Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

How else, given the lack of evidence, can we see god as other than not objectively real, as other than a subjective phenomenon?

Even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I cant see anything wrong with hoping that there is some explanation for our physical and existential sufering. However, given the lack of evidence, that seems like a hope that is most unlikely to be true. And yet, it is not a ridiculous or unreasonable hope.

The hope of some sort of god, even if it is only a subjectively real god, is what we cling to in extremis. I wonder what Jews, Roma and gays thought about god in the gas chambers as the doors closed and the gas to started flowing. In their hunger, physical pain, and in their most profound depair of a god who would save them, and of a god who could allow such a thing as gas chambers, I'm pretty sure they clung to some hope of an explanation for it all as they breathed their last poisonous breaths.

And why shouldn't they. Such a hope does not have to be for an objectively real god for it to be a comfort.

[Lagayascienza]

*Sp ...their most profound despair...

I did use the editor but I need new glasses and a cataract operation.

[Belinda]

How else, given the lack of evidence, can we see god as other than not objectively real, as other than a subjective phenomenon?

Even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I cant see anything wrong with hoping that there is some explanation for our physical and existential sufering. However, given the lack of evidence, that seems like a hope that is most unlikely to be true. And yet, it is not a ridiculous or unreasonable hope.

The hope of some sort of god, even if it is only a subjectively real god, is what we cling to in extremis. I wonder what Jews, Roma and gays thought about god in the gas chambers as the doors closed and the gas to started flowing. In their hunger, physical pain, and in their most profound depair of a god who would save them, and of a god who could allow such a thing as gas chambers, I'm pretty sure they clung to some hope of an explanation for it all as they breathed their last poisonous breaths.

And why shouldn't they. Such a hope does not have to be for an objectively real god for it to be a comfort.

There is cause for existential suffering. The cause of existential suffering is immersion in time, space, and force. Immersion in living in other words.
When we are dying and know it we may still cling to life as we know it life immersed in time, space, and force. If , however, as we die we are convinced that time, space, and force dear as they are are also barriers against the knowledge that self is an illusion then I bet we can happily relinquish time,space, and force within which we have been living.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your claim that my seeing God as obviously not real as "wishful thinking" is beyond ridiculous - exactly opposite to reality.

You misunderstand. It's you judging your belief to be "obvious" that I query, and that's why I described it as wishful thinking. If it's "obvious", then it must have a more-than-convincing justification, yes? What is it?

Remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

[Sy Borg]

Your claim that my seeing God as obviously not real as "wishful thinking" is beyond ridiculous - exactly opposite to reality.

You misunderstand. It's you judging your belief to be "obvious" that I query, and that's why I described it as wishful thinking. If it's "obvious", then it must have a more-than-convincing justification, yes? What is it?

Remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Zero signs whatsoever that an objective deity exists after centuries of looking for anything. That is certainly compelling proof. Not conclusive by your criteria, in which nothing whatsoever can be thought of as conclusive, but it's a powerful proof.

Me: I say there are no kangaroos in my house.

P-C: I say that you can't be certain of that.

Me: I looked and there is nothing.

P-C: But lack of evidence is not evidence.

Me: But I looked many times, and thoroughly.

P-C: Doesn't matter. A kangaroo might be hiding under your bed.

Me: That's ridiculous. There's no room for a roo under my bed.

P-C: Have you checked to be sure?

Me: I'm not checking under my bed. That's ridiculous.

P-C: Then, clearly, there still might be a kangaroo in your house.

Me: If there was, there'd be droppings.

P-C: It might go outside to poop.

Me: It would wreck the joint.

P-C: Maybe it fixes what it breaks afterwards?

Me: With paws?

P-C: Why not?

Me: Anyway, I would have seen it!

P-C: When did you last have your eyes checked?

We don't need conclusive proofs about obviously fictitious giant magic spirits than we do about fictitious marsupial home invaders.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your claim that my seeing God as obviously not real as "wishful thinking" is beyond ridiculous - exactly opposite to reality.

You misunderstand. It's you judging your belief to be "obvious" that I query, and that's why I described it as wishful thinking. If it's "obvious", then it must have a more-than-convincing justification, yes? What is it?

Remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Zero signs whatsoever that an objective deity exists after centuries of looking for anything. That is certainly compelling proof. Not conclusive by your criteria, in which nothing whatsoever can be thought of as conclusive, but it's a powerful proof.

That's correct. Zero evidence has been discovered, for or against. That leads directly to my point (with thanks to Carl Sagan and others): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for "proof", this is a concept that asserts the correctness of what it claims. If you can prove something, then it is true. Here, you seem to be seeking the authority of "proof" for your speculations...?

[Sy Borg]

Your claim that my seeing God as obviously not real as "wishful thinking" is beyond ridiculous - exactly opposite to reality.

You misunderstand. It's you judging your belief to be "obvious" that I query, and that's why I described it as wishful thinking. If it's "obvious", then it must have a more-than-convincing justification, yes? What is it?

Remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Zero signs whatsoever that an objective deity exists after centuries of looking for anything. That is certainly compelling proof. Not conclusive by your criteria, in which nothing whatsoever can be thought of as conclusive, but it's a powerful proof.

That's correct. Zero evidence has been discovered, for or against. That leads directly to my point (with thanks to Carl Sagan and others): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for "proof", this is a concept that asserts the correctness of what it claims. If you can prove something, then it is true. Here, you seem to be seeking the authority of "proof" for your speculations...?

Yes, it's such an outrageous speculation. I am so crazy that I *speculate* that Zeus is also purely subjective, with no objective existence. How unscientific!

Must have gotten my philosophy license from a Cornflakes packet to take seriously such a wild speculation ... fancy thinking that deities are purely subjective things without objective existence! Lunacy! Next I'll be saying leprechauns aren't real too. Crazy times, eh?

I am such a wild speculator that I even think that vampires, werewolves, basilisks, griffins, minotaurs and mermaids are not real! By your reasoning, I should harbour doubt about their objective existence are beings of matter in reality.

You may have gathered that I think you take post-modern objections to modernist observations too far.

[Pattern-chaser]

Zero signs whatsoever that an objective deity exists after centuries of looking for anything. That is certainly compelling proof. Not conclusive by your criteria, in which nothing whatsoever can be thought of as conclusive, but it's a powerful proof.

That's correct. Zero evidence has been discovered, for or against. That leads directly to my point (with thanks to Carl Sagan and others): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for "proof", this is a concept that asserts the correctness of what it claims. If you can prove something, then it is true. Here, you seem to be seeking the authority of "proof" for your speculations...?

Yes, it's such an outrageous speculation. I am so crazy that I *speculate* that Zeus is also purely subjective, with no objective existence. How unscientific!

Must have gotten my philosophy license from a Cornflakes packet to take seriously such a wild speculation ... fancy thinking that deities are purely subjective things without objective existence! Lunacy! Next I'll be saying leprechauns aren't real too. Crazy times, eh?

I am such a wild speculator that I even think that vampires, werewolves, basilisks, griffins, minotaurs and mermaids are not real! By your reasoning, I should harbour doubt about their objective existence are beings of matter in reality.

You may have gathered that I think you take post-modern objections to modernist observations too far.

Although it is pretty clear that your words are offered with a degree of sarcasm, they are also close to reality. Not abstract hippy theories, but reality, the real world. For our philosophy means nothing if it does not apply to our real world, IMO.

"I am so crazy that I *speculate* that Zeus is also purely subjective, with no objective existence. How unscientific!"

Well, yes. It's definitely "unscientific" to reach conclusions if we lack evidence, *any* evidence.

My comments do not attack your theories, or ideas, but only your apparently-unjustified certainty concerning the conclusions you reach. You over-state your case, I think, and it is that overstatement that I comment on. I think it is unjustified, and probably unjustifiable.

It is clear to all, I think, that your ideas *could* be correct. But are they??? That is the core question. You offer speculation, as anyone is free to do here, but you claim that your speculation is conclusive, when it is not. It is this latter on which I comment, nothing else.

[Sy Borg]

Zero signs whatsoever that an objective deity exists after centuries of looking for anything. That is certainly compelling proof. Not conclusive by your criteria, in which nothing whatsoever can be thought of as conclusive, but it's a powerful proof.

