Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?
When a Christian or a person of another theistic religion says that their God exists, the truth is that they are saying this because they believe that God(s) exists. Regardless of how sure they claim to be or what "evidence" they give, the fact is that is simply what they believe, because no one knows if any God(s) exist, which is the exact reason why no evidence has been provided for the existence of any God(s). I personally do not have an opinion either way regarding God(s) or their presence, so I guess you could call me agnostic, but I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. I'm not arguing for atheists or theists, I'm simply saying that theists don't actually know if God does or does not exist, and therefore they should not claim to know this or try to give atheists reasons why God(s) does exists as opposed to simply accepting that they don't know if God exists.
Comments (652)
On the other hand, there is the idea of divine hiddenness.
I'm wondering how it can be simultaneously obvious that God exists, and that God is hidden.
French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand.
Now what that argues is that — there is more to comprehensive reality than what meets the eye.
(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.
(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God".
Perhaps you find this arguement compelling. Perhaps you don't. I do. That said, I don't deign to suggest I know what God's nature is. For me, it is a matter of faith that God's nature is loving. I have my reasons for believing this. One reason is that conscious beings such as ourselves appear to be able to have empathy, compassion, and love for one another. If God created us to be conscious like Him/Herself, then I think God also has empathy, compassion, and love for us.
If your definition of “god” is accepted everyone knows there is a “god”. God refers to “deity” in the argumentation of for or against the proposition. If there is a deity then it is up to the claim to explicate what this deity is ... yet it cannot. It is concept, in this sense, dealing with the limitations of human comprehension dressed up as some anthropomorphic “being”. Once the concept of ‘god’ is used outside of the ‘deity’ idea it is more of an intellectual item to toy with. I feel this is why religions have managed to last; they entice the human intellect to the idea of “beyond” and encourage us to grasp for something else we’re admittedly ignorant of.
All you have to do to disprove God is show the universe is not a creation.
There is a long history of theist justification for the existence of God, part of which is discussed here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
In short there is a lot of evidence for a first cause and no evidence against. There is no evidence to suggest the first cause is the God of any of the conventional religions though nor is there evidence to support the characteristics of God assigned by conventional religion (3Os etc...).
Likewise, there is also no evidence to prove otherwise?
I think an argument contrary to conventional religion can be made for 3 out of 4 Os:
Omnipotence - Could God create a copy of himself? If he did create a copy of himself, he would no longer be omni-potent, so we can conclude God is effectively not omni-potent.
Omniscience - To know everything about one’s self requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge.
Omnibenevolent - This requires infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions.
Omnipresence - I can't think of a logical rebuttal for this one.
I think a great many if not most religious people actually feel the same way I do. They just practice their religions to be closer to the divine without actually literally believing all of the teachings or words of any given "sacred" text. Many if not most practicing Christians, for example, are probably agnostic on many of the Bible's stories, and very few practicing Christians take the Bible to be the inviolable "Word of God" in the sense that it isn't open to various interpretatoins with layers of meaning.
Assuming you're asking this in good faith, I can think of several effective responses f(rom the perspective of philosophy of religion rather than Christian apologetics.)
First, the scope of phenomena for which there can be evidence is very specific, in some ways. The scope of subjects for which empirical evidence can be adduced in principle, is pretty much the same as the scope of the empirical sciences generally. In other words, scientific method generally proceeds in terms of what is believed to be testable in terms of empirical evidence. If you make a scientific claim, then it would be generally expected that it could be supported by observational or experimental evidence.
But there are also many types of claims - even some basic to science itself - which are not empirical in that sense. Such claims as, what is the nature of number? Is number something invented by the mind, or are they real independently of any act of thought? Now, I don't want to divert the thread into that question, I'm only raising it as an example. And actually, it's an example of an ontological or metaphysical question, which I don't think is directly solvable in terms of evidence; it's a question of judgement.
I think another such question is the matter of what are called 'the laws of science'. Are they something that exists independently of any act of observation by a scientist, waiting to be discovered? You might argue either for or against, but I don't see how you could adduce any empirical evidence for one side or the other.
There are other lines of argument possible, but I will leave it at that for now.
The Big Bang looks like empirical evidence for an unnatural first cause:
- Natural events come in pluralities. The BB was a singleton
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the BB
- Space itself is expanding in an unnatural manner
- The BB needs a cause, must be something not of spacetime (unnatural)
This could be interpreted as evidence in favour of an unnatural first cause; which could be regarded as bolstering the theist position and undermining the atheist position.
There is also plenty of evidence for a start of time which could be likewise used to support the theist position.
There is no evidence that can be used to support the atheist viewpoint that I'm aware of, excepting that there is logical evidence against the claims for specific attributes of the first cause (like the 3Os) which I gave above.
You’re probably right about most people calling themselves “religious” as having the same and/or similar views to you. The issue comes down to the definitions commonly used/misused. I have no problem with regarding a “religious attitude” (so to speak) with being wholly divorced from belief in a ‘deity’. When it comes to theism and atheism I’d say the argument is different - where the atheist calls for evidence of a ‘deity’ not merely for evidence of human belief in reality and how we appropriate ourselves within/about said reality.
The trick of many theists, and of many atheists, is to blur these lines of distinction in order to undermine the others position. An all pervading universal force/law is nothing more to the rational mind than natural laws as opposed to “supernatural” - which, if you follow the logic through is another meaningless concept that appears to be sensible but is anything but sensible, as if we’re to know of something it is “natural” not “supernatural,” thus undermining the premise of “supernatural” and merely revealing it as, at best, a distorted version of human ignorance/skepticism. We’re in the habit of naming items of experience, or items outside of experience, in order to create a picture of understanding to stave off fear. Naming some ‘deity’ may give some people a sense of grounding they need whilst others, like yourself, are more about addressing the unknown with more humility rather than dogma.
Like Russell said, no one can disprove that a teapot is orbiting Jupiter, yet we don’t assume there is. The major difference being we do actually know what a teapot is and have experience of one. A ‘deity’ is just an empty concept, yet by being empty it is limitless - a scary thought that makes us attach physicality to it in order to hold off our relative insignificance in the face of an infinite universe.
Nature is the contents of spacetime. Spacetime was created in the BB. By something not of spacetime. IE something supernatural. So we can't dismiss the supernatural.
Quoting I like sushi
I think Russell's analogy is useless if a realistic definition of God is used (no 3Os) - for most people the following two propositions are equivalent:
1. The universe was created
2. There is a God
In no way can the first proposition be likened in silliness to a the teapot orbiting Jupiter; it is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
Quoting Devans99
I addressed the point natural vs. supernatural by pointing there must logically be an supernatural first cause.
As for the natural vs. supernatural, I don't think he would agree with your definition of "supernatural".
I do not see a problem with defining God as the creator of the universe. Seems to me the only possible scientific definition of God. How would you define him?
[i]'God - NOUN
1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'[/i]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
Yes he can, but in a way he already did. He created Jesus, which emanates from himself as a piece of him with the holy-spirit dwelling inside him. God creates a portion of himself to represent his wholeness, emanating from him, he is the total balance of creation. Although it is not the primitive definition which what humans would normally hold unto.
Quoting Devans99
The semantics in this is confusing me. I am sorry.
The best answer I can offer though, however, is that God predates knowledge and logic (we had this discussion before). The void non-existence of something cannot even exist, that nothingness is nothing. From there, God as an omniscient being would have to withdraw from learning - and from there, knowledge as an infinite is incomprehensible when what God's capacity to store knowledge is beyond natural capability.
Quoting Devans99
Analyzing your points, I think it is clarified that one supports the other. I hope I have satisfied you.
I think it is a fair point to make that if the universe was not created by a transcendent being, then there is no transcendent being. For the origins are only natural phenomena, not dogmatic history.
So Jesus is a 'portion' of God rather than the whole of God. So Jesus is not a faithful copy of God - the part is not equal to the whole. By creating Jesus, God has subdivided himself, rather than created a copy of himself.
Quoting SethRy
The point I am making is that the description of reality is more verbose than reality. So it is impossible to completely know 'oneself' because the description of oneself does not fit into oneself - it is larger than oneself. If God was non-material in a very funky way then possibly this does not apply
Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face.
It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence.
Quoting SethRy
And all it does is make the proponent of the argument look like they haven't thought things through reasonably.
Blessed be His divine Noodly Appendages. Ramen.
Argument from incredulity.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling.
There is quite a theory to it:
"The central creation myth is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test the faith of Pastafarians—parodying certain biblical literalists. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Creation
Does it come with meatballs? I'll take one of them. :ok:
If Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then I would personally class him as God.
The existence of Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally likely as any other arbitrary description of God. You could even say it is more likely that some of conventional religions far fetched claims.
Jesus is a portion in a way that he is separated by the label 'God the Son', and likewise God is 'God the Father', his human emanate differs from an impeccable God, like Jesus atoning to sin. The creation of Jesus does not require division, for infinity cannot be divided (At least I think so).
I would classify it as dinner.
? / 2 = ?
...according to conventional transfinite arithmetic (which is wrong IMO). But the conventional math would suggest if Jesus was a part of God, then Jesus is infinite too. The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body?
Maybe you can see why I don't buy infinity... too many contradictions.
Yes, well, no. Anselm's argument, that causes isolation between theists, forms the foundation of necessary and contingent beings. Somethings apply to necessity, and some to contingency, so the argument as you label 'excuse', is not much practically for anything.
Quoting S
You and I know that, that is only satire to taint theism, so even your own mind would concede total faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs - so I would not think it applies to evidence from belief. Moreover, the history of the made deity can be traced back to our contemporary society, christian theism falls exponentially further than that.
Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist.
Because Jesus was not infinite, with his death being the evidence. Jesus as an emanate of God in human form, will consist of humanly, inevitable flaws like anger and sin. But Jesus as human, with the holy spirit dwelling inside him, will also have a portion of Divine Authority - thus having abilities of banishing evil, with an example as it follows;
Matthew 8:28-34 - "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, 'If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, 'Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region."
Edit: His portion of Divine Authority is also reinforced with the capability to permit miracles, forgive sin, and apply healing.
So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus was a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ? / 2 = ?; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong (2nd IMO).
Infinity in real life I would not think applies to Mathematical concept. Infinity metaphysically would include infinite resources and infinite time, from those resources and time, substances and amount can be taken off that, hence Jesus is a portion. The earth is a portion. We can even get complicated - the universe, of which is infinite, is a portion, but an ever-growing portion.
Although I do understand, that infinite concept mathematically is questionable, given that if infinity can be added, can it also be constantly subtracted? However, in a metaphysical sense, resources are concrete - thus provided material, like Jesus and the universe, are portions.
The defective in this is I am begging the question, I presuppose the universe is infinite. To add, there is also too many presuppositions. But my point is, infinity in mathematics is distinct from metaphysical infinity. Provided that what we know of God is approximate, he is undefinable essentially. God I would say, also has accidental attributes, like he created the universe.
All good :grin: :up:
I am looking forward to seeing defectives in what I argue for.
God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite.
So infinity is not present in the universe (there is a similar argument - you can't create anything infinity small either - you would never finish 'chopping' it up).
I think 'metaphysical infinity' is the concept of something non-material (like the natural numbers) that goes on for ever. So infinity is a concept that applies to the non-material only. It occurs (as far as we are aware) only in our minds.
If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense.
Creation for God, who has infinite resources and time to his disposal, doesn't have to be 'I add this, on top of that this, and this'. The universe can be in a form of infinity with its origins being created collectively; 'You are infinite'. Infinity would not have a degree of size either, so not only would you not finish creating it, you would also not finish destroying it.
Aquinas, a christian and an Aristotelian, proposed that the universe had a definitive origin, but God have made it in someway that it is infinite.
Quoting Devans99
The presupposition that the universe is created, includes the supposition that God does exists. His ability to have created a physical world, justifies his constant ability to intertwine with contingent existences. If he is non-material and pure mind, that does not imply he cannot create infinite metaphysical resources.
Some people guess there is a GOD; some that there are gods; some that there are no gods.
Nobody should be asked for proof. I never do. There is none. If people want to guess for one reason or another...let 'em.
HOWEVER, if a person makes an assertion in a philosophical discussion...that person incurs the burden of proof for that assertion. So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof.
It looks like that to you because of confirmation bias.
The burden of proof applies only to when someone makes a claim. You cannot add burden of proof to "there are no gods" since it would require there to a viable theory with some evidence of there being gods in the first place. This is the point of Russel's teapot. Start at the beginning, the claim is "there is a god", burden of proof starts there, everything else is a follow-up. Otherwise, you can claim there is a teapot in space and claim that because of burden of proof, no one can prove that there is no teapot in space. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, if proof is then provided, the burden of proof shifts over to the one claiming against what has been established as proven. Einsteins theories were under burden of proof, then got proved. Anyone who claims against those theories now has to prove against them and burden of proof is applied to their claims.
To apply burden of proof to both claiming "there is a god" AND "there are no gods" is ignoring Russel's logic for how burden of proof works. Prove there is a god or gods first, that's the initial claim that burden of proof applies to.
Why have you changed the topic from Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you, to Anselm's argument?
Quoting SethRy
All I see is waffle, instead of a recognition that the reasoning fails because it can be applied in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and innumerable other inventions which you dismiss as ridiculous or some sort of insult, even though you can't do that and still claim to be reasonable, because that is special pleading, and special pleading is a fallacy. You must justify your exception.
If one makes the assertion (claim) "There are no gods"...
...the burden of proof accrues.
The claim "there are no gods" is an unfalsifiable claim upon an unfalsifiable idea. The claim "there is a god" or "there are gods" must first be made before someone can claim "there are no gods". A child born in isolation and who knows nothing of religion will not claim "there are no gods". Burden of proof applies to the initial claim. By saying that burden of proof applies to "there are no gods", you are ignoring Russel's whole logic, simple as that. Read Russel.
Atheists generally make the same mistake as the classic empiricist, they are intellectially comitted to the law of contradiction, to the point that they become inured and lost in understanding and reflection.
I really don't understand when people use "likely" that way. Likely based on what? It seems like it's just shorthand for "based on my intuitive preconceptions . . . "
That sounds more like an oversimplification of atheism. Generally, the ideal is to commit to that which can be proven or logically and rationally reasoned. Anything else is a belief, and belief can lead to a corruption of knowledge. Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't mean they can't use metaphors, stories, symbolism etc. to form ideas and understand new perspectives. I would argue that it's more impossible to be high in "openness to experience" on the big-5 if you have a strong unsupported belief, as that ideal generally dismiss any new perspective in favor of that belief or influenced by it. To narrow the perspective of atheists through viewing them as only able to think in binary terms; is a radical simplification of atheism.
Do you appreciate the difference between “Philosophy of Religion” and “Theology”? Don’t pull the wool over your own eyes, this is a philosophy forum so to assume authority of theism here is a no starter, sorry.
Philosophy of Science is the analysis of religion without the presumption of belief in any said ‘god’. Atheism was a term used by the religious to sully someone’s name; funny thing is people started to take it more and more as a compliment :)
It is nothing you said that convinced me of your point, but the fact that you did not reference science once. :up:
I simply have the impression that, in general, atheist belief tends to rely entirely on scientific explanations for anything and everything.
Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists.
What do those folks do when they learn something about epistemology, where propositional knowledge is--as one of philosophy's most widespread consensuses--characterized as justified true belief?
You can meet hunter gatherers that don’t care about any idea of a ‘deity’ they just do what they do. It’s pretty typical of radical systems to impose a term on others for not following their dogmatic beliefs.
I don’t ask for scientific evidence for something that is nonsense. I assume the person means something other than some ‘deity’ and ask what they mean by “god” which is either met with a word salad, some reasonable mysticism, or an approach to the term as an abstract concept.
For anything to be claimed as "truth" it needs a lot of evidence, explanation, logical reasoning and demonstration. That is true. Accepting something as true, without any of that is a serious flaw if knowledge is the purpose of something. But ideas, hypotheses, and speculation can still be made. The key difference is that atheists never view such speculation as anything other than speculation; something never accepted as any kind of truth or way to live by. To do so, is to abandon reasoning in favor of truths that fit the subjective narrative for the purpose of comfort. It's comforting to rely on something unexplained instead of continuing the search.
There might even be the reason of accepting something, even if it's not true or explained, in order to just live life. I think a key difference is that atheists never settle on anything, truth and what's real shifts according to the most recent understanding of something, instead of just settling on the established initial "truth".
Justified true belief is not in simple consensus due to the Gettier problem. It's not a modern method in epistemology by its original form.
Knowing about epistemology is not the same as actually learning epistemology.
This is incorrect. The Gettier problem suggests to many that jtb needs further qualification. It doesn't suggest to anyone that either j, t or b should be discarded.
