NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.

No, it's reasonable. God exists as a concept if it can be conceived. The question is whether it's more than that or not, which your statement doesn't really clarify.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.

I can concieve of the FSM, does he exist too now?

I think it's only logical.

As finite beings how can we possibly understand an infinite being? We see everythin with two key stages, a birth and a death. For something to have never had a birth is just mind boggling.

I can concieve of the FSM, does he exist too now?
He does. Maybe not as the genuine noodly controller of all things seen and unseen, but he does exist at least in concept.

I think it's only logical.

As finite beings how can we possibly understand an infinite being? We see everythin with two key stages, a birth and a death. For something to have never had a birth is just mind boggling.

Well....like.....What about stuff like set theory? If were dealing with infities, we must be comprehending them in some way right? And what about infinigons! Hmm!

Well....like.....What about stuff like set theory? If were dealing with infities, we must be comprehending them in some way right? And what about infinigons! Hmm!

That goes into one of my theories that the only absolutes (infinity included) exist in the space of our thoughts. Hence I concluded that if any god exists it is the same realm as our conscious thought.

That goes into one of my theories that the only absolutes (infinity included) exist in the space of our thoughts. Hence I concluded that if any god exists it is the same realm as our conscious thought.

Oh! And what if it does have a birth, but no death, like a ray...instead of a line...

Oh! And what if it does have a birth, but no death, like a ray...instead of a line...

Well in reality a ray will constantly lose its energy until becomes almost nothing. However, an absolute ray only exists in theory or thought. Then again a ray will never become absolutely nothing either...

Well in reality a ray will constantly lose its energy until becomes almost nothing. However, an absolute ray only exists in theory or thought. Then again a ray will never become absolutely nothing either...

No, i mean like, one endpoint, goes on forever kind of ray....two of which from the same endpoint make up an angle...What are we talking about exactly anyways?

At it's core, any concept of a god is based on man. Certainly it is a souped up version of man, with incredible powers, but gods are all based around human intelligence and human values.

Why else would a supposed supreme being care who worshipped it? What would be the point of a god trying to exhort us to do better if the god were not, in some way, us but better?

If there is a god who is not just created by man's imagination and primitive desire to explain incomprehensible natural phenomena, then no, we cannot conceive what that god might be as there has been no direct experience of it. So man creates god in his own image to fill the void.

And the god that is conceived of turns out to be just a case of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Oz has spoken!"

He does. Maybe not as the genuine noodly controller of all things seen and unseen, but he does exist at least in concept.

How is that any different from him existing on paper (and web pages) but not in real life?

At it's core, any concept of a god is based on man. Certainly it is a souped up version of man, with incredible powers, but gods are all based around human intelligence and human values.

Why else would a supposed supreme being care who worshipped it? What would be the point of a god trying to exhort us to do better if the god were not, in some way, us but better?

If there is a god who is not just created by man's imagination and primitive desire to explain incomprehensible natural phenomena, then no, we cannot conceive what that god might be as there has been no direct experience of it. So man creates god in his own image to fill the void.

And the god that is conceived of turns out to be just a case of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Oz has spoken!"


That certainly helps explain the anthropomorphic view of god. Is animism then merely "souped up nature"?

No, i mean like, one endpoint, goes on forever kind of ray....two of which from the same endpoint make up an angle...What are we talking about exactly anyways?

I know, one end point (starting point theoretically). The only absolute ray that goes on forever only exists when we think about it.

Infinities and absolutes. Philosophy can get ugly sometimes. *cough*Hume*cough*

Well in reality a ray will constantly lose its energy until becomes almost nothing. However, an absolute ray only exists in theory or thought. Then again a ray will never become absolutely nothing either...

If I ever meet someone named Raymond, I'm going to call him Absolute Ray.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.

Do you mean if a entity does not physically exist the human mind cannot conceive of it, or do you mean if you conceive of an entity that has not previously existed then merely by thinking of it you give it substance?

If the former, thats stupid, people use their imagination all the time to think up strange creatures. If the latter, maybe its true but its hardly revelatory.

How is that any different from him existing on paper (and web pages) but not in real life?
It is that. It's exactly that. But existing on paper is still existing. These words that I write exist, the concepts that I talk about exist. That much is absolutely certain. Whether or not they have any truth beyond simple existence is unknown, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Similarly, as long as people think about the notion of Deity, Deity exists. It might not rule the universe or be responsible for its origin, but it exists nonetheless.

Similarly, as long as people think about the notion of Deity, Deity exists. It might not rule the universe or be responsible for its origin, but it exists nonetheless.

Descartes would love you.

"I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have – that is, having within me the idea of god – were it not the case that a god really existed"-Descartes, Third Meditation

Descartes would love you.

"I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have – that is, having within me the idea of god – were it not the case that a god really existed"-Descartes, Third Meditation

That's just the Ontological Argument with the (questionable) logic taken out. :mad:

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.
Depending on the context of the original statement. If by the original statement you are implying that by the mere act of concieving of something it acquires a form of existance, then arguning atheism (not agnosticism) is pointless under those terms. If instead you are implying that the human mind is incapable of concieving of something which does not have an actual concrete existance (outside the realm of conceptual exitance) then your original statement is just wrong, but if it were correct, then Atheism is impossible since manefestly people do concieve of the existance of a Divine being. As for agnosticism, it should have no impact once you accept that conceptual existance does not necessarily equate with any other type of existance.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." That's silly. How do you think inventions come about? Because someone conceives something that doesn't exist, but could, and (probably) in his opinion should.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.
It's pretty much this line of thinking that brought me to be agnostic. The "can't be sure" followed soon after by the "don't care" approach.

