The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[Touchstone]

It is obvious that some religions must be closer to the truth than others. Even for an atheist polytheism is more unreasonable than monotheism because it infringes the principle of economy.

I don’t think so. The real offense to the principle of economy is the introduction of anything supernatural, at all. Once you introduce one god, there’s no economy that I can see in one god over a million. But being that it would all be supernatural at that point, it’s bogus to even worry about ‘economy’ at that level anyway – parsimony is a heuristic derived from our natural experience, and we’ve no basis for thinking parsimony is applicable at all in the supernatural domain. If the supernatural obtains, anything goes, baby, so far as we can tell, and there’s no heuristics, measures or ‘physics’ to apply. That’s why you call it supernatural, because it’s unbound by those humble constraints.

Let me ask you this: isn’t polytheism also metaphysically impossible, since, if God exists, simplicity would have to be one of His qualities since he lies outside time? I mean, aren’t the concepts of “parts” and “division” and “separateness” which are necessary for polytheism totally incompatible with the simplicity and immutability necessitated by timelessness?

Yikes. “metaphysically impossible”? Why would simplicity (whatever that means in a supernatural sense) be required, even if some entity “lies outside time”?

Also, this is a great example of trafficking in stolen concepts, by the way. “lies”, “outside time”, “simplicity”, “qualities”, “his”, “exists”, “parts”, “division”, “separateness”, these are all terms borrowed from natural knowledge and experience, mapped to nothing semantically in supernatural usage.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

The real offense to the principle of economy is the introduction of anything supernatural, at all.

It’s much more reasonable to think that the universe came into being “from” nothing. Although to posit the supernatural would not be contradictory, and would actually keep reason and existence united, it is certainly too rash, too “naive.” Much better just to affirm that being can come from non-being, everything from nothing, a spontaneous, uncaused generation with no disposition towards anything, instead of an ordered generation following previous generation.

touchstone:

If the supernatural obtains, anything goes, baby, so far as we can tell

Except the contradictory and absurd, which necessarily obtains on materialism regarding the universe’s origin. If that is true, anything goes. Heck, God could exist and not exist at the same time. At least supernaturalism remains reasonable. At least it doesn’t destroy reason.

Maybe we’re both right, and the supernatural is real and not real simultaneously? After all, it’s your view that the universe can contain actual absurdities which the mind cannot co-here. This opens the door for every proposition, since you’ve stripped reason of its power.

I’ve got a new thesis: God exists and doesn’t exist, simultaneously.

 

[Windfish]

Yikes. “metaphysically impossible”? Why would simplicity (whatever that means in a supernatural sense) be required, even if some entity “lies outside time”?

Also, this is a great example of trafficking in stolen concepts, by the way. “lies”, “outside time”, “simplicity”, “qualities”, “his”, “exists”, “parts”, “division”, “separateness”, these are all terms borrowed from natural knowledge and experience, mapped to nothing semantically in supernatural usage.

-TS

It is my understanding that timelessness and reason necessitates for the First Cause to be immutable and simple, which is compatible with “I AM THAT I AM” but not compatible with many entities that are distinct from one another, have form, limits, parts.

 

[tonyrey]

It is obvious that some religions must be closer to the truth than others. Even for an atheist polytheism is more unreasonable than monotheism because it infringes the principle of economy.

**One **Supreme Being is not only the most economical but the most adequate and the most fertile explanation possible. The quanta of physical energy are outclassed on every score.

But being that it would all be supernatural at that point, it’s bogus to even worry about ‘economy’ at that level anyway – parsimony is a heuristic derived from our natural experience, and we’ve no basis for thinking parsimony is applicable at all in the supernatural domain.

What you describe as **our **natural experience is not natural at all - if by “natural” you mean “scientifically explicable” or what you can observe with your senses.Do you think of yourself in terms of hardware and software?

