User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases/yet another atheist thread

I can not understand how God can exist. The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea. If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - unsigned

God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats absurd, God is a synonym for existence, the foundation of being, the breath of life, the absolute infinite. See monism, pantheism, brahman, etc... Why did you feel a need to say this here tho? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it absurd? Why do we need a synonym for existence? While existence is surely the foundation of being if not a synonym for "being", how is it the breath of life? I thought oxygen filled that role. And not all life breathes. If you are being poetic, then is not God a poetic way of saying "nature"? Define "absolute infinite". I was responding sympatheticly to the prior contributor. Do you feel my expression of my beliefs on the talk page of the existence of God concerning the existence of God in response to a prior contribution is somehow out of place? If so how? WAS 4.250 00:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That's alot of questions, forgive me if I miss a few answers! His question and your reply were not focused on editing the article, and so were not the best use of an article talk page. That's not a huge deal, but it can go south pretty fast, as in this case. Absolute infinite has an article, so you can have a look at that, but I like to say "the sum total of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, even that only imagined". Yes, nature is a part of God, and depending on how you define "nature", God is nature, yes (see pantheism). Breath is meant in a far more poetic sense than simply air, see Prana. God's breath is our life, and in much the same way he causes us, or a rock, or a dead person to exist. My God is not anthropomorphic, but people often understand him in an anthropomorphic way, which isn't so bad. God is within us all, so a squirrel might think of God as a super-squirrel, and a rock might think of him as a perfect stone, and etc... I kind of like the tree of life view of him, but my favorite is Inner light. Many Hindu’s will say "our entire universe is but a cell in the embryo of God, in the womb of nothingness". Disprove that ;) Tasks you can do 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Thanks for having this discussion here on your talk page rather than elsewhere where the trolls play more freely. (While someone somewhere may find you trollish, I almost always find you engaging, amusing, informative, and very funny).
2. I forgive not answering specific questions. (Of course!!) I was concerned you might be evasive, but your response is entirely to the point, so the details are beside the point.
3. "not focused on editing the article" True.
4. "the sum total of everything that ever was, is, or ever shall be, even that only imagined" Good answer. Let that be our definition of "the absolute infinite", "God", "nature", "reality" and the "universe" for this discussion. OK?
5. Can you in this current context respond to "Why is it absurd?" WAS 4.250 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

1. I can not understand how God can exist.

   (thats absurd, Zeus could be dancing on mount olympus right now, for all we know, plenty of stuff that one fails to understand never-the-less occurs.)

2. The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea.

   (well, the word God, surely, and the holy texts and such are made by us, bibles don't fall out of the sky, if thats what you mean... but where did we come from? perhaps if you gave some insight into how you recieved this "clear" revelation?)

3. If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - unsigned

   (?)

4. God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky;

   (I agree santa is some sort of pop-culture diety, but God comes more than once a year, he is our everything)

5. a government lie to get people to fight to the death;

   (what govt. invented my God? Certainly not rome... )

6. an anthropomoriphication of nature

   (maybe santa, but again, not my God, I don't worshop haile sailasse)

7. (the sun is trying to make me hot)

   yes, it is (I'm a bit of an animist too)

8. and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

   (at least you admit that love for God is efficient! I'm half way there!

Pascal would toast your health. Tasks you can do 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

