Keith Russell

King's Indian said:
So in saying "God doesn't exist", the fact is that we can change this into something like "God is not a member of (ie outside) the set of 'things humans can objectively determine within the real world' ".

I prefer to phrase it thus; the concept 'God' does not correspond to anything but itself.

KI: This set isn't real, like a tree is. And a putative member defined by a relation to a set isn't either.

So, "God" exists only as a concept. [edited: as long as we consider it objectively. Subjectively, we can think of "God" as real if we decide to interpret burning bushes, volcanoes etc. as signs of his reality. That's rather up to us to decide, I think.]

Keith: If we decide to interpret claims of burning bushes, parting seas, talking snakes, etc. as signs. Yeah, it's up to each of us--but such interpretation is still suspect. If one chooses to interpret such things as signs of 'God's' existence, when there is nothing to indicate that they are, I still believe that such interpretations are irrational...

Keith.

King's Indian

Hello, Keith.

Yes, I should've added something like that. It is up to each of us, in subjective terms- but if we do so decide to interpret these physical processes* as evidence of god, we voluntarily step away from the objective (and of course, rational). Something like that was at the back of my mind.

Ta,
KI.

*I only had in mind things in the real world that might inspire awe (or stupidity, if you like). As for the mythological stuff you mentioned: I can barely read a page of the bible for rolling my eyes.

John Page

I vote for KI's explanation - the concept god corresponds to something imaginary (not just itself). This can explain why everyone's concept of god can vary - leading to religious wars und so weiter ...

Cheers, John

AdamWho

I think this confusion is why it took so long to invent the number zero. How can you refer positively to something (zero) which by definition means "nothing".

King's Indian

Hi, Keith!

Quick question.

If the concept "God" is only self-referential, are we talking about the christian one, or the set of all possible gods?
In the first case: then the concept "god", is also a member of the set of "all gods", and so has some correspondence...
or if the latter: then the concept "god" may be broken down into related concepts, ie "all possible gods"
Not that they're not all as bad as each other.

Take care,
KI.

PS to AdamWho. Bang on, especially considering that "zero" was originally represented by a space in the appropriate column, with its circling developed later for practical reasons...

Keith Russell

King's, I would still say that the concept 'God of the Christians' is a subset only of the concept of the set of 'all 'Gods'.

I would most definitely not say 'all possible 'Gods', since I've seen no evidence that any 'God' is even possible.

Keith.

John Page

Let the set named "All gods" comprise [materially existant Gods + imaginary gods + gods we're not even able to contemplate whether they exist or not]

KI did not state that the "god of the christians" belonged to the subset materially existant gods.

Cheers, John

King's Indian

Thanks, John!

I would like to add that, when I'm thinking of the set of "all gods", I define it as equal and only equal to the set of "all mad ideas that humans havé come up with for overarching syntheses of explanations for natural events with ideas of morality, that have an anthropomorphic bent, and that are only held to be true with an irrationality that occasionally borders on the spiteful).
I think the set of "all really existing gods" is empty* therefore, due to contradiction.
The interesting thing for me in this thread was how can we think of gods existing, insofar as they only "exist" in our contemplation, combined with the fact that there are entities existing only in our contemplation (such as i), that we accept as true.

Ta,

KI.

* I suppose it would be a bit tasteless at this point to remark that the terms "empty" and "full" seem to have something of "spatiality" about it. I'll get me coat...

Bob K

Communication Analysis suggests two common fundamental problems in communication:

1. Speaking in generalities when specifics are needed. [What does the generality "I love you!" specifically mean?]

Generalities can often be linked to specifics. [I love you because _____ (?) {A listing of specifics}]

2. Not asking for, or giving, feedback, paraphrases of what one thinks he heard, for the purpose of clarification/rectification.

If in conversation/discourse two individuals use the expression "There is no _____ (?)" do they not understand that a specific is being presented, that _____ (?) does not exist, that _____ (?) does not have a presence in the external reality, the objective things/events we can perceive directly by our senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste/etc., or indirectly by their observable effects upon observable people/things/events?

Because _____ (?) is a term referring to a thing/event, when someone says "There is no _____ (?)" he means that although _____ (?) is a concept, an idea of a thing, an idea of an object, or a principle, an idea of an event, an idea of a relationship between/among things, it does not refer to an actual/real/existing thing/event outside of the mind, the mental arena, the internal reality.

If in communications people have problems with definitions of terms, they have the choice of asking for definitions of those terms, which is a form of feedback, a feedback request.

Perhaps there is no actual problem understanding specifically what is meant by the expression "There is no _____ (?)" Perhaps the expression is merely a convention, a traditional means of expression, a convenience.

If there is no problem understanding specifically what is meant by the expression "There is no _____ (?)", then wondering if or not "there is ..." refers to space, to an external reality, is a pleasant pastime without a practical application. Interesting, nevertheless.