What is NOT God?

[Resha Caner]

I make it seem extraordinary because of all the time you just spent trying to define peoples perspectives as inaccessible to me.

Somewhere this became conflated. I've spoken of two converse situations:

1) The idea follows the experience. No experience. No idea.
2) References to ideas commonly produce assumptions of a common experience, e.g. "He spoke to me."

Applying #1, you say you've had no experience with God. No experience. No idea.

Applying #2, I assume you have spoken with people. So, when it says Jesus spoke to Thomas, you should be able to grasp that. You should further be able to grasp that Thomas acted based on what was said to him. Therefore, had Jesus not spoken to Thomas, the action would not have occurred.

You haven't even expounded on any experiences, unless I missed something. The point being of course that your experiences don't solve the problem.

I left the door open to see if you would ask. Maybe that was unfair of me, but your second sentence above cuts to the chase, doesn't it? Even if I had, you wouldn't believe me.

The point is that God saying antithetical things to various persons seems to cast doubt on the idea that we can trust what people say they get from God.

Sure.

God explains all possible effects the idea has on people. Obviously this isn't the same as how we observe leptons.

This is an odd statement. You admit you don't know everything about leptons, but you'll demand I know everything about God?

Obviously not. That is the point. God doesn't fall into the category of something you know, observe, or can predict the outcome of.

So ... sociological studies on how people's beliefs affect them aren't valid?

You simply miss the point, If I can give you any differentiation criterion between A and ~A the concept doesn't suffer the problem.

How much I know about any given thing will depend on the quality and quantity of such evidence.

And? Can you do it or can't you?

 

[variant]

Somewhere this became conflated. I've spoken of two converse situations:

1) The idea follows the experience. No experience. No idea.

2) References to ideas commonly produce assumptions of a common experience, e.g. "He spoke to me."

All experiences tend to be relayed in common ideas.

"God spoke to me" doesn't necessarily imply literal speaking of any kind.

Applying #1, you say you've had no experience with God. No experience. No idea.

Applying #2, I assume you have spoken with people. So, when it says Jesus spoke to Thomas, you should be able to grasp that. You should further be able to grasp that Thomas acted based on what was said to him. Therefore, had Jesus not spoken to Thomas, the action would not have occurred.

Why would I make such an assumption? And If Jesus spoke to Thomas what does this tell me about God?

I left the door open to see if you would ask. Maybe that was unfair of me, but your second sentence above cuts to the chase, doesn't it? Even if I had, you wouldn't believe me.

It couldn't differentiate between A and ~A for me. If it could I am guessing you would have gone into it by now.

And, you've done nothing here to suggest that you apply skepticism to your own experiences to the extent that I would trust you.

This is an odd statement. You admit you don't know everything about leptons, but you'll demand I know everything about God?

That is not what I said. I expect you to be able to give me one (singular) identifiable characteristic that we would expect to see if there is a God that would not exist if there was not.

Since God can explain any observation and not just specific ones like leptons do, we don't experience the concepts in the same manner.

So ... sociological studies on how people's beliefs affect them aren't valid?

They are thoroughly valid, they just show how peoples beliefs affect them, not whether their beliefs about God are rooted in reality.

I don't find it doubtful that people have beliefs, or that their beliefs have an effect.

And? Can you do it or can't you?

I already did.

 

[Resha Caner]

"God spoke to me" doesn't necessarily imply an literal speaking of any kind.

But it is the example I have used - people who claim God literally spoke to them.

Why would I make such an assumption?

I explained that.

And If Jesus spoke to Thomas what does this tell me about God?

A number of things. For one, God speaks ... literally ... audibly.

That is not what I said. I expect you to be able to give me one (singular) identifiable characteristic that we would expect to see if there is a God that would not exist if there was not.

The number of believers.

They are thoroughly valid, they just show how peoples beliefs affect them, not whether their beliefs about God are rooted in reality.

It feels like the goalposts are moving. Funny thing is, I honestly believe you don't intend to do that.

I already did.

You did? You proved to me that a specific person wrote a specific thing? I must have missed that.

 

[variant]

But it is the example I have used - people who claim God literally spoke to them.

And?

A lot of people claim to have literally spoken to God. Doesn't solve the problem.

The number of believers.

