Proof of God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

Newme wrote:Can you experience God - or anything else - anywhere but within you? No. The nature of experience is personal.

So, I cannot give you proof of God - nor can you give it to me. We each experience it within us.
God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15155

Since God is an impossibility, the question of proof to justify God's existence need not arise at all. However if theists insist in trying to 'prove' God exists, whatever proofs they bring forward are impossible to prove God exists. [Kant].

If a theist believe in a God that it exists and keep it private and personal or even share their beliefs with those of the likes, there is no critical and contentious issues to consider.

The problem with most theists is they do not keep their theistic beliefs private and personal but present their beliefs in terms of organized religions or groups which imposed and infringes on the basic rights of non-believers. This problem is so evident with the wide range of terrors, violence and all sorts of evils committed by SOME evil prone theists in the name of God and who are inspired by evil laden elements within immutable holy books.

Another problem is the majority of theists provide implicit moral support for the evil prone theists to commit their evil acts. They are thus indirectly complicit to the evils acts committed by those SOME evil prone theists.

It is because the range of evil acts from SOME theists are very significant and pose a threat to humanity that we must highlight the truths of the evil acts from theism. If theists insist on imposing their beliefs on non-believers they must justify their grounds of theism with proofs which within empirical-rational reality is impossible.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme »

Albert Tatlock wrote: November 25th, 2017, 1:32 pm
Newme wrote:if a scripture author wrote 2+2=4, would it make it wrong just because it was scripture?
Calling it "scripture" doesn't change what it is: just words on paper. There are those who would be biased against anything just because it's written in the Bible but that's no worse than being biased for it just because it's written in the Bible.
Yes! Either way - whether you believe or deny it just because of its source is appeal to authority logical fallacy.
So, I cannot give you proof of God - nor can you give it to me. We each experience it within us.
Or not.
[/quote]
Kind and intuitively spiritual Albert, that is exactly my point. Your experience is unique to mine so you cannot tell me what I experience within me any more than I can tell you. ;)
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme »

Spectrum wrote: November 25th, 2017, 10:00 pm
Newme wrote:Can you experience God - or anything else - anywhere but within you? No. The nature of experience is personal.

So, I cannot give you proof of God - nor can you give it to me. We each experience it within us.
God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
Hi Spectrum,
I understand that many people (including Theists) are taught to proselytize & it can be a bit self-righteous, narrow-minded and patronizing, assuming that their group thought is better than any one else’s. As one coming from a life-encompassing cult, I get it! And we might agree that some of their ideas of God (as being tyrannical grandpa in the sky) are not logical nor intuitive not mentally healthy.

Still, just because one person or group defines a subjective abstract idea (like God) in a bad way, doesn’t mean other, better definitions can’t apply. God is too big to dismiss so quickly.

One teaching of Buddhism and Christ is this idea that God is experienced within us each individually. This experience is evident within empirical-rational reality. But I cannot prove to you my or your internal personal experience. It is personal and individual.
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

So I'm sure Mr. Spectrum will give you a very cogent answer but since I've been off for a while I thought I would make a comment or two in regards to this topic and this last post.

The statement that the "subjective abstract idea of God is too big to discard so quickly as better definitions may apply" is a statement of the formation of the "God" of the gaps argument so to speak. The term god has a primitive meaning and then as one learns more, as science progresses, the meaning becomes more and more abstract and unrecognizable to those holding on to the more primitive notion. I can understand sensitive and compassionate human beings not wanting to let go of a word like "god" but it's time to do just that. There are indeed better definitions or rather scientific and psychological descriptions of the "subjective" state of being where one "feels" compassion and love and connection for your fellow beings and where one experiences bliss, ecstasy, oneness or other so called spiritual states. Also where one experiences deep mystery and awe when peering into the night sky or a sunset.

