Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[RoboTimbo]

Oh deary me,

You have gone so far down the road of confining human existence to a proxy/veiled idealism that I can't see any way back out for you.

I agree that you have no sensible response.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I agree, I am approaching the topic of existence using normal language not well equipped for the task. "Generates reality right now" fits, as I am considering something outside time as we know it.

And, evidently, outside space as it can be known. Why not just shout, "QUANTUM!!", an' ha'e done wi' it?

 

[punshhh]

Odd analogy, and not a great one, I fear.

You clearly do NOT have to confine possibilities in any way.

But in seeking the true origin of the rusty metal object, it helps to limit oneself to the most reasonable, and likely, explanations first.

IOW, should you spend equal time going down each of the following paths...

It's an old metal toy

It's an old metal tool

It's an old metal piece of hardware

It's a piece of Bigfoot jewelry

It's from another dimension

It formed miraculously from the dirt in your garden as a sign

The law of parsimony would lead one to spend far more time researching and considering each of the first three as opposed to the last three.

That does not 100% rule out the last three as possible explanations, but seriously, do ALL possibilities deserve or get "equal time" from you?

You have illustrated my point quite well. The last three options like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and perhaps Bigfoot, are imaginary explanations and not worth examination. The others are and even if it can't be determined what it is, accepting that it is a mystery is more parsimonious than falling back on imagination.

Or maybe I just missed the point of the analogy.

There are numerous ways the analogy can be used. My primary point was that it is possible to discuss something unknown conceptually without asserting that what is being discussed does actually exist, or without being misguided, naive, or deluded.

We are actually discussing something unknown right now(a rusty object). Now say that someone comes up with the notion that it is a prehistoric mobile phone. Something which can transmit a message over a great distance. Now pastafarians would be accusing them of creating imaginary scenarios and wishful thinking. Such as suggesting that prehistoric people were technologically advanced. Deluded indeed.

Parsimony would advise not jumping to such conclusions, as prehistoric people might have used numerous clever technologies which we do not know about.

Indeed it could even be a sonic screwdriver, could it not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have pointed it out numerous times. It hinges on one's response to this question;

Do you accept that it is possible for a human to represent something (x) which exists outside the mind, conceptually?

Yes. The Unicorn, the Teapot, 'god', the Fairies in Your Garden, Jame Retief...etc.

And that while the construction of that conceptual idea involves imagination, it does not follow that (x)does not exist, because its conception is to some extent imaginary?

It does follow, however, that the fact that the thing has been imagined does not make it become non-imaginary. The act of imagining something does not make it real.

What distinguishes the real from the imaginary?

(There's that mean ol' evidence thing, again.)

Let me illustrate with an example, I found a rusty metal object in my garden when digging. I haven't cleaned it up yet and have no idea what it is.
Can I discus what it is?

I cannot speak for whether you can, or not, but you certainly may. If you are honest, your ruminations about what it, in fact, is will be constrained by the tenets of reality.

And if so must I confine the possibilities to what fits our current scientific model?

Yest, it must--unless you can propose a new, improved, scientific model that explains how your imaginary thing is real while at the same time preserving our ability to explain what has already been demonstrated to be non-imaginary.

It is perfectly proper to ponder whether it is the buckle of a Confederate Scout possibles bag.

It is lax to imagine that it is the belt holster of the esoteric communicator by which the First Citizen of Atlantis and the God-King of Aztlan kept their thoughts in synch.

How it it, then that an imaginary concept dons the cloak of reality?

That cloak can only be purchased with the true coin of evidence. Without that, the imagined concept is, and will remain, imaginary.

Like the Unicorn. Like 'god'. Like natal moment horology.

ETA: Capably ninja-ed by Fast Eddie B. Well said, sir!

 

[Slowvehicle]

You have illustrated my point quite well. The last three options like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and perhaps Bigfoot, are imaginary explanations and not worth examination. The others are and even if it can't be determined what it is, accepting that it is a mystery is more parsimonious than falling back on imagination.

Or all that "falling back" on concrete, empirical, objective evidence.

There are numerous ways the analogy can be used. My primary point was that it is possible to discuss something unknown conceptually without asserting that what is being discussed does actually exist, or without being misguided, naive, or deluded.

Unless, and until, one begins to make the odd claim that the act of discussing the imaginary thing in question imbues it with reality. (Or that the imaginary thing is the proper beneficiary of condign special pleading, because 'god'.)

We are actually discussing something unknown right now(a rusty object). Now say that someone comes up with the notion that it is a prehistoric mobile phone. Something which can transmit a message over a great distance. Now pastafarians would be accusing them of creating imaginary scenarios and wishful thinking. Such as suggesting that prehistoric people were technologically advanced. Deluded indeed.

Parsimony would advise not jumping to such conclusions, as prehistoric people might have used numerous clever technologies which we do not know about.

