Atheists: does God exist?

[blü 2]

Yes, I take your point. For you, there are two distinct realms of existence, the external which is objectively real, and the internal which is subjective, imaginary, and unreliable.

Yes, there is the self, and there's the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, objective reality.

Just because I can imagine a god, a goblin, a ghost doesn't mean that my imagining corresponds to a real entity with objective reality. Your statement above is not perfectly clear, but seems to imply that if you can imagine them, then they can be found in reality, can be detected by our senses and the senses of other people.

Since both you and I can imagine a unicorn, and since it's fair to say that there are no known unicorns, that will do to underline my point..

This model, in my opinion, has more holes in it than a colander.

Grateful if you'd be specific in your criticisms so that I can address them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Grateful if you'd be specific in your criticisms so that I can address them.

I will when I’ve got a bit of time, but for now I’ll just make the general observation that distinctions are always arbitrary; between subject and object, between an object and it’s context, between the real and the imagined, and most certainly between the self and the world external to the self.

 

[PureX]

Yes, there is the self, and there's the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, objective reality.

But our senses are very limited, and we cannot access that reality beyond ourselves directly, with our minds. Therefor this idea that you call "objective reality" is really just a subjectively derived presumption of what this reality beyond ourselves, is. Which is why even though we are all presumably living in it, we still have different ideas about what it is. And we can never be sure who's idea, if any, is the more accurate. We all presume that ours is, but we are all biased by our own preferred criteria for assessing it's accuracy.

Just because I can imagine a god, a goblin, a ghost doesn't mean that my imagining corresponds to a real entity with objective reality.

No, it doesn't. But we don't really know this reality beyond ourselves. All we have of it is the idea of it that we created in our minds based on our very limited sensory experiences of it and whatever preferred criteria we chose for assessing it.

Your statement above is not perfectly clear, but seems to imply that if you can imagine them, then they can be found in reality, can be detected by our senses and the senses of other people.

Since both you and I can imagine a unicorn, and since it's fair to say that there are no known unicorns, that will do to underline my point..

Not at all. By your criteria for claiming that there "are no known unicorns" (their reality, in your mind, being determined by their physicality), there are also no known #3s. And yet without there being a whole number between 2 and 4 virtually all mathematical equations would fail, and everything we humans have ever done based on those mathematical equations could not have happened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will when I’ve got a bit of time, but for now I’ll just make the general observation that distinctions are always arbitrary; between subject and object, between an object and it’s context, between the real and the imagined, and most certainly between the self and the world external to the self.

Kinda saying the quiet part out loud, eh?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But just to be clear: we aren't actually talking about you perceiving God; we're talking about you perceiving awe, which you attribute to God. Right?

No. Awe is not perceived. It is felt. Perception is taking what you sense and translating it into comprehensible thought. For example, our eyes take in the variations of the light spectrum, and translate it into color. "Red flower" is a perception. "Isn't that red flower beautiful" is what we feel.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Kinda saying the quiet part out loud, eh?

That reality probably isn't what you imagine it to be? Say it as loud or as quiet as you like.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That reality probably isn't what you imagine it to be? Say it as loud or as quiet as you like.

No, that you don't care much about the distinction between real and imagined.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, that you don't care much about the distinction between real and imagined.

I think I can reasonably infer from this, that you don't care much about the distinction between what people say, and what you choose to hear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Awe is not perceived. It is felt. Perception is taking what you sense and translating it into comprehensible thought. For example, our eyes take in the variations of the light spectrum, and translate it into color. "Red flower" is a perception. "Isn't that red flower beautiful" is what we feel.

Okay, but still: you haven't been talking about actually perceiving God, have you? You've been talking about inferring God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Okay, but still: you haven't been talking about actually perceiving God, have you? You've been talking about inferring God.

I realize that this is a topic of legitimate debate, but from my perspective, I'm talking about a perception that I label God. I don't claim I'm using any of my five senses. But we do have others senses like our sense of balance, or body sense. I do believe that this is a sense of that sort. And then of course, we perceive what we sense. It is perhaps in this area, moving from sensing to perception, that the sort of inferences you bring up take place. For example, I label this perception God, but someone else may give it a different spin.

 

[blü 2]

But our senses are very limited, and we cannot access that reality beyond ourselves directly, with our minds. Therefor this idea that you call "objective reality" is really just a subjectively derived presumption of what this reality beyond ourselves, is.

We continue to differ on this point. As I've said before, we know about the world external to the self via our senses. It's where our parents, air, water, food, shelter, society and RF are found. As I've also said before, if you think instead that the self is everything, try going without air for an hour and let me know how that works out for you.

