I'm inclined not to respond to this because you've already decided without looking at my argument, that the argument is in direct conflict with the epistemology of science, and therefore must be false. — Sam26

-I should have done the same with your OP because you already decided to ignore the epistemology that really matters and instead present fringe supernatural claims as if it is science or legit philosophical conclusions.
But I didn't because this discussion will benefit by standers and those sitting on the fence.
Not wasting time in material containing arguments without objective facts and being in conflict with Science and its principles is the wise thing to do. If you could state your argument and point to the body of objective evidence, that would be a different story. Subjective takes of dying brains is not the best way to reach a conclusion.

There isn't any "issue with objectivity". ITs the most credible and successful criterion we currently have in epistemology. Objective Independent verification is what elevates our standards of evaluation and successfully demarcates Knowledge from Nonsense. Its better to keep some conclusions "waiting" in line due to the lack of objectivity than to pollute our epistemology with nonsense.

First, you act as though the science of consciousness is settled, which is incorrect — Sam26

-Strawman. I am only pointing out that you are ignoring the current paradigm of Science and our current scientific frameworks on the subject. NOTHING is settled in science, even its principles (of Methodological Naturalism)...but you will need Objective evidence to change anything, not hearsay.

It's settled for some, but it sure isn't settled for others (other scientists), and still others are on the fence. — Sam26

-I don't mind people sharing different beliefs, what I do mind is when they share their own facts and they ignore our current established epistemology.

The only thing that matters are the arguments (the logic), are they good inductive arguments or not. The epistemology of science is mostly based on logical (mostly inductive) reasoning based on the data (data here is used in a very broad sense including mathematics), and the observations (sensory experience) of various experiments. — Sam26

_Correct. Pseudo Philosophical interpretations on consciousness are not acceptable arguments. People having an experience they can't understand ... doesn't make magic (floating minds) true!

However, epistemology is much broader than just science, i.e., I don't need science to confirm many of our knowledge claims. — Sam26

-Correct, but when two claims compete on explaining the same phenomenon, Science is the way to go, more systematic, more methodical and its doesn't make up invisible entities to explain the phenomenon.

I can use an inductive argument to reason to a conclusion without any use of science, and know that the conclusion follows. — Sam26

-You literally stated that you are going to arrive to a conclusion while ignoring the most methodological and systematic facts available to us....that is irrational. Your epistemology SHOULD include everything that is available us and remove those which do not meet the highest standards of systematicity

I explain this in my thread, and in my videos. I also explain in this thread how it is that we can have NDEs that are verified objectively, i.e., corroborated or verified testimonial evidence. — Sam26

-Yes you explained it and it is wrong. You ALWAYS should work with the best available epistemology either it originates from science or not. NO , NDEs haven't been verified objectively There are cases where we can't explain the phenomenon (and the answer is "WE don't know) but most of the cases are easily explained without invoking magic. What is suspicious is, during a controlled setup we are unable those testimonies.

It's true that science generally adds to the certainty of our arguments, but it's not as though we can't know things apart from science. — Sam26

-Sure but that is not an excuse to accept supernatural claims. Our standards of evaluation should be equally high and we shouldn't accept Magic as an answer. We are not going to change the Scientific Paradigm of Methodological Naturalism for a Death Denying ideology of flying minds not being contigent to biological brains with an expiration date.

By the way, there is scientific data that supports much of my argument. There is science being conducted all over the world on this subject. However, — Sam26

No there isn't any. There are data with really bad and unfounded interpretations on non scientific principles(supernatural) and that is not science.

However, I don't have to rely on science to reach my conclusion, even if it helps. — Sam26

-IF your conclusion was sound, then science would've accept it. The problem is not that your conclusions are a product of a non scientific methodology, but they are in conflict with what we know and can verify about how the world works. We don't observe Advance properties manifesting in reality out of thin air. We have done the same error in the past again and again, making up magical entities to explain a phenomenon. ITs not wise to keep repeating that mistake.

Also, there are no other videos like mine, so to assume that my videos are like other videos is just false. My video takes an epistemological approach to the subject based on different methods of justification. — Sam26

-The issue is with your principles. Supernaturalism NEEDs to be demonstrated before being used as an answer. Advanced Properties don't just emerge in nature, they are contingent to physical functions.
Gods, spirits, minds etc are not legit explanations. They are lazy attempts to address mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries.

Anyone who takes the approach that you are taking isn't serious about challenging an argument. It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy. — Sam26

-The argument is over 35 years ago. The evidence on conscious states being the function of the brain is overwhelming. We have technical applications and surgery protocols and diagnostics and medicinal protocols that are designed to treat the tissue of the brain for all mental "mulfunctions"...none of them are designed to tread minds in space.

It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy. — Sam26

-if your argument included our current epistemology and objective evidence why it is wrong (not because some patients with a dying brain had an experience),then I would accept the unbiased nature of your claims. The issue with your supernatural conclusions is that they are untestable unfalsifiable, can't be used to produce technical or commercial applications and they just promote a new mystery as an answer. Its not rational or philosophical.

