Does God exist? (21 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Exactly. So if our God is a delusion, He's still real for us.

I'd be willing to accept that some parts of my reality are a delusion, if proven so (as this could be done within the bounds of 'reality') however to prove that all reality is a delusion could not be done imho.

Logic is a delusion.

Can you explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that logic is a delusion ? To me it's more a matter of it not necessarily working with objective reality.

whilst everything else is logically justified within the mind.

I would argue that intuition uses the same justifications, just on a more primitive level of consciousness. When you feel awe while reading the bible and attribute that to God, there was logical thought process there, there was the connecting of the feeling with this concept of God you had, it just happened very quickly and with little debate in your mind.

There is not an example (that I can think of) of some sort of 'intuition' that existed without the underpinnings of some form of logical reasoning (even if it was bad/primitive/instinctual reasoning).

 

[KFunk]

Edit: Just as an aside, the Zen Buddhists have found a viable alternative to logical analysis/thought, though I doubt that any Westerner could live like this (without thinking).

What if logic is also a delusion?

Mu.

 

[KFunk]

Logic is a delusion. It requires logical justification to be held otherwise.

That seems similar to requiring algebraic proof for the validity of algebra. If you don't adhere to logic in the first place, why would a logical proof of logic carry any weight for you?

 

[EraserDust]

I'd be willing to accept that some parts of my reality are a delusion, if proven so (as this could be done within the bounds of 'reality') however to prove that all reality is a delusion could not be done imho.

In the case of a man dreaming within a dream, waking up to another dream, there is nothing to base the assumption on that anything is not a dream. So I agree that all of reality cannot be proven to be a delusion, but there is nothing to base that assumption of reality not being a delusion except that which we perceive to be reality and the substance of our own dreams.

Can you explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that logic is a delusion ?

Alright I'll concede and rephrase my point, logic is a delusion whilst we consider it infalliable within our own reasoning. Safer to say that I was wrong before. I am absurd, although still falliable by absolute logical standards.

That seems similar to requiring algebraic proof for the validity of algebra. If you don't adhere to logic in the first place, why would a logical proof of logic carry any weight for you?

Logically it shouldn't, but I still personally adhere to logic anyways. I've observed that logic itself is not infalliable, so I stick to intuition out of choice, even though it is just a falliable. Logical justification rationalises this choice.

When you feel awe while reading the bible and attribute that to God, there was logical thought process there, there was the connecting of the feeling with this concept of God you had, it just happened very quickly and with little debate in your mind.

Of course the obvious reason I consider myself a Christian is due to my upbringing. I actually remain fairly skeptical of the Bible by itself, but I may as well believe after considering the alternative (being completely skeptical), so like a knight of faith I strive for that understanding, and alleged contradictions can be resolved through exegetic interpretation.

There is not an example (that I can think of) of some sort of 'intuition' that existed without the underpinnings of some form of logical reasoning (even if it was bad/primitive/instinctual reasoning).

Neither.

 

[KFunk]

That seems similar to requiring algebraic proof for the validity of algebra. If you don't adhere to logic in the first place, why would a logical proof of logic carry any weight for you?

Logically it shouldn't, but I still personally adhere to logic anyways. I've observed that logic itself is not infalliable, so I stick to intuition out of choice, even though it is just a falliable. Logical justification rationalises this choice.

You're arriving at contradiction. You claim to adhere to logic, but at the same time you admit that which flies in the face of conventional logic (you're not adhering to logic if you require a logical proof of the validity of logic). I'm not sure that you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this matter. You seem to be making use of the 'something is true when I believe it to be so' rule while giving it the stamp of logic in order to give your claims an extra authority which they don't really possess.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I really do find it amazing the sort of positions people will put themselves into in order to create room for their God. Eraserdust adhere's to logic in his everyday life because well... it works for him, but it would seem (at least for him) there is little room for God within logic, however to counter this he puts forward arguments that logic is a delusion - Essentially stabbing himself in the foot given what I imagine is his everyday practice of logic/reasoning.

