Religions have succeeded

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,

You’re playing pigeon chess now*. If you don’t have any empirical evidence and you don’t have any other kind of evidence either, THEN YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

If a person does not have empirical evidence, claims of objective fact are rejected.

They could have subjective evidence - the inner experience - that forms the basis of a belief that a concept is true, which their brain has interpreted based on the information stored in it due to past inputs and narratives e.g testimony that they believe to be authoritative. Which explains why the brain might prefer to make sense of the experience with the Christian narrative as opposed to Amazonian tree god narrative.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The evidence you continue to ignore is "you"
You are far more than a continuum of a material universe entirely governed by physically defined reactions

That’s an unqualified assertion, not evidence.

Try again. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

If a person does not have empirical evidence, claims of objective fact are rejected.

No shit Sherlock. So now all you have to do is to explain that to Vlad, and perhaps to ask him whether he has any other type of evidence to fill the gap. He won’t answer you, but you can try.   

They could have subjective evidence - the inner experience - that forms the basis of a belief that a concept is true, which their brain has interpreted based on the information stored in it due to past inputs and narratives e.g testimony that they believe to be authoritative. Which explains why the brain might prefer to make sense of the experience with the Christian narrative as opposed to Amazonian tree god narrative.

You don’t say. Yet again: Vlad (NOT I) thinks his “inner experience” is in some way a reliable guide to objective truths for the rest of us. I have no idea why he thinks this (and he won’t or can’t tell me) but that’s his belief nonetheless.

I have no idea either why you keep telling me that absence of evidence means “claims of objective fact are rejected” as if it’s something I don’t know already.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I notice you ignore the salient rebuttals to focus instead on a sidebar issue,

I haven't ignored anything - we're both saying the same thing - that claims of objective facts are facts if they are supported by objective evidence.

but ok. Yes, what’s “morally right” is a moral question and morality is subjective. The point I was making though is that when moral standards are broadly agreed (stealing bad; helping little old ladies across the road good etc) then the extent to which someone acts accordingly is verifiable.

And the point I was making is what are the agreed moral standards for someone to have honour?     

What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously though?

I KNOW IT WAS A STATEMENT OF BELIEF. REALLY I DO. I ALWAYS HAVE. STATEMENTS OF BELIEF ARE ALL HE HAS. THE POINT HERE THOUGH IS THAT HE (NOT I) THINKS HIS STATEMENT OF BELIEF IS ALSO A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Surely you must be able understand this now mustn’t you? Mustn’t you?

Dear god but you struggle…       

For fuck’s sake VG give your head a wobble will you? HE HASN’T MADE A STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE FACT, BUT HE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF OBJECTIVE FACT NONETHELESS. TO VLAD’S MIND “GOD” IS OBJECTIVELY REAL, NOT JUST A PRODUCT OF HIS IMAGINATION. HE CAN’T JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM, BUT THAT DOESN’T STOP HIM MAKING IT NONETHELESS.

I really don’t know how to make this any clearer for you so will you PLEASE stop returning to the same mistake over and over again like a moth banging its head against a window. Please.

Enjoying yourself are you? Good for you. When you stop returning to the same mistake I will stop correcting you. Why are you finding it so hard to understand the difference between beliefs and facts. Vlad does not need to think God is a product of his imagination. As explained to you multiple times - a belief is something a person thinks is true but can't support with objective evidence. Hence Vlad is stating a belief. Happy to keep explaining this to you over and over and over and over etc - you get the gist of where I am going.

[Sriram]

A fact is something for which there is objective testable evidence. So he can claim it is fact but he is not going to get very far in establishing it as fact rather than belief as he has no proof.

There is no way of proving to anyone else about the existence of the hidden intelligence.....just as there is no way of proving to a blind person the existence of light. It has to be experienced directly or taken on faith.

This has been the position for millennia. Nothing new about it. 

[Sriram]

How does anyone know whether some experience is just a belief or a fact.  Check my post 845. 

1. An experience is not just a belief. It is something felt repeatedly and sometimes at will.

2. The experience is interactive.

3. The experience has clear and discernible effects on ones health, mental clarity and peace.

4. The experience has definite effects in the external world and on ones circumstances.


How does one convince someone else about it? It can't be done. One can only share the experience and hope that the other person also has similar experiences.  Otherwise it is again the 'blind man' situation. 