1. I tried to explain how the CONCEPT of God makes sense even if the existence of an actual God didn't make sense. Understand, I was talking to him not you.
2. I think all three of us reject the "Bible/Koran is God's letter to us" position.
3. The point of connecting Santa Claus with God has nothing to do with "coming once a year". First, you can can leave my ex-wife out of this discussion if you please, and second you know very well I was referring to a mythical figure noone ever actually sees but many believe in and can tell the good from the bad and provides goodies accordingly.
4. YOUR God is not the one that is referenced by the phrase "a government lie to get people to fight to the death".
5. (Your_God = Assign_Human_Attribures_To(Nature) ) You find this false why? I'm not accusing you of saying God has a beard. I'm saying you think nature gives a damn. The evidence says nature doesn't give a damn. WAS 4.250 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Re: Sacred texts, I think they're all of value, and if one wants to be broad minded, every piece of information we perceive is a "letter from God". As far as "nobody see's God", on the contrary, I see him always, as do a great many others. The number of people I have met or heard of who have had a direct revelation is rather extrordinary. As far as "does nature care about us" Teleology would seem to contradict your proposition, as would every revelation, vision and spiritual experience that anyone has ever had. To be frank, metaphysical research has rarely come to an atheist conclusion ;) My prayers are answered, and I see miracles every day... Tasks you can do 12:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly; that you perceive a mind with human like qualities in the workings of nature - where I perceive the complex dynamic consequences of the laws of physics? I know the mind of nature that you believe in is not a "human mind", yet it must share some qualities with the human mind to be identifyable as a mind at all. What qualites are those? Let's identify these qualites of nature's mind and discuss whether the evidence warrents such a conclusion. For example: It rains on the just and unjust alike. Therefore God (a.k.a. the mind of nature) doesn't care about justice? (To simplify this discussion, let's let the physical world be thought of as the body of God and the Mind of nature as the mind of God or simply "God" as our disagreement is not about the nature or existence of God's body (nature) but on the nature of the coordination of the parts of the body - the "mind" or "nervous system" if you will.) WAS 4.250 14:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't embrace a dualist paradigm, not even the idea that the physical and mental are separate. In my conception all things are conscious and emergent, from the smallest specks and quarks, to the largest stars and planets in God's wholism. Mental events are physically real, having a substance (no matter how small in mass or evidence). As far as God's mind, no, it's qualities arn't any more humanlike than rocklike, or starlike, the best way to describe it would be "sum total of everything-like" ;) God is only like a man in the sense that God is like everything, being our consumation. Every man is the result of God, and each of us contains his "dust". As far as warranting conclusions about the intelligence of nature, how do you warrant a conclusion that a given pebble is not sentient? I see no reason to make such a leap, and see everything as a living, sentient soul. Regarding "the problem of evil" and the rain which falls, see karma, I can think of no more perfect justice. So, in conclusion, using your own proposed paradigm as a basis, our difference would appear not to be so much one of theism and atheism, but one of dualism and monism. Tasks you can do 15:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What does a "quark" is "conscious" mean? WAS 4.250 16:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I only mentioned quarks because they are small, anything else will do. By conscious I basically meant "sentience". As in everything is alive, aware, and emergent at every increment, great and small, all the way down, and all the way up. From atoms to solar systems, from you to God, from a rock to a blood cell, each a spiritual entity enabled to exist by the immanent God.Tasks you can do 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Answer for quarks or electrons or atoms or molecules or whatever "small" thing you wish. What does it mean for such a thing to have "sentience"? WAS 4.250 02:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It means alot to me, but you'll have to decide what it means to you. Tasks you can do 19:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I take your evasive response to mean you give up trying to defend such nonsense as "quarks are concious". WAS 4.250 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL... if you think what I am saying is nonsense, why ask? I happen to think the ramifications of universal consciousness have direct bearing, but if you can't figure out why, I'm not sure how I can explain it better, sorry. Tasks you can do 20:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I ask questions to try to communicate better. Nonsense is demonstated as nonsense by analysis (e.g. questioning). Yes, I fully understand AND AGREE (IF IT WERE TRUE) that "the ramifications of universal consciousness have direct bearing". The essense of the problem lies in "I'm not sure how I can explain it better". I contend and believe that "universal consciousness" is "nonsense" as that term is understood by a logical positivist framework (which in turn is justified by sheer pragmatism - "do what works"). On the other hand, science and logical positivism only deals with OBJECTIVE phenomenom, and conciousness is quint-essentially subjective - so I can accept "universal consciousness" as a possibility, but not as a factor in rational calculation. Saint Paul called Christianity a "hope". Am I saying the same about "universal consciousness"? I don't know. I like the idea of the universe BECOMING God, but being a creature of evolution, I figure, I'm probably deceiving myself with such hopes. WAS 4.250 00:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

OK then, you understand far better than I was hoping for, esp. after that "nonsense" comment! It is all about evolution, particularly ones individual spiritual evolution towards God. The idea of the universe evolving into God is more controversial, partly because it might suggest God doesn't presently exist (which most people disagree w), and also because the idea is popular w certain Nazi's (euvolution) who feel we can speed the process up by killing most people. Myself, I obviously feel God already exists, but since God is outside of time, I guess it could be thought that he is from the future. The way I see it time is cyclical, progressing from big bang to big crunch w regularity, and no beginning or end to the process in sight. I see this as a spiritual progression, with universal salvation (resulting from spiritual evolution) resulting in a oneness w God (big crunch) after which rebellion (such as that of Lucifer in christian mythology) resulting in the big bang. The Yuga concept within Hinduism, as well as certain aspects of aztec mythology are useful in these regards. Sam Spade 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

1. It is all about evolution, particularly one's individual spiritual evolution towards God. I can accept this, but only as a tautology; in that, if we define our terms just so, this falls out as a deduction. I find no actual information content that is testable or useable except for its emotional value. (not a small value!)
2. The idea of the universe evolving into God is more controversial, [...] certain Nazi's who feel we can speed the process up by killing most people. Being controversial has nothing to do with whether a thing is true. Further being rejected mainly for emotional reasons is a clue to validity for an idea. Machavelli failed. Hitler failed. Their ideologies and strategies were justified by "being what works". As they clearly DID NOT work, they are discredited by their own criteria. If Hitler had treated the Slavs (Poles, Russians, etc) as brothers, they would have helped him overthrow Stalin (they initially tried to desert to the German side, but were treated like subhumans), Hitler could have gone on to free the Indian sub-continent from the Brits and had a world empire based on doing what works. Instead, he was defeated by an America and a Soviet Union that acccepted anybody who could help as an ally (even the Brits and French). Do brain cells try to kill off fat cells because they aren't as smart? How evolved is it to kill something that can instead become a useful part of the whole?
3. Myself, I obviously feel God already exists "Feel" is the key word here. We feel things are true that are in fact false ALL THE TIME.
4. God is outside of time [...] it could be thought that he is from the future. Some forms of the "the universe is designed for life" idea include the idea that life in this universe will evolve into a universe wide entity capable of spawning other universes that have the proper physical constants needed to ensure they too will evolve life that evolves into entities like itself, so that universes themselves are a form of life that are evolving. I find it very interesting, but lacking in practical application (other than emotional). In any case, I hope to live long enough to see the Technological singularity. WAS 4.250 14:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't misunderstand, my saying something is controversial doesn't mean I think it is wrong, no more than you saying something is a tautology or based on feelings makes it wrong (at east I hope thats not what your saying ;). Regarding Hitler, have you seen Hitler's health? The more I study history, the more I am amazed at his ability to so spectacularly lose that war, and I fully agree that his unrelenting, inefficient racism was a big factor. The cocaine, meth, and syphillis were likely other key factors. I'm often wondered what would have happened if Trotsky had taken control of the USSR instead Stalin, and/or if Hitler had been assasinated in early 1940...

