Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[polymath257]

You seem to be talking about design in this case.
A design (blueprint) is not a physical thing. It is not made of atoms.
But the actual chair is made of atoms. The collection of atoms is a representation of a chair.

The reason philosophers choose ordinary objects to talk about the issue is because it simplifies things. Philosophers posit that the chair is "made of simples"... some constituent parts: atoms... or quarks or whatever particle, quantum field, or what have you, that is most fundamental.

But "atom" is a conceived of object just like the chair. All you are doing by saying that "atoms are real" is shifting the metaphysical burden to a different ordinary object. "Are atoms real?" is just as a metaphysically salient question as "Are chairs real?"

Instead of calling it design, you can call it information as well.

Words are pieces of information as well. They aren’t made of atoms.
However, you can take some ink and put it on paper and you have a representation of the word. The ink and paper is made of atoms.

Is design real? Is information real? (Again) are atoms real? All these are concepts. Just like chair. We're focusing on chairs because it's a simple thing.

Music is also information. It is non-physical.

Music is a physical phenomenon. A disturbance. A wave traveling through air molecules. Music is sound. Sound is a physical phenomenon.

Stories in books, musics, the blueprint for an airplane, a circle, letters and languages and basically anything has a design component and a physical component.

Do stories exist? I would say yes and no. It depends on how you look at it.
Maybe it doesn’t exist as long as it isn’t written on paper or in the mind of a person.
Normally I say no to make it clear to people I make a distinction between information and reality (atoms).

Does a god exist? Yes, in the minds of people. Smurfs exist in the minds of people as well.

If you want to argue that songs, chairs, stars, black holes, atoms and other ordinary objects exist, I pretty much agree with you. Gods are a different story. I'm highly suspicious of the category error claims being advanced by Bel and Neo. I did want to step in and defend the assertion that metaphysical assumptions (such as "chairs exist", "chairs don't exist", "atoms exist", "atoms don't exist") don't depend on empirical findings to be proven true or false. I agree with them on that, but little else.

I think the comparison of God to a tooth fairy is apt. If someone thinks God hears their prayers like a person does, and answers (or doesn't answer) those prayers like a person would, then I think the best conclusion is that they are talking about an imaginary being.

For a social convention to exist, you need a population of humans and humans are made of atoms.

Is a social convention real? Are atoms real? Shifting the metaphysical burden doesn't resolve the issue. That's why we keep it to something simple like chairs. Philosophers understand that things are composed of atoms and atoms are composed of subatomic particles. We aren't idiots. If atoms solved the problem, we could figure that out. And there are several good solutions to the problem. You should watch the vsauce video. One of the proposed solutions will appeal to you. I can almost guarantee.

i think the thing that bothers me most about this is the implication that the term 'real' has a single meaning before we begin discussion. This happens with a number of other words, like 'physical' and 'exists', often without comment.

Instead, I think we should take the approach of trying to *define* what it means to be 'real' , what it means to be 'physical' and what it means to 'exist', potentially allowing for several different definitions to be active, even if clearly distinguished.

So, however we define the term 'physical', we want to be sure that chairs, and by implication, atoms, are 'physical' and are also 'real' and 'exist'.

But we can then expand to things like light. is light 'physical'? It certainly 'exists' and is 'real'. I tend to say that it is 'physical' as well because a large part of physics is devoted to studying its properties.

Information is a trickier thing. First, it isn't always clear that the word 'information' is always being used in the same sense. Is Shannon's definition of information the same as the one we use for mental events? That isn't clear to me. In any case, it is pretty clear that information supervenes on the 'physical' even if it isn't physical itself: if we knew the entire physical situation, we would also know the information content of the situation.

In any case, it is clear that information is a different type of 'thing' than atoms and chairs. It may well be 'real' in some uses and not 'real' in others.

Then we get to some more interesting cases. Does language 'exist'? Is it 'real'? I would certainly NOT say it is 'physical', although it can be encoded into physical phenomena. Culture is in the same category, as I see it. Again, both supervene on the physical and so 'exists', but I don't think of them as being 'real' objects. In what sense do words exist? are they 'real'?

Next, we get to mathematical objects. Does the number 2 'exist'? is it 'real'? I would certainly say it is not 'physical'. Here we also get into a terminological confusion: in math, 2 is a 'real number', but that is a very different use of the word that 'real' as we have been discussing. My personal take is that 2 'exists' in a formal system, but does NOT exist outside of it. I would NOT say that 2 is a 'real thing'. It is an abstract concept, and probably best thought of as an adjective in language.

