The existence of God may not be the only option
In this post, I’m going to talk about some of my concerns and thoughts about the argument posted by Marco Colombini on the Philosophy Forum. Marco’s main conclusion is that theism is the most rational hypothesis to explain the universe, and I consider his argument as something follows:
(1) If established physics cannot explain all observations, then there should be something else that can explain all these.
(2) If there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, if established physics cannot explain all observations, then the existence of God is necessary to explain all these.
In his post, Marco suggests that the established physics fails to explain all observations in three main aspects. First of all, he points out that our current knowledge of physics cannot explain how the universe began and everything about the beginning of the universe is now still under the category of science fiction. Secondly, he states that our established physics cannot explain why fundamental constants and other properties of the universe are as they are. Lastly, he talks about the second law of thermodynamics and suggests that the established physics can only describe this law, but cannot explain why this is the case. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that the existence of God can explain all these things, for there are records of God doing something scientifically impossible.
I agree with his three aspects supporting that our established physics fails to explain all observations, as it is true that we currently don’t have sufficient physical knowledge to give thorough explanation to everything. Thus, I think the first premise sounds reasonable. However, my doubts and concerns are related to the second premise, which is if there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God. It is reasonable for people to consider the existence of God as the explanation of all observations, but I don’t think it is the only option for people to take. It is true that there are records of miracles, which can also be said as something scientifically impossible, and for theists, they will probably consider the occurrence of miracles to be the performance of God. However, for people who are atheists and agnostics, I don’t think they will consider the second premise to be fair, as they simply don’t think God exists. Personally, I don’t think the second premise is very reliable, because I think that those things which we cannot explain using established physics may just be something that we haven’t acquired the ability to figure out the law or the pattern yet, and it cannot imply that there must be a divine existence. The future generations may progress in scientific field and figure out what actually caused the beginning of the universe and give a comprehensive explanation.
(1) If established physics cannot explain all observations, then there should be something else that can explain all these.
(2) If there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, if established physics cannot explain all observations, then the existence of God is necessary to explain all these.
In his post, Marco suggests that the established physics fails to explain all observations in three main aspects. First of all, he points out that our current knowledge of physics cannot explain how the universe began and everything about the beginning of the universe is now still under the category of science fiction. Secondly, he states that our established physics cannot explain why fundamental constants and other properties of the universe are as they are. Lastly, he talks about the second law of thermodynamics and suggests that the established physics can only describe this law, but cannot explain why this is the case. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that the existence of God can explain all these things, for there are records of God doing something scientifically impossible.
I agree with his three aspects supporting that our established physics fails to explain all observations, as it is true that we currently don’t have sufficient physical knowledge to give thorough explanation to everything. Thus, I think the first premise sounds reasonable. However, my doubts and concerns are related to the second premise, which is if there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God. It is reasonable for people to consider the existence of God as the explanation of all observations, but I don’t think it is the only option for people to take. It is true that there are records of miracles, which can also be said as something scientifically impossible, and for theists, they will probably consider the occurrence of miracles to be the performance of God. However, for people who are atheists and agnostics, I don’t think they will consider the second premise to be fair, as they simply don’t think God exists. Personally, I don’t think the second premise is very reliable, because I think that those things which we cannot explain using established physics may just be something that we haven’t acquired the ability to figure out the law or the pattern yet, and it cannot imply that there must be a divine existence. The future generations may progress in scientific field and figure out what actually caused the beginning of the universe and give a comprehensive explanation.
Comments (96)
Conception of God is used as epistemological tool, like Joker, as idea applied when u run out of explanations, or just too lazy to find answer, that can empirically be verified, or testable. But there are many cases where transcendental beings, such as "Gods", actually have been reduced into something empirical, like "Gods" of cargo cult in pacific ocean, actually happened to be airplanes that gave them humanitarian help. Of-course the cult members never believed it tho, and still keep worshiping them as "Gods".
Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science).
If we say that God is the reason for these things then why can't we attribute it to chance alone.What if everything was an accident that turned out to be something stable(our universe).What if the exact workings of chance in this universe are beyond our intelligence?.What if the highest probable event known to us might be the rarest thing to happen in this universe?.My conclusion is WE JUST DON"T KNOWbecause we are entities just floating on a tiny speck in this vast universe.We just come up with these arguments just to convince us that some higher and immaculate entity is present in this universe because it is just depressing to think that you are the most refined entity the universe can make.
