You Can't Argue Against God

[RestlessSoul]

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.

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.

Conscious experience has physical correlates in the brain, sure. But you can’t reduce what happens in the mind - which is everything - to physical phenomena, without losing consciousness itself. The entirety of your experience is conscious experience - it happens in the mind.

Pointing out that varieties of spiritual experiences are as diverse as the people reporting them, is a very weak argument against their veracity or value.

 

[PureX]

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.

Science does not believe in objective truth. Science doesn't believe in anything. All science can do is investigate the physical functionality of a theory about physical functionality by testing to see if it functions.

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

"Thingness" is a human concept. No humans, no "things". Just an ocean of undifferentiated, unrecognized phenomena.

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.

"Existence" is a human cognitive concept. No humans; nothing "exists". You don't seem to be grasping just how profoundly moot your mythical "objective reality" really is.

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.

Proof is an irrelevant factor. Everything is the proof. Because what we call everything is beyond what we can know to be so, and all that we think we know is subjectively known, anyway. It's not objective.

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

Yes, we can make our imaginary approximations of 'what is' more functionally effective. And we can pretend this means that we "know what is". But when we humans allow ourselves to fall for our own pretenses, we are setting ourselves up for a disaster. Because that pretense blinds us and makes us arrogant. A condition that invites great danger. Like blind men playing in traffic.

 

[Viker]

Ultimately, no...I probably can't and won't argue against God. I can scrutinize and articulate arguments against claims made by believers in God.

 

[blü 2]

Conscious experience has physical correlates in the brain, sure. But you can’t reduce what happens in the mind - which is everything - to physical phenomena, without losing consciousness itself. The entirety of your experience is conscious experience - it happens in the mind.

Pointing out that varieties of spiritual experiences are as diverse as the people reporting them, is a very weak argument against their veracity or value.

If it helps make people behave towards others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, fine.

I simply argue that no evidence suggests that God or other supernatural beings exist in the world external to the self ie no evidence suggests they're objectively real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it helps make people behave towards others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, fine.

I simply argue that no evidence suggests that God or other supernatural beings exist in the world external to the self ie no evidence suggests they're objectively real.

But there is no evidence for the objectively real in any sense of real. Real is in your mind just as God. That is the problem with these debates.
So people don't understand when they make a subjective claim and that is not limited to religion.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I could but I'm happy to leave it at not likely.

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

That's God to know.

At least a photo, please.

No, you'd have to see God for yourself. Otherwise I could easily get a picture and claim it was God. That's simply back were we started. You having to rely on someone else's claims about God.

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

Yes, something we have in common so a claim that's more likely true from my pov than not.

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

I actually had to have someone "lay their hands on me" to see God. They claim was this was not something you could do on your own. I had to prove my worth to this person first. They also said only a few selected individuals could do this. Like the Apostles of Jesus.

Of course, no reason for you to believe this. However there were many with me who went through the same experience. They would understand.

I was told what I saw was God. I had no reason not to believe them at the time.

 

[Nakosis]

Not even close

So you are looking for the undetectable?
Good luck.

 

[PureX]

If it helps make people behave towards others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, fine.

I simply argue that no evidence suggests that God or other supernatural beings exist in the world external to the self ie no evidence suggests they're objectively real.

The evidence is everywhere. The problem is that you want "objective" physical evidence, and that doesn't exist because God is not an objective physical phenomenon. Yet you continue to ingnore the stupidity of your demanding it, anyway, so that you can continue using your not getting it as some phony rationale for your otherwise completely unfounded belief that no gods exist.

And you will continue ignoring this criticism because you are not really interested in critical thought at all. You're really just interested in being right. And it's not just you, it's all of these phony "critical thinking" atheists around here that keep falsely insisting there is "no evidence" to support the possibility of a creator God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

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

I said very clearly that our minds create the universe, where only a flux energy exists. Taking the universe or yourself as something real is an illusion - 'maya'. The universe, in Budhist parlance, and in Hindu parlance too, is 'anatta' (insubstantial).

 

[Nakosis]

I very much doubt that.

I believe the sun will be somewhere in the sky tomorrow. How about you?

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

Yes, your brain pretty much does that for most people. Your brain decides for you, my brain decides for me.

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.

Is that what you want? To find out what is actually true? Good luck with that. I kind of doubt you will and we have to settle for accepting an concept of reality that seems to work best for you.

lol

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

I'm happy to answer for me, I just can't answer for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are looking for the undetectable?
Good luck.

I was talking about you.
Going by your previous posts, me not amusing myself with chasing the undetectable, is not some "common ground" between us.

 

[Nakosis]

I said very clearly that our minds create the universe, where only a flux energy exists. Taking the universe or yourself as something real is an illusion - 'maya'. The universe, in Budhist parlance, and in Hindu parlance too, is 'anatta' (insubstantial).

I'm just asking. Who is it that you see as responding to my posts? Just because it is an illusion doesn't mean something is causing the illusion. Pretty neat illusion though don't you think? That we can have this apparent conversation between two "separate" individuals.

