No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

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… :laughing:

Sorry, couldn’t resist :smiley:

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

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;

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.

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).

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.’

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

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.

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

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.

The last 2 can’t exist.

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

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

Evidence?

I don’t care what other people claim.

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.

‘Look at itself’.
You are thinking too narrowly and anthropomorphizing.

If ‘none’ logically there is no evidence.
To understand read Hume, Parfit, Buddhism, Kant and others.

.

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.

What was it that convinced you there is no Brahman?

Reification!
meaning;
- to convert into or regard as a concrete thing:
-to reify a concept or idea [philosophical].

The instinctual reification impulse [subconscious] has evolutionary and survival values which is inherited from our evolutionary ancestors from billion of years ago. Thus the reification is so primal, instinctual and spontaneous at the subliminal [subconscious] level.
Such reification comes in degrees from low to high.

The Abrahamic believers has a high degree of propensity to reify, i.e. reifying the idea of God as ‘something’ that exists within empirical-rational reality.
The pantheists who believe in Brahman also has the tendency to reify but that is in very low degrees.

When a person is in bondage to the reification impulse without understanding and mindful of it tentacles, that person is not totally free. This is why some theists will kill when their God is criticized and some will get irritated, offensive, snarky and condemned those who critique the idea of God [note personal experiences here].

Note the tetralemma of Buddhism I mentioned above, it represent total freedom, i.e.

A - reifying
Not-A - non-reifying
Both A and Not-A - both reifying and non-refying
Neither A nor Not-A - total freedom from the above

Both refying and non-reifying has it pros and cons and thus we need them both, but at some time we have to be detached from them, i.e. emptiness or nothingness.
Note Bruce Lee’s ‘fighting without fighting’ or Wu Wei - action without action, etc.

Because the idea of Brahman still has the minutest remnants of reification I gave it up when I understoodd and realized the truth of non-reification within Buddhism’s view and practice.

Note the reification impulse is so strong within the psyche that even many Buddhists also reify that ‘something’, e.g. Buddha Nature, Store Consciousness, Alan Watts’ ‘God’ etc. but these reifications are not as ‘concrete’ as the concretizing the idea of God of the theists.

Note, don’t attribute ‘nihilism’ or ‘solipism’ to me.
In my case I am ‘entangled’ and interact with reality in one perspective while detached [not disentangled] in another perspective.

The light is on
The light is not on
The light is on and not on
The light is neither on nor not on

The only way a light can be on and not on is if there are two lights.

One way that a light can be neither on nor not on is if the light did not exist, or zero lights.

One side is heads
One side is not heads
One side is both heads and not heads
One side is neither heads nor not heads

One side is neither heads nor tails???

The only way that works is to split perspectives and realize that there is no coin, but if we do that, then 1,2,and 3 fail because if there is no coin, then one side of nothing cannot be heads.

This exercise does not help me “realize” anything since I already know “things” do not exist and yet I still have trouble seeing the value in the tetralemma.

This guy made an interpretation: treeleaf.org/forums/showthr … Tetralemma

[i]AKEMI:Tomatoes are delicious.
BENJI: I’d rather eat shit than tomatoes.
CHIKO: Raw tomatoes make me gag, but pizza without tomato sauce is yeuch.
DAI: Tomatoes? I could take them or leave them.

GORO: Trump is the devil.
HIRO: Trump is our saviour.
IZUMI: Trump has his good points and his bad points.
JUNDO: I look at Trump and I see nothing bad and nothing good.[/i]

I have read that thread, slept on it, and my conclusion is the tetralemma should be abandoned in favor of some sensible analogies to illustrate that things do not exist.

I don’t have any problem with objects being a collection of properties, but there must be a subject to have an object and endow those properties.

I would hope that extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence.

There must be at least one thing. The universe is the only atom, the a-tomos, the non-cuttable.

Reification is thingification, which is making a thing out of no thing, so have you considered that you’ve made a thing out of a someone (brahman)? Or maybe I should ask what you think the universe is, where it came from, what is fundamental reality if not brahman?

This seems more like personification rather than reification, but let’s just forget the Abrahamic god just like we have forgotten Zeus. I want to know if the universe is a bunch of sterile junk or if it is indeed alive.

