Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Beth]

Yes Beth. Which is why you need to show one to distinguish the difference.

A valid point. That's why I consider it a reasonable hypothesis that there isn't actually anything there. I just don't consider it sufficient to justify concluding that there isn't actually anything there. When you fail to reject the null, it does not imply that the null can be accepted with confidence.

If you posit something that cannot be used to distinguish the difference as the distinguishing factor then that's solely your issue and I don't have to humour whatever X it is you're positing with that property.

Okay. But, by the same token, I don't have to humour your hypothesis that it's nothing but lots and lots of different people from different cultures consistently imagining the same thing without any stimuli that produced the similar experiences.

If I were to compose it.

But you didn't.

Not that specific tune. But then I see people humming little tunes to themselves all the time. And they all seem rather culturally similar.

Yes. So the question is, when people describe their spiritual experiences, are they more like different people all trying to describe the same tune after hearing it once or are they describing unique tunes of their own composition? That's a question I don't know how to answer. Thus, I continue to entertain both hypotheses.

You are familiar with this biological notion of the cell right?

A house may be built nothing but stones, but that doesn't make a heap of stones a house. Likewise, a heap of cells is not an individual animal. Even jellyfish, which can be described as symbotic colonies of different kinds of cells, are more than just a diverse collection of cells.

Right until your arm is cut off.

Your point?

Then continue satisfying yourself by believing whatever it is you want to believe.

Indeed I shall. We all believe what we find to be satisfactory explanations and disbelieve those that are not. That I do not find your explanations to be satisfactory need not trouble you in the slightest. If you do, you will continue to believe them.

That seems unlikely - previous indications are that you are unwilling to detach from your holistic attitudes.

I've changed my mind many many times over my life and I expect I will again. Given the subject matter we are discussing, it is inevitable I will change my viewpoint in the future should I live long enough - more studies will be done and it's likely to produce evidence that will indicate I'm wrong in some way. Happens to me all the time.

You continue to perceive yourself as a single thing despite that being a totally ludicrous attitude to have given what we know of your construct.

Yes, well, I simply don't have the same level of confidence in your statements that you seem to. Your hypothesis is plausible, but so is thesyntaxera's. Until evidence appears that is more convincing that I've seen so far, I'll keep an open mind and regard the true state of nature as unknown.

 

[cyborg]

What's not really that hard? Distinguishing the two? Or being open to the idea that there could be greater intelligences in the universe than yours?

The former.

The later is just spitting out strings of words like "greater" and "intelligence" with no particular thought as to what that is.

You misinterpreted here, a conspiracy theory can be debunked with a simple explanation.

Hmmm...

The topic we are discussing cannot be.

The explanation is pretty simple really: we can experience things that are not "real" in the sense they do not map onto an objective reality.

The detail is more complex, but then it always is. That's what makes it detail. This is why I find the above comment about conspiracy theories being easily debunked with a simple explanation odd.

Especially since you're basically proposing a conspiracy of supernatural proportions.

No. It's not. If it were there would be answers to the problems that arise when we examine consciousness. There are none, yet.

A lot of the problems are self-created by fuzzy notions about what this thing you're talking about should be.

What do you think I mean by consciousness?

Judging from the previous posts some sort of ineffable quality that makes selfness appear.

Since you don't know me, nor could you hear any inflection in my voice since I am typing, you have no grounds to assume to know what I think about the mechanisms of the body.

So...?

Since you are apparently the smartest person posting to this thread you should have known what I was indicating: That a purely mechanistic approach doesn't answer all the questions being raised.

And why exactly do you think this undermines anything about a mechanistic approach?

Sounds like you want it to be something "lesser".

I think such a comparative is plain stupid.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You're welcome.

What about them? The variety of peak experiences a human is capable of are not all reducible to drugs alone.

No. That would be silly.

A chemical brain undergoing chemical reactions? Preposterous!

Who is we? Who said you couldn't tell the difference?

*Sigh*

Likening the internet to human consciousness is a poor comparison.

You missed the point entirely.

The "Internet" as a concept is "non-physical" yet it has a physical existence.

You can't just magic up a non-physical consciousness by saying, "well yah, there's this spongy crap in your skull but that's not non-physical so consciousness is something else".

The first one doesn't worry me so much, you will mellow with age.

And one day your senility will take full hold.

(Isn't throwing around random ageist insults FUN!?!)

 

[cyborg]

A valid point. That's why I consider it a reasonable hypothesis that there isn't actually anything there. I just don't consider it sufficient to justify concluding that there isn't actually anything there. When you fail to reject the null, it does not imply that the null can be accepted with confidence.

