You Can't Argue Against God

[Madsaac]

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. 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.

Yes, I think I am because at the end of the day science has given us so much, science's belief in objective truth works, look around you.

I am very sure that things exist independent of any perception of it.

Having said that, even though interaction with objects can be objectively known, some things, like color (and God), are subjective traits. And some things like our feelings may not be directly proven though science. Our knowledge of the world is not perfect and is at least sometimes subjective, that doesn’t have to mean that the physical world doesn’t exist.

You see the world that is useful to you and your idea that the world could be wildly different from what we see is simply your subjective idea and that's cool but there is no proof it what so ever, except in your brain.

External reality exists, and our understanding of it is an approximation that we can improve upon.

 

[Madsaac]

You should start here and try to understand what it is about in regards to what you believe. I.e. how come it is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you want to we can go back to how sicence hasn't solved the problems in epistemology.

Yes it is methodological because its a very good way to see if something is real, to prove something. However, it goes deeper with philosophical, in the sense that you cannot know everything about oxygen through science, especially from a personal experience.

And again, science is only part of epistemology

 

[Madsaac]

Yes that is your belief whereas I am free to believe otherwise.
Since our conscious experience is subjective anyway, you get to decide that subjective experience's relationship to reality same as I do.

Yes but the things God does or has done that are in your conscious experience, can be explained through scientific objective truths or methodological naturalism.

Granted, it has trouble explaining how you feel etc but again they are subjective experiences. (Even then there have been many 'studies' done on these topics)

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

You’re missing the rather obvious point that our subjective experience of colour is
by definition imaginary.

But you’re right that spiritual experiences often arise from processes within ourselves; since it is within us, that the spirit may be found. Which is why demanding proof of God from others is futile; you have to find It for yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes it is methodological because its a very good way to see if something is real, to prove something. However, it goes deeper with philosophical, in the sense that you cannot know everything about oxygen through science, especially from a personal experience.

And again, science is only part of epistemology

What is real? What does it mean?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes but the things God does or has done that are in your conscious experience, can be explained through scientific objective truths or methodological naturalism.

Granted, it has trouble explaining how you feel etc but again they are subjective experiences. (Even then there have been many 'studies' done on these topics)

Science creates explanations based on what it knows. I believe there is still much to discover about the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no creation, there is only a flux of physical energy. The universe is created by our minds.

You first say there is no creator but then say that you create it. Kind of hard to find meaning here when you make both claims.

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.

Then who is it that experiences this universe you claim to create?

 

[Madsaac]

Science creates explanations based on what it knows. I believe there is still much to discover about the universe.

Yes I agree with that but in the meantime, I think science is without doubt is the best way to demonstrate that external reality exists, and our understanding of it is an approximation, that we can improve upon.

 

[Madsaac]

What is real? What does it mean?

I think something is real or something at it's 'most real', when it is independent of an individuals perceptions (Subjective thought). Something that has endured the rigours of the methodological scientific naturalistic process.

What does it mean? I think it means, that it gives humans an excellent way of understanding things

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Yes the people you have met, even me somewhat through the internet. Whereas I haven't met your parents. I have to rely on your claims about them and you could 100% lie and I'd never know. I can choose to believe in their existence without any evidence beyond your claim. I choose whether to believe you based on whatever seems reasonable to me.

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.

There are many more people I have personally met, have experienced their existence and don't have videos of than do.

Things we have shared experience with, like grandchildren, we are more likely to accept the claim of.

However have you seen a fairy? I'll assume not. I have, so I'm more likely to accept the claim of someone else having seen them.
I haven't seen a ghost, so have as little reason to believe claims about them as you do about faeries.

Your lack of experience doesn't not determine what does and does not exist. Only how likely you are to accept someone else's claims about them.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

We have receptors which sense different frequencies of light. Color is simply an interpretation of these frequencies. In fact, you could be made to see colors by simple stimulating these receptors with the right frequencies. An example is the color pink. The color pink doesn't even exist as a light frequency. Pink exists no where on the light spectrum. However your brain creates the experience of seeing pink for you.

Another thing, your actual field of vision is really very narrow. Maybe an 1/2 to 1 inch diameter. The rest of it is a blur of light you couldn't decipher. What you see outside that diameter has no actual objective reality. Your mind creates it for you. You accept what you see as objectively real even though it isn't.

