Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[laca]

What makes it more than mere story are the verifiable psychic experiences that can be granted by the well lets call them god-images.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[laca]

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

I don't suppose you got any evidence.

 

[dafydd]

I don't suppose you got any evidence.

No chance. Just fairy stories.

 

[yomero]

SNIP.....
The condition of the laws of physics existing without god already assumes the function of god, which is creation. One stance posits that the laws of physics look like they do with no need for a god. That's fine if we assume from the outset that intention is not part of the fabric of the cosmos. But that is one game; and that game has no room for god. If thought through there is simply no possibility for a god in that scenario.

Contrast this with idealism which begins with a god, or Mind. Idealism assumes Mind (a traditional philosophical conception of god) and everything follows. The laws of physics exist only as thoughts in the mind of god, so no god means no laws of physics. Substance dualism simply moves the issue back a step and separates Mind from matter, but the thinking is the same -- no Mind and no matter, no laws of physics.

There are two separate games, and they are not symmetrical -- in one we see the laws of physics without god but there is no room for god. In the other we see the laws of physics only with god and there is no room for the laws of physics without god. You cannot subtract one from the other because they begin with entirely different assumptions.
SNIP.....

From Ichneumonwasp's previous posts, I understand that he is playing Devils Advocate. IWasp holds that the deist principle of an intelligence that trascends the physical universe and created it, can be a rational belief.

Perhaps in former centuries such idea could be defended logically. However, I do not think that in the 21st. century any well informed person believes that the human mind resides anywhere but in the physical brain. All of our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, emotions, consciousness, self-awareness, intentions etc. are the result of neural activity. Nothing else. It is difficult to avoid feeling there is a ''me'' that trascends my body. Neverthelesss all evidence indicates that any aspect of our psyche is only the consequence of the chemically mediated circuitry of our brain. I see no reason to believe that there is a soul or a spirit that ''thinks'' for us. If that were the case, then just as logically we can assume that such a spirit also defecates for us.

My point is, that any intelligent being must have a nervous system. I can see no way how an incorporeal being can have any intellectual activity. Why limit such disembodied entity to the capability of having thoughts? We may as well postulate that it also defecates. No nervous system and no digestive tract.

 

[tsig]

No chance. Just fairy stories.

It was beautiful moonlit field and I looked up and saw the face of god...

ETA: courtesy of good acid

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, I'm sure that is what he would complain of, but I think he is wrong. I have offered two arguments against him -- one is that we cannot say that we are certain that gods don't exist. The other counters his contention that all such attempts to show that gods might exist amount to de-defining god. The history of ideas shows otherwise. Within Christianity, for instance, there was an almost immediate attempt to define God in just such ways -- look at the history of medieval thought about God. The same is true in Judaism -- look at Philo's writings. The same is true in Greek thought -- Plato. Those moves were not attempts to de-define god. They were legitimate attempts to explore being and what it means. That theists today might use those earlier thinkers to find a hiding place for god is another point altogether.

Hmmmm ... What I did not quite get was how you would counter if somebody, me for instance, defined a God that definetly exists. I got that it would probably be useless and inconsequential, but as I stated that is not the same as not existing.

 

[punshhh]

I'm saying you have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. You defined two sets and asserted that one is a subset of the other. The first set included "everything a human has imagined". The second set was "everything that exists". You therefore said that everything a human has imagined exists. Not only the idea of it exists, but it exists. You want to backtrack?

Ah, so because you don't get it, I don't know what I'm talking about, (deja vu).

The idea of the Mona Lisa exists, many millions of people entertain ideas about the mona Lisa, does none of this exist? I am not suggesting that there exists a painting for each of these ideas, or that any other ideas which exist are also present in physical form.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmmmm ... What I did not quite get was how you would counter if somebody, me for instance, defined a God that definetly exists. I got that it would probably be useless and inconsequential, but as I stated that is not the same as not existing.

I would call that god inconsequential or irrelavent for our lives. I think Piggy would say that it was de-defined and not what the word god has traditionally meant.

That is what the disagreement here concerns. I think he should amend his statement that he knows that no gods exist to say that gods either don't exist, are evil or are inconsequential; but that's really just a style thing. However we want to say it, we end up with a god that is not worth considering.

I guess the easy slogan I would support is: all gods are ignorable. In other words, if there is a god (say one that is true by definition) we can safely ignore it as it relates to our lives. But there is also the reason why someone would define a god as necessarily existing and that is not an existential claim but more of an emotive claim -- that we should feel a sense of reverence for the universe and being as a whole.

 

[Limbo]

To add to all of the above replies, consider me from Missouri.

Claims of a world behind this world are extraordinary claims. Support for such a claim requires extraordinary evidence. Hearsay evidence is a dime a dozen. A clear demonstration of your ability could supply extraordinary evidence if well controlled.


ETA: Or did you mean that it's evidence for you and that's good enough for you?

