Is "God" a Cogent Concept?

[muichimotsu]

Following up on a topic that, in hindsight, could also just expand into 3 topics on their own about apologetics, I thought it'd be helpful to address what is probably one of my major reasons for not really possessing spiritual beliefs, particularly in God, though this criticism can apply to other supernatural concepts, like magic, the afterlife, etc.

Is there a way monotheists, or Christians in particular, can argue that the idea of a single deity is more commonsense than multiple deities, or impersonal forces that permeate the universe and would serve the same function in being the origin of the universe, morality, etc? And how can they reasonably claim their concept of God is an accurate one that all people should believe in and contrast to anything else by claiming demons are deceiving you or the like (which seems awfully convenient to explain away other interpretations, among other tactics)

At best, I recall reading Augustine pointing out some problems that could come up in regards to polytheism in contrast to monotheism, but the problem remains of the "God" concept being arguably circular, irreducible and self referential by nature, which is a particular issue for theology in enumerating God's traits that can be explained in a way that's not subject to more debates (omnipotent has been thrown out, contrasted with maximally powerful, because otherwise God is able to do things that are logically contradictory, and a similar variation with omniscience) or relying on tradition rather than something more self evident.

Natural theology comes up against the same problems, even if we're talking an incorporation of apophatic and cataphatic theology, and that's attempting to invoke a deity that's more compliant with reason

For the simplest manner I can think of to inquire on the problem: in terms of language, why are the solutions to explaining what "God" is sufficient when we wouldn't find them so for things that are also supposed to have great importance (like science or even morality)?

 

[Sabertooth]

Is "God" a Cogent Concept?

No. He's a Person.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Wow. I'd love to talk to you...but I fear I may not be able to rise to the occasion.

Doesn't being a Buddhist encompass spiritual beliefs?
I've always believed it did.

As to one God....
There is a great problem in Christianity which does include the fact that God is omnipotent and all-good. So how does evil play into this?

Dualism...the belief that there are at least two gods...a good god and an evil god...has come to mind to many from the beginning, but it's considered heresy because the bible teaches there is only one God.
Deuteronomy 6:4
HEAR O ISRAEL, THE LORD IS OUR GOD...THE LORD IS ONE.

So...if God is all-good and all-powerful HOW does evil exist?
Is He not all-good or is He not all-powerful.

And why do you believe He is not all-powerful?
What religion teaches this?

Also, Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah or the Christ or God (take your pick) and HE stated that there is only one true God. Hence, our belief in one God.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No. He's a Person.

God is not a person...
God is spirit.

Jesus, when on earth, was a person.

 

[muichimotsu]

No. He's a Person.

A person entails a cogent entity that we can remotely verify and demonstrate you're interacting with. Even the exchanges between us on this forum are more compelling to be between 2 people rather than alleged interactions with a deity that anyone can claim. How is my Wiccan friend's notion of a Goddess as a person they convene with less cogent than your God you pray to and find salvation in?

 

[muichimotsu]

God is not a person...
God is spirit.

Jesus, when on earth, was a person.

And now we're getting into the problems of cogency, you can't even agree on the terms: spirit, person, concept. All could be equally valid given that concept applies to an idea and person can be defined in terms of a spiritual quality rather than a material quality that humans have.

 

[muichimotsu]

Doesn't being a Buddhist encompass spiritual beliefs?
I've always believed it did.

You'd be wrong, Buddhism even by many scholarly positions, is arguably more a philosophy in the vein of Confucianism, not requiring the belief in rebirth as a reality, but as much a metaphor in the same vein as notions of illustrating change through metaphors like a burning candle (one of the ones I recall off the top of my head).

There are veins of Buddhism that are much more spiritual, but it's not remotely universal to hold such things anymore than all Christians necessarily must believe in a Triune God, even if that's orthodoxy in general discussions historically

As to one God....
There is a great problem in Christianity which does include the fact that God is omnipotent and all-good. So how does evil play into this?

