A God We Know Nothing About

[Oli]

What is 'generally accepted'? Where, when, by whom? What is 'generally accepted' in, say, today's Ireland, isn't necessarily 'generally accepted' in Australia 200 years ago. And so on - all depending on who, when, where, how, why.
But there is no such thing. There is just a specific person - with all their specific problems, interests, abilities etc. etc.

Talk about avoiding (or missing) the point...

That's becoming obvious.

No, they don't.

Show me one that doesn't.

Sure. But you seem to want an answer on your terms.
It's as if you wish that believers would make you believe, would convince you.

I specified one criterion: a proof of god that doesn't assume a priori that he exists - otherwise it's worthless.
I'm not interested in me believing at all.
I have no use for it.

God cannot be seen by the ignorant and unwilling.

Another a priori assertion.

What is not a 'form of indoctrination'?

Indeed.
But some indoctrination has support other than itself.

Sure. But then there are things a man can learn that way that will save him from the cycle of suffering. Isn't that a good thing?

That's an assumption.
How about we scrap religion, belief and churches and use the effort and money to actually do something to improve the human condition?

We're just so used to the phenomenon of temperature that we think it doesn't require any particularly deep knowledge.

To get the basics it doesn't require deep knowledge.

? And where do all those objects that have temperature come from? Physics does not account for that.

1) where the come from has nothing to do with understanding temperature.
2) physics doesn't claim to account for it.

Like I said in the beginning: 'Generally accepted' is a vague term. And also, people have been working with 'generally accepted' for millenia, without coming to a solution to the problems that befall us all: aging, illness and death in all their forms, and the suffering related to them.

You've missed the point again: it's generally accepted that they happen, but it's not generally accepted those things are good.
Maybe that's why science works so hard to eliminate them... just a thought.

 

[wynn]

I'm not interested in me believing at all.
I have no use for it.

In that case, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Oli]

Point missed again.
Ho hum..

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Comes "from"?
Does it come from anywhere or is it something that happens?

How can awareness 'happen', if it is not integral to reality? Every other device we know of works through functionalising some fundamental property or force. E.g. a light bulb, gives off electromagnetic radiation - a propagating form of the field holding the electrons in their orbitals in the atoms of the filament. Consciousness doesn't follow that rule - it is not reducible to a physical function - at least according to the philosopher Jaegwon Kim.

There is a serious gap to be explained here don't you think? Our model of 'reality' is seriously incomplete without something to explain the observer!

Surely it's just evidence that the brain follows similar thought patterns due to structure etc that more than outweigh geographic/ cultural differences?

So, does sadness exist, or humour, or truth, or the theory of evolution? Or are they 'just evidence that the brain follows similar thought patterns due to structure'? In the end, if you only count physical objects or phenomena as real, what are we doing right now? Just creating meaningless patterns of neuronal firing in our brains, nothing more!

Nope: because the ships could return with artefacts and other evidence.

Not if they couldn't land.

Plus of course finding new territories is not a claim outside of the "norm".

It was considered so before Columbus... Perhaps unusual or transcendent experiences is our equivalent?

And branes/ superstrings etc are not necessarily real : but they provide an explanation. One which can be (in a limited fashion at the moment) explain other things. But they came out of requirement.

So, if we can give a name i.e. 'dark energy' to explain anomalies in the redshift of distant supernovae, can't we do the same for 'God' to explain religious experience?

Does Freud's unconscious apply to all humans or just certain ones?

Yes, we all have one (if you adhere to a Freudian or Jungian model).

A pink elephant, now matter how convinced the individual is of its reality, is no more than a "malfunction" of the brain. A totally internal thing.

...so, how many people would it take to experience the pink elephant (or invisible unicorn, spaghetti monster etc.), independently over time and in different places, before it was declared a 'real' but elusive phenomenon?

What makes something 'real' that rules out religious experience? :shrug:

The experience is real - to the individual experiencing. But is the cause "god" or merely an internal thing?

So, is pain or joy merely 'an internal thing', explicable in some other way? People speak of their experience of 'God' as direct (like pain) and real. Without having their experience, it is hard to know...

