God did it

[mikkel_the_dane]

Before I answer, I will admit something no matter, how it actually played out. After my last post here in the thread, I notice something. I was overdoing the reasoning. I was in overdrive and "cooking" up to much, because I wanted to be right. It happens sometimes for me. So here is a dial-back of sorts.
It is not that simple, but it is rather simple. I have no problem applying the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a belief on myself. It is a trick in philosophy, accept the position offered as a counter to your own. In the case I am religious, so I accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It has created reality and given me a brain to understand its creation. Humans can make a better world through science, empathy, realism, belief in the intrinsic value of humans. The list goes on. The joke is that to an atheist it is a joke, but it works. I live in service of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, yet I am a functional humanist, secular, believe in human rights, democracy and so on.
As a deist and believer in a non-revealed God, I don't speak for God. I believe in God, but I look with my brain in the everyday world. And I notice the following. As of these things I believe in having nothing to do with religion or atheism as such. They have to do with the fact, that I know, I can't in good faith judge other humans in an objective sense.

A bit vague but true.


Control is a can of worms. One could argue I control nothing for materialistic or deterministic reasons and the abstract concept of control implies one is already in control. Circular reasoning?


I don't know how you can cause something to exist.


In this hypothetical, I don't know how you can get to the subconscious mind. Granted, there's you and your thoughts, but I don't know how you came to the subconscious.

Unfortunately, without argument, the rest falls away.

So back to the thread at hand. The bold one is good and sharp. Good catch. Here is how it works. Start with "I think therefor I am". I am certain of that, but I can't be certain that I am dreaming or not. That is back to Descartes. So I am not certain that anything else exists. Remember I am for now an ontological solipsist. And now I notice something in my experiences. I still have those. Some of them play out differently than I want for it to happen. So I need an ad hoc. I need to explain what it is that I can't do as I like in every sense. That is my subconscious mind. Remember I am the only thing that exists, but I notice that there are part of my experiences over time that don't happen as I wanted them to happen. That are experiences which come from my subconscious mind.

Now I am back. The problem with that assumption, is that, which is my subconscious mind, it isn't mine. That is where solipsism fails. Solipsism is in ontological terms as for what exists 2 parts. That which is mine and what which is not mine, because my subconscious mind is not mine. If it were mine, I could control, but I can't.

So back to das Ding an sich. In the basic sense everything else which is not mine or me, is something else. But go back and look again.
You don't control that, it control and caused you. Now is it fair, that which controls you?

Now I will add something and use science:
This one will do for explaining a Boltzmann Brain. Note it is science
String theory may limit space brain threat
This one will do for the problem of a Boltzmann Brain
Universes that spawn 'cosmic brains' should go on the scrapheap

TRUST your senses. Any theory that lets bizarre brains randomly pop into existence can’t be a valid description of the universe.

Here is it about the multiverse. Wikipedia will do, because it has good direct sources:
Multiverse - Wikipedia
Against:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

In favor of:

[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.

— Max Tegmark Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.", Tegmark M., Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):40–51.

Notice something about the 1st and 3rd bolds? They have in common, that we can trust our senses and our reasoning in the end, yet the first one starts with dogma: TRUST you senses and then later claims that you can decide something based emotions; i.e. bizarre.
The 3rd one is worse in a sense, it uses one emotion, wasteful and then use aesthetics - inelegant.

So if we look closer at the science for the fundamental state of Science, for what reality really is, you can use dogma, emotions and aesthetics.
Now do back to das Ding an sich and how that is God. It is the unknown of what reality is as independent of your mind and what das Ding an sich really is.
So all cultures have a myth about that, the myth in Science, not science, is that are a natural reality, impersonal, which you must trust and can only get through emotions and aesthetics.
That is the God of Science or what objective reality/the natural world really is.
It is math in the heads of scientists, which all can't be correct. So let us use the standard atheistic approach to contradictory claims about beliefs in a supernatural God and apply them on a natural God.
Objective reality can't both be a multiverse and a Boltzmann Brain, yet both is science. Can you spot the belief in the multiverse version. The natural God is fair. You can trust your senses, reasoning, emotions and aesthetics to explain the universe and you are not a Boltzmann Brain, because that doesn't make sense.
Compare with how if there is no supernatural God and how that doesn't make sense to religious humans in general and for some that you don't die, when you die.

