What if God is weak?

[TimeSeeker]

The question relates to now.

No, time has nothing to do with this. The question relates to the existence of some phenomenon/entity SOMEWHERE in the universe.

Now, the universe is a pretty fucking big place, OK? There are about 10000 galaxies that we KNOW OF. There are at least 4 BILLION stars just in our own galaxy. Many of those stars have planets orbiting them - just like our start which we lovingly call The Sun.

And that is just the OBSERVABLE universe. The unobservable universe is much MUCH bigger than this! Now, I have no idea what this God thing looks like, smells like, behaves like, how much it weight, how big; or small it is. If God showed up at my doorstep for coffee tomorrow morning, how would I know that it is God? What am I LOOKING FOR?

I don't know, but you seem to know? Because you claim that you have looked EVERYWHERE. And failed to find it! And so you've concluded that it doesn't exist. So- tell me what it is that you are LOOKING FOR!

If you insist God is real

That is not how this works. I make no claims about God. You do! You claim that God does not exist/is not real. But maybe you aren't very observant and you didn't look carefully enough? The universe IS a big place...

So define God in a way that is testable and falsifiable (e.g in a way that I can understand what YOU mean by that word) and I can help you look for it.

If God passed the necessary tests, then I will believe God is real.

And you STILL continue to ignore the elephant in the room! What if God doesn't want to be part of your science experiment and refuses to cooperate?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The question relates to now.

No, time has nothing to do with this. The question relates to the existence of some phenomenon/entity SOMEWHERE in the universe.

Now, the universe is a pretty fucking big place, OK? There are about 10000 galaxies that we KNOW OF. There are at least 4 BILLION stars just in our own galaxy. Many of those stars have planets orbiting them - just like our start which we lovingly call The Sun.

And that is just the OBSERVABLE universe. The unobservable universe is much MUCH bigger than this! Now, I have no idea what this God thing looks like, smells like, behaves like, how much it weight, how big; or small it is. If God showed up at my doorstep for coffee tomorrow morning, how would I know that it is God? What am I LOOKING FOR?

I don't know, but you seem to know? Because you claim that you have looked EVERYWHERE. And failed to find it! And so you've concluded that it doesn't exist. So- tell me what it is that you are LOOKING FOR!

If you insist God is real

That is not how this works. I make no claims about God. You do! You claim that God does not exist/is not real. But maybe you aren't very observant and you didn't look carefully enough? The universe IS a big place...

So define God in a way that is testable and falsifiable (e.g in a way that I can understand what YOU mean by that word) and I can help you look for it.

If God passed the necessary tests, then I will believe God is real.

And you STILL continue to ignore the elephant in the room! What if God doesn't want to be part of your science experiment and refuses to cooperate?

You are lost of on this in trying to deflect.
Note you asked this question and you have forgotten what you was asking.

Here is another question you can't answer: What facts or empirical evidence would convince you that a God exists?

Your question is directed to me, obviously it has to be now, immediately or in some reasonable future time while I am around.
The first thing is to get your God to communicate with me so I present my challenge/task to your God to prove its existence with evidence as real empirically.

[surreptitious57]

The first thing is to get your God to communicate with me so I present my challenge / task to your God to prove its existence with evidence

As a concept God is usually non falsifiable which makes the notion of his existence somewhat problematic
This is why it can only be referenced as an article of faith because actual evidence for him is not possible

[Veritas Aequitas]

The first thing is to get your God to communicate with me so I present my challenge / task to your God to prove its existence with evidence

As a concept God is usually non falsifiable which makes the notion of his existence somewhat problematic
This is why it can only be referenced as an article of faith because actual evidence for him is not possible

Agree.

As an additional note;
Kant differentiated 'concept' from 'idea' to add more precision to the discussion re God.
"Concept" arise from a combination [con-] of intuitive and sense data with the intellect which is empirically possible.
"Idea" i.e. philosophical idea is confine purely to a transcendental illusion arising from the a fringe of the intellect [the primal reason] without any link to the intuitive and sense data.

Thus there can only be an idea of God never a concept of God. The idea of God can never be empirical at all and free for all, thus an article of faith [no need for proofs nor arguments].