Yeah I do mean that it's evidence for me and that's good enough for me.

Also, I don't think that claims of a 'world' or a 'metaphysical energy' or a something behind this world is an 'extraordinary' one. It's an ordinary one given the experiences of most people, and given the fact that it's a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. It's a part of human experience. It's an archetypal pattern, a part of our psyche.

Take UFOs for instance. Extraordinary? Not really. Not to me. Cultures have been having sightings for thousands of years, and so UFOs are a part of world religion and myth. A culture that doesn't have sightings would be extraordinary. Who are we to say what's ordinary and what isn't?

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times

 

[dafydd]

Ah, so because you don't get it, I don't know what I'm talking about, (deja vu).

The idea of the Mona Lisa exists, many millions of people entertain ideas about the mona Lisa, does none of this exist? I am not suggesting that there exists a painting for each of these ideas, or that any other ideas which exist are also present in physical form.

People think about the Mona Lisa now and again. So what? There is nothing to get,you are just free associating again.

 

[annnnoid]

I don't want to completely brush you off, but that discussion takes way too long and I don't know that I have enough time or energy to get back into it.

ETA:

For brevity's sake, it is the interaction issue between incommensurate substances that plagues all forms of substance dualism. We can't talk about mechanisms of interaction between these substances because mechanism, as we use that word, refers to processes within what we call materialism. 'Magic' is simply a way of denoting no possible way of invoking mechanism.

...thanks for that Wasp. Understand the bit about 'long' discussions. Hard to simplify...and hard to summarize. Have a few curiosities I’d be interested to hear yours…and Piggys…POV on. Will get back to it soon. Busy these days.

From Ichneumonwasp's previous posts, I understand that he is playing Devils Advocate. IWasp holds that the deist principle of an intelligence that trascends the physical universe and created it, can be a rational belief.

Perhaps in former centuries such idea could be defended logically. However, I do not think that in the 21st. century any well informed person believes that the human mind resides anywhere but in the physical brain. All of our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, emotions, consciousness, self-awareness, intentions etc. are the result of neural activity. Nothing else. It is difficult to avoid feeling there is a ''me'' that trascends my body. Neverthelesss all evidence indicates that any aspect of our psyche is only the consequence of the chemically mediated circuitry of our brain. I see no reason to believe that there is a soul or a spirit that ''thinks'' for us. If that were the case, then just as logically we can assume that such a spirit also defecates for us.

My point is, that any intelligent being must have a nervous system. I can see no way how an incorporeal being can have any intellectual activity. Why limit such disembodied entity to the capability of having thoughts? We may as well postulate that it also defecates. No nervous system and no digestive tract.

…a few points worth remembering: we do not know what ‘mind’ is. We do not know how the brain works (interacts with or produces ‘mind’). We do not know that all of our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, emotions, consciousness, self-awareness, intentions etc. are the result of neural activity (we do not even know how to conclusively define many of those words). All evidence does not indicate that our ‘psyche’ (whatever that is) is only the consequence of the chemically mediated circuitry of our brain…. and there is a very great deal of evidence that, at the very least, implicates conditions for which we have absolutely no explanation at present.

You are engaging in a typical skeptic fallacy: Summarizing a vast and incredibly complex field of study into simplistic and conveniently familiar conclusions that support your particular philosophical perspective. Just for your benefit, I’ll repeat the words of one of the most famous cognitive scientists in the world, Noam Chomsky:

"Our understanding of human nature is thin, and likely to remain so."

...hardly sounds like we know enough about 'us' to know how much we know about us...as you seem to insist we do.

 

[Piggy]

Wait a second. You said that you know that no gods exist, not that gods must perform some sort of function in the world to be called gods. We've been over this -- the de-definition notion that you mentioned earlier is not correct historically. Deistic and other types of gods have been discussed by thinkers for centuries, millenia before scientific progress made enough strides to create a need for de-definition. We all know that theists today de-define to protect god notions, but the terms of the debate were set in the past.

It is perfectly correct historically because I don't dispute that.

I mean, look at ancient India. They had a sufficiently urban and scholarly culture to intellectualize god.

But the thing is, the sliding scale still goes from the earliest conceptions of god (which are false) to conceptions which are de-defined in various ways. That tactic didn't wait for Galileo.

If you have a god to propose which isn't somewhere on that scale, then what is it?

 

[yomero]

SNIP.....
…a few points worth remembering: we do not know what ‘mind’ is. We do not know how the brain works (interacts with or produces ‘mind’). We do not know that all of our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, emotions, consciousness, self-awareness, intentions etc. are the result of neural activity (we do not even know how to conclusively define many of those words). All evidence does not indicate that our ‘psyche’ (whatever that is) is only the consequence of the chemically mediated circuitry of our brain…. and there is a very great deal of evidence that, at the very least, implicates conditions for which we have absolutely no explanation at present.

