The God Question

Angel said:

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll add my thoughts regarding the distinction between the two...

Proposition One: Existence --- Existence must first be defined, since people can wander off onto a different path right from that very beginning point. What IS existence? Are we speaking of the type of existence, such as "my computer exists"? Or are we speaking of the type of existence, such as "Frodo Baggins exists"? The first example is an existence in objective reality, while the second example is an existence in lore. (books, movies, story, mythology, ...)

If we agree upon using the first type of existence (objective reality), then discussion can move into determining whether or not something exists in that particular way. DOES God exist in objective reality? First, God must be defined... I will get more into that in the 2nd part, but just assume that the definition of God is agreed upon. Then, we need to figure out how we know whether something exists in objective reality or not. Keep in mind that "reality" is differently experienced by each individual... Can we simply rely on our five senses? Obviously not, since things objectively exist that we can't sense with our five senses (without using instrumentation to 'enhance our senses', anyway). We seem to have issues sensing very small things and very large things (going 'beyond our scope' in either direction)... Does that mean that those things don't objectively exist? No... Does that mean that those things DO objectively exist? Still no...

This leads us into answering Proposition One (that God is.) Well, IS God?? Arguments can be made either way, depending on what evidence one accepts/rejects... So, does God objectively exist? We definitely know that there IS an absolutely truthful answer to the question, since it can be logically reasoned that absolute truth exists, and we know that the answer to that question has to be either 'yes' or 'no', but there is no way to prove or disprove God's existence, hence the options of theism, atheism, and agnosticism... To attempt to prove or disprove God's existence leads to logical fallacies, such as the circular argument fallacy and the argument from ignorance fallacy. In conclusion, Proposition One (that God is) can only be logically accepted or rejected on a faith basis.

Proposition Two: Nature --- Regardless of which definition of "existence" is believed with regards to God, one can discuss the nature of God, as this is NOT a discussion regarding the existence of God. This is more or less an attempt to define God, as I eluded to earlier. Now, how does one define God? First, we need to be talking about the same God... I will use the Christian God as my example. How does one define the Christian God? Well, Christians view The Bible as their holy scripture, so it would make sense for one to base the definition of God off of what The Bible says about God (in other words, to keep discussion about the nature of God within the framework of The Bible).

What IS the nature of God? How is God best defined? Well, God goes beyond our five senses, and any augmentation of our senses, IF he objectively exists, so we can't use any of our five senses to define him. Therefore, we can only go by what is said about him (ie, what his qualities are). I think he is best defined by his qualities. Using The Bible as a framework, we learn that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. We also learn that he is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, intelligent, and personal being. I'd say that those qualities are the best way to define what the Christian God is (his nature).

If the question about the existence of God cannot be asked without defining existence and God, then the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two cannot be maintained.
Can we stipulate that existence in the case of God cannot be defined? Or does this need an argument?
Can God be defined without reference to the nature of God?

How would we classify the existence of a natural law? Is it like the existence of gfm's computer? Is it like the existence of Frodo Baggins? Or is it some third kind of thing?

Angel said:

If the question about the existence of God cannot be asked without defining existence and God,

Click to expand...

That would be the way I would argue. It seems to me that in order to discuss whether or not something exists, one needs to define not only what that something is, but also what they mean by exist.

Angel said:

then the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two cannot be maintained.

Click to expand...

That's the way I would argue, given the way I walked through my post #2... I think that the propositions themselves are distinct, as in 'existence' is NOT 'nature', but yet they seem to be intertwined in a way, as one needs to define something before one can discuss its state of existence.

Angel said:

Can we stipulate that existence in the case of God cannot be defined? Or does this need an argument?
Can God be defined without reference to the nature of God?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what else there is to go by regarding defining God... Obviously the use of our five senses are out of the picture, and one could make use of qualities such as "loving, caring, just, jealous, etc..." to define him, but those are subjective terms which depend upon what each person thinks about God's actions [as recorded in The Bible], and that depends upon their non-firsthand understanding of those actions based on their own unique model of the universe and how it works ("reality"). It becomes obvious what some of the problems are with defining God in that type of way, or only in that type of way... That, I think, leaves the way which I defined him, in terms of what The Bible claims his attributes are (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, intelligent, personal, etc...)

