Can it not exist?

[Polymath257]

One can test belief.
What is the belief in? A god.
What is a god? Supernatural, spiritual, all mighty, everything, etc. So in my opinion no one knows what a god is.
One can't test what isn't known.

And so the difference between that an non-existence is irrelevant.

 

[Polymath257]

So how do you know that naturalism is irrelevant? How do you test that?

By presenting a method (the scientific method) that doesn't need the concept of 'nature' to work.

I have yet to see a good workable definition of the term 'nature'. Which makes the term 'supernatural' equally elusive.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you mean how a red Gala apple can be on my dining room table, and it is a fact that it is there, and not my imagination?

He's making the rhetorical point that you cannot know that the apple isn't an illusion, or part of a simulation, etc.

What he seems to miss is that this doesn't affect the working definition of 'real'.

 

[We Never Know]

And so the difference between that an non-existence is irrelevant.

Maybe, maybe not. Look how many things we know exist now but we didn't know they existed 1000 years ago.
I'm sure as we advance in science we will find many more things that do exist, we just don't know about them yet.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe, maybe not. Look how many things we know exist now but we didn't know they existed 1000 years ago.
I'm sure as we advance in science we will find many more things that do exist, we just don't know about them yet.

Pointing back 1000 years takes us to well before the rise of science. But I would agree that there are certainly many things that we don't know about because our technology isn't advanced enough yet to detect them.

The difference is that people claim that it is impossible *even in theory* to detect a God. That is very different than simply not having the technology at the present time. It is saying that no matter what else we learn and what technology we develop, there is literally no way to detect this God or show that such a thing actually exists.

As a contrast, I can imagine that a multi-dimensional race of beings learned how to make universes for their pleasure and ours is one of the many. If there is a way to *test* that hypothesis (say, we establish communication and transfer technology), then it becomes within the realm of potential knowledge. If there is literally no way to test it other than to believe ahead of time, then it is simply a rather arbitrary opinion with nothing to support it.

I see God-belief as being in the second category.

 

[F1fan]

Wisdom perceives things that are hidden to those who lack it.

Like noticing the lack of evidence for gods, therefore not being swayed by social pressure to think they exist.

 

[We Never Know]

Like noticing the lack of evidence for gods, therefore not being swayed by social pressure to think they exist.

DNA wasn't discovered for thousands of years yet it existed and was in everything.

 

[DNB]

Like noticing the lack of evidence for gods, ....

Out of your own mouth!

 

[rational experiences]

Electricity does it exist.

Meaning of the word exist is living.

Exist does not mean created.

Lightning in gods heavens is a reaction.

Man says science is to copy react. I now want it. Yet earth that grounds lightning was converted by a massive heat first. Lightning in that review.

Now to build a machine.

His thesis cold enough now the dust mineral to just channel electricity. Believes what he says is real. About. Machine presence first. Cooled most of God earths lightning blast.

Yet he processes the metal by heat again.

To own the machine body.

I want what God created. Now In reactions only. No longer theorising how I got the machine.

As he can't have what he never saw....the reaction. As God only in science reacts inside it's planet mass.

Machine. To react inside of it only also.

The reaction in heavens not God the pretend machine was recorded only as it did not exist.

So he tells us all gods reactions inside are not seen. As they are inside earth.

The higher states exist first. That supported the reaction but also stopped the reaction. God status.

Science not included at all.

Scientist greedy man says I want a non stop open channelled reaction.

Does not even exist. He says because it's gods. Direct lie in mind.

A liar.

So he says lightning very powerful gets stopped. If you are standing where it strikes however...no human.

He says I want the reaction.

I have made the reaction lightning to electricity from two pre burnt bodies made cold. Coal and dusts.

Now I want non stop space access direct to machine.

Yet lightning exists by God and lightning stops by God also

His thesis direct to machine only.

Yet lying he decides to include life on the ground.

Even though it is instant and direct to a machine reaction.

Reason inferred we own the heavens. Not any liars machine.

Said by all natural human minds. As everyone is the same a human. He ignored how we all feel. First is what he wants.

Our destroyer brother theist.

So first in theory he does not want lightning stopped. He wants to lessen it to get what he says is the medium of his desire. The atmosphere electricity source.