 

[Nakosis]

I was talking about you.
Going by your previous posts, me not amusing myself with chasing the undetectable, is not some "common ground" between us.

So you are back to deciding my reality for me?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you are looking for the undetectable?
Good luck.

Since people claim, fight, pray for the undetectable, TegliatelliMonster is intrigued. Imaginary things too are undetectable (ghosts, djinns, etc.).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence is everywhere.

Is it?

The problem is that you want "objective" physical evidence

It doesn't have to be physical. But I prefer it to be objective, yes.
Subjective evidence is on par with "i saw a ghost last night", which I don't consider to be evidence as much as I consider it to be a claim in need of evidence...

, and that doesn't exist because God is not an objective physical phenomenon.

I agree there. Gods rather seems to exist in the same realm as Darth Vader, Frodo and Hercules: as characters in books and between people's ears.

Yet you continue to ignore the stupidity of your demanding it

I don't consider that stupid at all.
If someone wants to claim that an entity objective exists (which is to say: NOT just as a character in a book or in the imagination of people, but is actually existent external to human minds), then I will ask evidence for that existence.

It matters not what the entity is.

If the claim is that this entity only exists in someone's thoughts or tales, then fine.
But to claim that the entity also exists externally to their own thoughts and tales and independently thereof, then I require something more then mere claims of it being so to accept it. And I will call that "something more" evidence.

Why wouldn't I?
What else do you suggest?

, anyway, so that you can continue using your not getting it as some phony rationale for your otherwise completely unfounded belief that no gods exist.

Who is making the claim that no gods exist?
The claim under discussion is "god exists" not "god does not exist".
It's the claim "god exists" that we ask people to support.

This has been explained to you before.

And you will continue ignoring this criticism because you are not really interested in critical thought at all.

Nobody is ignoring this criticism. Instead, we are addressing it head-on and explaining why it's incorrect and how it's based on the strawman of trying to say that the claim under discussion is that god does not exist.

This is more a case of projection then anything else, because it in fact will be YOU who will be ignoring this counter-criticism, I suspect.

You're really just interested in being right. And it's not just you, it's all of these phony "critical thinking" atheists around here that keep falsely insisting there is "no evidence" to support the possibility of a creator God.

I don't see how it's false to say that there is no objective evidence to support an objectively existing god.

I'm sorry, but "subjective evidence" is just not sufficient to support a claim of objective existence.

"i saw a ghost" is not sufficient to accept the actual objective existence of ghosts. And you know it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm just asking. Who is it that you see as responding to my posts? Just because it is an illusion doesn't mean something is causing the illusion. Pretty neat illusion though don't you think? That we can have this apparent conversation between two "separate" individuals.

Yeah, it is the neatest of illusions. When both of us die, me in India and you in California; it is possible that our molecules, one from each of us, could exist in a third living or non-living thing, somewhere in Africa. The form changes, the substrate is the same for all things.

However, read in the newspaper today, elephants call each other by name. And when some elephant does that, only the called one responds.
I suppose, the more intelligent creatures of the sea also do that, whales, seals, squids, octopuses, etc.

 

[Nakosis]

Ultimately, no...I probably can't and won't argue against God. I can scrutinize and articulate arguments against claims made by believers in God.

Based on what?
Have you had your own experiences with God to argue against what they claim to have experienced with God?

Kind of like arguing against their claims of having been to Hawaii never having been there yourself.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, it is the neatest of illusions. When both of us die, me in India and you in California; it is possible that our molecules, one from each of us, could exist in a third living or non-living thing, somewhere in Africa. The form changes, the substrate is the same for all things.

Fine with me. That's the reality that works for you. Although not too far from the reality I expect, but I could of had a different one.
Even if it is an illusion, our conversation, it works well enough, consistent enough to be accepted as reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It doesn't have to be physical. But I prefer it to be objective, yes.
Subjective evidence is on par with "i saw a ghost last night", which I don't consider to be evidence as much as I consider it to be a claim in need of evidence...

...

Do you got any objective evidence that you prefer evidence to be objective?
Do you got any objective evdience that all subjective evidence is on par with "i saw a ghost last night"?

 

[blü 2]

But there is no evidence for the objectively real in any sense of real.

You're obviously putting off that no-air-for-half-an-hour experiment which I told you is rather persuasive.

I could but I'm happy to leave it at not likely.



That's God to know.



No, you'd have to see God for yourself. Otherwise I could easily get a picture and claim it was God. That's simply back were we started. You having to rely on someone else's claims about God.



Yes, something we have in common so a claim that's more likely true from my pov than not.



I actually had to have someone "lay their hands on me" to see God. They claim was this was not something you could do on your own. I had to prove my worth to this person first. They also said only a few selected individuals could do this. Like the Apostles of Jesus.

Of course, no reason for you to believe this. However there were many with me who went through the same experience. They would understand.

I was told what I saw was God. I had no reason not to believe them at the time.

None of that contradicts what I said ─ the only way in which God and other supernatural entities are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.