How can God not exist

[Didymos Thomas]

And hence an argument for God's existence is, in the end, equivalent to the argument against it. The meaningfulness of both positive and negative assertions about God melt away in the face of an infinitude we can't comprehend.

Sort of. We have to be careful about the purpose of discussion about the existence of God. Approaching theories that attempt to establish the existence of God in the same way we approach arguments about the existence of gravity, for example, is to mis the point. We need to approach these philosophical attempts to "prove" God as meditations on the existence of God in the same way we approach Zen paradoxes.

So, arguments for God and not equivalent to arguments against God unless we expect arguments, in of themselves, to enlighten us about God. It's the contemplation spurred by the argument that shows the way to God. These arguments should be fingers pointing the way, not the end of the path.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We need to approach these philosophical attempts to "prove" God as meditations on the existence of God in the same way we approach Zen paradoxes.

That's an outstanding point. I wish everyone would ponder God that way, rather than being so concrete about God proofs.

[Holiday20310401]

I'm not concrete about God's 'proofs'.

I just feel that its existence should be defined through reasoning more so than anything else at the moment.

[Aedes]

But if we consider God to have qualities of infinitude or limitlessness, and we consider our reason to be inherently limited, then why should we think it's possible to define him through reasoning?

Are you familiar with the Zen koans that Didymos Thomas was mentioning? In various forms of Japanese Buddhism, most famously Zen, there is an emphasis on moments of paradox when your mind is just sort of stunned into silence.

This takes various forms, such as the Zen garden. But a famous form is the koan, which is a kind of paradox. The best known is "What is the sound of one hand clapping".

The moment of pause when thinking about that for a second is exactly the goal of that exercise. And I agree with Thomas that this would be a worthy goal of ponderings on God's existence. This is so underemphasized in Western religious traditions, except perhaps among monastic orders.

So what we could do is focus on the limitless, incomprehensible, unanswerable things and ponder them.

Unfortunately what's done instead is people try to mitigate the centrality of faith by focusing on reason. But all that changes is that you exert blind faith in reason instead, which becomes a proxy for your faith in God.

(not you, per se)

[Holiday20310401]

No, it would mean me probably. I can't really see a point to believing in God though. I could believe in God for no reason, not logical basis, just as an outcome of some overall introspectral conclusion; whether it be through qualia, spiritual experiences (as Didymos likes to point out) but that doesn't matter to me. I still feel compelled for reason.

How is reason blind? Without rationalism, empiricism is useless. What proxy supports your faith if you have one? Or is the whole point to avoid speaking for what is transcendent? That makes more sense to me, so I am best to just live my life through the assumption that I can make wise choices.

So it is best no to have faith in the transcendent b/c it has no effect upon us. Let faith be something simple?

I tried the paradox, by clapping my one hand... it made a sound, I don't get it. I didn't think I just tried.

I realise rationalising the transcendent is all speculation, but its fun.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

No, it would mean me probably.

It didn't. I don't know what you believe. I can just only use the neutral pronoun "one" for so long, though.

I can't really see a point to believing in God though. I could believe in God for no reason, not logical basis, just as an outcome of some overall introspectral conclusion

I'm the same way. I practice and identify with a relatively conventional religion, I am highly spiritual, but I don't particularly personally care about the God question. I don't believe he actually exists, but I don't care enough to personally explore the question either.

That's not to dismiss its importance in a case-by-case way, though, which is probably why you and I both participate in this kind of conversation.

[TheRedMenace]

Personally I know you wont like this but to attempt to rationalize God, as the incomprehensible and limitless being God is, almost seems arrogant. If we can't comprehend It to rationalize It would be just as foolish of an endeavor. (By the way I refer to God as an It and not Him because I see God as a being incomprehensible to our eyes and thus has no sex so usually I say It even if 'it' is usually used as a demeaning term.) I think there is logic to support God and logic against God but in order to find God you must go beyond the logic presented. I respect not be willing to do that and follow the logic purely. Logical and deductive reasoning is in my opinion the most important tool to have in life.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by TheRedMenace

Logical and deductive reasoning is in my opinion the most important tool to have in life.

A hammer is a useful tool, but not if you use it to brush your teeth.

No tool is useful unless you understand its limitations.

[TheRedMenace]

Originally Posted by Aedes

A hammer is a useful tool, but not if you use it to brush your teeth.

No tool is useful unless you understand its limitations.

Wrong. What do you brush your teeth with?

You are a genius, comrade. I completely agree. That puts some things into perspective for me. And makes my beliefs feel more justified.

[Didymos Thomas]

Or getting a shave.