But then we get to things like Sherlock Holmes. Does Sherlock Holmes 'exist'? Well, certainly he doesn't exist in the same way that atoms and chairs exist. But he is definitely an iconic figure in our literature and we can say many things about him without fear of contradiction. But I would certainly say that he doesn't 'exist' (outside of that literature) and isn't 'real' (again, outside of that literature).

So, when talking about God(s), we have to ask where in this hierarchy such things appear. Are God(s) closer to 'existing' like chairs? Or closer to 'existing' like words in language? or like the number 2? or closer to being like Sherlock Holmes?

From my perspective, God(s) are closer to being like Sherlock Holmes than anything else on this list: they are cultural inventions that carry certain iconic ideas, but have no existence outside of our cultural constructs.

[Ferrocyanide]

The reason philosophers choose ordinary objects to talk about the issue is because it simplifies things. Philosophers posit that the chair is "made of simples"... some constituent parts: atoms... or quarks or whatever particle, quantum field, or what have you, that is most fundamental.

But "atom" is a conceived of object just like the chair. All you are doing by saying that "atoms are real" is shifting the metaphysical burden to a different ordinary object. "Are atoms real?" is just as a metaphysically salient question as "Are chairs real?"

I think I understand.
You want to define what “real” means.

Humans have decided that reality is objective. In other words, I can inspect that chair today, the next day. Another person can observe the same chair. We can write descriptions about it, we can photograph it. We can agree that we are seeing the same chair. In fact, all humans can observe the same chair.
So, humans collect evidence and the evidence collected by one person matches the evidence collected by others.

To all us humans, the chair is real.
It is possible that all this is a computer simulation and from the perspective of the guy sitting at the computer, we are just a simulation and not real.
It is also possible that we are in the Matrix (the movie known as Matrix).

There is no way for us to know whether we are a simulation or whether we are in the Matrix.
We also assume that the other humans are real and not imaginary or some kind of simulation.

What is not real?
An example: I think most of us (20 th, 21 th century people) don’t consider dreams to be real. We think of it as a movie generated by a part of our brain.
(Some people think that dreams have a significance. Some people think that they predict the future.)
Another example: someone hears some voices but the people around him do not. We conclude that the voices are generated by some part of the person’s brain and that he is malfunctioning.
I think modern psychology classifies such cases as mental illness.

So, certain things are not provable. We just assume that other humans are independent observers. We assume that the world around us is real and can exist without us existing.
There is a baseline.
For example, in physics, the question is “Is an object divisible? How many times can you divide it? How small is small?”
You can split a cake until you reach the smallest component, which was suppose to be the atom.
Then we found out that atoms are made of smaller components.
Via experimentation, they have never been able to split an electron. It is considered a particle that is fundamental. It is of the lepton family.
For protons and neutrons, these are divisible and they are made of gluons and certain quarks. It is believed that gluons and quarks are not divisible.

So, electrons, gluons, quarks would be the baseline.

Music is a physical phenomenon. A disturbance. A wave traveling through air molecules. Music is sound. Sound is a physical phenomenon.

Music can be recorded on a vinyl record. It can be present as an analog signal on a cassette’s tape, it could be in the form as digital information on a hard disk.
It is information and information can be copied from medium to medium. The medium is made of atoms. (Unless if you use light pulses to represent the information or an electrical signal or some other type of field).

We can destroy the tapes, the vinyl records, the hard drives. Where did the atoms go? They are still here. (Conservation of matter and energy rule from physics).
Where did the information go? It was destroyed/scrambled. (No conservation of information).

At one point in time, that music (information) did not exist. Someone brought it into existence in the form of ink on paper and later on as sound waves in air and then it goes onto the tape.
Somebody brought it into existence by arranging atoms in the proper order.

Gods are a different story. I'm highly suspicious of the category error claims being advanced by Bel and Neo.

I disagree with Belacqua.
I think the gods that various cultures have, were fabricated by their respective ancestors. I don’t think that they have observed their gods. So, it is no different than smurfs and the tooth fairy.
But I don’t have a time machine. I can’t go back to the past and find you the exact guys who invented the gods.

#2 There is this claim that god is not physical. I respond with:
Music, software, names, languages, numbers, colors, blueprints are not physical either. They don’t exist if there are no atoms to represent them.
Music cannot interact with our reality if it doesn’t exist.
It’s only when it exists in a physical form, such as a cassette, that it interacts with reality. Put the cassette in and press play. It’s just atoms interacting with atoms.


#3 So, if god is not physical, then what is god made of?
The theist claims that it is a spirit.
Refer back to the post that Ten made. He asks “Can you define what spirit means?”

I did want to step in and defend the assertion that metaphysical assumptions (such as "chairs exist", "chairs don't exist", "atoms exist", "atoms don't exist") don't depend on empirical findings to be proven true or false. I agree with them on that, but little else.

