Are agnostics evading the question?

The concept of “God” has no relevance to my life. That does not mean that i claim ignorance and adopt an “I don’t know” stance, (even though i don’t know). Knowledge represents a way for us to organize and make sense of our World. To adopt a determined and sustained stance of ignorance is to allow disorganization and lack of sense into one’s life. The concept of “God” does not correspond to one’s experiences (at least not mine. Remember the correspondence theory of truth?). I remain devoutly atheist even though the arguments presented here have been some of the best i have seen.

Note that all of this does not prevent me from realizing my small, insignificant place in the Universe (with a capital U), and from knowing that i am profoundly ignorant on a vast range of subjects. Being atheist makes one responsible for one’s own life. You can’t have God to intercede, you’re not going to heaven (maybe some atheists don’t believe this) so you had better make the World a wonderful place, this is the only chance you’ll have to love, understand, and appreciate the people around you, so make the best of it. Not having God in one’s life makes one extremely self-reliant, perhaps only existentialism has done more in this respect.

To: Matt

It has always been interesting to me when atheists and other philosophers hold that “it is not necessary to introduce this or to say that”. In my view, I hold that it is naturally necessary to introduce the nonempirical because we are forced to do so by Nature.

Allow me to explain: If indeed consciousness depends on the physical, then all of our beliefs and choices,etc. depend upon a particular neural function to occur FIRST in order for the relevant belief or decision to exist.
On this, the induction can be made that belief in God and unicorns etc. are insisted upon by the chance electronic function of the neurons, and hence by “Nature”. On this understanding, belief in God and the gang ultimately is what I call “neurally insisted upon” by physical chance, and cannot be prevented. So belief in God et.al is ultimately given by Nature.

Also, Santa Claus and unicorns (and some conceptualizations of God, such as the supernatural being in Revelations whose hair is white and whose face is full of “lightning”) are what I call: “sensory contestants”, or imaginary or conceivable beings that SHOULD by sensorially perceived by skeptics IF THEY WERE REAL but that continually fail to show up, so disbelief in their existence is justified.

Some conceivable beings on the other hand are not sensory contestants, but are naturally imperceptible as conceived and would be if they exist.
Disembodied conscious minds fall into this category,as we have no real evidence of the existence of anything except OUR OWN PERSONAL consciousness in terms of determining what exists and what does not by EXPERIENCE rather than assumption, assertion, or belief.

I deny that we have some epistemic power or ability to discern the existence or nonexistence of viable alternatives to the proportions and displacements of consciousness, and that the only beliefs we have about consciousness (whether pro or con) beyond that which arises in the brain are ultimately on BELIEFS and not PROOFS.

I go into this in greater detail in my own book: “Can God Exist?”

But all this is only my view,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

I was refering to the insubstantial gorilla I had previously mentioned. I didn’t feel like typing “insubstantial purple gorilla” multiple times. Thus my statement that I wouldn’t know it was there or not, much less have any idea it was plotting my demise and capable of carrying it out.

This brings up a point that follows from my own. Relying on God as a crutch only hurts our ability to function as independent, self-reliant beings.

The point I’m making in general is that:

• I am not going to believe in God, nor consider the possiblity (simply because the act of consideration is fruitless) and therefore, am “effectively disbelieving.” That is, I’m living out my life in such a fashion as if God does not exist, regardless of the truth. I will not espouse “There is a God!” nor “There is not a God!” because both are statements I cannot support.

But again, I’m living in such a way as if God is nonexistent. So for all considerations, God “is” at least “effectively” a nonbeing, at least in regards to myself and my life.

You’re right, it does appear to be more a matter of semnatics between us, more so than any fundamental principles. You’re basing your definitions on knowledge. I think doing that is kind of pointless, since knowledge is not something we have, at least not in this instance, nor shall we ever. Thus I base my definitions on belief instead. If you wish to consider me agnostic, that’s fine. I certainly won’t take offense to it.

So is this topic basically dead now?

