Can you demonstrate that god exists or not? We can demonstrate that math exists and works.

There are alternative religions, just like there are alternative foundations for math. Two billion people agree on Christianity. Two billion on Islam. A similarly large number on Buddhism. There are obscure religions with a small number of followers, just like there are obscure math theories.

Furthermore, religion can be very effective. It can successfully prevent governments from overruling the laws of nature. It can also be effective at motivating individuals and stimulate their survival instinct. It can motivate individuals to maintain faith in life and in the future and keep reproducing from generation to generation. — Tarskian

Nicely put. But unconvincing.

The quesion we are addressing is - is there good reason to belive in god the way there are good reasons to believe in math? We haven't even addressed the matter of which gods.

Whether there are many obscure math theories doesn't cancel the effectiveness of math in general.

Religion being an effective political group is not the same thing as assessing the effectiveness of the god hypothesis. This would seem to be another equivocation. Religion all over the world behaves like a political party - theism being incidental to its machinations.

Faith in axioms still requires belief without evidence. Religious people also agree on the foundational principles of their faith. What's the difference? — Tarskian

The difference is it misses a key factor. Demonstration of effectiveness. We have good reasons to accept math and the axioms because we can demonstrate their effectiveness. Anyone can do this at any time.

We can't do the same with any gods. We can't even agree on which gods or why gods or how gods. As an axiom, god is like an empty vase in which believers arrange the flowers.

Accepting a truth without evidence is faith. — Tarskian

That doesn't address my points. Equivocation. Have another look.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. In all practical terms, you can't do science or technology without at least some math. — Tarskian

Is this an example of faith? We know numbers work and can demonstrate their efficacy on demand. No one can do this with gods. I wonder if this is an equivocation on the word faith? In mathematics, "faith" in axioms is more about agreement on foundational principles rather than belief without evidence. Faith in gods is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have a good reason. One can't demonstrate the existence of gods. But we have good reasons to believe in the existence of math. Whatever the nature of numbers - which may well be convenient fictions for talking about collections of objects or properties of objects, rather than having an independent existence.

My answer: God, in the traditional attitude and the personal and social conditions in which I was brought up, is an all-knowing and all-powerful being who is able to intervene in the affairs of his servants, and whenever I have prayed to him and he has answered, have mercy on me. He said, and if he did not answer, it was because of his wisdom. — Ali Hosein

I have no belief in a 'sky wizard' or 'magic man'. My thinking about gods hasn't changed much since I was around 8. The idea simply doesn't resonate in any form.

A more sophisticated theology as expressed by, say, Paul Tillich, David Bentley Hart or Richard Rohr are much more interesting to me, but I am still not a customer, just an interested bystander.

Of course, I have examined the arguments used to defend various accounts of gods - since they are impossible to avoid if you talk or read about this subject. I find none of the arguments especially compelling.

I want to change this traditional belief, which in my opinion is wrong and based on "self-will" rather than "pure truth", that's why I seek to understand people's attitudes. — Ali Hosein

The truths I recognise are contingent products of language and culture. I do not believe that humans can have certain knowledge (or capital T truth) of the universe or that there is a transcendent realm we can know. The quest to discover 'reality' as it really is, seems to have become a god substitute for many people. This is the one area where I have changed. I used to think that science would build us ultimate knowledge and that we would come to know everything.

If you believe we live in a simulation, or likely, what follows? God the simulator. — Richard B

Not god necessarily. Here's what a currently limited AI thinks (ChatGPT)

The idea that we might be living in a simulation is a hypothesis explored in various philosophical, scientific, and popular culture contexts. If we consider the simulation hypothesis seriously, several speculative answers emerge regarding who might be behind it:

Advanced Civilization: One of the most popular ideas is that a highly advanced civilization, possibly our future descendants or an alien species, has created the simulation. This advanced civilization would have immense computational power and technological sophistication, allowing them to simulate entire universes.

Superintelligent AI: Another possibility is that a superintelligent artificial intelligence has created the simulation. This AI might have been developed by an advanced civilization or could have arisen independently. It could be running the simulation for purposes of research, entertainment, or some other reason beyond our understanding.

