Dear Theist...

[hiyymer]

"Red" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real stimulus that does exist in the external universe. To say that "God" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real, analagous stimulus is completely wrong.

I think you are missing the mechanism by which our biological regulation is enforced on our behavior. We sense bodily emotional states. i strongly suggest reading Damasio, if you don't get this. Have you ever had feelings? There is no question that the brain interprets biological processes that control motivation as intentional agency. Our experience is full of self-caused intentional agents and there is no scientific evidence that any of them exist.

[hiyymer]

Well what do you mean by "in control"? What's in "control" of the wind or the tide or the rotation of the solar system? Like when the theist over steps causality when they say that something more than tectonic plates cause earthquakes, as if some other "agent" was at play, they over step humanity when they say that the circumstances we find ourselves in go further than our own nature and the nature which surrounds us.

I never claimed that every statement about god is a representation of something that exists. I am claiming that some statements about god are representations of something that exists. There are millions of believers out there who never "overstep causality". Why don't you address what I did say?

Well that's not quite true. I have this problem with this resurrection thing. But other than that many believers are pretty respectful of science. I asked my sister once whether she thinks god messes around tweaking things and answering peoples prayers. She said, no she thought he intervened only that one time when he sent his son to give us a message.

[Animavore]

Well what do you mean by "in control"? What's in "control" of the wind or the tide or the rotation of the solar system? Like when the theist over steps causality when they say that something more than tectonic plates cause earthquakes, as if some other "agent" was at play, they over step humanity when they say that the circumstances we find ourselves in go further than our own nature and the nature which surrounds us.

I never claimed that every statement about god is a representation of something that exists. I am claiming that some statements about god are representations of something that exists. There are millions of believers out there who never "overstep causality". Why don't you address what I did say?

How do you decided which are which? It all seems so arbitrary to me. Some statements about god are only representations of something which exist because they already exist and we work backwards to put them into this thing we've created and want to exist. It's no different to drawing a cartoon mouse, calling it "Mickey", and then giving it existent properties.

[Animavore]

I'm not in the mood for playing silly word games. I've asked for an example of inductive reasoning that can be used for evidence for a god. All I've got is...

People for centuries (conveniently ignoring the many, many when they didn't) have believed in or experienced God.
Therefore: God.

Of course with this reasoning you can change "god" to "aliens" or "demons".

Here's a bit of real inductive reasoning I picked up.

Many supernatural explanations have been superseded by natural explanations.
No natural explanation has ever been superseded by a supernatural explanation.
Therefore: It is reasonable to assume that this trend will continue.

[hiyymer]

How do you decided which are which? It all seems so arbitrary to me. Some statements about god are only representations of something which exist because they already exist and we work backwards to put them into this thing we've created and want to exist. It's no different to drawing a cartoon mouse, calling it "Mickey", and then giving it existent properties.

Who said life is simple? You keep presuming that it's a rational conscious process, and my gosh we have to figure it all out and have reasons for everything. You seem to be saying that there has to be someone making up something in their head. There isn't even any scientific evidence that there is a someone to do that. Our experience happens. There is no evidence that there is an 'I' that is creating it. Eons of evolution have settled on the metaphor of the self-caused intentional agent as the way of representing biological processes of motivation. I am hungry is just a conscious metaphor within a biological process that enables my body to regulate it's intake of food. I do think that a god agent is a natural metaphor for those motivations that exist and are experienced as beyond the self and controlling the self as felt social compulsion. To avoid that experience there almost has to be what a theist would call "playing god". The experience of arriving at an atheistic point of view is often described as being liberated and finally being in rational control of ones own destiny. Of course that is a total illusion, and one that is only possible within certain contexts. There are almost no atheists in Ethiopia. I take a more Buddhist kind of approach, where being present to the illusory nature of our experience and the self can produce at least some internal harmony and satisfaction in the ride. I see pissing contests with theists as not part of my agenda, and definitely a downer.
.

