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

[Pattern-chaser]

...to what extent is the question of the existence of God a pure question of logic?

To no extent at all, IMO. Logic considers the validity of an argument, not the correctness of its conclusion. Using logic as a guide, we can/could find a logical argument that would demonstrate the existence of God. I don't even think it would be difficult. But until we have sound, testable, premises for that argument, it is of no use at all.

I don't think logic is an issue here. Evidence is surely an issue (there is no evidence!), and so is human belief, and the reasons why we believe. Probably other things contribute here too. But logic? I can't see it as being helpful.

[JackDaydream]

...to what extent is the question of the existence of God a pure question of logic?

To no extent at all, IMO. Logic considers the validity of an argument, not the correctness of its conclusion. Using logic as a guide, we can/could find a logical argument that would demonstrate the existence of God. I don't even think it would be difficult. But until we have sound, testable, premises for that argument, it is of no use at all.

I don't think logic is an issue here. Evidence is surely an issue (there is no evidence!), and so is human belief, and the reasons why we believe. Probably other things contribute here too. But logic? I can't see it as being helpful.

Evidence may be problematic in thinking of the existence of God because it is based on the empirical. That may be where the atheists score some points because there is lack of empirical evidence because in all instances God is behind the scenes as the unseen. Even in Christianity, the Christ is related to an unseen 'Father' in heaven.

With logic, it is about rational arguments and whether the idea of theism or atheism is logical. However; what it really comes down to is whether those on both sides can come up with a rational justification for their beliefs. The beliefs or ideas may not be founded in logic itself but for those who are believers in God it may be a matter of 'faith', as seen as the crucial stepping stone for some, such as Kierkergaard.

On the other hand, those who don't go by the principle of faith may be the more critical philosophers and sceptics. The two opposites of theism and atheism may be another pair of binary opposites. This may be where the idea of God may be too metaphysical, as if rather than being a way of conceptualizing 'reality' is seen as 'out there' as a 'supernatural' being rather than an imminent aspect of nature and human understanding.

[Sosein]

But those who believe in a Creator-God almost rely on God being omnipotent, don't they? Could God create the universe if He wasn't omnipotent? [There, that's another of those stupid questions! ]

As long as we cant oberserve any sings of gods omnipotence in the cosmos, i dont think we can assume god to be that. If u believe in religous miracles or are strict to some texts, u may assume god to be omnipotent. I believe the world emerged from god, dont ask me how or why. But now that the world is,
it seems there is nothing god can do about it.

Pantheists are not atheists and some pantheists might take offence at being called atheists. Pantheists do not believe nature lacks order but that everything is nature which is an ordered system.

Since i dont believe in real coincidence, i also think that nature, or the cosmos, is a perfectly well orderd system. I just also think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Imagination is often confused with fantasy. Imagination invents and creates what is possible, good, and true, and so carries forward human knowledge and wisdom. Fantasy, although entertaining and interesting, is impossible or even sometimes immorally irresponsible.

So god as "a supernatural big powerful Person" would be a fantasy, not an imagination ?

The difference between your belief system and mine is that I believe God or Nature is created by human thought, whereas you think God created human thought. In practice this does not matter very much . However what does matter is what you have mentioned----idolatry.

I dont quite understand - how can nature be created by human thought ? If evolution is true then nature was without human thought most of the time, wasnt it ?
In the classic sense idolatry means to worship and submit to the work of man, which would also include man made false ideas and believes, as far as i know.
You see i think truth itself exists - everybody knows at least some truths and without agreeing to something like, being a subject in a physical world experienceing life, it would be hard to talk at all. Some truth we as humans cant really grasp, that i think is certain. So why be uncertain ? If one wants to be protected against idolatry i would adverise for reasonable reflective thinking.

[LuckyR]

...to what extent is the question of the existence of God a pure question of logic?

To no extent at all, IMO. Logic considers the validity of an argument, not the correctness of its conclusion. Using logic as a guide, we can/could find a logical argument that would demonstrate the existence of God. I don't even think it would be difficult. But until we have sound, testable, premises for that argument, it is of no use at all.

I don't think logic is an issue here. Evidence is surely an issue (there is no evidence!), and so is human belief, and the reasons why we believe. Probably other things contribute here too. But logic? I can't see it as being helpful.

