The existence of God

[arewethereyet]

When someone continually points out how much of an intellectual they are, I have to wonder who they are trying to convince.

[Jehanne]

We would all likely weigh less and live longer, though!

What's the downside?

I found that part of the Republic to be funny!

[Belacqua]

Tell me you've never read Plato without saying you've never read Plato.

I haven't read much Plato. Would you please elaborate on how LinuxGal's comment betrays lack of knowledge of Plato?

Thank you for asking! I enjoy this subject a lot.

No doubt you know that Plato wrote about "Forms" or "Ideas." These are not physical objects. They exist eternally, and we may deduce their existence through experience of the world, but because they are not physical we have no sense-knowledge of them. They are only known in the mind. 

The easiest example would be numbers. We can deduce what two is because we have experience of two-ness in the world. Two chairs, two books. But we never experience the number itself through our senses. Two is therefore an intelligible object, not a sensible object. Yet two would continue to exist even if, for some reason, there were no pairs of two physical objects in the world. 

So for Plato, two exists in a way that no pointer on any device can detect. 

Numbers are a simple case, but the Forms include many other intelligible objects not known through the senses. Justice, for example. At the top of the hierarchy is the Form of the Good. This is goodness itself -- not a good thing. We know of goodness by extrapolating its existence from examples in this world -- a good book or a good chocolate cake. But goodness itself exists, is not sensible, and cannot be detected by any sort of device.

As you know the Bible has a lot about behavior but very little about metaphysics. When the early Christians began to worry about metaphysics, they adapted almost all of their theology from the Greeks. From Plato, they took the idea that God is like the Form of the Good. Not a physical object. Not detectable by the senses or any sort of machine that operates according to the principles of physics. Not a thing. Linux Girl wants to limit the definition of "existence" to things that a pointer on a device can point to, but of course Platonists, Neoplatonists, and Christians don't agree. 

No doubt if you look around enough you can find Christians who do speak of God (non-metaphorically) as being some sort of big guy. Like one physical object among all the other physical objects in the world. There are so many Christians in the world that you can find one of them who says just about anything. Just as if you look hard enough, you can find an atheist who thinks Hillary Clinton is an alien lizard. But all of the significant theologians -- any one you can name (not a TV evangelist) holds to this non-physical, intelligible definition of God. When Kant or Hegel write about God, this is what they're talking about. When atheist philosophers who use God as a kind of theoretical limit-case (e.g. Zizek or Badiou) talk about God, this is what they're talking about. 

I understand of course that lots of people -- probably everyone on this forum -- will reject Platonic metaphysics. Most people here believe very strongly in a materialist or physicalist metaphysics. I am not saying they are wrong. I am only saying that when people say things about the God the Christians believe in, it would make sense for them to know what it is the Christians believe. 

If Linux Girl challenged the Pope by saying that no pointer on any device had ever pointed to his God, the Pope would just say of course not -- that's not what God is like.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure you'll get to the point where you explain how a mind certainly isn't sense knowledge, or how a brain certainly isn't a device? It would seem like those omissions could be important. Now..Plato...well, he couldn't have known much about minds or brains, so, for him, an admission of genuine ignorance. Howsabout us?

Meanwhile, the god that christians believe in was a man, that could be killed, and more broadly interacts all-the-time in the world. A god they believe is and can be and has been detected. That sounds idiotic to you and I, I suppose, but that is what they believe. You're probably giving the pope too much credit too...it would be far more likely for the pope to try and make some failed example of all the pointers on all the devices pointing to gods. That's actually his style, it plays well. In fact, he's said exactly this about a great many subjects, a great many times. The man is a vocal creationist, lol. He's confident that the current scientific account of the origins of the universe and the evolution of life are confirmation of gods existence, and he isn't as shy as you are to plainly say as much, as a christian, espousing a very common christian belief.

Here is my favorite profundity-

God is not the answer to an intellectual curiosity or to a commitment of the will, but an experience of love, called to become a story of love, The mystery of God is never exhausted; it is as immense as his love.

Well shit, huh? The man in the funny hat has spoken directly to each of these items, and all in just one proclamation. So much for that bit of bullshit..and you had to drag poor old platos name through the mud to end up here. A man who we can safely assume would not have appreciated the christians claims of appropriation over his thoughts. The christians you appear to be angling for, and constantly insisting that atheists have misunderstood, are as thin on the ground as their silly god.

[LinuxGal]

If Linux Girl challenged the Pope by saying that no pointer on any device had ever pointed to his God, the Pope would just say of course not -- that's not what God is like.

