Is that about the drift? — Wayfarer

Nope.

Feel free to assume so, and respond to that, though.

You think that is something nailed down? — Wayfarer

Of course not. I readily admit ignorance. Preachers, on the other hand, ...

The only sources of authentic knowledge of the real world, right? — Wayfarer

Or, say, Shiva, Yahweh, Allah, ... Except:

• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers — jorndoe

Critical thinking without context is dangerous. — Banno

Learning context matters lots (as far as I can tell).
Incidentally one of the reasons why I think good, accessible education is important.

Let me just remind that this stuff isn't just about Yahweh and the Bible.

@Pfhorrest, you seem better at reading than some other commentators. (y)

Really? — Mariner

You forgot the rest. And authorship, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Microscope deprecated here.)

(emphasis mine)

One point is that many atheist arguments begin with the presumption¹ that Biblical and other sacred texts are fictitious or purely mythical by default, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to show that they’re not. But then the requirement for what constitutes ‘evidence’ is something like peer-reviewed empirical data². — Wayfarer

1. Check this comment.
2. Preachers aren't just talking about feelings, epic experiences and revelations (and that someone spoke with a burning bush on their own out in the countryside); they claim to be talking about the real world, and matters that supposedly apply to all. The moment they do that they're right back here with us (and Newtons laws).

So the Burning Bush doesn't qualify? — Wayfarer

Again, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Telling tall tales? Won't do.)

To which the answer is: 'nowhere, so there's nothing to discuss. Good day.' — Wayfarer

That's all? Skipping interference in politics and other peoples' lives, I'll just refer to indoctrination (mentioned prior).

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them. — Wayfarer

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

(I'd comment a bit more, but don't really think it's needed...?)

Jorndoe is holding religious revelation to anthropomorphic standards, i.e. what he would expect from a 'divine being' if such a being adhered to modern liberal democratic standards. — Wayfarer

No, I have no expectations either way (already suggested here).
I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons.

countries, laws, traditions, habits — Mariner

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf?
(Really don't want to get into things like the awful Israel versus Palestine situation.) :(

Just remembered:

It is a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people's control. — Patricia Crone

where is the evidence for that? — Mariner

Some evidence, observations and such (some mentioned prior):

• no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him and the importance of the Bible, without them already having been informed thereof by other humans; likewise for others (Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah)

If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence.

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

• having whichever scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities originators authors around) ^{e.g. the Great Commission (Bible, Matthew 28:16-20), "Allah says the Quran is the final truth; Allah says so in the Quran."}
• ... the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• are scriptures words of Yahweh, or is Yahweh words in scriptures?
• Authorship of the Bible (Wikipedia)
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• ... Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
• there's an obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from universal deities, and their delivery ^{e.g. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah of the utmost importance for all mankind, to be written down by Muhammad's friends (and your soul is at stake)}
• roughly, anything found in King James Bible that's not in Jefferson's edition has no particular historicity, but are matters of faith (which is fine for what it is) ^{e.g. supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food}
• almighty deities would have no trouble informing humans, whereas humans would have to be told by whichever deity there may be how to approach them (if somehow strangely needed)
• deities neither evident nor necessary, just humans and humans alone
• by the way, fictional characters can't legitimize preachers to the subjects/targets of those preachers

Not going to launch critiques of scriptures here. Suffice it to say, that'd be tedious and lengthy testaments to human creativity.

Is this a question about law? — bert1

Nah, freedom is not the topic (nor on the negotiation table).
Though, I suppose, Heaven's Gate should have received some sort of intervention?

You say the Biblical YHWH is only known from manmade scriptures. This is not necessarily disproof for the existence of YHWH. — philrelstudent

Right. Per my comment a bit earlier, this stuff is more about the preachers. (Apologies for any confusion on that.)

Compare this list (Wikipedia) with the history of the various elaborate religions (the youtube animations have some rough overviews). If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence. Why would the Pre-Columbian Americans and the Aboriginal Australians (have) take(n) Muslim da'is word for it?

