Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[bahman]

Indeed. An infinite regress of causes is theoretically simpler than a theory of uncaused first causes causing the universe to exist, because the latter presents metaphysical questions that only compound the problem.

I'd like infinite regresses for $500 please.

I can show that the act of creation leads to a regress too.

[iambiguous]

Please describe for me an example of a specific "demonstration" of whatever it might take to convince you that a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe.

Okay, let's go back to the example that IC ever and always wiggles out of responding to.

The difference between demonstrable proof that the Pope resides in the Vatican and demonstrable proof that "a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe."

And let's pin this down.

Do you believe this higher intelligence is attribable to a God, the God, your God?...

Okay, first of all, I don't like using the word "God" to describe what I believe is the living intelligence responsible for the creation of this universe.

And that's because, to me, the word "God" comes with far too much negative baggage, usually in the form of immediately evoking visions of the silly anthropomorphic nonsense on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Nevertheless, I am forced to use it because I'm not sure of what other word we can use in these types of discussions. So, I guess we're kind of stuck with it.

Back to this then:

The difference between demonstrable proof that the Pope resides in the Vatican and demonstrable proof that "a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe."

Whatever you choose to call it in a universe where "somehow" human beings acquired brains that acquired the capacity to opt freely to call things what "in their head" they think, they believe, they claim to know they are. And, for many, God is an absolute necessity for this as well. Their "soul" they call it.

...And, if so, does your own understanding of this God include omniscience and omnipotence? Just in case the discussion comes around to theodicy.

To a certain degree, yes, but not anything resembling the ridiculously over-reaching interpretation of what the word "omniscience" seems to imply to some humans.

I mean, it is utterly absurd to imagine that any living consciousness could be directly aware of...

(and simultaneously controlling - in "real time," no less)

...the position and status of literally every subatomic particle throughout the entire universe (which is what some humans actually seem to believe the word "omniscience" means as it pertains to God).

That, to me, is pure and utter nonsense, especially when it is coupled with the even more preposterous notion that this Being would also know the precise position and status of every subatomic particle, thousands of years into the future.

Hogwash!!!

On the other hand, when it comes to the word "omnipotent," I do think that any Being who is capable of creating a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets out of the living mental fabric of its very own being, is certainly omnipotent within the context of its own mind where all of this creating is taking place, as is depicted in yet another of my fanciful illustrations...



Take special note of that lower left-hand caption:

The "eye" of the mind, whether it be God's or ours, is the omnipotent core of "one" autonomous bubble of space-time.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Okay, but my own interest in "a higher intelligence...responsible for the creation of this universe" revolves far more around connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

So, given a context we are all likely to be familiar with [the abortion conflagration or gun laws or the war in Ukraine], what do you believe the parameters of this higher intelligence's omniscience and omnipotence might be?

And, again, how would you go about demonstrating that what you do believe about it is in fact what all other rational men and women are obligated to believe as well?

That's my own "thing" here in regard to Gods and religions and spiritual paths. Demonstrating what you believe, why your path and not the hundreds of other paths out there, the role dasein plays in acquiring value judgments, and theodicy.

Given particular contexts.

Not your "thing" here?

No problem. Just move on to others more inclined to think about it as you do.

[iambiguous]

As for chance, what "on Earth" does that even mean? What can you possibly know about the laws of nature themselves. Sure, I suppose it is possible that -- presto! -- matter just popped into existence by sheer chance. On the other hand, maybe your "higher intelligence" did too. So, do you by chance have any hard evidence to settle it once and for all.

As I have stated over and over again, any sort of "hard evidence" for the existence of God, and that of our ultimate destiny, is forbidden. And that's because it might breach the integrity of the illusion of objective reality.

Forbidden by who? In regard to what actual set of circumstances?

Or, perhaps, do you believe what you do because, psychologically, it comforts and consoles you to believe what you want to believe is true about what, instead, may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence given the "brute facticity" of all there is.

Now you're starting to sound like Veritas Aequitas, and that is not a good thing.

Okay, but how exactly does noting this convey anything meaningful about the point I raised?

Though, yeah, there's always this...

Clearly, they came up with all sorts of silly concepts that seemed to make sense at the time, but were eventually abandoned. However, the mystery still remains, even to this day. So, we keep trying.

I'm all for trying. Especially here in a philosophy forum. But my own frame of mind still aims more toward actually demonstrating that what you do believe "in your head", all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Especially given that in regard to God and religion the stakes couldn't possibly be higher: morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

Here's the thing, iambiguous, there's nothing at stake!

Right. Tell that to the millions upons millions of mere mortals who insist that everything is at stake. And from both sides of the grave.

