Is there any reason to believe in God?

[brewpanda]

I admit I could think of hypotheticals,. Off on my existential bent, my point was seeing a bit of the circularity of the question. In that people often choose to believe because they want a reason (particularly for existential type things), and then demanding a reason for believing to create a reason for being makes the whole argument kinda loopy, and does little more than put us in the mind of the same viewpoint we criticise. If that makes more sense. I realise I sound confusing... Not sure if this is better.

This is entirely correct, that predominantly theistic beliefs are circular.

But consider besides the obvious purpose for belief- "reason for life, suffering, achievement, universe", that all things must have a beginning/cause (which seems ridiculous in and of itself), hope; consider the other possibilities.

If people try at all to explore more than say, what they can observably know or conjecture and instead explore what they cannot observably know or conjecture, they began to delve into areas of complete unknowns. As already stated, one could broadly assign theists the belief in a deity for the sole purpose of explaining what cannot otherwise be understood. Certainly history tells us this is the case.

However, I think it important to separate the categories of theists. There are theists who believe because they were brought up to believe. They don't question or academically examine anything they have faith in. It is purely blind faith without rhyme or reason. It has pathos, it "feels" right.

But in the second category, there are individuals who explore the whys for the whys. They ask themselves, the metaphysicists, what can I know? What can I discern and what is the actuality of what I discern really like? They want explanations for the nonempirical phenomena, or simply explanations for the non-material. They consider the notions of Love or Freedom and whether or not these are objective entities or concepts that exist regardless of man or mind.

While obviously someone can be a metaphysicist without being a theist, we would naturally suppose that most explorers of the metaphysics ask questions such as,
"Is there free will or determinism?"
"What is the nature of space and time?"
"What are the abstracts and objective truths, if there are any?"
"What is the material? What are the forms? What is phenomena?"
"What is a thing's essence or identity? What is my own essence or identity?"
"Is a form, essence possessive of characteristics and properties? Can we discern these characteristics and properties?Are phenomena possessive of characeristics and properties?"
"Granted we have this observable world, but what other worlds can we speculate on their existence? Or possible existence?"
"Is there a deity? Are religions rational, reasonable, explicable? What is the nature of a deity or possible deities?"

So if we consider that one category of theists and deists exist as metaphysicists, we could consider them differently. Obviously, the school of the speculative (as the nature of metaphysics is), is subject to severe criticism and scrutiny. It isn't varifiable, it is variable, it can often be relative if the practitioners aren't careful, and it cannot be empirically proven or disproven, we can never test it. Thus, many people pass it off, saying it lacks merit for this alone. (Yet here we are praciticing it!)

The practice has a use though. We could consider that it a) encourages imagination, in speculating as to what can only be speculated b) challenges opposition into being more attentive to empiricism c) brain excercises, since the whole practice centers around activity in thought and development of ideas, regardless of observable foundations.

Therefore, at the very least I would suggest that theists and deists alike keep the materialists of the world in constant anxiety and necessitate adepts to consistently examine themselves for improvement in mental development.
For the phenomenists and theists, deists and metaphysicists, it entertains mind and "spirit" when the average every day occurences of empirics lack depth and variablity that engage the senses and rational faculties.

Is this satisfactory to most? Probably not! But I look at it this way, if people didn't believe, forums like this wouldn't exist and that would make for a terribly dull existence.
So theism, deism, what have you! Is at the very least, droll! And at the most, entirely correct! But it is unlikely we shall ever empirically know which it is!

 

[lrkun]

No. Because believing or not believing in god results to the same thing in this world. But not believing in god reduces the factors to focus in living.

 

[brewpanda]

No. Because believing or not believing in god results to the same thing in this world. But not believing in god reduces the factors to focus in living.

And believing in a deity negates focus on living? That is a bold statement that needs much more foundational basis.

Nor is it absolute that nonbelief focuses on "in living".

I think that set of words needs definition. Fiction can be written by atheists and it doesn't focus on "in living". Atheist metaphysicists speculate on things that are not "in living."

You argument seems to suggest that because something cannot be empirically known and that it is speculative and abstract, that necessarily removes itself from validity of "in living." Forgive me if I am wrong. But conceptualizing what could be after death is no different than conceptualizing what is not or may not or imagined to be or could possibly be but can't be known to be.

 

[lrkun]

No. Because believing or not believing in god results to the same thing in this world. But not believing in god reduces the factors to focus in living.

And believing in a deity negates focus on living? That is a bold statement that needs much more foundational basis.

Nor is it absolute that nonbelief focuses on "in living".

I think that set of words needs definition. Fiction can be written by atheists and it doesn't focus on "in living". Atheist metaphysicists speculate on things that are not "in living."

You argument seems to suggest that because something cannot be empirically known and that it is speculative and abstract, that necessarily removes itself from validity of "in living." Forgive me if I am wrong. But conceptualizing what could be after death is no different than conceptualizing what is not or may not or imagined to be or could possibly be but can't be known to be.

Sure you can spend your time focusing on the hypothetical, doing so makes money. It's the stupid questions which eventually leads to wealth. Like gravity for example. No one really seems to care why the apply fell, but someone asked why. But in the case of god, the word unknown is sufficient enough to explain what god is. In consequence, not only do we have to constantly add something to the idea of god, but it is almost always different for everyone. Unless, you're talking about greek gods and the old gods.

 

[brewpanda]

Sure you can spend your time focusing on the hypothetical, doing so makes money. It's the stupid questions which eventually leads to wealth. Like gravity for example. No one really seems to care why the apply fell, but someone asked why. But in the case of god, the word unknown is sufficient enough to explain what god is. In consequence, not only do we have to constantly add something to the idea of god, but it is almost always different for everyone. Unless, you're talking about greek gods and the old gods.

But the unknown is temporarily sufficient to explain discrepencies in the gravitational constant. We have to constantly add something to the gravitational constant, to most astrophysics and quantum mechanics to make it work. Which is a large but necessary hypothetical field that is beneficial to life on many levels.

The concept of a deity arguably, has measurable benefits to a quantifiable group of people. Therefore, beyond money, it has utility.

 

[lrkun]

But the unknown is temporarily sufficient to explain discrepencies in the gravitational constant. We have to constantly add something to the gravitational constant, to most astrophysics and quantum mechanics to make it work. Which is a large but necessary hypothetical field that is beneficial to life on many levels.

The concept of a deity arguably, has measurable benefits to a quantifiable group of people. Therefore, beyond money, it has utility.

A quick fix isn't the same as a solution. It's like herbal medicine, it gives you the placebo, but it is better to see a real doctor for real medicine.

 

[brewpanda]

But the unknown is temporarily sufficient to explain discrepencies in the gravitational constant. We have to constantly add something to the gravitational constant, to most astrophysics and quantum mechanics to make it work. Which is a large but necessary hypothetical field that is beneficial to life on many levels.

The concept of a deity arguably, has measurable benefits to a quantifiable group of people. Therefore, beyond money, it has utility.

A quick fix isn't the same as a solution. It's like herbal medicine, it gives you the placebo, but it is better to see a real doctor for real medicine.

But that argument negates half of the fixes or theories in QM, because they were quickly arrived at to explain x y or z inconsistency!

And I would argue that historically and philisophically even, deism is the opposite of a quick fix since there are more efficiently utilitarian means to bandaid problems, especially in the modern age.

 

[lrkun]

But that argument negates half of the fixes or theories in QM, because they were quickly arrived at to explain x y or z inconsistency!

And I would argue that historically and philisophically even, deism is the opposite of a quick fix since there are more efficiently utilitarian means to bandaid problems, especially in the modern age.

In the modern age, the idea of a god or gods sells well in movies as well as the fantasy genre. Especially in anime. That's the only appreciation I have for god/s. They make good characters in a story, especially if they are drawn cute.

But we have to face reality. I mean, it's okay to dream these things, but it won't help us pay our taxes or feed ourselves.

