h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>These arguments all follow the same basic idea. We think of god. If we know god as a thought in the mind, and Descartes was right in saying “I think therefore I am”, then we have created god.<<

This is a logical howler. Descartes did not say 'I think therefore anything I think of exists'. He is simply proposing that if he is thinking, then he must exist.

On your reasoning, if I think of green tigers living in the sea, then there must be, since I have created them, green tigers living in the sea.

I found this entry to be confused, and in need of much further work. To start with, you need to sort out the distinction between the real and the imaginary, which at the moment are conflated at the heart of the article. Any basic introduction to philosophy should cover this.

Firstly, let me give you a link to the PR thread. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F48874?thread=1939504 Yes, "I think therefore I am" is an argument that all we can be certain of is the existence of our own minds. This means we cannot be certain of the outside reality (reality - that which actually exists, physically or non-physically, outside of our minds). Therefore, what we experience as the world is in fact our own model of reality. This model is based on the interpretation of stimuli. Our model is simply a collection of beliefs we have about reality. These beliefs are our creation, whether conciously or sub-conciously. If our interpretation of stimuli lead me to believe in god, then yes, I have created god. If they led me to believe in green tigers in the sea, I would have created these. reality - things (physical and non-physical) that exist external to the mind. blub-blub

You can't get round such a mistake by hurling words at it.

What's the difference between an imaginary god and a real god? What's the difference between an imaginary tiger and a real one?

I urge you not to compound your confusion but to work on getting it sorted out.

The imaginary god is *my* creation and has the qualities *I* have caused it to have. To me it *seems* real, but is not.

I would sort out the problem if I thought there was one, but I don't see that there is.

When you describe the argument I made clearly above as me just "hurling words" I am encouraged to believe you either did not read or did not understand my argument. Please, prove me wrong, pick issue with specific parts of the argument, don't just dismiss it completley, this won't help.

I'd be more than glad for any advice to help me improve this piece. If I don't agree with a critisism I will say, as I have now, for hope that you can try and show why you believe your argument to be correct.

Thank-You for your intrest in the piece.

blub-blub

Just to clarify;

An 'imaginary' (I'm not sure if this is the best word) object is within my mind.

A 'real' object actually exists externally to my mind.

blub-blub

I have no wish to debate this. Life is too short. If you see the difference between the real and the imaginary, it needs to be in the article, throughout, not left outside it - in which case the article might be made clearer and less confused, although I feel it is seriously misconstrued as it now stands.

Your argument, which you admit is basic to what you are trying to say, remains logically fallacious. You need to get the logic right, which is why throwing words around doesn't help.

I repeat, this article needs further work, and a basic introduction to philosophy might help. Good luck with it.

"it needs to be in the article, throughout, not left outside it"
Thank you, noted, I'll define the terms next time I get round to making changes.

"I feel it is seriously misconstrued as it now stands."
Please could you suggest which parts you feel I've misrepresented, and how.

"remains logically fallacious. You need to get the logic right"
Where do you believe the flaws to be, and why?

Please can you just explain these last two, as I would appreciate it if you would specify exactly what the problems are, so I can see what I think and target the problems.

Thanks for your time.

blub-blub

OK. The serious misconstrual resides in the logical mistake of "If we know god as a thought in the mind, and Descartes was right in saying “I think therefore I am”, then we have created god."

Forget Descartes, he's a red herring here.

The mistake is - if we know god as a thought in the mind, we have created god. This is not true. We might have created, or have been informed about, or whatever, just the idea or thought of god, not god him/herself/itself. Another possibility is that we have intuited or been in contact with a real god, and thus know him/her/it that way. This is a logical point, not a debating point.

You need to go through the article and sort out the imaginary from the real, in the sense that the supposed real affect or stimulate our idea of them (e.g. a table), whereas there is no external referent to a blue tiger - it's imaginary, merely an idea. You need to be clearer about why you think god is only an idea, not a real thing, as your argument doesn't really stand up.

You could hold that it's all imaginary, which you seem to approach in places, but then you'd have to get rid of sense-experience.

Hope this helps. I was very direct before to be cruel to be kind. I hope this makes sense and is helpful. I'm sure there's some good stuff in here. I hope you'll consider what I've said, and I wish you the best of luck with it.

J

Everyone seems to have more issue with the second half of this article. What would you think if I were to split the article into two new ones, one on non-realism, one on our relationship with the outside world? This would allow me to add to both without making the article too lengthy. I've raised the same question in the Peer Review thread. If you don't mind please could you respond there? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=1939504&skip=60&show=20 Thanks blub-blub

By non-realism, do you mean the non-reality of god or the non-reality of the world as we see it?

It seems to me that you're going towards Kant in your entry, and could do with more of him. He considered that all arguments for the existence of god were summed up by three arguments, which most hold that he demolished easily and rapidly.

Try Googling kant arguments god (together)

There is definitely a space on h2g2 for an examination of Kant on god and reality, although the latter has been covered, somewhat lightly, in the h2g2 article 'Kan't Metaphysics' (q.v.)

You definitely have an opening there, and I would suggest that Kant would a be a very congenial source for you. I think one article might be better, on the grounds that you'd have to repeat some arguments, but I could be wrong, (you could use links).

Best wishes,

J

By non-realism I was meaning non-realism in relation to god (the first half).

In doing this I could first extend this part of the article, maybe include some of its common critisms, and also maybe get some feedback on that bit.

I could then take more time over the second half, look at different ideas. I'm ashamed to admit I havn't read any of Kant's work (hence the link to noggin's article).

John Locke certainly concentrated on the area I'm dealing with here, and so any extended article would definatley refer more to his work.

Thanks for your help

Blub-blub