Angel said:

How would we classify the existence of a natural law? Is it like the existence of gfm's computer? Is it like the existence of Frodo Baggins? Or is it some third kind of thing?

Click to expand...

Interesting to think about what state of existence something has...

[1] how you and I exist, and computers, and rutabagas, and etc... (in physical actuality, maybe also in books/movies/etc...)
[2] how Frodo Baggins exists (in books/movies only --- or so one believes...)

Then, like you bring up, there's things such as natural laws, fundamental forces... maybe even emotions?? ... They also exist in actuality, but they aren't experienced in the same way that you/I/computers/rutabagas are experienced. [1.5?]

I noticed that hardly anybody likes reading/discussing in the philosophy forums...

gfm7175 said:

I noticed that hardly anybody likes reading/discussing in the philosophy forums...

Click to expand...

Well, it's a very frustrating subject based in a lot of subjective reality and difficult to set the acceptable discussion parameters. The basis of our identity and who we are is grounded in self realization, so it would take two really like minded people to agree with each other's philosophies. It's more of "The Proof of God" not the "God Question." Once the rules of discussion determine -without debate- there is a Supreme Being, then you can articulate "What God Is."

A bible thumper once told me, all I need to know about my God is in this one book. And I said funny, all the books of the world couldn't tell you enough about my God. A Being of pure energy, infinite in scope, power, will, love and life.... what else can you say, I bet this Being is going to show us what a God really is when the crying is over.

grip said:

...
A bible thumper once told me, all I need to know about my God is in this one book. And I said funny, all the books of the world couldn't tell you enough about my God. A Being of pure energy, infinite in scope, power, will, love and life.... what else can you say, I bet this Being is going to show us what a God really is when the crying is over.

Click to expand...

Poetic.
Very nice.

Angel said:

Poetic.
Very nice.

All the books of the world couldn't tell you enough about my God.

A Being of pure energy,

infinite in scope, power, will, love and life....

What else can you say?

I bet this Being is going to show us what a God really is when the crying is over.​

Click to expand...

Or else, this:

Angel said:

The God Question


The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity:

Proposition One

That God is.

Proposition Two

What God is.


Proposition One goes to the question of the existence of God.
Proposition Two goes to the question of the nature of God.

In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.

Members given to philosophical rumination are invited to comment or expatiate on this limited topic.
Members who do not understand the distinction are invited to ask questions about the distinction.
Members who neither understand the distinction nor wish to discuss it philosophically should read quietly in their seats.


Know Thyself.​

Click to expand...

Or to say it very clearly;

First define what you are talking about when you use the word God. (note you will have to stick to this definition, when you change it you will be lying.)

Then show some sort of evidence or argument or something that actually supports this. Good luck, it has never been managed before.

Angel said:

Poetic.
Very nice.

All the books of the world couldn't tell you enough about my God.

A Being of pure energy,

infinite in scope, power, will, love and life....

What else can you say?

I bet this Being is going to show us what a God really is when the crying is over.​

Click to expand...

Clearly the words are used without the usual meaning.

Energy. This is a physics thing. In physics it has clear meaning; The capacity to do work. It does not relate to self will.

Power. Again what? Energy per unit time? Or the ability to make others do your will? Or what?

Will. OK, that would require some evidence to support. Or your just talking wind.

Love. Like giving a 3 year old girl cancer? Some crying there.

gfm7175 said:

I noticed that hardly anybody likes reading/discussing in the philosophy forums...

Click to expand...

To be fair, the OP wasn't especially inviting and you said pretty much everything that could be usefully said about it. There wasn't much an actual discussion to engage in.

Angel said:

The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity:

Proposition One

That God is.

Proposition Two

What God is.

Proposition One goes to the question of the existence of God.
Proposition Two goes to the question of the nature of God.

In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.​

Click to expand...

In philosophical terms the only distinction between proposition one and proposition two are theological arguments supporting either one. Said another way, the moral argument as to the nature of God in relative terms of the source system of belief in the existence of God.

The argument of incoherence in the discussion is based largely on all the splinters within monotheism as one example offering wide interpretations on defining the existence of God, then turning around and using source system of belief text interpretation on the nature of God.

Further expanding on that one example the existence of God between just core Islamic faith and core Christianity is offered in very different context, and that directly relates as to the nature of God resulting in very different interpretations on the point of moral position. Speaking to the nature of God within just Christianity alone, there is vast difference between what can be interpreted on the nature of God between the Old Testament and New Testament texts resulting in all sorts of splinters within Christianity alone.

