If God exists, who invented him?

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to admit that I did assume that “imaginary” means “doesn’t exist”. In my defence, my dictionary confirms that this is, indeed, the primary meaning (“existing only in the imagination; not real or actual”). And the meaning that you suggest (“supposed; putative”) is marked as rare, only used in the mid-17th century. So if I have misunderstood your meaning, it's not entirely my fault.

The dictionary is correct. The idea, the concept, is imaginary. It does not reflect to anything real, it does not map to anything real. That though doesn't act as a positive assertion that a thing with the properties of the imaginary thing doesn't also exist. See the difference between imagining a Brazilian man and there actually being a Brazilian man.

Saying Alfredo was a product of my imagination is not the same as saying that there is no one in Brazil called Alfredo, that a Brazilian man named Alfredo doesn't exist. That doesn't mean though that my imaginary concept of the Brazilian Alfredo is real, that it maps to a real thing.

This is a subtle but very important difference. Atheism, for most here, is primarily a process of rejecting as imaginary concepts theist propose, which doesn't require the follow up assertion that things with the properties of these concepts don't or cannot exist.

For someone to assert that Alfredo the Brazil is an imaginary concept that only exists in my head they do not need to demonstrate that there are no Brazilians named Alfredo, they merely need to demonstrate that I don't know any.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair enough. And, interestingly, Christian theology makes exactly the same point. Precisely because God (if he exists) is outside our experience or understanding, everything we can say of him is provisional, tentative.

Christian theology does not make that point, if they did there would be no Christian theology. Christian theology asserts as known or established enough about God to ensure its own existence and faith of its believers. They often do this to appeals to the revelation of the Bible. The assertion that God is untestable, unknowable, is only invoked to combat troublesome questions from non-believers. It is conveniently ignored where the issue of establishing the truth of the Bible's revelations is concerned. This is true even of the great theologians such as Aquinas.

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, every member of the set of things that do exist is also a member of the set of things that we can and do imagine. Consequently, being imaginary (in the sense you use the word) is a universal characteristic of all existing things.

Well that isn't quite true, it is easy to suppose there are things that exist that we cannot and never will be able to imagine. Not all that relevant to the original point though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hence his being imaginary doesn’t really tell against the possibility of God’s existence, except in the sense that it also tells against the possibility of the existence of, say, the chair on which I am now sitting.

Again it does so long as the set of imaginary things is bigger than the set of things that exist.

Using a simple example, if we can imagine 100 things but only 50 of them exists then the odds that any particular thing in that set existing is 1 in 2.

The odds that something that exists does exist is of course 1 in 1. So the odds of any particular imaginary thing existing will, so long as the set is larger than things that do exist, greater than the odds of existence.

Of course experience tells us that the difference between imaginary and real is far bigger than 100 to 50, so the odds of one particular imaginary object existing is pretty small if we are basing this simply on randomly picking an imaginary concept, which given there is no tangible evidence for God over any other imaginary concept, we are forced to.

This changes of course if we suppose an infinite reality where all things can and will exist, but that contracts the Christian notion of God anyway and thus becomes a paradox.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your objection to God’s existence isn’t really rooted in the fact that we can imagine him; it’s rooted in the fact that we can’t perceive him, isn’t it?

The fact that we cannot perceive him means we cannot tie the imaginary concept to any aspect of reality. Thus we cannot increase the odds that we have successfully mapped from the imaginary to the real.

If I've never been to Brazil and have never met a Brazilian and know nothing about Brazilians then the concept of Alfredo the Brazilian remains purely imaginary, and the odds that this lines up with a real Brazilian very small.

The less we can verify about our concept of God against something that actually is real the less likely it is that our concept does in anyway accurately reflect reality.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Granted, but only subject to the same qualification that I mentioned earlier about atheists – i.e. your statement is true only of some theists.

I would be interested to meet a "theist" for whom this isn't true assuming they were not insane.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I certainly can’t blame atheists for wanting to tied down discussion about God to something tangible. (Nor can I blame theists for wanting that.) But I do blame atheists – well, “blame” might be too strong a word – for not acknowledging that they mustn’t. The God that Christianity proposes is intangible.

Again if that was the case Christianity wouldn't be proposing it in the first place.

He is only intangible when problems arise. When problems don't raise he is a whole list of things, such as the creator of the universe, the father of humanity, the judge of morality, the creator of heaven and hell, our savior etc etc.