Some related inquiries, exemplifying the topic of the opening post:

<sub>Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

Are we to peruse the supermarket of religions? "Pentecostalism is crazy. But those Jains over there are nice. I'll take that one." If it was readily admitted that we're talking just faith, with consequently proportional moderation, then inquiries like the opening post would largely fade off. That's not the case in the real world, however. And here advertisers have academic apologists helping sales (while helping their own sales as well of course).

The truth of the matter is a different ballgame. Whether some sort of polytheism monotheism deism or whatever, the truth of the matter has no dependency on peoples' (diverse) faiths, heck, no dependency on the universe (they say). No manner of belief one way or other can change the truth of the matter. Faith does not entail truth.

Denote any superbeing deity there may be with G (examples given prior):
1. G is the all-powerful authority (and originator of divine messages)
2. only G can confirm/authorize that you (the preacher) speak on their behalf
3. G could easily confirm/authenticate that you speak on their behalf
4. G has not confirmed that you speak on their behalf
Thus, why would anyone take the diverse preachers' words for it all?</sub>

Anyway, as far as I can tell, skepticism (of the elaborate religions in particular) is warranted.
This accords with evidence, and is both reasonable, rational, and honest.

_{Animated map shows how religion spread around the world (2m:35s youtube)
World's Largest Religion Groups by Population 1945 - 2019 (2m:48s youtube)}

Thanks for the comments.

Matthew 28:19-20 — CS Stewart

2 Timothy 3:16-17 — philrelstudent

Matthew 28:19-20 — philrelstudent

Having scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities around).

Perhaps NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec/VeriSign) and other Internet certificate companies can be used as an analogy of sorts? Anyone can call up such a companies and get details about their certificate offers. For something important, such certificates are needed/expected, whereas someone running ad hoc Internet services out of their basement may just use self-signed certificates.

While on the topic of importance, there's a fairly obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from deities, and their delivery. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah, some 1400 years ago. The messages are supposedly the most important for all mankind. ("And your eternal soul is at stake.") If so, then we're talking deception, otherwise, well, maybe just deceptive.

It's not all that difficult to come up with a scenario that "matches" what we see (regardless of what we see, i.e. counter-example immunization). Say, Shiva wants to stay out of sight for any reason, and wants to rely entirely on humans for more or less everything. Yet, this is no different from supposing Earth being a game board, where some number of superbeings "plant" their respective scriptures, and observe and push a bit here and there, in a sort of Kafkaesque manner. (Incidentally, a Stargate Atlantis episode just came to mind.) :) This again renders authentic legitimacy a problem.

1. Either YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, or YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do. — philrelstudent

Note, the opening post and this subsequent comment gives:

3. if Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then everyone would;
or Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that;
or Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent);
or Yahweh is a fictional character in scriptures

In the case of the Christian (Biblical) Yahweh, the two latter are rejected right away.

Just to clarify, the opening post is about authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers), not so much about whether Yahweh is real or not.
Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, or Allah may or may not be real; there's no particular assumption either way.

, at least all the others are taken, you can't be them.

When you think of "self" as mind, experiences, all that, then "self" is temporal, process-like.
So, maybe "self" is inherently mutable?

there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time. — TheMadFool

Right.
John Chau might have raised such a reason when going on a preaching mission to the Sentinelese.
I think there is tension with ...
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf (nor had Indian authorities in this case)
• Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that
Furthermore, wouldn't you expect Yahweh to know (much) better than preachers...?

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it. — TheMadFool

There could be exceptions to the argument in that.
I know a Shaivist mystic; in their faith, there are some select mystics that are "privileged" and can (allegedly) communicate with Shiva; others (unprivileged) may then learn from them, indirectly.
In some ways, this sort of privilege is like what the Protestants abandoned when parting ways with the Catholics.
Secret and/or esoteric and/or special teachings may fall outside the opening post.
The likes of panpsychism and Spinozism certainly does.

Thanks for participating. (y) :)

There's (at least) a 4^th (logical) option in the 3^rd bullet in the opening post: Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent)
Seems uncommon, though, and more characteristic of non-descript unassuming deism.