I am looking for a way to not dismiss NDEs as they seem to be emotional experiences and the Parnia experiments involving upward facing numbers are less emotional in nature. — TiredThinker

Do you really believe that emotion is the best way to interpret an experience? Really? This is how we end up with stories on ghosts, goblins and UFOs....
Parnia's experiments are simple and have nothing to do with his subjects emotions. They just do the same questions and their answers fail to mention those cues.

What you're doing is using scientific theory to lay out what we mean by words like "existence." Wouldn't it be better to just look to how we actually use the words? — frank

No because the definition I gave for existence is used in Science.
Science is our ultimate "ontological" tool. It has helped us many times to remove entities from our assumptions. (Miasma,Orgone energy, Phlogiston, Panacea etc etc).

Einstein's thought experiment depends on it being at least logically possible for a person (or one dimensional point if that helps) to exist in a void. — frank

-What Einstein thought is irrelevant, what he managed to prove, that's what counts. You shouldn't use Einstein thoughts in a fallacy (false authority figure). Einsteins Philosophy is not special.

Logical and metaphysical possibility often informs the way we use words. This means that as long as there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a void, it's going to make sense to talk about it. — frank

I think we are drifting away from a meaningful conversation. I avoid vague language because it doesn't produce anything meaningful. When you say "void" you need to define what you mean. What void means to you?
Science showed us that with our current technology we can look in our universe and identify interactions that cause new processes to emerge. Something that doesn't exist is unable to cause anything in our world.
Not using these tools we just limiting our epistemology, rendering our conclusions uninformed and pseudo philosophical.

your inverse view has zero epistemic or philosophical value. As Wolfgang Pauli would have pointed out, its "Not even Wrong". Whether a scientists or a philosopher (who is truly interested in wisdom) subscribes to a Pseudo philosophical worldview(Idealism, Materialism) is irrelevant. In order to do his job he will still need to scan the empirical world for data in order to produce any meaningful framework.


Declarations of this short can never be part of Philosophy since the acceptance of such ontological not only offers zero understanding about the world, they also fails to explain the External Limitations and Empirical Regularities that we register and we have to obey in order to survive and flourish.

Consciousness is a label we use to describe a phenomenon with specific properties.(Mind being able to direct its conscious attention to important stimuli, external or internal).
Mistaking the label of an abstract concept (quality) to be an entity is a common error Idealists do in their effort to provide answers to their questions. i.e. Many things that Knowledge or truth is something out there to be found, or Mathematics is not a descriptive tool but a constructive "agent".
This is bad language mode.

And knowledge is based on what? — javi2541997

Knowledge is nothing more than an evaluation term. We declare a claim to be "knowledge" when it is in direct agreement with objective facts and it with demonstrable instrumental value.
If a conclusion is in conviction with what we know, then it can not be wise by definition.

Can you cite a paper on this. — Andrew4Handel

From the top of my head I can direct you to an Academic Mooc explains the fundamental properties of our mind. (1. Awakeness 2.Unconsious Awareness of Self 3. Conscious Awareness of environmental and organic stimuli,etc)
Future Learn, What is the Mind , Marc Solms (founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and author of the ground breaking paper on Dreams and the latest Theory on COnsciousness.)

Awareness is opposed to the unconscious. — Andrew4Handel

-No, someone can be consciously or unconsciously aware of something and react unconsciously to that stimuli. Its one thing to be aware of your and your environment and an other to direct your conscious attention to a a stimuli and reflect on it i.e. Many people drive to and from work without being able to recollect taking conscious decisions on how to get to their destiny.

I would say that all objects are selves in the sense of possessing a coherent unified identity that can be preserved. — Andrew4Handel

OBjects are not Selves. The term self is an abstract concept humans use to refer to their mental existence.

What about the existence of ourselves rather than finding knowledge on external world? — javi2541997

Our existence(self) is one of the aspects of the world we experience.

I don’t think that external world is necessarily the main point or cause of every philosophical theory... — javi2541997

-well you can not study your self without taking in to account your environment. We are the product of the external world.

And how we "evaluate" conclusions — javi2541997

By evaluating their knowledge value. A claim is wise when it is based on knowledge

It always amazes me when people discount testimonial evidence, as not evidence. — Sam26

-I guess we agree on that. They shouldn't discount testimonial evidence as "not evidence". They are insufficient evidence until they are evaluated. Those huge studies and Cognitive Sciecne put to the test those testimonial evidence and rendered them bad evidence

You obviously didn't listen to all of the videos where I addressed the issue of objective evidence — Sam26

-Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).
Objective evidence is a PRAGMATIC Necessity in our methods of evaluation. ITs the reason why we don't have many conflicting schools of sciences. The lack of the criterion of objectivity is the reason why we have more than 4.300 conflicting religious dogmas and 160+ different Spiritual worldviews making all kind of supernatural claims.