Dualism...the belief that there are at least two gods...a good god and an evil god...has come to mind to many from the beginning, but it's considered heresy because the bible teaches there is only one God.
Deuteronomy 6:4
HEAR O ISRAEL, THE LORD IS OUR GOD...THE LORD IS ONE.

So...if God is all-good and all-powerful HOW does evil exist?
Is He not all-good or is He not all-powerful.

Ditheism doesn't have to teach that the 2 Gods are entirely separate, though that would be more common, such as Zoroastrianism, iirc. The 2 deities could be complementary, like Wicca's Lady and Lord (I think I have that right, been a while)

And why do you believe He is not all-powerful?
What religion teaches this?

I don't posit the belief in a God is rooted in evidence or rationality, thus why I'm bringing into question God's cogency as a concept in the first place. All-powerful is, as I pointed out, not used by thinkers who are at least more intellectually honest in addressing God's ontology, because all powerful entails logical contradictions by the extent of what one could do with omnipotence.

Also, Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah or the Christ or God (take your pick) and HE stated that there is only one true God. Hence, our belief in one God.

That's circular reasoning: Muslims believe an angel, Gabriel, conveyed the Quran's message to Muhammad, which conveyed a belief in one God as well, so why is your position any different?

 

[GodsGrace101]

And now we're getting into the problems of cogency, you can't even agree on the terms: spirit, person, concept. All could be equally valid given that concept applies to an idea and person can be defined in terms of a spiritual quality rather than a material quality that humans have.

You don't believe in God because someone, or everyone has the correct term for Him.

Christians don't even agree on doctrinal issues...does this mean there is no God?
or just that it's difficult to understand God except for what little He has revealed to us?

The other member said God is a person. He was thinking of Jesus....Jesus was a person.

God Almighty, creator of the universe, cannot be a person...He is spirit and this is accepted theology -- not all express it properly.

What do you mean by cogent concept anyway?
A concept that is acceptable to our intelligence?

All the populations of the earth have believed in God,,,a creator.
God has always revealed Himself to whoever is willing to listen.
Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...

 

[createdtoworship]

Following up on a topic that, in hindsight, could also just expand into 3 topics on their own about apologetics, I thought it'd be helpful to address what is probably one of my major reasons for not really possessing spiritual beliefs, particularly in God, though this criticism can apply to other supernatural concepts, like magic, the afterlife, etc.

Is there a way monotheists, or Christians in particular, can argue that the idea of a single deity is more commonsense than multiple deities, or impersonal forces that permeate the universe and would serve the same function in being the origin of the universe, morality, etc? And how can they reasonably claim their concept of God is an accurate one that all people should believe in and contrast to anything else by claiming demons are deceiving you or the like (which seems awfully convenient to explain away other interpretations, among other tactics)

At best, I recall reading Augustine pointing out some problems that could come up in regards to polytheism in contrast to monotheism, but the problem remains of the "God" concept being arguably circular, irreducible and self referential by nature, which is a particular issue for theology in enumerating God's traits that can be explained in a way that's not subject to more debates (omnipotent has been thrown out, contrasted with maximally powerful, because otherwise God is able to do things that are logically contradictory, and a similar variation with omniscience) or relying on tradition rather than something more self evident.

Natural theology comes up against the same problems, even if we're talking an incorporation of apophatic and cataphatic theology, and that's attempting to invoke a deity that's more compliant with reason

For the simplest manner I can think of to inquire on the problem: in terms of language, why are the solutions to explaining what "God" is sufficient when we wouldn't find them so for things that are also supposed to have great importance (like science or even morality)?

polytheism does not work logically. The actual definition of God is that he is all knowing, all powerful, and everyhwere at once. you cannot have two all powerful beings, or two beings that exist in the same atom for example.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You'd be wrong, Buddhism even by many scholarly positions, is arguably more a philosophy in the vein of Confucianism, not requiring the belief in rebirth as a reality, but as much a metaphor in the same vein as notions of illustrating change through metaphors like a burning candle (one of the ones I recall off the top of my head).

