Conceptions of God consistent with reason

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#1  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 11:24 am

This thread is a consequence of a discussion in the nontheism forum. This post might explain:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1772567

The pertinent point from that post:

To devise a conception of God consistent with reason is not an argument for that God's existence. But it does enable logical arguments for its existence. If a concept is not consistent with reason, then it's a nonsensical concept - and one cannot produce logical arguments for the existence of a nonsensical entity.


So, philosophy can only entertain arguments for God's existence if its conception is consistent with reason. One couldn't consistently state that God was a square circle, for instance.

Another aspect of consistency here, is that God must be markedly distinct to all other things. There would be no consistency, for instance, in claiming that God was my neighbour's hamster. Why? Because:

a) Hamsters are part of 'the universe', and we're looking for the creatOR thereof.

b) Hamsters are finite entities possessing only finite powers to effect change. There is no reason (remember, consistency is the name of the game here) to accept one finite entity over any other. This rule would apply even for entities such as 'Superman'.

Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being. That is:

God must be omnipresent.

Many religions seem to state or imply that their God (or whatever they call it) is indeed omnipresent, but the behaviour and narratives of the believers thereof is not consistent with such a claim. Jews and Xians, for instance, treat man as being distinct to God (and it would be heresy to suggest otherwise, in their eyes). But the obvious [logical] fact is that if God is (must be) omnipresent, then nothing else can exist. That is: God is the totality of existence.

This presents philosophy with a quandary, for if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.

This post is getting quite long, so discussion of other qualities of God consistent with reason will have to wait. But just from this post, you should be getting an idea of how the concept of God can become coherent to philosophy.
Last edited by jamest on Aug 03, 2013 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#2  Postby ElDiablo » Aug 03, 2013 11:47 am

If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3121

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#3  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 12:07 pm

ElDiablo wrote:If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.

No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#4  Postby ElDiablo » Aug 03, 2013 12:24 pm

From your two assertions.
God is everywhere - omnipresent.
Everything that exists is a part of god.

A square is part of god.
A circle is part of god.
Since god is everywhere, meaning there is no place god is not (can god be in himself?)
Therefore, god is a both square and a circle.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3121

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#5  Postby Paul » Aug 03, 2013 12:34 pm

:popcorn:
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#6  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 12:36 pm

A squircle?

:ask:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#7  Postby Paul » Aug 03, 2013 12:38 pm

ElDiablo wrote:(can god be in himself?)

Up himself?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#8  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 12:39 pm

Paul wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:(can god be in himself?)

Up himself?


A squircle jerk.

:coffee:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#9  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 12:40 pm

jamest wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.

No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#10  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 12:52 pm

campermon wrote:
jamest wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.

No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

:thumbup:


Bugger!

I think I've proved god again :whine:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#11  Postby OlivierK » Aug 03, 2013 1:07 pm

James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8879
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#12  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 2:00 pm

ElDiablo wrote:From your two assertions.
God is everywhere - omnipresent.
Everything that exists is a part of god.

I'm merely trying to discern qualities of God that would be consistent with reason. And I haven't said "everything that exists is a part of God", because I've actually said that God - being the totality of existence - is the only thing that could exist. Everything else (if God exists) could only be an experience for God.

A square is part of god.
A circle is part of god.
Since god is everywhere, meaning there is no place god is not (can god be in himself?)
Therefore, god is a both square and a circle.

Leaving aside what I've just said, one could say that God could be a square and/or a circle, but not at once a square-circle. The concept 'square-circle' is meaningless, incoherent, nonsensical. Therefore, impossible.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#13  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 2:01 pm

jamest wrote: The concept 'square-circle' is meaningless, incoherent, nonsensical. Therefore, impossible.


It's not. See the wiki link.

;)
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#14  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 2:02 pm

campermon wrote:
jamest wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.

No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

:thumbup:

That's not a square-circle. It's a shape with some properties of a square and some properties of a circle.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#15  Postby campermon » Aug 03, 2013 2:06 pm

jamest wrote:
campermon wrote:
jamest wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:If god is omnipresent it is logical that it is both a square and a circle.

No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

:thumbup:

That's not a square-circle. It's a shape with some properties of a square and some properties of a circle.


Yes, its a square circle and perfectly logically consistent to boot!

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17032
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#16  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 2:10 pm

OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.

I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#17  Postby Fallible » Aug 03, 2013 2:12 pm

Universe = God. Can we all go home now?
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49437
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#18  Postby Fallible » Aug 03, 2013 2:15 pm

jamest wrote:
OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.

I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].


Oh, I seeeeeee. So when you say your concept of God is consistent with reason, what you mean is that when your god and reason fall short of each other, you bridge the gap with "I don't see why not".
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49437
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#19  Postby OlivierK » Aug 03, 2013 2:23 pm

jamest wrote:
OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.

I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

As far as I can see, then your argument rests on God and every person, and indeed everything in the universe being "one and the same thing". There's no reason to believe that's true, other than apologetics. Would you even consider that such a proposition were true if it wasn't required to make your pre-determined conclusion true?

Using reason, we in fact come to the following argument:
P1) God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
P2) Man and God are not the same thing.
C) God does not make sense.

Your view that some sort of altruistic utopia could arise if only people (who don't independently exist but are just God's experiences) realised that they were just God's experiences and acted accordingly is even more incoherent that your conception of God, if that's possible.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8879
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Conceptions of God consistent with reason

#20  Postby jamest » Aug 03, 2013 2:25 pm

campermon wrote:
jamest wrote:
campermon wrote:
jamest wrote:
No, there is no logical consistency in a square circle. I don't follow how you reach to that conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

:thumbup:

That's not a square-circle. It's a shape with some properties of a square and some properties of a circle.


Yes, its a square circle and perfectly logically consistent to boot!

:thumbup:

No, it's not. It's a shape with just some properties of a square and some properties of a circle. For example, it has no corners.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17871
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests