What is God - Who is God

@Dustin phil,

Dustin wrote:

Yes! If it is our very self that is God, then we can know God by knowing ourself.

With respect to the beliefs of others, I personally believe if God ceased to exist then so would we. Is not God our very life. Is it not strange there is no mechanism which makes the lungs function. Biogenesis or "no life without antecedent life," has been victorious all along the way. Think about that one. We say, "I will do a thing," however the "I" that which we call ourself is not the body. We came into bodily form by our mother and father's body. God made them both; He is One. Yet, the "I" was not made by mother or father. The "I" is a part of God - He is your true Father! The One and only!

By the way, I really like what you're saying here: likening the "I" to the "One," identifying God as our life. These are beautiful ideas, and we have to try to really understand them. And that means understanding that the alternatives to them do not and cannot exist--if it is really the case that they do not and cannot exist.

Quote:

Let me say that time did not exist for me before I existed. so my existance sprang from nonexistance. It seems irational for me to presume that I allways existed, so I guess I just superimpose that perception onto my idea of the universe.

You do appear to be finite, don't you! Yet is this appearance of limitation real? For if infinity is real, the image of limitation cannot exist--or can it?

In other words, I could tell you that you are not a finite being. But then you could tell me, "But I perceive that I AM a finite being." I could respond by saying that you do NOT perceive that you are a finite being. But, of course, you could then say that you perceive THAT you perceive that you are a finite being. And this could go on forever.

One can look at the sky and see the sun "moving," and then can conclude that the sun moves over a static earth. What they REALLY perceive, of course, is the complete opposite: the earth moving around the sun. Their judgment, "the sun moves over the static earth," does not match their perception. But is their judgment any different than their perception? Is their judgment another form of consciousness, and therefore something that exists independentlly of their pure perception, as something superimposed upon it? If so, then it EXISTS in and of itself. But perhaps false judgments are not distinct instances of consciousness, are not independent of TRUE perception, and therefore have no independent existence--no existence at all. A true perception cannot be a false judgement. So which is it?

The claim that we are conscious. What is this? Can one take this claim any further than to say that something exists? Can anything be reasonably and accurately inferred from this claim other than the proposition, "something exists"? Well, of course something exists. But to infer that this consciousness is OUR consciousness, that WE exist, and that WE (as something separate from WHAT? as something self-enclosed and free from WHAT?) can be conscious of what it is and what it means to exist--to make this inferrence, "we" leave meaning behind and wander into unconsciousness: "we" try to make something out of nothing or nothing out of something. And who in God''s name are "we"? Who do "we" think we are?

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

You do appear to be finite, don't you! Yet is this appearance of limitation real? For if infinity is real, the image of limitation cannot exist--or can it?

In other words, I could tell you that you are not a finite being. But then you could tell me, "But I perceive that I AM a finite being." I could respond by saying that you do NOT perceive that you are a finite being. But, of course, you could then say that you perceive THAT you perceive that you are a finite being. And this could go on forever.

One can look at the sky and see the sun "moving," and then can conclude that the sun moves over a static earth. What they REALLY perceive, of course, is the complete opposite: the earth moving around the sun. Their judgment, "the sun moves over the static earth," does not match their perception. But is their judgment any different than their perception? Is their judgment another form of consciousness, and therefore something that exists independentlly of their pure perception, as something superimposed upon it? If so, then it EXISTS in and of itself. But perhaps false judgments are not distinct instances of consciousness, are not independent of TRUE perception, and therefore have no independent existence--no existence at all.

I hope you are not comparing my perception of exsistance with the false perception of the sun moving across the sky, because your perception is just as likely to be false as mine!

Quote:

The claim we are conscious. What is this? Can one take this claim any further than to say that something exists? Can anything be reasonably and accurately inferred from this claim other than the proposition, "something exists"? Well, of course something exists. But to infer that this consciousness is OUR consciousness, that WE exist, and that WE--as something separate from WHAT?

The very real and posible state of Nonexistance.