The whole point of philosophy as an academia is to ask ourselves the question, are we asking the right questions? If we are going to gain any sort of clarity on these challenges to either conventional wisdom or conventional belief then we have no choice but to challenge assertions if we want any sort of new understandings.

In this case the distinction between these propositions are all based on the nature of belief, because any question on the nature of God is not going to get very far regardless of the question asked without the existence of God at least being addressed conceptually based on another series of questions.

To add a new wrinkle to the discussion, the more we start to discovery through the various systems of process (sciences) the more we have to alter some of these questions on the very nature of belief. It becomes less about conventional wisdom and interpretations from very aged text and more about forced evolution of those beliefs and interpretations to match where we are. Be it from knowledge from the various academia answering slightly different questions or simple social evolutions changing what we define as moral norms.

In just Christianity alone the "nature of God" was very different from say 500 BC to modern times, and in some respects was different between even 1000 AD to modern times. The effort to define the existence of God changing more post the scientific period than before, but the "nature of God" having so much variation in interpretation that we effectively have thousands (if not more) conclusions trying to answer that question.

So for philosophy the result is... we are asking the wrong question.

Because if there is not agreement on the existence of God (and there is not) as well as the nature of God (and there is not) then we cannot trust those conventional understandings since there is no consensus on either one. We end up stuck in a moral question, and ironically it ends up speaking to the nature of belief as humanity interprets them ranging from being extremely defensive of those beliefs when being challenged on them up to weaponizing those beliefs to inflict social order via governance. No matter where we are on the scale ultimately we end up with a collision of system of beliefs answering these propositions very differently than how systems of process advance humanity.

Coherence has never existed with these questions, further illustrating that we are asking the wrong questions.

Tim the plumber said:

Or to say it very clearly;

First define what you are talking about when you use the word God. (note you will have to stick to this definition, when you change it you will be lying.)

Then show some sort of evidence or argument or something that actually supports this. Good luck, it has never been managed before.

Click to expand...

First learn once and for all how to properly use the word "lying."

Then read the OP for comprehension instead of presumption.

HonestJoe said:

To be fair, the OP wasn't especially inviting and you said pretty much everything that could be usefully said about it. There wasn't much an actual discussion to engage in.

Click to expand...

I killed the thread too soon?? Awwww shucks!

HonestJoe said:

To be fair, the OP wasn't especially inviting and you said pretty much everything that could be usefully said about it. There wasn't much an actual discussion to engage in.

Click to expand...

In philosophy it is never the case that "everything" is said about any topic finally.
What did you find off-putting about the OP? I have a personal interest in your answer to this question.

OrphanSlug said:

In philosophical terms the only distinction between proposition one and proposition two are theological arguments supporting either one. Said another way, the moral argument as to the nature of God in relative terms of the source system of belief in the existence of God.
...

Click to expand...

Much obliged for your lengthy considered response to the OP.
I shall address your points piecemeal.

My intuition in formulating the distinction floated in the OP is that, while Proposition Two, concerning the nature of God, necessitates theological examination, Proposition One, by contrast, can be and ought to be considered a purely philosophical matter, a matter that need not involve a discussion of the nature of good or faith.

Tim the plumber said:

Clearly the words are used without the usual meaning.

Energy. This is a physics thing. In physics it has clear meaning; The capacity to do work. It does not relate to self will.

Power. Again what? Energy per unit time? Or the ability to make others do your will? Or what?

Will. OK, that would require some evidence to support. Or your just talking wind.

Love. Like giving a 3 year old girl cancer? Some crying there.

Click to expand...

You are using the words in their late and restrictive modern scientific meanings. Our friend grip uses the words in their broader and much older non-scientific meanings.
You need an argument as to why scientific language should be preferred in a discussion of The God Question.

OrphanSlug said:

...
The argument of incoherence in the discussion is based largely on all the splinters within monotheism as one example offering wide interpretations on defining the existence of God, then turning around and using source system of belief text interpretation on the nature of God.

Further expanding on that one example the existence of God between just core Islamic faith and core Christianity is offered in very different context, and that directly relates as to the nature of God resulting in very different interpretations on the point of moral position. Speaking to the nature of God within just Christianity alone, there is vast difference between what can be interpreted on the nature of God between the Old Testament and New Testament texts resulting in all sorts of splinters within Christianity alone.

