The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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.
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.
Established ideas are very difficult to overcome. The brain does have neural activity that can be seen but we're looking at the wave and not the wind that creates it. Your mind isn't located in your brain. That's simply an ill formed idea. Thought originates as a relationship from self with its environment. Its that relationship that is the wind. Science is just touching on the idea of the whole rather than aspects of the whole. Medicine is an example. We think of organs as individual entities rather than aspects of a unity. I've given the example of the heart and how we conventionally perceive it. The heart is not a pump and it is not responsible for the circulation of blood. It does affect circulation but it isn't a pump. The role the heart plays in the body isn't fully understood but then very little is fully understood. .
"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
I don't know why you think you have checkmated my position, I maybe didn't do a good job of tying my thoughts together but you made my points for me, I was trying to say that god does not exist in reality and I am in total agreement with your assessment of my position, maybe you didn't read my earlier posts. I think the whole notion of proving the existence of god scientifically is silly. I also said nothing about "truth". I was talking about objective reality however. Perhaps you should go back to my last three or four posts and you will note I'm on your side.
To Jerlands:
I certainly didn't imply you were into bestiality at all and you know it. I hadn't heard that man was created in an image and likeness of the grand creator you suppose from any source I consider credible. If the grand creator you suppose in whatever form makes itself known to me and tells me I buy it. I think it is extremely arrogant to believe or maintain that humankind is the crown of creation. The universe is unimaginably large and it would be the absolute peek of arrogance to suppose we are the pinnacle of that creation. As far as having all of the animal kingdom within us, that's just speculation. Your consciousness is still bounded by itself and you can not "know" what it's like to be another human let alone an animal of any sort.
I'm also in total agreement with scribble60 with regards to the notion that thoughts don't originate in the brain...it's ridiculous, of course they do.
Philosch wrote: ↑March 5th, 2018, 6:45 pm
I certainly didn't imply you were into bestiality at all and you know it. I hadn't heard that man was created in an image and likeness of the grand creator you suppose from any source I consider credible. If the grand creator you suppose in whatever form makes itself known to me and tells me I buy it. I think it is extremely arrogant to believe or maintain that humankind is the crown of creation. The universe is unimaginably large and it would be the absolute peek of arrogance to suppose we are the pinnacle of that creation. As far as having all of the animal kingdom within us, that's just speculation. Your consciousness is still bounded by itself and you can not "know" what it's like to be another human let alone an animal of any sort.
I'm also in total agreement with scribble60 with regards to the notion that thoughts don't originate in the brain...it's ridiculous, of course they do.
If you wish to feel secure in conventional perception that's your choice. Man has run a 2,500 year race to populate the earth and his focus has largely been on ways to get there. You might see how our focus has been somewhat inhibited. If we want to understand ourselves we need to reach the depths of our origin, our foundations, on everything that our being rests upon. I know conventional philosophy hasn't breached the mysteries that lay within Egypt but Egypt is the foundation everything present in our western civilization. You simply have no idea of the void in comprehension of our past.
"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
I beg to differ as you simply have no idea what my idea of the past is since you don't know me or my education or training. You also have no idea what my perception of the state of science or philosophy is to make such statements about whether I believe in conventional notions or not. Since you have taken to make assumptions about such things and since you seem to think our relevant history is only 2500 years and that our race to populate the earth hasn't been going on for many millennia before that I don't think we have any further basis on which to discuss the proof of the existence of god. The mysteries of Egypt would more properly concern archaeologists unless there's some contribution to logic and rationality that the ancient Egyptians have yet to contribute. If you are referring to some kind of mysticism then that is not what philosophy is about, that's the realm of mystics and religious types.
Philosch wrote: ↑March 5th, 2018, 9:57 pm
I beg to differ as you simply have no idea what my idea of the past is since you don't know me or my education or training. You also have no idea what my perception of the state of science or philosophy is to make such statements about whether I believe in conventional notions or not. Since you have taken to make assumptions about such things and since you seem to think our relevant history is only 2500 years and that our race to populate the earth hasn't been going on for many millennia before that I don't think we have any further basis on which to discuss the proof of the existence of god. The mysteries of Egypt would more properly concern archaeologists unless there's some contribution to logic and rationality that the ancient Egyptians have yet to contribute. If you are referring to some kind of mysticism then that is not what philosophy is about, that's the realm of mystics and religious types.
knowledge is simply degree of probability and the degree is assumed through percentage of verifiable occurrences.
"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 wrote: ↑March 5th, 2018, 6:45 pm
To Spectrum:
I don't know why you think you have checkmated my position, I maybe didn't do a good job of tying my thoughts together but you made my points for me, I was trying to say that god does not exist in reality and I am in total agreement with your assessment of my position, maybe you didn't read my earlier posts. I think the whole notion of proving the existence of god scientifically is silly. I also said nothing about "truth". I was talking about objective reality however. Perhaps you should go back to my last three or four posts and you will note I'm on your side.
Sorry, I meant you were unable to present a 'checkmate' position against Jerland. My previous post should read 'unable' not 'able.' Yes, we are on the same side.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
I certainly agree, you can not checkmate anyone who takes their own intuition and perspective as even a close approximation of reality. This fact is no doubt the single greatest weakness of human consciousness among it's many strengths.