Ummm, no.
1. Why should there be such a thing? What requires its existence? If there ever were to be such a thing, it would probably be "physics, in the future". It would not be "God" because if we had actual knowledge of God, then that would be an observation for which we had no explanation. Infinite regress.
2. Why? The flying spaghetti monster works just as well.
3. This is an attempt to play the God of the gap concept in reverse. But much like when you play music backwards, you can tell yourself the devil is speaking, but you're really just imagining things.
Over 75% of Philosophical domains invoke God, Ummm, no?
Theoretical physicists invoke God, in some way shape or form (causation), no?
Cognitive science does studies on things like the Religious Experience Ummm, no?
In Christianity, was Jesus Italian? (For some reason I thought he was Jewish.)
Not sure what exactly you are claiming here, but you're going to need to cite some evidence. I suspect you don't have any.
Quoting 3017amen
No. If you are using "God" as a synonym for "causation" you are distorting both terms beyond recognition.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, along with all sorts of other delusions and disorders.
Possibly. He's usually depicted as a tall thin pale-skinned guy, often with some facial hair. But you know, he's whatever you want him to be, just like any other fantasy. Perhaps he learned that trick from hanging out with so many hookers.
Logic/epistemology:
1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief
Phenomenology/Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience
Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience
Cosmology:
1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism
Quoting Pro Hominem
How's that possible?
Quoting Pro Hominem
Is that like Pathology?
Quoting Pro Hominem
I know, his existence is real.
Oh, forgot to add:
Philosophy of Religion: God
Ethics & Political Philosophy (separation of church and state/In God we Trust).
Quoting 3017amen
Or at least his caricatures are...
Oh, well, that clinched it.
For "God" means many different things to many different people.
Is god some superhuman being who intervenes in nature through super-natural events?
I consider myself a "theist" of sorts but doubtless would be considered an "atheist" by most traditional religions (except maybe the mystical crowd).
In any event most proofs for God seem a great waste of time, one must as Kierkegaard asserts "make the leap to faith" without ignoring the value of science as well as its limitations.
Nice! Let's dive into mathematics, are you ready?
Are you acquiescing already?
Oh, you think we're having a dialogue? Lol. Your position is baseless and futile. The lingering taint of religion is an object of unfortunate distraction, not serious consideration. You are attempting to justify your pre-rational ghost stories with rational thought. It's why the "arguments" for the existence of god all fail. God is inherently incompatible with a reason and science based view of the world.
But by all means, tell me about math... :roll:
I'm a Christian Existentialist and have more questions than answers. But I am awfully glad you joined the discussion because it appears, or at least I'm sensing, that you have a lot of answers to [my] existential questions and concerns. Or, if nothing else, you probably have certain secrets that might relate to the nature of existence.
So without further ado, are mathematical truth's invented or do they have an independent existence?
Bonus question: are they required for survival of the fittest?
No. What is required for survival of the fittest is for there to be organisms, and for the environment to shape those organisms such that some traits survive and others do not. Don't even see how you got here from math, but ok.
Next?
I was just conversing on this in another thread not too long ago, I don't remember it going in the direction of the mathematical supernaturalists. The tactic here is worthy of intellectual contempt in my opinion, as it seeks to leverage a high value symbolic structure (or negate that structure's value in the case of supernatural denial). Never mind that the specifics of your Christianity are a million miles away from this form of reason. Mathematical symbols are human inventions, they contain a high level of approximation and for that reason are exceedingly useful. You ask if they have an independent existence? Oh, do explain? This is classic idealism.
Are you sure? You're implying that mathematical truth correlates to the reality of consciousness. Is there a mathematical formula that explains consciousness?
Quoting Pro Hominem
Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?
So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient?
:up:
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said mathematics was invented by human consciousness as a tool. It is a piece of technology. Stop putting the word truth next to it if you're going to accurately represent what I'm saying.
There might be, but I don't know it. As for explaining consciousness, what's to explain? We all have it.
Quoting 3017amen
You know, you clearly don't seem to need me since you want to make both sides of this argument. I imagine you play with yourself this way a lot. Must be lonely.
That nonsense is in no way connected to what I said. I said natural selection is about the environment acting on organisms, not the other way around. I also specifically said it had nothing to do with math. Are you an AI? Are you just sampling my language and spitting out preprogrammed responses?