At which point, the rational person asks for evidence. Congruent, luminous, fruitful evidence that "prehistoric peoples" had "advanced technology" and that this lumpy, rusty object is the equivalent of two vast and trunkless legs of stone: "...look on my roaming charges, ye mighty, and despair!"

For the careful thinker, the utter lack of evidence shelves the idea of the possibility of the object being an "aPhone"* in the same way and to the same degree that the utter lack of evidence shelves the ideas of the possibility of 'god' (any 'god').

Indeed it could even be a sonic screwdriver, could it not?

Not unless, and until, one is prepared to demonstrate how one's "sonic screwdriver" (from which season?) functions within what can be known. (From what energy field does it derive its power? With what matter field does it manipulate physical objects? Alons-y! You have work to do...)

 

[tsig]

You have illustrated my point quite well. The last three options like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and perhaps Bigfoot, are imaginary explanations and not worth examination. The others are and even if it can't be determined what it is, accepting that it is a mystery is more parsimonious than falling back on imagination.
There are numerous ways the analogy can be used. My primary point was that it is possible to discuss something unknown conceptually without asserting that what is being discussed does actually exist, or without being misguided, naive, or deluded.

We are actually discussing something unknown right now(a rusty object). Now say that someone comes up with the notion that it is a prehistoric mobile phone. Something which can transmit a message over a great distance. Now pastafarians would be accusing them of creating imaginary scenarios and wishful thinking. Such as suggesting that prehistoric people were technologically advanced. Deluded indeed.

Parsimony would advise not jumping to such conclusions, as prehistoric people might have used numerous clever technologies which we do not know about.

Indeed it could even be a sonic screwdriver, could it not?

Things are imaginary (bigfoot, FSM) when you declare them imaginary and non imaginary(god) when you declare them non imaginary.

IOW "When I use a concept it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less".

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You have illustrated my point quite well. The last three options like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and perhaps Bigfoot, are imaginary explanations and not worth examination. The others are and even if it can't be determined what it is, accepting that it is a mystery is more parsimonious than falling back on imagination.

Your problem is that you start with the baseless assumption that God is not imaginary. So I guess God is not imaginary just because you say he's not. You can get away with whatever assumptions you want when you're willing to ignore evidence. Strange how that works, isn't it?

Also, we've been over this. Unicorns do exist.

 

[punshhh]

Things are imaginary (bigfoot, FSM) when you declare them imaginary and non imaginary(god) when you declare them non imaginary.

IOW "When I use a concept it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less".

and so if I say the rusty metal object might bee some kind of prehistoric mirror, it is just wishful thinking. Only scientific examination can inform me as to what it is?
I should not speculate until then, because I might be deluded.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. The Unicorn, the Teapot, 'god', the Fairies in Your Garden, Jame Retief...etc.

Are you saying these things exist? Might exist? Or are fancies of the imagination?

It does follow, however, that the fact that the thing has been imagined does not make it become non-imaginary. The act of imagining something does not make it real.

Yes of course, its "reality", existence, is independent of the thoughts of the person imagining it.

What distinguishes the real from the imaginary?

I don't like to use the word "real" here because we are discussing things that exist or not. Some things which don't exist might appear to be real, have some reality to them, this is ambiguous.

(There's that mean ol' evidence thing, again.)

So things only exist if humans have evidence of their existence?

You're beginning to sound like RoboTimbo, asserting a veiled/proxy idealism.

I cannot speak for whether you can, or not, but you certainly may. If you are honest, your ruminations about what it, in fact, is will be constrained by the tenets of reality.

There's that word again "reality". Do you mean reality is what is currently understood to be real by humanity's current scientific understanding?

Yest, it must--unless you can propose a new, improved, scientific model that explains how your imaginary thing is real while at the same time preserving our ability to explain what has already been demonstrated to be non-imaginary.

I do propose that our scientific model is limited, will be superseded by more advanced models repeatedly in the future. Unfortunately when it comes to existence, our current scientific model is left wanting. It doesn't have a clue and I'm not referring to the kind of astro physics which speculates about singularity's and multiverses. These ideas are not addressing existence, they are addressing the origins of the physical matter we are familiar with. Existence is another issue, not addressed at all by science.

It is perfectly proper to ponder whether it is the buckle of a Confederate Scout possibles bag.

Yes like a prehistoric communication device.

It is lax to imagine that it is the belt holster of the esoteric communicator by which the First Citizen of Atlantis and the God-King of Aztlan kept their thoughts in synch.

Quite, although, I see no problem with esoteric communicator.

How it it, then that an imaginary concept dons the cloak of reality?

The human thought process.

That cloak can only be purchased with the true coin of evidence. Without that, the imagined concept is, and will remain, imaginary.

Here we are again, it only exists/is not imaginary, if humans currently have evidence of it? Anything else is deluded nonsense/wishful thinking?

