Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[Immanuel Can]

I see this: "you "know" it as an internal impression of your own," as impossible.

I wouldn't see why.

Let us suppose, just fictively, that there were a Supreme Being.
And, let us further suppose, you had a dream, vision or revelation of Him, one given by Him.
Now notice: I'm not claiming this, nor am I saying that's they way it happens: I'm simply asking if the idea is impossible.

And I can't see that it is. So why would internal evidence not be evidence, if such existed?

Like I say, this is not my experience, but I see no reason to think another person theoretically couldn't have such a thing. Do you?

science is the answer.

To what question?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see this: "you "know" it as an internal impression of your own," as impossible.

I wouldn't see why.

Let us suppose, just fictively, that there were a Supreme Being.
And, let us further suppose, you had a dream, vision or revelation of Him, one given by Him.
Now notice: I'm not claiming this, nor am I saying that's they way it happens: I'm simply asking if the idea is impossible.

And I can't see that it is. So why would internal evidence not be evidence, if such existed?

Like I say, this is not my experience, but I see no reason to think another person theoretically couldn't have such a thing. Do you?
Well it's certainly not a very scientific approach! But it is a convenient story to support ones belief, in that which is non-provable using the scientific method.

science is the answer.

To what question?

[Immanuel Can]

Well it's certainly not a very scientific approach! But it is a convenient story to support ones belief, in that which is non-provable using the scientific method.

Two suggestions on that.

Firstly, while science is an excellent thing, a great resource for studying the physical world and for producing technologies, at the very least, we'd be naive if we thought it was the high road to truth in all areas. Science by definition limits itself to the material world; which is not a stroke against it, since it allows such marvellous acuity in that area, but means that it buys acuity by the expedient of NOT addressing itself to anything non-material. So if anything non-material actually exists, science neither can --nor indeed even promises to -- tell us anything about it.

Many people are quite convinced, however, than non-material entities and concepts do, in fact, exist. Take "love" for example. It's possible to reduce it to "hormones." But many people would intuitively find that explanation reductional, shallow and unsatisfactory. They might not be able to give you strict science to show why, but they'd feel it. Likewise "morality." Some people deny it exists, but many more are strongly drawn to think it does, though science cannot help us with it.

Or take certain physical facts, such as the dimensions of the universe itself -- we have no measurements of those, and speculations run rampant. Science does not tell us what the size of the universe actually is, and by definition it cannot, since the darn thing seems to be expanding at a huge rate...and into what we cannot even say; but surely the universe actually *has* a size in spite of all that....

In short, science cannot give us knowledge of everything.

Secondly, we must differentiate between something that is an evidence for other people and that which is only an evidence for the self. A vision or appearance of a spiritual entity would not be the kind of thing that could constitute evidence for others; but for the person who had experienced it, it might well constitute extremely compelling evidence.

So as I say, though I am not claiming any such experience myself, and though I would not take someone else's vision as proof for me, I would allow that if it had happened for him, then for the one who had had the experience, yes, it would be good evidence.

[uwot]

False dichotomy. I have said many times that to my mind, the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression of an external world is an external world that is responsible for the phenomena.

No, true dichotomy. You said "knowledge" is exemplified by Descartes cogito.

I have said this at least four times:

I know the difference between absolute, contingent and analytic knowledge.

How long are you going to bury your head in the sand and pretend you can't see it?

I just said that if you believe that, then you have no "knowledge" (cogito-style) of anything else but your own thinking. And if you genuinely believed that was all "knowledge" was, you would have no access to the external world. That all follows perfectly.

To quote Wolfgang Pauli, this is not even wrong. You chose to quote my saying:

...the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression of an external world is an external world that is responsible for the phenomena.

You either didn't read it, or you don't understand (there are other possibilities).

That's another false dichotomy. There is at least one more possibility, that I am committed to absolute knowledge as stated by Parmenides and Descartes, and that I am being consistent.

No again. You can't be consistent with you belief in only cogito-style knowledge and be acting as though an external world exists. You have no (cogito-style) "knowledge" of it.

No one does. You do not need absolute knowledge of them to respond to contingent facts; nothing I have said suggests I think you do and your labouring of the point is futile.

It's called induction. If any information comes to my attention that you are not really there, I shall adjust my behaviour accordingly.

No, I didn't miss it. But if what you say there is true, you do not believe the only "knowing" is cogito-style.

How many times, Immanuel Can? I know the difference between absolute, contingent and analytic knowledge.