Moreover, I find it rich, that you talk about me not "taking in to account Academic epistemology..." which is what the soul of my argument has been about. — Sam26

-You are using Supernatural Speculations by some "Academics", not Academic Epistemology. None of those claims are part of our Epistemology in Cognitive science or Neuroscience.

You and ↪180 Proof
should stick together because you seem to be expert at simply making pronouncements without an argument. — Sam26

-ok......well I don't need to make any arguments especially when we deal with scientific knowledge. I can send you a tone of Academic courses proving the claim in your title wrong. Can you do that? of course not...

How about reading and studying the literature and not assuming your conclusion is true without a basis in fact. Only one person in this thread gave a decent response to my inductive argument. Most of the other responses have been mostly visceral in nature, not logical. — Sam26

-There are great Academics Moocs on the subject. Nowhere in those courses you will find scientists entertaining the claims you are presenting because no objective evidence to support them...only stories of people interpreting their experiences based on their beliefs.

Lets return to my initial objection about your OP.
The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical.

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy. — Jamal

The central issue οf Philosophy is the construction of wise theoretical frameworks capable to expand our understanding on all aspects of the world.The existence of the external world is the epistemic source and starting point for ALL philosophical inquiries and the only available way we have to evaluate our conclusions as wise or not.
This poll shows that most Academic philosopher finally took seriously the 10 main problems of modern Philosophy highlighted by Mario Bunge in his book : Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction (2001).

I have to dismiss all NDEs and OBEs claims from being a credible source of knowledge. I don't believe a dying brain deprived from oxygen can be the best way to find out about reality and its objective nature. After all large studies on the phenomenon (A.W.A.R.E I& II) showed that subjects who claimed having such experiences failed to spot cues placed in ERs all over the US.
Its true that we all construct "memories" through narratives so we should be careful with our conclusions and what they say about reality.
The color of the setting sun is a property that can only be verified(or interpret to be more accurate) by a single sense(vision) while spatial info can be verified two or more.
So the stimuli that makes a blind man talk about "reddish" might be a completely different thing from the stimuli of our vision.

Solipsism is a "Not even wrong" ontological claim. Whether its true or not it doesn't change a thing in how we register and evaluate Empirical Regularities and External Limitations of reality, plus it is really arrogant to believe that all the fine art and great music and philosophical ideas and crimes against humanity were the product of one mind.
As observers we will still have to struggle in order to survive, seek well being , avoid suffering and many of us will eventually fail.
Like any pseudo philosophical idea (an idea that doesn't succeed in expanding our understanding and wisdom) discussions on Solipsism place should be in a bar with a glass of beer on hand, not in a philosophical forum.
The idea of "simulation hypothesis" was an official attempt to justify the place of soliphism in Philosophy and science but after it was proven wrong (back in the 2017)by science its was dismissed for good.

none of our senses are completely subjective. They collect data about an objective external world and they are verified every time we attempt to interact with it. (i.e. trying to find the exit hole on the wall of our house). The interpretation of these data introduces the subjective quality which comes as a coating of our experience mainly from an aesthetic perspective.

Your first question doesn't help the title question . Its not your overarching subjectivity that limits a blind man to understand your perception of the world. Its the limitation of senses he is experiencing that keeps him from understanding your subjective view of the objective world. oF course it depends on what you are trying to describe. i.e. he can verify and understand the existence , location in space and utility of a door, but he can not do that with a color and how it makes you feel.

Or if a blind person claims to have seen briefly is there anything they could say to confirm that they did in fact see versus be told what seeing is by someone else and regurgitated? — TiredThinker

-It depends from the claim. If a blind person describes accurately a layout of a space without having any information by a third person then you can confirm it.

It always amazes me when people introduce the topic consciousness in a philosophical discussions without taking in to account the Academic epistemology of the respective Interdisciplinary field!

That's the best thing one can do in life! Deepity? — Agent Smith

ITs only "the best thing one can do" if reasonable arguments is the goal.

That's too obvious to state. Pick up an introductory book on philosophy and be informed! 180 Proof claims philosophy and god are incompatible. I beg to differ. — Agent Smith

As I already pointed out, our epistemology on god can only shed light on the Anthropological aspect of the cultural concept...not the ontological one. We don't have verified epistemology on the existence of god in reality in order to render any discussion on it "Philosophical".
180 Proff is right. God and philosophy are incompatible until hard evidence are provided as our starting point of a meaningful philosophical discussion.
People don't claim to have philosophical discussions on the existences Hobbits, Yeti, fairies, Leprechauns etc etc and that should be true for any claim that can be supported by credible epistemology.

That is an irrelevant example.
Albert's thought experiments ARE NOT claims about facts of reality....the keyword is "thought experiments"
His work was not on QM and the Nobel awarded model of Quantum fluctuations came much later.
Absolute void is NOT possible (according to our current data) in our universe. Quantum foam is everywhere.

There isn't any objective evidence in support of the existence of an entity labeled as consciousness. The only verified process carrying that label is a biological property observable in the function of biological brains.
These videos you are posting are containing additional claims, not evidence that can be objectively evaluated.