Neuroscience is slowly unlocking these mysteries and as it does the original meaning for "God" continues to recede farther into the gaps. The temptation to keep reusing the word, to reshape the common usage is really sentimentality. I would say it's just a word and therefore harmless to do this "redefining" or reorienting it to fit the new scientific paradigm but then "God" has the connotation of authority associated with it. This IMO renders the word NOT so harmless and therefore it is time to let it go. Use a Hindu term like Brahman to describe or represent the mystery of "being" or the "source" of being which is really the mystery of the experience of the subjective "self" on a universal scale, as that term lacks the connotation of authority and is therefore less able to be used to subjugate and control others.

"Hindus acknowledge that, at the most fundamental level, God is the One without a second — the absolute, formless, and only Reality known as Brahman, the Supreme, Universal Soul. Brahman is the universe and everything in it. Brahman has no form and no limits; it is Reality and Truth."

-taken from "Hindu for Dummies" LOL

If you must have a term for the source of creation use a term that lacks any hint of judgment or authority or of any kind of ethics or morality as this creation itself, raw nature has no inkling of such things. As soon as any kind of moral foundation is implied in the term used, you get the beginning of an authoritative system which is inherently a bad road to go down. Much better to simply recognize that the great mystery of your very existence is completely unknowable and that there is some comfort and even freedom in that fact for the intrepid soul. I also know there is great fear and anguish for those who are uncomfortable contemplating such mystery but such is life.

In the end this notion you speak of needs no word, as a matter of fact no one word could possibly suffice, just like no word or group of words no matter how large can adequately convey your subjective experience.

It's also imperative to recognize that our subjective experiences are unique (by definition) as you have alluded to above because this realization also frees us from the yoke of others who would claim their experience is superior, absolute or universal.

Sorry for being so long winded.
User avatar
TigerNinja
Posts: 92
Joined: July 23rd, 2016, 3:59 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by TigerNinja »

Jaded Sage wrote: August 27th, 2015, 10:45 am 1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God

JSfjaoijdaklfheoia=Ice cream, so JSfjaoijdaklfheoia clearly exists. You see the fallacy? It requires a priori of God, however there is no significant and quantifiable priori that can be experienced by everyone that is able to say "God=love". You have not met the conditions whereby one can clearly say in pretense that God really is equal to love, however you are still leaning on that as your premise which founds your line of argument. For the lack of validity present with the premise, the line of argument collapses.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

Besides the fallacy highlighted above no one stops to even question whether love exists as a discrete object. Love is a description of a subjective human emotional state experienced and defined differently by every person who attempts it so that just adds to the silliness of the argument as stated. Do subjective states of experience exist as actual objects or are they manifestations of neuro chemical reactions (clearly they are the latter)? Since I think they are the latter then love only exists as a neuro chemical reaction, and in this way if you want to say god exists as a neuro chemical reaction which is then manifested in human brains as an experience of the ultimate mystery, well then so what, I'll even grant you that, doesn't mean there's a benevolent or not so benevolent being out there over seeing the Universe. Ridiculous argument.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands »

Philosch wrote: February 28th, 2018, 3:06 pm Besides the fallacy highlighted above no one stops to even question whether love exists as a discrete object. Love is a description of a subjective human emotional state experienced and defined differently by every person who attempts it so that just adds to the silliness of the argument as stated. Do subjective states of experience exist as actual objects or are they manifestations of neuro chemical reactions (clearly they are the latter)? Since I think they are the latter then love only exists as a neuro chemical reaction, and in this way if you want to say god exists as a neuro chemical reaction which is then manifested in human brains as an experience of the ultimate mystery, well then so what, I'll even grant you that, doesn't mean there's a benevolent or not so benevolent being out there over seeing the Universe. Ridiculous argument.
If Love is subjective then is "God' subjective or can we discover outside what is in? What is man anyway? Ancient thought equated man as the microcosm of the universe. I wonder if there is any truth in that?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

