What is NOT God?

[Eudaimonist]

Nothingness exists

Don't you see a problem with that statement? Nothingness is precisely non-existence.

and is unbounded.

If something doesn't exist, it can't be bounded or unbounded. Those attributes can only apply to entities.

It fits most of the descriptions of God.

It fits the atheist description of God particularly well. At least, if by nothingness you really do mean nothingness.

The problem is we think of it as less or inferior to material objects. The only differnce is that "nothingness" or space is unchanging and eternal. If that isn't God what is?

Space isn't nothingness. Space exists. It is also not clear that space is unchanging or eternal. And the idea of space being God is pretty much heretical on Christian terms, at least. I can imagine a pantheist making such a claim, but not a Christian panentheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

And, were direct observation of this type possible for your God we would not be arguing.

Some might say such things are possible, but since you don't think they are, I guess we have to go with what we have.

 

[variant]

Some might say such things are possible, but since you don't think they are, I guess we have to go with what we have.

You're comparing something I have overwhelming direct evidence of to something I have literally no evidence of, or even a working definition to start.

So, when I say it requires a "search" to verify an invisible incorporable being with no defining characteristics, I am obviously characterizing it correctly.

So, you can say whatever you like. It's a pretty terrible argument.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're comparing something I have overwhelming direct evidence of to something I have literally no evidence of, or even a working definition to start.

I understand you think you've never experienced God. As such, it makes no difference whether I think you have or haven't. The Internet is going to be of no use to us if we have not shared a spiritual experience ... though I might ask, do you think you've had the same experience as those who believe they have experienced God?

But that's not what I meant when I made the comment. It was more something on the order of: What do we have in common?

 

[variant]

I understand you think you've never experienced God. As such, it makes no difference whether I think you have or haven't. The Internet is going to be of no use to us if we have not shared a spiritual experience ... though I might ask, do you think you've had the same experience as those who believe they have experienced God?

You aren't paying attention.

I can't tell you one way or another whether I have ever experienced God, and I do not believe you can either.

God is not distinct nor distinguishable from not God. So, there is only a difference in whether we have been convinced we experience it or not. Now barring some direct experience you have of God himself that I am not privy to, that leaves us with the problem of distinguishing what are and are not signs of Gods existence.

That is the epistemic problem of theism.

References to entities that don't exhibit this problem doesn't resolve the issue.

But that's not what I meant when I made the comment. It was more something on the order of: What do we have in common?

We have plenty in common, one of those things I think is the unresolved epistemic problem of theism.

Theism is one of those ideas that hides from any substantive analysis, my dislike of the concept stems from that.

 

[Resha Caner]

I can't tell you one way or another whether I have ever experienced God, and I do not believe you can either.

I'm not the type to claim someone has not had a certain experience just because I haven't had it myself. Regardless, this is not at all what I was referring to. Two people walk by a park where music is playing, and one says, "I've never really liked rap," to which the other replies, "That's not rap. It's hip hop." They may disagree on the label, but it's fairly easy to confirm they're hearing the same music. And changing the label for the music isn't likely to change whether one likes it or not.

I was asking if you think you've had an experience that a Christian would label as spiritual?

We have plenty in common, one of those things I think is the unresolved epistemic problem of theism.

Hmm. Since I don't see that as a problem, I don't think we share it in common. I was thinking something more like: We can both read the Bible. But it seems you want to be done. OK.

 

[variant]

I'm not the type to claim someone has not had a certain experience just because I haven't had it myself. Regardless, this is not at all what I was referring to.

I am the type to be suspicious of claims of special knowledge, especially if it accompanies some human motivation.

God being indistinguishable from not God, and revelation being fairly indistinguishable from making stuff up (that last sort of behavior being ubiquitous among my human fellows).

Two people walk by a park where music is playing, and one says, "I've never really liked rap," to which the other replies, "That's not rap. It's hip hop." They may disagree on the label, but it's fairly easy to confirm they're hearing the same music. And changing the label for the music isn't likely to change whether one likes it or not.

We aren't having labeling issues but a core metaphysical disagreement. You assert a personal being at the core of existence that you can barely speak about. It's a bit different than labeling my food spicy or hot.

