A). How would we “prove” gods existence if we could only observe it through collective faith? — Benj96

The point is, we can only prove the existence of gods by private experience. Its simply to hard a feat for them to appear in the flesh, by which they would damage the natural order and cause their creation to collapse in on itself. Luckily, they took (accidentally!) care of this, and the laws of quantum mechanics offer a refined means of mindful communication, by which I mean they can show themselves via the mind. In dreams, in thoughts, in mental projections onto the great wide-open. It is possible, once one's mind contains the properly prepared soil, that it becomes more fertile to eventual divine communication.

The belief that money has value creates the reality of money. — Hillary

There's more to it than that. If you alone believe that certain pieces of paper are money, then you will never be able to use them as such. What is required is a collective intent to use the paper as money.

I've no idea what it is you are trying to say about god. Sure folk might introduce a social convention in which they perform certain rituals supposedly directed towards a deity, but this would bring the deity into existence as nothing more than a social convention... And indeed, this is what happens. The error, then, would be in expecting that social convention to, say, miraculously save humanity from global warming or part the Red Sea. That would be a category error.

There's more to it than that. If you alone believe that certain pieces of paper are money, then you will never be able to use them as such. What is required is a collective intent to use the paper as money. — Banno

Of course. If other people don't know the value of my 20 euro note, it will be hard to buy something with it.

Considering gods, there is a difference with projecting the believe of value in money. When believing in gods there is no projecting of a belief but rather, the believe is projected into us, like the material existence of the moneypaper is projected into us. We don't project the belief in gods like we project the belief of value of money.

there is a difference with projecting the believe of value in money. — Hillary

There certainly is.

When believing in gods there is no projecting of a belief but rather, the believe is projected into us, like the material existence of the moneypaper is projected into us. We don't project the belief in gods like we project the belief of value of money. — Hillary

It's unclear what this means. It sounds a bit like direction of fit, but at the least needs some clarification.

It's unclear what this means. It sounds a bit like direction of fit, but at the least needs some clarification. — Banno

How can gods become reality by believing in them? They exist, like the paper for money exist. We can collectively project value in banknotes, but how can we project a belief in gods into gods that already exist?

But if our belief is what brings money into existence - it isn't, as i already explained - it's our intent - but going with your wording, if our belief is what brings money into existence, then money does not exist logically prior to our belief in it.

Hence, following that form of argument, gods that are brought into existence by our belief - like the tortoise Om in Small Gods - by that very fact do not exist "prior to our belief in it"...

A god brought into existence as a social institution is not the sort of god that those very social institutions claim it to be.

then money does not exist logically prior to our belief in it. — Banno

Indeed. Before the common believe in the value of money existed, a banknote would be a strange object.

But gods are a belief brought into existence because they exist prior to the belief. It's not that complicated. And maybe belief is not the right word. It's a certainty.

But gods are a belief brought into existence because they exist prior to the belief. — Hillary

Logically absurd.

Logically absurd. — Banno

That might be but gods are not subject to logic.

That might be but gods are not subject to logic. — Hillary

Therefore whatever you want to ascribe to gods cannot be false?

That might be but gods are not subject to logic. — Hillary

The they have no place in any of our conversations.

Frankly, if they are not subject to logic, anything follows, and you can claim what ever you like. You will have left your brains on the bench.

The only reasonable conclusion is that this conversation with you is utterly pointless, because you have left reason behind.

You know better.

Frankly, if they are not subject to logic, — Banno

Well, their existence is not subject to logic. They are subject to the same logic as we are subject to.

Then god is an egg riding a bicycle made of flatus.

Anything goes.

The only reasonable conclusion is that this conversation with you is utterly pointless, because you have left reason behind. — Banno

I think gods offer the only reason for existence of the basics of the universe.

Then god is an egg riding a bicycle made of flatus. — Banno

:lol:

Why, if they are the same as life in our universe then they obey the same laws.

I mean the fact that they exist. Not their existence.

The fact that they exist is not subject to logic?

