Right, and I wouldn’t call Marxism, Communism, socialism etc. unconvincing either. That would be dumb has hell, as obviously a great many people actually were convinced. What was your point?
My point was that being convinced or unconvinced that Marxism, Communism, socialism etc., reflected the most rational embodiment of political economy was predicated on the fact that the arguments were rooted in actual human interactions that could be described, assessed and judged.
Now, how would you describe, assess and judge a God, the God, your God such that others are then able to at least determine if in fact this is the most rational embodiment of belief — of that which is said to be true for all of us.
And, with immortality, salvation and divine justice at stake what could possibly be more important to mere mortals than being able to in fact establish that?
Sure, we can go on and on and on as philosophers configuring and then reconfiguring God [technically, epistemologically] into one or another intellectual contraption.
But we are all faced with death, with oblivion in a No God world. And in a No God world we are all confronted with value judgments that come into conflict. Precipitating for centuries now all manner of intense human pain and suffering. How then ought we to live in a No God world?
The God world folks will either go there or they won’t.
Point is you may not have used that directly as a conclusion but it is leading to that argumentum ad populum on the basis of a your question.
Note I stated ‘empirical-rational’ not rational.
I understand there are arguments based purely on reason alone for the existence of a God, e.g. the ontological argument for an ontological God. In any case, this is an impossible proof [Kant].
You are a moderator here and I wonder why you are using the term the derogatory term ‘shit’ so easily. Generally I do not debate or discuss contentious issues [especially on the existence of God] with moderators as it is always a win-lose or lose-lose situation to non-moderators since moderators by default has the ace cards. Since this is getting ‘shitty’ I shall give it a pass.
I doesn’t really interest me where my train of thought is going in your imagination. Were you going to answer the question? Let me ask it a third time:
Why would you call something that has convinced billions of people ‘unconvincing’?
There are empirical arguments for the existence of God as well.
Hey, whatever excuse works for you, I suppose.
The principle is; for anything to be convincing, it has to be justified true belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge.
Note you did not specify what is that something that has convinced billions of people.
Since this OP is about ‘God’ and to topic, the relevant ‘something’ in this case must be referenced to ‘God’.
Thus my point, billions of people are convinced God exists as real.
I don’t find that convincing because the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility as I had demonstrated in the other threads.
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.
There are no empirical arguments for the existence of a real God.
What is postulated are based on the empirical effects [creation, etc.] that are supposedly attributed to an illusory and impossible God.
Hey, whatever excuse works for you, I suppose.
[/quote]
I have addressed some of your questions but my preference and stance is;
nothing personal, it is a general view [a safer one] I have gathered from many years of such bad experiences in forums where the moderators and owners are always KING by default.
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.
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.
Arc,
I believe in evolution—that god did it and does it. Our experience of evolving gives us the underpinnings of all of our ideas.
I do not see how you can believe in purposeful evolution without believing in a prime mover and consequent maintainer of life systems.
It seems from your remarks that you are not so much against God as you are against how God is explained in arguments such as these.
Ierrellus
Alright. Belief is not based on certainty. Can you say that you are certain, that you know, that God did it and does it?
As I have said before, I can imagine because of what I “see”, how someone could “see” a designing God but is it possible that there can be another explanation for what appears to be?
Is it possible that your God at some point STOPPED and allowed things to go their own way or is that ludicrous? lol
I do not necessarily "believe" in a purposeful evolution. I cannot take it that far.
Would it be a silly statement to make to say that because we humans see purpose, apply purpose to things THAT becomes the reality ~~ real or not ~~ evolution always from beginning to whatever end there will be ~~ is full of purpose?
How can we know even that some Prime Mover had a distinct pre-determined intentional purpose? Based on what I see, even I can question that question but still…if we cannot KNOW God, we cannot know.
Well, I am agnostic because I cannot say there isn’t a prime mover but I also cannot say that there is. That veil falls before my eyes.
You do have a point there. See, we found something to agree on.
I am not against your God. I would in reality love nothing more than to be able to see this God as a supposed God actually is ~~ not in the multitudinous ways in which humanity sees.
How can I be against something which I cannot know or understand? lol Actually, that just might be the very reason that many are against God or against anything for that matter.
Is it possible that it is the same for the atheist? Perhaps it is not so much that the atheist is against/adverse to/blind to a God but just has put up some kind of a wall to not see the God of the many and there are also many faces to this God.
There are MANY reasons why a person is non-theistic [atheist]. I do deny there are non-theists [not all] who are defensive for various reasons.
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.
I have always given the analogy for the reality of God as a squared-circle which is an impossibility to be real.
Why the majority believe in a God is because of the very active desperate psychological factors.
Why some are agnostic is because of various reasons, i.e.
-
Empirical-based perspective
If one deliberate the issue of God on a empirical perspective, then one has to be an agnostic with the thesis of God. Note for example Dawkins who I am sure is a militant atheist but he has to be agnostic because he is bounded by agnosticism within Science. -
Remnants of Psychological Desperation.
Some remain agnostic due to the remnants of of very mild Psychological Desperation in relation to the idea of a God. If a fundamentalist has say a 95% active psychological desperation to theism, then a agnostic in this case may have 5%.
Point is if an agnostic can totally give up the idea of God, then s/he is free of that particular mental burden.
Observable phenomena have no purpose and there is no teleological basis for evolution any more than there is for gravity or for electromagnetism
The notion of purpose is a fallacious attempt by human beings to try and find objective meaning to their life rather than just accept there is none
I can quite easily accept evolution as an observable phenomenon without needing to invoke God or thinking that it has any purpose
I am curious to know why he would let life evolve for three and a half to four billion years before finally deciding to create humans
[quote="iambiguous
(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.
[/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.
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.
I like that the set of theists is larger than the set ‘All’.
First note the following default which I abide to in Philosophy:
- There is no certainty - Wittgenstein
- 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.
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.
Prismatic567
.
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).
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.
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?
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. 
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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],
“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
abcofsuccess.com/blog/2014/12/27 … achandran/
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo[/youtube]
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.
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.
The subject if Non-God or No-God [to avoid confusion] thus the ‘deism’ is off topic in this case.
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.
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.
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.”
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<
Six :-"
But it’s an appeal to population argument, so… 
Sorry, couldn’t resist 
The outside world exists inside your head, but your head exists in the outside world.
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.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333976
philpapers.org/rec/JARTTO-2
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10885546
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539155