Do you think there is a God? If so, why?

[Aupmanyav]

Do you think there is a God? Please describe how you envision this God.

I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddess (or of soul). Matter ends, chapter closed.
See, how unconfusing and simple is it!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddess (or of soul). Matter ends, chapter closed.
See, how non-confusing and easy is it.

I can't see that. That to me is an idea in the mind. Just like God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Asking the questions is the easy part. It's getting the right answer that is hard. To be clear, if science can't answer it, philosophy will not be able to.



You keep posting this link like some magic talisman to ward away science. Here is a link to my rebuttal to your talisman in another post:

Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethic such as Moral Tralism



Whether you like it or not, human beings are a part of nature and therefore science or "natural science" applies.

Yes and now with since explain how it is natural, physical, real and true as a fact that happens, that I can believe differently and don't believe that the world is natural or physical as a one factor explanation.
Note you have to explain how I can think, then act and get away with this: No, the world is not natural and physical. Now don't explain it away with wrong in effect, because then you have to explain how you know wrong as natural, physical, real and true as a fact that happens. Can you do that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can't see that. That to me is an idea in the mind. Just like God.

Why can you not see it? Has any one ever gave any evidence of existence of God or soul? Why go on believing in things without any evidence?
Then, you must also be wondering about existence of Cthulhu, Pink Unicorns and Green FSM.
Unless there is some evidence, an idea in the mind has no value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why can you not see it? Has any one ever gave any evidence of existence of God or soul? Why go on believing in things without any evidence?
Then, you must also be wondering about existence of Cthulhu, Pink Unicorns and Green FSM.
Unless there is some evidence, an idea in the mind has no value.

You can't see value and you assume all cases of value must be what is valuable to you. What if evidence is just an idea like God and all value is in the mind of the person claiming value.
You are doing the same as the God people, you just use the word evidence. They claim value for us all, you do the same.

 

[Sedim Haba]

So that is the question. Do you think there is a God? Please describe how you envision this God. Thank you.

Corrected:

'Do you think there was a G-d?'

Yes.

'Please describe how you envision this G-d.'

No longer involved with humanity.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So that is the question. Do you think there is a God? Please describe how you envision this God. Thank you.

I don't believe in a God (as defined in Abrahamic traditions) but I believe there might be something transcendent that manifests as the visible world.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddess (or of soul). Matter ends, chapter closed.
See, how unconfusing and simple is it!

Hmm that's you. But anyway, the idea of soul is highly misunderstood in many venues. Thank you for responding though in such a concise manner.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe in a God (as defined in Abrahamic traditions) but I believe there might be something transcendent that manifests as the visible world.

I don't blame you because it can be very confusing with all the different ideas and traditions. Agreed it certainly seems there is a greater force with power and intelligence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Corrected:

'Do you think there was a G-d?'

Yes.

'Please describe how you envision this G-d.'

No longer involved with humanity.

Oh ok. Interesting. I think I understand but maybe we can investigate this somewhat as time goes on. Thanks for your answer. Because I have a few questions. Take care.

 

[danieldemol]

So that is the question. Do you think there is a God? Please describe how you envision this God. Thank you.

Yes I think there is a God.
Why: Because I'm an irrational person.
How i envision God:
As something which does not interact with the material realm, only with the spirit realm.
In my opinion

 

[Ella S.]

I think real things can and have been called God.

Mystics often call the pervasive state of awareness underneath our thoughts and emotions "God." We see this in jnana marga and hesychasm in particular, but I've seen similar approaches in Sufism and Qabalah, too. While I disagree with most mystics about some of the supernatural and metaphysical details they assign to this "God," I also have to admit that such a God is readily observable.

We can also refer to the whole of nature itself as "God." This is technically a form of monism, not monotheism. There are varieties of monism, including both "mental monism" and "naturalism." Since I have some sympathies towards metaphysical naturalism, you could technically call me a pantheist, although pantheism is usually not considered a form of theism.

Despite this, I am still an atheist because I believe that classical theism is false. In fact, I would argue that the supernatural does not exist. Since gods are defined as supernatural beings or forces, I lack a belief in theism in its broader sense.

Yet I still think there is a God, in a way, because words can carry a lot of different connotations.

 

[syo]

Please describe how you envision this God.

Do you know the abrahamic? EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

 

[F1fan]

GIGO you can google that.
Now for "I know" here is an example involving logic and skepticism.
It is semi-formal for a claim like say the cat is multicolored and not monocolored

Person one: I know that X is Y and not Z
Person two: I know that X is Z and not Y

Well given the rule of non-contradiction in logic one of them is wrong, or both are wrong. So how do we (humans capable of reasoning) actually know anything, and that is learning as much as we can about all of the categories that we are considering.

