Define God

[steve_bank]

Naturalism as I understand it is that all that exists is by definition natural. There is no supernatural. If a ghost exorcists and interacts with our reality, then the ghost us natural even if we can nit deduce the causal.

The uverse is what it is, there is no meaning or purpose.

Laws of science are human creations to describe reality. Science is descriptive.

In an eternal universe with no beginning and no end there is no need for a god and a supernatural creation.

My general stock response to the existence of and need for a god via naturalism.

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That there areconstants that appear in mathematical theories just says that as far we can tell there are constnts for relationships in reality as we perceive it.

 

[steve_bank]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

It is not a debate over definitions, but over how to interpret bare data. Which is philosophy.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

None. As noted, empiricism is a philosophical stance championed by Hume, a philosopher.

Philosophy is everywhere.

Philosophy is everywhere?

So is Yahweh, or so Christians say.

Unlike Yahweh, philosophy can be observed, experienced, and practiced. And yes, it is everywhere.

So can god.

The same thing to you as I say to theists. You are welcome to your subjective beliefs, if it works for you then good for you.


Religion and philosophy both stimulate thise feel good endorphns in the ideological belivers.

 

[pood]

Any discussion of bare data, such that the universe exists in such and such a way, is philosophy.

 

[pood]

Naturalism as I understand it is that all that exists is by definition natural. There is no supernatural. If a ghost exorcists and interacts with our reality, then the ghost us natural even if we can nit deduce the causal.

The uverse is what it is, there is no meaning or purpose.

Laws of science are human creations to describe reality. Science is descriptive.

In an eternal universe with no beginning and no end there is no need for a god and a supernatural creation.

My general stock response to the existence of and need for a god via naturalism.

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That there areconstants that appear in mathematical theories just says that as far we can tell there are constnts for relationships in reality as we perceive it.

Encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY??

 

[pood]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

It is not a debate over definitions, but over how to interpret bare data. Which is philosophy.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

None. As noted, empiricism is a philosophical stance championed by Hume, a philosopher.

Philosophy is everywhere.

Philosophy is everywhere?

So is Yahweh, or so Christians say.

Unlike Yahweh, philosophy can be observed, experienced, and practiced. And yes, it is everywhere.

So can god.

The same thing to you as I say to theists. You are welcome to your subjective beliefs, if it works for you then good for you.


Religion and philosophy both stimulate thise feel good endorphns in the ideological belivers.

God cannot be observed, experienced or practiced. Belief in such can.

I don’t have subjective beliefs about philosophy. It is an observably real thing, You yourself are doing it right now, by linking the Stanford Encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY.

I’m sure solving engineering equations got those endorphins going in your head.

 

[DBT]

Any discussion of bare data, such that the universe exists in such and such a way, is philosophy.

Physics.

 

[pood]

Any discussion of bare data, such that the universe exists in such and such a way, is philosophy.

Physics.

Physics is always open to interpretation, hence philosophy.

QM is physics. Interpreting it is philosophy. You could perhaps say that if any of the interpretations become TESTABLE, then they become physics, but the point is that there would be nothing to test unless first there was a philosophical interpretation.

 

[pood]

I see the simple answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing' to be 'God." I'm nothing like a hard atheist.

Why is there a God rather than nothing?

 

[TomC]

I see the simple answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing' to be 'God." I'm nothing like a hard atheist.

Why is there a God rather than nothing?

Why do I think that there is something? Is that your question?
Tom

 

[pood]

I see the simple answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing' to be 'God." I'm nothing like a hard atheist.

Why is there a God rather than nothing?

Why do I think that there is something? Is that your question?
Tom

You said you thought that the answer to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, to be God. I am pointing out this answer does not actually answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, for if we say “God” is the answer, we can then ask with the same justification, “Why is there God rather than nothing?” And if someone were to answer that question, God is necessary, why can’t we just say, with the same justification, the universe/reality is necessary?

 

[lostone]

Against all odds?? The universe is, the way that it is, regardless of whether there was a creator.

Indeed. We don't have access to any other universes, so the only thing we can say about the probability of the one we are in is that it is a certainty. The probability of anything we observe to have happened is one.