There are veins of Buddhism that are much more spiritual, but it's not remotely universal to hold such things anymore than all Christians necessarily must believe in a Triune God, even if that's orthodoxy in general discussions historically

Actually, to be a Christian one really must believe in the Trinity...but so many things are accepted these days which makes it difficult to have a definition of a Christian anymore. Someone could not believe in the Trinity...but what to call him??

Jesus said that to be saved one must be born from above. Born of the spirit.
John 3:3,5 Don't you think that someone interested in a philosophy that is close to Godly concepts is close to God?

Ditheism doesn't have to teach that the 2 Gods are entirely separate, though that would be more common, such as Zoroastrianism, iirc. The 2 deities could be complementary, like Wicca's Lady and Lord (I think I have that right, been a while)

OK. Now we're moving away from God and getting into mythology..not only do I know nothing about it....but, IMHO, it has nothing to do with the REAL God...by God I mean the God that created everything and is represented in Romans 1....which I think I posted.

I don't posit the belief in a God is rooted in evidence or rationality, thus why I'm bringing into question God's cogency as a concept in the first place. All-powerful is, as I pointed out, not used by thinkers who are at least more intellectually honest in addressing God's ontology, because all powerful entails logical contradictions by the extent of what one could do with omnipotence.

There is no scientific proof for God, but I do believe our faith must be a rational faith. How could I believe something that is not rational to my mind?
Again: What is God's cogency? Help me out here. I don't really know what you mean. I attribute everything to God - except evil.

What contradictions does all-powerful cause?
Are you agreeing with me that if God were omnipotent He could erase evil from our world?

My faith is based on rational.
If I couldn't make sense of it,,,I couldn't believe it.

That's circular reasoning: Muslims believe an angel, Gabriel, conveyed the Quran's message to Muhammad, which conveyed a belief in one God as well, so why is your position any different?

Muhammad stated there is one true God.
Do Muslims worship God or Muhammad?
Did his writings represent that one true God?
Are infidels to be killed?
Does God care about our hygienic habits?
Does He require that we bow down to Him 5 times per day?
Do they love God in heart or in actions with no love?
(I'm not referring to all Muslims but those that worship by rote. )

The N.T. teaches that Jesus is the last revelation that God will send.
No words are to be added to the N.T.
Revelation 22:18
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

Also, Muhammad did not claim to be God...
Jesus did...so here's the big difference:
In Islam Jesus is just a prophet.
If Jesus was a prophet, He was a crazy one.
He is either crazy...or He was really the awaited Messiah.

 

[GodsGrace101]

polytheism does not work logically. The actual definition of God is that he is all knowing, all powerful, and everyhwere at once. you cannot have two all powerful beings, or two beings that exist in the same atom for example.

Why not?

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't believe in God because someone, or everyone has the correct term for Him.

I don't believe in God as a cogent concept from the start, I would have to agree on a cogent concept in order to actually not believe in it, in the same vein as I'd need a solid cogent concept of magic to meaningfully reject it rather than finding the concept vague enough to apply to anything

Christians don't even agree on doctrinal issues...does this mean there is no God?
or just that it's difficult to understand God except for what little He has revealed to us?

Christians being unable to agree on doctrinal issues suggests a problem of divine hiddenness, which also brings up questions of the coherency of supposed revelations in the first place, which is a separate issue. I never said that God didn't exist, first off, and even if I remotely said that, it wouldn't be based on the inability of one religion to properly convey God rather than considering that any monotheistic religion is generally found wanting unless you base your conclusions on credulity

The other member said God is a person. He was thinking of Jesus....Jesus was a person.

God Almighty, creator of the universe, cannot be a person...He is spirit and this is accepted theology -- not all express it properly.

God and Jesus can both be persons if we're talking the Trinitarian doctrine as I've heard it nuanced between God as a being and God as a person, the being of God is the essence, the person is existence, variation of sorts

What do you mean by cogent concept anyway?
A concept that is acceptable to our intelligence?