So for all that claim to know, what objective reality really is independent of the mind, it is an act of faith. You can't do it with evidence, reason, logic and all that alone. You have to have faith in the fairness, emotions and what not of what objective reality really is. For both strong beliefs system of knowledge it revolves about first person individual attempt of making sense of the unknown and neither Science nor Religion can do that. Nor can Philosophy BTW.
But philosophy can explain how it is, that you can't Know.

So you are either indifferent to what God really is; know that you don't know and use weak beliefs; or are a strong Believer, who Knows. I have left out young children and other humans, who don't have the cognition to do this.

Now how we then do it the everyday world in practice, is worth another thread, because that is ethics or psychology if you like. There science, philosophy and religion are all in play.

 

[usfan]

1. Goddidit (not an explanation, but an assertion of agency)
2. Atheistic naturalism (physics didit?)
3. Unknown.

Q: Is "origin" an appropriate word, given our understanding of theoretical physics?

In the absence of evidence/proof, what is the default position? Wouldn't the reasonable approach be to withhold belief pending evidence?

My list stands. You just replace 'nuthindidit!' To remove the absurd caricature from your preference. I included both.

Unknown is an admission of ignorance, not a possibility of the nature of the universe. The dichotomy is 'goddidit!' or 'nuthindidit!' Claims of ignorance do not change the actual possibilities.

'Origins', of the universe, life, and man are the exact Questions we face.

Default position? You mean the one most people believe? Or the one that has indisputable proof? ROFL!!

Tell me about the 'default position!' for beliefs on origins.. I'm all ears.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you deny that God has revealed at least some of who he is to humans, and that those humans speak with authority about that experience ?

No, I don't not deny that. I accept that you can believe that. I accept that you can believe you Know through that God has revealed at least some of who he is to humans, and that those humans speak with authority about that experience. I just myself believe differently.
As for Knowing God, you might be able to do that. But I don't know that. I know that I can do it differently.
Notice something, when I say Know, I mean ultimate Knowledge about what Reality really is. I don't know anything about that and don't deny that you might be able to do that in that you Know there was humans in the past, who got Knowledge from God. But I know nothing of the sorts about Knowledge, in effect I believe differently

Now here is it for all claims of what Knowledge have in common and it includes some atheists, some religious people, some scientists, some adherents of a given political ideology and some variants of epistemology within philosophy.
All of them have the following in common: If you continue to ask each of them and examine how they all reason, they all do this: It doesn't make sense to me if reality is different that I Know it. All of them without fail, you need to have some time with, ask them questions, give them examples and so on.
But if you study the books, the Internet and do it yourself will notice that - we all in part do it subjectively. We each reason about how reality makes sense to us individually

So you are neither wrong nor right. Neither am I. We are humans, who try to do life. You can judge me with objective authority and I simply answer: I, Mikkel, don't do that. I don't believe in that, so I assume God made us all so that if we are humble and don't speak in name pf God, but do it indirectly - use the reason., humanity and empathy and look at the world you are in and start there you can still figure it out.

I am a non-revealed deist in combination with some aspects of atheism. I believe in a Creator God, regardless of whether we are in a natural or supernatural reality in the end and no matter that difference, that God is at least so fair, that we have a fighting chance to make a better world.

With regards

PS To deny what you believe, I would have to Know. I don't deny that you can do what you do, I just do it differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. Goddidit (not an explanation, but an assertion of agency)
2. Atheistic naturalism (physics didit?)
3. Unknown.

Q: Is "origin" an appropriate word, given our understanding of theoretical physics?

In the absence of evidence/proof, what is the default position? Wouldn't the reasonable approach be to withhold belief pending evidence?

Philosophical naturalism is as per #2, is if you look closer the same as #1. Agency is in the end but what caused us. #2 is the belief that it is impersonal causation. #1 is the belief of personal causation.
The end problem is the same: What caused us?