Well let's parse one thing at a time carefully. Are you saying that mathematical formulas cannot explain the nature of your conscious existence? Or can it only explain things like laws of gravity... (?)
Quoting Pro Hominem
I'm a little confused, what does loneliness have to do with mathematical truths?
Anyway back to my questions, let me repeat them for you, and maybe take a day or two to think about them or research them in case you are unable to provide a cogent answer:
Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?
So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient?
Don't be shy 180 step up to the plate. If you're scared say you're scared LOL
Neither. This is a false choice. Mathematics doesn't explain things. It correlates with them. Mathematics will allow you to design an aircraft, but it doesn't explain why it flies.
Consciousness exists because complexity accumulates in the universe. When complexities interact they beget more complexities. These complexities must continue to increase or they fall prey to entropy. Eventually, human consciousness arose and is one of the greatest complexities we are aware of currently. However, our consciousness must continue to increase in complexity or it will deteriorate and disappear. It started out individual, then tribal, then religious, now rational. Rationality will allow us to uncover our further evolution. Religion is the obsolete past.
Quoting 3017amen
What does math have to do with natural selection? You questions are stupid, but I'll answer them. Perhaps you will learn from example.
Quoting 3017amen
No, survival does not require knowledge of gravity, or even knowledge of the world. The world IS, and some survive in it.
Quoting 3017amen
No, I wasn't, and I'm still not. Whether sensory perception ends up being sufficient is exactly what determines survival. If it is, you survived. It it isn't, well...
I realize I'm not playing along by giving the answers you've scripted for me, but I know you will continue your inane meanderings anyway. Go ahead, I'm entertained to see where you end up. It's weird, but sort of adorable in a way.
Full disclosure, though, I need to go make dinner soon, so it may have to wait for tomorrow. I keep praying for God to deliver manna from heaven, but he's not doing it. Mathematics must be broken. :scream:
Okay. What then explains existence?
Quoting Pro Hominem
What do you mean by complexity? Is that like a sort of metaphysical phenomena? I'm not following that...
Quoting Pro Hominem
What kind of rationality are you speaking of? For instance, a priori or a posteriori kinds of "rationality" as you say?
Quoting Pro Hominem
Oh I got it, are you saying the world just is, kind of like a logical necessity? Otherwise you haven't explained why we have mathematical ability. Can you shed any light on that?
Quoting Pro Hominem
I'm confused, I thought perhaps you were an atheist (?). No matter, I look forward to your reply.
Why should it be explained?We humans just try to fit everything in our tiny brains and take for granted that everything should be explain in this vast universe.What if everything is senseless?.
Oh, I see. So I think what I'm hearing from you is that you can't explain how you got here (your own existence) yet you're making a judgement about a God's existence, right?
Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right?
And as far as tiny brains, are you suggesting the bigger the brain is, the better?
Anyway, what do you mean by senseless? Do you mean a sense of purpose?
By senseless I mean absence of final purpose of anything.We are just floating on this tiny rock in this vast universe.I am saying fathoming the universe in our tiny brain is impossible
I am not denying the existence of God but we may be ruled by a benevolent deity to an evil alien civilization who is also in other words God.
I'm not following that. Having a sense of final purpose confers no biological survival advantages. What's your point in wondering about purpose?
Quoting philosopher004
Okay, well, there could be a "Multiverse" too... .
This is nonsense. You might as well try to bring Zeus into the picture, Jesus has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and you are here attempting to pass off a fallacy ("explain consciousness") as though it were some kind of competent, honest reasoning, it is no such thing.
Listen, little man, I will hold you to it. You want to play this game of explanation? Then subject your own positive claims to the same criteria... you can't do it, they wouldn't even last two seconds. Be honest, quit trying to posture, thought and philosophy are not on your side, but you are, in fact, crushed by them. You are not a deist, and neither are you a pantheist, and neither are you a polytheist, which means you are basically fucked, for lack of a better term. You have a very definitive and fantastical idea of God, one you cannot defend, and one that none of the arguments you are trying to make even supports. This is a game and you are trying to mess with people because you know a little bit of philosophy. Bring your nonsense to me and see what happens. I'm not here to play games.
