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

[Sy Borg]

[The]God/deity that exists in your brain structure, inherited from thousands of generations of supernatural believers is real. It can be accessed. I've done it. Millions have. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural, just understand that the capacity is there.

That is the only idea of god that makes any sense to me. If people could be content with that reality instead of killing each other over crazy fundamentalist notions of a humanoid deity, a cosmic sky-daddy, who is other than us and who exists objectively in some heaven, and who hands down rules about food and sex, etc., then the world would be a better place. We are the source of god and morality. How could it be otherwise?

Whether or not the god is envisaged as an old man or whatever is neither here nor there.What matters is firstly, whether or not the God is tribal or universal and secondly , whether or not the god intervenes in the natural course of events.

Since God is 100% subjective and does not otherwise exist in the physical world, these questions are easy. The deity is tribal or universal, depending on whether the believer's inclinations are tribal or universal. The deity can "intervene" in the same way as any strong belief, sense of determination or deep focus can change the course of events. And we cannot forget our friend, the placebo effect. It's all in our heads - all of it.

I suspect that deities are imagined because most people see humans as beings that live on the Earth, as opposed to being just very tiny features of the Sun/Earth/Moon system - not separate at all.

Since people so often do not notice or accept that we are, in fact, tiny temporal developments in the Sun/Earth/Moon system, I suspect that our brains instinctively try to push us towards the reality - that our relationship with the Sun, Earth and Moon is very much one between deities and minions. There is no need to anthropomorphise our True Gods to appreciate that they contain all of us, and so much more. In fact, nothing can be more obvious.

[Sy Borg]

Do you still think that leprechauns might be real?

Can you demonstrate the non-existence of leprechauns? I can't...

That is simply philosophical failure. It's such a newbie error, to give a measure of credence to every claim, no matter how flippant.

Yes, science has long disparaged commonsense, but you apply this notion to everything, seeming because you seem to not understand how science is conducted. Commonsense is only dismissed when it is chosen over evidence, not when it is applied to the very-very obvious. Scientists could not operate if they entertained every fancy.

Another error is apportionment of responsibility. It's not my job to explain the evidence for a lack of leprechauns, it's up to you to bring the evidence, and to explain a possible evolutionary history of such beings - how rat-sized Homo leprechauni could possibly exist alongside deadly, rapacious Homo sapiens or, indeed, actual rats, not to mention predators. How did little hairless beings survive in the cold? Maybe leprechauns aren't Irish but they live in tunnels in Africa, like another small hairless animal?

Your acceptance of the possibility of leprechauns existing is simply an unreasoning application of a principle for the sake of it, without any deeper considerations.

If you can provide strong evidence that leprechauns exist, then it's reasonable, but for you to expect me to provide evidence that they don't exist is neither rational nor ethical.

[Lagayascienza]

If someone suggests that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists, or might exist, I do not bear the burden of having to prove that it does not exist. The FSM is nonsense. We know it's nonsesne. And we know that leprechauns are nonsense. So why be agnostic about leprechauns anymore than we'd be agnostic about the FSM? If we sit on the fence because we cannot prove such nonsense entities do not exist, then we'd have to sit on the fence about any nonsense anyone comes up with. That would not be good philosophy. It would simply be unreasonable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Can you demonstrate the non-existence of leprechauns? I can't...

That is simply philosophical failure. It's such a newbie error, to give a measure of credence to every claim, no matter how flippant.

It's an honest statement. I find myself unable to prove, or otherwise demonstrate, the non-existence of leprechauns. In what way or sense is my simple admission an "error"? Surely it is correct and sensible to give credence to any claim, until such time as it is disproved, or otherwise (justifiably!) debunked?

Commonsense is only dismissed when it is chosen over evidence, not when it is applied to the very-very obvious.

Are you saying that that which seems to you to be "obvious" is somehow exempt from scrutiny or verification? That's no philosophy that I have heard of before.

Scientists could not operate if they entertained every fancy.

Scientists could not operate if they did not sometimes so indulge themselves. Visualising a benzene ring in the flames of a domestic fire, anyone?

