Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

To be fair, PureX, near the beginning of this thread I asked you several times to provide a methodology which you will be using to present your case. You had every opportunity to offer your own suggestions and you refused to do it. So please don't now start crying about how selfish it is of us to use the scientific method in order to establish the validity of your claims.

Before we continue, let's put a stop to something right now. I was not "crying" about anything. And if we're going to have a discussion, we need to stop using this sort of insulting language right now, because all it will do is cause an escalation of insults until it kills any hope of an actual discussion. Secondly, I did not use the term "selfish", I used the term subjective. There is a big difference. I do not view you as being in any way "selfish" for adhering so strongly to your own views. I was simply noting that this is in itself a subjective reaction.

Also, your objection to objectivism is a bit...ahem...objectionable. We are, after all, trying to determine whether or not your abstration fits with objective reality - a reality independent of the mind. Your confusion regarding objectivity and objectivism, which are not the same by far, is also not very encouraging. So to clear up the confusion (I hope), here is what we expect of you, when we refer to objectivity:

Your objection is noted, but I am not trying to determine whether or not the idea of God fits with objective reality - a reality independent of the mind. Nor am I willing to allow you to dictate terms to me.

For one thing, whatever reality exists independent of the mind is a moot point, because you and I will never know of it. I have no interest in pursuing a question that I can never gain an answer to. My interest is with the idea of God as it relates to the reality that I can and do experience. I am interested in the existence of God in the same way as I am interested in the existence of anything else. That is: does the idea correspond to my experience of actual reality. That is the reality that I do experience and can "understand" to the degree that we humans understand anything. And so far the answer is "yes". Reality does correspond in some important instances to the idea of God that I have adopted. So now the question for me becomes how thoroughly does it correspond, etc., etc.

 

[Commoner]

Your objection is noted, but I am not trying to determine whether or not the idea of God fits with objective reality - a reality independent of the mind. Nor am I willing to allow you to dictate terms to me.

I'm simply telling you what I (and probably some othes in this thread) would perceive as a convincing argument. Isn't that pretty much the whole point of arguing something? You might feel that my "terms" are unreasonable, but they are just as mandatory for me as they are for you if we are to come to any sort of conclusion regarding this matter. I can't really decide on a whim what I find reasonable and what I don't.

For one thing, whatever reality exists independent of the mind is a moot point, because you and I will never know of it. I have no interest in pursuing a question that I can never gain an answer to. My interest is with the idea of God as it relates to the reality that I can and do experience. I am interested in the existence of God in the same way as I am interested in the existence of anything else. That is: does the idea correspond to my experience of actual reality. That is the reality that I do experience and can "understand" to the degree that we humans understand anything. And so far the answer is "yes". Reality does correspond in some important instances to the idea of God that I have adopted. So now the question for me becomes how thoroughly does it correspond, etc., etc.

I would not ask you to prove an objective reality. It is simply a basic assumption that allows us to have any sort of meaningful discussion regarding anything. Without agreeing on that, I don't think there's anything more to be said really.

But you're still not really on the same page as I am. I don't think the question of an objective reality is relevant to our discussion. I agree, we are assessing the concept of god as it relates to the reality we understand to the degree of our limited knowledge, I would never try to argue anything else. But there is a distinction to be made between the subjective and the objective non the less, between that which is impartial and that which is not. That is an unavoidable step in assessing whether or not your proposition is valid. I'm sure you'll agree that many concepts we both hold as true are counterintuitive and would therefore probably be considered false, if we relied solely on a subjective point of view. People are demonstrably bad at distinguishuing correlation and causation and simply must consult the principles of logic, science and reason to have any hope of coming to accurate conclusions.

When you say that "Reality does correspond in some important instances to the idea of God that I have adopted", I don't question that at all. But that does not make your idea valid yet. Not only do I feel justified in being skeptical, I feel that you should be skeptical as well. What you have is a single data point , if you will, that shows a correlation between your idea of god and reality. I can say without any doubt, having the arguments you've presented in mind, that you are incorrectly concluding causation (that is, not that "it cannot be so", but that you have no grounds for making any such conclusion). It is not that I don't consider your arguments as evidence because it is your "subjective experience". I would not consider your arguments as evidence even if the experiences were my own. Do you understand my objections?

 

[Vile Atheist]

What is interesting, here, is how easily and automatically you presume that you have been charged with defining the rules of evidence according to your own nature - a clearly subjective action, while you simaltaneously claim objectivism to be a sacred and unassailable characteristic of logic, reason, and reality.

But let's play along ...

Do you disagree with that methodology for demonstrating something to be objectively true? Does it not show causal relationships?

Neither does my statement. Anyone who knew me at the time will attest to the fact that I was hopelessly addicted to drinking alcohol before going to AA and surrendering my addiction to their "higher power" and that I stopped drinking that very day and have not had a drink, since. And frankly, I resent the implication that I need witnesses, as though I am to be considered self-deluded until proven otherwise simply because YOU have not experienced this reality of God.

I never implied you needed witnesses. But I'm saying explicitly you need objective evidence because if you had objective evidence, we wouldn't necessarily need to experience God to know it to be true.

At this point, many millions of human beings have been healed and saved by their surrender to this God ideal. And only a small minority of human beings are making the claim that this is self-delusion. YOU are in the minority, here. Yet you presume that all those many millions of other people are deluding themselves, while your small minority of atheists are the unbiased ones. When it's very clear to me and anyone who can read these posts that you are certainly biased against subjectivism, as well as religion.

Appeal to numbers all you wish. The validity and veracity of a statement does not depend on the number of its adherents. If we are to go by your logic, atheism/agnosticism (weak atheism) is the largest single belief system. There are no denominations within atheism/agnosticism. But there are within religions. This makes atheism the largest single denomination of any religious stripe (if we are to consider for the sake of argument that atheism is a "religion").

I mean, it would be unfair to say "Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination (Islam is split into Shia/Sunni). Therefore it is correct." While discounting the fact there are more atheists than Roman Catholics when you're comparing atheism vs. theism. So by your very own illogic, atheism is the largest single "partition" (we'll call it that for neutrality).

So your own logical fallacy not only evident, it actually works against you. Good job.

Let's enter the second part of what you said. "Delude". I don't recall ever using the word "delude". So this is a strawman on your part. You don't even know my position on this before you attacked it. But I'll clarify and tell you my position.