I am interested. My ears are open.

You should watch the vsauce video. One of the proposed solutions will appeal to you. I can almost guarantee.

I just watched it:
Do Chairs Exist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE
By Vsauce
Length = 37:53

It looks like he talks about some of the things I talk about and pushes it further and knows the philosophical terms.
It reminded me of when we were 10 y old. I asked my friend, but how do you define stealing? If I go into a shop and touch an apple and a few molecules stick to my fingers, does that count as stealing?
What if I keep going into the shop and keep touching the apple, each time removing some molecules, at what point does it count as stealing?

Is design real? Is information real? (Again) are atoms real? All these are concepts. Just like chair. We're focusing on chairs because it's a simple thing.

According to me, design, information is not real. Atoms are real. You can use some ink and paper to draw your design and so, the design becomes real. That arrangement of atoms (ink + paper) represents your design.
Wink wink.

[Angrboda]

In fact, all humans can observe the same chair.

If Vulcan's thread is any indication, this is not the case. I think this is something you believe, but it's not factual. It fares particularly poorly once you get outside paradigmatic cases.

[Ferrocyanide]

In fact, all humans can observe the same chair.

If Vulcan's thread is any indication, this is not the case.  I think this is something you believe, but it's not factual.  It fares particularly poorly once you get outside paradigmatic cases.

It is true. We can’t be absolutely certain that we are all observing the same chair, even when we observe the chair and document it and the properties all match up.
A case such as if we were in the Matrix would be such a situation.
Humans simply live their lives as thought we weren’t in a Matrix, that there are no aliens playing tricks on our senses.

It is even possible that 2 people observe a chair and one person sees a rabbit and another person sees an XBox.
Person 1 documents the properties of the “chair” in a book where he describes the rabbit. Person 2 reads what person 1 wrote and he sees a description of an XBox and it matches Person 2’s observation.

This kind of thing happens in Star Trek.
For example, a human speaks english. The klingon hears the human but it looks like the human is speaking klingon. The vulcan hears it in the vulcan language.
It is done through technology: the universal translator.

A similar thing happens in the episodes with Q. Q takes Janeway and the others to his own real. The humans see 19 th century USA and Q informs them that it is a representation of what is happening. He is injecting into their brain a representation since the real version would look bizarre and incomprehensible to the humans.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, when talking about God(s), we have to ask where in this hierarchy such things appear. Are God(s) closer to 'existing' like chairs? Or closer to 'existing' like words in language? or like the number 2? or closer to being like Sherlock Holmes?

There is another 'closer to' option. The God of Classical theism may better be described as something more like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Does the PNC exist? If so, based on what evidence? Or is it something from which we reason rather than to which we reason. Everyone has first priciples even if they are only tacitly aware of them. I am sincerely curoius...

Could many atheists defend their first principles using the same standard by which they judge theistic first principles?

[Jehanne]

So, when talking about God(s), we have to ask where in this hierarchy such things appear. Are God(s) closer to 'existing' like chairs? Or closer to 'existing' like words in language? or like the number 2? or closer to being like Sherlock Holmes?

There is another 'closer to' option. The God of Classical theism may better be described as something more like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Does the PNC exist? If so, based on what evidence? Or is it something from which we reason rather than to which we reason. Everyone has first priciples even if they are only tacitly aware of them. I am sincerely curoius...

Could many atheists defend their first principles using the same standard by which they judge theistic first principles?

As for me, I can only be absolutely certain that I exist; beyond that come probabilities to varying degrees.

[polymath257]

So, when talking about God(s), we have to ask where in this hierarchy such things appear. Are God(s) closer to 'existing' like chairs? Or closer to 'existing' like words in language? or like the number 2? or closer to being like Sherlock Holmes?

There is another 'closer to' option. The God of Classical theism may better be described as something more like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Does the PNC exist?  If so, based on what evidence? Or is it something from which we reason rather than to which we reason. Everyone has first priciples even if they are only tacitly aware of them. I am sincerely curoius...

Could many atheists defend their first principles using the same standard by which they judge theistic first principles?

So God is a principle of logic? Or of math? In what way does such deserve the word 'God'? Does it have *any* of the porperties usually assigned to deities? Knowledge? Nope. Intentional? Nope. Power to create? Nope.

This feels to me like an even worse version of identifying God with the universe. Sure, you can do it, but at that point it seems that you are just abusing language.

Oh, and to answer your question: the PNC, like all logic and math, is a rule of language more than anything else. There are paraconsistent logics out there that are perfectly workable.

So, no, PNC doesn't exist in any way different than language. It's a convention.