As far as "no practical application", I think you underestimate the value of emotion. Religion, mythology, prayer, beliefs, feelings and etc... are all very real and practical. They have verifiable benefits in a wide variety of situations, from "the power of prayer" to heal, to the power of mythology to inspire. As far as feeling things to be true which are in reality false, I again disagree. If I feel something to be true, it is true, until I feel otherwise. Sure, things change, but that doesn't mean they never were. I take it you believe in some sort of impersonal objective reality? Sam Spade 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is going to get deeper than "God". But first let me respond to the easy to respond to stuff. It would have been nice if someone with the common sense of Deng Xiaoping had led USSR instead of that street thug who renamed himself Stalin (name means "steel" or "Man of steel" like Superman). I have no idea if Trotsky had the sense to "do what works" instead of blindly following a self serving version of doctrine. I've often wondered if my country (USA) would ever have acted to end institutionalized racism if the USSSR had not been such a threat that a "fifth column" consisting of America's blacks had to be prevented at all costs. Doing what works has forced more than one good thing! - - - OK, on to the hard stuff. We need to deal with our relationship to words, choices, and behavior. You say things like everything is alive, yet you no doubt have choices and behaviors every day that maintain your "life". Do you understand my concerns about our use of words with respect to our choices and behaviors? Do you understand that if a thing is a tautology and therefore adds no new data, it provides no basis for different choices or behaviors? WAS 4.250 15:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand my concerns about our use of words with respect to our choices and behaviors? probably, semantics are the primary source of disagreement and misunderstanding in my experience.

Do you understand that if a thing is a tautology and therefore adds no new data, it provides no basis for different choices or behaviors? Repetition works. If somebody misunderstands something, or understands it 1/2 way, a good tautology often helps them get past the semantic hurdles.

Sam Spade 15:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, semantics are part of the issue. The relation of words to behavior and choices is more than that tho. We can go round and round about "reality" "dualism" whatnot; but put it in terms of what actual behavior do you choose to do and it clarifies. You chose not to die regardless of words you use denying the reality of dying. Talking in terms of behavior can result in maximizing communication. USE of a tautology for psychological purposes is distinct and seperate from its use AS DATA in deciding how to act. How to act in this case is use of a psychological technique (using redundancy) that we have EVIDENCE of working. If I define "tautology" as the class of things that should never be used; then not using a tautology (by that definition) is tautologically (by the normal definition) something not to be used. This is tautologically true (X=X). As it adds no data, it is irrelevant to actual behavior. You argument is that redundancy works, not that tautologies add to our ability to predict the result of our choices. WAS 4.250 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree, but we are not machines, and our understanding is surely not perfect, so I hope you can appreciate the semantical clarity which these "tautologies" have brought, or might bring. I must say, your emphasis on behaviour and data betrays a certain behaviouralist tendancy, are you familiar with them and their underlying philosophy? As much as I make use of their research and techniques, I certainly don't accept their materialist dismissal of our inner workings, as you would already be aware of if you knew my appreciation of Analytical psychology, and particularly Carl Jung. Sam Spade 20:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Define "machine" in a way that can be be objectively verified. In other words, what behavior choices should I make or not make if humans are or are not machines? In other words, you say we are not machines : SO WHAT? (Please don't replace the CLAIM that we are not machines with some equally hand waving claim.) WAS 4.250 00:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only objectively verify 2 things: Me and God. The rest is conjecture. Sam Spade 00:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You SUBJECTIVELY verify your own existence. You identify with God, so since you exist, God (you) also exists. WAS 4.250 00:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I am objective reality. Tat tvam asi. God is always here to hear the tree fall, because God is both the tree, and me, and everything else. Its a collective, rather than singular experience. Sam Spade 01:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "We can go round and round about "reality" "dualism" whatnot; but put it in terms of what actual behavior do you choose to do and it clarifies. You chose not to die regardless of words you use denying the reality of dying. Talking in terms of behavior can result in maximizing communication." We can make progress if we discuss actual choices based on our ability to predict the results of those choices, using words that reflect THAT reality. You act in ways that cause you to not die. The word "die" as in "something that was alive but is no longer alive" means that you behave as if you believed "some things are dead". Your saying "Everthing is alive" is rhetoric and doesn't reflect the objective reality of your choices and the consequences of your choices. Changing the subject does not change the fact of the disconnent between your behavior and your words. Please address the disconnect using words as the dictionary defines them so we can make progress in this communication, or else I will have to conclude that you either CAN not or WILL not. WAS 4.250 17:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your making a great deal of assumptions, which conveniently lead towards your conclusion. For example, you assume that I am using words in some way other than the dictionary would; this is simply not true. See life, reality, die, etc.. There is no death, except perhaps the spiritual death of true atheism, the rejection of God. All of this talk about how I behave is silly, you have only the faintest trace of information regarding my behaviour, and results of those choices. "You act in ways that cause you to not die" might be true, depending on what your talking about. If by that you mean "loving God", you are right, I do behave in that way, and God does cause me not to die. If you mean "not jumping under trucks", you are mistaken, because while I don't engage in such activities (because I don't prefer the change such a choice would result in), it has nothing to do with real death. You have your own paradigm, and when you see me failing to conform to it you assume me to be unwilling or unable to communicate. Quite to the contrary, any lack of progress in this communication comes from an inability on your part to think outside your box, and to accept the diversity of definitions these words possess. If it would help perhaps I could point out which of the dictionary definitions I am using?

