No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:25 am

[quote="iambiguous

On the other hand, it would seem the overwhelming preponderance of this convincing unfolds when most are children. Parents, communities, cultures etc., set about the task of cramming God and religion into the brains of those who have almost no real capacity to question what they are told.
(Wait a determinist is concerned about when and how ideas arrive in brains? Do you think there is a process where free will applies?)


IN any case the process you decribe for how people get their paradigms holds for pretty much every belief system and certainly holds for the mishmash of beliefs and systems that most atheists and theists have today, that is, pretty much everyone. People don't even notice the ways they mix determinism and free will, tidbits of leftist and rightist 'truths' various psychological theories mixing with the psychiatric/pharmacological ones, even areas where you would think people could think (or feel)for themselves, like aesthetics, they are driven by a mishmash of contradictory rules and guidelines inherited from peer groups and parents.

Even you have inherited your is/ought dichotemy from particular threads of Western thought, coming out of philosophers like HUme - who it might be noted became very skeptical about 'is' itself and certainly causation and dropped out of the game. And of you below mention empiricism, but seem to have little knowledge of the problems of empiricism. It sets itself nicely in opposition to rationalism, but a pure empiricism is very hard to defend. To notice this would make your stance against objectivists harder to maintain because you are just another objectivist in this way also. A when convenient skeptic, but only then. You seem to be under the impression that you are one of the few people who have been skeptical enough to extricate your mind, at least some times, from cultural baggage - in relation to morals/ethics - but you are simply articulating a very specific inherited position from certain very European paradigmns that themselves have philosophical problems.

And there is still that yawning gap between being convinced that God exists and demonstrating to others why they ought to be convinced too.
Empirically in particular.
[/quote]

I am not in the club, is the constant implicit, sometimes explicit claim. But you have just another club. A philosophical position that has some good arguments in favor of it but also some serious inherent weaknesses supporting itself. It functions fairly well as a critique, when demanding demonstrations, but has it's own problem demonstrating it's validity.

And, again, relevant to your post here, it is just as inheritable. Just because you 'came to this belief' later in life means nothing. 1) you are a determinist. So what the fuck difference does it make if you came to a belief at a later stage in life 2) it is clearly, this belief, just an unquestioned trickle down, since you are so confident about the is/ought divide. Epistemological doubts, none here.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:08 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:The principle is; for anything to be convincing, it has to be justified true belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge.
If only. Are you seriously arguing that people are only convinced by justified arguements with true conclusions? That is objection 1. Objection two: When you make statements like 'The principle is:...' you are implicitly making claims of objectivity. Some people, mostly philosophers, think that JTB is a good definition of what should be considered KNOWLEDGE. They are not arguing that it is a definition of things that are convincing. It seems like you are having a hard time acknowledging his rather obvious point that your original statement about 'convincing' was ridiculous. You could acknowledge that and move on to more important issues, but you are just adding more silliness instead of just acknowledging that. Three, there are problems with JTB, Gettier has put forward many. I think it is further problematic because it should simply be JB, or best JB. The reason for this is because to say it is True and we know this beyond the the justification, then we do not need the justification. It implies that we can absolutely know things, which most JTB believers do not believe. In science there is a tendency to believe the currently best justified beliefs, those supported by the most evidence. To then add that these beliefs are true goes beyond empiricisms purview. It also implies that 'truth' is a criterion we add to the justification criterion. LIke, check it is well justified. Check it is True. Which is sillly. We could check to see if it is falsified. As in knowledge is a well justified not falsfied belief. That is a better definition. Though all this is a sideline. The main point is that the way you bring in JTB, as if in epistemology this is simply an accepted definition of KNOWLEDGE (again, not convincing), is a kind of appeal to authority. It might be your principle. It might be a common one in some philosophy circles, but to call it the principle is just being slippery or ignorant.
What I find more convincing as supported by evidence it is most plausible the idea of God arose out of dreaded psychological impulses that is inherent in all and thus the majority of theists.
I like that the set of theists is larger than the set 'All'.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:45 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The principle is; for anything to be convincing, it has to be justified true belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge.
If only. Are you seriously arguing that people are only convinced by justified arguements with true conclusions? That is objection 1.
Objection two: When you make statements like 'The principle is:...' you are implicitly making claims of objectivity.

