However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??).

Surprisingly, some theists -- including my own religious background -- deny that their Faith is "just a feeling". Yet, in that case, their faith is transferred to objective scriptures, presumably based on eyewitness testimony : the Bible. Ironically, those church-authorized scriptures don't hold-up to dispassionate objective scrutiny. So, what can you do then, if the logical necessity of a First or Final Cause of contingent existence is impervious to empirical or scriptural assaults? For me, that rational conclusion falls into the category of principle-seeking Philosophy, instead of emotional or traditional Religion. Of course, as an abstract philosophical tenet, you lose all the good stuff : worldly blessings & heavenly hereafter. So, it doesn't inspire much in the way of feelings. :halo:

Is Faith Just a Feeling? :
Faith—properly understood—is not a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.
So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.
This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle—they can change from day to day.
https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-

Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? . . . .
Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. — Agent Smith

You guessed it! :blush:

A Proposed Alternative Theory of Reality :
. . . Both Material and Spiritual
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated & guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of "Entropy" (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive "Enformy" (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of "Enformy" has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Note -- The space-time world is inherently dualistic, divided into opposing forces (positive vs negative), and obverse forms (matter & energy), and antagonistic worldviews (Materialism vs Spiritualism). But, there remains a monistic origin for all the dualities of reality : the scientific "Singularity" or the philosophical "First Cause". Moreover, in the space-&-time-bound universe, there remains Substance Monism, as proposed by Spinoza : the "Single Substance" of the natural world, which he called "Nature or God". In my thesis I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to cause change. the term is a portmanteau, combining Energy & Information into a single creative force.

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
Bothand Blog, glossary

Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? — Agent Smith

That is the subject of ‘revelation’. See also theosis.

I see two distinct ways to approach these issues. We can say that this appearance of disorder in the universe is evidence of not-God, or we can say that this appearance of disorder is evidence of a failing in our capacity to understand, what is really organized and orderly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe God does play dice.

So any sort of pattern is an order. — Metaphysician Undercover

Humans are programmed to find order whether it exists or not. We believe we see order even in random arrangements Consider how many see the face of Jesus in a piece of toast..

I am stating a brute fact, a self-evident truth, that order requires a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

But why must the cause be divine? THAT is not self-evident.

Local entropy can decrease provided it increases somewhere else (i.e., one system can expend energy to increase order in a second system). But nowhere does the Second Law of Thermodynamics require the intervention of God. There are perfectly fine explanations for order stemming from the Big Bang. You can Google them. (I'd say more but I gotta run.)

Disorder also requires a cause. Everything that exists requires a cause. — Philosophim

And what's the "cause" of this requirement?

Scientifically, can we determine that God is the cause for everything's existence?

To claim one unknown is caused by another (further removed) unknown is an emply claim because the question is merely begged and not answered.

Disorder also requires a cause. Everything that exists requires a cause.
— Philosophim
And what's the "cause" of this requirement? — 180 Proof

I answer this here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

But this was more of a Socratic method approach directed towards Metaphysician undercover. I have my own answers, I wanted to know his.

Scientifically, can we determine that God is the cause for everything's existence?
To claim one unknown is caused by another (further removed) unknown is an emply claim because the question is merely begged and not answered. — 180 Proof

Again, this was to the person I replied to specifically. I wanted to hear what they thought.

I answer this here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 — Philosophim

Yeah, and I and others in series or replies cogently rejected the antiquated incoherence of your "answer". :confused:

I answer this here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1
— Philosophim
Yeah, and I and others in series or replies cogently rejected the antiquated incoherence of your "answer". :confused: — 180 Proof

Lets not derail this thread right? If you want to discuss the topic in seriousness, go there.

Been there, done that.

For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd @Gnomon)

Theist: God is unknowable. I know God. (self-refuting statement)
Atheist: WTF? :chin:
Theist: :grin:

All is not lost though. Leibniz called our minds little gods and the Greeks believed that our rationality was our most divine attribute. Yet theists are violating the most important rule in classical logic viz. the law of noncontradiction (vide supra).

Enter mysticism: Mysticism is an approach to the divine/god after having applied rationality and failing to make any headway. It acknowledges the power of reason, but not in heavenly matters if you catch my drift. We need something else and that something else is what we've come to love & hate as religious experience. Controversial subject! Naysayers have gone so far as to say that religious experiences could be hallucinations, psychotic episodes, whathnot. However mystics, as it turns out, are normal, healthy people, well-integrated into society, have families, hold jobs, and so on. Temporal lobe epilepsy pops up in discussions on mysticism; intriguing, ja?

This is the crux of it for me. Think of it like trying to explain yellow to someone who is blind. You can kind of attempt do it, by way of references to other senses.

I think it is quite reasonable to understand that people have different experiences and, furthermore, that some people have had some quite powerful experiences that many others have not. These more unique experiences are ‘feel more real than real,’ even though that turn if phrase sounds strange in and of itself. I cannot explain what it is other than to refer to it as a vivid sensation that feels like a transition from a 2D cinematic experience to a fully fleshed out 3D theatre experience. One is far more ‘present’ than the other, more ‘connected’.

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. When, for instance, people talk about ‘hearing voices’ but the ‘sane’ person would say ‘of course I would understand it was in my head’ but you likely wouldn’t as the voice you hear sounds like it is ‘outside’ and acts as if completely independent from your own conscious thoughts.

This is why I generally think of the whole god/religion concept as something entangled within the human psyche. The ‘space’ between unconscious processes and conscious thought. The interesting thing is there is a common pattern to how such things present themselves as ‘independent beings’. Studies with DMT have shown some fairly strong reported instances from both religiously inclined and non-religiously inclined people. For myself personally I believe what happens is the human brain can naturally produce DMT and the effect of this on conscious is the reason ‘religious experiences’ exist.

If the above is correct then a further problem is understanding what kind of stress the human body has to go through to natural produce enough DMT to induce such profound experiences. DMT has been found in a rats brain, but last I looked there was still no direct evidence that DMT is naturally produced in the human brain let alone in large enough quantities to be of significance.

There was a woman who had a stroke (forgot her name). She was also a cognitive neuroscientist. She describes a ‘connectedness’ and sense of bliss I can relate to. The potential for such experiences is both scary and inspiring in terms of human development. If myself, or the woman here, had been brought up in a religious manner then I can completely understand having a solid and unshakable ‘belief’ in god there after. My upbringing was about as secular as can be so I didn’t end up preaching on the streets. There is little doubt in my mind though that many religious figures experienced something akin to what we both did and tried damn hard to square it and express because they fully understand how powerful the experience was and potential of humanity.

Think of it like trying to explain yellow to someone who is blind — I like sushi

:up: The "yellow" smell of shit! :grin: Will it work for someone with anosmia? Don't know what shit smells like? Here, it smells yellow!

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. — I like sushi

Not really, I thought I had psychotic episodes multiple times, like a woman's orgasms. On later anaysis, they turned out to be me getting scared out of my wits; nothing psychotic, just terror, very natural, don't you think? Old people gravitate towards theism. No, not because they have a solid argument, but for fear of oblivion. We're not attracted to Yahweh, we're repelled by Thanatos and Algos; the effect is the same. God probably is in the know and hence his indifference to our plight is not suprising. "No, no, you don't actually love me; you're just scared of the Grim Reaper and his accomplice, Duriel, the lord of pain (Diablo II)" said God to all his worshippers.

Thanks for reminding of the lady who had a stroke and experienced "nirvana". She was on TED Talks. The brain shut down: mushin no shin (mind without mind), empty your cup, wipe your slate clean (tabula rasa); empiricism/rationalism?

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. — I like sushi

Yeah... All theist are psychotic lunatics!

You really don’t understand what I’m talking about nor seem to understand anything about how the brain functions. Calling them ‘lunatics’ (or insinuating I’m saying that) tells me all I need to know about your ignorance.

You really don’t understand what I’m talking about nor seem to understand anything about how the brain functions. Calling them ‘lunatics’ (or insinuating I’m saying that) tells me all I need to know about your ignorance. — I like sushi

I know exactly how my brain functions. That's exactly the reason I know depression or psychosis are not caused by some chemical imbalance of neurotransmitters. You can try to restore the balance by drugs, taking away the dark feeling, but that doesn't take away the cause.

Calling them ‘lunatics’ (or insinuating I’m saying that) tells me all I need to know about your ignorance. — I like sushi

You call them lunatics. In the sophisticated guise of "psychosis".

This is why I generally think of the whole god/religion concept as something entangled within the human psyche. The ‘space’ between unconscious processes and conscious thought. — I like sushi

I too think it is something along these lines. We can put together a little bit about the brain and come up with a more natural proposal.

1. The brain is composed of many parts and cells.
2. You decide what you're going to say unconsciously a little time before you say it.
3. Consciousness is a post processing regulator.

As such we could say that "God" is a part of the brain that processes apart from your direct consciousness. This can be very useful at times where the consciousness part of the brain has failed, gets stuck in a loop, or needs to be overpowered by strong emotions.

