You Can't Argue Against God

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that is your belief whereas I am free to believe otherwise.

You certainly are.
Just like people are free to believe in astrology, homeopathy, bigfoot, alien abduction,... and whatever else anyone's imagination can produce.

The question is off course if it is rational to believe such things.
And sure, people are free to hold irrational beliefs. There's no question about that.
My question though is why would you want to....

Since our conscious experience is subjective anyway, you get to decide that subjective experience's relationship to reality same as I do.

So would you say that my undetectable palace has the same "reality value" as gravity or the internet device I'm using to post this?
Or is it "all equally subjective"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure like colors don't actually exist outside of our conscious experience of them

The wave lengths that create them, most certainly exist.

. They are an interpretation of reality created by our brain.

Yes. The interpretation of the data in our brain is subjective experience.
The data itself however, is not.

Some folks interpret their spiritual experience as having a relationship to reality and some dont.

The difference with colors, is that there is no objective real data to underpin that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reality only exists in our heads. Including the reality of 'oxygen'.

So if I hit you upside the head with a baseball bat, there's no telling what will happen to your face?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you believe you are absolutely and unquestionably right about this. Even though you cannot know or prove this to be so.

I didn't get that from him, but I do get it from you. His words were, "Its more then that, it's real, from whatever way you look at it. Oxygen is Oxygen. It doesn't need to be relative to something else." Most educated people understand that there is some uncertainty about what exists outside of conscious experience.

Reality only exists in our heads. Including the reality of 'oxygen'.

This is you being unquestionably right again. And a radical solipsist / epistemic nihilist.

I have a very pragmatic approach to knowledge and reality. Ideas that allow one to anticipate outcomes can be called knowledge. We don't need to burden ourselves with philosophical vanities when going about our days.

The value of such knowledge is in informing decisions and driving actions which then influence events in the external world and lead to objective consequences. Take away any of these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance. We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes.

The ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. An idea called true or correct by this reckoning can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false.

We don't need to fret about absolute or objective or ultimate truths. All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't.

You seem to have some other idea of what truth or knowledge is. To you, it is ethereal and unobtainable. Is there anything true about oxygen to you?

Are you familiar with logical positivism or verificationism? About a century old now, they're essentially the opposite of your position and probably something you'd classify as scientism.

You cannot understand this because you are a true believer. You have joined the cult of the scientific materialists. And now your mind can no longer think outside of that box.

Fortunately, we have visionaries like you who have successfully avoided cultic thinking and seen further.

You are unable to recognize that how you understand the world and how the world is are not the same. And in fact could be wildly different without you or I ever knowing.

You are so much more perceptive than those still thinking in the box. Who (besides you) knew that there might be as yet undiscovered aspects of reality?

You're playing a game. You've cast yourself in the role of the visionary. It's pretty common. I guess people like to invent superpowers for themselves. They like the idea of possessing arcane knowledge unavailable to the uninitiated. It's related to the people who want there to be more magic in the world and to have access to magical powers. I think it drives a lot of New Age thinking and ritual.

I don't have that need or desire. I wonder why not. I can see critical thinking in that light to some degree. It could be called a ritual that allows one to see further. It allows one to accumulate knowledge as I've defined it, which is a superpower of sorts. Maybe that's why I don't find value in these other ways of knowing. Maybe that's why I'm not searching for gods.

 

[Nakosis]

The wave lengths that create them, most certainly exist.

I'm glad you believe so. Just as some believe in a divine reality that is the basis of their spiritual experience.

Yes. The interpretation of the data in our brain is subjective experience.
The data itself however, is not.

Yes, some believe in the reality of spiritual data as well.

The difference with colors, is that there is no objective real data to underpin that.

That's your belief. Others believe otherwise.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So if I hit you upside the head with a baseball bat, there's no telling what will happen to your face?

You'd probably miss

 

[Nakosis]

You certainly are.
Just like people are free to believe in astrology, homeopathy, bigfoot, alien abduction,... and whatever else anyone's imagination can produce.

The question is off course if it is rational to believe such things.
And sure, people are free to hold irrational beliefs. There's no question about that.
My question though is why would you want to....

My beliefs work for me just as your beliefs work for you. I'm perfectly fine accepting the existence of a reality as causal for your experience. However, for some reason you think you get to decide for me the reality I accept as causal behind my experiences. Kind of rude but I understand some folks have a need to insist on the reality behind what other people experience.

So would you say that my undetectable palace has the same "reality value" as gravity or the internet device I'm using to post this?
Or is it "all equally subjective"?

That's for you to decide. You decide for yourself what is real and what isn't just like everyone else.

 

[Nakosis]

Great.

I'm not in the market for an undetectable anything

See, more common ground.