If the supernatural obtains, anything goes, baby, so far as we can tell, and there’s no heuristics, measures or ‘physics’ to apply. That’s why you call it supernatural, because it’s unbound by those humble constraints.

Anything does not go - as you should be aware from precious discussions - because economy, consistency, coherence and fertility are merely the primary criteria of a philosophical explanation. To attempt to account for personal experience in terms of physics is a futile enterprise - unless you believe mechanistic explanation is the sole measure of reality, an assumption that requires justification.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Further, many of our own Catholic saints, with the power of God, performed miracles. This is why the “dilemma” TruthSeeker60 presents is a false one. So let’s see this eyewitness testimony…

Catholic saints don’t claim to be God, Sathya Sai Baba does. That’s a big difference.

bdsteel.tripod.com/More/Claimsnew.htm

I said that Christians have to hold either that:
1 both Sathya Sai Baba and Jesus performed miracles,
or that
2 Jesus did while Sathya Sai baba didn’t, but there is better reason to justify belief in the miracles of Jesus.

How’s this a false dilemma.

But the most uncritical mistake being made, here, is the comparison between Judaism and Hinduism and ethnic Jews and Indians.

The point I’ve been trying to make is about standard of evidence. How would differences between beliefs and cultures mean that justification for believing in the miracles of Jesus don’t require as much evidence as does justification for believing in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba?

BTW, it’s good to refer to books where information can be found. However, on a forum it isn’t really backing up one’s point to cite an entire book (I’m not sure if you were thinking that giving links to entire books is backing up one’s claim). Instead, you could extract information you received from the book and present it on this thread.

Citing an entire book is not a way of providing a source for one’s claim (again, I’m not sure if you thought it was). If one uses something in a book to back up one’s claim, a specific part of the book must be mentioned (for example, list page number). If I write a history paper on the Tuskegee airmen, and put some statistics from a book in the paper, I have to list the page numbers, rather than cite the entire book.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Windfish, mostly I’ve seen you do is just attack the notion of “atheism”. I haven’t yet seen you give any evidence to justify Christian beliefs (perhaps you did before I joined this thread). I’d like to steer this discussion in that direction.

 

[Windfish]

TS60, you are fibbing. This is what your original point was:

TruthSeeker60:

My point is, if one rejects the alleged miracles of Sathya Sai Baba, one should reject the alleged miracles of Jesus.

This is what I have been responding to. And, as I have explained, it is a false dilemma. You can change it if you want, but there it is.

And the historical, religious, and sociological elements are very important - they make clear that the standard of evidence is not as clear cut for one people and time as for another people and time. The Jews would have laughed off or stone to death someone like Sai Baba. And, to be sure, Jesus would have been too unless he really did rise bodily from the dead.
TrutherSeeker60:

Windfish, mostly I’ve seen you do is just attack the notion of “atheism”. I haven’t yet seen you give any evidence to justify Christian beliefs (perhaps you did before I joined this thread). I’d like to steer this discussion in that direction.

This discussion is about something else, and so is the other thread in which we are corresponding.

 

[Touchstone]

It is my understanding that timelessness and reason necessitates for the First Cause to be immutable and simple, which is compatible with “I AM THAT I AM” but not compatible with many entities that are distinct from one another, have form, limits, parts.

Well, anything that can communicate “I AM THAT I AM” to you is not simple, in the natural world. But as I say, supernaturally, the concepts are perfectly plastic, and everything can be just the way you (or some other theologian) wants it to be. But “necessitates” is just misdirection, there’s nothing outside our minds to make that necessary or unnecessary metaphysical. It’s naked intuition, at nest. Simple ad-hockery on a less charitable view, handwaving.

-TS

 

[buffalo]

Windfish, mostly I’ve seen you do is just attack the notion of “atheism”. I haven’t yet seen you give any evidence to justify Christian beliefs (perhaps you did before I joined this thread). I’d like to steer this discussion in that direction.

I will help.

Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.’” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”
Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

more…

 

[Touchstone]

It’s much more reasonable to think that the universe came into being “from” nothing. Although to posit the supernatural would not be contradictory, and would actually keep reason and existence united, it is certainly too rash, too “naive.” Much better just to affirm that being can come from non-being, everything from nothing, a spontaneous, uncaused generation with no disposition towards anything, instead of an ordered generation following previous generation.

All of that – both sides – is just handwaving, a pretentious pose toward knowledge and reason. It’s an unknown, and we have no warrant for coalescing around either of those. I’m not committed to the idea that something came from nothing – there may always have been an eternal something, for all I know, and moreover, I’m aware that “always” becomes problematic conceptually prior to any of those notions getting a foothold, anyway. All of those claims are unreasonable as anything more than notional musings.

Reason indicates we face up to an unkown as an unknown.

Except the contradictory and absurd, which necessarily obtains on materialism regarding the universe’s origin.

What’s the materialist position on that? As a materialist, I suppose there may have been always an eternal something. Where’s the contradiction, again?

If that is true, anything goes. Heck, God could exist and not exist at the same time. At least supernaturalism remains reasonable. At least it doesn’t destroy reason.

An unknown is not a contradiction. It’s an unknown. I’ve yet to see you identify any of the contradictions you are going on about.

Maybe we’re both right, and the supernatural is real and not real simultaneously? After all, it’s your view that the universe can contain actual absurdities which the mind cannot co-here. This opens the door for every proposition, since you’ve stripped reason of its power.

I’ve got a new thesis: God exists and doesn’t exist, simultaneously.

What you can’t apprehend, you can’t apprehend. But that doesn’t deny what you can apprehend. Consistencies and symmetries and correlations that we observe and find performative and useful still obtain. Unless you suppose yourself to be a demigod, or a cosmic clairvoyant yourself, this is not a controversial position. As you have it, you are in the position of claiming that you know the nature and structure and attributes of all the things you DO NOT KNOW. Think about how you’d carry that commitment you’ve offered, here.

It’s reasonable to say I don’t know when, in fact I don’t know. What I don’t know may be knowable, and apprehensible, just not discovered yet. Or it may be unknowable, incomprehensible, fundamentally, in principle. I can’t say, and neither can you, because we don’t know what we don’t know. I, apparently, am the one between us that is willing to acknowledge that.

-TS

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TS60, you are fibbing. This is what your original point was:
TruthSeeker60;7187758:

My point is, if one rejects the alleged miracles of Sathya Sai Baba, one should reject the alleged miracles of Jesus.

This is what I have been responding to. And, as I have explained, it is a false dilemma. You can change it if you want, but there it is.

If a one rejects the alleged miracles, then to justify belief in the alleged miracles of Jesus, one would have to present better evidence to justify the belief of the miracles of Jesus. That is consistent with what I wrote in post 374:

I said that Christians have to hold either that:
1 both Sathya Sai Baba and Jesus performed miracles,
or that
2 Jesus did while Sathya Sai baba didn’t, but there is better reason to justify belief in the miracles of Jesus.

OK, they aren’t the same thing, but the general thing I’m getting at is that evidence for justification of belief in the divinity of Jesus needs to surpass alternatives.

And the historical, religious, and sociological elements are very important - they make clear that the standard of evidence is not as clear cut for one people and time as for another people and time. The Jews would have laughed off or stone to death someone like Sai Baba. And, to be sure, Jesus would have been too unless he really did rise bodily from the dead.

First, in that time I think people were more susceptable to believing in a savior without proper evidence than people are today. Look at the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana ).

Second, the evidence needed for a belif to be justified is the same for the same claims, regardless of how likely people in the culture and age are to accept it.

TruthSeeker60;7189794:

Windfish, mostly I’ve seen you do is just attack the notion of “atheism”. I haven’t yet seen you give any evidence to justify Christian beliefs

(perhaps you did before I joined this thread). I’d like to steer this discussion in that direction.