I am not talking about a meaning or anything of that sort .When we see this from a big scale we cannot see the final purpose that is achieved by atoms splitting or why entropy is always increasing.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes it can be anything but any entity higher and more refined than us can be considered as God.
Forgive me I'm really not following what you're saying there, can you make your argument clear?
Quoting JerseyFlight
Oh my, are you one of those angry atheists? From time to time on this site we see angry atheists pop in and out, sort of trolling about, dropping f-bombs. What's yet another irony is that you would think an atheist wouldn't be so upset about a particular God's existence, especially when in fact he or she doesn't hold such beliefs.
I mean, why be so angry when you know God doesn't exist? Kind of a contradiction, no?
Anyway, be well.
I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.
— tim wood
It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!
— tim wood
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
I'll pass on sharing information, thanks anyway.
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
Quoting 3017amen
It is somewhat childish to do this on a philosophy forum.
The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
:clap:
I have nothing against you or him. I have liked yours and amen's in some other threads.I think it isn't wrong to put your thoughts here even if they seem absurd.
That is, what does Jesus have to do with the explanation of consciousness?
One of the expressions of Vivekananda’s Advaita Vedanta is the Sanskrit expression ‘sat-chit-ananda’ (??????????), which is usually translated as ‘being-knowing-bliss’. ‘Sat’ is the Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin ‘veritas’, meaning something like ‘living truth’. ‘Cit’ is from the root ‘mind’ but is equally translatable as ‘heart’ - so, ‘heart-mind’. ‘Ananda’ means ‘bliss’ and is a common suffix of Hindu names - ‘Satyananda’ for example means ‘Bliss of Truth’.
It was from this source that many contemporary concepts of ‘the role of consciousness’ in religion and philosophy originated, greatly amplified by the 60’s ‘consciousness movement’.
Keep in mind, Wayfarer, the Hellenistic & Neoplatonic period in ancient Greek history where Gnosticism had flourished, consciousness became synonymous with the "Know thyself" maxim (that Plato used) which comes from Gnosis itself (self awareness/self knowledge); ineffable, direct experience and wisdom, so on and so forth. Similar Christian philosophy was included in the lost Gospel of Thomas wherein specifically, personal 'secret' knowledge was thought of as a virtue to salvation.
But as history goes, some Gnostics thought Jesus was not God but rather just a human who had special revelation/wisdom/enlightenment through secret knowledge. Fast forwarding, my interpretation from that is more or less the metaphysical philosophy of Subjective Idealism. Once again though, it's not about throwing the baby out with all of the bathwater. In this case, discern or keep what works.
Anyway, the common theme there is trying to understand the nature consciousness itself, for which we have no logical explanation. Yet another mystery.
Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?
How much do you rely on Objectivity?
What do you mean by objectivity?
Opposite of Subjectivity.
I am well aware of this theistic game, it is one of radical skepticism, and that is why I will hold you to it. The burden of proof here belongs to you, so what do you mean by subjectivity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
RE:
Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?
How much do you rely on Objectivity?
BTW...it's called Christian Existentialism.
Until you offer a positive formation of your position (objectivity,subjectivity) there is no conversation here.
Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?
The terms in most need of clarification in this sentence are "objective reasoning" and "God." If you want to avoid asking a loaded question then you must define these terms.
I don't understand. As an atheist, are you acquiescing to a God then?
What do you mean by the term God?
Okay since you won't answer that you're an atheist, I'm assuming you are agnostic or something else correct?
God=Jesus
Just an observation, and don't take it the wrong way. In reflecting on the brief history from your participation in EOG type threads here, as well as the current mathematic thread, you came/come across as carrying a big-stick full of ad hominem remarks, now when asked pointed questions, (in several threads) about your belief in no God in this particular case, you seem to be folding under pressure.
I certainly hope I'm wrong, and I hope you have more bark to your bite, but I got to tell you, you're not impressing me right now. It's okay though, I'll be able to flush these things out pretty quickly...
If you want to talk about the existence of Snarks you must explain what you mean by the term, the same is true of God. Your controversial term is not my intellectual burden to define.
God=Jesus
If you're scared say you're scared!!
And so what is a God? I know Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed.
I'm sorry is there a misunderstanding as to why you're unable to answer my question? Let me post it again below, and/or maybe take a day or two to think about it, no rush (kind of like you deferred to metaphysician undercover in the mathematical thread).
"Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?"
