Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

"Acme Posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> (Apologies for snipping Bob Weigel, JesusVictr, though I respect
> your beliefs and, in the end, find them just as valid as mine. I am
> mostly burned out arguing the "God question" and this post was just
> too long to include parts I didn't want to address today.)
>
> Hi Nes. I like your argument, and have made it many times. I think
> I've perfected it some to make it less "argumentative," mostly wrt
> terminology. See if you agree. I would value any advice (from you or
> anyone) to sharpen my version too.

Thanks a lot and hi to you, too. I don't know how valuable any advice I
could give would be, but I'll have a go at it.

> >Why do you care? Why do people care? Either you/they believe in a
> "god" and
> >"its" objective existence from a basic conviction, which naturally
> would
> >make everyone completely convinced of the varacity of their belief,
> and the
> >question about "god's" objective existence becomes irrelevant
>
> But they still must try to convince others. It's part of their
> programming. If that qualifies as "caring."

Yes. But what they propagate is religion which is not at all the same as the
belief in a "god". Organized religion is attractive to many peoples for
social reasons. Nice clubbing (hoping nobody takes any offence).

> > - or there is
> >some secret doubt that makes you/them conciously care so much they
> don't
> >have to confront their own doubts. I see no way around this paradox.
>
> In convincing others (why they "care?"), they are also programming
> themselves (addressing the "doubt" if so). One of the best programming
> techniques is to get a subject to program another. Repetition is the
> main goal. The form of repetition is less important.

Fundamentally correct, I think. But this method of dealing with your own
thoughts and emotions is basically unhealthy. It leads to obsession and
perhaps even fanaticism. When that happens, onlookers and outsiders blame
the religion of the obsessive people. But that is false, the obsession comes
from a repression or suppression of (self-)doubt. This is valid or political
ideologies and political parties, as well.

> <snip>
> >
> >What is a "creator"? How could someone outside the totality of
> existence
> >"create" existence? Or do you believe in an incarnated "god"? If so,
> how
> >could that "creator" create his own incarnation? This is nonsense,
> I'm
> >afraid. I'd rather be an animist and prey to a rock totem than go
> along with
> >such blather. (Hope you are not taking any of this personally. I'm
> only
> >arguing as best I know how.)
>
> Did you mean "nonsense" from our point of view? If you mean objective
> "nonsense" I think one could legitimately object. In any case, I think
> "meaningless to us" is best.

Hrm, no I think the idea of an incarnated "god" makes no sense. Not only to
me personally, but also from a general human psychological perspective. The
creator of "god" or the idea of "god" is a product the human mind. Now, what
can the human mind imagine this "god" can do? Can it sensibly imagine that
an omnipotent, immortal "god" creates a universe while at the same time
being integrated into that universe in its every manifest detail? Well, I
have to answer, "No!" Even the fertile mind of a most talented fictionalist
couldn't imagine how something like that could happen. But perhaps an insane
mind could "think" of a "solution"?

As to the question of objectivity I can say this. Objectivity in any
cosmological debate, especially one as idealistic as this one centering on
the existence of a hypothetical "god", is nearly impossible. Man is but a
child in his knowledge of the universe and its workings. But that doesn't
mean the human ideas or human knowledge is wrong or that a "god" must be
postulated to explain the gaps in human knowledge. Instead, man should face
his ignorance as well as his knowledge in humility and say, "How do we
progress from here?"

> We understand our universe as a logical universe (or "probabilistic"
> which amounts to the same thing). By "logic" I mean real-world logic
> (including probability) or how our universe works, not academic logic.

True!

> But we know that there is a "not-logic." That is, we know that logic
> does break down at some point, i.e. logical paradoxes. (A few fancy
> physicists would argue, wrt black holes and maybe the nature of
> particle probability curves, but I
> think the paradoxes are sufficient to demonstrate the existence of
> not-logic.) So in terms of all existence, logic itself is a construct.

That's right. It's a creative construct of the concious human mind. It's a
mental or spiritual ability.

> Whoever or whatever is responsible for all existence can operate
> according to this not-logic, probably to create logic among other
> things. We can't think in not-logic so it is meaningless to us, but (I
> argue) not "nonsense" in an objective sense.

