Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

As far as theology goes it’s not difficult to track the development of humanity’s invention of gods over time. Writing came with civilisation, and with that the need to have some sort of ordered pantheon. Cities took the human imagination that saw gods in everything that moved or gave off heat (etc) to gods that watched over their homes and affairs, empires eventually led to the notion of there being one, overall, omnipresent god. All of the writings in turn borrow from earlier stories and traditions, and from each other. Until the basic reality that people made gods, not the other way around, is recognised, questions like ‘does god exist’ are pointless. Which god? When god? When gods were many? When they were narrowed down to fewer gods? Which of the few gods is real and which aren’t? These questions have no more sense than trying to determine if Ming the Merciless was really real.

Irrelevant.

 

[Tomef]

Well, just read the link I gave in the answer to the other posts of yours and if you have any question I will answer then.

Come on, man. You start these conversations as if you have something interesting to say, but it always just ends with you posting a link to one of your favourite topics.

Okay, the short simple version.
3 humans.
One knows that the universe is natural and not supernatural
The second knows that the universe is from God and not natural.
The thrid and that is me, notes that there is no need to know what the universe is as such to apparently be in the universe.

In other words, we could use page after page on how I would explain how I do it and you would still be able to do it differently than me. That is the end of it.
Other humans than you can have different understandings of the universe as such and yet, apparently we are all in it.
That is it. So if you accept that, I will explain how my world view works. But not unless you can in effect accept some form of cognitive relativism.

Sure, many things are relative. My request is that you follow the thread of an argument, once you get involved in it, rather than going off on a tangent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Come on, man. You start these conversations as if you have something interesting to say, but it always just ends with you posting a link to one of your favourite topics.

Sure, many things are relative. My request is that you follow the thread of an argument, once you get involved in it, rather than going off on a tangent.

Well, the OP is about the world and what we can know about it in a sense. To say something is real or exists, is to claim something of the world.
That is the context of this thread.

So as a skeptic, if someone in effect claims knowledge of the world, I will ask how that is so and ask for evidence.
And since you claim to follow me, you will know that I will question claims made both by religious people and non-religious ones.
But yes, your kind as a subset of non-religious will more often by questioned by me, because you as a group are in effect doing some versions of a sort of naive realism.

Here is your most common presumption: It is knowable that the universe is natural and real.
You are doing it and you are not allone in that. But if you do that, I ask how come science is in effect based on methodological naturalism. And the answer is - don't ask that, challange the theists.
You are doing it in the thread and the OP states it is philosophy, so I do that.

 

[Tomef]

Well, the OP is about the world and what we can know about it in a sense. To say something is real or exists, is to claim something of the world.
That is the context of this thread.

So as a skeptic, if someone in effect claims knowledge of the world, I will ask how that is so and ask for evidence.
And since you claim to follow me, you will know that I will question claims made both by religious people and non-religious ones.
But yes, your kind as a subset of non-religious will more often by questioned by me, because you as a group are in effect doing some versions of a sort of naive realism.

Here is your most common presumption: It is knowable that the universe is natural and real.
You are doing it and you are not allone in that. But if you do that, I ask how come science is in effect based on methodological naturalism. And the answer is - don't ask that, challange the theists.
You are doing it in the thread and the OP states it is philosophy, so I do that.

Where on earth did I say anything like this:
'It is knowable that the universe is natural and real'.

It is certainly knowable, by me, that my day to day experiences are consistent with a belief that the universe is natural and real. Maybe it isn’t? If it isn’t, that hasn’t had any influence on my experience of it. Whatever determines those experience, if it’s a crafty demon or some kind of simulation has no relevance to anything I said.

