Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it isn't. My dog, my iPad, my peach tree all have an existence that is both part of the whole and in itself. You may wish to define in itself as excluding some other element for some reason, but that is the definition you choose, not some objective idea. My peach tree interacts with other things, as do I and my dogs. We take in water, air, whatever, we interact in various ways with various things. That does not preclude the possibility of existence as defined things, whether conceptual or physical. To get back to the original point, all of these things are directly or indirectly - or physically/intellectually - experiential. That is different to figments of imagination. I have a dog - experiential. I imagine that I own a pink elephant - an act of imagination.

Yeah, you believe you have solved the problem of epistemology in regards to objective reality in itself. There is nothing new in that. That is as old as philosophy.

So here is the problem for cause and effect in regards to the problem of you being real as you or you being a Boltzmann Brain. You can't know that one way or another.
So if we both assume that objective reality/the universe itself is at least somewhat epistemolgocally fair, we can start figuring out how it appears to work.
And for that, we hid the limit of science.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you mean that you think of the experience of what we think of as the universe as being something humans are entirely separate from? What would that mean?

No, I understand the concept of knowledge differently. That is what we are in effect playing here. Different version of epistemology and ontology.
I believe in the universe. I just do it differently for some aspects of understanding it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but those cognitions do not take place in some entirely isolated and separate realm. If there is cognition, there is a context. The context makes up part of the concept we call 'the universe'.

Yes, but that concept is not in itself. The concept of in itself is empty of anything else than being in itself.
If we can agree that - I know something - have 3 parts and not just something in itself, we might actually agree.

 

[Kenny]

That is why most churches provide new "miracles" all the time....but, as any information is readily available now, people become skeptics gradually.

Hmm… I find the opposite.

If John writes that the miracles are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, why Matthew and the other synoptic writers mentioned the "miracle" of curing Peter's mother in law from fever, but not the resurrection of Jesus' best friend Lazarus? Was Matthew absent from the "classroom" that day

Did you want them to all write the same thing? Is there a particular reason you what four people to write exactly the same thing? Or do you want 4 witnesses that write down what they saw, heard, and touched.

and nobody told him? As for the virgin birth I have come to the conclusion that Matthew deliberately mistranslated Isaiah 7:14, as he did with another 17 "prophecies" in his gospel. Nobody can be that thick.

Yes… we all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It is our free-will spiritual capacity.

Well done. Everyone has the right to believe as one wants to.

Exactly!

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, you believe you have solved the problem of epistemology in regards to objective reality in itself. There is nothing new in that. That is as old as philosophy.

So here is the problem for cause and effect in regards to the problem of you being real as you or you being a Boltzmann Brain. You can't know that one way or another.
So if we both assume that objective reality/the universe itself is at least somewhat epistemolgocally fair, we can start figuring out how it appears to work.
And for that, we hid the limit of science.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

You're kind of proving my point, by having a discussion between yourself and figments of your imagination. Whether I and a Boltzman Brain, or anything else, is not relevant to the point, the point, that is, of the original post you responded to. Whether I exist in a void and my experience is made up of artificially created memories, or I am a brain in a vat and my experiences are computer generated, or whether I experience a physical world, makes no difference. In all of those scenarios there is a qualitative difference between ideas based on my experience of things I can perceive and ideas created from nothing by my imagination. Religion is a case in point - all over the world, humans have created all kinds of gods, all of which are entirely imaginary. Asking what it means to say the taste of my coffee is 'real' and imagining what the taste of something I can only ever imagine - as it does not exist within the realm of known experience, regardless of how experience is defined - is real are different questions. I can drink my coffee. That is an experience. I can hear a strange sound at night - that is an experience. If I then imagine that sound was made by a ghost, that is no longer an experience but an act of imagination. You seem to be bringing in some notion about one being better than the other. That is not a point I have tried to make. They are, however, different.

 

[Kenny]

Not really. What we experience as the universe presents itself as being made of the same kind of stuff as we are, and perceivable using our senses or through the testing of hypotheses. Maybe there’s some other way of interpreting all of that no-one has been able to conceive of yet, maybe it’s all a simulation, or whatever. The point is that the way we think of it is a combination of interactions, as in actor/network theory.

