How can God be.....

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: How can God be.....

Postby Snark » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:36 am



Image

Maybe we should feel sorry for Prismatic and his idol, Kant.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: How can God be.....

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:First it is proven the idea of God is merely a mental thought and do not has any empirical element

First off, you are shifting the ground of the argument. You made a statement about how the idea of God came about. That is a specific claim which does not hinge on the existence of God or not. Second, empirical means experienced, based on experience. To many people there is an empirical element to God. Now I understand that you mean, that these experiences have not been put together in scientific research types of protocols, where observations, that is experiences) can be controlled and repeated. But to keep misusing the word 'empirical' is not helpful.

. Thus it is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
No. That is unscientific. You cannot say that everything that has not SO FAR been demonstrated to exist via scientific research does not exist. Science is a process and obviously there are things that exist that have not yet been confirmed by those processes.

There are empirical evidences of how the idea of God arose psychologically which is empirically based.

    1. There are loads of evidences how the idea of God arise and is experienced and felt via mental illnesses, brain damage, electrical stimulations, drugs, chemical, hallucinogens, stress and various reasons that trigger the mind to identify with a God.
People also experience things and phenomena which are real when they have those conditions and experiences. You are arguing that since some people experience X when they are mentally ill, X is not real. That is clearly a poor argument.

2. Many non-theistic spiritualities has dealt with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis on a non-theistic and psychological basis from many thousands of years ago, e.g. Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritualities.
That is not evidence, empirical or deductive that the statement you made about how the idea of God arose is correct.

For example, let's say God is not real, it is merely an idea. The idea could have arisen for many reasons other than the one you posited. Perhaps it is natural - if something in error - to anthropomorphize. The idea may simply have arisen from that tendency, seen in children, to see agency and personality where modern science says there is none. You are making a specific claim about how and idea arose. That is based on certain fears. You offer no evidence that this is case. And note, you main argments are deductive, no empirical.

3. Some theistic approaches use drugs and hallucinogen [note 1 above] to enhance their experiences of a God.
And again, there are implicit fallacies which would be more obvious if you made the argument. Some theistic approaches use drugs, therefore all experiences of God are like drug hallucinations...and how this supports your thesis I do not know even though it is already fallacious.

If you want to argue that empirical research does not support the existence of God, fine. But then this criterion should hold for your own statements. You then get to act like you know the origins of a belief, unless you two can ground this on empirical evidence. Even from atheistic positions there are very strong deductive arguments that would argue that beliefs in God come from processes other than the one you stated in the previous post. And note, the implicit claim is that you can face the fears that the theists cannot without God.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: How can God be.....

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:30 am

Note I qualified the following;
Prismatic wrote:This is a very complex issue and I shall address it superficially.

i.e. I have not dealt with the issue in dept in my responses here.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:First it is proven the idea of God is merely a mental thought and do not has any empirical element

First off, you are shifting the ground of the argument. You made a statement about how the idea of God came about. That is a specific claim which does not hinge on the existence of God or not. Second, empirical means experienced, based on experience. To many people there is an empirical element to God. Now I understand that you mean, that these experiences have not been put together in scientific research types of protocols, where observations, that is experiences) can be controlled and repeated. But to keep misusing the word 'empirical' is not helpful.
I have proven here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
it is impossible for the idea of God [thought only] to fit into the scheme of the empirical.
This meant the idea of God cannot be proven at all within the empirical set.
As I had stated the idea is not exactly but equivalent to the claim a square-circle exists which a contradiction and an impossibility.

Many people have empirical experiences which they as driven by psychology attribute to an empirical God.


. Thus it is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
No. That is unscientific. You cannot say that everything that has not SO FAR been demonstrated to exist via scientific research does not exist. Science is a process and obviously there are things that exist that have not yet been confirmed by those processes.
Yes, it is not meant to be scientific.
To claim something to be scientific one must start with a reasonable hypothesis established by reason [i.e. thinking only]. Then when this hypothesis is proven within the Scientific Method then it qualifies at a scientific knowledge [as qualified].
Now, the idea of God [in thought only] cannot even be raised as a hypothesis for empirical processes. It is moot and a non-starter for any empirical consideration.