This was fun. I don’t normally get discussions like this. I’m afraid the subject of God is so touchy, it’s difficult for a lot of people to get into. Maybe I’m a bit put-off from living in the south though.

I know I’m coming into this debate a little late, but there are a couple of things touched upon that need to distinctly separated:

• A belief in ‘Religious assertion on God’ as appose to belief in an actual Universal Creator. The two are very different questions, which are getting mixed in this debate. I’m an atheist when it comes to religious assertion on the topic of God(s). But does there exist a Creator who might not be defined or imagined by religions who created the universe? This I’m agnostic towards and feel this latter is the central idea that is trying to be debated here.

• What is God? While this is the heart of the question, people can mean many different things when they use the word ‘God’, for that reason I would suggest a different word that has a more fixed meaning, Creator. Now, is this Creator divine or just an alien race? Well when I talk of creation I’m talking of the creation of the Universe not just an individual race of beings or a single planet. So the Creator would have to be classed as divine, because he would have had to have existed externally to our universe and also before our universe came into existence. Therefore it seems to be about this Divine Creator that the question is being directed towards.

So, onto the question at hand:

God’s existence is still an on going debate, so to presuppose the outcome is to conclude a premature answer, yet to stop here is to end the debate. Please don’t take this to mean I’m belittling those who hold the opinion of either Atheism or Theism. But to me almost on a weekly basis I find another new piece of the puzzle that makes me re-evaluate my currently held opinion on the matter.

Atheism is a belief, so is Theism, but I would say Agnosticism is the lack of belief in either of those options. To me there are some fundamental questions still to be answered:

Q1. Did the whole Universe come into existence with the ‘Big Bang’, or was the ‘Big Bang’ just an anomaly that was contained within an already existing Universe. Meaning, is there a wider Universe that has always existed and it was within that universe the ‘Big Bang’ occurred creating everything that we can see and class as our own universe. The ‘Big Bang’ might have been two similar sized Black holes that tried to consume each other. But because the forces were so great nether hole could consume the other, so a massive explosion occurred and created our sub-universe contain within a greater one. This is just a proposal acknowledging the existence of the Big Bang, while speculating about the origins of this ‘Big Bang’, could this have occurred in an already existing universe, I don’t see why not.

Q2. This universe that we live in follows one law at almost every level, the law of cause and affect. Seeing how prevalent a property this is, it would be quite paradoxical if the universe so reliant on cause and affect itself lacked an initial cause, i.e. a Universal Creator a.k.a. the Primary Cause. (Though some suggest the above ‘Q1’ as an answer: “The universe has always existed, like it is said of the Creator.”)

These to me are questions that need to have answers before I can feel comfortable with any other opinion on a Universal Creator, other then to say I don’t know, and therefore be seen as Agnostic. Like I’ve said earlier Agnosticism is not a belief so to speak, but more of a lack of belief in the current options, as there are questions that still need to be clarified.

All we have to go on are our assertions based off personal experience, nothing more. It’s been my experience that certainty rarely stays fixed, beyond the fundamental principals used in the construction of logic. What we can imagine in our mind doesn’t always reflect what is true in our universe, this to me is part of the problem of understanding our existence, our minds seem to almost live as a separate entity to the body of the universe, yet we see that once a body dies or is sick it changes how the mind works. This is the paradox: the mind seems free to think its own thoughts, while still relying on the body to keep it in existence. Personally, I think science has a lot to offer spirituality and the hope in the existence of a Creator. Though I would say science is almost constantly at odds with religions and other forms of dogmas. But are the Laws of Physics that exist in our universe the handwriting of a creative force? Is this force “God” or just a by-product of necessity required for our immortal Universe to exist? That is the question I lack the answer to and must concede not to ignorance of the questions, but ignorance of the answers so am therefore classed as Agnostic, not by choice, but by circumstance.

To: Pax Vitae
From: Phenomenal Graffiti

Very good post. You seem to be philosophically honest on the important issues, as I sometimes claim to be.

I think it comes down to our beliefs about the world independent of experience and how strongly those beliefs permit us or hinder us in looking logically into consistent counterexamples to what we believe.