Another error is apportionment of responsibility. It's not my job to explain the evidence for a lack of leprechauns, it's up to you to bring the evidence, and to explain a possible evolutionary history of such beings - how rat-sized Homo leprechaun could possibly exist alongside deadly, rapacious Homo sapiens or, indeed, actual rats, not to mention predators.

There is no "responsibility", only conversational exchange. I am quite unaware of assigning any such "responsibility". There is no "burden of proof", if only because this is not a mandatory exchange; it is one that you and I choose to have. You offer your views, and I offer mine. No burdens that I can see.

Your acceptance of the possibility of leprechauns existing is simply an unreasoning application of a principle for the sake of it, without any deeper considerations.

If there is a principle that has already been scrutinised, and found to have value, there is little reason involved. Would you "reason" before you applied the principle of gravity to a falling pebble? Would you "reason" before you did not apply gravity to consciousness?

If you can provide strong evidence that leprechauns exist, then it's reasonable, but for you to expect me to provide evidence that they don't exist is neither rational nor ethical.

I have no such expectation. And I see nothing that either of us has said that I would describe as unethical.

[Pattern-chaser]

The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

That's what I was saying. It's just a thought experiment to prove a point. No sensible person would believe that a brain in a vat exists, other than the vat that is our body system (as per Belinda's post).

Aren't you saying that you have recognised the lesson, but not learned (from) it?

No, I am saying that a lesson is there to be learned by those who don't take it literally - as you clearly have erroneously done and are now trying to dig yourself out of your self-inflicted hole.

Let's be a bit clearer. Not "literal", which implies an inability to understand metaphorical or figurative communication, but explicit, as autists often are. Let's say what we mean, and (as far as possible) make our assumptions clear.

Assumption: You assert the correctness of the WYSIWYG thought experiment*, that you call "obvious". Consequently, you assert the incorrectness of BIV, and all other possibilities, and call them "absurd". [If I have misrepresented you, I invite and welcome your clarification.]

* — the thought experiment that suggests that the apparent reality that our senses and perception show us is actual; Objective Reality.

The odd thing about that is that the case for BIV is exactly as strong as that for WYSIWYG. Your assertions have no basis in reason, logic, or evidence. This is a metaphysical matter that has no possibility of discovery.

Unlike a thought experiment, we cannot step outside of reality, and look back in. All of these possibilities could be correct, just as they could all be incorrect; we have no way to tell.

Or do you know better? Is there a way that you know of, to confirm the WYSIWYG thought experiment?




I think this is the lesson to be drawn from BIV (etc) — that they cannot be refuted; that any of them could turn out to be the Objective Truth *and* that we have no way to tell.

[Sy Borg]

Fine. Leprechauns, Brains in vats and The Giant Magic Spirit Human are all credible and should never be dismissed.

Nor should we dismiss Flying Spaghetti monsters, vampires, Frankenstein, Elvis is alive, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, humans being born via parthenogenesis (and a young woman in the ancient Middle East had the best excuse for being pregnant when supposed to be a virgin).

Oh yes, and we also must seriously consider:
- humans coming back to life after death
- a family gathering together two of every species in the world and maintaining them on a boat for over a month (the kangaroos were inconvenient)
- a man living inside a whale for a long period, unharmed by the lack of air, the whale's digestive movements and stomach acid, annd by sharin a room with tonnes of semi-decomposing krill.
- a man healing sick people with a mere touch or word
- a man converting five loaves and two fish into a feast for thousands. Did the fish arrive alive and wriggling, dead, scaled or gutted, or might they have been pre-cooked? If so, did God braise, roast or fry the fish? Was the bread rye or multigrain or worthless faux good GMO'd out of its nutrients?

You might say that GMO wasn't happening in Biblical times ... but I say the ancients had secret machines, not noticed by historians. The evidence is there. Jesus/god/Mr Magic would not have been able to generate so much bread so quickly without cheap and convenient modern GMO wheat. Can you prove that to be wrong?