Whatever SO FAR has not been demonstrated to exist via scientific research MUST have inherent empirical elements that is empirically possible. What empirical elements does your God has? a brain, head, beard, body or penis?

There are empirical evidences of how the idea of God arose psychologically which is empirically based.

    1. There are loads of evidences how the idea of God arise and is experienced and felt via mental illnesses, brain damage, electrical stimulations, drugs, chemical, hallucinogens, stress and various reasons that trigger the mind to identify with a God.
People also experience things and phenomena which are real when they have those conditions and experiences. You are arguing that since some people experience X when they are mentally ill, X is not real. That is clearly a poor argument.
Yes, people under those conditions experiences various things but these things must be classified into two main categories, i.e.
    1. Has empirical elements and empirically possible
    2. Do not has inherent empirical elements, thus empirically impossible.

If someone has an experience of a common tiger stalking them, the existence of such a tiger is empirically possible. If someone experience a God as the bearded man in the sky [has empirical elements], such a God is empirically possible but the odds of such a real God is very slim until we have the empirical evidence to prove it.

BUT, the ultimate default God as I had argued in the thread [linked above] MUST be [an imperative] an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect being than which no greater exists.
Such a God is only an idea [philosophical] and is never empirical thus not empirically possible.

I have given the above examples as a clue that it is more likely for God to be an illusion than real.

2. Many non-theistic spiritualities has dealt with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis on a non-theistic and psychological basis from many thousands of years ago, e.g. Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritualities.
That is not evidence, empirical or deductive that the statement you made about how the idea of God arose is correct.

For example, let's say God is not real, it is merely an idea. The idea could have arisen for many reasons other than the one you posited. Perhaps it is natural - if something in error - to anthropomorphize. The idea may simply have arisen from that tendency, seen in children, to see agency and personality where modern science says there is none. You are making a specific claim about how and idea arose. That is based on certain fears. You offer no evidence that this is case. And note, you main arguments are deductive, no empirical.
My main argument is deductive that the idea of God cannot be empirical thus not empirically possible. It is not an empirical argument.
Btw, even if you rely on empirical arguments [the most credible humanity has], according to Hume, empirical proofs via Science based on induction are not absolute credible. Note Hume's Problem of Induction. Popper asserted Scientific Theories are at best polished conjectures, i.e. they started as a conjecture [thesis].
In the case of the idea of God [thought only] cannot even qualify as a scientific conjecture to as a start for scientific verification.

3. Some theistic approaches use drugs and hallucinogen [note 1 above] to enhance their experiences of a God.
And again, there are implicit fallacies which would be more obvious if you made the argument. Some theistic approaches use drugs, therefore all experiences of God are like drug hallucinations...and how this supports your thesis I do not know even though it is already fallacious.
As I had qualified above, this is merely a supporting clue. They have some credibility when considered with my whole argument.

If you want to argue that empirical research does not support the existence of God, fine. But then this criterion should hold for your own statements.
You then get to act like you know the origins of a belief, unless you two can ground this on empirical evidence.
Even from atheistic positions there are very strong deductive arguments that would argue that beliefs in God come from processes other than the one you stated in the previous post. And note, the implicit claim is that you can face the fears that the theists cannot without God.
My approach is two prongs, i.e.

    1. Logically, it is impossible for the idea of God [which is exclusively based on crude reasons] to be empirically possible at all.
    2. The origins of theism is psychological.

Basically my basis in (1) is sufficient to prove the idea of God is illusory and impossible within an empirical-rational reality.

My second argument is an reinforcement to the first. As I had stated this empirical basis is quite complex and I have given various clues [tip of an iceberg] to why the belief in a God is psychological. I have tons of materials below the tip of this iceberg to support my point but I do not intend to go into the details here.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users