Some people, mostly philosophers, think that JTB is a good definition of what should be considered KNOWLEDGE. They are not arguing that it is a definition of things that are convincing. It seems like you are having a hard time acknowledging his rather obvious point that your original statement about 'convincing' was ridiculous. You could acknowledge that and move on to more important issues, but you are just adding more silliness instead of just acknowledging that.

Three, there are problems with JTB, Gettier has put forward many. I think it is further problematic because it should simply be JB, or best JB. The reason for this is because to say it is True and we know this beyond the the justification, then we do not need the justification. It implies that we can absolutely know things, which most JTB believers do not believe.
In science there is a tendency to believe the currently best justified beliefs, those supported by the most evidence. To then add that these beliefs are true goes beyond empiricisms purview. It also implies that 'truth' is a criterion we add to the justification criterion. LIke, check it is well justified. Check it is True. Which is sillly. We could check to see if it is falsified. As in knowledge is a well justified not falsfied belief. That is a better definition. Though all this is a sideline.

The main point is that the way you bring in JTB, as if in epistemology this is simply an accepted definition of KNOWLEDGE (again, not convincing), is a kind of appeal to authority. It might be your principle. It might be a common one in some philosophy circles, but to call it the principle is just being slippery or ignorant.
First note the following default which I abide to in Philosophy:

1. There is no certainty - Wittgenstein
2. Philosophy do not provide definite answers but only questions.

When I stated 'convincing' I did not insists it is absolutely convincing.
I understand the limitation raised by Gettier.

What I intended to refer JTB as 'convincing' is, as you have raised above, the most convincing which is Science with rational philosophical backing.

What is true could be merely mathematically & logically true, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 which can be further justified with empirical testing and evidence. Thus justified true belief [JTB] (not in the absolute sense).

Principle:
-a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
I don't see how JTB cannot be a principle, not an absolute but nevertheless a reasonable principle.

What I find more convincing as supported by evidence it is most plausible the idea of God arose out of dreaded psychological impulses that is inherent in all and thus the majority of theists.
I like that the set of theists is larger than the set 'All'.
Nope the set of theists is a subset of ALL in this case.
ALL humans are 'infected' with the dreaded psychological impulses and the majority adopted theism while others do not.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:11 pm

Prismatic567

There are MANY reasons why a person is non-theistic [atheist]
.

A person who is non-theistic (your words) is not necessarily an atheist.
Non-theistic can also define a deist who *sees* a designing, creative God but not a personal loving God (theist).


I do deny there are non-theists [not all] who are defensive for various reasons.

Hmmm... I do not *see* this. But of course you are seeing a non-theist as an "atheist".
I can go along with what you say here. I also see many atheists as those who have come to be atheists as a defense mechanism, a way to sweep those unanswerable questions under the rug. Denying something sometimes obliterates the pain and loss we would otherwise feel albeit it only lurks far beneath the surface and can tend to come out in different ways. Aside from that, I actually intuit and might suggest that many so-called atheists are *unconscious* agnostics. They just do not see it.
That is my spin on it and it is not set in stone.


I have good reasons and have demonstrated the idea of God is a moot point and a non-starter because the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within empirical reality.


Why is the idea of a God an illusion considering the fact that we do see a pretty-well organized and structured Universe? That is what keeps me from being an atheist and which has me sitting on the fence as an agnostic.

So, are you saying that everything which we see is an illusion? If the Universe is an illusion, then what does that make you and me and them?


I have always given the analogy for the reality of God as a squared-circle which is an impossibility to be real.


We are not again speaking of a squared-circle though how can you know that somewhere in existence one does not exist? lol Just a question.
God may be and is a projection for many but that does not necessarily say that God is an impossibility.
But what God might you be speaking of here ~~ the one which is an impossibility to you?
Or are you saying that we simply cannot know? That would make you an agnostic in my book. :evilfun:


Why the majority believe in a God is because of the very active desperate psychological factors.

