"God exists"- an algebraic perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
Let’s consider the proposition “God exists”. It would seem that there is no agreement on what either of the terms of the proposition signify- people evidently have different concepts of “God”, and different concepts of “existence” (Platonists, materialists, Berkelian idealists, existentialists, Parmenedians, etc.).

Now, the lack of definite content for either of the terms would seem to mean that the proposition “God exists” makes determination of its truth analogous to trying to determine is the following equation correct, without having determined what X and Y actually equal:
X + Y = 5

Is this true? It depends upon what X and Y equal. And that is not given.

If a person chooses to accept that proposition, they can then define “God” and “exists” so that they equation holds true, e.g. “God”= that which is eternal and unchanging. “Exist”= being eternal and unchanging.

On the other hand, if a person chooses to reject the proposition, they then define “God” and “exists” in such a way as to make the equation untrue, e.g. “God”= a purely spiritual being outside the Universe. “Exists”= being as a material thing in the Universe.

So, it would appear that the debate on whether “God exists” is not of real substance. Rather the pertinent question would seem to be “what do we mean by ‘God’?” and “what do we mean by ‘exists’?”

It is therefore evident, I suggest, that the argument relates only to the definitions of the terms.

Otherwise, we are arguing whether X +Y= 10 is correct or not.
 
Qoeleth said:
Let’s consider the proposition “God exists”. It would seem that there is no agreement on what either of the terms of the proposition signify- people evidently have different concepts of “God”, and different concepts of “existence” (Platonists, materialists, Berkelian idealists, existentialists, Parmenedians, etc.).

Now, the lack of definite content for either of the terms would seem to mean that the proposition “God exists” makes determination of its truth analogous to trying to determine is the following equation correct, without having determined what X and Y actually equal:
X + Y = 5

Is this true? It depends upon what X and Y equal. And that is not given.

If a person chooses to accept that proposition, they can then define “God” and “exists” so that they equation holds true, e.g. “God”= that which is eternal and unchanging. “Exist”= being eternal and unchanging.

On the other hand, if a person chooses to reject the proposition, they then define “God” and “exists” in such a way as to make the equation untrue, e.g. “God”= a purely spiritual being outside the Universe. “Exists”= being as a material thing in the Universe.
Click to expand...
If X + Y = 5 is true, then X and Y have numeric value. The words “god” and “exist” have no numeric value - or if they do, that value is unknown and likely to remain that way. I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to do here. Are you suggesting a problem that cannot be solved using linguistics might be reduced to or expressed as an algebraic formula? The problem is that the formula makes no more sense than the linguistic problem we started out with. We have no value for X or Y and we have no value (definition) for “god” or “exist”.
Qoeleth said:
So, it would appear that the debate on whether “God exists” is not of real substance. Rather the pertinent question would seem to be “what do we mean by ‘God’?” and “what do we mean by ‘exists’?”
Click to expand...
I am with you on this point
Qoeleth said:
It is therefore evident, I suggest, that the argument relates only to the definitions of the terms.

Otherwise, we are arguing whether X +Y= 10 is correct or not.
Click to expand...
Again I agree. You’ve just given an excellent argument for agnosticism. 😃
 
You could use precisely the same argument with “The mind exists” or “Truth exists”!
To reject intangible realities is to reject logic…
 
tonyrey said:
You could use precisely the same argument with “The mind exists” or “Truth exists”!
To reject intangible realities is to reject logic…
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But the point is that, since the terms are not defined (i.e. they remain unknown varialbes, like X and Y) it is an explanation of why it seems to be virtually impossible to convince either the non-theist (who has defined “God” and "exists in such a way that the proposition “God exists” does not hold true), and similarly to un-convince the theist (who has defined the terms in such a way that the proposition is true).

So, the point is that the discussion of the proposition “God exists”, amount virtually to a dispute about how to define the terms of the proposition, rather than a discussion of the true nature of ‘reality’, if reality is defined as the ‘perceptible universe’ (‘reality’ is perhaps another undefined variable!)

I mean, it would seem that we all share more or less the same opinions about the perceptible universe.