 

[EraserDust]

You claim to adhere to logic, but at the same time you admit that which flies in the face of conventional logic

I've already stated that belief in God is illogical, and I adhere to logic because to do otherwise is to be illogical myself. That is a logical contradiction. Through intuitive belief I claim to know God. You could claim that I am confused, but then you're only confused about your interpretation of my belief (it lacks logical order, not intuitive order, I am perfectly content with my stance). Anyways any confusion would be my fault for not explaining it more efficiently. I adhere to logic, but don't hold to the infallibility of it alone. Intuition is necessary for it to hold any relevance within the mind, to make sense. In the same way, as Not-That-Bright pointed out, it is seemingly impossible for us to conceive of an intuition which does not formulate logical reasoning.

I'm not sure that you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this matter.

Probably not. But why have your cake when you can smell it, and then eat it?

You seem to be making use of the 'something is true when I believe it to be so' rule while giving it the stamp of logic in order to give your claims an extra authority which they don't really possess.

The only true application of that proposed rule is in knowing the self's existence, where "I think, therefore I am." A great phrase coined by Descartes.

Anyways why give an argument authority which doesn't exist? I sure hope I am not, that would be downright foolish of me. Of course something is true or false (pure logic) regardless of whether I believe it to be so. As I posted earlier in this thread, my opinion on truth bearing within belief is as follows:

I'll clarify. I never said that honestly believing it makes it any more true in an absolute sense. Honestly believing it makes it relatively true to the self. They are equal in reality since they are not real, but that does not give them equal truth bearing (or actual relevance to veracity).

Sorry if I did not make it clear enough. A propositional attitude explores your mental state in regard to intentional propositions such as belief or hope. Why you believe and whether you honestly believe are fundamental questions in distinguishing true belief from false belief.

I hold that to believe in a concept, the belief has to be honest and intended to reveal truth, otherwise it is not a real belief. If it is not honest then it is a lie, if it is not intended to reveal truth then it is a deception.

To honestly believe in something supernatural has more truth bearing to the empirical self than something supernatural "made up". Whilst the supernatural may not exist, the truth bearing to reality could potentially be the same (or null), whilst the truth bearing to the self is greater.

Of course the potential exists to truly believe in the reality of a fallacy (that God exists or doesn't exist), which is why it is logical to remain skeptical of everything. In an absurd sense, the lack of absolute proof could be considered a motive to believe in God.

I really do find it amazing the sort of positions people will put themselves into in order to create room for their God. Eraserdust adhere's to logic in his everyday life because well... it works for him, but it would seem (at least for him) there is little room for God within logic, however to counter this he puts forward arguments that logic is a delusion - Essentially stabbing himself in the foot given what I imagine is his everyday practice of logic/reasoning.

LOL I'm glad that you find it fascinating. I've made it clear earlier that I believe in God because it is absurd. You're free to make all the assumptions about me that you want, seemingly in regard to motivation and intent. I'm won't be perturbed, (not assuming that is your intent).

So I'll restate that I believe a life full of imaginary love is better then one consisting of logical apathy. Apparently one can still love without believing in God, but be aware that pure logic destroys the apparent reality of free will and unconditional love. I'm going fairly off topic here, but you should realise that belief in the infallibility of logic without intuition is merely logical, nothing more than that (except possible satisfaction, nothing else). Say do you gain satisfaction from debasing my logically flawed belief?

 

[KFunk]

You say that the only true application of the rule 'something is true when I believe it to be so' is in the statement 'cogito, ergo sum'. However you say that "Through intuitive belief I claim to know God". This is an application of that rule. It is only through the strength of your intuitive belief, your unwavering conviction, that you claim that god exists. This amounts to saying 'I believe it is the case, so it is the case' which is an application of that rule.

There are an infinite number of beliefs which meet your criteria for 'the absurd'. Why do you pick this one above the rest?