You're right Beth!

Time for me to go hunting for that pot of gold... it just might be there - illusionary rainbows be damned!

Or would another X take your fancy? Oh, there are just so many ways to explain things when you just don't have to base them on anything at all.

Okay. But, by the same token, I don't have to humour your hypothesis that it's nothing but lots and lots of different people from different cultures consistently imagining the same thing without any stimuli that produced the similar experiences.

You don't have to, no. Especially not this alleged consistency.

But you didn't.

Doesn't stop me making up other tunes in my head.

Yes. So the question is, when people describe their spiritual experiences, are they more like different people all trying to describe the same tune after hearing it once or are they describing unique tunes of their own composition?

Or do they just like music but the culture of music developed differently because there is a lot of arbitrary combinations that have similar qualities?

A house may be built nothing but stones, but that doesn't make a heap of stones a house. Likewise, a heap of cells is not an individual animal. Even jellyfish, which can be described as symbotic colonies of different kinds of cells, are more than just a diverse collection of cells.

Uh, what is it with you two and missing the point by a mile?

A collection of bricks makes a house. Bricks are held together by cement.

A collection of cells makes a brain. The cells are held together by a network.

Bricks and cells have their own externalities like the brain and the house.

Your point?

Is it still part of a whole?

Yes, well, I simply don't have the same level of confidence in your statements that you seem to. Your hypothesis is plausible, but so is thesyntaxera's. Until evidence appears that is more convincing that I've seen so far, I'll keep an open mind and regard the true state of nature as unknown.

It's pretty simply Beth - the big magical invisible man behind the curtain explanation is always, ALWAYS possible. That's the way magic works - it's magic.

 

[Mobyseven]

Thats your interpretation, and I am fine with it. However by definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Well done champ. You just posted three definitions that support my position - if you take a look at them again you'll notice that in none of those definitions is an atheist a person who denies the possibility of god.

Having said that, arguing from the dictionary is generally a bad idea. Different dictionaries can have different definitions, and can often skip over the meanings of words as they are used in specialised context. Just because the dictionary says x doesn't mean that x is correct for all situations (or indeed necessarily at all - dictionaries can be incorrect or outdated too).

Conversely:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

What does that even mean? If you "don't profess full atheism", then either you are a theist, or you are an atheist who doesn't want to be labelled as such. Just because someone doesn't profess to be an atheist doesn't mean that they aren't an atheist. A person who doesn't profess to be Chinese can still be Chinese - the reality is not dependant upon the claim of the person under discussion.

You can post dictionary definitions all day if you like, but the point of the matter (as I've said many, many times before) is that 'agnostic' as it is used colloquially is a nonsense position - there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. Believe in god? You're a theist. Don't believe in god? You're an atheist. The epistemological question of agnosticism is unrelated to the ontological question of the existence of god. Geddit?

So which is it? I think part of the problem is that the terminology is a bit wishy washy. Some of the atheist defnitions sound agnostic and vice versa. Generally though, I would say that when the average person hears those two terms they think of concrete definitions: One who denies god exists, and one who doesn't.

I don't care what the 'average person' thinks when they hear those terms. I care about what those terms mean. You can go on about how language evolves until the cows come home, but it won't change the meaning of technical philosophical terms any more than it will change the meaning of technical physical terms. 'Quantum leap' has taken on a meaning in pop culture vastly different from it's real meaning, but that doesn't change how physicists use the word. The same applies to 'atheist' in philosophical discussions - the difference there is that a lot of people in real life try to use an incorrect definition in philosophical discussion and then get angry when they're picked up on that fact.

Atheist is the opposite of theist. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic. Kindly learn that, and get over it.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The former.

The later is just spitting out strings of words like "greater" and "intelligence" with no particular thought as to what that is.

Actually, I have a fairly particular thought as to what it is, you just didn't ask.

Hmmm...

Yes. Hmmm. Are you saying that the simplest explanation doesn't always refute a conspiracy theory? I might agree, but only to a point.

The explanation is pretty simple really: we can experience things that are not "real" in the sense they do not map onto an objective reality.

Sure. Like a peak/ecstatic/religious experience for example.

The detail is more complex, but then it always is. That's what makes it detail. This is why I find the above comment about conspiracy theories being easily debunked with a simple explanation odd.

Especially since you're basically proposing a conspiracy of supernatural proportions.

I fail to see how it qualifies as a conspiracy. For me it's just a way of looking at the information provided by science.

A lot of the problems are self-created by fuzzy notions about what this thing you're talking about should be.

Sure.

Judging from the previous posts some sort of ineffable quality that makes selfness appear.

And what is the self?

So...?

It's an album by Peter Gabriel containing such hits as "Sledge Hammer" and "In Your Eye's".

And why exactly do you think this undermines anything about a mechanistic approach?

Because the mechanistic approach has thus far not been able to accurately predict all of the variables of consciousness that humans experience. There may be some finite action occurring that makes it possible, but that has yet to surface.

I think such a comparative is plain stupid.

Really? Perhaps it is just accurate.

No. That would be silly.

A chemical brain undergoing chemical reactions? Preposterous!

It's hardly just a chemical brain. There is no evidence to suggest that the brain functions in a linear, computational manner.

You missed the point entirely.

The "Internet" as a concept is "non-physical" yet it has a physical existence.

You can't just magic up a non-physical consciousness by saying, "well yah, there's this spongy crap in your skull but that's not non-physical so consciousness is something else".

No, I don't believe I did. You just explained it poorly, and this addition to your point makes little sense as well.

And one day your senility will take full hold.

I can't wait.

(Isn't throwing around random ageist insults FUN!?!)

About as much fun as being borderline condescending on a message board because it inflates one's ego, and adds to ones overall sense of self importance.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Well done champ. You just posted three definitions that support my position - if you take a look at them again you'll notice that in none of those definitions is an atheist a person who denies the possibility of god.

Having said that, arguing from the dictionary is generally a bad idea. Different dictionaries can have different definitions, and can often skip over the meanings of words as they are used in specialised context. Just because the dictionary says x doesn't mean that x is correct for all situations (or indeed necessarily at all - dictionaries can be incorrect or outdated too).



What does that even mean? If you "don't profess full atheism", then either you are a theist, or you are an atheist who doesn't want to be labelled as such. Just because someone doesn't profess to be an atheist doesn't mean that they aren't an atheist. A person who doesn't profess to be Chinese can still be Chinese - the reality is not dependant upon the claim of the person under discussion.

You can post dictionary definitions all day if you like, but the point of the matter (as I've said many, many times before) is that 'agnostic' as it is used colloquially is a nonsense position - there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. Believe in god? You're a theist. Don't believe in god? You're an atheist. The epistemological question of agnosticism is unrelated to the ontological question of the existence of god. Geddit?



I don't care what the 'average person' thinks when they hear those terms. I care about what those terms mean. You can go on about how language evolves until the cows come home, but it won't change the meaning of technical philosophical terms any more than it will change the meaning of technical physical terms. 'Quantum leap' has taken on a meaning in pop culture vastly different from it's real meaning, but that doesn't change how physicists use the word. The same applies to 'atheist' in philosophical discussions - the difference there is that a lot of people in real life try to use an incorrect definition in philosophical discussion and then get angry when they're picked up on that fact.

Atheist is the opposite of theist. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic. Kindly learn that, and get over it.

Yes sir!

If you read the thread, particularly the part where I explained why I listed the definitions initially you wouldn't have needed to go on an indignant self righteous rant. The fact remains, people can be and are confused by the use of terms agnostic, atheist, theist, deist...etc.

Your denial of a middle ground doesn't make the middle ground disappear. There are people unsure of what to believe, or perhaps they feel as the definition describes, and simply resign themselves to the idea that one can never know.

Thanks for the pointers though.

 

[articulett]

Aack.. the same old spin to pretend like it's perfectly logical to believe in invisible creators of the universe who psychically care about planet earth...

It's the same old semantics... but I understand the need to convince yourself that there's "magic" that you can "feel" through faith... or whatever. Buy you are wrong and speaking illogically on several areas thesyntaxera... the one that bothers me most is that you say that atheists assume facts not in evidence. That is a lie. You really ought to understand what that phrase means. Just because sceintists haven't explained something, doesn't mean gurus have. There are no presumptions in atheism... just a lack of belief in any gods... gods and magic and mysticism and supernatural sloppy semantics have often been used by humans to explain that which we don't understand yet... so far, every time we have found the answer, it was something natural... not magical... and thinking it was beyond human understanding is not a method to find actual answers... it never has been.

You choose to believe because you want to believe.... just like all other believers... even the believers in things you find wacky.... and you believe for the same sorts of reasons those people do... but not because there is evidence to support your belief. Not understanding something does not mean it was a miracle or part of a higher plan or something god or demons did. And yet, that is your biggest claim for believing in a potential god. I guess you and Beth believer or want to believe in the same nebulous invisible something or other that set the world in motion and sends cryptic messages to people that are apparently confused with mental illnesses, illnesses, delusions, drug experiences, and seizures. You are the one who has made a bold inference with facts not in evidence and you are the one who has lied to yourself to pretend that atheists has assumed facts in evidence. An atheist doesn't claim to know why or how any further than science knows-- we just don't insert magic into the gaps. You have.

