Philosophy Discussion Forums

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 1:09 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 21st, 2024, 2:47 pm

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2024, 3:00 pm

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 19th, 2024, 3:07 am LuckyR, that's about the only way in which the notion of gods makes any sense as far as I can see. And it means that if two people agree that god X exists, then god X exists, but only in the "inter-subjective" sense of "exist". It's a mind-dependent existence. Similarly, if a billion people agree that god X exists, then god X exists, but again, only in the inter-subjective sense.

I think if gods have any existence at all, it is overwhelmingly likely to be of the inter-subjective variety. However, I imagine that, for most theists, saying that their god has inter-subjective existence is only marginally better than saying that their god does not exist at all.

I think your statement raises philosophical questions that don't have any answer. I'd like to discuss this at greater length, but let me just start by asking this:

How many people would need to agree that something exists in order for it to have 'objective' existence instead of just 'inter-subjective' existence? Or put another way: what criteria could allow us to know and be able to distinguish something that actually exists from something that just exists 'in the inter-subjective sense'?

How many people? Objectivity isn't a popularity contest. If everyone in the audience of a magic show thinks a pretty woman was sawn in half, she, nonetheless was objectively not.

The truth is not a popularity contest, but objectivity means something different. I elaborated on this more in my post just above, so I won't repeat myself too much here. How would you ascertain whether or not she was actually cut in half? You'd have to rely on the testimony of some subject or group of subjects, which you're suggesting would be 'inter-subjective'. So, I'm just arguing here that there's no way to distinguish between something that exists 'inter-subjectively' from something that exists 'objectively'.

Your post above contains numerous accurate statements such as that gods are essentially beyond the physical by definition and thus as metaphysical entities can not be proven nor disproven through physical means. In other words the complete and utter absence of evidence of gods is not proof of their nonexistance. Therefore the existance of gods is not only unknown, but unknowable. Hence why "proofs" of the existance or nonexistance of gods are, essentially a fool's errand. The metaphysical can only be believed or not believed, but alas cannot be proven nor disproven.

However, your statement that there is no difference between the objective and the inter-subjective is in error. Particularly because objectivity is a description of the physical and many if not most of the inter-subjective are metaphysical. Physical evidence can exist for the physical, such as magic tricks. That's why looking behind the curtain reveals the objective nature of the trick, whereas asking the opinion of the audience likely will point towards the "magical" (not the physical).

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:14 pm Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:57 am Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies...

Either, or, both, or neither...

night912 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 11:18 am The Law of Excluded Middle applies to any logical propositions that are true dichotomy. "Thinking" is irrelevant to that law.

Yes:

Dichotomy
noun

1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

As I said, "binary thinking". Such 'laws' are guides to our thinking; they have no other purpose, yes?

Of course God exists. He/she/it/they/ze/glark lives within our heads.

God is a subjective entity, born from our evolved tendency to see agency in everything, including inanimate objects.

For millions of years, generations of pre-humans and humans passed down their DNA. Strong influences shape different parts of the body and that shaping is passed down via epigenetics. Belief in a god or gods changes the brain.

Thus, whether we are believers or not, we all have a space in our brains, available for deities. I assume that, if not used, then the epigenetics would pass the other way. That is, offspring will inherit the tendency not to believe in deities, although millions of years of influence probably can't be entirely erased in one or two generations.

However, just because God is subjective, does not mean that it is impotent. Quite the contrary. The imaginary giant spirit God created by literal belief in metaphorical descriptions is entirely without power, a deist placeholder. By contrast, whatever is in your head can change everything.

I'd personally like to access some God placebo - it can give one the confidence to do great things and to temper one's flaws. Alas, I am both too cynical and too scrupulous. Why should an atheist not engage with their "inner God" and utilise religions rituals?

That is, atheists need not believe in supernature, yet still effectively (subjectively) be a Christian, Muslim or whatever by accessing evolved mental potentials, but their religiosity would be private rather than advertised.

