the epistemology of god

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

It is perfectly possible to prove there is no god. Proof is never perfect certainty but sufficient for a given use case. All use cases require at least evidence which can be validated by replication and not explained already in a simpler way. All versions of god are either a force or a person. No force outside the ones currently known to physics can be validated by replication. There is no logical argument that can support the possibility of any version of god as a person. Since there is no evidence to validate, god is indistinguishable from fiction. All ideas that are indistinguishable from fiction must be epistemically understood AS fiction, and god is thereby disproven except as an idea in a mind.

That which is indistinguishable from fiction for all intents and purposes is disproven for all intents and purposes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am It is perfectly possible to prove there is no god. Proof is never perfect certainty but sufficient for a given use case. All use cases require at least evidence which can be validated by replication and not explained already in a simpler way. All versions of god are either a force or a person.
No force outside the ones currently known to physics can be validated by replication.
There is no logical argument that can support the possibility of any version of god as a person. Since there is no evidence to validate, god is indistinguishable from fiction. All ideas that are indistinguishable from fiction must be epistemically understood AS fiction, and god is thereby disproven except as an idea in a mind.

That which is indistinguishable from fiction for all intents and purposes is disproven for all intents and purposes.
The point is, science, so physics, is open ended; the basis of science is based upon the verification and justification of evidence.

As such theists claim God exists, it is only that physics has not reach its capability to determine and verify the potential evidence of god in existence.

At one time theists were hoping the Higgs Boson is the god particle but now they insist god is beyond that awaiting physics to confirm its existence.

The most effective approach is to argue that God is like a square-circle which is a non-starter for any hope of proof by physic or any other means.

I agree God is merely an idea in a mind nevertheless a useful idea which has salvific values and soothing the existential crisis which is very necessary for the majority at present.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by popeye1945 »

Supernatural magical thinking.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am It is perfectly possible to prove there is no god.
No it isn't. It is logically impossible to prove there is no anything. Or so it is said. :|
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Impenitent »

current lack of empirical evidence does not prove anything except that currently, no empirical evidence is observed...

-Imp
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

The last two responses ignored the part about proof being sufficient for a given use-case. Proof sufficient for All actual purposes is available, not all potential purposes. Not all hypothetical imaginary purposes, just anything to do with reality. Proof is never ultimate certainty.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am It is perfectly possible to prove there is no god. Proof is never perfect certainty but sufficient for a given use case. All use cases require at least evidence which can be validated by replication and not explained already in a simpler way. All versions of god are either a force or a person. No force outside the ones currently known to physics can be validated by replication. There is no logical argument that can support the possibility of any version of god as a person. Since there is no evidence to validate, god is indistinguishable from fiction. All ideas that are indistinguishable from fiction must be epistemically understood AS fiction, and god is thereby disproven except as an idea in a mind.

That which is indistinguishable from fiction for all intents and purposes is disproven for all intents and purposes.
Using this logic science has repeatedly discovered things that had been disproven. I don't think that's a useful definition of disproven. We hadn't disproven wave particle dualism. It certainly sounded like a problematic idea before it was confirmed, but it would be wrongheaded to say it was disproven.

Science is empirical at root. It doesn't rule things out in advance - at least ideally - because X doesn't fit with current models. It would create even stronger paradigmatic biases in science and elsewhere if people believed that anything that does not fit with current models is disproven.

Second
All versions of god are either a force or a person.
That's not just untrue, it's strange.

Could you explain what use cases are?

Further, no one lives like one would if one actually believed this. We all follow heuristics based on intuition: in friendships, making priorities in life, in parenting, in how to be successful, in microassessements like 'did what I wrote make sense' or 'were the words that I used semantically appropriate' or 'my memory is in the main correct on that point'.

We also have untestable axioms that we build from around time, memory, identity, natural laws (rather than local patterns that dissipate), perception and more.

If anyone tried to actually live by the logic in your OP, they'd be like fish trying to ride a bicycle without assuming anything about time, sequence, identity and their own abilities to assess and remember things.

Good luck little fish.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am It is perfectly possible to prove there is no god.
What is 'god', small 'g'?
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am Proof is never perfect certainty but sufficient for a given use case.
What is 'perfect certainty'?
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am All use cases require at least evidence which can be validated by replication and not explained already in a simpler way.
I found ACTUAL 'proof' is far more SUFFICIENT in providing 'certainty' than 'evidence' ever has.