Like the Unicorn. Like 'god'. Like natal moment horology.

One should look to distinguishing what is imaginary from what is rational, or what might exist independent of imagination.

ETA: Capably ninja-ed by Fast Eddie B. Well said, sir!

Don't jump the gun here.

 

[Slowvehicle]

and so if I say the rusty metal object might bee some kind of prehistoric mirror, it is just wishful thinking. Only scientific examination can inform me as to what it is?
I should not speculate until then, because I might be deluded.

Nonsense, and not at all a fair or honest implication.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to speculate. It is the next step tht is important.

After speculation, one looks for evidence to test one's speculations. One's imagining of imaginary things (pre-historic mirrors, billion-year-old "technological artifacts", pre-Colombian mesoamaerican steel-making technology) must be supported by objective, empirical, practical, non-anecdotal evidence before it, or they, can be declared non-imaginary.

No practical, non-anecdotal, objective, empirical has ever been offered for any 'god'. Without that, it is dishonest to say that 'god' is not imaginary. One's wishful thinking is useful to guide one's investigation. Until your speculations about 'god' are supported by evidence, "god" is no less imaginary than the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I do propose that our scientific model is limited, will be superseded by more advanced models repeatedly in the future.

Stipulated.

Unfortunately when it comes to existence, our current scientific model is left wanting.

Stipulated.

It doesn't have a clue...

It is exactly there where your argument goes off the tracks.

It is the same depressing and only trivially true argument that "scientists don't know everything".

How about taking (or retaking) some classes in the scientific field of your choice and revel in how many clues science has about the natural world. Or just watch Cosmos.

Or don't, but don't expect me to agree about how little science knows if you choose not to inform yourself about how much science does understand, and the mechanism by which the former inexorably grows while the latter continues to shrink.

Revel in your perceived gaps while you may. They're getting smaller as we speak.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are you saying these things exist? Might exist? Or are fancies of the imagination?

Any honest reading of what I have posted makes it clear that I am saying that it is possible to represent "The Unicorn, the Teapot, 'god', the Fairies in Your Garden, Jame Retief" as (in your phrase) "concepts that exist outside the mind". That representation does not make the imagined entities become less imaginary. The mere fact that one has specially-pled 'god' into the category of "imaginary things that really do exist" does not, in any way, make 'god' more "real", or less imaginary. Without evidence for its existence, 'god' is exactly as imaginary as "ghosts".

Yes of course, its "reality", existence, is independent of the thoughts of the person imagining it.

Word-play. If 'god' had any kind of existence in the real world, its existence could be verified with concrete, practical, empirical, evidence. As long as the credulous invoke special pleading to claim that their 'god', although not imaginary, must nonetheless be accepted "by faith", without, or contrary to evidence, any and all 'gods' are equally imaginary.

The existence of something may, in fact, be imagined. The act of imagining its existence does not affect the actual existence in any way. Multiple thousands of 'gods' have been imagined; no evidence (actual, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence) for any has ever been demonstrated.

I don't like to use the word "real" here because we are discussing things that exist or not.;/ Some things which don't exist might appear to be real, have some reality to them, this is ambiguous.

...like the 'gods', or The Unicorn. Equally imaginary; equally non-existent. Human inventions not supported by evidence.

So things only exist if humans have evidence of their existence?

Argumentum ad "so". How...inventive.

Say, rather, that if no practical, empirical, objective, evidence for the existence of an imagined something can be offered, it is dishonest to say that the fact that the thing has been imagined as non-imaginary does not make it any less imaginary.

You're beginning to sound like RoboTimbo, asserting a veiled/proxy idealism.

I have done no such, nor is it honest to imagine that I have.

I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of anything that can be demonstrated to exist. Were practical, non-anecdotal, objective, empirical evidence for the existence of a 'god' to be produced, I would examine it, and, were the evidence credible, (you know "congruent, luminous, and fruitful") I would accept that 'god's' non-imaginary status. Until then, such a 'god' is as imaginary as Frodo.

There's that word again "reality". Do you mean reality is what is currently understood to be real by humanity's current scientific understanding?

What part of "practical, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence" do you imagine you can honestly ignore when you start imagining what you wish you could claim that I mean? I suggest you read my posts again.

I do propose that our scientific model is limited, will be superseded by more advanced models repeatedly in the future. Unfortunately when it comes to existence, our current scientific model is left wanting. It doesn't have a clue and I'm not referring to the kind of astro physics which speculates about singularity's and multiverses. These ideas are not addressing existence, they are addressing the origins of the physical matter we are familiar with. Existence is another issue, not addressed at all by science.

...which is why speculation and imagination are useful, and can be fruitful, as sources of what can be investigated.

OTH, as long as the existence of something is only supported by imagination, that thing is imaginary.