 

[Kathryn]

I just finished reading a very interesting book called Till We Have Faces by CS Lewis. It's about Psyche and Cupid and self understanding, I love that it is set within a framework of a totally unique and "godless" (or multiple gods, whatever, not just one god) society. I think we are all in for some surprises some day.

 

[Nakosis]

I wonder why you think so. I have no knowledge that I would say came from a god.

I used to say that I did, but then I discovered that what I was calling the Holy Spirit was just my own young mind in the hands of a talented and charismatic preacher. I felt different in church than elsewhere, and it was a sense of belonging and great joy generated using smiles and singing and hand clapping while shouting out a lot of amens and hallelujahs.

How did I discover that this was not the Holy Spirit? That had been my first congregation. I converted in my late teens and had my first church experience far from home while in the military. Upon discharge, I moved away and visited about a half dozen other congregations that were dull and lifeless. So, I was able to figure out what had been happening in that first church.

Now I understand that what I considered a visit from a god was my own mental state. It was a spiritual experience replete with a sense of awe, mystery, connection, and gratitude, but I was not experiencing a spirit.

In addition, it says so in the Word of God so I don't need to only rely on my own experience or anyone else's.

Correct. Gods in general cannot be demonstrated to exist nor be ruled out. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.

Were you referring to the god of Abraham? That one can be ruled out. They wrote too much about it. They made many claims that have been falsified, and some that are internally contradictory (incoherent). I can assure you that the god who allegedly created the universe in six days including an original pair of humans doesn't exist. I can assure you that the all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god that permits gratuitous suffering doesn't exist. I can assure you that the perfect god who created an imperfect creature, regretted its mistake and tried to correct it with near extinction event that didn't work doesn't exist.

But gods with less detail, like the deist god who allegedly set the universe in motion and then left it can't be ruled out.

I'm referring to God. The one and only creator of the universe. The Word of God can be beyond our understanding at times. That is why faith is required. Faith that we will someday understand if we don't already. We come to understand God's Word when the time is appropriate for us to do so. In the mean time we have to rely on whatever insight God gives us and be patient in our faith. Doubt comes too easily to us however if we pray for God to increase our faith it we be given to us if it is God's plan.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

I was a theist for earlier part of my life. I have studied about Christian and Muslim views.
What God? What soul? No evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

That looks right to me. God has no definition appropriate to a being who's objectively real, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether [he] was God or not. The only way gods and other supernatural critters are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, indistinguishable from characters in fiction.

Yes, right for you.

Unless you meet someone in person, you have to rely on claims made by other of someone's existence. Why you choose to believe one claim and not the other,

Up to you to decide the necessary credibility to accept someone's existence. Everyone has to decide this for themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

I was a theist for earlier part of my life. I have studied about Christian and Muslim views.
What God?

The creator of the universe.

What soul?

Your soul.

No evidence.

You get to decide what you do and do not accept as evidence. I don't get to choose that for you nor do you get to chose that for me.

 

[Nakosis]

You Can't Argue Against God​

#197
"Moses didn't know the Hebrew language so he needed some good assistant (Vazir), he requested Aaron just for that and G-d graciously granted it, so there is no argument (of Moses) against G-d, please, right?"
Job's case is also similar, he didn't argue against G-d, please, right?

Regards

They argued with God, not against God.
One could also say God allowed them to argue so to benefit their understanding. Jesus also argued with God. Perhaps that was to benefit our understanding.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses, yet logic and reason tells they exist,

Eum, no. "logic and reason" doesn't. Evidence of seeing them (with our senses) under a microscope does.
Sure, empirical evidence is logical and reasonable. But the way you phrased it, it seems to me, was insufficient.

We now viruses exist from empirical evidence of their existence.

Virtues can be also contagious but they can't be seen under a microscope.

 

[PureX]

I have a very pragmatic approach to knowledge and reality. Ideas that allow one to anticipate outcomes can be called knowledge. We don't need to burden ourselves with philosophical vanities when going about our days.

Everyone has a similar pragmatic conception of information. It's how we all learn to function. But a lot of people also have a more philosophical conception of information that they use to help them determine the goals ethical means of that functionality.

The value of such knowledge is in informing decisions and driving actions which then influence events in the external world and lead to objective consequences.

There are no "objective consequences". We all inhabit a giant ocean interrelated phenomena. We perceive/concieve of a tiny part of that ocean as being "us", and the rest of it as being "other". But that "other" is far too immense for us to apprehend, or comprehend, so we pretend that what little of it we can grasp is enough for us to grasp the whole. And we feel empowered.

The ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. An idea called true or correct by this reckoning can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false.

Logically, however, this is incorrect. Just because an idea about reality functions when presumed true does not mean that idea is true. The idea that the Earth is flat still functions the vast majority of the time for us. And for eons of human history it functioned 100% of the time. But it was not true even though it functioned as a true concept of reality for a very long time.

We don't need to fret about absolute or objective or ultimate truths.

