Why atheists compare God to santa

[sthitapragya]

Notwithstanding their primitive nature, Neanderthals could think because they had a conceptual frame or model in which to think. Interestingly (or pathetically), atheists here do not think that's important.

No. That is a cop out. Now you return to general insults. Of course Neanderthals could think. But they had no access to science and lightening was the wrath of God to them. Though strictly speaking I have no idea if Neanderthals believed in God or it was only early man who did. Whatever the case maybe, those guys were high on superstition. For them every unexplainable act was probably an act of God. And those guys taught you the concept of God. And I used that argument only to point out that it is not a first assumed rational thought. It is not as if your brilliant mind came up with it. It was passed down from generation to generation by early man who literally used to think everything unexplainable was God. And that is who you are following.

You asked for a hypothesis, I gave one. Also I am not arguing with you about your concept. You can have one. As long as you call it a hypothesis.Just because you happen to agree with it does not become a conclusion. For conclusions, you need evidence. You can say you don't need evidence because you can sense God. But you cannot reasonably expect me to assume your hypothesis to be real simply because what you sense to be God could very likely also be just a hallucination or a misinterpreted feeling. I am not saying it is. I am saying it could be. So what you sense is also a hypothesis because you cannot provide any evidence for what you sense.

By that argument, any murderer who claims that Jesus Told him to kill the victim should be acquitted. After all, God told him to do it. He sensed it. You could not. But you have to believe him. He has better sense of God than you have. It is possible.

[sthitapragya]

Here is another possibility, which I have given before but you have pointedly ignored. 13.8 billion years ago, this universe of time and space came into being. This happened due to a change of state of EXISTENCE. Now you will ask, what was before this universe came into being. This is where your limitation of understand of science will hinder you and make you see God. The answer is, there was no before as there was no time.

True, but there was something. What must it have been in order for what is to be as it is?

Now here is the interesting bit. I could ask, " What must have been in order for God to be as it is"" And you would go ballistics. You would say, "you just don't understand. God just IS". Well, my argument is that you don't understand. Existence just IS. It does not require any think to exist. It is the property of existence to exist. Otherwise it would be non-existence and then it would be called non-existence by nobody who never existed. Your "God just IS" is also a hypothesis. My EXISTENCE in another state is also a hypothesis. But since there was no time, the question beginning with or having "what it must have been" becomes irrelevant. If EXISTENCE is self causal, God becomes unnecessary and irrelevant. And I find that more likely as a hypothesis than the existence of God.

Now I will repeat. It is a hypothesis. I know it is not proven. I also accept that your refusal to accept my hypothesis is perfectly fine and I am okay with it and I understand that since it is a hypothesis, there is no reason for you to accept it as a conclusion. Your disbelief in my hypothesis is right now complete and emotionless and does not take anything away from your intelligence.

Can you say the same about my disbelief in your God hypothesis for the same reasons?

So we will have to wait to find out what it was and will figure that out if and when we develop the technology or science for it.

That;s called "promissory materialism" or "scientism." I'll be back to discuss that particular religion later, if you like.

It is just a simply I don't know. Very much the same as all the "I don't knows" you throw at us when we ask you questions about your God. If you want me to believe in your God, you have to give me something to believe in. You have no clue what he does, what he looks like, what he is, why he is, why he made you, why he exists. And you don't even promise to explain any time. You dismiss the idea of knowing him. You want to know him while you know that you cannot know him. I mean, how stupidly stupid is that? It cannot measure up to promissory materialism.

[Arising_uk]

What the world to us, according to Kant, is not the world as it is within itself; the world as it is within itself, the noumenal world, is inaccessible to our senses. ...

According to Kant the world to us is the phenomenal world. There is no 'noumenal world' there's just the Noumenon and that is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, we can have no idea which.

So, where do you start?

How about just sticking to phenomena?

Kant starts from the idea that our perceptions are mediated through innate cognitions, like space and time. That much is a working hypothesis (though studies have called this assumption into question), but how do we know it is reliable?

