What is the response to the apologetic use of notions?

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.

Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

People regularly use nonphysical abstracts like logic and sequence (the passage of time) every moment they are awake. This leads to the question of why these abstracts are true but abstracts like God, morality, and nation. Essentially, they all lack a physical basis but the more blatant ones are the ones deemed indisputable.

Logic is an idea. A type of symbolic language. Ideas and many other things are emergent properties. They don't exist in and of themselves but are emergent from other things and processes. Time itself is likely included in this. After all, it's relative and dependent on entropy.

We use the ones that have evidence and work. That seem to be congruent with actual reality in various ways. We ignore the ones that don't. Because there's no reason to think they're accurate and useful. And the ones like 'nation' we understand are purely convenient ideas and nothing more. It tells us nothing at all about actual reality.

This is the answer to your question.

There is no support for deities existing in reality. That is why that idea isn't accepted. I am perfectly fine with understanding there are ideas of gods. Just like I'm perfectly fine with understanding there are ideas of Spider-Man and other superheroes. But I'm not perfectly fine with accepting those ideas are accurate in reality.

the more blatant ones are the ones deemed indisputable.

Yes, we accept and use that which is supported by evidence. Surely this isn't surprising? And obviously that isn't special pleading, it's kinda the opposite.

Logic is not a thing in itself. Its the name given to a method of thinking about things.

Things like Nation, Morality and God - referring to them as being true or not sort of misses the point. A nation exists in the minds of people. Its a sort of collective shared identity. Morality is a system of norms pertaining to thoughts and behaviour. God is the name given to a deity or deities which are attributed with various supernatural powers. All of these things exist in the sense that people know what they are and believe in them and think about them. So a person from one region and time may have a very different idea of morality from a person from another region in time. That does not mean morality is true or false, but rather, they are different. During the American War of Independence, the American idea of the American nation came into conflict with the British ideas of kingdom and empire. To the Americans, they were a separate entity and they succeeded in asserting that. But even if they had not, their nation would not have been false - see Polish nationalism at a time the Polish state did not exist.

Time is not “true”. Time is relative to speed, gravity, mass, etc…

Time is not even fundamental. Time is emergent. Time is basically how the human mind processes universal entropy, or change.

And there’s not argument from logic that gets you a necessary, fundamental, or non-emergent god.

So it’s all kinda moot, now isn’t it? However you argue for gods, based on concepts relative to the human mind, or objective fact. Still doesn’t produce and argument that determines a need for any gods.

Logic is a structure of thought that usually has an objective element to it; modus ponens for example. These structures are fixed with features like soundness, necessity, and validity. A conclusion is necessary because of how the premises are structured, along with their truth value in the real world.

Time is observable in that we can watch as things change over the passage of time. It isn't the case that time is an entirely unseen component of human's perception of reality. It's measurable and depended on in countless processes that make up the modern world.

God is neither of these things. It is a thought experiment, at best, that's managed to stick around for several thousand years. Claiming that nonphysical abstracts such as logic, time, and language are in the same class as abstract notions such as god is an issue of false equivalence.

It depends on the god. If you claim your god exists beyond being a mere abstract concept, then you need some good evidence for it (eg, if you claim he altered or alters the natural realm in some way). If you claim it's just an abstract concept, I don't much care for it as long as you don't use it to oppress people in any way.

I think it’s somewhat inaccurate to call “God” an abstract.

Theists believe that their god is a real existing entity. Comparably to any other real entity like a person or a chair.

Yes, they do also often argue god’s immaterial or beyond physical. As a purely magical quality.

It is a very different type of nonphysical then abstracts / concepts we invent that only exist in our minds such as “morality” or “nation”.

People regularly use nonphysical abstracts like logic and sequence (the passage of time) every moment they are awake. This leads to the question of why these abstracts are true but abstracts like God, morality, and nation.

in what way do you think they are more real than morality and nation?

god is merely a concept i wouldn't put it in the same group as logic, sequence, morality and nation

I don't think anyone claims god is an abstract object, rather a sometimes immaterial being. 

In.any event, we don't object to a god because it is immaterial, we object for other reasons. 

Physicalists might object because god is not physical, but they will also say other abstractions do not exist. 

Berkeley's tree in the quad, or rather incredibly half arsed versions of it, best you can say is a couple of limericks that came from it

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
 

Dear Sir,
              Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
                          Yours faithfully,
                                                  God

We should distinguish abstract objects (and whether abstract objects exist) from other non-physical objects.

"Stuff" like mathematical objects (e.g., numbers), laws of logic (e.g., the law of identity), propositions, meanings, patterns, universals, concepts, etc., are often taken to be abstract objects. Abstract objects are often taken to be non-spatiotemporal non-causal (and, publically accessible) objects.

When we talk about properties, we can say that our concepts of a property (say, the concept of being a dog) is an abstract object or that the universal (say, that both Fido & Buddy participate in the dog universal) is an abstract object. However, there are reasons -- that should be fairly obvious -- for thinking that theists are not talking about the concepts of god (or the concept of morality or of nations).