And you are not in the middle ground... you believe that the supernatural is an answer... that god is an explanation for the things you don't understand... Like Beth. You may as well admit it... it comes through, you know. And, yes, I think you are misperceiving or delusional... the same as you think of Scientologists and Moonies and all those who believe in magical things you find unlikely. Just because you've made your magic man nebulous doesn't make him more likely, you know.

 

[Mobyseven]

Basically, yes. It is also possible that consciousness is greater than the sum of the parts, and as a result not attributable to mere mechanistic activity.

It is possible, yes. It is also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt. What evidence do you have that would promote this idea from mere possibility to actually being worth considering?

The point was that humans aren't just digesting information, they are able to reasonably tell the difference between related patterns and unrelated ones...unless they are mentally ill perhaps.

Humans are horrible at distinguishing between related and unrelated patterns. Regardless of whether or not they are mentally ill or not. Every optical illusion, and the entire magic industry, relies on the tendency of the human brain to misinterpret signals, to fill in gaps incorrectly, and find patterns that don't really exist.

Just because you say humans are good at something doesn't mean that they are.

 

[Beth]

You're right Beth!

Time for me to go hunting for that pot of gold... it just might be there - illusionary rainbows be damned!

Or would another X take your fancy? Oh, there are just so many ways to explain things when you just don't have to base them on anything at all.

Whatever suits your fancy. Personally, I like speculating about the unknowable existance of a creator of our universe. I'm thinking of switching over to the free will versus determinism question though.

You don't have to, no. Especially not this alleged consistency.

Consistency of an ineffiable quality, as thesyntaxera put it, is difficult for me to dismiss yes, but if you cannot see the underlying similarity others seem to, it is certainly understandable that you would reject their claim. Personally, I am not so certain. That's all.

Doesn't stop me making up other tunes in my head.

No it doesn't. So? How does that bolster your claim that everyone else is making theirs up and not repeating something they all just caught a few strains of?

Or do they just like music but the culture of music developed differently because there is a lot of arbitrary combinations that have similar qualities?

Maybe. I don't know. Neither do you. But somehow, you seem far more certain of the answer than I am.

Uh, what is it with you two and missing the point by a mile?

A collection of bricks makes a house. Bricks are held together by cement.

A collection of cells makes a brain. The cells are held together by a network.

Bricks and cells have their own externalities like the brain and the house.

There is a scene in one of Dawkins videos of an interview with Deepak Chopra. They are talking about a rock having a quality of 'rockness'. Dawkins thinks its nonsense. Chopra thinks Dawkins is blind. Chopra makes more sense to me in that scene than Dawkins does, but I suspect that most people here feel the other way round. Houses are more than bricks and cement. Have you ever read Society of Mind by Minsky? I think you would like it.

It's pretty simply Beth - the big magical invisible man behind the curtain explanation is always, ALWAYS possible. That's the way magic works - it's magic.

I don't know about the big magical invisible man. I never pictured that god that way, not even as a child. But I know that your certainty in the non-existance of god is an just as illusionary as that of any other true believers certainy in their god belief.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes sir!

If you read the thread, particularly the part where I explained why I listed the definitions initially you wouldn't have needed to go on an indignant self righteous rant. The fact remains, people can be and are confused by the use of terms agnostic, atheist, theist, deist...etc.

I can see that people get confused by the terms - you especially. It doesn't mean that you can just make them mean what you want to mean, though.

Your denial of a middle ground doesn't make the middle ground disappear. There are people unsure of what to believe, or perhaps they feel as the definition describes, and simply resign themselves to the idea that one can never know.

Okay, here's how this works. If you disagree with my analysis, then you present what is called a 'counter-argument'. If you're just going to keep saying, "No, you're wrong," I'm going to start pointing out how inane and repetitive you're being. I've clearly explained exactly why there is no middle ground. If you are going to assert that there is, you're going to have to back up your assertion with reason and logic. Understand?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I find this stuff fairly fascinating, but don't see it as evidence negating the possibility of a stimulus causing such experiences isn't a drug or lab apparatus. I've also heard that stimulating certain neurons can produce very vivid sensory experiences in the absense of the normal stimuli, but there's no reason to interpret such results as implying there is no need to assume there is no involvement of external stimuli when someone experiences such sensations normally.

