How can God not exist?

[Enmos]

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).

Perhaps what they 'swear by' has got nothing to do with them being atheists..

 

[wynn]

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

I relativized the need for proof (continued in the rest of the post you quote from).


Having less than perfect ideas about God is not a problem as long as
1. one regularly works to improve them,
2. one doesn't try to use them to control other people for one's own benefit at the cost of others,
3. one doesn't try to take pride in being "right about God".


Yet, as the track record of discussion and debate about God and "God" shows, people (theists and atheists) are often not like described in the three points above, but just the opposite.
Hence the discussion and debate about God and "God" is what it is - namely a mess of people rigidly adhering to their stances no matter what, hoping to control others at whatever cost, and thinking that peace and a sense of worthiness comes from being right about God.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps what they 'swear by' has got nothing to do with them being atheists..

Of course not. They have their atheism from eating lettuce.

 

[wynn]

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

As far as I know definitions, of course God can, and does do so.

 

[Enmos]

Of course not. They have their atheism from eating atheism leaves roolettuce.

Well, I was wrong. Having no belief in god leaves room for other things 'to swear by'.

 

[Yazata]

God-centered religion will (almost all) disappear, and will be replaced by self-centered religion,

I don't want to put words into Jan's mouth and I'm not sure what he/she meant by that. But I have reservations about that distinction that I want to express before responding to the rest of the post.

(The reservations) A division between god-centered (Judaism and Christianity) and self-centered (everything else) is a Christian distinction that's popular on the fundamentalist end. God-centered religion is good, self-centered religion is sin. It assumes that there is a god, that 'he' has revealed himself in certain special revelations, and that only the biblical religions are oriented towards god and not towards man and his self-centered imagination.

I look at things very differently. To me, ALL of the religions and all of their gods are creations of the human imagination. So the distinction in the last paragraph is illusory.

(the response) Having said that, I will say that I agree with Jan in the sense that religions with one or more gods will probably continue indefinitely. 'God-centered' religions may dissappear eventually, but that day is probably many centuries off. Personally, I don't think that theistic belief will ever disappear, as long as humans are human.

but religion will not, nor, can not disappear. It is part of humanity.

I agree with that. Religion is as close to a cultural universal as there is, this side of spoken language perhaps. Every culture at every period of history for which information exists has displayed some form of religiosity. The form and details of the religions displayed are almost infinitely variable, but we can be reasonably certain that some kind of religiosity was in the mix.

That makes me think that there is something innate in human psychology that tends to generate religion. I'm not alone in thinking that, it's a widespread idea in religious studies, psychology and anthropology and there's a large and growing literature on it.

I just wanted to make this post because I notice that Jan was attacked for the post that I quoted a few pages back and I largely agree with it. It will be interesting to see if Jan's adversaries come after me for agreeing. (My guess is that I'll be ignored, as usual.)

 

[Rav]

I relativized the need for proof (continued in the rest of the post you quote from).

The content of the particular post of mine you responded to was a common objection to the logic of the ontological argument so I still don't understand how your comments were relevant to that.

 

[Kumar]

As far as I know definitions, of course God can, and does do so.

As such, why we consider HIM as a seprate entity than HE is present in everything & being like midline in a wave.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As such, why we consider HIM as a seprate entity than HE is present in everything & being like midline in a wave.

Please stop it.
If you're that taken with the idea start a new thread and put it up for discussion.

 

[Yazata]

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).

Assuming that human understandng is expandable won't rescue the ontological argument.

The OA suggests that if a concept (purportedly of God) is such that a 'greater' concept could be entertained, then the first concept isn't a concept of God at all.

The problem is that if human psychology, and with it our power of concept-formation, is limited and finite by its very nature, then no human concept can possibly be a concept of God. Implying that all actual religious language lacks reference and may even be meaningless (depending on how we construe meaning).

Arguing that some potential growth in our powers of religious conceptualization might someday allow humans to attain the ultimate conception of God, thus eventually giving our religious language a divine reference (a theologically doubtful assertion unless we accept the idea of human perfectability), doesn't lessen the highly subversive conclusion that our existing religious language lacks reference right now.