Sam Spade 13:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And THIS response is NOT "going round and round" but instead is exactly what I asked for: an attempt to deal with my perception of the difference between your behavior and words. Excellent! Progress! I accept that words have multiple meanings. I also understand that you know perfectly well what I mean as an atheist when I use the word "die" and pretending otherwise in response to me is not helpful. Not helpful at all. I plead with you to reflect when you respond "does this response play dumb by pretending a meaning by a word USED BY ANOTHER that I in fact know they didn't mean?" You KNOW I did not mean spiritual death. I take it that you agree you can die as I mean the term and that quarks are not alive as I mean the term and you do behave so as not to die as I mean the term. I know you are not dead. I know doing NOTHING results in a human's death. Therefore I know you act so as not to die. My words. You know what I mean. You would not talk to a judge about how you are not guilt of manslaughter (if some tragedy put you in a such a position) beacause there is no such thing as death. Any child would understand my talk of death andd life. Acting dumber than a child is not a sign of superior intelligence. We both know the spiritual and emotional realms lend themselves to both unverifyable flights of fancy and the most sublime of human thought. But we have a communication problem and sticking to what we can see and touch is the place to begin in establishing a firm ground of communication. That is where all babies begin in understanding both reality and the words used to descibe reality. It will serve us well as a foundation to build on. WAS 4.250 18:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What you call call talking dumb, I call providing insight. Regarding how I speak to judges, I once successfully defended myself in court with the argument that I was not guilty because being guilty would result in my license being suspended. The judge laughed aloud (unusual for a courtroom, so I hear) and worked w me. The truth shall set you free.

Regarding your paradigm, materialism (as far as I can tell), I’m not sure why you think babies feel that way, the very idea that it is some sort of default starting poisition shocks and offends me. I felt that way for a few years around the age of 10, based largely on the pop-culture trainwreck I found in the US at that time and place, and it horrified and depressed me. Thankfully God saved me from feeling the need to scream myself hoarse everytime a metaphysical subject came to my mind.

If you insist that atheism makes you feel better, can you at least agree to allow others their happiness? Pascals wager. What conceivable good would converting one person to atheism have, by any paradigm? And what harm does converting them to love God have, by any paradigm? Sam Spade 20:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am utterly unsuccessful at making the kind of progress I had intended. On the other hand, I have always found you interesting to talk to and still do. I'll respond to your comments and if you would like to lead the conversation in some direction, please do - but I give up on it leading to a mutual agreement. OK, on with the respnse: I don't find meaningless claims insightful (inciteful maybe). The judge story is interesting and instructive - indeed there is more to human relations than linear logic. Babies don't START with ANY belief SYSTEM. Tell me about the age 10 stuff. Atheism does not make me feel better. Understanding the world I live in makes me feel better and atheism is a consequence of knowledge and being honest with myself. I have no desire to deprive anyone of happiness generating delusions. But delusions have a nasty habit of causing unhappiness in the long run. But not always. WAS 4.250 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"atheism is a consequence of knowledge"

Are you talking about strong or weak atheism? As far as I'm concerned, weak atheism is just agnosticism, a perfectly reasonable position for those who havn't experienced personal revelation. Sam Spade 22:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, weak atheism is just agnosticism, a perfectly reasonable position for those who havn't experienced personal revelation. OF COURSE, I'm talking about "strong" atheism. I don't believe in any other kind. I think it's a joke to claim plants, babies, and anything else lacking in an opinion one way or the other as an "atheist". WAS 4.250 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, strong atheism isn't supported by anything, much less knowledge. As far as I'm concerned its simply a synonym for nihilism, rejection of God, and thus rejection of all knowledge, all experience, and indeed existence itself. Their is no logical basis for such a belief. You can have philosophical or emotional reasons for such a choice, but their is no pragmatic, evidential, or scientific foundation for it, its simply not a rational position. Sam Spade 16:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

page break for editing convenience

Strong atheism says "Strong atheism or positive atheism (more properly explicit atheism) is the philosophical position that God or gods do not exist. It is contrasted with implicit atheism or weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods, without the claim that God or gods do not exist. The explicit atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, explicit atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is asserted to have (for example, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, and so forth) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of the Christian God is 'a priori' impossible. The explicit atheist may also conclude on the basis of lack of evidence or other rational grounds that god or Gods do not exist, but concede that it is possible that they do, although extremely unlikely. This position is close to some implicit atheist positions, in that many implicit atheists strongly doubt the existence of gods and consider it improbable that they exist, but think it is not currently known whether gods exist or not. The difference between such implicit atheists and explicit atheists may come down to an epistemological disagreement as to what constitutes sufficient grounds to justify an assertion of non-existence in the case of gods. Some explicit atheists qualify their position by stating what specific conception of god they think does not exist. They may believe that specific gods, such as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, do not exist, based on the description of the gods provided by their followers. They may believe certain gods to be logically impossible based on these descriptions, or they may be swayed by one or many of the arguments against the existence of certain conceptions of god (for example, the problem of evil). It is not unusual for a person to be an explicit atheist with respect to particular gods, but to be an implicit atheist with respect to other gods. Indeed, one may be (and in fact the majority of people are) theist with respect to one, or several, gods, and an explicit atheist with respect to all other gods. For example, Christians typically believe that God exists, but believe that Zeus, Thor, Krishna, and so forth, do not. A typical explicit atheist joke is that there is only a small difference between himself and a Christian: they agree on a very long list of gods that don't exist, and only disagree about one of them. While explicit atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes other than gods, the majority of explicit atheists would likely also reject such beliefs. However, belief in such things would not preclude someone from calling him- or herself a explicit atheist." For example: in response to this My personal definition of God: a person with complete and absolute control over all events that take place in this universe and complete and absolute knowledge of all events that take place in the universe. crazyeddie 04:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC) I posted this To be adequately defined so we can perform experiments to decide the question that definition would have to be further refined: What is a "person"? How can we tell if he has "absolute control"? How can we tell if he has "absolute knowledge?" If an entity simply had sufficient control (e.g. hypnotic control) of enough human minds he could make us BELIEVE he had control and knowledge over all the universe; so I conclude that WE CAN NOT KNOW EVEN IN PRINCIPLE if such a god exists because a finite local powerful nongod that can sufficiently influence our minds is indistinguishable from an entity with even more power. We can and DO KNOW that God is not a useful scientific hypothosis. WAS 4.250 17:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC) at Talk:Existence of God WAS 4.250 16:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"WE CAN NOT KNOW EVEN IN PRINCIPLE if such a god exists"...

