Philosophy Now Forum

By logically exist - i am inferring also to how 'it' - its ability for reason, came into existence.

I feel i should define a "God" entity simply as one that CAN judge wo\man for continued existence upon planet earth - reincarnation.

Can we as theists at least agree - the single attribute - it CAN.

GOD:-
1. A floating man in space that states "Let there be light."
2. An entity that is 'beyond' time and space and creates our universe. - perhaps from a multiverse - our universe being created from another.
3. An entity that is created by intelligent species - even by man aeons ago - to deal and judge with the onset of entropy.
4. An entity that formed its own intelligence from the chaos of the early universe and coerced matter to form Earth and us.

If anyone has a non sarcastic and reasonably intelligent addition to the suggested forms of God - i will add.

Theists please indicate which of the four you can identify with - if you have none of the above - then state your single\two line statement of your God.

attofishpi wrote:I feel i should define a "God" entity simply as one that CAN judge wo\man for continued existence upon planet earth - reincarnation.

Can we as theists at least agree - the single attribute - it CAN.

GOD:-
1. A floating man in space that states "Let there be light."
2. An entity that is 'beyond' time and space and creates our universe. - perhaps from a multiverse - our universe being created from another.
3. An entity that is created by intelligent species - even by man aeons ago - to deal and judge with the onset of entropy.
4. An entity that formed its own intelligence from the chaos of the early universe and coerced matter to form Earth and us.

If anyone has a non sarcastic and reasonably intelligent addition to the suggested forms of God - i will add.

Theists please indicate which of the four you can identify with - if you have none of the above - then state your single\two line statement of your God.

Looks like turtles all the way down to me.

Given modern physics, it is not at all difficult conceiving of a God that could logically exist. Atheists, of course, will vehemently deny the possibility and throw a temper tantrum at the mere suggestion that there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that make the idea of God a logical possibility.

From Philosophy Now magazine: Chaos & An Unpredictable Tomorrow:

Finally, what are we to make of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? According to the Copenhagen interpretation, our very choice of which atomic behavior to observe determines what exists. As Pascual Jordan, one of the founders of quantum theory, succinctly puts it, “Observations not only disturb what is measured, they produce it.” On this interpretation, a clear boundary does not seem to exist between observers and the observed, between consciousness and the atomic phenomena measured. This conclusion bothered Einstein more than even the random behavior of atoms, because it calls into question the existence of a physical reality apart from the observer. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’.”

All of this raises a most interesting question: Do we need to rethink our notions not only of the future, but of who we are? To the extent that we identify with our consciousness, this seems to mean that each of us is more intimately connected with the world than we ordinarily imagine. But like other complex dynamic systems, what we are is unbounded – even if we can be distinguished from other things for many purposes, such as death, taxes, and marriage. Whether we see our connection to the universe as a whole as metaphysically spooky depends on whether (as in the tale of the blind monks) we characterize the elephant by feeling its individual parts; or instead we see that the parts have arisen in relationship to each other and to the greater environment as a whole, and so can identify the whole thing.

I couldn't have said it any better (emphasis mine).

A God who is both man and God at once.

An impersonal God. I would add that the impersonal God would be so detached from the functioning of the world that though He can judge, He would absolutely not under any circumstances which would effectively mean that He cannot judge.

An interventionist God or Gods. This is because the impersonal God seems more or less the same entity in most religions. ( I haven't read about all of them so I cannot say for sure). However there are a multitude of interventionist Gods.

A God that cannot be known.

sthitapragya wrote:A God who is both man and God at once.

An impersonal God. I would add that the impersonal God would be so detached from the functioning of the world that though He can judge, He would absolutely not under any circumstances which would effectively mean that He cannot judge.

An interventionist God or Gods. This is because the impersonal God seems more or less the same entity in most religions. ( I haven't read about all of them so I cannot say for sure). However there are a multitude of interventionist Gods.

A God that cannot be known.