The human mind is a powerful tool and there are psychological processes it uses to deal with certain situations. The fact we're more likely to mistake a shadow for a burglar instead of a burglar for a shadow demonstrates that. We become scared of the shadow, thinking it MIGHT be a burglar and we may take measures to prepare to self-defend. This ensures our survival. Obviously the position is more complex than that, but I don't want to delve into an hour-long lecture on these mind processes. I think religion is simply a combination of these processes that help people cope with situations. Organized religion is simply the manipulation of these processes.

I don't think religious people are deluded. I simply think that their minds are going through perfectly sane processes that - for at least some theists - get the better of their critical thinking capacity. But now that I've deconstructed your strawman and actually told you what I think on this particular matter, I wonder if you'll change your pitch.

And the third charge you level against me is that I'm biased against subjectivity and religion. First, how can anyone be biased against subjectivity? This is one of the most illogical things I've ever heard in my life. Everyone has a myriad of subjective opinions. I like pizza. I like the Toronto Maple Leafs. But that doesn't necessarily mean that pizza tastes good or that the Toronto Maple Leafs aren't absolute garbage.

But when it comes to showing evidence for something, the value of objectivity is that it can show that a statement is true in all cases for everyone. If I am to turn my subjective opinions into objective ones, I need to provide physical evidence.

That would be difficult for pizza, but not impossible. For the Leafs, you can compare games played, goals scored, cups won (before 1970....), save percentage, penalty minutes, and you can rate the Leafs the best NHL team in terms of something specific. "The Leafs have scored more goals per game than any other team in the NHL." (HA! I wish!).

You can't merely declare your subjective opinion is that the Leafs have scored more goals per game than any other NHL team and say "It works for me". Hell, that'd REALLY work for me. But that doesn't make it true. You need evidence.

Besides, are you suggesting that 2.3% to 11.9% of the world has never had difficulty with their lives? They have never had moments of hopelessness and adversity? And that's the sole reason why they haven't turned to God? I don't mean to denigrate your experiences, but don't delude yourself (NOW I'm using the word "delude") into thinking your experience is entirely unique and that all who overcome it need to do so with the aid of a supposedly subjective higher power.

Anyway, sorry for butting in, CM.

No need to apologize. On the contrary, thanks for offering that great definition of objectivity.

 

[PureX]

I'm simply telling you what I (and probably some othes in this thread) would perceive as a convincing argument. Isn't that pretty much the whole point of arguing something? You might feel that my "terms" are unreasonable, but they are just as mandatory for me as they are for you if we are to come to any sort of conclusion regarding this matter. I can't really decide on a whim what I find reasonable and what I don't.

I understand, and this is where we will have to begin the discussion.

I would not ask you to prove an objective reality. It is simply a basic assumption that allows us to have any sort of meaningful discussion regarding anything. Without agreeing on that, I don't think there's anything more to be said really.

I agree that reality extends beyond my perception of it. And likely always will. I do not agree, however, that for a phenomenon to be considered "real" that it MUST extend beyond my perception of it, or exist outside my perception of it in some way, as seems to be implied by what I am labeling your 'criteria of objectivity'. There are just too many important phenomena in our lives that do not meet this criteria, and I cannot exempt them from my/our reality based on such a trite and arbitrary criteria.

I agree, we are assessing the concept of god as it relates to the reality we understand to the degree of our limited knowledge, I would never try to argue anything else. But there is a distinction to be made between the subjective and the objective non the less, between that which is impartial and that which is not. That is an unavoidable step in assessing whether or not your proposition is valid.

I think this is exactly where our discussion begins. I do not believe, and I think modern science would agree with me, that our impartiality depends upon the object-ness of the phenomena being studies. Our impartiality depends on our honesty and diligence in collecting information and in drawing conclusions from the information we collect. It also rests somewhat on the predictability of our interactions with the subject phenomena. It needs to be clearly understood that what we are doing here, in this discussion/debate, is NOT SCIENCE. It is philosophy, and a sub-category of philosophy, theology. However, even that being said, what we are engaged in is a form of philosophical improvisation, rather than a formal, classic philosophical debate.

I don't know enough about classical philosophical debate to pose a serious argument, and to be able to stay within the strict guidelines of such a debate. Nor am I interested in doing so. I find nothing so boring and pointless as classical philosophy.

I'm sure you'll agree that many concepts we both hold as true are counterintuitive and would therefore probably be considered false, if we relied solely on a subjective point of view. People are demonstrably bad at distinguishuing correlation and causation and simply must consult the principles of logic, science and reason to have any hope of coming to accurate conclusions.

That being said, we also must understand what those words mean, and that they are not interchangeable. Logic can very easily lead one to a false conclusion. Reasoning is simply the method our minds used to get from "A" to "C". And science is only applicable to questions of HOW a phenomena occurs, but does not apply to questions of the existence of the phenomena, itself. So although these terms are relevant to our thought and discussion, they are not the sacred guideposts that a lot of people make them out to be.

When you say that "Reality does correspond in some important instances to the idea of God that I have adopted", I don't question that at all. But that does not make your idea valid yet.

I agree, in that it is not "proof". But it IS EVIDENCE in support of such a proposition. And that must be recognized. I have never claimed to be able to offer anyone proof of the existence of God. Only that there is evidence.

Not only do I feel justified in being skeptical, I feel that you should be skeptical as well.

I am.

What you have is a single data point , if you will, that shows a correlation between your idea of god and reality.

What I have is a verifiable, repeatable interaction with/experience of reality that is based solely on the idea of God, and that borders on the miraculous. This is far more than a single data point.

I can say without any doubt, having the arguments you've presented in mind, that you are incorrectly concluding causation (that is, not that "it cannot be so", but that you have no grounds for making any such conclusion). It is not that I don't consider your arguments as evidence because it is your "subjective experience". I would not consider your arguments as evidence even if the experiences were my own. Do you understand my objections?

You'll have to back them up.

 

[PureX]

Do you disagree with that methodology for demonstrating something to be objectively true? Does it not show causal relationships?

I'm not in contention with the method, I'm in contention with the use of it, because I'm not seeking "objective truth" in this instance. I am simply seeking truth. This includes both objective and subjective evidence.

