wild ox

Have you ever been in love? Can you prove to others, by logic, that you have been in love? No. Why not? Because there is no exact definition for what love is. Can there be an exact definition? Webster provides us a definition but is it an exact definition like “tire”, “Europe” or “gravity”? Can we determine “with scientific certainty” if someone is really experiencing love? No, because scientific logic can only be applied to those things that can be fully categorized by a set of exact conditions. These conditions are not present for non-physical concepts.

1) All existing concepts are either physical or non-physical
2) Physical concepts have exact, universal definitions based on similar characteristics
3) Non-physical concepts have only personal definitions
4) Logic can only be applied to exact, universal definitions
5) God is a non-physical concept
6) :. Logic cannot be used to determine the existence of God

Does this mean that non-physical concepts do not exist? Of course not. Few people indeed would argue that love or happiness do not exist at all. But how do we know that they exist? We experience them. Our experiences sound like the experiences of others so we come up with words to describe these experiences or concepts. But these are not scientific words. To all men a cow is a cow and China is China. But love seems to be different for almost everyone. I could challenge the fact that you have ever been in love and you could not prove me wrong.

Likewise, each individual’s concept of God is sure to be somewhat different. And, it is at least theoretically possible that one person’s concept of God may not exist while another’s may. This makes the question: “Does God exist?” logically impossible to answer. God is a non-physical concept. Even if He does physically exist somewhere, and has definable, observable characteristics, He is so removed from human interaction, in a physical way, that a scientific definition is not possible. Therefore the concept of God is a non-physical one. Like love, many people claim to have experienced God even though they can not scientifically prove it.

This does not mean that there is not physical evidence for His existence. But this evidence, though plentiful, is not enough to establish “scientific certainty”, which is a condition that debaters on both sides often want to achieve. God could never be logically proven to exist unless He is physically known on this Earth. The fact that Jesus was physically observable to humans and claimed to be God is another interesting issue that cannot be sufficiently addressed here.

The realm of logical debate does have its place in the existence of God arguments, but too often people confuse their individual concepts of God, which are too varied and obscure, with some specific definable cosmic attribute such as the “Prime Mover”. So Christians, quit trying to prove that God logically exists. You can’t! Instead focus on one particular aspect of your concept of God such as the intelligent mind that designed the universe and attempt to show why that particular aspect is necessary to produce our universe. And atheists, quit insisting that Christians produce concrete scientific evidence that God exists. They can’t! But they shouldn’t have to, just like you shouldn’t have to prove that you are in love in order to get married.

Vorkosigan

Ox:

May I respectfully suggest that giving lessons in logic as your opening post is probably a little...ambitious.


1) All existing concepts are either physical or non-physical

As far as I know, all "concepts" are physical in the sense that they exist as electrochemical entities in brains.

I assume you mean something like "concepts are either about physical entities or mental representations" or something similar.

2) Physical concepts have exact, universal definitions based on similar characteristics

Hmmm...what is the exact definition of "universe." How about "beach?" What about the color "red?" Is "Narnia" a physical or non-physical concept?

And of course, what do you mean by "universal?"

3) Non-physical concepts have only personal definitions

Ox, I'm assuming you mean "ideas" or "imaginations" or something. This is clearly false. Does everyone have their own personal definition of "Middle Earth?" What about the square root of -1?

4) Logic can only be applied to exact, universal definitions

Really? So there is no logic flexible enough to accomodate a little fuzziness? Have you never heard of Mr. Bayes?

5) God is a non-physical concept

Still not clear what you mean? Do you mean it is fictional? Not located in our universe? Not existing as an object somewhere? What?

6)Logic cannot be used to determine the existence of God

This is correct, but not for the reasons you have given.

Does this mean that non-physical concepts do not exist? Of course not. Few people indeed would argue that love or happiness do not exist at all. But how do we know that they exist? We experience them.

Oh! People experience Krishna. Also, contact with aliens......

Our experiences sound like the experiences of others so we come up with words to describe these experiences or concepts. But these are not scientific words. To all men a cow is a cow and China is China.....

Unless, of course, you happen to have some experience of the problems between the ROC and the PRC. Then "China" is not so clear a concept...

But love seems to be different for almost everyone.

Really? You mean there is no way I can relate to anyone else who has experienced love?

I could challenge the fact that you have ever been in love and you could not prove me wrong.

Ox, I may not be able to convince you of anything, if you are not open to discussion and agreement. Are you claiming that a third-party witness to the discussion would come to the same conclusion as you -- that I had never been in love?

Likewise, each individual's concept of God is sure to be somewhat different. And, it is at least theoretically possible that one person's concept of God may not exist while another's may.

One person's concept of red may be different from another's. Does red exist? One person's concept of Twice Cooked Pork may be different from another's. Does Twice Cook Pork exist? What is the function of intersubjectivity in human empirical testing of the world?

This makes the question: Does God exist? logically impossible to answer.

Many people have claimed to have demonstrated that God exists using logical constructions. Are all of them wrong because you, Ox, claim that god is not amenable to logic?