(Let me clarify- I am a theist, more or less since birth. Now over that time my definitions of the terms “God” and “exists” have varied substantially- but I will always maintain the truth of the statement “God exists”- if my perception of reality changes, I would change how I defined the terms of the proposition, but would hold to the proposition regardless. I suspect that the opposite may be the case for non-theists)
 
Qoeleth said:
Perhaps. But the point is that, since the terms are not defined (i.e. they remain unknown varialbes, like X and Y) it is an explanation of why it seems to be virtually impossible to convince either the non-theist (who has defined “God” and "exists in such a way that the proposition “God exists” does not hold true), and similarly to un-convince the theist (who has defined the terms in such a way that the proposition is true).

So, the point is that the discussion of the proposition “God exists”, amount virtually to a dispute about how to define the terms of the proposition, rather than a discussion of the true nature of ‘reality’, if reality is defined as the ‘perceptible universe’ (‘reality’ is perhaps another undefined variable!)

I mean, it would seem that we all share more or less the same opinions about the perceptible universe.

(Let me clarify- I am a theist, more or less since birth. Now over that time my definitions of the terms “God” and “exists” have varied substantially- but I will always maintain the truth of the statement “God exists”- if my perception of reality changes, I would change how I defined the terms of the proposition, but would hold to the proposition regardless. I suspect that the opposite may be the case for non-theists)
Click to expand...
I would say that the terms God and exists are defined well enough to have a rational discussion about the truth of the statement: God exists. This is an objective statement, which true, or false, independent of whether one believes it, knows it, or likes it. The fact that this discussion isn’t coersive, either way, I believe is based on free will. Often those declaring it false would lose a the rationale for continuing some sinful activity.
 
Qoeleth said:
Perhaps. But the point is that, since the terms are not defined (i.e. they remain unknown varialbes, like X and Y) it is an explanation of why it seems to be virtually impossible to convince either the non-theist (who has defined “God” and "exists in such a way that the proposition “God exists” does not hold true), and similarly to un-convince the theist (who has defined the terms in such a way that the proposition is true).

So, the point is that the discussion of the proposition “God exists”, amount virtually to a dispute about how to define the terms of the proposition, rather than a discussion of the true nature of ‘reality’, if reality is defined as the ‘perceptible universe’ (‘reality’ is perhaps another undefined variable!)

I mean, it would seem that we all share more or less the same opinions about the perceptible universe.

(Let me clarify- I am a theist, more or less since birth. Now over that time my definitions of the terms “God” and “exists” have varied substantially- but I will always maintain the truth of the statement “God exists”- if my perception of reality changes, I would change how I defined the terms of the proposition, but would hold to the proposition regardless. I suspect that the opposite may be the case for non-theists)
Click to expand...
Qoeleth:

What are we calling “reality?” Can we adequately describe: “the real.” Is it: atoms? Quarks? Space? Tissue? Crystals? Rocks? Trees?

If the building blocks of matter are things that are essentially dimensionless, how do they constitute “reality?”

I have no doubt that God exists because it is He who makes all of this “real” - to us. He is the communication between our souls and stuff. We are in a matrix, as it were. Not like the movie, but, a matrix nonetheless.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Qoeleth:

What are we calling “reality?” Can we adequately describe: “the real.” Is it: atoms? Quarks? Space? Tissue? Crystals? Rocks? Trees?

If the building blocks of matter are things that are essentially dimensionless, how do they constitute “reality?”

I have no doubt that God exists because it is He who makes all of this “real” - to us. He is the communication between our souls and stuff. We are in a matrix, as it were. Not like the movie, but, a matrix nonetheless.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
This is a similar issue- What, indeed, is ‘reality’? One school (Parmenides, Plato, some schools of Buddhism), would say reality is an unchanging ‘unity’. Others would say, ‘reality’ is that which can be perceived, touched, measured, in some way.

But, I suggest, the argument about what constitutes reality amount to: How does one define the word ‘reality’?
 
Let’s consider the proposition “God exists”. It would seem that there is no agreement on what either of the terms of the proposition signify- people evidently have different concepts of “God”, and different concepts of “existence” (Platonists, materialists, Berkelian idealists, existentialists, Parmenedians, etc.).
Click to expand...
You forgot Pantheists.

That there is not agreement among these various groups about the definition of God is of no importance to me.

I define God as an omnipotent, onmiscient, infinitely perfect, Supremely One, infinitely good, eternal, personal, necessary, providential ( throw in a few other characteristics ) being. This is the Catholic/Thomistic God.