[LuckyR]

Fine. Leprechauns, Brains in vats and The Giant Magic Spirit Human are all credible and should never be dismissed.

Nor should we dismiss Flying Spaghetti monsters, vampires, Frankenstein, Elvis is alive, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, humans being born via parthenogenesis (and a young woman in the ancient Middle East had the best excuse for being pregnant when supposed to be a virgin).

Oh yes, and we also must seriously consider:
- humans coming back to life after death
- a family gathering together two of every species in the world and maintaining them on a boat for over a month (the kangaroos were inconvenient)
- a man living inside a whale for a long period, unharmed by the lack of air, the whale's digestive movements and stomach acid, annd by sharin a room with tonnes of semi-decomposing krill.
- a man healing sick people with a mere touch or word
- a man converting five loaves and two fish into a feast for thousands. Did the fish arrive alive and wriggling, dead, scaled or gutted, or might they have been pre-cooked? If so, did God braise, roast or fry the fish? Was the bread rye or multigrain or worthless faux good GMO'd out of its nutrients?

You might say that GMO wasn't happening in Biblical times ... but I say the ancients had secret machines, not noticed by historians. The evidence is there. Jesus/god/Mr Magic would not have been able to generate so much bread so quickly without cheap and convenient modern GMO wheat. Can you prove that to be wrong?

To some the universe is black or white. Stuff either exists or it doesn't. Others are able to appreciate a continuum of grays between black and white (on either end). These latter folks are comfortable with the notion of "technically possible, but so incredible to be functionally discounted", many in the former group are not. Commonly the two groups can have some difficulty communicating their beliefs to the other.

It's all good. Just two different ways of looking at the same picture, as opposed to two different pictures.

[Belinda]

[The]God/deity that exists in your brain structure, inherited from thousands of generations of supernatural believers is real. It can be accessed. I've done it. Millions have. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural, just understand that the capacity is there.

That is the only idea of god that makes any sense to me. If people could be content with that reality instead of killing each other over crazy fundamentalist notions of a humanoid deity, a cosmic sky-daddy, who is other than us and who exists objectively in some heaven, and who hands down rules about food and sex, etc., then the world would be a better place. We are the source of god and morality. How could it be otherwise?

Whether or not the god is envisaged as an old man or whatever is neither here nor there.What matters is firstly, whether or not the God is tribal or universal and secondly , whether or not the god intervenes in the natural course of events.

Since God is 100% subjective and does not otherwise exist in the physical world, these questions are easy. The deity is tribal or universal, depending on whether the believer's inclinations are tribal or universal. The deity can "intervene" in the same way as any strong belief, sense of determination or deep focus can change the course of events. And we cannot forget our friend, the placebo effect. It's all in our heads - all of it.

I suspect that deities are imagined because most people see humans as beings that live on the Earth, as opposed to being just very tiny features of the Sun/Earth/Moon system - not separate at all.

Since people so often do not notice or accept that we are, in fact, tiny temporal developments in the Sun/Earth/Moon system, I suspect that our brains instinctively try to push us towards the reality - that our relationship with the Sun, Earth and Moon is very much one between deities and minions. There is no need to anthropomorphise our True Gods to appreciate that they contain all of us, and so much more. In fact, nothing can be more obvious.

A deity IS "a strong belief,sense of determination, or strong focus". It matters not how people fantastically clothe these as if they were physical bodies.
It matters to me personally whether or not a deity -aka -strong-belief is tribal or universal.
It also matters whether or not people believe these strong beliefs and attitudes(as quoted) are known to be subjective. When people believe these strong beliefs and attitudes(as quoted) exist objectively according to how they elevate and fantasise them, then that is idolatry.
E.g. Trump is a god, his manufactured image is a figment of fantasy and a tribal one at that. The red hatted Magas we see on the TV are The god Trump's acolytes jumping up and down trumping.

[Pattern-chaser]

That is simply philosophical failure. It's such a newbie error, to give a measure of credence to every claim, no matter how flippant.