(absolute)void has not been proven possible within our universe. (Quantum Fluctuations). So we constantly observe interactions in every scale of the universe.

Exaclty...this was "unenlightened's" whole argument...You need to believe in order to believe in god.

Do you? Or do you not even allow yourself to become conscious of how you have exposed your own irrationality, so quick you are to project it onto me? — unenlightened

I pointed out the inconsistencies in your analogy and you accused me for "taking your analogy ...literally", As I told you an analogy is not a metaphor so "taking it literally or not is irrelevant".
You gave an other analogy that failed (again) to address the issues created by the first analogy.
Then you are accusing me for "not understaning" and I told you that I am not interested in understanding the instrumental value of a story, but I want to learn how this story affects people's behavior....and you came back with a snarky comment. So who is projecting what here...sir?

I guess We have reached the end of the road where a theist (or magical thinker) is unable to provide objective evidence and he turns to different practices.

So Enjoy the rest of your stay....in this thread!

Science tells us that life is a struggle for survival. How does religion not fit this struggle for survival? — baker

Religion was and is "technology", a "tool" humans invented to help them deal with the rough reality of their existence.

The religious epistemological method is the method of revelation, it's top-down, not bottom-up. God, the divine, or some higher truth is revealed to people, people don't figure it out on their own and they aren't supposed to nor can they. — baker

-Revelation? that not a method, its doesn't have steps that one can follow in an effort to reproduce the result.
Those are the Claims...not the result of a objective methodology and those claims are subjective (this is why we have claims for more than 4.300 religions and more than 10.000 deities with different characteristics, qualities and roles in reality).
Those claims need to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed to be true. This is the whole issue with religious claims.

Because science and religion are NOMAs, so there's no conflict. — baker

_that could be the case if and only if religion staying in its Magisteria and didn't attempt to introduce its entities withing science back yard. Unfortunately most classical religions do that mistake and their claims are fair game for Science.

The same might be said of the alchemists: that many of their beliefs were childish fantasies unrelated to reality. BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

-Thats not true. Alchemy was just a bad way to do Chemistry. Alchemy failure to provide real world results rendering itself useless and irrelevant. Logic and instrumental value of the end product (knowledge) is what lead as to shape the rules of the discipline (chemistry.)
If we use your example on Alchemy to construct an analogy, then Theists are the Alchemists (believed in unfounded claims) and Atheists are the result of logic and real life facts.
After all believing in magical answers was not the reason behind our Epistemic Success. Its science and its neutral (atheistic/rejecting the supernatural until it can be justified through objective evidence) principles that allowed us to peel off the layers of reality. As far as we know Religious Tradition and beliefs were always weighing down our epistemic advances.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

-This is NOT the atheistic position. You are describing the Antitheistic position but that is only a subset of a much larger category(atheism). That a category error.
The minimum position for someone to be an Atheist is to have doubt to the claim and demand evidence before accepting it as true.
Logic (Null Hypothesis) dictates that all unverified claims should be rejected until objective evidence can falsify our initial rejection. So Atheism(not being convinced of the truthiness of the claim), by definition is the most rational position to hold.

Sure atheists and atheists may be wrong, but the moment to accept that is only after God existence has been verified. (the same is true for antitheists)
Do you go around telling people you are millionaire because its is possible to win the lottery later that day? That's not reasonable right? So why theist do exactly that with the God claim?

The atheist may respond that religions have had millennia to get their act together, and have failed. So, there is much justification for rejecting the idea of God. (Or rather rejecting ideas of God, since such ideas are so varied and, at times, contradictory.) — Art48

-Correct , the rejection of an unjustified belief is the most rational thing to do

But perhaps religions have failed because they use an epistemological method worthy of a child: someone special (prophet, God, God-man, etc.) said or wrote something, and we must believe it. Just like “Mommy or Daddy said some something, so you should believe it. — Art48

-The reason why religions of the past or believers of the presence have failed to demonstrate objectively the existence of the God is irrelevant. The burden is on the side making the claim after all.

Alchemists used something akin to science’s epistemological method (hypothesize, experiment, no gold? form different hypothesis, try different experiment). Perhaps, if religion employed something similar to science’s epistemological method, real progress could be made. — Art48

-Well their hypothesis (turn lead in to gold) was based on wishful thoughts, not on knowledge. So apart from similarities in methodology neither their standards and principles or level of the quality of their methodologies were comparable to science. After all science's methodologies are not something special, between a scientific lab and any other empirical method of knowledge. the rules of evaluations and systematic accumulation and processing of data is what differs.

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? A difficult question. The current draft of my thoughts is available at — Art48

-That's not Science's or Logic's fault. The problem lies with the nature of the religious claims. Again the burden of proof lies with the side making the claim.

I was wondering if any academic philosophers visit this forum as I am interested in some content that can be provided by them. — Shawn

-I hope not....except of course if we they are Naturalists(methodological).

