Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I'm saying it "could" be evidence of some sort of supreme being.

Yep. Could be the tooth fairy.

Gary Childress wrote:What is your argument for ruling out all such testimonies?

If it sounds like bullshit it is.

Obviously I just don't have the same ability to spot "bullshit" when I see it. Perhaps I'm just "naïve" and "gullible". So that I am better able to discern such phenomena in the future, what are some of the core characteristics a person should be on the lookout for when trying to spot "bullshit"?

Gary Childress wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:I'm saying it "could" be evidence of some sort of supreme being.

Yep. Could be the tooth fairy.

Gary Childress wrote:What is your argument for ruling out all such testimonies?

If it sounds like bullshit it is.

Obviously I just don't have the same ability to spot "bullshit" when I see it. Perhaps I'm just "naïve" and "gullible". So that I am better able to discern such phenomena in the future, what are some of the core characteristics a person should be on the lookout for when trying to spot "bullshit"?

Here's a good place to start.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03 ... arl-sagan/
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/e ... aloney.pdf
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

What works for me is believe nothing; seek knowledge.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Experience has to be personal, and we experience things that have no external reality; pain, hunger - but also dreams, hallucinations and illusions.

I agree 100%. If a supreme being wanted to communicate with people and be taken seriously by more people, such a being could surely do so in ways which weren't so ambiguous and easily dismissible as "illusions". On the other hand perhaps god wishes to communicate with people in ways that only those open to such communication will be able to comprehend or understand. I don't presume to have ever experienced such communication but it seems possible. In other words, if god wants to communicate only with "believers" what better way to do it than through means which can be easily dismissed by "non-believers" as "hallucinations".

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Experience has to be personal, and we experience things that have no external reality; pain, hunger - but also dreams, hallucinations and illusions.

I agree 100%. If a supreme being wanted to communicate with people and be taken seriously by more people, such a being could surely do so in ways which weren't so ambiguous and easily dismissible as "illusions". On the other hand perhaps god wishes to communicate with people in ways that only those open to such communication will be able to comprehend or understand. I don't presume to have ever experienced such communication but it seems possible. In other words, if god wants to communicate only with "believers" what better way to do it than through means which can be easily dismissed by "non-believers" as "hallucinations".

Since god has made me such that I am not a believer, then why am I here at all?
And why is it that he has only made believers of the stupid people who cannot seem to think very clearly?
And why has he made it so that mad people with hallucinations are in no way distinguishable from those having a religious experience. And if religious experiences are really god talking to people, then why does there appear to be so many different and contradictory messages from an apparent range of different gods???

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Experience has to be personal, and we experience things that have no external reality; pain, hunger - but also dreams, hallucinations and illusions.

I agree 100%. If a supreme being wanted to communicate with people and be taken seriously by more people, such a being could surely do so in ways which weren't so ambiguous and easily dismissible as "illusions". On the other hand perhaps god wishes to communicate with people in ways that only those open to such communication will be able to comprehend or understand. I don't presume to have ever experienced such communication but it seems possible. In other words, if god wants to communicate only with "believers" what better way to do it than through means which can be easily dismissed by "non-believers" as "hallucinations".

Since god has made me such that I am not a believer, then why am I here at all?
And why is it that he has only made believers of the stupid people who cannot seem to think very clearly?
And why has he made it so that mad people with hallucinations are in no way distinguishable from those having a religious experience. And if religious experiences are really god talking to people, then why does there appear to be so many different and contradictory messages from an apparent range of different gods???

Maybe you are not a "believer" because you choose not to be. Maybe you're here, you are faced with choices that you are free to make, you choose not to believe in a god. I seem to choose to admit ignorance on the matter. Others seem to choose to believe in the existence of a god. Maybe it wouldn't be very "sporting" of god to make us deterministically incapable of disbelief. I don't know.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I agree 100%. If a supreme being wanted to communicate with people and be taken seriously by more people, such a being could surely do so in ways which weren't so ambiguous and easily dismissible as "illusions". On the other hand perhaps god wishes to communicate with people in ways that only those open to such communication will be able to comprehend or understand. I don't presume to have ever experienced such communication but it seems possible. In other words, if god wants to communicate only with "believers" what better way to do it than through means which can be easily dismissed by "non-believers" as "hallucinations".