Quote:

as something self-enclosed and independant of WHAT?--can be conscious of what it is and what it means to exist--to make this inferrence, "we" leave meaning behind and wander into unconsciousness,

Precisely. There is no proof that the universe is not a meaningless absurdity.

Quote:

"we" try to make something out of nothing. And who in God''s name are "we"? Who do "we" think we are?

Who in Gods name? What does Gods name have anything to do with this conversation? You sound upset, and I don't want to be unreasonable so I guess I just don't agree, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you just the same.

@ogden,

Ha! I'm not upset, Ogden. I'm having a great time NOT working right now. Very Happy

So I apologize if my passion, inspiration, or whatever the devil it is, sounded like anger. I was just being forceful--not toward you or any particular person. My apologies. Maybe that's why Plato said that speech is better than writing, because no one understood what he was trying to say. Oh, but Socrates got murdered for saying stuff no one understood, and Plato did pretty well for himself.

I like your ideas and your questions, which are all completely valid.

Yep, I dropped the ole G-bomb, baby. :cool: The only thing I've been talking about and thinking about this whole time is the Big G. But a lot of people may not notice that at first. Or ever. Because, yeah, I'm not always (or always not?) the best communicator. My apologies again.

Oh but dude, nonexistence? We ("we"?) have to figure this out! Two lost souls, and no one is coming to me for help with their writing at the writing center. Maybe because I'm a writing instructor who fails rhetorically WHILE (not?)working. Irony. Is the appearance of working the same as Working, superimposed on Working like a false judgment? Someone is going to catch me in the act of philosophizing--at a university of all places!!

Dang, I gotta go home. Cya guys later.

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

If god is the truth and is also all that exists, then there is no account for the existance of untruth. Are you saying that nothing is false?

That is precisely correct. The constraint of our Reality dictates through provable empirical evidence that falsehoods are delusions that non-clear thinking individuals consider to be an integral part of their Natural World. Actual measurable provable falsehoods do not exist, If they did, the ensuing incomprehensible chaos would predicate the nonexistence of our own Reality. Test it! Challenged yourself to conjure or create anything that is a actual falsehood (untruth). Upon close inspection every untruth (falsehood) is a compilation of actual truths (component truths), and all falsehoods require at least two or more component truths (falsehoods are compilations of truths). Only actual truths contain one or more component truths (component truths are units of knowledge that can range from the smallest perceived provable notions to the largest ideas that contain multiple component truths, i.e. the invisible number line, and the subsequent High rise Building that required the utilization of the number line to be built).

A few posts ago, one gentlemen posed the question, how could the color green be a component truth, because there can be many different shades of green? The color green is a component truth, because reasonable people unequivocally agree to the existence of the color green, and any varying shades of the color green require the same descriptive language (component truth) or actual physical product color ( also, component truth) to produce or describe the color green or any other actual or potential shade of the color green.

@Ruthless Logic,

Quote:

Upon close inspection every untruth (falsehood) is a compilation of actual truths (component truths), and all falsehoods require at least two or more component truths (falsehoods are compilations of truths).

This is an awesome statement, since it properly introduces or initiates a deep discussion of falsity. The proposition "the sun moves around the earth" is true, because the proposition exists, and whatever exists is real, and therefore true. Of course, perhaps it is better to say that it is "truth," rather than true. But what is the difference between "true" and "truth"?

The relation between a proposition like "the sun moves around the earth" and the reality which it claims to represent (i.e., the earth moving around the sun) is such that we normally say that the proposition is false. But this relation, whatever it may be, must also be truth, since it exists, and whatever exists is real, and therefore truth.

So what we have is a real/true relation between a real/truth proposition and a true reality. Where is the falsity?

And closer to what Ruthless Logic is saying, if two or more truths comprise a falsehood, then this must mean that falsehood consists of truth(s). So what can make a falsehood false?

For me, God is truth. So in thinking through these issues, I'm trying to figure out God.

