Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I very much doubt that would be an exhaustive list, too. So I don't see the question of God existing to be a binary proposition, because the question is then, "Which god?". We then may apply a binary judgement to each concept of God/gods in turn, but the question is overall far from a binary proposition.

Yes, this is another perspective on what I was saying. And a useful one too. Too many demanding topics are reduced to meaninglessness by our insistence on the use of binary thinking when something a little more flexible might be of more practical use.



But this is a side-shoot of the main discussion. The topic asks us to consider a complex and many-facetted question, so perhaps binary thinking is less useful here? That's all I'm saying. It seems to be all Sy Borg is saying too, albeit from a slightly different perspective. This shouldn't be a Big Deal, IMO.

[night912]

So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.

Nope, you're still wrong. Like I said, The Law of Excluded Middle applies only to a true dichotomy. A dichotomy consists of only two options. A trichotomy consists of three options, and so forth. They are different things, having different usage.

The questions, "Does god exists?" "In what sort of way does god exists?" "Which god exists?" All three are asking for different things.

If I ask you, does the Christian god exists? And your response is, Thor exists. That would be an invalid answer to my question. Therefore, you didn't answered what I asked. There's a particular meaning behind a question and/or proposition. I don't know why you're unable to understand this simple concept.

[Sy Borg]

The Law of Excluded Middle applies only to a true dichotomy. A dichotomy consists of only two options. A trichotomy consists of three options, and so forth. They are different things, having different usage.

The questions, "Does god exists?" "In what sort of way does god exists?" "Which god exists?" All three are asking for different things.

If I ask you, does the Christian god exists? And your response is, Thor exists. That would be an invalid answer to my question. Therefore, you didn't answered what I asked. There's a particular meaning behind a question and/or proposition. I don't know why you're unable to understand this simple concept.

Which Christian God? Yahweh or God of the NT?

Is it God the anthropomorphic spirit that lives outside of and created (programmed?) the universe? Or is it the God whom I've heard believers describe as penetrating all of creation, as opposed to standing outside of it?

[Lagayascienza]

Doesn't it make more sense to just go with what we know? We do not know that any gods exist and we possibly cannot know. If they do exist, they act as if they didn't exist. We have no evidence of their presence nor any indication of them acting in the universe in any way. And most of the gods humans have ever invented are now defunct - Zeus, Thor, Ra ... the list is long.

So, in respect of the question of the OP, what makes anyone think that their current god of choice exists in any way other than the way Zeus etcetera existed?

The only reason for invoking a god of some sort is as an easy way to account for the existence of the universe. Why is there something instead of nothing? But might science one day be able to account for even that?

[Sy Borg]

Lagaya, we do know that gods exist, and they have existed for a very, very long time. Subjective reality cannot be dismissed. It's just as important as objective reality in many areas, and more so in some.

Everyone's god exists and, since deities are made in our image, the nature of God varies, depending on which mind is imagining him/her/it/they/groski.

The only other angle is faith that we exist within a larger consciousness (the cosmic web as neural connections?) or that we are a creation (the Great Programmer or, more Biblically, the Great Baker?).

[Lagayascienza]

Sure, everyone's gods exists. But those gods exist as Zeus, Thor, Ra etc. existed. I don't dismiss the subjective need for people's gods. In some ways, I was more content when I still believed. But then, one day, all of a sudden, a switch was flicked and I could believe no longer. And now there is a different sort of contentment.

I have no problem with others believing. That is, providing their beliefs don't entail banning abortion, stoning adulteresses, throwing gays off buildings, beheading apostates or impinge in any way on how I choose to live my life. If their belief in their gods doesn't entail any of those sorts of things, if their beliefs are innocuous, then I couldn't care less. I might even encourage them to keep believing if it helps them get through their day.

But since we're discussing the philosophical question of the existence of gods, I am bound to say that, as far as we can tell, gods don't objectively exist and that inter-subjective existence will have to be next best thing. Although, there still remains the question of why there is something rather than nothing. The lack of a definitive answer to that question can still be used by theists to bolster their belief if needed. And even philosophical Idealism is not off the table.

[Sy Borg]

I agree with all that, though God would seem more influential as an intimate subjective entity than a distant objective super-being.

I don't discount the possibility that we exist within a larger consciousness, but whether hypothetical overmind/s would have anything in common with human deities is another matter. It' hard to imagine that any of the religions lucked out and just happened upon the nature of the universe. Rather, they treat their intersection with their local environment as if those dynamics were universal.

A simplified example: A person raised in the desert will think of water as inherently precious. A person raised in an equatorial jungle will think of dryness as precious. Each tends to extrapolate their own situation as universally true.

