Where do you find gods?
In religion, obviously!
So that's where you should go to study them. Cosmology deals with the cosmos, and biology with life, realms where you won't find any gods. The idea is absurd.
If you want to find out about gods, you should study religion, obviously! That's where they are!
On the other hand, it would be absurd to deny the existence of gods in religion! That's where they are, that's where you find them, and that's where they belong.
So don't try to prove that they don't exist. Look at what they actually are instead.
And if, instead, you want to study Harry Potter, read J.K. Rowling's books, see the movies, but don't go looking for him in the real world. It would be just as absurd as trying to chase the gods outside of religion.
You are giving the bad answer to the bad question.
We are not speaking "of gods". You can find articles on gods in theology, history, anthropology, psychology, philosophy etc. from diverse outlooks.
We are speaking of a specific problem: the in/existence of gods. The proofs that gods exist or not exist. You will not find a single scientific article about that. You will find articles of philosophy and theology, of course.
No, that was the correct answer. Gods do exist, but they exist approximately the same way that Harry Potter exists: In people's imagination. This is where they are, this is where you can study them, and this is where it's being done! The study of gods is the study of human consciousness!
What experiments were conducted in that timeframe? Do you agree with the methodology of those experiments? You have scientific evidence that no possible experimentation, with any amount of new technology currently unknown, could ever possibly find otherwise? That is quite a claim. I'd like to review your list of all future technological and scientific advancements that haven't occured yet, to see if I agree with your predictions of what they can and cannot find.
I'm not saying you have to believe in gods, or that there's any reason to believe in gods. I'm saying that you cannot declare that science has disproven them.
H.P. Lovecraft made up an additional planet in this solar system, beyond Neptune. Then they discovered Pluto. Does Pluto not exist, because H.P. Lovecraft made it up?
A thing either exists or it doesn't, and that is independent of what people think about it.
Gave an example earlier in the thread along with a link that would allow you to repeat the experiment yourself.
Look at the satellite images of Mt Olmypus, and the aerial photos, examine each one or fly over the mountain and you will not find the palace in which Zeus lives.
No, that was the correct answer. Gods do exist, but they exist approximately the same way that Harry Potter exists: In people's imagination. This is where they are, this is where you can study them, and this is where it's being done! The study of gods is the study of human consciousness!
This articles don't adress the existence of gods. They adress some brain effects of some types of the belief in gods. They are two different problems.
From the article you have quoted:
" If religion is just an activation of certain parts of the brain, does that mean God or any higher power is just in our heads? That's not necessarily what scientists are trying to prove or disprove. After all, if we are wired to believe in God, then it's not a far leap to believe that God is the one who wired humans that way."
Exactly!!! And that it what gods are: beliefs!
And where do you find beliefs?!
In people's imagination, i.e. in their brains.
From the article you have quoted:
"If religion is just an activation of certain parts of the brain, does that mean God or any higher power is just in our heads? That's not necessarily what scientists are trying to prove or disprove. After all, if we are wired to believe in God, then it's not a far leap to believe that God is the one who wired humans that way."
Exactly!!! Now you're getting it!
(I knew you'd love that one! It's actually a very far leap from higher powers in your heads to believing that higher powers implanted that idea in your brain! That's a paranoid supernatural conspiracy theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.)
Gave an example earlier in the thread along with a link that would allow you to repeat the experiment yourself.
Look at the satellite images of Mt Olmypus, and the aerial photos, examine each one or fly over the mountain and you will not find the palace in which Zeus lives.
Those claims constitute what gods are. The claims can be studied. We know everything worth knowing about gods: that people invent them and why people invent them. The science of religion is the study of gods.
Oh, I see. You already know all the possible characteristics and nature of these things that don't exist, and therefore you can prove they don't exist. Because you accept, scientifically, at face value some things some people have claimed.
Only if you believe conceptions of reality must be "fair" and you don't want to credit someone who's been mistaken in the past for hitting upon the truth later. Gods either exist or they don't, and what one person claimed beforehand about their properties will not change that.
Personally, I wouldn't. I would call it "the divine". But it seems most people in this thread insist on taking at face-value the notion of personified gods, to the extent of pasting lists from Wikipedia and comparing them to fictional characters. Either Zeus exists as a swan-shaped date rapist, they imply, or there is no force currently undetected by 2018 science. I find that a rather unscientific view.
Gave an example earlier in the thread along with a link that would allow you to repeat the experiment yourself.
