:ok:

1. X is undetectable then X doesn't exist.

That means

2. X exists then X is detectable [1 contrapositive]

But those who believe in God claim that

3. X (God) exists & (but) God (X) is undetectable.

2 & 3 lead to a contradiction: God exists & (God is undetectable & God is detectable).

That means either 1/2 or 3 or both is/are false.

If you say 1/2 is false, we lose our test for nonexistence (nondetectability).

If 3 is false then either God doesn't exist or God is detectable. This means 1/2 is true. God as an undetectable entity that exists is in jeopardy.

Then there's the definition of physicality we haveto worry about.

What do you mean if we say x is physical?

4. X is physical then X exists (we're 100% sure that physical things exist).

But then that means

5. If X doesn't exist then X is nonphysical.

Also,

6. X is physical then X is detectable. The truth of this claim is undeniable. However, it's equivalent to

7. X is undetectable then X is nonphysical.

Compare 7 to 1. Now we can't tell the difference betwixt X doesn't exist and X is nonphysical.

:confused:

:ok:

Let me try and simplify my problem in a few questions

1. How do we know X exists?

We can't! There are no sufficient condition for existence.

X is detectable doesn't imply X exists (hallucinations/simulation).

2. How do we know X doesn't exist?

We've used one rule to draw the conclusion that something doesn't exist:

(a) X is undetectable then X doesn't exist.

3. How do we know X is physical?

Possibilities:

(b) X is detectable then X is physical.

One needs to unpack X is physical. We're 100% certain that

(b1) X is physical then X exists.

So,

(b) X is detectable then X is physical implies

(b2) X is detectable then X exists (recall we had to deny this because of hallucinations)[hypothetical syllogism (b) and (b1)]

Ergo, X is detectable then X is physical is unacceptable.

That is it's possible that

(b3) X is detectable & X is nonphysical.

---

(c) X is physical then X is detectable.

No issues here.

4. How do we know X is nonphysical?

Look at (c). There's a sufficient condition for nonphysicality:

(d) X is undetectable then X is nonphysical.

Salient points:

(a) X is undetectable then X doesn't exist.

(b3) X is detectable & X is nonphysical.

(c) X is physical then X is detectable.

(d) X is undetectable then X is nonphysical.

(c) and (d) are the same proposition (contrapositive)

Look at (a) and (d). Together they imply that

(e) X is undetectable then (X doesn't exist & X is nonphysical).

Conclusions:

(f) God has to be detectable otherwise God doesn't exist.

(g) Detectability doesn't imply physicality

That's all I could muster.

It is understandable that all of your premises make contradictions. You keep trying to put some titanic characteristics just to confirm God's existence: Tangible, physical, detectable or undetectable, etc... As much as I remember if I am not wrong, theists tend to defend that God is omnipotent. Inside this "virtue" it is said that God is and is not at all times and in every place. The failure of developing a grandiose image of God ends up of having a lot of contradictions. This is why, as I said previously, you would need a lot of faith to believe in something that you never "seen" neither spoken to.

Kant's statement, "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith," is one of the most famous things he wrote. However, as we will see in the text, neither he nor Jakob Fries meant by Glaube, "faith".

Kant: The Jewish faith was, in its original form, a collection of mere statutory laws upon which was established a political organization; for whatever moral additions were then or later appended to it in no way whatever belong to Judaism as such. Judaism is really not a religion at all but merely a union of a number of people who, since they belonged to a particular stock, formed themselves into a commonwealth under purely political laws, and not into a church; nay, it was intended to be merely an earthly state...

The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value — javi2541997

An eye-opener!

It is true that defining God in terms of greatness, the greatest being imaginable to be precise, tends to create paradoxes - the omnipotence attribute is particularly problematic.

However, my inquiry is an attempt to find out how the following hang together in a manner of speaking

1. Existence
2. Detectability
3. Physicality
4. Nonphysicality (God being the examplar)

Not really. Our first interaction was a shock to you when you find out that any philosophical inquiry needs to meet specific standards.....Since then you are meshing around finding excuses to avoid any real challenge.
Its your choice.... — Nickolasgaspar

Ok. Can you lay down these standards (of philosophical inquiry) for my benefit? I'd love to know. I've always suspected there is one and I even have my own ideas about it. Just to be clear, I prefer free-flowing inquiry rather than channelling it down some particular path.

I get it, most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies and people who mesh with your echo chamber are recognized as a treat so you feel then need to derail the conversation in an "unchallenging" state. — Nickolasgaspar

No, no! You've made some very important points. It's just that there are too many lines of inquiry for me to handle. I'm feeling overwhelmed. :smile:

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you. — Harry Hindu

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree?

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all.

P. S. I'm still in a bit of a fog so bear with me.

We're derailing the thread! I'm partly responsible. Sorry OP. Good day Nickolasgaspar!

:clap: Never thought of it that way although I recall you mentioning this before!

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.

But most modern god-concepts deny that premise. — Gnomon

I went over that in my preceding posts. Rejecting If X exists, X is detectable means the following:

(viii) X exists & X is undetectable.