I never implied you needed witnesses. But I'm saying explicitly you need objective evidence because if you had objective evidence, we wouldn't necessarily need to experience God to know it to be true.

I understand. But that just isn't the way it is.

Appeal to numbers all you wish. The validity and veracity of a statement does not depend on the number of its adherents. If we are to go by your logic, atheism/agnosticism (weak atheism) is the largest single belief system. There are no denominations within atheism/agnosticism. But there are within religions. This makes atheism the largest single denomination of any religious stripe (if we are to consider for the sake of argument that atheism is a "religion").

I mean, it would be unfair to say "Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination (Islam is split into Shia/Sunni). Therefore it is correct." While discounting the fact there are more atheists than Roman Catholics when you're comparing atheism vs. theism. So by your very own illogic, atheism is the largest single "partition" (we'll call it that for neutrality).

So your own logical fallacy not only evident, it actually works against you. Good job.

The appeal to numbers is valid, when human experience stands as evidence. Which is why you have just yourself used the appeal to numbers. *haha* And by the way, I don't believe your numbers at all. Every statistic I've ever heard of has the vast majority of human beings believing in a deity of some kind. Atheists make up only a tiny fraction of our human population.

Let's enter the second part of what you said. "Delude". I don't recall ever using the word "delude". So this is a strawman on your part. You don't even know my position on this before you attacked it. But I'll clarify and tell you my position.

I stand corrected, here, and I apologize, too. I did jump to a conclusion about your position and that was wrong.

The human mind is a powerful tool and there are psychological processes it uses to deal with certain situations. The fact we're more likely to mistake a shadow for a burglar instead of a burglar for a shadow demonstrates that. We become scared of the shadow, thinking it MIGHT be a burglar and we may take measures to prepare to self-defend. This ensures our survival. Obviously the position is more complex than that, but I don't want to delve into an hour-long lecture on these mind processes. I think religion is simply a combination of these processes that help people cope with situations. Organized religion is simply the manipulation of these processes.

I've said this before and I'll say it again ... you're a good writer.

But I don't follow your point, here. I agree that the idea of God is probably most often born in fear, by necessity, and presents the holder with a psychological mechanism to help them deal with that fear. But I don't see how this makes the idea of God, or the reality God, and less viable. In fact, I see this phenomena as evidence in favor of the reality of God. And I don't understand why you would take such evidence as evidence AGAINST the reality of God when clearly it's an example of the god-idea working for people in their lives.

I don't think religious people are deluded. I simply think that their minds are going through perfectly sane processes that - for at least some theists - get the better of their critical thinking capacity. But now that I've deconstructed your strawman and actually told you what I think on this particular matter, I wonder if you'll change your pitch.

There is no need to change my position, here, as you have not sufficiently deconstructed anything. All I see is a biased opinion being stated. I see no undeniable deconstruction of my position, rendering it non-viable.

And the third charge you level against me is that I'm biased against subjectivity and religion. First, how can anyone be biased against subjectivity? This is one of the most illogical things I've ever heard in my life. Everyone has a myriad of subjective opinions. I like pizza. I like the Toronto Maple Leafs. But that doesn't necessarily mean that pizza tastes good or that the Toronto Maple Leafs aren't absolute garbage.

You are biased against subjectivism in that you don't take it seriously, because you can't control it.

But we should probably not go down this road. I don't want to fall into an insult-fest. I believe that we are ALL biased. I believe that we are the LAST people to recognize our own biases. I will point them out to you when I think I see them, and I have no problem if you should wish to do the same for me. I don't take it as an insult if you should call one of my positions biased. In fact I would take the criticism seriously and see if I could see in myself what you're seeing. But we need not dwell on this aspect of ourselves. Just assume it's there and keep moving, would be my thought on it.

But when it comes to showing evidence for something, the value of objectivity is that it can show that a statement is true in all cases for everyone. If I am to turn my subjective opinions into subjective ones, I need to provide physical evidence.

No statement is true in all cases for everyone. So you are WAY overestimating what your criteria of objectivity can do.

That would be difficult for pizza, but not impossible. For the Leafs, you can compare games played, goals scored, cups won (before 1970....), save percentage, penalty minutes, and you can rate the Leafs the best NHL team in terms of something specific. "The Leafs have scored more goals per game than any other team in the NHL." (HA! I wish!).

You can't merely declare your subjective opinion is that the Leafs have scored more goals per game than any other NHL team and say "It works for me". Hell, that'd REALLY work for me. But that doesn't make it true. You need evidence.

Besides, are you suggesting that 2.3% to 11.9% of the world has never had difficulty with their lives? They have never had moments of hopelessness and adversity? And that's the sole reason why they haven't turned to God? I don't mean to denigrate your experiences, but don't delude yourself (NOW I'm using the word "delude") into thinking your experience is entirely unique and that all who overcome it need to do so with the aid of a supposedly subjective higher power.

All I was suggesting is that a non-god believer (an atheist) will not turn to God in a crisis because he doesn't believe there is a God there to turn to. Therefor, he will not experience the "reality" of God in his crisis.

Therefor, for an atheist to turn to God and experience the reality of God, his NON-god paradigm must be broken, so that he can turn to the idea of "God" as the only available alternative to his failed "atheism". And that will naturally take a major life crisis.

I was never suggesting that atheists don't have their struggle with life. I was only pointing out that for an atheist to experience the reality of God, his atheism will have to be broken, first, so that he can then finally surrender to the idea of God and experience the results. That break is going to require a very serious disaster in his life. That's all I'm saying. And until that happens, he will continue on being his own "highest power". And believing that he has all that is needed to live a successful life within him.

And maybe he does. I don't know. Maybe he will never need to turn to the idea of God. And he will never need to have the reality of God heal him and save him from life's disasters that are stronger than he is. But none of this negates my own experience of God. I WAS broken. I did turn to the idea of God with all the doubts of any other atheist, because there was nothing else I could do in that moment. I surrendered to that idea, and I was healed and saved by the reality of that idea.

Object-ness has nothing to do with any of this. And that's why I don't accept it as a criteria for truth in this discussion.

 

[Commoner]

I agree that reality extends beyond my perception of it. And likely always will. I do not agree, however, that for a phenomenon to be considered "real" that it MUST extend beyond my perception of it, or exist outside my perception of it in some way, as seems to be implied by what I am labeling your 'criteria of objectivity'. There are just too many important phenomena in our lives that do not meet this criteria, and I cannot exempt them from my/our reality based on such a trite and arbitrary criteria.