That's correct. Zero evidence has been discovered, for or against. That leads directly to my point (with thanks to Carl Sagan and others): absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for "proof", this is a concept that asserts the correctness of what it claims. If you can prove something, then it is true. Here, you seem to be seeking the authority of "proof" for your speculations...?

Yes, it's such an outrageous speculation. I am so crazy that I *speculate* that Zeus is also purely subjective, with no objective existence. How unscientific!

Must have gotten my philosophy license from a Cornflakes packet to take seriously such a wild speculation ... fancy thinking that deities are purely subjective things without objective existence! Lunacy! Next I'll be saying leprechauns aren't real too. Crazy times, eh?

I am such a wild speculator that I even think that vampires, werewolves, basilisks, griffins, minotaurs and mermaids are not real! By your reasoning, I should harbour doubt about their objective existence are beings of matter in reality.

You may have gathered that I think you take post-modern objections to modernist observations too far.

Although it is pretty clear that your words are offered with a degree of sarcasm😉, they are also close to reality. Not abstract hippy theories, but reality, the real world. For our philosophy means nothing if it does not apply to our real world, IMO.

"I am so crazy that I *speculate* that Zeus is also purely subjective, with no objective existence. How unscientific!"

Well, yes. It's definitely "unscientific" to reach conclusions if we lack evidence, *any* evidence.

My comments do not attack your theories, or ideas, but only your apparently-unjustified certainty concerning the conclusions you reach. You over-state your case, I think, and it is that overstatement that I comment on. I think it is unjustified, and probably unjustifiable.

It is clear to all, I think, that your ideas *could* be correct. But are they??? That is the core question. You offer speculation, as anyone is free to do here, but you claim that your speculation is conclusive, when it is not. It is this latter on which I comment, nothing else.

I don't need "conclusive" proof. There might be no such thing for any phenomenon. These days it seems everything is up fro grabs.

But not, I am absolutely a modernist. I appreciate the points made my post-modernism, but I see such uncertainties as applying to issues with genuine uncertainity, not faux uncertainty. Examples of real issues that allow for uncertainty might be pluses and minuses of renewable energy, nuclear energy, vaccines, GMO and AI. In each issue, some people are passionately pro, some passionately anti. Each probably have some points, but I will go with the data and logic in issues that do not involve human emotions.

But, when it comes to the question of whether a magic spirit mad made the universe or not, we can only defer back to the question of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because someone can dream something up, if it's obviously absurd, that doesn't mean we have to go to the trouble of disproving every crackpot claim, or to give it the credence of serious hypotheses.

[Lagayascienza]

Exactly. I can't prove difinitively that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. But does this mean I should entertain the possibilty? I don't think so. And it's the same with Zeus and all the other thousands of gods that humans have invented, most of which no one now believes in. Sitting on the agnostic fence in on such matters is ridiculous. It's just trying to be a mart-**** and daring others to prove you wrong. It's not good philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

...

You are right, in a way, when you say that God's existence, or not, is "obvious". But that isn't a claim that there is a formal argument, based solely in logic and reason, that *proves* (or *disproves*) Her existence. As far as I know, there is no such argument.

No, the obviousness of God's existence is based on feeling, not reasoning. There is no argument. There is no justification. There is only a feeling that God does (not) exist. And for many, that feeling is strong and deep enough to 'justify' belief. It's obvious. But it is as far from scientific or analytic reasoning as you can get.

Some call it faith, and there are probably other terms used too. But faith (or whatever) comes down to a *feeling*, and nothing more than that. I believe; you do not. Two true and unchallengeable statements of belief. The beliefs themselves could be challenged, but how, and to what end? There is no reasoned argument to consider, but only feeling.

If we set aside "Yes it is", "No it isn't", exchanges, there really is nothing more to be said, is there?

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't need "conclusive" proof.

That's your choice. But it is not a choice based on logic and/or reason.

There might be no such thing for any phenomenon. These days it seems everything is up fro grabs.

But not, I am absolutely a modernist. I appreciate the points made my post-modernism, but I see such uncertainties as applying to issues with genuine uncertainity, not faux uncertainty...