He then lies theories about it.

Which want as first does not even exist.

Of course he says as God owns it. And wants us to believe him.

So as lightning is owned it began and stopped in God heavens what type of machine control does he claim he owns.

As the inventor and I want theist?

Lots and lots of atmospheric experiments including spraying which he cannot own control rationally.
.....to claim am applying then studying.

To his belief it is just a sound. Some energy. Carried.

Whilst pretending he is theorising bio life. Yet he only wants machine reaction. Meaning inside of planet earths body only.

Where his copying of God began. Planet to machine thesis.

To him placating all humans bodies first instead.

You have bio chemical reactions that he says is electric. I say so first.

Yet word enforcer thinker is the human man always. So he says he wants only bio electric as the thesis a life living. His beliefs about life. We are living naturally. Not because of his thoughts.

Yet in reality it is all machine states reactions that he wants. Bio electric inside machine reaction.

So my mother sick of you lying as baby men told my life as a sister your truth. As you no longer believe in lifes ability to exist naturally. Nor do you express in reality a truth about a natural life.

As we are human first. What our body does is none of your business. Unless we need medical assistance only.

See your theist machine satanist brother before you support him destroying our rights to live.

 

[rational experiences]

Pointing back 1000 years takes us to well before the rise of science. But I would agree that there are certainly many things that we don't know about because our technology isn't advanced enough yet to detect them.

The difference is that people claim that it is impossible *even in theory* to detect a God. That is very different than simply not having the technology at the present time. It is saying that no matter what else we learn and what technology we develop, there is literally no way to detect this God or show that such a thing actually exists.

As a contrast, I can imagine that a multi-dimensional race of beings learned how to make universes for their pleasure and ours is one of the many. If there is a way to *test* that hypothesis (say, we establish communication and transfer technology), then it becomes within the realm of potential knowledge. If there is literally no way to test it other than to believe ahead of time, then it is simply a rather arbitrary opinion with nothing to support it.

I see God-belief as being in the second category.

Men in secret laboratory theisms don't relate information publicly in reality.

Only share portion of theism contents. In reality are not using truth or honesty.

A human condition we teach keeps human life safe.

Men of science don't own any machine first.

So if you are going to pretend you know...
no machine conditions allowed.

You never made any natural mind contact with other worldly beings as just a natural human first.

However men humans using machines picked up transmitting voice recordings of speaking feedback by machines.

Earth travels in space recording non stop using the state recording. All machines.

Then we get earth feedback from out of space just because voice was recorded.

Thinks it other worldly beings in distorted earth messages they nuclear science caused by converting earths mass theirselves.

Instead of using natural common sense make up ego chemical titillating descriptions that excites the mind and body of already chemically defective natural human life.

Is what my holy mother reality taught me.

Get easily excited nowadays as that disturbed chemical man's mind body.

 

[Heyo]

Isn't it fair to say that since humans are real beings that have real interests in the real things of their real sensory experiences? Many theists claim their gods are real, thus part of the "real world".

And some don't. You have to recognize that or you're in danger of fighting a straw man.

I understand theists try to get around this by cling a spiritual world or realm, but they can't explain how they, as material beings, engage with this and can be certain it isn't just imaginary. Plus if their gods are real, they are part of the real world. That means our inquiry includes these gods, assuming they exist outside of human imagine.

Thus far we cannot distinguish any god exists outside of human imagination, so these claims are largely irrelevant.

You know what also doesn't exist outside of human imagination? Numbers and laws. But we don't argue with mathematicians and lawyers.

Theists want to make their claims in the real world, but also be exempt from criticism by rational minds. To my mind once theists opt to engage in debate with rational thinkers all bets are off. They can remain in quiet contemplation if they prefer to believe their gods operate in some special realm that is divorced from doubt and reason.

We don't owe theists any some touches when then reneges deliberately, and show indifference for science and contempt for reason. The real world is for big boys and they need to learn it isn't nice out there.

I'm a fan of Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria and I respect every theist or spiritualist who is able to stay on his side of the fence. @Conscious thoughts mostly is.

