I can not see it, so it does not exist

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is an objective fact that I do not take your demands for evidence seriously. The subjective part is that that particular state of not taking you seriously is contingent on my existence.

Objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. That you don't take it seriously is not objective as it is a personal interpretation.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Your seriously is not independent of individual thought and not perceptible.
-having reality independent of the mind. Your seriously is not independent of your mind.

 

[ppp]

Objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. That you don't take it seriously is not objective as it is a personal interpretation.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Your seriously is not independent of individual thought and not perceptible.
-having reality independent of the mind. Your seriously is not independent of your mind.

It is an objective fact that I do not take your demands for evidence seriously. The subjective part is that that particular state of not taking you seriously is contingent on my existence.

If you are going try to rebuke me for a position, don't provide a definition that restates what I just said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is an objective fact that I do not take your demands for evidence seriously. The subjective part is that that particular state of not taking you seriously is contingent on my existence.

If you are going try to rebuke me for a position, don't provide a definition that restates what I just said.

So that you don't take something seriously is objective as gravity. Got you!

 

[ppp]

So that you don't take something seriously is objective as gravity. Got you!

Are you just saying random stuff?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you just saying random stuff?

Yes, just as you subjectively wrote that based on your subjective understanding of my post.

 

[ppp]

Yes, just as you subjectively wrote that based on your subjective understanding of my post.

Have a lovely day, Mikkel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have a lovely day, Mikkel.

How subjective of you. Now you are not as objective as you believe. So please explain how "seriously" are in terms of external sensory experience and what scientific measurement standard it is measured in and what branch of science it is a part and what scientific theories it is covered by?

You see, I get what it requires to go objective and you haven't met that standard.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well to take your example, a person who doesn't know that God exist, but is curious would search evidence that there is a God. If they find no evidence where one would expect to find some that's evidence of abscence. In such a situation, there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Alternatively, they could find no evidence at all (either for or against the existence of God) and remain in the dark on this subject. A person in that situation can either keep on living as if there were none or live as if there were one with a certain set of characteristics.

No there isn't.

There is only evidence that you have failed in your search.

Let's use gamma radiation as an analogy.

Aside from the Incredible Hulk where gamma radiation is intense green and bright, I'm pretty sure I heard that gamma radiation is invisible. Completely so. So, you could make a concerted effort on all the nuclear places or wherever trying to "look" for it. "I didn't see it, so it must not exist!" 50 years later you get cancer.

Why can't we see God? Well a cursory glance through the Bible explains this.
First of all, we have God the Father, who is a spiritual being. This God created the universe, and is not only undivided but by the definition above, part of the very fabric of the universe. It's like a dot painting, unless you back up, you can't see what you are looking for, and there's no guarantee your eyes will see God.
Then we have God the Holy Spirit, which unlike God the Father is a decentralized aspect, basically the spirit of God inside us. Our souls. If you don't believe in a soul, you will again never see this.
Finally, we have Jesus, the personification of God. You would think of Jesus as one particular person, but as far as we cqn see this only happened once in history. Jesus describes himself instead as the least of these. So cranky person that you meet on the street. Jesus is the God we meet, but most of us don't notice Jesus.

As you can see, none of these descriptions match a God that regular people can just wander around aimlessly and find. But like the gamma radiation, you proven absolutely nothing by not seeing God, except that you don't know how to look.

Does finding God solve all your problems? Not at all, I'm still as depressed as always. In fact, I'm more depressed now than before as it seems most of his followers have turned their backs on God. So why search for God? The only answer is if you actually want a relationship with God. If don't, be honest that you never really tried to meet God, and this "proof" isn't proof. If you were committed to finding God, strange things would begin to happen to you.

 

[blü 2]

I can't replicate that the world is physical.

I suspect I don't understand what you just said.

Grateful for your fuller explanation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suspect I don't understand what you just said.

Grateful for your fuller explanation.

You somewhere before claimed that we share that the world is physical. I can't repeat that. I end up with non-reductive emergent properties which are caused by the physical but can't be reduced to the physical. In short non-reductive physicalism.

 

[ppp]

No there isn't.

There is only evidence that you have failed in your search.

Let's use gamma radiation as an analogy.

We have found gamma radiation. We can detect and quantify it reliably and unambiguously. We can demonstrate it to others. They don't even have to believe it exists prior to that demonstration.