Hmmm...I do not know what the majority would come to but let us remember that there are many deists who see or sense a God because of what they can see of the Universe. They are able to take that leap into affirmation while perhaps still realizing that they cannot know much more than that.
I am not speaking of faith ~~ at least not religious faith.

Yes, much of religious belief stems from psychological factors and the inability to observe and question them.



Point is if an agnostic can totally give up the idea of God, then s/he is free of that particular mental burden.

How can I give up the question of God, albeit not the God of the many, based on what I DO see in the Universe?
As an agnostic, my mind set is that I cannot know either way so I refuse to just give in to belief. I do not let go of the plausibility, possibility though.

I do not necessarily see it as a mental burden although at times the concept of God does boggle my mind. It is, for the most part, a very juicy philosophical question to me... like looking for the Grail. lol
I would also like to *see* that I am some kind of a philosopher. lol What philosopher would give up the idea that there just may be Something about it all? It is just too juicy for me.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15036
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:50 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:Prismatic567
There are MANY reasons why a person is non-theistic [atheist]
.
A person who is non-theistic (your words) is not necessarily an atheist.
Non-theistic can also define a deist who *sees* a designing, creative God but not a personal loving God (theist).
A non-theistic is definitely an [a]theist.
I agree a non-theist could be a deist if nit-picking is required.
Generally what I intend for 'non-theistic' is it has nothing to do with a God at all in whatever forms.
I accept your point, perhaps I should state 'Non-God' to avoid misundertanding.

I do deny there are non-theists [not all] who are defensive for various reasons.

Hmmm... I do not *see* this. But of course you are seeing a non-theist as an "atheist".
I can go along with what you say here. I also see many atheists as those who have come to be atheists as a defense mechanism, a way to sweep those unanswerable questions under the rug. Denying something sometimes obliterates the pain and loss we would otherwise feel albeit it only lurks far beneath the surface and can tend to come out in different ways. Aside from that, I actually intuit and might suggest that many so-called atheists are *unconscious* agnostics. They just do not see it.
That is my spin on it and it is not set in stone.
I agree there are many types of atheists.
Where I am non-God I provided solid justifications on why God is an impossibility to be real within empirical-rational reality.

I have good reasons and have demonstrated the idea of God is a moot point and a non-starter because the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within empirical reality.

Why is the idea of a God an illusion considering the fact that we do see a pretty-well organized and structured Universe? That is what keeps me from being an atheist and which has me sitting on the fence as an agnostic.

There is no logical justifications to deduce from 'the Universe exists empirically' to 'God exists empirically' or non-empirically [this is an equivocation].
This reasoning is merely based on the principle of cause and effect, i.e. whatever is effect must have a cause.
Note Hume's Problem of Induction and problematic theory of cause and effect as purely psychological due to constant conjunction, habits and customs.
Philosophically there is no way one can conclude all effects are caused by a God ultimately but have to accept the concept of infinite regression.

So, are you saying that everything which we see is an illusion? If the Universe is an illusion, then what does that make you and me and them?
Yes, whatever we see in an illusion. But this has to be explained in various contexts.

By common sense and empirical Science [1], whatever is observable and justifiable is not an illusion. But there are illusion of the senses, e.g. a mirage by sight.

But a meta-level of philosophical consideration [2], what is common sense and empirical is ultimately an illusion.
Take a piece of diamond, to the senses and sense date, a piece of diamond is not an illusion, but what is more real is that piece of diamond is more factually & accurately a bundle of invisible pure carbon atoms interacting tightly.

Thus from the perspective of [2] the reality of [1] is relatively an illusion.

Still at a meta-level philosophical view, we can shift the consideration of that piece of diamond from the molecular level to the atomic, quantum, quarks level. In this when considered a higher level, the previous level is relatively an illusion.

Note Russell's thinking at a higher philosophical level with reference to an observed real table [mine],

Russell wrote:Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all [i.e. an illusion]. Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.


    “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
    -Prof V-S-ramachandran
    http://abcofsuccess.com/blog/2014/12/27 ... achandran/




I suggest you do your own research and if possible exhaust this topic at the highest level of philosophical thinking, what you see as real at one level of reality is actually an illusion in another level of reality.


