The Definition and Existence of God

[Adrian II]

I'll thank you to speak for yourself, Mr Communism.

Speaking of which, I was just thinking what a definition of ´quark´ in the manner of Philipvs would look like...

Quark: subatomic particle that made Mr Murray Gell-Mann a rich man, and oh, it was actually discovered by James Joyce but I don´t like him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking of which, I was just thinking what a definition of ´quark´ in the manner of Philipvs would look like...

Quark: subatomic particle that made Mr Murray Gell-Mann a rich man, and oh, it was actually discovered by James Joyce but I don´t like him.

Sorry? How is a physical quark related to a metaphysical, theological, and philosphical debate?

[Reenk Roink]

@ The Celtic Viking (thank you for responding - I also hate it when I many people reply to my posts and I feel somewhat compelled to reply )

See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

As far as I can discern, I were to to formalize this definition, there would be no self-contradiction. Thus, given my previous definition of rational, this definition of God would completely satisfy the conditions and it would be fair to call it rational. However, you would probably object to its rationality by saying there is no "proof" of something or the other with the definition.

The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

But the position: "The universe always existed and yet there is a creator" might be one that can be called irrational. The reason for this is that one may be able to argue that there is a contradiction is ascribing a creator to something that was not created.

To go on two other tangents:

I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. Can you believe some idiots diagnose cases of demon possession as DID and try and treat it with drugs rather than sending the victim to an exorcist? Sorry for the off topic rant but that makes me mad... The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years), so it seems that belief in God will never be considered a mental illness as it is too widespread and respected (thank God).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exorcism is a favourite topic of mine, becuase well, what sort of idiot, when faced with classic possesional charactoaristics would refuse to have his child exorcise. Let's face it, an exorcism can't possibly hurt more than it helps and it's really the only recourse is you are possesed.

Having said that, I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.

[The Celtic Viking]

No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".

Then I do not understand what reason you felt you had for bringing it up.

Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?

Yes. Have you ever heard someone say that god doesn't exist?

Just wondering.

Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you up

Just answer my question, please.

God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.

Okay.

You will never adaquately define me, or yourself.

But I did.

You can describe observable attributes, imperfectly, or actions, but not the substance of being.

What do you mean by "substance of being"?

Yet, you have a name and you exist.

Yes, and we can say that I exist because we can define me, as I have done. We cannot say that "god" exist if we cannot define it, because if the word "god" doesn't have a definition, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything.

No, no atheist has done this. That would be the ultimate definition of insanity, to talk to someone you believe doesn't exist. You cannot talk to God because you have not acknowledged his existence, and therefore he will not reply.

I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?

Both those definitions merely describe actions or roles, "one who creates with intelligence", or "One who created the universe". They say nothing much at all about such a creator.

Yes, I did say they fail, didn't I?

Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.

When did I say it doesn't exist? I have all along said that I do not know what "it" is, so how could I say it doesn't? If you define "god" as "doors", then sure, I'll say that "god" exist.

The reason why I ask for a definition of the word "god", is that without one, we can't go any further. Speaking of anything concerning "god" is futile and pointless until we have a working definition.

See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?

The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

[ajaxfetish]

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable,

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

[The Celtic Viking]

Occam's razor does not state this. Saying 'God created it all, for his own mysterious purposes' is much simpler than the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and the workings of all its parts. Occam's Razor states rather that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.' If the universe can be explained without the need to resort to an unobserved phenomenon, such as God, then Occam's razor tells us we don't need to postulate God, which is very different from saying simpler is better. Of course, while Occam's razor appeals to us for several reasons, it is a principle of academic inquiry, not by any means a universal or proven truth.

Ajax

Lets me walk you through the argument:

P1: Everything that exist must have a cause
P2: The universe exist
C: The universe had a cause, and we call that cause "god"

We then ask, if "god" exist, then what caused "god"?

The answer is that "god" was uncaused.

If "god" can be uncaused, then not everything needs a cause, and assuming that the universe is uncaused makes less assumptions than adding an unnecessary extra step of a universe-cause that is uncaused.

Therefore, not inventing a god is simpler than inventing one.

[Reenk Roink]

Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

Why is god "necessary", and what for?

It may not say much, indeed, it is a highly impersonal basic definition of God (I thought we'd start with something simple).

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).

Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

The definition I gave tends to be one that is regarded as the basic "god".

As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?

No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

[The Celtic Viking]

You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.

Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.

As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).

Hmm. Keep in mind that, growing up in a community practically devoid of religion, and not caring about it until about 13-14 (when I wanted and tried to become a theist, and even then I wasn't interested organized religion), and then returning to not caring about it again until a few years ago (when I became an anti-theist* ), there are a lot of religious ideas that I have never heard of, and I'm not used to discussing it. Coupled with the fact that English is not my native language, it might be good to keep that in mind.

Anyway, let me see if I understood you correctly: does being non-contingent mean that it is not possible that it exists if it doesn't exist, and that it isn't possible that it doesn't exist if it does?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* It might be important to note that when I say I'm an anti-theist, I mean that I want religion to end, but I want religious people to stop being religious on their own accord. I do not want to force people to deconvert, and I respect your right to believe as long as you respect my right not to.

To put it simply, I am not against the theists, the people, but the theism, the belief.

[/U]Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).

Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.

See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.

The less assumptions you make, the closer to the mark you are likely to come. It doesn't guarantee that it is right, but it is preferable because of probability. We can't deal with absolutes; only probability.

No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?

I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.

[Adrian II]

I loathe psychiatry in some respects. [..] The field has shown itself to by quite malleable and guided by society however (look at its view of homosexuality throughout the years) [..]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.

I don't believe demonic possesion is at all common and a number of people who claim to be possesed are probably merely hysterical.

Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.

[The Celtic Viking]

EDIT: Thou shalt not post hotlinked pictures. I cannot define this rule, it just is. BG

[Louis VI the Fat]

Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.

I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON

[Banquo's Ghost]

I AM NOT INSANE I AM NAPOLÉON

I am reminded of the wonderfully moving scene in the film "The Emperor's New Clothes":

The drop-your-popcorn moment in Ian Holm's new film occurs when the Emperor Napoleon stumbles, dethroned and demoralised, into the grounds of a lunatic asylum on the outskirts of Paris. This modest green space is dotted with fruit trees and rose bushes - and between them, a dozen men in cockaded hats, each groping inside his jacket as though he were wishing he'd not had the crevettes. Although Holm's Napoleon is the genuine article - escaped from St Helena, living incognito in France and nursing an ambition to regain the Emperorship - he will never be able to resume his old identity. The world believes that he is dead. The moment he announces himself, he'll be just another five-foot-nothing madman with delusions of grandeur.

Independent

Anyway, we digress.