A God We Know Nothing About

Talk about avoiding (or missing) the point...

That's becoming obvious.

Show me one that doesn't.

I specified one criterion: a proof of god that doesn't assume a priori that he exists - otherwise it's worthless.
I'm not interested in me believing at all.
I have no use for it.

Another a priori assertion.

Indeed.
But some indoctrination has support other than itself.

That's an assumption.
How about we scrap religion, belief and churches and use the effort and money to actually do something to improve the human condition?

To get the basics it doesn't require deep knowledge.

1) where the come from has nothing to do with understanding temperature.
2) physics doesn't claim to account for it.

You've missed the point again: it's generally accepted that they happen, but it's not generally accepted those things are good.
Maybe that's why science works so hard to eliminate them... just a thought.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In that case, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point missed again.
Ho hum..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can awareness 'happen', if it is not integral to reality? Every other device we know of works through functionalising some fundamental property or force. E.g. a light bulb, gives off electromagnetic radiation - a propagating form of the field holding the electrons in their orbitals in the atoms of the filament. Consciousness doesn't follow that rule - it is not reducible to a physical function - at least according to the philosopher Jaegwon Kim.

There is a serious gap to be explained here don't you think? Our model of 'reality' is seriously incomplete without something to explain the observer!

So, does sadness exist, or humour, or truth, or the theory of evolution? Or are they 'just evidence that the brain follows similar thought patterns due to structure'? In the end, if you only count physical objects or phenomena as real, what are we doing right now? Just creating meaningless patterns of neuronal firing in our brains, nothing more!

Not if they couldn't land.

It was considered so before Columbus... Perhaps unusual or transcendent experiences is our equivalent?

So, if we can give a name i.e. 'dark energy' to explain anomalies in the redshift of distant supernovae, can't we do the same for 'God' to explain religious experience?

Yes, we all have one (if you adhere to a Freudian or Jungian model).

...so, how many people would it take to experience the pink elephant (or invisible unicorn, spaghetti monster etc.), independently over time and in different places, before it was declared a 'real' but elusive phenomenon?

So, is pain or joy merely 'an internal thing', explicable in some other way? People speak of their experience of 'God' as direct (like pain) and real. Without having their experience, it is hard to know...

Would you agree that we seem to differ in wishing (or not) to explain all phenomena in physical or material terms? It is the dominant paradigm, especially among scientists/engineers/philosophers. However, I'm always amazed by my science colleagues who try to account for mental phenomena in physical terms, without reflecting on the irreducible nature of thought of which the theories they are proposing are composed!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A philosopher...
Not somebody who's got his hands "dirty" then?
Is that the consensus opinion?

Correct: it's incomplete.
But I'd rather not invent something just to fill the gap - I'd rather look for more data.

Truth is a concept, sadness is observable through chemical imbalances/ changes (as well as the person's reactions), humour is... what? A perspective?

That's why I said "could".

Nobody ever discovered somewhere new before Columbus?

You could, but saying "god" does nothing more than say "we don't know": at least with red shifty for example you can make predictions and test them.
What's testable about god?
What predictions can you make using "god" as a basis?

Which makes my point:religious experience/ belief is not universal.

Vast numbers, I suspect the way things are going.

Pain and joy are measurable (to a certain extent) phenomena, are they not?
And caused by (mostly) external stimuli.

It's subjective.

Irreducible?
Only at the moment (maybe).

 

LOL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think it is recognised as a 'problem' with a physicalist explanation. Kim's argument is very compelling too (he was a physicalist).

I agree, but just acknowledging that our physics ignores the 'observer' is enough.

What's a 'concept' or a 'perspective' in terms of physical events e.g. neurones firing? Nothing - just a different meaningless pattern. Yet they have great significance to us as conscious entities...

I think the prevailing view was that the known world was fixed, however, I may be wrong... I'm going by the Mappa Mundi, and other maps which leave no room for unknown places, and by the general opposition to other (e.g. Gallileo's) discoveries which upset the 'cosmic order'.

Answered prayer, happier life, better health, robustness to trauma etc? These are all promises of religion, which seem to be bourne out by research (with the exception of 'answered prayer', but that's another story!). Having said that I'm not so sure an infinite God is going to be very predictable - a bit like the weather or a person isn't.