If anybody wants to challenge my definition of God,
you know what, I’m not interested. :sleep:

For me, the question is does the God as I defined him exist.? I don’t care what Pantheists and other groups of people think. Let them come up with their own definitions of God. I’m not interested. Let them lead themselves and each other down the path of ignorance.
 
empther said:
You forgot Pantheists.

That there is not agreement among these various groups about the definition of God is of no importance to me.

I define God as an omnipotent, onmiscient, infinitely perfect, Supremely One, infinitely good, eternal, personal, necessary, providential ( throw in a few other characteristics ) being. This is the Catholic/Thomistic God.

If anybody wants to challenge my definition of God,
you know what, I’m not interested. :sleep:

For me, the question is does the God as I defined him exist.? I don’t care what Pantheists and other groups of people think. Let them come up with their own definitions of God. I’m not interested. Let them lead themselves and each other down the path of ignorance.
Click to expand...
But do we need to be careful in ‘defining’ God? For a lot of people, the understanding of God at one point of life is quite different another. Has your own understanding of God changed over the years? May it change in the future?
“Si enim comprehendis, non est Deus”, as Augustine says.

I would also point out that if we include in our ‘definition’ of God a term such as ‘omnipotent’ (or any other term), how we understand that term is itself likely to change. For example, on another thread, the meaning of ‘eternity’ is subject to dispute, and on another, so is the meaning of “perfect”. Roland Barthes argues that words can never be conclusively ‘defined’ as the definition always uses other words, which in turn need to be defined, et cetera ad infinitum. This process of definition, deferral of one concept to another, is never a simple equivalence, giving rise to what Derrida would call differance. For this reason, I suggest we never know precisely what “God” “exists” or “reality”, or any other word for that matter, really means.
 
For this reason, I suggest we never know precisely what “God” “exists” or “reality”, or any other word for that matter, really means.
Click to expand...
I do. 🙂

I all seems incredibly simple to me. 😃

The nuns and religious brothers taught me about the nature of God fifty years ago and my understanding of God hasn’t changed one iota since. No reason to change. God as the Church teaches about him makes sense. Nothing else makes sense.

You thread’s premise ( whatever it is :eek: ) doesn’t amount to much. 😊 Leads nowhere. 🤷
 
Qoeleth said:
Let’s consider the proposition “God exists”. It would seem that there is no agreement on what either of the terms of the proposition signify- people evidently have different concepts of “God”, and different concepts of “existence” (Platonists, materialists, Berkelian idealists, existentialists, Parmenedians, etc.).

Now, the lack of definite content for either of the terms would seem to mean that the proposition “God exists” makes determination of its truth analogous to trying to determine is the following equation correct, without having determined what X and Y actually equal:
X + Y = 5

Is this true? It depends upon what X and Y equal. And that is not given.

If a person chooses to accept that proposition, they can then define “God” and “exists” so that they equation holds true, e.g. “God”= that which is eternal and unchanging. “Exist”= being eternal and unchanging.

On the other hand, if a person chooses to reject the proposition, they then define “God” and “exists” in such a way as to make the equation untrue, e.g. “God”= a purely spiritual being outside the Universe. “Exists”= being as a material thing in the Universe.

So, it would appear that the debate on whether “God exists” is not of real substance. Rather the pertinent question would seem to be “what do we mean by ‘God’?” and “what do we mean by ‘exists’?”

It is therefore evident, I suggest, that the argument relates only to the definitions of the terms.

Otherwise, we are arguing whether X +Y= 10 is correct or not.
Click to expand...
If you would like to take a look at God in a mathmatical formula (atleast from an infty perspective) 😉

cs.princeton.edu/~wayne/mandel/mandel.html
 
Qoeleth said:
This is a similar issue- What, indeed, is ‘reality’? One school (Parmenides, Plato, some schools of Buddhism), would say reality is an unchanging ‘unity’. Others would say, ‘reality’ is that which can be perceived, touched, measured, in some way.

But, I suggest, the argument about what constitutes reality amount to: How does one define the word ‘reality’?
Click to expand...
Qoeleth:

Exactly. But even more important is that we look out and see (our most primary sense) “reality.” But, is what we see really reality? How do things have mass and weight? How are things opaque? Why do some things we eat taste good, while others, not so good?

Other Buddhists believe that reality is never the same from moment to moment, constantly in flux.