The idea of a god is completely different, it is something we humans made up entirely from whole cloth. There is nothing ‘out there’ we can perceive or test that corresponds to it. It is purely a figment of human imagination.

Comparing the two is like comparing the taste of a cheese sandwich as you eat it and what you imagine the ambrosia of the gods might have tasted like.

This seems contradictory. First you say “Maybe ther’s some other way on interpreting all of that no-one has been able to conceive of yet"

and then turn around and say

“The idea of a god is completely different, it is something we humans made up"

violating the first thought you presented. Maybe you just haven't been able to conceive it yet?

 

[Tomef]

Yes, but that concept is not in itself. The concept of in itself is empty of anything else than being in itself.
If we can agree that - I know something - have 3 parts and not just something in itself, we might actually agree.

Human cognition is part of the concept of the universe in itself, like caramel is part of the definition of the concept of a mars bar in itself. If you conceive of the universe, you are by definition conceiving of yourself as part of the universe. Your ability to experience the universe is part of whatever you think the universe is.

 

[Tomef]

This seems contradictory. First you say “Maybe ther’s some other way on interpreting all of that no-one has been able to conceive of yet"

and then turn around and say

“The idea of a god is completely different, it is something we humans made up"

violating the first thought you presented. Maybe you just haven't been able to conceive it yet?

2 different things:

1) Ideas based on interactions with what we perceive as real.
2) Imaginary things that arise within our minds.

2 is sometimes part of 1, but it isn't the same thing. I'm not going to type out again the same stuff I've already written in other posts, so you can read those if you want.

To say there might be some other way of conceiving of the universe is to say there may be something we discover through the process involved in 1. There is no reason to think that might involve gods that fit our various imaginary descriptions of them. If I say 'I imagine that in the future we will discover the whole universe is made of seahorses so tiny we are as yet unable to detect them' I am using my imagination. If I try to interpret my experiences via hypotheses and testing, I am using something more than my imagination. This second process may lead to a different conception of the universe. Simply imagining something to be true is of a different order. Saying one thing may result from process 1 does not violate the idea that process 2 is not process 1.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're kind of proving my point, by having a discussion between yourself and figments of your imagination. Whether I and a Boltzman Brain, or anything else, is not relevant to the point, ...

Well, in both cases there is a we in the same sense in itself for the we. Or not?!!! The problem is that real is a case of imaginition and that experience matters is a first person evalution and opinion in you.

Human cognition is part of the concept of the universe in itself, like caramel is part of the definition of the concept of a mars bar in itself. If you conceive of the universe, you are by definition conceiving of yourself as part of the universe. Your ability to experience the universe is part of whatever you think the universe is.

Correct for the bold one as not the universe in itself.

You acts as if the we here in this debate is real as the we. So do I. I just don't know that.

You in effect want a privelleged cogntion where you can decide what matters as real and relevant. The problem is that is in your mind and not in the rest of the universe.

Now all I notice is cogntive relativism between different humans and that include both of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

2 different things:

1) Ideas based on interactions with what we perceive as real.
2) Imaginary things that arise within our minds.
...

Evidence for real and that it is not just real as something you imagine in your mind.
Stop acting as if real is an external sensory experince. It is not. It is a first person cognitive opinion in you.

 

[Tomef]

You in effect want a privelleged cogntion where you can decide what matters as real and relevant

No, you're just imagining that I think that. Same difference - I wrote what I wrote, you have the experience of reading my words. That is something that happens within a range of possible interpretations. That is one thing. Another thing is adding to that an act of your imagination - imagining there is a value judgement involved, not realising that I have said nothing about what is real and relevant, only what is different between things of a different nature. This is because rather than reading what is there and responding to it, you are concocting arguments based on what you imagine to be 'between the lines'. These are different things.

 

[Tomef]

Evidence for real and that it is not just real as something you imagine in your mind.
Stop acting as if real is an external sensory experince. It is not. It is a first person cognitive opinion in you.

