https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-alpha-wolf-idea-a-myth/
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10
...and so on. — Banno

I'll talk about this because it's an interesting aside.

It makes sense that animal hierarchies reduce given additional space where they don't have to directly compete for resources. The weaker ones would likely go find their own place to roam, find food, mates, safe spots and so on without having to go head to head with the bigger members of the group. I think about my chickens, and the pecking order really most displays itself in the coop, but while they're out and about in the yard less so.

If getting fed means searching out bugs from far away or from knocking you down and taking the food you seek from the feeder, I'm going to do whichever is easiest for me.

What can be extrapolated from chicken behavior to human societies and how this explains capitalism and competition (for example), I don't really know, but it's chicken feed for thought.

The role of the rooster in the chicken society is also an interesting one. More food for thought.

Now y'all can return to the God discussion, whatever exactly it is.

But I know this, to every fiction there is an element of truth. — Raef Kandil

This is absolutely correct. The best fictions mimick the truth closely, or contain plausibility as their fundamental premise.

This is likely why so many conspiracies exist and why some of them are very popular, and it is also why the best fiction novels read well. Because the fiction is logically built up within the world of that book/film and based on the rules of that world.

Bad fictions or terrible lying highlights the truth too, not because it contains it, but from subtraction, because it makes the differences stark and obvious. Bad logic.

Everything in the "true world" (reality regardless of how we individually perceive it) has elements of truth or interacts with it/is in a some form of relationship with it.

As for "God" and its or his or her existence, I leave you with this sentiment: "If everyone has a unique concept of the word God and what it means, if every atheist has a specific term for god for which they reject, and every believer has a specific notion of god for which they accept, and they are all different and particular definitions, then what exactly are we talking about when we discuss the term? What is the standard? "

Are we simply talking cross purposes? Discussing different ideas as if they were the same idea?

The difficulty with determining the existence of God or Gods is one of definition. We can all agree that some definitions of God can be confidently rejected.

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility.

And perhaps, just maybe, there is one definition so accurate both logically and morally - all encompassing, that denying it would be as deluded as accepting that God is a singing karaoke banana.

That search continues to this day for such a definition so that we may decide whether to accept or reject it. Whether it satisfies all logic, reason and moral to accept it so.

Even then, probably not everyone will agree.

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility. — Benj96

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share.

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share. — finarfin

I see what you mean. New religion unlocked: the church of the floating ginger karaoke banana.

I think any credible definition for a believable God is one where it has the qualities neccesary to manifest the entirety of existence. As well as both logic and irrationality as existants (phenomena) that occur.

Physics is one means of interpreting such a universal god and it would cite that the energy contained in a banana is not sufficient to precipitate the existence of everything else.

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being.

Energy would probably serve better than a singing banana as a means to explain not only the universe but also the irrational products of energy (the notion of the singing banana)

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being. — Benj96

So long as it doesn't contradict itself, logic, or science, the aesthetics really don't matter, though some assumptions would certainly be more likely (than the flying spaghetti monster, as an example). And of course, there are ways of sidestepping the problems that arise when god is brought into the equation, which requires some assumptions of its own. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail.

. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail. — finarfin

Yes agreed. Many conventional religions do fall far short of factoring in the elegant tool that is scientific method into their inquiry into the universe. I think philosophy is less rigid than religious dogmas in this respect.

This is because most conventional religions developed a long time ago in a different social landscape - without the knowledge elucidated by science. In essence they did the best with what they had to hand.

But religions come and go. New ones are developed. Old ones are lost to the annals of time. Because their texts are static, whilst the meaning and use of language is not, it evolves. So any texts that are copied hundreds of times over centuries, becoming ever more inaccurate, corrupted by errors and interpretative - the exact nuances of their meaning lost to changes in how we use languages as well as context, some languages too are dying or obsolete or getting there.

This doesn't preclude new theistic views. Ones that can try to integrate science, philosophy, intuition and spiritual archetypes into a framework where they don't all directly oppose one another but are in some sensible relationship.

All of these things are techniques of understanding reality. And whilst I have the highest regard for science, technology and their abilities, they are not without their own dogma and limitations.

That proof is only that which is repeatable, observable and measurable. This does not lend itself to any proofs of rare things, immeasurable things, unquantifiable things, scientific explorations that require being unethical or ones that try to objectify "subjectivity." Or singular unreproducible things - such as the unique individual, or the present moment. Neither are reproducible nor measurable in their entirety. If they were then all things could be predicted.