As for first principles, I tend to hold them all as tentative. let's face it, solipsism is internally consistent. There is no *logical* way to argue against it. So an assumption is made about that. After that, there are assumptions about whether memory is accurate at all, whether the patterns I see are valid,, etc. Then we get to testability of ideas, eliminating those that are wrong.

Yes, there are a number of first principles that pretty much everyone adopts, whether or not they believe in a deity.

Which gets to the question of whether the God assumption actually gives any usable information. Is it really an assumption that helps in a way similar to how getting out of solipsism helps? From what I have seen, the answer to that is no.

[Jehanne]

After that, there are assumptions about whether memory is accurate at all, whether the patterns I see are valid,, etc. Then we get to testability of ideas, eliminating those that are wrong.

Typo police. (But, maybe you intended to do that??)

[Ferrocyanide]

There is another 'closer to' option. The God of Classical theism may better be described as something more like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Does the PNC exist?  If so, based on what evidence? Or is it something from which we reason rather than to which we reason. Everyone has first priciples even if they are only tacitly aware of them. I am sincerely curoius...

Could many atheists defend their first principles using the same standard by which they judge theistic first principles?

So God is a principle of logic? Or of math? In what way does such deserve the word 'God'? Does it have *any* of the porperties usually assigned to deities? Knowledge? Nope. Intentional? Nope. Power to create? Nope.

This feels to me like an even worse version of identifying God with the universe. Sure, you can do it, but at that point it seems that you are just abusing language.

Oh, and to answer your question: the PNC, like all logic and math, is a rule of language more than anything else. There are paraconsistent logics out there that are perfectly workable.

So, no, PNC doesn't exist in any way different than language. It's a convention.

As for first principles, I tend to hold them all as tentative. let's face it, solipsism is internally consistent. There is no *logical* way to argue against it. So an assumption is made about that. After that, there are assumptions about whether memory is accurate at all, whether the patterns I see are valid,, etc. Then we get to testability of ideas, eliminating those that are wrong.

Yes, there are a number of first principles that pretty much everyone adopts, whether or not they believe in a deity.

Which gets to the question of whether the God assumption actually gives any usable information. Is it really an assumption that helps in a way similar to how getting out of solipsism helps? From what I have seen, the answer to that is no.

If the god that Neo-Scholastic is talking about is a principle, then it doesn’t exist, just like emotions, numbers, names, languages, songs, stories, colors, ideas, designs, information, logic do not exist on their own.

I’ve already given the example with music, but here it is again.

Music can be recorded on a vinyl record. It can be present as an analog signal on a cassette’s tape, it could be in the form as digital information on a hard disk.
It is information and information can be copied from medium to medium. The medium is made of atoms. (Unless if you use light pulses to represent the information or an electrical signal or some other type of field).

We can destroy the tapes, the vinyl records, the hard drives. Where did the atoms go? They are still here. (Conservation of matter and energy rule from physics).
Where did the information go? It was destroyed/scrambled. (No conservation of information).

In order for such things to exist, such as the design of a chair, you need atoms. A certain group of atoms can represent the “chair”.

Such things do not have an effect on reality. For example, you will never see the number 5 walking down the street, kicking a ball.
Music does not go around and push air molecules and other atoms around.

The law of non-contradiction doesn’t wear a policeman’s hat and suit and go around town, looking for violators.

The law of non-contradiction is just logic and you can make logic real by implementing it with atoms.
For example, we can design a CPU that executes the bitwise OR operation.
00010001 OR 10001000 => 10011001

PNC is not implemented at the CPU level but you can write a program that executes PNC. We call that an implementation.

[HappySkeptic]

If the god that Neo-Scholastic is talking about is a principle, then it doesn’t exist, just like emotions, numbers, names, languages, songs, stories, colors, ideas, designs, information, logic do not exist on their own.

I’ve already given the example with music, but here it is again.

Music can be recorded on a vinyl record. It can be present as an analog signal on a cassette’s tape, it could be in the form as digital information on a hard disk.
It is information and information can be copied from medium to medium. The medium is made of atoms. (Unless if you use light pulses to represent the information or an electrical signal or some other type of field).

We can destroy the tapes, the vinyl records, the hard drives. Where did the atoms go? They are still here. (Conservation of matter and energy rule from physics).
Where did the information go? It was destroyed/scrambled. (No conservation of information).

In order for such things to exist, such as the design of a chair, you need atoms. A certain group of atoms can represent the “chair”.

Such things do not have an effect on reality. For example, you will never see the number 5 walking down the street, kicking a ball.
Music does not go around and push air molecules and other atoms around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem

Information is conserved.  In fact, one can use rules about information to derive Quantum Mechanics.

One could argue that without "things" there would be no information, but without information, there can be no things.  I see information as something just as real as a chair.