The gift we have been given is a done deal with no strings attached, and is absolutely equal and perfect for every human ever awakened into life on this planet.

You need to stop focusing on and fretting over the silly nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds who used dire threats and grim warnings as rhetorical devices that functioned as "hooks" and "barbed fences" to ensure that the sheep (out of fear) stayed within the confines of a particular religion.

Now you come off [to me] as someone with a "condition". Your brain is wired -- somatically? -- such that you can think up these things and they become true because you thought them up. You don't bring your points out into the world of actual human interactions and you certainly make no attempt to actually demonstrate that they are true given a set of circumstances relating to why Gods and religions have been thought up over and over and over again down through the ages.

Let's move on to others...

[seeds]

Your above is only in fantasy land, it cannot be realistic.

Define the meaning of "real" for me.

In other words, what does it mean for something to be "real"?

I have already done this many times.

• What is real are facts, truth and real knowledge.
  All facts are conditioned by a specific Framework and System [FSK].
  Scientific facts from the scientific FSK [& mathematical FKS] are the most credible and reliable in revelation of reality.

Well then, if you like scientific "facts," then according to one of the most important scientists of the 20th century (Werner Heisenberg), the phenomenal features of the universe are created from a (ghost-like) substance that isn't very "real" itself, but is capable of becoming something that we humans call "real."

Indeed, in commenting on Heisenberg's assessment of the quantum realm, physicist and author Nick Herbert stated in his book "Quantum Reality", that Heisenberg implied that all of material reality seems to be founded upon a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

So, in light of the above, how exactly can you apply the word "real" to this...



...or to this...



...or to this...



...when, in "fact" they (and every other material phenomenon throughout the entire universe) are created from a substance that, again, is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...

In other words, what, exactly, is "real" about them?

(Continued in the next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

'Seed' wise, I have used the 'seed' metaphor for the moral potential which have not sprouted in many and for some it is merely a seedling.

And is that supposed to be more "profound" than my claiming that you are the literal (that's LITERAL) "seed" of the universe, imbued with the potential of creating your own universe out of the fabric of your very own being?

Earlier you stated...

...there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

I then asked you to describe the profound claims to which you are referring and site their sources.

I'm still waiting.

I had mentioned Jill Bolte's experience but you claim yours is more intense than hers is merely an opinion. What about Muhammad whose experiences translated to 1.5 billion followers, also note St, Paul's, how many follower has you converted?

By no means am I seeking "followers" (perish the thought).

No, I am simply offering what I believe is a logical (and modern/"science friendly") alternative to the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds.

Now, granted, what I am proposing may not be as appealing to male humans, such as the promise of having an "eternal erection" that will allow them to endlessly rape 72 "perpetual" virgins.



So, I cannot compete with that.

And, to be honest, I'm just too dang old and lazy to organize a horde of murderous idiots to sweep across the world and kill all humans who refuse to acquiesce to my theory.

No, I am simply suggesting that it is time for humanity to ascend to a new and higher plateau of general spiritual understanding (a "new spiritual paradigm" to replace the old one), as has been the standard process that extends deep into humanity's past.

I'm talking about a process that I tried to amusingly depict in yet another set of my fanciful illustrations where I attempt to show the gradual evolutionary ascension of our "guesses" as to what God might be...



The blurry captions read as follows (starting from the bottom)...

God, as possibly seen in prehistoric and primitive, low nature concepts.

God, a little higher up, humanoid and ruling from a pyramid.

God, rising higher yet, ruling from the top of a mountain, still humanoid.

God, ruling from the clouds above the earth, still humanoid (a trinity).

God, beyond the clouds, and beyond description, no longer humanoid.

God, the living creator of the universe, our ultimate parent (and sibling).

Far right bottom...

What about the Eastern concept of the divine?

Do I have to do all of the work around here? Just squeeze it in there somewhere between the pharoah and the trinity.

Again, starting from the bottom...

If it's all the same to you, I think I'll just go on believing in "Nog" the great toad god, whose mighty croak brings forth the summer rains.

Such insolence! Pharoah and Ra will crush your toad god under the wheels of their chariots!

Silence! I am Zeus. And with one bolt of lightning I will have Pharoah, Ra, and toad legs for breakfast!

Calm down now. I am Jesus. I will change water into wine to serve with those toad legs. What goes with toad legs, red or white?

Oh, I don't know. I'm thinking more of a rosé.

Infidels! Allah will have your wine, your toad legs, and all of your heads!

God: Enough already!

And the irony is that the "new spiritual paradigm" I am proposing, doesn't even need to be "true."

No, it just needs to "make more sense" than the old spiritual paradigm. You know, the one whose divisiveness has humanity teetering on the brink of destroying itself.

