Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Caecilian]

You can't exist literally and then also be a metaphor for yourself, just like the apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time - It's logically invalid.

Wrong. I can think of an apple that literally exists- it is conceptual in my mind, physical in reality. Similarly, in my mind the apple can be a metaphor for something else, but I acknowledge that physically it is another thing entirely.

@EvF: God is actually quite simple, so I would contend your argument that He must be complex.

And, my evidence that God literally exists comes with my understanding of the metaphor- the metaphor's existance is proof of the literal existance, being that the literal is the universe, life, love, and everything here, all of which is a metaphor for God.

Logically, I can't always explain where I see the metaphor, which is why I like coming here because you guys actually challenge me to try harder in seeing it.

Theres a lot of talk about metaphors here- in this post and in some of the previous ones. It all seems rather confused, and tbh also confusing. A good start to disentangling the metaphor-talk might be to consider what metaphors are:

meta·phor (met′ə fôr′)

noun

a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, “all the world's a stage”)

(from yourdictionary.com)

Metaphors are ubiquitous [1]; our language is permeated by metaphor. And when we think about the world, we do to a large degree in metaphorical terms. Some examples:
- When we say that the stock market is going 'up' or 'down', we are metaphorically extending our everyday experience of space to the phenomenon of changes in the economy.
- When we say that our hearts are 'burning with anger', we are metaphorically extending our experience of fire to the phenomenon of emotion.

Metaphors are cognitive/ explanatory tools. In most cases, metaphors allow us to conceptualize something complex and/or abstract in terms of something simpler and/or concrete. Or to put it another way: through metaphor, we understand things that are relatively difficult in terms of things that are easier. Metaphorical extensions of our basic experience of space (up, down, back, front, high, low) are extremely common. So are metaphorical extensions of our simple physical sensations (he is hungry for change; economic adjustment will be painful; I can smell success).

In some cases, metaphors can run either way. So I can use fire to explain anger (a burning rage), or anger to explain a fire (a raging inferno). Nonetheless, both fire and anger are part of our normal everyday existence. What we don't do is use metaphors to explain things in terms of phenomena that are mind-bogglingly complex. So I might use stage magic as a metaphor for quantum mechanics, but not the reverse. Indeed, using QM as a metaphor for anything at all would be stupid, since its so abstract and difficult to understand.

What is true of QM is even more true of the Universe. So, my first point is this: the idea that the Universe could be a useful metaphor for anything is absolutely absurd- for the straightforward reason that nothing is more complicated and more difficult to understand than the Universe is. And this is especially true if, as Watson maintains, the thing that the Universe is supposed to be a metaphor for (i.e. God) is allegedly not complex at all. This 'Universe as a Metaphor for God' stuff is just plain old nonsense. Drivel. Verbiage.

Okay, so what about metaphors and existence? This seems to me to be a really clear-cut issue. The fact that something is a metaphor for something else says nothing about the ontological status of either phenomenon. Of course, it does mean that they exist at least metaphorically, but that doesn't give them causal powers. If I use the concept 'unicorn' as a metaphor for love, or for that matter 'love' for 'unicorn', then it doesn't somehow mean that unicorns exist outside of our language and imagination. Metaphorical unicorns can't eat grass, or gore people with their horns- they're imaginary creatures. So saying, as Watson does, that metaphors 'prove existence' is again nonsense.

None of this is to deny that metaphors are important, or that our choice of metaphors doesn't influence the way that we think [2]. But then I doubt that anyone would question the importance of people's thoughts about God. Thoughts about God, and actions informed by those thoughts, have, for good or ill (mainly ill imo), been a huge factor in human history. Thinking about something, however wishfully, does not, however, make it into a real, concrete entity with causal powers.

God existing metaphorically in the minds of believers can no more make him into a creator than a child's belief in the Easter Bunny can make rabbits a source of chocolate eggs.

[1] If anyone with an academic bent is interested in reading something about the subject of metaphor, then I'd highly recommend George Lakoff's book Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (Chicago University Press 1987). Its long, and certainly not an easy read, but definitely worth the effort.
[2] For a discussion of metaphor in US politics see another book by Lakoff- Moral Politics (Chicago University Press 1996).