A huge number of believers believe different things quite obstinately even when they contradict each other.

Doesn't seem to solve the problem.

But let's play along.

So, how many believers does it take? What percentage of the population not believing would convince you that God did not exist?

It feels like the goalposts are moving. Funny thing is, I honestly believe you don't intend to do that.

I'm not moving them. I'm asking you to show me something that differentiates god from not god. If you want to argue about how believers are effected by their beliefs it doesn't do it.

You did? You proved to me that a specific person wrote a specific thing? I must have missed that.

No I gave you something that people do that would differentiate them from the absence of people.

You could come up with a thousand conditions that I could provide various evidences that would validate, the point makes little difference. Some things are not going to be knowable.

You could for instance know that I wrote this by watching me do it, or having someone video tape the event. Strong evidences that I wrote other documents could be gleaned from my personal writings, distinctions in my word use, writing style, signature.

 

[Resha Caner]

No I gave you something that people do that would differentiate them from the absence of people.

Thank you. And I don't believe you can give me something that would prove the specific person. But that is the situation we're discussing.

You could for instance know that I wrote this by watching me do it, or having someone video tape the event. Strong evidences that I wrote other documents could be gleaned from my personal writings, distinctions in my word use, writing style, signature.

Everything you list can be foiled. Video can be faked as can signatures and writing styles. Even were I there in person, I could be wrong. After all, you're doubting other personal experiences of mine.

But in the end, all of us trust something in order to make life functional.

Neither you nor I have to believe in God to make our lives function (Matt 5:45). But, whether you trust my experiences or not, I do.

And?

My example has hinged on exactly this point. If you don't get this, you'll not get the example.

That hinge point is: There are people who will not believe in God until God physically, literally speaks to them.

But let's play along.

So, how many believers does it take? What percentage of the population not believing would convince you that God did not exist?

All you asked was that I specify a difference, not the absolute. Or are the goalposts moving?

Given the number of believers in this world as B, if God did not specifically, physically, literally speak to people, I can 100% guarantee you the number of believers in that alternative world would be at most B - 1.

I further have a high confidence that if God were to specifically, physically, literally speak to you, the number for that situation would be B + 1. But I won't answer for you. You'll have to answer that scenario yourself.

 

[variant]

Everything you list can be foiled. Video can be faked as can signatures and writing styles. Even were I there in person, I could be wrong. After all, you're doubting other personal experiences of mine.

But in the end, all of us trust something in order to make life functional.

Neither you nor I have to believe in God to make our lives function (Matt 5:45). But, whether you trust my experiences or not, I do.

Yes all evidence can be wrong or faked. Occam's razor helps here though.

Fewer entities makes for a more elegant explanation.

And of course, we're sorting out the sorts of evidence we would expect if something is true and distinguishing it from the sort of evidence we would find if it were false (we can do that here because different kinds of evidence will lead us in different directions) which is the kind of thing you can do in real world situations involving definite beings that have specific qualities.

My example has hinged on exactly this point. If you don't get this, you'll not get the example.

That hinge point is: There are people who will not believe in God until God physically, literally speaks to them.

This does nothing for the fact that the existence of the entity makes no expected difference to the world, my key point.

Also we know that either God says different things to different people or some people are prone to making stuff up or being batty.

All you asked was that I specify a difference, not the absolute. Or are the goalposts moving?

No I need to know what the difference is.

If you contend that the percentage of believers indicates God, what percentage (number) of believers would indicate ~God.

I asked for a differentiation, some expectation that we could use to measure the difference between A and ~A.

I want to know at what point of belief dwindling that you will abandon the idea of God so, it's not even a objective question.

Given the number of believers in this world as B, if God did not specifically, physically, literally speak to people, I can 100% guarantee you the number of believers in that alternative world would be at most B - 1.

I further have a high confidence that if God were to specifically, physically, literally speak to you, the number for that situation would be B + 1. But I won't answer for you. You'll have to answer that scenario yourself.

That is just a fancy way of saying I should take your word for it. In a world with a God I would expect you to believe in it....

Since we can't tell whether or not God literally speaks to anyone I can not tell you whether the number of believers changes at all.

If god is literally absent does the number of people convinced that God spoke to them literally go down?

No idea. (it may even be higher). The number is about 1 in 10 for people claiming God has spoken to them directly.