There is not one such thing, PureX. What are these things that you claim do not meet my criteria? Love? There is a distinction to be made between love as an emotional response and "love" we use as metaphore. The emotional response can be studied objectively, it is predictable and demonstrable. That is not to say we know everything there is to know about it (or any part of our mind), but its existence in that sense is not an issue. Your affinity for art is also demonstrable. When you see something you like, certain predictable things happen in your brain. The same is true for the oposite. Many of us like Chopin, but that is not evidence of some mystical power of art, existing in some mystical realm. It's evidence only that we have preferences and that many of us share the same preferences. And it is evidence that certain combinations of sounds and images and smells and tastes produce certain responses in our brains. As much as you'd like there to be something "more" to it, there simply isn't. We are the ones who make it significant, because we perceive it as significant. That's it. So I do not accept your criticism, but will be happy to hear an example of what you meant, if I have missed something. But love, justice, art, and things like that are not in the same ballpark as the concept of god.

I think this is exactly where our discussion begins. I do not believe, and I think modern science would agree with me, that our impartiality depends upon the object-ness of the phenomena being studies. Our impartiality depends on our honesty and diligence in collecting information and in drawing conclusions from the information we collect. It also rests somewhat on the predictability of our interactions with the subject phenomena.

No one here has ever claimed such a thing, you're the only one making this point over and over again. No one ever asked you to produce a strand of god's hair. We are objecting only to the unbiased conclusions you make from the arguments and experiences you present. Please stop with this argument as it really is missing the point completely.

It needs to be clearly understood that what we are doing here, in this discussion/debate, is NOT SCIENCE. It is philosophy, and a sub-category of philosophy, theology. However, even that being said, what we are engaged in is a form of philosophical improvisation, rather than a formal, classic philosophical debate.

The format of the debate in no way changes anything. Your ideas are either valid or invalid, no matter what you decide to call it. "Science" doesn't even enter into it. My standards might rely somewhat on the knowledge of scientific methodology, but I'm far from demanding any actual science to be done here. It is simply the heuristic I use to judge anything. A streak of red lights, was it coincidence or is there a reason for it? A dream that came true, is there a reason for it? Running into my old classmate minutes after having reminisced about the good old days.

I simply use the method that gives the most accurate results. Changing my standars to fit the particular claim defeats their purpose - objectivity, impartiallity, accuracy, real results.

I don't know enough about classical philosophical debate to pose a serious argument, and to be able to stay within the strict guidelines of such a debate. Nor am I interested in doing so. I find nothing so boring and pointless as classical philosophy.
That being said, we also must understand what those words mean, and that they are not interchangeable. Logic can very easily lead one to a false conclusion. Reasoning is simply the method our minds used to get from "A" to "C". And science is only applicable to questions of HOW a phenomena occurs, but does not apply to questions of the existence of the phenomena, itself. So although these terms are relevant to our thought and discussion, they are not the sacred guideposts that a lot of people make them out to be.

It's really quite disturbing to see you try and diminish logic and reason time and time again. You're incorrect in claiming logic does not apply to questions of existence (a trivial and easily demonstrable example - a round square). It will tell you, without a doubt, when something is a logical consequence of something else, when it is not, when something is sufficient for something else and when it is not. In that respect logic is infallible - if it is not, if logic can simply stop working, then we are impotent in saying anything true about our existence. If one can show something cannot logically follow from the original assumption, that invalidates your argument. Not the truth of your claims, your argument. If you claim god is real, but can only present arguments that are illogical, your claim is baseless. That does not make god real or not real, but it renders your argument useless - therefore, we cannot make the conclusion that your claim is valid. Before even attempting to establish the truth value of your claims, we must establish if your assumptions are reasonable.

I agree, in that it is not "proof". But it IS EVIDENCE in support of such a proposition. And that must be recognized. I have never claimed to be able to offer anyone proof of the existence of God. Only that there is evidence.
I am.
What I have is a verifiable, repeatable interaction with/experience of reality that is based solely on the idea of God, and that borders on the miraculous. This is far more than a single data point.

What - the question is what is it that you have presented evidence for? Your evidence is evidence, but not evidence of god. This is the main issue with your argument. When we say, "this is not evidence" we do not mean that it could not serve as evidence for anything - we're saying it does not serve as evidence for your position. What you're doing is concluding that sharks like to attack people who eat ice-cream. What you have, at most (if we take all your data at face value), is a correlation between people eating ice-cream and shark attacks. It's true, there is a very strong correlation, but what is this evidence of, PureX? There has not yet been any objective justification for your interpretation of the data you have provided. As I say, we give you the benefit of the doubt that the data is accurate - but we see your conclusions as incorrect. You must look at the data objectively, there's no way around it at that point. Otherwise you might as well flip a coin and decide that way.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The appeal to numbers is valid, when human experience stands as evidence. Which is why you have just yourself used the appeal to numbers. *haha* And by the way, I don't believe your numbers at all. Every statistic I've ever heard of has the vast majority of human beings believing in a deity of some kind. Atheists make up only a tiny fraction of our human population.

I wasn't using appeal to numbers as an actual point in the argument. The point of that was to show that your use of it is invalid because there are more atheists/agnostics than anything single religious "partition". Roman Catholicism is the single largest.

I do not disagree there are more theists than atheists. But within those theists, they have vastly different beliefs and so it would be daft to group them all together. A "typical" Bible-Belt Christian's beliefs is nowhere near what a Hindu believes, for example.

Nonetheless, it's still a logical fallacy whether or not what I'm saying is true. The number of people following an idea does not determine how true it is. Truth and the number of people believing in the truth are independent. Everyone long ago thought the world was flat. Therefore the world is flat? I hope you see why it is illogical.

I stand corrected, here, and I apologize, too. I did jump to a conclusion about your position and that was wrong

Thank you . Not very many people here on these forums would admit to a mistake like that. That was good of you.

I've said this before and I'll say it again ... you're a good writer.

But I don't follow your point, here. I agree that the idea of God is probably most often born in fear, by necessity, and presents the holder with a psychological mechanism to help them deal with that fear. But I don't see how this makes the idea of God, or the reality God, and less viable. In fact, I see this phenomena as evidence in favor of the reality of God. And I don't understand why you would take such evidence as evidence AGAINST the reality of God when clearly it's an example of the god-idea working for people in their lives.