An intelligible and consistent concept, rather than something that just seems reasonable, but with critical examination, falls apart.

All the populations of the earth have believed in God,,,a creator.
God has always revealed Himself to whoever is willing to listen.
Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...

And even if every person believed in a god concept, that doesn't grant any credence to it, you don't appear to be aware of the fallacious argument from popularity. People can believe in other concepts throughout history commonly, I don't think you're going to take those supernatural claims as true based on that, so I think you're dealing in special pleading or are just unaware of the faulty reasoning you're using

Also, you're conveniently sidestepping any attempt of real demonstration and just say you "have to seek God", but you're already assuming, mistakenly, that the idea itself is cogent, when God can be defined in a multiplicity of notions

 

[muichimotsu]

Actually, to be a Christian one really must believe in the Trinity...but so many things are accepted these days which makes it difficult to have a definition of a Christian anymore. Someone could not believe in the Trinity...but what to call him??

To be a Christian in the orthodox sense of what you think is proper, perhaps, but not Christian in the broadest notion of valuing Christ as a soteriological figure of importance, which doesn't require the Trinitarian view except to be "mainstream"

You'd call them a non-Trinitarian, it's not complicated, except in terms of the explanations if you're assuming Trinitarianism is just right: Unitarians, Binitarians, Modalists, etc.

Jesus said that to be saved one must be born from above. Born of the spirit.
John 3:3,5 Don't you think that someone interested in a philosophy that is close to Godly concepts is close to God?

Only if you conflate the idea of God with the reality therein, but that's silly

OK. Now we're moving away from God and getting into mythology..not only do I know nothing about it....but, IMHO, it has nothing to do with the REAL God...by God I mean the God that created everything and is represented in Romans 1....which I think I posted.

I can just as easily claim your god is mythology and I'd have the same basis you do, in part, for regarding the Christian God as mythological as you do for the Greek pantheon or the like

There is no scientific proof for God, but I do believe our faith must be a rational faith. How could I believe something that is not rational to my mind?
Again: What is God's cogency? Help me out here. I don't really know what you mean. I attribute everything to God - except evil.

Rational in the sense of personally credible is not what I mean: the notion is rational as being based on a consistent standard that isn't subject to someone's whims

God cannot be everything and not also be evil, even if evil is merely a privation, it's still something in that we can assess it. Also, your attribution of things to God is not sufficient to conclude that it is the case for God regarding those qualities, it's your belief and that's all we seem to have, apart from interpretation of sacred texts.

God's cogency is intelligibility as a word that isn't myriad in definitions without a reasonable basis (some words have varying meanings by context). God can be defined as the universe, as a deity with significant power or the monotheistic notion, among other concepts you can find.

What contradictions does all-powerful cause?
Are you agreeing with me that if God were omnipotent He could erase evil from our world?

The logical contradictions are based in God being able to make things that are logically contradictory the case, like God could make a square circle, even though that's impossible, when you attribute all powerful as a quality, meaning it can do anything, unless you therefore qualify that it has to conform to logic, but that tends to limit God, making it less than all powerful anyway.

If God were omnipotent, it wouldn't need to do anything, much less create a world, because it would be self sufficient as well

My faith is based on rational.
If I couldn't make sense of it,,,I couldn't believe it.

Again, you being able to make sense of something does not make it true, it has to be verified further than that and not just within a group that already shares your opinions.

Muhammad stated there is one true God.
Do Muslims worship God or Muhammad?
Did his writings represent that one true God?
Are infidels to be killed?
Does God care about our hygienic habits?
Does He require that we bow down to Him 5 times per day?
Do they love God in heart or in actions with no love?
(I'm not referring to all Muslims but those that worship by rote. )

The N.T. teaches that Jesus is the last revelation that God will send.
No words are to be added to the N.T.
Revelation 22:18
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

Also, Muhammad did not claim to be God...
Jesus did...so here's the big difference:
In Islam Jesus is just a prophet.
If Jesus was a prophet, He was a crazy one.
He is either crazy...or He was really the awaited Messiah

You can gish gallop (also known as the shotgun fallacy), that doesn't add credence to your position that Islam is wrong, especially because you seem to have a skewed understanding in the first place, including how Muslims regard prophets, or more specifically messengers, because there is a distinction

 

[LaSorcia]

Is there a way monotheists, or Christians in particular, can argue that the idea of a single deity is more commonsense than multiple deities,

Even in the Christian 'monotheon', God is not solitary. There are angels, 'living creatures', Christ, His Mother, the Holy Spirit, etc. So, it's not one isolated being somewhere up there in the universe.