[Sriram]

If we seek some sort of an intellectual understanding of such internal experiences in modern day language....we can think of the source of such experiences as the Unconscious mind which we know has remarkable effects on our mind, health and well being.  I have discussed this many times.

Problem however is that many people think of the unconscious mind as just a brain related phenomenon, merely an add-on facility generated through random variations and natural selection...for survival purposes.

If we start associating the unconscious mind with the Collective Unconscious and think of it as the primary faculty.... and as the source of our conscious mind. Then we will be able to understand the possible source of our extraordinary experiences and their effects on our lives.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. I will accept evidence, and at this point the only type of evidence I’m aware of is the empirical type. If you think there’s a different type of evidence though, then the burden of proof is with you tell us what it is, to explain how it can be tested and verified, to show that it’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing etc. This is the point at which you always run away, but the issue doesn’t go away despite that.

But we are talking about the burden of proof here so you are missing mathematical proof and philosophical proof which has been put forward. I think your last attempt to rebut offered a composite necessity, which there cannot be.

I am not shirking burden of proof, just not accepting that the status quo is philosophical empiricism which is self defeating.

[Maeght]

The evidence you continue to ignore is "you"
You are far more than a continuum of a material universe entirely governed by physically defined reactions

That's what you believe but it's not a fact, just an assertion.

[Maeght]

How does anyone know whether some experience is just a belief or a fact.  Check my post 845. 

1. An experience is not just a belief. It is something felt repeatedly and sometimes at will.

2. The experience is interactive.

3. The experience has clear and discernible effects on ones health, mental clarity and peace.

4. The experience has definite effects in the external world and on ones circumstances.


How does one convince someone else about it? It can't be done. One can only share the experience and hope that the other person also has similar experiences.  Otherwise it is again the 'blind man' situation.

People have experiences and interpret them in a particular way. Others may have the same or similar experiences and interpret them in a different way. Just because belief in a particular interpretation may have 'discernible effects on ones health','effects in the external world' etc doesn't mean that that interpretation is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it has. When you relocate unanswered questions about “the universe” (Did it begin? When did it begin? How did it begin? etc) to a “god” ........

...........You are at the beginning of arguing an infinite regress which is no solution to anything, multiplies entities beyond necessity....infinitely.
So what you are saying is let’s stop at the universe and call that necessary. But then you think that stops infinite regress but a necessary being or God demands an infinite regress. That is self contradictory.If God demands an infinite regress then the universe would.
The universe cannot be necessary because it is composite.You said so yourself.

[torridon]

The evidence you continue to ignore is "you"
You are far more than a continuum of a material universe entirely governed by physically defined reactions

What is the evidence for that ?

[torridon]

I am not talking of theists or any specific belief. I am talking about a general and secular faith about some form of hidden intelligence that is working behind the scenes in our lives and in the entire environment. Refer to my thread on 'Faith'.
..

Which also sounds identical to the cognitive bias agent detection. With no objective validation, the assumption would be that such feelings or intuitions are all in the mind, a by-product of the way that minds have evolved to work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I haven't ignored anything - we're both saying the same thing - that claims of objective facts are facts if they are supported by objective evidence.

OK…

And the point I was making is what are the agreed moral standards for someone to have honour?

The “agreed moral standards” are those of the society that's agreed them and in which the person claiming to be honourable happens to live. The ardent muslim who kills a blasphemer is “honourable” if he does it in a society in which such a thing is considered honourable; the person who helps a little old lady across the road is honourable if he does it in a society that considers such a thing to be honourable. This isn’t about what should and shouldn’t be deemed morally good, it’s just counting.             

Enjoying yourself are you? Good for you. When you stop returning to the same mistake I will stop correcting you. Why are you finding it so hard to understand the difference between beliefs and facts. Vlad does not need to think God is a product of his imagination. As explained to you multiple times - a belief is something a person thinks is true but can't support with objective evidence. Hence Vlad is stating a belief. Happy to keep explaining this to you over and over and over and over etc - you get the gist of where I am going.