Perhaps it would be best if I give an example of one of these processes. I think I may have said it before. I don't remember.

Decoupled conversations. Say you have a relative that lives in another city. You can quite easily in your mind picture yourself having a conversation with him/her in the very room you are in. To primitive peoples who did not understand this phenomenon, they would think the person is actually interacting with them.

Let's take it up a notch. Say a relative of this primitive person (let's call him Og) dies. Og can still carry on decoupled conversations with that person, even though that person is dead. Not understanding this phenomenon, Og may believe in ghosts or spirits to justify his conversation with the dead person as a viable explanation.

Take this up another notch. To primitive peoples like Og, they wouldn't have understood the world around them very well - why things happen. And for inexplicable events, they may have postulated the existence of a god(s) to explain the events. And with decoupled conversations, they can communicate with this supposed god(s) (i.e. prayer).

There are obviously more processes, but I'm of the opinion modern religion is just the continuation of this. We're a lot more sophisticated now, and theology has evolved with our acquisition of sophistication and shifted its purposes to encompass more aspects (like morality).

There is no need to change my position, here, as you have not sufficiently deconstructed anything. All I see is a biased opinion being stated. I see no undeniable deconstruction of my position, rendering it non-viable.

I think you may be mistaken as to what part of your statement that was directed to. That was the "delusion" bit. The opinion I don't hold. That was me telling you what I actually think. That by itself wasn't deconstruction of your ultimate point.

But we should probably not go down this road. I don't want to fall into an insult-fest.

Fair enough. It'd probably stray far off-topic, anyway.

No statement is true in all cases for everyone. So you are WAY overestimating what your criteria of objectivity can do

How about this: "The Earth is an approximate sphere."

It doesn't matter from what frame of reference you are looking from, the Earth is an approximate sphere either way.

All I was suggesting is that a non-god believer (an atheist) will not turn to God in a crisis because he doesn't believe there is a God there to turn to. Therefor, he will not experience the "reality" of God in his crisis.

An atheist will turn to his/her friends and family. Or find a way to cope with it by themself.

Besides, this assumes that all atheists were always atheists. Most atheists were once theists and so have "experienced" God. I have. And now I see why I was mistaken.

And believing that he has all that is needed to live a successful life within him

An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that he is all that is needed to live a successful life. I think most recognize the idea of inter-dependence. We're all dependent on one another for something or another. Our success depends on our interactions with others and in a weird way, perhaps even ourselves.

But as for the rest of it, thank you for clarifying.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have been appointed by some unnamed omnipotent overseer to decide what defines logic and reason for all mankind, and that it's hopelessly tied to some form of objectivism. I don't accept this, and you apparently are not intellectually flexible enough to grasp or discuss any other point of view. This last post of yours just proves my point.

As I have stated many times, now, the reason is because doing so, works. It's the same reason that I believe in the idea of a chair, or an automobile, but not in the idea of fairies or ghosts. You don't seem to grasp that to recognize something means to cognate it. That means that we first must have some idea in our minds that reality is presuming to correspond with. In the case of a chair, the idea is simple and the physical correspondence is obvious and objective. But many ideas are not so simple, nor are they so obvious or objective in their physical correspondence.

The idea of love, for example, has a very complex and subjective correspondence with reality. As does the idea of God. You claim that it's still entirely physiological, and therefor objective, but it's so complex that no one among us can explain this physiological process. Including you. So apparently you take this physiological correspondence on faith. Yet for some reason you will not do so regarding the idea of "God". And each time I try to point out the similarities, you just dismiss them out of hand. I say that God is as real as love is, but you can only reply that these are not objects, so they're not "real", and any evidence pertaining to them is subjective, and therefor not "real" evidence.

So where does this leave us?

ANOTHER FACEPALM!!!!

I did not decide what logic and reason are, that's just what they are you probably use these tactics almost every day. By this post it becomes quite clear to me that either A) you have no clue what objective and subjective things are or B) you're confusing yourself.

So your reason for belieiving in your god is that it works for you, that's it? I really over-estimated your reasoning skills but seriously you've basically just admitted that your concept of god is purely a function of comfort that you hold in you own mind and is not objective in any way. Seriously though, what's provided by your belief in you god that cannot be profitted anywhere else?

 

[PureX]

There is not one such thing, PureX. What are these things that you claim do not meet my criteria? Love? There is a distinction to be made between love as an emotional response and "love" we use as metaphore. The emotional response can be studied objectively, it is predictable and demonstrable.

No, not really. "Love" is an experience. That experience has many parts, or aspects to it, only one of which is bio-chemical. And even that one is not very well understood. To claim that love is predictable and demonstrable is simply and clearly false. It's predictable in that most of us will experience it in our lives. It is demonstrable in that our experience of it will change us in ways that other people can often see. But the changes will not be predictable, quantifiable, nor fully recognizable, even. There is no scientific study of "love" and I doubt there ever will be because science can only study the objective aspects of phenomena, and in the case of love, god, art, or justice, the phenomena is mostly subjective. There is little for science to actually grab hold of and observe.

That is not to say we know everything there is to know about it (or any part of our mind), but its existence in that sense is not an issue. Your affinity for art is also demonstrable. When you see something you like, certain predictable things happen in your brain. The same is true for the oposite. Many of us like Chopin, but that is not evidence of some mystical power of art, existing in some mystical realm.

This is suddenly getting very confusing. First off, there is no predictable brain response to art. Art is recognized in certain parts of the brain, and they will show increased activity when viewing art, but there is no predictable thought-response to any specific art object that I have ever heard of. And where is the inference of "mystical powers and mystical realms" coming from, here? I have never proposed that god, love, art or justice are "mystical" or that they belong to any "mystical realms". They are experiential phenomena. They are ideas that have experiential correspondence in actuality. And I am proposing that they are "real" because they have an experiential correspondence in actuality. The fact that the experience is subjective has little bearing on it's being an actual experience of reality.

But love, justice, art, and things like that are not in the same ballpark as the concept of god.

You're going to have to do a better job at demonstrating this. So far as I can tell, they are quite similar.

The format of the debate in no way changes anything. Your ideas are either valid or invalid, no matter what you decide to call it.