As I said, JTB is not in simple consensus. Just using the term without people knowing the complexity of everything around it makes the method overused in a simplistic form. Just as you say, it needs further qualifications. But there's a lot to read on the matter: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
That some people--not everyone--thinks it needs further qualification doesn't make any propositional knowledge not belief in widespread consensus. So that's irrelevant to the atheists in question discovering that knowledge is a type of belief.
Oh dear, another believer of truth. Might as well believe in God.
It either does or doesn't need further qualifications in order to be true. Whatever someone thinks is irrelevant and accepting something because you don't think it needs further qualifications is inadequate.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Knowledge isn't a type of belief. Knowledge is the information you know, it's either corrupt by biases, fallacies or unsupported belief or it's supported by facts, logic and rational reasoning. The latter being the form of knowledge which should be the virtue to have. Justified true belief has many times been corrupted by biased arguments using it to cop-out any scrutiny to the argument. Many use it as a form of "it's true because that's my belief" defense, rather than adhering to the complexity of JTB.
When I speak of atheists, I speak of those who reason rationally, with the philosophical methods at hand. Just as I view theists by their philosophical methods in opposition to atheistic philosophers. But it seems many straw man atheists and theists by comparing them to those who just "believe". What I argue is that theistic philosophers accept reasoning with holes in their logic way too often than atheists. By simply looking at the deduction and induction by both sides.
Ad hominem like fallacy there. What's your point? I couldn't care less for vague responses like this.
"Know" is what we're defining. "Knowledge" is a grammatical permutation of "know" (or vice versa)
Knowledge is not truth. But the search for "true knowledge" or rather knowledge of truth is a virtue. That journey does not mean someone knows the truth, it means they don't accept "truths" out of comfort.
There's nothing wrong with being committed to the law of noncontradiction. It's a fundamental law of logic.
In cases like that, I'd say that it's a statement of wishful thinking. It's like saying that it's highly likely that a random stranger will come up to me today and give me a free slice of chocolate cheesecake.
No one can do that, next.
haha
Hear, hear.
Yes I know, thats because is a creation :)
There is a long history of people coming up with proofs that the universe is a creation; I don't see why the inverse is not possible. Some cosmologists are trying to do it; see CCC theory by Penrose for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
What does that have to do with what I wrote, that you quoted just above this, and that this is apparently a response to?
Please explain further then, according to my initial post you answered to.
Your initial post? I thought it was an ongoing conversation. You had defined knowledge as "information that you know." I pointed out that "know" is simply a grammatical permutation of "knowledge" (or vice versa--just depends on which one you want to focus on), so you were defining a term with itself. (And additionally, "information" is often defined as "knowledge"--for example: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information)
What in "knowledge is information that you know", is unclear? Knowledge is information, just as in the dictionary you linked. I said that "knowledge is information that you know". Perhaps it's rather defined wrongly by adding that "you know", knowledge can be found, meaning you don't know it yet. However, knowledge implies something to know, meaning that it's not just information. Information can be defined as a substance that defines something, like "there is information in DNA". Knowledge, however, is about what we can know, it's information that we can store as memory information about the world. To know about things is to have knowledge.
Knowledge is jtb. If you're trying to provide an alternate definition, "Knowledge is knowledge (information) that you know" isn't a very good one.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that JTB is often overused as a counter argument every time someone talks about the search for knowledge. The use of JTB in arguments is often using a simplification of it and pointing out the "belief"-part in JTB as a defense against unsupported irrational belief. JTB is not about unsupported belief, which is the kind of belief that has nothing else proving it than the will of the believer for it to be true.
It's not an argument, just the standard characterization of knowledge. And yeah, it's not "unsupported" because justification and truth are two of the components. Nevertheless, knowledge isn't different than belief. It's a qualified species of belief. So someone trying to characterize knowledge as not belief will be surprised when they encounter that it's common in epistemology to consider knowledge a type of belief.
This is the part that I, not necessarily object to, but which I mean muddies the waters for those who aren't knowledgable in philosophy. They use "knowledge isn't different than belief" as proof that belief has the same position of truth as claims rooted in rational reasoning, evidence and so on. Maybe a new terminology of knowledge based on supporting information with high scrutiny of skepticism should be named in order not to be confused with "belief", as just by looking at this forum, many get confused by.
There is no reaching you. You are incapable of rational discourse.
It isn't as simple as that, because the debate isn't purely an epistemic dispute over the possibility of theological knowledge. Rather, the debate between atheists and Christians is to a large extent a debate over the very meaning of evidence, god, and their interrelation.
There will be theists, the immanentists, who will say that one's immediate experience is all the proof one needs of gods existence, effectively eliminating the concept of evidence by identifying experience itself with divine presence. And on the other extreme there will be atheists who insist that the evidence for god is zero in every possible world, effectively eliminating the relevance of experience to the concept of god, leaving the idea of god empty. Both of these positions constitute 100% certainty in their respective beliefs.
The key is to recognize that their definitions of god are incompatible and that they are talking past each other in incommensurable dialects.
I suggest that to understand what a person means by "god", you must ask them to describe the experiences they are prepared to accept as constituting "god's" existence. After hearing the person's answers, is there anything more to discuss?
My understanding of the Divine Fallacy is that “supernatural” explanations are given to phenomena that one cannot imagine to be explained as natural. My argument is that a “divine” consciousness is a natural explanation abductively inferred as a better inference than that of a spontaneous and accidental explanation. I will repeat: it is an abductive inference. I use the term “divine” not in the ordinary sense, but as a descriptor for which there is a lack of a better word for the guiding consciousness that led conscious life to form. This, too, would be a natural phenomena, as I believe that everything that exists is natural.
It has not been established, nor I highly doubt that it ever could be, that there is an accidental and spontaneous mechanism that causes inanimate matter to form into conscious life. And, no, evolution does NOT explain it. In order for my argument to be characterized as an instance of the Divine Fallacy, it would have to be a supernatural explanation for which there is a natural explanation. It is not this at all for the reasons I just showed.
Atheists who aren't philosophically-educated are just as troublesome in this regard, though, because they wind up saying silly things like "I don't have beliefs," "I don't believe that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen; I know there is," etc.
All you need to do with theists is to explain that knowledge isn't belief simpliciter. It's a qualified species of belief.
It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood.
An abductive inference based on what?
What do you mean? Let me ask you this: how do you infer that other people are conscious other than that it is a better explanation than that solipsism is true?
Someone says, " It seems highly likely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance."
What makes the supportive/justificational difference between the sentence above and the alternate sentence that you typed? We ask the person above what they're basing their sentence on and they say: "It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood. " Is that good enough? If so, why don't you believe their sentence over your alternate sentence?
Behavior in conjunction with one's first-person knowledge of how one's similar behavior is correlated with mental activity.
Sure. I also infer inductively by analogy, but it is not something that ALSO doesn’t rely on an abductive inference that everything you experience is really happening. How do you know that you’re not hallucinating and are delusional all the time?
Let's not bypass this part, it's what I want to know (also because there's a more fundamental issue here I'm tackling):
Someone says, " It seems highly likely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance."
What makes the supportive/justificational difference between the sentence above and the alternate sentence that you typed? We ask the person above what they're basing their sentence on and they say: "It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood. " Is that good enough? If so, why don't you believe their sentence over your alternate sentence?
It seems that there is no mechanistic explanatory model for how conscious life formed.
Okay, so that's what you're basing it on? (If so, that's all I was asking.)
Would you say then that you're also essentially arguing that "If matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance, then it seems likely that there would be a mechanistic explanatory model for that by now"?
I would argue that even if such a model were given, it still couldn’t rule out some kind of guidance. I would still infer abductively that there is a “divine” consciousness.
The other issue is how we'd support that there would be some sort of mechanistic explanatory model by now.
True. I have a preference for a “divine” consciousness, just as others have a preference for no “divine” consciousness. I gave my reasons for my belief. What are your reasons for yours?
Completely agree. I mean, anti-vaccers doesn't have to be religious and theists to possess bullshit ideas. The important thing is to just disregard both theism and atheism as tribalist concepts and always aim for rational, reasonable arguments with evidence.
I was more interested in talking about epistemology in general, and the idea of likelihood more specifically (although we never ended up getting into that).
Re my beliefs about the ontology of consciousness, all evidence points to it being a brain function, and there's zero evidence that consciousness occurs anywhere outside of brain functions.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
My point was that it is more likely that the physical world exists, and that a conscious mind that is working properly is more likely to perceive it usually accurately. This is an abductive inference.
Can you define that for me?
Why? Laziness?
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
And I'm saying that bare assertions like that can be rightly dismissed.
Yes. I was being lazy. I’m an extremely lazy person. God bless me.
You're also not forthcoming with any reasonable support for your bare assertions, and that's because you don't have any. You're just buying for time.
Yes. The question is how different from our own brains it can be, in terms of the specific materials, and in terms of its structure and function, while still being conscious. But definitely an artificial brain made out of the same materials, with just the same structure and processes of a human brain, would be conscious.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Remember that I'm a physicalist, so my view is that if something exists, it's going to be physically instantiated whether we like it or not. ;-)
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I think the whole idea of likelihood for such things is nonsense. That has to do with what likelihood is.
It's not a matter of preference. Maybe it is for you, but that would mean that you don't care about the truth or being reasonable. I do.
And you started out claiming that it was highly likely. Have you abandoned that claim now?
Perhaps it’s nonsense. Perhaps not. One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences.
That’s a non answer.
They're not.
How so or why not?
No it isn't. Your questions were wrong. I corrected you. The answer is that it isn't a matter of preference.
What is it a matter of then? “Inference to the ‘best’ explanation.” What does “best” mean here?
Because likelihood makes no sense if we don't have data re frequency of occurrence. Even then there are problems with it, but we definitely can't reach a conclusion about it without data re frequency.
Then one cannot hold any beliefs such as belief about a lot of metaphysical or ontological things. What about your beliefs about physicalism?
I don't have any likelihood beliefs about anything that I don't have frequency data for, unless I think either it's 1 ("100%" or certain) or 0--impossible/incoherent.
But you have a preference for physicalism. Perhaps I’m not using “likelihood” in abductive inference the same way I would use “likelihood” in statistics.
Abductive inference is not a matter of preference. I shouldn't even have to explain something so obvious. It's a form of reasoning, not a matter of preference. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you actually know what abductive inference is?
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
It could mean a number of things, but if it means most preferable to you, then you're not being reasonable, you're just being emotional.
So, there is evidence everyone is aware of.
Hard to do philosophy like that though, especially the hard questions.
I wasn't always this way. I just don't care as much as I once did. In fact, my giving-a-fuck factor has gone down exponentially in the last decade. :razz:
I take it to mean most preferable to someone, if not most preferable to the experts. What could "best" possibly mean?
That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spam discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions?
Yes, and that goes for you too, Daniel Cox.
Quoting Daniel Cox
I feel like my positions are well-supported and thoughtful. I have read hundreds and hundreds of books on philosophy, physics, biology, psychology, history, and tons of classic literature; just not in the last decade. When you've been constantly harassed by the community for dropping out of law school, losing your mind, and going on disability for schizoaffective disorder; you tend not to give much of a fuck anymore.
I don't believe you're incapable of thinking up what that could mean. Are you just being lazy again? It could mean something like most plausible or least problematic. It could be an assessment based on reason, logic, science, or Occam's razor.
I agree with what Christopher said. You're not really doing philosophy when you say something similar to, "I like cheese!". Good for you, but we're trying to do philosophy here.
Yet, what someone has done in life means nothing if they can't present an argument that is convincing and listening to the counter-arguments being said, changing the initial argument.
Philosophy is more about challenging one's own ideas to improve them, change them, find the truth closest to humanly possible through rational thinking. But most philosophical discussions I witness tend to be evangelical rants in some vague attempt to pick a fight online or some other trivial reason.
When my head feels like burning because I get challenged by really good counter-arguments, I know my knowledge is improving. If not, it's usually a waste of time.
But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage it. It has been refuted. The fault was easy to find. It took me less than a minute, I think.
How am I evangelizing? You haven't addressed anything I've said.
Furthermore, what good counter-arguments?
Point out where I went wrong.
It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so.
I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult.
Fuck Russel.
ANYONE making an assertion of fact...(like, there are no gods)...incurs a burden of proof obligation.
If you want to think otherwise...fine with me. But there is not a logician in the world who would agree with you.
It is just as good an inference to say that conscious life was guided into being by another consciousness than to say it occurred spontaneously and accidentally. In fact, it seems to be in better line with Occam's razor than to say that some complex mechanism is occuring that causes inanimate matter to become conscious. Even if some such mechanism is at work, it is not contradictory to science to say that, for example, the universe was created by other beings in another universe (higher consciousness). As I said, I never claimed to know the nature of said consciousness.
No, you haven't. You made bald assertions.
That's not doing philosophy. I have zero reason to believe any of these claims. They require support. It's on you to support these assertions.
And also, there's another fallacy known as a false dilemma. You'll be committing that fallacy if you suggest that, "We don't know", is not a possible answer.
I think my head just exploded because the irony of what you just said is through the roof.
I gave reasons. Whether you thought they were bad reasons is your preference because you haven't addressed my reasons. You just said I was wrong.
You constantly edit your posts after I've read them. You can't expect me to go back and see if you've edited all of your posts. Why do you do that?
You're lying. I accurately identified a fallacy in your argument. I also pointed out that you have a burden of proof, and that you've failed to meet it. If you think that you've met it, then show me where. You made the false suggestion that this is a matter of preference. I've dealt with that by saying, in effect, speak for yourself, and by showing how it's trivial if you just turn up to a philosophical discussion to say something like, "I like cheese!". We don't care about your preference, we're here to be reasonable.
There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. That's the nature of abductive reasoning! :lol:
Lol, sorry. I submit comments too soon, then think of something I should've added.
You don't know what you're talking about. Don't put too much into the "proof" part. Think of it as a burden of justification or a request to show your reasoning, if you even have anything [I]to[/I] show.
I can't believe you managed to misinterpret it so badly. What you said had no philosophical value. It was just bare assertion. Are you two going to start doing philosophy any time soon?
I gave my reasoning in my seven-point argument. You said I wasn't justified in saying that conscious life spontaneously and accidentally came into being was less likely than that it was guided by a higher consciousness. I think instead of "less likely" I could just as well have said "less elegant". I explained to Terrapin that I wasn't using "likelihood" in the statistical sense. It is used in the Occam's razor, better, more realistic, less baffling sense. ***How would one even explain conscious life coming into existence from inanimate matter spontaneously and accidentally?*** At least my explanation makes intuitve sense. The alternative does not.
Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of hours of real world experience it took to arrive at that? No, you don't. I'm the only one who comments here daily who knows the difference between formal and instrumental signification; the distinctions between 1st-, second-, & 3rd-person experience; the difference between the two main theories of truth; & the separation of modern analytic logic/philosophy from Intentional Aristotelian logic/philosophy.
My methods of learning are unlike everyone else's here. "What you said has no philosophical value." Come on, you got to be kidding me.
Unless you have a history of mental illness accompanied by severe delusions, or you've been taking some serious drugs, it's pretty safe to say the fridge is real. This is the problem with philosophy and those indoctrinated into it, there's always some lame excuse for everything, some fire escape out of reality, it's no more than mythology with pathologically specialized language.
It's belief, or it's knowledge, or it's a reference to nothing by someone who doesn't exist.
_The first facility of the noetic subsystem is awareness._ Our awareness is neither totally random, or totally determined by external stimuli. Rather, it is determined, at least in part, by our mental states. Thus, _the second facility of the noetic subsystem is the ability to direct awareness._ In large measure, we can control contents to which we attend. Implicit in our capacity to direct attention is a _value system,_ for attention values its objects. Therefore, _the third facility of the noetic subsystem is the generation of value._ Finally, in implementing our desire to pay attention we activate selected contents. This establishes the last facility to be addressed, _the ability to direct, to some extent, the neural subsystem's response, initiating chains of events incarnating our values._ This is confirmed by experiments falsifying causal closure (p. 125). Since all these facilities involve the ability to direct awareness and are responses to the contents of which we are aware, they fall appropriately within the bounds of a single subsystem. In sum, the function of the noetic subsystem is supervisory and evaluative.
God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.
I read or skimmed your proof. You're absolutely right, we direct our awareness each moment, it's the proof of God's existence and the eternal demise of "naturalism/atheism."
It's not a preference, it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence.
If I were doing ontology based on preferences, the world would have things like ghosts in it.
I very much doubt that.
I would be interested to hear how you explain consciousness using the physicalist model.
Intentionality?
In The Intentional Stance, Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:
it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.
Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis.
JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF?
Contemporary philosophers generally define knowledge to be justified true belief. That means that knowledge is a kind of belief to them, however we will see that this is an indefensible position. That knowledge is not a species of belief can be seen by examining their contraries. Red is a species of light, the contrary of light, darkness, involves the exclusion of red. If knowledge were a species of belief then the contrary of belief which is doubt would exclude knowledge. But it clearly is not the case.