It's an honest statement. I find myself unable to prove, or otherwise demonstrate, the non-existence of leprechauns. In what way or sense is my simple admission an "error"? Surely it is correct and sensible to give credence to any claim, until such time as it is disproved, or otherwise (justifiably!) debunked?

Ooops! I just repeated the same term, without thinking. It is not appropriate to give these claims "credence" — belief; acceptance — but it is appropriate to give them consideration.



The trouble is, there is a near-infinite number of such claims, so we just choose those that interest us, and set the others aside. What else can we do?

[Pattern-chaser]

Fine. Leprechauns, Brains in vats and The Giant Magic Spirit Human are all credible and should never be dismissed.

Nor should we dismiss Flying Spaghetti monsters, vampires, Frankenstein, Elvis is alive, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, humans being born via parthenogenesis (and a young woman in the ancient Middle East had the best excuse for being pregnant when supposed to be a virgin).

Oh yes, and we also must seriously consider:
- humans coming back to life after death
- a family gathering together two of every species in the world and maintaining them on a boat for over a month (the kangaroos were inconvenient)
- a man living inside a whale for a long period, unharmed by the lack of air, the whale's digestive movements and stomach acid, annd by sharin a room with tonnes of semi-decomposing krill.
- a man healing sick people with a mere touch or word
- a man converting five loaves and two fish into a feast for thousands. Did the fish arrive alive and wriggling, dead, scaled or gutted, or might they have been pre-cooked? If so, did God braise, roast or fry the fish? Was the bread rye or multigrain or worthless faux good GMO'd out of its nutrients?

You might say that GMO wasn't happening in Biblical times ... but I say the ancients had secret machines, not noticed by historians. The evidence is there. Jesus/god/Mr Magic would not have been able to generate so much bread so quickly without cheap and convenient modern GMO wheat. Can you prove that to be wrong?

Here, I can only offer the advice I just posted:

The trouble is, there is a near-infinite number of such claims, so we just choose those that interest us, and set the others aside. What else can we do?

...*unless* any of these claims directly contradict available evidence*. Then, they can and should be rejected, according to logic and reason.





* — I.e. that there is existing and contradictory evidence that disproves the claim, *NOT* that there is no supporting evidence for that claim.

[Pattern-chaser]

Fine. Leprechauns, Brains in vats and The Giant Magic Spirit Human are all credible and should never be dismissed.

Nor should we dismiss Flying Spaghetti monsters, vampires, Frankenstein, Elvis is alive, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, humans being born via parthenogenesis (and a young woman in the ancient Middle East had the best excuse for being pregnant when supposed to be a virgin).

Oh yes, and we also must seriously consider:
- humans coming back to life after death
- a family gathering together two of every species in the world and maintaining them on a boat for over a month (the kangaroos were inconvenient)
- a man living inside a whale for a long period, unharmed by the lack of air, the whale's digestive movements and stomach acid, annd by sharin a room with tonnes of semi-decomposing krill.
- a man healing sick people with a mere touch or word
- a man converting five loaves and two fish into a feast for thousands. Did the fish arrive alive and wriggling, dead, scaled or gutted, or might they have been pre-cooked? If so, did God braise, roast or fry the fish? Was the bread rye or multigrain or worthless faux good GMO'd out of its nutrients?

You might say that GMO wasn't happening in Biblical times ... but I say the ancients had secret machines, not noticed by historians. The evidence is there. Jesus/god/Mr Magic would not have been able to generate so much bread so quickly without cheap and convenient modern GMO wheat. Can you prove that to be wrong?

To some the universe is black or white. Stuff either exists or it doesn't. Others are able to appreciate a continuum of grays between black and white (on either end). These latter folks are comfortable with the notion of "technically possible, but so incredible to be functionally discounted", many in the former group are not. Commonly the two groups can have some difficulty communicating their beliefs to the other.

Indeed they do. Why is this (your message) so hard for some to accept? Is it that they believe they are *exclusively* correct, that there is no other way of looking at things, and so, because *they* are right, all others must be wrong...? [I got that a lot from the Roman Catholics who raised me, and even in childhood, it grated.]

