5 ms·

Every major religion defines God as the one and only thing that exists. The thing that every other thing is made out of. So, wouldn't existence itself be ration

Every major religion defines God as the one and only thing that exists. The thing that every other thing is made out of. So, wouldn't existence itself be rational evidence for the existence of a thing that makes up all other things? What if we find something that looks like it's the single cause of all observable phenomena? (The most fundamental building-block of nature.) Have we found God? The idea of God is so singular that I'm not sure regular logic can be applied here at all. What other thing do we rationalize about that is similar to the idea of God? Are you sure that you're being rational or are you simply using one type of rational logic which lends itself mainly to materialism? I guess the other problem is - what exact definition of "God" is anybody using at any given time? EDIT: I don't mean for you to answer all of these questions, but it's fun to think about! :)

richmarr 12y ago
It sounds like you're trying to engage me in a debate, but there really isn't one to be had here. To have any kind of rational discussion about whether God exists, you first have to define what a God is. Either that or have some pretty strong evidence that can be used to draw a box around the question you're asking. The existence of God is a non-question, because we have neither a definition, nor evidence, nor a way to prove or disprove even if we could agree what it was that we thought we were talking about. You, me, nor anybody else has the slightest figment of a clue, not a scrap. Nor apparently can we, because conveniently all major religions also define God as unknowable and untestable. Sure people can have faith if they like, maybe they've been touched by a deity and I haven't (personally I doubt it), but anyone taking a rational position that there either is, or isn't, a God, is just expressing a fantasy that originates in their own emotional needs. To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Perhaps you've made up your mind, but that doesn't negate the reality that the existence of God has been debated for thousands of years. It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. Google will even give you one if you search for: define God. Wikipedia holds that "In Classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple, and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities)..." What kind of definition could possibly satisfy your requirements though? Can you give an example? If you're going to limit your thinking to so-called "scientific" or materialistic terms, then let's take an example definition from science. What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? In any case - it's not true that all major religions define God as unknowable and untestable. Take a look at the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna explains that God can be known through meditation. Lastly, "rational" means nothing more than "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". It's completely reasonable and logical to debate revealed knowledge.
  - richmarr 12y ago
    > It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (dark matter still hasn't been discovered). Through what experiment are you intending to discover God? > Krishna explains that God can be known through meditation. Define "known" in a way that bridges that context and this discussion and I'll buy you a Porsche. > It's completely reasonable and logical to debate revealed knowledge. No, sorry, revelation is faith, not knowledge. 'Revealed knowledge' is an oxymoron.
    - topherreynoso 12y ago
      What you're describing could easily be said about gravity. If you really start pressing physicists on this subject it gets muddy really quickly, even the definition (don't just tell me what gravity does or the effect it has, tell me what it is). One of the going theories involves gravitons, a massless particle with a spin-2 boson. Many physicists posit that the graviton itself is unobservable. In that sense its "properties" are very difficult, if not impossible, to really nail down. That does not change the fact that gravitational force is experienced and responsible for a great deal of work in the universe. We observe a force, we hypothesize about it based on those observations and we try to build tests for those theories. That's my point with the free will, mind-body problem, substance dualism argument. We observe free will, we build rules for our civilization around it, each of us can observe its existence. Admittedly, some people are willing to throw it out, argue against it, claim that we have no "free will" that it is merely action and reaction, we can only do what we are biologically programmed to do (that destroys most civilization's systems of rewards and punishment, btw) and I would say that most people, based off of their observable experience with their own minds and actions are unwilling to accept such a notion. Some people try to explain it away by saying that it's nothing more than randomness, like the kind we observe in quantum mechanics. I would say that most people are not inclined to equate "randomness" to "free will" either. If you observe free will and accept its existence you now have a great deal of work to do in order to explain it, hypothesize about it, test it, etc. especially if you are only accepting materialism in the traditional sense. This, like many scientists have in the past when observing strange matter (anti-matter, neutrinos, gravitons, etc), leads many people to decide that there must be some other "force" or "power" outside of the observable material world in order to make sense of one's ability to think, act, react freely.
- topherreynoso 12y ago
  >> To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd Why? I know plenty of philosophers that are great with rational arguments that spend their time in atheism or theism. I know several who believe in God or some kind of higher power simply because of free will. Can you give a definition of free will? Can you provide evidence of it or prove or disprove it even if we can agree what it is that we think we are talking about? Just because we may not have the slightest figment of a clue, not even a scrap, doesn't mean that we can't feel strongly whether free will actually exists or not or posit experiments or rational arguments to explain its existence or non-existence one way or the other. Do you believe in free will? I do and I know several philosophers who do too, who feel that since they feel so strongly about its existence, despite it going against everything we understand about a physical universe (causal relationships, action and reaction and whatnot) that there must be something else going on in the universe other than mere atoms bumping into atoms, the existence that we can observe. Sounds like a pretty rational argument that dresses up atheism or theism quite nicely. Maybe you just haven't explored enough rational arguments or questioned your own ability to think and act freely to even reach the questions? Maybe you have. I don't know you, but I do know that there are all kinds of ways to talk about atheism and theism in very rational ways.
  - richmarr 12y ago
    > Why? For the reason I highlighted in the post you replied to. You're welcome to explain why you think I'm wrong, but saying 'I believe X and so do my friends' doesn't satisfy.
    - topherreynoso 12y ago
      Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Questioning the existence and using rational arguments for or against the possibility of free will itself is a rational argument that affects theism or atheism. My point wasn't to tell you what my friends believe but to help you understand that there is a whole body of work dedicated to substance dualism that is based in rational arguments. That's just one philosophical subject, there are plenty others. Simply waving your hand and saying that rational arguments about theism or atheism are absurd is lazy at best. Take a look, there are plenty to be had.