I was asking if you think you've had an experience that a Christian would label as spiritual?

I've had many. When I was a child trying to convince myself that God existed spiritual experiences abounded.

Hmm. Since I don't see that as a problem, I don't think we share it in common. I was thinking something more like: We can both read the Bible. But it seems you want to be done. OK.

It's a problem whether you want to see it as one or not.

As I said, your type of thinker hides from the type of substantiative analysis that could ever show them to be incorrect in any way shape or form.

That's how we can get into an argument about indefinite beings in the first place.

 

[Ana the Ist]

By advocating for the Big Bang, you tacitly admit to a cause (though there may be those who think they can explain the causeless). What I was trying to say is that some may be trying to get you to concede the cause must be a living agent.

All you have to do is imagine a lifeless agent (which is pretty easy to do), and it blows the argument for a necessary cause. That is going to frustrate people. They don't want to admit that all you need is an imagined possibility - that you don't have to prove your possibility - that "I don't know" is a legitimate answer.
s to deny what we don't want to accept.

Ok...I don't know that I'm admitting any cause...but I understand what you're saying. I think instead of "concede the cause must be a living agent", "believe the cause must be a living agent" would be a more accurate statement. The first implies that the belief is correct. I don't see how it has any more merit than any of the other options...which include, multiple living agents, a nonliving agent, multiple nonliving agents.

Why would a lifeless agent blow the argument for a necessary cause?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would a lifeless agent blow the argument for a necessary cause?

It doesn't. What I meant to say is that there is a hope to establish that the necessary cause must be a living being. I tried running that trap line given the expectation that it appears our universe will experience heat death, but that only went so far as "the cause would be different from us". It has always seemed to me that things like heat death or Zeno's Paradox require the existence of something infinite, but I guess a lifeless infinite is conceivable.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am the type to be suspicious of claims of special knowledge, especially if it accompanies some human motivation.

That's fine. That's why I said, "I don't know," is a legitimate answer. But I think experience does create special knowledge. At the purely intellectual end of the spectrum (which is where you seem to be) it's a rarity. In explaining mathematics, special knowledge wouldn't seem to be necessary - even though math teachers encourage repetition, and I've seen students where the light bulb doesn't go on until they've exercised that repetition.

At the end of the spectrum involving highly charged emotional situations, I think special knowledge is quite common. I'm very close to someone with PTSD, and when they say, "You just don't get it," I believe them. I've never been beaten to unconsciousness like that person. So, as much as I try to support him, he needs people who have had the same experiences in order to work through it.

That was my curiosity here. As you put it so well, "The idea follows from the experience." So when that's lacking, what level of understanding can be reached through discussion? Apparently not much.

God speed.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm not the type to claim someone has not had a certain experience just because I haven't had it myself. Regardless, this is not at all what I was referring to. Two people walk by a park where music is playing, and one says, "I've never really liked rap," to which the other replies, "That's not rap. It's hip hop." They may disagree on the label, but it's fairly easy to confirm they're hearing the same music. And changing the label for the music isn't likely to change whether one likes it or not.

I was asking if you think you've had an experience that a Christian would label as spiritual?

Sorry to jump in here with you conversation with variant but yes I have had experiences that I believe a Christian would label as spiritual.

So is "God" just a label for an experience? A subjective definition as subtle as the difference between hip hop and rap?

When I look up at the stars on a clear night in the country, it is an incredible experience. It fills me with awe and wonder and makes me feel so small in an incredible kind of way. Is that God? That feeling?

If you remove my subjective experience from that moment, is God still there? Is God distinct from my subjective experience or dependent on it?

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry to jump in here with you conversation with variant but yes I have had experiences that I believe a Christian would label as spiritual.

So is "God" just a label for an experience? A subjective definition as subtle as the difference between hip hop and rap?

When I look up at the stars on a clear night in the country, it is an incredible experience. It fills me with awe and wonder and makes me feel so small in an incredible kind of way. Is that God? That feeling?

If you remove my subjective experience from that moment, is God still there? Is God distinct from my subjective experience or dependent on it?