Look at the satellite images of Mt Olmypus, and the aerial photos, examine each one or fly over the mountain and you will not find the palace in which Zeus lives.
Is it a necessary component of the existence of gods that one them is Zeus and he has to live in a visible house on one particular mountain? You can prove that there's no house on Mt Olympus if you survey it carefully enough, but that will not scientifically disprove the existence of an Unmoved Mover, the Peacock Angel, Ahura Mazda, or the Tao. It will merely prove there's not a house on Mt Olympus.
Are you proposing that divinities can only exist if people comprehended everything about them? A peasant in ancient Egypt encounters something he interprets as a sun god who rides a boat and builds a religion around that. He was mistaken--the deity in question was actually just very luminous but not associated with the sun or boats at all. You can disprove its existence because you accept the peasant's notions about the sun on a boat not only as a scientific claim but at the same time insist no other notions about the thing can be posited.
It's as if the question of divinity isn't sufficiently scientific to even pursue, much less reach conclusions upon.
Exactly!!! They don't and they shouldn't! And articles and books about Harry Potter also don't address the existence of Harry Potter.
Exactly!!! And that it what gods are: beliefs!
And where do you find beliefs?!
In people's imagination, i.e. in their brains.
Exactly!!! Now you're getting it!
(I knew you'd love that one! It's actually a very far leap from higher powers in your heads to believing that higher powers implanted that idea in your brain! That's a paranoid supernatural conspiracy theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.)
The science of cosmology?! Don't flatter me! I don't have the math skills to understand cosmology beyond Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos series and similar popularized versions.
He seems to be making the assumption that the laws of physics will be the same if you go to another galaxy, even one at the other 'end' of the universe. Even scientific cosmologists seem to get to a point where science hasn't (yet) answered all their questions, and that is when they usually begin to philosophize:
To the moderators and admins. Just ban me, because I dare claim that among us are delusional people. I am tired of this 3rd person work around. E.g. religious people are delusional(happened up thread), but that says nothing about any posters here, because no poster here is religious.
So is the following a fact as of now and the future? (*what if yet doesn't come and that yet is philosophy, more later)
There are at least one aspect of the universe, which science can't answer with evidence/proof/as a fact!
Notice you have yourself admitted it in the second quote, so you can of course contradict yourself and claim that science can answer everything. Just as I accept that there are other humans, who contradict themselves, I accept that you can do that. I will just point this out:
Google: delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Now I am delusional myself, since I have a psychiatric disorder, which makes me in limited sense delusional. So because I accept that I am delusional, I also accept that in other humans.
*So back to (yet). Yet is about the future for which we hit the limit of induction. Just because science has advanced in the amount of knowledge, doesn't mean that there will come a time, where science can explain everything. To claim that there WILL come such a time is irrational and thus delusional. To claim that there never WILL come such a time is also irrational and thus delusional.
The answer is that it is unknown for the present. This is one of the points of being a skeptic, to accept that there can be something unknown at the present.
So here it is as for what is at play: Either you accept that there can be something unknown even if we apply science or you contradict yourself and thus you are delusional.
Now comes the second part:
We have one case of the unknown when it comes to cosmology. So now we check if there are at least one more case?!!
And it turns out there is: A Boltzmann Brain.
The joke is that scientists can't agree on the probability of you being a Boltzmann Brain. It means 2 things:
- They can't yet observe whether anybody is a Boltzmann Brain or not, so that is an unknown.
- The actual probability can't be known through reasoning alone.
So here is what that means for cosmology and theoretical physics and science in general:
It can't be known what the universe really is, unless you are the creator of the universe.
So let us look closer at what is at play. You don't control the universe, the universe controls you. You are caused by the universe and you only know first person through your mind and you don't control what you experience in your mind, because that is caused by the universe.
That means that you can't know whether you are in a universe, which is independently (objective) of your mind as you experience in your mind or whether the universe is otherwise objectively.
That is not unique to being a Boltzmann Brain or not. It is a fundamental condition as long as you are not the creator of the universe and applies to all humans, not just you.
As for gods, gods inside the universe are not the same as cosmological gods, because being inside the universe and not inside are not the same. To claim that is the same is a contradiction and delusional.
So here is what is at play:
You, I and nobody else can't know through observation what reality real is and nobody can't control it through reason/logic. It marks the limit of both empirical and rational evidence.
