@Cheshire
If the notion of God is the experience of ones frontal lobe,Is the notion of atheism an experience of one's cerebellum,and maybe agnosticism is the experience of the exact median point of the brain!!!?

Probably

It's coherent and hasn't been rehashed for 2000 yrs. What do you have? In support I would also offer that people seldom disagree with their God.

@Gregory
I'm being sarcastic greg!
Belief and knowledge are located in the brain!

Oh. Ye the parts of the brain that process truth as truth is not well known

@Cheshire
It's not coherent at all.

Notions are an expression of yourself.

Your self is not the matter of the brain,any more than your arm is your whole self.

It's not coherent at all.

Notions are an expression of yourself.

Your self is not the matter of the brain,any more than your arm is your whole self. — Protagoras

It's not coherent at all? There is no way in which we can speak that we can't be misunderstood. Had you considered a generous read? Just for fun? How are you arguing against an incoherent idea?

@Cheshire
Reword please.

The two parts of the mind that allow for indecision mistake the super-ego for a storybook God.

@Cheshire
OK. Is the superego not part of the psyche?

And is the superego in the physical brain?

Can not the superego be mistaken for the storybook of science?

OK. Is the superego not part of the psyche?

And is the superego in the physical brain?

Can not the superego be mistaken for the storybook of science? — Protagoras

Let's start from the bottom up. The last one is a bit of discomfort with the notion that we know God, because of children's stories. It's a matter of fact in most cases. Your top two questions conflict a little at first glance. The superego seems to track well to human skulls so I suppose it is in or about the physical brain. The superego would be the regulating part of the psyche that facilitates communication requested by these two other minds that sit in your brain and argue with each other. It might be a novel idea, but I doubt it.

@Cheshire

Why do you say the physical brain is the mind?

Have you ever thought that what some people call God is a personal experience not from a book or just a story?

None of which renders god non-existent.

Why do you say the physical brain is the mind? — Protagoras

I didn't for the sake of semantics and I'm assuming as much for the sake of discussion. It's a topic that can derail itself, so chasing every detail at once might not be necessary.

Have you ever thought that what some people call God is a personal experience not from a book or just a story? — Protagoras

Yes, in fact this is the basis for my position. Do you see how it follows? Incorrect as it may be?

I'm not sure where the implications empty into the sea, but so far God would seem to be very existent in my novel context.

@Cheshire

I say the mind is not the material brain.

So you are saying God is a legitimate experience?

So you are saying God is a legitimate experience? — Protagoras

Yes, but possibly misunderstood.

@Cheshire
I agree.
In which ways do you feel the experience is misunderstood.

2. “There is a possible world in which god does not exist.”

But this contradicts the concept of God: “a necessary being who exist in ever possible world”

So 2 must be false.

I got a concept that tells me something exist is every possible world. What exist in every possible world? Answer, a being who exist in every possible world.

That clear things up.

See if God did not exist in every possible world, God would be thought of as “limited”.

OK, I see, so God exist in every possible world, so God exist in this world because this actual world is a possible world?

So this is how a mere conceptualization becomes instantiated in the actual world?

Wow that is clever.

It doesn't apply to reality. God talk is a Platonic discussion, interesting but useless. Can God be infinite without being everything? Can he be necessary while not being present in every possible world? If God is Reason itself, does he change when he decides to create? Does he know he created and so has new knowledge of his act and so changes his nature? There is no way to know. God is just a vague idea we make up

I'm not sure, I didn't expect to get this far. I'll think it over. Thanks for considering the position.

So you make the theistic leap? Good for you. Just don't think that as a result your arguments are cogent.

Technically, I'm validating the theistic experience. Which is the world unmediated if I recall.

the world unmediated — Cheshire

Whatever that is.

Your words.

Really? Where?

Oh, Davidson.

YOur point escapes me.

delete

I was quoting Davidson. No need to search. I'm not sure what relevance you see here. Can we get some substance to this chat?

@Banno
So what does Davidson mean by unmediated?

You can find out by reading On the very idea of a conceptual schema.
Not at all sure what it has to do with the OP.