First, I need to clarify. I'm not saying God is the experience, but that he causes it. When a boy sees a girl he likes, we wouldn't say the tingly feeling is the girl, but she did cause it. And this is where the issue of ultimate cause gets a bit dicey. We could do a brain scan on the boy, note the location of the neural reactions, and chalk it up to reproductive instincts. But that misses some things. Why does this girl cause the reaction and not that girl? They're both reproductive opportunities. Is day-dreaming about the girl versus seeing a picture of her versus talking to her in person different? Why are some guys loyal to their dream girl and some not? As such, neuroscience isn't going to answer if that is "THE girl".

There are all kinds of questions about the ultimate cause that logic can't touch. And I can't do any better in judging your experiences second-hand. Maybe it was God, maybe it wasn't. I can speculate about god-sized holes and such, but would that really mean anything to you?

So, there are really only two kinds of experiences that work here: 1) Shared experience, 2) An experience that overwhelms you so you can't deny it was God. Hypotheticals just don't seem to work as an option #3. Most people that ask this question are looking for #2, but as I said earlier, it's extremely rare.

Because of the rarity, churches focus on #1. In the case of my church that means worship, prayer, reading the Word, and the sacraments.

 

[variant]

That's fine. That's why I said, "I don't know," is a legitimate answer. But I think experience does create special knowledge. At the purely intellectual end of the spectrum (which is where you seem to be) it's a rarity. In explaining mathematics, special knowledge wouldn't seem to be necessary - even though math teachers encourage repetition, and I've seen students where the light bulb doesn't go on until they've exercised that repetition.

At the end of the spectrum involving highly charged emotional situations, I think special knowledge is quite common. I'm very close to someone with PTSD, and when they say, "You just don't get it," I believe them. I've never been beaten to unconsciousness like that person. So, as much as I try to support him, he needs people who have had the same experiences in order to work through it.

That was my curiosity here. As you put it so well, "The idea follows from the experience." So when that's lacking, what level of understanding can be reached through discussion? Apparently not much.

God speed.

"purely intellectual" is wrong in this case because I approach reality in a practical manner.

Practical application is the point of knowledge, special knowledge lacks it.

So, from my experience, the usual point to such claims of special and indemonstrable knowledge is control.

I treat such claims as tentatively specious when they speak both authoritatively and well outside my experience.

The case you bring up of PTSD, I have no reason to doubt, but how helpful their explanation is is questionable.

The point of communication is the relating of experience, and speaking to the noncommunicable quality of something doesn't fit the bill.

While I have no doubt that there are things I have no basis for in experience, I try not to use these most difficult and obtuse ideas as the basis for my metaphysics either.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

First, I need to clarify. I'm not saying God is the experience, but that he causes it. When a boy sees a girl he likes, we wouldn't say the tingly feeling is the girl, but she did cause it. And this is where the issue of ultimate cause gets a bit dicey. We could do a brain scan on the boy, note the location of the neural reactions, and chalk it up to reproductive instincts. But that misses some things. Why does this girl cause the reaction and not that girl? They're both reproductive opportunities. Is day-dreaming about the girl versus seeing a picture of her versus talking to her in person different? Why are some guys loyal to their dream girl and some not? As such, neuroscience isn't going to answer if that is "THE girl".

So, if I'm following your analogy, then it would be the stars in the night sky that cause my feeling of spiritual awe and wonder? They are the thing that I am looking at just like a boy who is looking at girl and feels all tingly. The girl causes the boy to feel a certain way. God doesn't cause the boy to feel that way. (Or does he?) Similarly, God doesn't cause my feeling of awe, the stars do.

So again, where exactly is God? If you remove the stars is God still there? Is God dependent on the stars or distinct from the stars?

And if the stars cause my awe, then why have this middleman "God" label that I experience "through" the stars? Just call it what it is: "stars".

There are all kinds of questions about the ultimate cause that logic can't touch. And I can't do any better in judging your experiences second-hand. Maybe it was God, maybe it wasn't.

Who said anything about ultimate cause? I don't care about the "ultimate" cause of what causes me to feel awe when looking at the stars. I just want to know what is the most direct and obvious cause. To me, it seems clear that the most obvious and direct cause of the experience of awe is the stars in the night sky.

