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

[Vortigern99]

You are simply not even acknowledging, let alone addressing, the weird patterns that have tied the most far-reaching human breakthroughs in social altruism with the most counter-cultural and nose-tweaking takes on deity. Of course, bats and plenty of mammals have ingrained altruistic habits as well. But we don't (yet) know fully the feelings other mammals feel or the thoughts other mammals think. We do, though, know something of the cultural habits that humans adopt. So humans are our best laboratory for determining what goes into the gestation of altruistic behavior through different civilizations through different millennia. That is the laboratory that has helped reveal this odd quirk that always ties new "altruisms" to new "theisms".

Of course, anyone has a right to come up with some explanation for this pattern that does not upset the assumption that there's no deity. But it's absurd to actually pretend the pattern doesn't exist! What's the point of your OP if you don't address any of the reasons submitted why there MIGHT be a deity?

If there really is no deity, then fine, explain this pattern some other way. But explain it! Don't just pretend the pattern doesn't exist.

Stone

While you have not offered much if anything in the way of evidence to support your claim.that "the most far-reaching human breakthroughs in social altruism [are tied] with the most counter-cultural takes on deity", Slowvehicle and others have offered substantive rebuttals to that assertion.

Even if you had, or could, offer more significant support for the idea, the conclusion that altruistic social engineers have largely been believers in a god or gods still does not give me any reason to believe in a superpowered invisible overlord of the kind that the various monotheistic world religions
hold in high regard.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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

(snip)

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

Correct, speculation and imagination can be powerful tools for potential discovery and exploration, but without evidence to verify the existence of something, there is no reason to concern ourselves with it. You can't ignore that step. You have to follow through with evidence, otherwise all you're doing is special pleading things into existence, and here's the point you seem to be missing: If it works for gods, then it should also work for things like unicorns.

The ontological argument for God's existence fails for precisely this reason. You can't just imagine or define things into existence. If that were the case, anything goes. Just because God has been used in the past as a philosophical concept, or placeholder in our knowledge of the universe, doesn't give him a free pass.

 

[punshhh]

Stipulated.
Stipulated.

Agreed

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

Not at all, all I am doing is pointing out that if one invokes the term "existence" in a discussion, the issue of existence should be addressed, otherwise it is meaningless waffle.

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

What specifically do they know about existence?

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.

Perhaps you can point me to the human knowledge which explains the origin of the act of existence, we are familiar with?

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

On the contrary, I am an avid fan of scientific discovery. But I also realise our lack of knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. Along with engaging in many other intellectual pursuits and activities.

 

[punshhh]

Correct, speculation and imagination can be powerful tools for potential discovery and exploration, but without evidence to verify the existence of something, there is no reason to concern ourselves with it. You can't ignore that step. You have to follow through with evidence, otherwise all you're doing is special pleading things into existence, and here's the point you seem to be missing: If it works for gods, then it should also work for things like unicorns.

The ontological argument for God's existence fails for precisely this reason. You can't just imagine or define things into existence. If that were the case, anything goes. Just because God has been used in the past as a philosophical concept, or placeholder in our knowledge of the universe, doesn't give him a free pass.

I suggest you discard this tired line of reasoning. I know that it has been developed in some kind of contest with theists and as a debunking device in discussions with the folk who turn up here with some notion about winning a million dollars.
But to use it in philosophical discussions is rather naive and fails to engage with the minutiae of rational consideration.

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

From that understanding, philosophy lays out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in.


This preoccupation with scientific analysis of physical matter is all very well and is a useful tool in the technological development of civilisation. But at the end of the day all it is is a technology, like a mirror. All the other issues, interests and pursuits of humanity are outside the remit of science and it is folly to discard them in the fascination with this preoccupation.

Indeed humanity is currently utilising scientific developments to hasten the impending collapse of this current civilisation.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I suggest you discard this tired line of reasoning. I know that it has been developed in some kind of contest with theists and as a debunking device in discussions with the folk who turn up here with some notion about winning a million dollars.
But to use it in philosophical discussions is rather naive and fails to engage with the minutiae of rational consideration.

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

From that understanding, philosophy lays out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in.


This preoccupation with scientific analysis of physical matter is all very well and is a useful tool in the technological development of civilisation. But at the end of the day all it is is a technology, like a mirror. All the other issues, interests and pursuits of humanity are outside the remit of science and it is folly to discard them in the fascination with this preoccupation.

Indeed humanity is currently utilising scientific developments to hasten the impending collapse of this current civilisation.

Do feel free to provide evidence that your imaginary 'god' is, in fact, non-imaginary.

 

[tsig]

I suggest you discard this tired line of reasoning. I know that it has been developed in some kind of contest with theists and as a debunking device in discussions with the folk who turn up here with some notion about winning a million dollars.
But to use it in philosophical discussions is rather naive and fails to engage with the minutiae of rational consideration.
Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

From that understanding, philosophy lays out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in.

