At face value, it looks like it does; however, when I start pressing it it breaks down into a vague, ambiguous mess of words that may or may not be a group of incompatible traits (ex. a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks, acts, and exists). I don't know what to make of it. It seems likely to me that the answer to the question is no the question doesn't make sense. "Does god exist or not exist," is like the question "are the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously or not sleeping furiously?" There is nothing there to say yes or no, or even "I don't know" to.
Any thoughts?
Well I think the 'does god exist' question is viable only because mankind made it so. For centuries there's been argument about that or Who's god is the Right god, etc. So since mankind made god and religion such a serious subject matter - then yes - the question is viable.
Of course the perfect response is:
"What's a god?" Annnnd.............. we go from there. :shock: :shock: :Hangman: :roll:
That's like asking if delusions exist. They do, and they don't, depending on whether one is talking about an objective reality or in ones subjective imagination. In reality it requires personal experience from empirical evidence that would be known to any sentient creature to exist. In the subjective imagination it requires belief with no evidence but a personal experience that can't be experienced by other sentient creatures to exist. So yes, God exists in people's imagination is coherent, but there is no empirical evidence He does in reality, so no, He doesn't exist and is incoherent to say He does. :shock: Solitary
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"At face value, it looks like it does; however, when I start pressing it it breaks down into a vague, ambiguous mess of words that may or may not be a group of incompatible traits (ex. a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks, acts, and exists). I don't know what to make of it. It seems likely to me that the answer to the question is no the question doesn't make sense. "Does god exist or not exist," is like the question "are the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously or not sleeping furiously?" There is nothing there to say yes or no, or even "I don't know" to.
Any thoughts?
Sounds like you are talking about ignosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)
Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (for that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the that term (for) "God" is considered meaningless.
2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"At face value, it looks like it does; however, when I start pressing it it breaks down into a vague, ambiguous mess of words that may or may not be a group of incompatible traits (ex. a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks, acts, and exists). I don't know what to make of it. It seems likely to me that the answer to the question is no the question doesn't make sense. "Does god exist or not exist," is like the question "are the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously or not sleeping furiously?" There is nothing there to say yes or no, or even "I don't know" to.
Any thoughts?
Sounds like you are talking about ignosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)
Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (for that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the that term (for) "God" is considered meaningless.
2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
Good post! And I thought my post was obtuse (hard to understand). :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"That's like asking if delusions exist.
Huh? I wasn't asking if certain mental states (delusions) exist. To put what I was asking in other words, "does the idea flatout contradict itself like saying "there exists four sided objects with no sides" and does it rest on a category error like saying the color green is colorless and sleeps furiously?" and what I should have asked along with this: "Doesn't action presume the concepts of causality, space, and time?" If all that is the case then it isn't an idea but a pseudo-idea.
So I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
Quote from: "Solitary". So yes, God exists in people's imagination is coherent
What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the concept of "a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks and acts" isn't self-contradictory or based on a category error? Why are you assuming that? I'm confused by your whole post. What you're saying sounds like "people can imagine four sided objects with no sides." But I don't think you meant that, so I'm confused. :rolleyes:
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Sounds like you are talking about ignosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)
Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (for that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the that term (for) "God" is considered meaningless.
2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
I've heard of this term. I don't agree with (1) since I think it can be tested by the law of noncontradiction and seems to fail that test; however I could be wrong and I don't hold my view all that strongly. I don't understand (2). In all honesty, I'm agnostic (noncommittal, having conflicting degrees of confidence ) about whether or not "god exists" is truth-apt or not.
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"Quote from: "Solitary"That's like asking if delusions exist.
Huh? I wasn't asking if certain mental states (delusions) exist. To put what I was asking in other words, "does the idea flatout contradict itself like saying "there exists four sided objects with no sides" and does it rest on a category error like saying the color green is colorless and sleeps furiously?" and what I should have asked along with this: "Doesn't action presume the concepts of causality, space, and time?" If all that is the case then it isn't an idea but a pseudo-idea.
So I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
Quote from: "Solitary". So yes, a god exists in people's imagination is coherent
What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the concept of "a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks and acts" isn't self-contradictory or based on a category error? Why are you assuming that? I'm confused by your whole post. What you're saying sounds like "people can imagine four sided objects with no sides." But I don't think you meant that, so I'm confused. :rolleyes:
"So I don't see how what you're saying is relevant." You don't see how a god or God is a delusion and thus incoherent?
"So yes, God or god exists in people's imagination is coherent." This means it does exist in peoples minds so is coherent to claim He exist in one's mind. Your confusing the meaning of existence in reality, with existence in one's mind. Are you claiming that just because something is in someone's mind it doesn't exist so the belief is incoherent. It's only incoherent if they think it exist in reality if it exists in their minds. Like this, the movement is only in your imagination but is real to you, unless your like my Christian wife: (//http://i.imgur.com/67qfdHL.jpg) Solitary
The God of Christianity is definitely incoherent and can't exist in reality and is thus incoherent because He is a contradiction, but you didn't ask that, you asked if a god is incoherent. Solitary
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"At face value, it looks like it does; however, when I start pressing it it breaks down into a vague, ambiguous mess of words that may or may not be a group of incompatible traits (ex. a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks, acts, and exists). I don't know what to make of it. It seems likely to me that the answer to the question is no the question doesn't make sense. "Does god exist or not exist," is like the question "are the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously or not sleeping furiously?" There is nothing there to say yes or no, or even "I don't know" to.
Any thoughts?