I was in a bar the other day, and they were advertising the Radiers v Broncos NRL final. I asked the manager if I could still place a bet on the match, but he said no - probably because the match was played over a week ago, and the system that updates the screens to display future sports failed just before that game.

That's a great shame, because the Broncos won 28-29 in Golden Point, after Extra Time, through a Ben Hunt field goal. The odds against that are astonishing; Finals matches rarely go to Extra Time in the NRL, and even more rarely to Golden Point; Ben Hunt has previously only kicked one field goal in his 353 first grade matches; And the Raiders were favourites to win, having finished the regular season at the top of the league.

A few hours before the match, I could have gotten HUGE odds against such an unlikely outcome. But now that it has happened, and we can all see the result, nobody will take my bet - because the odds of any event in the past are always one.

Imagine you are Elon Musk, and you crashed your Cybertruck, and woke up with amnesia. The nurse tells you "You are the richest man in the world" - Do you say "That's impossible, the odds against it are more than eight billion to one"? That's true, of course; But the probability that somebody is the richest man in the world is one - it's a certainty.

We live in a universe that's suited to the existence of life. How could it be otherwise? If the universe wasn't suited to life, we wouldn't be here to question why not, or to ponder how likely or unlikely it is.

 

[lostone]

We live in a universe that is suited to us. If it were not, we would not be here. Calculate it any way you wish, and the odds of us being here are astonishingly low. Does that mean we are special, and the universe is attuned to us, and our existence? Few people would seriously make such a claim, but theists do it to make the existence of their god(s) seem more likely.

 

[DBT]

Any discussion of bare data, such that the universe exists in such and such a way, is philosophy.

Physics.

Physics is always open to interpretation, hence philosophy.

QM is physics. Interpreting it is philosophy. You could perhaps say that if any of the interpretations become TESTABLE, then they become physics, but the point is that there would be nothing to test unless first there was a philosophical interpretation.

Interpretation or theory is determined by observation and testing. Which appears to be a matter of science, not philosophy.

But this is getting off track, so I'll leave it to the other thread.

 

[steve_bank]

Drifting off topic.

Yes pood, I felt good about my work and producing tangible useful things. The last time I payed a video game was around 1980. I'd rather pick up a math, physics, or engineering text and work problems.

I stopped reading scifi when I statred working with science.

What got e into work most days was the people I got to work with and problems to work on.

As to quoting the Stanford encyclopedia. naturalism i a subjectivepersopective and it frames how I look at reality.

Philosophy ca be useful, but it did not affect how I did things and it does not affect how science works and advances.

That I quote naturalism and it makes sense to me does not mean it guides me in any way.

Philosophies and the experience of philosophies are as subjective as religion.

In terms of impact on civilization and history the bible and Christianity is far more impactful than any secular philosophy.

Marx certainly had a tremendous impact, it led to Russian and Chinese communism and the conflict the west we are still dealing with.

Enlightenment thinkers had an impact in the path to western democracies.

Interpretation of science and the wild ass speculations based on QM has no impact on anything.

I got more out of reading Shakespeare than any philosophy.

People quote Shakespeare and Don Quixete.

Only a limited few read philosophy. A lot f it is dense and intended for philosophers not average people.

In contrast Christianity based in the bible provides simple ways to deal with reality and derive a morality, albeit tinniness negative. But then secular moral philosophies can have much to be desire.

Pragmatically religion is far more useful to people as a working philosophy than any secular philosophy.

 

[bilby]

We live in a universe that is suited to us. If it were not, we would not be here.

Exactly.

Calculate it any way you wish, and the odds of us being here are astonishingly low.

No, they are 100%. I am here. The odds that I am not are, therefore, zero.

Does that mean we are special, and the universe is attuned to us, and our existence? Few people would seriously make such a claim, but theists do it to make the existence of their god(s) seem more likely.

They are using a fallacious argument. Which we know to be fallacious, because we have a grasp of logic.

Logic is an element of philosophy.

 

[bilby]

Interpretation or theory is determined by observation and testing. Which appears to be a matter of science, not philosophy.

The choice to use observation and testing as our approach, rather than something else (for example, prayer, meditation and silent contemplation; or taking psychadelic drugs, in an effort to consult our spirit guide) is very much a matter of philosophy.