And I would be nearly in agreement with the Pope, my only objection at that  point would be to his use of the word "is", which is a pointer word. There is no way, in practice or even in principle, to distinguish the existence of the god of the Pope from its non-existence.

[Jehanne]

I am only saying that when people say things about the God the Christians believe in, it would make sense for them to know what it is the Christians believe.

Belacqua, your insults and put-downs are really subtle. Most Christians, if asked, could not name a single work that Plato authored; many may not even be able to name Plato.

All of Us know what Christians believe; such is in the Apostles' & Nicene Creeds, which used to be recited regularly but are often not recited at all today. Your error, by the way, is claiming that "Christians believe"; many, in fact, do not but have an affiliation with a church or religious community for other reasons.

[emjay]

I'm sure you'll get to the point where you explain how a mind certainly isn't sense knowledge, or how a brain certainly isn't a device?  It would seem like those omissions could be important.  Now..Plato...well, he couldn't have known much about minds or brains, so, for him, an admission of genuine ignorance.  Howsabout us?

Meanwhile, the god that christians believe in was a man, that could be killed, and more broadly interacts all-the-time in the world.  A god they believe is and can be and has been detected.  That sounds idiotic to you and I, I suppose, but that is what they believe.  You're probably giving the pope too much credit too...it would be far more likely for the pope to try and make some failed example of all the pointers on all the devices pointing to gods.  That's actually his style, it plays well.  In fact, he's said exactly this about a great many subjects, a great many times.  The man is a vocal creationist, lol.  He's confident that the current scientific account of the origins of the universe and the evolution of life are confirmation of gods existence, and he isn't as shy as you are to plainly say as much, as a christian, espousing a very common christian belief.

Here is my favorite profundity-

God is not the answer to an intellectual curiosity or to a commitment of the will, but an experience of love, called to become a story of love, The mystery of God is never exhausted; it is as immense as his love.

Well shit, huh?  The man in the funny hat has spoken directly to each of these items, and all in just one proclamation.  So much for that bit of bullshit..and you had to drag poor old platos name through the mud to end up here.  A man who we can safely assume would not have appreciated the christians claims of appropriation over his thoughts.  The christians you appear to be angling for, and constantly insisting that atheists have misunderstood, are as thin on the ground as their silly god.

I certainly agree that that type of Christianity is, or seems to be, very thin on the ground... indeed I think I've only ever met two people that espouse it and they're both right here on this forum. I can confidently say that none of my family circle or Christians I know IRL, or indeed me when I was a Christian, have/had this sort of conception of God. To them, and to my past self, God would always be some sort of concrete, conscious, thinking entity, even if it was 'outside' of or beyond the universe.

Personally I find Neo and Bel's views on this to be quite interesting, and it doesn't make my blood boil like most 'mainstream' talk of Christianity does, but at the same time its interest for me lies in its abstractness, and that very abstractness makes it all but impossible to reconcile with the God described in the Bible. So though I think this classical concept of God, if I'm understanding it right, as some sort of abstract collection of Forms, is interesting, I think getting from that to the God described in the Bible, particularly the 'jealous' god of the OT, is too big a leap.

[arewethereyet]

It's interesting to me how hard a person defends 'their' version of Christianity.

If the Bible was really the be-all, end-all there wouldn't be dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of different flavors of Christian belief.

Either the Bible IS the answer to everything...the one and only answer...or it isn't. Taking into account the numerous interpretations simply shows how people pick and choose the 'important' parts. It's constantly twisted into what people want it to say.

[Jehanne]

It's interesting to me how hard a person defends 'their' version of Christianity.

If the Bible was really the be-all, end-all there wouldn't be dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of different flavors of Christian belief.

Either the Bible IS the answer to everything...the one and only answer...or it isn't. Taking into account the numerous interpretations simply shows how people pick and choose the 'important' parts. It's constantly twisted into what people want it to say.

Of course, you're an ex-Catholic -- it's Scripture & Tradition, right??

[arewethereyet]

It's interesting to me how hard a person defends 'their' version of Christianity.

If the Bible was really the be-all, end-all there wouldn't be dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of different flavors of Christian belief.  

Either the Bible IS the answer to everything...the one and only answer...or it isn't.  Taking into account the numerous interpretations simply shows how people pick and choose the 'important' parts.  It's constantly twisted into what people want it to say.

Of course, you're an ex-Catholic -- it's Scripture & Tradition, right??

To me, it's rituals.  Lots and lots of rituals.  

I was so surprised when I moved to SC and was introduced to free form prayer.  Prayer was very structured in the Catholic Church.  ie - The Rosary.