I am somewhat saddened that the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science categories never receive much attention or forum posts.
What can be done about that? — Shawn

-That's so true! Since your mentioned Philosophy of Science( I love this category), are you familiar with Paul Hoyningen's work on the Philosophy of Science(Systematicity, the Nature of Science). If yes, could you share some thoughts on his ideas on Science not being something special but still enjoying such an epistemic success!

If the universe is a fractal of repeating patterns on ever larger scales, for example: hierarchies, cycles, the golden ratio, structures that we see throughout human academic disciplines - the study of things and/or nature, in essence, if physics and chemistry is geometric, then, it should also be synchronic. Right? — Benj96

-What "fractal" means to you. Fractal is a label we use on structures with specific characteristics.Chemisty and Geometry are tools we use to descibe qualities of these structures.
Again I think you are committing a fallacy of composition. You are arguing from the specific to the general. What about those structures in the Universe that do not display the characteristics of a fractal?

if physics and chemistry is geometric, then, it should also be synchronic — Benj96

Define Geometric and synchronic please.

I am not sure calling the Universe "fractal" offers us any additional understanding for this Phenomenon.

I think abiogenesis is compelling because it blurs a fundamental distinction: that between life and non-life, or at least, makes it appear less fundamental. — Wayfarer

The set of hypotheses under the umbrella of Abiogenesis are our attempt to identify possible ways responsible for the emergence of biological systems from chemical ones. In my opinion it should be compelling for its epistemic value not just for being able to bring down our dogmas.

Since life only begins at the molecular level, there is no need to search for life on all the scales below.
Since the philosophy of mind addresses consciousness as an entity in its own right, it fails to present it as an (emergent) consequence of life. — Wolfgang

What philosophy of mind claims is IRRELEVANT. You will need to study Science, not philosophy in order to understand the ontology of an emergent biological property like Consciousness.
Natural Phenomena are studied by Science, not philosophy.

The observable phenomenon is the brain activity and its apparent connection to what we consciously do at the conscious level. — Ludwig V

_correct.

The description "unconscious self" is a decision about how it is appropriate to consider the phenomenon. — Ludwig V

Unconscious self is a label of an observable phenomena.(organisms acting unconsciously to preserve their well being and survival).

-""Unconscious" applied to "Self" seems contradictory to the normal idea of the self, "
_No it isn't. THere is a great Academic course avaliable on Future Learn (Mooc) by the founder of Neuropsychology Mark Solms. There you will understand how we define the property of unconscious self awareness displayed by biological organisms with central nervous systems.

so it needs more justification than it is getting here. — Ludwig V

-I didn't provide any justification. I only presented in bullet points the two different types of "Self". The justification of the above classifications can be found in Cognitive Science literature and in Moocs available to anyone who is interested in knowing and talking about the properties of the Mind.

Other descriptions may be more appropriate. — Ludwig V

-More appropriate than our current scientific epistemology ? I will be skeptical on that.

. I would prefer to say that the various calculations take place, without committing to the idea that anybody is doing them. — Ludwig V

_I don't really understand what your point is and how this is relevant to our Scientific Epistemology of the brain...Care to elaborate?

do you feel hurt or threaten when someone exposes the irrational nature of a claim you subscribe to??
You do understand that I only criticize the logic behind those ideas, not you as an individual..right? No need to act defensively and to accuse others "for not understanding" the wishful thoughts in a couple of verses.
Can we agree that being a fan of an idea is not enough to make it true?
Also the instrumental value of an idea is not relevant to our philosophical efforts to understand nature reality and what exists within.
I hope we can have a meaningful discussion without you feeling threatened by my logical objections on the foundations of these supernatural claims.

Yes, you are in very good company focussing on the facticity or fictionality of "the God claim". That is exactly what I am pointing to myself. As long as your issue is that, you will never understand something like this:

My song is love unknown,
My Saviour's love for me,
Love to the loveless shown that they might Lovely be. — Samuel Crossman — unenlightened

I am focusing or better observing and analyzing the irrationality in humans. Accepting an existential claim without evidence is a text book example of irrational human behavior. Turning my back on logic in order to "understand" (as you claim) the superstitious message of some verses is not reasonable thing to do.
You are literary stating that we should ignore the truth value of a claim as long as songs and poems can easy our existential and epistemic anxieties.

That's deep man/woman! :smile: — Agent Smith

Its just reasoning reflecting on facts :grin:

Is there? Can you point to objective epistemology that can fuel a philosophical discussion about god or the supernatural in general?

Are we actually alive/real?

If you catch your self asking the above question.....you are alive.
If you respond to me post...then I am also alive (possibly).
This is what defines existence....interactions between elements and entities

I wouldn't say that the calculation performed by a computer was material, even though it is the result of a physical process. Indeed, it seems to me to be rather misleading. — Ludwig V

Properties of matter are responsible for a computer calculation.That is true for our mental properties. They are a product of the material world.

Well, if that is helpful to cognitive science, it would be churlish to quibble. — Ludwig V

That is a description of an observable phenomenon. The quality of helpfulness follows.

