Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Reflex]

The statement you criticised appears to be valid. Is it wrong to say, "I won't say an asteroid cannot destroy my house this year, but I don't don't believe that one will."? It is an informal statement of an observer's assessment of approximate probabilities, expressed in English rather than numerically.

Saying he does not exist is saying he cannot exist, but that brings to bear some interesting problems for the atheist; i.e., if you argue that the universe emerged from a state of infinite possibilities, you can't exclude the possibility of God emerging.

Yes, but what are the odds? That is even less likely than a perfectly formed human brain appearing out of nowhere, which is theoretically possible but the probabilities are said to be far more than the number of atoms in the universe over one. [/quote]

The modal ontological argument goes like this:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God couldn't exist is if his existence is impossible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any atheist who says "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

If the argument holds, it would also mean we can't say there's a 50%/50% chance of God existing, or that the odds are 10% or 90%. The only possibilities are 0% or 100%. Either God's existence is impossible (0%) or it's possible and therefore necessary (100%).

Hence, no soft-peddling allowed.

However, if the God-concept is necessary in order for us to grow towards something, practically speaking it doesn't matter.

That is the God concept as an ideal and IMO an intuition and imagining of evolution's potential, a la de Chardin.

Among others, yes. I like to say, "We are gods in embryo." Many theists see this as a valid biblical concept.

[Belinda]

Religion is what people do to add meaning to their lives. If there were no religion or quasi religion like communism or nazism people would obey laws because they had to as when a regime is feared and dictatorial. But people would not be able to say to each other that they behaved in this or that way because it was good or true.Sometimes the religious system is made to be the regime's servant as in Stalinism, or Hitlerism, or Daesh. I watched a TV documentary last night about how nice Buddhism in Burma (Myanmar) is being attacked by fear and hatred of the Muslim minority.

What the concept of God is to religion is the leading definition of reality. I'm a pantheist and so the leading definition for me is that nature is the god or causeless cause of all. The word 'God' is confusing as it has traditionally been regarded in the anthropomorphic sense. So as philosophers we should think about what we mean by 'God' and think more carefully and rationally beyond what what unthinking guys mean by 'God'.

[Lacewing]

if you argue that the universe emerged from a state of infinite possibilities (usually in an effort to explain God away), you can't exclude the possibility of God emerging from the same possibilities without being logically inconsistent.

Why would something distinguishable from all else emerge along with all else?

And from what I've witnessed, consistency of thought is hardly a concern of most skeptics.

Do you think that non-skeptics demonstrate consistency of thought?

However, if the God-concept is necessary in order for us to grow towards something, practically speaking it doesn't matter.

There may be varying concepts in order for us to grow. A God-concept could be very useful for some... and that makes it real to them... they EXPERIENCE it. Other concepts could be experienced by others, which are very real to them. I see no reason why ANY concept we need isn't manifested for our experience. I also see no reason why ANY concept would be a universal experience. That would be like saying that everyone has to have the same dream.

[-1-]

...If they did not believe other people have their own gods, and everyone had the one and the same god, then the writer would not have put "your god" but simply "god".

You very well could be correct. However, I can also read it in the same tone as when my Mother used to say: "Listen to your Mother!" It could be a way of brainwashing/commanding unquestioning respect and obedience. Yes?

Your mother is not the only mother in the world. She is identified for you who the speaker refers to as YOUR mother, which is a unique person, as you have only one mother. ETC.

[Lacewing]

...If they did not believe other people have their own gods, and everyone had the one and the same god, then the writer would not have put "your god" but simply "god".

You very well could be correct. However, I can also read it in the same tone as when my Mother used to say: "Listen to your Mother!" It could be a way of brainwashing/commanding unquestioning respect and obedience. Yes?

Your mother is not the only mother in the world. She is identified for you who the speaker refers to as YOUR mother, which is a unique person, as you have only one mother. ETC.

What?

I was simply pointing out that saying the words "Obey your god" does not mean that the speaker(s) acknowledge that there are more than one.

[uwot]

The modal ontological argument goes like this:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.

Fair enough.

Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.

For this to work, you have to assume some sort of modal realism. David Lewis for example did, basically he asserted that a possible world is as real as the real world. This is essentially the claim made in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, but you have your work cut out to prove it is the case and you cannot claim that an argument is sound when one of the premises is clearly hypothetical.

Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.

This begs the question. You cannot conclude that God exists in all possible worlds without assuming it to be the case. How can you rule out possible worlds in which God doesn't exist?

Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.

Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God couldn't exist is if his existence is impossible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any atheist who says "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.

[Belinda]

The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with gods or
geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the
properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and
whatever their enlarged and numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city and country,
placing it under its mental deity;
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of, and
enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realise or abstract the mental
deities from their objects - thus began priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that all deities reside in the human breast.

William Blake

In The Independent on August 3 1996 the Reverend John Kennedy
wrote about a Hindu friend who had in his sitting-room an image of the god
Ganesh, the one with an elephant's trunk in place of a nose. Since this
particular Hindu friend was an educated scientist, an industrial chemist,
Kennedy asked him if he truly believed in this outlandish deity. "Yes", he
replied, "I accord to Ganesh every divine attribute- except that of existence".

Thanks to the Quaker David Boulton .

[Reflex]

What the concept of God is to religion is the leading definition of reality. I'm a pantheist and so the leading definition for me is that nature is the god or causeless cause of all. The word 'God' is confusing as it has traditionally been regarded in the anthropomorphic sense. So as philosophers we should think about what we mean by 'God' and think more carefully and rationally beyond what what unthinking guys mean by 'God'.