I believe when scientists studied "religious experience" they found its usually a feeling of oneness in which the parietal lobes reduce their activity, blurring the line between the consciousness and other objects. Other times when people speak in tongues (This is not limited to Christianity) they find that the frontal lobes reduce activity while the Thalmus, the part of the brain which regulates the flow of sensory data to other parts of the brain. Meditation can activate the frontal lobes and is like mental practice to reinforce certain types of behavior.

One thing I think all doubters need to get over, is that having a religious experience is very real for people. Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid", as is often the case from those who are uncomfortable with people of faith. If you're truly an intelligent and curious mind, then I think religion can be a gateway into understanding the human mind.

You call them lunatics. In the sophisticated guise of "psychosis". — EugeneW

Don't get too defensive EugeneW. I can assure you that "I like Sushi" was not trying to offend, he was just thinking of a brain state that most people don't have as a comparison. Maybe a better example would have been people who can hear colors. He's just trying to reason through people's experience with God. Philosophy is about poking at our generally accepted assumptions, and trying to explore new trains of thought. He might have an unconscious comparison, but I don't think he's trying to insult you. Give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in online communication.

I know exactly how my brain functions. That's exactly the reason I know depression or psychosis are not caused by some chemical imbalance of neurotransmitters. You can try to restore the balance by drugs, taking away the dark feeling, but that doesn't take away the cause. — EugeneW

While I agree that drugs do not take away the cause, they can take away the effect. Any good medical professional will tell you that drugs alone are not the solution to depression. You have to take care of yourself as well. But sometimes, the cause is also not something we can fix. Some brains are broken to the point they will not mend. Life long drug abuse, life long trauma, or just a brain that never quite worked correctly. Sometimes too, depression medication can be used as a jump start, and then later weaned off. Just because they don't fix the cause, doesn't mean they are aren't incredibly useful and needed at times.

Go play with someone else on your low level moron. Bye

Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid" — Philosophim

Agree 100%. But some people are just plain stupid too. Some are religious and some are not. (See above)

While I agree that drugs do not take away the cause, they can take away the effect. — Philosophim

Yes, they can take away the effect. The effect being the feeling of depression. Most antidepressants, like the "wonder drug" prozac, get a grip (directly or indirectly) on neurotransmitters. Like noradrenalin or serotonin. I took quite a few different ones (I'm bipolar officially... Hooray!). To no avail. They made me feel worse. The advice was to continue swallowing them. The positive effect would take a few weeks. I didn’t do that. Benzo's and other stuff work better, but they won't prescribe it. Your memory is supposedly impaired. Which is true, but only if you stop abruptly. Which I did. The supplier died. Then hell has arrived. I couldn't even remember how to buy a train ticket at the automat or how to order them with the computer (payments with bitcoins are asked and I wasn't able to understand or even buy them in the first place! I really didn't and that's hard to realize now) Didn’t sleep for 4 months. Literally. Epileptic kinds of bodily shocks. Hallucinations, on the verge of psychosis, but still realizing they are fantasies. Almost every night these thoughts appeared, shining a scary light on reality. Luckily I have very high compensation to the depressions.

Go play with someone else on your low level moron — I like sushi

Look who's talking! You've looked in the mirror too much! "Now that guy/woman is a moron". Conflating yourself with everyone else. Saying that you're interested in theism from a human perspective while secretly thinking they're crazy. Bye bye!

@Philosophim I was referring to a state I have personally experienced although I may have said it on another thread?

Calling people ‘crazy’ or a ‘lunatic’ simply because they have experienced psychosis is rather insulting. My point was that I understand perfectly well how what I experienced would’ve been seen in a different manner had I not had a particularly secular upbringing.

We map experiences onto stories/ideas/perspectives that make ready sense to us. The Jungian Axis Mundi.

The advice was to continue swallowing them. The positive effect would take a few weeks. I didn’t do that. — EugeneW

Any reason why you didn't try to follow the medical advice and try it for a few weeks? Now I'm all for noting they don't make you feel good after that point, and if a doctor insists, get a new doctor. But I would try following medical advice to its end first.

Medicine is not intuitive like we want to believe it is. My mother was a nurse for many years and gave me several examples. She had a patient in her ward one time who was told after surgery, "Do not get up under any circumstances." Well, the guy thought he could because he felt well, didn't want to atrophy, and thought it would be better if he moved around. The nurses caught him walking around to their horror. After they examined him again they found his walking had blocked blood flow to his leg, and they had to amputate it.

