Why "Does God exist?" is not a Yes or No Question

[@fluffysheap]

Disagreement over the nature of God is completely different from disagreement over the existence of God. One might live in a house, apartment, condo, houseboat, or RV, and all of them are basically the same thing when compared to being homeless.

[@Zictomorph]

"I'm A god. Not THE God... I dont think" -Bill Murray But thank you. What a super important distinction.

[@hadisyed4666]

Great discussion. David Bently Hart’s book in God spends an entire 40 pages trying to understand what we mean when we say God exists, reviving deeper medieval understanding than the superficial modern ones.

[@Tonoborus]

hi. very neat. i have been in scenarios where there is a kind of equivocation happening. Some argument is presented for God, but even it is accepted as sound it only proves some platonic ideal or unmoved mover type entity, and the question is then - ok but is this a person, can you have a relationship with it, does it have a moral dimension, has it communicated with humans in the past or inspired our literature? likewise you might get an argument along the lines of , "you are an atheist about n gods I am an atheist about n+1 gods" which sort of equivocates again but on the other side of your spectrum. no matter where we stand, i think we can all agree that in principle we can all benefit from increased conceptual clarity.

[@davidstair9657]

What if God hides himself from being discovered. I do this... especially if I see a jerk coming towards me. Kidding asside, asside from NEVER having spiritual discussions with people that go further than a few sentences... and I deal with the sick, suffering, and dying..., but SHOULD conversation about God come up, me, with my i's dotted and t's crossed from decades of wrestling with God... I would be darn careful to listen, be curious, and carefully define terms... all slathered and couched in love. Again, I've been with those that should question who or what is behind all this cancer and wounds... but, not often, and very, very rare. Perhaps everyone is just too polite? But, as a Christian in a secular environment, not only am I NOT persecuted... but no one wants to even make fun of God or Christianity. The furthest is an expression of exasperation during a whooping cough epidemic, where the doc expressed that it was Christians that were not vaccinated. I explained about our Dutch community and the different gradients of the idea of faith. Literally given the floor in a busy ER with several kids coughing and crying and I was able to explain the nuances in a Reformed community! Not one lesbian or Tans asked me sarcastically, "does God even exist?" Ironically enough, working as a nurse with pagans has showed me very clearly that Christians are not persecuted in Canada. I couldgo on... sorry for the rant, but finding Christians that are outside of the persecution complex and could discuss as you do these subjects has been extremely rare. Thanks for your content!!

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

This claim really doesn't stand up to scrutiny because we can have definitions of day or night which can be used to determine whether at any given moment in a place on planet Earth it either is day or it's night. For example if we can agree that standing at sea level in a flat desert & the sun is hidden below the horizon it's officially "night" & if it isn't it's officially "day" - or any number of ways to define _This is what's meant by day & night._ Now people might disagree on how that definition is arrived at perhaps but just as long as there is some definition that can be agreed upon then there's a way to answer the question posed. This is not the case with god claims because there's no wide agreement among the believers in a god or gods on what that is. Not even in the largest religion in the world _Christianity_ because there are Catholics who think 'God' is a 3 in 1 trinity (whatever that could mean!) then there are Unitarians who believe in just one deity & also Mormons too who think there are _many_ gods & that's before all the opinions on _other_ god, gods, goddesses & demigods etc. in all of the other world's religions are taken into consideration as well! Since even the believers can't agree on what this god or gods etc. is among themselves there's no good reason to believe that they are talking about anything real _at all._ In fact this very video speaks of god being outside time & space which on closer consideration is indistinguishable from _nothing at all_ isn't it so why take such claims at all _seriously?_

[@MorrisJohn-vo2vn]

0:20 sure man, there are cases when day is approaching Nightness(dusk) and vice versa but there is a clear different between them, it is binary. We may live in an Atheistic universe with natural laws that sometimes make it look Theistic or vice versa but it is one or the other.

[@adrianthomas1473]

Interesting - God the Father cannot exist since God created existence - God did not create Himself. We cannot conceive of what there was before creation - even the word nothing is inadequate since nothing implies something. The interesting question then becomes as to how God interacts with creation? We then come to the idea of Logos (Heraclitus, Philo of Alexandria, John the Divine). Can you do an episode on Logos and salvation as Theosis? Thanks!

[@EnglishMike]

As an atheist, I completely agree that you first have to define what you mean by "God" before you can formulate any arguments for or against their existence. I have wasted too much time writing rebuttals to, say, the existence of Hell as eternal conscious torment only to have the person I was responding to say "But that's not what I believe!" Better always to clearly understand your interlocutor's position first. 😋

[@goldenalt3166]

Better yet, theists can argue with each other and come to a single definition of God. Then we'll talk.