I have always given the analogy for the reality of God as a squared-circle which is an impossibility to be real.


We are not again speaking of a squared-circle though how can you know that somewhere in existence one does not exist? lol Just a question.
God may be and is a projection for many but that does not necessarily say that God is an impossibility.
But what God might you be speaking of here ~~ the one which is an impossibility to you?
Or are you saying that we simply cannot know? That would make you an agnostic in my book. :evilfun:
Re square-circle I am giving you an analogy to give you an idea to what I am trying to show.
Logically a square-circle is a contradiction, thus an impossibility and a non-starter. There is no way at all a square-circle can exist and it is moot to raise even the question whether it exists or not.

I have argued in this thread,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
why God is an impossibility with reference to the ultimate default of an ontological God.
All gods no matter how conceived within theism-proper MUST ultimately be an ontological God. I have provided argument to support this WHY.


Why the majority believe in a God is because of the very active desperate psychological factors.

Hmmm...I do not know what the majority would come to but let us remember that there are many deists who see or sense a God because of what they can see of the Universe. They are able to take that leap into affirmation while perhaps still realizing that they cannot know much more than that.
I am not speaking of faith ~~ at least not religious faith.
The subject if Non-God or No-God [to avoid confusion] thus the 'deism' is off topic in this case.

Yes, much of religious belief stems from psychological factors and the inability to observe and question them.
My argument is psychological factors are the sole and ultimate reason that generate the idea of God. There is no question of whether God exists as real or not.

Point is if an agnostic can totally give up the idea of God, then s/he is free of that particular mental burden.

How can I give up the question of God, albeit not the God of the many, based on what I DO see in the Universe?
As an agnostic, my mind set is that I cannot know either way so I refuse to just give in to belief. I do not let go of the plausibility, possibility though.

I do not necessarily see it as a mental burden although at times the concept of God does boggle my mind. It is, for the most part, a very juicy philosophical question to me... like looking for the Grail. lol
I would also like to *see* that I am some kind of a philosopher. lol What philosopher would give up the idea that there just may be Something about it all? It is just too juicy for me.
Why an agnostic cannot let go of the possibility is purely psychological and not epistemological, logical nor rational.
This psychological impulse is subliminal, i.e. not conscious.
I had stated if the psychological factor for the theist to believe in God is 99% then for the agnostic it is 5%. For Richard Dawkins it is 1/7 from his scale of beliefs because his basis is empirical.

My perspective is based purely on reason and philosophy that God is an impossibily.

Btw, I am not insisting you give up your agnostic view re God. I don't think it is wise to do so unless you have an alternative replacement to deal with that sliver of existential element and subliminal issue.

However you need to be aware of the consequences of your belief and being an agnostic [re God in general] do contribute moral support indirectly to theists who commit evil acts and violence when inspired by evil laden verses from a God.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:10 am

In response to the video:

The speaker is as clueless as Prismatic567 and the author of Consciousness [not] Explained, Daniel Dennett, and for the same reason: “It is always easy to be logical. It is almost impossible to be logical to the bitter end.”
Snark
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:25 am

Arminius wrote:Prismatic's main problem is logic.

I don't think so. He's actually intelligent, but unable to be wrong, which isn't a problem unique to him in this community (unfortunately). From a certain point of view, he's doing a smashing job of finding novel ways to support a hopeless proof and that actually deserves some credit and recognition. He won't quit... that tenacity at engineering a way to never admit being wrong.... always finding a way to steer around the inevitable.

I know so much because I used to be just like him... and my family currently is and it's driving me crazy, so I'm going to stick around and observe for a while and see what I can learn. These godless threads could be a god-send to me [-o<
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:31 am

Uccisore wrote:Because like five people have read your proof against the existence of God and zero of them took it seriously.

Six :-"

But it's an appeal to population argument, so... :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist :D
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:18 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Why is the idea of a God an illusion considering the fact that we do see a pretty-well organized and structured Universe? That is what keeps me from being an atheist and which has me sitting on the fence as an agnostic.

So, are you saying that everything which we see is an illusion? If the Universe is an illusion, then what does that make you and me and them?

