myself.

The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.

Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic? — 3017amen

How to Analyze the Use of Metaphors in Literature Scroll down to see a discussion of metaphors

Analysing a Metaphor

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that? — Frank Apisa

I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.

And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence.

This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness. — Punshhh

So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?

Please check out my response to 3017amen just above.

Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic? — 3017amen

This is a poetic word salad not an objective fact. The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both.

This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic.

"The moon was a ghostly galleon"
"Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist."
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"

These are all poetic metaphors.

Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!! — 3017amen

I have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors.

We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.

Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"

So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.

If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.

However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.

You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist. — Frank Apisa

Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.

So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position.

Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically. — Punshhh

The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"

Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth. — 3017amen

I have no problem with metaphors. All the religions in the world can duke it out with dueling metaphors.

But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation..

On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

This is more poetry. Here - I'll add a couple of more lines. I can't figure out what poetic metre this is in. The first two lines seem to have one strong beat and 3 weak beats. Do you know?

Consciousness itself is a mystery
and logically impossible to explain.
Thus doth God up in heaven,
makes that it must be.
And so the rain falls,
and sorrow is upon the earth.

It takes sort of a sad turn at the end. . . .

OK. Now we can proceed. Here's what we got:

EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?
3017amen - A conscious being, AKA Jesus.

And so now we can put these 2 together and we have. . . . . . .

God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

This is poetry, not a definition.