Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

There is no universe itself. That is in the end "bad" philosophy.
I can you ask you how you perceive the unverse itself as itself. But you don't, since it is an abstract cogntive idea without any external perception.

Learn when you do philosophy and learn to spot that it is not just religion that has beliefs about the world.

 

[Tomef]

There is no universe itself. That is in the end "bad" philosophy.
I can you ask you how you perceive the unverse itself as itself. But you don't, since it is an abstract cogntive idea without any external perception.

Learn when you do philosophy and learn to spot that it is not just religion that has beliefs about the world.

Who said it is? For some reason you are delivering a lecture that has nothing to do with anything I said. You can read what I actually said in my posts and respond to that, if you like. If you prefer to imagine something that isn't there and respond to that, you're just talking to yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who said it is? For some reason you are delivering a lecture that has nothing to do with anything I said. You can read what I actually said in my posts and respond to that, if you like. If you prefer to imagine something that isn't there and respond to that, you're just talking to yourself.

Well, just give evidence for the idea of the universe itself. You made the postive claim, so you give evidence.
It is that simple.

 

[Tomef]

There is no universe itself.

Maybe there is a language issue. Do you see the difference here?

1) The universe
2) What we experience as the universe.

2 is different conceptually to 1. You are using some sort of gadget to respond to these posts, breathing air, digesting whatever you last ate (etc). These are elements or what you experience as the universe. Whether 'the universe' has some sort of objective existence independent of those experiences you are having is a separate question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe there is a language issue. Do you see the difference here?

1) The universe
2) What we experience as the universe.

...

Yeah, we are not in the universe, but that we experince sometihng is not a part of the universe. In effect we are as a form of dualism in the non-universe.

Further there are 2 relevant defintions for the verb see. Which one are you using for your see. And which one are you using indirectly for experince as see is a part of that.

Stop doing "bad" philosphy.

 

[Tomef]

Well, just give evidence for the idea of the universe itself. You made the postive claim, so you give evidence.
It is that simple.

You just did it - you typed 'the idea of the universe itself'. What are you referring to, if not 'the idea of the universe itself'? This is different to the idea of a god. A person x number of millennia ago could look at the sky and see twinkling lights on a black background. An astronomer today can used sophisticated tools to make measurements of emissions of radiation and so on. These both represent interactions between one thing (a person) and another (the thing being looked at or measured). Whatever you think that represents, it is qualitatively different to the idea of a god. Gods are not seen, they are imagined. The source of their existence is entirely within the mind, without any intermediary experience comparable to looking at the sky or tracking the path of cosmic rays.

Conscious, according to Hegel, Sartre, only exists in relation to the thing it is conscious of - outside of itself. Maybe in some sense we create what we observe. But consciousness in relation to sense perception, and understanding what those things we perceive are and how they behave is not the same thing as the intentional creation of fictional characters. The two things involve different processes. Lovecraft didn't create Cthulhu based on observation and experimentation, he created him through an act of the imagination. Imagination may assist in the formulation of a scientific theory, but the resulting theory is based on observation and experimentation, not imagination. It represents something about the interaction of the mind and the things the senses perceive, not something that is entirely a creation of the mind.

 

[Tomef]

Which one are you using for your see.

You can figure that out from context.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, we are not in the universe

Wherever we are, it is generally called the universe. You seem to be confusing different concepts.

Compare:

1) I am in my house.
2) I am not really in my house because my house isn't real.

These are different - 1, my experience, 2 some stuff I might think. If you respond to 1 as if 2 is meant, you are just talking to yourself, not the other person you are talking with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just did it - you typed 'the idea of the universe itself'. What are you referring to, if not 'the idea of the universe itself'? This is different to the idea of a god. A person x number of millennia ago could look at the sky and see twinkling lights on a black background. An astronomer today can used sophisticated tools to make measurements of emissions of radiation and so on. These both represent interactions between one thing (a person) and another (the thing being looked at or measured). Whatever you think that represents, it is qualitatively different to the idea of a god. Gods are not seen, they are imagined. The source of their existence is entirely within the mind, without any intermediary experience comparable to looking at the sky or tracking the path of cosmic rays.

Conscious, according to Hegel, Sartre, only exists in relation to the thing it is conscious of - outside of itself. Maybe in some sense we create what we observe. But consciousness in relation to sense perception, and understanding what those things we perceive are and how they behave is not the same thing as the intentional creation of fictional characters. The two things involve different processes. Lovecraft didn't create Cthulhu based on observation and experimentation, he created him through an act of the imagination. Imagination may assist in the formulation of a scientific theory, but the resulting theory is based on observation and experimentation, not imagination. It represents something about the interaction of the mind and the things the senses perceive, not something that is entirely a creation of the mind.