 

[RedYellow]

Brewpanda, Gods are not equal as explanations for things we don't understand. Saying that some kind of unknown dark matter accounts for observed phenomena, isn't the same as saying a sentient being with impossible capability and specific intent exists and accounts for absolutely everything.

Gods are primitive, obsolete relics of philosophical understanding, they are the result of human beings being unable to separate themselves from their own observations, so that everything they saw specifically existed to serve themselves as some kind of reward or punishment for their behavior. It's simply a way of projecting our own invented concept of significance onto things, the god of human vanity.

 

[brewpanda]

In the modern age, the idea of a god or gods sells well in movies as well as the fantasy genre. Especially in anime. That's the only appreciation I have for god/s. They make good characters in a story, especially if they are drawn cute.

But we have to face reality. I mean, it's okay to dream these things, but it won't help us pay our taxes or feed ourselves.

I agree with the overall premise and sentiment of what you are expressing here. For practical purposes, belief in deities or mythical creatures serves no efficient end, and it can be counterproductive at times. So, in that sense, it isn't utilitarian.

However!

Brewpanda, Gods are not equal as explanations for things we don't understand. Saying that some kind of unknown dark matter accounts for observed phenomena, isn't the same as saying a sentient being with impossible capability and specific intent exists and accounts for absolutely everything.

Gods are primitive, obsolete relics of philosophical understanding, they are the result of human beings being unable to separate themselves from their own observations, so that everything they saw specifically existed to serve themselves as some kind of reward or punishment for their behavior. It's simply a way of projecting our own invented concept of significance onto things, the god of human vanity.

I am not sure that I agree with your first paragraph. You have to establish that five holes to be filled by five different answers is more reasonable and efficient than filling those same five holes with one answer.
In essence, at a fundamental level I agree with you that deities as generally constructed are archaic. They can be fun bed time stories, or history lessons, but that's the extent for most of them. Right?

That said, let's take a hypothetical endeavour ok? Oblige me for a moment.

Let us concieve of a thing that is infinite in nature. A singularity for instance. Let us suppose that this singularity exists prior to the big bang, prior to all knowns and unknowns of the physical world. It covers all concievable and inconcievable degrees of freedom. It in itself possesses mass but it is at the same time massless. It exists whether the universe exists or not. It propels the universe into its present existence. But this singularity lacks causation and it is distinct from all else in and of itself.

Now let us concieve of abstracts that we use to order everyday life. Math, rights of man, morality, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, compassion and mercy, love and justice, courage and virtue. While these generally have broad definitions, we can say that to understand the definition one experiences the thing in and of itself, ie love. But experience is subjective, so how then do individuals empathize and communicate the subjective experience of these concepts in an objective enough way? Is it possible to concieve of these things existing separate from ourselves? Regardless whether we know of them or not? Obviously, we can concieve that things of matter exist outside ourselves, that's pretty much a given. But what of things of non-matter? (Are non-material particles a failure by us to measure their positive phenomena or are they simply non-material?) If we accept that principles we assign to phenomena exist outside ourselves, if math exists besides us, is it possible that other abstracts do? Let us consider for a moment that we accept these abstracts, these conceptualizations that have no known phenomena but only interact with phenomena on a descriptive scale. (As in Law of Relativity, Law of Identity, Natural Rights of Man).
Then let us say that all these abstracts that exist regardless of man percieving their existence can be summed up as a systematic order to the universe.

But let us say, this singularity that exists distinct of all matter, exists outside of what we term spacetime. Let us suppose it is independent of it but it leads to the universe. Now if we were to combine the existence of this singularity with the existence of abstract forms that lack matter in and of themselves (acting as relationships between all things and order) - that this singularity creates the system inherently capable of being ordered by the descriptive and categorical abstracts. We will presuppose these abstracts are part of the singularity, generated by it.
All things in the universe- everything contained within it- are created through the expansion of the singularity. (I assume we can agree on that.) If the singularity is all that exists and its expansion leads to the existence of all things than those things must have been contained in the singularity unless some outside actor is adding them to the equation. So the abstract concept of rationality exists in the universe, therefore the singularity contains rationality. All things that include rationality include it as an attribute, i.e. even in the case of math, rationality is a characteristic of math. Therefore if the singularity contains rationality it does so, or at least we can reasonably assume based on our observation of all things to possess rationality, as an attribute or characteristic. At this point, all that we have established is that our singularity is logically consistent in the same way that math is. However! Sentience is also a concept within this universe. Apply ad nauseum.

