Maybe their is a higher power. But if there is a god or creator or whatever I don’t think any of the religions today or maybe ever accurately depicts god and their beliefs. I think if there is a god, we know nothing about him at all. And I don’t think he would even know of our existence. I think all these morals that we get from religion aren’t the word of god, But the word of humans, and I think that makes us gods in our own rights.
Thanks for the comment! In medieval theology, there was a view of 'Apophatic theology,' which suggests that we should contemplate God only through negation, focusing on what cannot be said about God, as we cannot accurately describe the ideal, transcendent entity. You are probably right about religions, they have always been a tool of power (sadly), a way to control societies.
I have believed this for a long time. Why would an omnielsecient being even care about the morality of humans who are smaller than particles of sands in a desert in the vast expanse of the universe. People tend to see everything from their lens which is in itself dishonest as the universe may be infinite having infinite points of views and moralities. Why is ours the most important? Also if you think about it god cannot work in our morality terms as think about the death of stars and the destruction of literal solar systems due to them. Why is so much destruction there? Do all these solar systems deserve it as no place is completely composed of evil. This in itself is a proof god does not have a moral code as us.
We have seen rain to exist. So the probsbility works here. Humans are unable to demonstrate a single supernatural thing ever to exist so we do not have one single example of such a thing. It points to nonexistence of the supernatural
Non-regularity would not really explain the source of the irregularity, so it's a pointless demonstration anyway. It's quite hard to adequately define supernatural, as it could just be described as "natural we don't know yet."
Thank you for your comment! I agree that a god-like entity doesn't align with the naturalistic view of the world as defined by science. Such an entity would remain unobserved and would pose significant epistemological challenges, given its eternal, all-knowing nature. However, critics of the naturalistic worldview argue that scientific truths are, to some extent, conventional, and that science itself undergoes natural changes, which may not yet accommodate the concept of God. Therefore, they advocate for some respect for the idea that God exists, as the argument "God does not exist because it doesn't fit into the scientific description of the world" remains strong if the naturalistic worldview is the true one. Additionally, in certain interpretations, probability serves as a representation of uncertainty. With this perspective, it's plausible to use probability to model the likelihood of God's existence.
If you saw the stars align in the sky one night to say "Hello, it's God," you would not know for sure that was God talking to you. It could be aliens with technology you don't know about, it could be someone spiked your drink last night with some hallucinogens, it could be an extremely elaborate prank, it could be all along your entire life you're just living in a matrix and the programmer is messing with you, it could be some other supernatural entity you don't know about misleading you. The mere fact that you observed something you consider "supernatural" by some irregularity in nature, does not prove anything except there is something you do not know yet. And it's always good to have epistemic humility.
You can go deeper and ask, is 'faith' simply belief without evidence or, belief without the ability to share the evidence? I doubt if people can truly believe simply by being told (indoctrination?). It seems to me that, we do require a reason for believing (evidence?). Physical phenomenona yields plenty of physical evidence making it possible to prove theories one way or the other. However, where would we find the evidence for non-physical phenomenona? How can we prove claims about concepts, thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc.? I think, whether it's physical or experiential, the nature of the evidence doesn't really matter. You'll believe physical evidence and not your feelings about an external phenomenon but, just the opposite would be true about an internal experience, i.e. physical evidence won't disprove your headache away. It seems futile (dishonest even) to demand physical evidence for something non-physical. Furthermore, due to the nature of the evidence, it isn't even possible to share or reproduce. So, is it belief without evidence or, the inability to share the evidence?