Post-Humanity: This idea suggests that future humans, who have reached a post-human stage of evolution and possess extraordinary technological capabilities, are running the simulation. They could be simulating past eras, including their own ancestors, to study historical events or for other purposes.

Extraterrestrial Beings: The simulation could be the work of an advanced extraterrestrial species. These beings might be curious about human behavior, evolution, or society, and are conducting a large-scale experiment by simulating our universe.

God or Deity: In a more theological or metaphysical context, some might equate the creator of the simulation to a god or deity. This aligns with certain religious and philosophical views where the universe is crafted by a higher power for reasons that might be unknowable to us.

Self-Simulating Universe: A more abstract idea is that the universe itself is a self-simulating entity. This concept suggests that the universe has the intrinsic capability to simulate itself through natural laws and processes, with no distinct external creator.

Is it just because the want people to accept the fact that there might be robots around soon or is it just that they think people are stupid? — Sir2u

I think it may also be down to most people not being all that interested in this issue and not having any theorized frameworks with which to understand it. But also, the image of a robot doing human things is a kind of short-hand - an easily recognized symbol. Not necessarily meant to be taken literally.

What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God? (that is, the belief that every person has had under the influence of the environment in which he was raised, before he encountered any wise thoughts about God)
Has this belief changed now? — Ali Hosein

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition. But I was never able to belive in gods, even as a child. You either believe or you don't. For me the idea of gods or 'a god' is incoherent - whether it's literalism or a more nebulous philosophical theism. Belief seems to me to be like sexual attraction, a preference you either have or don't. The arguments or justifications come post hoc.

But, it seems to me that part of the reason is emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. And then there's pure hedonism which seems like a non significant population of drug users, paradoxically. Does that make any sense? — Shawn

Yep, that's reasonable.

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. — BC

For you perhaps. I could never get enough and almost always enjoyed it. Even the stumbling, falling down parts.

For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver. — BC

Indeed. There are several well understood causal factors. I think even this -

I mostly think the majority of people on one drug or another have a hard time feeling loved or appreciated by anyone including those without close ones to talk to. — Shawn

- is sometimes true and generally a by-product of trauma. If you are sexually or physically abused by a care giver, or brought up in the care of the state, it can be hard to feel loved.

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. — Shawn

I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate?

Nonsense. The US, probably the most materialistic culture, has a high percentage of people who profess to be either religious or spiritual. — Janus

Yes, and more broadly the same is true for many people who identify with 'New Age' spirituality and Eastern religious ideas - even those who follow this or that guru. They remain resolutely obsessed with status, wealth and real estate. And having worked recently with a number of Thai Buddhists - the same materialism dominates.

It think it's pretty clear that spirituality and/or religion do not lead to less acquisitive worldviews, but often nestle comfortably alongside status seeking materialism. Nor do they lead to enhanced compassion or tolerance.

Of course many defenders of higher consciousness worldviews are likely to say that such people are not real, Buddhists, Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Christians, etc.

I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life? — Shawn

You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer?

And as I've said a couple of times -

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

I've often wondered why there are not more people who are substance dependent.

I don't know what you mean with 'emotional poverty' - this sounds judgemental, but perhaps you don't mean it like this.

People who have had experiences of trauma are more likely to use substances and become dependent on them. I don't consider this emotional poverty. Drugs in these cases are self-medication for dysregulation and anxiety.

But mostly drugs are fun. That's the key. They are enjoyable. As someone who has abused alcohol over many years I can only say that I enjoyed it very much and getting drunk was almost always a highlight.

:up:

Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

In countries with more reflective governments (Holland, for instance) drugs are decriminalized. I don't really care what government's say. Not that long ago they criminalized homosexuality. Some governments still do.

What you are pointing to is that many activities come with risks. Drug use can lead to addiction and can cause death. Driving cars can lead to fatal collisions. Most things people do have a shadow side.

if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives? — Shawn

Really an entirely separate issue to what we have been discussing. I'm only talking about what people do and why. I have made no comment thus far about whether it is safe.

quote="Shawn;911227"]Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state.[/quote]

Hmmm. As I wrote earlier:

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain. — Tom Storm

Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger.