So you think all the above are the forms in which a God (with the ability of reincarnation) could logically exist?

Atto, me old mucker, any of your characterisations are logically possible. The point about logic is that it is only a set of rules that determines whether an argument is valid. So for instance:
'All gleaks are frupulent.
Frazmitz is a gleak.
Therefore, Frazmitz is frupulent.'
is a valid argument.
Personally, I have no trouble accepting that there may be something that equates to 'god'. I just happen not to believe it.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:A God who is both man and God at once.

An impersonal God. I would add that the impersonal God would be so detached from the functioning of the world that though He can judge, He would absolutely not under any circumstances which would effectively mean that He cannot judge.

An interventionist God or Gods. This is because the impersonal God seems more or less the same entity in most religions. ( I haven't read about all of them so I cannot say for sure). However there are a multitude of interventionist Gods.

A God that cannot be known.

So you think all the above are the forms in which a God (with the ability of reincarnation) could logically exist?

Just thought I would add to the list.

Uwot is right: "The point about logic is that it is only a set of rules that determines whether an argument is valid." The logic of a proposition is not proof of its veracity. Quantum mechanics, for example, has many interpretations, all of which are logically consistent and each with its own adherents.

The monks who study an elephant as consisting of isolated parts are more likely to deny God or think in terms of many gods than those whose insight leads them to believe that the parts have arisen in relationship to each other and to the greater environment as a whole. The question, then, is not what interpretation is the right one, but what logical structure is most consistent and of greatest value in relation to personal experience.

It's interesting to see just how unfocused atheist minds are. Logic leads them to the threshold of new and unexplored regions of thought, but fear of being wrong or looking foolish in the eyes of their peers prevents them from making the leap from the seen to the unseen.

I pity them.

Reflex wrote:It's interesting to see just how unfocused atheist minds are.

Can you give an example? Given that I have explicitly stated that I am an atheist, I take it that I am included. What have I said that makes you think my mind is unfocused?

Reflex wrote:Logic leads them to the threshold of new and unexplored regions of thought...

Well, just to remind you:

In your last post you wrote:Uwot is right: "The point about logic is that it is only a set of rules that determines whether an argument is valid."

Reflex wrote:...but fear of being wrong or looking foolish in the eyes of their peers prevents them from making the leap from the seen to the unseen.

I have no fear of being wrong and am completely indifferent to looking foolish; you are just making things up.

Reflex wrote:I pity them.

Well, thank you for your solicitude, but it really isn't necessary.

attofishpi ..dear dog!

Instead of making up all kinds of weird arguments, you should instead present solid proof. Try study "Prophecy of the Last Pope" from St Malachy.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:It's interesting to see just how unfocused atheist minds are.

Can you give an example? Given that I have explicitly stated that I am an atheist, I take it that I am included. What have I said that makes you think my mind is unfocused?

Reflex wrote:Logic leads them to the threshold of new and unexplored regions of thought...

Well, just to remind you:

In your last post you wrote:Uwot is right: "The point about logic is that it is only a set of rules that determines whether an argument is valid."

Reflex wrote:...but fear of being wrong or looking foolish in the eyes of their peers prevents them from making the leap from the seen to the unseen.

I have no fear of being wrong and am completely indifferent to looking foolish; you are just making things up.

Reflex wrote:I pity them.

Well, thank you for your solicitude, but it really isn't necessary.

Have you ever made a leap from the observable known to the logical but invisible unknown? Or strayed outside a preconceived linear understanding of things? Take, for example, the excerpt from the Philisophy Now article. What, if anything, do you take from it? Any extrapolations?

In any event, in this instance, you do seem to be the kind of atheist other atheists imagine themselves to be. (That's a compliment.)

The problem is this: an abstraction does not exist until it is triggered by the perception of something that needs to be defined. God-concepts are such abstractions and range from the anthropomorphic to the profoundly Mysterious. The issue, then, is not one of belief, but of perception. Generally, atheists talk only about the former because the latter implies a lack of something in their lives. They are like colorblind individuals who deny the experiencing of color and try explain away the rich inner lives of others.