Often you find people saying they are "spiritual, but not religious". Often those claims are justifiably kicked in the pants for being nebulous. "What spirituality?" they may ask. "What are you talking about?" and the "spiritual" person usually gives some vaguely unsatisfying response. All they are doing is accessing the deity-shaped potential in their brain (and using the grandeur of nature to give the notion credibility in their own minds). It's that sense that all the inanimate stuff around us is somehow secretly vibrating with a secret universal sauce in ways that we "gross vehicles" cannot detect.

Either God exists or it doesn't? Uh huh. To which God are we referring? The anthropomorphic universal spirit who has hangups about homosexuality? Is it the deist God that leaves its creation to do what it will? Or is it the God that permeates everything? Or the God that is everything? Is it Jesus, the ancient guy who takes sides in sporting contests, making sure his preferred athletes succeed?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 24th, 2024, 5:54 pm Belief in a god or gods changes the brain.

Belief in anything "changes the brain". This is a bit like Prof. Susan Greenwood's scare-comment in the UK's Daily Hatred (Daily Mail) that smoking a spliff changes your physical brain chemistry. And so it does, just as seeing and remembering a cloud in the sky changes your physical brain chemistry. Everything that we notice changes our brains. That's (part of) how brains work.

Isn't your observation here the same as Prof Greenwood's? True, but misleading?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 24th, 2024, 5:54 pm Thus, whether we are believers or not, we all have a space in our brains, available for deities.

That same space is also available for other things too, I think? Or do you think that "space" is custom-made for God, and won't accommodate anything else?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 25th, 2024, 8:37 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 24th, 2024, 5:54 pm Belief in a god or gods changes the brain.

Belief in anything "changes the brain". This is a bit like Prof. Susan Greenwood's scare-comment in the UK's Daily Hatred (Daily Mail) that smoking a spliff changes your physical brain chemistry. And so it does, just as seeing and remembering a cloud in the sky changes your physical brain chemistry. Everything that we notice changes our brains. That's (part of) how brains work.

Isn't your observation here the same as Prof Greenwood's? True, but misleading? 🤔

Not even in the least. The fact is that, for millions of years, humans of various species believed in supernature, or that non-sentient things were conscious, eg. the wind, volcanoes. Do you see a problem with this?

Due to epigenetics, logically this must result in changes to the structure of human brains. Do you have an issue with this?

There are three possibilities:

1.) God(s) exists.
2.) God(s) do not exist.
3.) We can't know whether god(s) exists or not.

1.) This option works in inter-subjective terms. However, god(s) need have no existence beyond the intersubjective which may not be very satisfying for some theists.

2.) Needs no further discussion.

3.) This option would seem to be the only option for committed theists who need something beyond the mere intersubjective existence of god(s). If god(s) exist, he/she/they may have decided to make their presence undetectable to us. The main problem with this is that, whilst such god(s) are unfalsifiable, their existence is also unproveable. Without evidence, we have no reason to believe in such god(s), other than a felt need to do so. But, if that floats your boat, then who is to say you are wrong to so believe? There may be arguments against this but I'm not aware of any.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 25th, 2024, 8:37 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 24th, 2024, 5:54 pm Belief in a god or gods changes the brain.

Belief in anything "changes the brain". This is a bit like Prof. Susan Greenwood's scare-comment in the UK's Daily Hatred (Daily Mail) that smoking a spliff changes your physical brain chemistry. And so it does, just as seeing and remembering a cloud in the sky changes your physical brain chemistry. Everything that we notice changes our brains. That's (part of) how brains work.

Isn't your observation here the same as Prof Greenwood's? True, but misleading?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 25th, 2024, 5:43 pm Not even in the least. The fact is that, for millions of years, humans of various species believed in supernature, or that non-sentient things were conscious, eg. the wind, volcanoes. Do you see a problem with this?

Due to epigenetics, logically this must result in changes to the structure of human brains. Do you have an issue with this?

Not at all. As I said, what you said was and is true, but unhelpful in the sense that it is misleading; it doesn't say what it seems to say. Of course theism changes your brain. So does atheism, and Capitalism too, if you subscribe to it... *Everything* you think about or remember changes your brain. So your statement is true, but also misleading: it makes it *sound like* most things don't change your brain, and that theism stands out because it does. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as you know.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 3:39 am There are three possibilities:

1.) God(s) exists.
2.) God(s) do not exist.
3.) We can't know whether god(s) exists or not.

1.) This option works in inter-subjective terms. However, god(s) need have no existence beyond the intersubjective which may not be very satisfying for some theists.

2.) Needs no further discussion.

3.) This option would seem to be the only option for committed theists who need something beyond the mere intersubjective existence of god(s). If god(s) exist, he/she/they may have decided to make their presence undetectable to us. The main problem with this is that, whilst such god(s) are unfalsifiable, their existence is also unproveable. Without evidence, we have no reason to believe in such god(s), other than a felt need to do so. But, if that floats your boat, then who is to say you are wrong to so believe? There may be arguments against this but I'm not aware of any.

Nice review though I would add the detail that while as metaphysical entities gods can (and have so far) avoid leaving any physical evidence of their existence, it is not a requirement to do so. That is, gods could if they chose to, prove their existence at any time. Yet they haven't. The obvious question is why.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 3:44 pm

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 1:09 pm The truth is not a popularity contest, but objectivity means something different. I elaborated on this more in my post just above, so I won't repeat myself too much here. How would you ascertain whether or not she was actually cut in half? You'd have to rely on the testimony of some subject or group of subjects, which you're suggesting would be 'inter-subjective'. So, I'm just arguing here that there's no way to distinguish between something that exists 'inter-subjectively' from something that exists 'objectively'.

Your post above contains numerous accurate statements such as that gods are essentially beyond the physical by definition and thus as metaphysical entities can not be proven nor disproven through physical means. In other words the complete and utter absence of evidence of gods is not proof of their nonexistance. Therefore the existance of gods is not only unknown, but unknowable. Hence why "proofs" of the existance or nonexistance of gods are, essentially a fool's errand. The metaphysical can only be believed or not believed.

However, your statement that there is no difference between the objective and the inter-subjective is in error. Particularly because objectivity is a description of the physical and many if not most of the inter-subjective are metaphysical. Physical evidence can exist for the physical, such as magic tricks. That's why looking behind the curtain reveals the objective nature of the trick, whereas asking the opinion of the audience likely will point towards the "magical" (not the physical).

Hi LuckyR, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other on what is meant with these terms. I usually try to avoid discussions around subjective/objective differences because they tend to be a bit of a philosophical 'rabbit hole'. But at the risk of getting too far off topic, let me just try to clarify where I’m coming from.

First of all, I’m not arguing broadly that “there is no difference between the objective and the inter-subjective” – I think pretty clearly that is not the case. Rather, I’m just saying specifically that this distinction between an ‘objective existence’ and an ‘inter-subjective existence’ is not meaningful to me. By the law of non-contradiction, nothing can both exist and not exist, correct? So when you said in your original post that “gods definitely exist, they just exist inter-subjectively”, by my understanding, in using this ‘inter-subjectively’ term, you are meaning one of two things: 1) that there is a subset of people who believe that gods exist (intersubjectively), but that they are mistaken because in reality (objectively), gods do not exist; or 2) that you are using the term ‘exist’ ambiguously, to mean two different things – e.g. that in the first case gods do have a particular type of existence (e.g. they exist as a belief or an idea), but in the second case that gods do not have a different, ‘objective’, type of existence (e.g. an existence as a physical object perceptible to the senses). I'm not sure which you intend, if either, but am I on the right track here?

For me, the notions of subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin – objective information always depends on a subject and vice versa. My understanding of ‘objective’ is of those qualities of an observable object that remain the same from one observer or one observation to the next, and not of qualities of an object that exist independently of any observer. The latter being unknowable, whether we’re talking about physical objects or otherwise. That something can exist or have any qualities at all in the absence of a subject is necessarily a matter of hypothesis and conjecture. For this reason, I've always found the term 'inter-subjective' to be problematic. Let me know if that makes sense.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 10:55 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 25th, 2024, 8:37 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 24th, 2024, 5:54 pm Belief in a god or gods changes the brain.