When Descartes wrote on methodological doubt he knew that he was sitting in his room writing, yet he chose to doubt it. Since he could both know and doubt that he was in his room at the same time doubt does not exclude knowledge and knowledge is therefore a not a species of belief.
Again, let's look at the contraries of knowledge and of belief. The contrary of knowledge is ignorance, the contrary of belief is doubt. In order to doubt some proposition I have to consider the proposition but in order to be ignorant of a proposition no consideration is necessary. Therefore the contraries of knowledge and of belief don't have the same relationship to each other so knowledge is not a form of belief. A consequence of this is that Cartesian doubt calls belief into question, but it doesn't call knowledge into question because doubt is refusing to commit to a proposition even if we know it is true. So Cartesian doubt doesn't call knowledge into question it merely suspends our commitment to what we know.
Dfpolis #37 Knowledge & Belief
The difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is not justified true belief because it is not any kind of belief. Knowledge requires an awareness of reality, while belief is commitment with or without awareness of the reality of what is being committed to. Replacing the probability of a proposition with prioritized commitment.
As long as you're the only one on the rules committee between us, you'll always be right. Isn't that funny?
Like I said, an argument from incredulity. Your incredulity, or bafflement, isn't reasonable grounds to reach your conclusions. You must argue the point. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that your preferred possibility is more realistic or less baffling or more in line with Occam's razor. And [i]no explanation[/I] is always better than a god of the gaps. There's a reason why I haven't concluded that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and intervenes to maintain order in an invisible and undetectable manner. And it has nothing to do with preference. I quite like the idea of that, but I'm not an idiot.
Is it a false dichotomy then? Is there another explanation that I missed? No explanation is NOT in line with Occam's razor. And yes, when one of two alternatives doesn't make sense, I choose the better of the two.
Yes, the explanation that we don't know enough to reach a conclusion. That beats a bad explanation.
Quoting S
How does one explain something by not reaching a conclusion?
Calling something as controversial as that "a fact" has no philosophical value. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't mean a thing. I can do that by acknowledging that the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is under your bed right now has a trillion times the value of your belief in God.
Quoting Daniel Cox
Quit trying to bamboozle or impress me with philosophical jargon. It has the opposite effect. Cut to the chase. You assert that the existence of God is a fact. Simply tell us why we should believe that.
Really? You're pretty insignificant compared to his contribution to philosophy and you pretty much ignore him just because it's convenient for you. If that's the level you want to hold the discussion, then goodbye.
Being held in existence is not up for debate because the alternative is not only unintelligible, it's downright insane. Think of the philosophical contrary and the square of opposition.
Give me enough time and an open mind and I will turn the person around.
Why? Because we're being held in existence, and only One entity exists as an intrinsic necessity performing that ongoing fact. If something else besides God is holding you in being and THAT Supreme Being is going to have you cease to exist then it's not much of a holder now!
And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. If you use abductive reasoning to arrive at true conclusions, you fail to understand when to use abduction.
My atheistic "beliefs" are not beliefs. I don't accept something as true without any support for it being true. That's not belief, it's the lack of belief, the lack of belief in anything unsupported. Now you're just doing a straw man attempt by trying to attack atheism when it has nothing to do with your unsupported belief. Your belief is also irrelevant within philosophy, you need more than mere belief. You can try and justify it however you want, but the truth is that you fail basic philosophy through the way you reason your argument. And now you're just being stubborn instead of improving your argument. That's called evangelism and it's not allowed on this forum. If you want to rant your personal beliefs with no interest in listening to counter-arguments, go to Twitter, Facebook or some religious forum.
It's not supported by any of the things which you assert support it, and you're just buying for time instead of getting on with it. Just turning up and presenting a bad argument isn't anywhere near meeting your burden of justification. Nor is just saying shit without backing it up with reason.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
A conclusion is reached. That conclusion is that we don't know enough. Given that we don't know enough, your conclusion is unwarranted.
I don't think that that's hard to understand.
I fail to see how you're being reasonable yourself. The pot calling the kettle "black".
"I have no beliefs regarding God, but I will try without good supporting reasons to tear down anyone who holds a belief and gives reasons for it. It is not knowledge, therefore it is not philosophy."
That's what you two sound like. It's drivel, hogwash, nonsense, and a total waste of my time.
But you've given me no reason to believe anything you just said. (Well, setting aside your first sentence about giving blood. And good on you, by the way). I've been trying to get you to realise how you come across to a sceptic by bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I take it you don't believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessarily under your bed right now?
As I've said a number of times, I'd not get involved in arguments based on whether something is explained or not if we don't first establish a general set of criteria for explanations. The criteria should work so that it passes through things that you'd say are explained, but so that it doesn't pass through things that you'd say are not explained. We'd need a few examples of each in addition to the criteria.
Not such a smart person after all. Belief doesn't imply certainty. Knowledge, which is a more limited, qualified type of belief, doesn't even imply certainty.
Which is aka asserting a belief. The belief is likely true and justified. Hence you know it; it's knowledge.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
It's interesting that education goes to such lengths to infect everyone with a compulsion to prove and deny reality simultaneously.
That is the difference between evidence and 'evidence for'. 'Evidence for' is subjective. Two people can look at a body of facts/evidence and argue differently as to what this body of facts is 'evidence for'.
There is a whole universe of evidence in this sense.
Atheists have convinced many people that the mystery of being is mystery concerning matter and can be addressed in the context of materialism. I disagree. The true mystery of being is an onthological question; the mind is connected to a vast ontological universe of art, mathematics, creativity, religion, music, intelligence. This vast ontological universe is the soul and mystery of being. Why does it exist? What is it?
What the atheist is really asking is "where is the material evidence?" In other words, they are looking for evidence in their own terms. But even in their terms it is everywhere; what is the material universe evidence for? They have their answers prepared. But what about the onthological universe of consciousness and imagination? It is, they argue, an accidental artifact of accidental evolution. In other words, they dismiss it.
You say that if the God exists people could provide 'evidence'. But evidence is everywhere already! What is it evidence for? It is not a question of providing evidence it is a question of providing a coherent and convincing argument as to what the evidence means.
The atheist will respond to this by saying "We want public evidence. Evidence that can be shared and agreed upon." But objective evidence of this kind pertains only to the primitive world of matter and intellect and science. And matter, mathematics and science are primitive and basic. Onthological questions are more sophisticated and evolved. The human intellect is not up to the task. It is earthbound and imprisoned in a web of tautologies and imprecise language.* Materialism and intellect are not able to answer questions concerning ontology and consciousness. The atheist balks at answers that come from consciousness rather than intellect (or a mix both). The only way to answer the atheists is to tell them that these questions pertain to the ontological arena and not (only) the material world.
*As has been said above 'It is possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time'.
...proponents of neither side should state their case as an assertion or claim. The moment one does that...a burden of proof accrues that just cannot be met.
"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. They happen to be in opposite directions...but that is almost incidental.
The "But my guess is more likely than your guess" nonsense...is laughable.
Claiming "I'm accepting this because it has support, and you only have faith in what you're claiming and no support" is nothing but a religious tautology. Announcing what side of a dispute you're on doesn't score points with judges or juries.
I've never seen one scintilla of proof for the word "atheism." It's 100% evangelical.
Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God.
If we refer to god as the all loving/caring father who guides us and waits for us in heaven, then there is no sufficient evidence for his existence. To the extent of my knowledge, the only evidence present are the bible, the church, religious people and their sayings, and personal need for greater purpose. The validity of the bible is questionable since through the years it was probably tampered with. If we assume it is 100% original then the problem is that it is simply the testimony of men. Thinking about ancient religions, we can see how our ancestors worshipped their gods. However, beliefs seem to change through the years and this may suggest that it is a human tendency to believe to something greater and noble. Often, people claim that they encountered god’s face (or a loved ones) in smoke/fire etc. They are probably not liars but there is some science behind that. For example, in psychology, pareidolia is a term for the tendency to see patterns and interpret them as something meaningful. There is also auditory pareidolia (hearing things). Then there is the personal need for purpose. Refusing this feeling would result in a meaningless life. Understanding that feelings act as a feedback mechanism for optimal living/survival and that behaviour has been developed through evolution, then we might be susceptible to a new meaning of life. It seems that as I improve my knowledge my belief diminishes. However, drawing absolute conclusions with so many questions is ignorant.
If we refer to god as a creating force then the meaning of life would be survival and evolution. Survival would depend on our decision making (free will) and reproduction (passing our genes to the next generation) and evolution would depend on personal growth. In this case, religion would be symbolic. God allows suffering for adaptation, thus greatness, thus closer to him. For example, in exercise physiology, stressing/damaging a muscle results in its growth. So suffering is part of evolution. I grew up as a Christian, switched to atheism, and now I believe that god (the creator) is not something that we can comprehend (at least at this point). If you know human physiology you can understand that electricity is also present in the human body and not only in the surrounding environment. Oxygen too. What I want to say is that the existence of life is linked to the matter that surrounds it. This might be the reason our ancestors thought the Earth as a god. Maybe we are part of a giant organism that is too sophisticated for us to understand. If god exists, it is not a mere religion.
I'm skeptical of the claim of "atheism" and "naturalism." The skeptical sword cuts both ways.
Some would say they are Napoleon.
Do you want to try a different approach?
I'm not all that brilliant, I'm just really great at learning stuff that interests me. Trying to impinge my fifteen million dollar education doesn't hurt my feelings one bit because Dr. Polis is unequalled on these subjects and I haply defer to him as you should have noticed by my repeated copy & pastes of material I copied by hand from his book, and from his 67 videos. Videos I transcribed.
He routine lectures for the International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies at their international symposiums. It's probably close to $400 for a ticket. For the last month I've been trying to raise money for my soap ministry, Alyssa Michelle Soap. I've been emailing pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux. I contacted some people involved in the 113 year Easter Sunday Sunrise Service Pilgrimage here in Riverside asking about some help for my ministry. The lady said a fellow handling it would be at a prayer breakfast, I should talk to him. I said, "Great! When and where is the prayer breakfast." She gave the place and time and then said, "Sixty dollars." F*ck, am I allowed to say that here? Sixty dollars is 180 ten dollar soaps!! One whole fair's worth.
No one has paid a crying dime, not one red cent.
Not all that smart? You're probably right, but I'd rather be blessed anyway. Forty-thousand dollars an hour is a soft multiple of what my Dad made 35 years ago.
I understand the difference between philosophy of religion and Theology, hence why my arguments are always initiated with or acknowledged that God is a presupposition. And no, I did not assert Authority - at all, I just addressed that theism, must at least be respected as a belief and I don't think it should be neglected in the table of Philosophy.
But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true.
...The doctor suspected then, that the virus may have penetrated the myelin sheath that insulates the nerves in the vocal chords. To get a picture of this, imagine a copper wire. That's a nerve. Now imagine black, rubber insulation around the wire. That's the myelin sheath. If you gently squeeze the two with a pair of plyers, you may indent the insulation, but the wire inside it remains unharmed. That's what usually happens when a virus invades your body. It may "indent" the insulation around the nerves, but rarely invades the nerve itself.
"Not only are you okay," he said, "but I can't find any evidence that you ever had a voice problem!"
He sat down and looked at me, amazed. "Even if I could explain how you got your voice back by coincidence -- which I can't -- I could never explain what happened to the scar tissue." He sighed. "Scar tissue _never_ disappears. It just never happens!"
This physician, a nonbeliever so far as I know, was so impressed that he eventually obtained hundreds of copies of the audiotape of when the healing occurred and sent them out to his friends and colleagues with a letter that said, "Look, we hear about these types of cases all the time, but I'm telling you, I witnessed this one, I have the test evidence. This one is _real."_
My doctor writes textbooks for medical schools. He specializes in neurology as it relates to speech -- and he personally verified the miracle with the most prestigious of his colleagues.
Out of the Silence by Duane Miller.
As a Reverend I've been noticing a pattern over the last 38 years how naturalists twist science to conform to their canons and flippantly dismiss any science that contradicts their most preciously held beliefs. When we argue for a position the first thing we must do is know our opponents' arguments better than they do, and never leave a flank exposed.
The scrutiny was not applied to my arguments presented, well, at least I think so. Everyone just started to be baffled and attack my claim that theism, is and deserves to be in the table of philosophy. And my arguments have nothing to do with evangelisation, I don't want to evangelise any of you. But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing.
To add, I think theism is just moved by perspectives that acclaim labeling us as delusional, or beliefs being unjustified - and I will expect people to affirm that into its as-a-matter-of-factness.
Personally I don't think study or intellect has anything to do with belief in God. It has to do with consciousness. The intellect is not the only way to knowledge. Knowledge (of God and the world) can come directly through consciousness. That is what the atheist cannot accept and dismisses as delusion.
Look, how can I put this: declaring ridiculous things is not doing philosophy. Do you understand that?
No it doesn't, and I don't.
I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. Just like a intuitively feel like you are more likely to punch a baby in the future than I am. I have no proof of the future, but I’m almost certain I’m right.
Right, the difference is that you [I]really do know[/I] God. (Just like he [I]really does know[/I] that he's Napoleon).
And properly dealing with scrutiny? :brow:
Yes, and I like cheese, although not as much as I like punching babies. But this isn't doing philosophy.
Thanks for the appreciation on donating blood. One time donating I was there with an autism shirt, some good friends of mine, some best friends, have an autistic son, Kenny. This man asked me about it, "Do you have an autistic child?" Then he pulled up his shirt sleeve revealing a gigantic shoulder/arm tattoo of the Autism Puzzle Piece, our symbol. His is the one with the four pieces kind of forming a square. You meet some of the best people donating blood.
Today was unreal, there was a lady nurse there from Transylvania, "Funny, I collect blood!" I told her about my Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, "Everyone drinks my blood." She said their blood mobile was just at the base of Mt. Rubidoux yesterday and the donors told them to take the hike up to The Cross, she did. She said, "Is that your cross?" Yep. Then a woman, a fellow donator, asked me about the Cross, my claim of Christ (Messiah; Mashiach; Mahdi; & Melchizedek). I told her about my birthday, December 8th 1962, the Feast Day of Immaculate Conception, its connection to Hanukkah, the Miracle of the Maccabees and the festival of lights (there's a bible in Georgia flowing oil replicating that miracle), and she said, "My mother is born December 8th."
======
I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, though it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things that they are nothing but power. - Plato, The Sophist.
This leads us to formulate a dynamic ontology. One in which existence is the ability to act in the world. Anything that can act certainly must exist. What cannot act can never be known and would never therefore be thought of as an instance of existence. So, to exist is to be able to act. In the same way we can explain the idea of essence of what a things is by looking at the specification of it's possible acts. If something can reflect red light, it's red. If something can act like an apple then it's an apple. This gives us a very clear way of thinking about essence and existence in terms of acts and the specification of acts. It need not be any more complicated than that. dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.
Have you tried opening your eyes? I have given plenty of positive arguments on this forum. And viewing criticism as a bad thing which should be discouraged is a very unphilosophical attitude to have. It's not uncommon in those with a religions mindset, actually.
But yes, I am adept. I'm glad you noticed that. I wish I could repay the compliment.
Aside from the fact that you appear to be suggesting an argument from authority, you wrote, "The expert in philosophy... PhD (Physics)" haha
Yo...
...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...
...they bear the burden of proof.
I'm not going to ask for it, because I can consider it to be impossible. ***
In any case, you are talking in the abstract. Are you suggesting that YOU can...
a) make the assertion "At least one god exists" and prove the existence of at least one god...or...
b) Provide someone else who can do that?
***
Proving the assertion "no gods exist" IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Proving the assertion, "There is at least one god" is technically possible. A person could produce a being that could definitely be identified as a god. But, an easier task would be proving one is Napoleon.
I didn't say you were.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
[I]"Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations".[/I]
You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling.
You seem to have a problem with people who know what they're talking about. I think Terrapin knows more about likelihood than me, and certainly more than you. But you just sort of dismissed his criticism, like you don't really care. You just care about your mindless yearning that there be a God. You just care about your feeling, and you care less about critical thinking, even though critical thinking is an essential part of philosophy.
That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”.
He's an authority for all the reasons I gave including him being a physicist, University of Notre Dame, and his degree in philosophy from Loyola Marymount where he won the President's Prize in philosophy, and where he studied philosophy with the Jesuits. One of whom was the Exorcist who performed the real exorcism on which the movie is based. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a magnetic audio recording of that child speaking in ancient Aramaic, a dead language. I also mentioned his Philosophical Curriculum!
It's only fallacious if the person isn't an expert. For instance, no one is a bigger sermonizer for their belief in "atheism" than Richard Carrier and yet that louse cheated on his wife who put him through college, cheated on her numerous times with his education in "atheism." He met & screwed godless whores at "atheological" meetings. Appealing to the moral authority of Richard Carrier would be a fallacy in appealing to authority because the guy is the biggest cheater known to mankind. Can you believe he did that? It's one thing to stop loving your wife who put you through college, gave you your career as an "atheist," but to use that to bone loose women on your college educated tours, cheat on her with her own money? He turned his wife into a kind of cuck.