[Animavore]

How do you decided which are which? It all seems so arbitrary to me. Some statements about god are only representations of something which exist because they already exist and we work backwards to put them into this thing we've created and want to exist. It's no different to drawing a cartoon mouse, calling it "Mickey", and then giving it existent properties.

Who said life is simple? You keep presuming that it's a rational conscious process, and my gosh we have to figure it all out and have reasons for everything. You seem to be saying that there has to be someone making up something in their head. There isn't even any scientific evidence that there is a someone to do that. Our experience happens. There is no evidence that there is an 'I' that is creating it. Eons of evolution have settled on the metaphor of the self-caused intentional agent as the way of representing biological processes of motivation. I am hungry is just a conscious metaphor within a biological process that enables my body to regulate it's intake of food. I do think that a god agent is a natural metaphor for those motivations that exist and are experienced as beyond the self and controlling the self as felt social compulsion. To avoid that experience there almost has to be what a theist would call "playing god". The experience of arriving at an atheistic point of view is often described as being liberated and finally being in rational control of ones own destiny. Of course that is a total illusion, and one that is only possible within certain contexts. There are almost no atheists in Ethiopia. I take a more Buddhist kind of approach, where being present to the illusory nature of our experience and the self can produce at least some internal harmony and satisfaction in the ride. I see pissing contests with theists as not part of my agenda, and definitely a downer.
.

Life certainly isn't simple. I don't believe it to be. I'm not sure were this is going any more. Are you saying god exists or is merely a metaphor and if he is only a "metaphor" then what are we arguing about? I don't believe anyone can control their own destiny either. And so-what if there are no atheists in Ethiopia? I'm not even sure you can get away with being one over there. It has nothing to do with what this thread was about, remember, post you evidence for god here? The evidence you have not provided but instead decided to play theological word games after claiming that a theory of god can be arrived at through "inductive reasoning" even though the same "inductive reasoning" could be used to prove just about anything you want to exist exists.

[hiyymer]

Many supernatural explanations have been superseded by natural explanations.
No natural explanation has ever been superseded by a supernatural explanation.
Therefore: It is reasonable to assume that this trend will continue.

You are exactly right. Of course the god experience does not occur because people need an explanation. It occurs because we need our agency if only to pray to what controls what we can't control. I don't think anyone in that circle of parched earth praying for rain with the minister really thinks that the rain is not a natural phenomenon which is beyond their control. We all learned in grade 5 about the process of evaporation and condensation and where clouds come from. It's not controversial. It's about a way of accepting that we are not in control and still hoping and having faith that it will turn out all right. If you have the option of just moving to where it is raining, you may never get there. I wont mention the fox holes.

It is true that science is a cumulative endeavor and the explanation gets bigger and better and fills in more holes all the time. The problem is that we don't live our lives in scientific reality. Actually we can't. We have to live in our experience, if for no other reason than the fact that right and wrong and good and bad don't exist anywhere else, and certainly not in what really exists. As Einstein opined, morality is important to us, but the universe could care less. When someone opines that god doesn't exist and we "should" get rid of religion, just recognize that they are not living in what really exists, but firmly in the world of our experience.

What's interesting is that the explanation is starting to impinge on our sense of the reality of our experience in a big way. Evolutionary biology is great science and a wonderful perspective, but it does present a world that is amoral and agent-less. I think theists actually get the impossibility of this better than rationalists. The only way to accept both at the same time, is to accept that inside the mechanism and outside the mechanism are irreconcilable worlds. This is hard for rationalists, because they don't want to accept the necessary irrationality of life inside the mechanism, and it's hard for theists because they don't want to limit their god to the world of experience.

[hiyymer]

Are you saying god exists or is merely a metaphor and if he is only a "metaphor" then what are we arguing about?

I could say it again. I'm not saying that god objectively exists as the thing that we experience. I am saying that god is an agent in our experience that represents certain biological motivations that do exist, and that god can be experienced as transparently real. God exists in the same sense that red exists. It's not "merely a metaphor", unless "you" is "merely a metaphor" and "red" is "merely a metaphor" and everything else in our experience that has been created by our brain is "merely a metaphor".