And, for clarification, I've answered that, in Christianity, Jesus is God.
Thirdly, I've already advised you that I'm a Christian Existentialist. And you are... ?
When you tell me that Jesus is a Snark I still need to know what a Snark is. Saying Jesus is one does not explain it.
What's a snark,?
Read up on the burden of proof. You introduce the term you have the obligation to define it. All that has taken place here is juvenile evasion on your part. Your interaction doesn't even qualify as a form of skilled posturing. If you want to ask a valid question then don't pack it with controversial premises.
I'm not following that, what's so controversial about the question??
Jesus=God, right?
Or, maybe let's start from your so-called premise; what's a Snark?
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
Well there are theistic philosophers or god believing people who work in science/philosophical disciplines and there are those who claim that a god (undefined term) serves as a better hypothesis, explanation, or predictor of how the universe came to be or is. Usually with such a term (god) being adorned frequently with anthropomorphic idealizations such as a personality, free will, moral duties, etc.
Quoting 3017amen
Well you haven't ever defined god here. I'd advise you to stop dodging as you are doing to him and you have in the past done to me. Clarify what it's that you mean by the term "god" in positive terms.
Quoting 3017amen
Stop with this dodging and please clarify the term for this person.
Quoting 3017amen
God you have not defined for this person or anyone else in this thread. Remember that accepting the existence of vagueness metaphysically/ontologically does not mean you can use it in an argument when you still expect us to not see it as vague.
Quoting 3017amen
Depends on the abstract reasoning and mental maps were talking about. Among the many learned or "inherent" mental processes/tools if we're unable to parse one concept as correctly matching our experiences as well as the abstractions beyond said appearances (already held tentative models) then it would seem such a model may be rather useless.
I'd also kind of preface here that when you say "objective reasoning" i'm aware of a sort of intuition regarding what objective is but reasoning is not so clear. Reasoning can vary from inductive to deductive as well as float among many different logical systems (para-consistent to classical) but some combination or use of these methods or some mixture does serve us considerable success in predicting events in our experiences.
and i'd recommend you both be extremely careful with the language (not talking about respect) that you use in arguing or discussing with .
I'm really at a loss. Jesus of Nazareth. Does that define it better?
Quoting substantivalism
But that doesn't explain the nature of consciousness, does it? I mean, how does deduction provide for such explanation?
And so if you can't answer the question relative to your own consciousness, how can you posit no God?
Otherwise, how can the blind person describe the existence of the color red?
Well you saying "Jesus = God" is at best a renaming of the biblical character Jesus calling him now god or at worst a sneaking in of unstated characteristics that aren't readily covered by a reading of the original source material. I can call jeff "bill" but whatever characteristics a "bill" has to have to be one must be satisfied by jeff without extra stuff tagged on.
Quoting 3017amen
Never said it did only that such methods would prove useful in predicting either our own experiences or upon reflection of our abstract models (naive realism mixed with some biological understanding of human beings) you could find that certain ideas from other models prove consistent as well as fruitful in terms of predictive success.
Quoting 3017amen
Only if the term is defined and the assumptions clarified can we make an assessment as to whether such an entity is consistent with said experiences/abstract understanding of the world for a certain person.
Quoting 3017amen
They cannot just as a person who posits the existence of only their own mind can't help but act (strangely enough) as if they aren't alone nor truly be worthy of ruling their experiences fully (can they demand when they slam into the wall when to feel pain or not feel pain).
1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al.
Quoting substantivalism
2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)?
3. What's an abstract model?
Quoting substantivalism
4. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God?
5. What kind of experiences are you referring to?
6. What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'?
Quoting substantivalism
7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort?
8. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth?
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
So it is a language game being played?
Quoting 3017amen
Something we call conscious existence exists and it has rather intriguing conceptual features that repeat. By explain here you mean describe, right? As to explain if meant to mean discover the true nature of said entity is an impossible thing to perform by you or me.
Quoting 3017amen
A language or collection of terms that match directly to our experiences but also new terms that relay relations/properties that aren't readily perceptually apparent but prove useful in navigating our experiences. Think of the terms used to describe what resides within a black box even though we cannot see within it.
Quoting 3017amen
I've followed a four square of definitions regarding the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist in which specify not just whether you believe in god (atheist or theist) but also if you consider such an entity to be known or unknown (agnostic or gnostic) so a gnostic atheist wouldn't believe in god and consider it non existant. I can't take any of them until you specify what this "god" is so I remain ignostic.