The whole point of philosophy as an academia is to ask ourselves the question, are we asking the right questions? If we are going to gain any sort of clarity on these challenges to either conventional wisdom or conventional belief then we have no choice but to challenge assertions if we want any sort of new understandings.

In this case the distinction between these propositions are all based on the nature of belief, because any question on the nature of God is not going to get very far regardless of the question asked without the existence of God at least being addressed conceptually based on another series of questions.
...

Click to expand...

To be sure, if there are a thousand different religious faiths, there are a thousand more or less different accounts of the nature of God (Proposition Two: What God is).
To reject any one of the thousand accounts and think thereby that this at the same time amounts to a rejection of the existence of God (Proposition One: That God is.) is incoherent.

Angel said:

Much obliged for your lengthy considered response to the OP.
I shall address your points piecemeal.

My intuition in formulating the distinction floated in the OP is that, while Proposition Two, concerning the nature of God, necessitates theological examination, Proposition One, by contrast, can be and ought to be considered a purely philosophical matter, a matter that need not involve a discussion of the nature of good or faith.

Click to expand...

That is just it though.

Just about all discussions related to the question on Proposition One are based on theistic arguments. We have very view examples coming from a system of process to conclude the existence of God, but in contrast the overwhelming majority of examples advocating for the existence of God end up from systems of belief (religion.) The premise of these theistic arguments is rooted in Proposition Two, the idea of what God is in relative terms to humanity.

That is a long winded way of saying we have no real theistic argument about a God one should have no value in and/or is meaningless to one's life.

No matter which system of belief one would subscribe to, within the text of the faith and the teachings from it are explanations (no matter how direct, or allegorical, or vague) rooted in what God means to society, and that ultimately ties moral code to governmental and/or economic and/or social climate.

Every system of belief has their own take on what God is in simplistic terms but few leave it at that point.

For example. Judaism and Christianity in their own ways describe God in terms of appearance they could relate to at the time of the authoring of that text. A form, a description, even if the other properties of God were difficult to describe. As in omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, what have you. Yet Islam leaves the concept of what God is to something indescribable and beyond our comprehension but is still omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, what have you.

"What God is" becomes debatable among just the abrahamic religions yet the bulk of these texts talk about relation to humanity. We have no choice but to include the concepts of good and faith as those are cornerstones to theistic argument, and thus cornerstone to both Propositions.

Angel said:

To be sure, if there are a thousand different religious faiths, there are a thousand more or less different accounts of the nature of God (Proposition Two: What God is).
To reject any one of the thousand accounts and think thereby that this at the same time amounts to a rejection of the existence of God (Proposition One: That God is.) is incoherent.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear.

Across all of human history what is incoherent are the vast takes on God or Gods, and the nature of them. Even with the dawn of monotheism there is still vast differences on not just there being a God but what God's nature is.

Consider the bronze age as one of those periods where all of a sudden the interest was on what that region of the world could produce in text on one God. As information traveled across what we would call the greater middle east region today all sorts of concepts were taken from one another resulting in what we see at a basic level across all the abrahamic religions.

The only coherent thought about either Proposition is the idea of deity and supremacy over humanity. Other than that, not much else.

The irony is where one is born today often opens up doors to localized takes on both propositions, each one claiming they have it right. And that collides with so many questions on subjects philosophy brings to the table it is ridiculous.

OrphanSlug said:

...
To add a new wrinkle to the discussion, the more we start to discovery through the various systems of process (sciences) the more we have to alter some of these questions on the very nature of belief. It becomes less about conventional wisdom and interpretations from very aged text and more about forced evolution of those beliefs and interpretations to match where we are. Be it from knowledge from the various academia answering slightly different questions or simple social evolutions changing what we define as moral norms.

In just Christianity alone the "nature of God" was very different from say 500 BC to modern times, and in some respects was different between even 1000 AD to modern times. The effort to define the existence of God changing more post the scientific period than before, but the "nature of God" having so much variation in interpretation that we effectively have thousands (if not more) conclusions trying to answer that question.

So for philosophy the result is... we are asking the wrong question.

