God Proof - Take 1

[BilliardsBall]

Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'd like to kick around some ideas. Not looking for a fight and I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of dogmatism, but if you help me sharpen some of my ideas, I would greatly appreciate it. Here's a proof that I accept for the existence of God. It's basically based on rationalism, as I understand it. If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share. Thanks!

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency

1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)
2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency
3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)
4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)
5. All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing. This is because either
   1. An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes
   2. An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes. This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes, thus the thing is equivalent to the infinite chain of causes in a generally consistent reality. This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary. Thus the thing, which is the chain, is non-arbitrary.
6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.
7. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.

Welcome. Well done!

 

[Twilight Hue]

God made World Wide Flood; God has burn the Sodom and Homorra. All is in Bible.

It all pretty much stays there too.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are not open-minded? Atheists, just be a bit open-minded, when you would read the Bible:

I literally grew up reading the bible. The more of it I studied? The less sense it made.

No god worthy of the title "Universe Creator" would have been responsible for such a clumsy and ridiculously flawed book.

Yes: Be open minded when reading the bible by all means: It will make you into an unbeliever.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Look the message, not messager.

What if the messenger IS the message? As in your case? Or, for that matter, 100% of all theistic cases?

 

[Audie]

I don't know what planet your from, but on Earth Historians and Physicists from most all creditable universities don't view the Bible as having any authority, authenticity, or accuracy at all.

Hey, dont leave out the biologsts and geologists!

 

[Windwalker]

Yo, Windwalker! Trust all things are good at your place.

Hey, how's it going? Yeah, things are going well mostly so.

If it's clear that the 'unfathomable, the transcendent, the divine' exist only in the imagination of the individual, then they can indeed be enjoyed according to one's taste, and poetry may be useful, and the attitudes and aspirations that relate to them may be admirable.

But if the assertion is that they're aspects of reality, then of course we should seek out, describe and seek to explain them, just as with any other aspect of reality.

As always I hope to find better ways to describe my impressions and thoughts. I'll see what I can do here. What is experienced as ineffable is seen by everyone, but just simply not opened to. The ineffable exists everywhere, with no "place" excluded. It is simply how reality is experienced. And reality exists both inside and outside equally. We are not separate from the world, nor the world from us. The sunset includes the one witnessing it. One person can see the sunset and just filter it away as "just another sunset", and another may step outside of time and feel it in radiated through their entire being and radiate out from themselves. The sunset and themselves are not two separate things.

In the first case, the one who shrugs it off with his mind, that reality of it to him also "exists only in the imagination of the individual". It is his own imagination that the sees nothing. His imagination says, "It's just a sunset". In fact, every single experience of reality is held in the imagination of the individual, regardless of the content, whether that be sacred or profane, ineffable or mundane. So when someone experiences something that the average shared collective imagination does not see, the average individual may say that what Bob claims about the Divine in everything, is "only in his imagination", not recognizing that the same is true of them.

If it were one individual making an extraordinary claim, we might dismiss that as a purely individual perception, like the way a schizophrenic might imagine himself to be Jesus Christ. But we are talking about common experiences shared and expressed in similar language by many individuals, on different continents, different cultures, different languages, different times in history, different personalities, etc. So this is now a common experience describe the same ways. That doesn't make it "objectively true", but rather it points to the fact that this is not an abbiration, a malfunction of the mind, but rather a different common experience of human reality, a different level of human experience, which is possible for anyone. Life goes on, but healthier and happier than before, as most everyone who experiences this will attest to.

What this can be boiled down to is simple. All reality is a matter of perception. All perception is a factor of our imaginations, what we imagine with the mind to be true. If and when that perception changes, what is beheld before is now simply perceived as different than before, while it is the exact same thing that was seen before, but not recognized as it is now. "It was right there the whole time, but I didn't see it," is the common refrain. It is not another reality, but this reality we all share, but perceive and experience at different levels of reality. One does not leave reality, but merely steps in more deeply to the same thing. That's all.

When we start there, when we realize that reality is not some static object outside of ourselves, but intimately includes the mind and perceptions of the one experiencing it, then we can get away from thinking we are arguing about what is "real", as opposed to what is "true". If the perception of reality sees the divine, the effect is radically different to the perceiver than if they see reality as "just a dead rock", or something. Reality is the experience of our perception of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual reality at different levels. Its reality is about the texture of human experience in a world of matter and mind.

Some perceptions are dark and pessimistic, others full of light and hope, and most somewhere in the middle with a relatively comfortable sense of existence somewhere between heaven and hell in a sort of purgatory or limbo, not truly dead, yet not truly alive. The mystic feels compelled to the former. The nihilist the latter, and the average person somewhere in between trying to make a connection to the nature of their own existence.

"Is God [...] something that exists outside the subjective reality of ones own self?"

To be clear, you're answering that, No, right?

There is no objectivity outside the subject. It includes the subject looking at all points. It is impossible to remove the seen, from the one seeing it. So the answer is not "no", but "moot". There is no true division between what we perceive to be "objective reality", and the subject perceiving it. Reality includes and reflects the state of our minds, always. There is no true subject/object division. It looks more like this: subjectobjectsubject = Reality, where there is no true divsion but simply shifting points of view, or vantage points along a continuum. Subject/object = Perceived reality, or "imagination".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hey, how's it going? Yeah, things are going well mostly so.


As always I hope to find better ways to describe my impressions and thoughts. I'll see what I can do here. What is experienced as ineffable is seen by everyone, but just simply not opened to. The ineffable exists everywhere, with no "place" excluded. It is simply how reality is experienced. And reality exists both inside and outside equally. We are not separate from the world, nor the world from us. The sunset includes the one witnessing it. One person can see the sunset and just filter it away as "just another sunset", and another may step outside of time and feel it in radiated through their entire being and radiate out from themselves. The sunset and themselves are not two separate things.

In the first case, the one who shrugs it off with his mind, that reality of it to him also "exists only in the imagination of the individual". It is his own imagination that the sees nothing. His imagination says, "It's just a sunset". In fact, every single experience of reality is held in the imagination of the individual, regardless of the content, whether that be sacred or profane, ineffable or mundane. So when someone experiences something that the average shared collective imagination does not see, the average individual may say that what Bob claims about the Divine in everything, is "only in his imagination", not recognizing that the same is true of them.

If it were one individual making an extraordinary claim, we might dismiss that as a purely individual perception, like the way a schizophrenic might imagine himself to be Jesus Christ. But we are talking about common experiences shared and expressed in similar language by many individuals, on different continents, different cultures, different languages, different times in history, different personalities, etc. So this is now a common experience describe the same ways. That doesn't make it "objectively true", but rather it points to the fact that this is not an abbiration, a malfunction of the mind, but rather a different common experience of human reality, a different level of human experience, which is possible for anyone. Life goes on, but healthier and happier than before, as most everyone who experiences this will attest to.

What this can be boiled down to is simple. All reality is a matter of perception. All perception is a factor of our imaginations, what we imagine with the mind to be true. If and when that perception changes, what is beheld before is now simply perceived as different than before, while it is the exact same thing that was seen before, but not recognized as it is now. "It was right there the whole time, but I didn't see it," is the common refrain. It is not another reality, but this reality we all share, but perceive and experience at different levels of reality. One does not leave reality, but merely steps in more deeply to the same thing. That's all.

When we start there, when we realize that reality is not some static object outside of ourselves, but intimately includes the mind and perceptions of the one experiencing it, then we can get away from thinking we are arguing about what is "real", as opposed to what is "true". If the perception of reality sees the divine, the effect is radically different to the perceiver than if they see reality as "just a dead rock", or something. Reality is the experience of our perception of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual reality at different levels. Its reality is about the texture of human experience in a world of matter and mind.

Some perceptions are dark and pessimistic, others full of light and hope, and most somewhere in the middle with a relatively comfortable sense of existence somewhere between heaven and hell in a sort of purgatory or limbo, not truly dead, yet not truly alive. The mystic feels compelled to the former. The nihilist the latter, and the average person somewhere in between trying to make a connection to the nature of their own existence.


There is no objectivity outside the subject. It includes the subject looking at all points. It is impossible to remove the seen, from the one seeing it. So the answer is not "no", but "moot". There is no true division between what we perceive to be "objective reality", and the subject perceiving it. Reality includes and reflects the state of our minds, always. There is no true subject/object division. It looks more like this: subjectobjectsubject = Reality, where there is no true divsion but simply shifting points of view, or vantage points along a continuum. Subject/object = Perceived reality, or "imagination".

The above is all well and good.

But. It begins to break down, when sharp details are examined and compared from person to person.

Indeed: One philosopher observed that no two gods are ever the same, from one person to the next; the sharp details vary greatly. Indeed-- these even vary within individuals when separated by mere hours or days.

Contrast: Experiments using the Scientific Method, which are designed to remove the personal biases of individual humans? Yield common ground. Common experience which is filtered to remove the dross of human variations.

What is left? Is the same, regardless of which group of humans examine the results.

You cannot ever say that about god-claims-- in fact, the opposite is true: All gods are different from one individual to the next, and from one day to the next within individuals.

Sometimes wildly different on the most fundamental levels of being.

So. Which methodology is more consistent? Scientific Inquiry, of course. Without which we would not be discussing this, using controlled lightning, captured in wires, in airwaves, in silicon and copper. All because of distilling the experiences and observations of disparate groups of humans, removing the Imagination from the results.

Reality: Reality is what is left over after you remove all faith.

To put it another way:

Reality is whatever is left over after you stop believing.

Reality is indifferent to humans' desires, or wishes. The sun remains hot, regardless of how many people sacrifice virgins to it..... or don't even bother to look up. Still hot. Still drives the earth's ecology. Lightning strikes the same, no matter how many rituals humans do.

Yet? Humans figured out a "ritual" that does "tame" lighting-- and it works regardless if you believe it's going to work or you believe it won't.

Reality may all be Imagination. But the most essential common points, between various human's perceptions?

Gave us airplanes. Automobiles. Computers and the Internet.

Religion? Gave is war, homophobia, women-as-property, child sacrifice, bondage, slavery, idolatry, abuse of power, etc, etc, etc...

Oh sure, it also gave us the ubiquitous Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You-- but I say that pre-dates all religion, and is an essential part of Empathy-- which we inherited from our ancestors, because they were cooperative herd animals.

 

[viole]

Look the message, not messager.

Does it say somewhere in the message that we should take the Bible seriously? Looked and lloke but could not find it. Where is ir?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Hmmmmm, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore God created everything.,

Everything includes God, unless you are like me that He is not part of everything.

Did He create Himself, then? Must be if He created everything and He is part of everything.

Or something with your logic is misfiring.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Welcome. Well done!

I wonder why you guys need such complicated arguments that a generic God, which could be any sort of character, exists when all you have to do is provide some evidence of Jesus and His miracles. Or of Allah, Apollo, the great Juju, or whomever theists believe in.

It is like using cosmology, philosophy, logic atc. to prove the existence of generic cars, and their properties, when all you have to do is show your Ford. Seems like a waste of time to me, if you really had enough evidence for any particular God that could possibly justify your particular faith in Him.

So, where is your Ford?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I wonder why you guys need such complicated arguments that a generic God, which could be any sort of character, exists when all you have to do is provide some evidence of Jesus and His miracles. Or of Allah, Apollo, the great Juju, or whomever theists believe in.

It is like using cosmology, philosophy, logic atc. to prove the existence of generic cars, and their properties, when all you have to do is show your Ford. Seems like a waste of time to me, if you really had enough evidence for any particular God that could possibly justify your particular faith in Him.

So, where is your Ford?

Ciao

- viole

Then too, if one could prove god, there is no
purpose to faith.

Probably, the "faith is a virtue" thing comes from
making a virtue of necessity, as, "god(s)" be not
in the habit of getting detected.

 

[viole]

Then too, if one could prove god, there is no
purpose to faith.

Probably, the "faith is a virtue" thing comes from
making a virtue of necessity, as, "god(s)" be not
in the habit of getting detected.

Well, I think that what motivates them is to show to themselves that faith is rational. And that is why they create these question begging arguments that can be destroyed immediately (by someone with a clue in logic).

They don’t do them to prove anything to us, obviously. They do it so that the pious and credulous without a clue in modal logic or philosophy thinks his faith is rational, after all, even if he did not understand anything of the argument.

Well, they need these sort of reassurances evey now and then, don’t they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Well, I think that what motivates them is to show to themselves that faith is rational. And that is why they create these question begging arguments that can be destroyed immediately (by someone with a clue in logic).

They don’t do them to prove anything to us, obviously. They do it so that the pious and credulous without a clue in modal logic or philosophy thinks his faith is rational, after all, even if he did not understand anything of the argument.

Well, they need these sort of reassurances evey now and then, don’t they?

Ciao

- viole

Its fine with me if they could prove god. Talk
about interesting!

After that, I'd like to know something about
this god, if it is one or are there many, and,
maybe most important, so what?

Like, is there something I should do now that
I know? Throw virgins in a volcano, build a
cathedral, translate gold plates? Say
"Thanks for all the fish"?

As for "faith is rational" one cannot beat the
unitended humour in this quote of Dr. K Wise.

Creation.com
I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

[Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?]

 

[viole]

Its fine with me if they could prove god. Talk
about interesting!

After that, I'd like to know something about
this god, if it is one or are there many, and,
maybe most important, so what?

Like, is there something I should do now that
I know? Throw virgins in a volcano, build a
cathedral, translate gold plates? Say
"Thanks for all the fish"?

As for "faith is rational" one cannot beat the
unitended humour in this quote of Dr. K Wise.

Creation.com
I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

[Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?]

Well, to their credit, they are not all so blind. For instance Craig thinks that YEC is a disgrace and an embarassment for all Christianity.

Admirable. Alas, that makes him both at odds with the Bible and science. Like those theists who believe evolution is compatible with Christianity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Well, to their credit, they are not all so blind. For instance Craig thinks that YEC is a disgrace and an embarassment for all Christianity.

Admirable. Alas, that makes him both at odds with the Bible and science. Like those theists who believe evolution is compatible with Christianity.

Ciao

- viole

As noted elsewhere, there just is no way
to be an informed and intellectually
honest creationist.

 

[Windwalker]

The above is all well and good.

But. It begins to break down, when sharp details are examined and compared from person to person.

Indeed: One philosopher observed that no two gods are ever the same, from one person to the next; the sharp details vary greatly. Indeed-- these even vary within individuals when separated by mere hours or days.

Of course. This is completely consistent with what I said about reality and perception. All reality is perception. If you have 7 billion people, you have 7 billion realities. What we do is find other humans we can share a common language or system of thought and symbols to make connections with, or we are born into an programmed to adopt a common system. Even within a given culture, where there is a shared "reality" that is created by the group, no two interpretations of the common world are identical either. They are "close enough" we overlook the nuances of differences. That it's about God is secondary to that primary fact, and naturally follows suit from it.

Contrast: Experiments using the Scientific Method, which are designed to remove the personal biases of individual humans? Yield common ground. Common experience which is filtered to remove the dross of human variations.

No. This is an illusion. What you are seeing is people starting with a shared framework of reality, defining a set of tests that help weed out what doesn't fit that reality, running the tests, and validating what fits the framework. This is not unknown about the sciences. It starts by slicing reality into a certain thing, devises the test, and then finds what fits and doesn't fit within that. You aren't looking at reality through science, but rather you are looking at a scientific view of reality.

That's not the same thing as claiming that view actually reflects "real" reality". It excludes from the questions things that don't fit that view of reality, such as God. There are no scientific tests for that. Nor is there for a huge, huge, array of human experiences. This is why you have the humanities, and the other so-called "soft sciences". Reductionism for instance, is a philosophical stance, which is not the result of the sciences themselves. It starts with a belief about reality, and seeks confirmation to support that view arrived at subjectively, not objectively.

What is left? Is the same, regardless of which group of humans examine the results.

No it is not. You can do the same thing say with theology, where you set up the criteria for the test to help correct human error, people follow the process, and it weeds out certain perspectives that don't fit and preserves those which reflect the best reading of the data. They all end up agreeing together, that their reading of the Bible is correct. "Our church is right, and the rest are wrong. We all agree." This is of course an illusion.

Perhaps a simpler example would be that of starting with the idea itself that an "objective reality", as something that exists outside of and independent subjective perceptions. Right there, in that itself alone, you included subjectivity. Here's how. Objectivity as a thing, is itself nothing other than an artificial mental construct. It is an attempt of the subjective mind to create an authentic, believable reality. This construct is based entirely on subjectivity and belief. The subjective is inherent in the fact it is a concept at all. All then to support that as "proofs" are therefore merely constructions themselves. All concepts are subjective. They originate inside the mind.

That you see a group of people agreeing with it each on a particular view of reality, is not an affirmation of that reality itself. It's simply, and deceptively, an affirmation of a common belief, or an intersubjective perception of reality. A consensus-reality. It's simply a common frame of reference, supporting itself. And there are many, many, many common frames of reference of many different groups. Many consensus realities, all complete with their own inherent systems of support and self-validations. It's all the same, whether you are talking magic systems, mythic systems, rational systems. Each does the same thing, to simply higher degrees of sophistication, science included.

Why science is so popular and means so much as far as united thought, is not due to actually finding "God" or "Reality" per se, but rather simply due to it finding a common language which transcends culture and other meaning-ladden content in the human languages, creating a greater, larger unifying means of relating to the shared world we all rely upon having knowledge of. It unities through its system. It doesn't transcend subjectivity. It doesn't transcend the dualistic nature of language, with artificially divides subject from object in order to talk about them. While useful and practical, it's not Reality. Nor ever can be.

There. I think I explained that somewhat better than before. We'll see.

Reality: Reality is what is left over after you remove all faith.

To put it another way:

Reality is whatever is left over after you stop believing.

I agree with this. Do you think science does this? Does it believe that answers can be found by studying rocks? Let's get rid of that belief. Do you have science left then?

The actual path of the mystic is doing exactly what you described above. Get rid of all your ideas of what you think you should find, and simply let it expose itself to you without you passing judgment on it, trying to capture and define it and make it an object to believe in, such as the composition of the universe and it's origins in the Big Bang. Get rid of all that, including scientific ideas and concepts, and "behold". Simply "behold".

Reality may all be Imagination. But the most essential common points, between various human's perceptions?

Gave us airplanes. Automobiles. Computers and the Internet.

So? You think better more sophisticated tool building makes humanity better? How does technology teach us more about being human?

Religion? Gave is war, homophobia, women-as-property, child sacrifice, bondage, slavery, idolatry, abuse of power, etc, etc, etc...

It also gave a great many positive things, such as social and culture cohensions in a share common space rather than endless tribal wars. If you can only list the negatives of what religion brings, then we can do that same with science: Atomic Bombs and Global Warming, which will more that pale the death tolls that religion has brought. Each has their positives to the world, as well as their negative. Anything with great power, can be used for good or for evil.

Oh sure, it also gave us the ubiquitous Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You-- but I say that pre-dates all religion, and is an essential part of Empathy-- which we inherited from our ancestors, because they were cooperative herd animals.

Yes, that and much more. Yes, it is part of the evolution of our higher consciousness as social animals, built upon from early stages of our biological and cultural evolution. How do you think you know about that today? From religion, or from science?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course. This is completely consistent with what I said about reality and perception. All reality is perception. If you have 7 billion people, you have 7 billion realities. What we do is find other humans we can share a common language or system of thought and symbols to make connections with, or we are born into an programmed to adopt a common system. Even within a given culture, where there is a shared "reality" that is created by the group, no two interpretations of the common world are identical either. They are "close enough" we overlook the nuances of differences. That it's about God is secondary to that primary fact, and naturally follows suit from it.


No. This is an illusion. What you are seeing is people starting with a shared framework of reality, defining a set of tests that help weed out what doesn't fit that reality, running the tests, and validating what fits the framework. This is not unknown about the sciences. It starts by slicing reality into a certain thing, devises the test, and then finds what fits and doesn't fit within that. You aren't looking at reality through science, but rather you are looking at a scientific view of reality.

That's not the same thing as claiming that view actually reflects "real" reality". It excludes from the questions things that don't fit that view of reality, such as God. There are no scientific tests for that. Nor is there for a huge, huge, array of human experiences. This is why you have the humanities, and the other so-called "soft sciences". Reductionism for instance, is a philosophical stance, which is not the result of the sciences themselves. It starts with a belief about reality, and seeks confirmation to support that view arrived at subjectively, not objectively.


No it is not. You can do the same thing say with theology, where you set up the criteria for the test to help correct human error, people follow the process, and it weeds out certain perspectives that don't fit and preserves those which reflect the best reading of the data. They all end up agreeing together, that their reading of the Bible is correct. "Our church is right, and the rest are wrong. We all agree." This is of course an illusion.

Perhaps a simpler example would be that of starting with the idea itself that an "objective reality", as something that exists outside of and independent subjective perceptions. Right there, in that itself alone, you included subjectivity. Here's how. Objectivity as a thing, is itself nothing other than an artificial mental construct. It is an attempt of the subjective mind to create an authentic, believable reality. This construct is based entirely on subjectivity and belief. The subjective is inherent in the fact it is a concept at all. All then to support that as "proofs" are therefore merely constructions themselves. All concepts are subjective. They originate inside the mind.

That you see a group of people agreeing with it each on a particular view of reality, is not an affirmation of that reality itself. It's simply, and deceptively, an affirmation of a common belief, or an intersubjective perception of reality. A consensus-reality. It's simply a common frame of reference, supporting itself. And there are many, many, many common frames of reference of many different groups. Many consensus realities, all complete with their own inherent systems of support and self-validations. It's all the same, whether you are talking magic systems, mythic systems, rational systems. Each does the same thing, to simply higher degrees of sophistication, science included.

Why science is so popular and means so much as far as united thought, is not due to actually finding "God" or "Reality" per se, but rather simply due to it finding a common language which transcends culture and other meaning-ladden content in the human languages, creating a greater, larger unifying means of relating to the shared world we all rely upon having knowledge of. It unities through its system. It doesn't transcend subjectivity. It doesn't transcend the dualistic nature of language, with artificially divides subject from object in order to talk about them. While useful and practical, it's not Reality. Nor ever can be.

There. I think I explained that somewhat better than before. We'll see.


I agree with this. Do you think science does this? Does it believe that answers can be found by studying rocks? Let's get rid of that belief. Do you have science left then?

The actual path of the mystic is doing exactly what you described above. Get rid of all your ideas of what you think you should find, and simply let it expose itself to you without you passing judgment on it, trying to capture and define it and make it an object to believe in, such as the composition of the universe and it's origins in the Big Bang. Get rid of all that, including scientific ideas and concepts, and "behold". Simply "behold".


So? You think better more sophisticated tool building makes humanity better? How does technology teach us more about being human?


It also gave a great many positive things, such as social and culture cohensions in a share common space rather than endless tribal wars. If you can only list the negatives of what religion brings, then we can do that same with science: Atomic Bombs and Global Warming, which will more that pale the death tolls that religion has brought. Each has their positives to the world, as well as their negative. Anything with great power, can be used for good or for evil.


Yes, that and much more. Yes, it is part of the evolution of our higher consciousness as social animals, built upon from early stages of our biological and cultural evolution. How do you think you know about that today? From religion, or from science?

The above is a wee bit too deep for me to read it all, so I'll highlight a couple of failures you made, here.

// No. This is an illusion. What you are seeing is people starting with a shared framework of reality, defining a set of tests that help weed out what doesn't fit that reality, running the tests, and validating what fits the framework.//

That would be incorrect. The fact that scientists don't even need a common language, to still achieve the exact same results? Pretty much removes the human "illusion" from the equation.

Barring us living in a MATRIX-like simulation, it's Fair Dinkum to conclude the scientific method works to uncover reality.

// No it is not. You can do the same thing say with theology, where you set up the criteria for the test to help correct human error, people follow the process, and it weeds out certain perspectives that don't fit and preserves those which reflect the best reading of the data. They all end up agreeing together, that their reading of the Bible is correct. "Our church is right, and the rest are wrong. We all agree."//

In all the history of the planet? The above has never actually happened. Proof?

45,000+ (and increasing) brands JUST of christianity alone. Same for any other flavor of theism.

This is because there is NOTHING it is grounded in-- NO over-arching reality that can be uncovered by experimentation or other methods.

This is why there are 1000's of versions of each "holy" book too.

So your claim above? Is false from the get-go. Sorry.

And I gotta go, so that's all I got for now.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Perhaps a simpler example would be that of starting with the idea itself that an "objective reality", as something that exists outside of and independent subjective perceptions. Right there, in that itself alone, you included subjectivity. Here's how. Objectivity as a thing, is itself nothing other than an artificial mental construct. It is an attempt of the subjective mind to create an authentic, believable reality. This construct is based entirely on subjectivity and belief. The subjective is inherent in the fact it is a concept at all. All then to support that as "proofs" are therefore merely constructions themselves. All concepts are subjective. They originate inside the mind..

Cogito Ergo Sum.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That you see a group of people agreeing with it each on a particular view of reality, is not an affirmation of that reality itself. It's simply, and deceptively, an affirmation of a common belief, or an intersubjective perception of reality.

Prove it. Wait... you can't.

We may well BE in Matrix.

But we cannot prove we are or are not-- so it matters not in the least.