You, like me, believe in induction too. In which case, you have to drop your obdurate insistence that you do not believe in things not proved to you cogito-style.

I think you and I mean different things by believe and I would probably argue that I don't 'believe' anything in the way I take you to believe in god, but in a non-committal, pragmatic sense, I 'believe' a great many things.

Still, if that's not an option by which of the two means you allow, do you conclude there is a god?

One could only know it two ways: inductively, from experience, and by revelation followed by deduction. Of course, one could have access to both too.

Just to remind you:

I wrote: "There is no God" can imply: namely that you "know" it by evidence from the external world, or you "know" it as an internal impression of your own. If you think there is a third possibility, feel free to add it.

So does that make three? Or are you claiming that "revelation" and "internal impression" are the same thing?

[Ginkgo]

I'm not a Cartesian, if that's what you mean. But I can follow the logic of Descartes position to its conclusion, and tell you what that is. So I was just showing where it leads, not saying I want to go there.

While you are following the logic of Descartes you might like to fix this statement up as well:

"yes". But what he did not say was that these thoughts that one could know were being produced by phenomenon".

If you read his Meditations you will see that Descartes acknowledges that thoughts are produced by phenomena. He is arguing that we receive information about the world though our senses and use use this information to create knowledge about the world. His argument is that because such knowledge is derived from the senses it must be unreliable. Descartes did posit the existence of phenomena.

[Ginkgo]

Let us suppose, just fictively, that there were a Supreme Being.
And, let us further suppose, you had a dream, vision or revelation of Him, one given by Him.
Now notice: I'm not claiming this, nor am I saying that's they way it happens: I'm simply asking if the idea is impossible.

And I can't see that it is. So why would internal evidence not be evidence, if such existed?

I think the answer is obvious. Yes, it is possible, but possible doesn't mean it is probable.

[Ginkgo]

It can be claimed on the basis, "I don't know if there is a God," which is fair enough but covers only one person; or it can be claimed on the basis, "I know you all cannot know whether there is a God," which is silly because no one can know what others can or cannot know; nor can they be sure what is knowable.

I can't see that being true. I can say with confidence that you cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. I can also say with confidence that no one can know this.

[Immanuel Can]

While you are following the logic of Descartes you might like to fix this statement up as well:

"yes". But what he did not say was that these thoughts that one could know were being produced by phenomenon".

If you read his Meditations you will see that Descartes acknowledges that thoughts are produced by phenomena

You are correct. I misspoke one word; or rather, I miswrote one.

What I intended to say was "Descartes did not show..."

You are correct to say he thought he had, and that he claimed he had. But consensus among philosophers is that he did not succeed. So he showed that radical doubt led to solipsism, but did not succeed in reversing his doubt with respect to phenomena.

I concede your wording point. But the essence of my critique of belief in phenomena based on radical doubt also now stands.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it is possible, but possible doesn't mean it is probable.

Of course. Yes, it's improbable. I agree.

If it were probable, it would hardly even be remarkable to claim it, and indeed, if it were routine, or if it were ascribable to some sort of natural phenomenon, then it would not qualify as relevant evidence for the existence of any sort of supernatural activity.

Only if it's extremely improbable and yet real would it qualify.

[Immanuel Can]

I can say with confidence that you cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. I can also say with confidence that no one can know this.

Well, I would say that perhaps that's simply beside the point.

The real point is this: while you can say with confidence you don't know where the particle is, and while you can also say with confidence that you know of no mechanism by which such a thing could be known, neither is really surprising.

But note that some things you cannot say. You cannot say with confidence "No one ever will/could know the particle's position," as there is a possibility it might become feasible in the future, as our understanding of particle motions grows. Another thing you could not say...and this is the key point...is "The particle HAS no position." It may well have a position that you are unable to detect.

So an Agnostic can say, "I don't know the 'position' (i.e. with respect to the property of existing) of God." He can say, "I know of no instruments or rationales that would give us such a 'position.' But he would be irrational to jump to the conclusions, "Therefore no one knows," "No one can know," "No one else does know," or "There is no God."

He has no rational means to make any such judgments. They are simply exemplary of the bad variety of faith claim on his part.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well it's certainly not a very scientific approach! But it is a convenient story to support ones belief, in that which is non-provable using the scientific method.

Two suggestions on that.

Firstly, while science is an excellent thing, a great resource for studying the physical world and for producing technologies, at the very least, we'd be naive if we thought it was the high road to truth in all areas. Science by definition limits itself to the material world; which is not a stroke against it, since it allows such marvellous acuity in that area, but means that it buys acuity by the expedient of NOT addressing itself to anything non-material. So if anything non-material actually exists, science neither can --nor indeed even promises to -- tell us anything about it.