First it is general and not just about religion. Secondly there are 3 possible outcomes. Two for respectively one is right and the other is wrong and one for they are both wrong because it is unknowable. Thirdly at least one of the two doesn't know, yet it doesn't follow that the person will die because of this or even have a horrible life.

My question is what got humanity in the 21st century thinking untrue things are true, and that they "know" things that are false? Where has society, and these otherwise rational people, gone wrong?

What do you think sociaty can do to better help young citizens to avoid making bad judgments and believing they have knowledge when they really have wrong beliefs?

So I wondered about this and checked the different versions of skepticism and figured out that I didn't have to know anything. I just have to have a set of beliefs, which apparently works for me and to me that is what I mean by to know.

Then you aren't concerned about being right or wrong, just a believer in whatever it is you want to be true. That's OK as long as it doesn't get you in trouble in some way that has a negative effect on your life. It's a disadvantage in these debates.

So for knowing what the real world as independent of my mind is, I don't know that. I don't even know the probability of being a Boltzmann Brain or not. But since you know that, I would like evidence for that.

Why are you even giving it any consideration?

Your approach has no advantage in society. Let's say your local fire department has members that think their conscious experience might be a Boltzmann Brain, and Mikkel calls saying his house is on fire and he's trapped on the third floor. Does it help you that the fire department shows up and stands around discussing whether there's an actual fire, and an actual Mikkel trapped in the house, and fire a horrible death? Your approach is an exverience of paralysis, where no one can act in any way because they are paralyzed by doubt. It doesn't work. Societies would collapse, humans would die off.

So here's your opportunity to defend your approach and explain how it is helpful in any way.

So since you know what knowledge is and are a scientist, you can explain the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism and how come is that the former is based on unproveable axiomatic assumptions and not knowledge. And the latter is not science, but philosophy.

It's not my argument. I defer to what is practical and works reliably, and that is naturalism. You have a gripe with it, so you explain your position.

As for God, not all versions are religious. Some are philosophical and sometimes used as a theoretical placeholder for testing something.
If I know something, then what would it take not just to know something, but know all of the universe or even everything?

Why worry about it? We (humans) can know a great deal. The amount of knowledge out there is immense. the internet gives us more access to knowledge than ever before, and we have no excuses to be wrong in what we believe. There is a lot of questions that have no answers, no certainty, and we have been living with this since the human neocortex evolved. Many humans are capable of living with uncertainty and going about life without answers. Those who can't live it don't solve their dilemma by believing in ideas that not only have no evidence, but are contrary to what is known about the universe. Some humans prefer the illusions.

In that tradition God is simply the placeholder for all X in some sense.

And synonymous with uncertain. Or irrelevant.

So I am not a theist, I am even as religious and a deist not supernatural in the standard sense.

I know, you try to step between the raindrops of categories and definitions in your quest for vagueness.

I am philosophical and use God as a placeholder for the beliefs that the universe is fair, real, orderly and knowable. But since those 4 properties are not physical, but rather ontologically a case of idealism, I am religious and the universe is a case of ontological idealism and thus in a sense a God.

I don't see this being useful or effective. I suggest it makes your views murky and confused.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well given the rule of non-contradiction in logic one of them is wrong, or both are wrong. So how do we (humans capable of reasoning) actually know anything, and that is learning as much as we can about all of the categories that we are considering.

My question is what got humanity in the 21st century thinking untrue things are true, and that they "know" things that are false? Where has society, and these otherwise rational people, gone wrong?

What do you think sociaty can do to better help young citizens to avoid making bad judgments and believing they have knowledge when they really have wrong beliefs?

Then you aren't concerned about being right or wrong, just a believer in whatever it is you want to be true. That's OK as long as it doesn't get you in trouble in some way that has a negative effect on your life. It's a disadvantage in these debates.

Why are you even giving it any consideration?

Your approach has no advantage in society. Let's say your local fire department has members that think their conscious experience might be a Boltzmann Brain, and Mikkel calls saying his house is on fire and he's trapped on the third floor. Does it help you that the fire department shows up and stands around discussing whether there's an actual fire, and an actual Mikkel trapped in the house, and fire a horrible death? Your approach is an exverience of paralysis, where no one can act in any way because they are paralyzed by doubt. It doesn't work. Societies would collapse, humans would die off.

So here's your opportunity to defend your approach and explain how it is helpful in any way.

It's not my argument. I defer to what is practical and works reliably, and that is naturalism. You have a gripe with it, so you explain your position.

Why worry about it? We (humans) can know a great deal. The amount of knowledge out there is immense. the internet gives us more access to knowledge than ever before, and we have no excuses to be wrong in what we believe. There is a lot of questions that have no answers, no certainty, and we have been living with this since the human neocortex evolved. Many humans are capable of living with uncertainty and going about life without answers. Those who can't live it don't solve their dilemma by believing in ideas that not only have no evidence, but are contrary to what is known about the universe. Some humans prefer the illusions.