Evidence may be problematic in thinking of the existence of God because it is based on the empirical. That may be where the atheists score some points because there is lack of empirical evidence because in all instances God is behind the scenes as the unseen. Even in Christianity, the Christ is related to an unseen 'Father' in heaven.

With logic, it is about rational arguments and whether the idea of theism or atheism is logical. However; what it really comes down to is whether those on both sides can come up with a rational justification for their beliefs. The beliefs or ideas may not be founded in logic itself but for those who are believers in God it may be a matter of 'faith', as seen as the crucial stepping stone for some, such as Kierkergaard.

On the other hand, those who don't go by the principle of faith may be the more critical philosophers and sceptics. The two opposites of theism and atheism may be another pair of binary opposites. This may be where the idea of God may be too metaphysical, as if rather than being a way of conceptualizing 'reality' is seen as 'out there' as a 'supernatural' being rather than an imminent aspect of nature and human understanding.

The relative role of logic as pertains to the existence of the concept of gods is central. That is, it is completely logical that humans would (and did) invent the concept of gods. Thus the existence of gods in the minds and belief systems of humans.

As to whether gods exist beyond the minds and belief systems of humans, there is no evidence for their existence nor nonexistence, however since gods are metaphysical (as opposed to physical) this situation is expected.

[Belindi]

But those who believe in a Creator-God almost rely on God being omnipotent, don't they? Could God create the universe if He wasn't omnipotent? [There, that's another of those stupid questions! ]

As long as we cant oberserve any sings of gods omnipotence in the cosmos, i dont think we can assume god to be that. If u believe in religous miracles or are strict to some texts, u may assume god to be omnipotent. I believe the world emerged from god, dont ask me how or why. But now that the world is,
it seems there is nothing god can do about it.

Pantheists are not atheists and some pantheists might take offence at being called atheists. Pantheists do not believe nature lacks order but that everything is nature which is an ordered system.

Since i dont believe in real coincidence, i also think that nature, or the cosmos, is a perfectly well orderd system. I just also think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Imagination is often confused with fantasy. Imagination invents and creates what is possible, good, and true, and so carries forward human knowledge and wisdom. Fantasy, although entertaining and interesting, is impossible or even sometimes immorally irresponsible.

So god as "a supernatural big powerful Person" would be a fantasy, not an imagination ?

The difference between your belief system and mine is that I believe God or Nature is created by human thought, whereas you think God created human thought. In practice this does not matter very much . However what does matter is what you have mentioned----idolatry.

I dont quite understand - how can nature be created by human thought ? If evolution is true then nature was without human thought most of the time, wasnt it ?
In the classic sense idolatry means to worship and submit to the work of man, which would also include man made false ideas and believes, as far as i know.
You see i think truth itself exists - everybody knows at least some truths and without agreeing to something like, being a subject in a physical world experienceing life, it would be hard to talk at all. Some truth we as humans cant really grasp, that i think is certain. So why be uncertain ? If one wants to be protected against idolatry i would adverise for reasonable reflective thinking.

By 'Nature' is meant system, things holding together. Humans seek relationships so that we can go into our tomorrows with some expectation that they will be much the same as our yesterdays; this is how we can make plans that help us survive . Human thought has devised systems of good or evil: edible or non edible: furry or scaly: tame , wild,or domesticated: person or non -person: vegetable, animal, or mineral: Organic or inorganic; safe, dangerous, or risky.
There is nothing humans know that is not a human creation.
If you seriously study the branch of philosophy called metaphysics you may come to understand how scepticism helps you to question what you had thought was real. Nobody can do this for you and you and you have to think for yourself, however there are reliable places where you can learn, and recommended books you can read.

Nobody 100% knows objective truths. You can know what you feel, but what the feeling means for you is all your own and is not known to others.

Thought of God as a big powerful Person is fantasy. Some people firmly believe God as a big powerful Person is true. I'd say that such believers lack creative imagination. If you have creative imagination you will be certain of nothing. Instead you can believe some idea is probably true, probably false, deliberate lie, working hypothesis, entertaining fantasy, evil fantasy, ethical, useful, etc. etc.
You mentioned " evolution"; the proper name is evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is a human idea with great power to explain.Evolution means simply change, and natural selection is how species change (evolve) and adapt to their environments.