Many people are quite convinced, however, than non-material entities and concepts do, in fact, exist. Take "love" for example. It's possible to reduce it to "hormones." But many people would intuitively find that explanation reductional, shallow and unsatisfactory. They might not be able to give you strict science to show why, but they'd feel it. Likewise "morality." Some people deny it exists, but many more are strongly drawn to think it does, though science cannot help us with it.

Or take certain physical facts, such as the dimensions of the universe itself -- we have no measurements of those, and speculations run rampant. Science does not tell us what the size of the universe actually is, and by definition it cannot, since the darn thing seems to be expanding at a huge rate...and into what we cannot even say; but surely the universe actually *has* a size in spite of all that....

In short, science cannot give us knowledge of everything.

Secondly, we must differentiate between something that is an evidence for other people and that which is only an evidence for the self. A vision or appearance of a spiritual entity would not be the kind of thing that could constitute evidence for others; but for the person who had experienced it, it might well constitute extremely compelling evidence.

So as I say, though I am not claiming any such experience myself, and though I would not take someone else's vision as proof for me, I would allow that if it had happened for him, then for the one who had had the experience, yes, it would be good evidence.

IM, I do know what you are referring too, at least for me. I've seen things that "can" be understood that way. But I also realize that there is such a thing as "coincidence." And that sometimes that "supplies enough" for a "willing mind."

What I mean is, if someone has an innate "need," usually to do with their past experience as a child, it could be something traumatic or wonderful, traumatic being most often the case, they can become predisposed to the notion that "surely" something "larger" than they are, can "save" them, I mean everyone is stronger, more capable than they are, as a child. Of course they often look to their parents for strength, unless of course their parents are the source of the trauma. And then the "stage is set" for them to insert "anything" that comes along, into that need. They don't even realize this is true, because some childhood traumas are actually blocked from their conscious mind. For instance tell me what happened the second week exactly, before or after your 2nd birthday. You probably can't, and neither can most people, I would say all people, but one's subconscious mind "can" contain memories of traumatic events from that time, which is why post hypnotic regression exists.

Once there is long lived predisposition to needing and finding a mother, father, or hero, or in other words a savior, one can find and insert any coincidence, dream or vision, into that predisposed need, without even realizing it's nature, the source of their predisposition. This has been scientifically proven to happen to some people, simply by talking to both the grown child and their parents, about earlier events. And as an adult with all it's complex complications, where does one look to find a savior? Not their mother, but their god. Why because since they were children they were told such a thing exists, just like Santa Claus, except that the unlike Santa Claus, many parents believe in a god for the same reasons I've mentioned above, because life as an adult can be tough. Where can an adult turn? Of course their minds, yet some can find anything in there, and not know where it came from. And there was a lot more hardship in those earlier days, when this god stuff was "initialized," because mankind was far more primitive.

I'm not pointing my finger at you or anyone in particular, I'm not trying to crush your belief, I'm agnostic, believing that neither side can "prove" their case. I'm not trying to harm you, I'm just simply telling you what I've learned about humans, long before you and I have ever spoken to one another. I have no agenda except to relate what it is that I truly believe is real, because of education throughout my life.

Oh I almost forgot to tell you, of at least one of my "signs."

I was extremely down, lonely, and needing of comfort. I stood in a very quiet serene place, of much beauty, much like the garden of Eden, as far as I could imagine, surrounded by nature, but not a creature was stirring. I looked up into the sky, maybe as if to look for a sign of the creators help, I thought hard of what I needed, something to cure my ills, and exactly as I completed the thought of what the solution might be, a small flock of birds flew from behind me exactly over my head, and parallel to my line of sight, as if a sign from nature, the universe, or the creator. Since I was searching for something, I initially took it as a sign, (my predisposition surfacing), then I remembered that there was such a thing as coincidence, and discounted it as such. Because I always want to stay grounded, my feet firmly on the earth, without my head in the clouds, of simply..., in the realm of possibility alone. I need some probability thrown in there as well!

[Immanuel Can]

long lived predisposition to needing and finding a mother, father, or hero

What you're recycling here is, of course, the old Freudian stuff about the belief in a Supreme Being being merely the manifestation of childish needs for a father figure. As Freud would have it, belief in God is just a childish wish-fulfillment.