I wonder why you see fit to attack the arguments that oppose your views, with mere insults ("faux uncertainty")? It seems clear that you have no formal argument — neither do I — but why insult my own unjustified perspective, when your own is *exactly* as unjustified as mine is?

The only difference between us, in philosophical terms, is that I freely and openly admit that my views are speculation based on feeling, while you claim the authority of arguments that do not apply to your views (or mine). And yet all you have to oppose my views are insults? You just trivialise and demean my position. Doesn't this just illustrate my point, that your position is unjustified and unjustifiable?

After all, if you had a rigorous argument to justify your position, you would already have stated it, yes?

[Sy Borg]

You can wriggle and squirm and rationalise, but if I claim there is a large invisible spirit of a tortoise that has followed you around for the last twenty years, based on what your have said, you MUST take the claim seriously because you have no proof against it. None. You cannot disprove it, so it's on the table and should be discussed as a serious possibility.

To you, the invisible tortoise is a definite possibility, even if a small possibility. If that is not the case, why?

Now, I am certain that your left leg is attached to Mount Vesuvius via morphic resonance. Since you have no proof to the otherwise, this is another topic that you must seriously consider.

Also, a non-humanoid alien visited my home last week. You have no proof so this is another issue you must consider.

Further, I saw a ghost of my grandmother. She was serving me a cheesecake. This too, you must give serious consideration to.

If you are to do these issues justice, then you must spend weeks, perhaps months, considering all the possibilities about an invisible tortoise, your left foot's connection to Mt Vesuvius, an alien visitor and a ghost. Each one deserves long and deep consideration, perhaps multiple threads on the forum. Otherwise, it would be disrespectful and arrogant. Who are we to dismiss these claims if we have no evidence? That would be unscientific and arrogant, according to you. Every red herring must be respected and seriously considered.

Given the import of each issue, it is morally beholden on you to devote at least the next year of your life pondering the above four claims. That would be a life well spent, wouldn't it?

[Belinda]

You can wriggle and squirm and rationalise, but if I claim there is a large invisible spirit of a tortoise that has followed you around for the last twenty years, based on what your have said, you MUST take the claim seriously because you have no proof against it. None. You cannot disprove it, so it's on the table and should be discussed as a serious possibility.

To you, the invisible tortoise is a definite possibility, even if a small possibility. If that is not the case, why?

Now, I am certain that your left leg is attached to Mount Vesuvius via morphic resonance. Since you have no proof to the otherwise, this is another topic that you must seriously consider.

Also, a non-humanoid alien visited my home last week. You have no proof so this is another issue you must consider.

Further, I saw a ghost of my grandmother. She was serving me a cheesecake. This too, you must give serious consideration to.

If you are to do these issues justice, then you must spend weeks, perhaps months, considering all the possibilities about an invisible tortoise, your left foot's connection to Mt Vesuvius, an alien visitor and a ghost. Each one deserves long and deep consideration, perhaps multiple threads on the forum. Otherwise, it would be disrespectful and arrogant. Who are we to dismiss these claims if we have no evidence? That would be unscientific and arrogant, according to you. Every red herring must be respected and seriously considered.

Given the import of each issue, it is morally beholden on you to devote at least the next year of your life pondering the above four claims. That would be a life well spent, wouldn't it?

There's no comparison between "large invisible spirit" on one hand, and basic order in history on the other.
The best evidence for there being no basic order in history is the theist's problem of evil.I.e. how can a good and all powerful orderliness correlate with suffering and evil.There is a rebuttal to that objection---eliminate the all powerful element while retaining the all- knowing and the all- benevolent elements.
After the scientific enlightenment our frame of reference changed so that there is no possibility of supernatural individuals of any sort ----tortoises, teapots or anthropoids.

[Samana Johann]

Not every good teaching leads to seek refuge in what ever kind of higher being/Godness. And of course believe in a Godness responsible for one's luck and pain, a creator God perse, is wrong view and leads to inaction.But it's very importand, a factor of right view to "there are spontaneously born being (Gods, Devas...)", meaning higher existences, since without such, one would do efforts to gain higher then the misery of the gross sensual worlds.

And further, a person denying "big brothers" watching, has less reason to not do hidden evil, lacks of one governing principal, and will naturaly tend to bad deeds, out of wrong view "there are no higher beings".