FFS. Why are you finding it so difficult to understand that your claim that the moon is made of cream cheese is just a belief, but not a fact? I’ve corrected you on this over and over again – as I’ve explained to you multiple times – a belief is something a person thinks is true but can't support with objective evidence. Hence you’re stating a belief. Happy to keep explaining this to you over and over and over and over etc - you get the gist of where I am going.

What’s that you say? “But I’ve never claimed that the moon is made of cream cheese? I’ve just rebutted the claim of someone else who thinks his belief about that makes it a fact?”

Welcome to my world.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

There is no way of proving to anyone else about the existence of the hidden intelligence.....just as there is no way of proving to a blind person the existence of light. It has to be experienced directly or taken on faith.

This has been the position for millennia. Nothing new about it.

That’s not your primary problem. Your primary problem is that you have no way of justifying to yourself that there’s a “hidden intelligence”, and your analogy with light is a false one for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.   

How does anyone know whether some experience is just a belief or a fact.  Check my post 845.

Post 845 doesn’t help you.

1. An experience is not just a belief. It is something felt repeatedly and sometimes at will.

That’s a non sequitur – a belief can be these things too.

2. The experience is interactive.

Meaning?

3. The experience has clear and discernible effects on ones health, mental clarity and peace.

Various self-generated practices with no “hidden intelligence” involved do that too (yoga, CBT etc) so that doesn’t help you either.

4. The experience has definite effects in the external world and on ones circumstances.

See above.

How does one convince someone else about it? It can't be done. One can only share the experience and hope that the other person also has similar experiences.  Otherwise it is again the 'blind man' situation.

No it isn’t. The “blind man situation” relies on a false analogy with a phenomenon known to be real (ie, light). For a coherent analogy you need to find a comparator that hasn’t been justified – leprechauns for example.     

If we seek some sort of an intellectual understanding of such internal experiences in modern day language....we can think of the source of such experiences as the Unconscious mind which we know has remarkable effects on our mind, health and well being.  I have discussed this many times.

No doubt you have, but that does nothing to justify your unqualified claim of a “hidden intelligence”.

Problem however is that many people think of the unconscious mind as just a brain related phenomenon, merely an add-on facility generated through random variations and natural selection...for survival purposes.

Why is that a problem?

If we start associating the unconscious mind with the Collective Unconscious and think of it as the primary faculty.... and as the source of our conscious mind. Then we will be able to understand the possible source of our extraordinary experiences and their effects on our lives.

If my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. You can “if” anything you like, but rational enquiry is concerned with what is rather than with what might be.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But we are talking about the burden of proof here so you are missing mathematical proof and philosophical proof which has been put forward. I think your last attempt to rebut offered a composite necessity, which there cannot be.

I’m not missing them – I’ve rebutted them. There are no “mathematical and philosophical proofs” for god, and besides (as NS will remind us) you’re on a fool’s errand trying to find either too because both are naturalistic in character and you’re trying to use them to justify a speculation about a non-naturalistic entity.

I am not shirking burden of proof, just not accepting that the status quo is philosophical empiricism which is self defeating.

No it isn’t. It’s only “self-defeating” when you introduce your straw man version of it as a claim of the absolute rather than of the probable. 

...........You are at the beginning of arguing an infinite regress which is no solution to anything, multiplies entities beyond necessity....infinitely.

No I’m not. I’m at the end of reliably investigable and verifiable explanations, so have reached a series of “don’t knows”. Just inserting a god and calling it magic doesn’t answer those don’t knows – it just relocates them (while adding a whole extra layer of assumptions). 

So what you are saying is let’s stop at the universe and call that necessary.

No, what I’m saying (and have always said) is let’s stop at the point at which reliably investigable and verifiable answers cease to be available. That one answer beyond that barrier might turn out to be a self-explanatory universe by some as yet unknown process is just a speculation, as is “god”.   

But then you think that stops infinite regress but a necessary being or God demands an infinite regress. That is self contradictory.If God demands an infinite regress then the universe would.
The universe cannot be necessary because it is composite.You said so yourself.

I said no such thing. You did. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I’m not missing them – I’ve rebutted them. There are no “mathematical and philosophical proofs” for god, and besides (as NS will remind us) you’re on a fool’s errand trying to find either too because both are naturalistic in character and you’re trying to use them to justify a speculation about a non-naturalistic entity.