Would you agree that we seem to differ in wishing (or not) to explain all phenomena in physical or material terms? It is the dominant paradigm, especially among scientists/engineers/philosophers. However, I'm always amazed by my science colleagues who try to account for mental phenomena in physical terms, without reflecting on the irreducible nature of thought of which the theories they are proposing are composed!

 

[Oli]

How can awareness 'happen', if it is not integral to reality? Every other device we know of works through functionalising some fundamental property or force. E.g. a light bulb, gives off electromagnetic radiation - a propagating form of the field holding the electrons in their orbitals in the atoms of the filament. Consciousness doesn't follow that rule - it is not reducible to a physical function - at least according to the philosopher Jaegwon Kim.

A philosopher...
Not somebody who's got his hands "dirty" then?
Is that the consensus opinion?

There is a serious gap to be explained here don't you think? Our model of 'reality' is seriously incomplete without something to explain the observer!

Correct: it's incomplete.
But I'd rather not invent something just to fill the gap - I'd rather look for more data.

So, does sadness exist, or humour, or truth, or the theory of evolution? Or are they 'just evidence that the brain follows similar thought patterns due to structure'? In the end, if you only count physical objects or phenomena as real, what are we doing right now? Just creating meaningless patterns of neuronal firing in our brains, nothing more!

Truth is a concept, sadness is observable through chemical imbalances/ changes (as well as the person's reactions), humour is... what? A perspective?

Not if they couldn't land.

That's why I said "could".

It was considered so before Columbus... Perhaps unusual or transcendent experiences is our equivalent?

Nobody ever discovered somewhere new before Columbus?

So, if we can give a name i.e. 'dark energy' to explain anomalies in the redshift of distant supernovae, can't we do the same for 'God' to explain religious experience?

You could, but saying "god" does nothing more than say "we don't know": at least with red shifty for example you can make predictions and test them.
What's testable about god?
What predictions can you make using "god" as a basis?

Yes, we all have one (if you adhere to a Freudian or Jungian model).

Which makes my point:religious experience/ belief is not universal.

...so, how many people would it take to experience the pink elephant (or invisible unicorn, spaghetti monster etc.), independently over time and in different places, before it was declared a 'real' but elusive phenomenon?

Vast numbers, I suspect the way things are going.

So, is pain or joy merely 'an internal thing', explicable in some other way?

Pain and joy are measurable (to a certain extent) phenomena, are they not?
And caused by (mostly) external stimuli.

People speak of their experience of 'God' as direct (like pain) and real. Without having their experience, it is hard to know...

It's subjective.

Would you agree that we seem to differ in wishing (or not) to explain all phenomena in physical or material terms? It is the dominant paradigm, especially among scientists/engineers/philosophers. However, I'm always amazed by my science colleagues who try to account for mental phenomena in physical terms, without reflecting on the irreducible nature of thought of which the theories they are proposing are composed!

Irreducible?
Only at the moment (maybe).

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

A philosopher...
Not somebody who's got his hands "dirty" then?
Is that the consensus opinion?

LOL!
I think it is recognised as a 'problem' with a physicalist explanation. Kim's argument is very compelling too (he was a physicalist).

Correct: it's incomplete.
But I'd rather not invent something just to fill the gap - I'd rather look for more data.

I agree, but just acknowledging that our physics ignores the 'observer' is enough.

Truth is a concept, sadness is observable through chemical imbalances/ changes (as well as the person's reactions), humour is... what? A perspective?

What's a 'concept' or a 'perspective' in terms of physical events e.g. neurones firing? Nothing - just a different meaningless pattern. Yet they have great significance to us as conscious entities...

Nobody ever discovered somewhere new before Columbus?

I think the prevailing view was that the known world was fixed, however, I may be wrong... I'm going by the Mappa Mundi, and other maps which leave no room for unknown places, and by the general opposition to other (e.g. Gallileo's) discoveries which upset the 'cosmic order'.

What's testable about god?
What predictions can you make using "god" as a basis?