To be consistent Christianity would have to propose that possibly something somewhere that does or doesn't do somethings may or may not exist.

And if they did that they wouldn't be Christianity.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But as I pointed out earlier the fact that it’s “imaginary” doesn’t tell us anything about the odds of its existing.

Dealt with above.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s an entirely different point, though. You are arguing now not that God doesn’t exist, but that it doesn’t matter to us whether he exists or not.

I was never arguing that God doesn't exist. There is an infinite number of things that could exist (but probably don't). Without these being testable it is impossible to say if any of them do or do not exist, but as such they have no bearing on our lives or our knowledge.

This can be seen clearly by simply proposing, endlessly, minute changes to the Christian notion of God and asking do they exist? Does there exist a God who created the universe in 8 days instead of 7? You can propose an endless list of other beings that don't even have to be that different from the one Christianity proposes. All of them could exist, but such proposals have no bearing on our lives.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is no empirical reason.

Is there another type of reason?

Peregrinus wrote: »

An excellent question, and one which probably requires a separate thread. I think, for every believer, his reasons for belief will be personal (as will every atheist’s reasons for unbelief).

Do you mean emotional/comforting? I think you will find few atheists who subscribe to notions of reality simply because they are comforting.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I will say this; I think my belief is based at least in part on the fact that theist propositions provide a foundation for meaning and significance, and I prefer to live in a world with meaning and significance than in one without.

So comforting?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I freely accept that those reasons are entirely personal, and based on subjective preferences, which need not be shared by you or anyone else. I also accept that others derive all the meaning and significance they want or need from non-theist beliefs. Still, that’s the best (short) account I can give of why I am drawn to belief.

Which makes any such debate some what pointless as the reasons you believe are not based on a rational argument but simply because you like believing.

That really can't be a basis for rational discovery as there is no connection between what you would like to be true and what is true, as such our preferences for how reality should be have no influence on how reality is and can given no insight into how reality is.

himnextdoor

I think that the concept of God emerged from the tendency for humans to anthropomorphise the forces of nature.

There have always been 'parasites'; people who desire all the benefits of social co-operation but who do not desire to contribute toward its upkeep. One particular group of clever and rather devious group of parasites realised that they could carve out a niche for themselves as interpreters of divine intent and utilising things such as runes, entrails or even just the weather they would speak of 'good omens' or 'bad omens'; of 'powerful magic' and 'unseen forces'; they would interpret dreams as messages from the gods.

And superstitious Emperors and Kings would prize such powerful gifts, employing them as oracles to their own agendas.

In this way, the reputations of clairvoyants and sooth-sayers were built up to the extent that imagined things were made manifest.

However, over time, the progress of knowledge began to undermine creeds; the sun-, moon-, sea-gods etc. became impotent as science stripped away their mystery. Recognising that supernatural forces were losing ground to science, religion 'amended' the notion that God is visible through nature (you can tell God is angry because it is raining) to: God is undetectable to those who cannot see Him. God is now defined as 'that which science will never be able to detect'.

Unfortunately, religionists do ascribe certain characteristics to God; omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience etc., whilst at the same time saying that God is seperate from existence, unaffected by physical laws, unconstrained by natural phenomena.

What does God want with us then? Why, if God is unaffected by existence, is it so important that the world develops in a particular way according to God's plan?

How many chances has man had to redeem himself? It seems to me that God's future is inextricably linked to existence.

We only care about things that are important to us; why should God be any different?

So, if God exists, who invented Him? Well, I would say that God began as a single-celled force of nature and evolved through natural selection (social awareness) into the sophisticated entity with whom we can never be familiar today.

And the parasites? The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Berlin at night

I'm a proud athiest.

Galvasean

Berlin at night wrote: »

I'm a proud athiest.

Not proud enough to spell it right

Dave!

You must believe in life after death though, since you revived a deceased thread!

Galvasean

Actually, my apologies Berlin at night. Having glanced over your post history you seem like a legitimate user. I assumed you were a 'hit and run' account

Penn

"The Universe couldn't have been created from nothing, so God must have created it"
"Well who created God, then?"
"GOD IS ETERNAL AND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED!"

kylith

Apologies if already posted

MisterEpicurus

I sort of don't get how theists can try to use logic when referring to god. I mean, surely our concept of logic only applies to this universe and the particulars that have made it this way...so how can they apply logic to events 'outside' of the Universe etc.