God? It is Only in the Brain

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would that Atheists tended to stop at "Well, I, personally, don't have any evidence of God." How nice if they were than honest, moral and truthful. But many are not. Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence," or "God does not exist."
What else can one make of a claim like that of Dawkins, that Theism is a "delusion." (his word, famously) Or what about when Hitchens goes about claiming it "poisons everything." Lovely. The desire of Atheists to evangelize their disbelief is considerable. And their patience with the idea that some people do not share their personal ignorance is often zero.

But Atheist dogma requires evidence. And they have none. So their disbelief is ideological, not merely personal. It's a dogma, based on nothing in particular, that they want to spread. They love to mock anybody who believes there even might be a God, and call them "unscientific" or "irrational" -- all the while, being absolutely unscientific and irrational themselves.

It is so philosophical immature to ask a not-a-theist to show evidence [empirical-rational] why they are not-a-theist.

Being critical thinkers, rational and wise, the reason why non-theists are deliberately not-a-theist(s) is because there are no direct evidences [empirical-rational] to convince them that God exists as real, e.g. the moon [and the like] is real based on empirical-rational evidence that can be verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSK as real and true.

As a non-theist I have provided sound argument why 'It is impossible for God to exist as real"
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
You have not countered this argument.

I have also explained why theism is delusional, i.e. God is an illusion [albeit useful illusion] and that there are many cases of the mentally ill who insisted they have personal experiences of a God but somehow do not make such claims when they have taken the correct medicine to cure their delusion.
e.g.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are cases where those who suffer brain damage and therefrom experience God or Godlike experiences;
My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=8s

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
because as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.
Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.
Navy SEAL Takes DMT and Meets God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7cc_v_S34

The Mystery of DMT "God Encounter" Experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOtrLM6LwY
"More that 50% of atheists who take DMT no longer identify as atheists"

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

Seeing the Brain 'seeing-God'
viewtopic.php?t=40337

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

There are loads of other evidences that demonstrate the belief in God [theism] is due to happenings in the human brain.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[LuckyR]

Are gods illusions? I don't know, is Germany an illusion? Is Apple corporation an illusion? Is the value of a dollar an illusion? All four exist inter-subjectively, not objectively.

If the definition of "illusion" in this thread is: does not exist objectively, then I suppose gods (and the rest) are illusions, but most lay persons consider a dollar to have objective value (even though it doesn't) and Germany to exist objectively, even though it doesn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are gods illusions? I don't know, is Germany an illusion? Is Apple corporation an illusion? Is the value of a dollar an illusion? All four exist inter-subjectively, not objectively.

If the definition of "illusion" in this thread is: does not exist objectively, then I suppose gods (and the rest) are illusions, but most lay persons consider a dollar to have objective value (even though it doesn't) and Germany to exist objectively, even though it doesn't.

What is real, objective or illusory must be qualified to a context, i.e. a FSK or model of reality.

Whatever is claimed to be real and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the most credible and reliable is the science-FSK [standard index at 100].
Because it is human-based, whatever that FOLLOWs from the above cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
To claim that a thing is absolutely mind-independent means it cannot be real FSK-wise, thus, that is an illusion.

When theists claim God exists as absolute mind-independent, that God is an illusion, i.e. not real FSK-wise.

A dollar exists as real [thus not illusory] within an economic-FSK and Germany exists within a political-FSK and thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
However, the realness and objectivity of the dollar or Germany cannot be as high as that of the science-FSK [at its best].

Whatever is claimed to be real and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the most credible and reliable is the science-FSK [standard index at 100].
In this case, we can represent all claims including theism within a human-based FSR-FSK.
The claim of the existence of God as real is conditioned upon a human-based theological FSK, e.g. the Christianity-FSK which provide NO direct empirical-rational evidence to support its claim.
As such, relative to the science-FSK @ 100%, the objectivity of the theological FSK is 0.00000000___01% of objectivity and realness.

As I had proven;
It is Impossible for God to be Real [empirical-rationally]
viewtopic.php?t=40229

and in this OP,
God is Only in the Brain

[Iwannaplato]

Are gods illusions? I don't know, is Germany an illusion? Is Apple corporation an illusion? Is the value of a dollar an illusion? All four exist inter-subjectively, not objectively.