Physicists are only authorities in physics, only in their field of physics--not in other fields, and arguments from authority are fallacious.
Funny. I know you don't literally mean "wishful thinking", but that's all you're effectively conveying.
And who cares about your belief being strengthened by your intuitive feeling? Don't you think these things through? Honestly, where is your critical thinking here? I see scant evidence of any. You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is under your bed?
And "most elegant" is just another philosophically useless judgement. It seems entirely subjective, just like your funny feeling. This isn't a matter of feeling or preference. We aren't talking about art or food. If you had any critical thinking skills, you would recognise that. And you should have just said "elegant" instead of talking about likelihood.
Your arguments aren't even rising to the fallacious level, they're more like simple contradictions.
You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.
You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional.
As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. It’s no wonder you are so bold around here. This place is overrun by atheists.
You would be delusional. Belief in Napoleon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not delusional.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says about abductive reasoning over what you've said about it.
I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense.
You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here!
Ha! Is what you call it: "deconstructing"? I call it trying to drag rationality down to your uncritical feelings in order to bolster your belief in God. But it's not very effective. It's transparent and achieves nothing.
:rofl:
God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist.
The Vice of Vicariousness
If you can't feel any self-respect without associating yourself with a Higher Power, then for God's sake make one up!
Yes, that's an example of begging the question. Your statement quoted above, that is.
Quoting TheSageOfMainStreet
I'll pass.
There you are. Classic, egocentric, self-centered, arrogant @S.
The existence of God has not yet been affirmed and you acknowledge it. I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional.
Your confidence seems to just piss people off and at the same time amuse them. It's amazing.
Quoting S
Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks.
Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie?
Islam's Allah is meant to be the same as the Christian God / the jewish Yahweh - Muhammed was continuing a traditional god rather than defining a whole new god.
Quoting Maureen
If we recast your argument to say why was Yahweh not known about before Judaism, we find that even Yahweh is a god probably inherited from a previous tradition:
"The national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah was Yahweh. The precise origins of this god are disputed, although they reach back to the early Iron Age and even the Late Bronze. The name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon, but earlier mentions are in Egyptian texts that place God among the nomads of the southern Transjordan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism
A hypotheses is that all gods can trace their roots back to an earlier god. Then the question becomes was God a single invention or was God invented multiple times in different places? With the first, we have one proto-God, with the second we have multiple proto-Gods.
Neanderthals were religious - religion dates back a long way. Its even possible that the first humans (who could talk) came up with the idea of proto-God and that traditional was passed on orally to everyone else, mutating with time into the many different religions we have today.
You aren't adapting to the counter-arguments, you ignore them and continues to hold the same ground, defending your pure belief. Evangelizing is to just rant your own point of view and belief without any regard for adapting to valid counter-arguments. This is a very common theistic viewpoint, start using biases and fallacies, start applying "you too" arguments when questioned instead of actual scrutiny of your argument. Most theists in here aren't doing philosophy, they're just ranting their belief and how everyone else should shut up because... reasons. Personally, I think it's an epidemic. There are far more evangelical religious new threads started on this forum than anything else. It's like every thread turns into an attempt to explain why first cause arguments fail in their theistic conclusion or how burden of proof really works. The spamming nature of theists on this forum is very much evangelical and it's not allowed. If you don't want to do that, then listen to the counter-arguments.
You need to convince even atheists with your argument and if you can't it's flawed, simple as that. If you don't, then it's not philosophy, then your evangelic about your belief and just want to spam that belief.
So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
Quoting SethRy
And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. If you have a theistic point of view it doesn't matter if others are atheists, you need to convince even atheists of your argument and you cannot complain that "atheists just don't understand these things", that is not valid. If you get counter-arguments, adapt and change your initial argument taking into account those counter-arguments. If you can convince an atheist of your argument, it is sound and reasoned rationally, if not, there are flaws. Not because atheists hold a different perspective, but because, as seen plenty of times on this forum, theists tend to disregard standard praxis of argumentation.
Quoting SethRy
No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. The delusional part is when theists try to force everyone to accept a flawed argument just because they believe it. That's the delusional part. No one serious with philosophy will just accept someone's theistic perspective and conclusion because they rant about how convinced they are their belief is true. And plenty have flaws in their argument from which they defend them through a total bias towards their belief and when pointing out that bias they get angry and act irrationally.
Want theism to be part of philosophy in the way you propose? Then play by the same rules as everyone else. It's tedious to hear theistic rants while all other topics in philosophy get broken down to their smallest pieces in order to expose flaws. Theism doesn't get a free pass, not because people think it's delusional, but because the actual arguments won't hold and the theist's defense of those arguments becomes delusional and disregarding all standard methods of reasoning in philosophy.
And to return to your initial question: "Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?"
Read Russel, understand how burden of proof works. Many theists twist burden of proof to be something it's not. An unfalsifiable claim cannot be made on an initial unfalsifiable claim. There is the first claim and if that claim does not have any proof, then any discussion after it is irrelevant. Atheists ask for evidence of God because the initial claim is that God or Gods exist. The answer to your question has already been answered in philosophy, you might need to read more about it before putting forth your argument. We're just hinting at the answers to your question.
Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done.
The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.
You did not understand mine.
Mine is that if a person makes an assertion or claim in a discussion in a philosophy forum...that person incurs the burden of proof for the assertion.
Belief can never be solid ground for a philosophical conclusion. Even justified true belief means a form of belief that has major support in reasoning and rational arguments. An argument for the necessity of belief can be made, without flaws, since it's about the nature of belief and it's necessity for humans in psychological areas. However, if someone can't make a coherent argument that is free from biases and fallacies, it's flawed. All arguments so far for any kind of spiritual reality or god/gods have failed in their reasoning. The so-called "proof" for god/gods and the spiritual by theists conclusions in philosophical arguments always include biases and fallacies. A jump to a conclusion, circular arguments etc. If someone is to put forth an argument for the spiritual, god/gods etc. they need to do so without flaws. In what way do you propose that the spiritual can be coherently argued for? I'd like to see an argument which demonstrates this without requiring believing in the conclusion before it's argued.
If a person makes an assertion or claim...the burden of proof arises.
Most theists and atheists never even make an attempt at doing so...and that is their right. (Mostly because neither can even come close to doing it.)
But the burden does accrue.
If you do not GROK that...you are in the wrong conversation in the wrong forum.
Try that comment of yours using the true meaning of a "belief" in a "Is there a god or are there no gods" context...which is "blind guess." So it becomes:
The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.
Does that sound any more like bullshit now?
"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief?
ok...
I remember adding an argument of Anselm? and no, just because two arguments are used to support each other does not mean I am being selectively biased, they both agree with each other and by far is logically consistent, so I do not see how that is wrong — unless of course, you'd care to explain to me how that's the case.
Quoting S
I am sorry if that's the case. But what I am saying is that; I am providing arguments for the existence of God, and if anyone is not trying to address the errors and defectives in them, no offense, but I think it's you.
Quoting S
I assumed you started to evaluate theism as an affirmed fallacy in every logical way possible, and these are not ad hominem fallacies, I only point out the emotions that are demonstrated without the addressing of the defectives of my arguments.
You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely.
Why?
Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other.
Both of those things are merely what one wants to do...to guess one way or the other.
That is all anyone can do on the question of whether gods exist or not...is to blindly guess one way or the other...
...or JUST NOT GUESS.
No. I'm not saying anything about likelihood. Empirical claims are not provable. To wonder if we've proved some empirical claim, or to ask for proof, is to commit a category error. And even in the realms where proofs are pertinent--mathematics and logic, proofs are simply a matter of whether something follows from the rules of the system in question, as we've constructed the system.
There are reasons to believe one thing over another. We can simply talk about those reasons. This has nothing to do with "guessing." You seem focused on certainty (which is why you'd use the term "guess" in counterdistinction to it), which is a complete waste of time.
Quoting SethRy
One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. I wanted you to directly address my criticism. I gave a standard form of criticism of the original argument which you presented, whereby I applied the logical form of that argument in a different context: a context which I suspected you would find objectionable. That was intentional. The point is that you seem to apply a double standard, or commit the fallacy of special pleading, which are two similar fallacies. Alternatively, you could bite the bullet, and just accept my counter without argument, thereby opening the floodgates to all number of ridiculous things, from Napoleon to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Either way, I'd say that you're left with a big problem.
Quoting SethRy
That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. And I don't think that you can justify your response of attacking my character instead of addressing my criticism. It's not okay to just start calling someone egotistical and the like in the middle of a discussion. You and a few other people here seem to think that that's acceptable behaviour. It isn't. And if you're going to do that, at least have some substance to your response, so that the personal attacks are just a barb which can be overlooked.
I am NOT focused on certainty, Terrapin. There is no way I can see that anyone can be certain there is a god (are gods) involved in the REALITY of existence.
BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not.
THAT is what I am focused on.
Your comment about "compelling reasons for belief" caused me to think you suppose one case is more likely than the other...and that it can be shown to be more likely. (Otherwise why would you say that?)
This is a hard thing to get...took me years and years...BUT...a "belief" on the issue of "are there any gods or are there no gods" IS nothing but a blind guess.
If I were to ask, "Are there any sentient beings on the sixth planet out from the fifth closest star to Sol?"...the only thing one could do is to GUESS. There is nothing else to work with. Even if we could come up with the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy or universe...the likelihood of life on that particular planet (if it even exists)...is a total unknown at this point. Any "belief" (YES or NO) would be nothing but a blind guess.
So, too with, "Are there any gods in existence."
Until everyone finally gets that...these discussions go nowhere.
I agree with you on that, because of what "likelihood" is, and considering that I'm a frequentist. I don't buy Bayesian probability.
Nevertheless, it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability.
How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.
It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory power.
It may be easy to say.
But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess.
No, it's not. Repeating that like a mantra doesn't make it so.
No. What accrues is a burden of proof.
That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."
Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet.
Go read that again.
Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.
You are now trying to disguise "which is more likely"...by using "which argument is more persuasive."
Give it up.
We do not know if gods exist or not.
We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction.
By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?
It is a blind guess.
If you do not get it...tough.
There are people being just as thick-headed insisting that "There is a GOD"...is not a blind guess either.
BOTH are blind guesses.
Nope.
Yeah, it really is.
I am at a loss as to why you think not.
How can it be anything but a blind guess?
Tell us.
How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?
I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here.
In any case, tell me how "there are no gods" can be anything but a "blind guess."
You have no idea what I'm asking when I ask how you'd define guessing? lol
If you had asked this...I would have understood.
This is what you actually asked:
How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?
That is what I didn't understand.
As for "guessing"...I''ll go with:
" to estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct."
Your assertion, "...it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability"...
...meets that.
Your comment IS a guess.
I want to focus on this first. Isn't this a reference to certainty?
It has that disadvantage in the scheme of what we have been discussing. I recognized that when I wrote it.
I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess.
"Certainty" as Richard Feynman used to mention...is not something come by easily. It is very, very, very difficult to obtain...and most cases of certainty can be challenged by artful discussion.
I can say, I am "certain" that my name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa...(and I can)...but even I am clever enough to challenge the "certain" using linguistic manipulation. (I'm not going to do it, so don't go there.)
But we can reasonable say, "I am certain London is the capital of England" "I am certain the mean temperature in Antarctica is lower than the mean temperature in the Sahara Desert"...an d things like that.
But for you to say "there are no gods"...is not in that same category. Your assertion is only a guess...and it has little to do with "certainty."
Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof.
Apologies, I misquoted you.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands.
Quoting Frank Apisa
My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express our consciousness of that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.
The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.
I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are effectively saying that it is not possible to prove that God(s) exist, so in essence all anyone can do is provide a convincing argument. Granted I am at odds with this theory, as I have never heard it presented before and therefore it sounds more like an opinion rather than something that should actually be applied, but in any case it begs the question of why do you think that atheists ask for actual evidence of God(s) as opposed to accepting that a convincing argument is all that can be expected. Meanwhile it appears that theists don't believe that actual evidence is possible or can be provided, but they are also at odds because atheists won't accept anything less than actual evidence (perhaps) because they don't understand or believe that a convincing argument is all that be expected. Simply put, if that is all that can be expected, then you would have to convince atheists of this and they would actually have to accept and believe it, but I don't see that happening. I feel like atheists will just see the convincing argument expectation as an excuse for failure to provide actual evidence.
For me...a "belief" in this context, is nothing more than a blind guess. I do not need any justifications...and would never ask for any. IF someone wants to guess one way or the other, let 'em.
What do you disagree with.
We do not know if gods exist or not.
We have no way to estimate which is more likely.
What do you disagree with...and why?
Have no idea of what all that means.
I am saying we do not know if gods exist or not.
No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.
We do not know which is more likely.
No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS.
Yes. But reasoned argument can be tantamount to proof. Good argument can, in principle, become so strong that it can't be convincingly refuted.
Proof belongs to the world of primitive matter and primitive diciplines like science and mathematics etc. Science is about how basic material relations obtain; how pieces of matter join together and how energy flows through systems. Mathematics is about numbers, the most primitive objects we can conceive of. Intellect is concerned with these basic truths. But the intellect cannot rise above these things. That is why we have religion, art, music etc, to express ontological realities. In short, no, I don't think God's existence can be proved in these terms but His existence can be argued for so convincingly that the arguments are close to proof.
Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for.
To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments.
But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who are capable of understanding the arguments, yet do not find them convincing. Try again, or retract your claim.
Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God.
No more than the atheistic position...which is to say, it is nothing but blind guesswork.
You are way off base on this.
Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.
Yes, they understand what can be understood. Of course, nonsense can't be understood. And religious-sounding nonsense is still a type of nonsense. It doesn't get special treatment just because it is religious-sounding and religious-minded people feel it do should do so.
Quoting EnPassant
I think you need to go to Specsavers.
Quoting S
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about.
Do you see the only options as "Either P is a guess or it's certain"?
Where is this coming from?
If you have an argument to make...make it.
It may be more helpful to understand the fruitfulness of an idea, to acknowledge a spectrum of senses of “there is”, and to have the freedom to choose based on what has been presented.
The Authorized Version of Prehistory Is Fundamentally False
Yah-weh sounds a lot like the way the Romans pronounced Jove (Yo-way). It means "Go! Get away!" and indicates a horrifying invasion from the Asian steppest, such as the one thousands of years later led by Genghis Khan. The Greek version is Io, a minor wandering goddess.
If we are allowed the idea of borrowing from entirely different languages, "Allah" is related to the Greek helios "sun." I doubt if the brain-dead fugitive Arab nomads could have come up with their own Supreme Being explanation, which was actually a primitive version of science, which they are genetically incapable of and seek to jealously destroy.
Then what would be the difference between a belief and imaginary ideas? In my mind, "belief" is an idea about the world as it is, whereas an imaginary concepts are understood to NOT be about the world as it is. So, when someone claims a belief, are they making a claim about the world other than they have a belief? Is their belief about anything, or just something that exists in their head - like imaginary ideas?
A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. You have this idea, or inclination, that something may be the case but don't know how to go about proving it, or haven't the means to prove it. Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge.
Their Loaded Question Should Fire Blanks
Even, "Do you believe in God?" begs the question. If honestly phrased, it would be "Do you believe in the existence of God?"
Supposed I asked, "Do you believe in Trump?" It would not mean, "Do you believe in the existence of Trump?" So by phrasing it in their pushy and accusatory way, they sneakily lead us towards an affirmative answer, because of course belief in God, in the literal sense as used with Trump, means that the person being interrogated has to be a supporter of God, which by theological definition has to be necessary if He exists.
It's just a question. Either you see things that way or you do not.
Good point, Sage.
I deplore the "believe in" usage. I mentioned that many times here...and have written essays about it in other forums.
Not sure of what anyone means when they say, "I believe in democracy" for instance/
Very poor wording...as far as I am concerned.
If one is saying, "I prefer democratic government to totalitarian ones"...why not say that.
The "believe in" form is a dog.
Fact is, I do not even like the use of the word "believe" in discussions of this sort. When discussing the existence or non-existence of gods...there is almost nothing to work with that is unambiguous. So if you are actually saying, "My guess is..." or "I estimate that..." or "It is my opinion that..."...
...use those forms. j
I "believe" is a disguise.
Since "Nice Guys Finish Last," I'd Rather Be Naughty
How about the non-existence of a similarly desired benefactor, Santa Claus? Is that a guess? Because his existence or non-existence can both be called "guesses," do we give equal credence to greedy children?
I actually fell for Pascal's Inquisition-fear nonsense when a Hawk used it about a missile system, "If I am right, it will save us from incineration by the Soviets; if I am wrong, it will only waste a tiny portion of the budget."