Now the question is how do we define nonexistence?

What are our options?

(i) X is detectable then X exists (Rejected because of hallucinations)

(ii) X exists then X is detectable (Ok, can be used to demonstrate nonexistence via nondetectability)

You recommended we discard (viii). Doing that means giving up our only method of inferring nonexistence (ii).

One alternative premise is that "god is existence", the Necessary Being.
But how do you detect "necessity"? By physical or intuitive or logical processes? :smile:

PS__Apparently, most god-believers trust their Intuition more than their Reason. But philosophers seem less reliant on intuition, so require some Objective evidence to supplement their Rational deductions. — Gnomon

Interesting points! Intuition as opposed to logic and that intriguing way of defining God as existence itself.

Mmmm...Non. Imperfections need to be embraced. Only where due, you should look for it. In the modern era, perfection seems to be attended to mostly in the physical domain of bodily appearances. The body is tried to be reshaped in an ideal resembling a horrible abstraction from the natural standard. Resulting in mental sickness and dissolvement from reality. And even the mental domain seems prone to the same abstractions, reshaping the mind into a logical process resembling the the so beloved computers and logical processes inside. Just listen to the CEO talk and (mainly) his (mainl) perfect wife accompanying (mainly) him in perfect silence. The perfect constructor of the perfect world to come "communicating" logically perfect ideals.

Only where it's due, perfection should be sought. — Haglund

Fine-Tuning is synonymous with perfection insofar as the conditions for life is at stake, oui?

No the point is fallacious. — Nickolasgaspar

I won't try to explain why you're wrong.

-the existence of "circles" prove that we tend to simplify aspects of reality through idealistic concepts.
You are referring to an irrelevant aspect.(whether it is useful...while I address what our brain does) — Nickolasgaspar

The brain is a simplifying apparatus. Telos?

Again you always seem to miss the aspect of the thing in question.....nice talking to you agent smith... — Nickolasgaspar

Possible, very possible! Thanks for your comments.

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you. — Harry Hindu

:up:

:up:

I think, in matters of ontology, it is 'essential' to determine the conditions or properties which objectively differentiate an entity (1) as real (actual) from unreal (imaginary) and (2), if real, then as existing (present) from not existing (absent); and therefore, to the degree this difference is indiscernible, I think we lack grounds to claim that any such entity is either "real" or "exists" (thus, with respect to "god/s", reliance on (suspension of disbelief in mythopoetic) make believe aka "faith" (re: Tillich, Kierkegaard ...) is required). — 180 Proof

:up: Excellent overview of the problem, mon ami!

Then something's wrong with one/both of the following claims (our premises/assumptions)

(ii) X exists then X is detectable

(iii) X is physical then X is detectable

That is to say

(viii) X exists & X is undetectable (That you can't detect ghosts doesn't imply ghosts don't exist)

or/and

(ix) X is physical & X is undetectable (That you can't detect dark matter doesn't mean dark matter is nonphysical)

How do we define nonexistence?

Like this I suppose:

(x) X is undetectable then X doesn't exist.

The contrapositive (logically equivalent) of (x) is:

(ii) X exists then X is detectable

So, to keep ourselves sane (as possible), we have to retain (ii).

That means (iii) is false or (ix) is true i.e. X is physical & X is undetectable. But then we just concluded that if X is undetectable, X doesn't exist (x) and (ii).

(ix) X is physical & X is undetectable (has to be true to avoid the contradiction in the OP).

(x) X is undetectable then X doesn't exist.

Unpack (ix) and we get

(xi) X exists & X is physical & X is undetectable (we're at no time more certain of the existence of something than when that something is physical)

(x) X us undetectable then X doesn't exist

The two [(x) and (xi)] constitute a contradiction!!!

:chin:

There is no reason why the world is imperfect. — Nickolasgaspar

PSR?

Imperfection is an unnecessary qualifier. — Nickolasgaspar

You missed the point then.

Our ability to produce minimalistic concepts is evidence on how demanding for our brains is to hold complex details in concepts. — Nickolasgaspar

Sometimes it'll do, sometimes it just won't. The trick is to know when it will and when it won't. :up:

humans need their lives to have meaning in a cosmic scale — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe some, not me! I've had my share of grandiose delusions!

Philosophy is an exercise of frustration — Nickolasgaspar

:up: However, most philosophers seem happy & content!

The point of philosophy was bewilderment and that invariably leads to frustration, but that's tenuous link (re aporia, ataraxia, bushido).

The actual consequence of speech are physical in nature: the expelling of breath, the subtle vibration of the air, the marking of pencil on a paper, and so on. All benign stuff and not worthy of suppression.

Any and all reactions to those benign activities are born in those that react to them, and thus a consequence of themselves.

Considering this, the phrase “freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” is a goofy one at best, but a justification for censorship at worse. The idea that the world and posterity might lose a great work of literature because someone cannot control their rage is a tragedy. — NOS4A2

I don't like censorship, I don't like free speech either!