The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Psychology

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

Therefore your mind isn't in your head; your head is in your mind.

There is no difference between you and the universe. What is you? Inside your brain, where are you? If that's where you are, then your body is your environment. And if that is so, then the whole universe is your environment because every bit of it is needed to make you be here. Or, we could say the whole universe is your body. Either way works, but what we cannot do is draw a distinction between the two and claim you are somehow distinct from the universe.

You are the whole universe and if that is so, then the whole thing is a living system.

Of course the universe is alive. Stars are born, they eat, they grow old and die. They have personalities, they travel and raise families of solar systems and when a black hole moves into the neighborhood, they know it.

Life evolves from one to another and stars eat the gas and make minerals. Planets eat the minerals and make dirt. Plants eat the dirt and make sugar using radiation. Animals eat plants for the sugar and release the stored starlight. The whole thing is alive and it's all dancing and doing its thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333976
https://philpapers.org/rec/JARTTO-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10885546
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539155
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:32 am

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Prismatic's main problem is logic.

I don't think so. He's actually intelligent, but unable to be wrong, which isn't a problem unique to him in this community (unfortunately). From a certain point of view, he's doing a smashing job of finding novel ways to support a hopeless proof and that actually deserves some credit and recognition. He won't quit... that tenacity at engineering a way to never admit being wrong.... always finding a way to steer around the inevitable.

I know so much because I used to be just like him... and my family currently is and it's driving me crazy, so I'm going to stick around and observe for a while and see what I can learn. These godless threads could be a god-send to me [-o<
Noted your points.

Note what I have been doing is like any typical intellectual, i.e. defend one's thesis until proven to be wrong but at the same time realizing there is no definite answer in Philosophy;

Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

My thesis [God is an impossibility] can be proven wrong very easily, just simply produce the evidence [empirical & rational] of a God.
This is typical everywhere where existing claims are proven wrong with justifiable evidence all the time, e.g. in Science, court of law, etc. With the availability of DNA testing many court decisions were proven wrong and accused freed.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:43 am

Serendipper wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Why is the idea of a God an illusion considering the fact that we do see a pretty-well organized and structured Universe? That is what keeps me from being an atheist and which has me sitting on the fence as an agnostic.

So, are you saying that everything which we see is an illusion? If the Universe is an illusion, then what does that make you and me and them?

The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world.
Great statement but to add,

"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which ...."

The above is heading towards an infinite regression and the final is a test of nerves and impulse control.

The theist will impulsively jump to;
"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which the creation of God as the final cause"

The non-theist [in my case] will simply accept the point;
"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which is an emergence along with the self"
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:47 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Why is the idea of a God an illusion considering the fact that we do see a pretty-well organized and structured Universe? That is what keeps me from being an atheist and which has me sitting on the fence as an agnostic.

So, are you saying that everything which we see is an illusion? If the Universe is an illusion, then what does that make you and me and them?

The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world.
Great statement but to add,

"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which ...."

The above is heading towards an infinite regression and the final is a test of nerves and impulse control.

The theist will impulsively jump to;
"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which the creation of God as the final cause"

The non-theist [in my case] will simply accept the point;
"The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world -which exists inside your head - which exists in the outside world - which is an emergence along with the self"

I don't know what a "theist" would say since I try not to label, generalize, categorize and pigeonhole as it's a statistical fabrication and another strawman conveniently setup to be knocked down. Sometimes statistical categorizations have good uses, but you're engineering a means to a conclusion via confirmation bias. You're using your talents to confirm what you suspect.

Yes, you could say it's an infinite regression but that isn't the point... the point is that we can't see the point because an eye cannot look at itself. It's an infinite regression to hold a camera in front of it's own monitor. You cannot know who you are. You are the universe using the universe to look at the universe and therefore you can't see yourself. Although, trying is a good way to spend eternity (whatever eternity means).
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:13 am

Serendipper wrote:I don't know what a "theist" would say since I try not to label, generalize, categorize and pigeonhole as it's a statistical fabrication and another strawman conveniently setup to be knocked down. Sometimes statistical categorizations have good uses, but you're engineering a means to a conclusion via confirmation bias. You're using your talents to confirm what you suspect.