Of course, based on your argument from subjectivity above, it behooves me to point out that one person's concept of god may be logically demonstratable, while another's might not.....

God is a non-physical concept. Even if He does physically exist somewhere, and has definable, observable characteristics, He is so removed from human interaction, in a physical way, that a scientific definition is not possible.

Good, so your claim here is that the physical resurrection of Jesus is an absurd and impossible fiction. You may fit right in here.

Therefore the concept of God is a non-physical one. Like love, many people claim to have experienced God even though they can not scientifically prove it.

You're making an abrupt screeching turn here. Are "logic" and "science" the same thing?

This does not mean that there is not physical evidence for His existence.

So god is a physical concept after all. You've confused me here. If god is so incredibly remote, how did he leave any physical evidence?

But this evidence, though plentiful, is not enough to establish "scientific certainty,"

Under what conditions does science establish "certainty?" Or does it merely compiled a large enough body of evidence to compel reasonable people to adopt certain conclusions? Does it speak of certainty, or possibility?

.... which is a condition that debaters on both sides often want to achieve.

You're very democratic. Everyone on both sides is wrong.

God could never be logically proven to exist unless He is physically known on this Earth. The fact that Jesus was physically observable to humans and claimed to be God is another interesting issue that cannot be sufficiently addressed here.

Too bad.

The realm of logical debate does have its place in the existence of God arguments, but too often people confuse their individual concepts of God, which are too varied and obscure, with some specific definable cosmic attribute such as the "Prime Mover."

So that was the problem of the ancient Scholastics....their confused ideas about god.

...So Christians, quit trying to prove that God logically exists. You can't!

Agreed.

Instead focus on one particular aspect of your concept of God such as the intelligent mind that designed the universe and attempt to show why that particular aspect is necessary to produce our universe.

If they can't use evidence, as you insist below, and can't use logic, as you insist above, how are Christians to do this?

And atheists, quit insisting that Christians produce concrete scientific evidence that God exists. They can't! But they shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to prove that you are in love in order to get married.

What a rotten analogy! Ox, if you make an assertion about the nature of reality, you damn well better have evidence and arguments to back it up.

But you've left us with a conundrum. If the debaters here can't use logic, as you said in the first part, and can't use evidence, as you said in the second, how is the discussion to be conducted?

Vorkosigan

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

BTW, I found I deleted my welcome message. So welcome to the forum! Visit our excellent library -- just click on the link above -- and read about logic and gods.

Vorkosigan

wild ox

Wow! Great Reply. Thanks for the tips. It probably was too ambitious. Let me try to address so of these complicated issues.

"As far as I know, all "concepts" are physical in the sense that they exist as electrochemical entities in brains.
I assume you mean something like "concepts are either about physical entities or mental representations" or something similar."

Well spoken. But I would like to add that I think it is at least possible that non-physical things exist beyond all mental representations. What do you think?

While it is certainly a fact that thoughts have a physical aspect as the “electrochemical entities” that you suggested, science has not yet provided us with enough information to conclude with certainty that the brain is the causal influence for these electrochemical entities. Is it at least possible that the brain receives non-physical signals form a non-physical source which produces these brain waves? Is it at least possible?

"Hmmm...what is the exact definition of "universe." How about "beach?" What about the color "red?" Is "Narnia" a physical or non-physical concept?
And of course, what do you mean by "universal?""

Here is my spur of the moment definition. The exact definition of the universe: the collection of all space and matter that exists. That may not be fully understood, but it is exact. Beaches may not have exact boundaries but you can point to one when you see it. Narnia does not exist to my knowledge. But a description of the fictitious Narnia does and that description is of exact physical things.

By universal I mean widely excepted. It was probably a bad usage.

"Ox, I'm assuming you mean "ideas" or "imaginations" or something. This is clearly false. Does everyone have their own personal definition of "Middle Earth?" What about the square root of -1?"

No I do mean ideas and imaginations, but I also, as said before, believe it is possible that non-physical entities could exist independent of our thoughts. What I mean by “3) Non-physical concepts have only personal definitions” is that these entities and imaginations can only be personally experienced and not scientifically defined. The description of “Middle Earth” is clearly a physical description unlike “happiness”. I don’t know how to address the square root of –1 yet. Good one!

"Really? So there is no logic flexible enough to accomodate a little fuzziness? Have you never heard of Mr. Bayes?"

Sorry, I am just an amateur philosopher and have not heard of Mr. Bayes. But I think that pure logic should be inflexible.

"Still not clear what you mean? Do you mean it is fictional? Not located in our universe? Not existing as an object somewhere? What?"

I mean God could be one of those non-physical entities that exists beyond the scope of our thoughts.

"Oh! People experience Krishna. Also, contact with aliens......"

I am not saying that people’s descriptions of these experiences are valid, only that they exist.

"Really? You mean there is no way I can relate to anyone else who has experienced love?"

Of course you can, but you will have a heard time defining it so that a measurable record could be made as to which on e of you were more in love. Although we can measure which beach is bigger. Or Tolkein could tell us whether Brie is bigger than Rivendell.