'Happiness', I think (ime), corresponds to freedom from fear and pain. Sometimes I'm happy; most of the time, however, I'm striving to be (briefly) happy again. — 180 Proof

That's good. I was going to say something similar about happiness being free of stress and anxiety (pain?). I wonder if we sometimes confuse happiness with joy - which is a great, big electrical experience and this I also feel quite regularly. Happiness seems to be a by-product of other things and not an end goal of its own.

Tom Storm: Even if we can never perfectly describe reality, I’d say that any particular narrative and model (e.g. Newtonian Physics) can be closer to reality than another (e.g., Alchemy). — Art48

I think that goes without saying. My curiosity is with the notion that there is a 'reality' out there to be discovered and described - when it seems to me much of this is predicated on, or a by-product of, contingent factors like the human cognitive apparatus. It seems to me we just keep developing models that seem to do a better job of supporting us to manage our environment.

But don’t you see a distinction between legitimately empirical questions that are answerable in terms of data and measurement, and philosophical questions that can’t be addressed in those terms? — Wayfarer

I can only imagine that it might be argued that the distinction between empirical questions and philosophical questions may not be as certain as our models have historically suggested. We can say that measurement and empirical data are influenced by (produced by?) philosophical assumptions and interpretive schemas. Philosophical approaches serve to set the agenda around what counts as data, the way we might measure it, along with our approaches to interpretation.

I get the feeling that people equate beauty to goodness, do you? — Rob J Kennedy

Never have. In people I tend to associate goodness with behaviour.

Nicely put and helpful. Especially this :

my own position, or commitment, is philosophical naturalism (which, as I understand it, begins with a hybrid 'Epicurean-Spinozist' immanentist ontology) and, in sum, proposes this: nature is the aspect of reality that limits (like the encompassing horizon) what we natural beings can know about reality given only natural capabilities for knowing (i.e. explaining) reality. A — 180 Proof

which makes the point that materialism is a good (even indispensable) theory for making sense of the world but may not be true, just as Newtonian Physics is a good (even indispensable) theory for making sense of the world but is not true. — Art48

It's interesting to me that humans make sense of the world with narratives and models which may often be useful but not be true. Philosopher Hilary Lawson (a minor figure in the world of ideas) says that we create models for intervening in the world which are effective but never describe reality. This process is iterative. The quest to find reality is like a substitute for god.

Here is a statement from a highly-regarded Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, with whom I have only passing familiarity:

Our minds do not—contrary to many views currently popular—create truth. Rather, they conform to the truth of things given in creation. And such conformity is possible only as the moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character, a slow and halting process. We have "lost the awareness of the close bond that links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.” — Wayfarer

I think this is ultimately why I am an atheist and you are some type of 'believer'. I think what we call reality (human thought and perspectives) are contingent artefacts (products of social construction and language) which more or less work pragmatically, and none of our experiences are 'true' in any transcendent sense. Truth is not about accurately representing reality but rather about what works within a particular context or discourse. God (or any analogue of god) lacks coherence or substance from where I sit, but is understandably used by many to fill the big hole of ignorance and fear most of us hold, not just about death, but also the fear that human life is essentially pointless. I think this is the joke whose punchline most people spend their lives resisting.

I know this is pretty much anathema for you - the height, perhaps, of post-enlightenment drivel - but I always find such perspectives exhilarating and unavoidably built into my experience of life.

.

But, to every person there is a unique identifier to be held about what or even why (which psychology addresses) some things are desired to be distracted from. Non-trivial to address. — Shawn

I've always felt this point needs sharpening. Why is it that some people seem to need substance use as a substitute for all other things? In talking to 'addicts' over the years, a common observation is that they would have suicided if it hadn't been for drugs. Their downfall is also their redemption.

Surely genetics must play some role, if not the occasional cameo. Not to suggest willpower or simple availability of the thing (convenience) isn't a factor, however. — Outlander

I don't know. I doubt willpower or the alternative, the AA cult, 'disease model' are the answer. 'Genetics' often seems like the catch all explanation that explains nothing. I suspect it has more to do with how life experiences (generally the traumatic) can rewire people's brains and make them uniquely susceptible. But I am no expert in addiction theory.