 

[Swammerdami]

Here I want a simple definition.

I'll give you my simplest definition.
God is a character type commonly found in fiction....

I see the simple answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing' to be 'God." I'm nothing like a hard atheist.

I have a simple somewhat-facetious view of the Creator God that might be is similar to Tom's. It develops as follows:

• Creatures lacking language do not conceive of any "God."
• Human languages deploy subject-->verb as their most basic structure.
• Passive voice, where the target of a verb is transposed to be the subject of a sentence, is frowned upon in English composition, and hardly allowed in some languages. Mandarin and Thai, for example, rely on adversatives for subject/target reversal.
  

  Mandarin: Modern bèi (被) looks like a passive (“Zhège bāozi bèi chī-le” = “This bun was eaten”), but historically it had adversative meaning (“suffered eating”), so some linguists don’t treat it as a canonical passive.
  ...
  Thai: The passive voice marker ถูก (tùuk)^* is only used when the target of the action undergoes something unfavourable.

• To conform with these precepts of grammar, English sometimes requires the insertion of dummy subjects. "It is raining." French: "Il pleut." German: "Houston, es gibt ein Problem."

And there you have it! "God" fulfills a grammatical gap in the same way that "It" does in "It is raining." Both words function like meaningless pronouns to make "??? is raining" or "??? created the universe" grammatical.

The problem persists even without any "Creation." "Es gibt ein Universum" --> Who the F**k is "Es"?

In summary, "God" is a grammatical convenience. The hard-core atheists who despise the word probably also dislike "It is raining."

--------------------------------------
* As Wiktionary shows ถูก has FOUR different meanings ("Etymologies") all in common use. But Google Translate presents only two of them. UGH! It's much too late for Google to revert to its old motto "Don't be evil." Could they at least strive for "Don't be stupid"?

 

[pood]

As to quoting the Stanford encyclopedia. naturalism i a subjectivepersopective and it frames how I look at reality.

Right. Naturalism is a philosophy. So you have a philosophy while denying you have a philosophy.

Philosophy ca be useful, but it did not affect how I did things and it does not affect how science works and advances.

But it does. I’ve shown you numerous examples of this.

That I quote naturalism and it makes sense to me does not mean it guides me in any way.

Sure it does.

In terms of impact on civilization and history the bible and Christianity is far more impactful than any secular philosophy.

Supernaturlism is metaphysical, which means it is philosophy. So philosophy has had a huge impact on the world.

Marx certainly had a tremendous impact, it led to Russian and Chinese communism and the conflict the west we are still dealing with.

Sure. Marxism was a philosophy.

Enlightenment thinkers had an impact in the path to western democracies.

More philosophy!

Interpretation of science and the wild ass speculations based on QM has no impact on anything.

Wild-ass speculations led to scientific revolutions: see Newton, Einstein.

I got more out of reading Shakespeare than any philosophy.

Good for you.

People quote Shakespeare and Don Quixete.

Sure. So?

Only a limited few read philosophy. A lot f it is dense and intended for philosophers not average people.

Some academic philosophy can be hard to follow, or swallow.

In contrast Christianity based in the bible provides simple ways to deal with reality and derive a morality, albeit tinniness negative. But then secular moral philosophies can have much to be desire.

Pragmatically religion is far more useful to people as a working philosophy than any secular philosophy.

It is still philosophy.

 

[DBT]

Interpretation or theory is determined by observation and testing. Which appears to be a matter of science, not philosophy.

The choice to use observation and testing as our approach, rather than something else (for example, prayer, meditation and silent contemplation; or taking psychadelic drugs, in an effort to consult our spirit guide) is very much a matter of philosophy.

There is a distinction to be made between observation and testing which is scientific enquiry and philosophy as a rational enquiry into abstract concepts, the meaning of life, morality, ideology, etc. Empirical testing in contrast to rational exploration of ideas and concepts. There may be an overlap, but the two are not the same.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not my wheelhouse at all, but, unless you know the true dimensions of the universe, how is it possible to calculate odds of there being a planet or planets with conditions suitable for carbon-based life forms?