A God without compelling evidence?

[excreationist]

I realised that fraud can also be used as evidence, including magic tricks.... (like some faith healers)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, the path to a Christian God exists from a start of 'maybe god doesn't want to be seen' appears a bit convoluted.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Of course, the path to a Christian God exists from a start of 'maybe god doesn't want to be seen' appears a bit convoluted.

It's another unrecognized psycho-religious contradiction.

There's a god that doesn't want to be seen but does things that make people think it wants to be seen, and the people think it wants to be seen and that it doesn't want to be seen and that the god is mysterious because it does things that make it want to be seen but not convincingly enough that people can be sure, and the OCD goes on and on and on.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I realised that fraud can also be used as evidence, including magic tricks.... (like some faith healers)

Well any fraud, by definition, wouldn't be evidence. If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, then he knows exactly what each and every person who is living or ever will live would require as 100% confirmation of his existence that would rule out any type of fraud or trick completely and would be able to provide such an individual result to everybody at once. That means that if any evidence of him is ever presented and one single person anywhere is only 99.9999% convinced by this evidence, that's 100% proof that it's not actually evidence of God.

 

[excreationist]

Of course, the path to a Christian God exists from a start of 'maybe god doesn't want to be seen' appears a bit convoluted.

Well there are eastern ideas about us being God and playing hide and seek with ourselves... in a simulation that could involve a being having full control over the video game but due to boredom decides to allow surprises and then eventually remove knowledge of its true nature. Alan Watts talks a lot about that...

 

[excreationist]

It's another unrecognized psycho-religious contradiction.

There's a god that doesn't want to be seen but does things that make people think it wants to be seen, and the people think it wants to be seen and that it doesn't want to be seen and that the god is mysterious because it does things that make it want to be seen but not convincingly enough that people can be sure, and the OCD goes on and on and on.

Yes I think the following quote from "God" in Futurama is relevant to the intelligent force I believe exists...

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

Perhaps the creator of Futurama thought the quote was quite insightful because the quote appears twice in the episode - the second time near the end credits.

Perhaps part of the reason is that many people enjoy mystery stories rather than always knowing everything....

 

[DBT]

Alan Watts had his version of Hinduism; all things being the manifestation of Brahman, the eternal creative principle. Which doesn't translate as a simulated world because the world is made from the essence of Brahman and is in no way separate.

 

[excreationist]

Alan Watts had his version of Hinduism; all things being the manifestation of Brahman, the eternal creative principle. Which doesn't translate as a simulated world because the world is made from the essence of Brahman and is in no way separate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXLgcfNuZw
Actually many of his speeches are highly relevant to a simulation...
e.g.

I wonder what you would do
if you had the power to dream at night
any dream you wanted to dream
and you would of course be able to alter
your time sense
and slip say 75 years of subjective time
into eight hours of sleep
you would i suppose start out by
fulfilling all your wishes​

He goes on to explain how you would wish the dream to involve suffering and ignorance....

 

[excreationist]

Well any fraud, by definition, wouldn't be evidence.

I'm saying that skeptics are claiming it is fraud... it might in fact be an actual supernatural event...

If God is both omniscient and omnipotent,

I don't think that is necessarily true. I believe most of the Bible isn't historical or accurate. Well I guess in a simulation he could be.

then he knows exactly what each and every person who is living or ever will live

I think the intelligent force involves an AI... it would be able to calculate what you are talking about...

would require as 100% confirmation of his existence that would rule out any type of fraud or trick completely and would be able to provide such an individual result to everybody at once. That means that if any evidence of him is ever presented and one single person anywhere is only 99.9999% convinced by this evidence, that's 100% proof that it's not actually evidence of God.

Well I don't believe unbelievers are going to hell... perhaps my ideas are kind of "gnostic" and they apparently believe in a hidden supreme being. That way knowledge of "God" is more special...

 

[DBT]

Alan Watts had his version of Hinduism; all things being the manifestation of Brahman, the eternal creative principle. Which doesn't translate as a simulated world because the world is made from the essence of Brahman and is in no way separate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXLgcfNuZw
Actually many of his speeches are highly relevant to a simulation...
e.g.

I wonder what you would do
if you had the power to dream at night
any dream you wanted to dream
and you would of course be able to alter
your time sense
and slip say 75 years of subjective time
into eight hours of sleep
you would i suppose start out by
fulfilling all your wishes​

He goes on to explain how you would wish the dream to involve suffering and ignorance....

You interpret what he said in terms of a simulation, But there is nothing in his books that I have read to suggest he meant a technological simulation. The illusion he refers to is related to mind and self identity.

 

[excreationist]

....You interpret what he said in terms of a simulation, But there is nothing in his books that I have read to suggest he meant a technological simulation. The illusion he refers to is related to mind and self identity.

