Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:03 am God is a human construct "proven"* [justified], thus impossible to exists an absolutely mind-independent real entity;
* philosophically not mathematically.

I had a detailed discussion with AI and this is its comment:
"In conclusion, you've presented a well-rounded argument against the use of personal experiences as evidence for God's existence. You've incorporated Kant's philosophy, the limitations of empirical verification, and the psychological aspects of Terror Management Theory. These points offer a strong framework for critiquing claims of a demonstrably real God based on subjective experiences."

Here is the rough outline [details are too messy to present in this post]:

1. The Big Bang occurred [13.7 billion years ago]

2. Abiogenesis emerged [3.5 billions years ago]

3. Evolution: Humans endowed with self-awareness [~50,000(??) years ago]

4. Evolutionary default of an existential crisis, TMT and angsts. [1-3]

5. First person experiences of a non-empirical supernatural being - God, are not credible.

6. The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS]. Since God is non-empirical there is no credible means to justify God is real.

7. Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove* the existence of God as real. [CPR -B595-670]

8. Kant: God as a thing-in-itself is an illusion if reified, nevertheless a useful illusion.

9. There are loads of ways the experience of God within human consciousness can be triggered [drugs, mental illnesses, out-of-the-blue, etc. ].
viewtopic.php?p=686039#p686039
viewtopic.php?t=40346

10. Terror Management Theory drives humans to a belief in God as a useful illusion to deal with the inevitable death anxieties. The basis of a belief in God is psychological not ontological.

Therefore God is a human construct which is critical to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains & angsts and is not an absolutely independent entity that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

In the above [albeit merely showing only topics without details] cover everything that theists would try to justify God exists as a real mind-independent entity.

There is no other means other than the above any theists has grounds to argue God exists as real.
If you think there are any others, which?

Discuss??
Views??

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:42 am What do you mean by: "God is a human construct"?
Point 5. above is pure WANK.

..in fact Point 4 onwards is WANK.

Challenges to claims of God's existence based solely on first-person experiences include the following:

1. Subjectivity of Personal Experience
Personal experiences are inherently subjective and vary widely among individuals, making them unreliable as universal evidence.
The same type of experiences (e.g., feelings of awe or transcendence) can be attributed to different causes, such as psychological states, cultural influences, or neurological phenomena.

2. Diversity of Religious Experiences
People from different religions and cultures report contradictory religious experiences. For example, one person might claim to encounter a deity from their religion, while another experiences a different god or divine presence.
This raises the question of which, if any, of these experiences correspond to an actual deity.

3. Neurological and Psychological Explanations
Many religious or spiritual experiences can be explained by natural phenomena such as hallucinations, brain activity, or altered states of consciousness (e.g., during meditation, fasting, or seizures).
Research in neuroscience, such as studies on the "God spot" in the brain, suggests that feelings of divine presence might be a result of brain processes rather than external realities.

4. Cultural and Societal Influences
Personal experiences of God are often shaped by cultural and societal contexts. For example, individuals in predominantly Christian societies are more likely to report experiences of the Christian God, whereas those in Hindu societies may report encounters with Hindu deities.
This suggests that such experiences are filtered through one's upbringing and belief system, not necessarily reflective of an objective reality.

5. Circular Reasoning
Relying on personal experience to justify belief in God often leads to circular reasoning. For example:
"I believe in God because I experienced Him."
"I experienced Him because He exists."
This logic does not provide independent evidence for God's existence.

6. Lack of Verifiability
Personal experiences cannot be independently verified or repeated by others, making them insufficient as evidence in philosophical or scientific debates about the existence of God.
Experiences that lack external validation fail to meet the criteria for objective evidence.

7. Problem of Alternative Explanations
Many phenomena attributed to divine experiences (such as feelings of peace, awe, or revelation) have plausible non-theistic explanations, including emotional responses, natural beauty, or subconscious processing.

8. Absence of Predictive Power
Genuine claims of divine interaction should ideally have predictive power (e.g., foretelling future events or revealing unknown truths). Most first-person experiences lack this quality, reducing their evidentiary weight.