Well yes of course the notion of god is entirely subjective and the discussion on a modern philosophy board might well be better served as a discussion as to what the ontological status of any subjective human construct is which is basically what you've asked, "can we know what is within". The generally accepted definition of consciousness today is "is there any thing that it is like to feel like this entity". If the answer is yes then the entity is conscious. Well that's just another way of saying does the entity have "subjective" experiences? God as a word or thought in a human brain exists just like flying purple dinosaurs exist as thoughts in a brain somewhere. Think of Harry Potter. Does he exist? Of course he exists as a character in a story and/or movie. But his ontological status is clearly different than your kitchen table. He does not in fact exist as a "real" object. God in my view occupies the same realm as Harry Potter and it's this categorical mistake that causes people to think they can some how prove God's existence as a "real" object in space and time. Your consciousness is completely bounded by your own subjective boundary so I'm going to reword your last question and say it this way, "you can only ever know what is within" through your own experience because when you stop experiencing through your senses you are no longer conscious. Through intense meditation, Buddhist monks attempt to forgo their ego and achieve a conscious state beyond their own subjectivity but it's an impossibility by definition. They may be able to thin the vale of their own subjective filter to the point that their consciousness experiences the most unfiltered or closest to "real" universe it's possible to experience while still remaining human, who knows.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands »

Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 1:10 pm Well yes of course the notion of god is entirely subjective and the discussion on a modern philosophy board might well be better served as a discussion as to what the ontological status of any subjective human construct is which is basically what you've asked, "can we know what is within". The generally accepted definition of consciousness today is "is there any thing that it is like to feel like this entity". If the answer is yes then the entity is conscious. Well that's just another way of saying does the entity have "subjective" experiences?
Consciousness is 'to know within' which is subjective but your initial definition I'm confused by? Is there anything it is like to feel like this entity? So in order for you to be conscious of an elephant you would have to know how the elephant feels? If you think about that the inner feelings of the elephant might be difficult to grasp or am I not interpreting your definition correctly?
Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 1:10 pm God as a word or thought in a human brain exists just like flying purple dinosaurs exist as thoughts in a brain somewhere. Think of Harry Potter. Does he exist? Of course he exists as a character in a story and/or movie.
In this sentence you've completely perverted the notion of "God" to purple dinosaurs and Harry Potter which don't have any relation to the human being other than through tale and only in tale will you find these notions.
Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 1:10 pm But his ontological status is clearly different than your kitchen table. He does not in fact exist as a "real" object. God in my view occupies the same realm as Harry Potter and it's this categorical mistake that causes people to think they can some how prove God's existence as a "real" object in space and time.
This is your conception but it is not what "God" is. "God" is not an objective notion but more subjective. God is defined as the causal force existing as spirit (metaphysical principles.)
Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 1:10 pm Your consciousness is completely bounded by your own subjective boundary so I'm going to reword your last question and say it this way, "you can only ever know what is within" through your own experience because when you stop experiencing through your senses you are no longer conscious.
Yes, I think that's right in that we're unable to remove ourselves from any equation. Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity. The struggle we seem to have in life is placing things in proper perspective, giving things correct order.
Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 1:10 pm Through intense meditation, Buddhist monks attempt to forgo their ego and achieve a conscious state beyond their own subjectivity but it's an impossibility by definition. They may be able to thin the vale of their own subjective filter to the point that their consciousness experiences the most unfiltered or closest to "real" universe it's possible to experience while still remaining human, who knows.
I'd agree. I don't think we can escape this state of duality until death. Our very breath is duality.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

Yeah you kinda missed the first definition....it does not mean to be conscious "of" the elephant.....it means that an elephant might be able to have a thought in it's brain that is "some understanding that it is an elephant and that being an elephant feels a certain way and therefore the elephant is conscious. Of course we can never know what the subjective experience of an elephant is so I don't know that it's a good definition. It's not mine. You'll have to google that and you'll get some in-depth discussion on it. It really means that any creature or machine for that matter must have subjective experience of "itself" in order to be said to be conscious.

Your second point is also a misunderstanding of what I said....the term God is subjective just like your subjective experience of Harry Potter as a character in a story...that's the sense of that although I could have done better on describing that. Concepts in human brains are always subjective. The table as a piece of wood exists as a collection of molecules but our concept of it as a table to set things on represents our subjective experience of a collection of molecules arranged in such a way to set things on it. Your definition of god not withstanding, "God" is entirely a human construct of mind. It would never be provable in a scientific way unless god was an objective measureable fact which there is zero empirical evidence for. If God were a causal force by definition of the word "causal" then you would be asserting that "god" has an objective reality because 'events' are being caused. Objects in space and time cause things to happen in space and time. The term spirit does not get you out of this either because spirit also would have to be a real "object" in order to causal. You are getting to the problem of the dualist who insists that there is this special "stuff" which exists but is not objective. I don't agree with the dualist position. However check out Dr. Jodi Azzuni and his work on what is real and what is concept. He discusses for instance if a mathematical number like "1" or a concept like the word "city" is real or not, very interesting and he does better at framing this than I do.