Ideally, it needs to make more sense to everyone (including materialists), while, at the same time, still containing a plausible reason to believe that there is indeed a possibility of an afterlife that the vast majority of humans on earth will never give up "hoping" for.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe I have provided sufficient materials to provide reasonableness for my points.

I believe you know you have not. Or, if you actually do, then I'm certain that you don't know anything about logic and evidence.

Which it is, I can't say.

This is a philosophy forum which is limited and where to exercise rigor is not practical.

That's an excuse. It's not true. And I think you know it. Logic is always requisite.

But in view of that comment, I think I'm maybe talking to somebody who lacks the fundamental skills required for a discussion like this...or has decided not to exercise those skills, so as to be able to keep talking. I can't tell which.

However, I remain unimpressed by your lack of relevant evidence and your apparent inability to connect propositions to conclusions. I feel perhaps my time is better used speaking to people who do not lack or refuse to use those philosophical skills.

In any case, I certainly don't have much desire to wade through the pack of irrelevant nonsense you just squirted out.

And you'll note that many of your interlocutors have arrived at similar conclusions.

It is your discretion to do whatever you want.

However I believe you are feeling very insecure [shaking] inside [consciousness or subliminally] from the arguments and evidences I have posted as such you are resorting to all sorts of excuses to ran away.

My main point is the idea of a god is a psychological derivative which is actually an optimal solution for the terrible cognitive dissonances driven from an inherent existential crisis. To insist that such an illusory god exists as real is delusional.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above is only in fantasy land, it cannot be realistic.

Define the meaning of "real" for me.

In other words, what does it mean for something to be "real"?

I have already done this many times.

• What is real are facts, truth and real knowledge.
  All facts are conditioned by a specific Framework and System [FSK].
  Scientific facts from the scientific FSK [& mathematical FKS] are the most credible and reliable in revelation of reality.

Well then, if you like scientific "facts," then according to one of the most important scientists of the 20th century (Werner Heisenberg), the phenomenal features of the universe are created from a (ghost-like) substance that isn't very "real" itself, but is capable of becoming something that we humans call "real."

Indeed, in commenting on Heisenberg's assessment of the quantum realm, physicist and author Nick Herbert stated in his book "Quantum Reality", that Heisenberg implied that all of material reality seems to be founded upon a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

So, in light of the above, how exactly can you apply the word "real" to this...



...or to this...



...or to this...



...when, in "fact" they (and every other material phenomenon throughout the entire universe) are created from a substance that, again, is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...

In other words, what, exactly, is "real" about them?

(Continued in the next post)
_______

You seem to expect there must be some kind of fixed absolute realness.

I repeat,

• What is real are facts, truth and real knowledge.
  All facts are conditioned by a specific Framework and System [FSK].
  Scientific facts from the scientific FSK [& mathematical FKS] are the most credible and reliable in revelation of reality.

Btw, I have stated a "million" times, all scientific truths, facts and knowledge, at best [in one valid perspective] are mere 'polished conjectures'. Can you counter this?

Even for scientific reality, there are various ranges of reality i.e. from Newtonian, Einsteinian or QM but they have their relative usefulness for humanity.

What is most critical with the FSK dependent realness is their degree of objectivity and confidence to reproduce the same results which will enable positive results [utilities or threats] in relation to the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
In this case anyone can challenge, test and the results will be the same or similar, thus objectivity.

Such objectivity of realness is thus applicable to the real apple, koala and trumpet relative to their utility which anyone can test.

It is the same with QM which is real within its own FSK but of course which maybe relative unreal to the Newtonian FSK or the common & conventional sense FSK.

thus;

In other words, what, exactly, is "real" about them?

To establish "what, exactly, is "real" about them" is one must refer to the relevant credible FSK.

Re your 'eye' thingy, I would subject it to the credible scientific FSK and the result is there is nothing objectively real about you 'eye' thingy. It may be useful to you but it is a mere reified illusion.

You insist your 'eye' thingy is real but you supply no credible FSK to justify your claim.
Show me others or your FSK that they can be more credible/reliable than the scientific [& mathematical] FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I am simply offering what I believe is a logical (and modern/"science friendly") alternative to the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds.

logical (and modern/"science friendly"??
Demonstrate how you are doing that with your personal FSK [model] and that your model is credible and reliable.

I don't believe you have a credible FSK. If even you have one [imo no], at best you will be borrowing facts [polished conjecture] from the scientific FSK thus your ultimate conclusion is a adulterated polished conjecture.

No, I am simply suggesting that it is time for humanity to ascend to a new and higher plateau of general spiritual understanding (a "new spiritual paradigm" to replace the old one), as has been the standard process that extends deep into humanity's past.