It's all good. Just two different ways of looking at the same picture, as opposed to two different pictures.

[Sy Borg]

Fine. Leprechauns, Brains in vats and The Giant Magic Spirit Human are all credible and should never be dismissed.

Nor should we dismiss Flying Spaghetti monsters, vampires, Frankenstein, Elvis is alive, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, humans being born via parthenogenesis (and a young woman in the ancient Middle East had the best excuse for being pregnant when supposed to be a virgin).

Oh yes, and we also must seriously consider:
- humans coming back to life after death
- a family gathering together two of every species in the world and maintaining them on a boat for over a month (the kangaroos were inconvenient)
- a man living inside a whale for a long period, unharmed by the lack of air, the whale's digestive movements and stomach acid, annd by sharin a room with tonnes of semi-decomposing krill.
- a man healing sick people with a mere touch or word
- a man converting five loaves and two fish into a feast for thousands. Did the fish arrive alive and wriggling, dead, scaled or gutted, or might they have been pre-cooked? If so, did God braise, roast or fry the fish? Was the bread rye or multigrain or worthless faux good GMO'd out of its nutrients?

You might say that GMO wasn't happening in Biblical times ... but I say the ancients had secret machines, not noticed by historians. The evidence is there. Jesus/god/Mr Magic would not have been able to generate so much bread so quickly without cheap and convenient modern GMO wheat. Can you prove that to be wrong?

Here, I can only offer the advice I just posted:

The trouble is, there is a near-infinite number of such claims, so we just choose those that interest us, and set the others aside. What else can we do?

...*unless* any of these claims directly contradict available evidence*. Then, they can and should be rejected, according to logic and reason.





* — I.e. that there is existing and contradictory evidence that disproves the claim, *NOT* that there is no supporting evidence for that claim.

You failed to address any of the points I made - all of them - and just repeated the same answer you've used to stonewall me for months.

Lack of supporting evidence for leprechauns is NOT the same as lack of support for God, but you treat them as exactly the same based on your complete rejection of modernism and compete embrace of mindless post-modernism.

In the case of leprechauns, maybe tens of hours have been devoted to looking for evidence of tiny magical Irishmen, whereas thousands, possibly millions of hours, have been devoted by scientists and others over the past five hundred years, looking for proof of God. In all that time, not even the slightest shred of credible evidence in favour of a physically existing God has been found - and the many theist scientists involved in such research were doing their absolute best.

[Pattern-chaser]

Lack of supporting evidence for leprechauns is NOT the same as lack of support for God, but you treat them as exactly the same based on your complete rejection of modernism and compete embrace of mindless post-modernism.

Neither has support (or the opposite). I can't see how the two differ...

In the case of leprechauns, maybe tens of hours have been devoted to looking for evidence of tiny magical Irishmen, whereas thousands, possibly millions of hours, have been devoted by scientists and others over the past five hundred years, looking for proof of God. In all that time, not even the slightest shred of credible evidence in favour of a physically existing God has been found - and the many theist scientists involved in such research were doing their absolute best.

So the two cases differ because we've looked harder for God than we have for leprechauns? Even though we all know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Can you explain to me the logic behind this rather surprising conclusion?

[Pattern-chaser]

You failed to address any of the points I made - all of them - and just repeated the same answer you've used to stonewall me for months.

What points? You simply ask daft and provocative questions intended to ridicule my position. What do any of these questions have to do with the existence of God, as opposed to considering some of the more off-the-wall notions (with which we *both* disagree) that extreme theists have come up with over the years?

[Sculptor1]

You failed to address any of the points I made - all of them - and just repeated the same answer you've used to stonewall me for months.

What points? You simply ask daft and provocative questions intended to ridicule my position. What do any of these questions have to do with the existence of God, as opposed to considering some of the more off-the-wall notions (with which we *both* disagree) that extreme theists have come up with over the years?

Perhaps if you had the courage to say what you mean by God, then we could have a discussion