My point, as I’ve said several times, is that regardless of what is meant by real, characters in a work of fiction and something like a cup or a plate, or your next door neighbour, are different categories of thing. They are experienced differently. A character in a book is something I can imagine and think about, but I can’t hold it in my hand like a plate, or talk to it like I can talk to my neighbour (or not yet, anyway). Characters in books suddenly becoming people I can talk to, touch, interact with, who are like everyone else, who eat food, ****, get drunk, get old, die etc. is not something that is consistent with my experience, or with the experience of anyone I know or have heard or read about. Same goes for gods, their existence is limited to people’s imaginations. That’s the point you responded to, whether you understood it or not. If you want to start some other conversation, tell me what it is you want to talk about rather than just ploughing ahead with your assumptions.

 

[Tomef]

Here is your most common presumption: It is knowable that the universe is natural and real.
You are doing it and you are not allone in that. But if you do that, I ask how come science is in effect based on methodological naturalism. And the answer is - don't ask that, challange the theists.

I think what you are confusing is what is meant by real/unreal, and what is meant by different categories. Recognising difference between things of a different type is not a statement about whether or not some ultimate reality exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where on earth did I say anything like this:
'It is knowable that the universe is natural and real'.

It is certainly knowable, by me, that my day to day experiences are consistent with a belief that the universe is natural and real. Maybe it isn’t? If it isn’t, that hasn’t had any influence on my experience of it. Whatever determines those experience, if it’s a crafty demon or some kind of simulation has no relevance to anything I said.

My point, as I’ve said several times, is that regardless of what is meant by real, characters in a work of fiction and something like a cup or a plate, or your next door neighbour, are different categories of thing. They are experienced differently. A character in a book is something I can imagine and think about, but I can’t hold it in my hand like a plate, or talk to it like I can talk to my neighbour (or not yet, anyway). Characters in books suddenly becoming people I can talk to, touch, interact with, who are like everyone else, who eat food, ****, get drunk, get old, die etc. is not something that is consistent with my experience of the world, or with the experience of anyone I know or have heard or read about. Same goes for gods, their existence is limited to people’s imaginations. That’s the point you responded to, whether you understood it or not. If you want to start some other conversation, tell me what it is you want to talk about rather than just ploughing ahead with your assumptions.

Yeah, your whole life is the same if it is that or you only live for an hour as a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
That is my point. Whether you understand that you referencing my day to day experiences actually mean that you know you have them or not, is besides the point. You act as if this is real and gods are not.
But that is the problem. If your experinces don't match objective reality then you can't argue for or against gods, because it is unknowable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think what you are confusing is what is meant by real/unreal, and what is meant by different categories. Recognising difference between things of a different type is not a statement about whether or not some ultimate reality exists.

So how do you know there are things outside your mind?

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, your whole life is the same if it is that or you only live for an hour as a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
That is my point. Whether you understand that you referencing my day to day experiences actually mean that you know you have them or not, is besides the point. You act as if this is real and gods are not.
But that is the problem. If your experinces don't match objective reality then you can't argue for or against gods, because it is unknowable.

You’re just jumbling things up. I thought we’d been over all this already. So, now you are saying you see no difference of category between a cheese sandwich and a fictional character?

 

[Tomef]

So how do you know there are things outside your mind?

What difference does it make if my experience is ‘real’ or not? My experience, and your experience, is consistent with cheese sandwiches and fictional characters being different things. Whether or not that experience is had in relation to real cheese sandwiches, and real books with fictional characters in them, the latter are still fictional characters. A cheese sandwich that is a digital projection or whatever else is still experienced as a cheese sandwich, it has the same place within the range of things that are experienced within an environment, simulated or not. Not being real doesn’t make a cheese sandwich the same kind of thing as a fictional character. What is it that you don’t understand about this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You’re just jumbling things up. I thought we’d been over all this already. So, now you are saying you say no difference of category between a cheese sandwich and a fictional character?

Well, no, not if we are debating the ontological true status of different things. Because before we do that, we have to establish if we can know the ontological true status of any thing as such.

The nswer I gave as to how I do real, was about what I believe and have faith in for real. You are doing as if you know the cheese sandawist exists as itself independent of your experience of it. That is philosophy as per the OP.

 

[Tomef]

You are doing as if you know the cheese sandawist exists as itself independent of your experience of it.