[surreptitious57]

Kant differentiated concept from idea to add more precision to the discussion re God
Concept arise from a combination [ con ] of intuitive and sense data with the intellect which is empirically possible
Idea i e philosophical idea is confined purely to a transcendental illusion arising from the a fringe of the intellect [ the primal reason ]
without any link to the intuitive and sense data

Thus there can only be an idea of God never a concept of God. The idea of God can never be empirical at all and free for all thus an
article of faith [ no need for proofs nor arguments ]

I make no distinction between concept and idea and use those terms interchangeably but the Kant distinction is still an interesting one

The idea of God can be empirical if the idea in question is pantheism because in that philosophy God is simply another word for Universe
But the traditional Abrahamic God has zero basis in reality because there is absolutely no evidence for him given that he is non falsifiable

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant differentiated concept from idea to add more precision to the discussion re God
Concept arise from a combination [ con ] of intuitive and sense data with the intellect which is empirically possible
Idea i e philosophical idea is confined purely to a transcendental illusion arising from the a fringe of the intellect [ the primal reason ]
without any link to the intuitive and sense data

Thus there can only be an idea of God never a concept of God. The idea of God can never be empirical at all and free for all thus an
article of faith [ no need for proofs nor arguments ]

I make no distinction between concept and idea and use those terms interchangeably but the Kant distinction is still an interesting one.

Etymology is a choice of defining what one intended [reasonably] the meaning to be and obtaining consensus.

Kant's view [for greater clarity and precision] is very realistic in relation to the evolution of humanity and structure of the brain.



Concepts [re imagination and objective knowledge] are confined to thoughts from the activities of the evolved mid and lower primal brain in interaction with the higher cortical brain. The lower and mid brain contain real empirical [past and present] experiences and the higher brain processes these as concepts [empirical].

Philosophical ideas are thoughts arising from a transcendental illusion primarily from certain parts of the higher cortical brain that has no critical linkage to the lower brain. Philosophical Ideas are not even imaginations [empirical based] but merely a transcendental illusion.

The idea of God can be empirical if the idea in question is pantheism because in that philosophy God is simply another word for Universe
But the traditional Abrahamic God has zero basis in reality because there is absolutely no evidence for him given that he is non falsifiable

Pantheism is linked and intertwined to the empirical but ultimately it is still about an independent God as in the case of Brahman/Absolute in Hinduism. The dilemma here is how can the unconditioned be blended with the conditioned. They [pantheists] came up with all sorts of unconvincing arguments to explain the linkage.

The idea of God can be linked to the empirical if God is claimed to be an empirical-based entity e.g. a bearded man in the sky, a human-liked alien, a scientist somewhere in the universe who created a brain-in-vat for all humans. This is not a serious issue because to justify that claim, then one need to bring the empirical evidences which is very unlikely.

[TimeSeeker]

You are lost of on this in trying to deflect.
Note you asked this question and you have forgotten what you was asking.

I did ask the question. And the question is this: What evidence/facts WOULD convince you?

And so, maybe I need to clarify this a little: What evidence/facts WOULD convince you that YOUR CONCEPTION of 'God' exists?

I disagree with your idea/conception Kantian distinction. See below.

Your question is directed to me, obviously it has to be now, immediately or in some reasonable future time while I am around.
The first thing is to get your God to communicate with me so I present my challenge/task to your God to prove its existence with evidence as real empirically.

Uh. No. MY God? That word doesn't exist in MY vocabulary - I have no USE for it.. I learned it from YOU! You keep fucking talking about it and looking for it!

And the reason I am asking the question 'What evidence/facts WOULD convince you?' is BECAUSE I am trying to CONCEPTUALISE this 'God' thing you keep talking about!

Right now I have NO CONCEPTION for God. It is not even an idea. It is just an empty word.

Well, that's not quite correct. I have YOUR CONCEPTION of 'God' which is an entity that can communicate. Given your EXPECTATIONS.
So if this God thing exists, what would you like it to communicate to you?

[TimeSeeker]

Etymology is a choice of defining what one intended [reasonably] the meaning to be and obtaining consensus.

Here is another question you can't answer: Can you define 'reason' to somebody who has no conception/understanding of the word?