Yes because water does not fight, it yields.

I still think the word you’re looking for is personification. It’s more survivally advantageous to assume there is a tiger making the grass move than the wind.

Yes, I’m confident all the religions have been perverted. Alan Watts believed in brahman. He described himself as a mix of buddhism and hinduism. He said you can either compliment the universe or you can seek to put it down.

It’s not instinctual for me to label people.

To paraphrase Kant, the Universe came from “you” and collectively with humanity. It is a long story to explain, so I won’t go into that.
Note my thread on 'You Are a Co-Creator of Reality"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193726

The principle of causation is inherent and made instinctual in human beings.
Thus for everything that is ‘effect’, there must be a ‘cause’ or ‘fundamental essence’.
The Hindu traced the ultimate essence to Brahman, i.e. the reification of that essence. It is not personification or anthropomorphization.
When science traced the fundamental of material to energy long ago, the Hindus related Brahman with ‘energy’ i.e. which is pervasive within reality.
Now that Science has dug deeper into quarks, then Brahman must something like quarks or whatever that is the final particle.

That ‘there must be something rather than nothing’ is purely a psychological issue that manifest into psycho-linguistic, i.e. ending with the reification of Brahman.

What is critical is we need to understand and acknowledge such a psychological state [use it optimally], but we should not be a slave to it to the extreme of killing in the name of God.

Then how do you reconcile the fact that I am alive and conscious and so are you and lots of other lifeforms if the universe itself does not also contain that property?

You would have to believe that dumb-junk arranged in specific combinations resulted in smart people.

Hydrogen - a colorless, odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people!

That doesn’t seem silly? So I don’t understand how you could discard the Brahman concept which so nicely explains that dilemma.

What are the consequences to you if you ignore that ‘fact’ i.e. the universe is alive like you and me?

If you reflect deeply, the only consequence is ‘you’ will feel uneasy with it, i.e. psychologically while reality will go on as it does.
You are indeed psychologically compelled [subliminally] to believe it.
But if you understand the psychological mechanism behind such a belief and is able to dissolve it, the only thing is a change in your psychological state, a freer one on top of that.

Meanwhile it is all the same in reality, i.e. you will eat, sleep, work, etc. but with one less burden, i.e. Chop Wood Carry Water.
http://www.zendirt.com/chop-wood-carry-water/59/

Note my explanation above, discarding the Brahman concept is based on refined psychological introspection and practices to develop the relevant state of mind to sustain it.

The consequence is that I will need to figure out how life came from nonlife.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtqtKnWriCM[/youtube]

At 16:50, he says:

“Now all this is perfectly idiotic. If you would think that the idea of the universe as being the creation of a benevolent old gentleman, although he’s not so benevolent he takes a sort of “this hurts me more than it hurts you” sort of attitude… uh, you can have that on the one hand and if that becomes uncomfortable, you can exchange it for its opposite: the idea that the ultimate reality doesn’t have any intelligence at all. At least that gets rid of the ole bogie in the sky, but in exchange for a picture of the world that is completely stupid. Now these ideas don’t make any sense… especially the last one… because you cannot get an intelligent organism, such as a human being, out of an unintelligent universe.”

How do you suppose intelligent organisms came from an unintelligent universe?

I’m psychologically compelled to believe 1+1=2 and therefore that should be reason to dismiss it?

You have the extra burden of deciding how life came from nonlife. I have one less burden than you do.

All you’ve done is avoid the question. Why would you abandon a sensible theory of the universe for one that doesn’t make any sense? So far the only reason you have given me is that the sensible solution was too sensible and because it was sensible, it was therefore wrong.

What are the consequences to you if you ignore the above question?
If you ignore the above question and your answer, you will not have the onus to prove the impossible, i.e. God exists.

There is no psychological compulsion on you to believe 1+1=2 as you have recognized you can do away with [dismiss] it when dealing with lumps of clay, drop of water, and the likes.

There is no burden on me to decide how life came from non-life.
What is fact is life emerged and one has to deal with it at the present.

It make more sense [empirically] to accept life emerged and one has to deal with it.

How can you say the idea of God is sensible when it is non-sense, i.e. based on crude reasoning rather than empirical sense.