You say what I experience isn't objectively real. Science has already proven the majority of what you experience and accept as real isn't. Your claims to what is and isn't real don't have a lot of weight behind them.


Everything you have ever seen in your life is a figment of your imagination.
Neuroscience proves that our sensory experience is constructed entirely by our brains, and by the same parts concerned with dreams, hallucinations and memory failure. So how much of what we see is real, and is any of it?
How Much Of What You See is Real?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm glad you believe so.

That's not a belief. That's a fact.
A color is light of a specific wavelength.

Just as some believe in a divine reality that is the basis of their spiritual experience.

The difference being that light and its wavelengths are empirically testable.
This is how we know of colors that our eyes can't even see.
It has nothing to do with "experience" and everything with objectively testable reality.

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

"believe". Yes. Not empirically testable. Not based in objective evidence.
Instead, mere "beliefs". Indistinguishable from sheer imagination.

That's your belief. Others believe otherwise.

No, not just mere belief. It's a fact.

Color is light of a specific wavelength. Factually. Demonstrably. Testable. Empirical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You'd probably miss

The dodge is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My beliefs work for me just as your beliefs work for you.

I very much doubt that.

However, for some reason you think you get to decide for me the reality I accept as causal behind my experiences.

I never said or claimed any such thing.
"i" don't decide what reality is.

Kind of rude but I understand some folks have a need to insist on the reality behind what other people experience.

I just go by empirical facts as those are actually distinguishable from sheer fantasy.
I don't doubt people's sincerity in there beliefs.
But beliefs are meaningless if the point is to find out what is actually true.

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

lol

Owkay then.
I get that you don't feel like answering that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See, more common ground.

Not even close

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Whoops

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses, yet logic and reason tells they exist, as by the practice of them we promote lasting bonds that aid the progress of humanity. By the lack of those virtues, we kill and destroy.

It was brought to my attention that I made whoopsie in an earlier post... somehow I read "viruses" instead of "virtues"


Anyhow, virtues are not things that "exist".
They are concepts, mental / social constructs that only exist in our minds.
They have no external existence to human social behavior.

So bad example

 

[blü 2]

You’re missing the rather obvious point that our subjective experience of colour is
by definition imaginary.

You're missing the rather obvious point that the reactions of the elements of the eye to color are physical reactions, which stimulate signals directly to the brain down the optic nerve (which is part of the brain) whence it stimulates biochemical and bioelectrical processes by which we see in color and react the better for it.

But you’re right that spiritual experiences often arise from processes within ourselves; since it is within us, that the spirit may be found. Which is why demanding proof of God from others is futile; you have to find It for yourself.

No, that can't be right, or there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of versions of God and gods and other supernatural beings across millennia and a great many cultures. There'd at least be consistency about the boss god, and his directives; but of course there isn't. No one would mistake Yahweh for Zeus or Aten-Ra or the Rainbow Serpent or the Great Spirit &c &c &c &c &c. And in the bible, God first appears as one among many gods, naturally regarded as the boss god by [his] followers. Not till around the end of the Babylonian captivity does [he] become the sole God, not till the Christians enter the scene does that version of [him] renounce the covenant, and after three or four centuries become triune, and then split into Eastern and Western, into Catholic and Protestant, into high and low Protestant, into literally thousands of version of that, as well as making guest spot appearances in for the Mormons and the Rastas.

This is explicable if humans invent gods. It's inexplicable if gods have objective existence.

 

[blü 2]

Yes the people you have met, even me somewhat through the internet. Whereas I haven't met your parents. I have to rely on your claims about them.

You suspect I'm not a product of human biology? AI? Moi? Good heavens! I'll have to ask Elon to adjust my parameters!

There are many more people I have personally met, have experienced their existence and don't have videos of than do.

That's perfectly consistent with it being an aspect of human culture and psychology.

However have you seen a fairy? I'll assume not. I have, so I'm more likely to accept the claim of someone else having seen them.

At least a photo, please.

I haven't seen a ghost, so have as little reason to believe claims about them as you do about faeries.

No, I haven't seen a ghost. I have experience the creeps, though.

Your lack of experience doesn't not determine what does and does not exist. Only how likely you are to accept someone else's claims about them.

It's not as if I've never gone looking for experience eg >here<.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The dodge is noted.

As is the miss