Answered prayer, happier life, better health, robustness to trauma etc? These are all promises of religion, which seem to be bourne out by research (with the exception of 'answered prayer', but that's another story!). Having said that I'm not so sure an infinite God is going to be very predictable - a bit like the weather or a person isn't.

Are there any predictions coming out of the existence of 'dark energy'?

Pain and joy are measurable (to a certain extent) phenomena, are they not? And caused by (mostly) external stimuli.

Only correlations with brain imaging are measurable, or subjective assessments. We can't tell what's going on in an animal's experience for instance (though we might guess from our own).

Irreducible?
Only at the moment (maybe).

You think we will explain consciousness as a physical phenomenon? We may have to agree to differ!

P.S. Oli, I'm away until Monday, but I look forward top our continuing debate then!

 

[swarm]

Teaching a child that love in a series of chemical reactions, is a non-sense, not only to the child, but to anyone who has experienced love.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said it is chemical reactions, but it is not just chemical reactions.

It is a poor explanation to ultimately remove God from the picture.

There was never any god to begin with.

You're subjecting you're kids to nonsense.

So the truth is non sense but magic sky fairies is sense?
I suppose shit is shinola, too.

So, I go out into the garden with some seeds, plant them....
So what does my action have to do with the taste of orange juice?

So this time, instead of "some" seeds, try the orange seeds. Then be patient padawan learner.

 

[swarm]

ascertainments of something to be real ... or conversely when you make the assertion that god isn't

One is concretely manifest.
The other is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Oli]

LOL!
I think it is recognised as a 'problem' with a physicalist explanation. Kim's argument is very compelling too (he was a physicalist).

Put two philosophers in room for an hour and they'll come up with at least three opinions..

I agree, but just acknowledging that our physics ignores the 'observer' is enough.

Because physics' purview isn't the observer.
(Although QM has one interpretation that requires an observer).

What's a 'concept' or a 'perspective' in terms of physical events e.g. neurones firing? Nothing - just a different meaningless pattern. Yet they have great significance to us as conscious entities...

Yep, an internal "event".

I think the prevailing view was that the known world was fixed, however, I may be wrong... I'm going by the Mappa Mundi, and other maps which leave no room for unknown places, and by the general opposition to other (e.g. Gallileo's) discoveries which upset the 'cosmic order'.

Ah, arrogance
We know everything there is to know...

Answered prayer, happier life, better health, robustness to trauma etc? These are all promises of religion, which seem to be bourne out by research (with the exception of 'answered prayer', but that's another story!). Having said that I'm not so sure an infinite God is going to be very predictable - a bit like the weather or a person isn't.

Agreed: but is there any way of establishing that these benefits are the result of the belief (and therefore caused by having a more positive outlook on life) or that they actually come form god?

Are there any predictions coming out of the existence of 'dark energy'?

Not really, but that's because at the moment it isn't a theory so much as a place-holder: IF we take this as the "cause" then we can work on establishing some facts or counter-facts.
And "dark energy" isn't the only thing being considered as the cause of the current anomalies - it's one of a number of explanations.

Only correlations with brain imaging are measurable, or subjective assessments. We can't tell what's going on in an animal's experience for instance (though we might guess from our own).

Chemical changes in the body as well.

You think we will explain consciousness as a physical phenomenon? We may have to agree to differ!

I HOPE we will, one day.
I doubt I'll live to see it happen though.

P.S. Oli, I'm away until Monday, but I look forward top our continuing debate then!

Okay, have fun.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena -


You didn't answer Oli's question:

The Qur'an.
The Bhagavad Gita.
Bhagavat Puranas.
etc....

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/articles/662/1/Famous-Reflections-on-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.html

jan.

 

[Oli]

All of which take god as a given, no?

 

[Jan Ardena]

All of which take god as a given, no?

"God is", the only power any person has is to believe or not.

jan.

 

[Oli]

"God is"

That's an assumption.

the only power any person has is to believe or not.

Why believe in something for which there's no evidence?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oli,

That's an assumption.