9. Confirmation Bias
People often interpret experiences in ways that confirm their existing beliefs. A believer might perceive a significant event as evidence of God's presence, while a skeptic might see it as coincidence.
10. Equivalence to Non-Divine Experiences
Many reported divine experiences are indistinguishable from non-divine ones. For example, an overwhelming sense of love or interconnectedness can occur during non-religious activities, such as meditation or spending time in nature.

11. Philosophical Challenges
Philosophers like David Hume argue that extraordinary claims (such as the existence of God) require extraordinary evidence, which first-person experiences often fail to provide.
The epistemic gap between subjective experience and objective truth remains unresolved.

12. Multiplicity of Interpretations
Even within the same religious framework, individuals interpret their experiences differently, leading to diverse and conflicting understandings of God's nature and will.

These challenges highlight that personal experiences have profound subjective meaning.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:42 am What do you mean by: "God is a human construct"?
Point 5. above is pure WANK.

..in fact Point 4 onwards is WANK.

Here's are the points in support of Point 5 from AI [wR] (save me a lot of thinking time - would be unwise not to exploit this):

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:42 am What do you mean by: "God is a human construct"?
Point 5. above is pure WANK.

..in fact Point 4 onwards is WANK.

Here's are the points in support of Point 5 from AI [wR] (save me a lot of thinking time - would be unwise not to exploit this):

Really? U R coming across as manic---with yer dependence on "AI"..

RE: Point 5. First person experiences of a non-empirical supernatural being - God, are not credible

Yet, we share this empirical evidence of GOD - cumulative evidence - that GOD formed our REAL_IT_Y and the common protocol for communication of humans around the planet - ENGLISH.

Do U want evidence?

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 2:48 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:35 am
Here's are the points in support of Point 5 from AI [wR] (save me a lot of thinking time - would be unwise not to exploit this):

Really? U R coming across as manic---with yer dependence on "AI"..

RE: Point 5. First person experiences of a non-empirical supernatural being - God, are not credible

Yet, we share this empirical evidence of GOD - cumulative evidence - that GOD formed our REAL_IT_Y and the common protocol for communication of humans around the planet - ENGLISH.

Do U want evidence?

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe

I'm starting to think U don't want more cumulative evidence..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:03 am 6. The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS].

https://iep.utm.edu/s-truth

The semantic theory of truth (STT, hereafter) was developed by Alfred Tarski in the 1930s. The theory has two separate, although interconnected, aspects. First, it is a formal mathematical theory of truth as a central concept of model theory, one of the most important branches of mathematical logic. Second, it is also a philosophical doctrine which elaborates the notion of truth investigated by philosophers since antiquity. In this respect, STT is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary analytic philosophy.

STT as a formal construction is explicated via set theory and the concept of satisfaction. The prevailing philosophical interpretation of STT considers it to be a version of the correspondence theory of truth that goes back to Aristotle.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:03 am 6. The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS].

Truth is a property of the correspondence between two well-chosen pieces of information and is therefore always a Platonic abstraction. The modern gold standard about the truth is Tarski's semantic theory of truth:

https://iep.utm.edu/s-truth

The semantic theory of truth (STT, hereafter) was developed by Alfred Tarski in the 1930s. The theory has two separate, although interconnected, aspects. First, it is a formal mathematical theory of truth as a central concept of model theory, one of the most important branches of mathematical logic. Second, it is also a philosophical doctrine which elaborates the notion of truth investigated by philosophers since antiquity. In this respect, STT is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary analytic philosophy.

STT as a formal construction is explicated via set theory and the concept of satisfaction. The prevailing philosophical interpretation of STT considers it to be a version of the correspondence theory of truth that goes back to Aristotle.

Your view on the truth captures a very small part of the truth. There is absolutely no requirement for either piece of information in the truth correspondence to be related in any shape or fashion to the physical universe. What you are referring to, is at best a very small subset of the truth.

My comments to AI
[Me] "Whatever is truth [real, knowledge, facts] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system.
The gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity is from the scientific framework and system [FS]."