Even if it wasn't his intention, what he talks about in a series of dreams can be directly applied to simulations... it gives it a practical application of his ideas. Some other philosophers talk about life being like a play on a stage... I wonder what he thought the point of the thought experiment was when he was saying you could dream whatever you wanted? Perhaps dreams are a way of the simulation giving ancient people an idea of what arbitrary simulations could be like...

BTW the following was published in 1973 though I think it is relevant to future video games: (though I guess it originally was talking about a non-interactive movie)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php

"...As the watcher of the screen, you are perfect. The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life. Behind what you think you are - YOU ARE..."​

 

[bilby]

....You interpret what he said in terms of a simulation, But there is nothing in his books that I have read to suggest he meant a technological simulation. The illusion he refers to is related to mind and self identity.

Even if it wasn't his intention, what he talks about in a series of dreams can be directly applied to simulations... it gives it a practical application of his ideas. Some other philosophers talk about life being like a play on a stage... I wonder what he thought the point of the thought experiment was when he was saying you could dream whatever you wanted? Perhaps dreams are a way of the simulation giving ancient people an idea of what arbitrary simulations could be like...

BTW the following was published in 1973 though I think it is relevant to future video games: (though I guess it originally was talking about a non-interactive movie)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php

"...As the watcher of the screen, you are perfect. The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life. Behind what you think you are - YOU ARE..."​

Yeah, dualism is dumb.

There's no watcher. There's just the movie.

There are no souls, no minds; Just brains. A mind is what a brain does. It's not a thing that watches the brain, or steers it, or manages it.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah, dualism is dumb.

There's no watcher. There's just the movie.

There are no souls, no minds; Just brains. A mind is what a brain does. It's not a thing that watches the brain, or steers it, or manages it.

I used the believe that - naturalistic physicalism... (whatever the term is) I thought that maybe the MWI is correct.

 

[DBT]

....You interpret what he said in terms of a simulation, But there is nothing in his books that I have read to suggest he meant a technological simulation. The illusion he refers to is related to mind and self identity.

Even if it wasn't his intention, what he talks about in a series of dreams can be directly applied to simulations... it gives it a practical application of his ideas. Some other philosophers talk about life being like a play on a stage... I wonder what he thought the point of the thought experiment was when he was saying you could dream whatever you wanted? Perhaps dreams are a way of the simulation giving ancient people an idea of what arbitrary simulations could be like...

BTW the following was published in 1973 though I think it is relevant to future video games: (though I guess it originally was talking about a non-interactive movie)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php

"...As the watcher of the screen, you are perfect. The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life. Behind what you think you are - YOU ARE..."​

Watcher and screen is an expression of dualism. Watts argued that dualism is an illusion.

 

[excreationist]

Watcher and screen is an expression of dualism. Watts argued that dualism is an illusion.

Saying it just is on a screen is implying it is a fiction - like normal movies are.... but saying there was a window or a camera would imply the scene is real.
So I don't think the quote is talking about dualism.

 

[DBT]

Watcher and screen is an expression of dualism. Watts argued that dualism is an illusion.

Saying it just is on a screen is implying it is a fiction - like normal movies are.... but saying there was a window or a camera would imply the scene is real.
So I don't think the quote is talking about dualism.

Dualism is a sense of self and other, the user of a brain, my brain, the thinker of thoughts, my thoughts, I am thinking. Partly an artifact of semantics but with an underlying sense of separation.

 

[excreationist]

Dualism is a sense of self and other, the user of a brain, my brain, the thinker of thoughts, my thoughts, I am thinking. Partly an artifact of semantics but with an underlying sense of separation.

It seems there are a few different types of "dualism"... I was talking about the observers and matter being totally separate... perhaps it is a combination of idealism and materialism?

 

[DBT]

Dualism is a sense of self and other, the user of a brain, my brain, the thinker of thoughts, my thoughts, I am thinking. Partly an artifact of semantics but with an underlying sense of separation.

It seems there are a few different types of "dualism"... I was talking about the observers and matter being totally separate... perhaps it is a combination of idealism and materialism?

Observers are composed of matter. Matter perceiving matter.

 

[Learner]

Dualism is a sense of self and other, the user of a brain, my brain, the thinker of thoughts, my thoughts, I am thinking. Partly an artifact of semantics but with an underlying sense of separation.

It seems there are a few different types of "dualism"... I was talking about the observers and matter being totally separate... perhaps it is a combination of idealism and materialism?

Interesting points from M. Egnor on materialism:


"In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor discusses the evidence against materialism and explains how materialism undercuts rather than supports genuine science."

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In his video he never seems to realize that to get any of his evidence for phenomena that are "non-material" he has to have something that is clearly material. As a matter of fact, all the evidence they claim as non-material is clearly material.

How is it that dualists do not recognize this obvious contradiction in their arguments? They are saying, "Non-materialism is real. Here, let me show you something material to prove it."

What am I missing? Is the video a joke, something from the Onion?