Certainly negative attributes exist in the universe, but it is no more irrational for the singularity to be sentient or nonsentient, rational or irrational than it is to have a massless and massful singularity.

The singularity is therefore, as established, a rational concept of a deity.
(You could do this without a singularity as well, in the case of an eternal model of the universe.)


This is a hypothetical argument for a rational deist postulate. I stress hypothetical.

 

[RedYellow]

I am not sure that I agree with your first paragraph. You have to establish that five holes to be filled by five different answers is more reasonable and efficient than filling those same five holes with one answer.

If God is your one answer, then it is not an answer, it's just more questions. the bottom line, and most fatal problem with theism, deism, intelligent design, etc, is the fact that intelligence is only ever observed or understood in a biologically contingent context.

If God is the answer, then a whole array of questions rear their heads: How does intelligence exist independently of a physical brain? Why does such a thing exist uncaused? How do we know it's the only one of it's kind? What if it lives in a community of Gods? What if they are creating their own universes? What if our God is an evil outlaw in it's world? The moment you say that anything can exist outside what we define as the universe, you could be talking about absolutely anything.

But yes, god is great for 'one size fits all' answers. Afterall, on an extremely superficial level, what amounts to magic is the best explanation for everything, at all. But it's not a useful answer, it explains nothing. What's more reasonable and efficient is not invoking a huge unknown as an answer.

If we accept that principles we assign to phenomena exist outside ourselves, if math exists besides us, is it possible that other abstracts do?

I don't really think math exists beside us. Math is a language that is built upon certain concepts that in and of themselves do not exist, such as quantity, addition, subtraction, etc. Math, as a language is meant purely for an observer, it has no use to the world outside the mind. The brain takes collections of matter and divides them into quantities of individual entities. But unlike a human being, then universe does no see two oranges sitting on a table, it's just atoms. If we take away one orange, how many are left? Universe? "It's still just atoms."

I know what you're getting at, and yes I do agree that the universe has an order to it, but that doesn't mean our conceptualizations are a fundamental part of it. They are more of a reflection of it, after the fact. The concept of love, for example, could be built upon the basic idea of attraction between two entities. The attraction itself isn't love, it's just a behavior of things. What makes it love is our experience of it, how it relates to us as biological creatures.

So again, as I stated in my previous post, I think the problem is removing ourselves from our observations. I see you trying to romantically place the mind and the rest of the universe on the same playing field, but I think that the price of consciousness is a separation from the rest of the universe. We can only see it through concepts and observations, we can't really 'see' the universe directly.

Certainly negative attributes exist in the universe, but it is no more irrational for the singularity to be sentient or nonsentient, rational or irrational than it is to have a massless and massful singularity.

Sorry, but I think something having mass, and something having sentience are not equal things. Again for the reasons I stated above, sentience as it can be observed carries with it a set of requirements that would require vastly more explanation than something having mass. Mass is a basic property of universal contents. Sentience is a system of cognitive functions that require things like time, a means to store information and something external to be aware of and observe. There's nothing basic about sentience, it is a system, no matter how you look at it, and a system depends on a developmental process.