No, it just needs to "make more sense" than the old spiritual paradigm. You know, the one whose divisiveness has humanity teetering on the brink of destroying itself.

Ideally, it needs to make more sense to everyone (including materialists), while, at the same time, still containing a plausible reason to believe that there is indeed a possibility of an afterlife that the vast majority of humans on earth will never give up "hoping" for.
_______

Whatever you intend, first you must present your personal FSK and then justify it is credible and reliable.
But you have not done that?
In any case I do not believe you can do so.

If you want to promote safe methods for all to experience altered states of consciousness [ASC], i.e. expanded consciousness that will widen cognition of reality I will agree with you on the provision this must be complemented with a credible moral FSK.

But to insist what is experienced within those ASC as godlike-thingy as you have been doing, that is delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe you are feeling very insecure [shaking] inside...

You believe many, many things, my friend...

So amusing.

My main point is the idea of a god is a psychological derivative

You actually don't understand that you've provided no reason for anybody to believe that. But it's hard to point that out to you, since you don't even know what evidence looks like, apparently.

Your claim is entirely gratuitious. And yes, you may "believe" it: but of course, that doesn't make it even remotely true. I've explained why...

But I can explain things to you...I can't understand them for you.

Anyway, I suppose this goes nowhere, so unless you have something stunningly interesting to say, I think we're about as done as we can be.

[iambiguous]

You actually don't understand that you've provided no reason for anybody to believe that. But it's hard to point that out to you, since you don't even know what evidence looks like, apparently.

The same accusation he levels at me of course.

So, back to this:

However futile it may, I would like to remind IC that he has not responded substantively to my own reaction to the video:

Again, he throws this video out at me. Practically dares me to watch it. I do. I comment on it.

Now he has the chance to give us his own interpretation of it. A chance to comment on this:

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

Note to God:

A miracle please.

[seeds]

Here's the thing, iambiguous, there's nothing at stake!

Right. Tell that to the millions upons millions of mere mortals who insist that everything is at stake. And from both sides of the grave.

I'm trying to, but the brainwashing that they (and you) have received from being subjected since birth to the "old spiritual paradigm" has a strong hold on the human psyche.

Let me repeat what I said earlier...

You need to stop focusing on and fretting over the silly nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds who used dire threats and grim warnings as rhetorical devices that functioned as "hooks" and "barbed fences" to ensure that the sheep (out of fear) stayed within the confines of a particular religion.

Now you come off [to me] as someone with a "condition".

Really?

Am I to understand that you consider someone who dares to suggest that the truth of reality might be much more wonderful and purposeful than the old religions have led us to believe, has a "condition"?

Interesting.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

Both have already been dealt with. You were asleep, and didn't notice, I guess.

I'll summarize in the briefest possible way:

The existence of ANY God or gods, regardless of their particular nature, it a complete defeater for Atheism. The particular nature of God is a secondary question, one that cannot even be coherently asked if God does not exist in the first place.

Secondly, you know the Pope is in the Vatican by two means you have identified yourself: your own belief that he is (you say you have not gone to check personally) and the report of other people (which you are accepting on faith, I guess). So if you set the same epistemic standard to the God question, it's already met: I believe in God, and other people also report His existence.

The two are "on par," just as you demand.

I doubt you'll be happy with your own epistemic standard now; but f so, the problem's on you. It's that your "super-test" turns out to be a lame duck.

Done.

[promethean75]

Yeah but Biggs could drive up there to see the pope at the Vatican, something he'd not be able to do to find proof of 'god'.

I mean.

You got a excited for nuthin bro.

Plus reports of 'god' and reports that the pope exists in the Vatican are quite different kinds of report. The comparison was hasty and overgeneral.

Like if some crazy guy on the street ran up and starting shouting at me 'the pope is in the Vatican!', I wouldn't think him crazy or trying to sell me something.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah but Biggs could drive up there to see the pope at the Vatican,

He doesn't know that. He's never tried.

...something he'd not be able to do to find proof of 'god'.

He doesn't know that, either. He's just decided that nothing is "proof."

But he'll change his mind on the day he gives his account to the God he doesn't believe in.

And then he'll know.

[promethean75]

"He doesn't know that. He's never tried."

Yeah but he could probably do it tho, and be relatively certain he saw the pope sitting in the Vatican.

Could I say the same about an experience of 'god'? Well how could I be sure about what I experienced given how paranormal, supernatural or bizarre it would seem?

Anyway the analogy was badly applied and now you're mincing details that don't een matter. The point is, both direct experience of the pope in the Vatican and second hand knowledge of the pope in the Vatican via a report, are much more credible than claims of direct experience of 'god' or reports of the existence of 'god'.

AND Biggs could just go to Italy and find out. Bada bing, bada boom.