 

[EraserDust]

There are an infinite number of beliefs which meet your criteria for 'the absurd'. Why do you pick this one above the rest?

I won't accept infinite resignation, which is why faith is such a blessing.

 

[KFunk]

I won't accept infinite resignation, which is why faith is such a blessing.

I'm going to assume that you're coming from the angle of Kierkegaard but I feel I should ask: what do you mean by the phrase 'infinite resignation'?

 

[lengy]

So EraserDuster is admitting that believing in a deity is the equivalent of dementia?

 

[EraserDust]

You say that the only true application of the rule 'something is true when I believe it to be so' is in the statement 'cogito, ergo sum'. However you say that "Through intuitive belief I claim to know God". This is an application of that rule.

My knowledge claim was not an application of that rule. Mine was that I know God through intuition. Not that through intuition it becomes real. It is real or not regardless.

The act of thought essentially makes existence evident. That is an application of believing existence of the self to be true, therefore it is so. Though believing in the non-existence of the self does not hold true here, so the prior example would assumedly be the only true application of the rule.

Knowing God through intuition does not entail the rule. Notice that I never said it as part of God's existence. Whether God exists or doesn't exist is entirely external to my personal conviction.

I'm going to assume that you're coming from the angle of Kierkegaard but I feel I should ask: what do you mean by the phrase 'infinite resignation'?

You're correct. Great question by the way, serves to further clarify my position. By "infinite resignation" I mean accepting the despair of nothing. Giving up on the hope of eternal love. Even if that hope will never be met, I'm content in it.

So EraserDuster is admitting that believing in a deity is the equivalent of dementia?

No. I'm admitting that believing in a deity is absurd. Even so it is worthwhile (on the assumption of belief in a loving deity). Be careful when interpretting my responses lengy, seeing as you've managed to sufficiently garble it completely out of proportion and context.

Anyways I'm finished here, enlightening as going off topic is, it will just lead in circles. If you want to criticise my fideistic stance don't bother, such a critique has been done before: http://www.infidelguy.com/members/Mike_Young/Fideism.htm

If I have been stabbing myself in the foot, I'm glad that my God can carry me. As a final note, "Footprints in the Sand" is an awesome poem!!

 

[KFunk]

My knowledge claim was not an application of that rule. Mine was that I know God through intuition. Not that through intuition it becomes real. It is real or not regardless.

The act of thought essentially makes existence evident. That is an application of believing existence of the self to be true, therefore it is so. Though believing in the non-existence of the self does not hold true here, so the prior example would assumedly be the only true application of the rule.

Knowing God through intuition does not entail the rule. Notice that I never said it as part of God's existence. Whether God exists or doesn't exist is entirely external to my personal conviction.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be externally agnostic whilst internally holding the conception of god close to your heart as a source of love and comfort. You say you "know god" but then you say that the existence of god is external to, which I take to mean independent of, your personal conviction. I would argue that your personal convictions may well have a bearing on god's existence. Whether or not they do, I believe, depends entirely on what is meant by god. If 'god' signifies a mere concept, which may nonetheless be a very powerful one, then in coming to know god you simply become familiar with a mental abstraction. If 'god' signifies an existent being then in coming to know god you experience the nature of an awesome being. If you take the second case then if it is true that you have 'come to know god' then would not that truth seem to necessitate god's existence? Your claims then contain nested statements about god's existence and once more conform to 'something is true when I believe it to be so'.

 

[ihavenothing]

There is only one way to find out whether there is a God or not, until I see the evidence I will err on the side of caution and not believe in God.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

There is only one way to find out whether there is a God or not, until I see the evidence I will err on the side of caution and not believe in God.

Technically the side of caution is believing God. After all, if he exists, and you don't believe, you are going to burn in Hell forever. Not exactly the scenario of the cautious!



What about believing in God but refusing to worship him? What if I accept the arguments that God exists but refuse to believe his propoganda about being wise and loving? Am I going to Hell EraserDust?