I feel sorry for them, but the arrogance is mind-boggling.

Reflex wrote:Have you ever made a leap from the observable known to the logical but invisible unknown?

Frequently. My current favourite piece of personal fruitloopery is that gravity is the result of refraction. I am so certain of it that I am seriously considering doing a degree in physics, the moment I finish my MSc in the history and philosophy of science.

Reflex wrote:Or strayed outside a preconceived linear understanding of things?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, or why you should ask. What have I said that makes this a pertinent question?

Reflex wrote:Take, for example, the excerpt from the Philisophy Now article. What, if anything, do you take from it? Any extrapolations?

Philosophy Now articles eh? Have you seen this one? https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches I wrote that. Anyway: is the universe a trunk, a tail, some ears and other bits and bobs; or is it an elephant? I really don't know. The evidence suggests that the universe is made of some sort of stuff that can be compressed into a volume so small that it has no components and that everything that exists is a part of this single extraordinary object. But then you have to wonder where this came from and whether in fact what looks like the inflation and expansion of a single 'particle', is really and wave passing through an eternal quantum field. Or something completely different.
As for chaos theory generally; I think the article puts it quite well:

Prof Peter Saltzstein wrote:Compare the situation to a number line. Imagine taking even the sharpest of probes and using it to pinpoint a place on the line. Since a number line is continuous, with there being no place on the line that is not further divisible into increasingly fine numbers, the area pinpointed on the number line would reflect the size of the probe not a discrete point.

It is impossible to know the conditions of any system accurately enough to know exactly what will happen to it.

Reflex wrote:In any event, in this instance, you do seem to be the kind of atheist other atheists imagine themselves to be. (That's a compliment.)

Then I shall take it as one.

Reflex wrote:The problem is this: an abstraction does not exist until it is triggered by the perception of something that needs to be defined. God-concepts are such abstractions and range from the anthropomorphic to the profoundly Mysterious. The issue, then, is not one of belief, but of perception. Generally, atheists talk only about the former because the latter implies a lack of something in their lives. They are like colorblind individuals who deny the experiencing of color and try explain away the rich inner lives of others.

Well, if your analogy is to the point, then us atheists are not denying colour, we genuinely don't see it. As for your rich inner life: enjoy it.

Reflex wrote:I feel sorry for them...

You really needn't, we are quite capable of having rich inner lives ourselves. Life and the universe are miraculous things. If all I get is three score and ten, so be it, but what a trip.

Reflex wrote:...but the arrogance is mind-boggling.

Well, being me hasn't been easy; I've had to work very hard. If I seem arrogant, it's probably because I know what I'm talking about.
So; back to my question. What have I said that makes you think my mind is unfocused?

uwot wrote:Well, if your analogy is to the point, then us atheists are not denying colour, we genuinely don't see it. As for your rich inner life: enjoy it.

So; back to my question. What have I said that makes you think my mind is unfocused?

I think "unreceptive" would have been a better choice of words, or even too focused, like casting a net designed to capture one species of fish.

It is incomprehensible to me that to cannot see what is in front of your face

Reflex wrote:It's interesting to see just how unfocused atheist minds are. Logic leads them to the threshold of new and unexplored regions of thought, but fear of being wrong or looking foolish in the eyes of their peers prevents them from making the leap from the seen to the unseen.

I tend to agree with this.

People fear what other people think of them preferring the status quo. It takes courage and conviction to stand alone,to not follow the postage stamp consensus. People who think outside the box are not afraid to have their idea invalidated. Truth is, those who speak with confidence and commitment do not fear rebuttal in any debate. We learn from each other, we are each holding our own unique piece of the jigsaw puzzle, the point is to complete the bigger picture together not pull the picture apart with our ego wanting to be proved right. No one is right and everyone is right. There is only truth.

One cannot find truth, truth finds us.

Keep up the good work.