 

[borrofburi]

Now let us concieve of abstracts that we use to order everyday life. Math, rights of man, morality, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, compassion and mercy, love and justice, courage and virtue. While these generally have broad definitions, we can say that to understand the definition one experiences the thing in and of itself, ie love. But experience is subjective, so how then do individuals empathize and communicate the subjective experience of these concepts in an objective enough way? Is it possible to concieve of these things existing separate from ourselves? Regardless whether we know of them or not? Obviously, we can concieve that things of matter exist outside ourselves, that's pretty much a given. But what of things of non-matter? (Are non-material particles a failure by us to measure their positive phenomena or are they simply non-material?) If we accept that principles we assign to phenomena exist outside ourselves, if math exists besides us, is it possible that other abstracts do? Let us consider for a moment that we accept these abstracts, these conceptualizations that have no known phenomena but only interact with phenomena on a descriptive scale. (As in Law of Relativity, Law of Identity, Natural Rights of Man).
Then let us say that all these abstracts that exist regardless of man percieving their existence can be summed up as a systematic order to the universe.

Please define "exist".

 

[brewpanda]

Please define "exist".

To have entity, essence, form or being whether material or immaterial.

 

[borrofburi]

Please define "exist".

To have entity, essence, form or being whether material or immaterial.

Please define "to have entity", espeically "immaterial entity". Please define "to have essence", especially "immaterial essence". Please define "to have form", especially "immaterial form". Please define "to have being", especially "immaterial being".

 

[brewpanda]

If God is your one answer, then it is not an answer, it's just more questions. the bottom line, and most fatal problem with theism, deism, intelligent design, etc, is the fact that intelligence is only ever observed or understood in a biologically contingent context.

If God is the answer, then a whole array of questions rear their heads: How does intelligence exist independently of a physical brain? Why does such a thing exist uncaused? How do we know it's the only one of it's kind? What if it lives in a community of Gods? What if they are creating their own universes? What if our God is an evil outlaw in it's world? The moment you say that anything can exist outside what we define as the universe, you could be talking about absolutely anything.

But yes, god is great for 'one size fits all' answers. Afterall, on an extremely superficial level, what amounts to magic is the best explanation for everything, at all. But it's not a useful answer, it explains nothing. What's more reasonable and efficient is not invoking a huge unknown as an answer.

But regardless of whether it is one answer or five answers, there are always more questions, so that point is moot.

The first two questions you pose are legitimate to an extent, the former especially. Which is fine, but it can be answered philisophically, not empirically. So it depends on whether or not you can accept reason to substantiate the possibility of it existing without material phenomena. The second question can be answered simply by saying causality is a human conception, not a thing of the physical world therefore it is entirely plausible for something to exist uncaused since at the moment, everything does- well, lacking causes we can know of. But singularities have the same difficulty, how do they exist uncaused themselves? The rest of the questions I think are less intuitive. They are much more subjective and their answers can't be so easily reasoned at. It would be like asking why can't fairies smell of apples or why can't we use dark matter turds from tiny nibblonians to power ships? Why can't we travel the universe with an anti-matter propulsion ship? What if coyotes had wings? It is a set of details that are beyond reason, like sci-fi or normal fiction.

I also am not sure it does amount to magic. There are philisophically sound arguments for a deity. So if it is rational or reasonable to draw the conclusion of a deity it certainly couldn't be termed magic. well, "magic" in the sense of it has no rhyme or reason and doesn't adhere to physical or principled laws.

I don't really think math exists beside us. Math is a language that is built upon certain concepts that in and of themselves do not exist, such as quantity, addition, subtraction, etc. Math, as a language is meant purely for an observer, it has no use to the world outside the mind. The brain takes collections of matter and divides them into quantities of individual entities. But unlike a human being, then universe does no see two oranges sitting on a table, it's just atoms. If we take away one orange, how many are left? Universe? "It's still just atoms."

I know what you're getting at, and yes I do agree that the universe has an order to it, but that doesn't mean our conceptualizations are a fundamental part of it. They are more of a reflection of it, after the fact. The concept of love, for example, could be built upon the basic idea of attraction between two entities. The attraction itself isn't love, it's just a behavior of things. What makes it love is our experience of it, how it relates to us as biological creatures.