Descartes would love you.
It'd be nice to have met him. He was on to something; I think he missed it simply by a few key arguments. Had he picked a definition for God from base principles rather than relying on cultural origin, he might have truly revolutionised classical thinking and fulfilled his ambition to create a philosophy to unify science and theology.

"I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist with the kind of nature I have – that is, having within me the idea of god – were it not the case that a god really existed"-Descartes, Third Meditation
The problem with this, though, is that it's impossible only if considered in that order. It is true that it is impossible to think of God if there is no such thing as God; however, the very act of thinking of something brings it into a meaningful existence. The paradox is thus evaded.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.

The human mind can conceive of something that doesn't exist.

What it can't conceive of is the existence of something that is boundless. We cannot comprehend the workings of something that is lawless, completely devoid of precedent. Our brains work by identifying patterns and judging probabilities, and supreme beings don't work in probabilities.

Similarly, as long as people think about the notion of Deity, Deity exists. It might not rule the universe or be responsible for its origin, but it exists nonetheless.

The concept exists, not the actual entity. There are many different contradictions that I could think about, but due to their very nature, it would be impossible for them to actually exist.

"The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom."

-Georg Cantor, Father of the Continuum Hypothesis, Namer of the Aleph, and Fearless Explorer of the Concept of Infinity

"When I fart, it makes bubbles!"

-Georg Cantor, while in the bath at the mental institution he eventually died in.

The concept exists, not the actual entity. There are many different contradictions that I could think about, but due to their very nature, it would be impossible for them to actually exist.
If you can think of it, it exists as an idea, even if it is only brought into existence through your thinking of it. This, I think, is what is meant when it's said that

"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist."

It doesn't need to be anything other than idea in order to exist; the very question "What is God" creates at least one conceptual God to ask the question about. Whether the concept has physical form is irrelevant to its existence. Do I doubt that Socrates exists? Do I doubt that rights exist? Do I doubt that Light exists? No. I might doubt the nature of their existence, but they exist nonetheless; Socrates as either historical or fictional figure, rights as a formal social construct to encourage explicit separation of individuals and prevent abuse of said people and Light as a useful expression of Electromagnetic particles and/or waves that falls within the region that affects human vision (or simply as "that bright thing that makes things seeable", depending on the target audience).

Similarly, whether or not God is "Real" in the sense that that which is said about him/it is physically and historically accurate doesn't change the fact that it Exists.

If you can think of it, it exists as an idea, even if it is only brought into existence through your thinking of it. This, I think, is what is meant when it's said that.
Then how would this cause you to question agnosticism, it is the very first step of agnosticism? I admit it causes problems with Atheism ( but that is only definitional, the hardest atheist if pressed will accept the existance of the concept of the Divine), but agnostics only lack knowledge of the nature of the Divine, not whether or not there is a concept of the Divine to lack knowledge of.

When I say that the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist I'm saying that everything we imagine is predicated on something we already know, whether consciously or not. When speculative writers and artists describe aliens and alien worlds, they're basing their descriptions on things known to man. They can't describe colors they've never seen or sounds they've never heard. They can't describe an alien being without reference to creatures that they already know. I can only describe god based on what I know, which limits my knowledge of god since I can't know the aspects that don't relate to my experience.

When I say that the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist I'm saying that everything we imagine is predicated on something we already know, whether consciously or not. When speculative writers and artists describe aliens and alien worlds, they're basing their descriptions on things known to man. They can't describe colors they've never seen or sounds they've never heard. They can't describe an alien being without reference to creatures that they already know. I can only describe god based on what I know, which limits my knowledge of god since I can't know the aspects that don't relate to my experience.You're still into introductory agnostic thought. After this we tend to get a split into the hard and soft agnostics, hard agnostics usually conclude that humans can never know the nature of the Divine and thus the nature of the Divine is unknowable by man, while the soft agnostics only go so far as to say that there currently is a lack of knowledge for understanding the Divine. There are of course variations, like soft agnostics who claim the lack of knowledge exists for only themselves versus those who claim the lack of knowledge for all mankind.

In another thread I made a statement -"the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist." It made me start thinking about my claim of agnosticism. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her existence. If god doesn't exist, then we can't conceive his/her nonexistence. Is this circular or fatuous? Please respond.
Depends on what you mean by non-existence. The idea of god exists. Your premise supports the idea of god.

The real question is, do things we have an idea for require a corresponding thing in reality? No. We can imagine unreal things.

When I say that the human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist I'm saying that everything we imagine is predicated on something we already know, whether consciously or not. When speculative writers and artists describe aliens and alien worlds, they're basing their descriptions on things known to man. They can't describe colors they've never seen or sounds they've never heard. They can't describe an alien being without reference to creatures that they already know. I can only describe god based on what I know, which limits my knowledge of god since I can't know the aspects that don't relate to my experience.
I vaguely remember reading in my youth a story that attempted to do just that --give the reader an idea of what it might be like to describe colours we've never seen or sounds we've never heard from an alien perspective. It didn't quite achieve that, but left me with an eerie feeling. Sorry I can't recall details for a reference. The thing is, though, that we can only use the words of known things to attempt to describe the imaged unknowable things; that doesn't make the actual unknowable things any more or less real, or less recognized. In fact, it says nothing about their actually reality. Which is why the agnostic can believe in them.

If you can think of it, it exists as an idea, even if it is only brought into existence through your thinking of it. This, I think, is what is meant when it's said that

It doesn't need to be anything other than idea in order to exist; the very question "What is God" creates at least one conceptual God to ask the question about.

It creates a concept, not any material thing. As far as I can tell, agnosticism is not concerned with whether there is or is not a concept of a god. So the existence of a concept is irrelevant.

I don't particularly care to argue whether or not a concept can exist, because it is so blatantly obvious that they do.