Here you clarify that you are not, by my definition, an atheist.

"We can and DO KNOW that God is not a useful scientific hypothosis."

Here you make an unsubstantiated claim in contridiction of the preponderance of evidence. Who "knows" such a thing? How could they? Isn't it obvious that the overwhelming majority fails to hold this position? I might agree that someone (you for example) believes it, but why? Sam Spade 17:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Where shall we begin in the discussion of what is and is not a "useful scientific hypothosis"? Perhaps with a definition of "science" as the word is used by myself and others who assert what I asserted? Or are you going to insist your definition be used in the discussion of what others assert? WAS 4.250 18:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, but I would like to at least understand your definition. Is it similar to this? Or Hypothesis? Sam Spade 20:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In a casual conversation, the dictionary definitions are fine and dandy. In a philosophical discussion (as this is) a more careful specific definition is more useful. Word definitions don't change reality, they merely allow for superior communication and analysis. Specifically, "science" is itself a "term of art" in science that refers to a process that has produced a body of knowledge and technologies that have transformed the world. "Science" refers to these processes used by these scientists in producing reproducable results. So the first thing is science refers to real world activities, not hypothetical isms or theories of behavior or theories of reality. Just as a novelist is not always the best judge of the "meaning" of his own work, so too, scientists are often wrong about the actual processes they are following - what they do and what they say they do ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME THING. Sociologists studying the scientific process have had many interesting things to say about the actual process of science. The second thing is: objectively repeatable results are necessary. It doesn't matter a wit if it is "real" or not in science, only if it is REPEATABLE by ANYBODY (thus objective, i.e. descibing the world outside our heads instaead of the reality inside our head). If I see a ghost and no else can, my observation is outside the realm of science, but not neccessarily outside the realm of reality. As soon as I can correlate my ghost with something repeatable and objective then the process called science can investigate it. Are we ready to move on to why "God" is not a useful hypothosis for this process? Or is your question already answered? Or do you not understand something I said? (Please don't disagree with what I mean by the word "science" when I make a statement about science.) 4.250.33.179 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do, your neglecting research science, and speculative theories, both of which are scientific, yet often fail to produce results, a theory is a theory until disproven; but this is a side subject. God is a fact, not a theory, and there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of him. Indeed I would argue that most people are aware of having experienced him in a reproducable manner... Do go on... Sam Spade 00:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Try again. You utterly failed to communicate. Probably you were trying to be polite. Be blunt. Please. I KNOW you are wrong. You KNOW I am wrong. If we are not blunt we will only talk in circles. WAS 4.250 03:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

When a scientist proposes a paradigm, that is a theory. This theory often predicts a result not yet observed. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions not yet confirmed by experiment; failed predictions also often occur. Conversely, there can be confirmed results that are not yet explained by theory. On the other hand, maybe you are talking about falsifiability. It is true that God is unfalsifiable. If you feel falsifiability is a requirement for scientific discourse, than we have again discovered a philosophical distinction where our paradigms are not able to find union. Sam Spade 12:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with every word of "When a scientist proposes a paradigm, that is a theory. This theory often predicts a result not yet observed. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions not yet confirmed by experiment; failed predictions also often occur. Conversely, there can be confirmed results that are not yet explained by theory." Please continue. I can't wait till I see what objective results are predicted (but not yet observed) by this as yet unclarified paradigm called "God". But I get ahead of myself. So far in this latest attempt, we agree completely. Let us take it one step at a time and see exactly where we part company. Sort of like taking a "The Earth is 6,000 year old" believer back one century at a time to see exactly where they disagree with the evidence. I suggest we leave a clarification of "God" to the last link in this particular branch of this discussion. I suspect I will find your definition of that paradigm as useful in making predictions as "kadjhakfhaifbal" (i.e. nonsense). As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, for communication purposes if nothing else, I suggest we let the predictions themselves define what is meant by "God". This approach uses the important scientific principle of Occam's rasor to pare away parts of the paradigm unnesessary for the predictions. For example, if I suggest a god makes clouds move, the fact that clouds move that doesn't prove my suggestion is true because priciples needed to explain OTHER things fully explain clouds moving. So too with all reproducable mental phenomenon. Sometimes a simple math equation explains a lot, including things yet unobserved. (At the quantum level, it has been found necessary to define reality as only what could in principle be observed because otherwise logical contradictions arose between the particle and wave nature of all things. One consequence of this is that in scientific talk about the universe they are only talking about the parts of what exist that could according to current known laws of physics have an effect on us.) The math structure with fewer "arbitrary" constants is prefered to one with more "arbitrary" constants. Math structures are exact, logical, and quantitative. This allows their relationship to reality to be objectively measured. Some scientists exaggerate and say it is not science until you are measuring and dealing with numbers. None the less, the idea of "if it's not numbers, it's not science" catches the spirit and reality of real science as opposed to pseudo-science (like Electric Universe concept "the "electric universe" theories are, even if correct, not as useful for predictive science as existing theory"). "Not as useful for predictive science" is a nice way to say pseudo-science. WAS 4.250 15:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'll quote: "Try again. You utterly failed to communicate. Probably you were trying to be polite. Be blunt. Please. I KNOW you are wrong. You KNOW I am wrong. If we are not blunt we will only talk in circles"