Of course there is a vast amount of things we ignore YET about how the mind works. I'm confident that many of those gaps in knowledge will be filled through the course of the 21st. century. But I am certain, any new knowledge will only be through a better understanding of the physical basis of the mind. Remember what the batting average for neurophysiologists has been for the last 100 years and compare it to that of theologians for 2500 years. There is NOTHING that we can know about the mind that is outside of the physical world. There are many things we don't know, some perhaps we will never know. There has never been any evidence of a spirit responsible for our intellectual activities. None.

You are engaging in a typical skeptic fallacy: Summarizing a vast and incredibly complex field of study into simplistic and conveniently familiar conclusions that support your particular philosophical perspective. Just for your benefit, I’ll repeat the words of one of the most famous cognitive scientists in the world, Noam Chomsky:

"Our understanding of human nature is thin, and likely to remain so.".

And a typical dualistic fallacy is to pretend that there is something for which there is absolutely no evidence. To support their particular philosophical perspectives.

It hasn't yet been explained why it is deemed necessary to consider a non-physical spirit to direct our thoughts. How in the total absence of neurological tissue can thoughts be formed? If this spirit also lacks a digestive tract, does it also defecate for us?

...hardly sounds like we know enough about 'us' to know how much we know about us...as you seem to insist we do.

Those gaps in our understanding of ourselves will not be filled by stuff we just make up....as you seem to insist.

 

[dafydd]

It is perfectly correct historically because I don't dispute that.

I mean, look at ancient India. They had a sufficiently urban and scholarly culture to intellectualize god.

But the thing is, the sliding scale still goes from the earliest conceptions of god (which are false) to conceptions which are de-defined in various ways. That tactic didn't wait for Galileo.

If you have a god to propose which isn't somewhere on that scale, then what is it?

Which concepts of god are real then? In my opinion they are all false. No gods.

 

[Piggy]

There is no deist-god fallacy. That there are other possible explanations for the universe doesn't matter when we discuss whether or not a god might exist. All I can do is stare at you dumbfounded if you want to tell me that a deist god isn't a god. Frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what you could mean by that. People have defined god as the creator of the universe -- and by that they mean the universe in its original meaning not creator of a local universe within a larger multiverse. They say that god is responsible for being because god is being itself.

The thing that distinguishes god from not god is that in one scenario things exist and in the other nothing exists. That is the theist perspective.

Go ahead and stare at me.

But let me ask you this, then... if you think it's a god, then describe that god to me.

You can't do it, because the god has no description.

It's been de-defined, and all that's left is what it supposedly did... and we know the universe was created, so unless you say what this deistic god is supposed to be, we're left with "something created the universe" just as if I'd claimed that fluxnor created the universe.

The deistic fallacy is to believe that the claim "god created the universe and then didn't interfere with it" can be a claim about god if you don't say (or know) what you mean by that term.

In other words, it doesn't change the terms of the debate one whit.

If you simply take a known even and attribute it to <whatever>, you have not produced any argument in favor of the reality of <whatever>.

Those hoofprints behind my house might have been made by a unicorn I'll never see.

So do those hoofprints constitute evidence (much less an iron-clad argument) in favor of the existence of unicorns?

No.

To propose a god you have to propose a god.

Talk about what it does later, but first say what it is.

Attributing a known event to it doesn't move anything along.

And if you say you can't know what it is... at all!... then how in the world can we be talking about it?

 

[Piggy]

Which concepts of god are real then? In my opinion they are all false. No gods.

There don't need to be any real ones, just like there don't need to be any real leprechauns for our notion of "leprechaun" to correspond with.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yeah I do mean that it's evidence for me and that's good enough for me.

That's the first thing you've said with which I agree.

Now, do you understand why it's not good enough for everyone else?

 

[Limbo]

That's the first thing you've said with which I agree.

Now, do you understand why it's not good enough for everyone else?

Yes I do. I also see how everyone else could replicate what I have done, and thus see verifiable results for themselves. I see how their secular belief-system and their psychological defense mechanisms and their cultural conditioning stop them from doing that. No journey, no God.

 

[devnull]

Yes I do. I also see how everyone else could replicate what I have done, and thus see verifiable results for themselves. I see how their secular belief-system and their psychological defense mechanisms and their cultural conditioning stop them from doing that. No journey, no God.

Limbo, youve been told several times on this forum that there are many members who have done similar things, and come out the other end realising it was all wishful thinking.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yes I do. I also see how everyone else could replicate what I have done, and thus see verifiable results for themselves. I see how their secular belief-system and their psychological defense mechanisms and their cultural conditioning stop them from doing that. No journey, no God.

Your own words contradict you. You have already stated you believe in God, perhaps of your own personal definition. Show anyone here how to replicate your results consistently, and you could be a teacher. Otherwise, you're just another huckster, a member of a long lineage of self-serving liars.