Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Just start here:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"... all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes ..."
I have already explained how that is so, because that the universe is physical as known rests on the assumptions that the universe is epistemologcally real and knowable.

The problem is that the bold one is in your imagition as it has not external experince, It is cognitive in your mind.

 

[Tomef]

You don't for real have a privileged epistemology for the fact that your experince are real for the real universe in itself.

Where are you getting this notion from that I am claiming one thing is more real than another? It would be helpful if you went back to the original post you relied to and look at what it says.

 

[Tomef]

Just start here:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"... all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes ..."
I have already explained how that is so, because that the universe is physical as known rests on the assumptions that the universe is epistemologcally real and knowable.

The problem is that the bold one is in your imagition as it has not external experince, It is cognitive in your mind.

This has nothing to do with the point you responded to.

 

[Tomef]

N

The problem is that the bold one is in your imagition as it has not external experince, It is cognitive in your mind.

No, you just don’t understand it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This has nothing to do with the point you responded to.

No, you just don’t understand it.

You claim there is a difference that is with evidence that it actually matters for being qualitatively different.
Now do that other than just using words or internal experinces. Show that is the case using only external experinces and I will listen to you.

 

[Tomef]

You claim there is a difference that is with evidence that it actually matters for being qualitatively different.
Now do that other than just using words or internal experinces. Show that is the case using only external experinces and I will listen to you.

We understand things about the universe via sense perception and the use of math, lab equipment and so on.

We understand things about god via a book of fiction.

If you take some time over it, you’ll see what the difference is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We understand things about the universe via sense perception and the use of math, lab equipment and so on.

We understand things about god via a book of fiction.

If you take some time over it, you’ll see what the difference is

Well, we really don't. That is a dogmatic assertion for which the only evidence you in effect have is that it makes sense to you. And stop using a we that is not there for all humans.

 

[Ajax]

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

Your claim is not true. The more we go back in the last centuries, the more Christians we found. You probably didn't read the Pew Research's findings. In 1972, when the GSS first began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian and 5% were religiously unaffiliated.
Look at the statistic table since 1972.....
Do you realize what a 27% drop in Christians and a corresponding increase of 24% increase in religiously unaffiliated mean in the population of US?

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.

You are very unreasonable now, if you maintain that the evangelists wrote different miracles. And your answer above clearly shows that you have run out of excuses.

1) When the first 3 synoptic gospels were written the authors didn't know that a decade letter, another gospel would be written, which would include the Lazarus miracle.

2) I bet that not even you can believe that in order to make people accept Jesus (as per John), the authors would left out intentionally and specifically the greatest miracle, the resurrection of a four days dead Lazarus, who was also a good friend of Jesus. Based on the days being dead, Lazarus resurrection is even a greater miracle than Jesus' resurrection.

They simply never had heard of this miracle, Kenny! Nobody had heard of this miracle until John wrote about it, 65 years after Jesus' death. There is no further mention of Lazarus in the Bible.

 

[Tomef]

Well, we really don't. That is a dogmatic assertion for which the only evidence you in effect have is that it makes sense to you. And stop using a we that is not there for all humans.

You know what I mean by we, no need to be pedantic.

We do understand things in that way - knowledge that makes everyday things operate, cars, toasters etc. Those are things we have learned about the universe through hypothesis and experimentation, not purely through the use of imagination. We show this is the case by using them, as you are using technology resulting from those same processes by typing messages here on RF. This is quite different from taking fiction to have the same relevance to our experience, e.g. I could try and ‘do an Icarus’ with beeswax and feathers, but I already know if wouldn’t work, not because I have tried it, but because of the progress of science. These are things that make up the nature of experience, and many of them are the same for everyone. If you get into an aeroplane, you can fly from one place to another, if you stick feathers to yourself with wax, you can’t.

What those experiences tell us about the ultimate nature of reality is a different question. There are however very evident experiential differences to be had between the application of science and the application of fictitious ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know what I mean by we, no need to be pedantic.

We do understand things in that way - knowledge that makes everyday things operate, cars, toasters etc. Those are things we have learned about the universe through hypothesis and experimentation, not purely through the use of imagination. We show this is the case by using them, as you are using technology resulting from those same processes by typing messages here on RF. This is quite different from taking fiction to have the same relevance to our experience, e.g. I could try and ‘do an Icarus’ with beeswax and feathers, but I already know if wouldn’t work, not because I have tried it, but because of the progress of science. These are things that make up the nature of experience, and many of them are the same for everyone. If you get into an aeroplane, you can fly from one place to another, if you stick feathers to yourself with wax, you can’t.

What those experiences tell us about the ultimate nature of reality is a different question. There are however very evident experiential differences to be had between the application of science and the application of fictitious ideas.

Now, what if I told you that there are a third category and that is what in effect you are overlooking in the end.
It has to do with how humans are humans qua not just science, but that which sceince can't do:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Tomef]

Now, what if I told you that there are a third category and that is what in effect you are overlooking in the end.
It has to do with how humans are humans qua not just science, but that which sceince can't do:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

Sure, could be interesting, I might take a look. This is your thing, though. As per my original point, there’s a difference between beliefs based on fiction and those that have testable validity, as far as that goes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, could be interesting, I might take a look. This is your thing, though. As per my original point, there’s a difference between beliefs based on fiction and those that have testable validity, as far as that goes.

Well, yeah. But there is an odd 3rd category. Those cases not based on testable validity, yet all cogntive and emotional functional humans do it.