Our existing word 'God', the Hebrew word translated as 'Lord' in the Bible, all of the scriptures, church councils and holy catholic dogmas, in reality none of it actually refers to the unspeakable and unthinkable true (God).

Rendering the correct understanding of the word 'God' not unlike some of the Mahayana Buddhist spins on the idea of the 'void' I guess, defined by what it isn't rather than by what it is.

That might not be an argument for atheism precisely, but it's a very strong form of religious non-cognitivism that seems to come very close to atheism in practice.

I'm not saying that this was Anselm's intention. He would probably have been horrified by my spin on his pious argument. But I expect that many of his more intelligent contemporaries picked up on the implication, even if conditions of the time prevented them from writing about it openly. It was probably something that was discussed privately among the more avant-garde elements in the medieval schools. It's interesting to speculate about what connection, if any, this line of reasoning had on the medieval mystics who produced similar ideas about apophatic theology and religious non-cognitivism. It's a line of thought that's a lot older than Anselm of course, implicit in a lot of Christian Neoplatonism going back to late antiquity and figures like the pseudo-Dionysius.

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.

Does the ontological argument include that notion? I don't recall it, but it's been decades since I last read Anselm's words. Even if Anselm did talk about that (I'm sure that he did somewhere, though perhaps not in the ontological argument) it would still seem to drain the argument of its seeming force.

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").

True enough, but making that move kind of shrugs off the idea that the ontological argument represents an a-priori conceptual 'proof' or 'argument' for the necessary existence of God.

 

[wynn]

(The reservations) A division between god-centered (Judaism and Christianity) and self-centered (everything else) is a Christian distinction that's popular on the fundamentalist end. God-centered religion is good, self-centered religion is sin.

There is another way to understand "self-centred religion":
Namely, that any religious or spiritual tradition can be practiced for selfish, unhealthy, ungodly purposes.

If you look into books about religious/spiritual addiction and religious/spiritual abuse (and there are many from the various Christian perspectives too), one thing they often note is that some people approach religion/spirituality for most ungodly, unhealthy reasons; they want to "improve themselves", and they see belief in God and religious practices as a means to that. These things tend to end very badly.

Esp. the Western Buddhists will chime in on the topic (such as Cheri Huber and Tara Brach), and point out how people often take to meditation practice out of self-hatred and then persist in the practice out of self-hatred, even for decades, without making any actual progress.

 

[wynn]

The OA suggests that if a concept (purportedly of God) is such that a 'greater' concept could be entertained, then the first concept isn't a concept of God at all.

Sure. And recognizing such brings in the problem of how to acknowledge one might be wrong about God.

As I noted in post 162 earlier, having less than perfect ideas about God is not necessarily a problem.

The problem is that if human psychology, and with it our power of concept-formation, is limited and finite by its very nature, then no human concept can possibly be a concept of God.

But one concept we do have is the concept of pointing toward.
We might not be able to "fully grasp God", but we may well be able to "look and reach in God's direction".
How these notions sit with one will depend on one's motivations for wanting to know the truth about God.

Arguing that some potential growth in our powers of religious conceptualization might someday allow humans to attain the ultimate conception of God, thus eventually giving our religious language a divine reference (a theologically doubtful assertion unless we accept the idea of human perfectability), doesn't lessen the highly subversive conclusion that our existing religious language lacks reference right now.

This is like saying that nobody knows the truth about God or the direction in which to look for it. I think there are obvious problems with this.

What you're saying above, I would rephrase as:
"Arguing that some potential growth in my powers of religious conceptualization might someday allow me to attain the ultimate conception of God, thus eventually giving my religious language a divine reference (a theologically doubtful assertion unless we accept the idea of human perfectability), doesn't lessen the highly subversive conclusion that my existing religious language lacks reference right now."

That might not be an argument for atheism precisely, but it's a very strong form of religious non-cognitivism that seems to come very close to atheism in practice.

As I've been saying: it depends on one's motivations for wanting to know the truth about God.
You seem to want to exclude this factor.
Yet belief in God is a personal matter, something that an individual has and acts on. It's not something that would exist on its own, separate from people, in a vacuum.