I think it would be healthier to consider proposals as viable and non-viable rather than valid and invalid. We humans don't have the capacity to determine validity with absolute certainty. Instead, the best we can do is determine relative viability. And I think it's important that we keep this in mind. Again, this speaks to the difference between proof, and evidence.

It's really quite disturbing to see you try and diminish logic and reason time and time again. You're incorrect in claiming logic does not apply to questions of existence...

I did not make that claim. I said that science does not apply to questions regarding existence, not that logic did not apply. And I reminded you that these terms are not interchangeable.

It will tell you, without a doubt, when something is a logical consequence of something else, when it is not, when something is sufficient for something else and when it is not. In that respect logic is infallible - if it is not, if logic can simply stop working, then we are impotent in saying anything true about our existence. If one can show something cannot logically follow from the original assumption, that invalidates your argument. Not the truth of your claims, your argument. If you claim god is real, but can only present arguments that are illogical, your claim is baseless. That does not make god real or not real, but it renders your argument useless - therefore, we cannot make the conclusion that your claim is valid. Before even attempting to establish the truth value of your claims, we must establish if your assumptions are reasonable.

If logic cannot determine the truth: "That does not make god real or not real, but it renders your argument useless" then what bearing does it have on the validity of an argument? I will accept logic in the same way as I will accept intuition as a method of arriving at the validity of an argument. But I will not accept as some sort of sacred totem of truth when clearly it is not. Logic is as likely to lead us to a wrong conclusion as it is t lead us to a right one. And I'll give it no more credit than that.

What - the question is what is it that you have presented evidence for? Your evidence is evidence, but not evidence of god. This is the main issue with your argument. When we say, "this is not evidence" we do not mean that it could not serve as evidence for anything - we're saying it does not serve as evidence for your position. What you're doing is concluding that sharks like to attack people who eat ice-cream. What you have, at most (if we take all your data at face value), is a correlation between people eating ice-cream and shark attacks. It's true, there is a very strong correlation, but what is this evidence of, PureX? There has not yet been any objective justification for your interpretation of the data you have provided. As I say, we give you the benefit of the doubt that the data is accurate - but we see your conclusions are incorrect. You must look at the data objectively, there's no way around it at that point. Otherwise you might as well flip a coin and decide that way.

Again you're getting lost in your pursuit of objective evidence. The evidence being presented is not objective. It's subjective. And it is valid because the phenomena being discussed is experienced subjectively, not objectively. Until you can learn to get past your obvious bias for an objective criteria you're going to remain stuck on this point. "God", love, art and justice are not objective experiences. They are subjective in nature. And they are not going to be evidenced objectively. You need to understand this.

 

[PureX]

Decoupled conversations. Say you have a relative that lives in another city. You can quite easily in your mind picture yourself having a conversation with him/her in the very room you are in. To primitive peoples who did not understand this phenomenon, they would think the person is actually interacting with them.

Let's take it up a notch. Say a relative of this primitive person (let's call him Og) dies. Og can still carry on decoupled conversations with that person, even though that person is dead. Not understanding this phenomenon, Og may believe in ghosts or spirits to justify his conversation with the dead person as a viable explanation.

Take this up another notch. To primitive peoples like Og, they wouldn't have understood the world around them very well - why things happen. And for inexplicable events, they may have postulated the existence of a god(s) to explain the events. And with decoupled conversations, they can communicate with this supposed god(s) (i.e. prayer).

There are obviously more processes, but I'm of the opinion modern religion is just the continuation of this. We're a lot more sophisticated now, and theology has evolved with our acquisition of sophistication and shifted its purposes to encompass more aspects (like morality).

But I still don't see how this scenario would lead us to conclude that God is not "real". The fact that we may be able to explain the psychological method by which we come to conceptualize "God" is akin to discovering evolution as the biological method by which God created the diversity of life forms. It seems to me that discovering how it was done only lends credibility to the reality of God. Yet you seem to have adopted the idea that if you can explain it, is CAN'T be of God. And so far, I'm not seeing any explanation for this assumption.

I realize that some religions and some religionists use "divine magic" as their criteria for the existence of "God", but I clearly am not one of them. In fact, I'm the exact opposite. It seems to me, that the fact that such an idea as "God" can develop in our minds, and that we can use this idea to deal with our unanswerable questions and resultant fears stands as evidence that the idea as it has developed in our minds has more and more correspondence with our reality. It's because it works for us that it is a viable idea. And the better it works, the more viable it becomes.

How about this: "The Earth is an approximate sphere."

A shoe box is an "approximate sphere".

An atheist will turn to his/her friends and family. Or find a way to cope with it by themself.

If he can, yes. (This is true of MANY theists as well) But there will be instances when no one outside of himself can help him, and when he cannot help himself. And at the point, the paradigm of self-reliance will break down. He will not turn to God out of faith or belief (he has neither), but desperation. The way a drowning man reaches for anything nearby to try and pull himself back up to the air.

 

[Commoner]

No, not really. "Love" is an experience. That experience has many parts, or aspects to it, only one of which is bio-chemical. And even that one is not very well understood. To claim that love is predictable and demonstrable is simply and clearly false. It's predictable in that most of us will experience it in our lives. It is demonstrable in that our experience of it will change us in ways that other people can often see. But the changes will not be predictable, quantifiable, nor fully recognizable, even. There is no scientific study of "love" and I doubt there ever will be because science can only study the objective aspects of phenomena, and in the case of love, god, art, or justice, the phenomena is mostly subjective. There is little for science to actually grab hold of and observe.

Before I go any further with this, please explain to me what specifically about the existence of love cannot be confirmed? You're trying to say, I think, that we do not understand everything about it (its causes, its effects, etc...), but which part of its existence is in question?

 

[PureX]

Before I go any further with this, please explain to me what specifically about the existence of love cannot be confirmed? You're trying to say, I think, that we do not understand everything about it (its causes, its effects, etc...), but which part of its existence is in question?

I don't question the existence of the experience. Nor do I question the existence of the experience of "God". They are both complex ideas with correspondence in actuality. I'm simply pointing out that like love, the "reality of God" is as an experience, not as an object. Same with art, justice, and the like.

 

[Commoner]

Hehe, PureX, you're not being terribly honest here. Nobody is doubting that you had an experience and that you call it god. It's what you claim beyond that that we doubt.

