Rational Ag

The letter "E" is a product of the human mind. It is a concept humans have created, and does not exist independently of our minds. There is no "existence of e".

People can write down the letter "E". People can record it on papers, on rocks, and on the internet. However, those are only representations of the letter E.

Likewise, God concepts are a product of the human mind.

People can write down things that they think about God. They can record theories that involve God.

Thank you for your analogy. And thank you for stating the overall point in the following quote:

You are quite correct that God is an abstract concept.

Please define existence. My concept of existence is everything that is. So, if you say that your god doesn't exist, then he isn't, and our conversation would get boring fast.

In addition, just because you can think something up doesn't mean it exists. I can dream up perpetual motion machines, anti-gravity rays, and warp speed, but that doesn't mean that they exist. Just because you dream up a coherent way that your god escapes from all the rules doesn't mean he actually exists outside of your mind.

Personally, I think it's amazing that you think you understand things that are outside our space-time continuum. Step back and think about what you are saying there for a second.

Let's suppose for a second you meet someone who said that he knew about the laws for traveling at warp speed, and understood them. He bases this knowledge on what he read in a book that isn't exactly referenced and isn't supported by any other works. He knows it's right because he feels like it's right, but he can't prove any of it.

Would you think this person was a looney?

-Rational Ag

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

GeoTheo

Rational_Ag:
This is what I do: I act as though God is real and worship Him as though He is real and then He becomes real. I quantify this by comparing my present state to my state before He became real to me. The practicality of this belief in how it causes me to live my life is the only way I believe it can be quantified in the material Universe. The reason I know I did notmerely
conjure him from non-existence into existence in my mind is through His effect on me and the experience of wholeness it brings.
As far as God's existence apart from my belief, I have no way of relating with that. It is entirely exeriential.
I have the sense of inviting Him rather than creating Him. I really sense this. He becomes more real than the things I experience through my other senses. Should I not trust my other senses? If I should trust them because of the sense of reality they bring why should I not trust a sense that appears to create a more powerfull reality?
By living by this "New" sense it becomes more and more real and my relationship to God appears to become deeper and deeper and I seem also to relate better to my fellow man.
If it were a mere delusion, it would seem that it would cause me to become more and more isolated from my fellow man. But I find as my love of God increases my love of mankind increases.
I think that, like reality percieved through the five senses, the reality of God appears to me by setting peramiters. An analogy would be to preparing the soil in a garden where faith can take root and Grow. Or like how our eyes percieve certian wavelengths of light and through those particular paramiters of light we see the rest of the world.
If I were to poke my eyes out, in a sense, the visual would still exist but not to me. To me it only exist if I can meet certian conditions.
Theology creates the conditions in the mind where God can exist.
By removing these conditions, for example by saying only material exists you remove the conditions where God could be possible.
I see it as being similar to removing ones eyes and concluding the visual world does not exist.
Or perhaps having been born blind and concluding the visual world does not exist.
If a person were to try to persuade you it did exist and you were interested in debating the matter but framed the debate in such a way that no reference to the visible could be made ,then I think I would get as far in convincing you as I am in convincing a materialist in the existence of God.

Rational Ag

The human mind is a powerful thing.

Jobar

Geo:
This is what I do: I act as though God is real and worship Him as though He is real and then He becomes real. I quantify this by comparing my present state to my state before He became real to me. The practicality of this belief in how it causes me to live my life is the only way I believe it can be quantified in the material Universe. The reason I know I did notmerely
conjure him from non-existence into existence in my mind is through His effect on me and the experience of wholeness it brings.

Geo, your "experience of wholeness" is entirely subjective.

If we unbelievers saw some consistent pattern of behaviour which every believer in a god or gods exhibited, well, then we might accept that there is some unexplained phenomenon which those who experience it call god. Trouble is, no such pattern exists.

Your statement is of no evidential value. Would you agree that belief in your god requires you to kill all those who refuse to share that belief? Yet you cannot deny that some would insist this pattern of behaviour is proof that their god exists. Why is your pattern of behaviour any more valid proof that god exists, than is theirs?

Autonemesis

GeoTheo: I'll take that to mean you don't have an answer, because that is kinder than taking it to mean you're disingenuous by pretending not to understand what it means.

wordsmyth

I am unconcerned with purposes other than explaining the unknown at this point. Specifically I am still interested in a single example from you of how any supernatural explanation has benefitted mankind in a substantial way.


No, I limit all determination of fact to empiricism. I leave truth to the philosophers.