Did someone appoint you to decide that for all of us?

All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes.

But to make those decisions we need more than just our desires and preferences. We need goals and ethical priorities. And to establish those we need to know more than just "what works". We need to know why it matters beyond hedonistic survival.

If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't.

Functionality is not truth. It may be effective, and it may be a part of the truth, or it may just be an effective mislead. Like a flat Earth.

You seem to have some other idea of what truth or knowledge is. To you, it is ethereal and unobtainable. Is there anything true about oxygen to you?

Yes, I am able to see beyond the materialist paradigm of 'function = truth' because I have faced the profound realization of human unknowing. I am no longer afraid to accept the discomfort of the human condition (that of profound ignorance and the resulting desperate need of control: via God or science).

Are you familiar with logical positivism or verificationism? About a century old now, they're essentially the opposite of your position and probably something you'd classify as scientism.

"Seeing is believing" as they used to say before everything had to have a pseudo-scientific label pasted on it.

The thing is that life is far more complicated then that. And we have some very effective tools that can reach beyond the simple "seeing is believing" axiom. But if we're going to avail ourselves of these, or of any of our cognitive tools, we need to get over the delusion that we can obtain the truth and know that we have obtained it. Because we can't. And the fact that we can't is as much whole truth as any of us are ever going to get.

Fortunately, we have visionaries like you who have successfully avoided cultic thinking and seen further.

That is fortunate for me. Not so much for those who can't learn from me, though, because they can't countenance the idea that someone else might be able to understand reality in a way that they cannot.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because an idea about reality functions when presumed true does not mean that idea is true.

If an idea functions, it doesn't need to be truer than that. If the idea allows us to successfully predict outcomes, it's a keeper.

The idea that the Earth is flat still functions the vast majority of the time for us.

If one's world is small, then that idea works, which is all that matters. If one's world enlarges such that that idea no longer adequately accounts for observations, one's model is modified accordingly.

The point here is that the unknown needn't worry us. It doesn't matter until it manifests. And we needn't demean or dismiss the knowledge we can accumulate just because there is more to know. To fret continually about the unseen or the limits of knowledge isn't helpful or a useful idea itself and, in some cases, appears to be debilitating.

The thing is that life is far more complicated than that.

I haven't found it complicated. Empiricism, rational ethics, and critical thinking have been reliable guides to achieving goals. Learn as much as you can, live mindfully, and be a person of integrity (fair, loyal, honest, responsible, industrious, etc.). One still needs good luck such as not contracting a terminal disease, dying in an airplane crash, being born in Gaza or some other unfortunate place, or marrying badly, but that formula should get one to a happy end if circumstances permit.

I think that too many others make it more complicated than it need be and suffer for it.

Functionality is not truth. It may be effective, and it may be a part of the truth, or it may just be an effective mislead. Like a flat Earth.

Effective is all I need, and all I can have. It's all anybody can have. It's unfortunate that that doesn't satisfy some.

That is fortunate for me. Not so much for those who can't learn from me, though, because they can't countenance the idea that someone else might be able to understand reality in a way that they cannot.

I see no advantage to you, so why should I be interested? If you want to convincingly claim to have a better way of doing something, you'll need to demonstrate the benefit or advantage.

 

[blü 2]

Sure like colors don't actually exist outside of our conscious experience of them. They are an interpretation of reality created by our brain. Some folks interpret their spiritual experience as having a relationship to reality and some dont.

I don't get the analogy. Our eyes have evolved color receptors and our brain processes their input accordingly. That is, there's nothing imaginary involved. Spiritual experiences are mental states, with no external stimulant ─ that is, they're not responses to anything objectively real, anything external to the self.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, right for you.

Unless you meet someone in person, you have to rely on claims made by other of someone's existence. Why you choose to believe one claim and not the other,

Up to you to decide the necessary credibility to accept someone's existence. Everyone has to decide this for themselves.

I have reason to believe that other humans exist in the category "objectively real" ie found in the world external to the self ─ my parents, for example, or my children and grandchildren. To be clear, I think the words appearing here as by you are indeed the work of you, a real human. Please correct me if that's wrong.

At the same time, I have no reason to believe that gods, souls, ghosts, fairies, goblins &c &c &c have objective existence, since they're NOT found in the world external to the self. I am of course open to correction on that statement too, so if you have a real god, soul, ghost, fairy or goblin to demonstrate satisfactorily to me, please do so. A video of God answering questions would be a good start, though of course in these days of AI, not conclusive.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The creator of the universe.
Your soul.
You get to decide what you do and do not accept as evidence. I don't get to choose that for you nor do you get to chose that for me.

There is no creation, there is only a flux of physical energy. The universe is created by our minds.
I have no soul. Our fear of death creates soul and stories about its emancipation (everlasting life or moksha), because we do not accept that at death, there is a total dissipation of our identity.
True.