The semantic theory of truth (STT, hereafter) is merely a linguistic FS.
Whatever is linguistically true cannot be real until it is verified and justified by a reality FS of which the scientific FS is the most real in terms of degrees.
If "empiricity" is the criteria is the determinant of the degree of truthfulness, the empirical based scientific FS if indexed at 100/100, then linguistic truth which is non-empirical would be at the other end, say 10/100.

ChatGPT said:
Your response effectively emphasizes the distinction between linguistic frameworks like the Semantic Theory of Truth (STT) and empirical frameworks like science. Here’s a refinement of your argument to address the points raised by your interlocutor more comprehensively:

Acknowledging STT and its Context: Begin by acknowledging the value of STT within its domain. It's useful in formal logic and linguistics, where truth is often defined as the correspondence between statements and their models within a formal system. However, STT's applicability is limited to abstract or linguistic contexts and does not necessarily map onto reality in the empirical sense.

Framework-Dependence of Truth: Point out that truth is inherently framework-dependent. STT operates within the linguistic framework, using formal languages and models. The "truth" established here pertains to internal consistency and satisfaction within that framework, which differs from the empirical truths established through observation and experimentation in the scientific framework.

Empirical Verification and Degrees of Truth: Stress that truths derived from empirical verification within the scientific framework have a higher degree of credibility when evaluating what is real. This is because scientific truths are tied to empirical evidence, reproducibility, and falsifiability, giving them practical and testable grounding in reality. In contrast, truths derived purely linguistically or abstractly lack this grounding.

Degrees of Realism: Propose a continuum of truthfulness, where empirical truths (scientific FS) occupy the highest degree (100/100) due to their robust methods of verification and connection to observable phenomena. Linguistic truths, while logically valid within their framework, might rank lower (e.g., 10/100) due to their lack of direct connection to empirical reality.

Rebuttal to "Small Subset of Truth": Challenge the claim that empirical truth captures only a "very small subset of truth" by emphasizing that while abstract frameworks may cover a broader range of conceptual possibilities, not all of these are meaningful or relevant when discussing reality. The scientific framework focuses on truths that are grounded, applicable, and impactful in the physical universe.

Suggested Response:
The Semantic Theory of Truth (STT) is indeed a valuable tool for understanding truth within a linguistic or logical framework. However, it operates within a context that is abstract and detached from empirical reality.
Truths established linguistically can be logically consistent yet remain unverified in relation to the physical universe.
For example, one can construct consistent mathematical models that are internally "true" but have no bearing on observable phenomena.

In contrast, the scientific framework determines truth through empirical verification, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This makes it the gold standard for establishing truths about the physical universe. Truth within the scientific framework is not merely correspondence in the abstract sense but correspondence grounded in observable, measurable phenomena.

While STT and other linguistic or formal approaches are important in their domains, they represent a different category of truth that lacks the empirical robustness of scientific truth. If we conceptualize a continuum of truthfulness based on empirical grounding, scientific truths rank at 100/100 due to their practical, testable connection to reality. Linguistic truths, being non-empirical, might rank closer to 10/100.

Thus, your claim that truth is contingent upon a human-based framework and system is accurate, but it must be specified that different frameworks produce truths with varying degrees of relevance to reality. The scientific framework, by virtue of its empirical basis, provides the most credible truths when it comes to understanding the physical universe.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:33 am However, STT's applicability is limited to abstract or linguistic contexts and does not necessarily map onto reality in the empirical sense.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:33 am However, STT's applicability is limited to abstract or linguistic contexts and does not necessarily map onto reality in the empirical sense.

That is because the truth is about much more than collections of observations of the physical universe. Physical reality is at best just a shadow of the truth.

My comments:
The point is not about 'truth' but of 'reality' i.e. the 'truth of reality', not 'the reality of truth' - which my interlocutor is pointing to.
I argue it is reality that counts and the scientific FS is the most credible and objective with reference to reality?
I understand that a mirage exists is 'true' but it is not real empirically within the scientific FS.

