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.
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.