It's an analogy, that you are taking literally in order to try and undermine. — unenlightened

-Well maybe you meant "a metaphor. Metaphors can be interpret literally or not.
An analogy is either correct or not. I only pointed out why your analogy falls short.

-" I am a fan of justice. This does not mean I think justice exists, it means I am committed to the cause; I strive for justice, i cheer for it."

-Correct , Justice doesn't exist as an entity or an agent or a substance. Its an abstract concept of a process societies strive to sustain.

-" And you can explain that life is complicated and knowledge is never absolutely certain so on, so I am wrong to think there can be perfect justice, but you will be missing the point, as you have missed my previous point."
-I can not see the relevance of this point . Knowledge and Justice are Abstract concepts of idealistic goals set by humans. I won't argue in favor or the manifestation of absolutes in reality because I don't believe it is possible.
God on the other hand is an existential claim of an agent/entity made by Humans.
Whether someone is a "fan" of god or not is irrelevant to the methods we use to objectively demonstrate the existence of an entity.
Your final statement was:"So if you are not a fan of god, you will always miss out on the excitement, and think yourself very wise."
How do you justify this jump to those two conclusions??WHat excitement is that and why one must think he is very wise for not accepting an existential claim that lacks objective verification??

This is why a philosopher cannot find god; he cannot make a commitment to anything, but must always be weighing and evaluating and reasoning. It's a very good recipe for thinking, but a very poor one for living. — unenlightened

-Well in my opinion, the issue lies with the God claim . God claims are not based on objective facts accessible to everyone for evaluation.
Now in your final line I understand that your claim is" being critical and skeptical towards unfounded claims is a poor way to live your life"??? How can you support that claim?

In Cognitive science, there are two types of "Self".
First one its the Unconscious Self (Unconscious Self awareness) "found" in organisms with a central nervous system(brain). Their unconscious part of the brain "takes care" the needs , assist them to identify and avoid pain and suffering etc. through their basic drives, urges and unconscious behavior and actions.
In species with larger and more advanced brains Symbolic language, meaning , feelings, memory and social information ad a more complex narrative about the "Self". Everything responsible for this mental concept is a product of brain function interacting with the environment....hence its Material.

Let me outline a simple reason why a philosopher might not find God.
It is at the simplest a confusion of faith with belief.

If you ask a fan of Ipswich town FC. which is the greatest football club, they will tell you it is Ipswich Town FC. If you ask them about the next game, they will tell you that Ipswich will win. And if you point out that Ipswich almost invariably loses and often come bottom of the league, they will be hurt, but not dismayed. To be a fan is to be a loyal supporter and keep the faith in good times and bad times. To be an Ipswich fan is not wrong as a matter of fact, nor is it even a matter of fact that Ipswich will lose their next game.

It is not that the facts do not matter; the win is all important, and the loss is a heavy blow, but faith covers them both and amplifies them both. Faith is what makes these things matter at all. I am not a football fan, and I couldn't care less about Ipswich Town FC. I can therefore afford to be philosophical about their chances. But the only people who care about my analysis, are the Ipswich fans.

So if you are not a fan of god, you will always miss out on the excitement, and think yourself very wise. — unenlightened

-I think your conclusion has a huge problem.Your conclusion is not supported by your example.
First issue with your example is that the both results(win-loss) on the next game are possible. That is not true for god. We don't know whether such an agent is possible.
Second issue, not all fans are blind to the facts of their team and not all fans of the opponent team believe they will win. You are adopting an extreme position to make your case.
There are fans that acknowledge strengths and weaknesses in both teams, are aware of the previous matches,how they performed and they are willing to inform their expectations accordingly.
In the case of the God claim, we don't have only two positions (fans of god vs not fans). We have skeptics, scientists, agnostics gnostics etc etc.
In order to choose the reasonable Default position we only need to evaluate the claims, take it to account the available facts (if they are any) and use the rules of logic, avoid fallacies to arrive to best informed thesis.

The philosopher is not seeking God and so to say the philosopher will not find god is like saying the doctor will not find the bomb — Agent Smith

My take on that would be that "the philosopher shouldn't seek God until he has access to objective epistemology pointing to the existence and ontology of God(s).

Possibility needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. The default position(Null hypothesis) is to reject the possibility of a claim until facts can falsify our initial rejection. An example I used in the past was that of Alchemy. Alchemists spent time and resources to turn lead in to gold when our current knowledge informs us that the chemical transmutation of elements impossible. So there is a price to pay when someone thinks that there is nothing to lose when accepting a "deepity".

Science doesn't really begin with concepts but with observations. These observations produce descriptions which fuel our concepts. Energy is nothing more than a descriptive concept of a phenomenon we can observe and quantify in nature!

Energy as something that cannot be created or destroyed is a huge assumption to make — Benj96

This is an observation that we have verified. First of all we must clarify that energy is NOT a substance or an entity or an agent. ITs a label of a process observed in nature where this quantitative property (ability to do work) is transferred to physical elements or systems . The conservative quality of this property allows it to be dispersed in different forms but the total sum of them will be equal to the initial "load" of work of the system.