@Justin,

Quote:

The constraint of our Reality dictates through provable empirical evidence that falsehoods are delusions that non-clear thinking individuals consider to be an integral part of their Natural World. Actual measurable provable falsehoods do not exist, If they did, the ensuing incomprehensible chaos would predicate the nonexistence of our own Reality. Test it! Challenged yourself to conjure or create anything that is a actual falsehood (untruth). Upon close inspection every untruth (falsehood) is a compilation of actual truths (component truths), and all falsehoods require at least two or more component truths (falsehoods are compilations of truths). Only actual truths contain one or more component truths (component truths are units of knowledge that can range from the smallest perceived provable notions to the largest ideas that contain multiple component truths, i.e. the invisible number line, and the subsequent High rise Building that required the utilization of the number line to be built).

You are treating truth and falsehood as things, which they are not. A statement is true or false, true and false do not exist on their own.

Anything I imagine is composed of something real. A pegasus does not exist, they are not real; however, horses and birds do exist, and when imaginatively combined these images produce a pegasus.

Similarly, false statements are generally grounded in something real, or some other true statement. Even most hallucinations are simply adaptations of actual sense experience.

I see where you are going, and you're mostly on the right track (Hume is a great philosopher). But falsehoods do exist. Of course you cannot prove a falsehood, otherwise it would not be a false statement. But we can "measure" them - if I say "there are ten green cows in that field" you can look at the field, and attempt to count the green cows. The concept "green cow" is comprised of real things, the color green and cow, but green cows do not exist, and you can determine this by an attempt to witness one.

Quote:

And closer to what Ruthless Logic is saying, if two or more truths comprise a falsehood, then this must mean that falsehood consists of truth(s). So what can make a falsehood false?

If it isn't false, it's not a falsehood. Some claim is false when it does not accurately correspond to reality; when it does not have any truthiness. There is green, there are cows, but no green cows... unless someone has taken to painting their livestock green.

@saiboimushi,

Thanks Saiboimushi, I'm glad because I was having fun and learning alot from your excelent writing.

As for the big G, I can certainly understand your passion and zeal.

I've been looking into our topic and found some things out, let me run them by you and see what you think (whenever you get back to it).

Plato and aristotle famously disagreed about being as a unity or as a plurality. Plato saw things as an illusory reflection or a perfect ideal (the shadows in the cave bit). Aristotle saw things that exist in actuality and things that only exist in potentiality. so even things that do not exist in actuality must contain some form of existance or we would not be able to concieve of them. Not to overlook "becoming" the state that is the transition from nothingness to being (championed by alfred North Whitehead).

Monism is I think what you are describing. It seems that Spinoza, in rejecting Descarte's dualism (mind / body problem), praposed monism; the idea that everything is reducable to a single principle or substance. The dualists aserted that the mind and body are two seprate realities while others including Spinoza saw a union of God and nature or mind and body (monism). Monism was touted by a pre-Socratic philosopher, Parmenides who posited that there is only being, seamless and eternal. Any apperance of individual things (including motion) was an illusion.

Then there is solopsism (meaning self alone) that sees reality to be only in the mind. That the mind cannot have knowledge of anything but itself. The big problem with that is the knowledge of other minds.

My position is that I (my consciousness) came into being from nonbeing, and I can concieve of not existing (previously and in the future) and therfore entering into nothingness. So it is imposible for me to comprehend the absense of the potential nothingness. Also, the idea of a unified oneness is contrary to my thinking because, for me, it is the diversity of existance that holds meaning.

I realize that this is contrary to your thinking and I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to join my skeptic nihlism.

At any rate, we are onto a great topic:D.

@ogden,

Yep, I had a good time today. Smile

And thanks for jumping in, Didymos and Ruthless. You're right, Ogden, I think I am touching on some monistic ideas. Your belief that you sprang from nonbeing is very reasonable. Perhaps in the near future we can consider it in more detail.

Here's one more thought, in the form of a question. If an image of an apple does not correspond to the physical form of a horse, is the image of an apple a falsity? In other words, if the lack of correspondance between two things results in the falsity of one, then isn't everything false, since everything in the universe fails to correspond with at least one other thing in the universe?

