Consensual reality (à la shadows on the walls of Plato's cave) – much more than mere "social constructionism", right?[R]eality is the product of the collective average/ mean of ALL sentient desires and wants. — Benj96
What does "existence" mean in this scenario other than "manifest by collective faith"?A). How would we “prove” gods existence if we could only observe it through collective faith?
Rephrase; the question as expressed doesn't make sense...B). Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value[?]
Again, in this scenario what does "objective" refer to other than "according to collective faith"?C). Is scientific method and the existence of god mutually irreconcilable in this case as science depends on objective measurement?
Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96
Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96
A). How would we “prove” gods existence if we could only observe it through collective faith?
B). Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value.
C). Is scientific method and the existence of god mutually irreconcilable in this case as science depends on objective measurement? — Benj96
But let’s apply this to the notion of “god” Because of the importance of “faith” or “belief” in religious texts. Suppose hypothetically that god only exists if everyone believes unanimously by some defined doctrine describing such a god. And in the same sense god does not exist if everyone rejects a posited doctrine. — Benj96
Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value? — Benj96
merely an artificial belief that only holds value insofar as it is productive and conducive to society. — chiknsld
So with the advent of Galilelean and Newtonian science, a different mentality emerges, which aims to divest the world of all such 'vague and primitive' concepts such like wills, aims and purpose (telos) and instead provide an account resting solely on the measurable properties of objects and on reaching consensus in respect of those. The subjective, interior or intentional domain is banished to 'the past', or declared archaic. Newton still saw the need to God to set the cosmic machine in motion, but Laplace 'had no need of that hypotheses'. Thus begins what René Geunon calls 'the reign of quantity'. Within that overall paradigm, there is no way to accomodate God, or the numinous, or indeed any real idea of the transcendent. Welcome to modernity. — Wayfarer
Be VERY careful with the term ‘exist’ and clarify how it is being used as well as how it can be used and applied in another way. — I like sushi
And if so do we not increasingly limit the depth of knowledge we can attain with scientific method. — Benj96
The idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles for conducting the business of science meets considerable difficulty when confronted with the results of historical research. We find, then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other. It becomes evident that such violations are not accidental events, they are not results of insufficient knowledge or of inattention which might have been avoided. On the contrary, we see that they are necessary for progress. Indeed, one of the most striking features of recent discussions in the history and philosophy of science is the realization that events and developments, such as the invention of atomism in antiquity, the Copernican Revolution, the rise of modern atomism (kinetic theory; dispersion theory; stereochemistry; quantum theory), the gradual emergence of the wave theory of light, occurred only because some thinkers either decided not to be bound be certain 'obvious' methodological rules, or because they unwittingly broke them.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Against Method
A). How would we “prove” gods existence if we could only observe it through collective faith?
B). Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value.
C). Is scientific method and the existence of god mutually irreconcilable in this case as science depends on objective measurement? — Benj96
In any case the term Artificial for me is a bit of a strange notion as humans are organic and natural and one would ask where exactly something stops being a “natural progression” and becomes “artificial”. Artificial things come from the natural world and natural things also come from the natural world — Benj96
Furthermore I agree money is “artificial” but if a god existed based on exchange of belief by us - sentient beings what’s the difference- would a god that depends on our faith for potency/ existence not be artificial also? — Benj96
Interesting however could a concept of a god not be conducive to a productive or cooperative society and has it not done so before historically- leaving out all the war and bloodshed done in the name of religions. In that people felt their bad behaviour would be punished in some form - be it by a deity or karma or whatever regardless of whether societal justice systems noticed and reprimanded them or not. — Benj96
There was and still is for many a moralistic imperative to not “piss off” some all knowing entity or in a non anthropomorphised way not to tip the fine balance, the equilibrium that nature demands of it’s systems.
Currency does not exist in the same way that a table or chair exists. — I like sushi
So God created people so that they could believe in him so that he could exist? — chiknsld
You are confused — I like sushi
That's not the reason gods created the raw material for the universe. I was recently informed that the eternal divine heaven became victim of an existential void and paralyzing boredom. The only thing left to to was to collectively engage in a research program to develop the universe's fundamental ingredients and in deed create it. The life evolving after the act serves to fill the void, that so unfortunate fate.
What-you-believe doesn't create Reality, but Ideality. Yet, for subjective personal purposes, what-you-believe (your world model) is your Reality. The Matrix movie is a good metaphorical illustration of the principle that Reality is what you think it is. Of course, some of us think we're too smart to fall for the old smoke & mirrors trick. But professional magicians, who know how most tricks work, and are inherently skeptical of "real" magic, can be fooled by slick illusions. Such mis-led beliefs are manifest to the mind, not to the eyes. Belief is bliss. :joke:Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96
Hope they discover something interesting! — chiknsld
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.