Yes, it’s quite fascinating. More information seems to come in at an increasing rate (Ramachandran, Newberg, Metzinger, Persinger etc., etc.); we live in captivating times.

I think it’s simply more meaningful to consider where the evidence seems to lead us. It definitely seems to lead us away from supernatural explanations across the board. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in say 30 years, it’s even clearer that the role for supernatural explanations have shrunk further. It’s like with the “innate god-belief” hypothesis: the evidence seems to point away from biological explanations. And regarding mystical experiences; the accumulation of evidence seems to point away from supranational explanations.

We can of course say that we’re not absolutely sure, so we can’t rule supranational explanations out. But on the other hand, they’re not really all that convincing either. We can only entertain them within a narrow philosophical framework that seems to loose credibility as more empirical evidence accumulates.

 

[cyborg]

Whatever suits your fancy. Personally, I like speculating about the unknowable existance of a creator of our universe.

Then speculate away - just don't pretend there are - or can be - any good arguments for the unknowable being real.

Consistency of an ineffiable quality, as thesyntaxera put it, is difficult for me to dismiss yes, but if you cannot see the underlying similarity others seem to, it is certainly understandable that you would reject their claim.

I'm seeing underlying similarity.

I'm rejecting the claim all the same.

No it doesn't. So? How does that bolster your claim that everyone else is making theirs up and not repeating something they all just caught a few strains of?

Same difference really.

Maybe. I don't know. Neither do you. But somehow, you seem far more certain of the answer than I am.

I'm fairly certain supernatural explanations are unproductive since they have been so far.

There is a scene in one of Dawkins videos of an interview with Deepak Chopra. They are talking about a rock having a quality of 'rockness'. Dawkins thinks its nonsense. Chopra thinks Dawkins is blind. Chopra makes more sense to me in that scene than Dawkins does

Great

Houses are more than bricks and cement.

You're mixing your abstractions.

Houses are not made of more than bricks and cement but it is a particular configuration of bricks and cement by which we call a thing a house and not a bungalow, or hotel, or shed, or outhouse.

So what type of "more" is it?

I don't know about the big magical invisible man. I never pictured that god that way, not even as a child.

It is the proposition being made - an ineffiable trickster who will not reveal how his illusions are performed.

But I know that your certainty in the non-existance of god is an just as illusionary as that of any other true believers certainy in their god belief.

As I've tried to explain before I'm certain that people who pontificate about "god" are spouting nonsense mostly. Can't promote the discussion to considering existence before one gets beyond that so I'm not really bothered if you see it as me being certain that "god" doesn't exist.

 

[cyborg]

Actually, I have a fairly particular thought as to what it is, you just didn't ask.

Then solidify your concepts.

Remember this is the, " Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?" thread.

It sure would be nice if someone could move beyond the, "I have created a self-consistent Star Trek where Q is an entity that also exists in our world, blurring the boundaries between reality and fiction," style of argument.

Sure. Like a peak/ecstatic/religious/drug induced experience for example.

Fixed it for you.

I fail to see how it qualifies as a conspiracy. For me it's just a way of looking at the information provided by science.

Yes. And you look at it as if there is a supernatural conspiracy - i.e. a grand mind controller inserting thoughts into people's minds.

The alternative is just that people have come up with similar god ideas despite the fact there is no god or inspite of the fact there is a god - and neither of those provides any evidence for a god, just for the way humans think about such an ineffable thing.

And what is the self?

See self.

Because the mechanistic approach has thus far not been able to accurately predict all of the variables of consciousness that humans experience.

Right... so at this point I'm either going to ask you to present the approach that does or point out that the "mechanistic" - or "empirical physics based" approach as it might be more accurately dubbed - is the only one that has been making any progress in understanding the nature of human experience.

Really? Perhaps it is just accurate.

It is what it is.

What does it even mean to say something is "greater" or "lesser" than what it is?

Is a program superior if it does the same thing with more defintion?

Is a program inferior if it does the same thing with less defintion?

It is what it is - what a silly proposition to think some ways are ineffiably "greater" or "lesser" if there is no way of measuring such a thing.

Care to give some metrics? I already know of several considerations one might make for the ideal program/definition balance.

It's hardly just a chemical brain. There is no evidence to suggest that the brain functions in a linear, computational manner.

So the silicon in my CPU, you know, acting all computational and all, is hardly just a chemical chip?

You just explained it poorly, and this addition to your point makes little sense as well.

It's pretty simply really - one doesn't conjure up new fundamental existents just because on has created new labels for existing configurations of things.