For instance, an atheist who claims that God does not exist might be justified in such a claim, as the atheist’s belief (or nonbelief) is not OBVIOUSLY false.

But then again, God (as conceived) is a nonempirical being unavailable to sensory perception.

Unless one wants to believe in supernatural invisible epiphenomenal ectoplasm, there is one aspect in the REAL world that is invisible, intangible, and forever unavailable to the sensory: THE CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS OTHER THAN OURSELVES.

(I call this TPE: or “third-person experience”) We believe that others are conscious, but we have no “proof” of this on the ability of our “experiencing” other’s experiences. We are forced to only BELIEVE that others are not just consciousless automotons moving around and (by luck and causal circumstance) talking to us and answering our questions in the precise way that we expect.

In the same way, if God is a disembodied conscious mind (and one can defend the existence of disembodiment by pure ontological “it just is”-ism)
then God is also a TPE native and is ontologically indistinguishable from us.
(As the existence and nonexistence of consciousness other than our own consciousness is indistinguishable from each other on “observation”)

Ultimately, the disbelief and belief in the existence of imperceptibles (such as other people’s consciousness) relies on BELIEF in such, as we have no epistemic ability (such as sensory perception) to ascertain the truth or falsity of beliefs about consciousness. This is what I call “subjective metaphysics”-and subjective metaphysics is ultimately a “guess” about the way that the world is that could be proven wrong (beyond our knowing) by what I call: “grand metaphysics”, or the way that the world REALLY is in terms of imperceptibles DESPITE our belief or nonbelief in the existence of those perceptibles.

And for the atheist who asks: “God is not relevant in my life because there is no evidence that he exists, so why bring him up at all?”

I have one answer:
Nature insists on the subject of God being raised “all of the time” by our neurons. This is a phenomenon of Nature that I call: “Neuronal Insistence on a God” in theists. Even if God does not exist, he is constantly being “called up” by our neurons-and is thereby naturalistically “insisted upon” by Nature-by the very continuous mention of God, whether verbally, on a computer screen, a sheet of paper or a sign, etc. etc…

Best to you,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti.yahoo.com

I’m not sure what your point is here, are you saying that as we believe in the TPE of another’s consciousness we can’t know about God and thus it’s reasonable to be an agnostic?

In any case my reductionist leanings mean I have to take issue with this!

Firstly you seem to be adopting a skeptical line, i.e. it is possible that everyone else isn’t conscious. I just can’t accept that, no-one reasonably believes that induction isn’t valid because we’ve watched it happen so many times, the same thing is true with other people’s consciousness, it is possible that it is all down to blind chance, but that is such a rediculously small possibility it is dismissible. I don’t see people walking around being agnostic about science, to be consistent they shouldn’t be agnostic about God.

In light of the preceding discussion that isn’t true, if we can KNOW about science we can KNOW about other people’s consciousness. Most definitions of knowledge would quite happily allow us to know of other’s consciousness.

Firstly I’ve never been able to make sense of a disembodied conscious mind, but that’s a whole thread in itself so I’ll leave that.

Secondly our consciousness clearly comes from the physical world, when you knock someone out they become unconscious, when you do physical damage to the brain they lose some aspects of their previous consciousness (brain damage) or they die, when certain drugs and electronic pulses are used on the brain their conscious state changes. There is a clear link between consciousness and the (physical) brain. So I don’t see how God could be ontologically indistinguishable from us when he is supposed to be disembodied, he doesn’t have that same link.

Only if you are not a reductionist, consciousness to us is a materially discernable fact, we just don’t have the technology yet to identify it, though we take a step closer every day.

As for the “Neuronal Insistence on a God” all you are saying there is that we encounter God throughout our lives because people talk about it, why do you have to try and make it sound so complicated? People talk about astrology too, by your line of thought we have a “Neuronal Insistence on Astrology” but it doesn’t make it any more relevant a question. Astrology is bullshit, we can dismiss it. Maybe God is too, if we can dismiss that and forget about it there will be no more Insistence by our Neurons.