As it allows not to establish where it originates from, why it occurs at all. — Benj96

-Those (why questions) are irrelevant questions which are not addressed by the Descriptive Nature of Science. Asking why energy exists is like asking why the Universe exists. "Why" questions are fallacious, teleological questions. Intentions and purposes are not intrinsic qualities of Nature but qualities projected by beings with goals and needs. We tend to see agents in nature so we tend to ask why a natural phenomenon occurs. Science doesn't allow such assumptions in our hypotheses.
Existence is the product of the ability of matter to produce work. Why it is able to do that....the answer is always "Because it can".
Cosmology attempts to learn where it originated,but since it lies outside our observable Universe (predates the BIg Bang) Its safe to say that we can not answer that yet. So there is no way to philosophize(in a meaningful way) about it.

And it being basically the fundamental constituent of all material as well as all interactions, is virtually indefinable. Something that is fundamentally everything cannot really be further defined/restricted in character/properties beyond this vague generalisation. — Benj96

-Again "Energy" is not the name of an entity or a substance or an agent. Its the label of an observable, quantifiable phenomenon caused by a process. ITs not a "vague generalization" for the existence of an invisible "cosmic battery" but a Law like Generalization of the ability of Quantum Glitches(fundamental particles) to produce work and form structures which in turn produce different forms of work and structures.

And yet we do manage to subdivide it and characterise specific types of energy, despite the fact that they can convert from one form to the next. But only because of its presupposed eternality and ability to create anything (sensations/objects/happenings) in existence. — Benj96

We don't presuppose those properties. Our observations reveal them to us. There is a huge difference there. The "eternal" nature of energy can only be verified within the local representation of our universe. We can assume that a preexisting unknown type of cosmic field preexisted which gave rise to the energetic field that we call universe. Since we don't have any observations available outside our universe there is no way to put such assumptions to the test or to justify an answer.

For me, energy is as about as close to magic as science gets. It's both invisible and visible, can be felt and also not felt at all, can take any form whatsoever, we have no idea where it comes from initially or why, and yet we gloss over that so that we may use it as a basic principle of science. — Benj96

-I think your understanding of what energy is.. is based on our common "bad language mode". As I already explained the term "energy" in science is not an ontological claim of a substance or an entity in existence. Its just an observable phenomena where fundamental particles in fields have the ability to "carry" work resulting to the creation of structures and evolving processes.
This misconception of "energy" being an entity is a common thing. Its the result of our idealistic thinking meeting our empirical world. Abstract concepts describing processes have always being mistaken to be ontological claims of entities. They are responsible for most ancient gods, new age ideologies and failed idealistic doctrines.

When i search for meaning in a concept of God I'm not referring to some big bearded fellow floating in the clouds. Of course not. It's more nuanced than that. I'm simply suggesting that we don't yet have verification of whether consciousness is a fundamental force that began with the universe or why it is possible for it to emerge from substance (the hard problem). — Benj96

-I understand. In Philosophy gods are represented by far more vague concepts. Natural process like Energy, Consciousness , Mind,etc are often used to satisfy our need to answer our "why" questions (why we exist, why things are the way they are). This is done by converting the label of a process (i.e. Consciousness/the ability of a biological brain to direct its attention to environmental/organic stimuli and to reflect upon them by using the rest of its mental abilities like symbolic language, memory, previous experience, reasoning, pattern recognition, etc) to an entity and then declaring to be a powerful one.
I personally don't think this way of thinking has a place in Philosophy.

Chalmers "hard Problem' is nothing more than a set of fallacious ''why questions". Anil Seth has criticized Chalmers fallacy and explained which are the real Hard problems we face in understanding how mind properties arise through brain function. I can share material on the subject.

Many people leave the door open to a god theory to explain such a profound dynamic as this. The fact that us, as parts of the universe, are a direct example of the universe being aware of itself. — Benj96

That is a fallacy of composition. The label Universe includes many more things that do not have the property of awareness. We can only be a direct example of a system being able to display this specific property within the universe. The universe is not an entity, but its a process, the total sum of different processes giving rise to systems and entities. Only a fraction of those systems and entities (us) have this ability.(awareness).

I think if philosophy can question its own tenets: epistemology, physika and metaphysics as you pointed out - as in how to define them, what falls within each definition, why they exist as components, are there more components we haven't considered, where they come from, how they may overlap, I'm not so sure everything needs to satisfy all three to be considered worthy of philosophical endeavour. — Benj96

-Well those three steps should be included only if we demand our conclusions(or questions) to be wise.IF not then by definition our conclusions can not be wise...hence they can not be part of our philosophy.
The problem with all god claims is that there is no data to investigate. We only have claims that are compatible with what we should expect from a social species with shared ideas and beliefs and wishes.
There is nothing there to philosophize on except doing Anthropology and Sociology .etc.