It seems the rest of this we agree upon.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands »

Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 3:34 pm Yeah you kinda missed the first definition....it does not mean to be conscious "of" the elephant.....it means that an elephant might be able to have a thought in it's brain that is "some understanding that it is an elephant and that being an elephant feels a certain way and therefore the elephant is conscious. Of course we can never know what the subjective experience of an elephant is so I don't know that it's a good definition. It's not mine. You'll have to google that and you'll get some in-depth discussion on it. It really means that any creature or machine for that matter must have subjective experience of "itself" in order to be said to be conscious.
Ok.. I can understand you're implying but I do conflict with your notion "we can never know the subjective experience of an elephant." There are things known as empathy and sympathy that allow us to connect the true experiences of others. Whether these terms or notions of these terms is completely realized or expressed I question, nevertheless they are perceived today. If you can imagine what man is in relation to all other things then we might form a more complete understanding of our experience.
Philosch wrote: March 4th, 2018, 3:34 pm Your second point is also a misunderstanding of what I said....the term God is subjective just like your subjective experience of Harry Potter as a character in a story...that's the sense of that although I could have done better on describing that. Concepts in human brains are always subjective. The table as a piece of wood exists as a collection of molecules but our concept of it as a table to set things on represents our subjective experience of a collection of molecules arranged in such a way to set things on it. Your definition of god not withstanding, "God" is entirely a human construct of mind. It would never be provable in a scientific way unless god was an objective measureable fact which there is zero empirical evidence for. If God were a causal force by definition of the word "causal" then you would be asserting that "god" has an objective reality because 'events' are being caused. Objects in space and time cause things to happen in space and time. The term spirit does not get you out of this either because spirit also would have to be a real "object" in order to causal. You are getting to the problem of the dualist who insists that there is this special "stuff" which exists but is not objective. I don't agree with the dualist position. However check out Dr. Jodi Azzuni and his work on what is real and what is concept. He discusses for instance if a mathematical number like "1" or a concept like the word "city" is real or not, very interesting and he does better at framing this than I do.

It seems the rest of this we agree upon.
Does thought exist? Is thought a real object? Can you measure or even source thought? We express thought which is it's measure but thought isn't seen as you might see a bird, thought is the action of idea and idea is to see in the mind. Your entire notion of what "God" is.. is ill founded therefore your measure of "God" is inaccurate.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

Well empathy and sympathy are products of social evolution seemingly designed to help us form social bonds and anticipate and relate to our fellow human beings but they can not put us in another human's shoes completely so how much less those perceptive traits would allow us to know what it's like to be another creature. I believe in fact it is a huge mistake to even attempt to do this with non human beings. That is anthropomorphizing which ultimately leads to huge problems. We can't seem to help doing it but it's a vey bad idea and leads use to make bad ecological decisions. You think that you are trying to imagine or look at the world through an elephants eyes for instance but in fact you imagine what it would be like to be in an elephant's body and world with a human mind. This is so because you only know your human mind. This anthropomorphization of other creatures leads to all kinds of mischief. Actually a topic I have spoken on in other threads. So you may disagree with my statement but I stand by it nevertheless. I submit since you can never know precisely what another human's subjective experience is, you have absolutely no chance of knowing what it's like to be an elephant.