Which studies?

Perhaps the mystics are right.

About what?

But to say that there is only the noumenal is to deny the very mind making the claim.(Hence, the quack, quack.)

No-one says there is only the noumenal, there is the phenomenal too.

And how do we know that the noumenal is inaccessible as Kant claims? We don't.

Well its true that if you don't accept his reasoning then you would think this, so I look forward to your analysis of why Kant was wrong about what reason can say about metaphysics. Although It could well be that he is wrong and that it is phenomena all the way down.

This thread touched, if only a little, on the possibility of other ways of knowing, ways of knowing that Kant denies. ...

Such as?

He had no (scientific) way of knowing that other ways of knowing may indeed be possible through the Great Chain of Being.

It wasn't about Science but Reason and I'd be interested in knowing what this 'Great Chain of Being' is, scientific or not.

So, I'll ask again: what do you think must be in order for what is to be as it is?

I think there must be a Noumenon beyond that it's all pointless metaphysics or politics driven by various psychological needs.

[uwot]

I proffer a working hypothesis, a conceptual frame in which to think that does not include a brain in a vat, not certainty.

It is ironic that you call it a working hypothesis as you haven't said anything about how it works. As far as I can tell, it is simply that the universe was created by a god. That may be so, but as an atheist, I do not believe it, but I'll make the point again: it doesn't follow that I believe there is no god.

What do you put forward for consideration? It doesn't matter if it's provable or even true; it need only provide a conceptual frame in which to think.

There is something-Parmenides.
There is experience-Descartes.
As both those characters unwittingly demonstrated, nothing follows logically from those facts. Any hypothesis about our phenomenal experience is theory laden; we do not know anything else with the 100% certainty that we know those two things.

Atheists here are very adept at asking questions, but when it comes to answering them, to positing a conceptual frame in which to think, they come across sounding like rocks that quack.

Again, I don't claim to speak for any other atheist, but for myself, I am quite content to learn about other people's interpretation of the phenomena and have worked very hard to understand very complicated ideas, but I also understand that they are hypotheses.
I also think some of the atheists answers have been open an honest. The difficulty that atheists have in explaining how the universe works is that they cannot be content with 'God did it'. Many brilliant scientists have been, and are, theists; believing that you are trying to discover god's handiwork and method is not necessarily a hinderance to scientific discovery, and in some cases is the motivation.

I'll ask again: what do YOU think must be in order for what is to be as it is?

Well, it's the first time you have asked me, but as you have: That there are phenomena.

[uwot]

I do wonder, though, about the intrigue of chewing on the same old ideas over and over.

It's partly giving credit where it is due. A great deal of an undergraduate philosophy course is basically the history of ideas, many of which we take for granted, but were profound, and sometomes dangerous beliefs at the time.
Heretics are simply the people who stand up and point out that the emperor doesn't have any clothes on.
Another purpose is practise; much as artists spend hours life drawing, or musicians practise scales, philosophers run through the reasoning of earlier thinkers to improve their skill.
Ultimately, the purpose of philosophy is to make sense of our experiences, to tell a coherent story. You can start with any old premise, Descartes for instance said that there is no idea so strange that some philosopher hasn't said it; ironically paraphrasing Cicero (I think) who said much the same over a thousand years before. The only condition philosophy demands is logical consistency. If you have heard of a philosopher, you can be quite sure that their reasoning was (mostly) valid.

[Lacewing]

Another purpose is practise; much as artists spend hours life drawing, or musicians practise scales, philosophers run through the reasoning of earlier thinkers to improve their skill.

That's a good way to describe it.

For all those who didn't have access to such things, they somehow blazed their own paths... and refined their reasoning along the way if they were honest about it, and sincere in their desire to see broadly. Although I respect the value of structure, I think people can become arrogant and lazy with it -- even identifying themselves with it, rather than refining their own being and going FURTHER. People who continually quote other sources seem to demonstrate this. It's as if their own words and thoughts are not clear and strong enough on their own.