So again, as I stated in my previous post, I think the problem is removing ourselves from our observations. I see you trying to romantically place the mind and the rest of the universe on the same playing field, but I think that the price of consciousness is a separation from the rest of the universe. We can only see it through concepts and observations, we can't really 'see' the universe directly.

I am actually surprised by this. I find most people accept math as a given concept that exists with phenomena but independent of us. I mean, obviously it is more than simply addition and subtraction, division and quantity. It geometrically relates phenomena to one another, it orders space. I was under the impression most people accept calculus and geometry exist in the material world as abstract entities regardless of us. I mean, even in terms of quantification that seems extreme to say that it has no use outside the mind. The natural world employs quantity and spacial relation on a fundamental level. The universe itself sees nothing but those atoms are still quantities within the universe whether we are percieving them or not. The universe passively recognizes the spatial relationship of that phenomena's matter and the quantity of it in relation to itself and other phenomena in the universe. Whether it is a collection of atoms or one atom, virtual particle or not, photon or neutrino, quantum foam or quasiparticle.

But at the minimal level, some of the abstract conceptualizations must be a part of the phenomena universe unless we accept the universe in not real. We could say that we don't observe the actual universe so these abstracts are concepts we assign to order the phenomena we see and that the physical world of actual forms possess entirely different concepts that order their actuality. Yet still, quantity and identity are principles that can't be disputed out of existence, nor can spatial planes unless we say that nothing exists outside our mind.

I think however, I can understand your argument. Sentience recognizes relationships of things and without a thing actively percieving the relationships of things, the concepts of those relationships don't exist or at least lack meaning.

We can only see it through concepts and observations, we can't really 'see' the universe directly.

And this statement, I entirely agree with on a personal level. But that is idealism. Which I find funny since you! Mister RedYellow! Argued against idealism in a previous thread!

Sorry, but I think something having mass, and something having sentience are not equal things. Again for the reasons I stated above, sentience as it can be observed carries with it a set of requirements that would require vastly more explanation than something having mass. Mass is a basic property of universal contents. Sentience is a system of cognitive functions that require things like time, a means to store information and something external to be aware of and observe. There's nothing basic about sentience, it is a system, no matter how you look at it, and a system depends on a developmental process.

The singularity both possesses mass and is massless though. It is a contradiction in itself. Thus the statements you refer to were organized to suggest that contradictions are possible. (If mass and masslessness exist within one quantifiable thing as one identity, so too can good and evil.)

 

[brewpanda]

Please define "to have entity", espeically "immaterial entity". Please define "to have essence", especially "immaterial essence". Please define "to have form", especially "immaterial form". Please define "to have being", especially "immaterial being".

To have an ultimate and fundamental nature and identity that are possessive to the thing in and of itself that is in form or phenomena, whether it possesses material form or phenomena or nonmaterial form or phenomena.

If you are trying to drive at whether a thing can in fact exist without physical form or phenomena or be quantifiable if it lacks matter, you can just ask. But I think you know concepts exist (even if we were to say for this partial argument that they exist in mind alone), which haven't a percievable physical form or phenomena yet they have individual identity that can be discerned, as in when we think of the law of noncontradiction, we do not think of all principles and laws. When we consider the law of relativity, we do not think of the concepts of freedom or falsifiability (though it is possible that a law can be connected to other principles or be predicated on other principles and concepts or contain within them other principles and concepts).

 

[borrofburi]

Please define "to have entity", espeically "immaterial entity". Please define "to have essence", especially "immaterial essence". Please define "to have form", especially "immaterial form". Please define "to have being", especially "immaterial being".

To have an ultimate and fundamental nature and identity that are possessive to the thing in and of itself that is in form or phenomena, whether it possesses material form or phenomena or nonmaterial form or phenomena.

If you are trying to drive at whether a thing can in fact exist without physical form or phenomena or be quantifiable if it lacks matter, you can just ask. But I think you know concepts exist (even if we were to say for this partial argument that they exist in mind alone), which haven't a percievable physical form or phenomena yet they have individual identity that can be discerned, as in when we think of the law of noncontradiction, we do not think of all principles and laws. When we consider the law of relativity, we do not think of the concepts of freedom or falsifiability (though it is possible that a law can be connected to other principles or be predicated on other principles and concepts or contain within them other principles and concepts).