God is + God isn't =
1 + 0 =

Why believe in something for which there's no evidence?

I take it you mean scientific evidence?

If so, what kind of scientific evidence would satisfy this question?
Bearing in mind the definition of God, contained in these scriptures.

jan.

 

[Oli]

God is + God isn't =
1 + 0 =

:shrug:

I take it you mean scientific evidence?

If you'd read the thread: ANY evidence.

If so, what kind of scientific evidence would satisfy this question?

Something is explained by "god" and nothing else, perhaps.

Bearing in mind the definition of God, contained in these scriptures.

We're back to the same problem again: the scriptures claim god exists and they are correct in this claim because god dictated them.
The "definition" of god isn't so much a "definition" as a cop-out.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oli,

:shrug:

God is, and, God isn't, are both assumptions.
In the world of assumptions, God is still greater.

If you'd read the thread: ANY evidence.

Then you've no need to ask me, just google, it just saves
to same old dance routine.

Something is explained by "god" and nothing else, perhaps.

In your current state of mind and being, how would you KNOW is it was God?
And would you be prepared to follow certain rules and regulations to update your state of mind and being, in order to discriminate perfectly?

We're back to the same problem again: the scriptures claim god exists and they are correct in this claim because god dictated them.
The "definition" of god isn't so much a "definition" as a cop-out.

If God existed, how would it be possible for us to know God?
Please enter into the spirit of the question, and use your brain
to come up with an answer.

jan.

 

[Oli]

God is, and, God isn't, are both assumptions.
In the world of assumptions, God is still greater.

No, one is an assumption.
The other is saying: there's no evidence, so I'm not going to believe.

Then you've no need to ask me, just google, it just saves
to same old dance routine.

Tch.
Sci is ALWAYS the same old dance.
Google isn't interactive and provides nothing.
It's through talking to people about WHY they believe that I may get answers.

In your current state of mind and being, how would you KNOW is it was God?

Current state of mind?
More assumptions?

And would you be prepared to follow certain rules and regulations to update your state of mind and being, in order to discriminate perfectly?

"Perfectly"?
Signal went through this.
Do the rules and regulations assume that god exists from the start?
If so, no.

If God existed, how would it be possible for us to know God?
Please enter into the spirit of the question, and use your brain
to come up with an answer.

If god existed then there'd be something that could ONLY be explained by god, presumably.

 

[(Q)]

God is, and, God isn't, are both assumptions.
In the world of assumptions, God is still greater.

The claim of god IS the greater "assumption" of course. Without a shred of evidence, the assumption becomes a worthless assertion.

Then you've no need to ask me, just google, it just saves
to same old dance routine.

The "same old dance routine" is Jan tap dancing around assertions.

If God existed, how would it be possible for us to know God?
Please enter into the spirit of the question, and use your brain
to come up with an answer.

Typical cop out. The brain would conclude that assertions of entities that have not been demonstrated to exist are unknowable.

Therefore, the conclusion drawn is that Jan is not using a brain.

 

[(Q)]

"God is", the only power any person has is to believe or not.

"The Invisible Pink Dragon is", yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oli,

The other is saying: there's no evidence, so I'm not going to believe.

Which assumes a person knows what constitutes evidence of God' existences, meaning, they conclude God does not exist as they have seen none of that particular evidence. Sounds like an ass-umption to me.

Tch.
Sci is ALWAYS the same old dance.

Well it shouldn't be, as such repitition is non-productive.
Perhaps non-productivety suits your position, but I find it boring and....non-productive.
I say let's take it to the next stage, and see what makes you tick.

Current state of mind?
More assumptions?

Cop-out!

"Perfectly"?

Then go right ahead.
You're first task, is to become humble.

Do the rules and regulations assume that god exists from the start?
If so, no.

You'll find out.

If god existed then there'd be something that could ONLY be explained by god, presumably.

You're not entering into the spirit of the question are you?
You see right here is the problem, you won't let go of your
presets.
Please try and answer again, but this time, answer the actual question.
Thanks in advance.

jan.