 

[We Never Know]

And some don't. You have to recognize that or you're in danger of fighting a straw man.
You know what also doesn't exist outside of human imagination? Numbers and laws. But we don't argue with mathematicians and lawyers.

I'm a fan of Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria and I respect every theist or spiritualist who is able to stay on his side of the fence. @Conscious thoughts mostly is.

I never seen anyone arguing about color...


“A color only exists in your head,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.”

Color is, quite literally, a figment of your imagination, Lotto said. It only exists in your head. Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist who studies color and vision at Wellesley College, explained it this way: “Color is this computation that our brains make that enables us to extract meaning from the world.”

Of course, if you want to get technical about it, there are receptors called cones in our eyes that act like little color channel sensors. One cone processes blue, another processes red, another green. An elaborate network of sophisticated cells in the brain compares the activity of these cones, and then signals from our brain produce the impression of colors. This system is working furiously, all the time."

That dress isn't blue or gold because color doesn't exist

 

[Heyo]

“A color only exists in your head,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.”

I see it a bit more nuanced. There are 16 named colours that truly exist. (RGB in low and high intensity and the combinations they form.)
The strange colours women claim exist (like "petrol", "mauve" or "eggshell") are pure imagination.
;-)

 

[We Never Know]

I see it a bit more nuanced. There are 16 named colours that truly exist. (RGB in low and high intensity and the combinations they form.)
The strange colours women claim exist (like "petrol", "mauve" or "eggshell") are pure imagination.
;-)

Its hard to even imagine that color only exists in our minds.

"The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist… at least not in any literal sense. Apples and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white".

What exists is light. Light is real.

You can measure it, hold it and count it (well … sort-of). But colour is not light. Colour is wholly manufactured by your brain.

How do we know this? Because one light can take on any colour… in our mind.


Do you see what I see?

 

[rational experiences]

If you are talking science for scientist as a science mind by science memories only then you are talking to a scientist for science to stop science lying.

As science.

As nature is not answerable to the scientist.

Human theism. AI status machine data recordings voice image. Feedback non stop science talking only.

Life lives in the real world. Not by another humans theisms.

Colours in light change heavens in gas burning cooling causes in water cooling vacuum involved. Not owned by science in natural reality.

Stone is coloured by substance.

Is the scientific teaching.

Nature is colored by substance.

Blue atmosphere natural light only.

A science teaching just for scientists personally. However not heeded as just a scientists teaching.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you mean how a red Gala apple can be on my dining room table, and it is a fact that it is there, and not my imagination?

Yes.
It is a belief. There is a reason we have a concept like methodological naturalism.
Here is a short version of the history of philosophy and how it failed.
You have to be absolutely certain of something, otherwise it is not true. That was the standard in philosophy. Along comes a human by the name of Rene Descarte and he tested that. What could he be absolutely certain off?

Well, he asked if he could be cheated by an evil demon and then answer was that he had no way of knowing that. The modern version is a Boltzmann Brain, if you want science.
So that is how you get this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
But you already knew all this, because you know the history of knowledge and fact and how that connects to modern science?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Aha. On this, at least, you and I can be in total agreement.


A question of instruments and equipment, then. Perhaps we are all equipped with an instrument or instruments we are not accustomed to use?

But you just can't describe what those instruments are, how to use them, or even whether or not they exist? At what point does someone realize that their ideas are ridiculous, I wonder?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you just can't describe what those instruments are, how to use them, or even whether or not they exist? At what point does someone realize that their ideas are ridiculous, I wonder?

Evidence that their ideas are ridiculous? I get it as a feeling and you can have it as a feeling, but do you claim evidence?

That is how easy it is easy. Just note what a poster makes a non-scientific claim of is/are.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But you just can't describe what those instruments are, how to use them, or even whether or not they exist? At what point does someone realize that their ideas are ridiculous, I wonder?

When, perhaps, those subjecting the beliefs of others to ridicule without even bothering to investigate those beliefs, realise that they are just making themselves look ridiculous.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When, perhaps, those subjecting the beliefs of others to ridicule without even bothering to investigate those beliefs, realise that they are in fact making themselves look ridiculous.

@A Vestigial Mote
I wonder what instrument he/she uses to measure ridiculous?