I like the form of philosophy where people relate what their experience has shown them about their OWN relationship with life/reality (since that's really as far as it goes... just with them), rather than falsely proclaiming their ideas as some sort of ultimate truth that defines all others and invalidates any kind of potential beyond their own awareness/agenda.

[Reflex]

Now here is the interesting bit. I could ask, " What must have been in order for God to be as it is"" And you would go ballistics. You would say, "you just don't understand. God just IS". Well, my argument is that you don't understand. Existence just IS. It does not require any think to exist. It is the property of existence to exist. Otherwise it would be non-existence and then it would be called non-existence by nobody who never existed. Your "God just IS" is also a hypothesis. My EXISTENCE in another state is also a hypothesis. But since there was no time, the question beginning with or having "what it must have been" becomes irrelevant. If EXISTENCE is self causal, God becomes unnecessary and irrelevant. And I find that more likely as a hypothesis than the existence of God.

What's funny about this is that many theists say: "God does not exist; God IS existence." This being the argument I use, it should be clear to you that, for me, the question isn't whether God exists, but the interrelationship between myself, God and the universe. It should also be clear that we do agree that existence exists; the difference pertains to the nature of that existence.

Having said that, I won't bother dealing with Kant's phenomenon/noumenon duality because it's a false dichotomy. We have to ask if the interior life is to be included in our understanding of the phenomenal and where the boundaries between the inner and outer lie. One would also have to account for mystical experiences where it is claimed all boundaries dissolve into an all-embracing "is-ness" or just brush it aside as the product of deluded minds -- and how arrogant and dogmatic would that be? Besides, what did Kant know about quantum weirdness?

Your disbelief in my hypothesis is right now complete and emotionless and does not take anything away from your intelligence.

But I do not disagree with your hypothesis. I see it dovetailing with mine. I just go further, where science, by definition, cannot go.

It is just a simply I don't know. Very much the same as all the "I don't knows" you throw at us when we ask you questions about your God. If you want me to believe in your God, you have to give me something to believe in. You have no clue what he does, what he looks like, what he is, why he is, why he made you, why he exists. And you don't even promise to explain any time. You dismiss the idea of knowing him. You want to know him while you know that you cannot know him. I mean, how stupidly stupid is that? It cannot measure up to promissory materialism.

All very true, but going where science cannot go is an adventure into the unknown, and what's more thrilling than that? Promissory materialism, scientism, places one in the cage of the already known. But "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” (A.E.) Faith, not certainty, lights my way and gives me direction.

[Arising_uk]

Having said that, I won't bother dealing with Kant's phenomenon/noumenon duality because it's a false dichotomy. We have to ask if the interior life is to be included in our understanding of the phenomenal and where the boundaries between the inner and outer lie. ...

This 'interior life' is a phenomena is it not?

Boundaries between the inner and outer what, consciousness or the phenomena and noumena? If the latter then you're still not understanding his point, there is no understanding of a boundary between the noumena and phenomena, all we have is the phenomena.

One would also have to account for mystical experiences where it is claimed all boundaries dissolve into an all-embracing "is-ness" or just brush it aside as the product of deluded minds -- and how arrogant and dogmatic would that be? ...

Ever taken LSD? A bunch of priests took part in a double-blind test and their experiences were passed to the Church body that dealt with mystical experiences, without telling them that drugs were involved, everyone who got a dose got a bona-fide pass certificate.

Besides, what did Kant know about quantum weirdness? ...

Ironically, quantum weirdness would be just the sort of thing that he would say could arise from there being a noumenon.

[Reflex]

This 'interior life' is a phenomena is it not?

Boundaries between the inner and outer what, consciousness or the phenomena and noumena? If the latter then you're still not understanding his point, there is no understanding of a boundary between the noumena and phenomena, all we have is the phenomena.

If there's the noumena but all we have is the phenomena, that two (2) mutually exclusive states of being, dualism, unless there's some interpenetration, in which case God becomes a strong possibility.