Well, the problem is that the thing in itself as itself is empty for what you can know about it, because it is in itself.

Here is the actual problem for cause and effect. The universe as itself causes me to have the effect of having an experince of it. But how can it do that if it is in itself?
So I don't know what god or the universe is as such, but rather I can explain the different experiences I have.

And for the different experiences and actions possible for me, I can use science for some of them. But only some of them.

 

[Tomef]

In effect we are as a form of dualism in the non-universe

The other element of the duality is what is generally thought of as the universe. Calling it the non-universe, or a cheese sandwich, is a transposition (or an evasion maybe?) to some other set of questions. That might explain why you are responding to things that aren't in my posts as if they were.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can figure that out from context.

So you use 2 different in effect contradictiory definitions of see.
See as understand as internal cogntion.
See as experience through external sensations using the eyes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The other element of the duality is what is generally thought of as the universe. Calling it the non-universe, or a cheese sandwich, is a transposition (or an evasion maybe?) to some other set of questions. That might explain why you are responding to things that aren't in my posts as if they were.

Well, you operatate with a duality of internal and external as if external is in effect better, but that it is better is internal in you. That is the trick you use. That you reason for what matters, is internal and not an external sensory experience.

 

[Tomef]

The universe as itself causes me to have the effect of having an experince of it. But how can it do that if it is in itself?

If it causes you to have an experience, how can it not be in itself? If a cheese sandwich has no existence in itself then it can't cause you to experience the taste of it. Only consciousness has that quality (according to Sartre) of existing only in relation to the things it is conscious of. Whether the cheese sandwich is conscious of you, and causes you to experience it, or whether you are conscious of it and you cause it to correspond with your eating a cheese sandwich experience, it still exists in itself, either as a conscious entity, a projection of your consciousness you experience as separate to you (until you have eaten it at least!), or a physical thing independent of consciousness.

 

[Tomef]

So you use 2 different in effect contradictiory definitions of see.
See as understand as internal cogntion.
See as experience through external sensations using the eyes.

No, only the first definition would be applicable to this sentence: Do you see the difference here? As we are having this discussion over the internet and talking about words and their meanings, not what words look like.

 

[Tomef]

Well, you operatate with a duality of internal and external as if external is in effect better, but that it is better is internal in you. That is the trick you use. That you reason for what matters, is internal and not an external sensory experience.

That's another tangent - nobody has mentioned 'better' or 'worse', but different. Please read the posts and respond to what is there rather than adding things that aren't. If you want to make a separate point, you can do that yourself, rather than imagining that I did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it causes you to have an experience, how can it not be in itself? If cheese sandwich has no existence in itself then it can't cause you to experience the taste of it. Only consciousness has that quality (according to Sartre) of existing only in relation to the things it is conscious of. Whether the cheese sandwich is conscious of you, and hence causes you to experience it, or whether you are conscious of it and you cause it to correspond with your eating a cheese sandwich experience, it still exists in itself, either as a conscious entity, a projection of your consciousness, or a physical thing independent of consciousness.

The problem is that in itself means as itself and nothing else. But then how does it interact with something else?
Further if you look closer at being in itself for itself, that is philosophy, but so is existence as being.
Existence has no external sensory experince, but rather it is an internal idea used in some forms of philosophy but not others.

In effect you are a product of old philosophical ideas and you don't doubt them, but you doubt other ideas. That makes you into in effect a scientific skeptic for which I am a general one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, only the first definition would be applicable to this sentence: Do you see the difference here? As we are having this discussion over the internet and talking about words and their meanings, not what words look like.

Yeah, but only external experince is relevant for the universe itself. How you understand as you, is not relevant for the universe.

 

[Tomef]

The problem is that in itself means as itself and nothing else. But then how does it interact with something else?

What would prevent a thing that exists as itself from interacting with anything else? If you mean the universe can't interact with us, we are as much a part of the universe as anything else. We are part of it, and interact with it. If there is something else out there that is not what we call the universe, it could interact with that too.

'In itself' does not mean incapable of being or becoming something that extends beyond how that thing is defined at any given time. A river has a certain definition of being in itself a river, as in a constant flow of water. That the water contained in the idea of river constantly changes doesn't prevent it from being a river.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, only the first definition would be applicable to this sentence: Do you see the difference here? As we are having this discussion over the internet and talking about words and their meanings, not what words look like.

Well, I don't see as with external experince understanding, so that is not relevant as a part of the universe itslef, since understanding is internal in me.
So I reject your "see the difference" as in effect a believer trick. Follow your own rule and only reference the universe itslef and not how you think.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but only external experince is relevant for the universe itself. How you understand as you, is not relevant for the universe.

Experience of self is part of the experience of the universe.