To Matt:
From: Phenomenal Graffiti

A reductionist account of consciousness would conceptually hold that there is no difference between the experience of pain and the neural indicators of pain.
A nonreductionist will hold that there is a “hard problem” about consciousness in terms of EXPERIENCE over atoms and molecules. The brain is a spatiotemporal physical object, and by the conservation of energy if we smash a brain to bits none of the materials making up that brain disappears…it merely disperses.

EXPERIENCE on the other hand is said to “cease to exist”. The nonreductivist holds that there is something other to pure physical structure and function to explain consciousness (I wholeheartedly recommend David Chalmer’s online paper "Consciousness and it’s Place in Nature).

One can explain psychophysicality (mind/body) coherence by simply saying that consciousness in the physical is ultimately just THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT ONE CAN SPOT (by introspection). This does nothing to infer a universal barrier to there NOT being consciousness that exists wholly independent of the physical.
(Since TPE cannot be ascertained by our senses, we can’t know whether disembodiment exists…or not,so one cannot make a certainty about it’s nonexistence)
(or about it’s existence to be fair)

I do not go so far to say that other people other than myself AREN"T conscious, I was just trying to make a point about the inperceptibility of TPE. The physical and functional truths about myself say nothing about the experiential truth about myself. They can only form a “language” about SOME of that truth. If I sit quietly saying nothing yet have thoughts, and outside observer could quess (albeit incorrectly) that I am not having thoughts at all.

All of this comes down to questions of certainty, and that some concepts (such as the existence of God) are either true or false. But one can argue that certainty depends on experience, and without experience all that is left is belief and possibility.

As for neuronal insistence, God will not disappear unless Nature causes it.
Belief in God is a continuous SUPERVENIENT event by our neurons, by the uncontrollable whims of Nature. So continuous belief in God is caused by the universe around us,(in terms of the laws of physics in the functioning of theist neurons) and as of this date it seems to have no “intention” of stopping.

But that is only my view,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

Shybard. I live in the southern United States, i believe it must be the bible belt for the whole World at times, atheists here hang from trees as opposed to places like France.

Shybard said:

I consider you a person first. I could live under that belief, i believe. That is so close to atheist i’m not sure where the difference lies. In the specific realm of belief in God it is perfectly plausible to choose belief over knowledge. It would be hard to make this a universal in one’s life, however, (e.g. not taking one’s 4 yr old son who has spinal meningitis to the doctor because you believe God will save him). But all principles lack universal applicability in one respect or another, so…

Jay Brewer. Thanks for the post, appreciate your intelligent input. Where can i get this book? God may indeed be a disembodied conscious which we can have no knowledge of. but either a.) he is able to or does intervene in the World and therefore knowable or b.) he does not or can not intervene in Worldly affairs and is therefore unknowable.
or if you wish to stretch the idea of God as has been done for two millennia now c.) God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who does intervene in our lives but covers his tracks.
or d.) insert your favorite God hypothesis here if facts are not important to you.

Also, and i’ve seen some tele-evangelists (sic?) venture this hypothesis, if God is indeed dictated by our neurons, that is not sufficient evidence for his existence. I’m sorry, atheists always want evidence. But nevertheless, this may go far in explaining why God is, as you say, such a “supervenient” hypothesis.

Pax Vitae. The concept of God tends to become a rubber band concept in the hands of some. I am not even sure that we can define this concept. When Magius (AKA Gadfly) mentioned alien races, i had no idea he was thinking of creator instead of divine being, or that i was conflating the two. If i misunderstood, i apologize for that. I’m just considering divine deities as a group, the ones that work a 40 hr week and create some on the weekends, and the others that just sit on the couch all day. The mind is indeed a weak frail thing, but it is all we have.

To: Marshall McDaniel

From: Jay Brewer

Thanks for your post. Belief in God would indeed require some empirical “proof” of that God in terms not of personal appearance before a skeptic (if God is a disembodied conscious mind, this is naturalistically impossible-in the same way that I have thoughts, but I cannot “physically” extract them from my neurons and show them holographically to you.)