;)

Sam Spade 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with every word of "When a scientist proposes a paradigm, that is a theory. This theory often predicts a result not yet observed. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions not yet confirmed by experiment; failed predictions also often occur. Conversely, there can be confirmed results that are not yet explained by theory." Please continue. WAS 4.250 01:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That was largely quoted from hypothesis, so if you want to hear more along that vein, you might want to read there ;). I am still waiting for some pragmatic, scientific reason to deny God. We could debate about if God is or is not falsifiable, but is anything real falsifiable? How can we prove something wrong if its true? Sam Spade 13:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue under current consideration is I said We can and DO KNOW that God is not a useful scientific hypothosis to which you responded Here you make an unsubstantiated claim in contradiction to the preponderance of evidence. Who "knows" such a thing? How could they? Isn't it obvious that the overwhelming majority fails to hold this position? I might agree that someone (you for example) believes it, but why?". Information given to you to respond to that includes if I suggest a god makes clouds move, the fact that clouds move doesn't prove my suggestion is true because priciples needed to explain OTHER things fully explain clouds moving. So too with all reproducable mental phenomenon. Sometimes a simple math equation explains a lot, including things yet unobserved. (At the quantum level, it has been found necessary to define reality as only what could in principle be observed because otherwise logical contradictions arose between the particle and wave nature of all things. One consequence of this is that in scientific talk about the universe they are only talking about the parts of what exist that could according to current known laws of physics have an effect on us.) The math structure with fewer "arbitrary" constants is prefered to one with more "arbitrary" constants. Math structures are exact, logical, and quantitative. This allows their relationship to reality to be objectively measured. Some scientists exaggerate and say it is not science until you are measuring and dealing with numbers. None the less, the idea of "if it's not numbers, it's not science" catches the spirit and reality of real science as opposed to pseudo-science (like Electric Universe concept "the "electric universe" theories are, even if correct, not as useful for predictive science as existing theory"). "Not as useful for predictive science" is a nice way to say pseudo-science. I have shown the claim is substantiated; I claim it represents the preponderance of evidence; all well educated people do in fact know such a thing; they can know because we understand things you JUST NOW CLAIMED not to understand, the overwhelming majority's position is not relevant AS YOU WELL KNOW; and I've answered the why. I suggest you read up on science until you can understand the parts of this discussion you dismissed because you didn't understand it. I know you will think this is a smart ass response, but it is apparently the FACT that the difference in our positions is based on the difference in the information (not just opinions) in our heads. It's pointless to discuss why superstition has no place in science if you simply change the subject when the relevant facts are brought to your attention saying you don't get it. WAS 4.250 14:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"I suggest you read up on science until you can understand the parts of this discussion you dismissed because you didn't understand it."

That has got to be the most pathetic excuse for debate I have ever come across. If you think I (a fellow encyclopedia editor no less) am dismissing your argument due to lack of comprehension, you are correct. If you think that lack of comprehension has anything whatsoever to do with science, you are stroking your ego in arather whimsical fashion. I suppose I now have to explain why your not making sense?

"if I suggest a god makes clouds move, the fact that clouds move doesn't prove my suggestion is true because priciples needed to explain OTHER things fully explain clouds moving. So too with all reproducable mental phenomenon."

WTF? What "god"? The God I am talking about is the cloud, the wind, the atmospheric temperature change, the time and distance involved, yes you the observer as well. What possible value is this statement? Are you saying that because you can think of some other reason than God for cloud movement, that this somehow makes God unneccesary? Then there is a great deal of rambling about math and quantum physics until...

"Not as useful for predictive science" is a nice way to say pseudo-science."

I don't know if I accept this, but its not relevant here. I can say that prayer helps people thru illness. I can say that God has a future for us after physical "death". I can say that belief in God makes you a more moral person. All of these are predictive, and all of them easilly provable.

"the difference in our positions is based on the difference in the information (not just opinions) in our heads"

I don't agree. We have the same general information. For whatever reason, you feel I lack "science" info. I, for my part, could say you lack "psychic intelligence" to hear God when he speaks to you. But these are not handy arguments. Were trying to discuss the practical, pragmatic basis for belief, agnosticism, or atheism, yes? The utility of the thing. I don't see these critiques of each others postulated mental resources as being a handy contribution to this convo. Superstition is the root of science btw, both science and religion are all about describing what is. Sam Spade 15:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, at least we are communicating!!!!!