Since god has made me such that I am not a believer, then why am I here at all?
And why is it that he has only made believers of the stupid people who cannot seem to think very clearly?
And why has he made it so that mad people with hallucinations are in no way distinguishable from those having a religious experience. And if religious experiences are really god talking to people, then why does there appear to be so many different and contradictory messages from an apparent range of different gods???

Maybe you are not a "believer" because you choose not to be. Maybe you're here, you are faced with choices that you are free to make, you choose not to believe in a god. I seem to choose to admit ignorance on the matter. Others seem to choose to believe in the existence of a god. Maybe it wouldn't be very "sporting" of god to make us deterministically incapable of disbelief. I don't know.

I chose not to be, because god made me such that I am too skeptical to believe. No choice is free, from gods perspective. If go is all powerful then he has know from the beginning of time that he created me to die a sinner.
That's the problem with free will. Whatever you think it might be. Free will has to mean that god cannot be all knowing. God has weaknesses.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I chose not to be, because god made me such that I am too skeptical to believe. No choice is free, from gods perspective. If go is all powerful then he has know from the beginning of time that he created me to die a sinner.
That's the problem with free will. Whatever you think it might be. Free will has to mean that god cannot be all knowing. God has weaknesses.

Maybe god isn't "all knowing" in the sense of the "divine watchmaker" who winds up the universe, knowing beforehand every decision that will be made, or the exact position of every grain of sand on every shoreline of every planet which may have a shore. Maybe these are human expectations which have no bearing or significance at all on what god is or does.

I woke up laughing. My wife asked me why. I told her that I told myself a joke I never heard before. In the dream I was watching TV. On the screen was Jesus face. The narrator asked," what would Jesus do?" Jesus took a drag on a cig. The narrator said," Jesus would choose a camel!"
I do not know what the script writer of my dream is thinking. However, he is me.
God (by defintion) is all powerful. Google" omniscient chicken paradox"). In the 50s kids would drive their cars towards each other. The first person to swerve was the loser. If an omniscient being took on a mortal, the mortal would win!!! ( google, " omniscient chicken paradox )

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I chose not to be, because god made me such that I am too skeptical to believe. No choice is free, from gods perspective. If go is all powerful then he has know from the beginning of time that he created me to die a sinner.
That's the problem with free will. Whatever you think it might be. Free will has to mean that god cannot be all knowing. God has weaknesses.

Maybe god isn't "all knowing" in the sense of the "divine watchmaker" who winds up the universe, knowing beforehand every decision that will be made, or the exact position of every grain of sand on every shoreline of every planet which may have a shore. Maybe these are human expectations which have no bearing or significance at all on what god is or does.

So god is less than the universe. Knows less that is available to him. Why call him god? What's god for?

Consciousness came with a sufficient development of language. However, subvocal behavior (i.e. thinking) is not necessary for decision-making and behaving. We have all witnessed non-human animals engage in behavior that has been interpreted as "weighing its options and making choices". This is nothing more than wishful anthropomorphizing. Animals do not have inner dialogue about their various decisions. That we on some occasions do have an "inner voice" that precedes an action has tricked people into believing that this is necessary, or that it is evidence of freewill. That is a fiction. We do things all the time in the absence of an inner dialogue. We often get ourselves to locations and are unaware of all the steps (not walking steps) we took in getting to the final destination. The same is true of various activities we perform. We can read entire passages while thinking of something completely unrelated to the content of the passage. We do things (e.g., make choices) because of what has happened in the past when those choices were made under similar conditions.

When reality is perceived as solidly "known" or "unknowable," it engenders no genuine investigation of possibilities -- why should it? Living life at face value and rarely, if ever, looking beneath the surface of our daily existence is just easier. But the most profound experiences arise from questioning the obvious.

My point with the chicken paradox is that if God is omniscient he cannot be omnipotent.

raw_thought wrote:. But the most profound experiences arise from questioning the obvious.

Bollocks. Our most profound experiences arise from understanding the obvious.

"simplex sigillum veri"...The simple is the seal of the true.

I love paradoxes. That's why I get a kick out of atheists who ask for proof or think God is able to demonstrate he is God. For if God is infinite -- which is to say wholeness itself -- any "proof" would require a definition of God, which necessitates God being limited.

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:. But the most profound experiences arise from questioning the obvious.

Bollocks. Our most profound experiences arise from understanding the obvious.

"simplex sigillum veri"...The simple is the seal of the true.

So it must be true that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, it's both obvious and simple.