Ever taken LSD? A bunch of priests took part in a double-blind test and their experiences were passed to the Church body that dealt with mystical experiences, without telling them that drugs were involved, everyone who got a dose got a bona-fide pass certificate.

I would certainly hope so! Your story reminds me of when the news made a fuss about finding a "God-spot" in the brain. A smart-ass reporter asked a priest what he thought, hoping to shed some doubt. The priest said what I just did.

Ironically, quantum weirdness would be just the sort of thing that he would say could arise from there being a noumenon.

What's more ironic? That, or that it's just what one would expect if God is existence itself?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Having said that, I won't bother dealing with Kant's phenomenon/noumenon duality because it's a false dichotomy. We have to ask if the interior life is to be included in our understanding of the phenomenal and where the boundaries between the inner and outer lie. ...

This 'interior life' is a phenomena is it not?
.

No it's a phenomenon is anything. Phenomena is plural.
Like the noumenon, or noumena plural.

[Arising_uk]

No it's a phenomenon is anything. Phenomena is plural.
Like the noumenon, or noumena plural.

I stand corrected.

[Arising_uk]

If there's the noumena but all we have is the phenomena, that two (2) mutually exclusive states of being, dualism, unless there's some interpenetration, in which case God becomes a strong possibility. ...

If all we have are phenomena then where is your 'God'?

I would certainly hope so! ...

Do you? So you agree that an experience of 'God' can be had just by fucking with the synapses.

Your story reminds me of when the news made a fuss about finding a "God-spot" in the brain. A smart-ass reporter asked a priest what he thought, hoping to shed some doubt. The priest said what I just did.

What, that if you take drugs you can find 'God'?

What's more ironic? That, or that it's just what one would expect if God is existence itself?

If 'God' is existence itself then 'it' could just as well be a dumb calculating space, a la Conway's GoL, and one moreover that could be calculating something that has bugger all to do with us.

[Reflex]

If all we have are phenomena then where is your 'God'?

Did you see the word "interpenetration"?

Do you? So you agree that an experience of 'God' can be had just by fucking with the synapses.

Of course. I also agree that we could be a brain in a vat.

What, that if you take drugs you can find 'God'?

Just for the record, how many times do I have to say reality is indefinite? Anything is possible.

If 'God' is existence itself then 'it' could just as well be a dumb calculating space, a la Conway's GoL, and one moreover that could be calculating something that has bugger all to do with us.

Yes....and?

At this point, it seems you are desperately clinging to straws in order to preserve your current belief system -- kinda like what you do when you ask silly questions that I subsequently ignore.

[sthitapragya]

What's funny about this is that many theists say: "God does not exist; God IS existence." This being the argument I use, it should be clear to you that, for me, the question isn't whether God exists, but the interrelationship between myself, God and the universe. It should also be clear that we do agree that existence exists; the difference pertains to the nature of that existence.

And the difference is major. To me existence is a phenomena. I see no reason to believe it is conscious or has any kind of intelligence at all.

Having said that, I won't bother dealing with Kant's phenomenon/noumenon duality because it's a false dichotomy. We have to ask if the interior life is to be included in our understanding of the phenomenal and where the boundaries between the inner and outer lie. One would also have to account for mystical experiences where it is claimed all boundaries dissolve into an all-embracing "is-ness" or just brush it aside as the product of deluded minds -- and how arrogant and dogmatic would that be? Besides, what did Kant know about quantum weirdness?

I don't know what interior and exterior life are so I won't comment on it. But as far as mystical phenomena go I will say that there is no reason to believe that Existence is responsible for or capable of inducing any mystical phenomena. So any such phenomena if they actually do occur are more likely to have some other source. It seems very unlikely that Existence is responsible for them.

But I do not disagree with your hypothesis. I see it dovetailing with mine. I just go further, where science, by definition, cannot go.

Not really. You ascribe consciousness and intelligence to your hypothesis. And that really makes all the difference.I also don't see any reason to believe that the existing universe which is latest state of Existence, has any intelligence or consciousness of it own. It just seem to follow the rule of science that seem to govern it.

