Tristan Scott

A thing? That will clarify it for you?

Sure. Beauty is a thing?

parkdalian

It is splitting hairs but in another sense it is the opposite. I'm actually using a more generous concept of reality than is ordinarily used in everyday language. When I say something is imaginary, even that has some physical existence, inside our physical brains. Each imaginary concept has a unique identity among the myriad of "projections" we evoke when we think about a particular thing. If you saw the Mona Lisa in an art museum you identify it as such, but you may also say you're looking at a canvas coated with pigments. When I think of "God" I evoke various visual images and auditory relationships that are dependent of my brain being intact, and only those specific parts of my physical brain associated with "God" are activated.

But exactly the same dynamic process goes on inside my brain occurs when I think of a horse, the only difference being a little asterisk next to the name "horse*" in my mind signifying that this thing is can be very real, despite the fact I am imagining it. (BTW I define "mind" as the basic perceived process or activity of the senses and the corresponding manufactured (synthesized?) or evoked stored imagery in the physical brain. It is akin to "political system" or "democracy".)

While the dichotomy between real and imaginary is obviously valid, ultimately both real and purely imaginary perceptions take place in the arena of brain and have to be sorted out there. Unlike some atheists, it is my opinion that we too have beliefs about God. My belief is that you, as a theist, have a mistaken perception of what God is (and because I have defined God, you have the same belief about me!).

It's not an extraordinary or bizarre belief, and mostly limited to how I feel about the thinking processes of God-believers/misperceivers, but I'm admitting that much. I'm laying it on the table what I think God is and why I think some people believe in a real God, and using that tool to help identify more pointed lines of evidence for God's imaginary nature. I'm also giving theists the opportunity to knock down my God-model if they please.

God is an imaginary being that some people think has objective, independent existence.

What can I say about such a God except that it is powerless, never created the universe, has no consciousness, and does not care about humanity.
Unlike a theist's definition, there are no associated behaviors with my God. Given that, I don't have to pompously guess what God will do, has done or be told what my God wants from me.

It does have at least one property that is testable, simply that the perception of God would vary depending on the individual or group since the God-concept is entirely brain dependent. There would also be a strong correlation of people who have difficulty distinguishing between real and unreal and belief in a real God.

As for highly intelligent people believing in God, there may be a correlation between belief and abilities relating to sophistry, such as verbal creativity or inventiveness. It may well be that at the higher end of the intellectual spectrum, certain abilities are subconsciously or even consciously misused to maintain a comfortable belief system, overwhelming one's BS detector.

Then there is also indoctrination and the prefabricated arguments for a God's existence.

Environment can't be ignored along with the emotional motivation to believe as other beleive around you. This is murkier water because of the difficulty of sorting out undue influences. We can look to the old USSR or China and see that those governments were/are guilty of enforced atheism.

All I can say is that any statistics about the pervasiveness of atheism in those countries don't count because of the oppression involved. The same could be said about some theocracies where there are some clear penalties to pay for espoused atheism.

"In a laboratory we have reproduced every aspect of the God experience, every essence, every component of it, from the rising sensation, to the feelings of ecstasy, to the feelings of a sensed presence, to the feeling that you're one with the universe. We can do that experimentally."


Parkdalian

Easy Be

Tristan Scott,

So you actually think the tiger exists in my mind, or doeos the thought of the tiger exist in my mind?

How is this different? My thought of the tiger exists, but my thought doesn't then bring the tiger into existence.

Tristan Scott

Easy Be,

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think it is important to differentiate whether gods exist as a thought in people's mind or as an actual being. That argument goes nowhere because there is no proof either way. It is in the realm of philosophy, not science.

IMO thoughts and ideas exist for all practical purposes. If gods don't exist, then why the hell did people build all those churches? We see the effects of gods everywhere. Wars have been fought and are still being fought because of them. They have influenced our civilization to the point that if there had never been any gods you probably wouldn't know you were on the same planet.

However if you were to ask me if I thought gods really existed as individual beings or otherwise, I would tell you that I don't know, and that I don't think anybody knows.

Philosoft

So you can show me the thing called 'beauty'? Or you can explain it to me so I can also have the concept of the thing 'beauty' in my head?

Easy Be

Tristan Scott,
I think I agreed with you in an earlier post as well.

Once again I agree completely. I didn't intend on a debate, I just wanted to state the problem Coljac explained.

“That is why you have to have faith!” My friend in the seminary keeps pounding this into me. I don't understand why I can't just have faith that when I die I'll become God and be omnipotent. That way instead of just happily meddling around in heaven I can create universes and banish angels to hell. Sounds more exciting than heaven.

Tristan Scott

'Fraid I cant't help, Philosoft, try this link:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/3963/books/symposiu.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/3963/books/symposiu.htm</a>

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Tristan Scott

Maybe you will.

Philosoft

That link is unavailable right now, but my question was rhetorical anyway. Obviously, there is no thing called beauty. Beauty is at most a property, and more accurately an adjective. It cannot "exist" in the absence of something that we call "beautiful." I am well aware of tortured semantics like, "Beauty is only skin deep." That cliches, however, is only a restatement of this: "If you see someone whom you deem beautiful, chances are he/she has a lousy personality." We use the former because it is more elegant, not because it means something different.

Tristan Scott

Obvious to whom? That isn't obvious to me at all. What is a thing?

A thing can be a circumstance, or an accomplishment, or an effect, or a detail, or a point, an idea or notion, or even a phobia.

A thing can be almost anything! I think beauty is obviously a thing.