Anyway he said that the reason he got addicted to heroin, which damn near killed him, and did get him incarcerated at one point, was the attempt to re-create the experience of his first hit. He only really kicked the habit when he realised, many years later, and after many bad experiences, that it was never going to happen. — Wayfarer

I wonder if that's what he thought or if he was paraphrasing conventional AoD discourse. My background is in counselling and support for people with addiction issues. It's commonly held that people with heroin dependence are generally those chasing the remarkable experience of their first use. I tired heroin a couple times and while I find opiates remarkable (feelings of wellbeing) I had no reason to use regularly. The question remains why do some people become dependent and others do not? I suspect it is the same reason some people become dependent on food or shopping while others don't. Some people seem to have holes to fill.

I'm not sure what your question is.

A thought that ran through my mind was what do we think is the best long term future for consciousness? — Gingethinkerrr

Can you clarify what you mean here?

Are you talking about the future of human beings per say, or is there something about consciousness you are interested in? Perhaps it would help if you described a particular situation so that this is clarified.

Human experience - with emotional interpretation and our fragile understanding of creation — Gingethinkerrr

I don't like the word 'creation' as it implies a creator. I see no evidence of a creator. I would probably talk about our fragile understand and awareness. Or is creation/creator important to your question?

Which is the better suited to endure to the end of existence?? — Gingethinkerrr

What do you mean here? What does 'better suited' look like and what 'end of existence' are you imagining? The end of humans on earth (which is quite different to the end of existence) or do you mean something more totalising?

My own view is that humans might be wiped out (climate, disease, war). But the world and the universe is likely to go on. AI, I have no profound thoughts on, so far it's just a tool we've built and we don't really know if it will survive us.

I'd probably refuse a last meal.

So, what are your thoughts about this situation? Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.

Obviously drugs are fun. They are enjoyable. They offer experiences you can't easily get straight. I know from personal experience that a bottle of Chivas can make almost any event seem interesting and enjoyable. People too.

And there are numerous other reasons for substance use - which does not always lead to substance misuse. Not everyone becomes dependent on substances, licit or illicit.

People also take drugs to self-medicate, do assist in managing trauma and abuse, to deal with chronic boredom and feelings of emptiness, as a way to relax and find hope and joy in an otherwise bleak world. Taking the rough edges off neoliberalism and bullshit jobs might be a good reason to smoke weed, for instance.

Humans are always looking to find ways to augment or enhance daily life, whether through sport or the arts or substances. We don't as a rule like sitting in our room alone just thinking.

Huh?

I rate Kristofferson over Plato.

I admit that Emerson likes fancy-schmancy store-bought words, but I wouldn't consider that poetry. — T Clark

When it comes to complex ideas, I struggle with anything that isn't in plain English.

Yes, and I think those are exactly what Emerson and Chuang Tzu are talking about. — T Clark

:up:

This is freedom to me. From Emerson's "Self-Reliance."

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.
— Emerson - Self-Reliance — T Clark

I can’t tell what any of that means. I’m immune to poetry… Nietzsche thought Emerson was a genius and they shared many themes. I'm immune to Nietzsche too. :wink:

I've never thought much about freedom and consider it a dubious and elusive phenomenon. I enjoy having few demands and obligations and a high level of personal autonomy. But I suspect the greatest bonds and restrictions are those we are not even aware of - our habits and patterns of thought, the way our culture and environment works through us, etc. Mostly I think of freedom as liberation from fear and suffering.

Now, assume that we do not have eternal life. Then we are completely gone for an eternity. We therefore also cease to exist to never live again - *ever.* Looking to the future, there is then an infinity of time ahead of us in which we don't exist. Isn't this also a scary thought? — jasonm

Like the rest of us, I have already not existed for billions of years, at least, and not a second of it bothers me. I have heard no good reason to believe in an afterlife, so the idea isn't coherent enough to be concerning.