[surreptitious57]

Can you define reason to somebody who has no conception / understanding of the word

Reason is the application of logic to the real world

Logic is an objective or deductive form of explanation with regard to the relationship between statements or facts

[TimeSeeker]

Reason is the application of logic to the real world

That's very vague. Logic is a man-made tool. So you are saying "reason" is the application of a man-made tool.
There are MANY logics we have invented! Temporal, modal, multi-valued, constructive logic.

Here is a (short) list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... rmal_logic

Which logic did you have in mind?

Logic is an objective or deductive form of explanation with regard to the relationship between statements or facts

So facts are a pre-requisite for logic to work? If so - then where do facts come from?

[surreptitious57]

So facts are a pre requisite for logic to work ? If so then where do facts come from ?

A fact is a statement of objective truth about either physical reality or systems of logic [ mathematics / syllogisms ]

Facts are non falsifiable in the sense that they cannot actually be disproven and not that they cannot be known
Therefore any so called fact that has been disproven was never truly a fact to begin with merely assumed to be

Unlike knowledge facts do not actually have to be known so do not require the existence of minds to acknowledge them
Since there are an infinite number of facts which are either currently or forever unknown but are still facts nevertheless

Unknown facts and known facts therefore have exactly the same degree of epistemic rigour to them

[TimeSeeker]

A fact is a statement of objective truth about either physical reality or systems of logic [ mathematics / syllogisms ]

You answered what a fact IS. That isn't the question I asked. I asked how to OBTAIN 'facts'. Because a newborn doesn't have ANY 'facts' to work with...

Facts are non falsifiable in the sense that they cannot actually be disproven and not that they cannot be known
Therefore any so called fact that has been disproven was never truly a fact to begin with merely assumed to be

So if facts cannot be disproven then they are the same as axioms? They are accepted or rejected on faith?

Unlike knowledge facts do not actually have to be known so do not require the existence of minds to acknowledge them

Uh? What?

If reason is a function of logic: reason = f(logic)
And logic is a function of facts: logic = g (facts)
Then it follows: reason = f(g(facts))

If knowledge is a product of reason: knowledge = z(reason)
Then knowledge = z(f(g(facts))

Knowledge exists in MINDS and knowledge is a function of FACTS. To say that "facts do not require minds" is contradictory to your premise?

Since there are an infinite number of facts

How do you know this?
Also, infinity is only a concept to me. A mathematical tool. Can you show me something infinite?

Unknown facts and known facts therefore have exactly the same degree of epistemic rigour to them

Wait. An "unknown fact"? Can you give me an example of one of those?

I'll go ahead and say it out right. Philosophy keeps telling us what knowledge IS. What FACTS are.

It never bothered to ask OR answer what LEARNING is and HOW it works. Since LEARNING is a pre-requisite for acquiring FACTS or KNOWLEDGE, I'd say that is a pretty fatal flaw if you ask me

[surreptitious57]

Facts are non falsifiable in the sense that they cannot actually be disproven and not that they cannot be known
Therefore any so called fact that has been disproven was never truly a fact to begin with merely assumed to be

So if facts cannot be disproven then they are the same as axioms ? They are accepted or rejected on faith ?

Facts are a posteriori and axioms are a priori so they are not the same

Facts can only be accepted on the basis of either evidence or proof but not faith
There is actually no such thing as a faith based fact because that is an oxymoron

[TimeSeeker]

Facts are a posteriori and axioms are a priori so they are not the same

Facts can only be accepted on the basis of either evidence or proof but not faith
There is actually no such thing as a faith based fact because that is an oxymoron

OK. So Facts are a function of axioms AND evidence. Let me update my formula then:

Facts are a function of evidence and axioms: facts = f(evidence, axioms)
Logic is a product of facts: logic = g(facts)
Reason is application of logic: reason = h(logic)
Knowledge comes from reason: knowledge = z(reason)

so knowledge = z(h(g(f(evidence,axioms))))

This now begs TWO questions.

How does one ACQUIRE EVIDENCE so that one can identify facts?
How does one CHOOSE axioms against one evaluates facts?

[surreptitious57]

Knowledge exists in MINDS and knowledge is a function of FACTS . To say that facts do not require minds is contradictory to your premise ?

All knowledge by definition has to be known but not all facts have to be known so unknown facts do not require minds
Facts have always existed as their existence is independent of minds but knowledge has only existed since minds have
There is a correlation between facts and knowledge but it is only true for some facts [ known ] not all facts [ unknown ]