"Ox, I may not be able to convince you of anything, if you are not open to discussion and agreement. Are you claiming that a third-party witness to the discussion would come to the same conclusion as you -- that I had never been in love?"

No not the point at all. We all have opinions and conclusions, but these are not always scientifically verifiable.

"One person's concept of red may be different from another's. Does red exist? One person's concept of Twice Cooked Pork may be different from another's. Does Twice Cook Pork exist? What is the function of intersubjectivity in human empirical testing of the world?"

Great point! Red exists and is scientifically defined by a specific wavelength. When a scientist measures, he will always know if it is red or blue. I am not saying that all concepts that people have discrepancies over are non-physical. I am only claiming that those things which are non-physical can only be personally defined. I can’t answer that last question.

"Are "logic" and "science" the same thing?"

Logical and scientific provability are not exactly the same but, neither can be applied to non-physical concepts such as God.

"What a rotten analogy! Ox, if you make an assertion about the nature of reality, you damn well better have evidence and arguments to back it up.
But you've left us with a conundrum. If the debaters here can't use logic, as you said in the first part, and can't use evidence, as you said in the second, how is the discussion to be conducted?"

Sorry about the analogy. I just think that you should not demand that Christians produce scientific OR logical certainty in order to justifiably believe in God. I appreciate any advice on how to post good arguments. Thanks! By the way how do you BOLD things?

Automaton

wild ox: Please define "non-physical". And no, you can't just say the "abscence of physical", or similar, you must then define "physical" as well. Remember, no circular definitions.

wild ox

Automaton,

Great question. This is very hard to define. Specifically since my main primise is that non-physical concepts cannot be scientifically defined. But I would venture to say that physical concepts are concepts that can be potentially defined using references to exact spacial dimentions and material desciptions. Examples would be "beach", "tree", "Europe", "green", and even "Narnia".

Non-physical concepts, by contrast, are those concepts that cannot be defined using references to exact spatial dimensions and material descriptions. Examples are "funny", "love", "happiness", "evil", and "God".

It might be noted that these non-physical concepts might produce physical results. Examples: "happiness makes me smile", "Evil caused me to steal", even "God created the universe". Non-physical concepts can potentially produce physical results. Thanks for the reply!

WJ

Good post Wild one!

I see you've bridged the paradox of emotion and reason, in almost every sense of the word(s)(the universal concept/motivating force of love). As William James once said, without feeling, there would be no need to philosophize the concepts of God and/or the religious experience. When we use philosophy, we formulate words in the form of logical constructs. (Is raw emotion from the lymbic system logical?) The Atheist should be able to answer that [consciousness] in order to make his case more convincing and seal the gaps.

The mind-body phenomenon is alive and well, and the problem associated with it, will never be solved, on this earth anyway!

Walrus

Godless Dave

I don't think so at all. Everything in the universe is physical. The universe is everything (or at least everything that we can interact with, and that can interact with us).

"Love" is a concept that exists solely in our minds. We can observe the way people behave when they say they're in love; we can observe the physiological effects (dilated pupils, increased heartbeat). But you're right, the exact concpet of love is difficult to define exactly. I think each person's definition of love is a little different. I, myself, have a hard time deciding if what I'm feeling is love.

The difference between the concept of love and the concept of a god is that love is an emotion people feel. "Love" doesn't exist independently of people. It needs at least one person to feel it. I love my mother, and she loves me. But there is no independent entitiy "love" that exists between is. "Love" describes how we each feel about the other. While difficult or impossible to define, you could determine that my love for my mother probably exists by my behavior. However, my behavior will not tell you that my mother's love for me exists, and her behavior will not tell you that my love for her exists.

If I tell you I'm in love, that tells you that I'm feeling an emotion that I call love. It might not meet the common definition of love. You can only know what I think I'm feeling.

However, most people's concept of a god is something that exists independently. A god itself is not an emotion. To determine if it exists we would need to observe its behavior or its effects. If someone says they "feel" that a god exists, that only tells you that their feelings exist, not that a god exists. You don't know what they're feeling, and their report of their emotion does not qualify as evidence for the existence of a god, absent any other evidence.

Hans

wild ox

How is it that one knows when one has experienced an entity that exists outside of one's own imagination as opposed to there being no entity and the experience itself being nothing more than the product of ones imagination?

You and I can make a tally of all the emotions we have experienced and then, checking them off one by one, say we have indeed experienced them and therefore they are indeed real. But if at the bottom of this list is an entry entitled "Experienced God" what properties would the experience contain that you or I should be convinced that there is indeed an entity we have called God that exists outside of our imagination?

wild ox

Godless Dave,

Good observation. Apparently a distinction can be made between non-physical concepts which are dependent on the mind and those which are not.

But can this distinction be made for certain? Do we know that the origin of love is electrochemical? Can we really simplify all human “inner experiences” to pure electrochemical phenomena? Agreed, these phenomena have physical consequences in our brains. But can we be for certain that this is their origin?

By the way, how can you know with certainty that “Everything in the universe is physical.”?

Why is it not at least possible that a non-physical God could exist independent of our minds?

Thanks for the great post.