Who knows?

[1213]

Does a god or gods exist?
...
And can you provide the main reasons for your belief/unbelief in god(s)
...

My reason to believe is the Bible and world as explained in the Bible. And I believe in the Bible because I see things going as told in the Bible.

But, if you say God does not exist, what is your definition for God?

 

[ChristineM]

You've both completely missed the point. That cognition, and by extension consciousness, registers in the brain is not in question. That it originates there, is not established. But lets keep if simple. Which comes first, the thought or it's manifestation in the chemistry of the brain?

So you can't show this.

BTW, the link i provided shows it is established. The relevant section

However, modern cognitive testing batteries such as CANTAB are able to tease apart distinct cognitive functions (see Figure 1), that have been shown to be dependent upon diverse neuronal circuitry.​

 

[SalixIncendium]

"Experience with God" is part of religious exposure in the Abrahamic religions.

I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that he wasn't talking about exposure to religion, but of a mystical experience.

 

[Quintessence]

Says who?

Usually, the humans who reduce all of human experience down to the mechanistic universe and think science is the only measure of truth (aka, scientism adherents). Which is, ironically, a pretty religious conviction.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So you can't show this.

BTW, the link i provided shows it is established. The relevant section

However, modern cognitive testing batteries such as CANTAB are able to tease apart distinct cognitive functions (see Figure 1), that have been shown to be dependent upon diverse neuronal circuitry.​

‘Dependent upon’ does not signify ‘originates from’. I am dependent upon sunlight and water, but I didn’t originate in a rainbow.

 

[ChristineM]

My reason to believe is the Bible and world as explained in the Bible. And I believe in the Bible because I see things going as told in the Bible.

But, if you say God does not exist, what is your definition for God?

If there were a definition of a god that everyone or even a majority agreed on then maybe you'd be in with a chance of an answer that everyone can agree on. I have however given my definition of what i consider a god should be, i.e. that described in the bible along with an amalgam of all other claimed gods.
Obviously there are god believers who disagree with me, and I'm betting you are one of them

 

[ChristineM]

Usually, the humans who reduce all of human experience down to the mechanistic universe and think science is the only measure of truth (aka, scientism adherents). Which is, ironically, a pretty religious conviction.

And neuroscience

 

[ChristineM]

‘Dependent upon’ does not signify ‘originates from’. I am dependent upon sunlight and water, but I didn’t originate in a rainbow.

Strawman, no rainbow is needed but sunlight and water are.

Maybe this will help.

Cognitive neuroscience - Wikipedia

 

[Quintessence]

And neuroscience

Sure, and there is no inherent reason to use neuroscience as the only way of knowing or understanding phenomena. That's why I said this only tracks for humans that reduce everything down to "science says" (much like "Bible says" really, but with a different coat of paint).

 

[Eddi]

So other believers around you presented you with these classic arguments? Or did you learn about these arguments from skeptics who presented criticisms of these classic arguments?

I discovered them myself whilst seeking to integrate myself into Christendom

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, and there is no inherent reason to use neuroscience as the only way of knowing or understanding phenomena.

There is when trying to understand the brains function.

 

[Quintessence]

There is when trying to understand the brains function.

Why? Why does it make sense to limit and restrict one's way of knowing and exploring the world?

 

[Quintessence]

The philosophy of phenomenology - how we experience - is particularly relevant to topics like this, so I'd invite folks to take a gander:

Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Phenomenology was in many respects a reaction against the sort of materialist reductionism of whiles back, and can provide an interesting contrasting perspective especially on the topic of religion (which is fundamentally rooted in experience).

Not an expert in the field, but starting to look into it more (long overdue, I might add).

 

[ChristineM]

Why? Why does it make sense to limit and restrict one's way of knowing and exploring the world?

What other way is there of discovering how the brain works?
Of course people can guess because it seems logical or makes sense to them and that's what they believe but it doesn't give hard, measurable, repeatable results. Or non that I've seen

 

[Windwalker]

Can you measure experience with a scientific instrument?

I suppose you can, you can see brainwave changes, skin responses, and whatnot. So if one was to ask can we find scientific evidence for God, if God does not have physical form, then the answer would be no. You cannot find evidence that I am thinking about "blue" scientifically. But you can find evidence that I am thinking.

So a "God experience" can be measured as a distinct thing in the brain, or chemistry, or what have you, apart from other types of experiences, I suppose. But those tell you nothing of the content of those experiences. For that, you have to rely upon what the subject tells you that experience is. Or.... have your own experience and find out for yourself.

 

[PureX]

My definition of a correct idea is one that permits me to accurately anticipate outcomes. I can't find a better or more useful definition

Yes. That's YOUR preferred criteria. Achieved by YOUR chosen meta-ideal, or truth paradigm. But it's not really truth. It's just function. And it's not universal function, it's just your functional preference. That was my point. And if you want to try and understand someone else's criteria, you're going to have to be able and willing to set your own, aside, for the sake of that understanding. Are you? Most people would not even be able to, let alone be willing. And as a result, they will never really understand or appreciate anyone else's meta-ideal, or truth paradigm.

