Finishing the "God or No God?" Debate

You know intuitively what I am trying to say.
Actually, let’s just boil it all down to Cartesian doubt, you can’t know anything exists, so why bother trying? Better yet, let’s just denounce all language as an incapable medium for philosophical thought (as Derridas put it “there is nothing outside of the words”).
There now we are all crippled in action; every belief you have that you rely upon for confidence and motivation, you can not prove; and you will never know anything for certain.

What you see around you as “reality” could just be a demon or a god casting a veil over your mind, momentarily making you experience what you view as “reality”… Actually, when we look at the possibilities, there is only one possible “here and now”, but a near infinite amount of things that could be giving you the illusion of a “here and now” - when it comes to probability, its more likely than not that your entire existence is an illusion.

That doesn’t apply to everyone.

blah blah blah, your turn again

Polanyi’s “tacit knowledge” implies that we should start from the fact that we can know more than what we can tell. He bases this on "conceptual ,prelogical,conceptual and sensory information and images.

Quite possibly, but my question about what is physical was not just to be a pain the ass. I think the term no longer has any meaning and this relevent to this discussion.

I am not making that argument.

Nor that one.

I don’t think this was really a response to what I wrote. It seems to be a response to some other argument.

“religious entities that can be experienced”… what a concept…
If you want my “philosophical” response, I’d have to say that the “experienced religious entities” remain experienced only to the individual who experienced them, so they still remain metaphysical to everyone else - who is stuck with a perception of the “physical” based on what is immediately observable
But let’s be honest. The mind is a powerful thing. The mind can manifest a “religious entity” out of anything if the mind is up for it. Go back a few thousand years when our grip on reality was many times looser than what it is now – one person convincing themselves to believe their own lie would end up creating a religious doctrine. But they did it for the greater good, and that’s the only reason their mind let them lie to themselves – to bring people the love and compassion that the current era of religion offered, they would be willing to live a lie. Maybe that’s a part of what makes “prophets” so dear to us - they loved other people so much that they’d give up everything to give others ideas that would keep people from falling apart.

Beliefs are utility, problem?

Hardly a novel one. Most religions claim that religious entities can be experienced.

I was critiquing your definition. Your definition of what is being claimed was not correct.
And, of course, we know that many things that were experienced by some as individuals but not by others turned out to exist. But my primary problem was your OP made it seem that religious people were making a certain kind of ontological claim about religious entities that is not the case. That is not, in general, the claim they are making.

Sure, and the mind can convince itself things are not there or cannot be there.

I think they had, in general, a much better grip on reality. They had to and they were lied to less. A look at commercials and eavedropping on conversations in modern society will show hallucination and delusion are regular everyday experiences. A thousand years ago, those people were very intimate with real things and needed to be. Very few thought they stood a good chance of being the next Brad Pitt or that if they buy these jeans they will be seen as X and, well, I could go on in a vast number of categories of hallucination and delusion, many of which did not even exist back then.

Well this presumes your conclusions.

Is that why the philosophy of ancient Greece is abundant with ramblings on alchemy and the like?

You think most Greeks gave a shit about philosophy? They were merchants and farmers and slaves and so on.
Shall we take a look at what magazines, websites and Tv programs people are partaking in today?
You’ve made a claim about people thousands of years ago in comparison to people now. I really don’t know how you are going to demonstrate the truth of your claim. I would guess you are also incorrect.

Okay, what about the Egyptians then, who were even more obsessed with alchemy and other associated non-sense? Building giant pyramids for the purpose of storing corpses; talk about a misappropriated use of tax dollars!

Which civilization specifically are you referring to as having a better grip on reality than modern society? Any one you can name is going to be brimming with examples of just how insane they really were.

I’m viewing “physical” in the most practical sense; something metaphysical (for example, “Heaven”, where intangible ‘souls’ go to after death), even if it were to interact with our universe, would have a source that lacks any real explanation or evidence of occurrence (we can’t figure out the causality behind an action when it originated in another dimension) and perhaps that makes it remain “metaphysical” even if it has been observed.