I agree. Many people, especially among non-theists, are too quick to confine the word "God" to a set of predetermined ideas.

if you argue that the universe emerged from a state of infinite possibilities (usually in an effort to explain God away), you can't exclude the possibility of God emerging from the same possibilities without being logically inconsistent.

Why would something distinguishable from all else emerge along with all else?

http://magiceye.com/

And from what I've witnessed, consistency of thought is hardly a concern of most skeptics.

Do you think that non-skeptics demonstrate consistency of thought?

Some do; some don't.

However, if the God-concept is necessary in order for us to grow towards something, practically speaking it doesn't matter.

There may be varying concepts in order for us to grow. A God-concept could be very useful for some... and that makes it real to them... they EXPERIENCE it. Other concepts could be experienced by others, which are very real to them. I see no reason why ANY concept we need isn't manifested for our experience. I also see no reason why ANY concept would be a universal experience. That would be like saying that everyone has to have the same dream.

The point being?

I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.

No, you don't. How is your argument supposed to work, anyway? Possible Worlds

BTW, there's a world of difference between theistic personalism (Plantinga) and classical theism.

[Nick_A]

The question is always if God exists. IMO it cannot be answered simply because God doesn't exist. God IS. Existence is a process while Isness is a state of being. Existence is subject to the laws of time and space while Isness is beyond the limits of time and space. To say that God exists is to say that God is a creature of time and space. The eternal changing process of existence takes place within the eternal unchanging state of being or Isness.

[uwot]

I understand the argument very well

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

How is your argument supposed to work, anyway?

The same way it did the last time you didn't bother to read it:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.

Fair enough.

Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.

For this to work, you have to assume some sort of modal realism. David Lewis for example did, basically he asserted that a possible world is as real as the real world. This is essentially the claim made in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, but you have your work cut out to prove it is the case and you cannot claim that an argument is sound when one of the premises is clearly hypothetical.

Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.

This begs the question. You cannot conclude that God exists in all possible worlds without assuming it to be the case. How can you rule out possible worlds in which God doesn't exist?

Possible Worlds.

You wouldn't be flapping this article at me if you had actually read it. I defy you to find anything in it that refutes what I have written.

BTW, there's a world of difference between theistic personalism (Plantinga) and classical theism.

I dare say. So what are the differences that are pertinent to the present context?

[-1-]

The question is always if God exists. IMO it cannot be answered simply because God doesn't exist. God IS. Existence is a process while Isness is a state of being. Existence is subject to the laws of time and space while Isness is beyond the limits of time and space. To say that God exists is to say that God is a creature of time and space. The eternal changing process of existence takes place within the eternal unchanging state of being or Isness.

There are a number of improper assumptions in this text.

Existence does not necessarily mean a changing issing. Existence can be the existence of a thing that does not change.

Your primary premise to say existence requires change lays on your arbitrary assumption process being one of the functions of existence. That is also an improper, inappropriate assumption.

Your entire text there is futile. It gives meanings or attributes to meanings of words that are not accepted by the consensus.

You are trying to bend the language, and that is fine, as long as someone catches you in doing so and rubs your nose in it, Nick_A.

Also; who says god is but god does not exist? You. Your god. If it's your god, you can do whatever you like with it, you can insist that it is and it does not exist, but don't assume that it's the same god for everyone else and a valid god for everyone else.

If you want to be a maverick and ride it out alone, fine, but please do not give the AIR that you are talking about everyone's god, as you are indeed only talking about the very one god that only you, and you alone, believe is. A one-worshipper god.

[-1-]

The question is always if God exists.

That is not the question. Not the question at all. The question is right in front of you, and you did not understand it.

You proved your absolute inferiority of comprehending the English language.

Case closed. I cracked the code. Nick_A does not understand English.

Enough said.

[-1-]

The question is always if God exists.

I have become all of a sudden very sad for you, Nick. This is not a sentimentality, not a sarcastic maneuver. I actually fell sad for your condition.

I assume the following, and if you refute it, maybe it will help me feel not so sad for you.

I imagine you sitting at home, or on a park bench, or are lying in a hospital bed, or whatever, contemplating: Is there a god.

Because you yourself don't know if god exists. You believe in it, or maybe not even that. You wish it were true god existed. You wish it with all your might. You want god to exist, desperately, for some psychological reason or reasons, the nature of which I won't even guess. But this is your utmost wish and desire.

So in your yearning, in your longing for some assurance, you take the stance of assuming god exist, and you sit on a park bench, or at home, or lie in a bed, and think to yourself: Does god exist.

This is the question. This is always the question for you, and it drives you into thought, and it drives you into madness.

The only question that is important to you, for you.

The question which is always the question.

"The question is always if God exists."

[-1-]

double post.

[-1-]

You very well could be correct. However, I can also read it in the same tone as when my Mother used to say: "Listen to your Mother!" It could be a way of brainwashing/commanding unquestioning respect and obedience. Yes?

Your mother is not the only mother in the world. She is identified for you who the speaker refers to as YOUR mother, which is a unique person, as you have only one mother. ETC.

What?

I was simply pointing out that saying the words "Obey your god" does not mean that the speaker(s) acknowledge that there are more than one.

And that's exactly what I responded to. I understood your objection, and tried to show you that it is not a valid objection.

Then you say, literally, "What?" and you repeat your objection.

That phase has passed. I gave you the reason why I don't accept your objection, why it is invalid. You can argue against that with new arguments, but simply repeating older statements that had been refuted already is futile, redundant, and only shows that you are lost in this argument.

Please sit down, and take a deep breath.

A. You don't have to take everything personally. Philosophical arguments are not out to prove or disprove your worthiness.

B. If you take every opposition to your opinions personally, even when the topic is esoteric and completely removed from your persona, then you have a very tough life.