[Animavore]

I could say it again. I'm not saying that god objectively exists as the thing that we experience. I am saying that god is an agent in our experience that represents certain biological motivations that do exist, and that god can be experienced as transparently real. God exists in the same sense that red exists. It's not "merely a metaphor", unless "you" is "merely a metaphor" and "red" is "merely a metaphor" and everything else in our experience that has been created by our brain is "merely a metaphor".

But what is "red" a metaphor for? Red is something we experience directly. It's not a metaphor for anything, except when we use it as such ("he saw red"). The actual red we experience is our brain's (narrow) interpretation of light. "God" may be a metaphor for all kinds of things but this is our misinterpretation as it always comes after the fact. It's like, "God was with me in that car when I crashed my car." or, "God has blessed us with this healthy child." We don't see a Liverpool jersey and say that it is "red" (although we can), it just is. For God to be experienced you have to have an experience and then conclude it was God after. As I stated, we can call anything we experience "god". We can even call experiencing red "god". People have misinterpreted hyperventilating or seizure as "god". If anything it can only ever be a metaphor for things we can't explain, overwhelming experiences or the vicissitudes of life.
I'm happy to accept the metaphor, I use it all the time myself, I might say, "Thank God that just missed my head", but in an empty way devoid of actual thanks toward anything, but unfortunately you and I know it is more than just metaphor to so many people. It's a very real and pervasive thing which they fear and revere and act upon. This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

[Feck]

nothing actually exists ......you can't prove your brain didn't make it up.
Some peoples brains make up a god
Therefore God is real ?..............

[hiyymer]

"God" may be a metaphor for all kinds of things but this is our misinterpretation as it always comes after the fact.
...you and I know it is more than just metaphor to so many people. It's a very real and pervasive thing which they fear and revere and act upon.

Which way do you want it?

[Animavore]

"God" may be a metaphor for all kinds of things but this is our misinterpretation as it always comes after the fact.
...you and I know it is more than just metaphor to so many people. It's a very real and pervasive thing which they fear and revere and act upon.

Which way do you want it?

In an ideal world, neither way. But settling for light and fluffy weekend theists is a fair compromise, at least for this century.

[hiyymer]

nothing actually exists ......you can't prove your brain didn't make it up.
Some peoples brains make up a god
Therefore God is real ?..............

Are you ignoring science? It seems to me we have a pretty basic understanding of the setup. We have an explanation for a lot of what's really out there independent of our experience. We can't know for sure that it's the right explanation, but I am willing to go with it. Science is my arbiter of what really exists. Whether something is "real" in our experience is a whole other issue. Red doesn't exist out there. Red is real. We experience it as transparently real, unless we are color blind. God is real, unless we are color blind. But seriously. Think about what we experience and what we know scientifically is the thing we are experiencing. Is there anything that is a direct representation of what's really there? Did our experience evolve the way it did to be a perfectly accurate rendition of what really exists, or to be a perfectly functional representation of what really exists; so that we survive and replicate?

[hiyymer]

This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

That's what I mean about rationalists having a hard time with the irrationality of life inside the mechanism. If you really believe that life would be better if everyone just had good reasons for their decisions, then it becomes very hard to live with any kind of peace. One is always unsettled about "that kind of behavior". To me life inside the mechanism IS lunacy, and saying god told me to do it is as good a reason as any; probably better because it doesn't pretend to be rational.

[Feck]

You can't explain ANYTHING to me that's independent of my experience your explanation Becomes subjective as soon as it enters my mind .

I can't even prove I'm not dreaming it all ,the whole bloody concept of "I" is a construct BUT since Logic and science seem to be a valid way of finding things out
I will accept them . I see and feel the sun RISE but I know that it doesn't All arguments for the existence of God have far less Repeatable evidence than the sun rising . I know When I'm in love but I know that's an illusion .To say that God is anything more than any of these feelings or subjective experiences is insane .Show me any evidence for god !that was the OP the fact there is a god feeling in some people is only as evident as a love feeling and a whole lot less evident than red .