Which is why even though we are all presumably living in it, we still have different ideas about what it is. And we can never be sure who's idea, if any, is the more accurate. We all presume that ours is, but we are all biased by our own preferred criteria for assessing it's accuracy.

Therefore, I trust, you've noticed that science has emphasized the importance of maximizing objectivity using empiricism and induction, publication with peer review, repeatability, frankness and honesty, and clear distinctions between hypotheses, experiments and conclusions. And no claim to absolute truth anywhere.

Thus we set out to learn about the universe, the quantum world, life, the human brain, the materials and techniques of industry and production.

No, it doesn't. But we don't really know this reality beyond ourselves. All we have of it is the idea of it that we created in our minds based on our very limited sensory experiences of it and whatever preferred criteria we chose for assessing it.

And yet here you and I are, conversing over the internet with virtually instant communications our ancestors never dreamed of. And with colored pictures too! (Or, too!!!!)

Not at all. By your criteria for claiming that there "are no known unicorns" (their reality, in your mind, being determined by their physicality), there are also no known #3s. And yet without there being a whole number between 2 and 4 virtually all mathematical equations would fail, and everything we humans have ever done based on those mathematical equations could not have happened.

All maths is of the mind. The elements of maths ─ numbers, fields, group theory, on and on ─ are thus of the mind. You may find the phenomena of physics out in reality, but the maths ─ the algebras, transformations, tensor calculus, matrix formuli &c ─ of the explanations is all mental. As I said, search as you will, you'll never find an uninstantiated 2 running around in the world external to the self. For there to be 2 of anything, a brain must first decide what is to be counted, and the field in which it's to be counted ─ two chickens in the barn, &c &c.

There is no Platoland, there are no Platonic forms.

 

[PureX]

We continue to differ on this point. As I've said before, we know about the world external to the self via our senses.

No, we PRESUME TO KNOW about the world beyond our "selves" (our brain) by assembling an imagined world out of the sensory experiences that we receive from outside ourselves. We don't "disagree", you simply refuse to acknowledge the actual mechanisms of human cognition.

I trust, you've noticed that science has emphasized the importance of maximizing objectivity using empiricism and induction, publication with peer review, repeatability, frankness and honesty, and clear distinctions between hypotheses, experiments and conclusions. And no claim to absolute truth anywhere.

Science does not "emphasize objectivity", your philosophical materialism does. Science emphasizes FUNCTIONALITY. And ONLY functionality. Scientists invent theories about how physical reality functions, and then tests those theories to see if they do, in fact, function. That's it. That's all science does. You are the one that thinks this is some sacred quest to know "objective reality".

Thus we set out to learn about the universe, the quantum world, life, the human brain, the materials and techniques of industry and production.

No, we only set out to understand how the world we live in, functions. YOU are the one making this into some giant holistic question for truth.

And yet here you and I are, conversing over the internet with virtually instant communications our ancestors never dreamed of. And with colored pictures too! (Or, too!!!!)

Again, FUNCTIONALITY.

All maths is of the mind. The elements of maths ─ numbers, fields, group theory, on and on ─ are thus of the mind.

And the mind exists IN REALITY. Which is why and how what happens in the mind is "real". In fact, "real" is an idea happening in the mind, just like the primary number 3 and unicorns are. You don't understand this because your philosophical materialism has you believing that only "objective" physical reality is "real".

 

[blü 2]

No, we PRESUME TO KNOW about the world beyond our "selves" (our brain) by assembling an imagined world out of the sensory experiences that we receive from outside ourselves. We don't "disagree", you simply refuse to acknowledge the actual mechanisms of human cognition.

If I did, it would make little difference ─ as your failure to hold your breath for an hour shows. Reality is out there and we perceive it. Whether you wish to look at it or not, it's still out there as it was when you wrote your reply above and is as I write this.

Science does not "emphasize objectivity", your philosophical materialism does.

You think science isn't materialistic? You think the periodic table is about imaginary things called 'elements'? You think gravity is about the relationship of ideas rather than real objects?

Well, that's a matter for you. I don't think those things.

Science emphasizes FUNCTIONALITY. And ONLY functionality.

I think you're confusing science with technology. Science has many lines of enquiry that may or may not result in adaption to human use through technology.

Scientists invent theories about how physical reality functions, and then tests those theories to see if they do, in fact, function. That's it. That's all science does. You are the one that thinks this is some sacred quest to know "objective reality".

Knowledge about objective reality is what science seeks. That's the empiricism part I mentioned. And that's where the tricky bits of quantum theory make the task more interesting.