Again, how does that play out? The fact that my cat exists is beyond logic, too... No proof ends with "Jack exists" unless it also assumes that Jack exists.

The fact that they exist is not subject to logic? — Banno

Of course not. They just exist. No logic required. Our knowledge of them follows logically.

Of course not. They just exist. No logic required. — Hillary

Or not.

Your post in the context of this thread is about the consequences of gods being brought into existence as a result of belief, in some way not unlike money.

My reply is, firstly that it's collective intent that brings money into existence, not belief; secondly that any efficacy resulting from such a god would be reducible to that group intent, as for money, thirdly that hence such a god would not be capable of the sort of miracles often attributed to them; And finally that if gods are beyond logic, the conversation ends.

This reminds me of the ending of Elf where everyone needs to belive in Santa for the sleigh to fly.

On self-fulfilling prophecies and god prophets.

The age-old subjectivity vs. objectivity debate pops up every now and then.

Here's food for thought. It appears, as far as I can tell, that the brain/mind is, intriguingly, anti-subjectivity. Why? For the simple reason that it doesn't allow total perceptual experience of imagined entities; for instance, I can conjure up an image of a unicorn in my mind (imagination seems restricted or more developed in re the visual system), but the other senses don't join in i.e. I can't smell a unicorn, hear it or touch it. It kinda makes evolutionary sense because, for survival, objectivity is a sine qua non. We can't go running around the savannah tripping like a junkie - we'd end up as a lion's lunch in a flash. :grin:

And finally that if gods are beyond logic, the conversation ends. — Banno

Gods are even more logical than people. Except the hu.an gods. It's not intent that brought them into existence. Neither is it belief. You put the horse behind the wagon.

My reply is, firstly that it's collective intent that brings money into existence, not belief; secondly that any efficacy resulting from such a god would be reducible to that group intent, as for money — Banno

Intention would appear to be an abstraction. Group intent definitely is. So you've got gods and money "reducing' to abstractions.

Abstractions don't reduce.

Have you ever studied formal systems?

Every formal system needs a set of axioms which can't be proven within the system. Mathematics relies on the "belief" in numbers and operators, science in "belief" of a real, orderly, knowable universe and as it seems, your religion relies on the axiom "there is a god".
The quality of a formal system is measured by its parsimony and integrity. Are there superfluous axioms, are there contradictory axioms (or ones that lead to contradictions)?
Can you expand on your set of axioms? What else do you believe without evidence or proof?

Have you ever studied formal systems? — ArmChairPhilosopher

I have studied physics, which rather heavily relies on math. The laws of physics can't explain themselves. I adhere to a most parsimonious two particle model, without mass. My gods model is the opposite. The temporary material universe is just a reflection of the non-material eternal heaven. All life in the cosmos, every living creature in it, has a divine eternal god counterpart. So by knowing life and the universe you know gods and heaven. We wont go to it, but life our life, in endless variations, over and over, compatible with serial big bangs. Is there a moral? Yes. They are like our own, but some human gods "screwed up" during the preparations for creation. What they can't do in heaven, they tried to project unto the material universe, by secret tinkering with the particle properties... or initial conditions... but here Im not sure of ( :wink: ). But we should be careful with creation, the universal lives, if we have to draw a moral.

Every formal system needs a set of axioms which can't be proven within the system. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Natural deduction systems do not use axioms.

Wow, heavy stuff. I don't know if I understood what that was all about but ..

"Just as, in axiomatic formulations of logic (“Frege systems” or “Hilbert-style” systems), different choices of axioms are possible for a particular logic, different sets of rules can be chosen in formulating a natural deduction system. In particular, one or more rules of supposition can, in the presence of others, be replaced by inference rules."

that seems to say natural deduction also needs a set of axioms, just that there are multiple possible sets of axioms to choose from. Can you explain?

Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. — Benj96

Impossible.

Impossible — creativesoul

That’s why I said “suppose”. It’s a hypothetical situation leading to hypothetical conclusions. Replying “impossible” to a “what if” question has about as much value and insight as not writing anything at all