This preoccupation with scientific analysis of physical matter is all very well and is a useful tool in the technological development of civilisation. But at the end of the day all it is is a technology, like a mirror. All the other issues, interests and pursuits of humanity are outside the remit of science and it is folly to discard them in the fascination with this preoccupation.

Indeed humanity is currently utilising scientific developments to hasten the impending collapse of this current civilisation.

Philosophy can't say what exists but can lay out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in? This is self contradictory.

Humans do philosophy and science so why do you love one and hate the other?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

About 50 years ago I took Philosophy 101.

I recall Descartes' musing over whether he actually knew with any certainty the book he had placed in his closet was still there when it was out of sight.

Or if anything was real other than himself.

Great stuff for acid trips and late night dorm discussions.

And then you come down and get on with your life.

Does it make much practical difference whether the tumor on your kidney has real existence? Or the flat tire on your truck? Or your spouse? Or the Higgs Boson?

In each case, we have to structure our lives "as if" these things have existence. Sure, we might be in "The Matrix" and it's all a simulation or illusion. But what, exactly, does that change?

There's a name for people who cannot discern what is real and what is illusion on a day-to-day level - psychotic.

Not name calling, since your thought exercise is purely academic.

And, ultimately, trivial - except maybe to philosophers.

 

[mstricky]

If time began with the formation of the universe we cannot talk about there being a before the universe and consequently a prior cause.

There could be a time before the universe. Since the big bang everything is still moving away from that explosion. Eventually it will all move back all the stars/planets crashing back into each other, probably creating one massive planet only again to explode with another big bang. What is beyong the universe? Other universes?

 

[Innocuous]

Could you take a moment to condense the main thrust of your thesis into one or two concise sentences?

Jargon-free too, please, for stoopids like me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not.

So we can't say what doesn't exist, but....

As such objects (objects not described by science) must obviously be entirely imaginary, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage.

What other irrational beliefs do you hold?

 

[turingtest]

I suggest you discard this tired line of reasoning. I know that it has been developed in some kind of contest with theists and as a debunking device in discussions with the folk who turn up here with some notion about winning a million dollars.
But to use it in philosophical discussions is rather naive and fails to engage with the minutiae of rational consideration.

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

From that understanding, philosophy lays out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in.


This preoccupation with scientific analysis of physical matter is all very well and is a useful tool in the technological development of civilisation. But at the end of the day all it is is a technology, like a mirror. All the other issues, interests and pursuits of humanity are outside the remit of science and it is folly to discard them in the fascination with this preoccupation.

Indeed humanity is currently utilising scientific developments to hasten the impending collapse of this current civilisation.

Back in the day, I had a friend who loved to sit around and drink beer and have what he called "deep, meaningful conversations" (his actual words). One night, I brought over a tape-recorder and recorded the whole thing. Listening to it the next day (after the hangovers wore off, but before the next drunk began) was a hilarious eye-opener, and a somewhat shame-faced end to the "deep, meaningful conversations."

The conversation here and now is becoming indistinguishable from the ones then. YMMV, of course...

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I suggest you discard this tired line of reasoning. I know that it has been developed in some kind of contest with theists and as a debunking device in discussions with the folk who turn up here with some notion about winning a million dollars.
But to use it in philosophical discussions is rather naive and fails to engage with the minutiae of rational consideration.

Philosophy tells us that we are not in a position to say what exists or not. There, that is simple enough isn't it?

Then who are you to dictate that skeptical counter-examples to God are imaginary, whereas God is not?

You also missed my point. I'm saying that, without evidence, why should we concern ourselves with imaginary things? Why should we bother? Why should we live our lives any differently? How does a God who is hiding under a rock on the opposite corner of the universe affect us in any way?

From that understanding, philosophy lays out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in.

In light of what you just finished saying, that makes no sense at all.

This preoccupation with scientific analysis of physical matter is all very well and is a useful tool in the technological development of civilisation. But at the end of the day all it is is a technology, like a mirror. All the other issues, interests and pursuits of humanity are outside the remit of science and it is folly to discard them in the fascination with this preoccupation.

The fact that human scientific capabilities are limited in scope does not give you the excuse to make stuff up, nor does it give you justification to ignore evidence. In a logical syllogism, would you ignore the premises and jump straight to the conclusion in order to make a sound argument? Of course not, and evidence works the same way.

Indeed humanity is currently utilising scientific developments to hasten the impending collapse of this current civilisation.

The right technological advancements used responsibly could very well save human civilization, as efficiency increases and new sources of renewable energy are utilized. You would have us throw everything away, the good with the bad.

 

[punshhh]

Philosophy can't say what exists but can lay out what we can rationally say, or cannot say about the world of existence we find ourselves in? This is self contradictory.

