Now all you need to do is prove this actually exists. Can you do this?

Thankfully I don't need to prove it (which I certainly couldn't), since you are the one delivering propositions about the world:

Since I provided the hypothetical alternate reality you sought, the burden is now upon you to show that the world conforms to your proposal; good luck with that.

I make no claims as to whether the world is ultimately one or the other, although my sympathies lie with the rational.

I was not asking for a hypothetical alternate reality but a real one. So if you claim this "alternate reality" is real, then please provide your proof.

Note the terminology, "is there?"

My point is that, since it is possible to posit other realities than that of the Rationalist (among other reasons), the real does not necessarily work in this manner and thus it behooves you to prove your position if you are going to use it as a basis from which to make judgments about the world.

To think it doesn't is, by definition, nonsensical.

No. Because it would still have to operate in this world which is subject to such things as logic. We are talking about real world religions which make claims on this reality. This makes any appeal to an alternate reality a red herring.

Hmmm. No, I don't like that either. If the claim was arrived at posteriori then it can be resolved (or at least resolution can be pursued) posteriori.

To return to my Greeks, they may pursue confirmation of their claim by investigating the site of the lighting strike (to make sure it really hit the neighbor's house), or they may check and see whether the neighbor was even home (perhaps Zeus was slaying some visitor). On the other hand, they could investigate the reliability of the individual who informed them that Zeus is responsible for such lightning bolts. Perhaps this individual is mistaken, or fraudulent. They could see if other sources held to be reliable confirm or contradict him. If he relies on some sort of text or artifact they could attempt to test its reliability and ability to produce meaningful data.
In the end, they'll reach the point at which their doubts are satisfied to the extent that the motivation for farther verification no longer outweighs the annoyance of pursuing that verification. They will then be faced with numerous possibilities which they cannot positively reject. They will likely choose the one that seems most likely to them and operate as if it were correct. If they're peasants in ancient Greece, chances are they'll stick with the Zeus theory.

Again, my process in looking into Bob Hope's potential presidency is just the same. I can only try to investigate the reliability of my sources and observations. Perhaps all the history books are wrong about when the US was founded. Perhaps Bob Hope is a time-traveler. Perhaps he is some immortal alien (he always seemed a little odd in a funny kind of way). Eventually I'll reach the point at which my doubts are satisfied to the extent that the motivation for farther verification no longer outweighs the annoyance of pursuing that verification. At that point I'll choose the option that seems to make the most sense to me in light of my experiences. Thus far, I continue to conclude that Bob Hope was not the first US President.

On the other hand, the Greek could have just declared that Zeus was angry with the neighbor and that was all there was to it; it was an unquestionable fact and any evidence for or against it was irrelevant. And I could have declared that it was a fact literally beyond the possibility of dispute that Bob Hope was not the first US President and any evidence for or against that was irrelevant.

The distinction you're talking about has nothing to do with the content of the claim (religious, historical, or whatever) and everything to do with how that claim was formulated. If the claim was formulated a posteriori then its resolution can be pursued, at least to some degree, a posteriori. If the claim was arrived at a priori then it cannot be pursued a posteriori at all. But eventually all claims end up resting on a priori assertions.

Please, no more Bob Hopes, mr. Washingtons, dogs or clouds. Unless you fit magical wings on them or claim that clouds are the farts of a god, we know how to gain knowledge of those things. They exist in the reality that our senses register and they are knowable to us (I only just found out that 'knowable' is what I meant previously instead of 'knowledgeable', sorry)

I'm talking about ideas, not physical items.

While you can certainly illustrate and explain the rules of poker, you can't feel, see, touch, taste or smell the rules. But they still exist. As axiomatic ideas.

Religion makes claims about divinity since the claims can't be true without the existence of divinity. While the Judeo-Christian creation account certainly describes things that exist in our shared reality (and are knowable to us), their existence presupposes the existence of the creator and the event of creation. No creator -> no creation -> no firmament or things that creepeth and crawleth. So while religions set out to describe reality (and they all do) they are based on the supernatural. On ideas.

While St. Anselm's jump from ideas to reality is what brought his ontological argument down, it's interesting that an argument of divine existence actually utilizes human thought as if it's a placeholder of reality, yet the proponent of such an argument is oblivious in exactly this instance to his own ability of transcending reality with his imagination.

Refer to above or the previous post, please, about a game of poker. Or you can take any axiom you want. Math, for example. We use math to make claims about reality, yet we define the axioms ourselves.

Divinity works in mysterious ways, of which we are not qualified to understand. Refer to the reply below for an explanation, please.

What other reality than what?

Anyhow, both claims can be true if they both are based on supernaturality.

For example, the Bible contains several contradictions. They are not logical in nature, though, but more like glitches in a badly audited movie script. Such as Adam and Eve having to die if they eat the forbidden fruit, yet they don't die. Or God's law that are described as absolute and yet some turn out to be quite flexible throughout scripture. However, it doesn't matter because they can all be straightened out in one swoop, with phrases such as "We humans are not meant to fully understand God" or, the almost identical one, "God works in mysterious ways".

Why? Because everything is possible in the realm of supernaturality (which is also why no evidence can ever exist of something supernatural).


In the supernatural, there is always a truth to be made and you are the sole arbiter of which truth to make.