About as much fun as being borderline condescending on a message board because it inflates one's ego, and adds to ones overall sense of self importance.

Ooh, armchair psychology. Always fun.

Now hows about we get some damn evidence people?

 

[Mobyseven]

I concur with Cyborg. I see a lot of, "You're wrong," a lot of, "You're insulting," a lot of, "This might be right," and a lot of, "You can't dismiss my ideas." What I'm not seeing is any type of argument or evidence for these assertions.

Put up or shutup, I say.

 

[Beth]

Whatever suits your fancy. Personally, I like speculating about the unknowable existance of a creator of our universe.

Then speculate away - just don't pretend there are - or can be - any good arguments for the unknowable being real.

OK. I’ve never pretended there is scientific quality evidence for such. Whether personal experiences and reports of personal experiences are ‘good evidence’ is a matter of some debate

Consistency of an ineffiable quality, as thesyntaxera put it, is difficult for me to dismiss yes, but if you cannot see the underlying similarity others seem to, it is certainly understandable that you would reject their claim.

I'm seeing underlying similarity.

I’m surprised. From your previous posts, I thought you were denying such a similarity existed. Perhaps I have you confused with someone else. How would you describe the similarity you see?

I'm rejecting the claim all the same.

Which claim? I was referring to the claim of similarity which you said you did see in the sentence above this one.

No it doesn't. So? How does that bolster your claim that everyone else is making theirs up and not repeating something they all just caught a few strains of?

Same difference really.

You’ve lost me here. I don’t see how it bolsters your claim at all.

Maybe. I don't know. Neither do you. But somehow, you seem far more certain of the answer than I am.

I'm fairly certain supernatural explanations are unproductive since they have been so far.

Depends on how you define ‘supernatural’ and ‘unproductive’. What do you mean by those terms?

Houses are more than bricks and cement.

You're mixing your abstractions.

What else does one do with them? Pure abstractions may be beautiful but they are not much use.

Houses are not made of more than bricks and cement but it is a particular configuration of bricks and cement by which we call a thing a house and not a bungalow, or hotel, or shed, or outhouse.

So what type of "more" is it?

The configuration is a crucial aspect. That is what makes a house ‘more’ than bricks and cements and an individual ‘more’ of a collection of cells.

I don't know about the big magical invisible man. I never pictured that god that way, not even as a child.

It is the proposition being made - an ineffiable trickster who will not reveal how his illusions are performed.[/quote] Really? Who made that proposition? It’s not what I was thinking of at all. Some gods are quite like that – Loki, Coyote, probably others – but those are not the concept of a creator god I thought we were discussing.

But I know that your certainty in the non-existance of god is an just as illusionary as that of any other true believers certainy in their god belief.

As I've tried to explain before I'm certain that people who pontificate about "god" are spouting nonsense mostly.

I’ll agree with that. In fact, I’d extend it to include the atheists who pontificate about the same subject

 

[Beth]

Yes, it’s quite fascinating. More information seems to come in at an increasing rate (Ramachandran, Newberg, Metzinger, Persinger etc., etc.); we live in captivating times.

I think it’s simply more meaningful to consider where the evidence seems to lead us. It definitely seems to lead us away from supernatural explanations across the board. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in say 30 years, it’s even clearer that the role for supernatural explanations have shrunk further. It’s like with the “innate god-belief” hypothesis: the evidence seems to point away from biological explanations. And regarding mystical experiences; the accumulation of evidence seems to point away from supranational explanations.

We can of course say that we’re not absolutely sure, so we can’t rule supranational explanations out. But on the other hand, they’re not really all that convincing either. We can only entertain them within a narrow philosophical framework that seems to loose credibility as more empirical evidence accumulates.

That's all so reasonable, I can't argue with any it.

 

[cyborg]

OK. I’ve never pretended there is scientific quality evidence for such. Whether personal experiences and reports of personal experiences are ‘good evidence’ is a matter of some debate

All indications say they're not. That's why science developed in the first place: it works.

Anything else is just moaning about the inequities of life.

I’m surprised. From your previous posts, I thought you were denying such a similarity existed. Perhaps I have you confused with someone else. How would you describe the similarity you see?

Similar brains = similar experiences.

Just because people come up with god ideas independently doesn't mean there's some actual god at work.

Just like just because people came up with the concept of "zero" independently doesn't mean there's some great null muse out there whipsering it in people's ears.

Which claim? I was referring to the claim of similarity which you said you did see in the sentence above this one.

The claim such similarity has anything supernatural to it.

You’ve lost me here. I don’t see how it bolsters your claim at all.