Are there any predictions coming out of the existence of 'dark energy'?

Only correlations with brain imaging are measurable, or subjective assessments. We can't tell what's going on in an animal's experience for instance (though we might guess from our own).

You think we will explain consciousness as a physical phenomenon? We may have to agree to differ!

P.S. Oli, I'm away until Monday, but I look forward top our continuing debate then!

 

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said it is chemical reactions, but it is not just chemical reactions.

There was never any god to begin with.

So the truth is non sense but magic sky fairies is sense?
I suppose shit is shinola, too.

So this time, instead of "some" seeds, try the orange seeds. Then be patient padawan learner.

 

One is concretely manifest.
The other is a figment of your imagination.

 

Put two philosophers in room for an hour and they'll come up with at least three opinions..

Because physics' purview isn't the observer.
(Although QM has one interpretation that requires an observer).

Yep, an internal "event".

Ah, arrogance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We know everything there is to know...

Agreed: but is there any way of establishing that these benefits are the result of the belief (and therefore caused by having a more positive outlook on life) or that they actually come form god?

Not really, but that's because at the moment it isn't a theory so much as a place-holder: IF we take this as the "cause" then we can work on establishing some facts or counter-facts.
And "dark energy" isn't the only thing being considered as the cause of the current anomalies - it's one of a number of explanations.

Chemical changes in the body as well.

I HOPE we will, one day.
I doubt I'll live to see it happen though.

Okay, have fun.

 

The Qur'an.
The Bhagavad Gita.
Bhagavat Puranas.
etc....

jan.

 

All of which take god as a given, no?

 

"God is", the only power any person has is to believe or not.

jan.

 

That's an assumption.

Why believe in something for which there's no evidence?

 

Oli,

God is + God isn't =
1 + 0 =

I take it you mean scientific evidence?

If so, what kind of scientific evidence would satisfy this question?
Bearing in mind the definition of God, contained in these scriptures.

jan.

 

:shrug:

If you'd read the thread: ANY evidence.

Something is explained by "god" and nothing else, perhaps.

We're back to the same problem again: the scriptures claim god exists and they are correct in this claim because god dictated them.
The "definition" of god isn't so much a "definition" as a cop-out.

 

Oli,

God is, and, God isn't, are both assumptions.
In the world of assumptions, God is still greater.

Then you've no need to ask me, just google, it just saves
to same old dance routine.

In your current state of mind and being, how would you KNOW is it was God?
And would you be prepared to follow certain rules and regulations to update your state of mind and being, in order to discriminate perfectly?

If God existed, how would it be possible for us to know God?
Please enter into the spirit of the question, and use your brain
to come up with an answer.

jan.

 

No, one is an assumption.
The other is saying: there's no evidence, so I'm not going to believe.

Tch.
Sci is ALWAYS the same old dance.
Google isn't interactive and provides nothing.
It's through talking to people about WHY they believe that I may get answers.

Current state of mind?
More assumptions?

"Perfectly"?
Signal went through this.
Do the rules and regulations assume that god exists from the start?
If so, no.

If god existed then there'd be something that could ONLY be explained by god, presumably.

 

The claim of god IS the greater "assumption" of course. Without a shred of evidence, the assumption becomes a worthless assertion.

The "same old dance routine" is Jan tap dancing around assertions.

Typical cop out. The brain would conclude that assertions of entities that have not been demonstrated to exist are unknowable.

Therefore, the conclusion drawn is that Jan is not using a brain.

 

"The Invisible Pink Dragon is", yadda yadda yadda.

 

Oli,

Which assumes a person knows what constitutes evidence of God' existences, meaning, they conclude God does not exist as they have seen none of that particular evidence. Sounds like an ass-umption to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well it shouldn't be, as such repitition is non-productive.
Perhaps non-productivety suits your position, but I find it boring and....non-productive.
I say let's take it to the next stage, and see what makes you tick.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cop-out!

Then go right ahead.
You're first task, is to become humble.

You'll find out.

You're not entering into the spirit of the question are you?
You see right here is the problem, you won't let go of your
presets.
Please try and answer again, but this time, answer the actual question.
Thanks in advance.

jan.