Belief in anything "changes the brain". This is a bit like Prof. Susan Greenwood's scare-comment in the UK's Daily Hatred (Daily Mail) that smoking a spliff changes your physical brain chemistry. And so it does, just as seeing and remembering a cloud in the sky changes your physical brain chemistry. Everything that we notice changes our brains. That's (part of) how brains work.

Isn't your observation here the same as Prof Greenwood's? True, but misleading? 🤔

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 25th, 2024, 5:43 pm Not even in the least. The fact is that, for millions of years, humans of various species believed in supernature, or that non-sentient things were conscious, eg. the wind, volcanoes. Do you see a problem with this?

Due to epigenetics, logically this must result in changes to the structure of human brains. Do you have an issue with this?

Not at all. As I said, what you said was and is true, but unhelpful in the sense that it is misleading; it doesn't say what it seems to say. Of course theism changes your brain. So does atheism, and Capitalism too, if you subscribe to it... *Everything* you think about or remember changes your brain. So your statement is true, but also misleading: it makes it *sound like* most things don't change your brain, and that theism stands out because it does. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as you know.

Of course, everything changes your brain, which is why infants who have never seen spiders or snakes often show fear at the sight of them. Along with the idea of "sentient" natural phenomena, humans had also been exposed to those dangers for millions of years. Brains can be altered via epigenetics in one or two generations. How much epigenetic influence stems from about 7,500 generations of people, who mostly deeply believed that the nature and world around them was sentient?

God exists - as a subjective phenomenon. The surprising thing is that so many religious people resist this idea, when they claim not to be materialistic.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 4:24 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 3:44 pm Your post above contains numerous accurate statements such as that gods are essentially beyond the physical by definition and thus as metaphysical entities can not be proven nor disproven through physical means. In other words the complete and utter absence of evidence of gods is not proof of their nonexistance. Therefore the existance of gods is not only unknown, but unknowable. Hence why "proofs" of the existance or nonexistance of gods are, essentially a fool's errand. The metaphysical can only be believed or not believed.

However, your statement that there is no difference between the objective and the inter-subjective is in error. Particularly because objectivity is a description of the physical and many if not most of the inter-subjective are metaphysical. Physical evidence can exist for the physical, such as magic tricks. That's why looking behind the curtain reveals the objective nature of the trick, whereas asking the opinion of the audience likely will point towards the "magical" (not the physical).

Hi LuckyR, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other on what is meant with these terms. I usually try to avoid discussions around subjective/objective differences because they tend to be a bit of a philosophical 'rabbit hole'. But at the risk of getting too far off topic, let me just try to clarify where I’m coming from.

First of all, I’m not arguing broadly that “there is no difference between the objective and the inter-subjective” – I think pretty clearly that is not the case. Rather, I’m just saying specifically that this distinction between an ‘objective existence’ and an ‘inter-subjective existence’ is not meaningful to me. By the law of non-contradiction, nothing can both exist and not exist, correct? So when you said in your original post that “gods definitely exist, they just exist inter-subjectively”, by my understanding, in using this ‘inter-subjectively’ term, you are meaning one of two things: 1) that there is a subset of people who believe that gods exist (intersubjectively), but that they are mistaken because in reality (objectively), gods do not exist; or 2) that you are using the term ‘exist’ ambiguously, to mean two different things – e.g. that in the first case gods do have a particular type of existence (e.g. they exist as a belief or an idea), but in the second case that gods do not have a different, ‘objective’, type of existence (e.g. an existence as a physical object perceptible to the senses). I'm not sure which you intend, if either, but am I on the right track here?

For me, the notions of subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin – objective information always depends on a subject and vice versa. My understanding of ‘objective’ is of those qualities of an observable object that remain the same from one observer or one observation to the next, and not of qualities of an object that exist independently of any observer. The latter being unknowable, whether we’re talking about physical objects or otherwise. That something can exist or have any qualities at all in the absence of a subject is necessarily a matter of hypothesis and conjecture. For this reason, I've always found the term 'inter-subjective' to be problematic. Let me know if that makes sense.