Awesome questions, very thought-provoking! The nature of faith is surely very complicated, as it's not just some kind of special doxastic belief, but also a personalized emotional stance. There is a significant difference between beliefs represented with statements, which are subjects of discussion in, for example, decision theory, and real-world beliefs that people have. The latter may not be easily accessible to agents, as humans are very prone to be stirred by emotions. Even in rational inferences, we use emotions to grasp preferences toward different sides. How does one justify their faith? Well, faith certainly comes from somewhere; it can be justified by personal experiences, emotional needs that are satisfied with accessible religious answers. And in many cases, the source is that in the community that a person grew up in, faith was passed down as an obvious answer to the fact that God exists
@@nikodemlewandowski379 I don't think you adequately answered his question, and I think it is a particularly perceptive one. If I were to ask you to "prove" that you experience self-awareness, you would be completely incapable of doing that for me, because anything you do or say could equally be done by an artificial intelligence that experiences no awareness. The reason I attribute awareness to you, is because I myself experience it, yet I can equally not prove to you that I experience that awareness. We both just accept it on blind faith, presuming that anything similar must be the same, which is guesswork. Everything you claim to know-and think-and deduce-necessarily stems from self-awareness, for if you are not the one there making the arguments, there is no adequate logical process that would be considered. Certainly a computer or a compass can give me "arguments" in a manner of speaking, but not such as that the mind makes, as they are on a much deeper and higher plane, taking into account ideas that computers and compasses are clearly unable to conceive of. If God were simply a similar thing as self-awareness, the same logical principles would apply. It would be immediately verifiable to the immediate sensation of the consciousness experiencing it, without being able to demonstrate that awareness to anyone else. Anything external could be manipulated by false sense data or advanced scientific laws (conceivably), thus even stars in the sky saying "God exists, I'm here," would not begin to be actual evidence or prove anything. The reason a person believes so deeply in pain, is because they experience it; this avenue must not be discounted.
@@Dizerner Self-awareness is indeed a complex concept, as exemplified by ontologists in what is known as the 'problem of other minds'-the quest to establish rational constraints that could enable the verification of whether someone else is also a conscious being (which also ties into the personal identity problem). Moreover, the nature of self-awareness is fraught with challenges extensively discussed in the philosophy of mind. Some perspectives even argue against the existence of a substantive self that the human mind can reference, proposing instead a more processual understanding. Furthermore, the necessity of self-awareness for making claims or acquiring knowledge is not universally agreed upon. Proponents of minimal-self or no-self views would contest its indispensability. Human direct experiences can be deceptive. Even if one's perception of God's presence stems from internal mental processes, does it constitute compelling evidence for its existence in the external world? Not necessarily. Some neuroscientists argue that there is a specific area in the brain responsible for acknowledging supernatural entities. Regarding faith, is an internal hunch or feeling (that God exists) a sufficient basis for adopting that personal stance? While I would hesitate to rely solely on evolutionary instincts, it undeniably serves as a foundation for many individuals. There exists an evolutionary inclination to seek supernatural explanations, as they sometimes offer simplistic cause-and-effect explanations for otherwise complex phenomena.
@@nikodemlewandowski379 You are obviously well read on the matters, and I appreciate that. However we do need to think critically, just because a smart person says something doesn't make it true. For example in what you have written there are logical fallacies and enormous presuppositions, although I would not for one second cast doubt on the intelligence of the people involved; it's just that, we are not naturally trained to be strict with our own thinking, and it does take some discipline. If a proponent advocates "no self" or against self-awareness, you must realize I would consider that absurdity. It would be like telling me "No you don't feel anything," when only I can know if I feel something or not. It doesn't matter how smart a person is, or how well studied, they can not tell to me my personal experience, that's not logically possible, and they should realize and know that-it's extremely simple deduction, and if they don't understand that, how do they understand anything else? As for the concept and worry of deception, you need to think more deeply about it. Assuming the existence of an external world is not something I personally know a way of ever verifying. There is no logically justified path to verified true belief that I am aware of, as how can I ever exit my own mind or subjective experience to see if what I perceive is really what's "out there"? Deception-the objection from deception and argument from deceptive "feelings"-applies to all views, not just theistic, religious or supernatural ones. If you think you can verify the external world with other minds, they still get processed and go through your own mind, you have no direct connection to the mind of anyone, unless you are Vulcan on Star Trek. So it is good to step back from the literature at times, and give the ideas another chance to be examined and thought over, and make sure we are just not being "told" what we should believe instead of thinking it through ourselves, a weakness we all seem prone to.
Clearly, the only concept of god being considered in this discussion is that of monotheism, more specifically, anthropomorphic monotheism. The subtle references to 'he' or 'him' make my point. I personally am of the opinion that 'god' is an entirely human construct, and any attempt to describe what 'god' might be is about as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle. All life on earth is merely dust in the wind, and we humans are as likely to know what god is as a squirrel does. Just my opinion of course.🤔
Yes! I fully agree with the claim that we can't possess positive knowledge about 'god'. Our best approach is negative theology, which involves stating what 'god' could not be. The discussion between monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc., is a discussion about the nature of 'god' that I believe we can't truly know anything about. Thank you for sharing your perspective!
Very good arguments. The truth is independent from what we think.