ChatGPT said:

Your interlocutor seems to be conflating "truth" with a broader, perhaps metaphysical, concept, while your focus is on truth as it pertains to reality, specifically empirical reality. Here’s how you can argue that reality is what counts and that the scientific framework and system (FS) is the most credible and objective tool for addressing reality:

Key Points to Emphasize:

Truth vs. Reality:
Acknowledge that "truth" can apply to many domains, including abstractions (e.g., mathematics, linguistics). However, reality pertains to what exists independently [relatively] of human constructs.
The scientific FS is uniquely equipped to examine, measure, and describe reality because it is empirically grounded and systematically validated through reproducible evidence.

Mirages and Reality:
Use the example of a mirage to illustrate the distinction. While it is "true" that a mirage appears to exist (a linguistic or phenomenological truth), it is not empirically real. The scientific FS explains a mirage as an optical phenomenon caused by refraction, distinguishing between what is perceived and what is real.
This reinforces that the scientific FS is uniquely capable of differentiating between phenomena that are apparent and those that are real.

Degrees of Objectivity:
Different frameworks (linguistic, metaphysical, etc.) can describe different "truths," but they lack the systematic rigor and empirical grounding of the scientific FS when applied to reality. The scientific FS is 100/100 in its degree of objectivity because:
It is based on evidence that can be observed, measured, and independently verified.
It is falsifiable, meaning it can refine or discard theories when new evidence arises.

Reality Is What Matters:
Argue that while metaphysical or abstract "truths" may have intellectual or philosophical value, what ultimately matters for understanding, navigating, and improving the world is reality as described by the scientific FS.
For example, the truth of gravity's effects on reality is not just a conceptual truth but a practical one that allows us to build structures, launch satellites, and save lives.

Why the Scientific FS Is the Gold Standard:
Science does not claim to capture absolute truth but provides the most reliable and intersubjectively validated description of reality available to humans.
Its predictions are testable and lead to consistent results across observers, making it universally applicable.

Suggested Response:
It’s important to qualify what I mean by "reality." In the context of scientific antirealism (aligned with my position), reality refers to what exists relatively mind-independently within a framework and system (FS). This means that the descriptions and models provided by science are contingent on the human-based framework used to study and represent phenomena, even though they aim to describe patterns and regularities in the observable universe.

This is distinct from scientific realism, which is a subset of philosophical realism. Scientific realism asserts that the entities, structures, and laws described by science exist in an absolutely mind-independent manner—i.e., reality exists exactly as described by science, regardless of human observation or cognition.

From a scientific antirealist perspective:
Reality within the FS: The scientific FS provides a practical, empirically grounded description of reality, but this reality is not posited as an absolute mind-independent existence. Instead, it reflects how the human-based scientific framework interprets and models the world.

Relative Mind-Independence:
The phenomena studied by science (e.g., gravity, electromagnetic waves) exhibit regularities that appear mind-independent within the scientific FS. However, their "truth" is relative to the assumptions, methods, and conceptual tools of that framework.
The scientific FS remains the most credible and objective system for describing reality because:

It systematically links phenomena to empirical observations and reproducible experiments.
Its models, while framework-dependent, demonstrate predictive power and coherence with observed data.
To clarify, the "reality" that science describes is not an absolute reality (as claimed by scientific realism) but a pragmatic construct that enables us to reliably navigate and manipulate the world. For example, the concept of atoms is not an assertion of their absolute existence but a model within the scientific FS that effectively explains and predicts phenomena.

By focusing on relative mind-independence, the scientific FS avoids the speculative pitfalls of absolute mind-independence (scientific realism) while maintaining a high degree of objectivity and credibility in describing reality as it manifests within the constraints of human observation and inquiry.

Key Nuances Addressed:
Reality as framework-dependent (scientific antirealism) vs. absolute mind-independent reality (scientific realism).
Emphasis on the pragmatic validity and relative objectivity of the scientific FS without making speculative claims of absolute reality.
Support for the scientific FS as the most credible system for describing observable, empirical phenomena.