Sure, you could say, "But where did the stars come from? What is the ultimate cause of the stars?" Those questions don't now concern me. It would be like a crime scene investigator coming to the scene of a murder and pondering what caused the murder but rather than identifying the murderer he instead tries to find the "ultimate cause" of the murder leading to an long regression back to the Big Bang. He thus goes to court and accuses the Big Bang of causing the murder. Its nonsense. I don't care about "ultimate cause", I want to know what is causing the feeling of awe right now as I look at the stars. It seems quite obvious to me that it is...the stars in the night sky that are causing the feeling.

I can speculate about god-sized holes and such, but would that really mean anything to you?

Not sure what you are referring to here.

So, there are really only two kinds of experiences that work here: 1) Shared experience, 2) An experience that overwhelms you so you can't deny it was God. Hypotheticals just don't seem to work as an option #3. Most people that ask this question are looking for #2, but as I said earlier, it's extremely rare.

See the problem I have with God is that any description of "experiencing God" that I have heard from believers could easily be attributed to something else (like stars for example). They say "God caused this experience" but it seems clear that there was another, more obvious and less mysterious cause that gave them the experience.

For example, you were talking earlier about comparing God to your father. To me, it would be like someone having experiences with their dad and attributing those experience to some mysterious Tao-force. Like, you go fishing with your dad and have a good time and then you tell people, "Yea, I mean my dad was there, but it was really the Tao-force that was causing the experience."

Why not skip the Tao-force middleman and just say that your dad was the one that was giving you the great experience?

Because of the rarity, churches focus on #1. In the case of my church that means worship, prayer, reading the Word, and the sacraments.

Shared experience is a wonderful thing. People getting together and singing and talking together sounds wonderful. But then the people may turn around and say, "Man, God was really there in church today. It was great to see him speaking through the pastor and the worship music."

Why not just skip the God middleman and say how great the speaker was and what good teaching he gave? Why not say how great the music is and how talented the musicians are?

The word "God" seems to be nothing more than label or place holder for other more descriptive things. It seems that God, as a distinct and unique concept divorced from everything else is indistinguishable from nothingness.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Nothingness exists

No it doesn't. By definition. The word "nothingness" exists as a word though.

Also, we and the universe are proof that nothingness does not exist. There is something, therefore there is not nothing.

and is unbounded.

Not sure what you mean by this.

It fits most of the descriptions of God.

I would say nothingness kind of fits a lot of descriptions of Eastern concepts such as Tao. Buddhism also has nothingness as a prominent concept.

But the Abrahamic God? Nothingness does not fit the description at all. Nothingness has no agency. It does not act. It is not involved. It has no will. It is not good. It is not bad. It is not conscious. It is not a person. It is not a Trinity. It is not Jesus. It does not answer prayers. It does not love. It has no wrath. It does not speak (audibly or otherwise).

Other than it being timeless, I would say it has no similarities with the Christian or Jewish concept of God either historical or modern.

 

[Resha Caner]

And if the stars cause my awe, then why have this middleman "God" label that I experience "through" the stars? Just call it what it is: "stars".

Sure. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Who said anything about ultimate cause?

I did. It may not be a question you have, but some people do. That's where the god-shaped hole thing comes in. Whether you believe in "the one" or whether you think attraction is just a natural drive to procreate, something is driving the boy to seek the girl. Similarly, the question is sometimes asked, "What drives people to seek a god?" For some, the base answer just isn't good enough.

It seems, though, you may not be someone who asks those questions.

For example, you were talking earlier about comparing God to your father. To me, it would be like someone having experiences with their dad and attributing those experience to some mysterious Tao-force. Like, you go fishing with your dad and have a good time and then you tell people, "Yea, I mean my dad was there, but it was really the Tao-force that was causing the experience."

Why not skip the Tao-force middleman and just say that your dad was the one that was giving you the great experience?

