How can God not exist?

[Kumar]

Still clear animation at following link:-

http://tinyurl.com/4e83u32

 

[birch]

First of all, I deny that God has no basis in pre-existing concepts. One view of "gods" is sociological and therefore divorced from faith.

Gods are believed to have developed, in one sociological school of thought, as a personification of elements in nature. Humans developed the capacity to see patterns (sometimes patterns that are based on happenstance), and seeing the patterns of nature we also sought to control them by appeasing the forces the nature as if they were living beings. We see patterns so routinely that we forever personify inanimate objects and other animals. If the TV is on the fritz, we smack it to teach it a lesson.

From there, gods became personified further as having actual bodies, and eventually human forms or something roughly equivalent.

From there we started competing over which gods were greatest, hoping that by backing a particular god, he would give us special attention and help us out compete other people. That competition led to a monotheistic cult in Egypt even before Moses and Yahweh.

God in the Abrahamic tradition was further personalized as a father figure, as noted above, but one can easily see the development as a natural progression from the worship of natural forces into, eventually, the worship of a singular all powerful omniscient God. (Note that we arrived at that position, even though the stories make no sense: God creates the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and creates man, but doesn't foresee that man will eat the fruit of the tree? So, how is that "omniscience"? Or, if He knew that was coming, then why the drama of telling them not to do it and the anger after they did? The Old Testament makes more sense if God is not omniscient at least about the future...but in that case, He's not omnipotent since there is a thing he cannot do.)

That is a natural progression of pre-existing concepts.

As for something we can conceive of that has no relevance (in fact, it cannot logically exist at all), how about the set of all sets, the "universal set"? It's the analogue of the all-powerful God, and mankind invented that, then took a long time in figuring out why it leads to a logical paradox. We know that it can't logically exist, yet I can still conceive of it.

the same reason god is personified as being a male entity, because men have been dominant. it's always referred to as a 'he'.

if there really was a creator, it would be an 'it'.

 

[CptBork]

How is it possible to come with the concept of Got out of having absolutely
no idea of God?

Is it possible to think of something that does not exist?
And by ''not exist'' i mean not related to any pre-existing thing, or concept

No one on this planet has ever defined an idea of "God" when describing its omnipotent features- all that has ever been defined is what "God" is not. "God" is stronger than all the forces of nature combined hence not weak, more intelligent than all the brains of humanity combined hence not stupid, etc. It's completely based on everyday reality, nothing inherently divine about it at all.

 

[wynn]

Right. (I wouldn't call it a "proof" though.)

It's not the kind of proof we're used to, no.

But the ontological argument simultaneously concerns the cognitive content of the concept of God. That ambiguity creates an inner tension the argument.

It certainly does. It also suggests a vastly different way of thinking and talking about theism than we're used to.
See below -

So can any of our human concepts really be a concept of God? That's a place where the ontological argument can perhaps be employed as a disproof of God.

'That than which nothing greater can be conceived' isn't really a concept of God at all. It's more of a formula or a function suggesting where the actual content of the concept of God is to be found: presumably in early medieval Christian Platonism's world of transcendental ideas. One would have to be an angel, and perhaps God himself, in order to fully conceive the concept of God.

Human beings are finite and imperfect by their nature. There would seem to be inherent limitations on the concepts that humans can entertain and in the language with which those concepts are expressed. All of our religious ideas are going to be inherently flawed and fall short of what might ideally be conceived.

So it would seem that any existing human concept of God can't really be a concept of God at all. We are left with a non-conceptual apophaticism in which the language of church doctrine and Biblical revelation lose their divine reference.

And that's not dissimilar to the atheist conclusion.

The way I understand the OA, it's basically saying that
any statement that any person makes about God (ie. containing the word "God") is a reflection of this person's consciousness of God, in particular circumstances.

This is true simply by virtue of definition.

It is, of course, rather useless for purposes of theistic debate - ie. attempts to persuade others.
It cannot be directly used to convert or deconvert.
It cannot be directly used to win against others, in one way or another.
It is merely descriptive, but doesn't contain obligatory instructions.

Nowadays, we tend to think and talk about theism mainly in terms of competition, in terms of who will prove or disprove another.
For many people, religion and theism are synonymous with quarreling and argumentative warfare.

Theism has not always and not for everyone been a matter of competition, though.
Theistic religions have not all always and not for everyone been expansive in terms of proselytizing as we are used to it (ie. nowadays, proselytizing is often cheap shots at philosophical argumentations, interpersonal politics and manipulation).