May as well behave as if we are NOT.

Why? The aforementioned Fruits Of a Scientific Civilization.

What use is a Mystic, if there is no Orange Juice at Breakfast?

Science has given us longer lives. Religion was opposed to even that--

The two World Views are at odds, and will always be at odds.

Mainly because science rejects FAITH and all it's slippery-slope fallacies.

It's done pretty well-- humans went from horses and buggies to men walking on the moon in about 100 years.

All because of science and in direct opposition to all religion/philosophies.

If we ARE in a Matrix? It seems to favor Science, and punish Religion.

So there you go! Results oriented-- can't go wrong with results.

 

[blü 2]

What is experienced as ineffable is seen by everyone, but just simply not opened to.

So it's incapable of being put into words ─ yet you say it's 'seen'. If it were seen, if it were an observed phenomenon, words would be found, and photos would be possible, and they'd communicate what was seen. So I suspect you mean the 'ineffable' is a mental phenomenon as distinct from a sensory one. Is that right?

The ineffable exists everywhere, with no "place" excluded. It is simply how reality is experienced.

Ahm ... or not.

And reality exists both inside and outside equally. We are not separate from the world, nor the world from us.

Hmm, that's a major difference between our basic axioms. I assume that a world exists external to me, and that's where my air, water, food, shelter, friends, society &c are supplied from. I'm not out there, I'm in here, being informed by my senses. If I were also out there, why would I be limited to line-of-sight observing, why would I need a drone camera?

The sunset includes the one witnessing it. One person can see the sunset and just filter it away as "just another sunset", and another may step outside of time and feel it in radiated through their entire being and radiate out from themselves. The sunset and themselves are not two separate things.

But you just said they are indeed separate things, and you're right. The sunset is a set of phenomena to do with the obscuring of the sun from sight behind the horizon due to the earth's rotation, and the state of the atmosphere between the sun and the observer. It occurs through the operations of physics. If it gives an observer an esthetic reaction, then that's a statement about the observer, not the sunset. (You may know that we find no records of sunsets being appreciated as an exceptionally esthetic part of nature till around the 18th century, rising sharply with the Romantics, so the argument's there that it's a cultural, a learnt, response ─ not that I don't share it.)

In the first case, the one who shrugs it off with his mind, that reality of it to him also "exists only in the imagination of the individual".

But whether you shrug it off or embrace it, it's your reaction, not the sunset, that we're talking about.

It is his own imagination that the sees nothing. His imagination says, "It's just a sunset".

Yes, but that only underlines the point.

In fact, every single experience of reality is held in the imagination of the individual, regardless of the content

Again we differ. On the one hand it's a fair bet that what our enthusiastic observer and indifferent observer are told by their senses is substantially the same. As I'd put it, there IS an objective reality out there and our senses ARE capable of informing us about it. There are NOT two realities, one for each. There is ONE perceived reality, and two reactions to it.

whether that be sacred or profane, ineffable or mundane.

But those too are interpretations, not qualities that exist independently of the interpreter.

So when someone experiences something that the average shared collective imagination does not see, the average individual may say that what Bob claims about the Divine in everything, is "only in his imagination", not recognizing that the same is true of them.

Rather, when, faced with the same phenomenon, observer A reacts in manner X and observer B reactions in manner Y, neither of those reactions alters the objective qualities of the phenomenon. So if those qualities include Q (here Q = 'the Divine') objectively, A can point it out, B can record the phenomenon and analyze its qualities, and then they can have a concrete discussion about a specified data set. But if those qualities do not include Q objectively, then the only place Q is found is in A's reaction ie in A's mentation / imagination.

If it were one individual making an extraordinary claim, we might dismiss that as a purely individual perception, like the way a schizophrenic might imagine himself to be Jesus Christ. But we are talking about common experiences shared and expressed in similar language by many individuals, on different continents, different cultures, different languages, different times in history, different personalities, etc.

But the same is true of the sunset: some cultures teach an esthetic reaction to it, and some don't. The sunset is unchanged. The same is true of the flat earth and geocentry ─ to the observer, they're blindingly obvious until objective analysis shows the error (gotta love Eratosthenes! ─ not that everyone was instantly convinced, though.)

So the same procedure will tell us whether here Q is an objective quality, one capable of being recorded and analyzed, or whether it's only brought to the phenomenon by particular observers.