By the way, this opening post is somewhat related to an older one:
Preacher, why should anyone take your word for it?

offer your own response — I like sushi

I suppose you can just take my response to be

proselytizers and indoctrinators are conducting unwarranted business ⌖ — jorndoe

I can’t make head nor tail of this — I like sushi

Hm it's simple enough, isn't it?

• the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
... 5 more items ...
Then:
Opinions, arguments, pro et contra, ...?

That's really all it's about. Discussing the argument. How does it fare? Implications? ... (anything of relevance here on the forum)

Unless I misunderstood your comment?

If you were thinking of

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

then it was really just that I'd found an objection to the argument, though maybe not generally applicable.
But that wasn't intended as the purpose of the opening post.

thumpers’ is a less than respectful manner — I like sushi

Removed.

I can only suggest you offer up your own view — I like sushi

No. Nothing here is about me. It's about the argument in the opening post. Could in principle have been posted by anyone. Poster irrelevant to post. (As an aside, I typically don't vote on a poll I've posted, this one included.)

Consider it an intellectual exercise if you will. (y)

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

Apologies in advance for not having read the whole thread.

When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same. — Bartricks

Why not start simpler?
Something like: true and false are properties of propositions.
Relating propositions and ontology may then be a whole other thing, but for starters at least.

Surely, whatever is the case does not depend on her?
Her reasoning about something may then become good justification for her beliefs.
Looks like conflating ontology and epistemics, truth and justification/beliefs, which has a few odd implications.
Ordinary logic is common to reasoning.

Oh, , voting definitely not mandatory.
It's just running an argument about proselytizers/indoctrinators.

, story-telling is great.
This is more about the proselytizers/indoctrinators out there.
I guess it's implicit in the argument.

You're invited to argue pro et contra.

Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large. [...] — Banno

Yeap (y)

, I'd just refer to the scientists that study such things, and then perhaps ask: What's the worst that can happen if we (try to) do something about it? And weighed against the risks of doing nothing?

It doesn't seem that quantum mechanics can downright bridge the gap (Levine, Chalmers).
How would that work?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the model could.
Would we then have downright disproven solipsism, be able to determine that someone/thing is self-aware, have "redness" (the experience) somehow fall out of a mathematical equation, ...?

On the other hand, I suppose quantum mechanics might provide some additional insights or (correlative) explanations.
Perhaps like psychology/iatry, biology (and evolution), neurology, etc.
And such insights surely remain worthwhile in their own right; "mysterious'ism" is hardly a goal onto itself in this context.

Regarding the post above...
Sample reasoning:

1. think of rocks, small and large, different shapes, multicolored and dull-colored
2. individual specimens of basalt, marble, limestone, etc
3. they're all rocks, but their physicals are different, and they're not the same rock
4. therefore rock is different to any physical rock (independent thereof)

What arranged the rock exercise?

• going through the exercise above requires thinking
• there are numerous naturally occurring rocks that are all rock

What to make of this stuff, @Wayfarer ...?
Populating Platonia? Hypostatization? ...?

the absurd statement “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism

You grandparent was born that year.
How does you knowing or not make any difference to that?

Isn't the philosophical verbiage (meandering) a bit misleading here?
Perception depends on the perceived either way.

Yes you can miss existents, and that's the point of one of my objections. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course you will miss some, most actually, but not all.
You can't miss examples thereof.

Fundamental particles are supposed to be existents, and I don't encounter them ever. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, that's moving into exactly what various things are, not merely that they are.
Different inquiries. Merely "exist" is the latter.

There may also be all sorts of other existents which human beings haven't encountered, and may not even be encounterable to us. It is a mistake to define "existents", as things which are evident to me, or even to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, we don't just define the term "exist" by other terms (indefinite regress / circularity).
Whatever exists altogether has no complement anyway.

So, how's this for a provisional description then? Existence has no complement, and whatever exists is part thereof.

3) Process. The question arises if things are existent that require a length of time, that in less than which time they do not exist. But processes clearly exist, so it would appear that things exist within some bounds that do not exist outside of those bounds. I think that's interesting. — tim wood

Maybe this is a bit better, or at least closer to what I was on about ...