Also note here that the notion of eternal damnation with no return is a relatively late invention and not even every Christian believes in it.

Without the threat of "if you don't get it right in this lifetime, you will burn in hell for all eternity and it will be all your fault", the terms of theistic/religious discussion shift importantly.

Yet our notions (whether we're theists, agnostics, or atheists, as long as we're Westerners) of theistic/religious are usually lodged, implicitly or explicitly in the terms "if you don't get it right in this lifetime, you will burn in hell for all eternity and it will be all your fault".

This puts a specific strain on the theistic/religious discussion that is not present in some other religions (e.g. some schools of Hinduism), and it also introduces philosophical and practical concepts that may be extraneous to theism/religion (such as the need for absolute certainty before committing to a theistic path).


Bottomline, if we think of thinking and talking about theistic/religious topics as a matter of conversation, rather than competition, the OA is perfectly fine.

 

[wynn]

Of course, if one walks around with a sore ego, it will be difficult to view interactions with others (theists or not) in terms other than competition.

 

[wynn]

1. It has nothing to do with the thread.
2. It will become a distraction.

I suggest you start an appropriate thread.

There are already several recent threads on "Why believe in God" and "How to arrive at belief in God" and one on religious epistemology. None of them have gained much attention.

What? You don't have any objection to calling it ''source''?

My issue is with "just calling things this or that", esp. when it comes to God.
It suggests a kind of self-confidence that makes many of us shiver in fear of solipsism!

You are saying that the Bible is not the Word of God?

No.
Why?

Because you said:

I agree that ''religion'' as in 'the Christian religion' was invented, but there
is documented evidence for that.

But Hindus, too, often have a nasty supremacy trip against Westerners and others.

There is a lot of domestic violence in Hindu families and violence against women that is supposedly justified with the Vedic culture ("the husband is superior and always right, therefore, he can hold his wife's face to a hot stowe plate and she must accept this as just and right and godly"). Dowry deaths. Acid throwing.

Why asociate that with 'religion'?

Because the people perpetrating those acts claim they have a religious basis for them.

Of course, we could look into how come so many of us are so willing to buy into their justifications at face value.

The gross and subtle abuse that occurs in Western communities that have adopted Eastern religions.

Erm, define "religion".
Not ''sectarianism.

I said "Eastern eligions", which could be understood to mean "particular sects or traditions", which is also what I meant (I otherwise rather strictly use the term "religious tradition").

Anyway, the core question is how can a run-of-the-mill person know what in particular instances is religion (ie. service to God), and what is not.

The idea is that a run-of-the-mill person is completely disqualified from proper understanding and as such completely at the mercy of those who claim to be religious; and whatever those people claim to be religious, the run-of-the-mill person has to believe to be religious.

 

[wynn]

Then why the rise in atheism?

Note my use of quote marks!

Atheism is a kind of self-centred "religion" in which one considers oneself (or the mind) to be the highest authority there is.
In effect, one presumes to have "Godly status", but would normally not use the word "God" or "Godly" to describe oneself.
(In theism, God is commonly defined as "the highest authority there is".)

 

[wynn]

No one on this planet has ever defined an idea of "God" when describing its omnipotent features- all that has ever been defined is what "God" is not. "God" is stronger than all the forces of nature combined hence not weak, more intelligent than all the brains of humanity combined hence not stupid, etc. It's completely based on everyday reality, nothing inherently divine about it at all.

Understanding the divinity of God is in God being understood as someone/something above everyday reality.

 

[wynn]

You seem to think that just because you say something, it
should be taken as truth. Why is that?

Because he thinks himself God. Duh.

 

[wynn]

Whatever. How does this negate the idea that being provable to some suggests that God can be reduced to human understanding, which thus reduces his Anselm-based "greatness"?

Except that human understanding is expandable, and therefore, God's greatness is not actually reduced (by human understanding).

On an entirely formal level, your objection is sound, but accepting it means we would have to ignore the OA's notion that human understanding is expandable, which would be inconsistent, at least.

One of the common criticisms of the ontological argument is indeed exactly that; that only God could use it to prove to himself that he exists.

And one of the common notions of God is that humans do not need proof of God ("proof" as in "empirical proof" or "complete philosophical understanding").
This is not to say that they should "just believe", but that it is enough to act according to one's conscience, one's better judgment.

Note -

My point is that there is still a long way to go from deism to saying you or someone knows the mind of God.

Yes.