@Justin,

Quote:

Here's one more thought, in the form of a question. If an image of an apple does not correspond to the physical form of a horse, is the image of an apple a falsity? In other words, if the lack of correspondance between two things results in the falsity of one, then isn't everything false, since everything in the universe fails to correspond with at least one other thing in the universe?

What would it mean to say 'apple is false' or 'horse is false'? That apples and horses are different does not, as far as I can tell, give us any bit of reason to think one might not exist, or something like that. And they are certainly similar. They are both comprised of essentially the same physical components.

@Didymos Thomas,

Yes, they are both composed of truths; therefore, in at least one respect, they are both true. Smile

But perhaps falsity exists when we "confuse" one thing for another, which is probably what all of us (for good reason) have been thinking. The problem with this idea, however, is that it has not been adequately explained. Socrates tries to explain how someone can confuse two things, but he ends up conceding that it is impossible for someone to confuse anything!

So I wonder: is it really impossible for someone to confuse two things??

@Justin,

Quote:

Yes, they are both composed of truths; therefore, in at least one respect, they are both true.

They as in what, horse and apple? Horse and apple are not true or false, either they exist or they do not.

Quote:

But perhaps falsity exists when we "confuse" one thing for another, which is probably what all of us (for good reason) have been thinking.

A claim is false when it does not correspond to reality. If I say 'there is a green cow' my claim is false; there are cows, and the color green, but no green cows.

Quote:

Socrates tries to explain how someone can confuse two things, but he ends up conceding that it is impossible for someone to confuse anything!

He, to the best of my recollection, concedes that we cannot confuse anything if we know that they should not be confused. I may be confused and call a cat a dog, but once I learn what dog is I'm probably not going to err and call cats dogs any longer. Which dialog were you referring to?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

They as in what, horse and apple? Horse and apple are not true or false, either they exist or they do not.

They aren't true?

A claim is false when it does not correspond to reality. If I say 'there is a green cow' my claim is false; there are cows, and the color green, but no green cows.

But the claim is real, isn't it? So how isn't it true?

He, to the best of my recollection, concedes that we cannot confuse anything if we know that they should not be confused. I may be confused and call a cat a dog, but once I learn what dog is I'm probably not going to err and call cats dogs any longer. Which dialog were you referring to?

Not sure how this quote got posted. Sorry. I must have accidentally done something. Can members delete their own posts?

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

They as in what, horse and apple? Horse and apple are not true or false, either they exist or they do not.

They aren't true? That which exists isn't true? Truth is not an aspect of existence, nor existence an aspect of truth? You may be right, but I'm having trouble seeing how this could be possible.

Quote:

A claim is false when it does not correspond to reality. If I say 'there is a green cow' my claim is false; there are cows, and the color green, but no green cows.

One can imagine a building that doesn't exist, but is his or her mental image of that building false? Are blueprints false? If I imagine what I will be doing in an hour (though I am not doing it right now), is my mental image false? My hope that I will get accepted to UCI--is that hope false, since it does not yet correspond to reality? Incompatibility is not a sufficient condition for falsity ... it would seem. Like I said before, if incompatability is falsity, then everything is false, since everything in the universe is incompatable with at least one other thing. However, incompatability may be a necessary element of falsity.

One could try to be more specific, however, and argue that a false idea is one that is intended to be compatible with a physical state of affairs, but isn't. This opens up an interesting pathway ... but don't get too excited yet. It's not that simple ...

Quote:

He, to the best of my recollection, concedes that we cannot confuse anything if we know that they should not be confused. I may be confused and call a cat a dog, but once I learn what dog is I'm probably not going to err and call cats dogs any longer. Which dialog were you referring to?

Theaetetus. Someone cannot confuse that which they know with that which they know, or that which they know with that which they do not know, or that which they do not know with that which they do not know. If we know both the number 1 and the number 2, we cannot confuse them. If we know the number one, but do not know the number 2, we cannot confuse them. If we know neither the number 1 nor the number 2, we cannot confuse them. And yet we apparently confuse numbers--along with everything else--all the time! How is this possible? Does anyone know?