• spatial - objects (left-right, top-bottom, front-back, where)
• temporal - processes / events / occurrences (starts-ends, comes-goes, when)

5) self and others. I think those have got to be ideas/mental constructs. — tim wood

What I was thinking at the time was just the partitions rendered by (ontological) self-identity / individuation versus whatever else (other).
But maybe that's not so relevant here. Nevermind, "these are not the droids you're looking for".

Don't we need a definition of what it means to "exist" before we can proceed with an inquiry like this? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure that insisting on such a definition is fruitful (or feasible).
If you insist on defining the term "exist" by other terms, then you've just taken a step towards indefinite regress or you end up with circularities.
I mean, you can't really miss existents, and there's not much of a complement to contrast with.
"Exist" is fairly basic, and categorizing different sorts of "existents" seems more fruitful, like @tim wood has been doing.
For example, I'd say both reality and fictions exist, it's just that fictions aren't real.
Besides, we use such terms, and that use (in whatever context) gives them common meaning.

Some of the typical categories that seems to come up regularly ...

real and fictional
maybe existentially mind-independent and mind-dependent (qualia?)
spatial (left to right, top to bottom, front to back) and process (starts and ends, comes and goes)
interactees and interaction (and transformation)
self (indexicals) and other
particulars (examples) and generals (abstractions)
maps and territories (models and evidence)

... or some such like.

A general theory of everything (not just the unification thing) — a model — would have something like a one-to-one mapping with the world.
If we had such a model, then the model (cf map) would be a proper part of the world (cf territory).
That is, the model would be a proper part of what it models, and the model would also model itself.
I think this would lead to a fractal'ish infinite sort of structure, which may not be impossible, just odd.
(By "proper part" I mean wholly included in the world, and not identical to the whole of the world.)

It was Meinongianism I was thinking of. — Mark Dennis

This could turn into a long side-avenue all by itself. :)

@Ying might have some insights on Meinong's jungle.

[...] It could be God or his messenger/prophet ( :rofl: ) or Descartes' demon. I sincerely hope it's not the latter. To think of it even the former possibility is laden with difficulties. — TheMadFool

Doesn't this stuff fall under "don't know"?

Give me a time Machine, a cigarette lighter, a pressurised can of flammable liquid, a gun and a hoard of modern Anti biotics and I have the power to be perceived as a god in much of the past so long as I keep everyone in the past ignorant of how I am performing these “Miracles”. — Mark Dennis

Right. This would be ignorance.


Clarke's three laws:

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Magic! — Wayfarer

So (per Feynman), magic = don't know ?

That at least confirms the argument in the opening post, then (except for the implicit baggage that magic carries around).

, I guess, for the purpose here, real can be contrasted by fictional.
So, your Harry Potter model is real, and Harry Potter is not.

aware of your ignorance — OmniscientNihilist

Let's not pretend to know what we don't. :up:

don't know — Opening post

Another gap, ?

Levine's explanatory gap / Chalmers' consciousness conundrum is a can of worms.
That being said, we do know things, though, both about mind and the world; appeal to supernagic seems a bit ... odd.
We might also be able to account coherently for that gap before trying to bridge it (self-identity, individuation, ...).

Even Sauron (and telekinesis), ? :)
What about as an explanation?
Perpetually a tentative gap-filler, or ...?

There has been (and is) some research/studies in these areas ...

• Brain makes decisions before you even know it (Kerri Smith; Nature; Apr 2008)
• Mind-reading program translates brain activity into words (Ian Sample; The Guardian; Jan 2012)
• Scientists Use Brain Waves To Eavesdrop On What We Hear (Peter Murray; Singularity Hub; from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology; Feb 2012)
• Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep (Horikawa, Tamaki, Miyawaki, Kamitani; Science AAAS; Apr 2013)
• Researcher controls colleague’s motions in 1st human brain-to-brain interface (Rajesh Rao, Andrea Stocco; University of Washington; Aug 2013)
• Brain decoding: Reading minds (Kerri Smith; Nature; Oct 2013)
• Mind-Reading Computer Instantly Decodes People’s Thoughts (Tia Ghose; LiveScience; Jan 2016)
• Device that can literally read your mind invented by scientists (Ian Johnston; The Independent; Apr 2017)
• After 15 years in a vegetative state, nerve stimulation restores consciousness (Cell Press via EurekAlert! / AAAS; Sep 2017)
• Computer system transcribes words users “speak silently” (Larry Hardesty; MIT News Office; Apr 2018)
• Amazing New Brain Map of Every Synapse Points to the Roots of Thinking (Shelly Fan; Neuron via Singularity Hub; Aug 2018)
• Our brains reveal our choices before we're even aware of them, study finds (Lachlan Gilbert; University of New South Wales; Mar 2019)