Creation is generally a remix of what went before. Chopping and changing/

Depends on how you define ‘supernatural’ and ‘unproductive’. What do you mean by those terms?

In this instance supernatural is referring to a posited world beyond the natural which is influencing it in nigh indetectable ways.

It is unproductive because it is not producing any new knowledge.

What else does one do with them? Pure abstractions may be beautiful but they are not much use.

That doesn't mean you can go twisting levels willy-nilly.

The configuration is a crucial aspect. That is what makes a house ‘more’ than bricks and cements and an individual ‘more’ of a collection of cells.

It's not "more" substance is it though? It's "more" "function".

Really? Who made that proposition? It’s not what I was thinking of at all. Some gods are quite like that – Loki, Coyote, probably others – but those are not the concept of a creator god I thought we were discussing.

So you propose a god signing himself into his creation then?

 

[Beth]

All indications say they're not. That's why science developed in the first place: it works.

Anything else is just moaning about the inequities of life.

Not at all. Personal experiences and reports of personal experiences are used constantly by you, me and everyone else. We all rely on our senses to accurately convey information about the world we live in, even though we realize that such data may be mistaken or misinterpreted (particularly other people's reports). We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life.

Similar brains = similar experiences.

Just because people come up with god ideas independently doesn't mean there's some actual god at work.

Correct. Similarities across different cultures may indicate that there may be some underlying common stimulus that has evoked the experiences that people report but by no means establish it as fact.

Just like just because people came up with the concept of "zero" independently doesn't mean there's some great null muse out there whipsering it in people's ears.

My recollection, though I may be mistaken as it's been a while since I read about the history of mathematics, is that the concept of zero was only developed independently once. As far as a muse whispering it in someone's ear, I'm unaware of any such claim having been made for that particular concept.

The claim such similarity has anything supernatural to it.

Okay. My point was only that the similarity does provide some support to the claim. It certainly doesn't prove it, so I feel it's reasonable to accept or reject it. I simply feel that both conclusions are based on insufficient evidence to feel confident in either one.

Creation is generally a remix of what went before. Chopping and changing/

Creativity is not at all well-understood. Certainly chopping and changing is part of it. Seeing connections and similarities between ideas previously considered unrelated is also part of it.

In this instance supernatural is referring to a posited world beyond the natural which is influencing it in nigh indetectable ways.

Okay. That's a reasonable definition. I see that string theory would qualify as supernatural with this definition, something I happen to agree with. I think of supernatural as that which lies beyond or outside of our 4-dimensional space-time continuum, which also makes string theory supernatural.

It is unproductive because it is not producing any new knowledge.

Hmmm - you do realize that modern science is an outcropping of religion don't you? And you are also excluding new knowledge produced by an individual about that individual (a reasonable delineation, btw).

However, apart from that, that isn't how I define unproductive. I think of unproductive as not producing anything of value. Since there are things other than new knowledge that have value, I would have disagreed with your original statement but when you define productive as narrowly as you have above, I'll not quibble with the statement.

It's not "more" substance is it though? It's "more" "function".

Correct. The 'more' that separates a house from a pile of bricks and cement is not a tangible material substance, just as the 'more' that separates an individual from a pile of cells is not a tangible material substance. But that has been what we were discussing - intangible immaterial things.

So you propose a god signing himself into his creation then?

I have no idea what you mean by this, so no, I don't think I'm proposing that.

 

[Mobyseven]

Not at all. Personal experiences and reports of personal experiences are used constantly by you, me and everyone else. We all rely on our senses to accurately convey information about the world we live in, even though we realize that such data may be mistaken or misinterpreted (particularly other people's reports). We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life.

So? Anecdotal evidence is horrifically unreliable, regardless of whether or not it is necessary to rely upon often in everyday life. That's what we have science for - to eliminate the bias and to produce more reliable results. You are insisting upon a lower standard of evidence for god than for any other object or phenomenon, and that is the fallacy of special pleading.

Hmmm - you do realize that modern science is an outcropping of religion don't you?

A number of choice words come to mind, but I'm going to stick with 'nonsense'. Modern science is not an outcropping of religion - it is in most regards the antithesis of religion! Kindly provide evidence for your claim or retract it.

Correct. The 'more' that separates a house from a pile of bricks and cement is not a tangible material substance, just as the 'more' that separates an individual from a pile of cells is not a tangible material substance. But that has been what we were discussing - intangible immaterial things.