For example, there is so-called 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, but there CERTAINLY is NO ACTUAL 'proof' of, nor for, this. The same applies for a 'flat earth' and a 'beginning and expanding Universe'. There may exist so-called 'evidence' for these things, for some people, but there is, ALSO, OBVIOUSLY NO ACTUAL 'proof' for these things.
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am All versions of god are either a force or a person.
Well LOL here is the FIRST MISTAKE.

ALL versions of 'god' may well be either of these two things, but NOT ALL versions of 'God' are either a force NOR a person.
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am No force outside the ones currently known to physics can be validated by replication.
So what?

For EVERY year, or day, throughout human history there are 'things' OUTSIDE of the one 'currently known' to human beings. And, OBVIOUSLY, ALL of the 'things' OUTSIDE of what is 'currently known' can NOT be 'validated', by replication. This just speaks for itself, OBVIOUSLY.
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am There is no logical argument that can support the possibility of any version of god as a person.
Is this FOREVER MORE, or just that 'you' have NOT YET been MADE AWARE of in YOUR VERY SMALL and VERY LIMITED perspective, of 'things'?
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am Since there is no evidence to validate, god is indistinguishable from fiction.
If this is what you SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'this' IS what is true and right, correct?
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am All ideas that are indistinguishable from fiction must be epistemically understood AS fiction, and god is thereby disproven except as an idea in a mind.
These people could NOT EXPLAIN what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, which they would TALK ABOUT quite often, but they would EXPRESS that word as though they REALLY DID KNOW what they were TALKING ABOUT and SAYING.

OR, are 'you' ABLE TO TELL us and EXPLAIN what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, "advocate"?
Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:54 am That which is indistinguishable from fiction for all intents and purposes is disproven for all intents and purposes.
And, can what is NOT YET PROVEN, for all intents and purposes, be INDISTINGUISHABLE from FICTION, for all intents and purposes, as well? Or, does this only work ONE WAY?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 4:00 am The last two responses ignored the part about proof being sufficient for a given use-case. Proof sufficient for All actual purposes is available, not all potential purposes. Not all hypothetical imaginary purposes, just anything to do with reality. Proof is never ultimate certainty.
If 'proof', itself, is NEVER 'ultimate certainty', then what IS, EXACTLY? And, HOW IS so-called 'ultimate certainty' ACTUALLY OBTAINED or REACHED?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=625218 time=1676778235 user_id=3619]
Science is empirical at root. It doesn't rule things out in advance...

Second,

[quote]All versions of god are either a force or a person. [/quote]

That's not just untrue, it's strange..
[/quote]

a) Science isn't the issue here. There's nothing empirical about god, but basic reasoning is sufficient to say that if people have Always been trying to prove god, or even provide reasonabley incontestable evidence for god and haven't been able to, you shouldn't believe any exists, all of which is indistinguishable from there not actually being any.

b) All versions of god are either a force or a person. It's not only true, it's not strange at all.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

>What is 'god', small 'g'?

The common attributes of all gods being an untestable force (or person) claimed to have real effects.

>What is 'perfect certainty'?

That which is beyond potential refutation. The closest we can get is the rules of logic which airways replicate.

>Well LOL here is the FIRST MISTAKE.

There's no mistake. It only takes one exception to prove me wrong, and you haven't got any.

>If this is what you SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'this' IS what is true and right, correct?

I'm referencing evidence, or the lack thereof. You keep referencing personal opinion. These are not compatible conversation points.

>are 'you' ABLE TO TELL us and EXPLAIN what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, "advocate"?

Yes. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. That is a necessary and sufficient definition for all use cases

>And, can what is NOT YET PROVEN, for all intents and purposes, be INDISTINGUISHABLE from FICTION, for all intents and purposes, as well? Or, does this only work ONE WAY?