But we must remember that an explanation that seems plausible is not always the right one. It was, for centuries, plausible for physicians to think that disease was the product of out-of-balance "humours" in the body. But that did not make their explanation true. And its plausibility did not save their patients.

So it seems plausible: but is it the truth?

It's plausible (to varying degrees) that climate change is real, that 9-11 was a hoax, that that little green men will land in Ohio. But what kind of "plausible" is the Freud explanation? We need proof to know in which order of "plausibility" it falls, or if it is (beyond plausibility) the right explanation.

A big problem for the old Freudian canard is that exactly the same argument can be plausibly made against Atheism. If we can say to the Theist, "You believe there's a God because of your childish desire for a Father figure," why can't we also say to the Atheist, "You want there not to be a God because of your childish wish NOT to have a Father figure." After all, at times every child wants his parents out of the way so he can do what he wishes. That's very childish, and very common.

Did not Freud himself attribute desire to kill the father within the Oedipus Complex? And in Freud's own case, as in the cases of many noteworthy Atheists, he professed hatred for his actual father. Could we not then say that Freud was "transferring" his anger into the larger Father figure of God, rather than rationally disproving anything? I think we could.

Now, when a kind of explanation becomes equally serviceable to both sides of a debate, I think we can both see that it's actually explaining nothing. Is it plausible to think that some people believe in a God out of childish fear? Sure. Is it plausible to believe that some Atheists hate God out of childish petulance? Sure. So now what have we actually explained? Only that some people are childish. No more. Certainly not that God does not exist.

Because I always want to stay grounded, my feet firmly on the earth, without my head in the clouds, of simply..., in the realm of possibility alone. I need some probability thrown in there as well!

Oh, absolutely. I agree. I try to live like that myself.

Possibility, like plausibility, is never proof. But probability is a kind of proof, in that it reduces the chances we're wrong; and personal experience is an even stronger proof, though not ironclad. Empirical observation is also great, and rational justification is perhaps one of the best kinds of proof available. Mathematical demonstration very strong indeed.

So let's aim for the higher -- no problem; I think there are better evidences for the existence of God than mere "possibility."

[thedoc]

Possibility, like plausibility, is never proof. But probability is a kind of proof, in that it reduces the chances we're wrong; and personal experience is an even stronger proof, though not ironclad. Empirical observation is also great, and rational justification is perhaps one of the best kinds of proof available. Mathematical demonstration very strong indeed.

So let's aim for the higher -- no problem; I think there are better evidences for the existence of God than mere "possibility."

It should be pointed out that "personal experience" is only proof for the individual and not proof for humanity as a whole. Christians speak of a personal relationship with God and an experience like this would reinforce that idea. Each individual will receive whatever proof is needed, to be accepted or rejected. If accepted, no more proof is needed, if rejected, I believe that God will keep trying, after all God has eternity to keep trying

[Ginkgo]

Yes, it is possible, but possible doesn't mean it is probable.

Of course. Yes, it's improbable. I agree.

If it were probable, it would hardly even be remarkable to claim it, and indeed, if it were routine, or if it were ascribable to some sort of natural phenomenon, then it would not qualify as relevant evidence for the existence of any sort of supernatural activity.

Only if it's extremely improbable and yet real would it qualify.

I think the problem is with your use of the term "real", I assume that you are talking about some type of cognitive evidence. Real for whom? Real for the person having those thoughts, do doubt.

It is improbable I have schizophrenia, but I cannot say it is impossible that I have this disease. In order to test this remote possibility professionals would need to come up with two different types of evidence in order to determine the reality. In other words, both cognitive and physical. Cognitive evidence alone is not sufficient in order to determine the reality, or otherwise of the disease.

It is extremely improbable that the dream I had last night was divinely inspired. Of course, I cannot rule out this possibility of divine intervention. In order for this experience to quality as "real" one would need evidence. Evidence that not just of the cognitive type.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the problem is with your use of the term "real", I assume that you are talking about some type of cognitive evidence. Real for whom? Real for the person having those thoughts, do doubt.

Yes, I said this.

It is extremely improbable that the dream I had last night was divinely inspired. Of course, I cannot rule out this possibility of divine intervention. In order for this experience to quality as "real" one would need evidence. Evidence that not just of the cognitive type.

Yes. And such a thing would be possible if your "dream" were connected in some way to real events, just as, say a prophecy might be. Then when the prophecy came true, you'd have rational grounds for thinking there was something behind the dream. Otherwise you'd probably be ill-advised to believe it.