 

[Stott Despoja]

Technically the side of caution is believing God. After all, if he exists, and you don't believe, you are going to burn in Hell forever. Not exactly the scenario of the cautious!

Which God or framework of belief should one choose?

To believe is hardly the 'cautious' option.

 

[EraserDust]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

I should be studying right now, but KFunk you seem to be willing to explore the foundations of my belief and I respect that, so I'll entertain this discussion for awhile longer.

You seem to be externally agnostic whilst internally holding the conception of god close to your heart as a source of love and comfort.

As I've brought my Christian belief into this, I've noticed how others (non-Christian) are more willing to argue and less willing to agree once they figure that aspect out. Just an observation. I've found it enlightening.

By philosophical accounts I would be agnostic, or even atheist on logical grounds, yet I've been conditioned by my love for God to search for more. Obviously this appears as absurd, which is why I don't claim it as anything else. To others this would seem foolish, or possibly deluded. Most likely the impact of a Christian upbringing, yet I find it interesting how my personal experience, unlike the accounts of various atheists I've conversed with in the past, has not entailed ignorence (I have freedom to ask any questions), or discrimination, or compulsory money offerings (although our church sponsors children in Tanzania - that could be a lie, a shame if so).

God is a source of love and comfort to me, yet this evidently appears the case (from my own empirical experience) even if He doesn't exist. In that sense I am wholeheartedly a Christian (or a Protestant if one holds to classification via denominations), since I believe through faith alone. Not all Christians hold to this reasoning, I consider this the only requirement, but I could be wrong.

You say you "know god" but then you say that the existence of god is external to, which I take to mean independent of, your personal conviction. I would argue that your personal convictions may well have a bearing on god's existence.

My belief in God has no bearing on the existence of God. Similar as my belief in water has no bearing on the existence of water. Even so, I hold to Descartes' thought of God being an essence, rather than any limited contingent substance. On that account God does not actually exist on a such a level (with Jesus as the paradoxial exception), yet instead exists on a spiritual level, as a supremely perfect being. Still I don't know this, I claim to know God (that is my knowledge claim), but not this. This is human imagination being absurd, levels are just logical ways of thinking.

Whether or not they do, I believe, depends entirely on what is meant by god. If 'god' signifies a mere concept, which may nonetheless be a very powerful one, then in coming to know god you simply become familiar with a mental abstraction. If 'god' signifies an existent being then in coming to know god you experience the nature of an awesome being.

By "God" I refer to a loving sentient being. In the case of a neutral, indifferent, hateful or deceptive sentient being - that is not a loving God. In the latter instance, I would not love God, since God is not love. This is merely conditional love on my part, but to do otherwise would be to seemingly love hate and hate love, which blurs the distinction between the two.

In the case of a non-existent sentient being - there is no loving God. The alternative here is to remain indifferent, yet I experience benefit even without the reality, nor does it interfere with my current reality (I don't hear the voice of God telling me to kill people, or anything along those lines), so I'm content in my absurd belief.

The concept of God is contained within the mind alone. My mental image of God is certainly different from the real God (assuming God exists). From an agnostic stance one would assume God is truly unknowable. From a Christian stance one would assume God is truly knowable, should He choose to reveal Himself to us. Other deity driven religions also claim this, and I've explored some of the more well known ones and decided to since place faith in the Christian construct. Personal bias would be evident I admit, although I claim to have taken a neutral point of view in my exploration, I could still very well be wrong. If that is the case, too bad for me.

If you take the second case then if it is true that you have 'come to know god' then would not that truth seem to necessitate god's existence? Your claims then contain nested statements about god's existence and once more conform to 'something is true when I believe it to be so'.

By my own account, if I believe "God's existence is not bound to my belief" then would I claim that is also true when I believe it to be so? I'd say it is true or false regardless of what I believe, which is basically it rephrased.

