Getting past the hurdle of showing this is a possibility (something I’m not interested in debating) and granting that it is indeed possible we’re an expression of a consciousness herpa derp, you still haven’t said anything important. Lots of probably false things are possible. The challenge and focus at least for those who aren’t fanatically devoted to an idea is showing probability of truth, not mere possibility. Of course possibility is important, but if it’s questionable your theory is even possible, you should probably reconsider some things.
It’s impossible to detail all the things God has become (love, truth, earth, consciousness of whatever, etc) but it’s clear it originally was a scientific hypothesis, an explanation for phenomenon. A bad one, though the hypothesis persists because of the fanatics. God is defined and redefined into the world of possibility in an endless and boring dialectic.
It’s possible (not really, but let’s just say it is). Not likely.
I never “spouted out that god exists”, and you’ve still neglected to answer any of my questions. What would God have to be to be a basis, or to provide consistency?
Whether Heidegger is lame or not, he instigated a way of thinking of God that didn’t rely on being (see Derrida, for instance, who furthered this cause, and who in his own words “could quite rightly be taken for an atheist”). For Derrida, God is not a being, and need not have any being, but is rather more like a ghost or a holy spirit, an event, which calls us from the future, the call of justice, urging us to break up the oppressive regimes that rule in the here and now.
I may not thoroughly stick with Heidegger or Derrida, but I do think they are on to something, and that God need not have any existence, or need not be described in any detail, to provide a basis, or consistency, or whatever it is that you think God can’t do without existence.
Look at something like wisdom, for instance, which is what I would say God is if I had to answer your question. With wisdom, perhaps you can see that something need not exist in order to be a basis, for in the case of wisdom it is quite clear that it doesn’t exist in the world, or if it does, it is in short supply. Yet who can stand against wisdom, even if it has no existence whatsoever? Who can deny that wisdom, even if it doesn’t exist, deserves to exist, and should be the basis of all that exists? Would you deny something like that? If not, then why must God be denied even if God doesn’t exist?
God would have to be materialized. It’s quite simple if I can’t see it, sense it, touche it, or have a material physical form of somthing it simply does not exist.
I play the role of the materialist where only the material form expresses as to whether somthing exists or not.
Ghosts can’t be materialized.
Somthing needs to have a existence in order for it to exist.
I don’t understand what your trying to convey here.
A face has eyes, ears, mouth, nose, and skin, so as to process sensory data. Must God process sensory data?
Or are we talking about “face” as in the face of a cliff? And thus using the idea of mentally/physically challenged persons as a heart-tugger to disguise ad hominem?
In any case, as the prime cause, why would God have a face?
Well, I guess, that’s the question, isn’t it? Does God “present”? Or does the present occur as God (to we face-bound daseinians)? (“If”, that is, of course.)
This is like asking the question: What is gravity? Or what is a law of physics?
At some point the question falls apart and is unanswerable.
Why? Because it can only be described by its function rather than by its properties.
Is gravity an equation?
If I ask what is a quanta of energy how would you reply?
The only answer is to say: it functions like this and it interacts with that.
From this I could conclude that energy does not exist.
The only basis for existence then becomes: I can observe how it interacts with other things.
This is not a great basis for a hypothesis: It exists because I can observe it?
Hence - the unobservable does not exist.
I could create this scenario:
If a person can’t tell you what gravity is then all of science is without basis, foundation, and consistency.
If you can answer this without referring to the functionality of gravity - then you will surely receive a noble prize.
So the answer to your question is:
God functions like this and interacts with that.
Again, your God is existence, as your response here lays out so clearly. Again, there are things that don’t exist, and this doesn’t in any way reduce their worth. I used the example of wisdom before, and I’ll stick with it. Just because wisdom doesn’t exist, or is in short supply in the world, does this mean wisdom is of no worth? Doesn’t the non-existence of wisdom, in fact, compel us to bring wisdom into being? …
Why are you so hung up on existence? You are no different from the long tradition of theology that sees God as existence itself, or the Being of beings, or the supreme Being, even though you claim to be an atheist. Get off it, or else explain yourself and your own God, i.e., existence.
To presume that god exists is to presume to have some sort of knowledge of god existing.
What is this knowledge? What is this knowledge of god?
To speak anything about god is pointless and without basis without first explaining how god exists because worshipping god and speaking of god’s virtues says that the person has knowledge of god existing.
Doom, if you would stop dreaming up excuses to promote your atheism and ask legitimate questions (meaning that you actually pay attention to the answers), you might learn something you never knew. Your reasoning is seriously flawed, but I suspect that you don’t care.
Do you really want to know the real truth or not? Philosophy is about love of truth, not promotion of politics.
If you don’t even understand what it is one refers to as “god”, how are you an atheist?
You were just baiting people for definitions for you to criticize.
Maybe the above is just poorly written (in that it lacks certain words and/or explanations to guide a reader to understanding your point),
because this argument, as I have interpreted it (from what’s there, I don’t know how else I could…), is (… i’m going to be blunt, because I can’t think of a gentler way to accurately describe it…)
ludicrous.
By its logic, one could say paranoia never existed until at least two people –with experiental and verbal backgrounds conducive to “recognizing” each other’s descriptions–
specified associated aspects (that they both experienced and deem an inseparable part of it) and coin a word for their collective identity.
It’s actually a little comical, because you say that for something to exist one must be able to explain it in detail–one who believes it must be able to corroborate its existence by describing it in such a way another recognizes it as something they’ve experienced;
the irony is that, though your intention assumed the requirement of material existence (two people living in a world that physically exists should be able to explain a physically existing thing to another by specifying physical particulars that make up its whole form and/or effects)
your argument ultimately defines “existence” as “understanding”–something only exists if one recognizes another’s descriptions of it as an accurate portrayal of something they too have experienced.
Of course, there are plenty of people who have communicated about (a) god, and believe they are talking about the same thing, so your argument isn’t that they explain it in detail, it’s that they explain in details that you can identify. All you really said was “If I can’t make sense of what you are saying in such a way it accurately reflects any of my own experiences/knowledge, then it doesn’t exist”. According to your intended meaning of “exist”, this is ridiculous, but in terms of your subjective world-view, it’s accurate.
Some words can only be “understood” in light of certain experiences, beliefs, personality traits, “knowledge”, etc.
I will say Doom, and not by any interest in dissuading your perspectives on theism by the way, that the following statement does present a logical stumbling block considering your point is regarding whether the unquantifiable is capable of existing or not.
Which, if I replace the subject and leave all of the logic of the syntax in place then I get:
Yet, it is only by the implementation of dark matter, and by consequence dark energy (and now possibly dark flow; though not yet theoretically finished testing), that the theory of the on-going formulation of the big bang expansion of the universe is capable of holding together.
Take out dark matter and the related, and the measured universe does not coincide with the predictions that are created by the theory of a big bang.