I have also always insisted that man created gods. — universeness

Answer by Fredric Brown (1906 - 1972)

Of course speech has consequences. — T Clark

True that, but "I'll kill you" is quite a different kettle of fish from me actually killing you, oui? Then there's libel/slander; in Japan, dishonor meant seppuku/harakiri.

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points. — Harry Hindu

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms?

Rationalization! Sublimation! Ring any bells?

My words are so consequential that you can only write in questions and sarcasm. — NOS4A2

:lol:

You don't really enjoy tight corners...right? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't think anybody does/should. Why, do you enjoy 'em? Why

-Well that is more of a biased report. As an honest reporter you need to dig up the reasons why Science and Philosophy NEEDS to keep theologians and pseudo philosophers out from their body of knowledge and wisdom.
It took us thousands of years to construct and test our logical and empirical methods of evaluations and your argument now is " lets jeopardise the purity of our epistemology by being kind to magical thinkers and pseudo intellectuals?"...when we already know the extent they went to keep our knowledge within their superstitious beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

You're putting words in my mouth, Nickolasgaspar. I never said religion, science, and philosophy should be organized into some kinda Epistemic Trinity/Threesome ( :wink: ) - the purveyor of all knowledge. I meant only to regurgitate what my eyes saw and my ears heard - some scientists have a dim view of philosophy, as dim a view as some philosophers have of religion/theology. My intent was to make that public on this forum.

Its neither Science's or Philosophy's problem.
Bad Philosophers and Theology allow scientists and good philosophers to "rub facts in their face".
Again Science and Philosophy have pretty clear goals. The production of Knowledge and Wisdom. Bad philosophy and theology provide none of the above. — Nickolasgaspar

As far as what I wrote is concerned, I'm serving in the capacity of a conscientious reporter.

Its not fair to demand respect from others when "you"(not you specifically) want to play tennis...without the net. You are not a tennis player...just because you hold a racket. — Nickolasgaspar

Exactly! How lamentable it is that this is parenticide. Daughter ideas attacking/killing parent ideas. The world of memes seems more depraved and violent than the world of animals. The stakes are probably higher, oui?

Sometimes harm is needed for the greater good. — Tobias

:lol:

First lets put things in Categories — Nickolasgaspar

:up: :clap:

But do they want you to be you again.... If they can assure me that, I want you to be you again too... :wink: — Haglund

:grin:

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is — Harry Hindu

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against $\infty$ (infinite regress) and that's always worrying.

Question: In math at least definitions of an object seems to be a matter of deconstructing it into parts e.g. a triangle has 3 sides (read lines); lines are a set of points, and so on.

Is this true of nonmathematical objects too? For instance a dog is a tame wolf (genus & differentia), but tame and wolf are not exactly parts of a dog are they? Maybe they are...

:smile:

Just remember, the way philosophers speak disparagingly about theology and theologians and dismiss it as woo-woo is exactly how scientists treat philosophy and philosophers!

The standard theist claim is that God is ultimately simple -- not that He is complex
— Dfpolis
Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define? — Harry Hindu

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir?

This is only true if "justification" means establishing the truth of an assertion without doubt, which can't be done. — T Clark

A (mere) quibble.

The difference is that gender is a psychological identity but being an elephant isn't — Michael

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Why do transsexuals want to change their sex?

Well, if the universe is a block of 4D spacetime, the so-called now is a slice of it. Depending on the angle of that slice, I could be coevals with Socrates or Charles Darwin or Werner Heisenberg or (even) Lucy the hominin or dinosaurs or you get the idea! — Agent Smith

Get the angle right and we could see T. Rex chasing down a triceratops or, get this, even see the dino-killer asteroid streaking through the sky. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0!!! Kaboom! The end of the thunder lizard epoch!

This is wild shot, but what if the words "do not" is something like "me" in "heeeellllp!"? So, "the Almighty commanded kill them all" is actually "the Almighty commanded do not kill them all."

Also, it's possible that the original Biblia Sacra was written in a way that reading it was supposed to done by semantic inversion i.e. the word "kill" has the true meaning save.

I guess what I'm getting at is the Good Book has to be read upside down! :grin:

For what it's worth, there is a standpoint known as nonjustificationsim; the idea has its roots in post-Karl Popper science. After all, no (scientific) hypothesis can be proven true; all that can be done is falsify them once we get our hands on some testable predictions that they entail.

Intriguing to say the least, no (scientific) hypothesis can be justified as truth and yet we do believe them to be so.

Imperfectly analogous, (for an ethical naturalist (à la Foot, Parfit, Nussbaum, Spinoza, Epicurus, et al) like myself) ethics is like linguistics and thereby moralities are like languages and correspondingly 'moral beliefs' (local customs) and like 'dialects' (idioms, clichés). We are an eusocial and metacognitive natural (ecology-situated) species and ethics, it seems to me, concerns individuals-in-groups flourishing by adaptive (coordinating) conduct and (cooperative) relationships despite our natural constraints (i.e. species defects). So not "absolute" – rules without exceptions, or unconditional norms – but objective, or more-than-intersubjective. — 180 Proof

:up:

We know what to do, but our nature gets in the way! Ethics is reason's struggle against, loosely speaking, unreason (not passion).