Quoting 3017amen
Your experiences perceptual (sensory) or sudden experiences from within or thoughts.
Quoting 3017amen
Naive realism (the kind of thinking about the world your born with/learn about early on) and most every scientific model.
Quoting 3017amen
No, merely a thought experiment regarding the fact that even a person following solipsism clearly doesn't control his reality as much as he boasts that he does.
Quoting 3017amen
I don't know. You'll need to clarify.
You have done more than enough for 3017amen. :grin: It's clear he just continues to change the subject. I have met some intelligent people on this Forum, he is not one of them, his intellectual insecurity is brutally painful to see. He is one of the most incompetent dialecticians I have encountered on this Forum. It's pretty obvious when he shows up in threads that he is limited to the same stale polemic ("explain your consciousness homie") and the same shallow techniques. I have no doubt this stuff works on people around him, but it is not the stuff of thought, it is lacking in honesty and intellectual integrity, which usually means a thinker is just trying to prove something to themselves or other people as opposed to going after truth. It's pretty clear that he's afraid to discuss his theism with any kind of transparency, because he's afraid he might lose it, which is a well founded fear.
I'm not following that one Sub, how is the so-called historical account of Jesus a language game?
Quoting substantivalism
No, not describe. If we describe, we will encounter dialectic/both-and which in turn, transcendent of formal logic and/or binary dichotomous thinking. Nonetheless, I am certainly willing to explore your notion of describing how the Freudian unconscious, conscious and subconscious mind all work together in unison.
Otherwise, to answer you succinctly, I am speaking of the nature of existence, the thing-in-itself.
And so, please feel free to either describe or explain the nature of your consciousness itself, without encountering an impasse using whichever form of logic or Philosophy you choose (or psychology). For our purpose of EOG topic's, I will save you the time and go on record that you cannot, and that you/we will both uncover and discover some form of brute mystery. Which in turn, goes back to my question to you regarding a belief in no God/Jesus.
Quoting substantivalism
And so the question related to consciousness there. Accordingly, are you saying abstract models help us understand something? In our context, that is an important question by the way.
Quoting substantivalism
Of course, the reality of that premise is incorrect. It's incorrect because you yourself, arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence by some logical means and method. Otherwise, from what definition of terms did you arrive at that conclusion. I've already told you mine.
Quoting substantivalism
That would lead my to believe you hold, once again for our purposes, a philosophical view of subjectivism, and/or a derivative of same( ?). Otherwise, there are those who have so-called religious experiences, which in turn become their truth, and their truth only.
Quoting substantivalism
Can you explain that (Naïve realism) a little? Does it have to do with mathematical abstracts or something else? If it does, then you would be headed down a slippery slope of Platonic essences and forms, which would infer metaphysical existence of some sort, you know, like the laws of physics.
Quoting substantivalism
Does that include the metaphysical Will? Do you think you have such a thing? (That's another important question, so take the time to think about it please.)
Quoting substantivalism
See number 5. above. If you still don't quite get it, we can parse the differences between Objectivism and Subjectivism. But you will be called to justify your belief system (as I), during that process, along the way. In other words, it's a broad subject but very much relevant to our discussion.
Trolling instead of answering my questions, again? Jeeze dude, you're incriminating yourself. Please, don't take it the wrong way, but during our thought experiment we just had, I have concluded that you're all bark and no bite, as suspected. Sometimes gut reactions are telling.
Just some friendly advice, I know EOG topics can get quite emotional, so you may want to consider the following, which is also quite prophetic (no pun intended):
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
— substantivalism has engaged with you at length. It is not just my mere opinion that you change the topic, this can be verified. As for our exchange, which never even really occurred, and nor will it after observing your sophistry, I did not have the burden of proof. My activity on this Forum is certainly not that of a troll. This is all I have to say to you.
We (Sub and I) just started with some discourse. Yours and mine on the other hand (more of just a fishing expedition), only proved your bark had no bite, LOL
Be well my friend.
Every once in a while you say something that I agree with and here you are correct. There is virtually no historical account of Jesus. The Bible is a work of fiction with a few historically accurate references.
I have two questions related to your claim:
1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?
You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .
Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. Of course one could counter that by saying that such people do not truly "understand" it, but now we're getting into No True Scotsman territory.
Quoting Michael Grant here:
"We can no more reject Jesus's existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
Virtually all reputable scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Doubting that Jesus had any divine power is acceptable, but doubting his physical and historical existence is the result of the nihilistic mentality that was born during the 19th century. If the existence of Jesus can be doubted, Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - himself should be already a myth...
"that may or may not have existed."
I have made the same mistake. Just try reading more carefully next time.
The reason I said, "may or may not have existed" is because I am familiar with the alternative arguments put forth by Carrier and the like, I am also familiar with Ehrman. Further, Carrier does not hold this position out of Nihilism, as you groundlessly here assert, but makes the argument on empirical grounds. I could care less if he existed.
I made no mistake, my dear, I can assure you of this. You who made the mistake of thinking you were talking to a person who wouldn't notice your devious speech tactics. "That it may or may not have existed", this sentence is ambiguous on purpose, so that when people like me, come to ask you about this same sentence, you have already prepared an answer without any depth on the subject and simply to end the discussion.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Here you speak as if the reader were obliged to have prior knowledge that you - as you claim to have - are aware of these arguments by Carrier and Ehrman, even though you know that you used ambiguous language in your statement.
Quoting JerseyFlight
At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism, and yes that I argued on the basis of nihilism. Try to read more carefully and in less haste to respond.
Quoting JerseyFlight
It is noticeable that when the argument, assumption, opinion, vision, etc ... suits you to come out on top in the discussion, you use them, but when it also suits you to disprove your previous statements, you also do it. Does it smells like "doublethink" just for me? Ah, what did I expect from someone who - here quoting you - "can be considered a contemporary version of Nietzsche"?
This image of yours of a "revolutionary humanist" and your pseudo-philosophical conversation may have worked with others, but not with me. Good day/Good night.
Never said that. Like any account of history (book), it's fallible. To that end, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim here:
1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?
You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .
Quoting Gus Lamarch
You are correct. Unlike you, I am aware that there is an intricate debate here. Your claim is that I should have either confessed that Jesus existed or that he did not. I am not versed enough in this material to speak with authority on the topic, that is why I left it open.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
This is a good idea. You should try asking me about it next time.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Yes, if you are going to speak authoritatively as you did and simply say Jesus existed, then you should have read the relevant materials on both sides of the debate. I do not care whether or not Jesus existed, just like I do not care whether Muhammad existed. If you want to spend your time researching it you are free to do it, but I will admonish you that there are far more important things to study.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Is contradicted by:
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Carrier does doubt that Jesus existed. What you have to do is revise your false premise.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I do not evaluate arguments on the basis of my feelings, or whether or not the argument is favorable to my position, nor do I do it based on personal preference, I try my best to do it based on relevance. If you can show me why the topic of Jesus' existence is more important to study than say, economics, it is likely I will give my time to Jesus.
However, this is not an exchange of value because the topic is itself lacking in value. It would be advisable for you to try to focus on things that have more value.
I could be totally misreading them, but AFAICT 3017 is claiming that at least some portion of the Bible is factually correct. Of course you are correct.
As opposed to leaving a bait for potential inquirers where you would know very well how to argue against - without any depth on the subject - transvested as "ambiguity", it might be recommended to go search further or if you don't want to, don't talk about the subject that you don't know about? Just a tip.
Quoting JerseyFlight
And now you use the tactic of victimism, along with the previously mentioned fact that the reader is obliged to know that you are open - which I am in doubt if it's true - to inquiries.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Now you completely change course by citing another historical figure that I didn't even mention, to simply deviate from my questioning.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I had to quote myself, because I'm pretty sure you just ignored my answer to that affirmation of yours.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Again dodging my questions. This is getting ridiculous already.
Quoting JerseyFlight
And you should try to be more sincere in your discussions. This pseudophilosophy of yours is not working, I recommend the use of another tactic - if your objective is simply to try to indoctrinate others that your "revolutionary" - which is nothing revolutionary - "humanism" - which is more like a collectivist totalitarianism - works, through the use of controversy. Congratulations! You are managing to destroy your own vile ideology -.
Confirmation that others perceive the lack of depth there...well said Gus.
:up:
:up:
So it is quite possible to be atheist and believe in God(s).