E.g. just one word - useful. That has no testable validity, yet we both do evaluations of what is useful.
So in the strong sense of only real if having testable validity, then useful is based on fiction in the end.

 

[Tomef]

Well, yeah. But there is an odd 3rd category. Those cases not based on testable validity, yet all cogntive and emotional functional humans do it.

E.g. just one word - useful. That has no testable validity, yet we both do evaluations of what is useful.
So in the strong sense of only real if having testable validity, then useful is based on fiction in the end.

Sure, but all of this is a bit beyond what I was saying. Religion can be useful, it can be very destructive. But that is all down to human behaviour. It’s not very difficult to track the creation of gods as fictional characters, e.g. how convenient personal ‘gods’ and city gods (etc etc) eventually morphed into the idea of a pantheon or a single god. It’s all fiction, as plainly as what we generally refer to as fiction is fiction, but for cultural and other reasons the fictions in religious books still get treated as a special category, as if they have some special status among other fictional books. I suppose it can be said that they have provided some of what might be the basis of our societies, but effectively they have achieved that as fiction, because that is what they are, and other works of fiction people generally acknowledge to be fiction have also had tremendous influence over the national consciousness of many states.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, but all of this is a bit beyond what I was saying. Religion can be useful, it can be very destructive. But that is all down to human behaviour. It’s not very difficult to track the creation of gods as fictional characters, e.g. how convenient personal ‘gods’ and city gods (etc etc) eventually morphed into the idea of a pantheon or a single god. It’s all fiction, as plainly as what we generally refer to as fiction is fiction, but for cultural and other reasons the fictions in religious books still get treated as a special category, as if they have some special status among other fictional books. I suppose it can be said that they have provided some of what might be the basis of our societies, but effectively they have achieved that as fiction, because that is what they are, and other works of fiction people generally acknowledge to be fiction have also had tremendous influence over the national consciousness of many states.

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about useful as such. It is not not based on testable validity and not just for religion.

 

[Tomef]

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about useful as such. It is not not based on testable validity and not just for religion.

I’m saying that is what I was talking about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m saying that is what I was talking about.

Yeah, but that is not all of the universe.
There is this 3 category where in effect the subjective is correct and that has nothing to do with religion as such.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but that is not all of the universe.
There is this 3 category where in effect the subjective is correct and that has nothing to do with religion as such.

Sure it sounds interesting, I’ll look into it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure it sounds interesting, I’ll look into it.

No, here is an example of how it works.
It is for human rights. Now if you try to test those as objective to external sensory experince you can't, because you can't experince them like that.
Rather you wiill find that human rights make subjective sense if they do. I.e. they feel right.

So you test for subjective by figuring out that it can't be do objectively and it is actually something humans use.

 

[Sargonski]

Apparently you don’t know my Father. Sometimes I call Him Daddy.

I’m His child.

I love Him so much and know Him so intimately that “Kill the child for the Sin” is not in His vocabulary. The love of Jesus already paid for Sin.

My goodness- I certainly do not know this God who you call "Daddy" How could I know since you can not tell me this Gods name or identify the commands of this God in the Bible ? You have negated YHWH .. God of the Israelites .. why do you deny this God ?

You mention Jesus but speak a falsehood .. The death of Jesus did not buy you a free pass through Judgement friend .. this is the God of deception and of the snake charmers .. the "False Prophets" talked about by Jesus .. a child of the father of the Pharisee's perhaps .. but, no child of "Our Father - hallowed be thy name" speaks like this.

Do you believe in the Power of Ha - Satan Brother Ken ? Tester of Souls - Chief God over the Earth .. .. sometimes going by the epithet "Daddy" ?!

 

[Kenny]

Your claim is not true. The more we go back in the last centuries, the more Christians we found. You probably didn't read the Pew Research's findings. In 1972, when the GSS first began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian and 5% were religiously unaffiliated.
Look at the statistic table since 1972.....
Do you realize what a 27% drop in Christians and a corresponding increase of 24% increase in religiously unaffiliated mean in the population of US?

View attachment 91507

You are very unreasonable now, if you maintain that the evangelists wrote different miracles. And your answer above clearly shows that you have run out of excuses.

Unreasonable is a personal opinion of yours. Your deduction is quite biased.


Again, you are extrapolating a segment and reading your own interpretation in it. From the Pew research that you quoted they offered various reasonings and, in my view, not all of the possibilities such as the influence of media and the government teachings in the schools.

It also is segmented in the US - worldwide Christianity continues to grow in numbers. I know you are hopeful but, then again, so am I.

1) When the first 3 synoptic gospels were written the authors didn't know that a decade letter, another gospel would be written, which would include the Lazarus miracle.

So? Each Gospel has material that the other gospels do not. If the three were written before John, it would be quite “reasonable” ( to use your phrase) that he didn’t need to repeat everything.

2) I bet that not even you can believe that in order to make people accept Jesus (as per John), the authors would left out intentionally and specifically the greatest miracle, the resurrection of a four days dead Lazarus, who was also a good friend of Jesus. Based on the days being dead, Lazarus resurrection is even a greater miracle than Jesus' resurrection.

I’m sorry, but the miracle of Lazarus isn’t the message of salvation. I don’t use that story every Sunday and, for that matter, maybe not even in the last year.

I think you are pulling at straws.

They simply never had heard of this miracle, Kenny! Nobody had heard of this miracle until John wrote about it, 65 years after Jesus' death. There is no further mention of Lazarus in the Bible.

I know you think you have made a slam-dunk point… but Heaven knows just what point you are making. The message is Jesus and not Lazarus.