No it isn’t. It’s only “self-defeating” when you introduce your straw man version of it as a claim of the absolute rather than of the probable. 


No I’m not. I’m at the end of reliably investigable and verifiable explanations, so have reached a series of “don’t knows”. Just inserting a god and calling it magic doesn’t answer those don’t knows – it just relocates them (while adding a whole extra layer of assumptions). 

No, what I’m saying (and have always said) is let’s stop at the point at which reliably investigable and verifiable answers cease to be available. That one answer beyond that barrier might turn out to be a self-explanatory universe by some as yet unknown process is just a speculation, as is “god”.   

I said no such thing. You did.

Hillside, one has to look at the attributes of the necessary being which having been established by the unrebutted argument from contingency we call God.
Your trouble is the misrepresentation that we start with God and shoehorn him in.

Your second problem was to suggest a composite universe as the necessary being. You should have taken note of Carroll who identified the PSR as a problem for him or Russell who knew the fallacy of declaring the universe as necessary and so settled for an arbitrary curtailment of PSR.
 You should have availed yourself of the definitions of the necessary entity None of which fit anything in naturalism.
Sovereignty, uniqueness, non composite, non physicality and so forth.
In terms of speculation, contingency is not a matter of speculation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, one has to look at the attributes of the necessary being…

No “one” hasn’t. What “one” actually has to look at is the quality of the argument for a “necessary being” in the first place which, so far at least, has been hopeless.

…which having been established by the unrebutted argument from contingency we call God.

Very funny. The rebuttal is that this supposed “god” just relocates the “don’t knows” about the universe to this god but doesn’t answer any of them.

Your trouble is the misrepresentation that we start with God and shoehorn him in.

Actually that is what you do, but in any case it’s not my problem. The actual problem is that your solution is essentially “it’s magic innit”:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Copyrighted-artwork-by-Sydney-Harris-Inc-All-materials-used-with_fig2_302632920 

Your second problem was to suggest a composite universe as the necessary being. You should have taken note of Carroll who identified the PSR as a problem for him or Russell who knew the fallacy of declaring the universe as necessary and so settled for an arbitrary curtailment of PSR.

I merely say that you have no good reason to rule it out.

You should have availed yourself of the definitions of the necessary entity None of which fit anything in naturalism.

Nor do the definitions of leprechauns. You can attach any definitions you like to speculations about the supernatural, but that doesn’t make them real.
 

Sovereignty, uniqueness, non composite, non physicality and so forth.

There are problems with all of those, but why not start with establishing that there’s even such a thing as a “non-physical” to begin with?

In terms of speculation, contingency is not a matter of speculation.

In respect of feature of the observable universe that’s likely right (allowing for uncertainty about that at the quantum level) but I have still have no idea why you think properties within the universe must also therefore apply to the universe (ie, your fallacy of composition error). Would there be any point in asking you that again given that you always disappear when I do?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

OK…

The “agreed moral standards” are those of the society that's agreed them and in which the person claiming to be honourable happens to live. The ardent muslim who kills a blasphemer is “honourable” if he does it in a society in which such a thing is considered honourable; the person who helps a little old lady across the road is honourable if he does it in a society that considers such a thing to be honourable. This isn’t about what should and shouldn’t be deemed morally good, it’s just counting. 

So we're agreed we're ok to use the term 'honour' to represent an idea - we can speak of a person having honour or a person can refer to their own honour - even if we cannot agree on an objective definition of this concept / abstract noun. Why are you having such a problem with a similar use of the term "God" to reference an abstract concept of a higher supernatural power that is deemed morally good? You have already accepted that a person's brain will interpret 'honour' based on whatever was peddled to them when they were an impressionable child - whether it was helping old ladies across the road or a patriotic British soldier firing on and killing Muslim civilians in another country to serve the best interests of the British people. Why is it remarkable that the same brain will apply this method of interpretation for the abstract concept of God?

What’s that you say? “But I’ve never claimed that the moon is made of cream cheese? I’ve just rebutted the claim of someone else who thinks his belief about that makes it a fact?”

Welcome to my world.   

That seems to be a world of your own creation. That's not my understanding of Vlad's post on this thread about the presence of God in his consciousness. My understanding is that Vlad agreed that facts need to be supported by objective evidence, which he doesn't claim to have. He said he had an inner experience of a non-physical God's presence in his consciousness. So I'm not seeing where he thinks his belief in God's existence means he thinks God's existence is a fact.