Many of us (including many theists) are so used to abstract discussions and debates and competition about God that we have become blind and insensitive to how much "the mind is the forerunner". We think far ahead, much further than our everyday activites can catch up with. We tend to lose touch with our everyday activities, our minds are often somewhere else than being present in what we do.
This brings up dissonances, and problems which we try to fix, one way or another.

We could perfectly well act according to whatever small notion of God we have that we find realistic; but instead, we tend to be carried erratically on the waves of the mind, in the pursuit of big notions, big actions in the name of God, be they theistic or atheistic - while at the same time, we are not sure whether those notions are realistic or not.

It is said sometimes that God is easy for the simple, and hard for the crooked.
If one finds this offensive, chances are that one is operating out of unrealistic notions of one's abilities, values and circumstances.

 

[Kumar]

the same reason god is personified as being a male entity, because men have been dominant. it's always referred to as a 'he'.

if there really was a creator, it would be an 'it'.

Mediator & mediatoro to force/s, fundamental forces & elementary particles, energy & matter, wave particle duality, anions & cations, Goddess & God etc. all these may suggest that two entities exist at a time. However, if there can be PRIME FORCE and/or PRIME PARTICLE to all secondaries OR these exist in known fundamental force/elementary particles is need to be researched. If we accept it a concept & try to relate its properties with any known entity, we may be able to find PRIME GODDESS & GOD. Any secondary to these having similar properties can still be called GODDESS & GOD accordingly.

 

[Kumar]

Understanding the divinity of God is in God being understood as someone/something above everyday reality.

As GOD is said to be omnipresent, how can we say HE is above all. We can say HE is in every thing & being alike soul in a body.

 

[wynn]

As GOD is said to be omnipresent, how can we say HE is above all.

In the sense that God is the source of everything and controls everything.

 

[wynn]

If I can conceive of a building taller than any skyscraper that will ever be constructed in all of humanity's future existence, does that mean such a building actually exists? Am I conceiving an infinite building, or just a building taller than any finite one we could ever imagine constructing?

The OA speaks only about God being "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

It doesn't say that "anything anyone can think of is real exactly as they have thought it".

 

[Kumar]

In the sense that God is the source of everything and controls everything.

Can't HE be the source of everything and control everything to be in everything?

 

[CptBork]

Understanding the divinity of God is in God being understood as someone/something above everyday reality.

Someone/something is not a divine concept, nor is everyday reality, so there's nothing divine about your definition, you're merely defining what "divinity" isn't.

The OA speaks only about God being "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

And again, this provides no concept of "God" whatsoever, only what "God" is not. Nothing divine about postulating something exactly opposite to our finite experiences, that's just direct extrapolation on everyday life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is but God is considered as indescribable to commons. Therefore try to find these concepts in it and in all forces.

More supposition.

If you can't, tell the in indicated properties of these, I shall show you accordingly.

Bet you can't.

Note my use of quote marks!

Atheism is a kind of self-centred "religion" in which one considers oneself (or the mind) to be the highest authority there is.
In effect, one presumes to have "Godly status", but would normally not use the word "God" or "Godly" to describe oneself.
(In theism, God is commonly defined as "the highest authority there is".)

Er nope.
(And I'll leave out your "religion" remark ). One accedes (generally) to science as the authority, not oneself.

 

[Rav]

One of the common criticisms of the ontological argument is indeed exactly that; that only God could use it to prove to himself that he exists.

And one of the common notions of God is that humans do not need proof of God ("proof" as in "empirical proof" or "complete philosophical understanding"). This is not to say that they should "just believe", but that it is enough to act according to one's conscience, one's better judgment.

I don't understand how anything you've said is related to what I said.

 

[scifes]

Someone/something is not a divine concept, nor is everyday reality, so there's nothing divine about your definition, you're merely defining what "divinity" isn't.



And again, this provides no concept of "God" whatsoever, only what "God" is not. Nothing divine about postulating something exactly opposite to our finite experiences, that's just direct extrapolation on everyday life.

you're playing around bork.

here, divinity is that which our finite experiences aren't.
you can define either by the negation of the other, so you can't reject it because it's defined in terms of other things.
especially since divinity is infinite by definition.

 

[wynn]

Er nope.
(And I'll leave out your "religion" remark ). One accedes (generally) to science as the authority, not oneself.

It depends on your brand of atheism:
Cosmictraveler here, for example, claims to "believe in himself".
Some others swear by the authority of the mind.
Some others swear by the authority of science (which is a fancier version of the mind).