Read the post again please, and respond to what I said rather than having a discussion with yourself.

 

[Kenny]

2 different things:

1) Ideas based on interactions with what we perceive as real.
2) Imaginary things that arise within our minds.

2 is sometimes part of 1, but it isn't the same thing. I'm not going to type out again the same stuff I've already written in other posts, so you can read those if you want.

To say there might be some other way of conceiving of the universe is to say there may be something we discover through the process involved in 1. There is no reason to think that might involve gods that fit our various imaginary descriptions of them. If I say 'I imagine that in the future we will discover the whole universe is made of seahorses so tiny we are as yet unable to detect them' I am using my imagination. If I try to interpret my experiences via hypotheses and testing, I am using something more than my imagination. This second process may lead to a different conception of the universe. Simply imagining something to be true is of a different order. Saying one thing may result from process 1 does not violate the idea that process 2 is not process 1.

Sorry if I haven’t looked at all your posts… I was just noting what seemed to be contradictory.

#2 seems to be arbitrary. “Imaginary” in your context gives the pre-conceived position that it was indeed imagined and false. But who is to say that it was “imagined” and not true? I think you spoke of an “alternative universe” - what if there is a spiritual universe? I find it quite plausible.

I’m not saying that there isn’t some truth to what you are saying. There is application to your position. Simply imagining an Atlas holding up a world doesn’t make it true. But imagining a trip to Mars 80 years ago that many scoffed at is now becoming a reality today. Maybe it is just beyond your imagination yet still true.

 

[Ajax]

Hmm… I find the opposite.

Hmm.. that may be your idea. What we experience is that as education increases in civilized and educated countries, the percentage of atheists/agnostics is slowly but constantly increases.
1. How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades

Did you want them to all write the same thing? Is there a particular reason you what four people to write exactly the same thing? Or do you want 4 witnesses that write down what they saw, heard, and touched.

No, but considering that John wrote that signs/miracles were described so that people would believe that Jesus is the son of God, I would expect that all of them (especially Matthew and Mark who were disciples) would write the greatest miracle of Jesus, instead of presenting as miracle the healing of Peter's mother in law from.....fever.

Yes… we all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It is our free-will spiritual capacity.

I'm afraid there is no evidence whatsoever. That's why we are discussing it.

 

[Tomef]

Correct for the bold one as not the universe in itself.

What is it that you think? Do you believe the ability to think did not arise as our being part of the universe, or something else?

In one interpretation (Sartre's) of Husserl's noesis and noema, noesis (according to Sartre the process of thought) is real - i.e. it is a process that results from our existence, as part of the universe in itself - but the noema, the result of the noesis, is not. The thought, then, is not real, only the process of thinking. This clearly does not mean, however, that our thoughts are not part of the universe as it is generally understood. You may have a definition of 'the universe' that excludes that which arises from thought - is that the case? If so, what is it that you think? I can't see how a conscious being can conceive of the universe as not including both noesis and noema as elements of that universe. If there is a concept of the universe, there is also a self that has that concept. If the universe is conceived of as haven given rise to that self, then that self is part of the universe. It would only be possible to have a self separate from universe if that universe were entirely imaginary, i.e that it did not in fact exist and give rise to the possibility of there being a self.

 

[Tomef]

Sorry if I haven’t looked at all your posts… I was just noting what seemed to be contradictory.

#2 seems to be arbitrary. “Imaginary” in your context gives the pre-conceived position that it was indeed imagined and false. But who is to say that it was “imagined” and not true? I think you spoke of an “alternative universe” - what if there is a spiritual universe? I find it quite plausible.

I’m not saying that there isn’t some truth to what you are saying. There is application to your position. Simply imagining an Atlas holding up a world doesn’t make it true. But imagining a trip to Mars 80 years ago that many scoffed at is now becoming a reality today. Maybe it is just beyond your imagination yet still true.