Okay then - what is the 'more' that separates a house from a pile of bricks and cement? You say that there is a non-tangible substance that makes the house 'more', and I say that 'house' is simply the arbitrary label we have attached to that particular configuration of bricks and cement. Once you are able to do that, then maybe we can move onto the case of the cells and the human. Otherwise you'd be best to retract that claim too.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Aack.. the same old spin to pretend like it's perfectly logical to believe in invisible creators of the universe who psychically care about planet earth...

Your predisposed to think that all people who think there is a potential for something akin to god(whatever that is or isn't) use the same old 'spin'. It's assumptive to think that by the way. I have not as yet declared that I believed for certain that there was or wasn't anything else out there.

It's the same old semantics... but I understand the need to convince yourself that there's "magic" that you can "feel" through faith... or whatever. Buy you are wrong and speaking illogically on several areas thesyntaxera... the one that bothers me most is that you say that atheists assume facts not in evidence. That is a lie.

You assume as fact that there is not anything of greater intelligence that humans might consider mystical. There is no proof of this. There can probably be no proof of this, and as a result you conclude without evidence that the notion is false. You have no idea 'why' things are here or anywhere in the universe...just an inkling of the how. It's a question that doesn't mix well with purely left brain analytical thinking because it forces you to engage the undernourished right side of your brain for a minute. I understand why it makes you feel uncomfortable, I just don't understand what you have against speculating on such things.

You really ought to understand what that phrase means. Just because sceintists haven't explained something, doesn't mean gurus have. There are no presumptions in atheism... just a lack of belief in any gods... gods and magic and mysticism and supernatural sloppy semantics have often been used by humans to explain that which we don't understand yet... so far, every time we have found the answer, it was something natural... not magical... and thinking it was beyond human understanding is not a method to find actual answers... it never has been.

No one is necessarily invoking magic to explain anything. Your just being presumptuous again. The problem is that you can't conceive of anything being beyond human understanding.

You choose to believe because you want to believe.... just like all other believers... even the believers in things you find wacky.... and you believe for the same sorts of reasons those people do... but not because there is evidence to support your belief.

I chose to believe in a possibility. I don't assume my point of view to be fact.

Not understanding something does not mean it was a miracle or part of a higher plan or something god or demons did. And yet, that is your biggest claim for believing in a potential god. I guess you and Beth believer or want to believe in the same nebulous invisible something or other that set the world in motion and sends cryptic messages to people that are apparently confused with mental illnesses, illnesses, delusions, drug experiences, and seizures. You are the one who has made a bold inference with facts not in evidence and you are the one who has lied to yourself to pretend that atheists has assumed facts in evidence. An atheist doesn't claim to know why or how any further than science knows-- we just don't insert magic into the gaps. You have.

Why not leave the regurgitated arguments aside for a moment. I haven't claimed to know the why or how. I have speculated that there could be a reason why, and that possibly it is beyond a humans ability to understand, something you deny, and yet in this very thread it has been mentioned that humans "... are horrible at distinguishing between related and unrelated patterns." What you fail to notice is that your simply filling the gaps with your own brand of magic.

And you are not in the middle ground... you believe that the supernatural is an answer... that god is an explanation for the things you don't understand... Like Beth. You may as well admit it... it comes through, you know. And, yes, I think you are misperceiving or delusional... the same as you think of Scientologists and Moonies and all those who believe in magical things you find unlikely. Just because you've made your magic man nebulous doesn't make him more likely, you know.

Do you have any fact based evidence to attach to your claim that I believe a supernatural answer is THE answer? Or are you just maintaining that ever present condescending vibe that always seems to emanate from the atheist corner of this debate? What I am proposing is simply the idea that the things you consider supernatural may actually just have been natural all along, and beyond the limits of our perception.

Put up or shutup, I say.

I couldn't agree more. This thread and it's title are a joke. Any thinking person who is open to the possibility that there is more to reality out there than the all important self would probably agree that there can be no evidence to prove anything at the level we are discussing here. If that is true, then this entire thread is an exercise in futility, where self described atheists get to embolden their beliefs(that have no real basis either) about the world and universe in which they reside. Why do you need to attack what other people exercising their individual right to cognitive liberty find value in?

I'm sure there is a litany of answers that could be run through involving all the typical points(please don't bother to recite them) atheists such as yourselves have brought up on countless occasions. It appears that even more than "believers", you have an intense desire for self validation, and seek it in the realm of atheism rather than by questioning your self and deciding what YOU think about things. Have fun hiding behind a banner, not unlike many of the "believers" out there who do the same thing and call is christianity, or islam, or scientology, or whatever...do whatever makes you feel comfortable and safe in your absolutist non-theological version of religion.