Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[Twiler]

Alright...so?
You've just depicted god as nothing more than existence.
Is this god intelligent? has any powers?is the one depicted in the bible?
I could do exactly the same and replace god with Zebob the Celestial Troll and it would be as intelligent an argument.

This argument is gibberish.

I think this is actually an argument for pantheism.

 

[Nick227]

Can you give me any other instances in English where a proper noun can be held (validly) to be identical to a gerund?

Asphalting?

Pixy should probably know one. He thinks personal pronouns are gerunds.

Nick

 

[Cainkane1]

cj x - one quick question...

If the supernatural truly exists, yet we reside as totally natural creatures (with the limitations imposed by natural law and sensory input) within the universe, then how does one detect the supernatural?

Ergo, how can one prove - using evidence - the existence of the supernatural?

Please outline an experiment that can address this question.

Its easy. Go to an area thats supposed to be haunted and look for spooks. No spooks, no supernatural.

 

[six7s]

Whether it's more meaningful is debatable but the phrase "ground of being" or "ground of all being" is quite different in meaning from "the stuff of the universe." It's a means some mystical schools use to reconcile the duality of human experience with the reality of monism.

The "ground of being" is one of those models which can't be disproven so it's not so exciting in many ways.

Nick

I wasn't suggesting that the two phrases mean the same thing

Instead, I want to know if/how/why my (intentionally) exceedingly banal 'stuff' comment can be construed as less meaningful than the 'being' statement

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

[
... which is why cj's ideas are out of the box ludicrous. Because they're not even semantically well-formed.

They're not right. They're not even wrong.

They're word salad, or as another poster put it, "gibberish."

One cannot validate such a statement, but many mystical traditions treat ultimate reality as "the inexpressable", and the sort of formulation that cj and Beth discuss certainly fits into this category. Certainly, gibberish is as good a way as others of saying that something isn't properly expressable (or, at least, hasn't been properly expressed).

If we say something like God=Being or God is the ground of all Being, this seems an attempt to equate God with all existence. If God is One, then the ground of existence is One, and is, therefore, inexpressable in some sense. Words within language games are defined by reference to other words; but how can we define the ultimate reality or ultimate substance? Seems to me that we can label it only.

Stuff is a pretty good word. We could also say that God is stuff. It's all just a game, though. We shouldn't project too much onto it, except the realization that we're probably a lot dumber than we think we are.

Or, we could take Wittgenstein's advice and keep quiet about it.

 

[drkitten]

One cannot validate such a statement, but many mystical traditions treat ultimate reality as "the inexpressable", and the sort of formulation that cj and Beth discuss certainly fits into this category. Certainly, gibberish is as good a way as others of saying that something isn't properly expressable (or, at least, hasn't been properly expressed).

But, I hasten to point out, those are mystical traditions -- they're practically defined by their rejection of logical formalism.

If you want to tell me that the nature of God can only be expressed through the medium of interpretive dance, fine. (Well, I'll probably make some sarcastic comment anyway, just to keep my hand in.) But in that case, you can't reason about dance, and you certainly can't use a dance as a premise in a syllogism.

Logic is the study of propositional knowledge. If you cannot express God propositionally, then you can't reason about Him.

So that's the ultimate answer to Beth's question "What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning)." The problem is the implicit domain error in using operations that are only defined on propositions.

 

[Nick227]

I wasn't suggesting that the two phrases mean the same thing

Instead, I want to know if/how/why my (intentionally) exceedingly banal 'stuff' comment can be construed as less meaningful than the 'being' statement

I dare say it could be considered less or more meaningful, depending on how you choose to look at it.

The "ground of being" model, popular amongst meditators, comes from the vaguely Buddhist notion that all existence emerges from an ever-present source. All you have experienced is "signal" essentially, and the place where these signals emerge from is "ground." Given that this "ground of being" by definition cannot itself exist, being the source of all that exists, so the model cannot be disproven.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

If we say something like God=Being or God is the ground of all Being, this seems an attempt to equate God with all existence. If God is One, then the ground of existence is One, and is, therefore, inexpressable in some sense. Words within language games are defined by reference to other words; but how can we define the ultimate reality or ultimate substance? Seems to me that we can label it only.

My experience of these kinds of models is that there are two basic options for God.

* God can be the "ground of being," the source of existence (in the Hindu pantheon this = Brahman).

* Or God can be an organising principle that causes material existence to manifest as it does and that operates within this "ground of being," (in the Hindu pantheon this = Ishwara).

Thus the Christian God is essentially the latter, and analogous to the Hindu Ishwara.

This is why the Christian God is in particular trouble when confronted with Darwinism. Previously it seemed to people that there must be some form of organising principle in the universe, some blueprint or pattern behind the scenes which caused things to develop the way they did. Universal Darwinism puts paid to this within the kingdoms of nature. And mathematics starts to deal with God in the mineral world.

God as Brahman, the "ground of being", is of course ineffable, for anything one might care to say about it is merely another emanation from it. It cannot be described for it has by definition no attributes. BTW, these two notions of God were reconciled somewhat in later Vedantic schools like Advaita, see Shankara and others.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you want to tell me that the nature of God can only be expressed through the medium of interpretive dance, fine. (Well, I'll probably make some sarcastic comment anyway, just to keep my hand in.) But in that case, you can't reason about dance, and you certainly can't use a dance as a premise in a syllogism.

Hmm, cocaine fueled disco in white leisure suits shows some definite promise.

Logic is the study of propositional knowledge. If you cannot express God propositionally, then you can't reason about Him.

So that's the ultimate answer to Beth's question "What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning)." The problem is the implicit domain error in using operations that are only defined on propositions.