It is odd to read your claim that "astro physics" speculations about the existence of the singularity or of multiverses is not "really" about "existence". I suppose "meta physics" is much more useful, as one can simply declare one's imaginings non-imaginary, without having to do all that complicated testing and verification.

Yes like a prehistoric communication device.

The difference between a CSA buckle and your "aPhone" is that there is concrete, physical, empirical, objective evidence for the possibles bags carried by CSA scouts; and examples exist of the buckles used to close them.

Quite, although, I see no problem with esoteric communicator.

Yes, utter lack of any evidence at all for something's existence does not seem to trammel your imagination in the least.

That does not make your "aPhone", or 'god', any less imaginary.

The human thought process.

Nice to see you again, Professor Hill! I did not recognize you without your catalogue.

You appear to be saying that the imagined can be made non-imaginary purely by human thought--that the act of imagining something makes it real. Absent fiction (the Minuet in G, in River City, in 1912) such has not ever been demonstrated.

Please feel free to provide examples of things that have come into being only and entirely by way of the "human thought process".

Here we are again, it only exists/is not imaginary, if humans currently have evidence of it? Anything else is deluded nonsense/wishful thinking?

Absent your pejoratives, yes. Without concrete, testable, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence, imaginary thing is imaginary.

One should look to distinguishing what is imaginary from what is rational, or what might exist independent of imagination.

That which "might" exist? If it "might" exist, it is imaginary. If it exists, it is non-imaginary. The existence of what is imagined must be demonstrated before it can be claimed to be non-imaginary. Practical, empirical, objective, testable, non-anecdotal evidence supports the idea of expansion cosmology. What do you claim supports the idea of a 'god'?

Don't jump the gun here.

I did not, nor am I.

"Jumping the gun" would be doing something as naïve as insisting that because a 'god' can be imagined to exist, it is not imaginary.

Or are you arrogating to imagine yourself the arbiter of my opinions, also?

 

[tsig]

and so if I say the rusty metal object might bee some kind of prehistoric mirror, it is just wishful thinking. Only scientific examination can inform me as to what it is? I should not speculate until then, because I might be deluded.

What other method would you use?

 

[Slowvehicle]

What other method would you use?

"..Style,
Sidestep,
Fingers,
and (his, his, his) Imagination..."

 

[Donn]

"Cos I, gotta make you see, there's no one, no one like me. I'm special, so special; gotta have some of your attention. Give it to me!" -- every god, always.


(Sorry Chrissie.)

 

[Dr. Keith]

and so if I say the rusty metal object might bee some kind of prehistoric mirror, it is just wishful thinking. Only scientific examination can inform me as to what it is?
I should not speculate until then, because I might be deluded.

There is a difference between speculating about an object that clearly does exist, even if you know little about it beyond that, and speculating about a being that has only ever been the subject of speculation. Can you see that difference?

Ask me what color your skin is and I'll take a guess, could be right, could be wrong, but I have no reason to assume that you don't have skin.

Ask what color God is and I can't even be wrong.

 

[ehcks]

Ask what color God is and I can't even be wrong.

Pink. But also invisible.

 

[tsig]

Pink. But also invisible.

The IPU is indeed invisible but Her Essence is pink. When you understood the Transcendent One this is obvious.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Pink. But also invisible.

Obviously.

(I was tempted to pull some apologetics about transubstantiation and plug in the appropriate gibberish for IPU, but in thinking that thought I realize that someone else has already done a better job than I would. I'd google it for you, but I'm sure someone else can do that better, too.)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you saying these things exist? Might exist? Or are fancies of the imagination?


Yes of course, its "reality", existence, is independent of the thoughts of the person imagining it.

I don't like to use the word "real" here because we are discussing things that exist or not. Some things which don't exist might appear to be real, have some reality to them, this is ambiguous.

So things only exist if humans have evidence of their existence?

You're beginning to sound like RoboTimbo, asserting a veiled/proxy idealism.


There's that word again "reality". Do you mean reality is what is currently understood to be real by humanity's current scientific understanding?


I do propose that our scientific model is limited, will be superseded by more advanced models repeatedly in the future. Unfortunately when it comes to existence, our current scientific model is left wanting. It doesn't have a clue and I'm not referring to the kind of astro physics which speculates about singularity's and multiverses. These ideas are not addressing existence, they are addressing the origins of the physical matter we are familiar with. Existence is another issue, not addressed at all by science.
Yes like a prehistoric communication device.
Quite, although, I see no problem with esoteric communicator.
The human thought process.
Here we are again, it only exists/is not imaginary, if humans currently have evidence of it? Anything else is deluded nonsense/wishful thinking?
One should look to distinguishing what is imaginary from what is rational, or what might exist independent of imagination.
Don't jump the gun here.

You still have no rational explanation for why you believe gods may exist and yet have an absolute belief that unicorns don't?