As for: "Wouldn't the reasonable approach be to withhold belief pending evidence?" we in practice hit cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. If you want it as for me as a skeptic: When I suspend judgment including about if I can use reason alone. I figure out, I couldn't.
So in effect I can't with reason alone answer it. I answer with evidence(science), reason(suspendment of judgment) and ethics(we all have worth as humans, a core belief).
So to me it might be reasonable that I believe as I do, but I accept you can do it differently.

In short because no word in itself or a combination of words can make up an universal rule of US all, that includes reason. What is reasonable to you, might not be so to me and so in reverse. I am a skeptic.

 

[PureX]

1. Goddidit (not an explanation, but an assertion of agency)[/QUITE]Good point. "God" is just an imaginative characterization of the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of 'what is'. But giving the mystery a 'face' doesn't really solve the mystery.

2. Atheistic naturalism (physics didit?)

Physics is what 'got did'. So that's not a coherent response.

3. Unknown.

True, but it's just restating the question as the answer. Similar to response #1.

Q: Is "origin" an appropriate word, given our understanding of theoretical physics?

Theoretical answers shouldn't be allowed to negate the quest for an actual answer.

In the absence of evidence/proof, what is the default position? Wouldn't the reasonable approach be to withhold belief pending evidence?

Not necessarily. "Evidence" is just experience repeated, shared, and interpreted as fact. It doesn't come to us without our participation. So simply withholding judgement isn't going to gain us any 'evidence'. For that, we need to engage the possibilities.

 

[David T]

No, I don't play the belief game. It's knowledge or nothing.

Whats experience?

 

[viole]

I am skeptic, so I know the problem of giving a definition of God. The problem is the end as some atheists will point out, is that God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence. But that is also the solution and the definition of God. And it isn't mine. The credit belongs to Immanuel Kant.
Now remember the problem of describing God involves, that all human description tend to have a subjective element, so if I remove all subjective elements and only do it objective, with reason and logic, the answer is that God is das Ding an sich.
God has been given many individual definitions, but they all share the following: God is objective, i.e. independent of humans in some sense. What which is independent of your mind is in the western myth of what God is; is the objective reality; i.e. das Ding an sich. But nobody knows that with knowledge. That is Agrippa's Trilemma and the limit of knowledge. What reality is independent of your mind, is unknown to you, because you know reality through your mind and your mind is not independent of your mind.
To some atheists God/das Ding an sich is the natural world. Further to some it is even known as philosophical physicalism, materialism or naturalism. These atheists are gnostics, they know what they can't know. They share that in a similar sense with some religious people, the strong Theists and other variants of gnosticism, not Gnosticism.

We if we indeed share parts of reality and you are not a Boltzmann Brain, then all of us, who engage in this forum have an attitude towards this: Ranging from indifference to a strong dogmatic belief.
We can't really know what das Ding an sich is, yet some of us can't stop debating the objective nature of God and what God really is. The joke is that for all us, who do that, we share the same problem. We speak of the Unknown. The only way to objective speak of the Unknown is to explain, how it is Unknown. I.e. the Unknown is that which is independent of your mind and how that is in itself.
In philosophy it is this:


Kant solved the first part: Das Ding an sich. So if you know your philosophy you only do the second part in practice. In science the second part is methodological naturalism. We start with the assumption that God is natural, impersonal and don't care for humans and accepts there are other assumptions possible.
That is the explanation of this:

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

That won't stop some humans in doing the first part with a claim of knowledge. In practice the falsification of all of these variants regardless of being claimed with science, philosophy and/or religion, is to note the following to that person: We can both get away with subjectively believing differently, so stop claiming a knowledge of what God/das Ding an sich really is. Accept that it is how you make sense of the rest of reality and that I do it differently and then we can start looking at what we apparently share.
Do in practice the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience and you will notice the following: As humans we share some parts as the same, some are similar and others are different.
If you claim, that you can do the individual difference between how you and I individually cope the same, I just answer: No!
Nobody including you, I or anybody else have in practice authority over other humans in the name of the SAME, because I just answer with the difference: No!