I have certainly come up with a view of God that is an epistemically possible view of the real world. (The term: “epistemic possibility” is coined by David Chalmers-a professor of Consciousness Studies at Arizona University. An epistemic possibility is a conceivable or imaginary state of affairs that on observation looks the exact same as the real world. For example, a belief in invisible elves in the world would yield a world that looks exactly like OUR world, precisely because the elves are invisible)

I could even go so far as to add a fifth mental force of that God that yields a world that for all we can know might be our world, as my conception of a God-controlled world can hold no difference from the way that the real world is or has turned out.

But I think that the matter might be solved by the action of God in human affairs in a lawfully-inviolable way ( that do not necessary HAVE to involve “miracles” or seeming violations of physical law) that would involve a skeptic making a bet so to speak and watching it suceed or fail by the actions of a God. I sort of go into what kind of “bet” would have to be made and so on in my book “An Introduction to Superchristianity”

If you want a copy I can send it to you. It’s my own personal work.
I’ll just need a snail mail address.

Best,
Jay M. Brewer
Austin, Texas
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

To all philosophers here:

I hold that any concept that is proposed or mentioned have truth-or-false values. For example, the statement: “Santa Claus exists” has a truth-value or a false-value.

(1) I hold that the only natural ability that we have for making CERTAIN (such that belief in the opposite condition is necessarily false) that a statement is true or false is our sensory perception.

(2) Beyond sensory perception, I hold that all that there is is what I call an “epistemic attitude” about the concept. Epistemic attitudes are beliefs, intuitions, and so on that are propositional entities that substitute for lack of sensory perception in determining the truth or falsity of concepts.

(3) Statement 1: “My shirt is blue” (as I am looking now at the shirt I have on as I type this) is an example of a concept that is TRUE with CERTAINTY. ( The statement can be verified as being true by sensory perception-you all will just have to take my word for it that my shirt is blue, but if you saw me you would return a truth-value for Statement 1)

Statement 2: “God exists” is an example of what I will call an UNCERTAIN truth or false value to the statement. “Santa Claus exists” returns the same UNCERTAIN value to that statement.

(4) However, an epistemic attitude such as beliefs, et. al. seems to automatically TRY to close the gap left open by impossibility of our senses to close the truth-false gap on the uncertain statements or concepts.
Beliefs usually arise to close truth-false gaps, perhaps asserting FALSE to the “God exists” statement (if one is atheist)

(5) I argue that beliefs can never ascertain CERTAINTY and that sensory perception is the only ability that we have to ascertain CERTAINTY of the truth-false value of a concept or statement. I deny the ability of beliefs to have some sort of epistemic power on the level of the sensory to claim certainty of ontological truth or falsity about imperceptibles.

(6) Two uncertain statements can nonetheless have differences in their deservedness of skepticism. The differences ultimately come down to how some concepts are described in terms of their substance or makeup and it’s availability (or potential or subjunctive availability) to sensory perception.

Example: Santa Claus as conceived is a being that SHOULD be sensorily perceived if he exists. We should be able to see and socially interact with Santa Claus.

God as conceived (by some theists) is a being that SHOULD NOT be sensorily perceived even if he exists. ( If God is conceived as a being that should be sensorily perceived then that God is grouped in the “Santa Claus” grouping above. For those of us that hold that God is a disembodied conscious mind of the Judeo-Christian mentality, then that God is the second type listed here) We would not be able to see that God even in principle, since that God is composed of a substance that exists in the real world that cannot be perceived even in principle: consciousness independent of the physical. (For nonreductivists, there is a substance dualism or a difference between the PHYSICAL brain and the conscious experiencer, although one is claimed to support the existence of the other)

Ultimately, any concept is either true or false, but we cannot know with certainty if the concept is this or that independent of sensory perception. Beyond that, the concept is an uncertain concept that belief tries to tie down. My view is that belief one way or the other does not and cannot in itself DETERMINE the truth of the belief by natural necessity.