None of that is true for God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You know what? Religion is not just the caricature you made it out to be. Now solve the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon, Agrippa's 5 tropes for justification and just for fun reduce everything down to being objective and physical as totally independent of the mind including the mind, then I will listen to you. Now for a bonus show that there is objective morality and that objectivity and rationality work on everything.

And while you are at it, prove these assumptions:

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

I don't need to "prove" any of those things in order to use the abstract items I can gain from them. "Nature" or "phenomena" or "experience" - all accumulated as knowledge and understanding that can be applied toward future like-interactions. Does it matter "how" it all works? It's an interesting thought exercise, to be sure - but you're going to HAVE TO develop some basis of knowledge/experience/trust in the environs you ACTUALLY COME IN CONTACT WITH in order to survive. You don't really have a choice. Religion, however? Choices abound... and from what I have seen, it doesn't really matter at all what choice you make. That's the hallmark of something that simply doesn't matter in the slightest. May as well be choosing a favorite color. Oh, except that one, minor detail whereby other foolishly deluded human beings will try and harm or kill you based on the "color" you have chosen as your favorite. Literally the ONLY reason your selection of religion matters - the fact that other people are too dumb to leave one another alone about it.

And you failed to even address the entirely true statement I made in my post. That I could teach my child fairy tales, give them exactly the same amount of "Evidence" as religious adherents give their children when the tell them the CRAP they do about their beliefs, and they might believe me in the same way that children of religious folk might believe them. I don't need to form a caricature of religion. Religion is no more than a caricature in the first place.

 

[blü 2]

You somewhere before claimed that we share that the world is physical. I can't repeat that. I end up with non-reductive emergent properties which are caused by the physical but can't be reduced to the physical. In short non-reductive physicalism.

A complete reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

The impossibility of reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

A credible alternative to reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

Since reductionism is the only credible possibility on the table, I'm happy to run with it as a basis until the contrary is shown.

And be careful of the word 'emergent' ─ it's frequently employed as a woo term. There's not a single authenticated case of magic in the whole of known reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't need to "prove" any of those things in order to use the abstract items I can gain from them. "Nature" or "phenomena" or "experience" - all accumulated as knowledge and understanding that can be applied toward future like-interactions. Does it matter "how" it all works? It's an interesting thought exercise, to be sure - but you're going to HAVE TO develop some basis of knowledge/experience/trust in the environs you ACTUALLY COME IN CONTACT WITH in order to survive. You don't really have a choice. Religion, however? Choices abound... and from what I have seen, it doesn't really matter at all what choice you make. That's the hallmark of something that simply doesn't matter in the slightest. May as well be choosing a favorite color. Oh, except that one, minor detail whereby other foolishly deluded human beings will try and harm or kill you based on the "color" you have chosen as your favorite. Literally the ONLY reason your selection of religion matters - the fact that other people are too dumb to leave one another alone about it.

And you failed to even address the entirely true statement I made in my post. That I could teach my child fairy tales, give them exactly the same amount of "Evidence" as religious adherents give their children when the tell them the CRAP they do about their beliefs, and they might believe me in the same way that children of religious folk might believe them. I don't need to form a caricature of religion. Religion is no more than a caricature in the first place.

Okay, remove religion and only use science. Well, you run into that science can't do morality, politics and useful. Religion is in practice a world-view, but it doesn't matter in this context, because humans don't fight because they are religious. They fight because they are humans. And the problem of the "right" color would still be there as morality, politics and useful.
So yes, we can remove religion, but that doesn't change the human condition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A complete reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

The impossibility of reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

A credible alternative to reductionism hasn't been demonstrated.

Since reductionism is the only credible possibility on the table, I'm happy to run with it as a basis until the contrary is shown.

And be careful of the word 'emergent' ─ it's frequently employed as a woo term. There's not a single authenticated case of magic in the whole of known reality.

Emergent as the feeling of wet in regards to water.
Now if you can do all of these debate in purely physical terms, I will listen, but you can't.

So your idea in regards to reductionism, that we should believe, that we can, despite we can't, I can use. There is a God in the same sense. I am not willing to give up on that. That is the effect of your argument. You have made a believer argument.

I once had this debate about objective morality. We couldn't rule it out complete, therefore we should accept it. We can't rule God out completely, therefore we should accept God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, the problem is that "the idea itself" is not empirical, but rather prescriptive

No, it isn't. The idea itself is tested by applying empirical methodology to try and solve problems and observe its results and compare to other methodologies.