So that (your question) is binary?
That reminds me of the old, "I'd rather be dead than red."
Ya mean there are no other choices?
True, but the kinds of evidence that can be tested and shared are simple or primitive truths. Science is primitive. Matter is primitive. The atheists are making a mistake in trying to force ontological matters into the primitive framework of matter and explain them in material terms. It is this kind of thing that leads to absurd attempts to explain everything - including ontological matters - in terms of 'survival advantage'.
How can someone paint a masterpiece? - survival advantage.
How can someone create a symphony? - survival advantage. They can always find a way to squeeze it in.
Quoting Harry Hindu
But not all beliefs are abstract. If I had a thought I believe that I really did have that thought. That belief is not a hypothesis, it is more direct than that. There is intellectual knowledge and there is 'ontological knowledge' if you will. It muddies waters by confusing these two types of knowledge. Knowledge of God is direct. Belief in God is direct. It is not hypothetical. It only becomes hypothetical when it is translated into abstract argument.
You must have felt terrible when you realized you'd fallen for it.
Pascal's Wager and Occum's Razor are the two most over-used; inappropriately used; erroneously used...philosophical memes. I laugh at them.
But back to that other thought...Santa...or the Easter Bunny...or Teapots and the like.
One can have an opinion on any of them (and most are absurd)...but if one insists that there are no teapots orbiting the sun...one better be prepared to PROVE that assertion in a rigorous discussion.
Same with Santa Claus.
Same with the Easter Bunny.
Same with the Tooth Fairy.
Correct. Otherwise, what would you suggest as a third option?
Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.
Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"
For an answer of "YES" try these out:
Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.
Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.
Either it is certain...or it is a wish.
Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.
Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.
Either it is certain...or it is not.
For an answer of "NO"...try the same ones.
Say what?
I'm not saying that it's a fact that either something is x or y.
I'm asking you if it's the case that you use the term "guess" so that either something is certain or it's a guess. Either you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way. (or if you think there's a third option aside from either it being the case that you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way, you could explain what the third option is maybe)
You are not very clear.
But now that I understand your question...
...my answer is, NO.
So would you say that something is a guess if it has evidential support, even if it's not certain?
If you have opinions to share...share them.
You are not Socrates...not by a long shot...and I am tired of the questions.
Share your opinions...or tell me what I have said with which you are in disagreement.
After a few exchanges of that sort...I may allow a few more question.
At the moment I'm only interested in exploring your views as I have been attempting to do. If you don't want to respond to the questions I'm asking, then okay, there's not much we can do about that.
Sounds like a plan.
No, this is:
Quoting EnPassant
Quoting EnPassant
Is the kind of "understanding" you're talking about some sort of attempt at conversion? I hate the "you must understand to believe" rubbish. And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about.
The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.
Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things.
This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit."
This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion.
More bullshit!
People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it...which is probably why you refer to it as "proper" discussion.
There may be gods involved in the REALITY of existence...but there is no way to know if there are or not...and allowing people like you to propose that their blind guesses have to be true makes no sense.
There is nothing wrong with you blindly guessing there is a GOD...just as there is nothing wrong with others blindly guessing there are no gods. But in the end...all we have are BLIND GUESSES.
Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread?
:up:
Quoting whollyrolling
No, it doesn't. Not if the "obvious" conclusion is intended to be the "logical" conclusion. For logic mandates that our conclusions should be justified, and justification requires evidence. There is no evidence - none at all - and therefore logic dictates that we must stop short of a conclusion. So, not only is there no "obvious" conclusion, but there can be no (logically-justified) conclusion at all.
Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile:
Isn't this the standard argument for Intelligent Design? :chin:
And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point.
The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be.
My point was a counter to what EnPassant wrote:
"Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment."
It was meant to be a snarky, sarcastic counter-point to what I consider nonsense.
Apologies!
Okay...your comment:
Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.
What is that supposed to be?
Is that revelation of a truth you obtained from on-high?
Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more?
And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess?
Admittedly, all questions. But...I will respond to whatever you offer in response.
Logic doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, it only has to do with formal implication/inference. That's even the case with so-called informal logic. It's just that there we're dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language.
I intentionally left an inconclusive ending to my comment to illustrate the going-around-in-circles of the god argument.
Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible.
But of course, it is not evident - and as the word would imply, that means there is no evidence to showcase. One is just left with the notion of God, unsure what to do with it.
God being nonevident - is like trying to point out water, fully submerged in it.
I cannot point out the water from within just as I cannot look at my own eyes; but I may be aware.
Even so, what does it matter?
Shamshir...what would it matter if you took the more logical step of saying, "I have no idea if any gos exist or not?"
I would be in self-denial; outside of that everything would go on without a care.
I guess you've never done acid.
It's Also Irrational for Theists to Insist That There Is Only One God
Intelligent self-design. As for the question, "Who created these monad intelligences?" it can be answered by throwing back, "Who created your God?" It is a dishonest question if it can't be applied to both assertions.
Theists take advantage of the complicated designs to throw in some "must mean" that is an aggressive non-sequitur. Anti-theists give supernatural powers to randomness and are motivated only by some bad experience with religion.
The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS.
Objectivity Is the Costume Egotists Dress Up In
Theorists aren't disembodied angels incapable of distorting their preachings because of self-serving attributes of personality. It is significant that philosophers trying to protect themselves from criticism don't allow the contrary "Ad Angelum" fallacy to be discussed. Besides, "fallacy" itself is intentionally misused. It is legitimate to introduce such accusations as evidence; its only restriction is as absolute proof.
For example, post hoc, propter hoc is usually, and acceptably, a good way of finding out the cause of an event. Last night, I had something go wrong with my eyes for awhile. What did I do before that which was a change? I took Melatonin for the first time in months. That's all I need to know; but someone who has been intentionally misled by his professors into confusion would become paranoiac about going blind.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.
Thank you.
Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.
I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist...
No problemo, EnPassant.
You are allowed to blindly guess there is a god...and call that blind guess a "belief"...and suppose it came from thought and reflection and is not a blind guess.
There is absolutely no ad hominem attack intended.
Just as you are speaking what you suppose to be the truth...
...I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.
I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth.
Quoting Devans99
What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know. And I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot.
Give it a try. It won't hurt.
I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress.
So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.
Sorry to make fun of your harmless gaff, but I think I'll start calling all the skeptics septics too. Seems a great plan!
sep·tic
/?septik/
nounNorth American
plural noun: septics
a drainage system incorporating a septic tank.
I apologize and I admit my mistake. Please allow me to clarify.
Quoting S
The supporting arguments behind that, were like that of an attack to theism. Theism and faith is not wishful thinking, or delusion. Because faith is belief in the unknown, we don't suppose a belief because it is in our favor of preference, but to rely on the evidence that we are provided with, which links back to Pascal. Altogether this has nothing to do with Atheism not being able to understand the evidence, but because Theism epitomizes the evidence.
It was more of, in my perspective, theism being frowned upon in the table of philosophy, and when that problem is addressed, it is then modified to actually having to be scrutinized.
Me using the words egocentric, arrogant and whatnot, were not to you - but to the applications of satire into argument. Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe?
Sorry for the late reply.
The revolutionizing comprehension of logic over the years to innovate arguments for the existence of God, I would not say were disproved. The arguments I am trying to say are: The cosmological, teleological, and moral ground arguments. Rather than disproving the argument in its entirety, the probabilities are more to be addressed than the idea implied. And repeated, I haven't seen any argument to disprove these.
Quoting Christoffer
As a theist, consistency is paramount to the justification of my belief. At least one, small inconsistency breaks theism as an already precarious belief. I always attempt to be consistent in every meticulous section of argument, and with that determination for theism in general I think theism should, as you mention, 'get in the game' for the table of philosophy. Lastly, I think scrutiny should not have to involve satire - although satire is ubiquitous to every known topic, in a forum like this is where I'd least expect it.
To conclude, Theism, as I presume we could all agree to, is a very difficult belief to justify. Clearing out things, faith is not wishful thinking or delusion, because faith is belief in the unknown - which explicitly, has nothing to do with selectively changing the principles of the existence of God for our preferences. Faith is an ideological connection to God, not believing in a deity because it makes us feel better or benefits us altogether.
Sorry for the late reply.
That's why I never understood why people do that, claim a position. On what grounds? I think reality should be like that movie, the first part, where no one ever lies, The Invention of Lying. She takes a call during their dinner date, "No mom, I won't be having sex with him. He's fat, has a snub nose, a frog in the face." The look on his face hearing that is priceless.
When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. That's why "the denial of the deity claim" and "coming out atheist" have no relationship.
Bernard Carr, a cosmologist and self proclaimed "atheist/naturalist" I think says it best, "If you don't want God then you better have a multiverse." See, God does something real, that's why His opponents are always trying to replace His Holy acts with something not so holy.
You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.
Thank you, I have many such lists including a real long one I got from a so-called self professed "naturalist" when I asked for evidence the "brain produces the mind." Got it in a data base, 30 books 100 articles, about 1,000 different hypotheses.
Think about this Mr. Station, if when you talked and I responded the best I could to what you said without changing things up much, then that wouldn't be very interesting for either of us.
"Something to do with what I said." Instantly my stream of consciousness took me back to what must be all of our favorite philosophical movie, The Big Lebowski.
Walter: Oh, please, dear! For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!
The Dude: Walter, this is not a First Amendment thing, man.
That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you.
Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise.
That simply doesn't follow.
And is made of spaghetti.
Quoting Devans99
Now there's a surprise.
Quoting Devans99
I believe that you believe you do.
There is no prove of that yet (that was a joke proof I gave you on the other thread).
Okay, think that. But I think the reason for most progress...is the acknowledgement that we do not know. If scientists thought they knew everything...there would be no progress.
So we differ on that.
I expected that.
And I, and several others here, will continue to disagree with you.
Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it.
What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?
The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.
Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.
Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on.
Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?
* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions.
The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing?
I just thought that was sarcasm.
You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism.
The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does.
Thank you, EP.
I agree with that last part. I try always to qualify my comments about "evidence" with the word "unambiguous."
EVERYTHING is evidence...but whether it is evidence that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...is the question.
Slight disagreement here.
I would word it: Is it possible to determine if the arguments favored by theists are stronger than the arguments favored by atheists...or the other way around.
And my answer to THAT question always comes up: There is absolutely, positively no logical way to decide.
One cannot arrive at an of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:
1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
What? His comment? I'm not sure he's even capable of sarcasm. I thought it was just another uncritical back patting.
The message that I'm getting from you is that we should forget about your original argument and focus on a different argument about necessity and contingency. Or, if not a different argument, then a part of the argument you referred to which you never even mentioned originally.
I don't agree with your handling of this, but hey ho. The next step would be for you to elaborate, and then I can test whether, like last time, the same reasoning can be applied in the case of, for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some other ridiculous invention.
Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task.
Quoting S
I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task.
The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation.
What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not?
IF people inclined toward "there are no gods" do as you suggest "...reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'..."...they will come up with "there are no gods." And if someone inclined toward "there is at least one GOD" do it...they will come up with "there is at least one GOD."
You do not need a "looser language more appropriate to the task." You need to accept that we cannot know...have no unambiguous evidence...
...and can only make a blind guess about it.
Which is what I have been arguing all along.
Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism.
Quoting EnPassant
Hahahaha.
Quoting EnPassant
There's nothing to debate. Look up Hitchen's razor.
I play no tricks. I merely asked a question.
Quoting S
What I have done is removed the separation.
What you do, is simply add separation.
The concept of sound is sound itself. Without sound, there is no concept of sound; it becomes a concept of nothing.
Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object, just as the outline with its filling.
But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument.
Quoting S
Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many atheists who are without some doubt about their atheism.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly.
If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.
No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it.
Quoting Shamshir
Which is a nonsensical thing to do.
Quoting Shamshir
No it isn't.
Quoting Shamshir
You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God.
I asked a question. You did not answer.
Quoting S
Maybe. Maybe not.
Quoting S
Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may.
Quoting S
The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I?
I'm on your side in this debate but you can't argue that something exists just because the concept exists. Pink elephants exist as a concept in my mind, but not in reality for example...
Okay...so we are left with "I do not know."
Could be...but we are not talking about that kind of stuff.
We are talking about whether gods exist or not.
We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. We are talking about whether gods exist or not...and the evidence atheists supposedly demand.
We are discussing whether gods exist or not, EP.
WE DO NOT KNOW IF THEY DO OR IF THERE ARE NONE.
Why is that so difficult for you?
Herein lies the difference.
I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.
What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.
I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted.
Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling.
Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. (The movie Contact depicts this scenario wonderfully). Perhaps only Art can convey such depth of feeling, such breadth of vision. (Art who? Vandelay? lol). But what about the majority of us who can’t produce a masterpiece that will make the ground tremble? We can only share our undoubtedly limited perspective, like the Ancient Mariner telling his tale. Hopefully as honestly, humbly, and accurately (and logically) as possible. If someone else happens to find it helpful or at least interesting, all the better then.
(And here I present a best case scenario. Those who callously wrap themselves in the holy and pure robes of sanctity and righteousness to intentionally mislead others for power and profit are the dregs of the earth, and are rightly mocked. Self-righteousness is the last refuge of a scumbag.)
That said, religion was born in our cave years to explain natural phenomenons (storms, winds, etc) and since we were pretty ignorant in our caves, we decided it was the Gods.
Fast forward, the Renaissance when advanced science was born and the Enlightenment era - but the story of God persisted.
People will believe what they want to believe. But as an atheist I think you have to show me proof God exists - until then :-)
However, science is NOT the answer to everything. I like this video which illustrates how ignorant scientists and atheists can be too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDgVlv55Uw
Of course I didn't. It was a loaded question. I addressed the problem with your question and your reasoning prior to it.
Quoting Shamshir
There's no maybe about it. It's as nonsensical as saying that a cat is a seagull, and that you do not separate the two.
Quoting Shamshir
You aren't making any sense. The distinction between sound and the concept of sound is clear. Sound is what I actually hear. I don't hear the concept.
Quoting Shamshir
You made a vague metaphor instead of clearly and directly addressing my criticism.
Here we are also "dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language." I'm not suggesting that we apply de Morgan's Theorem here, only considered, structured thought, which is what people mean - in everyday terms - when they say "logic" or "logical".
Careful, considered, structured thought on this issue says that if you have nothing to analyse, there is no justifiable way to reach a conclusion. Until evidence is found, which of course will never happen, that will remain the case. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn from no-data-at-all.
I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause."
How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile:
No one is arguing over the existence of an abstract object, or whatever you want to call things like a circle. Abstract objects can't create the universe or do anything which could be thought of as being godlike. You're still missing the point.
You've told them that you believe in the existence of God. How did you miss that? It's the one and only thing you said.
*Intentionality?*
In _The Intentional Stance,_ Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:
it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.
Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis
Then there is no hope for you. If I tell you "I believe X", the only challenge you can make is that I'm deliberately lying, to mislead you about what it is that I believe. Assuming I'm not behaving in such a pointless fashion, you must accept my belief, even (or especially) if you don't share it.
We are 5 x 5 on this, PC.
I'm very sorry you're not getting this, but we can't believe for someone else. You're claiming atheism to me, or I'm using it as an analogy, doesn't inform me of anything real.
Maybe you do...but I do not.
I do not even understand what you meant there.
There is no one to one correspondence (mapping onto reality) of a mythological god being real because the word "myth" prevents it.
Precisely. I am missing the point.
While you are still looking for it and you'll never find it, because it is like trying to look at your eyes or reach the horizon. All you will accomplish is tiring yourself out.
Whereas if you were aware, it would come in to place all on its own.
- The Big Bang theory has time running slower and slower as we get closer to the Big Bang (due to intense gravity) till the point of the singularity when it is unknown what happens to time. It is suggestive of a start of time.
- The BGV Theorem which states (in brief) that an expanding (on average) universe cannot have a timeline infinite into the past; it must have a beginning.
- The leading cosmological model is Eternal Inflation. This model posits a first cause for the multiverse too. Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications”, states that, with reasonable assumptions: "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past.”. IE It has a start.
- Why the entropy of the universe is so low? With infinite time, entropy must have been reset periodically (for it to be at such a low level as present). The only obvious mechanism to do this is the Big Crunch, but the increasing expansion rate of the universe suggests that we are not in a cycle of Big Bang / Big Crunch. So the low entropy of the universe appears to suggest time is finite.
No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.
Quoting Frank Apisa
We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists.
Quoting S
Does 'wildly controversial' mean they won't fit into the primitive rationale of materialism? That is too bad. Why are controversial ideas not compelling to a 'reasonable person'?
As I keep saying, a large part of the problem is that materialists often think they have a monopoly on what is rational; scientism. If these people can't accept that rationality extends beyond science there is no talking to them.