(The only advantage-or seeming advantage-to beliefs is that beliefs about imperceptible concepts,such as God going in both directions might be INADVERTANTLY TRUE but never KNOWINGLY TRUE because certainty requires experience.)

In the Santa Claus case, one can argue that Santa Claus is “closer” to the existence of Santa Claus being “false” with certainty than God, as Santa Claus is a concept that SHOULD show up to the skeptic but continually does not-whereas God is a concept that CANNOT or SHOULD NOT show up to the skeptic even if he were within kissing distance of the skeptic.

But that is only my view,
Jay Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

I live in Louisiana. So I know where you’re coming from.

I’m not sure what the point of this is. That was a reply to another person’s statement. Basically, showing “why” I’m an atheist. Well, actually I’m lending more toward Buddhist, but that’s neither here nor there, cause even if I were to call myself a Buddhist, it would still grant me the same stance in regard to God.

You’re right, it does lie close to atheist. In fact, I consider it an atheist stance. The other individual was saying that I’m more of an agnostic, and I was trying to clarify. Maybe you just misinterpreted what I was doing.

And yes, nothing holds up “absolutely.” I consider that a wonderful thing myself.

Buddhism is essentially a non-theistic method, i’m attracted to it also. I wouldn’t mind living in like shreveport if not for the high crime and humidity.

Polemarchus mentioned something in another thread about a decision not being made within an already existing balanced framework of ideas. That jump-started my brain. If no one principle in life holds up absolutely, then to make ethical decisions we necessarily have to do so from a balanced framework. Where the principles war against each other, a sort of congeries. Nietzsche spoke often of these warring drives, he may have had this in mind when he said, “There are Gods, but no God.”

To: Marshall McDaniel
From: Jay M. Brewer

I wonder if Nietzche believed that what he believed concerning God could not be false in the absence of experience?

(I hold that independent of experience all beliefs are uncertain one way or the other-particularly concerning the existence…or nonexistence of God. It is generally taken for granted that we judge whether things exist or does not if they can be experienced…while there is an entity in the world that is held to exist that can never be experienced…even if God does not exist.)

I believe being stabbed with a pitchfork would be very painful, even though i’ve never experienced it. What part do reason and intuition play in your thesis?

To: Marshall McDaniel

It is not about beliefs about experience(or potential experience) it is about the actual experience of another person compared to ourselves and our inability (by our OWN experience) to truly know (but to only believe) that the other is having an experience at all. I call this a "super-strong"belief because we believe it so completely, when the grand metaphysical truth could be that we are the only conscious beings in the universe and everyone else are consciousless zombies.

Phenomenal Graffiti

Sounds like a variant of Solipsism.

Source:www.dictionary.com

What if God is solipsist?

It is an inductive proof that other people are conscious, not a deductive one. If i ask another peron what is 37 multiplied by 3 and she immediately replies, “One hundred and eleven” I can assume (by the seeming fact that she knows english and can multiply, hear, and speak) that she is a cleverly disguised supercomputer, one of Rene Descarte’s notorious demons, an extremely intelligent space alien projecting a human-like hologram, or an angel sent from God. Or (like william of Occam (Occam’s razor)) i can pick the simplest (therefore most likely explanation) and look at her, her eyes, her ears, etc. and judge her to be human like myself, and sharing most attributes with myself.

To: Marshall McDaniel

From: Jay M. Brewer

Of course one is always free to jump to Occam’s razor and pick the simplest (and most likely) explanation of the world.

But I have always argued that the simplest explanation of the world does not necessarily GROUND the full ontological truth about the world, and that the ontological truth of the world in principle can full out deny the deepest intuition and inductions about the world in an inadvertant way.

Or it may not.

Either way, I deny that we have an epistemic ability (beyond our senses) to gain certainty (such that our beliefs absolutely cannot be somehow false) about the ontological truth or falsity of nonimperceptible concepts (such as the existence or nonexistence of the consciousness of other people or the existence or nonexistence of disembodied minds).
I argue that our subjective feelings and beliefs about imperceptibles are an unreliable guide to the ontic truth about those imperceptibles (in principle). They may be correct (such as the deep intuition that God does not in fact exist) but if correct they are inadvertantly correct beyond any epistemic power that we have to know with downright certainty.