The ignostics would agree with you, although I think ignosticism is kind of weird philosophy, but not because the question is inchoherent. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but ignosticism is like agnosticism but without knowing what it is you're not knowing. However, what ignosticism does have going for it is that the definition includes some impressive words like "theological noncognitivism" which is really cool when you say it out loud, and makes you feel real smart. :-D
Here's a good read on the incompatibility of the properties of the theistic version of God:
Incompatible Properties Arguments - A Survey (//http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html) - Theodore Drange
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"At face value, it looks like it does; however, when I start pressing it it breaks down into a vague, ambiguous mess of words that may or may not be a group of incompatible traits (ex. a formless, timeless, spaceless, unchanging mind that thinks, acts, and exists). I don't know what to make of it. It seems likely to me that the answer to the question is no the question doesn't make sense. "Does god exist or not exist," is like the question "are the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously or not sleeping furiously?" There is nothing there to say yes or no, or even "I don't know" to.
Any thoughts?
The ignostics would agree with you, although I think ignosticism is kind of weird philosophy, but not because the question is inchoherent. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but ignosticism is like agnosticism but without knowing what it is you're not knowing. However, what ignosticism does have going for it is that the definition includes some impressive words like "theological noncognitivism" which is really cool when you say it out loud, and makes you feel real smart. :-D
I'm a man who likes his big impressive sounding words! I'm going to sweeten the deal by adding a lot of adjectives to it: provisional pragmatic probabilist fallibilist theological noncognitivist :lol:
@Solitary. If for example "colorless green ideas are sleeping furiously" is an incoherent idea then "colorless green ideas are not sleeping furiously," is incoherent too along with "colorless green ideas are sleeping furiously in people's imaginations." What are they imagining? Whatever it is, it isn't what they say it is.
We can be wrong about what we are imagining. If I try to imagine nothing, I end up imagining pitch blackness. I'm really imagining nothing or just my eyes being closed in a darkened room?
I vote for obtuse. Solitary should be crowned winner and we go home and forget the whole 'god' question. :)
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"@Solitary. If for example "colorless green ideas are sleeping furiously" is an incoherent idea then "colorless green ideas are not sleeping furiously," is incoherent too along with "colorless green ideas are sleeping furiously in people's imaginations." What are they imagining? Whatever it is, it isn't what they say it is.
We can be wrong about what we are imagining. If I try to imagine nothing, I end up imagining pitch blackness. I'm really imagining nothing or just my eyes being closed in a darkened room?
You may be wrong, but it would still be an imaginarily real, and therefore coherent. However, it couldn't exist in objective reality because it would be incoherent to say it does, just like an invisible pink unicorn. Solitary
Christians are explicit enough about what they are worshiping for a skeptic to make a judgment about the existence issue. Granted their imagined characteristics are self contradictory, mysterious, unimaginable, and nebulous. But that doesn't mean a skeptic is not in a position to make a judgment. There is no reason to freak out and claim helplessness and an inability to judge because the characteristics are implausible. Instead, there is every reason to simply say you are not buying it.
In fact, a skeptic has every logical reason to make judgments about the incoherence itself. Most of us have been around Christianity all our lives. We have been blasted with various and often incoherent descriptions of the Christian god from every conceivable angle. The fact that it doesn't make sense is no reason to run and hide from making a judgment.
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"Is the question, "Does a god exist" even incoherent?
Depends on your definition of god I guess.
There's a woman at my local fish and chip shop that's an absolute goddess!
This whole argument reminds of multiple dimensions past the fourth dimension. Evidently some people can conceive the fifth dimension. And I am not talking about the band. I have trouble trying to conceive the fifth dimension. Once I watched a video about how to conceive more than four dimensions. It made me sick to my stomach. Then I am subject to motion sickness.
I guess I am trying to say, that if you can conceive things beyond what others can, then yes you might logically conceive of a God of some sorts. That doesn't necessarily make it so. It just makes it so you are able to conceive of something which others can't. Of course, there may very well be holes in your logic somewhere. But, they would be very hard for others to find, because of the very obtuse nature of the holes.
The Gods of the revealed religions have huge holes which we can easily spot. Therefore, until there is a God revealed which does not have any logical holes which we can spot, I think it is a safe conclusion that there is no God. But, I guess that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere may have a logical, reasonable, and maybe very real God which they can conceive, but are not able to adequately describe.
The very notion of a god being all-mighty, all-knowing and all-good is a contradiction. Theists have done verbal gymnastics to explain the contradictions, but all of those explanations boil down to, God works in mysterious ways. If you can live with that, then God remains a logical coherent idea. If not, then your conclusion is what the OP title says - incoherent. The bottom line is - how good are you in fooling yourself?
Quote from: "Solitary"You may be wrong, but it would still be an imaginarily real, and therefore coherent.
What do you mean by "coherent?" I'm talking about (1) internal inconsistency (self-contraction) in the belief about the thought or (2) in the thought itself.
In my example, I'm not actually imagining nothing (the literal absence of all things) since I'm imagining a thing (the color black) this is a contradiction. My point: I'm not imagining what I believe I'm imagining. In other words, I'm wrong about the contents of my thought, because my belief about my thought is internally inconsistent. You seem to be muddling together beliefs about thoughts with the content of the thoughts, with the existence of the thoughts, and the internal inconsistency of the thoughts and beliefs about the thoughts. Things do not become non self-contractionary just because people believe them not to be self-contractionary.
"Does the question 'does a God exist' even incoherent?
I'm a bit of a hardliner, but I'll grant it's at least incoherent.
You're asking two different questions (and misspelling a word in one of them).
Is "Does a god exist" coherent? Not until you define "a god".
"Does God exist?" No, it can't, since it's defined in a way that makes it impossible.
IOW, some god, depending on the definition of "god" could exist, but the Christian one, the one named "God" in English, is trivial to disprove. (And has been disproved in many threads on AF.)