That is the answer to the first post in this thread: there is no agreement on what is rational because the materialists insist on an abbreviated definition of rationality and anything outside it is 'nonsense'.
You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on....
All effects must have causes - the first cause is at a base of a pyramid of causality - all effects do have causes. Only the first cause, being beyond time and thus beyond causality does not have a cause.
We have the CMB radiation that is predicted by the Big Bang theory as eye witness evidence and the redshifts of galaxies.
Obviously you are one of those people who will never acknowledge "I do not know"...and would prefer to kid yourself with "alternate reality."
Good luck with that...and with your blind guess.
If the intellect could answer this question it would have done so a long time ago.Quoting TheSageOfMainStreet
Evasive about what?
Quoting TheSageOfMainStreet
What cult are you talking about?
There you have it. You decide, purely on the grounds of materialistic ideology, that I am wrong without ever asking what my arguments are. I do acknowledge 'I do not know' if by 'know' you mean knowledge by intellectual means. I don't have an intellectual proof of God. I have already said this.
That's some lovely poetry there, but I'm more interested in the actual topic, which is about evidence for God, which isn't about evidence for an abstract object like a circle, because that isn't what God is. If that is what God is, then there would be no controversy, and there wouldn't be any atheists asking for evidence of God.
Your problem is that you confuse something else for God, like the classic mistake of confusing the map for the territory, or you perhaps do this deliberately so that you can claim that God exists, but you don't like my criticism that by doing that, you would have trivialised the claim and missed the point of what the debate is about, so you dismiss my criticism.
We sceptics are asking for evidence of the territory, and you are telling us that the map exists. We aren't asking about the map. If, say, the map is a map of Atlantis, then we are clearly being reasonable by asking for evidence of the territory. And the concept of God is like a map of Atlantis.
The map doesn't exist either. And I think the problem is simpler than confusion, it's a willingness to jump headlong and blind into complacency, the safety of refusal and denial and the egoism of overcoming the invention of doubt. It is the egoism of purpose. Confusion is too open-ended and complex.
How is the human mind supposed to reconcile the vast emptiness of being except by turning itself into the meaning of life?
No, it doesn't mean that. Google the words if you're not sure what they mean.
Quoting EnPassant
That wasn't my full objection. My full objection was that it was not only wildly controversial, but a set of bare assertions. And it should be obvious why that would not be compelling to a reasonable person. You would first need to provide supporting arguments for your bare assertions, which you haven't done, and also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so they'd have to be [i]damn good[/I] arguments. Given that you've failed to meet this burden in spite of repeated requests, you've been failing at philosophy.
Quoting EnPassant
I know you have an axe to grind with "materialism" and "scientism", but that has nothing whatsoever to do with me or my objection, so you aren't dealing with the problem by attacking these positions. I am just applying a basic standard expected in philosophical discourse, which is different from preaching. Here you are expected to provide actual support for your assertions, especially if they are wildly controversial, which assertions along the lines that truth comes from God most certainly are.
If you don't like this standard expected of you, then this is not the place for you. And philosophy is not the academic discipline for you.
Please explain. :brow:
Humanity has been in existential crisis for maybe 4,000-15,000 years of recorded history, and we don't understand much more than we did when we began to record ourselves trying to understand ourselves and our environment. A territory is a human concept. A map is a human concept. It all seems sort of like painting a moustache on a painting of a unicorn and saying "I finally figured it out".
If it's possible that gods are "involved in the reality of existence" then it's possible that the gods inform some people and not others of their existence. Perhaps they speak to those who are open enough to listen. If that were the case, the people to whom the gods speak would know directly, through acquaintance, the existence of the gods. They would not be "blindly guessing", but rather expressing their direct experiential knowledge, when they speak of the existence of the gods.
Of course the problem is that, in the context of philosophical argumentation, one is expected to produce inter-subjectively convincing arguments to support one's assertions.This is impossible to do regarding god or gods (and no doubt many other things) if your interlocutor has not had the kind of experiences involving god or the gods that you have.
That is why sensible people who have faith in god or gods don't bother with such paltry arguments and the time-wasting talking-past-the-other that this thread so amply exemplifies.
So you abandon the principle of sufficient reason.
An "atemporal", "eternal" cause of a universe that has a definite age (like 14 billion years) or a definite earliest time, is incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason, since such a cause lead us to expect an infinite age of the universe — there's no sufficient reason the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact.
That fine I suppose, but what does it entail? If the "reason" part of the principle is taken to be a generalized notion of "cause", then abandonment runs contrary to your statements above.
An indefinite past history does not run into this problem, like unbounded not infinite ("edge free"), or infinite.
Of course effects have causes, that's typically what we mean by those terms. They're events, which, in turn, are subsets of changes, i.e. temporal. "Atemporals", on the other hand, if there be any, would be inert, lifeless; "abstract objects" are the closest that comes to mind.
[quote=Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]An object is abstract (if and) only if it is causally inefficacious.[/quote]
How do you know that is not God?
Have you seen God?
If you have seen God, why do you deny God?
If you have not seen God, how do you know what God is?
I'm not saying you're wrong - I don't have the evidence for that - but I asked you whether you had considered the possibility of causeless effects, and you have simply asserted that all effects have causes. :chin: It seems you don't know - just as I don't know. :chin:
The problem is that the territory and map are qualitatively opposed. The moment you draw the map, it negates the territory by focusing all attention to the map as if it were the actual territory.
Athiest are correct in rejecting any evidence of God, in the sense that they are looking for direct evidence, but the only possible evidence that can be provided is indirect. They are wrong in the sense that they are looking for the evidence in the all wrong places.
All the valid universe origins arguments I'm aware of lead to a timeless first cause.
What about spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum field theory?
That might count as a cause-less effect.
That's the general idea. I'm no scientist, but I understand this is one theory of how matter comes into existence, into existence from nothing.
And given that matter is absolutely determined by time and space, I agree that existence from nothing would imply some type of infinite and eternal reality underlying all material existence. In fact from the perspective of material existence, it is correct to say the infinite and eternal would appear as nothingness.
(I might postulate that matter comes into existence as a result of thought, but I don't want to incite a disgressing topic here).
Back to the OP, the question is not appropriate without specifying a definition of God. If God is as per the definition of traditional religion, then asking for evidence is pointless, we can rule out the traditional definition of God on purely logical grounds:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5708/the-traditional-attributes-of-god/p1
If you restrict the definition of God to 'creator of the universe' then there is actually plenty of evidence for such a proposition:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
But there is no absolute evidence to convert the committed atheist. Either the proof is inadequate and demands more (e.g. the cosmological or teleological arguments). Or the proof is indirect and unqualified because it cannot be directly verified (since God, as it were, is akin to a direct relation of subject to subject, and as soon as that relation becomes subject to object, the direct proof is negated).
It is correct for the atheist to reject such proofs. In the first mode of proof, no finite explanation can sufficiently circumspect an infinite reality; and, if the non-atheist respects the smallest extent of God's so-called magnificence, he would refrain from all such trivialities. And in the second mode of proof, the non-atheist is severing his direct relation to God, as subject to subject, by reorienting himself toward the objectivity in which the atheist is confined.
So I would have thought atheists have to logically accept a first cause.
The question of whether the first cause is intelligent or not:
1. The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence.
2. The prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them.
3. To be the first cause, to cause without being caused, requires some form of internal orchestration; IE intelligence.
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is exactly that. I'm not saying it is the answer to a cause-less effect, but it should be closely considered.
Quoting Devans99
How is it possible to qualify the unqualifiable? Can we really even talk about an ultimate and absolute intelligence, when we barely know barely shit about the pitiful human intelligence?
The example often given is the Mexican hat potential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Mexican_hat_potential
So you have a ball balanced on top of a sphere; the symmetry breaks when the ball falls to one side. I would have thought that the 'cause' of the symmetry break is the fact that the ball was slightly off centre to start with? If it was perfect; it would never fall to one side?
And I'm not sure how symmetry breaking can create matter. And it does not help if it does because it leads to infinite density.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation. That is likely requires some form of intelligence. I don't think we have to completely understand intelligence before we can recognise it in other situations.
Of course, however, people use this as a cop-out in order to not have to scrutiny their theories. They misuse the fact that absolute truth might be impossible in order to imbue their incomplete logic and reasoning with more truth-value than it has. It's the "because you can never know what is truly true, I'm not wrong" reasoning, which is a philosophically infantile method of reasoning.
Quoting Devans99
It's not my theory, but I think it adds interest to the topic. I just take these theories at face value, they hold no real importance to me. But if you are compelled to look deeper, I suppose you could decimate it through conceptual analysis.
Quoting Devans99
I believe the gyst is that tachyon condensation leads to a vaccuum, and out of the vacuum, the basic component of matter appear out of nowhere. But, do yourself a favor, don't kill yourself analyzing quantum field theory, it is a long and looping thread.
Quoting Devans99
I hope I'm not treading old ground, but, what about a self-caused first cause?
But we do if we are going to adequately explain the unintelligible intelligence of God to an athiest.
Thanks I may take a look at it. Presumably requires FTL (for tachyons) so that does count against it, tachyons have imaginary mass!
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
To create oneself seems to require a causal loop which would require something like circular time. The only place in spacetime to get the matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch so actually circular time is not completely far fetched. If it was all completely eternal (future real) then maybe you could say it does not need a cause.
But I feel it would still probably need a cause:
- The universe is fine-tuned for life. So there must be a fine tuner. But the fine tuner’s environment must also be fine-tuned for life. Implies another fine-tuner. This infinite regress must terminate with a timeless fine tuner who is synonymous with the timeless first cause.
- We seem to be able to tell the difference between 'now' and 'then', so something about 'now' is different. IE even with eternalist models, a current time pointer is required. What set that in motion originally? It must be a timeless first cause.
I gotta get me one of these.
This fits nicely into my point about God's unintelligible intellect. We try, with science, to understand how it happens, but we know so little, it is a pathetic ignorance.
Considering fine tuning...how can we possibly understand fine tuning at the level of God? If I was an atheist, I would definitely reject fine tuning as evidence of god. (Add. I can never understand the mechanic, simply by dismantling an engine he designed and built.)
And concerning the arrow of time, what can we possibly know about the archer who fired it, other than looking at the composition and trajectory of the arrow. If I were an atheist, I would definitely reject the arrow of time as evidence of god.
But faith is rarely that. Faith, as in religion, is a belief in something very specific. Faith in the unknown, or rather a fascination with the unknown is somewhat closer to atheism. In atheism, accepting the unknown as an uncharted territory is one of the interesting and intriguing parts of not relying on faith in God for anything. Where theists find atheism to be like a black hole of nothingness, that being an atheist is to have this empty void of meaninglessness, I rarely find atheists to have such depressing outlooks. It might also be why many theists have a hard time accepting anything outside of their belief because doing so is like staring into a void. It's scary to lose all sense of a grand meaning to everything. However, there's little sense in philosophy to let emotions guide logical and rational reasoning. Anyone who use themselves, their feelings and personal liking as proof of anything has only flawed arguments to show.
Define "causeless effects" as "something coming form nothing", then refute the latter? :chin: This depends for its validity on causeless effects being identically and exclusively equal to something from nothing. It is not clear to me that this is the case. You seem to be offering yet more assertions.
Still we must keep on trying. Some progress has been made. On simple questions like 'was there a first cause?' I feel answers are possible. 'Great minds think alike' and whilst our minds our puny compared to God's mind, on the simple, basic stuff we should agree. So I think for simple questions, it is possible to 'know the mind of God'
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You are probably right. I have quite a lengthy argument that the universe is fine-tuned and that the SAP and WAP do not apply, but this is not the place for it.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I think a start of time is demonstrable, see here for example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
If there was a start of time, time must have been created by something; a timeless first cause.
I think the requirement for a first cause in order for anything else to exist has been known about for a long time, right back to Aristotle at least. It has become clouded in recent times with ideas like quantum fluctuations. I believe that in recent times, we have moved further away from the truth. It’s a fact that the most obvious metaphysical arguments are thought up first in human history and are therefore are to be found in ancient texts. Occam's Razor tells us to prefer obvious arguments. Hence I personally find the first cause arguments irrefutable. My favourite is Aquinas's 'Argument From Necessary Being' which I paraphrase as:
1.Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.
For the non-atheist, faith is more like a specific intention in relation to the uncertainty of the unknowable. Atheism is more of a belief that the knowledge that can be extracted from the unknown is reliable. The difference between faith and belief: faith is a fixed and necessary position; belief is amendable - any alteration in understanding has the potential to change one's belief.
Quoting Christoffer
We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it?
I would have thought that a 'causeless effect' would require some energy/matter to achieve it so that energy/matter would have to come from nowhere to count as causeless? So every instance of a 'causeless effect' is also an instance of 'something coming form nothing' and vice-versa?
I also think that things like quantum fluctuations only apply on a micro level. Cause and effect clearly hold on a macro level. The creation of the universe involved 10^53 Kg of matter so it is a macro question. This matter cannot have appeared out of nowhere - leads to infinite density. It cannot of existed forever - leads to an infinite regress. So it must of come from the start of time. Leading to a timeless first cause.
It is okay for people to blindly guess that gods exist...or that gods do not exist...
...and pretend their blind guesses are something other than just blind guesses.
When hearing that stuff in a forum devoted to philosophy...there is a humorous element.
Continue with that "faith", "believe", "direct experiential knowledge" stuff. It is not wasted. It provides some humor in a too often stuffy setting.
I agree. So let's...
Quoting Devans99
Indeed. But not in any way that would serve as proof to an athiest.
Do you believe in miracles?
Quoting Devans99
The question then, is there a part of me that is eternal and infinite? If affirmative, this would be the only way I could directly relate to the Eternal and Infinite in itself. But how can I directly communicate this immediacy to the atheist, who requires exactly this as the necessary proof of God? Impossible I say.
Someone said: "the present age has too much knowledge and not enough existence."
It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". The fact that no theists has been able to act upon their conclusions while scientific theories has been acted upon countless of times shows that there's more reliability in what we actually can know about the universe than anything else.
So it's not a simplistic caricature of atheism, the idea that atheists blindly rely on data extracted. It's that we can actually use the data. But that doesn't mean anything can be defined as deductive truth from it. This is the main core of theists arguments, that because we have that doubt about knowledge... "therefore God". Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Which is why I never use belief in relation to atheism, since the theistic perspective of atheism is always through the lens of their own belief. Belief can be anything outside of God, Gods, spiritual etc. but in terms of atheism and theism, belief has a clear definition and any claim that relates any kind of belief to atheism is a misunderstanding of what atheism really is.
There is no unambiguous evidence FOR the existence of any kind of god. None whatever.
There also is no unambiguous evidence that no gods exist.
Any assertions in either direction are nothing but blind guesses.
I know...I know...that is difficult for someone making such guesses to acknowledge.
I suspect that eventually...you will. And you will be the better for it.
That seems reasonable.
Quoting Devans99
Only if the causeless effect is the creation of the matter/energy involved. If the matter/energy is simply subject to an effect that proves to be causeless, then...?
They certainly believe in their methodology.
Truth is difficult and may very well be impossible because we are humans lacking the perspective to see things as they actually are. But we have reasoning, tools, and methods to actually understand beyond what we can experience and see without such tools. We know about atoms and quantum physics, even though we have no way of detecting them by only ourselves as humans. But because we have the tools, we know how to use atoms and quantum physics and our inventions out of that knowledge show us that we can actually know things we can't detect by only ourselves.
When it comes to reasoning, we have the power of logic. If someone abandons logic because they have a belief they want to be true, that is not the pinnacle of human understanding.
We have limits to what we can know, but people rarely even try to reach those limits. It's only at the limits of our understanding where we can deduce the truth-value of anything. If there are any doubts, we haven't reached that pinnacle. And flawed reasoning, flaws in logic, irrational beliefs and so on are not even close to that pinnacle, it's at the bottom.
I believe supernatural involvement in the universe was limited to its creation only (I'm a deist).
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Eternalism holds that past, present and future are all real (or sometimes just past and present). In that model of time then there is something eternal about our existence - with eternalism something about us persists beyond the 'now' - that something can be set to be eternal. If you think about it in 4D spacetime, each of us would look like a long thin snake. It would be finite in dimensions though.
Eternalism many people find hard to swallow, particularly future real eternalism. There is some evidence for past real eternalism maybe (quantum eraser experiment). I'm a fan of eternalism, but I am not really in a position to be able to convince anyone of it. My argument is the first cause must be timeless; IE able to see all of time in one go, IE eternalism must apply. That is not really enough to convince people. A start of time also rules out presentism, but again it's quite an abstract argument so I can see why people will not be convinced.
But what effect could be free of matter/energy? For an effect to happen, matter/energy must cause the effect. For the effect to count as uncaused, that matter/energy must come from nowhere?
What's the difference between deists and theist?