If one is to consider the universe itself as a "God" and then figure out how to caracterise/understand or explain that, surely philosophy which is not external to the universe, must be applicable to the universe? — Benj96

- First of all we shouldn't start by accepting the assumption we are trying to demonstrate. Second equally important is....in order to equate the Universe with god we should demonstrate their shared properties. Most people claim that god is a thinking agent. If you accept that claim you will need to demonstrate that this property is shared by the process we identify as a universe.
Since these claim is not based on facts, our metaphysics are doomed to be part of pseudo philosophical speculation.

In the end it is still a love of knowledge. Is the particular subject of said knowledge so important? — Benj96

Sure, but there is a difference between declaring claims as knowledge without any objective evidence and verifying actual knowledge!

Perhaps you're totally right and there is such cases as pseudo philosophy. Subjects that ought not be broached by the subject. But I have not yet encountered a major topic that hasn't be brought to the attention of this forum to seek insight, or just for general speculation. — Benj96

-I don't know if I am right. I am only pointing out that we can do the same "philosophical" discussions on fairies, Leprechauns, ghosts etc etc I am not saying that their cultural weight and social impact is equal,but they all stand on the same unfounded claims without any objective facts to reflect upon their ontology..

Great questions. First I have to agree with your statement: "Everything in philosophy is in continued contention". *that is also true in science.
Every statement is in contention but not all concepts or statements qualify as philosophical material.
i.e the question "what is true" can easily be part of a philosophical discussion, but the question "that is truth" that is more a matter of defining the meaning of the concept than philosophizing about it. (the standards and the criteria used by this evaluation term ). Words and concepts are the tools by which we can do philosophy.

What do we mean by supernatural? — Benj96

In science, what we understand as "supernatural" is a phenomenon that either ignores or breaks natural laws by displaying non regular characteristics or allows the emergence of high level features without being contingent to fundamental low level mechanisms.
i.e. the claim that mind properties can emerge in nature without being contingent to to biological system (brain) is a supernatural one.
or the claim of a object being able to fly in earth's atmosphere while ignoring aerodynamic rules and physics is also a supernatural claim.

What's the definition of something supernatural verses natural. Are all things that occur in nature natural? — Benj96

Natural phenomena are contingent to Natural processes and they don't go against rules of Nature.
Are all things in nature Natura?? To this day we have failed to verify a phenomenon able to display Empirical Irregularity while ignoring rules of Nature.
So we can not offer an absolute answer to that question. What we can do is to hold the default position(Null Hypothesis) and reject the claim of the Supernatural UNTIL it is verified to be true.

Is energy supernatural because it is invinsible/indestructible for example? — Benj96

No. Invisibility is an irrelevant property. Energy is an abstract concept that describes the ability of Natural phenomena have to produce work. Different types of energy are observable and quantifiable and we don't have to register their characteristics by processing the visible spectrum of light(visible).

Philosophy is about thought, thinking, reasoning and defining, ideas and concepts. — Benj96

-Actually all those things allow us to Philosophize. What most people forget is that Philosophy has a goal which is defined by the word itself (Philo-Sophia). Our love to gain wisdom is what drives us to Philosophize in the first place. In order to produce Wisdom we need to reflect our thoughts upon our current accepted knowledge. We can not accept a claim as "wise" without knowing its truth value. Wisdom and Knowledge go hand in hand (Science and Philosophy).
So in the case of the god concept, we have zero knowledge on the ontology of the concept to reflect upon, so we can never extend our understanding or arrive to a valid Philosophical conclusion.

That can be applied to literally anything; be it art, psychology, history, economics, maths, science and of course spirituality, religion and consciousness. — Benj96

-I can agree with that statement. By using the knowledge we get from science or any other empirical and methodical study we can philosophize on any subject....but that doesn't help us learn something about the truth value of a religious claim. Religious claims come without any verified epistemology so our starting point is arbitrary , product of our superstition at best. We don't have a solid epistemic platform to begin our philosophical quest.

Philosophy has the largest scope of any discipline. The minute you restrict or exclude topics from philosophy you already presuppose too much and cut yourself off at the knees. — Benj96

Yes it has...but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to introduce pseudo philosophy in the discipline. A topic excludes itself from Philosophy when it is unable to tick the three basic steps of a Philosophical inquire (defined by Aristotle).
1. Epistemology 2. Physika 3.Metaphysics.(aestetic, ethics, politics )
IF a topic starts straight from a Metaphysical point (supernatural entity) then we are dealing with a pseudo philosophical Topic. All Supernatural concepts are Pseudo Philosophy by definition.

Of course they can be. We can explore whether they are indeed intangible, or supernatural, we can do comparative discussions. We can ask why people ask the question in the first place. We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96

In order to explore their nature you will need to do Science , not Philosophy. If we have zero epistemology to compare, then the discussions can never be philosophical.
Anthropology and psychology explores the question ''why people ask the question in the first place." Understanding or not why people ask the question will tell us Nothing about the truth value of the God claim.

We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96

Philosophy has done that for many centuries. The failure to gain any epistemology on the subject is what fueled Natural Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism and Science.Without any epistemology in hand there is nothing there to say on the subject that could elevate it to a philosophical level.