I think a suicidal person doesn't think "he should die" but "he wants to die," which, I guess, is pretty different. — javi2541997

No. In my experience suicidal people arrive there by many different paths. Many are simply angry and perform that anger upon themselves. Others want to punish others (often family) by killing themselves. Some want to do it to make a bold statement and don't really think it through - as if they will be there afterwards to see how it went. And others want to do it because they have had enough. So it can involve anything from 'attention seeking' to severe depression and feelings of worthlessness. It can be an impulse decision, a response to situational crisis, or something deeper which has been ruminated over for many years.

Like other empirical knowledge, we invent these schemes and then discover their usefulness in our dealings with the world. The fact that we find them useful does not make them part of the fabric of reality, any more than our other invented technologies are a part of the fabric of reality. — Joshs

This has always been my assumption - but not being a philosopher, I assumed it was common sense - that most dubious of systems.

To say that numbers are the same for all who can count is merely to say that all who can count have already invented the concept of identical sameness, since counting depends on that concept. We have become so accustomed to the idea that the notion of repeated identicality is built into the universe that we forget how peculiar an invention it was, the imposition of a subjective idealization onto our experience ofnthe world that precisely ignores , prescinds from , the fabric of reality in order to create the illusion of pure difference in degree that is not at the same time a difference in kind. — Joshs

Nice. Thanks.

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, according to Google. — Shawn

Is democracy a grand but failed experiment?

But how can number and logic be aspects of the fabric of reality when what we think of today as number and logic were invented bit by bit over the course of cultural history? — Joshs

I guess that debate would focus on whether number and logic were invented or 'discovered'.

Thanks. Jungian archetypes would seem to belong to these universal cognitive structures too.

In fact what I think undermines Buddhist nominalism (although this is a digression) is that the Buddha himself is a universal kind. That is why Buddhism uniquely believes that Buddhas are a class of being, even if at the same time each one is a particular individual. (I've tried that out on Buddhist forums and it didn't go down well.) — Wayfarer

That is very interesting.

When the status quo means that the ultra-rich few dominate, it's not so difficult to see why populism is so widely popular. — ssu

Although it is harder to see how Trump, say, a member of the ultra rich and an obedient servant of corporate interests (lower taxes, deregulation, oligarchs, etc) will help any of the little guys who so love him.

Once in power, the leftist liberals and the social democrats in these countries are perfectly happy to mingle with the super rich and attend meeting like Davos and Bilderberg meetings. That hardly gives an impression that these leftists would be against the system to basically for the billionaires. — ssu

Leftists in the West seem to be neoliberals, with the odd whiff of progressive social policy. As Cornel West said of Obama - he was the Citibank President 'a black mascot of Wall Street.'

Of course there are movements here or there, but are they enough to make an impact? As you say there isn’t any unity. — EdwardC

But my point is that the zeitgeist is very much one of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Perhaps ultimately the collapse of the liberal consensus, as Žižek puts it. There are many ways to encapsulate this. And it might be a simplification to ever try to summarise any era.

But you didn’t explain the paragraphs I quoted- it’s hard to follow your syntax which seems vague. I’m interested in what you meant.

While certain ages had more prevalent and identifiable characters, ours is one that hides its nature, and maintains its values in a sub-active manner, that is meant to say without a title, or a movement, or party representation. — EdwardC

Why do you say this?

Isn't this the era or radical identity politics? The Right have religious nationalism, the Left have trans issues, decolonization, etc. And it seems this is also the era where 'no one knows who should be in charge' any more. Pluralism has finally marooned any semblance of unity.

A lot of what you write here seems inscrutable. For instance:

At this point, the civic body has undergone malaise, behaving in a way that transfers a state of imposed pacifism onto the general public even if they are invested in political affairs in that its offices are used for only menial tasks. — EdwardC

What does this mean? What is an example of this?

Many of the regulations in the corporate world, subject as they are to whim, which seem to be directed at some fictitious monster, only end up detracting quality men from beneficial financial situations, at best leaving them dependent on insufficient social programs, which brings me to my next point regarding pacifism and spiritual withdrawal. — EdwardC

It's hard to know what you mean. What would be some examples of this in action?