[@danielwilcox5135]

Definitely! LOL. Some atheists have told me that I am really an atheist since I've never believed in the Creeds, don't think miracles ever happened, and don't think there is life after death. But I am an intellectually convinced deist of sorts, do think the cosmos has meaning, do think humans have inherent worth, etc.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@danielwilcox5135 And that deity has some meaning or value that you don't agree with?

[@EnglishMike]

I think Christians also need to remember what type of God they're supposed to believe in given some of the arguments in defense of slavery, rape, and genocide in the Bible. I'm talking specifically about the argument that God is trying to nudge the Israelites in the right direction rather than overwhelm them with the ethics as commonly practiced today. Making the Israelites slightly better at morality than the surrounding tribes seems to be an incredibly low expectation for a God they would agree is omniscient and omnipotent.

[@MichelleG.-et8yk]

I have gotten past this point. I see the Bible more as how the Israelites viewed God rather than as he really is.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@MichelleG.-et8ykThat doesn’t exactly work either, due to Divine Hiddenness. God can easily reveal Himself, especially to the Israelites, who sort of had the right idea. There’s also the issue of our own epistemology regarding supernatural entities like God. How can we tell that it’s really God talking to us? If you have to exclude the Israelites from those who had a real encounter with God, then it’s pretty difficult to identify what a real experience would look like.

[@davidlovesyeshua]

It could work combined with something like Universalism

[@MichelleG.-et8yk]

So how do you account for God commanding to Samuel to kill the king of the Amalekites because Saul didn't? Something is very wrong there.

[@velkyn1]

that argument is always hilarious since this god has no problem in telling people they'll be damned for eating shrimp, but oh dear, just can't get it up to say slavery, rape, genocide etc are wrong.

[@rogersacco4624]

If you believe in an awesome intelligent transcending god the next step is "No ,he didn't write the bible"

[@onua3963]

Most definitely. But interestingly that is also very much consistent with Christianity being true.

[@RathanaelBasanjos]

And the bible claims that it was writted by god?

[@lohikaarmeherra-1753]

@@RathanaelBasanjos nope. Nor does the bible define what books are in it either.

[@onua3963]

@RathanaelBasanjos it does not.

[@williamoarlock8634]

He 'inspired the bible' allegedly.

[@velkyn1]

actually it is a yes or no question, and only those who want to pretend it does try to claim that. They have no evidence for their nonsense and thus want the benefit of the doubt.

[@artbyadrienne6812]

Do we believe in God because he exists or does he exist because we believe he does? 🤔

[@2l84me8]

Either a god(s) exists or they do not exist. If these god(s) will not choose to directly interact with us and behave exactly as if they don’t exist, why should we concern ourselves with them to begin with?

[@piesho]

Exactly right. That's why it's always a good idea to start with a definition of God before we can answer that question. Example: If God is a disembodied mind outside of space and time, then that god exists never and nowhere.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

What about a disembodied mind that is temporal and spatial, like models of Gods in neoclassical theism that deny Divine timelessness? However, If I were to try to steelman the classical conception of God, I'd say that God still exists, but his existence transcends time and space, and there's more to existence than time and space.

[@piesho]

@@theintelligentmilkjug944 How is a mind supposed to live outside a body (or a brain)? That's not the way we understand minds work. The main issue I have with metaphysical definitions of God is that sooner or later they stuck in their attempts to use physical things to identify abstractions that do not exists. The broken link between the explanandum and the explanans.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