Anti-depressents are not intended to make you feel happy and good. They are intended to make you feel normal. Suicide rates can go up when people are first prescribed anti-depressants as people are actually able to act, which is really what the medication is supposed to fix. It does not make your bad feelings go away. It lets you get out of your paralysis. You still have to work on yourself.

Benzo's and other stuff work better, but they won't prescribe it. — EugeneW

And now you know why after you got off of it. If you're looking for a high or happy pill, that's not what anti-depressants are for. Perhaps try again with this knowledge? Really talk and listen to your doctor. Go see a psychologist or psychotherapist if you need help getting through it. But don't go to a street dealer looking for highs.

Any reason why you didn't try to follow the medical advice and try it for a few weeks? — Philosophim

I tried a few days, despite it made me feel worse after the first take. I couldn't imagine that it made me feel better after taking it longer. If I had known for sure I might have done it. Like smoking gets good after one packet only.

I tried a few days, despite it made me feel worse after the first take. I couldn't imagine that it made me feel better after taking it longer. If I had known for sure I might have done it. Like smoking gets good after one packet only. — EugeneW

Right, I think they didn't inform you of what it was supposed to do. Depression medication isn't supposed to make you high or happy. Depression is usually about not being able to function or do anything about your emotional state. You can be sad or bored, but not depressed. Depression is where doing anything outside of minimal effort is incredibly difficult. If for example you feel you need an emotional high to do anything, that's an overcompensation for depression. You're essentially imbalancing your emotions in another way to be able to function.

Once you're on depression medication, then you can do something about your feelings. Instead of lying in bed or avoiding people, you're able to go out and do something. You'll get to the point where you can work on managing your emotions instead of reaching for a quick buzz. Of course, if you like that quick buzz, then you're also fighting addiction at the same time. Not being depressed can assist with that fight, but it won't do the work for you.

Right, I think they didn't inform you of what it was supposed to do. Depression medication isn't supposed to make you high or happy. Depression is usually about not being able to function or do anything about your emotional state. You can be sad or bored, but not depressed. Depression is where doing anything outside of minimal effort is incredibly difficult. If for example you feel you need an emotional high to do anything, that's an overcompensation for depression. — Philosophim

I don't know if you've ever been severely depressed, but being depressed doesn't disable your functioning. The picture of laying in bed all day avoiding people is a stereotype only. I just kept on working pretending to feel alright. Which depresses even more. I'm sure there are depressed people lying in bed all day avoiding contact. I had such a period too. It's not about not being able to manage your emotions or feelings. It's about a detachment from a world you didn't ask for. Getting a buzz is temporary. You can say the same of antidepressants, that the bad buzz is only there at the start, but after that bad buzz what happens? Feeling better? Then that antidepressants function as an inducer of the bad feeling with the goal to set that as the level against which your subsequent feelings are measured. Just like after a dose of X you feel high and afterwards you feel down, after you take Y and feeling down(er), and afterwards feeling good because you dont feel down anymore. Luckily I always have manic periods to look forward to. These periods ("episodes") are rare and maybe on the verge of mania or psychosis but very intense. If you would always be depressed or know for sure it would never go away, it would be quite depressing! Managing depression is not the problem, it's the depression!

These periods ("episodes") are rare and maybe on the verge of mania or psychosis but very intense. If you would always be depressed or know for sure it would never go away, it would be quite depressing! — EugeneW

I'm no medical professional, but maybe you should see a psychologist? I'm not sure your experiences necessarily describe medical depression. Sounds like you're unhappy with your lot in life, which no amount of medicine will fix. And don't take this the wrong way, I'm not some superior "I have my life totally together" person either. Sometimes a good therapist can assist you getting back on track and getting out of the doldrums.

I'm no medical professional, but maybe you should see a psychologist? I'm not sure your experiences necessarily describe medical depression. — Philosophim

Im already assessed. Bipolar/depression. But it all has passed. Feeling good nowadays.

For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd Gnomon) — Agent Smith

For the record, I don't think of the BothAnd Principle as a rhetorical device. Instead, it's a harmonious Holistic worldview. In some aspects, a BothAnd perspective is like the modern scientific concepts of "Relativity" & "Superposition". It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument, in order to reach a better understanding of a complex situation as a whole system of interacting parts. So, it's also the philosophical basis of scientific Systems Theory. :smile:


Cataphasis : noun. Rhetoric. the use of affirmative statements to discuss a subject; affirmation through positive statements.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference;
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system.

Both/And Principle:
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:

Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case.