richmarr 12y ago

It sounds like you're trying to engage me in a debate, but there really isn't one to be had here. To have any kind of rational discussion about whether God exists, you first have to define what a God is. Either that or have some pretty strong evidence that can be used to draw a box around the question you're asking. The existence of God is a non-question, because we have neither a definition, nor evidence, nor a way to prove or disprove even if we could agree what it was that we thought we were talking about. You, me, nor anybody else has the slightest figment of a clue, not a scrap. Nor apparently can we, because conveniently all major religions also define God as unknowable and untestable. Sure people can have faith if they like, maybe they've been touched by a deity and I haven't (personally I doubt it), but anyone taking a rational position that there either is, or isn't, a God, is just expressing a fantasy that originates in their own emotional needs. To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Perhaps you've made up your mind, but that doesn't negate the reality that the existence of God has been debated for thousands of years. It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. Google will even give you one if you search for: define God. Wikipedia holds that "In Classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple, and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities)..." What kind of definition could possibly satisfy your requirements though? Can you give an example? If you're going to limit your thinking to so-called "scientific" or materialistic terms, then let's take an example definition from science. What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? In any case - it's not true that all major religions define God as unknowable and untestable. Take a look at the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna explains that God can be known through meditation. Lastly, "rational" means nothing more than "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". It's completely reasonable and logical to debate revealed knowledge.
- richmarr 12y ago
  > It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (dark matter still hasn't been discovered). Through what experiment are you intending to discover God? > Krishna explains that God can be known through meditation. Define "known" in a way that bridges that context and this discussion and I'll buy you a Porsche. > It's completely reasonable and logical to debate revealed knowledge. No, sorry, revelation is faith, not knowledge. 'Revealed knowledge' is an oxymoron.
  - topherreynoso 12y ago
    What you're describing could easily be said about gravity. If you really start pressing physicists on this subject it gets muddy really quickly, even the definition (don't just tell me what gravity does or the effect it has, tell me what it is). One of the going theories involves gravitons, a massless particle with a spin-2 boson. Many physicists posit that the graviton itself is unobservable. In that sense its "properties" are very difficult, if not impossible, to really nail down. That does not change the fact that gravitational force is experienced and responsible for a great deal of work in the universe. We observe a force, we hypothesize about it based on those observations and we try to build tests for those theories. That's my point with the free will, mind-body problem, substance dualism argument. We observe free will, we build rules for our civilization around it, each of us can observe its existence. Admittedly, some people are willing to throw it out, argue against it, claim that we have no "free will" that it is merely action and reaction, we can only do what we are biologically programmed to do (that destroys most civilization's systems of rewards and punishment, btw) and I would say that most people, based off of their observable experience with their own minds and actions are unwilling to accept such a notion. Some people try to explain it away by saying that it's nothing more than randomness, like the kind we observe in quantum mechanics. I would say that most people are not inclined to equate "randomness" to "free will" either. If you observe free will and accept its existence you now have a great deal of work to do in order to explain it, hypothesize about it, test it, etc. especially if you are only accepting materialism in the traditional sense. This, like many scientists have in the past when observing strange matter (anti-matter, neutrinos, gravitons, etc), leads many people to decide that there must be some other "force" or "power" outside of the observable material world in order to make sense of one's ability to think, act, react freely.
topherreynoso 12y ago
>> To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd Why? I know plenty of philosophers that are great with rational arguments that spend their time in atheism or theism. I know several who believe in God or some kind of higher power simply because of free will. Can you give a definition of free will? Can you provide evidence of it or prove or disprove it even if we can agree what it is that we think we are talking about? Just because we may not have the slightest figment of a clue, not even a scrap, doesn't mean that we can't feel strongly whether free will actually exists or not or posit experiments or rational arguments to explain its existence or non-existence one way or the other. Do you believe in free will? I do and I know several philosophers who do too, who feel that since they feel so strongly about its existence, despite it going against everything we understand about a physical universe (causal relationships, action and reaction and whatnot) that there must be something else going on in the universe other than mere atoms bumping into atoms, the existence that we can observe. Sounds like a pretty rational argument that dresses up atheism or theism quite nicely. Maybe you just haven't explored enough rational arguments or questioned your own ability to think and act freely to even reach the questions? Maybe you have. I don't know you, but I do know that there are all kinds of ways to talk about atheism and theism in very rational ways.
- richmarr 12y ago
  > Why? For the reason I highlighted in the post you replied to. You're welcome to explain why you think I'm wrong, but saying 'I believe X and so do my friends' doesn't satisfy.
  - topherreynoso 12y ago
    Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Questioning the existence and using rational arguments for or against the possibility of free will itself is a rational argument that affects theism or atheism. My point wasn't to tell you what my friends believe but to help you understand that there is a whole body of work dedicated to substance dualism that is based in rational arguments. That's just one philosophical subject, there are plenty others. Simply waving your hand and saying that rational arguments about theism or atheism are absurd is lazy at best. Take a look, there are plenty to be had.