Let's try to escape this dilemma! Busy day at work, so not much time to respond right now. I've been thinking of ways to define "falsity." I'll post some ideas later on. Let me say now that it is an incredibly vexing puzzle. My guess is that no one knows what falsity is, not even those whose disciplines require them to have an expert understanding of it--although they may THINK they do. Wink

All one has to do is to ask them the right questions, and they will confuse themselves, and so join the rest of us who already are confused. But hey, if I'm wrong, and someone can teach me what it is, I will owe them more than what I could ever pay them, for they will have given me a priceless gift.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You are treating truth and falsehood as things, which they are not. A statement is true or false, true and false do not exist on their own.

Anything I imagine is composed of something real. A pegasus does not exist, they are not real; however, horses and birds do exist, and when imaginatively combined these images produce a pegasus.

Similarly, false statements are generally grounded in something real, or some other true statement. Even most hallucinations are simply adaptations of actual sense experience.

I see where you are going, and you're mostly on the right track (Hume is a great philosopher). But falsehoods do exist. Of course you cannot prove a falsehood, otherwise it would not be a false statement. But we can "measure" them - if I say "there are ten green cows in that field" you can look at the field, and attempt to count the green cows. The concept "green cow" is comprised of real things, the color green and cow, but green cows do not exist, and you can determine this by an attempt to witness one.

If it isn't false, it's not a falsehood. Some claim is false when it does not accurately correspond to reality; when it does not have any truthiness. There is green, there are cows, but no green cows... unless someone has taken to painting their livestock green.

Defined Definitions for additional clarity,
Actual Truth= testable, provable, recognized reality
Actual False= unachievable, a complete and utter contradictation to the default setting of what we call Reality.
Actual Component Truth= individual units of provable, testable, empirically based and accepted concepts or objects of unequivocal consistency.
Actual Component Falsehood= See Above (Actual False)
Truth= A singular unit of an Actual Component Truth. Example: A Flamingo
Truths= A compilation of component truths arranged in an order that is unequivocally consistent with Reality. Example: Flying Pink Flamingos.
Falsehoods= Two or more Actual Component Truths arranged in an order that produces a concept or object that simply does not empirically exist. Example: Flying Pink Elephants.

The Main point of this observation= That it is impossible to conjure, consider, or create something that simply does not exist.

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

So what you end up with are two paradoxes, two question marks: a finite quantity with nothing outside of it, and an infinitely divisible quanitity (an All?) with all kinds of things outside of it. No one--not Parmenides, not even Newton--has figured this stuff out. It is an undiscovered country just waiting to be ... discovered.

I think this is a sort of moot discussion. There's no reason to think that an ALL MUST be infinitely divisible if it consists in material things. A quark or a gluon is not necessarily divisible -- you may speak of or conceive of half a quark, but that doesn't mean it's an ACTUAL division in nature. And the universe, even if it is ALL, may consist of a FINITE number of subatomic particles. So you can theoretically account for 100% of the mass in the universe and 100% of the discrete, indivisible, material units in the universe, even if the universe has nothing outside of it.

But what makes this moot is our understanding of Heisenberg uncertainty, which means that you cannot quantify the universe whether it's infinite or finite -- you can only speak of probabilities and not 'things' if you divide everything down to its simplest elements.

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

The Main point of this observation= That it is impossible to conjure, consider, or create something that simply does not exist.

Does that prove that God exists because people have conjured and considered him?

Because if so, it also means that Darth Vader exists, as do Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Terminator.

@Justin,

Quote:

They aren't true? That which exists isn't true? Truth is not an aspect of existence, nor existence an aspect of truth? You may be right, but I'm having trouble seeing how this could be possible.

No, "apple" isn't true. Apples are real, they exist, and it might be true that I am eating an apple. But "apple" is not true, nor false.

That which exists is real, that which does not exist is not real. It is true that apples exist, and false that unicorns do not exist.