Dilettante, the claim that Bob Hope was the first President has no ingredients of anything else than what is found in our natural world, in our reality. It does not presuppose divinity, alienship, immortality or time-travelling. This case is only about finding evidence of the person Bob Hope and of the premises for attaining presidency of your country at the given time and with those finds in hand use deductive reasoning to construct a truth for all practical purposes (this will not be an absolute truth - just to be clear on that).

If the history books were wrong then that is hopefully what you'll find out during your quest. Perhaps Bob Hope only exists as a myth and then you might come to that conclusion. Perhaps you will even come to the presupposition that Bob Hope must have been a time-traveller if he was to be the first President of USA. Then your quest will stop for the exact same reason as your Zeus' lightning bolt: No evidence available. And since that's the case then you will for all practical purposes conclude that Bob Hope was not the first President of USA. And in who-knows-how-many-years that truth will perhaps be revised. So what?


Nevermind that your route to the conclusion in post #67 was based purely on induction, the claim that a lightning strike was caused by Zeus presupposes the existence of divinity, namely of a divine character that transcends our natural world, transcends our reality. Your quest, if you plan on using the same methodology as above, stops right there. If you plan to pursue a philosophical or theological method, then go right ahead. But do not confuse methodologies and the results they are able to produce. Nor the truth of the respective results.

My point, as I've stated numerous times now, is that you haven't proven that this world is subject to logic.

The bolded text above represent precisely the sort of a priori assertions this whole process is meant to avoid.
You aren't saying that you've never seen any evidence that Bob Hope could travel through time; you're saying that such evidence does not exist and therefore anyone who looks for it cannot possibly find it. You are effectively ending the process of a posteriori resolution with an a priori assertion as to what the final resolution will be.

The entire point of attempting an a posteriori resolution is that you don't already know what you will find. The Greek who goes searching for evidence of Zeus and his lightning bolts is pursuing an a posteriori resolution. The man who declares a priori that there is no such evidence to be found is not.

As it happens, I suspect you're right in that these searchers will not find evidence that you or I would find persuasive. The point is, even if the Greek finds no persuasive evidence for his claim Zeus' wrath, he can certainly go about looking for it in a manner just as logical as the as the one I would use in pursuing my more mundane Bob Hope question.

Upon reflection, this needed to be in a separate post:

SMadsen, you use "transcendent" in relation to divinity in a way unlike any religious person I know. You use it as if to "transcend" something just meant "to be outside of" it. I don't know anyone who believes in a God "outside of reality." That would, practically speaking, be precisely the same as believing that God didn't exist (i.e. "wasn't real"). I'm sure there are some religious people who use "transcendent" in that pointless way, but it's certainly not all of them.
To "transcend" is to be greater than; to be "all that and more"; to "go beyond." In this sense, the very notion of "transcending reality" is nonsense; it is self-contradictory. And it is not something that is always, or even often, applied to God(s).

For example, to return to our Grecian peasant, he certainly did not believe that Zeus was outside of or entirely separate from reality. It was Zeus, after all, who hurls lightning bolts; that obviously means he interacts with physical reality. Zeus can also be angered by humans; therefore physical reality must interact with Zeus. I suspect that if the Grecian peasant ever had any thoughts about Zeus transcending anything, it was only that Zeus was not limited by the same physical laws and forces as everything else was. Zeus could walk amongst the clouds; Zeus could turn himself into an ox; Zeus could handle lightning bolts with his bare hands. These were attributes the peasant saw in nothing else and he could not explain (and possibly not imagine) how Zeus managed to do them. If the "natural world" was the day-to-day existence he generally experienced, then Zeus represented something that was "all that and more." Zeus could do the natural world thing (lightning, being an ox, having sex with women, etc) but he could also go beyond the natural world and do other stuff. He transcended the natural world. He was supernatural.


"The divine" is not that which is outside of reality. By definition, nothing can be outside reality; that's what reality means. "The divine" is that part of reality which is especially associated with one or more given entities referred to as gods (i.e. the "deities"). The lightning bolt was a "divine" symbol because it was associated with Zeus. Throwing lightning at houses as a "divine" act, because Zeus was the only thing capable of doing it.

There is, now that I think about some more, a tendency in some religions (certainly in some doctrinal sects of Christianity) to fall into that kind of nonsensical "God transcends reality" sort of rhetoric. That is regrettable.
But it is not the only way to believe in God (or gods). And I suspect that if people actually sat down and thought about it, most of them would abandon that kind of rhetoric but not actually change what they believed.

I only have one small favor to ask of you before I perhaps respond to this: Please describe a possible route to provide evidence of a god that exists in the physical reality and not in the "reality" of flying toasters, i.e. the mind.

I think that's what you would like to have read rather than what I actually said. If you read on you will notice that I said that in "who-knows-how-many-years that truth will perhaps be revised", meaning that such evidence can of course exist. If I wrote it badly (woudn't be the first time) then my bad but the comment about revisable truth should make up for any poor phrasings.

This is a non-starter, Dilettante. Every time you include Zeus you already base the quest on an a priori. I'm sure whatever claim anyone can come up with about Zeus and his divine powers can be persuasive and appealing - otherwise, religions would have gone away overnight - but that's not the issue. The issue is the truth of claims.

If such an entity exists, then such an entity can manifest itself in physical reality and provide proof of credentials. If such an entity exists and does not make itself known in a direct verifiable way, then such an entity's existence remains unverified.

Provide one valid example, in the real world, of two contradictory facts claiming different things about the same phenonmenon and both being true.

Agreed that claims can't be true without the existence of the divinity. Yes, there is a presupposition of the existence and that is where it is a logical fallacy.