I'm not sure you're right that humans "...can't think in not-logic". The
concious part of the human mind which is capable of occational logic work
makes up just one small part of what the brain does and can do. Most of the
brain is occupied with subconcious processes even during the time when the
individual is awake. And the subconcious mind works basically by employing
your "non-logical" processes. If you remember your dreams, you have a easy
way right there to explore at how the subconcious works all the time to
digest information, create dreams etc. Another good way is to pay attention
to your own mood swings. They all originate with the subconcious.

> This concept of "not-logic" is not a true belief. It is open to
> question. But I've probably posted it 15 times in sci.logic and
> elsewhere in the last year and nobody has disagreed. Of course it is
> not original and I've been reminded that it has been (more-or-less)
> known for thousands of years. The most opposition I've received is
> (more-or-less) that "it is useless to think about." I agree with that
> except that it should be acknowledged to exist in this particular
> argument.

I can't say for sure why they won't debate your point. But it sounds
eminently sensible to me as long as we're dealing with the processes that go
on in the human mind - which is the only concious one science knows about,
at the present time. Possibly, those scientists are unsure of what to think
when they can't put their thoughts into mathematic equations or other formal
language. But that shouldn't deter a philosopher or an psychologist.

Of course, it's not useless to think about stuff like this. There are indeed
many lessons which can be learned and much knowledge to gain. Those who
claim "it is useless" are expressing either mental laziness or outright fear
of the unknown. It doesn't bode well for the future if scientists have been
reduced to mere technicians without a glimmer of knowledge about history and
philosophical thought.

> >It seems that you have an interest in natural science. That has
> confronted
> >you with the many problems contemporary science faces in
> understanding
> >objective reality.
>
> Agree, and well put. When discussing this subject, I am usually
> careful to distinguish between subjective reality, objective reality,
> universe, existence, God the creator (or "it" the "great scheme of
> things"), or the religious God (definition depending on the particular
> religion). Of course some believe these all to be the same thing. I
> admit the possibility, but judge it to be about as unlikely as a UFO
> landing on my lawn tommorow, so I ignore it.

It's really difficult always to distinguish clearly between what's objective
and subjective. Principally, everybody ought to agree that ALL human
knowledge is subjective just from the basic argument that what holds
knowledge is human language. And human language is a human creation, so all
knowledge is a human creation. The very definition of subjectivity. Yet, I
would claim as you do that man can know objective reality because that is
what man interacts with and is a part of. In his very existence, man is
OBJECTIVILY part of the universe and as such he can know it, through the
basic dialectical process of experience and action. That brings forth the
question of "god". A person who believes in "god" naturally will claim that
"god" has objective existence, not knowing that this claim basically negates
itself, as explained above. But never mind. What position has "god" in the
objective-subjective scale? Well, the agnostic has to say that "god" is a
subjective human phenomenon, created by the human mind, and that he has no
objective existence exept as an idea expressed by language. And it might
actually be opportune for deists to go along with that, for they can then
say without any danger of ever being proved wrong that "god" put the idea of
"god" into the human mind, and that was and will be "his" only intervention
in the workings of the universe, forever and ever. But I know they  won't
ever do this (though Islam is close to this point), so I'm not handing any
arguments to the "enemy".

> >But I don't understand why you would employ such an
> >extremely idealistic hypothesis as a "creative god"  to explain what
> science
> >cannot (yet) explain materially. Because I don't suppose you are
> going to
> >say that science or human beings are incapable of understanding
> objective
> >reality? That would indeed be a radical step completely at varience
> with the
> >scientific record.
>
> I caution against using "objective reality" here. I think "universe"
> would be better because most people take "universe" to mean our
> currently observable universe, past and present, which is logical (or
> probabilistic). To me, "reality" is the same as "existence," and that
> would require not-logic to analyze and understand, a reasoning tool we
> don't have.

Your cautioning is fine, since the term objective reality can be confusing.
As to your idea that "reality" and "existence" mean much the same, I agree.
But I still maintain that the non-logic that you say is necessary to help
understand the universe is part of the basic human capability for
understanding and learning (see above).

> Sometimes I use "local reality" instead of "universe" because some
> people assume "universe" is the same as "existence." Of course it
> might possibly be so, no way to know. I guess it highly unlikely.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >You are probably right that humanity hasn't changed basically from
> ancient
> >times. But human society and culture has on innumerable occations.
> Very
> >significantly to this debate, this means that human beings basically
> create
> >their own reality.
>
> I know you mean "subjective reality."