Until there is replicably evidence, Everything is indistinguishable from fiction.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=625226 time=1676785050 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=625212 time=1676775630 user_id=15238]
The last two responses ignored the part about proof being sufficient for a given use-case. Proof sufficient for All actual purposes is available, not all potential purposes. Not all hypothetical imaginary purposes, just anything to do with reality. Proof is never ultimate certainty.
[/quote]

If 'proof', itself, is NEVER 'ultimate certainty', then what IS, EXACTLY? And, HOW IS so-called 'ultimate certainty' ACTUALLY OBTAINED or REACHED?
[/quote]

Nothing is ultimate certainty. Knowledge is always and only sufficient for a given use case. However, the rules of logic always replicate so they can be indistinguishable from certainty.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:41 pm a) Science isn't the issue here. There's nothing empirical about god, but basic reasoning is sufficient to say that if people have Always been trying to prove god, or even provide reasonabley incontestable evidence for god and haven't been able to, you shouldn't believe any exists, all of which is indistinguishable from there not actually being any.
People have not always been trying to prove God or provide evidence for God. Theists in general are not like theists in philosophy forums. Religions focus on practices, experience and community. Yes, some people will whip out some argument on occasion, but generally if someone is interested in God or the religion or finding out more, it is suggested they participate, with the idea that it might take a long time before you. And that's with outsiders. Most religious people are interacting with religious people and aren't trying to prove things to them. They are in community together.

There's this confused idea that one argues one's way to all beliefs. A kind of winning over someone via words.

Whereas the process is experiential. Well, try this and this and see if, possibly after a long time, it becomes useful, given your new experiences, to use the words we do. See if, via this set of practices you come to believe yourself.
b) All versions of god are either a force or a person. It's not only true, it's not strange at all.
The only one I know of that is a person is also a God and that's Jesus. I know of no other deity that the believers would describe as a force.

Zeus, Rama, Yahweh, Allah, The Great Spirit as some examples off the top of my head are even worse than poorly described as either a force or a person.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=625667 time=1677016176 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=625619 time=1676997705 user_id=15238]
a) Science isn't the issue here. There's nothing empirical about god, but basic reasoning is sufficient to say that if people have Always been trying to prove god, or even provide reasonabley incontestable evidence for god and haven't been able to, you shouldn't believe any exists, all of which is indistinguishable from there not actually being any.[/quote]People have not always been trying to prove God or provide evidence for God. Theists in general are not like theists in philosophy forums. Religions focus on practices, experience and community. Yes, some people will whip out some argument on occasion, but generally if someone is interested in God or the religion or finding out more, it is suggested they participate, with the idea that it might take a long time before you. And that's with outsiders. Most religious people are interacting with religious people and aren't trying to prove things to them. They are in community together.

There's this confused idea that one argues one's way to all beliefs. A kind of winning over someone via words.

Whereas the process is experiential. Well, try this and this and see if, possibly after a long time, it becomes useful, given your new experiences, to use the words we do. See if, via this set of practices you come to believe yourself.

[quote]b) All versions of god are either a force or a person. It's not only true, it's not strange at all.[/quote]The only one I know of that is a person is also a God and that's Jesus. I know of no other deity that the believers would describe as a force.

Zeus, Rama, Yahweh, Allah, The Great Spirit as some examples off the top of my head are even worse than poorly described as either a force or a person.
[/quote]

Religious dieties tend to be personal gods so you can feel a relationship to them, but something like "god is love" or "god is everything" or "god is physics" also exist, and those are impersonal forces. Or literally god is The Force.
Last edited by Advocate on Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the epistemology of god

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:50 pm Religious dieties tend to be personal gods so you can feel a relationship to them,
Ok, a personal god. To me that has different connotations than a god that is a person. People are homo sapians.
but something like "god is love" or "god is everything" or "god is physics" also exist, and those and impersonal forces. Or literally god is The Force.
If, for example, God is everything then God is not just a force or forces, God is also things. (If you want to go into qm and say that all matter is really forces, you wouldn't be thinking of the deity like believers do, except those that do. I think one could argue that some Hindus have a kind of forces model, but there are also experiential states for those versions of Vishnu, say). We generally do not think of forces as experiencers. Love is not (just) a force, but also a feeling and an attitude. I don't know many theists who say God is physics, but then God might be also math (for mathematical Platonists, which includes some percentage of physicists and many (significant mathematicians). and fields and particles and waves, which are not just forces.
Post Reply