If the definition of "illusion" in this thread is: does not exist objectively, then I suppose gods (and the rest) are illusions, but most lay persons consider a dollar to have objective value (even though it doesn't) and Germany to exist objectively, even though it doesn't.

I can go along with Germany not existing objectively. But money seems to have objective value. I would come at that in two ways: 1) First, nothing would have objective value, given that value is subjective, so it's a bit of an oxymoron. So for this point, sure, but the implicit assumption that other things do have objective value, that money is an exception or at least cant be put with other things in that category, I can't agree with. 2) The way people react is a part of reality. I go to stores and money leads to effects. Money works, at least right now, pre-collapse or pre-nomoremoney. it works as well as a hammer, though for other tasks.

[LuckyR]

Are gods illusions? I don't know, is Germany an illusion? Is Apple corporation an illusion? Is the value of a dollar an illusion? All four exist inter-subjectively, not objectively.

If the definition of "illusion" in this thread is: does not exist objectively, then I suppose gods (and the rest) are illusions, but most lay persons consider a dollar to have objective value (even though it doesn't) and Germany to exist objectively, even though it doesn't.

I can go along with Germany not existing objectively. But money seems to have objective value. I would come at that in two ways: 1) First, nothing would have objective value, given that value is subjective, so it's a bit of an oxymoron. So for this point, sure, but the implicit assumption that other things do have objective value, that money is an exception or at least cant be put with other things in that category, I can't agree with. 2) The way people react is a part of reality. I go to stores and money leads to effects. Money works, at least right now, pre-collapse or pre-nomoremoney. it works as well as a hammer, though for other tasks.

Yeah money is such a standard thing in everyday life that it seems to have objective value. But it only has value because humans believe it has value. That is, the value exists in our minds. If a certain number of people lose faith in a currency it loses value, which can end up worthless, ie without value.

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

[Skepdick]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.

Why do you believe in objective identities?

[Lacewing]

It is so philosophical immature to ask a not-a-theist to show evidence [empirical-rational] why they are not-a-theist.

Yes... it is absurd... much like if a believer were to say: 'Show evidence that the Loch Ness monster doesn't ride a bicycle.' Then trying to validate their belief/claims by adding: 'Well, you have to WANT to believe in it, or you won't see it.' Well, OF COURSE that's how it works.

Being critical thinkers, rational and wise, the reason why non-theists are deliberately not-a-theist(s) is because there are no direct evidences [empirical-rational] to convince them that God exists as real, e.g. the moon [and the like] is real based on empirical-rational evidence that can be verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSK as real and true.

Yes, if there isn't direct (and 'RESPONSIVE' evidence), then it is imagination perpetuated and supported by will. The absence of evidence can only lead to excuses like: 'Well, then, it must not be God's will', or 'We're not supposed to question God', or 'It will only be revealed to those who are ready or worthy'.

Whatever innate collective connection and awareness that we might tap into doesn't require or need any of this religious showbiz stuff. It is continually demonstrated that much of mankind prefers movies/stories (the more, the better) as compared to actually living more observantly in-the-present-moment.

as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied

And desperation and fear may increase, driving one to seek comfort and supposed answers.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.

Oh wow... cool.

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.

And it can also turn theists into non-theists by triggering awareness beyond human constructs.

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

I grew up in the Christian tradition and embraced it fully because it was where I was being directed by adults. I, too, later discovered how powerful and convincing and creative the brain can be... to the point of manufacturing all-consuming 'realities'.

I think there is more clarity and capability by stepping out of all that brain noise. I have practiced doing that... and just seeing and listening with a quiet, observant mind. I've received insights and sudden 'answers' at those times. It feels quite powerful... like a frequency that a human being like myself can only do for short periods of time because it's like a gushing firehose of free-flowing information. I've also gotten the sense that it's not crucial for me to do (because there's nothing wrong with being in this human life as-it-is -- that's just what we're doing right now), however, the frequency outside the noise is accessible if I want it. The more noise, the more disconnection from all else... and I do like connecting, so I try to limit the noise (no Facebook or social media or skewed News sources... I only indulge in this noisy forum for fun and practicing and processing).

[LuckyR]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.

Why do you believe in objective identities?

I don't. You can call an apple anything you want (as long as you accept the communication implications of your choice).