[Lagayascienza]

Right, a lot of it is local and parochial. The Rainbow Serpent of indigenous Australians is not going to jibe with an Islamic fundamentalist, a Seventh Day Adventist, or a New Age lady ensconced with her healing crystals in a fancy apartment on Central Park in NYC. However, all of them will find some sort of meaning in their different gods.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, each culture's gods attend their particular circumstances. I reckon the New age Lady would probably approve the Rainbow Serpent, though, in an act of enthusiastic ingratiation and political correctness :)

One wonders, when Iron Age people spoke of one universal God, what their idea of the universe was. I wonder how they would have taken the news if it could have been proven to people back then that stars were suns, many orbited by plants somewhat like Earth. I think of Noah and his sons traipsing down to Australia before the Great Flood to save the kangaroos, koalas, echidnas, wombats and emus. Thankfully, Noah's sons must have remembered to bring a eucalyptus tree along to feed koalas. The poor things are so dumb that they won't eat leaves off a plate. They have to be attached to branches.

I admit to being amazed that literalist Christians still exist.

[Lagayascienza]

LOL. Love the koala thing! Have you ever had a look at sites like "Answers in Genesis". Each page is an absolute barrel of laughs.

[Lagayascienza]

Sorry, I shouldn't poke fun at people's religion. If it works for them then that's fine with me. I was just chuckling about Sy Borgs thing about the koalas and Eucalyptus trees and that made me think about Answers in Genesis.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.

Nope, you're still wrong. Like I said, The Law of Excluded Middle applies only to a true dichotomy. A dichotomy consists of only two options. A trichotomy consists of three options, and so forth. They are different things, having different usage.

The questions, "Does god exists?" "In what sort of way does god exists?" "Which god exists?" All three are asking for different things.

If I ask you, does the Christian god exists? And your response is, Thor exists. That would be an invalid answer to my question. Therefore, you didn't answered what I asked. There's a particular meaning behind a question and/or proposition. I don't know why you're unable to understand this simple concept.

I can only ask you what you originally asked me, "So, your point is......?"

It wasn't your comment that I initially responded to, it was PhilosophyOfGuitar's comment. You seemed to respond to that exchange, but without any purpose or point that I can see.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, I shouldn't poke fun at people's religion. If it works for them then that's fine with me. I was just chuckling about Sy Borg's thing about the koalas and Eucalyptus trees and that made me think about Answers in Genesis.

The absurdity of Noah's Ark taken literally ... well, it's worthy of ridicule.

More seriously, if you take the story as a parable, as it was no doubt intended, it becomes far more interesting. To start, all societies have a Great Flood myth. The cynic in me thinks that it's only natural that, over millennia, one flood would be considered the worst. For instance, if New Orleans was a subject of ancient mythology, their Great Flood myth would pertain to Hurricane Katrina. The non-cynic in me wonders about the Younger Dryas or later glaciation melts. It makes sense that such huge events would leave a mark on people, and they would want to warn future generations of potential dangers.

[night912]

So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.

Nope, you're still wrong. Like I said, The Law of Excluded Middle applies only to a true dichotomy. A dichotomy consists of only two options. A trichotomy consists of three options, and so forth. They are different things, having different usage.

The questions, "Does god exists?" "In what sort of way does god exists?" "Which god exists?" All three are asking for different things.

If I ask you, does the Christian god exists? And your response is, Thor exists. That would be an invalid answer to my question. Therefore, you didn't answered what I asked. There's a particular meaning behind a question and/or proposition. I don't know why you're unable to understand this simple concept.

I can only ask you what you originally asked me, "So, your point is......?"

It wasn't your comment that I initially responded to, it was PhilosophyOfGuitar's comment. You seemed to respond to that exchange, but without any purpose or point that I can see.

Of course you didn't initially respond to my comment, that's why I never said nor implied that your initial response was to my comment. But after a couple of exchanges between the two of us, it's apparent that my point did get through to you, hence your response above. I simply demonstrated that you are wrong. How and/why? It's because you don't understand what binary thinking is, or at the very least, you're misusing the term.

It's not mine nor PhilosophyOfGuitar's fault for you using "binary thinking" incorrectly in the context of this discussion.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.

Nope, you're still wrong. Like I said, The Law of Excluded Middle applies only to a true dichotomy. A dichotomy consists of only two options. A trichotomy consists of three options, and so forth. They are different things, having different usage.

The questions, "Does god exists?" "In what sort of way does god exists?" "Which god exists?" All three are asking for different things.

If I ask you, does the Christian god exists? And your response is, Thor exists. That would be an invalid answer to my question. Therefore, you didn't answered what I asked. There's a particular meaning behind a question and/or proposition. I don't know why you're unable to understand this simple concept.

I can only ask you what you originally asked me, "So, your point is......?"

It wasn't your comment that I initially responded to, it was PhilosophyOfGuitar's comment. You seemed to respond to that exchange, but without any purpose or point that I can see.

Of course you didn't initially respond to my comment, that's why I never said nor implied that your initial response was to my comment. But after a couple of exchanges between the two of us, it's apparent that my point did get through to you, hence your response above. I simply demonstrated that you are wrong. How and/why? It's because you don't understand what binary thinking is, or at the very least, you're misusing the term.

It's not mine nor PhilosophyOfGuitar's fault for you using "binary thinking" incorrectly in the context of this discussion.

To present an idea as a dichotomy, when there are more than two possible outcomes, is an inappropriate application of binary thinking, of forcing a non-binary question into a binary mould. But I already said that, and your discourtesy does not detract from, or refute, what I said.