On the second point, the ontological status of the realness of a thought is precisely what I am getting at. A thought is measureable as a series of electrochemical reactions in your brain. The "subject" of the thought can actually be measured using special brain scanning techniques although the process is still quite crude. The content of the thought has a different ontological status then does the characteristics of the neurochemistry. So the content of the thought can be read just like reading words on a page. The neurochemistry might be considered real but the content of the thought as experienced by your consciousness is not real. As a lion charges you, the lion is an objective reality and the neurochemical reactions in your brain that he triggers are real but your experience of those reactions as thoughts are like Harry Potter, they exist in your mind which is within the universe so they exist in some sense but they are not objects of reality. They are representations of your perceptions projected upon the screen of your consciousness. There is no measure of god other than what some subjective consciousness has supposed God to be. This is simply a fact. Now that doesn't mean there is no cosmic mystery to be awed by or pondered about. Quite the contrary. Words on a page are objectively real as ink symbols on a substrate of some kind while the subject of the story they convey is not real in the same sense, there may be meaning that is conveyed but that again is subjectively perceived by whomever reads and understands the words. Think of nightmare you've had. Was it a real thing? Yes it was as a function of your brain during a dream state, that was objectively measureable but was the content of the nightmare a "real" object? I submit it was not.

Lastly I will concede that the 'realness' or ontological status of the contents of thoughts is still a hotly debated topic in philosophy. I do not subscribe to the dualist idea that there are 2 separate categories of real things. I do not think that the subjective nature of our reality or experience is a separate distinct reality sitting along side objective reality, rather I think of subjective reality as a sub-category within objective reality.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

Philosch wrote: March 5th, 2018, 1:13 am As a lion charges you, the lion is an objective reality and the neurochemical reactions in your brain that he triggers are real but your experience of those reactions as thoughts are like Harry Potter, they exist in your mind which is within the universe so they exist in some sense but they are not objects of reality. They are representations of your perceptions projected upon the screen of your consciousness.

There is no measure of god other than what some subjective consciousness has supposed God to be. This is simply a fact.
I note you are all over the place and thus able to put your point in a checkmate position.

There are many perspectives to reality [dualism, monism, etc.].

In one perspective there is duality where there is
  • 1. perception [activities in the brain] a thing and
    2. that which is perceived.
For anything to be real it must be capable of being Justified True Beliefs.

What is to be Justified True Beliefs, it must have an empirical-rational basis and mode.
There is no other mode of reality - if anyone insist there are others, then tell what are they?

What is is to be real empirical-rationally must be possible to be justified to be true.
If it is impossible to be justified as true, then it is an impossibility.
For example a square-circle is obviously an impossibility thus impossible to be real.

If you insist the typical apple on the table is real, then you put it to the test,
  • 1. Is is empirically possible
    2. Can it be empirically and rationally justified to be true.
Unless it is a claim by a hallucinating schizophrenic, normally the answer to the above 1&2 is yes and thus that apple is real when justified.

If we mentioned Harry Potter of JK Rowling, it is obvious the character is fictitious and thus not real.

But if someone were to insist a Harry Potter [liked] person exists in the Universe in a planet billions of light years away, then we cannot claim that is absolutely absurd and reject such a claim.
The reason is because a Harry-Potter-[liked]-person is an empirical proposition and thus empirically possible albeit of very very low probability, perhaps say 0.0000000..001%.
The only way to prove such an empirical possibility is to bring the empirical evidence to be verified as true or not.

Now if a person were to admittedly claim God exists as an ideal, thought and fiction only that is no problem.
But if a person insist God exists, is real and more real than anything else, then it must be subjected to the following criteria:
  • 1. Is is empirically possible
    2. Can it be empirically and rationally justified to be true.
I have argued, the idea of God is like the idea of a square-circle, thus it is empirically impossible, so the question of 'does God exist as real' is moot and a non-starter.
God is an Impossibility
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15155

If a theist insist his/her God is like a monkey or elephant somewhere in the Universe, I will be "agnostic" with it, but with a 0.0000..00001% probability and awaiting empirical evidence for anyone to justify it.

Image

The only valid reason for the idea of God is only for psychological reasons, just as the concept of Harry Potter by Rowling is for entertaining [also psychological] purpose.
The idea of God is also like children creating imaginary friends to soothe their insecurities and boredom. Imaginary friends [empirical] are at least not impossible because they are empirical base.