Idolatry is the worship of a human idea as if it's 100% good and true. It's so arrogant for any person to claim any idea is absolutely true!

What I've been explaining to you is not absolutely true. But it's more true than the idea of someone who has not learned how be sceptical.

[EricPH]

In other words, to what extent is the question of the existence of God a pure question of logic,

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Logic says either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the flip of a coin.

Whatever we think happened, we can't change history.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic says either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the flip of a coin.

IME, binary thinking like this is almost always mistaken, and a mistake. You have — unknowingly, I assume — ignored other possibilities, perhaps many of them?

[LuckyR]

Logic says either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the flip of a coin.

IME, binary thinking like this is almost always mistaken, and a mistake. You have — unknowingly, I assume — ignored other possibilities, perhaps many of them?

Eric's claim entirely ignores numerous religious belief systems (especially polytheistic religions, which outnumber monotheistic religions in number). Thus is clearly erroneous on its face.

[Sy Borg]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

[Stoppelmann]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

First of all, who do you mean by Christians? Considering the diversity that occurred after the Reformation, I have difficulty in identifying a single group as Christian.

Your question is easy to answer, and I agree. Many Christians have taken on the materialist view and therefore God has become a “thing” rather than the mystery behind our existence. As a mystery God is an experienced reality, albeit as ineffable as Tao, and ungraspable as the wind. The many allegories in the Bible, making extensive use of symbolism, display this and yet these stories are taken by some at face value. The biblical “God inside you” makes the awareness of this a subjective experience, agreed, but it is no less real for the person experiencing it, rather like some people can become enthralled with music, poetry, art, sceneries, funfairs or whatever you want, and others who do not share this can only despair at their inaccessible reverence.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

Ironic is also that, despite the depravity that is far too widespread among human beings to be ignored, you chose the narrow-mindedness of minorities to condemn the diverse majority of Christians. On the other hand, there are numerous women who are unable to have children who may find it a crime to terminate a pregnancy, because they see life as too precious to be terminated just because it interrupts a person’s plans.

[Pattern-chaser]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

Well, if God does have Objective existence — which is possible, but probably un-proveable — that would be different. But the current situation is that there is no evidence at all on which to base any analysis, or conclusion(s). That some believers have problems accepting this is ... human, but not really ideal, as you observe.

[Belindi]

God is clearly a subjective phenomenon, not an objective one. The real question is why Christians would have a problem with that.

After all, Christians place major emphasis on the importance of human consciousness. This reverence for human consciousness is so intense that theologians like George Pell claimed that abortion was far worse than child molestation. That is, he believed that ending even a potential human mind, let alone an actualised one, is worse than the lifetime psychological torment, sometimes ending in suicide, experienced by his friends' victims (and, likely, his own victims, despite his eventual acquittal on technicalities).

Like the most hard-line positivists, most Christians are too materialistic to think of the subjective domain as mattering beyond the personal, in the greater scheme of things. To them, God can only be relevant or important if it physically exists. To them, the idea that God is purely subjective is a denial of its existence.

The situation is richly ironic.

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

[EricPH]

Logic says either there is a God who has the knowledge and power to create everything, or there is no God. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the flip of a coin.

IME, binary thinking like this is almost always mistaken, and a mistake. You have — unknowingly, I assume — ignored other possibilities, perhaps many of them?

The thread asks, 'how do I understand the idea of God'? And I replied as above.

My understanding of 'One God' is that we are all created and loved by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean, caring for each other despite all our differences.

The problem with too many gods, means we are separated from each other. This is not an option I can sign up to.

[EricPH]

It's problem that Christians have a problem with that. It's hopeless trying to explain to indoctrinated Christian adults that Christian doctrine is interfused with justification of worldly power and the mental mind set that allows people to be controlled by established authority.

Jesus was against worldly power. He came to serve others, rather than to be served. Should you judge Christianity by the people who observe the teachings of Jesus. Or do you judge the morality of Christianity by the Christians who break the rules?

[Bahman]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God.He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

To me, God is the creator. Plain and simple. People have all different sorts of concepts of God such as the highest imaginable thing, etc. trying to make an argument for His existence but at the end of the day, they have to show the concept of God that they accepted and argue in His favor is in fact the creator.