[Veritas Aequitas]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.
I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

WHO ARE YOU to be SO certain,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not."
Are you an omnipotent & omniscient God?

As demonstrated by Kant, there is no such thing as an apple-by-itself, apple-in-itself, thing-in-itself or X-in-itself existing absolutely independent of the human conditions i.e. human-mind-independent.

To a sole-sonar-bat or dolphin 'that apple is an apple' is merely an impermanent bundle of sonar images.
All other non-human living things will realize and perceive that bundle of particles relative to their realization and perception system.

Humans are more-animals than being more-human, thus very fallible and do not have the all-powerful knowledge to claim
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not" existing independent of the human conditions.

The most you can claim is,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not"
because we humans collectively [the majority] said so.
Thus ultimately "an apple is an apple" cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

There is no difference in the fundamental existence of an apple and that of a dollar, the difference is only in the degree of objectivity as conditioned by the human conditions and its specific human-based FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is so philosophical immature to ask a not-a-theist to show evidence [empirical-rational] why they are not-a-theist.

Yes... it is absurd... much like if a believer were to say: 'Show evidence that the Loch Ness monster doesn't ride a bicycle.' Then trying to validate their belief/claims by adding: 'Well, you have to WANT to believe in it, or you won't see it.' Well, OF COURSE that's how it works.

Being critical thinkers, rational and wise, the reason why non-theists are deliberately not-a-theist(s) is because there are no direct evidences [empirical-rational] to convince them that God exists as real, e.g. the moon [and the like] is real based on empirical-rational evidence that can be verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSK as real and true.

Yes, if there isn't direct (and 'RESPONSIVE' evidence), then it is imagination perpetuated and supported by will. The absence of evidence can only lead to excuses like: 'Well, then, it must not be God's will', or 'We're not supposed to question God', or 'It will only be revealed to those who are ready or worthy'.

Whatever innate collective connection and awareness that we might tap into doesn't require or need any of this religious showbiz stuff. It is continually demonstrated that much of mankind prefers movies/stories (the more, the better) as compared to actually living more observantly in-the-present-moment.

as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied

And desperation and fear may increase, driving one to seek comfort and supposed answers.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.

Oh wow... cool.

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.

And it can also turn theists into non-theists by triggering awareness beyond human constructs.

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

I grew up in the Christian tradition and embraced it fully because it was where I was being directed by adults. I, too, later discovered how powerful and convincing and creative the brain can be... to the point of manufacturing all-consuming 'realities'.

I think there is more clarity and capability by stepping out of all that brain noise. I have practiced doing that... and just seeing and listening with a quiet, observant mind. I've received insights and sudden 'answers' at those times. It feels quite powerful... like a frequency that a human being like myself can only do for short periods of time because it's like a gushing firehose of free-flowing information. I've also gotten the sense that it's not crucial for me to do (because there's nothing wrong with being in this human life as-it-is -- that's just what we're doing right now), however, the frequency outside the noise is accessible if I want it. The more noise, the more disconnection from all else... and I do like connecting, so I try to limit the noise (no Facebook or social media or skewed News sources... I only indulge in this noisy forum for fun and practicing and processing).

Agree, that is reflective thinking.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah money is such a standard thing in everyday life that it seems to have objective value. But it only has value because humans believe it has value.

One of the things I said was that this is not restricted to money, which seemed implicit in your post. That money was some kind of exception.
What has value that is not dependent on a subjective evaluation?

That is, the value exists in our minds. If a certain number of people lose faith in a currency it loses value, which can end up worthless, ie without value.

And in regard to my second point, then at that point it will no longer have the value it had. Aren't the behaviors and attitudes of humans part of objective reality?

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

You're saying a hypothetical somehow disproves the existence of the value of the dollar now. So, your imagined future situation (which I agree is possible) means that dollars do not really, objectively have value now.

If you treated dollars as if they have no value not only could this cause, for example, your spouse to be upset with you, but also you spouse would be correct in considering you not objective and irrational.

People could one day decide that the sugars in apples are detrimental to health, or in some postapocalytic scenario that apples are, well, the devil's fruit - not so far fetched and unfamiliar. So, apples lose value as products and are no longer a food source. Yes, values can change.

But here we are and dollars have objective value.

