You Can't Argue Against God

[Madsaac]

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.

What would you call the periodic table?

Where did the elements come from?

How do you know what the elements are? And have you ever actually touched one?

 

[RestlessSoul]

But as I relentlessly point out, you share the axiom. I am not imaginary.

Of course you are. You exist to me as a kaleidoscope of (generally consistent) images and impressions. I take it on faith that there is something fundamental underpinning those impressions. Mostly because I recognise in them, reflections of qualities I perceive to be fundamental in myself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But as I relentlessly point out, you share the axiom. I am not imaginary.

It is not a fact, that you are real.
It is true that I treat my experinces as real and thus that I consider you real, but that doesn't make you real. If cause and effect worked based on how I think, then me thinking you are real, is what causes you to be real. We have a name for that. It is called magical thinking and yes, it is not limited to religious people.

In effect you act so, that you thinking reality is real, makes it a fact that reality is real. That is magical thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, so we agree God exists solely as an idea in an individual brain.

We just disagree as to whether a world exists external to the self, in this case external to your self for you, and my self for me.

And if it doesn't, we can't be having this conversation.

You don't know that as it would be the same to you for some variants as a Boltzmann Brain universe.

 

[blü 2]

Of course you are. You exist to me as a kaleidoscope of (generally consistent) images and impressions. I take it on faith that there is something fundamental underpinning those impressions. Mostly because I recognise in them, reflections of qualities I perceive to be fundamental in myself.

That is, you have good reason to think I exist independently of you, out here in objective reality, and no reason not to, and you act accordingly eg by engaging in this conversation.

 

[blü 2]

You don't know that as it would be the same to you for some variants as a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Ho hum. Whatever.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is, you have good reason to think I exist independently of you, out here in objective reality, and no reason not to, and you act accordingly eg by engaging in this conversation.

No, not really. There you go again, mistaking your perception of reality for universal, objective truth.

Your conception of independently existing phenomena, interacting through contact in something called ‘objective reality’ breaks down when you recognise that everything is connected at the most profound level, and that distinctions - between things, individuals, internal and external reality, object and observer, life and death even - are arbitrary and illusory.

In short, neither of us exist independently of anything - we are each a part of everything, and everything is part of us.

 

[Madsaac]

It is not a fact, that you are real.
It is true that I treat my experinces as real and thus that I consider you real, but that doesn't make you real. If cause and effect worked based on how I think, then me thinking you are real, is what causes you to be real. We have a name for that. It is called magical thinking and yes, it is not limited to religious people.

In effect you act so, that you thinking reality is real, makes it a fact that reality is real. That is magical thinking.

Something I don't understand.

Hasn't various scientific processes worked out what is real and what isn't, devoid of what an individual thinks.

Science has worked out that that elements are real and we are made of elements, we are real no matter what an individual considers real.

I am real, no matter what you think, so it's not magical thinking.

Elements are real, for example. An objective truth

 

[Madsaac]

No, not really. There you go again, mistaking your perception of reality for universal, objective truth.

Your conception of independently existing phenomena, interacting through contact in something called ‘objective reality’ breaks down when you recognise that everything is connected at the most profound level, and that distinctions - between things, individuals, internal and external reality, object and observer, life and death even - are arbitrary and illusory.

In short, neither of us exist independently of anything - we are each a part of everything, and everything is part of us.

What you say is correct in a way, we are all connected, we are all part of the same thing, everything. Part of the universe, part of the Earth and so on.

However objective reality exist independent of any conscious awareness. Or objective reality exists independent of how any subjective observer interacts with it and shows their individual viewpoints. For example, oxygen is oxygen no matter what we think of it, as with many other objective truths.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, I think you are confused.

What you say is correct in a way, we are all connected, we are all part of the same thing, everything. Part of the universe, part of the Earth and so on.

However objective reality exist independent of any conscious awareness. Or objective reality exists independent of how any subjective observer interacts with it and shows their individual viewpoints. For example, oxygen is oxygen no matter what we think of it, as with many other objective truths.

Reality is confusing, so I’d be a fool if I claimed not to be confused. Especially by the last century of theoretical physics, which is just beginning to catch up with philosophy in challenging our ideas about objective reality.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
- Werner Heisenberg

“A physicist is an atom’s way of describing itself”
- Niels Bohr

 

[PureX]

Okay, so we agree God exists solely as an idea in an individual brain.

No. God is an idea necessitated logically by the fact of and nature of existence. Just as objective reality is an idea necessitated by the fact of and nature of existence. The accuracy of these ideas is not ascertainable by any human. So the extent to which we hold to them is a matter of choice, and of faith. Not knowledge.

We just disagree as to whether a world exists external to the self, in this case external to your self for you, and my self for me.

I do not disagree that a 'world' exists external to the self. I simply point out that there is no way for us to know this to be so. Because all we can or will ever know is contained within the self.

And if it doesn't, we can't be having this conversation.

Of course we can. Our "selves" would still exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is, you have good reason to think I exist independently of you, out here in objective reality, and no reason not to, and you act accordingly eg by engaging in this conversation.