And what we observe is that the method is quite succesfull in coming up with accurate answers. It has an awesome trackrecord in finding out how the world works. There's no other methodology that comes even close in matching its continued success. Not to my knowledge at least

It is a rule about how you ought to behave when you claim knowledge.

No. It's a method of inquiry to help and obtain independendly verifiable knowledge. Usefull knowledge.

And some people don't get the limit of that rule.

Spare us your usual solopsism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Usefull knowledge.
...

Evidence of that please.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Okay, remove religion and only use science. Well, you run into that science can't do morality, politics and useful. Religion is in practice a world-view, but it doesn't matter in this context, because humans don't fight because they are religious. They fight because they are humans. And the problem of the "right" color would still be there as morality, politics and useful.
So yes, we can remove religion, but that doesn't change the human condition.

Again... I am looking for REPRODUCIBILITY. Even you have to admit that our notions of morality, and our attempts to implement rules/laws/regulations surrounding it are at least somewhat quantifiable, and given the nature of humanity we can expect certain results, or at least ascertain them and theorize causes when the effects/results do come to fruition. In other words, ACTUAL THINGS happen in the REAL WORLD depending on our choices and we can analyze those and hopefully adopt better predictive models based on our findings. Same with politics. And what is this "useful" you keep mentioning. You can't just say "science doesn't do useful." What does that mean?

 

[blü 2]

Emergent as the feeling of wet in regards to water.
Now if you can do all of these debate in purely physical terms, I will listen, but you can't.

I've never understood what the fuss over qualia was about.

You remember Arnie in Terminator 1? A scene where we looked out through his machine eyes at a reddened world, while down the LHS of the view scrolled rows of figures representing the data about his environment?

Well 'qualia' are just our evolved biological equivalent of those figures, our interpretive response to our own sensory input. The alternative would be Arnie's vastly less efficient system.

So your idea in regards to reductionism, that we should believe, that we can, despite we can't, I can use.

What's the alternative? To make things up, like fairies and dragons and gods and wishing wells?

There is a God in the same sense.

No there's not, not a real one, anyway. I can show you running water and you can dip your hand it for the sensation, if you wish. But you can't show me your god because [he] only exists in your head.

Mind you, that may be an evolved reaction, something H sap sap is inclined to do, a factor that helps tribal solidarity, along with a common language, customs and stories. The history of the Thirty Years War shows this vividly, God as the symbol / deity / protector / cause of each combatant tribe. The fact that it was also about power and money doesn't detract from the fact it was framed throughout in terms of religion.

I am not willing to give up on that. That is the effect of your argument. You have made a believer argument.

But I'm able to identify what I believe and why I believe it, and tell you in plain words.

Whereas you can't tell me in plain words about a real God, because there's no concept of a real god.

Otherwise I'd be able to determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not.

I once had this debate about objective morality. We couldn't rule it out complete, therefore we should accept it. We can't rule God out completely, therefore we should accept God.

We have a considered understanding of human morality. I think I've mentioned before that we're born with an evolved set of moral tendencies ─ infant nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved to have empathy and to have a conscience. The rest of our morality comes from our upbringing, culture, education and experience. The research is there to back it.

As for 'objective morality', just as there are no absolutes, there are no moral absolutes. 'Good' means beneficial to me or to people and causes I support. 'Bad' means detriment to me or the people and causes I support. (Check the Thirty Years War again for vivid examples.) We ─ or many of us ─ go out of our way for the conservation of attractive or impressive animals; but we wouldn't give a plugged nickel if rats or boll weevils suddenly vanished, and no other species would give a plugged nickel if we suddenly vanished ─ well, maybe some pets and some farm animals, but that wouldn't outlive the generation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again... I am looking for REPRODUCIBILITY. Even you have to admit that our notions of morality, and our attempts to implement rules/laws/regulations surrounding it are at least somewhat quantifiable, and given the nature of humanity we can expect certain results, or at least ascertain them and theorize causes when the effects/results do come to fruition. In other words, ACTUAL THINGS happen in the REAL WORLD depending on our choices and we can analyze those and hopefully adopt better predictive models based on our findings. Same with politics. And what is this "useful" you keep mentioning. You can't just say "science doesn't do useful." What does that mean?

You can't observe useful. It is subjective like good and bad.