What I mean as imaginary in this case is that there is evidence for the imaginary creation of gods - as there is evidence for the creation of other fictional characters - but not evidence for actual gods. There may well be some other dimension that doesn't fit into anything yet experienced by humans, but assuming that would fit one of our very many imaginary creations is a long shot to put it mildly. Travelling to Mars is an extension of the possible; on foot you can walk a certain distance, in a cart, further, in a spacecraft, further. That isn't the same thing as creating a fictional character then expecting it to turn out to be real.

 

[Comradio251]

I believe so. I mean, you got to have A LOT of faith that a probabilistic outcome for a mechanistic process of randomally bonded chemicals somehow created a form of life without completely driving every single organism to extinction with all of those bad mutations that would have occured by now. You need a lot more faith in that than believing in God.

 

[Kenny]

Hmm.. that may be your idea. What we experience is that as education increases in civilized and educated countries, the percentage of atheists/agnostics is slowly but constantly increases.
1. How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades

Yes… but that isn’t a “first time around” situation. And one is assuming that it is the education that is creating it as if there are no other possibilities.

The “Jesus Revolution” in the 60’s and 70’s changed the world and there are 9 such other occurrences over the centuries where spirituality waned and then resurged

No, but considering that John wrote that signs/miracles were described so that people would believe that Jesus is the son of God, I would expect that all of them (especially Matthew and Mark who were disciples) would write the greatest miracle of Jesus, instead of presenting as miracle the healing of Peter's mother in law from.....fever.

Yes… unfortunately for them you weren’t there to tell them what you wanted. It would have been nice if you could have communicated exactly what you wanted them to write.

I'm afraid there is no evidence whatsoever. That's why we are discussing it.

Yet I find a lot of evidence and that is why I am discussing it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is it that you think? Do you believe the ability to think did not arise as our being part of the universe, or something else?

...

Okay, I will concentrate on the one and include cause and effect.

You are the effect of being caused by something in itself.
Now is that something epistemolgocally fair as real or it is not the case?
So I will use a version that you also used. Being computer generated as an example of not the case of epistemolgocally fair as real.

Now for in short real versus not real, your experinces are the same as real to you, but they are are only real as the universe in one of the cases.
So how do you tell as real that we are here as real in an real universe?

You can't because your experinces are equally real, but what they are about as a case of in itself are different. That is the problem of realism in epistemlogy and so far nobody has solved that one.
So there is no evidence that god is real and there is no evidence that the universe is real. That is the point.
You don't for real have a privileged epistemology for the fact that your experince are real for the real universe in itself. Neither do I. I just admit that and state I believe without evidence that the universe is real.

 

[Tomef]

Okay, I will concentrate on the one and include cause and effect.

You are the effect of being caused by something in itself.
Now is that something epistemolgocally fair as real or it is not the case?
So I will use a version that you also used. Being computer generated as an example of not the case of epistemolgocally fair as real.

Now for in short real versus not real, your experinces are the same as real to you, but they are are only real as the universe in one of the cases.
So how do you tell as real that we are here as real in an real universe?

You can't because your experinces are equally real, but what they are about as a case of in itself are different. That is the problem of realism in epistemlogy and so far nobody has solved that one.
So there is no evidence that god is real and there is no evidence that the universe is real. That is the point.
You don't for real have a privileged epistemology for the fact that your experince are real for the real universe in itself. Neither do I. I just admit that and state I believe without evidence that the universe is real.

I think that’s the case if you are locked into certain ideas and suppositions. It’s important to remember that philosophical ideas are not laws of physics, they remain live to a greater extent. My ‘real’ experiences are equally real to me whether they are analogue, digital, or something else. By ‘we’ I mean the ideas I rarely see disagreed with, in that although said in different ways the majority of the time people express something similar.

Within the experience of ‘the real’, however, none of that makes any difference to the basic point that an idea based on interaction with that experience via hypothesis and testing is qualitatively different to holding onto an idea from a fictional text. It is different, for example, to evaluate the evidence for the Big Bang (whether physical, digital, whatever) within the construct of what is known about the universe - constructed by means of similar processes - and to evaluate say the idea that Cthulhu is an equally real part of that universe. It is not possible to evaluate those claims via the same process.