The RCC god is claimed by the RCC to be knowable to all not just to a select few, to make measurable changes in the world, changes that can be observed by everyone not just a select few.
Hawking says there are no gods
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism stephen hawking
- Status
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
My God has the property of not engaging with the universe after creation, being not a part of the universe after creation, other then being the cause of the universe. My God created the universe and then left it alone.
It doesn't mean, that there is such a god, hence my God.
My God is a natural god in the following sense:
She created the universe in such a manner, that we are not Boltzmann Brains, in the Matrix and what not(my belief).
She created the universe without souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation and what not(my belief).
She created the universe in such a manner, that we can understand reality in limited manner with a combination of reason, logic and evidence, and my faith in:
- The inherent worth and dignity of every person
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
- The right of conscience and civil disobedience
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part
My faith is a faith for which I show daily fidelity and do the work everyday to live up to my faith. I fail sometimes and then I try to learn.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Indeed, but my point was that even Christians who wouldn't claim to have directly observed God's actions themselves still believe in a God who can, and has, made observable changes to the world.
David Mo
Philosopher
No. The problem with the belief in God is that it is not bound to a limited set of cases. The scietific study of some allegued God's manifestation is limited to some cases. What science can said is that ever a case of God's presence has been studied it has been refuted or have been out of verification. This is a strong indication against religious claims, but not conclusive. We need present other kind of arguments. And this is a task for philosophy.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
This is a very superfluous god! Your belief functions equally puting "Nature" instead of "God".
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Fixed it, and no - neither of us are right nor wrong. We are different in this case and similar in other cases.
I don't correct your world-view for its personal parts and you don't correct me.
We can inter-subjectively share or disagree about, where our personal morality/ethics interconnect, but you hold no authority over my world view as for its personal parts and nor in reverse.
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Hi psionl0 
The literal, concrete, physical meaning of "nothing" or "no X".
There is how it works, take a room, floor, walls, roof and a door. In that room is nothing else in there than air, dust and so on. But there is something else, everything else that could possible be there, is there in the following sense: If there is no chair, then physical there is a physical presence of no chair. No chair; i.e. the combination of no and chair, is physically combined to the presence of an actual, literal and physical present no chair. Everything else that is not there, is physical there as non-X.
An instrument which measures air in the room, also measures the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
That is how there is no chair in the room works, there is an actual, literal and physical present no chair.
I see no chair means I actually see the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
The other explanation is that "no chair" is in fact something else, I see no chair, because I see through air and see the walls and so on.
"Doesn't exist" is not literally, physically and actually "doesn't exist", it is in the literally, physically and actually sense always something else.
Now this rule only applies within the universe, because seeing takes place inside the universe and what is outside is unknown. Not "doesn't exist" in literally, physically and actually sense.
So that is the connection between I don't see X and there is no X. What I know of the universe, requires me in the universe and that I know requires me. I can only know of that, which I can know and I can't know nothing about outside the universe, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the universe. It means it is unknown.
The literal, concrete, physical meaning of "nothing" or "no X".
There is how it works, take a room, floor, walls, roof and a door. In that room is nothing else in there than air, dust and so on. But there is something else, everything else that could possible be there, is there in the following sense: If there is no chair, then physical there is a physical presence of no chair. No chair; i.e. the combination of no and chair, is physically combined to the presence of an actual, literal and physical present no chair. Everything else that is not there, is physical there as non-X.
An instrument which measures air in the room, also measures the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
That is how there is no chair in the room works, there is an actual, literal and physical present no chair.
I see no chair means I actually see the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
The other explanation is that "no chair" is in fact something else, I see no chair, because I see through air and see the walls and so on.
"Doesn't exist" is not literally, physically and actually "doesn't exist", it is in the literally, physically and actually sense always something else.
Now this rule only applies within the universe, because seeing takes place inside the universe and what is outside is unknown. Not "doesn't exist" in literally, physically and actually sense.
So that is the connection between I don't see X and there is no X. What I know of the universe, requires me in the universe and that I know requires me. I can only know of that, which I can know and I can't know nothing about outside the universe, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the universe. It means it is unknown.
David Mo
Philosopher
When you want to add something to a text that isn't in the original, put it in square brackets. If you don't, you're contributing to the ceremony of confusion.
I don't know if you like confusion. I don't.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Whether the universe is fair and what that means in practice.
You know of hallucinations, so you know that the brain can produce unreal experiences. That is a fact.
Now if that is fact, then the universe can produce that you are a Boltzmann Brain and you can't know that, because it is a functional hallucination. That is the question of whether the universe is fair.