With regards

Usually, supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural ones. All of them: from the origins of lightnings, light, the earth, the moon, great apes like ourselves, etc, etc, I am not aware of the contrary to have ever happened. Not even a single case thereof.

So, where would a rational person put its money?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am skeptic, so I know the problem of giving a definition of God. The problem is the end as some atheists will point out, is that God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence. But that is also the solution and the definition of God. And it isn't mine. The credit belongs to Immanuel Kant.
Now remember the problem of describing God involves, that all human description tend to have a subjective element, so if I remove all subjective elements and only do it objective, with reason and logic, the answer is that God is das Ding an sich.
God has been given many individual definitions, but they all share the following: God is objective, i.e. independent of humans in some sense. What which is independent of your mind is in the western myth of what God is; is the objective reality; i.e. das Ding an sich. But nobody knows that with knowledge. That is Agrippa's Trilemma and the limit of knowledge. What reality is independent of your mind, is unknown to you, because you know reality through your mind and your mind is not independent of your mind.
To some atheists God/das Ding an sich is the natural world. Further to some it is even known as philosophical physicalism, materialism or naturalism. These atheists are gnostics, they know what they can't know. They share that in a similar sense with some religious people, the strong Theists and other variants of gnosticism, not Gnosticism.

We if we indeed share parts of reality and you are not a Boltzmann Brain, then all of us, who engage in this forum have an attitude towards this: Ranging from indifference to a strong dogmatic belief.
We can't really know what das Ding an sich is, yet some of us can't stop debating the objective nature of God and what God really is. The joke is that for all us, who do that, we share the same problem. We speak of the Unknown. The only way to objective speak of the Unknown is to explain, how it is Unknown. I.e. the Unknown is that which is independent of your mind and how that is in itself.
In philosophy it is this:


Kant solved the first part: Das Ding an sich. So if you know your philosophy you only do the second part in practice. In science the second part is methodological naturalism. We start with the assumption that God is natural, impersonal and don't care for humans and accepts there are other assumptions possible.
That is the explanation of this:

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

That won't stop some humans in doing the first part with a claim of knowledge. In practice the falsification of all of these variants regardless of being claimed with science, philosophy and/or religion, is to note the following to that person: We can both get away with subjectively believing differently, so stop claiming a knowledge of what God/das Ding an sich really is. Accept that it is how you make sense of the rest of reality and that I do it differently and then we can start looking at what we apparently share.
Do in practice the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience and you will notice the following: As humans we share some parts as the same, some are similar and others are different.
If you claim, that you can do the individual difference between how you and I individually cope the same, I just answer: No!
Nobody including you, I or anybody else have in practice authority over other humans in the name of the SAME, because I just answer with the difference: No!

With regards

Hello, you wrote "God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence".

There are outstanding reasons to believe God exists, and it cannot be that everyone except a few atheists are delusional.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Usually, supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural ones. All of them: from the origins of lightnings, light, the earth, the moon, great apes like ourselves, etc, etc, I am not aware of the contrary to have ever happened. Not even a single case thereof.

So, where would a rational person put its money?

Ciao

- viole

That is a case of cognitive relativism. I.e. what you understand with rational is only true for you and those who think like you. The word is not scientific in itself, it has no objective referent.
I admit I am subjective. You seems to think that rationality is purely objective. It is not. It is cultural and so on.

 

[Darkforbid]

Whats experience?

In relation to what?

 

[David T]

I am skeptic, so I know the problem of giving a definition of God. The problem is the end as some atheists will point out, is that God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence. But that is also the solution and the definition of God. And it isn't mine. The credit belongs to Immanuel Kant.
Now remember the problem of describing God involves, that all human description tend to have a subjective element, so if I remove all subjective elements and only do it objective, with reason and logic, the answer is that God is das Ding an sich.
God has been given many individual definitions, but they all share the following: God is objective, i.e. independent of humans in some sense. What which is independent of your mind is in the western myth of what God is; is the objective reality; i.e. das Ding an sich. But nobody knows that with knowledge. That is Agrippa's Trilemma and the limit of knowledge. What reality is independent of your mind, is unknown to you, because you know reality through your mind and your mind is not independent of your mind.
To some atheists God/das Ding an sich is the natural world. Further to some it is even known as philosophical physicalism, materialism or naturalism. These atheists are gnostics, they know what they can't know. They share that in a similar sense with some religious people, the strong Theists and other variants of gnosticism, not Gnosticism.