Because it demands more than accepting something that is convenient or comforting. The methodology favors gaining more and more understanding and knowledge about something and never settling on something being "truth". Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. The logic of just viewing these two perspectives against each other makes it clear which perspective has the least viability for actually gaining knowledge and which does not. Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutinize knowledge over the other. That's just logic.
That is completely reasonable. In fact, I would argue that theist agendas have done more to hurt than help their first cause (did you catch that wacky play on words?). But, religion and faith has nothing to do with understanding, and any time it does, it fails.
Deism is more science friendly than a theism. It's a believe that there was a first cause who created the universe, but is not actively involved in the universe day to day. The first cause does not have unreasonable attributes (like the 3Os). Knowledge is to be found in science rather than ancient scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
They will never succeed in convincing atheist.
Quoting Christoffer
The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies.
Thanks. That helps.
To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. The point though, is that it doesn't matter if it's an atheist or a theist or whatever at the receiving end; philosophical arguments need to make sense and not be riddled with biases and fallacies. Convincing anyone needs hard work and making the conclusion before the argument will never work, ever.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
What hasn't been proved you mean? The method of gaining knowledge that is detached from human biases and fallacies is very well thought out. You can claim that because we cannot know anything for sure, even these methods are not certain to be the best. However, as we countless of times make predictions about the universe, predictions even outside of the current understanding of everything, like general relativity, for example, it means that the nature of logic exceeds human perception and is why we can understand and reason things far beyond human perception and also act upon them. This is not a belief, it's relying on a method that has proven itself to arrive at facts that are as close to the truth as we can get. And as I mentioned, if we want to gain knowledge about what is true; we need the methods that take us as close as humanly possible, not rely on fantasies because it's convenient. So there's no belief to be seen. If the methods change in favor of better tools to explain things, we change them, but there's no belief in the method, the method is just a method.
The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. Clear definitions are one key to better understanding, but people's agendas seem to favor using terms in certain ways to win arguments, not gain an understanding of something.
Damn right your not going to convince anyone, but is that really the point? Religion is a movement inward, as Kierkegaard says, it is the "passion of the infinite". And by presentism, do you mean immediate existence?
Eternalism is a rational basis for faith, although faith in no way relies on rationality, like belief. That eternalism implies a predetermined and fatalistic existence, means that, from the religios perspective, even if what was going to happen could be known with absolute certainty (which is impossible), it remains that nothing could be done to change what will happen.
But in the deeper sense, faith has already resigned from any concern over the fate of the world. It is focused inwardly... ...
Are you saying atheists believe nothing? I find that assumption to be more fantastical than that God can be proven.
Anyone using "atheism" as part of a self-descriptor...is doing so because of a guess that there are no gods...or a guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Either guess is a blind guess...absolutely no more science-based or logic-based than the guesses theists make that there is at least one god.
But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. So, you will not satisfy him by simply saying he is not crazy, you need to become one of them.
Presentism is the belief that only 'now' exists. It does not work with a start of time (if only 'now' exists and then that does not exist, then there is nothing to create 'now', so it's impossible).
So if the arguments for a start of time are excepted, presentism is impossible, implying 'more than only now exists'. That sounds a lot like Eternalism. Some of the physicists believe in Eternalism/Spacetime. Einstein famously believed free will was an illusion.
Religion is a confusing mess in this area. The omniscient of God requires he knows the future but free will is required in order to send folks to hell. I would not like to be a theologian; very tricky job.
Yes, the common theological notions of heaven and hell are very counterproductive. Presentism can account for heaven and hell in a much more real and direct way.
I don't think eternalism excludes free will or morality, but that is only because I believe they are not products of objectivity. I should further explain...the existing human is a paradox insofar as he represents a point where time and eternity intersect. In time, anything is possible, but eternally, it has all been written. Or, maybe it is the reverse, God knows.
The future real versions of eternalism exclude free will. So morality becomes rather a difficult subject under these models of time.
@Devans99
I can't believe how civilised this conversation has been so far. Awesome!!! :up:
The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument.
Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world.
You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model).
I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively, desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation.
Oooo wweee, you just introduced the aesthetic mode of existence.
Which may be a key difference between a theist and an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, there are undoubtedly those who have hate towards religion which drives them, but for most atheists, it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. If the theist tries to convert me I would not really try to convert them back, I'm simply asking the "why" to everything. It's also the constant "why" that define atheists. It's never "why - because this" it's "why? - because this - why? - because this - why?" to infinity. There are no final answers, only questions and living with constant questions is daunting for many people. Which means it's daunting for theists that others ask them the "why" to their beliefs. I understand where belief is coming from, I could go through the psychological science of it and it wouldn't matter to a theist since accepting the questions is enough to shake the foundation of existence for them. This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective.
Zealotry on both sides is negative, I say both sides because people like Dawkins can get very zealous too.
I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that.
I argue this is exactly the point. Your failure to convert is an offense to everything they believe, and this is exactly how they betray their faith - by relying on another to confirm it. Instead of budging you, he conforms to your terms , your framework, to convince you. And, then he doubles down.
Well, if it helps, I believe in miracles, after-all Trump is president, unfortunately or not.
Belief can not be left out of the analysis so long as BOTH sides of the God debate have faith in the qualifications of their chosen authority to deliver meaningful statements regarding the issue being addressed in the God debate, the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner).
Your making the classic mistake which defines atheism. You start with the agreed upon fact that reason is very useful at human scale, and then leap from that fact to the wild speculation that therefore reason is therefore qualified to analyze issues at ANY scale.
That wild speculation may be true. But you can't prove it. And like the vast majority of atheists haven't even tried to prove it.
I can't prove your wild speculation is untrue, nobody can to my knowledge. But there are compelling arguments which a real person of reason would be eager to inspect.
There have been many millions of species on Earth over many millions of years. Most of these species have some remarkable ability which allows them to thrive in their niche. But in no case, not one, has their ability been unlimited. In each case for every species, their ability is typically limited to what is needed for survival in their niche. Thus, it's entirely reasonable, indeed compelling, to argue that human ability is also limited. That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to.
Another logical failure which plagues atheism (and humanity more generally) is that we compare ourselves to animals, and conclude from that comparison that we are very intelligent (conveniently ignoring that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats). But when it comes to the God debate, that is a useless comparison. The proper procedure in the God debate is to compare our ability to the nature of all reality, for that is the scope of God theories.
The primary obstacle for both theists and atheists to understanding any of this is that those on both sides have typically attached their personal identity to whatever ideology they are clinging to. Once one defines oneself as the "saved people" or the "smart people" the path of reason is typically lost to them, and they are reduced to ideologists chanting their dogmas over and over again in the hope that someone will validate the self flattering personal identity which they've come to cherish.
For evidence of this, just read the God threads on this forum. Observe how emotional they typically are. That emotion is all about personal identity, and has very little to do with the actual topic under discussion.
For further evidence, consider what would happen if all screen names were removed from the forum so that it became impossible to tell who said what, and all that was left were ideas. The forum would collapse in about two weeks, because the real reason that we are here (hey, look at me, I'm smart!) would no longer be achievable.
Your analysis is on point.
Marvellous post Jake. You make short work of what I'm trying to say here, namely that the problem involves knowledge and what kinds of knowledge are valid and what their limitations are.
Quoting Christoffer
I agree, but the problem is how to define 'rational' and 'evidence' and what kinds of arguments are acceptable. People have a hard time reading from the same page.
If you're talking in plain English, and are following the analogy that I made, then for you to claim that the map doesn't exist is for you to claim that the concept of God doesn't exist. Is that what you're claiming? Or are you talking past me? If the former, then that still requires an explanation, and the above isn't it. If the latter, then I'm not interested. You digress and are not very clear.
You don't need to correct a mistake I haven't made. I know what the topic of this discussion is about. But I'm addressing the multiple bare assertions that you've made in this discussion, and that that's unreasonable does not require any agreement for it to be unreasonable. For it to be unreasonable, it just has to fail to meet a reasonable standard, and a bare assertion is a fallacy, which is faulty reasoning, so by definition it cannot be reasonable.
Quoting EnPassant
That's fine, but not if you want to do philosophy, so you need to make your mind up. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Quoting EnPassant
The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. It's as simple as that. No one can force you to do or believe anything against your will, but if you cannot reasonably support your bare assertions, then they can be simply and rightly dismissed.
We are going around in circles because you apparently find this too difficult to accept.
Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.
*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?"
Anyway, yes, everything is explained by God and everything else has a cause with God as the underlying substrate. (or Substrate if you prefer).
God is Fully Actualized
Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis?
I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis?
These are copy and pastes of Dr. Dennis Polis (contributor here Dfpolis) in a conversation with a naturalist. Sometimes I copy and paste both parts, but don't have them here.
The Vedas go against this notion.
Here's a picture of my Dad/The USA giving it to me, less than 1/2 way down the page.
In case you didn't notice, I was taking a stab at you before.https://riversandlands.org/mt-rubidoux-peak-campaign-2018/mt-rubidoux-history/
If I may have the floor for a couple of seconds. First of all, am new to the site so bare with me and my knowledge of the philosophical world and its theories. I am fond of easy words as they are simple and honest. The more we look for words the more we will lose our chain of thoughts, that's my philosophy.
When it comes to the existence of God we have to point out few simple things and by the way this goes for everyone, believers and nonbelievers. By the way there is nothing in between.
1.) Not everything can be proven scientifically. Since is based on facts and facts are not as limited as science have discovered so far. How much is enough for someone depends on the capacity of the acceptance of that idea.
2.) God's scriptures will never be fully decoded by humans. A word of God is equal to thousands or probably more of different variations of its actual meanings by yet again we could be short.
3.) Understand what is all known, if you don't , then you are loosing the grounds for asking the questions of unknowns.
4.) There is a whole universe that is beyond our comprehension. The more we know the more we will have questions. Our knowledge is limited by every mean and possibility. The more since revels the more there is to be reveled.
5.) We are finite and God is infinite. If you have a different thought then you are not pointing to the God but someone else. God is Infinite by all means that if you are a believer. Now again this can be assessed easily by all believers. But for those who don't believe, the term of infinity, shouldn't mean anything at all, if it does then only the supreme will have that capacity.
We all worship and believe in someone or something in a manner that we tend not to label it as being a believer just by being not drugged to the Q.A of the idea. This instinct of worship is there in all humans. Those who believe are as much as in doubt as those who don't believe after all they all have the same DNA. The only strength of beliefs is the existence of a relationship with God. God is not defined but simply understood, therefore there is no such mechanism of what type of obedience can satisfy him at all. The more we drill into this idea the more we get into an argument with our mind if he should be worshiped at all?
In a relationship, the principle is that both parties have some knowledge about each other, which makes it easier for the human mind to accept and follow. In relationship with God and a human being, our mind can obtain very limited. This it leads to the idea of his existence, his oneness, his power and other attributes.
Some of us are willing to acknowledge that simple fact.
Some of us, however, are so averse to acknowledging it...that pretenses are invented to pretend that one CAN KNOW a god exists...by means other than KNOWING it.
Anyone pretending to KNOW a god exists (or that no gods exist) by KNOWLEDGE that is little more than vague "feelings that a god exists (does not exist)"...is playing a game with him/herself.
We do not know.
Attempting to pretend any of us knows by tortuously mangling the meaning of KNOW...is beneath anyone who wants to discuss things in a philosophy forum.
The topic is reflected in the title, "Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?". You can't get away from that. Bare assertions are no such evidence. Bare assertions about direct knowledge are no such evidence. Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. Bare assertions about a vision of God reflecting the true reality are no such evidence. These are bare assertions that you've made, and there's no denying it. You've made them in response to me, and I did not ask you that question, and you did not qualify these bare assertions by prefixing them with, "I believe...", or, "I think...". You just asserted them in a matter-of-fact style, with no accompanying support.
Since the issue of whether or not there is any such evidence clearly relates to the title question, and is clearly going to come up, it makes no sense to try to dismiss my objections as off topic. You're the one who is further from the topic than I am. I've never even mentioned proof.
Do you have anything you propose as such evidence or not?
Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions.
So then don't lecture me about what is and is not the topic, when [i]you're[/I] the one who has veered off course.
And your excuse is unacceptable. The evidence is right here in this discussion. Here is an example:
Quoting EnPassant
Here, we were talking about an argument, and you just made a bunch of bare assertions. You didn't bother to qualify them as beliefs, you said them in a matter-of-fact manner. And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. Well, this topic is about evidence, not what you think you see, but can provide no evidence to support. This is not an appropriate setting to share beliefs on the same footing as delusions, and then prove yourself either unwilling or unable to defend them. Is that what you think a philosophy forum is for?
Have you learnt a lesson from this about appropriate and inappropriate ways to reply in a philosophical discussion of this nature? If you say things like that on a forum such as this, you can bet your bottom dollar that you'll be called out for the things you say and expected to back them up.
Here is another, even clearer, example:
Quoting EnPassant
Totally inappropriate. Do not do this if you aren't willing or able to back up what you assert. It's no different than if I were to just assert that the moon is made of cheese or that the world is held up by a giant turtle.
As I say, I was drawn into an off topic discussion and it went on a bit but I am not obliged to continue an off topic discussion just because I was drawn into it with questions; questions that demanded the statements I made. You are the one who was off topic when asking me those questions. I have no objection to being asked questions but answering them does not oblige me any further.
Here is your question:
Quoting EnPassant
Here is my answer:
Quoting EnPassant
That was an off topic aside and you are the one who asked the questions. The fact that I answered it does not oblige me to continue with a discussion that is off topic.
That depends on what you mean by 'KNOWING'. Do you mean arriving at knowledge of God through intellectual means or by direct means? As I said, we can know things by non intellectual means. We can know how if feels to be simply through awareness of our being. We don't have to mentalize endlessly to know that we are. We just know. First we know, then we can intellectually argue 'I am' and thereafter understand intellectually that we are.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Why do you say 'vague'?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Mangling what meaning of 'know'? The abstract meaning? As in knowledge obtained by deduction? It need not be a question of mangling anything, it only needs to be a different kind of knowing.
EnPassant...you seem an intelligent fellow.
Get your error. Get your rationalization.
You can go far if you drop the pretense.
Honestly.
You either KNOW gods exist...or you do not.
Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING.
There are people right here in this forum who claim to KNOW there are no gods.
There are people here who claim to KNOW there is at least one.
It is pitiful to see intelligent people playing these kinds of games.
It is okay to acknowledge that you do not KNOW if any gods exist...on any plane or in any way.
It will not harm you.
Do it.
Just do it.
It is direct evidence only for the witness. To another person, that witness would actually need to be God itself if he were to factor as direct evidence.
Well, I'm not putting up a pretence, honestly. I will answer your questions but I really don't feel like getting into another 'prove God' discussion. They become interminable.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? But if the Dawkinsian accusation is made against me it must be backed up; ole Richard has to prove I have some screws loose. But how can it be that otherwise perfectly normal people are deluded? I'm afraid 'deluded' is not an argument.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is a different kind of knowing. And not mere feelings. What if someone told you they can see and hear God? Doubly deluded no doubt, lol.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I don't know in the way I know 2 + 2 = 4. I know in the way that I know 'I am'. I did not figure out that I am, I just seem to be. I think I'm right...
Do you honestly believe the Creator of the universe, the ongoing source for all reality has a problem with informing everyone He exists? Of course not. I sin, and when I do I don't think about God but I know God still exists because I'm a rational featherless biped.
One of the best kinds methinks...
In the atheist sense, knowing God exists is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical principles exist. Even if you attempted to prove you held to certain ethical principles, you would need to be eternally tested by every possible moral choice, and you would never prove anything.
I like the Plato reference. I think God informs every rational creature by directly relating to each one individually. For Non-atheists to look for direct proof outside of that direct relation is not only futile, it is the pagan sin of idolatry.
And here's yet another example. So what was this all about then? Funny how you've changed your tune after being subjected to rational scrutiny. You suddenly want to back out.
Your belief is on the same footing as a delusion if there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion. That's an epistemological problem. Are you interested in epistemology at all?
However, there is a way for @EnPassant to distinguish between his faith and his belief, and that makes all the difference.
His claim was about knowledge. Knowledge has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with belief. And there's no reasonable basis to think that what he has claimed to have knowledge of is anything other than just a belief, at best. It's no different, except superficially, than saying that I know that ghosts exist or that the moon is really made of cheese. It has no leg to stand on, philosophically.
That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God.
Senses don't lie and are never wrong. They simply do what they are designed to do. Your interpretation of the information can be wrong. In other words we can rationally lie to ourselves about, or misinterpret, what our sensory experience means.
Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it?
If I had a thought this morning I know I had the thought but can I prove it?
Indeed. And I am saying the atheist cannot do anything but understand God as an abstraction, and the more they approach it conceptually, the furth they get from the actual reality, which is an immediate relation.
This just circles back to the fact that he has no leg to stand on, philosophically. The question just becomes whether there is any reasonable grounds to believe that he has reasonable grounds for his belief. And guess what? There isn't.