Anselmian onto/logicing:

1. Dracula is the most dangerous conceivable vampire (our definition)
2. a real vampire is more dangerous than a fictional vampire (trivially true)
3. if Dracula was not real, then a more dangerous vampire was conceivable (which would contradict 1)
4. therefore Dracula is real (from the above)

Or maybe:

1. define Vlad as the most "vampirish" being
2. a fictional being cannot bite and turn me, a real being can
3. for Vlad to be the most "vampirish" being, Vlad must be able to bite and turn me
4. therefore Vlad is the real deal, since otherwise 1 is contradicted

Should we be concerned...? Or not...?

fine tuning — Wayfarer

Science is model → evidence convergence; evidence, observation, experimental results accumulate, and models converge thereupon. The models incorporate constants, e.g. lightspeed, elementary charge, the molar Planck constant, 3+1 dimensional spacetime.

So, in analogy, we build a reasonably working machine (model), then wonder why changing that wee cog (constant) over there breaks the machine (model). Not just that; while attempting to generalize our assessment wholesale, we overlook what kinds of dull and wondrous machines might be built in other universes. Because we still only have a sample size of one; but that's how the fine-tuning argument proceeds nonetheless. For that matter, some religious people still claim the likes of heaven and hell, which presumably then are supposed to be other possible worlds (however anthropocentric).

Fine-tuning comes through as a pseudo-argument, at least when based on how "fine-tuned" is sometimes used in science. Something similar holds for intelligent design arguments.

Besides ...

π was created and fine-tuned so we can have circles?

The point is that there is far greater likelihood of the magnitude of billions to one — Wayfarer

Not just that.
Every particular was vanishingly unlikely.
Every particular unfolding of our universe is vanishingly unlikely in the sea of possible worlds.
Focusing particularly on life or consciousness (as we know them) is perhaps a bit anthropocentric.

Heat death seems orderly (to me). Fine-tuned?

"Fine-tuned" is used in different ways by religious folk (Christian, Muslims, etc) and scientists (physicists, chemists, etc). Typical scientific definition/use:

1. science is model → evidence convergence (evidence, observation, experimental results accumulate, and models converge thereupon)
2. the models incorporate constants (lightspeed, elementary charge, the molar Planck constant, 3+1 dimensional spacetime)
3. by dialing the constants in the models (like they were variables), and deriving the consequences of the models, various ranges of in/stability can be supposed
4. additional smaller ranges are derived from the models in which life (implicitly as we know it) can presumably come about
5. fine-tuned is (defined as) the ranges found in 3 or 4, against other mathematical values of the constants, that variables otherwise might take
6. apart from these scientific constants, we also have mathematical constants, like π and e, that are used in scientific models

"π was created and fine-tuned so we can have circles?" :)

Our best models per se, suggest micro-chaos and macro-regularities (some of which are trivial). So, this is a fairly narrow definition, especially against a backdrop of possible worlds.

Christians also posit Yahweh, to whom such laws presumably do not apply, but nonetheless is possible according to them. Muslims also posit heaven (for example) as another world. What we'd then be looking for, is an assessment of all possible worlds. Feasible?

Maybe some see faces in the clouds, but that's not much of an argument, though.

_{Wikipedia » Ramsey theory — order from chaos
Wikipedia » Ramsey's theorem
Wikipedia » Universality (dynamical systems) — emergence
Wikipedia » Self-organization
Wikipedia » Chaos theory » Spontaneous order
Wikipedia » Texas sharpshooter fallacy — :fire:}