I can exchange my dollars for things you consider objectively valuable, whatever that phrase means. Beliefs are real things (or processes or phenomena) In my world they are parts of causal chains, real ones.

Lots of things are dependent on other things for their qualities. Trees will die if the sun gets too hot. This doesn't mean trees aren't real.
You are proposing that in the future and yes it could be quite soon, people will change and dollars will no longer have value. Sure. At that point they won't have value. Changes in what is real can change the objective properties of things.

A tree is a tree unless conditions change to the degree or of that kind such that it isn't a tree.
Likewise apples.

Generally I don't think objective value works as a concept. But I don't think money is the exception. If there is objective value, money has it now.

[Skepdick]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.

Why do you believe in objective identities?

I don't. You can call an apple anything you want (as long as you accept the communication implications of your choice).

Well, the implication of your assertion is that an apple is an apple is an apple.

Even if we, people, believe it to be, and call it a horse.

Communication is not going to be affected in any way - we will all call it a "horse" and everybody will understand what we mean.

But ultimately, the implication of your claim is that we are mistaken about the identity of the object. We believe it to be a horse. We call it a horse. But it's not a horse - it's an apple.

[LuckyR]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.
I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

WHO ARE YOU to be SO certain,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not."
Are you an omnipotent & omniscient God?

As demonstrated by Kant, there is no such thing as an apple-by-itself, apple-in-itself, thing-in-itself or X-in-itself existing absolutely independent of the human conditions i.e. human-mind-independent.

To a sole-sonar-bat or dolphin 'that apple is an apple' is merely an impermanent bundle of sonar images.
All other non-human living things will realize and perceive that bundle of particles relative to their realization and perception system.

Humans are more-animals than being more-human, thus very fallible and do not have the all-powerful knowledge to claim
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not" existing independent of the human conditions.

The most you can claim is,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not"
because we humans collectively [the majority] said so.
Thus ultimately "an apple is an apple" cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

There is no difference in the fundamental existence of an apple and that of a dollar, the difference is only in the degree of objectivity as conditioned by the human conditions and its specific human-based FSK.

Really? Sorry to burst your (overly pretentious) bubble, but apples were what they are long before there were people. True they weren't labeled "A.P.P.L.E.S.", but I wasn't describing labels, sorry if I confused you that I was.

[LuckyR]

Yeah money is such a standard thing in everyday life that it seems to have objective value. But it only has value because humans believe it has value.

One of the things I said was that this is not restricted to money, which seemed implicit in your post. That money was some kind of exception.
What has value that is not dependent on a subjective evaluation?

That is, the value exists in our minds. If a certain number of people lose faith in a currency it loses value, which can end up worthless, ie without value.

And in regard to my second point, then at that point it will no longer have the value it had. Aren't the behaviors and attitudes of humans part of objective reality?

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

You're saying a hypothetical somehow disproves the existence of the value of the dollar now. So, your imagined future situation (which I agree is possible) means that dollars do not really, objectively have value now.

If you treated dollars as if they have no value not only could this cause, for example, your spouse to be upset with you, but also you spouse would be correct in considering you not objective and irrational.

People could one day decide that the sugars in apples are detrimental to health, or in some postapocalytic scenario that apples are, well, the devil's fruit - not so far fetched and unfamiliar. So, apples lose value as products and are no longer a food source. Yes, values can change.

But here we are and dollars have objective value.

I can exchange my dollars for things you consider objectively valuable, whatever that phrase means. Beliefs are real things (or processes or phenomena) In my world they are parts of causal chains, real ones.

Lots of things are dependent on other things for their qualities. Trees will die if the sun gets too hot. This doesn't mean trees aren't real.
You are proposing that in the future and yes it could be quite soon, people will change and dollars will no longer have value. Sure. At that point they won't have value. Changes in what is real can change the objective properties of things.

A tree is a tree unless conditions change to the degree or of that kind such that it isn't a tree.
Likewise apples.

Generally I don't think objective value works as a concept. But I don't think money is the exception. If there is objective value, money has it now.

Uummm... not quite what I was saying. I'm not arguing that a dollar doesn't have value. It obviously does, but that value is completely dependant on the belief that humans give it. Not because it has inherent value. If a dollar had inherent value, it would have that value in the absence of humans "giving" it value. An apple is inherently a fruit even in the absence of a human to label it or categorize it.