This discussion is about something else, and so is the other thread in which we are corresponding.

I haven’t seen you give evidence to justify Christian beliefs in any discussion yet. This includes the thread that I started which was a challenge to provide evidence to justify belief in Christian theology. All you did there was prettimuch say I was snobbery, not open-minded, and not humble (see post 2 of that thread), when in fact I lost my Catholic faith because I was humble and open-minded enough to explore the possibility that my current beliefs might not be justified. This is the first of your two posts on that thread:

One comment and one piece of advice:

1. It strikes me as very odd how you could possibly have been a “passionate” Catholic but not have considered and resolved these simple issues during that time. I mean, that you think the Bible has contradictions or other “problems” is a pretty basic issue, and it surprise me that you fell for this and other atheistic canards.

1. Atheists tend to over-generalize and make very absurd statements - e.g. “most of these alleged occurrences happen in areas where people are more prone to superstition” Really, now? Well, how about that! It’s such an absurd generalization that cannot possibly be verified and reflects more your snobbery than anything in reality. So my advice is this: maybe a more neutral and humble attitude might help.

Your second of your two posts came as a response to a some videos I mentioned (youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk, youtube.com/watch?v=Pt66kbYmXXk, youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo )

Are you saying that those two videos proved to you that were contradictions in the Bible? I mean, I watched both of them, quickly looked them up, read the larger context, and there were was no conflict at all - in fact, some of the examples are very strained.

EDIT: You’re killing me, here, man! Lawrence Krauss at the atheist convention?!?! Clearly, I am sorry to say, you didn’t think this through.

 

[Touchstone]

**One **Supreme Being is not only the most economical but the most adequate and the most fertile explanation possible. The quanta of physical energy are outclassed on every score.

“Quanta of physical energy?” I have no idea what that means here, or how that applies. I thought we were talking about multitudes of supernatural gods? If you want to explain the “physics of supernaturalism”, and thus your grounds for economy and parsimony in supernatural terms, I’m all ears. If you can make any headway at all beyond just pulling notions out of your hat, you should be world famous. As I understand it now “economy” is terms of the supernatural is a totally ungrounded concept. For all you know, a thousand gods may be more economical than one. Or precisely equivalent. Or less economical. Pick any flavor you like, as we’re just making stuff up as we go and as we like. It’s perfectly plastic and can be just however we want it to be.

What you describe as **our **natural experience is not natural at all - if by “natural” you mean “scientifically explicable” or what you can observe with your senses.Do you think of yourself in terms of hardware and software?

Well, biological structures and material. Not what we would call computing hardware like this Mac I’m using, but natural, biological machinery, sure. Extended in space/time, matter and energy operating according to physical law… natural.

Anything does not go - as you should be aware from precious discussions - because economy, consistency, coherence and fertility are merely the primary criteria of a philosophical explanation.

And that’s got zilch to do with reality, of necessity. Do you suppose because some idea is philosophically attractive, that the structure of reality is obligated to your brain to conform the world such that it’s in accord with your pleasures? That’s really a remarkable position to take. Reality is the judge, you and your mind are the candidate. If it doesn’t work the way that meets your fancy, so what. Reality isn’t beholden to you, is it?

Nature isn’t comprehensible because that’s philosophically convenient for us. We apprehend it as we do as an adaptation to reality. On the supernatural, we are just out to lunch, completely detached from the guides and constraints that inform our natural knowledge and understanding. We imagine a “supernatural reality”, but we have zero (name removed by moderator)ut, constraints, tests or principles that can separate any “true” statement from any “false” statement about it. It’s just so much fluff available for us to stick in to the gaps where we don’t have real-world answers. It’s perfectly plastic, so we can mold it and twist it and form it into any shape we please.

To attempt to account for personal experience in terms of physics is a futile enterprise - unless you believe mechanistic explanation is the sole measure of reality, an assumption that requires justification.