I also certainly can't say that you wouldn't believe anyway without whatever your experience was.

How are you convinced that your belief is dependent on a specific experience rather than that experience depending on you wanting to believe?

How are you convinced that you wouldn't in an alternate time-line without the experience have just fond a different reason to believe?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't think your version represents what I've said. I tried to be straight-up, and it seems to me the questions boil down to these:

You ask, "Is God x?" or "Can God do x?" I reply yes or no.

For those questions where I answered yes, the typical question that follows is, "How do you know God can do x?" I've replied either with, "I've experienced it - witnessed it," or "The Bible says he can."

The final question, then, is usally of the form, "Can you demonstrate that?" Since I interpret that as, "Can you make God do that?", my answer is no.

To me, this means that your God is indistinguishable from a delusion.

If someone claims to have experienced Brahma or leprechauns or unicorns or demons or Zeus or literally anything then their claim has just as much legitimacy as yours.

Are you okay with this type of epistemology?

How do you come to know things beyond personal experience if any and all claims are epistemologically valid?

What does it even mean for something to be "real" or "true" if all we have is our personal, subjective experiences?

 

[Resha Caner]

How are you convinced that your belief is dependent on a specific experience rather than that experience depending on you wanting to believe?

Sure. The thing is, that's true of everything - even things you would claim have "evidence" to support them. There was an interesting article in the New Yorker about confirmation bias in science:
The decline effect and the scientific method : The New Yorker

It was especially interesting to me because when I was a scientific realist I pushed my speciality in mechanics to the edge and got basically the same answer from a variety of experts in the field: I use model x because it seems the most parsimonious for my problem (i.e. it was a combination of choice and - as you mentioned - Ockham's Razor). I have fun discussing that example, but most people fall by the wayside when I try.

To me, this means that your God is indistinguishable from a delusion.

If someone claims to have experienced Brahma or leprechauns or unicorns or demons or Zeus or literally anything then their claim has just as much legitimacy as yours.

Are you okay with this type of epistemology?

Variant basically asked me the same question, and essentially the answer is yes because I believe that's what everyone is doing whether they want to admit it or not.

So, I'm not trying to dispute their claim (which is what most people try to do). I'm trying to witness to what God does for me, and why I live by the Bible and not by their claims (Acts 1:8).

 

[Davian]

I imagine my methods are similar to those of everyone else.

"Everyone else" would lump you in with those that believe in fairies, leprechauns, extraterrestrial aliens on Earth, reptilian humanoids in the government, and a plethora of global conspiracies.

Yes, of course we can be fooled. But asking, "Is this real?" is a question of infinite regress as I already noted.

Solipsism fails. If what we consider reality can be experimented on objectively and reliably, that it is real or a simulation is irrelevant.

Whether the desk is solid is a semantic game. Yes, science has shown it to be largely empty space, but when I push against it, I feel a resisting force that I describe as "solid". Solid doesn't mean the desk fills all the space of a certain volume. It means a desk is different than a block of foam, and I detect that difference with my senses.

It is only a game when used in the context of evading the question being asked of you.

Our senses, and the perceptions built on them, are demonstrably unreliable. Do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions? Is it only your religious perceptions that you do not scrutinize?

 

[Resha Caner]

Our senses, and the perceptions built on them, are demonstrably unreliable. Do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions? Is it only your religious perceptions that you do not scrutinize?

Of course I scrutinze them. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't scrutinized them.

You still haven't shown me how I see past my senses. If a scientific test is run, I have to read the instruments with my unreliable eyes. I have to build the instruments with my unreliable hands. I have to remember that the results are repeatable with my unreliable mind ... or read a report about repeatable results - again with my unreliable eyes.

At some point you stop questioning everything and start accepting some things. The things I accept - the things I trust - are different from you. That's about all you can show.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Of course I scrutinze them. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't scrutinized them.

You still haven't shown me how I see past my senses. If a scientific test is run, I have to read the instruments with my unreliable eyes. I have to build the instruments with my unreliable hands. I have to remember that the results are repeatable with my unreliable mind ... or read a report about repeatable results - again with my unreliable eyes.

At some point you stop questioning everything and start accepting some things. The things I accept - the things I trust - are different from you. That's about all you can show.