Yes, you could say it's an infinite regression but that isn't the point... the point is that we can't see the point because an eye cannot look at itself. It's an infinite regression to hold a camera in front of it's own monitor. You cannot know who you are. You are the universe using the universe to look at the universe and therefore you can't see yourself. Although, trying is a good way to spend eternity (whatever eternity means).
Yes the eye has evolved not to look at itself, otherwise that would be sub-optimization in facilitating survival. [note the alternative of using mirrors, camera, video, etc.]

Surely you are not extending from the above and insisting the 'knowing mind' -generally knowing external things' - cannot know itself?

Note Descartes' "I think therefore I am" [not necessary that I agree] is indication the mind which is more critical to survival can reflect on itself. There are other more effective approaches to knowing i.e. 'Know Thyself.'
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:09 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Surely you are not extending from the above and insisting the 'knowing mind' -generally knowing external things' - cannot know itself?

Yes that's exactly what I'm insisting. How can the subject and object be the same?

Note Descartes' "I think therefore I am" [not necessary that I agree] is indication the mind which is more critical to survival can reflect on itself. There are other more effective approaches to knowing i.e. 'Know Thyself.'

Sure you can reflect on yourself, but you cannot know yourself at the fundamental level. When you get to the quantum level, nothing is knowable.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:45 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Surely you are not extending from the above and insisting the 'knowing mind' -generally knowing external things' - cannot know itself?

Yes that's exactly what I'm insisting. How can the subject and object be the same?
They are different if one is stuck in dualism where the consequences is suffering and psychological torment.
The strategy to learn how to let go of such dichotomy of subject versus object and strive for complementarity. Note the following tetralemma.

    A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A


Note Descartes' "I think therefore I am" [not necessary that I agree] is indication the mind which is more critical to survival can reflect on itself. There are other more effective approaches to knowing i.e. 'Know Thyself.'

Sure you can reflect on yourself, but you cannot know yourself at the fundamental level. When you get to the quantum level, nothing is knowable.[/quote]Note how Neil Bohr use the principles of complementarity [re Yin-Yang] to deal with opposites.

What fundamental level?
There if no absolute fundamental level of the self.
Many theists do claim there is a fundamental permanent self i.e. a soul that survives physical death. This is merely an illusion. [note Hume, Parfit, Buddhism, etc].

What is pragmatic is to 'Know Thyself' up to the best possible level which is sufficient to deal with all problems that life can throw at us and humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:59 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:How can the subject and object be the same?
They are different if one is stuck in dualism where the consequences is suffering and psychological torment.
The strategy to learn how to let go of such dichotomy of subject versus object and strive for complementarity. Note the following tetralemma.

    A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A

The last 2 can't exist.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with having a subject and object being the same entity.

What fundamental level?

Exactly. You can't find it because the universe cannot look at itself.

There is no absolute fundamental level of the self.

Evidence?

Many theists do claim there is blah blah

I don't care what other people claim.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:26 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:How can the subject and object be the same?
They are different if one is stuck in dualism where the consequences is suffering and psychological torment.
The strategy to learn how to let go of such dichotomy of subject versus object and strive for complementarity. Note the following tetralemma.

    A
    -A
    Both A and -A
    Neither A nor -A

The last 2 can't exist.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with having a subject and object being the same entity.
For you the last 2 cannot exists because you are stuck with dualism.
The above tetralemma works on the basis of toggling between perspectives thus not entangled within a logical contradiction.

The above transcend and reconcile the dichotomy of subject versus object.

What fundamental level?

Exactly. You can't find it because the universe cannot look at itself.
'Look at itself'.
You are thinking too narrowly and anthropomorphizing.

There is no absolute fundamental level of the self.

Evidence?
If 'none' logically there is no evidence.
To understand read Hume, Parfit, Buddhism, Kant and others.

Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties.
In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent
.

Many theists do claim there is blah blah

I don't care what other people claim.[/quote]
What if a group claimed you have raped and murder a girl?

In general, present your arguments to justify whatever your stance.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users