 

[muichimotsu]

polytheism does not work logically. The actual definition of God is that he is all knowing, all powerful, and everyhwere at once. you cannot have two all powerful beings, or two beings that exist in the same atom for example.

The monotheistic definition of God, maybe, but even that's debatable, because both all knowing and all powerful create various contradictions you can look into from critics even within Christianity, which is why I've pointed out that the language has changed to different terms, though I admit I forget what the alternative to all knowing is, but it's meant to avoid logical contradictions.

I don't think ditheism is claiming the same definition for a God, there would necessarily be a complementary nature to each of them

 

[muichimotsu]

Even in the Christian 'monotheon', God is not solitary. There are angels, 'living creatures', Christ, His Mother, the Holy Spirit, etc. So, it's not one isolated being somewhere up there in the universe.

I never described it as isolated, though I could in the sense that nothing is meant to be comparable to it, only in analogy or such, God supposedly the absolute unique entity.

And even if there was some grouping of supernatural entities, they're all still generally far below God, and the most you have in terms of "sharing", is the Trinity, which is bafflingly incoherent in itself

 

[createdtoworship]

The monotheistic definition of God, maybe, but even that's debatable, because both all knowing and all powerful create various contradictions you can look into from critics even within Christianity, which is why I've pointed out that the language has changed to different terms, though I admit I forget what the alternative to all knowing is, but it's meant to avoid logical contradictions.

I don't think ditheism is claiming the same definition for a God, there would necessarily be a complementary nature to each of them

well I have studied this twenty five years, debating skeptics for 20 of those years, and I have never encountered a contradiction. So by all mean please validate this. And if you cannot then the definitions of God stand, and your point fails.

 

[muichimotsu]

well I have studied this twenty five years, debating skeptics for 20 of those years, and I have never encountered a contradiction. So by all mean please validate this. And if you cannot then the definitions of God stand, and your point fails.

You not concluding it's a contradiction is not the same as people being able to argue that point, you're not being intellectually honest if you're just going to sidestep and say there are no contradictions based on a skewed idea of what a contradiction is. An unwillingness to consider contradictions seems disingenuous to an actual discussion, rather you exercising massive confirmation bias towards God

The definition of God doesn't stand on its own, it stands on credulous people taking it seriously and holding it up on a pedestal, rather than applying critical thought to the term they apply in language and considering that maybe it isn't as cogent as they think, based on "reason" twisted by faith

 

[createdtoworship]

You not concluding it's a contradiction is not the same as people being able to argue that point, you're not being intellectually honest if you're just going to sidestep and say there are no contradictions based on a skewed idea of what a contradiction is.

The definition of God doesn't stand on its own, it stands on credulous people taking it seriously and holding it up on a pedestal, rather than applying critical thought to the term they apply in language and considering that maybe it isn't as cogent as they think, based on "reason" twisted by faith

no, no, no sir you don't get to say there is a contradiction yet never say what the contradiction is. you must lay out your argument for why there is contradiction. 90 percent of people who say their is a contradiction in the bible for example, can't actually declare what verse the contradiction is in. they just heard it. Well just hearing it from other people is what is called in debates, "hearsay." It's not proof.

 

[LaSorcia]

And even if there was some grouping of supernatural entities, they're all still generally far below God, and the most you have in terms of "sharing", is the Trinity, which is bafflingly incoherent in itself

There being some sort of hierarchy isn't the point. It's that there is continual, everlasting bond of love.