On this view, Occam’s razor is just another candidate for what I call “Subjective Metaphysics” or the set of beliefs about the imperceptibles of the world (in concept) that in themselves cannot determine the real truth about the existence or nonexistence of imperceptible concepts.
“Grand Metaphysics” is my term for the way that the WORLD ACTUALLY IS, despite our beliefs about the world. In Grand Metaphysical Space, God may not exist…or he just might. Grand Metaphysics refuses to spill it’s guts to Subjective Metaphysics about it’s imperceptible truths(or falsities).

So independent of the natural (“thats-all-we-got”) epistemic ability (or “ability to know”) of sensory perception, all that we have are beliefs (whether super-strong: such as the belief that other people are conscious because they answer our questions or respond to us in the expected way that a conscious person would; strong: such as the belief that there in principle could be alien organic lifeforms on other planets;or weak: such as the belief in parallel universes or even belief in God) and possibilities
and in my view, despite claims of “likely” or "unlikely (which seem to be made based on the strength of one’s BELIEF for or against a concept) any claims of “likelihood” or “probability” when it comes to imperceptible concepts (such as the conscious experience of other people or the existence of disembodied minds) are ALWAYS 50/50. Perceptible concepts have more disparate chances and probabilities because they are available to proof.

But that is only my view,

Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

To: Marshall McDaniel

From: Jay M. Brewer

Please substitute the word: “nonimperceptible” to “imperceptible”.
My bad.

Jay

I enjoy talking to a person who takes care with their words. We, of necessity, lack certainty when talking about some things, E.G. “the existence of God.” It has never been possible (for me at least) to further build on that uncertainty.

To: Marshall McDaniel

Agreed. I think that the notion of certainty fails when it comes to imperceptibles, but that there still exists that old “neuronal insistence” when it comes to beliefs. Neuronal insistence is simply my term for the fact that :

(1) If the brain is indeed responsible for the shape and existence of conscious experience, then the brain is also responsible for beliefs;

(2) As such, the natural processes of the world that then impose upon and cause the nature of our neural processes in turn will by the nature of those processes produce the nature of our beliefs about the world;

(3) The nature of those beliefs then come from the “chance” causal interactions of the physical universe by how the causal web of the environment enmeshes the firing of our neurons;

(4) If this is true, then belief in the existence of God is imposed on some beings (theists) by Nature, and disbelief in the existence of God is imposed on some beings (atheists) by the same random acts of Nature.

(5) Subjectively, we claim that such beliefs come from teachings and “brainwashing” and doctrine or intellectual realization and so on, but it must be remembered that if the brain is behind everything, all of this is a result of the random causal interactions of Nature in the firing of our neurons.
(One person because of the way his neurons fire becomes a serial killer, the other person a social worker)

(If one claims that our neural destiny is not “random” but follows a consistent set of rules, does that not help a proponent of the absence of free will by implying a sort of “constraint” on the neural destiny, thereby in turn implying a higher determinism that notions of “randomness” would seem to loosen?)

(6) The uncertainty of the existence (and nonexistence) of imperceptibles would in turn open the door (by neuronal insistence in the form of deceptiveness or philosophical inquiry into epistemic “loopholes”-take your pick!) for a view of the world as containing a Judeo-Christian God as a disembodied conscious mind that “telekinetically” overdetermines the other four forces of the natural or physical world to yield a world in precisely the way that the world appears. If such a world is, then it would certainly be a world that does not make an effort to rise above the “uncertainty level” to skeptics after all.

(7) Such a theistically “lazy” version of the real world could stand the test against atheistic skepticism, but it would easily fall into the “convenient worlds” list. I can admit that. I suppose the uncertainty level to a skeptic SHOULD be raised by the appearance of miracles and all that, but I digress on this to at least the support of a theistically “lazy” world that appears and acts JUST LIKE a godless world yet containing a God.

My opine,

Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com