RE: Can you make a God claim?
January 8, 2015 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm by robvalue.)
It's not as easy as it looks. I mean, if I was to try, I'd go with the simulation hypothesis. I could define "God" as a programmer in another reality. I could say that this reality doesn't literally exist, but is a representation of a program running in his computer.
This is consistent and coherent, although very vague.
But it's not testable. At least, I cannot think of any way it could be tested. And until anyone does, the claim is nothing more than speculation.
That's the nearest I can get, and I haven't met my own criteria. And by own admission, this is indeed speculation. It could be true, but we can't know if it is or not.
Abstract notions like pure mathematics are concepts, they exist only as ideas within the brains of living creatures. They are not entities in their own right. If you wanted a hard definition, you'd have to look at the way in which the brain processes logic and stores information. In that sense, the concepts exist as configurations within the brain.
They can represent reality in some way, but they don't have to.
With logical systems like mathematics, you start with axioms and you come to conclusions. No external evidence is required; if your logic is sound then the conclusion is as valid as your axioms, but only within the abstract system you have devised.
Someone stop me please if I'm talking bollocks hehe
I'm saying all this like its fact, but I'm really expressing my understanding. There's two realms, the real and the abstract. Abstract things are conceptual and so don't themselves have a specific place in reality where you find them, only in the brains of the intelligence that creates them.
Often the abstract is used to model the real, and the results of logically manipulating the abstract can be applied back to the real. But almost always, an amount of simplification and assumption make this process imperfect. The abstract does not have to have any bearing on the real however, normally it just has to be internally consistent, and it can "work" within its own rules.
This is consistent and coherent, although very vague.
But it's not testable. At least, I cannot think of any way it could be tested. And until anyone does, the claim is nothing more than speculation.
That's the nearest I can get, and I haven't met my own criteria. And by own admission, this is indeed speculation. It could be true, but we can't know if it is or not.
Abstract notions like pure mathematics are concepts, they exist only as ideas within the brains of living creatures. They are not entities in their own right. If you wanted a hard definition, you'd have to look at the way in which the brain processes logic and stores information. In that sense, the concepts exist as configurations within the brain.
They can represent reality in some way, but they don't have to.
With logical systems like mathematics, you start with axioms and you come to conclusions. No external evidence is required; if your logic is sound then the conclusion is as valid as your axioms, but only within the abstract system you have devised.
Someone stop me please if I'm talking bollocks hehe

Often the abstract is used to model the real, and the results of logically manipulating the abstract can be applied back to the real. But almost always, an amount of simplification and assumption make this process imperfect. The abstract does not have to have any bearing on the real however, normally it just has to be internally consistent, and it can "work" within its own rules.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum