Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. — schopenhauer1

One could as easily level the accusation that mastery - real or imagined - of science, tech, construction, math etc give people a sense of control and mastery.

In Richard Dawkins' God is Too Complex to Exist, Dick is not talking about a god or any god. Is Thor too complex to exist? Of course not. — Daniel Cox

Dawkins' argument is a non starter. It is based on the erroneous idea that evolution needs some kind of physical mechanism. If God knows mathematics He can be complex because mathematics is intrinsically, or naturally, complex. With math you get complexity for free.

Numbers are the most primitive processes of iteration and partition.

Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
and so on //////////////////...
Partition each step of the process /, //, ///, ////,...

Suddenly you've go numbers. If God has been contemplating mathematical truth for eternity why can't He be complex? Evolution in the mind does not need a physical mechanism because the mind can evolve purely through contemplation (of numbers, mathematics).

Correlation is not causation. — Daniel Cox

Exactly. All neuroscience shows is that the brain is correlated with thought. They can't show that the brain is the source of thought. The example of the television has been given; the tv components are intimately correlated with the sound and vision of the film but this does not mean the tv writes the script or the music score or anything in the film. The film itself is broadcast from a remote station. The brain = mind theory is often sold on ignorance of the difference between correlation and causation.

The concept of a circle for example; is independent of any particular mind so it must have existence outside of all minds. — Devans99

Pi is an essential unit of space and it can be represented, to an infinite degree of precision, with numbers (see this link http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html). Likewise with sin, cos, and tan. David Hilbert showed that the coherence of geometry is dependent on the coherence of math. From these considerations it can be argued that space is simply a physical expression of number. But if number precedes space mind precedes space.

EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. — Devans99

I don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind.

It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. — Devans99

Brouwer, a Dutch mathematician, maintained that math creates logic.

kettle of bullshit. — S

a steaming cup of bullshit — S

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy?

What on do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion? — S

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics.

Cut to the chase. Give me the short version. Thus far, it just looks like a distraction or a delaying tactic. — S

That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind.

But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. — S

But that does not mean you can place an extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you cannot reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me.

As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. And that is the answer to the question of this thread: we cannot agree on what 'reasonable' means.

I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. — S

Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. I can present you with many arguments to show that space is intrinsically mathematical. This means mathematics precedes space. But mathematics exists in the mind, first and foremost. Space was there before our minds were there and mathematics precedes space therefore mind precedes space.
Pi is and essential unit of space and Pi can be expressed, with an infinite degree of precision mathematically: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html

Likewise with the other trigonometric functions, sin, cos, tan,...

It is a matter of reason. Can you reasonably distinguish your belief from a delusion? If not, then you fail at philosophy. — S

Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion?

Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.

I'd like to know more about it.

Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it. — Frank Apisa

Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought.

I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is the personality or ego speaking: I am a great fellow, I am a celebrity, I am such a cool guy etc.

But if we can truly say 'I am' in the most meaningful sense of the word, that 'I am' is God because if we say this truly it is being itself that is speaking. And God is being. That is why God is the 'I am' of the bible.

Your belief is on the same footing as a delusion if there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion. — S

Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing.

Are you interested in epistemology at all? — S

I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the difference between reality and images of reality (or knowledge)? Suppose you have x^2 over a given range. That produces a range of values, even an infinite range. Now, you can draw a graph x^2 on a piece of paper. What is the difference between the graph and the idea of x^2? The difference is that the idea is abstract knowledge, the graph is a physical image of the idea. But they look like entirely different things; one is ink and paper, the other is in the mind.

Why is it that 2D space can receive and display an idea? If it is possible for 2D space to manifest, accurately, a mathematical concept there must be some natural 'common reality' between space and math. If there were no natural similarity space could not display the graph.

What then is this common reality between mind and space?

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it? — Merkwurdichliebe

If I had a thought this morning I know I had the thought but can I prove it?

In the atheist sense, knowing God exists, is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical ethical principles exist. — Merkwurdichliebe

That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God.

Oooo wweee, you just introduced the aesthetic mode of existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

One of the best kinds methinks...

You can go far if you drop the pretense. — Frank Apisa

Well, I'm not putting up a pretence, honestly. I will answer your questions but I really don't feel like getting into another 'prove God' discussion. They become interminable.

You either KNOW gods exist...or you do not. — Frank Apisa

Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? But if the Dawkinsian accusation is made against me it must be backed up; ole Richard has to prove I have some screws loose. But how can it be that otherwise perfectly normal people are deluded? I'm afraid 'deluded' is not an argument.

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa

It is a different kind of knowing. And not mere feelings. What if someone told you they can see and hear God? Doubly deluded no doubt, lol.

It is okay to acknowledge that you do not KNOW if any gods exist...on any plane or in any way. — Frank Apisa

I don't know in the way I know 2 + 2 = 4. I know in the way that I know 'I am'. I did not figure out that I am, I just seem to be. I think I'm right...

Some of us, however, are so averse to acknowledging it...that pretences are invented to pretend that one CAN KNOW a god exists...by means other than KNOWING it. — Frank Apisa

That depends on what you mean by 'KNOWING'. Do you mean arriving at knowledge of God through intellectual means or by direct means? As I said, we can know things by non intellectual means. We can know how if feels to be simply through awareness of our being. We don't have to mentalize endlessly to know that we are. We just know. First we know, then we can intellectually argue 'I am' and thereafter understand intellectually that we are.

Anyone pretending to KNOW a god exists (or that no gods exist) by KNOWLEDGE that is little more than vague "feelings that a god exists (does not exist)"...is playing a game with him/herself. — Frank Apisa

Why do you say 'vague'?

Attempting to pretend any of us knows by tortuously mangling the meaning of KNOW...is beneath anyone who wants to discuss things in a philosophy forum. — Frank Apisa

Mangling what meaning of 'know'? The abstract meaning? As in knowledge obtained by deduction? It need not be a question of mangling anything, it only needs to be a different kind of knowing.

And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. — S

As I say, I was drawn into an off topic discussion and it went on a bit but I am not obliged to continue an off topic discussion just because I was drawn into it with questions; questions that demanded the statements I made. You are the one who was off topic when asking me those questions. I have no objection to being asked questions but answering them does not oblige me any further.

Here is your question:

There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — EnPassant

Here is my answer:

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

That was an off topic aside and you are the one who asked the questions. The fact that I answered it does not oblige me to continue with a discussion that is off topic.

Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. — S

Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions.

The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. — S

Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.


*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?"

For instance, there is a position in the metaphysics of physics where the observation of particles is truly spontaneous, there is no mechanism of any kind but truly pure random occurrence manifesting with any particular observation; conforming to statistical rules but with absolutely "nothing happening in between" that determines if a particle is observed right or left, spin up or spin down. Although this seems difficult to accept, it seems equally difficult (to me at least) how to reject this view without a infinite regress of mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism. — boethius

I agree with your definition of the difference between classical and quantum time (what you seem to call metaphysical time). But if we deem a series of events to be random - like radioactive decay - we should specify by what time line they are random. They are only random according to the classical time line but does that mean they are 'truly' random when measured by quantum time? It may be that in quantum reality radioactive decay may be perfectly regular and predictable (maybe all such events are even simultaneous.) In mathematics it is easy to create a function with a regular input but a seemingly random output.

That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to. — Jake

Marvellous post Jake. You make short work of what I'm trying to say here, namely that the problem involves knowledge and what kinds of knowledge are valid and what their limitations are.

I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. — Christoffer

I agree, but the problem is how to define 'rational' and 'evidence' and what kinds of arguments are acceptable. People have a hard time reading from the same page.

You would first need to provide supporting arguments for your bare assertions, which you haven't done, and also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so they'd have to be damn good arguments. Given that you've failed to meet this burden in spite of repeated requests — S

The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument.

Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world.

You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model).

Obviously you are one of those people who will never acknowledge "I do not know"...and would prefer to kid yourself with "alternate reality." — Frank Apisa

There you have it. You decide, purely on the grounds of materialistic ideology, that I am wrong without ever asking what my arguments are. I do acknowledge 'I do not know' if by 'know' you mean knowledge by intellectual means. I don't have an intellectual proof of God. I have already said this.

You're persistently pushing this self-serving exceptionalism, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined by mundane rules of logic — TheSageOfMainStreet

If the intellect could answer this question it would have done so a long time ago.

If you can't do any better than being slippery and evasive, — TheSageOfMainStreet

Evasive about what?

primitive superstitious cult. — TheSageOfMainStreet

What cult are you talking about?

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa

We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists.

Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling. — S

Does 'wildly controversial' mean they won't fit into the primitive rationale of materialism? That is too bad. Why are controversial ideas not compelling to a 'reasonable person'?

As I keep saying, a large part of the problem is that materialists often think they have a monopoly on what is rational; scientism. If these people can't accept that rationality extends beyond science there is no talking to them.

That is the answer to the first post in this thread: there is no agreement on what is rational because the materialists insist on an abbreviated definition of rationality and anything outside it is 'nonsense'.

Hitchen's razor. — S

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument.

Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism. — S

Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many atheists who are without some doubt about their atheism.

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa

I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly.

If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.

One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task.

Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge. — S

I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation.

That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you. — S

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?

* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions.

.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa

Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it.

What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?

The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.

Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.

Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on.

EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa

It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa

Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser

Thank you.

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa

Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread?

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa

This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion.

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S

The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things.

Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge. — Harry Hindu

True, but the kinds of evidence that can be tested and shared are simple or primitive truths. Science is primitive. Matter is primitive. The atheists are making a mistake in trying to force ontological matters into the primitive framework of matter and explain them in material terms. It is this kind of thing that leads to absurd attempts to explain everything - including ontological matters - in terms of 'survival advantage'.

How can someone paint a masterpiece? - survival advantage.
How can someone create a symphony? - survival advantage. They can always find a way to squeeze it in.

A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. — Harry Hindu

But not all beliefs are abstract. If I had a thought I believe that I really did have that thought. That belief is not a hypothesis, it is more direct than that. There is intellectual knowledge and there is 'ontological knowledge' if you will. It muddies waters by confusing these two types of knowledge. Knowledge of God is direct. Belief in God is direct. It is not hypothetical. It only becomes hypothetical when it is translated into abstract argument.

Neuroscience has been trying to work out the intricate mechanism of thinking, but we haven't quite grasped it, not to say that it won't be explained in the next few decades. — Anirudh Sharma

All neuroscience can show is that there is a correlation between brain activity and thought. But correlation is not causation. The brain is involved with thought but that does not mean the brain is the source of thought. The analogy of the television is often used. The sound and vision from the tv are processed by the television's components and those components are certainly correlated with the film on view. But does that mean the television is the source of the film? That the television created the script and the music score? These are broadcast to the tv from a remote station. Likewise with the brain, it processes thought but that does not mean it creates thought.

nonsense — S

Specsavers. — S

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about.

If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen

Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.

But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — S

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God.