Now in practice you have no control over that, but should you admit that?
That is relevant of all cases of what we all claim reality really is. It is unknown and a question of belief. But it is not a belief in practice like say in e.g. gravity. This belief in how reality actually anchors how you make sense of reality and that is personal. Gravity is shared.
So all long as you don't become a Darwin award member unless you want to become that, you can believe that reality is from a god or that reality is independent of the mind and what not.
But it doesn't matter in practice, which is correct, because here is how you guys, as hard atheists, do it.
Your thinking is correct and mine is incorrect, but that is in your heads and you don't get that. You are still a part of the universe and so am I in practice. You don't get that if your thinking is correct and mine is incorrect, that it works both ways.
The certainty in you that I am incorrect, is the same in reverse and you don't get, that because you know that you are not incorrect, I know the same, but choose to do it differently. I just apply it to you and I in the same sense, so no of us are correct nor incorrect, unless we believe so.
That is the difference in cognition between you and I.
That is the morality/ethics of the personal parts of world-views. They are personal and enable a person to make sense of reality. But you are not different in effect that all other authoritarian world-views, because you know what correct is and nobody else does. That is the joke, you fight other authoritarian humans with an authoritarian world-view yourself and then you complain over the other authoritarian world-views.
The further joke is that your world-view is 2-dimensional as universal right or wrong, because you can't see, those who have a non-authoritarian world-view. You don't get it!
In the end the joke is that you don't get that all variants of authoritarian world-views work the same way: "I" know better that "you", but that works of all versions of "I" and "you".
I, Tommy, don't know better nor worse than you - I know differently.
You know of hallucinations, so you know that the brain can produce unreal experiences. That is a fact.
Now if that is fact, then the universe can produce that you are a Boltzmann Brain and you can't know that, because it is a functional hallucination. That is the question of whether the universe is fair.
Now in practice you have no control over that, but should you admit that?
That is relevant of all cases of what we all claim reality really is. It is unknown and a question of belief. But it is not a belief in practice like say in e.g. gravity. This belief in how reality actually anchors how you make sense of reality and that is personal. Gravity is shared.
So all long as you don't become a Darwin award member unless you want to become that, you can believe that reality is from a god or that reality is independent of the mind and what not.
But it doesn't matter in practice, which is correct, because here is how you guys, as hard atheists, do it.
Your thinking is correct and mine is incorrect, but that is in your heads and you don't get that. You are still a part of the universe and so am I in practice. You don't get that if your thinking is correct and mine is incorrect, that it works both ways.
The certainty in you that I am incorrect, is the same in reverse and you don't get, that because you know that you are not incorrect, I know the same, but choose to do it differently. I just apply it to you and I in the same sense, so no of us are correct nor incorrect, unless we believe so.
That is the difference in cognition between you and I.
That is the morality/ethics of the personal parts of world-views. They are personal and enable a person to make sense of reality. But you are not different in effect that all other authoritarian world-views, because you know what correct is and nobody else does. That is the joke, you fight other authoritarian humans with an authoritarian world-view yourself and then you complain over the other authoritarian world-views.
The further joke is that your world-view is 2-dimensional as universal right or wrong, because you can't see, those who have a non-authoritarian world-view. You don't get it!
In the end the joke is that you don't get that all variants of authoritarian world-views work the same way: "I" know better that "you", but that works of all versions of "I" and "you".
I, Tommy, don't know better nor worse than you - I know differently.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Sorry
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
All the information I have received - whether it be at the end of the stick the nuns wielded against me as a child or even the bible itself - says otherwise.
So put up your sources.
The God of the RCC.
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Hi Tommy.Hi psionl0
The literal, concrete, physical meaning of "nothing" or "no X".
There is how it works, take a room, floor, walls, roof and a door. In that room is nothing else in there than air, dust and so on. But there is something else, everything else that could possible be there, is there in the following sense: If there is no chair, then physical there is a physical presence of no chair. No chair; i.e. the combination of no and chair, is physically combined to the presence of an actual, literal and physical present no chair. Everything else that is not there, is physical there as non-X.
An instrument which measures air in the room, also measures the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
That is how there is no chair in the room works, there is an actual, literal and physical present no chair.
I see no chair means I actually see the actual, literal and physical present no chair.
The other explanation is that "no chair" is in fact something else, I see no chair, because I see through air and see the walls and so on.
"Doesn't exist" is not literally, physically and actually "doesn't exist", it is in the literally, physically and actually sense always something else.