I've come to know God, but therein lies the possibility of "I've come to know what I perceive to be God", and "What I perceive to be God is not actually God". That is most certainly the case, unless one considers the possibility of "God wants me to come to know Him", and "What I perceive to be God is close" due to experiencing His love.

There is only one way to find out whether there is a God or not, until I see the evidence I will err on the side of caution and not believe in God.

That would be empirical evidence right? I'd say use intuition, but that seems like a copout on my part, seeing as I can't provide such evidence (due to the nature of such "evidence", what I would call experience instead). Also depends on your supposed mental image of God, whether that is self contradictory or not. If it is then you're already against the possibility of God's potential existence. If so, that is a perfectly logical stance. Such disbelief is certainly cautious on a logical level, but on what logical basis do you consider yourself to have free will? (seeing as logically your actions are always directed by external events), or in regard to logic, the ability to ever unconditionally love? (since such "charity" and "compassion" serve to drive a sense of satisfaction, logically it is an action performed to sustain life as part of evolution's outcome). Don't feel obliged to answer. If you're content with that, then be content. I'm not content to be discontent, that is my flaw.

What about believing in God but refusing to worship him? What if I accept the arguments that God exists but refuse to believe his propoganda about being wise and loving? Am I going to Hell EraserDust?

To be foolish and hateful? That is between you and God. Apparently God knows the heart, the intent, not just the consequence. IMO it is a relationship driven convenant, not a just a contract. Also depends what you mean by the concept of "Hell" too (in terms of eternal estrangement and/or physical to spiritual burning), plus I'm not one to condemn others, I'm hardly that arrogant. I have a hunch that you're simply playing Devil's Advocate here, but in the case of refusing to love, I'd say wisdom is already out the window. You don't have to worship God, but it is almost like marrying someone and never showing appreciation or love (except that the wed would probably be corporeal).

Which God or framework of belief should one choose?

IMO a loving God, (does not necessarily entail Christianity, neither will I try to convert you, only you can change yourself, and if you're currently comfortable with your belief then nothing I say will change it). I could explain this further should you be willing to listen, but as it is I've already written heaps and I'm not sure if many people will be bothered to read it all.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As I've brought my Christian belief into this, I've noticed how others (non-Christian) are more willing to argue and less willing to agree once they figure that aspect out. Just an observation. I've found it enlightening.

If you're thinking of me here, I'd just like to point out that while I would consider Christian upbringing to perhaps be a small key as to why you may hold these beliefs you admit are absurd - I would argue against you even if you had no major religious backing.

By philosophical accounts I would be agnostic, or even atheist on logical grounds, yet I've been conditioned by my love for God to search for more.

I don't think I have a 'love of God' but I do know I wish with all my heart that there is a heaven / afterlife / peaceful God... This also leads me to search for more, however I would argue you're going further than just searching and are instead comming to conclusions based on your desire.

yet I find it interesting how my personal experience, unlike the accounts of various atheists I've conversed with in the past, has not entailed ignorence (I have freedom to ask any questions), or discrimination, or compulsory money offerings (although our church sponsors children in Tanzania - that could be a lie, a shame if so).

It doesn't matter to me how bad the church is or how bad 'God' even is... if I thought there was sufficient proof I would believe even if it was not the happiest news for me. The problem for me is moreso that believing in God would be to lie to myself on a huge scale, I'd constantly be trying to trick the more critical part of my mind into letting it's guard down and all-in-all (for me at least) I could not decieve myself.

God is a source of love and comfort to me, yet this evidently appears the case (from my own empirical experience) even if He doesn't exist.

I don't imagine you're lying, but if you really do logically believe God does not exist then how can you still recieve the comfort of belief in God? I've often believed that even the faithful don't recieve the comfort that they sometimes claim... To me only the insanely faithful could gain such comfort and the rest just wish they had that comfort or really would like to believe in God, but don't - I imagine this would be even more true when you openly admit to having an illogical belief.

but on what logical basis do you consider yourself to have free will? (seeing as logically your actions are always directed by external events)

If that were to be the case, I'd say it's the appearance but not actuality of free-will that really matters for anyone in their everyday life i.e. That we have a relative but not actual free will.

the ability to ever unconditionally love? (since such "charity" and "compassion" serve to drive a sense of satisfaction, logically it is an action performed to sustain life as part of evolution's outcome).