True enough, but making that move kind of shrugs off the idea that the ontological argument represents an a-priori conceptual 'proof' or 'argument' for the necessary existence of God.

Only if we separate belief in God from the person who has / doesn't have this belief in God.

 

[CptBork]

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.

I don't need to reject divinity, I only need to show that it's completely unnecessary in order to give us the concept of a supernatural creator. As you yourself agree, you can define "God" entirely in terms of ordinary things just by negating them, hence you only need ordinary, finite things to exist in order to come up with such a concept.

 

[Big Chiller]

I don't need to reject divinity, I only need to show that it's completely unnecessary in order to give us the concept of a supernatural creator. As you yourself agree, you can define "God" entirely in terms of ordinary things just by negating them, hence you only need ordinary, finite things to exist in order to come up with such a concept.

Why do you sidetrack from defining to needing?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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

Anthropomorphism and hierarchical psychology. A humans psychological trait is that we anthropomorphize... that is project human traits onto non-human objects and events. Ex. bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and the grim reaper. We are also a hierarchical species, so its very easy for us to have a chain of authority and power with someone at the top. As a result its very easy to project human traits on the universe / abstract idea and assign it absolute authority and power.

Is it possible to think of something that does not exist?

Always

And by ''not exist'' i mean not related to any pre-existing thing, or concept.

jan

I wouldn't try to redefine the phrase "not exist" because it sets up a path for very disingenuous discussion. To the question "Is it possible to think of something that is unrelated to any pre-existing thing or concept?", I am not sure. Humans come loaded with a bunch of pre-existing knowledge in the form of instinct so even the mind of a newborn is thinking about things using pre-existing ideas. Even natural human hallucinations (ex. dreams and hypnogogia) tap into instinct to help produce a simulation.

 

[Kumar]

Please stop it.
If you're that taken with the idea start a new thread and put it up for discussion.

WHY SO? JSorry but just satisfy me logically & scientifically.

Seprate topic is already there.

 

[wynn]

I don't need to reject divinity, I only need to show that it's completely unnecessary in order to give us the concept of a supernatural creator. As you yourself agree, you can define "God" entirely in terms of ordinary things just by negating them, hence you only need ordinary, finite things to exist in order to come up with such a concept.

We cannot prove that, though.

 

[CptBork]

Why do you sidetrack from defining to needing?

I speak of "need" in the logical sense, i.e. that which is logically required in order for the argument to be sustained.

We cannot prove that, though.

Maybe not, but in that case you can't prove a pre-existing divinity is required, either. Every definition I have ever heard for an infinite creator is merely based on negating anything finite. It's the same in math, "infinity" is essentially defined as that which is larger than any finite number.

 

[Kumar]

I mentioned in Big Bang topic;

"Let us suppose that only one force exists at big bang or just after big bang but no mass/matter or other forces--even elementary or fundamental. If so, question will be whether fundamental forces & elementary particles can be destructed? If yes, how these then can be called as fundamental or elementary?

Hence it may state that both fundamental forces & elementary particles should be present at big bang or just after big bang BUT in somer different state--may that be a stable/steady state AND such state may resemble to ONE force/particle of all...may this suggest-- unified force/particle or ONE PRIME FORCE & PARTICLE.

In view of GOD is said to be omnipresent, formless still omnipotent(can move on both sides), almighty etc.--we can safely say that HE/SHE is within everything & in everybeing or in all fundamental interactions & elementary particles as a center/mid point/line. This midpoint/line may resemple to mid points in all like an imaginary/indescribable mid line in a wave. HE is simple & balanced--so the wave's midline. Not so?

 

[scifes]

I don't need to reject divinity, I only need to show that it's completely unnecessary in order to give us the concept of a supernatural creator. As you yourself agree, you can define "God" entirely in terms of ordinary things just by negating them, hence you only need ordinary, finite things to exist in order to come up with such a concept.

as a matter of fact, i see it the exact opposite, there will always be things in life which are outside the ordinary and unexplained, which you can only explain by god(at that moment).

untill we unlock all the secrets of the universe and have an answer to every question, there will be well deserved space for divinity.