It means both. Human beings create both (part of) their own subjective and
their objective reality. The proof is easy - just a little thought
experiment. You probably live in a house or flat. They are not natural
creations but have been build by man. By building them man ADDS his creation
to objective reality. That doesn't mean that an alien from Mars would
necessarily recognize the house or flat for what it is, since the alien
isn't a human, but it would be able to see or feel the (mystical) physical
object. Thus the house or flat has objective existence. For the alien to
obtain the essential recognition of human utilization new subjective
knowledge, which is human language, is necessary. See?

> >Thus, they, humanity, also create their own "gods" based
> >on their own preferred narratives and their cultural traditions.
>
> And needs of the society. E.g. early america needed a certain brand of
> Christianity. Maybe that is included in "preferred narratives" since I
> don't have a good definition of that.

Christianity has a lot of those. It's basically just a question of picking
and choosing.

> >When an
> >idea or ideal loses its connection with material history or social
> reality
> >it becomes a "god".
>
> Never thought of that. Interesting concept. Maybe you would elaborate.

Well, it'll take at least a doctoral thesis to get to the bottom of that.
But basically this idea is quite simple. Take a contemporary person like
Mother Theresa from Calcutta whom the present Pope has just promoted to
sainthood. How does this happen? Well, a myth is generated to support the
idea that what she did, which was basically dedicated social work as a nurse
among some of the poorest people on Earth, is a testament to the "glory of
God". Of course, she was a much too modest and realistic person to ever
really believe it herself. But that's not how one billion plus other Roman
Catholics see it. They all want new saints because that's a comforting and
nice thing which ensures and supports them in their beliefs. Of course, the
Church clergy is all in favour, too, because what's good for the ordinary
Catholics is good for the Church, at least as long as it promotes loyalty
and strengthens the faith.

So now Mother Teresa has basically been made into a "god" (although the
Roman Catholic theologians would never admit that). The idea of her is now a
caricature of what she was when she was alive, thus losing the connection to
historic reality.

> >How would "god" manifest "himself"? You said yourself that that "he"
> doesn't
> >prove his own existence. Not that this argument is valid. A fiction
> cannot
> >become objective reality and then prove its own existence. Nonsense,
> right?
>
> Better known as "unfalsifiable" or "closed logic." Thus, it isn't
> science because a fundamental requirement is that a theory be
> falsifiable.

That's exactly right which is why the proposition is nonsense. I haven't
ever come across a theologian or deist who could get around this argument.
But most of them aren't really interested in philosophy. They are much more
into arguing about whether "god" did this or that, according to the Bible.
Good luck, I always say!

> Beyond that, "manifest" implies "observed" or based on observation,
> i.e. empirical. If it isn't empirical, then it's faith (or religion in
> the largest sense). I know of no third choice.

True enough! But it's worth noting that religion is just a social construct
with a certain structure based on theology and ceremony. It's not always
about "god". A good example would be traditional Buddhism. Religion, in my
view, ought to be considered a social construct and like all human social
constructs created to carry out certain societal tasks and missions. The
question of belief should be viewed as seperate from organized religion. It
should be regarded as a psychological and socio-psychological phenomenon.
The hinge which holds religion and belief together consists of theology and
ceremony. Thus the choices facing the person wanting to become a "member" of
a religion is rarely confronted with the real meaning of his choices, either
in psychological or in philosophical terms.

> In terms of existence, empiricism (and thus science) is only a belief
> as well. (and I'm the world's "truest believer" in any operable
> sense). But there is still an all-important difference: "Things that
> apparently work." More about that below.
> >
> <snip>
>
> >Of course it doesn't, because human beings are limited by the
> physical
> >"configuration" of their own existence. The only way to know all is
> to be
> >able to go everywhere and be anything. Then there is still the
> question of
> >how to interpret what your senses report. The human mind and human
> senses
> >are far from all powerful. Actually, they are probably both quite
> feeble
> >when it comes to dealing with reality.
>
> Couldn't agree more, again interpreting "reality" as "existence." I
> sometimes wonder about what things might exist three feet in front of
> me. Maybe I read too much sci-fi. <g>

No, you are quite right. But we both have to remember that this view is
extremely rare and priviledged. When people experience reality through their
senses they absolutely take for granted that "what they see is what they
get". I can't really find it in myself to blame them.

> >All this has nothing to do with "god"
> >and everything to do with material reality.
>
> Can't say it has nothing to do with a possible "god the creator" since
> we can't know that. Unless you are speaking strictly from the
> scientific POV which assumes a default case. There is also the
> philosophical view still based on empirical observation, i.e. not a
> default case, but a most probable case.