We if we indeed share parts of reality and you are not a Boltzmann Brain, then all of us, who engage in this forum have an attitude towards this: Ranging from indifference to a strong dogmatic belief.
We can't really know what das Ding an sich is, yet some of us can't stop debating the objective nature of God and what God really is. The joke is that for all us, who do that, we share the same problem. We speak of the Unknown. The only way to objective speak of the Unknown is to explain, how it is Unknown. I.e. the Unknown is that which is independent of your mind and how that is in itself.
In philosophy it is this:


Kant solved the first part: Das Ding an sich. So if you know your philosophy you only do the second part in practice. In science the second part is methodological naturalism. We start with the assumption that God is natural, impersonal and don't care for humans and accepts there are other assumptions possible.
That is the explanation of this:

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

That won't stop some humans in doing the first part with a claim of knowledge. In practice the falsification of all of these variants regardless of being claimed with science, philosophy and/or religion, is to note the following to that person: We can both get away with subjectively believing differently, so stop claiming a knowledge of what God/das Ding an sich really is. Accept that it is how you make sense of the rest of reality and that I do it differently and then we can start looking at what we apparently share.
Do in practice the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience and you will notice the following: As humans we share some parts as the same, some are similar and others are different.
If you claim, that you can do the individual difference between how you and I individually cope the same, I just answer: No!
Nobody including you, I or anybody else have in practice authority over other humans in the name of the SAME, because I just answer with the difference: No!

With regards

Its not a philosophical topic. Socrates alludes to this in meno. Its not limited to and predates linguistics and is
Most certainly is not related to the newest primative region of the primate brain that develops the intellect. its Far far far older.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hello, you wrote "God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence".

There are outstanding reasons to believe God exists, and it cannot be that everyone except a few atheists are delusional.

Well, now I am not going to be nice.
Someone is delusional if characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
I have a mental disorder. Now apologize. You have just dehumanized me.
Stop being so full of yourself. Atheists are humans. You are a human. I am a human. If there is a personal God, you might want to reconsider. You are judging humans as for their worth as humans. Only God can do that. So you might be going to Hell, if there is one and God doesn't like that you judge other humans as for their human wroth.

Not with regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its not a philosophical topic. Socrates alludes to this in meno. Its not limited to and predates linguistics and is
Most certainly is not related to the newest primative region of the primate brain that develops the intellect. its Far far far older.

Please explain more.

 

[David T]

In relation to what?

Itself

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am skeptic, so I know the problem of giving a definition of God. The problem is the end as some atheists will point out, is that God is unknown, without reason, logic and evidence. But that is also the solution and the definition of God. And it isn't mine. The credit belongs to Immanuel Kant.
Now remember the problem of describing God involves, that all human description tend to have a subjective element, so if I remove all subjective elements and only do it objective, with reason and logic, the answer is that God is das Ding an sich.
God has been given many individual definitions, but they all share the following: God is objective, i.e. independent of humans in some sense. What which is independent of your mind is in the western myth of what God is; is the objective reality; i.e. das Ding an sich. But nobody knows that with knowledge. That is Agrippa's Trilemma and the limit of knowledge. What reality is independent of your mind, is unknown to you, because you know reality through your mind and your mind is not independent of your mind.
To some atheists God/das Ding an sich is the natural world. Further to some it is even known as philosophical physicalism, materialism or naturalism. These atheists are gnostics, they know what they can't know. They share that in a similar sense with some religious people, the strong Theists and other variants of gnosticism, not Gnosticism.