But this...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

...is far from simply being an experience you want to call god. You're trying to prove something beyond that. Something that causes the experience that is as of yet unknown. Some great mystery. That's what you're presenting evidence for, or am I completely crazy?

Let's get this straight. What is god? What is it that you're presenting evidence for? You keep jumping from concept to concept. What are we talking about here?

If you want to say that god is an experience, that's fine - just define it and that's that. A term like "love" is simply what we use to describe certain actual things, actual processes and states. in that respect, yes, love exists - but not beyond that, if those actual things aren't present, there is no such thing as love. What are you describing with "god"?

This is getting really tiresome and you're being terrible unclear. I think you might be confusin yourself along with everyone else. Let's try to once and for all figure out what you're saying.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

but 146 pages Woohoo!

 

[PureX]

Hehe, PureX, you're not being terribly honest here. Nobody is doubting that you had an experience and that you call it god. It's what you claim beyond that that we doubt.

What have I claimed beyond that? I know that other people have had a similar experience, and they likewise call it God. I know there are a LOT of them. I am told through history that this has been happening to people from the beginning. And that it still is.

But this...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

For a very long time human beings have had the idea of flying, but could not find any correspondence for this idea in reality. They loved the idea, but it simply wasn't working, and most people abandoned it as unworkable.

Eventually we came to understand aerodynamics enough that we could just barely fly with the help of machinery, and over time we have come to make flying in machines routine.

Ideas that don't work are eventually dismissed as 'unrealistic'. Ideas that do work become MORE realistic each time they prove themselves workable. And they may even eventually become self-evident if they are used routinely enough.

What part of this are you objecting to?

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

...is far from simply being an experience you want to call god. You're trying to prove something beyond that. Something that causes the experience that is as of yet unknown. Some great mystery. That's what you're presenting evidence for, or am I completely crazy?

I'm trying to show that we are being invited to pursue this idea of God by our environment, and by the way our minds work. The invitation is built into us, and into the world around us.

The concept of "God" seems to have been with us from our beginning, and these questions arise in us naturally. It's as if we are meant to deal with them, as a part of our existential function.

Let's get this straight. What is god? What is it that you're presenting evidence for? You keep jumping from concept to concept. What are we talking about here?

I don't exactly know. God to me, is an idea, and an experience based on that idea. God is a personal phenomenon. God is a perspective that once chosen, creates an effect in me.

If you want to say that god is an experience, that's fine - just define it and that's that. A term like "love" is simply what we use to describe certain actual things, actual processes and states. in that respect, yes, love exists - but not beyond that, if those actual things aren't present, there is no such thing as love. What are you describing with "god"?

This is getting really tiresome and you're being terrible unclear. I think you might be confusin yourself along with everyone else. Let's try to once and for all figure out what you're saying.

When we finally remove a little of the vail that we keep over our own eyes, most of the time, and we come to recognize just how little we know about ourselves and the universe we live in, it can be very frustrating, and fatiguing. We want immediately to run back to the safety and comfort of our 'illusion of knowing'.

But the truth is that we actually know very little about the things that matter most to us. To contemplate art, or justice, or love, or God, means having to contemplate intellectual paradigms that contain huge mysteries, and vast confusion, and profound ignorance. Just imagine how difficult it would be to explain music to someone who has never experienced it, and then imagine how much more difficult it would be to explain art. Memes like art and love and God and justice are beyond our ken, and beyond our linguistic ability to label. They are greater than the sum of their parts, and we can't even define the parts very well.

I appreciate your frustration, but I don't feel any sympathy for you. These are and have always been very difficult concepts to grapple with, and have been for anyone who attempted to do so throughout history. It takes courage and persistence and most of all humility to investigate these kinds of ideological phenomena and the only reason I may be a little more comfortable with it than you are is that I have been a practicing artist for a lot of years.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yet you seem to have adopted the idea that if you can explain it, is CAN'T be of God. And so far, I'm not seeing any explanation for this assumption.

Because it is evident that my hypothetical Og (like ancient humans) did not understand the world around him and created (based on his limited knowledge) an untested explanation. Where does fire come from? The fire-making god, of course! When we know the actual cause of fire now, we know that a fire-making god does not do it.

What you seem to be arguing is that the fire-making god still makes the fire, but we can explain HOW the fire-making god makes fire. You seem to be arguing we haven't actually disproved the existence of the fire-making god.

I agree. The existence of the fire-making god has not been disproven. But why would it need to be? We can explain fire just fine without a need for a fire-making god. Nor does the impossibility of disproving such a deity actually conclude that it necessarily DOES exist.

I'm not saying necessarily that because an idea can be scientifically be explained, it 100% does not mean God does not exist. But it leaves God irrelevant and unneeded. We might as well conclude it doesn't exist for all intents and purposes.

It seems to me, that the fact that such an idea as "God" can develop in our minds, and that we can use this idea to deal with our unanswerable questions and resultant fears stands as evidence that the idea as it has developed in our minds has more and more correspondence with our reality. It's because it works for us that it is a viable idea. And the better it works, the more viable it becomes.

That makes no sense. That's basically like saying you answer unanswerable questions using God. At least that's how I read that.

A shoe box is an "approximate sphere"

Not really. A sphere has a specific definition. A sphere is symmetrical about its centre. It has a radius. Its volume is defined as 4/3pi.r^3 while its surface area is 4pi.r^2. It has no right angles about its surface. And that's just a few characteristics that do not apply to a shoebox.

The Earth, however, is approximately symmetrical about its centre, has a radius, has volume and surface area as defined by above, no right angles about its surface. It comes close to the definition of a perfect sphere. Therefore it is approximate. A shoebox does not. Therefore it is not an approximate sphere.

If he can, yes. (This is true of MANY theists as well) But there will be instances when no one outside of himself can help him, and when he cannot help himself. And at the point, the paradigm of self-reliance will break down. He will not turn to God out of faith or belief (he has neither), but desperation. The way a drowning man reaches for anything nearby to try and pull himself back up to the air.

Unfortunately people do find themselves in situations like this. But simply because the idea of God may be useful in these situations does not mean that it is necessarily true. It may be useful for me to neglect gravity when using a computer model to model a specific molecule interacting with another. Gravity is present, but is MUCH MUCH weaker than the electronegativity exhibited by the atoms of the molecules.