Maybe their is a higher power. But if there is a god or creator or whatever I don’t think any of the religions today or maybe ever accurately depicts god and their beliefs. I think if there is a god, we know nothing about him at all. And I don’t think he would even know of our existence. I think all these morals that we get from religion aren’t the word of god, But the word of humans, and I think that makes us gods in our own rights.
Thanks for the comment!
In medieval theology, there was a view of 'Apophatic theology,' which suggests that we should contemplate God only through negation, focusing on what cannot be said about God, as we cannot accurately describe the ideal, transcendent entity.
You are probably right about religions, they have always been a tool of power (sadly), a way to control societies.
I have believed this for a long time. Why would an omnielsecient being even care about the morality of humans who are smaller than particles of sands in a desert in the vast expanse of the universe. People tend to see everything from their lens which is in itself dishonest as the universe may be infinite having infinite points of views and moralities. Why is ours the most important? Also if you think about it god cannot work in our morality terms as think about the death of stars and the destruction of literal solar systems due to them. Why is so much destruction there? Do all these solar systems deserve it as no place is completely composed of evil. This in itself is a proof god does not have a moral code as us.
We have seen rain to exist. So the probsbility works here. Humans are unable to demonstrate a single supernatural thing ever to exist so we do not have one single example of such a thing. It points to nonexistence of the supernatural
Non-regularity would not really explain the source of the irregularity, so it's a pointless demonstration anyway. It's quite hard to adequately define supernatural, as it could just be described as "natural we don't know yet."
@@Dizerner i do not understand your comment. Can you better explain what you wrote
Thank you for your comment!
I agree that a god-like entity doesn't align with the naturalistic view of the world as defined by science. Such an entity would remain unobserved and would pose significant epistemological challenges, given its eternal, all-knowing nature. However, critics of the naturalistic worldview argue that scientific truths are, to some extent, conventional, and that science itself undergoes natural changes, which may not yet accommodate the concept of God. Therefore, they advocate for some respect for the idea that God exists, as the argument "God does not exist because it doesn't fit into the scientific description of the world" remains strong if the naturalistic worldview is the true one.
Additionally, in certain interpretations, probability serves as a representation of uncertainty. With this perspective, it's plausible to use probability to model the likelihood of God's existence.
If you saw the stars align in the sky one night to say "Hello, it's God," you would not know for sure that was God talking to you. It could be aliens with technology you don't know about, it could be someone spiked your drink last night with some hallucinogens, it could be an extremely elaborate prank, it could be all along your entire life you're just living in a matrix and the programmer is messing with you, it could be some other supernatural entity you don't know about misleading you. The mere fact that you observed something you consider "supernatural" by some irregularity in nature, does not prove anything except there is something you do not know yet. And it's always good to have epistemic humility.
You can go deeper and ask, is 'faith' simply belief without evidence or, belief without the ability to share the evidence?
I doubt if people can truly believe simply by being told (indoctrination?).
It seems to me that, we do require a reason for believing (evidence?).
Physical phenomenona yields plenty of physical evidence making it possible to prove theories one way or the other.
However, where would we find the evidence for non-physical phenomenona? How can we prove claims about concepts, thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc.?
I think, whether it's physical or experiential, the nature of the evidence doesn't really matter. You'll believe physical evidence and not your feelings about an external phenomenon but, just the opposite would be true about an internal experience, i.e. physical evidence won't disprove your headache away.
It seems futile (dishonest even) to demand physical evidence for something non-physical. Furthermore, due to the nature of the evidence, it isn't even possible to share or reproduce.
So, is it belief without evidence or, the inability to share the evidence?
Awesome questions, very thought-provoking!
The nature of faith is surely very complicated, as it's not just some kind of special doxastic belief, but also a personalized emotional stance.
There is a significant difference between beliefs represented with statements, which are subjects of discussion in, for example, decision theory, and real-world beliefs that people have. The latter may not be easily accessible to agents, as humans are very prone to be stirred by emotions. Even in rational inferences, we use emotions to grasp preferences toward different sides.
How does one justify their faith? Well, faith certainly comes from somewhere; it can be justified by personal experiences, emotional needs that are satisfied with accessible religious answers. And in many cases, the source is that in the community that a person grew up in, faith was passed down as an obvious answer to the fact that God exists
@@nikodemlewandowski379 I don't think you adequately answered his question, and I think it is a particularly perceptive one.