Now this rule only applies within the universe, because seeing takes place inside the universe and what is outside is unknown. Not "doesn't exist" in literally, physically and actually sense.
So that is the connection between I don't see X and there is no X. What I know of the universe, requires me in the universe and that I know requires me. I can only know of that, which I can know and I can't know nothing about outside the universe, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the universe. It means it is unknown.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your POV to me. With all the stramannish vitriol aimed against me it is more difficult for me to get my POV across.
My take is a little simpler. If somebody says "there's a chair in the room" and I don't see it my first response would be "where?" or "I can't see a chair". I wouldn't say "you're wrong, there's no chair here" because those are fighting words.
99% of the time it will turn out that there is no chair in the room. The other 1% of the time there may be a more mundane explanation for what I am not seeing. It may be hidden by other junk in the room or folded up and stored in the ceiling or something.
In very rare cases there might be a more exotic explanation like the chair is invisible or incorporeal. Normally I would be disinclined to investigate such an explanation unless my life depended on it. I would almost certainly not sit down in the place where the chair is supposed to be. I would most likely just say "I'll take your word for it".
I am only examining the question of gods from a strictly scientific POV. Whether gods exist within or beyond the universe are issues I am avoiding since they are more philosophical in nature. If I use buzz-words like "unobservable" it is mostly to illustrate how ill-equipped the scientific method is to provide definitive answers to god-like questions.
Hope that helps.
.Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
Eolution is a ontinous proess. I wis I ould reply n my keyboard is nott funtioning orretly.
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
test, i think its working now.
As I was saying, evolution is a continuous process. Not all evolutionary processes end up being beneficial. The capacity to develop or conceive of religious beliefs may be a symptom of our particular biology tied in with the genes that control speech based on mouse studies.
When the FoxP2 gene was added to the mouse their communication patterns changed.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/human-speech-gene-can-speed-learning-mice
Once again, not proof, but I think it explains why some are atheists and others more spiritual. Language fundamentally changes thought patterns, other neurotransmitters play a part in the development of the "theory of mind". In that aspect we are functioning in a feedback loop for the development of our consciousness. Faith in anything has been shown to have beneficial affects on health and wellbeing. The better argument might be " Why do we have religious beliefs at all?" not " Religious beliefs are BS and here's why."
As I was saying, evolution is a continuous process. Not all evolutionary processes end up being beneficial. The capacity to develop or conceive of religious beliefs may be a symptom of our particular biology tied in with the genes that control speech based on mouse studies.
When the FoxP2 gene was added to the mouse their communication patterns changed.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/human-speech-gene-can-speed-learning-mice
Once again, not proof, but I think it explains why some are atheists and others more spiritual. Language fundamentally changes thought patterns, other neurotransmitters play a part in the development of the "theory of mind". In that aspect we are functioning in a feedback loop for the development of our consciousness. Faith in anything has been shown to have beneficial affects on health and wellbeing. The better argument might be " Why do we have religious beliefs at all?" not " Religious beliefs are BS and here's why."
Last edited:
That's nice for you. But of course you've just described a god that doesn't have the property mention.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
You mean: That's nice for you. But of course you've just described a god that doesn't have the property mentioned.
Yes, not all gods fit your take down.
My God gives me comfort(psychology), because I don't have to worry about what the universe really is.
It meets the psychological effect of belief and it works for me.
And the 7 principles make me worse than any other human, right?
Further it works as against some theists, because they realize that they believe.
And the fanatical atheists hate it. I combine atheism in a sense with religion.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Don't worry.
Your problem is that you are entrenched in an abstract statement to avoid discussing particular cases. Of course, there is no absolute truth. But within the propositions about facts there are those that are more true than others. This is what needs to be discussed. Why the affirmation God exists is more false than God does not exist. But you just say that everything is subjective and you don't want to know anything else. For God's sake, go down to the real world and discuss what is more or less true.
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Do you have any comment to the content as such?
There is no "Non-scientific" way of proving anything. If it hasn't been proven by science, it isn't proven it's just another creative writing exercise.
All this crap that everyone is talking about "existing out (my narrow strawman version of) science" doesn't exist.
There are no questions, topics, ideas, concepts, whatevers that exist outside of science. Sure they exist outside of "Strawman Science" that is nothing but beakers and labcoats. But nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing exists that has to be, or indeed can be, discussed outside of the concepts of falsifiability, collection of evidence, logic, reason, and so forth.
I humbly await your "Well some philosopher said so and so this one time..." argument.
- Status