As it happens I meant both of your two choices. Part of this is because different folks use "exist" differently, thus I want to cover all bases.

I guess I think of "objective" and "subjective" a bit differently. In my mind certain pieces of information have an objective quality, that is they exist along a quantitative scale and thus can be measured along that scale. Whereas other entities exist on a qualitative scale, where the opinion of the observer constitutes the "measurement". These I label subjective.

For example if a Xmas tree is measured to be 7 feet in height, that is an objective statement. That's it's height whether you go to the trouble to measure it or not. OTOH if I declare that the tree is "tall", that's my subjective opinion (and thus label). It's tall compared to me, but it's quite short for it's species, since it isn't currently full grown, or it could be average among other trees in the lot.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2024, 7:23 am

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:14 pm Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:57 am Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies...

Either, or, both, or neither...

night912 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 11:18 am The Law of Excluded Middle applies to any logical propositions that are true dichotomy. "Thinking" is irrelevant to that law.

Yes:

Dichotomy
noun

1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

As I said, "binary thinking". Such 'laws' are guides to our thinking; they have no other purpose, yes?

And if we go your definition of binary thinking, being either, both, or neither, are still binary thinking.

Either A or B = binary
Both A and B = binary
Neither A or B = binary

So, your point is......?

night912 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 8:00 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2024, 7:23 am

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:14 pm Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:57 am Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies... 🤔🤔🤔

Either, or, both, or neither...

night912 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 11:18 am The Law of Excluded Middle applies to any logical propositions that are true dichotomy. "Thinking" is irrelevant to that law.

Yes:

Dichotomy
noun

1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

As I said, "binary thinking". Such 'laws' are guides to our thinking; they have no other purpose, yes?

And if we go your definition of binary thinking, being either, both, or neither, are still binary thinking.

Either A or B = binary
Both A and B = binary
Neither A or B = binary

So, your point is......?

I would say that "neither A nor B" is a category that can then be broken down to include C, D, E etc - that is, all the many notions of the nature of God/s.

Here are seventeen major concepts of God: https://jamesbishopblog.com/2020/09/24/ ... ts-of-god/

I very much doubt that would be an exhaustive list, too. So I don't see the question of God existing to be a binary proposition, because the question is then, "Which god?". We then may apply a binary judgement to each concept of God/gods in turn, but the question is overall far from a binary proposition.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 5:12 pm Of course, everything changes your brain, which is why infants who have never seen spiders or snakes often show fear at the sight of them. Along with the idea of "sentient" natural phenomena, humans had also been exposed to those dangers for millions of years. Brains can be altered via epigenetics in one or two generations. How much epigenetic influence stems from about 7,500 generations of people, who mostly deeply believed that the nature and world around them was sentient?

So you're wondering if so many generations of believers could have resulted in our brains being, at least partly, 'hard-wired' to believe? Interesting, and surely possible...

night912 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2024, 8:00 pm So, your point is......?

...that whether God exists has more than two possible answers. It may seem like a binary decision, but is that because we routinely 'twist' concepts to render them in a binary-seeming form, so that we can make a simple decision, deliberately limiting the possible outcomes to two?

For existence itself is not as clear cut as it might seem. What sort of existence? Physical? Mental-only? Spiritual? Magical? Is there a complex set of phenomena that, taken together, might seem to be or represent a God? If so, is that really a God, in the sense of our existential question? And so on...

Binary thinking is often deployed for the purpose of keeping our thinking simple. Sometimes that is a sensible, practical, and pragmatic approach. Other times, we use it to hide away from complexity that is much harder for us to think about; laziness.



So when someone comments "Either God exists, or She doesn't", I suggest that this could be an attempt to limit the discussion to easy-thinking, deciding in advance of serious consideration that we will consider only two possible, black-and-white, outcomes.