It is not that the god(s) hide. It is that you, I and everybody else don't control the universe, the universe control us. We are all in the same boat. We have no evidence for what reality really is and we can't control it through reason/logic.
We all when we reflect on this realize that we are in the same boat. Only those, who haven't reflected, claim a knowledge, if they do so, that they don't have. And that is not limited to religious people.
The joke is that atheism or theism don't matter. What matters** in whether you are a gnostic or agnostic when it comes to what the universe really is.
That is the end game of science and philosophy combined as far as knowledge goes.
**So if facts matter, then it matters if it is fact, that there is a limit to epistemology. That is what makes me a skeptic in part. And it doesn't matter that you are not a skeptic as it stands or if you are in fact delusional; what matters is this: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.
That includes you, I and everybody else. Regardless of whether that human is delusional or not. And that is an act of belief. You either believe in it or you don't.
I believe. And that has nothing to do with being religious or not. It has to do with the fact that I get this:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Arthur Conan Doyle"
It is impossible for you to be the creator of the universe, thus it is the truth that you don't really know what the objective universe is.
Notice - just claim that you are God, or you know God and you are off the hook.
So if you want it with science, philosophy and belief, here it is:
Always include Lawrence Kohlberg, John Rawls and the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
There is more in practice, but you need those 3 aspects, unless you go for - I only do it, if there is something in it for me, no matter how it effects other humans. That one is also possible.
Regards
PS I am at least sometimes rational enough to admit, that there are times, when I am not. That can't be said of all members of this forum and if we want to advance knowledge they have to learn that!!!
Exactly!!! Now you're getting it!
(I knew you'd love that one! It's actually a very far leap from higher powers in your heads to believing that higher powers implanted that idea in your brain! That's a paranoid supernatural conspiracy theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.)
Who are you talking to? I gave you a quote that shows that the article you quoted said the opposite of what you intended: that it did not refer to the existence of God but to the ideas of people. To say that is to say that God puts those ideas in people's heads? How absurd! I don't believe such a thing, and I have repeated twenty times that I believe that God doesn't exist. You don't seem to read what I write or what you quote yourself.
Not Babylon, Assyrian lens'. All shapes and sizes that have been found. At first they thought they were decorative but now they think they used them in telescopes considering the evidence in texts that they knew about planets that can't be seen without visual aids. If they used the lens' in telescopes it doesn't seem like it would be a far stretch for them to develop lens for microscopic work.
So, my suggestion is that just as with many myths, religious belief may have roots in something else that got misinterpreted over thousands of years. I suggest that the Hydra myth actually evolved from the knowledge of the Hydra that exists in water and seem to be indestructible. Perhaps these ancient Assyrians, Greeks, or Sumerian civilizations saw the Hydra in a microscope and had some working knowledge of how they functioned.
I use this as an example of not understanding the root cause for the development of the "story". It might have no basis in reality as we understand it now but then again, we might not have all of the puzzle pieces, to get where religious faiths came up with the god concept.
Only if you believe conceptions of reality must be "fair" and you don't want to credit someone who's been mistaken in the past for hitting upon the truth later. Gods either exist or they don't, and what one person claimed beforehand about their properties will not change that.
I believe that some centuries with the most prominent intellectuals of the world searching for a proof of something without success means something.
To suppose that everyone has made a mistake that would be solved in the future is more absurd than to suppose that someone will find David the Gnome under a pine tree some day. Why not? Well, that is why.
Oh, I see. You already know all the possible characteristics and nature of these things that don't exist, and therefore you can prove they don't exist. Because you accept, scientifically, at face value some things some people have claimed.
No, I don't know very much about things that don't exist. And an awful lot of new things are discovered every day, but they usually do exist even though we didn't know about them. Planets orbiting other stars than our own, for instance. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that I "accept, scientifically, at face value some things some people have claimed." Which things? Why do you think that I accept them at face value, scientifically? And what does have to do with your claim that (I claim that?) I "already know all the possible characteristics and nature of these things that don't exist, and therefore (I) can prove they don't exist"?
That would be a contradictio in adjecto since the idea would have to be in my brain for me to mention it. I don't know any intelligent aliens, and since I wouldn't understand it if any semi-intelligent terrestrial animals might be trying to tell me about the ideas that they (might) have, no, I've only heard about ideas that are (or were) found in brains.
But many of those ideas were based on observations of stuff outside of brains. Pluto, for instance, is one of those. (Unlike Pluto, Pluto or Pluto!)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