It is just a simply I don't know. Very much the same as all the "I don't knows" you throw at us when we ask you questions about your God. If you want me to believe in your God, you have to give me something to believe in. You have no clue what he does, what he looks like, what he is, why he is, why he made you, why he exists. And you don't even promise to explain any time. You dismiss the idea of knowing him. You want to know him while you know that you cannot know him. I mean, how stupidly stupid is that? It cannot measure up to promissory materialism.

But I don't want you to believe in Existence! It is just a hypothesis! Why in the world would I want you to believe in it!? I wouldn't even have told you about it if you had not dared me to give you another hypothesis. This hypothesis is for interested parties who are curious about possibilities. Also I don't have any data to give you. I don't know what it was, why it was, what it looked like. I know for sure it did not make me, my mom and dad played the most likely role in that. I have nothing to give you.

So why would I want you to believe it? I myself am favouring it simply because there is no other hypothesis which seems more likely which could very well be because of my ignorance. As soon as there is one, or if there already is one, as soon as I read about it, I will dump this one and move on. After all, it is just a hypothesis.

All very true, but going where science cannot go is an adventure into the unknown, and what's more thrilling than that? But "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” (A.E.) Faith, not certainty, lights my way and gives me direction.

Well, ok. Someone told me about it and I like to think about it. That is as far as my imagination can go. I cannot even make any concrete statements about it.

I don't see the relevance of the "faith" comment because I don't see any connection between a hypothesis and faith.

[Reflex]

And the difference is major. To me existence is a phenomena. I see no reason to believe it is conscious or has any kind of intelligence at all.

And you won't; not until you want to.

I don't know what interior and exterior life are so I won't comment on it. But as far as mystical phenomena go I will say that there is no reason to believe that Existence is responsible for or capable of inducing any mystical phenomena. So any such phenomena if they actually do occur are more likely to have some other source. It seems very unlikely that Existence is responsible for them.

The experience of "green" is part of the inner life; it does not exist in the objective world.

Not really. You ascribe consciousness and intelligence to your hypothesis. And that really makes all the difference.I also don't see any reason to believe that the existing universe which is latest state of Existence, has any intelligence or consciousness of it own. It just seem to follow the rule of science that seem to govern it.

There is no line of demarcation between the micro and the macro: it's a continuum. Intelligence in the latter implies intelligence in the former, though hardly in the same sense a human being is intelligent. "The rule of science" is merely the habit of God and the set of classical laws is the average.

But I don't want you to believe in Existence! It is just a hypothesis! Why in the world would I want you to believe in it!? I wouldn't even have told you about it if you had not dared me to give you another hypothesis. This hypothesis is for interested parties who are curious about possibilities. Also I don't have any data to give you. I don't know what it was, why it was, what it looked like. I know for sure it did not make me, my mom and dad played the most likely role in that. I have nothing to give you.

And I'm not interested in possibilities? What I'm not interested in is being limited to the already known. I've read many books regarding your hypothesis, and although I do not dispute the facts, I find their conclusions wanting -- too dull and dry.

So why would I want you to believe it? I myself am favouring it simply because there is no other hypothesis which seems more likely which could very well be because of my ignorance. As soon as there is one, or if there already is one, as soon as I read about it, I will dump this one and move on. After all, it is just a hypothesis.

Society is permeated by your hypothesis. You don't have to want me to believe it; that job has already been done for you.

I don't see the relevance of the "faith" comment because I don't see any connection between a hypothesis and faith.

You see no connection between a hypothesis and the substance of things hoped for? Science resisted the Big Bang because they had faith in the steady-state. The BB even got its name from a derisive remark made by a critic. It was resisted because scientists at the time believed (hoped) that the the steady-state did away with the need for God. And I'm pretty sure that the Big Bang being first proposed by a Catholic priest didn't help.

P.S.:
Imagination takes practice.