1. "pathetic excuse for debate" I am not debating. I am responding. There is a difference.
2. "The God I am talking about is the cloud." There is no information content in this assertion. It is nonsense.
3. "I can say that prayer helps people thru illness." Prayer is exactly as effective as self-hypnosis, and thus the God hypothesis adds no predictiveness.
4. "I can say that God has a future for us after physical death." There is no evidence for your claim other than wishful thinking.
5. "I can say that belief in God makes you a more moral person." There is a lot of evidence THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
6. "All of them easilly provable." O.K. If it is so easy, go ahead. Prove each point you claim is EASY to PROVE. Easy to assert is more like it. What definition of "prove" will you pick? Anything a mathematician would accept? I thought not. Anything a physicist would accept? I thought not. All talk. No proof. Typical armchair philosopher.
7. "We have the same general information." You have not a clue to what science has to say about the nature of the universe and believing this statement simply confirms what I said. You know so very very little about science you think we all know the same. How tragic.
8. "I, for my part, could say you lack psychic intelligence to hear God when he speaks to you." I spoke to and heard God many times when I was a Christian. I now know it was not God.
9. "Were trying to discuss the practical, pragmatic basis for belief, agnosticism, or atheism, yes?" I am merely responding truthfully. I have given up seeking a goal in this interesting discussion. I am learning a thing or two about how you think; and as many think as you do, it is useful at least for that.
10. "I don't see these critiques of each others postulated mental resources as being a handy contribution to this convo." I find it to be the essense of our disgreement.
11. "Superstition is the root of science." See what I mean? You might as well claim quarks are alive. Both claims show a significant lack of information. Your problem is ignorance in science, not stupidity or inability in logic. But then you believe I am the one with the problem. Ah, well; at least neither of us is stupid, mean, or dishonest with the other! Here's to honest talk! WAS 4.250 18:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
12. I am not talking about you missing a few facts. I am talking about you missing YEARS of study in math, physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science. There is a shortcut. You COULD accept the word of the physicists about quarks rather than believe your opinion is better than theirs about what a quark is or is not. Same with things like what life is and is not. I did spend years studying those exact things in order to prove to atheistic scientists that God existed. I proved myself wrong and changed to a computer science major (in the 1970's). I doubt you will ever change your mind, and I'm not going to try. I will respond, tho, as I enjoy talking to you. WAS 4.250 18:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Another arbitrary page break

So it sounds like you have spent more time studying hard science than I have. I'm a psyche major, w an emphasis on hypnosis and analytical psychotherapy. Most of my formal training in hard science involves behavior modification. On the other hand, I have read scripture daily since about age 12. So I tell you what, I'll try to take the physicists word on their claims if you try to accept the claims of mystics and prophets on their area of expertise ;)

As far as testing the afterlife, thats easy, just die. Studying morality, consider the horrors done in the name of communism, or the nihilistic sadism of mass-murderers. Besides, I consider such things as the spanish inquisition an act of satanism, so I'm not really sure whats left as far as immorality in the name of God. Muslims? They seem to be ignoring their scripture, not fullfilling it in their terrorism and abuse of women. Regarding the power of prayer, it has been shown to be useful even when others pray for you. Besides, call prayer self-hypnosis if you want, the benefits of positive, Godly thinking don't go away. What do you think about the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Is thinking "WWJD" before acting a bad idea? Does belief in an all seeing God prevent or promote good deeds? Sam Spade 19:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "So it sounds like you have spent more time studying hard science than I have. I'm a psyche major, w an emphasis on hypnosis and analytical psychotherapy. Most of my formal training in hard science involves behavior modification." Yes, this is true. I am very needy (desirous) of information in your field; teach away if you choose! No matter how much one studies, there are always areas still left undiscovered - your specialty is that for me.
2. "On the other hand, I have read scripture daily since about age 12." I've STUDIED the Bible cover to cover, and parts of the Koran and parts of Morman scripture. I would guess we are on a level playing field with regard to scripture.
3. "So I tell you what, I'll try to take the physicists word on their claims if you try to accept the claims of mystics and prophets on their area of expertise." You are comparing science with nonscience. Unfortunately that doesn't ring a bell in your head cause (in my opinion) you DO NOT GET THE DIFFERENCE.
4. "As far as testing the afterlife, that's easy, just die." Yeah, I've been dying to say that to you to. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny "Ain't we stinkers?"
5. "Studying morality, consider the horrors done in the name of communism, or the nihilistic sadism of mass-murderers. Besides, I consider such things as the spanish inquisition an act of satanism, so I'm not really sure whats left as far as immorality in the name of God. Muslims? They seem to be ignoring their scripture, not fullfilling it in their terrorism and abuse of women." OUR HEARTS ARE ONE.
6. "Regarding the power of prayer, it has been shown to be useful even when others pray for you." I believe people believe this; but if it were true, there would be a for profit enterprise capitalizing on it. Conclusion - self-deception.
7. "What do you think about the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Is thinking "WWJD" before acting a bad idea? Does belief in an all seeing God prevent or promote good deeds?" One does not need to believe in a God to love one's neighbor, to ask what would Jesus do, to believe all one's acts really matter in the cosmic scheme of things, or to desire to do good deeds. On the other hand, I'm not about to go around telling children "Santa Claus does not exist so be as bad as you want." WAS 4.250 23:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that went over unexpectedly well. I assume I'm rather more versed in scripture than you, esp. from your account, as I have read the bible cover-to-cover thrice, and study it variously on a regular basis (I often get into theological discussion, allow JW's and mormons into my house, and enjoy watching Arnold Murray's chapter by chapter, verse by verse, 24 hr internet broadcasts). Additionally, I study the vedas, having read the bhagavad gita a couple of times (its an AWESOME book, which I highly recommend), the kabballah, and mythologies and holy scriptures from around the world. Have a look at sacred-texts some time, I have it on my toolbar. As far as Islam I prefer sufism, and I am theologically (as well as politically ;) difficult to define. Sam Spade 12:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I studied the Bible when I believed it to be God's missive to mankind. I studied Mormonism in order to convince my fiancee (glad I looked that up; I almost left off on "e") it was false. I read parts of the Koran out of curiosity. What do you get out of scripture? Why do you find it a good way to spend time as opposed to studying other things? curiosity? insight (into what? (humans? physics?))? What scipture quotes are especially close to your heart. I like First Corinthians 13 (the love chapter: Even if I had the ability to move mountains, if I have not love I have NOTHING.) I also like the quote "I am become the destroyer of worlds" as it captures so well the moment of mankind's exit from its prenuclear Eden. WAS 4.250 13:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I like the bhagavad gita so much I couldn't begin to choose a single quote, but some concepts I like are karma, reincarnation, and monism. For the bible, I like :