Can you explain how you determine whether a supernatural claim is fact or fiction without empirical evidence? What tools and/or methods do you use in your determination?

Although we cannot see them with the naked eye empirical evidence exists for the atoms that everything is composed of, so this is not a very good analogy. However, no empirical evidence exists with which to validate any supernatural claim.

So, I still have two questions for you...

1) Without empirical evidence how can we validate a supernatural claim? (i.e. what tools and/or methods should we employ)

2) Can you give an example of how any supernatural explanation has benefitted mankind in a substantial way?

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

Kantian

I am not a metaphysical naturalist. However, that does not mean you cannot debate me in this thread- unless you are unable to conceive of the alternative to the theistic position as anything other than a materialist (metaphysical naturalist). The rest of your post is addressed to a quotesque version of a metaphysical naturalist, but I will answer as if it was addressed to me nevertheless.

No, I have gained the use of the word 'God' from participating in the game of language.

Nobody has a privileged access to a definition of a word based on a solipsistic understanding of they themselves, because none may be had! It is impossible to develop a private, internalized schema for ostensibly naming objects/activities. Therefore, language is a social activity, which means it is intersubjective and not contingent upon an "internal," "private" decision.

Not in the least. God, to me, is a term that people use when they want the backing of something supernatural in order to justify their actions/decisions. He who speaks of God is pretending to be God.

By the way, too many presumptions about the opponent corrupt a potential discussion, so you're penalized for a false-start. Ask before ye sabotage yourself, and ye shall receive!

Actually, I believe in chaos, chance and thereby I withhold from making rash judgments based on my human psychological bent.

Taking that empirical stance, if a concept is bereft of any empirical worth, then it is a paralogism, or where reason has stripped far beyond the limits of our experience. If you claim that 'God' exists in your mind you have violated the principle of significance- that a concept has no empirical worth.

I disagree. Our grasp of reality is predicated by the structure of our being. We do not perceive our minds, they are what we perceive reality with, they are the tools and equipment necessary in order to perceive at all. Therefore, with this empirical formulation, a method of meaning can be described- if a concept in our mind is correspondent to an perception, then it is valid. But if the concept does not correspond to any, then it is a sterling example of a paralogism, and is a species of the logic of illusion.

I trust my senses on the strength of habits. When I constantly see two events recurring, then I develop an inclination to expect these events to take place again.

That is not a fundamental aspect of how the senses are trusted. That we are empirical beings is not dependent upon our participation in social activities.

As do I, but possessing the tools of critical analysis will get us much further than adopting mob mentality.

Mob mentality- when we join a mob we get rid of all our minds and gain one.

Strawman, false identity, and so many other distortions based on a pitiful attempt to debate- because you have not addressed me directly but some caricature of a metaphysical naturalist (and an incorrect one, at that). Unless you are willing to tackle my position of philosophy of language, this post is demonstrably a waste of time.

[UBB code]
~transcendentalist~

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Jamie_L

GT: I tip my hat to you for this outpouring. It deserves respect for its openness and honesty.

I cannot, however, agree with it beyond its usefulness to you in your own life. The first line, if applied to any other aspect of life would be unacceptable. It is foolhardy and dangerous to start with the assumption that a new idea is true and valid before building one's life around it. Such is the way people are drawn into cults, or even into substance abuse by starting with the unfounded belief: a little bit can't hurt.

Furthermore, many atheists HAVE started with the assumption that God is real. They have worshipped him as if he were real, and instead he became unreal. It would seem that these people have a defective internal sense, unless we are to believe that all these people were not genuinely trying (No True Scottsman (TM)).

Skepticism is so useful in all other aspects of life. I am skeptical that in this one area it should be dispensed with.

Jamie

Autonemesis

That was my thought experiment. Now I know you understood what it meant, and just didn't like the implication.

And here you are, posting on a web board.

Just like taping a picture of Jesus inside your eyeglass lenses. Everywhere you look, there's the face of god. It's really that simple GeoTheo: you're a solipsist, who believes that things exist because you believe they do.

Theology in a nutshell: "God does TOO exist, yes he does, he really really really really really does."

Things do not become possible because you believe they are possible. If that were so, you'd never need to buy an airline ticket again, because you could fly. But of course, you are a solipsist, so for all I know, you flapped your wings and flew home for christmas last year.

And because you are a solipsist, there is no convincing you of what is actual and what is imaginary. Internet Infidels must be a thought experiment you are playing on yourself to test your faith.

Looks like you passed. Which means I need not address your comments any further. Have a nice imaginary life.