[Sebastian Toe]

. So I'm not seeing where he thinks his belief in God's existence means he thinks God's existence is a fact.

Sorry to interrupt your discourse but for clarity on this point I believe that you should perhaps avail oneself of Vlad's concept and accusations of "god-dodging".

That may throw some light on the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry to interrupt your discourse but for clarity on this point I believe that you should perhaps avail oneself of Vlad's concept and accusations of "god-dodging".

That may throw some light on the matter.

You can call it “Vlad’s law of Goddodging” if you wish but when your arguments against God become more fantastical than what you can argue God is then that is very likely Goddodging.

Examples found on this forum include circular hierarchies, composites as necessities, contingency without necessity, suspension of the PSR, unknown unknowns vis a vis God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

So we're agreed we're ok to use the term 'honour' to represent an idea - we can speak of a person having honour or a person can refer to their own honour - even if we cannot agree on an objective definition of this concept / abstract noun. Why are you having such a problem with a similar use of the term "God" to reference an abstract concept of a higher supernatural power that is deemed morally good?

Because, obviously, “honour” is employed as an abstract noun (“a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness”) whereas “god” is being employed as a proper noun (“a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing”).

You have already accepted that a person's brain will interpret 'honour' based on whatever was peddled to them when they were an impressionable child - whether it was helping old ladies across the road or a patriotic British soldier firing on and killing Muslim civilians in another country to serve the best interests of the British people. Why is it remarkable that the same brain will apply this method of interpretation for the abstract concept of God?

Because Vlad (and, presumably, most other theists) doesn’t claim “god” as an abstract concept – he’s claims it as a tangible entity of some sort that exists as an objective fact for all of us regardless of his conceptualisation of it. 

That was your category error.

That seems to be a world of your own creation.

As is your world in which you supposedly “correct” me for something I’ve never said, implied, hinted at or suggested in any way – just the opposite in fact.

That's not my understanding of Vlad's post on this thread about the presence of God in his consciousness. My understanding is that Vlad agreed that facts need to be supported by objective evidence, which he doesn't claim to have. He said he had an inner experience of a non-physical God's presence in his consciousness. So I'm not seeing where he thinks his belief in God's existence means he thinks God's existence is a fact.

Your understanding is neither here nor there. Both in this thread and consistently elsewhere Vlad has always made clear that he doesn’t just think of “god” as a conceptualised idea like honour or justice; rather he thinks of it as an actual entity that moreover he’s “encountered”. If you don’t believe me about that, ask him.

(To be fair by the way Vlad’s ideas about the features and characteristics of his supposed god have been all over the map and sometimes bear little relationship to mainstream Christian theology, but that doesn’t deflect from him thinking there’s an actual god to be encountered rather than just the idea of one to be conceptualised.)     

[Nearly Sane]

You can call it “Vlad’s law of Goddodging” if you wish but when your arguments against God become more fantastical than what you can argue God is then that is very likely Goddodging.

Examples found on this forum include circular hierarchies, composites as necessities, contingency without necessity, suspension of the PSR, unknown unknowns vis a vis God.

Leaving aside whether people have actually done that, what method are you using to determine 'fantasticallness'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Sorry to interrupt your discourse but for clarity on this point I believe that you should perhaps avail oneself of Vlad's concept and accusations of "god-dodging".

That may throw some light on the matter.

That's a good point. Vlad doesn't think people are "dodging" his conceptualised idea of a god; he thinks they're "dodging" an actual god. It's a stupid claim, but it's what he thinks (or says he thinks) nonetheless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can call it “Vlad’s law of Goddodging” if you wish but when your arguments against God become more fantastical than what you can argue God is then that is very likely Goddodging.

Wrong again. The point here is that when your “arguments” for “god” apply equally to any other faith claim (leprechauns included) that tells you that those arguments are likely false.     

Examples found on this forum include circular hierarchies, composites as necessities, contingency without necessity, suspension of the PSR, unknown unknowns vis a vis God.

Er, no. “Arguments against god” is just you assuming the premise and shifting the burden of proof again – the only arguments necessary here are those that falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your claim “god”.