Should god-claims be taken seriously?

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you can, step outside your current belief system to imagine how an outsider would approach it.

Or imagine a god-claim from some other religion.

Do the same with your thoughts about what should be taken seriously.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If our standard for taking something seriously is "must be falsifiable" that is... most of our day-to-day experiences fall into the category of NOT falsifiable. I do not think this standard is at all wise.

For instance?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who cares? Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Like that you don't use evidence. You are just like all other humans when it comes to what matters. It is subjective and without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For instance?

Why I should treat you like a human.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Of course this question involves deciding what we mean by "God". I can assert that God manifest is the consciousness that is inherent in everything (panpsychism) as discussed in this Scientific American article:

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about “panpsychism”

So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
...
physical science doesn’t actually tell us what matter is. That sounds like a bizarre claim at first; you read a physics textbook, you seem to learn all kinds of incredible things about the nature of space, time and matter. But what philosophers of science have realized is that physical science, for all its richness, is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter, what it does. Physics tells us, for example, that matter has mass and charge. These properties are completely defined in terms of behavior, things like attraction, repulsion, resistance to acceleration. Physics tells us absolutely nothing about what philosophers like to call the intrinsic nature of matter: what matter is, in and of itself.
...
Physical science describes matter “from the outside,” in terms of its behavior. But matter “from the inside”—i.e., in terms of its intrinsic nature—is constituted of forms of consciousness.

I'm putting on my theistic thinking cap for this one, and by that I mean I am going to throw all observance to evidence and comport with reality out of the window to posit an alternative case that, while in no way true, will cast doubt on your ability to claim that consciousness does anything "super duper special" in the universe. SO here goes:

What if consciousness is simply a higher order of mathematically-representable function of the matter of the universe? Perhaps several orders of magnitude beyond current usage of "operators." Like multiplication is a compounding of addition, and exponents a compounding of multiplication, etc. Or the relationships between acceleration, velocity and distance - whereby each step introduces just another exponential leap forward into mathematical representations. Perhaps "consciousness" can actually be represented by mathematics, but we simply lack the understanding in our current state of knowledge, experience and experimentation.

There now... we have just as much evidence for or against that possibility. Let's go have a talk with this "Philip Goff" character, shall we?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Like that you don't use evidence. You are just like all other humans when it comes to what matters. It is subjective and without evidence.

So you're saying that I need to use evidence to demonstrate that using evidence matters, right?

In other words, the only rebuttal you actually have at your disposal (and I have seen you use it enough times to suppose that you haven't got much of anything better) is to dismantle all of our supposed knowledge into abstracts... like a child that just keeps asking "why?" over and over and over to every answer given, until the person being questioned is forced to admit that they don't have the next answer.

I get that I don't have all the answers. Hence the reason I rely on evidence. It's the best I've got. If you have something better, then by all means, present it. But just remember that you're going to have to convince me SOMEHOW. And without using evidence (which you seem to absolutely detest), that's going to be pretty hard. Again... if you have a viable alternative however, then maybe it won't be such a hard task. My guess - you've got nothing more than the tired old "you can't prove that anything is real" garbage you keep peddling.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm putting on my theistic thinking cap for this one, and by that I mean I am going to throw all observance to evidence and comport with reality out of the window to posit an alternative case that, while in no way true, will cast doubt on your ability to claim that consciousness does anything "super duper special" in the universe. SO here goes:

What if consciousness is simply a higher order of mathematically-representable function of the matter of the universe? Perhaps several orders of magnitude beyond current usage of "operators." Like multiplication is a compounding of addition, and exponents a compounding of multiplication, etc. Or the relationships between acceleration, velocity and distance - whereby each step introduces just another exponential leap forward into mathematical representations. Perhaps "consciousness" can actually be represented by mathematics, but we simply lack the understanding in our current state of knowledge, experience and experimentation.

There now... we have just as much evidence for or against that possibility. Let's go have a talk with this "Philip Goff" character, shall we?

That is no evidence that reality is real, natural or what not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I get that I don't have all the answers. Hence the reason I rely on evidence. It's the best I've got.

You have no evidence for that. Best is subjective and without evidence. Hahahahahahaha!!!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why I should treat you like a human.

Are we basing this on just the idea that you are writing back and forth with them on a forum? Or are you taking this even further and stating that you don't see the reason to treat him like a human, even if his countenance were standing right in front of you, displaying all his human qualities?

I would assume the first, but then I have spoken with you too many times and know that you like to pretend that nothing should be able to convince you of anything. Even though I am pretty sure you wouldn't even be alive right now if that were the actual principle by which you lived your life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are we basing this on just the idea that you are writing back and forth with them on a forum? Or are you taking this even further and stating that you don't see the reason to treat him like a human, even if his countenance were standing right in front of you, displaying all his human qualities?

I would assume the first, but then I have spoken with you too many times and know that you like to pretend that nothing should be able to convince you of anything. Even though I am pretty sure you wouldn't even be alive right now if that were the actual principle by which you lived your life.

I do believe that reality is real, but I got no evidence of it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You have no evidence for that. Best is subjective and without evidence. Hahahahahahaha!!!

Yes, I do. I have a mountain of personal experience with all other methods of getting at "the truth" of a matter failing me horribly. Not only that, but I stand on the shoulders of giants that came before me and realized the same thing. Would you recommend that I dispense with reacting to the stimulus presented to my various sensory inputs? From all indications (aka "Evidence") taking that advice would result in the termination of my (supposed) human experience. Again - you have something you think I should be using instead? I'd love to hear your ideas. Also again - I don't think you have anything at all worthy of even a millisecond of my time.

 

[firedragon]

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

Then why waste time?

 

[Left Coast]

Well, if you know something about what God is like, what God wants, and what God might do -- then you can begin looking for clues: does the world around you look like it has been impacted by the God you have just defined? Why or why not?

Indeed, that makes sense. But I don't know how you'd answer those questions a priori without first considering the definition/explanation of the God being defined/considered. So whether to take the claim seriously is completely contingent on what is actually being proposed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I do. I have a mountain of personal experience with all other methods of getting at "the truth" of a matter failing me horribly. ...

Then I seriously suggest that you get off the Internet and publish your method. You have done something no other human in record history have done. if you can turn personal experience into evidence.
You would be greater any other human in history.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do believe that reality is real, but I got no evidence of it.

That's pretty disingenuous of you to say. You have mounds of evidence that informs you of apparent reality as it plays out all around you. Every moment of your life is evidence. Even the lives of others around you serve as evidence. Their observations that either comport with your own or not, your ability to verify what they have received via their sensory inputs. All of it is evidence. The real question you have is whether or not that evidence is good enough to conclude that the reality we are presented with represents "the truth." But that is entirely different to whether or not there IS evidence. your above statement makes you a liar, or delusional, or an adherent and proponent of some other type of bad information distribution scheme.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why waste time?

Good question.

I still find theism fascinating as a social and psychological phenomenon, but I've come to the realization that debating the existence of God as if it's a reasonable idea are generally a waste of time, except as debating practice.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Then I seriously suggest that you get off the Internet and publish your method. You have done something no other human in record history have done. if you can turn personal experience into evidence.
You would be greater any other human in history.

As theists themselves state ALL THE TIME - personal experience does serve as a form of evidence. I have never said it doesn't. But it is most effective for the "experiencer" themselves - and far less effective for those who were not the "experiencer". And, in fact, need not be accepted at all if it cannot be shared or reproduced between two people.

 

[firedragon]

Good question.

I still find theism fascinating as a social and psychological phenomenon, but I've come to the realization that debating the existence of God as if it's a reasonable idea are generally a waste of time, except as debating practice.

If you say that debating if God exists is a waste of time, I do agree somewhat. Those discussions would probably be nice to learn somethings that people say.

But why would not even consider it a "reasonable idea"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's pretty disingenuous of you to say. You have mounds of evidence that informs you of apparent reality as it plays out all around you. ...

Correct, apparent. I have a lot of beliefs, which apparently works. That is all

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As theists themselves state ALL THE TIME - personal experience does serve as a form of evidence. I have never said it doesn't. But it is most effective for the "experiencer" themselves - and far less effective for those who were not the "experiencer". And, in fact, need not be accepted at all if it cannot be shared or reproduced between two people.

Yes, but only as personal evidence. Not objective evidence as per science and not evidence of whether reality is real or not.