"We can't know that" is correct, as you well know. But I was still thinking
about psychological truth (if you can call it that) when I wrote this. What
I really wanted to express with the "material reality" is how extreme a step
is for a human psyche to suppose the existence of an "invisible",
monoteistic, all-powerful god. How much energy has to go into maintaining
this illusion? What outrageous interpretations of real events must be
fabricated? What doubts have to be denied and suppressed? For it is clear
that (many) deists believe fervently that "god" is intervening in reality on
their behalf. Such a stressful, obsessive life!

> If you ask, "How can God (or whatever) create himself, my answer is
> not-logic, i.e. we lack the reasoning tools to say he can't create
> himself. One of the paradoxes is to keep asking "...and what came
> before that?" Other examples: "What is further away or outside of
> that?" or "Can god make a rock so heavy
> he can't lift it?" or Zeno's paradox, etc. Since these can't be
> resolved within logic, (I argue) logic itself would need to be a
> construct of this (assumed) god.

Again, you are absolutely right. Such classic paradoxes are entertaining,
but they don't prove anything. But it's not so much a question of what a
hypothetical "god" might be capable of doing as what the imagination and
understanding of the human psyche is able to sustain. There are limits,
right? Those limits can be discerned by studying the mind, as scientists
since before Freud's time to the present day have done with great success.
Now, if "god" has the same limits on "his" alleged existence and powers as
those which are "natural" to the human mind, then that is as close to a
proof as I think is possible that "god" is a simple psycho-social figment of
the collective human imagination.

<snip>
> >
> >I don't regard science as a religion.
>
> Agree, but have wasted some time with this terminology. I have better
> luck with "empiricism" v. "faith." Empiricism is still observation,
> but without a few of the artificial rules of science designed for
> technological advance, not necessarily the best knowledge at a given
> time (including probability). The two most applicable rules dropped
> are 1. Default case, and 2.  Designated observer.
>
> Another reason I prefer "empiricism" over "science" in this argument
> is that there is a big dogma about "The Philosophy of Science" that
> some people like to argue forever. If someone wants to argue
> "empiricism" down to angels dancing on pins, I simply change it to
> "seeing is believing." If they attack the
> reliability of perception I bring up 10,000 carrier landings without
> an accident. Nobody has got past that one yet.

That's funny! But such discussions can turn into long walks in the dry
desert.

> The reason I like "faith" better than "religion" is that a lot of
> people can't generalize the word "religion" to politics, occult, some
> of soft science, etc., but they seems to have no trouble generalizing
> "faith" to everything that is not science or fully based on empirical
> observation.

That's a controversial line to follow. I think it's much better to stick to
the idea the religion and faith are basically unrelated social and
psychological phenomena. See above. I always say, what people want is
religion in order to dedicate themselves, not in order to understand the
universe. What they accept on the way is deism, the belief in some "god".
But that is a strictly secondary concern, except to a minority.

> Just to say a word about "judgment": It is not on the same level as
> empiricism v. faith (science v. religion). Judgment can be based on
> either. It is a more-or-less formal probability calculation (usually
> less).

Yes, that's right.

> > Of course, science is axiomatic in its
> >basic hypotheses but that is how the human mind and human society
> progresses
> >their knowledge.
>
> That's the argument for "science" in a nutshell. I use the phrase
> "things that apparently work" (and never forget "apparently" if you
> value your time!). Faith never results in things that apparently work.
> And all anybody cares about is "apparently." I don't care if I am not
> in Ultimate Truth eating a fine steak dinner, as long as I
> "apparently" am, and that applies to everything of concern to me,
> including "apparently" going to heaven, if there should "apparently"
> be one. Nobody has got past this one either. (There's always tomorrow
> <g>)

That's a very nice argument. And it's true, too!