Well, a material explanation has some utility in terms of empirical performance and knowledge. It’s not complete, but it has some value as an effective model. But humble as that is, it’s better than the cipher supernaturalism is in the alternative, not-a-model, non-knowledge, not-even-possibly-wrong-nevermind-right. It’s just linguistic caulk we squirt into the holes in our real knowledge that we find unsatisfying.

-TS

 

[EricFilmer]

No. The concept of the number one exists, dependent on people’s minds. If there were no minds, there would be no one around to think up the concept of “one.”

Have you considered the full ramifications of what the number one represents? It is the foundation of all mathematics. All numbers beyond one are only understood as a specific multiple of one (two is twice of one, three is thrice of one, etc.) and therefore all numbers beyond one presume the existence of one. Likewise, all mathematics presumes the existence of numbers.

Furthermore, numbers exist independent from human thought because if all minds on earth suddenly ceased to exist, our solar system would still contain one sun and one earth, regardless of the fact that there were no longer any human minds here to comprehend this reality.

Let me put all that on the “back burner” as I continue with what you posted…

Let me try to be clear: the idea of “one” is an abstraction from reality. If there were no minds, there would be nothing around to even distinguish one object from another, never mind “count” them.

Earlier (in Post #331) I stated that the number one is not “something whose existence is dependent upon the human mind. If that were so, how could it be a universal constant?” You did not answer the question, so I will put it back on the table for discussion, but this time I will elaborate on it further, along with addressing your statement that I quoted above.

True human abstractions from reality are likewise subject to human variation. A good example is language. Language is, indeed, a human abstraction. But languages are vastly different from one to another, and there can be differences within the same language in terms of dialects. But ancient civilizations across the world, independent from one another, used essentially the exact same math. It is done in the same way, and can only be done in the same way. 1+1=2 is a universal constant, meaning that it is the same regardless of time, culture or location. The only variations we see is when language is applied to mathematics (for example, there are different words for “one”, “plus”, etc.) but the system is the same. So the question remains, how could ancient civilizations come up with the exact same mathematical systems if such systems are only abstractions of the human mind? That would be akin to them coming up with the exact same language.

We can call both language and mathematics as kinds of tools, but whereas language is a tool that is invented, mathematics is a tool that is discovered. So no one thought up the concept of math (including numbers), but rather discovered it.

I have an experiment that could possibly be used to demonstrate my position that the number one is not only something that is an aspect of the human mind. This experiment involves creating a definition of the number one within a certain set of reasonable parameters.

1. As we all learned in school, it is not proper to define something by using it in the definition. Therefore, the challenge is to define the number one without using “one” or simply substituting “one” with a synonym (i.e., “single”).
2. Because we are examining the idea of the existence of one, the task at hand is to define the number one without presupposing its existence. This rules out the use of other numbers or mathematical equations in the definition, because (as I demonstrated above) the use of such things presume that the number one exists to begin with.
   My position in this challenge is that if the number one is only a product of the human mind, then the human mind likewise ought to be able to give a definition of the number one based on the guidelines I set above.

For the record, I am not saying that there is not an acceptable definition out there, and I have no guarantees or predictions as to outcome of this experiment if the challenge is undertaken by you are someone else. But if, after having read my above post, it is still your position that the number one does not exist independent of the mind then I ask you demonstrate it by taking on this task.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued from my last post)

No, it’s always possible that an entity could exist. I’m saying that we don’t have a good reason to believe that they do exist unless we have evidence.

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position, but I’m afraid I’m still a bit confused. In Post #254 you stated:

I think that things that exist are things that manifest and affect the physical world in detectable ways. That is, in fact, what “exist” means.

If something “exists,” but it does not affect the physical world in any way at all that can be detected by anyone, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist at all.