Because if there is not agreement on the existence of God (and there is not) as well as the nature of God (and there is not) then we cannot trust those conventional understandings since there is no consensus on either one. We end up stuck in a moral question, and ironically it ends up speaking to the nature of belief as humanity interprets them ranging from being extremely defensive of those beliefs when being challenged on them up to weaponizing those beliefs to inflict social order via governance. No matter where we are on the scale ultimately we end up with a collision of system of beliefs answering these propositions very differently than how systems of process advance humanity.

Coherence has never existed with these questions, further illustrating that we are asking the wrong questions.

Click to expand...

An interesting wrinkle. Philosophy may well be asking the wrong question, it is certainly asking an old question, and clearly there has been no advance in answering this old and perhaps wrong question. In what way do systems of process (sciences) help philosophy frame the right question, a question that offers a more rewarding (=less divisive?) answer? There have been "process philosophers" in the past. Whitehead comes to mind. Bergson maybe. They seem clustered around the turn of the 20th century. Then they disappear, probably with the rise of logical positivism. But frankly I don't know that this is what you mean in this "wrinkle" part of the post and would appreciate a further word from you on this specifically, i.e., how systems of process might lead philosophy into more fruitful pastures in The God Question.

Angel said:

An interesting wrinkle. Philosophy may well be asking the wrong question, it is certainly asking an old question, and clearly there has been no advance in answering this old and perhaps wrong question. In what way do systems of process (sciences) help philosophy frame the right question, a question that offers a more rewarding (=less divisive?) answer? There have been "process philosophers" in the past. Whitehead comes to mind. Bergson maybe. They seem clustered around the turn of the 20th century. Then they disappear, probably with the rise of logical positivism. But frankly I don't know that this is what you mean in this "wrinkle" part of the post and would appreciate a further word from you on this specifically, i.e., how systems of process might lead philosophy into more fruitful pastures in The God Question.

Click to expand...

That is a tall order for several reasons.

Philosophy as an academia is closer to a system of process than a system of belief, and that is even though philosophy does not follow the same process chain that other sciences use there is plenty of similarity on getting from an an observation or question to a theory or conclusion. What that means is the very nature of the age old question or an alternate question tends to challenge the beliefs people hold from whatever faith they subscribe to. Historically speaking, that is usually not very peaceful.

The age old questions on is there a God (or Gods) and what is God (or Gods) suggests filling a human need to explain something. The theistic argument to these aged old questions are based on another chain of thought. Because there is observable and objective moral reasoning, and a God (or Gods) would provide the best explanation for that moral reasoning being an overarching authority handing that to us, therefor we would not have that moral reasoning without a God (or Gods.) Again, the moral argument that we would not have them without a God (or Gods.)

So, let's change the question to... say... "why do we need a God (or Gods) to tell us what is right and wrong?"

The immediate impact is upsetting everyone in the room who subscribes to a system of belief that holds as truth where they derive moral reasoning.

And one of the things we cannot discount in any regard is the period of human evolution where all these systems of belief came from nor can we ignore that what we call the emergence of modern science was over 1000 years later. Thought, question, and philosophy all took their own paths across multiple periods of human history of course but when looking back to the bronze age there was no such thing as a system of process, no such thing as educated public, and no such thing as a search for answers *without* a system of belief. And that last point is why it became such a force of human history that we still see its properties today.

The age old question ended up giving humanity wide ranging interpretations on the existence of deity, what the nature of deity is, and ultimately what is the source for moral authority. Even though this ultimately lead to enough conflict and loss of life damaging what they thought was being answered. Ironically, moral authority ended up becoming a reason to divide and ultimately take life. On top of that the earliest systems of governance and law predate monotheism by 1000's of years, yet we still see humanity clinging to some of those systems of belief from monotheism today literally answering the age old question the exact same way. Way back then, way before monotheism humanity could objectively design law. Let's not kill one another, steal things, what have you. The concept of moral reasoning predates monotheism yet now it appears monotheism is corner to moral reasoning... let that sink in.

You bet we asked the wrong questions, and on this side of the emergence of modern science we still do.

Angel said:

If the question about the existence of God cannot be asked without defining existence and God, then the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two cannot be maintained.
Can we stipulate that existence in the case of God cannot be defined? Or does this need an argument?
Can God be defined without reference to the nature of God?

Click to expand...

I had an imaginary friend once. Then I grew wiser and realized, I am god.