And synonymous with uncertain. Or irrelevant.

I know, you try to step between the raindrops of categories and definitions in your quest for vagueness.

I don't see this being useful or effective. I suggest it makes your views murky and confused.

Yeah, my beliefs are personals as mine, but you won't accept that.
Here is how I am in general. I am on the left, secular, believe in human rights, being progressive and the list goes on.
So what you do, is that you are progressive but won't accept my personal individual beliefs. Go figure.

 

[F1fan]

I think real things can and have been called God.

Mystics often call the pervasive state of awareness underneath our thoughts and emotions "God." We see this in jnana marga and hesychasm in particular, but I've seen similar approaches in Sufism and Qabalah, too. While I disagree with most mystics about some of the supernatural and metaphysical details they assign to this "God," I also have to admit that such a God is readily observable.

We can also refer to the whole of nature itself as "God." This is technically a form of monism, not monotheism. There are varieties of monism, including both "mental monism" and "naturalism." Since I have some sympathies towards metaphysical naturalism, you could technically call me a pantheist, although pantheism is usually not considered a form of theism.

Early in my evolution as a thinker I was called a mystic by many folks. In hindsight I think my search for truth included considering words and meanings that can go both ways in theism and atheism, mostly psychological experiences. When I was yonger I had a lot of experiences as an athlete that was much like sweat lodge and/or alternative states of consciousness. This framed a lot of my views, but now I see these experiences as quite common, but theists call them spiritual experiences, and that means these ordinary, euphoric experiences are used by theists to justify their religious beliefs ("my brain is flush with hormones and I interpret that as God in my life"). I don't think many people have the kinds of extreme physical experiences like endurance athletes, but they are illuminating.

Despite this, I am still an atheist because I believe that classical theism is false. In fact, I would argue that the supernatural does not exist. Since gods are defined as supernatural beings or forces, I lack a belief in theism in its broader sense.

Yet I still think there is a God, in a way, because words can carry a lot of different connotations.

It's a tricky word. The bottom line is: do the attributes of any given God get expressed in the universe we (any human of sound mind) can detect and confirm? Not according to believers and their testimonies. They make extraordinary claims that they as ordinary humans can't defend.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, my beliefs are personals as mine, but you won't accept that.

I accept it, I just don't agree with what you share. When I ask you to clarify your beliefs you seldom offer explanations that allow me any illumination. Frankly I don't think you have any clarity. It seems you have beliefs that make you happy, but they don't seem thought out beyond the superficial.

Here is how I am in general. I am on the left, secular, believe in human rights, being progressive and the list goes on.
So what you do, is that you are progressive but won't accept my personal individual beliefs. Go figure.

This doesn't answer the questions I asked. I asked you why you give the Boltzmann Brain idea the amount of consideration you do, and you have no answer. Why should I accept it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept it, I just don't agree with what you share. When I ask you to clarify your beliefs you seldom offer explanations that allow me any illumination. Frankly I don't think you have any clarity. It seems you have beliefs that make you happy, but they don't seem thought out beyond the superficial.

This doesn't answer the questions I asked. I asked you why you give the Boltzmann Brain idea the amount of consideration you do, and you have no answer. Why should I accept it?

Here. Google Boltzmann Brain and be critical of enough source and you get the following result. It is unknown if you are that or not. And it won't change if you don't worry about that. That is your coping but it is also methodological naturalism.
Boltzmann Brains and how it is methodological naturalism, are connected.
As for God that is my way of being hones in the end.
The axioms of the world is fair, real, orderly and knowable are ontological idealism.

 

[F1fan]

Here. Google Boltzmann Brain and be critical of enough source and you get the following result.

I did, and it's described as rather unlikely hypothesis. It doesn't have a lot of support in science. My knowledge of science is rather limited given the depth of knowledge out there, so I defer to what the consensus of experts say.

It is unknown if you are that or not.

Hey, maybe the Matrix is real. Why would I give it any consideration just because it is a story?

And it won't change if you don't worry about that. That is your coping but it is also methodological naturalism.
Boltzmann Brains and how it is methodological naturalism, are connected.

Yeah? I didn't see any evidence of that. There is a lot of criticism for the idea by people who know more than either of us.

As for God that is my way of being hones in the end.

Honest about what?

The axioms of the world is fair, real, orderly and knowable are ontological idealism.

We (humans) still have agency and as you experience in your time in this forum, there are many other humans who reject the category of supernatural ideas called god. Atheists get along quite well, and without the mental drama of having to maintain the belief in some idea that lacks evidence to our sensory awareness.

 

[The Hammer]

Do you think there is a God?

Yes, there are Gods.