The idea of a God is an impossibility, thus the question of a Proof for God is moot and a non-starter.
Realistically we should divert attention to the psychological basis why theists cling to a belief in an illusory God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands »

Philosch wrote: March 5th, 2018, 1:13 am Well empathy and sympathy are products of social evolution seemingly designed to help us form social bonds and anticipate and relate to our fellow human beings but they can not put us in another human's shoes completely so how much less those perceptive traits would allow us to know what it's like to be another creature. I believe in fact it is a huge mistake to even attempt to do this with non human beings. That is anthropomorphizing which ultimately leads to huge problems. We can't seem to help doing it but it's a vey bad idea and leads use to make bad ecological decisions. You think that you are trying to imagine or look at the world through an elephants eyes for instance but in fact you imagine what it would be like to be in an elephant's body and world with a human mind. This is so because you only know your human mind. This anthropomorphization of other creatures leads to all kinds of mischief. Actually a topic I have spoken on in other threads. So you may disagree with my statement but I stand by it nevertheless. I submit since you can never know precisely what another human's subjective experience is, you have absolutely no chance of knowing what it's like to be an elephant.
Shee.. for Pete's sake.. you make it sound as though I'm talking beastiality. We seem to be living in different worlds. To try and make this simple... you've heard that man was created in the image and likeness? Maybe you've heard man the crown of creation? Well.. these things are true. Within man lies all the functions of nature. We have all the animals right inside ourselves and all we have to do is touch upon that aspect of the animal to gain an understanding. I'm not saying that's an easy thing but it does afford us to understand the creatures around us. I'm sure that's bizarre to you but that's the way it is.
Philosch wrote: March 5th, 2018, 1:13 am On the second point, the ontological status of the realness of a thought is precisely what I am getting at. A thought is measureable as a series of electrochemical reactions in your brain. The "subject" of the thought can actually be measured using special brain scanning techniques although the process is still quite crude. The content of the thought has a different ontological status then does the characteristics of the neurochemistry. So the content of the thought can be read just like reading words on a page. The neurochemistry might be considered real but the content of the thought as experienced by your consciousness is not real. As a lion charges you, the lion is an objective reality and the neurochemical reactions in your brain that he triggers are real but your experience of those reactions as thoughts are like Harry Potter, they exist in your mind which is within the universe so they exist in some sense but they are not objects of reality. They are representations of your perceptions projected upon the screen of your consciousness. There is no measure of god other than what some subjective consciousness has supposed God to be. This is simply a fact. Now that doesn't mean there is no cosmic mystery to be awed by or pondered about. Quite the contrary. Words on a page are objectively real as ink symbols on a substrate of some kind while the subject of the story they convey is not real in the same sense, there may be meaning that is conveyed but that again is subjectively perceived by whomever reads and understands the words. Think of nightmare you've had. Was it a real thing? Yes it was as a function of your brain during a dream state, that was objectively measureable but was the content of the nightmare a "real" object? I submit it was not.
Lastly I will concede that the 'realness' or ontological status of the contents of thoughts is still a hotly debated topic in philosophy. I do not subscribe to the dualist idea that there are 2 separate categories of real things. I do not think that the subjective nature of our reality or experience is a separate distinct reality sitting along side objective reality, rather I think of subjective reality as a sub-category within objective reality.
It seems you haven't done your homework. Thoughts don't originate in the brain. Here's a link that might help you on your way.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
User avatar
Scribbler60
Posts: 177
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 11:48 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Scribbler60 »

jerlands wrote: March 5th, 2018, 3:06 amIt seems you haven't done your homework. Thoughts don't originate in the brain. Here's a link that might help you on your way.
That's a blog created to drive traffic to a website and sell a product, not a scientific paper. It's a sales job, and an absurdly poor one at that.

This part is my favourite:
Thoughts originate from a reservoir, a personal energetic field within which our own, unique system of inherent potentials is stored in the form of a code.
Oh really?

Fact is, thoughts do originate in the brain as a series of electrochemical surges between neurons. It has been observed in action.

Please see Mind Aglow: Scientists Watch Thoughts Form in the Brain
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021