So you clearly gave us your definition of existence: that to exist means affecting the physical world in detectable ways. Maybe I’m missing something, but your use of such terms as “for all intents and purposes” and “does not exist at all” seems to strongly indicate that you really don’t accept even the possibility that an entity could exist which does not fit your criteria.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say that we should not believe in something “unless we have evidence”, what you are really saying is (based on everything you’ve stated so far in this thread and others), “unless it affects the physical world and such effects are detectable specifically by a 21st Century human being using the scientific method.” I presume that you believe that the human intellect resulted from an accident of nature, but you seem to think that it is the sole key to ascertaining the reality of all that exists within nature. Sure, science does wonders, but if scientific examination is the product of a biological accident, why ascribe to it powers that science does not ascribe to itself?

 

[StrawberryJam]

(Continued from my last post)

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position, but I’m afraid I’m still a bit confused. In Post #254 you stated:

So you clearly gave us your definition of existence: that to exist means affecting the physical world in detectable ways. Maybe I’m missing something, but your use of such terms as “for all intents and purposes” and “does not exist at all” seems to strongly indicate that you really don’t accept even the possibility that an entity could exist which does not fit your criteria.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say that we should not believe in something “unless we have evidence”, what you are really saying is (based on everything you’ve stated so far in this thread and others), “unless it affects the physical world and such effects are detectable specifically by a 21st Century human being using the scientific method.” I presume that you believe that the human intellect resulted from an accident of nature, but you seem to think that it is the sole key to ascertaining the reality of all that exists within nature. Sure, science does wonders, but if scientific examination is the product of a biological accident, why ascribe to it powers that science does not ascribe to itself?

Does science ascribe powers?
No.
Scientific examination is the best way to evaluate data.
This does not give science powers.
What are powers?

 

[EricFilmer]

Does science ascribe powers?
No.

That was my point. The scientific method does not rule out the possibility of other methods in determining truth. Therefore, if someone claims that it is the only method, it is a claim that science does not actually demonstrate. Such a person is giving a kind of power (i.e., capability) to the scientific method that it does not truly have. After all, the scientific method cannot be used to prove that it is the only valid method for determining truth.

Scientific examination is the best way to evaluate data.
This does not give science powers.

“Best way” does not equal “only way.” Neither in this thread nor any other have I ever rejected the importance of the accuracy of scientific examination. I do, however, point out that it has its limitations.

What are powers?

I was using this term in a general way, meaning beliefs concerning the capabilities of science.

 

[AntiTheist]

Furthermore, numbers exist independent from human thought because if all minds on earth suddenly ceased to exist, our solar system would still contain one sun and one earth, regardless of the fact that there were no longer any human minds here to comprehend this reality.

Well, if there were no minds, there would be nothing to differentiate where one object “begins” and another object “ends,” so no, there wouldn’t be “one” anything.

1+1=2 is a universal constant, meaning that it is the same regardless of time, culture or location.

The human mind perceives objects by arbitrarily (and unconsciously) drawing borders around “things.” I perceive the thing I’m sitting on as “one chair,” though I could just as easily perceive it as a collection of a large number of individual wooden parts that are interconnected.

From the experience of perceiving an object, humans abstracted the concept of “one.” From perceiving one object and one object placed next to each other, humans abstracted the concept of two, and drew the conclusion that one and one make two. From there, you can build a whole system of numbers that is useful for determining things in the real world (something we can investigate and determine that it has actual, practical use).

At any rate, I’m not terribly keen to get sidetracked into a discussion of math because it’s largely irrelevant. Even if math is something intangible that exists “out there,” humans are only aware of it because we can detect it, because we can label an object “one” and another object “one” and confirm that one and one are two. We can confirm that our calculations map to things in the real world.

EDIT: You say this yourself when you claim that people “discovered” math. Discovery necessitates gathering evidence and observations.