Simply because my model excludes gravity and that makes it useful for me to model much more easily, does not mean that gravity is not a factor in it (however small).

 

[Vile Atheist]

I did not make that claim. I said that science does not apply to questions regarding existence, not that logic did not apply. And I reminded you that these terms are not interchangeable.

I was about to apologize for that because you had quoted me, but then I didn't quite recall saying anything of the sort and sure enough it was Commoner lol. Though I am quite flattered to be confused with a handsome chap such as Commoner.

 

[Commoner]

What have I claimed beyond that? I know that other people have had a similar experience, and they likewise call it God. I know there are a LOT of them. I am told through history that this has been happening to people from the beginning. And that it still is.

Oh, all over that place, PureX. Even in your OP you've made countless assumption about god that are not consistent with it being "simply an experience". I'm not going to go on a quoting rampage (although I might reconsider), so here's just one example:

I wouldn't say that this "God as mystery source" has nothing to do with the God of Hebrew or Christian religious texts. Clearly their idea of God included his being the source and sustenance of all existence. Clearly they saw their God's mind as the genesis of all creation, so in this sense we are talking about the same god-concept. The ancients anthropomorphized their gods to a much greater degree than I would be comfortable with, but they didn't have the benefits of science to help them separate superstition and psychological projection from their reasoning process.

Clearly, you're dodging our objections by slowly shrinking your god-concept to being an experience.

For a very long time human beings have had the idea of flying, but could not find any correspondence for this idea in reality. They loved the idea, but it simply wasn't working, and most people abandoned it as unworkable.

Eventually we came to understand aerodynamics enough that we could just barely fly with the help of machinery, and over time we have come to make flying in machines routine.

Ideas that don't work are eventually dismissed as 'unrealistic'. Ideas that do work become MORE realistic each time they prove themselves workable. And they may even eventually become self-evident if they are used routinely enough.

I don't see even the slightest connection. Really, I have given it a lot of thought. Not the slightest connection.

What part of this are you objecting to?
I'm trying to show that we are being invited to pursue this idea of God by our environment, and by the way our minds work. The invitation is built into us, and into the world around us.

The concept of "God" seems to have been with us from our beginning, and these questions arise in us naturally. It's as if we are meant to deal with them, as a part of our existential function.

I'm just going to disregard these arguments, we've already been through them all. I only brought them up to remind you of the numeroues assumptions you've made that do not correspond with your current god-concept.

I don't exactly know. God to me, is an idea, and an experience based on that idea. God is a personal phenomenon. God is a perspective that once chosen, creates an effect in me.

So, how is God different than Todd - the mental image of God I can make in my mind?

When we finally remove a little of the vail that we keep over our own eyes, most of the time, and we come to recognize just how little we know about ourselves and the universe we live in, it can be very frustrating, and fatiguing. We want immediately to run back to the safety and comfort of our 'illusion of knowing'.

But PureX, you're the one clinging to the "illusion of knowing". Most of us are perfectly content living with uncertainty and not knowing all the answers all the time. I don't know the answers, but I sure as heck won't simply accept any answer that is offered to me.

I appreciate your frustration, but I don't feel any sympathy for you. These are and have always been very difficult concepts to grapple with, and have been for anyone who attempted to do so throughout history. It takes courage and persistence and most of all humility to investigate these kinds of ideological phenomena and the only reason I may be a little more comfortable with it than you are is that I have been a practicing artist for a lot of years.

Your ego is just through the roof. That's some false humility you've got there.

Try and call yourself an artist without knowing what art is. And try and call yourself courageous while claiming an idea should be held as truth just because it "works for you". Yes, you really are on a quest for the truth, PureX.

 

[Commoner]

I was about to apologize for that because you had quoted me, but then I didn't quite recall saying anything of the sort and sure enough it was Commoner lol. Though I am quite flattered to be confused with a handsome chap such as Commoner.

Whaaa?

Why thank you, kind sir!

 

[PureX]

Because it is evident that my hypothetical Og (like ancient humans) did not understand the world around him and created (based on his limited knowledge) an untested explanation. Where does fire come from? The fire-making god, of course! When we know the actual cause of fire now, we know that a fire-making god does not do it.

I think you're underestimating our past generations. Fire occurred spontaneously in their environment, and they quickly discovered some positive uses for it. And having done so, they also very quickly learned to collect it and maintain it when they found it, and to eventually create it on their own. These were practical matters that only required trial and error on their part to resolve. Though the starting of a fire must have been a particularly difficult ritual to get right.

Questions like where does fire come from, what is it made of, and who owns this knowledge are of a deeper and more profound nature, and could not ultimately be answered in their place and time. And as we humans are naturally frightened by our own ignorance, we discovered another phenomena that we could use to help us deal with our own ignorance and fear. And that phenomena is the idea and experience of "God". We could place these unanswerable questions under the jurisdiction of "God" and then trust 'Him' with our ignorance. I may not fully understand fire, but I can trust that the phenomena is under "God's control" and that God is allowing me to handle it, and so I will not unduly be harmed by it, in my ignorance.

I think we're wrong to assume that our ancestors thought God was the answer to their ignorance. It wasn't, and it still isn't. The "God idea" was and is only a solution to our fear of our own ignorance. It was religion that tried to sell a specific God and specific mythology as the "answer" to those unknowns we find ourselves surrounded by. I do not believe that these were originally intended to be taken that way. But I could be wrong.

Later, when we find we can sufficiently explain what a fire is (an ongoing chemical reaction) and we no longer need to fear it, we can remove it from the realm of divine mystery, and trust in our own understanding. But I see no reason that this should diminish the idea of God, or the positive experience of God that we had relative to our fear and ignorance. And that we are still having.

What you seem to be arguing is that the fire-making god still makes the fire, but we can explain HOW the fire-making god makes fire. You seem to be arguing we haven't actually disproved the existence of the fire-making god.

We haven't. All that happened is that God did for us what we couldn't do for ourselves, until we became able to do it ourselves.

I agree. The existence of the fire-making god has not been disproven. But why would it need to be? We can explain fire just fine without a need for a fire-making god. Nor does the impossibility of disproving such a deity actually conclude that it necessarily DOES exist.

But the God experience will still be alive and working regarding lots of other issues, not just with other similar fears.