There are no good reasons in objective reality and no good reason decides what objective reality is as independent of the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something I don't understand.

Hasn't various scientific processes worked out what is real and what isn't, devoid of what an individual thinks.

Science has worked out that that elements are real and we are made of elements, we are real no matter what an individual considers real.

I am real, no matter what you think, so it's not magical thinking.

Elements are real, for example. An objective truth

Yeah, please explain how you understand this:
"... According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes. ..."
"... Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions – a paradigm – comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then we will take it from there.

 

[PureX]

Yes you are right. Science can investigate the physical functionality of a theory about physical functionality by testing to see if it functions. And isn't it science wonderful? Yes? More then god has ever done.

Without the great mystery source determining what is possible and what is not, science would have no consistency to theorize about, or investigate.

Okay not everything, I agree we can't know everything. How about we prove what we can know? Agree

There is no real proof without certainty. And we cannot logically ever be certain. So when we humans claim we have proof, we are fooling ourselves. Lying to ourselves.

What disaster are you talking about?

The disaster that always follows self-delusion and grandiosity. You know, like destroying our only habitat simply because we can, and we're just too stupid and selfish not to.

It's not pretences, we are just doing what we have evolved to do, it's very simple actually.

If we do not learn to transcend what we have evolved to do, we will not continue as a viable life form.

Yes so to avoid this danger you speak of, lets investigate it.

First, let's get honest about how to do that. And the answer is not science always and only science. All science does is throw loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. The monkeys need philosophy, religion, and art, to help them learn how NOT to use those loaded pistols.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ho hum. Whatever.

Yeah, here is your trick.
You assume that X is real and point out that it is so for other people. Therefore X is not only real, but an objective fact.

The joke is that X could be God, or objective reality as you believe in it. You then demand evidence for one of them, but not the other. That is your trick.

 

[PureX]

What would you call the periodic table?

I call it a human conceptualization of our very limited experience of existential phenomena.

Where did the elements come from?

Everything that exists, and exists how it exists, because it has been deemed possible. The source of what has been deemed possible, and not possible, is a the greatest mystery.

How do you know what the elements are? And have you ever actually touched one?

This is irrelevant myopicism.

 

[stvdv]

It's amazing to me how often we're told that God is unknowable, inscrutable, ineffable, and his ways are higher than ours.

Yet, these same interlocutors claim to know so much about God's will, plan, motives, etc.

So, the fast way to shut up these Theist is simple. Just tell them "that's false"

As any claims starting with "God =" is per definition false. Facts need not be debated

 

[blü 2]

No, not really. There you go again, mistaking your perception of reality for universal, objective truth.

No, as I've said many times, outside of this sentence there are no absolute statements.

And our understanding of reality changes, so that what was true at one time is not longer true ─ which is to say, truth is never absolute, but it is indeed retrospective. For example, as you know, the Michelson-Morley experiment put an end to the understanding that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. Or, going the other way, until 2012 it wasn't true that mass is due to the Higgs boson, but now it is.

My definition of truth is that truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality.

What definition of truth do you use?

Your conception of independently existing phenomena, interacting through contact in something called ‘objective reality’ breaks down when you recognise that everything is connected at the most profound level, and that distinctions - between things, individuals, internal and external reality, object and observer, life and death even - are arbitrary and illusory.

No, self-awareness is not illusory. You, looking out through your eyes, and via your other senses, perceive the world external to your self, accurately or inaccurately, but you can still cross the road safely, still recognize your parents, siblings, friends and others, still understand that you / your body needs air, water, food, society and so on.

In short, neither of us exist independently of anything

I don't suggest that we do. On the contrary, I point out that we each perceive the world we live in through our senses, aided of course by our evolved instincts.

we are each a part of everything, and everything is part of us.

No. You will never be someone else, or a bird, or a car, or a gutter, or a shop, and nor will I. Your death will not be my death, or vice versa, in any meaningful sense.

And when you die, that will be the end of you, and when I die that will be the end of me ─ no more perceiving, no more living identity for either of us. But reality will still be there.

 

[blü 2]

No. God is an idea necessitated logically by the fact of and nature of existence.

Why?

And what exactly do you mean by "God" here? If God exists in more ways than as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, then God is out there in reality. So why can't we detect and describe [him]? Why does God never appear, say or do?

Do amoebae need gods? Do ants? Fish? Snakes? Birds? Mammals?

Just as objective reality is an idea necessitated by the fact of and nature of existence. The accuracy of these ideas is not ascertainable by any human.

But by looking for those answers, science has built the modern world, the computer, the Mars rover, modern medicine, genetic science, materials for cars, sewing machines, carpets, paint, railroad rails, on and on. The justification for science is not that it's true in any absolute sense but that it works. The justification for religion is to be guessed at, but there are credible theories out there.

 

[blü 2]

There are no good reasons in objective reality and no good reason decides what objective reality is as independent of the mind.

You still haven't done the half-hour-with-no-air test.

When you've done it, please be sure to let me know how it went.