@@piesho Well, according to some models of panpsychism, the mind or mind-like aspects can be a fundamental attribute of reality and tied to space rather than to matter. This kind of immateriality exists in space but has no physical extension in space. Just as a coordinate grid itself does not occupy space but allows for spatial organization, by extension It exists in space. Also, I'm not sure that we fully understand the mind as inseparable from the body there seems to be considerable disagreement on that point. I mean, epistemically speaking, we can deny the existence of everything in the external world, including our bodies, but we can't deny the existence of our cognitive faculties because denial itself requires cognition. Therefore, there's a significant epistemic separation between the mind and the body, because the existence of the mind is something we can be certain about, unlike the body. Also, there seems to be a metaphysical separation between the mind and body, consider the following syllogism: P1. The fundamental properties of all material substances are interchangeable. For example, a proton in a cup of water has the exact same charge, mass, and other elementary characteristics as a proton on Pluto. The ability to interchange objects or particles with identical intrinsic properties (such as protons) implies that material substances are fundamentally reducible to the same set of basic properties. This is central to the materialist view that everything in the universe can, in principle, be explained by its physical characteristics and interactions. P2. The fundamental properties of the mind aren't interchangeable. Subjective experiences are essentially unique from every point of view. One subjective experience can't be seamlessly substituted for another. For example, two people may perceive a color gradient from red to purple, but each person's experience of when the color shifts from 'red' to 'purple' may differ, and their subjective thresholds for identifying the transition will never exactly align. C. Therefore, minds can't be material because their intrinsic properties aren't interchangeable, unlike those of material substances. Panpsychism offers a compelling solution to the mind-body problem by suggesting that consciousness or mind-like qualities are not merely emergent properties of complex physical systems, but rather fundamental features of reality itself, present in all aspects of the universe. In this view, consciousness exists in varying degrees, from simple particles to complex organisms, but is not confined to human-like mental states. By tying consciousness to space, panpsychism allows for a form of mind that is not reducible to physical matter, addressing the metaphysical separation between mind and body as discussed in the syllogism. This perspective accommodates the notion that the mind's intrinsic properties, such as subjectivity, are not interchangeable in the same way physical particles are, while still acknowledging that the mind, as an inseparable aspect of reality, exists within the space where physical interactions occur. Furthermore, panpsychism can resolve the hard problem of consciousness by framing subjective experience as an inherent quality of all physical systems, rather than something that emerges from non-conscious matter. Since consciousness is part of the fabric of reality, there is no need to explain how a non-conscious brain produces conscious experience. Instead, we can understand the mind as a fundamental attribute of space, coexisting with its physical properties, yet distinct in its subjective nature. This reconciles the epistemic separation between mind and body by providing a model in which consciousness is always present and cannot be doubted in the same way physical bodies can, allowing for a more unified and satisfying explanation of the mind-body relationship.

[@piesho]

@@theintelligentmilkjug944 According to philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists, the mind is a process. Processes are executed by physicals entities. Here's where we come back to physicalism. With panphysicalism you still need to explain how it works when you attribute consciousness to pretty much anything. So, no, it doesn't explain anything.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

@@piesho Yes, it's commonly agreed among philosophers, cognitive scientist, and neuroscientist that the mind is a process. However, the exact nature of the process is widely debated, not all philosophers, or even cognitive scientists and neuroscientists are materialists. Also In panpsychism, consciousness is seen as a fundamental feature of reality, not necessarily as a process in itself, but rather as a quality inherent to all things. The process is how this fundamental consciousness manifests at different scales, particularly in complex systems like brains. So, while consciousness is ubiquitous, it's the interaction of physical entities that leads to the experience of consciousness in higher organisms. Materialistic perspectives are great at explaining how consciousness works, but not so great at explaining what it is exactly. I mean, yes the mind is a process, but that doesn't explain the "how it feels" aspect. So, yes it's a good compromise between materialism and dualism.

[@abyssimus]

I've met quite a few atheists who, if you try to figure out their ontology and so on while avoiding questions of theism, end up circling around the God of either Spinoza, Hegel, or Deism, with only the G-word getting in the way of them saying "yeah, I believe in that." Avoid that, and some of them will even say "yeah, it makes sense there's something (conceptually) 'there' (as it were)." Reminds me of hearing about a Buddhist author who read Meister Eckhart and reached the conclusion that Christians like Eckhart are dealing with the same ultimate reality that Buddhists do with mere differences in terminology.

[@EnglishMike]

They all believed there's a conscious being involved somewhere? Seems implausible (that they would say this). Maybe I'm missing something.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Most atheists I’ve met believe in nothing like gods or spirits, because there is no reason to believe in such. Theists are simply trying to alter reality with word games.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Spinoza’s god is really different from deism. I think you may be confusing their tentative presumption that reality has some kind of fundamental property with something resembling a god belief.

[@goldenalt3166]

So what? Are you really ok with "god" being a causer without any care for human behavior? Seems like you're an athiest in all but name in that case.

[@abyssimus]

@@weirdwilliam8500 Where did I say that Spinoza's view of God was deistic? I said "or," not "and."

[@Hardcrafter2807]

Honestly, for me, the question of the existence of God is a matter of semantics first, then you can break it down from there. Starting with what it means to "exist", then what it is meant when referring to God. If existence is tied to presense in space-time and God is spaceless and timeless then under such semantics God can't "exist". If God is "being itself" then "to be" at all is to be part of God, and such a God would *have* to exist as a matter of course. The problem is that no one can really agree upon what God actually is, and some people have different ideas on what "existence" means.

[@ChipKempston]

This is akin to asking, "Does the Sun exist?" and then proceeding to list all the different ways cultures, philosophers, scientists, etc., have thought about the Sun throughout history, and then concluding, it's not a Yes or No question. Absurd.