But if, after having read my above post, it is still your position that the number one does not exist independent of the mind then I ask you demonstrate it by taking on this task [of defining “one”]

You’re playing childish games now that are mixed up about the way language works. You might as well play “the dictionary game” where you ask me to define a word and then ask me to define each of the words I used to define the first word and so on and so forth until I eventually use the first word again.

“One” is the word we use to label things we perceive as an individual unit. I can talk about my computer as “one thing,” and I can also talk about it as a collection of chips and wires and other individual “things.” And I can talk about those things as collections of subatomic particles.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say that we should not believe in something “unless we have evidence”, what you are really saying is (based on everything you’ve stated so far in this thread and others), “unless it affects the physical world and such effects are detectable specifically by a 21st Century human being using the scientific method.”

Ok. “Evidence” does not have to strictly be scientific. I have plenty of evidence that my car will start when I turn the key, regardless of whether or not I have conducted any experiments.

My claim is that a 21st century human being has no good reason to accept a claim until it is detectable by a 21st century human being.

If we lived in the 18th century, then an 18th century human being would have had no good reason to accept a claim until it was detectable by an 18th century human being. And so on and so forth.

I’ll give you an example: the Big Bang theory. We know now, thanks largely to our measuring of the cosmic background radiation, that the claim that the universe was once a singularity and began to expand (and is still expanding) is true. If we lived in the 18th century and some guy made the claim that the Big Bang occurred, and he had no good evidence for it – let’s say that it’s just a story that he made up and happened to like – then our 18th century selves would have no good reason to believe that it’s true.

In that particular scenario, the guy making the claim is ultimately correct – it’s just that we have no good reason to believe him, and he has no good reason to make the claim. In this example, the fact that he’s right is accidental – he’s right only because he got lucky and the story that he randomly made up just happens to coincide with the facts. But he doesn’t have a good reason to make his claim.

Until we discover some way to detect the thing he’s talking about, we have no good reason to believe him, and he has no good reason to make the claim.

I’m drawing a distinction between the truth of the matter and what we believe about the truth of the matter.

To use another example, it could be that the crazy homeless guy raving about aliens is 100% right, but I have no reason to believe him, and he has no good basis for making his claim.

So, is it possible that your god exists? Sure, in the same way that it’s possible for any claim to be true. But we don’t have any good reason to think that it is true until we have evidence for it.

So, to refine my definitions even further. “Exist” means “be a part of reality,” but the practical definition of exist is “affecting the world in a detectable way” because this is the one and only way we could ever know that something exists.

I’m really not sure how much clearer I can be.

 

[The_Exodus]

The human mind perceives objects by arbitrarily (and unconsciously) drawing borders around “things.”…From the experience of perceiving an object, humans abstracted the concept of “one.”

You presuppose humas conceive unity, even in order to refute the notion. Hence you say we draw borders around “things” and perceive “objects.” This statement is meaningless, however, unless we in fact do conceive unity as a category of being. If we don’t, then your use of “things” and “object” is incoherent, since you are not speaking of any definable thing or subject.

“One” is the word we use to label things we perceive as an individual unit.

What do you mean by “things” here? If you say we impose categories to define phenomena, you are not justified in using this word to actually describe that phenomena, but only your perception of that phenomena.

I can talk about my computer as “one thing,” and I can also talk about it as a collection of chips and wires and other individual “things.” And I can talk about those things as collections of subatomic particles.

And this differentiation becomes meaningless if you say unity is a categorical concept imposed by the mind. Again, you must rely on the principle of unity, even in your examples that attempt to refute it.

 

[tonyrey]

One Supreme Being is not only the most economical but the most adequate and the most fertile explanation possible. The quanta of physical energy are outclassed on every score.

You are wriggling to evade the unpalatable truth that **One **Being is the most economical explanation of reality. Cast aside your preconceptions for a moment and consider that proposition objectively.

What you describe as our natural experience is not natural at all - if by “natural” you mean “scientifically explicable” or what you can observe with your senses.Do you think of yourself in terms of hardware and software?