We if we indeed share parts of reality and you are not a Boltzmann Brain, then all of us, who engage in this forum have an attitude towards this: Ranging from indifference to a strong dogmatic belief.
We can't really know what das Ding an sich is, yet some of us can't stop debating the objective nature of God and what God really is. The joke is that for all us, who do that, we share the same problem. We speak of the Unknown. The only way to objective speak of the Unknown is to explain, how it is Unknown. I.e. the Unknown is that which is independent of your mind and how that is in itself.
In philosophy it is this:


Kant solved the first part: Das Ding an sich. So if you know your philosophy you only do the second part in practice. In science the second part is methodological naturalism. We start with the assumption that God is natural, impersonal and don't care for humans and accepts there are other assumptions possible.
That is the explanation of this:

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

That won't stop some humans in doing the first part with a claim of knowledge. In practice the falsification of all of these variants regardless of being claimed with science, philosophy and/or religion, is to note the following to that person: We can both get away with subjectively believing differently, so stop claiming a knowledge of what God/das Ding an sich really is. Accept that it is how you make sense of the rest of reality and that I do it differently and then we can start looking at what we apparently share.
Do in practice the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience and you will notice the following: As humans we share some parts as the same, some are similar and others are different.
If you claim, that you can do the individual difference between how you and I individually cope the same, I just answer: No!
Nobody including you, I or anybody else have in practice authority over other humans in the name of the SAME, because I just answer with the difference: No!

With regards

I don't see how just "declaring" that god is this "objectively real thing that can't be defined properly", somehow solves anything at all.

It's still a poorly defined hodgepodge of supernatural shenannigans with no evidence, no reason, no logic whatsoever to back it up.

No amount of mere words in the form of assertions or declarations is going to change that.

At some point, you're going to have to cross that river and come up with some independent objective evidence to power this idea. Unless that happens, it is to be shelved with all other (potentially infinite) unfalsifiable claims one could make about reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

"God did it" is, far as I can tell, a simple statement that one does not know or care whether something has an origin that can be logically understood, but nonetheless wants to declare that thing to have a supernatural origin for whatever reason.

Not a very healthy habit IMO.

 

[Darkforbid]

Itself

? Haven't you got Google!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can't all be correct knowledge, because logic tells us that for e.g. all God is, God can't be X and non-X and so on.
So for all the versions only one could be true.

OR, all are wrong, off course.

But there is a limit to this kind of logic. Let me show you:
The moon is made of cheese or the moon is made of styrofoam.
One of them is false per logic and therefor the other is true, right?!!

No. They can also both be wrong.
Why would you think one HAS to be true?

Talk about a false dichotomy....

So here it is in the amendment version for 3 categories:

1. I Know there is a supernatural world and not a natural world.
2. I Know there is a natural world and not a supernatural world.
3. I know neither claim as knowledge.

4. I know there is a natural world. I have no clue about a supernatural world and no reason to believe there is one. I also wouldn't know why anyone would even suggest such a world.

Look closer. For 1 and 2 one of them is without knowledge, but doesn't that mean that other one is true. There is the 3rd option, that is unknown and it has the following going for it in its favor. It is not evidence per se.

There's also secret option nr 4, which doesn't include false dichotomies.

I once heard it expressed in the following strong sense. Only strong atheists are a part of reality. But then everybody else would die of stupidity or kill each other, but that is not observable for the everyday world.

Ow, i dunno.

Dieing as a suicide bomber seems pretty stupid though.
Or killing by fire for witchcraft.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you deny that God has revealed at least some of who he is to humans, and that those humans speak with authority about that experience ?

You do that to, concerning all revelations of rival religions, don't you?

 

[David T]

Please explain more.

The poorest and most worthless aspect of religion really is theology and apologetics. I tend to say "i have a degree in theology, its worthless in application to the bible, its a great psych tool for the development of the intellect over the last 2,000 years".
Thats a very very limited narrow region of the human brain.

I am not here on RF to convert anyone.l, but rather why the topic is so muddled and how i can better express my own Experiences. Personally i am more like John Muir who isnt afraid to interject religious language into his experience of nature. That really is the only healthy way to understand religion as far as i can tell. Where nature and religious experience is aligined. Religion tends to be severely book bound and isnt healthy. But, thats, books imformation, culture, in general.

Notice, i slid into psycholgy, but isnt psychology at the same time. That too can be problematic.