It seems silly to discuss if it's possible for an immaterial thing to exist, since the question clearly depends on what it means to exist (the question I keep trying to ask, and that you keep answering with more and more poorly connected words that do nothing to clarify the issue). Do unicorns exist? Well yes, if you count the fact that unicorns have been drawn, or animated, or voiced, or made into toys, or thought of, or written about as "existence".

So when you say "math exists" (and I already forgot what that proves, that god exists?), I have to say "well, what do you mean by 'exist'"?

It's a lot like the following quote from http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html:

suppose you're writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the claim "A fetus is a person." What do you mean by "a person"? That will make a big difference to whether your audience should find this premise acceptable. It will also make a big difference to how persuasive the rest of your argument is. By itself, the following argument is pretty worthless:

A fetus is a person.
It's wrong to kill a person.
Therefore, it's wrong to kill a fetus.

For we don't know what the author means by calling a fetus "a person." On some interpretations of "person," it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it's always wrong to kill persons, in that sense of "person." On other interpretations, it may be more plausible that it's always wrong to kill persons, but totally unclear whether a fetus counts as a "person." So everything turns here on what the author means by "person." The author should be explicit about how he is using this notion.

Your argument rests on the idea that "math exists", but what does it mean for math to exist? Under certain definitions of "exist", I might grant you that it provides substantial reason to believe in a god but not that math actually exists; under other definitions of exist I'll definitely grant you that math exists, but will hardly grant that it provides any reason at all to believe in a god. The original post of yours that I am responding to has the problem that "everything turns here on what the author means by 'exist.' The author should be explicit about how (s)he is using this notion."

 

[brewpanda]

It seems silly to discuss if it's possible for an immaterial thing to exist, since the question clearly depends on what it means to exist (the question I keep trying to ask, and that you keep answering with more and more poorly connected words that do nothing to clarify the issue). Do unicorns exist? Well yes, if you count the fact that unicorns have been drawn, or animated, or voiced, or made into toys, or thought of, or written about as "existence".

So when you say "math exists" (and I already forgot what that proves, that god exists?), I have to say "well, what do you mean by 'exist'"?

I think you are willfully misunderstanding the definitions. The words make sense, if you are having difficulty understanding the concept they convey that is your fault not mine. At some point, anyone can reject any idea because they don't accept a definition.

So should we try this again? I will define some of the words I use, giving them philisophical definitions so you can try to understand. (Again, I didn't make these definitions up, they already exist in philosophy therefore, if I didn't define them and they are common in philosophy, it is not my use or invocation of them that is errant it is your failure to comprehend that is the issue. I don't mean that to pass judgment on you or to remove personal fault, I objectively mean it is a problem singular to you.)

Phenomena- things we percieve that are representative of their actual forms or counterparts. Such as table. We don't see the actual table as it really is, we see our perception and impression of the table. We call that phenomena.

Thing in and of itself- the actual thing or form that exists in reality that we can only percieve the phenomena of.

Nature- the inherent constitution or character or group of attributes of a thing, essence

Identity- sameness of self, in being as self or thing on to its own, separate and disctinct from other things and selves

Fundamental- relating to the essentialness of a thing, basic core inherent

Possess- to have or hold attributes, essence, characteristics, identity, knowledge; to own as part of self or thing

Material Form- having positive and quantifiable, physical existence and representation, being of matter

Immaterial Form- having conceptual existence, being without quantifiable or physical characterization or representation, lacking matter

Essence- the characteristic and/or nature of a thing in and of itself

In Being- having actualization, having existence whether conceptually or physically

Entity- a thing separate and distinct, existing of its own with its own identity

Form- the essential nature, identity and essence of a thing distinguishable from its phenomena and matter

So when you say "math exists" (and I already forgot what that proves, that god exists?), I have to say "well, what do you mean by 'exist'"?
Your argument rests on the idea that "math exists", but what does it mean for math to exist? Under certain definitions of "exist", I might grant you that it provides substantial reason to believe in a god but not that math actually exists; under other definitions of exist I'll definitely grant you that math exists, but will hardly grant that it provides any reason at all to believe in a god. The original post of yours that I am responding to has the problem that "everything turns here on what the author means by 'exist.' The author should be explicit about how (s)he is using this notion."