Actually on second thought I disagree, I think jerlands is checkmated in this regard. I think that by the definition of subjectivity it can be stated emphatically as a consequence of logic that it is impossible to have the subjective experience of someone else or something else which I think was my main point. If your consciousness itself is bounded by it's own subjectivity it would be impossible to have someone else's subjective experience and remain your own consciousness. There's no getting around this. Empathy and sympathy get you part way but they are incomplete. To then complete the picture, the (subjective) experience of love or the experience that some people claim as spirituality or god even would also have to remain in the realm of what is present within your subjectively bound consciousness and the only sense of "realness" that can be claimed about those experiences is the neurochemical reactions that compose them.
To further this discussion farther still, just because your experience of something is subjective doesn't mean there isn't a real thing causing the experience. So someone can claim their experience of deep cosmic mystery is what they want to call "god". Since there are "real" unexplained features of the universe this seems to give the person using this line of reasoning a vine to cling to. But that's simply an application of the "god of the gaps" argument which was in the first of my recent posts.
I can say the term "god" refers to any aspect of our perceptual experience that can't be categorically explained by science and as science progresses in explaining those mysteries so does the space in which the term "god" occupies. There's no way to dissuade such a person from using this reasoning because there will always be some unexplained part of the universe and that is where their god will retreat to.
Philosch wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 1:22 pm
I can say the term "god" refers to any aspect of our perceptual experience that can't be categorically explained by science and as science progresses in explaining those mysteries so does the space in which the term "god" occupies. There's no way to dissuade such a person from using this reasoning because there will always be some unexplained part of the universe and that is where their god will retreat to.
To quote Confucius, “True wisdom is knowing what you don't know.”
"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
So that's a great quote, one which I fully acknowledge. Understanding one could not possibly "know" what someone else experiences would truly be wise indeed now wouldn't it? By the same token one who understood they could never prove (know with certainty) 'the god of the gaps" or any other god would be equally wise. Thanks for providing us with a great quote. Understanding the limits of one's own knowledge and perception is the beginning of wisdom.
When someone gives their own perception and belief in a "god" based on their own experiences, credence beyond rationality and tries to affirm their own notions as some how universal or true in some objective way, you get the opposite of wisdom, you get the arrogance of ignorance. This in turn leads to intolerance, hatred and destruction on an unimaginable scale.
There's another version of that saying and I don't know who it's attributed to....goes like this:
He who knows ...doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know...knows.
Philosch wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:06 pm
So that's a great quote, one which I fully acknowledge. Understanding one could not possibly "know" what someone else experiences would truly be wise indeed now wouldn't it? By the same token one who understood they could never prove (know with certainty) 'the god of the gaps" or any other god would be equally wise. Thanks for providing us with a great quote. Understanding the limits of one's own knowledge and perception is the beginning of wisdom.
When someone gives their own perception and belief in a "god" based on their own experiences, credence beyond rationality and tries to affirm their own notions as some how universal or true in some objective way, you get the opposite of wisdom, you get the arrogance of ignorance. This in turn leads to intolerance, hatred and destruction on an unimaginable scale.
There's another version of that saying and I don't know who it's attributed to....goes like this:
He who knows ...doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know...knows.
To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
There's a lot of ration thought as far as what is and what is not. To approach a subject such as "God" how do we go about this? Self is the entirety of the person (some say mind, body, spirit) and we have yet to discover that entirety so there is no way we can put it in relation sensibly to anything else. So using reason we might then postulate.. If Self is unknown, and God is within Self, God is unknown. This of course would be based upon the assumption "God" is within Self. .
"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
To quote Confucius, “True wisdom is knowing what you don't know.”
Philosch wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:06 pm
So that's a great quote, one which I fully acknowledge. Understanding one could not possibly "know" what someone else experiences would truly be wise indeed now wouldn't it? By the same token one who understood they could never prove (know with certainty) 'the god of the gaps" or any other god would be equally wise. Thanks for providing us with a great quote. Understanding the limits of one's own knowledge and perception is the beginning of wisdom.
When someone gives their own perception and belief in a "god" based on their own experiences, credence beyond rationality and tries to affirm their own notions as some how universal or true in some objective way, you get the opposite of wisdom, you get the arrogance of ignorance. This in turn leads to intolerance, hatred and destruction on an unimaginable scale.
There's another version of that saying and I don't know who it's attributed to....goes like this:
He who knows ...doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know...knows.
The better one is from Socrates'
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. -Socrates.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
jerlands wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:36 pm
So using reason we might then postulate..
If Self is unknown, and
God is within Self,
God is unknown.
This of course would be based upon the assumption "God" is within Self. .
Yes, an assumption of impossibility.
God is an impossibility to be real, thus impossible to be within the self.
Assuming something that is impossible to be real is merely a fantasy.
The 'Self' as a soul that survives physical death is also an impossibility.
An empirical self on the other hand can be known.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
jerlands wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:36 pm
So using reason we might then postulate..
If Self is unknown, and
God is within Self,
God is unknown.
This of course would be based upon the assumption "God" is within Self. .
Yes, an assumption of impossibility.
God is an impossibility to be real, thus impossible to be within the self.
Assuming something that is impossible to be real is merely a fantasy.
The 'Self' as a soul that survives physical death is also an impossibility.
An empirical self on the other hand can be known.
Exactly my point. Based on the assumption "God" is within Self.
"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