If I were to ask you to "prove" that you experience self-awareness, you would be completely incapable of doing that for me, because anything you do or say could equally be done by an artificial intelligence that experiences no awareness. The reason I attribute awareness to you, is because I myself experience it, yet I can equally not prove to you that I experience that awareness. We both just accept it on blind faith, presuming that anything similar must be the same, which is guesswork.
Everything you claim to know-and think-and deduce-necessarily stems from self-awareness, for if you are not the one there making the arguments, there is no adequate logical process that would be considered. Certainly a computer or a compass can give me "arguments" in a manner of speaking, but not such as that the mind makes, as they are on a much deeper and higher plane, taking into account ideas that computers and compasses are clearly unable to conceive of.
If God were simply a similar thing as self-awareness, the same logical principles would apply. It would be immediately verifiable to the immediate sensation of the consciousness experiencing it, without being able to demonstrate that awareness to anyone else. Anything external could be manipulated by false sense data or advanced scientific laws (conceivably), thus even stars in the sky saying "God exists, I'm here," would not begin to be actual evidence or prove anything.
The reason a person believes so deeply in pain, is because they experience it; this avenue must not be discounted.
@@Dizerner Self-awareness is indeed a complex concept, as exemplified by ontologists in what is known as the 'problem of other minds'-the quest to establish rational constraints that could enable the verification of whether someone else is also a conscious being (which also ties into the personal identity problem). Moreover, the nature of self-awareness is fraught with challenges extensively discussed in the philosophy of mind. Some perspectives even argue against the existence of a substantive self that the human mind can reference, proposing instead a more processual understanding.
Furthermore, the necessity of self-awareness for making claims or acquiring knowledge is not universally agreed upon. Proponents of minimal-self or no-self views would contest its indispensability.
Human direct experiences can be deceptive. Even if one's perception of God's presence stems from internal mental processes, does it constitute compelling evidence for its existence in the external world? Not necessarily. Some neuroscientists argue that there is a specific area in the brain responsible for acknowledging supernatural entities.
Regarding faith, is an internal hunch or feeling (that God exists) a sufficient basis for adopting that personal stance? While I would hesitate to rely solely on evolutionary instincts, it undeniably serves as a foundation for many individuals. There exists an evolutionary inclination to seek supernatural explanations, as they sometimes offer simplistic cause-and-effect explanations for otherwise complex phenomena.
@@nikodemlewandowski379 You are obviously well read on the matters, and I appreciate that.
However we do need to think critically, just because a smart person says something doesn't make it true.
For example in what you have written there are logical fallacies and enormous presuppositions, although I would not for one second cast doubt on the intelligence of the people involved; it's just that, we are not naturally trained to be strict with our own thinking, and it does take some discipline.
If a proponent advocates "no self" or against self-awareness, you must realize I would consider that absurdity. It would be like telling me "No you don't feel anything," when only I can know if I feel something or not. It doesn't matter how smart a person is, or how well studied, they can not tell to me my personal experience, that's not logically possible, and they should realize and know that-it's extremely simple deduction, and if they don't understand that, how do they understand anything else?
As for the concept and worry of deception, you need to think more deeply about it. Assuming the existence of an external world is not something I personally know a way of ever verifying. There is no logically justified path to verified true belief that I am aware of, as how can I ever exit my own mind or subjective experience to see if what I perceive is really what's "out there"? Deception-the objection from deception and argument from deceptive "feelings"-applies to all views, not just theistic, religious or supernatural ones. If you think you can verify the external world with other minds, they still get processed and go through your own mind, you have no direct connection to the mind of anyone, unless you are Vulcan on Star Trek.
So it is good to step back from the literature at times, and give the ideas another chance to be examined and thought over, and make sure we are just not being "told" what we should believe instead of thinking it through ourselves, a weakness we all seem prone to.
Clearly, the only concept of god being considered in this discussion is that of monotheism, more specifically, anthropomorphic monotheism. The subtle references to 'he' or 'him' make my point. I personally am of the opinion that 'god' is an entirely human construct, and any attempt to describe what 'god' might be is about as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle. All life on earth is merely dust in the wind, and we humans are as likely to know what god is as a squirrel does. Just my opinion of course.🤔
Yes! I fully agree with the claim that we can't possess positive knowledge about 'god'. Our best approach is negative theology, which involves stating what 'god' could not be. The discussion between monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc., is a discussion about the nature of 'god' that I believe we can't truly know anything about.
Thank you for sharing your perspective!
@@nikodemlewandowski379 Very grateful for your reply. Very thought provoking channel. Thank you so much!