I believe if a fundamental truth is singular, and manifests all existants, it cannot be fully measured as an object/in an objective way, nor as something repeatable due to the diversity of distinct phenomena that arise from it. It can only be measured based on the presumption or character/restriction of the measurement being used.

Any decent modern approach to theism must acknowledge science and its ability to objectify and standardise features of the universe. It then has to be able to incorporate a mechanism for consciousness, beliefs, subjectivity, art, creativity and imagination - things science finds difficult to reduce to a scientific paradigm alone.

Finally we must accept that scientific paradigm is also not static nor final but always open to more reasoning, experiment and refinement. That paradigm has shifted several degrees many times, completely changing how we see the universe. For example the advent of eisnteins theories revolutionised many previously problematic or irreconcilable measurements.

:halo:

"God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm)

God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm) — 180 Proof

If something exists as "all things", can it's existence be characterised/reduced to "one" thing?

How do we go about that?

Can "potential" for example, be measured directly? Or only through what it does (indirect measurement).

Can energy be fully quantified through direct measurement - when both the act of measurenent, the observer and the measuring device, also contains and uses energy.

These are the limitations of quantification and qualification of a system from within the system using the system to do it.

When we talk about whether God exists. Do we mean as a singular object, thing or person? Do we talk about it as having a locality in space-time, or as the fabric of space-time itself? Do we aporoach it as a concept that applies to the full scope of reality?

If we take the premise does God exist? We already assume that existence is a larger concept that may or may not contain a God as a product which we must find evidence for "within" the universe- time, locality/space, matter (objectivity) and energy (ability).

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?" , and instead the sensible questions we would ask is "how does it exist?"

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?" — Benj96

:up:

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?"
— Benj96
:up: — 180 Proof

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other.

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other. — prothero

:up: :up:

Btw, Welcome back!

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? — Raef Kandil

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people claim there is (or isn't) "evidence" that God exists. It leads to unproductive discusions. Most generally, evidence = a body of facts that are used to support a position. Arguments for God's existence typically depend on metaphysical assumptions that they treat as the "facts" and proceed to show how it entails a deity. So they can claim there is "evidence" for God. Atheists deny the metaphysical assumption(s) and thus deny there is evidence.

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. — Raef Kandil

Sounds circular- if we treate "create" as an intentional act. IF everything else is created, then there's a creator. But why think anything is created?

OTOH, if we equate "created" with "caused" - we could consider a causal chain that has a beginning (a "first cause") but it's perfectly coherent to see this as a perfectly natural state of affairs.

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other. — prothero

I propose defining "God" in a minimalist way as the entity that is ostensibly entailed by one or more deistic arguments. E.g. The Kalam Cosmological Argument allegedly proves there to have been an intentional agent who somehow caused the natural world to exist.

I'm flagging the thread for deletion. — Wayfarer

So you are taking it upon yourself to have deleted everything everyone else has to say? How philosophical.

For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world. — T Clark

As a concept, "God" plays many roles, and has many definitions. By some definitions, Satan is a god, and some envision a cloven-footed creature running amok in the world. But for me, the only relevant role of G*D for a non-theist, is to explain the existence & order of the physical world. Since that definition places the creator outside of the creation, it is unknowable by empirical means. Hence, it is necessarily a "metaphysical" (mental) conjecture, not a physical (material) object. So, we may never know the final answer.

A non-physical First Cause of the physical world, literally doesn't matter. So what difference does it make, if god does not exist in any meaningful sense? For example, some thinkers have postulated god-substitutes (e.g. Multiverse) that assume the essential attributes of a world creator (e.g. intelligence, intention, creative power) are self-existent properties of space-time and matter-energy. Hence, nothing special. That is indeed a "way of looking at the world", but leaves the crucial "why?" unanswered --- not to mention "how?". Does a contingent world require a reason for being? Why ask "why"? Why not just "shut up and calculate"? Why do philosophers ask "why?", and argue endlessly over un-provable postulations? :smile:

Why ask "why"? — Gnomon

Indeed – the only ultimate answer to "Why?" which doesn't beg the question is that there is no ultimate answer. Philosophers are often 'bewitched by language', as Witty points out (& Freddy too), uttering words that only look like, but do not function as, questions.