Quote:

One can imagine a building that doesn't exist, but is his or her mental image of that building false? Are blueprints false? If I imagine what I will be doing in an hour (though I am not doing it right now), is my mental image false? My hope that I will get accepted to UCI--is that hope false, since it does not yet correspond to reality? Incompatibility is not a sufficient condition for falsity ... it would seem. Like I said before, if incompatability is falsity, then everything is false, since everything in the universe is incompatable with at least one other thing. However, incompatability may be a necessary element of falsity.

An imagined building is not a claim. It is true the nonexistant building is being imagined. If you drew up blueprints it would be true that you have blueprints for a building that does not exist.

If you do hope to get accepted to UCI, it is true that you hope to be accepted. This claim corresponds with reality - to say you hope to be accepted to UCI conveys truth.

As for your incompatibility argument, you will have to elaborate. I do not see how anything is incompatible with anything else. Clocks seems to exist just fine with everything else that exists.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Does that prove that God exists because people have conjured and considered him?

Because if so, it also means that Darth Vader exists, as do Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Terminator.

Darth Vader and Casper the Ghost do exist as actual component truths, but fail the empirical test, my their order of compilation (falsehoods). You have to ask yourself is my idea of God simply manifested from the totality of all actual component truths arranged in perfect order to produce absolute Truth (currently, empirically untestable due the the obvious complexity), or simply one singular actual component truth (GOD, but fails the simple empirical test), or is God simply a falsehood consisting of actual component truths. In the process of your own consideration of God, it would be illogical to dismiss the the truth that it is simply impossible to conjure, consider, or create something that simply does not exist.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, "apple" isn't true. Apples are real, they exist, and it might be true that I am eating an apple. But "apple" is not true, nor false.

That which exists is real, that which does not exist is not real. It is true that apples exist, and false that unicorns do not exist.

I would say there are two types of truth. The truth that you are talking about, which is a quality of a proposition, and the truth that is existential, which is the quality of everything that exists. (But actually we may find that these are really the same, if we try to go deeper metaphysically.)

Quote:

An imagined building is not a claim. It is true the nonexistant building is being imagined. If you drew up blueprints it would be true that you have blueprints for a building that does not exist.

You are onto something when you mention "claim." What is a claim, in your opinion?

Quote:

As for your incompatibility argument, you will have to elaborate. I do not see how anything is incompatible with anything else. Clocks seems to exist just fine with everything else that exists.

Let me be bold and give you the first answer that comes to my mind: Incompatability is difference. A thing is incompatible to the extent that it is different from other things. Many people will disagree with what I say, because they feel that "like" can go with "unlike," that different things can coexist. If we assume that this is true--i.e., that like can go with unlike--we might have a hard time defining incompatability. But I am open to any other definitions.

@saiboimushi,

Quote:

I would say there are two types of truth. The truth that you are talking about, which is a quality of a proposition, and the truth that is existential, which is the quality of everything that exists. (But actually we may find that these are really the same, if we try to go deeper metaphysically.)

I have no objection with this first sort of truth. But what you call existential truth I'm not so sure about. If I say A has X quality, my statement may be true or false, A either has X quality or not.

I just do not see the value in saying "apple is true", even in some existential fashion.

Quote:

You are onto something when you mention "claim." What is a claim, in your opinion?

A declarative statement would be a claim. I have a cat, for example. That I have a cat is either true or false; I'm just not sure how cat is true or false.

Quote:

Let me be bold and give you the first answer that comes to my mind: Incompatability is difference. A thing is incompatible to the extent that it is different from other things. Many people will disagree with what I say, because they feel that "like" can go with "unlike," that different things can coexist. If we assume that this is true--i.e., that like can go with unlike--we might have a hard time defining incompatability. But I am open to any other definitions.

Then I think you should reconsider the term incompatibility. Just because we can pick out objective differences in two things does not mean that those two things are incompatible. We can differentiate between hydrogen and oxygen, yet they are compatible enough to form water.

As for why differences between things makes them incompatible, I don't follow your argument. Like and unlike require each other; without unlike, there is no like. But maybe this is rooted in more basic assumptions about apparent differences between apparent things.

Philosophy Forum

What is God - Who is God

Quick Links

My Account

able2know