It's a good thing that science isn't done by just one person...

 

[Resha Caner]

It's a good thing that science isn't done by just one person...

I'm not sure what your point is. My faith is not done by just one person either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm not sure what your point is. My faith is not done by just one person either.

My point is that it doesn't matter if one person's faculties aren't completely trustworthy, when we have an entire world full of people who can give us verification that our senses are, or are not, correct.

 

[variant]

Sure. The thing is, that's true of everything - even things you would claim have "evidence" to support them.

It is not. Some evidences hold up regardless of bias.

You seem to think this is a matter of the quality or quantity of evidence, it is not. It is a matter of us not even knowing what evidence would really look like.

 

[variant]

I'm not sure what your point is. My faith is not done by just one person either.

No one can cross check faith like science when science done correctly.

There is nothing that would convince you you are incorrect if you do not want to be convinced.

Scientists may have confirmation bias because they are human, but they don't have confirmation blindness.

When you have a theory that you want to be true you still know what observations you would expect to see if it was failing. And, if you consistantly get those observations, no amount of denial is going to work.

 

[Davian]

Of course I scrutinze them. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't scrutinized them.

By what methods have you scrutinized them?

You still haven't shown me how I see past my senses. If a scientific test is run, I have to read the instruments with my unreliable eyes. I have to build the instruments with my unreliable hands. I have to remember that the results are repeatable with my unreliable mind ... or read a report about repeatable results - again with my unreliable eyes.

Following that logic, science must be a complete mystery to you. How could we possibly have germ theory, atomic theory, semiconductor theory (for the computers we are now using) etc if that is the way scientific testing works?

At some point you stop questioning everything and start accepting some things. The things I accept - the things I trust - are different from you. That's about all you can show.

I am not trying to show anything.

Back to Post #63: You trust that you have "met God". How would one discern such a meeting from that which was only imagined?

Do you acknowledge that your god may be imaginary?

 

[variant]

You still haven't shown me how I see past my senses. If a scientific test is run, I have to read the instruments with my unreliable eyes. I have to build the instruments with my unreliable hands. I have to remember that the results are repeatable with my unreliable mind ... or read a report about repeatable results - again with my unreliable eyes.

We might doubt science a little more if our instruments spoke to some of us and not others and I had to get my mindset right before addressing the instrumentation. Perhaps when our instrumentation, and our standard way of conducting tests give people different answers based upon the way they were raised we might take pause. I could imagine me being incredulous if science required some sort of meditation or ritual, perhaps a little dance or some fasting.

Oh, look you've fallen into another pretty bad analogy.

Seems like a trend. I think maybe us trusting your analogy driven rationalizations might be on a solid foundation after-all given how they seem to function in our discussions.

At some point you stop questioning everything and start accepting some things. The things I accept - the things I trust - are different from you. That's about all you can show.

We can show that you are credulous towards things that support your religion (to the point of thinking you can understand the psychology of people thousands of years dead) and willing to argue radical skepticism/ nihilism in order to defend the proposition (to the point where you would not accept the most basic evidence).

And, you are willing to conflate doubt in those two ideas as pretty much the same thing.

Yeah me not trusting your experiences speaking directly with the divine is pretty much the same thing as me not trusting your carefully made and repeatable scientific observations.

Tell me, do you find your method of obfuscation via sloppy analogy to be convincing when you discuss things with yourself?

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure what your point is. My faith is not done by just one person either.

The argument from popularity is a weak one. Even if everyone on the planet believed in gods, or the same god, it would not necessarily make them real.

 

[variant]

The argument from popularity is a weak one. Even if everyone on the planet believed in gods, or the same god, it would not necessarily make them real.

Argument via popularity is a logical fallacy.

The exception is when the popularity is due it being well founded, but then you can just make the argument from the sound reason why it is popular in the first place.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is not. Some evidences hold up regardless of bias.

No evidence comes with a 100% confidence factor. No evidence comes without a model.

No one can cross check faith like science when science done correctly.

I've not asked you to cross check my faith.

You seem to think this is a matter of the quality or quantity of evidence, it is not.

No, I don't recall saying anything to this effect.

It is a matter of us not even knowing what evidence would really look like.

Yes, we agreed on this. You don't know what the evidence looks like.