[@B.S._Lewis]

The God definition is abstract, not concrete. That's why the religious can't agree about what defining attributes even make up the category of what would define a god. I think your example of day and night is inaccurate. If you pull up your weather app, it can tell you exactly when it is day or night based on the criteria of full sunrise or sunset over or beneath the horizon of your specific location. In part mainly to the fact that clear definitions of day and night have been established to avoid any confusion in the communication of the concepts.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Yes, but words in any language have usages that do not precisely match reality, because reality is continuous. That’s why Rauser’s claim here is bunk.

[@WatcherNine]

It is a yes or no question, and the simple answer is yes. Whether you consider his existence here or on/in another dimension, he exists. If he didn't exist, neither would we. But it's fun to play thought experiment type games sometimes, isn't it?

[@fishhy9720]

I'm intrigued by how we know a building has 'ideal' dimensions (like the Parthenon). And the fact that humans invented mathematics to describe the universe. Where did these come from? When all is said and done, without evidence, you are speculating about a supernatural realm. I think atheism is the default position.

[@davethebrahman9870]

It’s just ‘no’. ‘Transcendent’ is a set that has no content.

[@chrisgreen2013]

The real continuum concerns the trinity. Do we believe in the trinity of Gregory of nyssa, who created out of the overflow of his love, providing context for the love of the father, son and spirit to unfold itself, with the second person of the trinity destined to be forever incarnated in perfect intimacy with all that he has created…….or the insoluble threefold mathematical conundrum of modern paradox merchants, who created for no other ultimate reason than to prove how much he didn’t have to, and who has united himself to only part of that creation in order to prove how lucky they are to be the beneficiaries of his caprice.

[@williamoarlock8634]

"What do you mean by 'God'?" Now being a standard 'sermon module' but really seems to be theist deflection.

[@NDHFilms]

I’ll take your explanation over Jordan Peterson’s any day.

[@PadraigG8]

Classical Theism FTW!

[@velkyn1]

and classical theism fails too since there is still no evidence for that imaginary friend.

[@humblethinker8493]

Ugh, just stop this. The answer then should be “Yes, but…”

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

listening. But so far, even just the title. My initial thought is "So true!". It's really not a black and white matter.

[@sohu86x]

You're trying really hard but either God exists or God does not exist. There is no continuum. Your explanation is nonsense.

[@Randal_Rauser]

It's good to know the world has you to fix the lexical range of the word "God."

[@goldenalt3166]

Go ahead and tell us what God is then? Or are you just defining God as Existence (which is also popular)?

[@danielwilcox5135]

​@@goldenalt3166Check first definition of Websters Collegiate Dictionary. God is "ultimate reality."

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@danielwilcox5135Really? That’s a terrible definition. Everyone believes an ultimate reality exists, but few can agree on what the nature of ultimate reality is. As it is, you’re just describing pantheism.

[@elibonham4388]

Randal Rauser why the sarcastic reply

[@jfrontier1]

I think it depends on your own belief system. As a Christian, I will assume a Christian concept of God. But if one is a Muslim, then Islam is your concept of God. The Mormon concept of God is quite different than what most Christians believe is God. So it depends on your formed belief system on what or who God is.

[@EnglishMike]

And strikingly so. Pretty much everyone who believes in God believes in the the God they learned about from parents and teachers as a child. There are conversions later in life, of course, but there are very few compared to the billions who continue to believe as their parents taught them -- less than 1 in 100, no doubt.

[@robertwheeler1158]

In this video you sound almost like a Gnostic. But the question is, does God, as He is described in the Bible, exist?

[@weirdwilliam8500]

The god described in the plain text of the Bible is not all knowing or all powerful. It’s only later theology that added tons of concepts extra biblically. Randal is pointing out the spectrum of the various post hoc inventions that various Christian denominations have imagined through the ages.

[@goldenalt3166]

The Bible is self contradictory. So you'd have to be more specific. (Unless you want to go with no that's not possible as the answer).

[@gordon3186]

Considering his abysmal morality, my answer would be, "I certainly hope not."

[@robertwheeler1158]

@@gordon3186 But God does not exist, what is morality?

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@robertwheeler1158 I’ve never understood how Christians can actually believe that morality can’t exist unless their particular god exists to ground it. Are you unaware of all the other non religious models of objective morality which, if they in fact exist, would each be a sufficient grounds for objective morality? Or all the other religions including polytheistic models? Or maybe morality is in fact subjective? I don’t think it even matters if some god makes moral pronouncements. If it told us that it’s an objective moral imperative to curb stomp toddlers, would you start doing that? I certainly wouldn’t, because my own conscience wouldn’t allow me to. And whether an act is rewarded or punished after the fact has no relation to whether that act was moral. Based on all the Christians I’ve talked to, you all have different moral beliefs, and you all insist that the god you believe in is in perfect agreement with those beliefs. It’s seems absurdly obvious that you’re just using superstition to feel more certain about your subjective intuitions.