I don't know. The mind is a strange thing. It's interesting you would pick fishing. My dad did take me fishing, but the reason was because my grandfather took him fishing. So, even after my grandfather's death, there was something about that memory that drove my dad to take me fishing. And I don't like fishing. The only reason I went was to spend time with my dad. So when my son and I got a chance for a Canadian fishing trip ... we went. As it turns out, my son doesn't really like fishing either. He went because of me. So, my grandfather, even after his death, has created this odd chain of good memories surrounding an actvity none of us like.

To say my grandfather is causing all this is not a complete misrepresentation of the situation. But if someone wants to go all literal on me, it would be an easy thing to tear apart.

Why not just skip the God middleman and say how great the speaker was and what good teaching he gave? Why not say how great the music is and how talented the musicians are?

I'm sure that is the reason many people go to church. For others, it is a chance to connect with those rare people who have had a definitive experience. Others believe without even needing that.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I did. It may not be a question you have, but some people do. That's where the god-shaped hole thing comes in. Whether you believe in "the one" or whether you think attraction is just a natural drive to procreate, something is driving the boy to seek the girl. Similarly, the question is sometimes asked, "What drives people to seek a god?" For some, the base answer just isn't good enough.

Sometimes the simple answer is less satisfying but still true.

Truth does not care if its "good enough". Its not about how we feel. Unless you are willing to admit that God exists only as a concept or idea which makes people feel better...

It seems, though, you may not be someone who asks those questions.

I certainly have asked those questions. It is a mystery. But is "mystery" synonymous with "God". When you don't know, is it not better to say "I don't know" rather than invoke a deity to fill the hole?

I don't know why life is as it is. It is a strange and beautiful and mysterious world we live in.

I don't know. The mind is a strange thing. It's interesting you would pick fishing. My dad did take me fishing, but the reason was because my grandfather took him fishing. So, even after my grandfather's death, there was something about that memory that drove my dad to take me fishing. And I don't like fishing. The only reason I went was to spend time with my dad. So when my son and I got a chance for a Canadian fishing trip ... we went. As it turns out, my son doesn't really like fishing either. He went because of me. So, my grandfather, even after his death, has created this odd chain of good memories surrounding an actvity none of us like.

To say my grandfather is causing all this is not a complete misrepresentation of the situation. But if someone wants to go all literal on me, it would be an easy thing to tear apart.

A memory of someone is not the same as the person themselves. A memory is a concept in the mind.

Is God only a concept in the mind?

If God were to disappear, people would still go to church for some time, right? They would be doing so because the concept of God (the memory of God) is still with them. Despite God disappearing.

In fact, I don't think there would be much difference in people's behaviors. Hence why variant said that there is no distinguishable difference between God existing and God not existing.

 

[Resha Caner]

If God were to disappear, people would still go to church for some time, right? They would be doing so because the concept of God (the memory of God) is still with them. Despite God disappearing.

In fact, I don't think there would be much difference in people's behaviors. Hence why variant said that there is no distinguishable difference between God existing and God not existing.

There are already people predicting that religion is disappearing / will disappear. If there were no God, I would think that too.

 

[variant]

There are already people predicting that religion is disappearing / will disappear. If there were no God, I would think that too.

Religion exists for a reason whether it is true or not.

It will exist so long as people need it and continue to believe.

It's existence speaks to the current state of the human condition.

In fact, I don't think there would be much difference in people's behaviors. Hence why variant said that there is no distinguishable difference between God existing and God not existing.

I am saying we can not from our perspective tell the difference because the idea of God gives us no particular clue what to look for or not look for in a universe either with a God present or absent.

There may be objective differences between those two universes, but we wouldn't know what they would be.

This makes the idea of God is nonfunctional in any rational setting.

If a universe with A is indistinguishable from one without A; A loses all value to us as a rational concept.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't. What I meant to say is that there is a hope to establish that the necessary cause must be a living being. I tried running that trap line given the expectation that it appears our universe will experience heat death, but that only went so far as "the cause would be different from us". It has always seemed to me that things like heat death or Zeno's Paradox require the existence of something infinite, but I guess a lifeless infinite is conceivable.

So...out of the possible options for a cause that I listed, the reason for believing the cause to be a living being is..."hope".

I appreciate your honesty.