> >Testing every hypothesis against objective reality.
>
> Agree, and highly important. This is the main distinction regarding
> objective thinking. If there is a quick, easy test, people are
> objective and usually correct. If there is no test, people are
> unobjective and usually incorrect. A most interesting challenge to me
> is thinking up ways, or mind-games, to enforce objectivity. Examples:
>
>  * Imagine a debate, argue against yourself.
>  * Argue with someone else, and listen!
>  * List the ways your case is self-serving.
>  * Make your investment in process greater than the issue (e.g. spend
> time studying and/or respecting reasoning or logic in general).
>  * God tells you to choose, and if you're wrong you are struck
> dead.
>  * What would an AI (reasoning) computer say?
>  * Adopt the perspective of a visiting ET
>  * Try to convince yourself or at least imagine there is a test.
>  * Remind yourself that nobody is a perfect reasoner, but people act
> as if they were in particular cases, and how that is invalid.
>  * Avoid investment in results. E.g. if you state an assertion very
> strongly, or intimidate or insult someone you are arguing with, you
> create too much of an investment in the result. Give yourself an out,
> or easy way to admit you are wrong without eating humble pie.
>  * etc.
>
> I would love to hear more ways!

Well, I think you've done a good job of listing as many as you have. I can
only think of two points to add. They are:

1) Try to come up with a thesis that is falsifiable (this is useless advice
when arguing about "god").
2) Express happiness for the opportunity to learn whenever you are proved
wrong.

> When people turn out to be wrong, I think 98% of times it is a problem
> of objectivity, and only 2% of times a logic or reasoning mistake.
> Also, logic or reasoning mistakes are easy for others to notice and
> provide corrections, which I consider trivial since anyone can make
> them, about as significant as a spelling mistake.

Indeed, facts are hard to come by. Formal logic is easy. But reaching a true
understanding of what the confusing facts really mean is always a struggle.

> >Is it
> >possible to come up with a hypothesis that would allow for the proof
> or the
> >opposite of the existence of "god"?
>
> No! It is a worthless waste of time. E.g. there has been a 5,000+ post
> argument lately in sci.logic (xposted other places), and not one iota
> of progress (though I assume it was fun or perhaps educational re:
> logic). Not only is this argument beaten to death, it is constantly
> ressurected and beaten to death again and again. It is the most
> beaten-to-death argument in history, and still not one iota of
> movement in either direction. We simply cannot know the answer to this
> question!
>
> > If no, I say "he" does not exist
>
> That is required scientific thinking. When I have my science hat on, I
> agree 100%. But when I have my (empirical) philosophy or
> "administrator" hat on, there is no default case. It is an open
> question, let the probabilities fall where they may. So far, there is
> no basis whatsoever anywhere to make the probabilities fall anywhere.
> That includes supernatural experiences (if any) because they could
> just be the antics of humorous pink donkeys on Wolf 41 (nearby type G
> star). Advanced technology is indistinguishable from supernatural.
> (Sagan said "magic," which I take to mean the same thing.)
>
> Another way to think about the philosophical or "administrator" POV is
> to compare it to gambling. In figuring the odds in any gambling game,
> you have no "default case." It is only a question of probability, or
> math if you like. Thinking this way, it's not such a hardship to have
> doubt because in gambling doubt is a routine part of the game.

Using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, sort of. Yes, I get the idea. But
my opinion is still that the only way to obtain real progress in this (old)
debate over the hypothetical existence of "god" is to utilize psychology and
psychological reasoning. As you said yourself, trying to fashion a material
scientific hypothesis to prove or disprove the existence of "god" is a waste
of time.

> Def. of "administrator" - someone forced to make a decision on
> incomplete evidence.
>
> >and
> >those who believe the contrary are captives of pleasant and
> detrimental (to
> >the basic psychological well-being of individual and society) social
> and
> >cultural "fictions", revealing the sad truth that many people cannot
> face
> >the reality of life without a crutch!
>
> I fully agree, and think that last is quite a profound and useful
> statement as it relates to objectivity. I think one main obstacle to
> objective reasoning is that (local) reality is just too terrible.
> Perhaps one would go insane if one achieved complete objectivity.

Very penetrating. Indeed, it is quite possible the a forced abolition of
religions would make large numbers of people crazy. There had been a lot of
speculation along those lines by ethnologists and other social scientists.

> I
> was caused to watch an hour of unedited film of Nazi atrocities when
> quite young. While that may give me a more objective view of reality
> compared to someone who hasn't seen the same, it has caused problems.
> I don't think you can even get these films any more in the U.S. and
> probably for good reason. Also, I've imagined that I'm a visitor from
> earth, learning that the inhabitants actually need to *kill* things,
> burn them, and put the *dead flesh* into these these fanged sphinter
> holes in their heads filled with acid, making disgusting knashing
> noises.

This made me chuckle. Humour appreciated.

> Pleasant thoughts for this evening. <g>

Well, it's evening again. So a pleasant evening to you, too.

Nes