Well, biological structures and material. Not what we would call computing hardware like this Mac I’m using, but natural, biological machinery, sure. Extended in space/time, matter and energy operating according to physical law… natural.

That we are no more than “biological structures and material” is no more than a assumption… Where (if at all) does your self fit into your scheme of things?

Anything does not go - as you should be aware from precious discussions - because economy, consistency, coherence and fertility are merely the primary criteria of a philosophical explanation.
And that’s got zilch to do with reality, of necessity.

You use those criteria when it suits your interpretation of reality. Do you think necessity is a material object?

Do you suppose because some idea is philosophically attractive, that the structure of reality is obligated to your brain to conform the world such that it’s in accord with your pleasures?

It is equally facile to apply that question to your view of reality. The notion that only matter exists has great advantages. For one thing it makes you absolute master of yourself… owing allegiance to no one and in total command of your priorities.

That’s really a remarkable position to take. Reality is the judge, you and your mind are the candidate. If it doesn’t work the way that meets your fancy, so what. Reality isn’t beholden to you, is it?

It’s astonishing how “mind” appears out of the blue in your statements! Strictly speaking it is not legitimate to speak of the mind in your interpretation of reality. Reality is not beholden to anyone but the truth of materialism is certainly not established by a fiat on your part - even though it fits in very sweetly with your programming habits.

Nature isn’t comprehensible because that’s philosophically convenient for us. We apprehend it as we do as an adaptation to reality.

If that is the case you are not entitled to regard everything as physical objects.

On the supernatural, we are just out to lunch, completely detached from the guides and constraints that inform our natural knowledge and understanding.

You are presuming knowledge and understanding are “natural”. How would you establish that “fact”?

We imagine a “supernatural reality”, but we have zero (name removed by moderator)ut, constraints, tests or principles that can separate any “true” statement from any “false” statement about it. It’s just so much fluff available for us to stick in to the gaps where we don’t have real-world answers.

How does your reasoning fit into “real-world answers”? Is it determined by what you had for breakfast and the other physical events in your life?

To attempt to account for personal experience in terms of physics is a futile enterprise - unless you believe mechanistic explanation is the sole measure of reality, an assumption that requires justification.

Well, a material explanation has some utility in terms of empirical performance and knowledge. It’s not complete, but it has some value as an effective model.

“some” is the key word but inconsistent with your absolutist view of reality.

But humble as that is, it’s better than the cipher supernaturalism is in the alternative, not-a-model, non-knowledge, not-even-possibly-wrong-nevermind-right. It’s just linguistic caulk we squirt into the holes in our real knowledge that we find unsatisfying.

If supernaturalism were as arbitrary, infallible and vacuous as you make out you should have no difficulty in disposing of it in a few lines. You seem to have convinced yourself - to your own satisfaction - that you have established naturalism as the only possible explanation of reality. The only problem is that reality does not conform to your professional habits and expectations. “nature” is a nebulous term which is used to cover anything that occurs, whether or not it is scientifically explicable. If something cannot be fitted into the existing scheme of things you make an act of faith that its cause will ultimately be discovered, forgetting that you too - in your opinion - are a product of nature. So we have the curious spectacle of a minuscule product finding the cause of all products - including itself of course.

Then eureka! The moment of enlightenment occurs. All products are products! They have produced themselves - and even understand themselves. No need to seek further! It is an illusion that we’re agents. We’re all cogs in the machine we call the universe, but, magically, “enlightened cogs”. I am still trying to fathom how you break out of your programme…

 

[StrawberryJam]

Science never will stop searching, or claiming that the search for truth is over.

The Eureka moment is not evidence of science stopping it’s search for truth that may be an inconvenient truth.

Like it or not, the results must be published.

No bias allowed.

Believers may or may not be able to do this.

Science, has to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_moment

This horrible wiki link gives us an idea of the Eureka phrase tossed around.

Science is looking for truth, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be.