Platonism is a fairly popular position within academic philosophy & abstract objects appear to have a lot of explanatory power -- e.g., it becomes a lot easier to explain why "2 is prime" is true or cash out what a possible world is once you admit abstract objects into your ontology.

We can contrast abstract objects with social kinds. Nations -- and, potentially, money, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on -- are probably better categorized as social kinds. What a social kind is & whether there are social kinds is a separate discussion from what an abstract object is & whether there are abstract objects. For instance, if universals (or platonic forms) exist, they exist independently of humans. Yet, the existence of a nation appears to depend on the existence of humans.

We can also contrast abstract objects with theological/divine kinds. Gods -- or demons, angels, souls, etc. -- are not abstract objects. Instead, we may want to put them in their own category as divine kinds. Just like with social kinds, we can ask what is a divine kind & whether there are divine kinds.

As for your question, one might reply that there are better reasons for positing the existence of abstract objects than we have for positing the existence of social kinds or divine kinds.

I agree that Gods are real in the same way that morality and nations are real. In other words, they are all 3 made up by humans and aren't actual physical things that exist in reality as discreet objects or presences. They are all just ideas we made up to suit our needs.

We use those abstracts to describe things, and they’re only meaningful in the sense that they continue to produce reliable results or are useful as descriptive concepts.

I don’t really see an argument in your post.

Logic is a description of a method of thinking that we believe leads to useful results (as it seems to do).

Sequence is a description of observations about reality, and/or possibly a dimension in reality. Kinda depends. But this one might actually exist in itself rather than just being a description, if it's about time.

Morality is a description of what society deems acceptable behavior.

Nation is a description of agreed-upon boundaries.

The issue with God is it's not _just_ a description, it's something people think actually exists in itself, that it's not a product of our minds and a way to categorize reality around us in ways we find useful and beneficial. All those other things (with, perhaps, an exception for time) is an abstraction, and abstractions don't do anything, they're non-causal. Sequences (other than time or space) don't do anything, logic doesn't do anything, morality, nation, they don't do anything, not in themselves. God, supposedly, does. Moreover, God does things in a way that violates most of our ideas about causation. What does it even mean to say A causes B if B is not somehow after A? And what can 'after' or 'before' refer to except time? Even God supposedly acts in sequence, doing things and then other things. The answers you get are all hand-wavy sorts of stuff that basically come down to 'but it's Gawd, who can do anything'. Ie, magic.

So, lets look at abtracts that are undeniably real. There are two categories.

First, things like morality, pragmatism, mnaths, logic and so forth. These things are tools . That is, maths isn't a thing, it's just a structure for learning about the world .Morality isn't a thing, it's just instructions for being a good person. These aren't things that exist. they're just ideas that are used to categorize the world. A maths equation or logical argument can be true or false, but it can't be real or non-existent. God is, presumably, not one of these things.

The next is things like nations, cultures, economies, religions and so forth. These things are emergent -- that is, you can describe everything the USA does in terms of physical events, the actions of people and movement of physical resources. Whether there is some emergent thing that is "The USA" or if that's just a helpful fiction is a broader question, but the point is that they're not really abstract. They're purely physical. God is, by stipulation, not one of those things.

What we would need then would be a third kind of abstract -- one that isn't just a human construct, but also isn't an abstraction of the physical world. And given the only places things can exist are as human constructs or in the physical world, this leaves us with a good reason to deny the god idea.

Some abstracts are true, therefore all abstracts are true?

Am I missing something? Thats what your argument appears to be, but surely not. The flaw there doesn’t need to be pointed out.

Not all abstract concepts are created equally. Just as not all four legged animals are created equally. 

Why are some four legged animals "indisputable" like hippopotamus and why are some like unicorns not?

Well bud, because some concepts are useful or true and some concepts are not. Time the concept is a useful for understanding our relationship to eachother and the natural world around us. Time from our perspective is objective (provided we're travelling the same speed) and measurable. Logic is a useful tool that is seeming inviolable. As much as we look at it the basic principles seem to work everytime, and that's useful.

God and morality are much harder to confirm. We cannot even agree what is included in morality, we cannot agree god is, or morality is, or on any facet of their nature objectively or subjectively. It appears for those concepts all we have is arguments and disagreement. When you have a situation where everyone sees something different in the noise, you're probably just finding patterns in the noise. A conceptual Rorschach test, a pareidolia of concepts. 

People regularly use nonphysical abstracts like logic and sequence (the passage of time) every moment they are awake.

Ok? Weird phrasing but sure, I'll agree.

This leads to the question of why these abstracts are true but abstracts like God, morality, and nation.

Huh? There seem to be words missing.

Also, logic and sequence aren't "true" so I'm not sure where you're going. Saying logic and sequence are true is like saying red is true or rocks are true. Propositions are true not random words.

Essentially, they all lack a physical basis but the more blatant ones are the ones deemed indisputable.

None of those words are indisputable as words and all are indisputable as "true" because they aren't propositions, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What is the response to this argument that doesn't amount to special pleading about observation?