I try to avoid the word truth, since for many, it's down the rabbit hole they go looking for what is outside of their minds and often despairing that they can't decide ultimate or absolute truth. I wouldn't even know what to do with such ideas if they existed and were discernable, since whatever resides outside of mind is only important to the extent that it can impact conscious experience.

Yes, which is why the pursuit of truth is a waste of time, for a human. A waste of time that a great many humans think they are engaged in, and are telling themselves they are engaged in. Which is why honesty and humility become so much more important as a goal, than truth.

I understand the game of life to be managing the parade of conscious phenomena to maximize experience. Toward this end, we learn what makes us happy and what vexes us, and go about making choices that we hope will maximize the ratio of the two. For me, that's the relative absence of loneliness, shame, fear, anxiety, bitterness, and the like, and the most comfort, enjoyable stimulation, and satisfaction possible. I would assume that it is the same for most others as well. It's the ideas that allow me to do this successfully that have value to me, the collection of which I call knowledge, and the improvement of which I call learning.

So, what is your definition of a correct idea that you find more useful than this pragmatic one?

Everyone is doing that. But not everyone is doing that by the same methods, or for the same product-goal. Because not everyone is using the same meta-idea to determine their objective goals and their available means of achieving them. That's why, of you want to understand someone else's, you have to set your own "system" aside and look at theirs through it's own means and criteria. And that's very difficult for most people to do. Impossible, even.

Which is why the debates here on RF go on and on and on and on, with no hope of either side really understanding the other's

 

[Windwalker]

It's well defined and not your imagination so yes

But well defined, is something done by the collective system of thought you are participating within. It becomes reality to the participant, because it's the common frames of references that everyone else uses. That doesn't necessarily mean that common frame of reference is "real reality". It is reality to them. It the reality of the collective imagination of this time in human history.

If you are part of a mythic system, of premodern humans, that view of reality was, and is, very well defined by them, just as our modernist scientific view of reality is for us with it's language and symbols today. Everyone back then would consider you to be "nuts" or out of touch with reality if you were to speak of your view of reality out of step with the collective understanding. It would be pure fiction to them, if you were to talk about the earth orbiting the sun and turning on its axis, for instance.

"Reality" to us as humans is an ongoing thing. The best way to speak of our view of reality is to call it just that. Our view of reality, such as it is, at this time and place in human history. What reality "actually is", is always beyond us.

 

[ChristineM]

But well defined, is something done by the collective system of thought you are participating within. It becomes reality to the participant, because it's the common frames of references that everyone else uses. That doesn't necessarily mean that common frame of reference is "real reality". It is reality to them. It the reality of the collective imagination of this time in human history.

If you are part of a mythic system, of premodern humans, that view of reality was, and is, very well defined by them, just as our modernist scientific view of reality is for us with it's language and symbols today. Everyone back then would consider you to be "nuts" or out of touch with reality if you were to speak of your view of reality out of step with the collective understanding. It would be pure fiction to them, if you were to talk about the earth orbiting the sun and turning on its axis, for instance.

What "real reality" is an ongoing thing. The best way to speak of our view of reality is to call it just that. Our view of reality.

The door i walked into this morning was not "my" reality, it exist, it can be observed and measured

 

[Windwalker]

Try measuring it

You can measure and objectively observe experience in any number of ways, brainwaves, skin response, behavioral changes, etc. However, to understand the content or the view of the meaning of that experience you have to rely on what the person tells you, or have a similar experience yourself.

As stated, i am basing my idea of gods as stated in the bible.

As stated in how you interpret the Bible, to be more precise. Your argument here is like the Creationist who denies science because according to them, the book of Genesis is a scientific account of creation, not an allegory about the human existential dilemma. Their problem isn't Evolution. Their problem is how they read the Bible, literally, which was not its intention. They reading Modernity back into ancients, premodern texts, presuming a modernist mindset!

Ditto.

I will add, there are thousands more gods that have been worshipped through history, my idea of gods also includes them.

Tell me what you understand about Brahman. Let's start there, to see if you do understanding different ideas about the Divine. I've head many atheists claim to reject all ideas of God, when the only one they actually have in their minds they are rejecting, is the mythic-literal view of the Christian God out of fundamentalist American Protestant religion.

What it doesn't include is your imagination.

All idea of God or our ideas of reality itself, be that theistic, atheistic, scientific, etc, all include our imagination. Everyone uses their imagination in trying to "think" about reality, or anything at all, including God.

I accept you have a different view of god than many people, even on this thread, that is entirely up to you, i am not hear to argue about your view but to learn.

Good. Then hopefully what I am sharing might help expand your own understanding of why what I have seen most people call themselves atheists over, is the same thing that I myself don't believe in. And when I hear them saying "all gods everywhere", I've yet to meet one that actually understands what that means.

 

[Quintessence]

What other way is there of discovering how the brain works?

Plenty.

We all start with our own direct experiences. Exploring the sensuality of lived life, its meaning to us and to others, and struggling through the twists and turns along the way.

We learn from the experiences of others. The poetry of countless artists, songs of countless musicians, musings of countless philosophers, wisdom of countless sages, the folklore of our ancestors.

All of these experiences tell us things about the world. It doesn't all have to be Science™and in practice, we cannot and do not live in that fashion anyway. We experience phenomenologically, not like a science data machine. Then we also make art and joy.