Yeah, that's a great way of stating it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My experience of these kinds of models is that there are two basic options for God.

* God can be the "ground of being," the source of existence (in the Hindu pantheon this = Brahman).

* Or God can be an organising principle that causes material existence to manifest as it does and that operates within this "ground of being," (in the Hindu pantheon this = Ishwara).

Thus the Christian God is essentially the latter, and analogous to the Hindu Ishwara.

This is why the Christian God is in particular trouble when confronted with Darwinism. Previously it seemed to people that there must be some form of organising principle in the universe, some blueprint or pattern behind the scenes which caused things to develop the way they did. Universal Darwinism puts paid to this within the kingdoms of nature. And mathematics starts to deal with God in the mineral world.

God as Brahman, the "ground of being", is of course ineffable, for anything one might care to say about it is merely another emanation from it. It cannot be described for it has by definition no attributes. BTW, these two notions of God were reconciled somewhat in later Vedantic schools like Advaita, see Shankara and others.

Nick

I may be reading too much into the conversation, but I assume Brahman is the intended "target" here, or some "conception" along those lines.

 

[six7s]

The "ground of being" model, popular amongst meditators, comes from the vaguely Buddhist notion that all existence emerges from an ever-present source.

To be frank, I don't (at this point in this discussion) give a toss whence it emerged; I want to know if it actually has any meaning of relevance

 

[Nick227]

To be frank, I don't (at this point in this discussion) give a toss whence it emerged; I want to know if it actually has any meaning of relevance

It doesn't actually have any meaning whatsoever, by definition it has no attributes.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I may be reading too much into the conversation, but I assume Brahman is the intended "target" here, or some "conception" along those lines.

Not quite sure what you mean by "target." But Brahman, being ineffable, is fairly immune to any form of targeting. Whatever you try to describe, that isn't it. All terms for it are just signposts. Can't be proven. Can't be disproven.

Nick

 

[OneShotKi11]

OMG, the lack of logical thinking displayed by yrreg is destroying my eyes, i cant it read it anymore!

 

[yrreg]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.

I am at this point trying to get atheists to come up with their ideas of God, in simple most plain language.

If you atheists have any, please put them in your messages, in very brief statements.

Otherwise please just read but don't post here because you are distracting people from the topic.

For people who have produced ideas of God, thanks a lot, but please also repeat them in the most brief statements expressed in simple most plain language.

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

From that point we can next work on what kinds of evidence is relevant to employ in talking about the evidence for God.


Again, if you have nothing to say about your ideas of God, please just read and don't send posts to this thread.

For the present write if you have ideas on God and later we will go into the kinds of evidence relevant to any talk at all about evidence for God.



Yrreg

 

[Dunstan]

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Twiler]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.

I am at this point trying to get atheists to come up with their ideas of God, in simple most plain language.

If you atheists have any, please put them in your messages, in very brief statements.

Otherwise please just read but don't post here because you are distracting people from the topic.

For people who have produced ideas of God, thanks a lot, but please also repeat them in the most brief statements expressed in simple most plain language.

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

From that point we can next work on what kinds of evidence is relevant to employ in talking about the evidence for God.


Again, if you have nothing to say about your ideas of God, please just read and don't send posts to this thread.

For the present write if you have ideas on God and later we will go into the kinds of evidence relevant to any talk at all about evidence for God.



Yrreg

I think that you are God yrreg, so awe-inspiring are your thought processes.

 

[GeeMack]

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

No two Christians have ever been able to agree on exactly what their gods are. And here you are asking a bunch of people who don't accept the existence of gods to concur on some such common notion? Well oddly enough, a forum full of atheists may be more capable than a bunch of Christians to come to a general consensus on the issue. Your god, yrreg, is a figment of your imagination, a delusion. There is no such thing as a god.

Now here's an idea you might find interesting. How about you and one or more of your fellow Christians come to an agreement about who/what your gods are. After all, they're your gods. They exist solely inside your heads, not ours. I'm sure whatever consensus you reach would be quite novel, since it hasn't been done before. Then please let us know the results, too.

And as Dunstan said...

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not quite sure what you mean by "target." But Brahman, being ineffable, is fairly immune to any form of targeting. Whatever you try to describe, that isn't it. All terms for it are just signposts. Can't be proven. Can't be disproven.

Nick

That's why target is in scare quotes. By "target" I mean the "object" of the discussion -- what cj and Beth were trying to get at.

 

[PixyMisa]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.

Right. So, let's talk evidence for God.

I am at this point trying to get atheists to come up with their ideas of God, in simple most plain language.

Not our job.

If you atheists have any, please put them in your messages, in very brief statements.

Not our job.

Otherwise please just read but don't post here because you are distracting people from the topic.

Your own posts have nothing to do with the topic, so I see no reason to oblige you here.

For people who have produced ideas of God, thanks a lot, but please also repeat them in the most brief statements expressed in simple most plain language.

Not our job.

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

Yeah, right.

From that point we can next work on what kinds of evidence is relevant to employ in talking about the evidence for God.

No.

You just tell us what you believe you God to be, and then you tell us what you believe the evidence for your God is, and then we tell you why you're wrong.

That's how it works.

Again, if you have nothing to say about your ideas of God, please just read and don't send posts to this thread.

No.

We are not the ones who believe in God; we are the ones who, when presented with concepts of God, point out the logical fallacies, and when presented with claims of evidence, point out the factual flaws and woolly thinking.

For the present write if you have ideas on God and later we will go into the kinds of evidence relevant to any talk at all about evidence for God.

Not our job.