You didn't make a coherent argument.

sequence is real, as interactions happen one after another, molecule first hits neighbor 1 then neighbor 2

logic is a description of the relation of concepts, it can be real of not real depending on the concepts it describes; for example apple and tree, this logic can be true because both concepts are real, logic pertaining to the flying spaghetti monster isn't true because the flying spagetti monster isn't true.

morality is human opinion on human behaviour; humans have opinions on human behaviour so it is real

nation is real because it refers to real people and land, it is subjective and vague but all components are real

god isn't the same because it is just a concept, it doesn't have components that are real to which the interpretation differs like nation. it isn't a relation of two existing things like logic, it isn't an opinion like morality, and it isn't a description of reality like sequence

People regularly use nonphysical abstracts like logic and sequence (the passage of time) every moment they are awake. This leads to the question of why these abstracts are true but abstracts like God, morality, and nation.

First off, an abstraction is a extrapolation of reality. It's a tool our brain uses to better predict reality. 

Logic is abstract. The passage of time is not abstract; is it directly perceived. 

Abstracts like God, morality, and nation are what? Not true?! Atheists don't argue morality and nation aren't real. Morality is based on our biology, and nation is based upon social agreements.

All of this is a bit beside the point because... are you arguing that god is abstract? Ie, only a poetic device? No argument here...

Something doesn't have to be physical to be part of observable and verifiable reality. The operative words being "observable and verifiable ".

Time, like gravity, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, but it doesn't have physical properties in the same way that tangible objects do. Instead, time is a dimension of spacetime, intimately connected with the fabric of the universe and influenced by phenomena such as gravity. We can and have observed the effects of time and gravity on the behavior of objects in the universe, therefore even though they are not physical, there is evidence for them being part of reality.

Is very simple:

Logic IS a representation of reality, is an abstraction that can be put to test each time.

Numbers are representations of reality, even imaginary numbers were so well predicted in reality by maths that we found them in Schrödinger's equations for quantum fields.

Sequence (the passage of time) is a representation of reality, we can measure with high precision, we make models to predict how it works.

But all the concepts that are based on reality, can be extrapolated to phantasy worlds. And there is where, in a desperate attempt to compare evidential verifiable tools with your magic kingdom.

why these abstracts are true but abstracts like God, morality, and nation.

Nobody claims that logic is a physical phenomenon, even if the abstraction of logical and mathematical principles is helpful to formulate a model of the physical world.

Time, however, like space, appears to be a measurable attribute of the physical world. We can build machines that measure time, and we observe systems that respond to the passage of time.

Most people who believe in God do not think of God as nonphysical, or an abstraction, or as a matter of social consensus (like nation or morality). Generally, the faithful believe God is a real, living entity that can hear their prayers and interact with the physical world by causing and guiding events.

If there are religious people who concede that God is merely a concept, idea, abstraction, or social convention, then I have no quarrel with them. They are as effectively atheist as I am.

People regularly use nonphysical abstracts like logic and sequence (the passage of time) every moment they are awake.

Logic and sequence have a personal history of being consistently true. As much as I would like to, I can't conveniently skip my work week and go directly to the weekend. I'm unable to make a left turn somewhere and become 18 again. So evidence of sequence is in abundance; I've yet to see evidence of God being true.

If grass is green, why isn't the sky green?

Because somethings are real, does not mean something else is real. That makes no sense.

Also logic isn't an object at all; it's a way of thinking. Time is also not an object.

Why do theists find these simple concepts confusing?

I mean... because some of those abstract things are shown to be true, and others are not?...

"Morality" and "nations" are abstract descriptions of things that indeed happen.

A god has none of that.

Logic isn't an exissting thing. It's a descriptive language. A collection of labels that we constructed in our imagination to help us navigate our environment.

The passage of time is observable and measurable. Gods are not observable or measurable. Every attempt to expose evidence for gods has failed.

If someone argues that God is merely an abstract notion, analogous to nations, morality, and logic, I'll agree that exists.

The word "true" is applicable to statements when they are consistent with reality. Logic is not true, logic is logic and it exists in the form of concept of logic in human minds and in the books. This concept describes rules that we can apply in our thinking in order to achieve certain results. When we say "logic" we mean either this set of rules or the process of thinking that employs this set of rules. Logic exists in the sense that you can find this set of rules in the books on logic (or someone who studied logic can tell you those rules). And in the sense that thinking employing those rules is something that people do from time to time.

When people say "God" they don't mean the set of characteristics described in the Bible. They mean a real entity that the Bible describes.

It seems to me that it is a reification fallacy to suggest that the "passage of time" has no physical basis. Apparently you're reifying time into an independent immaterial substance. However, my account of time is different. In my view, time is nothing more than the measure of change, and change refers to a physical process.

With regards to logic, let's just assume that the platonic account of logic is true (and that, e.g., nominalism is false). In that case, the reason why we know that logic 'exists' is because we're directly acquainted with it. It is self-evident that it exists. But it is not self-evident that God exists, otherwise everybody would recognize the truth of the theistic proposition once properly understood.

Anyway, God isn't even thought of as an abstract object, so the comparison is flawed.