Lu 22:36 - Then said he unto them, He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Mt 7:15-7:20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mt 22:36-22:40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

As far as what I get insight into, you might want to look into Carl Jung a bit, but aside from a window into the collective human experience, I get advice from prophets and holy men, understanding and context of history (I esp. like how norse mythology and hindu mythology display their common ancestry), practical everyday advice, and a better understanding of God. You have to keep in mind, you conceive of a separation of religion and science, but I agree w Einstein when he said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Sam Spade 16:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have the time, so I'll look into this scripture favorite of yours and record my initial responses. Bhagavad Gita says As he looks at the opposing armies and sees his relatives, teachers, and friends fighting on either side, he is heartsick at the thought of killing these beloved persons. He turns to Krishna for advice. Krishna counsels Arjuna, beginning with the tenet that since souls are immortal, their deaths on the battlefield are just the shedding of the body, which is not the soul. This reminds me of something I said at the beginning to another person that caused you to respond That's absurd; I had said God is [...] a government lie to get people to fight to the death. This passage is exactly what I was talking about. Go ahead and kill/be killed !! It's not "real" death!! Religious ideas are often lies in the service of evil. Bhagavad Gita goes on to say Krishna goes on to expound on the yogic paths of devotion, action, meditation and knowledge. Fundamentally, the Bhagavad Gita proposes that true enlightenment comes from growing beyond identification with the ego, the little self, and that one must identify with the truth of the immortal Self, the soul or Atman, the ultimate divine consciousness. Through dispassion the yogi, or follower of a particular path of yoga, is able to transcend his mortality and attachment for the material world and see the infinite. Eastern religion is very good at providing useful insight into self awareness and meditation which is a GOOD thing. This is one of the babies to not throw out with the bathwater. Western religion's good aspects include promoting love and can function as a social tool to fight governments. Next we read To demonstrate the infinity of the unknowable Brahman, Krishna temporarily gives Arjuna the cosmic eye and allows him to see Him in all his divine glory. He reveals that He is fundamentally both the ultimate essence of being in the universe and also its material body. which reminds me of above where I said If an entity simply had sufficient control (e.g. hypnotic control) of enough human minds he could make us BELIEVE he had control and knowledge over all the universe; so I conclude that WE CAN NOT KNOW EVEN IN PRINCIPLE if such a god exists because a finite local powerful nongod that can sufficiently influence our minds is indistinguishable from an entity with even more power. Even if the incident described ACTUALLY occured, it only proves someone had a lot of power over the mind of one man - hardly a "demonstration" of infinite anything. Bhagavad Gita goes on to say the root of all suffering and discord is the agitation of the mind caused by desire. The only way to douse the flame of desire is by stilling the mind through discipline of the senses and the intellect. However, abstinence from action is regarded as being just as detrimental as extreme indulgence. All wise men have talked about balance, not too much, not too little. "Moderation in all things." "There is a season for all things." "If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now." from Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (a stoic philosopher ruler) (which I studied decades ago). I prefer the nonreligious approach in Meditations to the religious approach in Bhagavad Gita. Stoicism article says it is a school of philosophy founded (308 BC) in Athens by Zeno of Citium (Cyprus). It teaches self-control and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain. This allows one to be a clear thinker, levelheaded and unbiased. In practice, Stoicism is designed to empower an individual with virtue, wisdom, and integrity of character. Students are encouraged to help those in need, knowing that those who can, should. Stoicism also teaches psychological independence from society, regarding it as an unruly and often unreasonable entity. One does not need to believe in the supernatural to believe there is a truth in "We are one with the universe." WAS 4.250 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So you've come full circle, and now we are agreeing. Spirituality rooted in science is a good thing. our own experiences are more valid than those of other people. I don't care what you think Arjuna saw or not, you wern't him. Maybe he just looked over and noticed what a nice, friendly guy Krishna was. That would be consistant w all paradigms, yes? As far as being willing to die, thats a good thing. Men who are unwilling to die for their country are unfit to lead it. I can't say I trust someone who isn't willing to die for something. As far as ancient greeks, I don't know of an ancient greek philosophy I agree with, but I do like their terms for love, and Hero of alexandria is a pretty awesome guy. Sam Spade 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I always said I thought our main problem was communication - using the same words to mean different things. Not entirely - just mostly. WAS 4.250 16:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats usually the case. Not always, but usually. Sam Spade 17:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. WAS 4.250 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)