I think you are misinterpreting the argument. It was a hypothetical based on the assumption that abstracts exist exterior to individual sentience conceptualizing them.

So when I say, math exists, I am saying that it has real being or essence that can be discerned, whether it is immaterial or material.

Now, if you are like RedYellow, and suppose that math is simply existent as a human concept not as a thing in and of itself, fine. Then the hypothetical argument priorly given doesn't fit your system.
But it is just as rational to assume it does exist as a thing in and of itself as an abstract concept regardless of observation or sentient perception of it.

I didn't use math as a means to believe in god or to prove that god exists. I was formulating a rational postulate for a rational deity with the assumption that abstract concepts are things in and of themselves. The argument wasn't about a Judeo-Christian God, it was about a singularity as a deity.

I have defined exist. But under the definition given, if we suppose that abstracts do exist (such as math) independent of ourselves, they are intrinsic characteristics to the singularity or the singularity created them. Thus the singularity can be reasonably deified. Does it necessarily need to be? No. But objectively, neither deifing or not deifing it is illogical given the parameters of the hypothetical.

 

[RedYellow]

I find most people accept math as a given concept that exists with phenomena but independent of us. I mean, obviously it is more than simply addition and subtraction, division and quantity. It geometrically relates phenomena to one another, it orders space.

No, it doesn't, brew. "It" geometrically relates nothing. WE do. Math is the description of the behavior. "It" does not order space, space IS orderly in nature, at least we can describe it as such. You are basically making the same simple mistake of thinking that math and other concepts are what drive what is being observed. They're not, you should know that math is a completely human tool. We divide phenomena into imagined quantities, but again, there's nothing that makes an orange '1' orange without the human concept of what qualifies as 'an' orange. Is there a universal standard that defines an orange? No. But we single out specific phenomena of matter and label it organic fruit.

 

[brewpanda]

No, it doesn't, brew. "It" geometrically relates nothing. WE do. Math is the description of the behavior. "It" does not order space, space IS orderly in nature, at least we can describe it as such. You are basically making the same simple mistake of thinking that math and other concepts are what drive what is being observed. They're not, you should know that math is a completely human tool. We divide phenomena into imagined quantities, but again, there's nothing that makes an orange '1' orange without the human concept of what qualifies as 'an' orange. Is there a universal standard that defines an orange? No. But we single out specific phenomena of matter and label it organic fruit.

I don't deny that is a valid position, to hold that we concieve of math but math does not exist outside ourselves. But I would refute you saying that it absolutely can't exist outside ourselves.

While yes we are defining orange, that orange exists regardless of us no? And it would have the properties it possesses regardless of us, no? Even if there aren't words to communicate the concepts of those qualities, it still possesses them onto itself.

And while the symbol "1" exists as a human conception and creation, the principle of it does not necessarily exist as just a human conception. The orange would be singular and possess an identity of itself onto itself without us percieving it. It is objectively quantifiable in the sense that it is singular and distinct from other phenomena like it. The orange doesn't instantly merge with other oranges and matter to be this glop of material goo. It still remains distinct. So principles of identity, non contradiction, and very fundamental math exist without us. (Triangle occurs in nature and is a geometric 'entity' and allignment within math. While the use of the word is entirely based on sentience and even understanding of it, that doesn't mean that the thing itself- triangle- does not exist outside of mind.)

So one can say the basic principles of math exist, but the complex ordering of it is concieved by us.

Don't suppose I am saying you are absolutely wrong, but I don't think there is enough to rationally disprove the position I am taking nor rationally disprove your position.