No, I’m not. Read my posts.

 

[Tomef]

Well, no, not if we are debating the ontological true status of different things. Because before we do that, we have to establish if we can know the ontological true status of any thing as such.

The nswer I gave as to how I do real, was about what I believe and have faith in for real. You are doing as if you know the cheese sandawist exists as itself independent of your experience of it. That is philosophy as per the OP.

There are different kinds of ontology. Knowing what my experience is does not have to necessitate a simultaneous claim that the things I experience must have their own objective realness. Not knowing if they are real or not makes no difference to my experience of them. But my experience of different types of things varies according to what the thing is. I have experiences of reading about fictional characters in books. I have experiences of eating cheese sandwiches. These experiences are different, and make up parts of what I see as reality. If it’s all some illusion, so far at least that has had no bearing on my experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What difference does it make if my experience is ‘real’ or not? My experience, and your experience, is consistent with cheese sandwiches and fictional characters being different things. Whether or not that experience is had in relation to real cheese sandwiches, and real books with fictional characters in them, the latter are still fictional characters. A cheese sandwich that is a digital projection or whatever else is still experienced as a cheese sandwich, it has the same place within the range of things that are experienced within an environment, simulated or not. Not being real doesn’t make a cheese sandwich the same kind of thing as a fictional character. What is it that you don’t understand about this?

The problem is that you haven't given evidence for it being consistent as for you knowing as things that there are different things.
Your whole arguemet rests on there being an actual real life different from fictional things for your day to day experience, but that requires that there is a day to day and thus how do you know that?

Stop talking about the world or day to day experiences, but you can't, it seems.
BTW you treat me as if you know that I am real and exist, but how do you know that? You act as if you know what objective reality is other than being indepedent of your experinces of it. Don't you understand that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are different kinds of ontology. Knowing what my experience is does not have to necessitate a simultaneous claim that the things I experience must have their own objective realness. Not knowing if they are real or not makes no difference to my experience of them. But my experience of different types of things varies according to what the thing is. I have experiences of reading about fictional characters in books. I have experiences of eating cheese sandwiches. These experiences are different, and make up parts of what I see as reality. If it’s all some illusion, so far at least that has had no bearing on my experience.

What is ontology?

 

[firedragon]

There are different kinds of ontology.

Are you talking about methodologies or positions?

 

[Tomef]

Your whole arguemet rests on there being an actual real life different from fictional things

Ah I think I see your confusion. You are thinking that different things are part of different realities. Fictional characters in books are part of the same reality (however defined) as anything else, just different parts of it. I know what a sandwich is because I have memories of thousands of them. I know what fictional characters are because I’ve read about thousands of them. A sandwich is a real thing I experience physically, a fictional character is something I experience mentally, both within the reality I experience, according to which those experiences are categorically different. Whether or not both of those things - the physical experience of eating a sandwich and the mental experience of imagining a fictional character - are projections of a brain in a vat, or whatever else, makes no difference.

 

[Tomef]

Are you talking about methodologies or positions?

Positions.

 

[Tomef]

What is ontology?

Theories of knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah I think I see your confusion. You are thinking that different things are part of different realities. Fictional characters in books are part of the same reality (however defined) as anything else, just different parts of it. I know what a sandwich is because I have memories of thousands of them. I know what fictional characters are because I’ve read about thousands of them. A sandwich is a real thing I experience physically, a fictional character is something I experience mentally, both within the reality I experience, according to which those experiences are categorically different. Whether or not both of those things - the physical experience of eating a sandwich and the mental experience of imagining a fictional character - are projections of a brain in a vat, or whatever else, makes no difference.

So what is ontology?

 

[Tomef]

that requires that there is a day to day and thus how do you know that?

My experience, my memories, this conversation with you, tells me that. Everything around me tells me that. Whether those things are part of a natural, physical universe, a continually updated illusion, or anything else is totally irrelevant. Within that experience, of me being and experiencing those things regardless of how they are generated, the experience of sandwiches and characters in books are fundamentally different.