It isn't, there is a nuance which you may not have noticed. Philosophy can lay out what we can say about what appears to exist.

Essentially philosophy has pointed out that what we commonly regard as existing(the physical world around us), appears this way in our experience, but that this is not necessarily the appearance of what actually exists beneath the surface. Indeed this is pretty much was science is saying these days.

Humans do philosophy and science so why do you love one and hate the other?

But I've just told Fast Eddie B that I love science. I just don't discard philosophy in the preference of science.

 

[punshhh]

About 50 years ago I took Philosophy 101.

I recall Descartes' musing over whether he actually knew with any certainty the book he had placed in his closet was still there when it was out of sight.

Or if anything was real other than himself.

This is outdated these days,
Descartes lived in an age when idealism took precedence over materialism. His musings referred to here where principally from an idealist perspective.

Great stuff for acid trips and late night dorm discussions.

As I said idealism.

And then you come down and get on with your life.

While not knowing how your life came to be, persists and what is actually going on, other than appearances (taking as read all current scientific understanding).

Does it make much practical difference whether the tumor on your kidney has real existence? Or the flat tire on your truck? Or your spouse? Or the Higgs Boson?

I am not questioning the existence of physical matter. I am referring when I use the word existence, to whatever it is that results/generates/animates physical matter, you know, what's beneath the surface. How it came to be.

In each case, we have to structure our lives "as if" these things have existence. Sure, we might be in "The Matrix" and it's all a simulation or illusion. But what, exactly, does that change?

Yes agreed, but if while living this life, we come to question existence, then these considerations present themselves.

There's a name for people who cannot discern what is real and what is illusion on a day-to-day level - psychotic.

Missed the point.

And, ultimately, trivial - except maybe to philosophers.

Yes, until one debates the existence of entities, which by definition are beyond our limited understanding, such as gods for example.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It isn't, there is a nuance which you may not have noticed. Philosophy can lay out what we can say about what appears to exist.

Essentially philosophy has pointed out that what we commonly regard as existing(the physical world around us), appears this way in our experience, but that this is not necessarily the appearance of what actually exists beneath the surface. Indeed this is pretty much was science is saying these days.

I will be fascinated to read your sources for this claim.

But I've just told Fast Eddie B that I love science. I just don't discard philosophy in the preference of science.[/QUOTE]

You do, however, fail to distinguish between what may be imagined to exist, and what can be demonstrated to exist with evidence.

The only thing that distinguishes the concept of 'god' (any 'god') from the concept of the Unicorn is your special pleading.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes, until one debates the existence of entities, which by definition are beyond our limited understanding, such as gods for example.

How does a god that cannot be understood or grasped in some shape or form affect our lives in any way? All gods humans have ever believed in have been relatable to the human experience, in order to serve as moral exemplars, creator beings, and objects of worship. Gods have to communicate with their followers and behave in ways consistent with human affairs. You can't specially plead that gods are beyond our limited understanding, otherwise you render the term "god" meaningless.

 

[punshhh]

How does a god that cannot be understood or grasped in some shape or form affect our lives in any way?

Numerous ways, for example, holding the whole thing together like a puppet master.

All gods humans have ever believed in have been relatable to the human experience, in order to serve as moral exemplars, creator beings, and objects of worship. Gods have to communicate with their followers and behave in ways consistent with human affairs.

As in my answer to your previous point, gods do not have to be relatable to human experience, only responsible for their existence, all else is a response composed by humanity, as a response to such a realisation.

You can't specially plead that gods are beyond our limited understanding, otherwise you render the term "god" meaningless.

Not at all, one would only need to equate "god" with "nature" to leap frog that problem. However unintelligible the existence of nature is, is irrelevant to the fact that we can relate to it through the experience of living. likewise with god.

 

[punshhh]

The only thing that distinguishes the concept of 'god' (any 'god') from the concept of the Unicorn is your special pleading.

This is incorrect, remember I pointed out that the IPU is an imaginary being, an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind and known to be. god is well known to be a philosophical concept. It is true that many representations of god are steeped in imaginary constructions, but the essential concept is intellectually derived.

Show the special pleading?

 

[Tassman]

This is incorrect, remember I pointed out that the IPU is an imaginary being, an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind and known to be. god is well known to be a philosophical concept. It is true that many representations of god are steeped in imaginary constructions, but the essential concept is intellectually derived.

Show the special pleading?

"The essential concept is intellectually derived" from what?

 

[pakeha]

This is incorrect, remember I pointed out that the IPU is an imaginary being, an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind and known to be. god is well known to be a philosophical concept. It is true that many representations of god are steeped in imaginary constructions, but the essential concept is intellectually derived.

Show the special pleading?

What's the difference between "an object of thought , entirely constructed in the mind" and something whose "essential concept is intellectually derived"?