I think it's important to understand at perhaps a 'higher' philisophical level that it's true that there are no self-less acts i.e. If we give all our money over to charity, we are doing so because that's what we wanted to do. I do however think we can still maintain a relative level of selflessness in that giving all your money to others is something that is not conventionally associated with selfishness.

 

[EraserDust]

I would argue against you even if you had no major religious backing.

LOL fair enough!

I don't think I have a 'love of God' but I do know I wish with all my heart that there is a heaven / afterlife / peaceful God... This also leads me to search for more, however I would argue you're going further than just searching and are instead comming to conclusions based on your desire.

Certainly that does make alot of sense. Such an illusionary unconditional love is self-sustaining. In that way, the desire is formed from subjective experiences, which is biased from personal desire. I won't deny that, even though it appears as a justified search, reaching the conclusion of nothing leads some directly to the absurd conclusion of something beyond nothing.

It doesn't matter to me how bad the church is or how bad 'God' even is... if I thought there was sufficient proof I would believe even if it was not the happiest news for me. The problem for me is moreso that believing in God would be to lie to myself on a huge scale, I'd constantly be trying to trick the more critical part of my mind into letting it's guard down and all-in-all (for me at least) I could not decieve myself.

Quite honourable of you. Neither could I honestly deceive myself. Which is why it is so absurd, since I may possibly be deceiving myself out of conviction. I claim to hold to veracity, yet seemingly observe the logical non-existence of God. However for me, to accept nihilism would be to ultimately deceive myself. I consider honestly in belief as absolutely necessary for true belief, and I honestly believe in God.

I don't imagine you're lying, but if you really do logically believe God does not exist then how can you still recieve the comfort of belief in God? I've often believed that even the faithful don't recieve the comfort that they sometimes claim... To me only the insanely faithful could gain such comfort and the rest just wish they had that comfort or really would like to believe in God, but don't - I imagine this would be even more true when you openly admit to having an illogical belief.

Well I've made it clear that I don't hold to the infalliability of logic (without intuition). If God created logic then [logically] God could defy logic. This logical argument proves nothing of course. Through intuition (highly possible that it is wrong) I claim to feel God's love. I often doubt other claims too, but there is nothing lasting to be gained from such skepticism, therefore I trust out of intuition. If I didn't, then I shouldn't trust myself.

I admit to having an illogical belief because to do otherwise would be to deceive myself. Also having such "insane" faith does not entail insanity at all. Still coming from one such as myself, that claim means nothing. According to most, I am not insane, but either way I'm not concerned. There would be no lasting benefit for the sane were it true, so I'm content to love my family, my friends, my girlfriend, and my pets without fear that I've lost my mind. Such a blessing would be considered foolishness by others.

If that were to be the case, I'd say it's the appearance but not actuality of free-will that really matters for anyone in their everyday life i.e. That we have a relative but not actual free will.

As I said before, if you're content with that then be content. I actually do believe that we have actual free will, and that it is possible to be selfless. As incongruous as it is, I believe in unconditional love. Probably based on desire as you pointed out earlier.

 

[Stott Despoja]

IMO a loving God, (does not necessarily entail Christianity, neither will I try to convert you, only you can change yourself, and if you're currently comfortable with your belief then nothing I say will change it). I could explain this further should you be willing to listen, but as it is I've already written heaps and I'm not sure if many people will be bothered to read it all.

Which [loving] God or framework of belief should one choose?

The question still stands.

I'm not expecting an answer, I'm just pointing out the obvious problem with the entire idea that a cautious person would be best to believe in God as it is described by the Christian faith (or the Abrahamic faiths in general).