I wonder what St. Thomas was thinking about when he wandered off, discontinuing his writing?

Reality is that which we agree to, what we agree that it is. Each of us, inside our own interiorities, and together, as separate entities with a common language. How do we become so proud that we think we know?

God bless,
jd
 
Once when I was in involuntary psycho lockup, I was getting grilled with stupid questions by a stupid intern.

He asked, “do you believe you are here on a mission from God?”

I said, "I don’t know you or what you mean when you say ‘mission’ and ‘God.’ I’m guessing the chances of your being a member of a western religion are slim (and btw English was obviously not his first language) so I don’t know what you’re trying to find out about my beliefs.

“I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and as members we believe we have certain responsibilities. So if that’s what you mean, then I’m on a mission from God. If it isn’t what you mean, help me understand your question and I will answer you.”

He wrote “refused to answer” in bold letters, made a grim face, and when we got done he doubled my tranquilizers.

I fully agree with the OP. And I understand the point you were making with the algebra. Sometimes when I throw a stick for my dog, instead of looking toward the stick he keeps looking at my hand. But I got past the algebra and saw it supporting your point.

Alan
 
I think what is being hit on here is something that is a much more ubiquitous communication obstacle. There are many key words and idioms to which this could be applied: God, faith, answered prayers, believe in, and so on. The meaning of some of these phrases varies not only from one religion to another but some times from one denomination to another and at times from one person to another that are within the same denomination. I think it’s common for people to assume that every one else means the same things and applies the same attributes to the concepts of discussions.

A few days ago an indian man was trying to leave the parking lot at the same place I keep my car. He didn’t realize it was a cash only lot, and when he went to exit he discovered he didn’t have enough cash to pay his way out. So I hopped out of my car and paid his way out to save him a walk down the street to the nearest ATM. After I refused to allow him to try to send money to repay me back he said that “He would pray to his god/God for me.” Most of the indians I know are polytheistic and use the word “God” in a different way than Christians do. I don’t know what this man’s religion was. So I also don’t know what he meant when he said “god/God”.

On a related note when asked “Do you believe in God” I usually reply with “which God and what do you mean by ‘believe in’?” People asking that question are not always asking about Yahweh, and by “believe in” they don’t always mean something that is related to “existence”
 
As to defining God, that is not difficult for everyone to agree upon.

If you want to prove God exists, you do need to know what or whom you are talking about.

Most people of the monotheistic tradition are content to give God a working definition that can be fleshed out by both reason and revelation.

My own working definition would be:

“God is a Being who transcends the universe and is self sufficient and therefore eternal.”

Seeking to prove the existence of such a Being I would start with the fact that God cannot be the universe itself because the universe appears to be neither self sufficient nor eternal. Then where does the universe come from, if not from the transcendent, self-sufficient, and eternal God?

This is basically the argument of Aquinas, though he does not phrase it specifically in these terms, choosing to rely instead on the idea of First Mover.

After affirming the likelihood that a Supreme Being exists upon which the universe depends for its existence, one can go on to discuss other likely or unlikely attributes of God. Again, natural reason is helpful here, but the complete picture cannot be given except by revelation.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
 
**Thinking

On a related note when asked “Do you believe in God” I usually reply with “which God and what do you mean by ‘believe in’?” People asking that question are not always asking about Yahweh, and by “believe in” they don’t always mean something that is related to “existence” **

Yes, with polytheism it is difficult to locate a supreme Deity. Even the Greek god Zeus was subject to the will of the Fates. All the gods seem to have been born at some time or another of one god or another, except the eternal, self-sufficient God of Abraham who would have no gods before Him.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Yes, with polytheism it is difficult to locate a supreme Deity…
Click to expand...
I wasn’t just thinking of polytheism. I’ve heard phrases such as “I don’t think that Jesus really existed, but I do believe in him.” In that context to say that one “believes in” jesus has nothing to do with “existence.” And I hear various uses of the phrase “believe in” like that all the time.

Now if some one heard this person making the declaration of “believing in” jesus I think it would be easy to form a false conclusion of what the person’s disposition is.
 
Thinking

**Now if some one heard this person making the declaration of “believing in” jesus I think it would be easy to form a false conclusion of what the person’s disposition is. **

That would apply to someone like Thomas Jefferson, who said he believed in Jesus, but only the Jesus stripped of miracles and Resurrection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top