Once again, I haven't even mentioned proof, so you people should just stop with this red herring. If there is reasonable grounds, then show it. You or him. If you can't, or if he can't, then neither of you have a leg to stand on, and the claim can be rightly dismissed. That's how philosophy works. Get used to it.
"Your clan"? Who's that?
And if you want reasonable ground as evidence, of course you are asking for proof.
Correct.
I VERY SELDOM as for proof from a theist of the existence of a GOD. (There is none.)
In almost any other forum, the moment I realize the individual with whom I am discussing is a committed theist...I bow out. Particularly if the person avers, "I know there is a God." There is nothing to gain...and possibly a bit of self-respect to lose.
I am deviating (for the nonce) from that here. I expect more of someone who would post on a board dedicated to philosophy.
We'll see. Don't want to rush to judgement.
Going to prod and poke...and see what jumps out.
I don't think it's possible. How do we not know it's just a delusion.
I know I was hungry this morning. Am I just delusional?
I come from a clan of ninjas who fix typos with lightning speed. You must be from a rival clan. We are mortal enemies.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Say what? A request for evidence is a request for evidence, not a request for proof.
Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing.
Quoting S
I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the difference between reality and images of reality (or knowledge)? Suppose you have x^2 over a given range. That produces a range of values, even an infinite range. Now, you can draw a graph x^2 on a piece of paper. What is the difference between the graph and the idea of x^2? The difference is that the idea is abstract knowledge, the graph is a physical image of the idea. But they look like entirely different things; one is ink and paper, the other is in the mind.
Why is it that 2D space can receive and display an idea? If it is possible for 2D space to manifest, accurately, a mathematical concept there must be some natural 'common reality' between space and math. If there were no natural similarity space could not display the graph.
What then is this common reality between mind and space?
Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.
I'd like to know more about it.
Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it.
Indeed, Socratic ignorance is the key to approaching this topic.
Love thine enemy.
Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought.
I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is the personality or ego speaking: I am a great fellow, I am a celebrity, I am such a cool guy etc.
But if we can truly say 'I am' in the most meaningful sense of the word, that 'I am' is God because if we say this truly it is being itself that is speaking. And God is being. That is why God is the 'I am' of the bible.
We're all "non" things that don't exist.
There is no way I will get into a "god debate"...so we can take that off the table.
BUT...I am interested in the God to which you refer in your statement:
"That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God."
You did not use the definite or indefinite article...you just used "God."
Tell me something about that God...several things if you would.
No, this is not a "point of view" thing. You're only talking in those terms because you know that you have no leg to stand on. It is a matter of reason. Can you reasonably distinguish your belief from a delusion? If not, then you fail at epistemology.
Quoting EnPassant
I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. If you can somehow get from the above to resolving the issue I raised, then please do so, and cut to the chase. The wording of your conclusion should be, "Therefore, my belief that God exists is distinguishable from a delusion". Or alternatively you could concede that there's no reasonable means of distinguishing your belief from a delusion.
First thing this year I agree with 100%, that's great work/great insight.
:kiss:
:grin: Forgive my immaturity, I was using non-atheist because I thought it was antagonistic sounding and might instigate a little digression between some of the members here. So, I'm not married to it.
Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion?
They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you?
Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. I can present you with many arguments to show that space is intrinsically mathematical. This means mathematics precedes space. But mathematics exists in the mind, first and foremost. Space was there before our minds were there and mathematics precedes space therefore mind precedes space.
Pi is and essential unit of space and Pi can be expressed, with an infinite degree of precision mathematically: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
Likewise with the other trigonometric functions, sin, cos, tan,...
For starters, stop mentioning "for sure" and "proof". That is beside the point. Certainty is not required and has not been requested.
Now, there can be a reasonable basis for the belief that you had a thought about some particular thing this morning. That's an ordinary and relatable scenario. There's nothing controversial about it. A reasonable argument can be constructed logically based on empiricism, and based on science. We know that humans are capable of thinking, and have thoughts. It is plausible that you had a thought this morning. You could be lying about what exactly it was about, but why would you do so? It would be charitable to assume that you're not lying without good reason to think that you are lying. And it seems unlikely that you'd be mistaken.
But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. They can't be reasonably justified in the same way. If you claim that you can see ghosts or that God revealed himself privately to you or that you know that the moon is really made of cheese, then any reasonable person would need more than your mere saying so in order to reasonably reject that you're not deluded and that your claim is not bullshit. On the face of it, that's exactly what it looks like.
But that does not mean you can place an extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you cannot reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me.
As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. And that is the answer to the question of this thread: we cannot agree on what 'reasonable' means.
Cut to the chase. Give me the short version. Thus far, it just looks like a distraction or a delaying tactic.
That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind.
What do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion?
I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics.
It's on the same level as delusion unless you can distinguish it. If you can distinguish it, do so. Show me. Otherwise I have no reason to treat them any differently.
Quoting EnPassant
First of all, calling it "Dawkins petulance" is not a valid argument.
Second, you haven't provided an example of your first sentence. You tried, but it failed, as I demonstrated. Your attempt to draw a false equivalence isn't working.
Quoting EnPassant
I just gave you an example of what's reasonable and what's not. You just don't want to accept it because it is in your interest to try to level the playing field. But it's not a level playing field. Your god nonsense is not on the same level. It would have to earn its place, but it is either too lazy or too incompetent to be counted amongst serious claims. It can't reach those heights. It is a different kettle of fish. It is a kettle of bullshit. And you pour us decent philosophy folk out a steaming cup of bullshit and offer it to us. I decline. :vomit:
Quoting S
And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy?
Why would they care about being called God hater? For them, God represents a delusion and a lie, and I think its perfectly reasonable to hate deluded lies. Sure it's fair.
You're confused about how the burden of proof works. I don't have to disprove your assumption that mathematical features of the world came from a mind. That's [i]your[/I] burden of proof. Either there's an explanation in physics for how mathematical features of the world came to be, or we don't know. Our current knowledge of the origins of the universe only goes as far as the Big Bang. You'd just be begging the question by assuming that, for example, the three-dimensionality of space came from a mind, and that this mind must be God. That's entirely unwarranted. If you can reasonably demonstrate this, then again, I say get on with it. And appealing to presumed authority is not a valid argument, either, so that won't work. The argument itself must work, and will either stand or fall by its own merits or demerits.
Atheism does not imply meaninglessness, because otherwise they would have no moral standpoint or moral ontology. Faith in God, exemplifies evidence, but that's not to say God is arbitrarily selective or dismissive to the unevangelized. Our moral encompassing or decisiveness I personally believe, is predated by God. The origins and backgrounds for moral ontology has a sound reason that reinforces the argument for the existence of God. Provided, if moral objectivity exists.
Theism isn't arrogant in a way that we believe our lives are far much of modesty and complacence because of God, again that God is unknowable. He may have accidental semantic attributes, but not intrinsic-essential; or to our degree of knowledge, at least.
If life is truly meaningless, then happiness would be void in its oneness - advancements, failure, or self-actualization do not matter in the form of existence. Personally, I think that's untrue.
In full context, yes, certainly. What makes you think that philosophical discourse can't be expressed in crude language? Try thinking outside of the box. Even my crudest expressed philosophy is light-years ahead of your uncritical approach to the subject. Do you think that singling out "bad words" and gasping in disapproval somehow makes you better at philosophy than me?
I can't believe you are rehashing the old empiricist-rationalist debate.
EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. Thing about it this way: it takes logic to create logic so logic/math is not a creation of God.
I agree however that the universe is mathematical and God must have used mathematics in creation of the universe. God is the first discover of maths; he did not create it. If it was a creation, how come ? is 3.1416... In a created version of maths, important constants would be round numbers I feel.
If you want to argue the case for God, I suggest you use first cause arguments... they are much stronger.
Tell me something about this entity you call "God."
Timeless
Just As St Thomas Aquinas claimed, the first cause must be timeless.
Powerful But Not Omnipotent
Creation of the universe requires considerable power but not omnipotence. Could God create a copy of himself? By doing so, he would cease to be omnipotent, so effectively God cannot be omnipotent.
Intelligent But Not Omniscient
The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence.
But to know everything, you first must know yourself. That requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge. So God cannot be omniscient.
Benevolent But not Omnibenevolent
Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:
- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.
The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be good.
Omnibenevolent would require infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. So this is impossible.
Sexless
Referring to God as ‘Him’ is the judaic tradition. But of course ‘he’ cannot be the product of bisexual reproduction.
Not Omnipresent
Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. This means they are casually disconnected from each other (can have no effect on each other - not in each other’s future light cones). To class as one being, all parts of the being must be causally connected, so God cannot be omnipresent.
Not Infinite
Infinite implies unmeasurable. But a being can always measure itself - it is called self-awareness. So God cannot be infinite.
Non-Material / Extra dimensional
Spacetime started 14 billion years ago. The first cause must be from beyond spacetime. We know the first cause cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). A key question is, can space exist without time? IE can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So space cannot exist without time (in our universe anyway). So the first cause might be ‘spaceless’ too. That might mean the first cause is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A non-material or extra dimensional first cause would be able to cause the Big Bang without destroying itself.
But...what size tee shirts?
Like XXXXXXXXXXXL?
I don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind.
Quoting Devans99
Brouwer, a Dutch mathematician, maintained that math creates logic.
The concept of a circle for example; is independent of any particular mind so it must have existence outside of all minds. Concepts like circles (and maths) exist and await discovery. It is not possible to create the concept of a circle (or maths) - you discover it. ? will always be 3.1416... its not possible to have a non-circular circle.
1 and 0 are true and false. All mathematical propositions ultimately reduce to logical propositions.
Pi is an essential unit of space and it can be represented, to an infinite degree of precision, with numbers (see this link http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html). Likewise with sin, cos, and tan. David Hilbert showed that the coherence of geometry is dependent on the coherence of math. From these considerations it can be argued that space is simply a physical expression of number. But if number precedes space mind precedes space.
I have thought about this.
And my answer is: They know no reconciliation.
Here is a reconciliation:
- God is everything.
- Everything is God.
- Everything is evidence of God.
Here is another:
- God is not everything.
- God is something.
- No one can see God.
- God is hidden.
By the definition of existence, a concept doesn't "exist" because it has no "life or real being". Now I'm annoyed because while looking up the dictionary definition for "exist" I noticed they've included "spiritual existence" to appease religious folks. The definition is wrong. In order for something to "exist", it must have a presence that is detectable via the senses and discernible via mental processes, a reason for being called "existent", and this must be verifiable via objective demonstration. The only way to detect a concept is to touch, hear or see symbols or structures of some kind which represent it. Even symbols don't exist, they're just abstract arrangements forced into meaning for humans by prior humans' imaginations. I'm not talking past anyone.
God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms. In Richard Dawkins' God is Too Complex to Exist, Dick is not talking about a god or any god. Is Thor too complex to exist? Of course not.
I'm really surprised in just the last couple of weeks I've been a part of this community the argument is over whether or not "gods" exist.
If all your argument does is dismiss out of hand all the contradictions to your argument then you need a new strategy.
You'll have to clarify your meaning because I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to anything I've said.
"Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis?
I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis?"
Dfpolis is a contributor here.
Try to tackle this.
People trying to put forward their position while denying that of their opponent will disregard any and all contradictions to their position. You don't want there to be the supernatural, but that simply isn't the case.
Do you want to take a look-see at the 300?
Before they can be activated they necessarily require me to make the bald assertion, "a deity exists" so they can be instantiated as "atheists" but they're telling me a priori, "I'm an atheist."
It's the argument of a retarded child on the 4th grade playground.
Still drawing a blank here. What does my wanting anything to be or not be have to do with anything? Wanting to see a truck won't make one appear, and wanting not to see a truck won't make one disappear, so how would this be any different with a ghost, leprechaun or omnipresent deity except for the fact that they can't be detected by the senses?
I'm doing it now as I'm typing these words & sentences to you, it's an ongoing experience tangible to my every sense.
Those experiments are demonstrably unreliable, and those who've conducted them under scrutiny from the scientific community. In addition to this, neuroscientists have demonstrated more reliably that brain function happens in an absence of will prior to thoughts occurring in the brain, which furthermore happens prior to thoughts occurring in what some would propose is a non-material consciousness. It has also been demonstrated that thoughts, including sensory perception and emotion and other such "events of consciousness", can be affected by physical interference in the brain. Even if something we call "psychic" was happening with such measurable consistency, it would be firstly beyond a person's control and secondly explicable in scientific terms. It would not be supernatural--it would be natural. So, I'm not sure why you feel it's relevant to establish that something is reported to have happened with regularity under conditions which don't meet scientific standards.
You'd still be putting forward "atheism; naturalism; epiphenomenalism; functionalism; behaviorism; intertheoretic reductionism; psychoneural identity theory; & determinism (causal; motivational; & hedonistic)" without any evidence whatsoever for me to even say, "All that has been invalidated."
Neuroscientists have done no such thing.
The human brain contains approximately 10^11 neurons, each with about 10,000 dendrites extending from them (Blinkov and Glezer, (1968) The Human Brain in Figures and Tables.) Some, the Purkinje cells, have up to 200,000 synapses. (Diagrams of them look like hedges.) The cerebral cortex is responsible for higher brain functions, including the generation of most mental state contents. It is estimated to contain 60-240 trillion (0.6-2.4X10^14) synapses (60 trillion by Shepherd (1998), The Synaptic Organization of the Brain, p.6; 150 trillion in Pakkenberg, et al. (2003), "Aging and the human neocortex"; 240 trillion by Koch (1999), Biophysics of Computation Information Processing in Single Neurons, p.87).
X-ray computer tomography (CT) cannot study the brain's soft tissue. PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans can trace tagged substances. They detect gamma rays from positron emitting radioisotopes, which damage tissues. The positrons travel a few millimeters before being annihilated to produce gamma rays. Thus, PET has millimeter resolution. To minimize radiation damage, millions of events are used as opposed to billions in CT scans. The number of events in both types of scan is woefully small compared to 100 trillion synapses. Multiphoton microscopy gives 3-D images with high spatial and temporal resolutions (Segelken (2004) "CU Laser Microscopy Technique Settles Brain Chemistry Debate, Could Aid Studies of Alzheimer's, Stroke Damage."), and can be used to study intracellular processes in living brain cells. Unfortunately, it has a small field of view and is limited to structures visible light can penetrate.
God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism.
This reminds me of Sam Harris claiming, as a scientist, that transcendental meditation can reveal reliably things about the inner workings of the brain or of consciousness. You can't just label something any way you want based on doctored results or gut feelings and then expect to receive decent peer reviews. And if you do receive decent peer reviews based on such methods, it's likely that there's corruption involved.
The only way to "put forth atheism" is to state that I don't believe in gods. There is nothing else attached to it.
And there's no need to copy paste a bunch of material you don't understand.
Correlation is not causation.
Dismissing the whole of science by claiming "you don't understand it" while you aren't marking the distinctions between correlation v. causation isn't helping you score any points with the judges, in this case me.
Have no belief in any particular god?
Or
Believe that no gods exist at all?
Regardless whether it's correlation or causation, it points to the result I'm referring to, that humans have no free will, no control over brain function. But to call something "correlation" whereby a specific reaction predictably occurs every time a specific action occurs is preposterous. There's no variation to consider. At a certain point it becomes scientifically demonstrable.
What you're basically saying is that one day I could walk into my kitchen, being of sound mind, and see Death Valley where once there was a hardwood floor and some appliances.
I gave you Daniel Dennett's nonsense about exactly what you're referring to a couple of days ago.
Here, I'll post it again, notice the part in bold, his prophetic truth.
*Intentionality?*
In _The Intentional Stance,_ Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:
it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.
Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis
The part in bold is about what I wrote to you earlier how we don't have the technology to prove a belief exists in the human brain and the part right here above about how it's physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states...
I don't believe either claim is based on reality. I believe one is based on egoism and assertion of dominance and the other is based on compassion and denial of intrinsic authority, neither of which is real--all claims are compulsions and serve the utility of the claimant. I tend toward claims that are based on rationality or reliable demonstration because feelings and confirmation biases seem to me to be unreliable. People need to at least convincingly attempt objectivity.
Both. You can believe in a god from one religion while having no belief in a god from another. You can also have no belief in any god or a belief in all gods.
Atheism isn't a denial that others believe in gods. It's an absence of the belief that gods exist--there's no other parameter.
It's an absence of belief that gods exist? You're not specifying what gods you're talking about. Also, who, what, why, when, where and by what means and in what way?
You can tell me you "lack belief" but you're believing stuff that doesn't exist and there is no science for over what you're doing each moment backed by 300 sigma. I don't believe you.
I don't believe you're listening to the words I'm saying, or that you have any interest in discourse, or that you understand these incessant copy/paste excerpts. You're making reference over and over to a biased and discredited experiment by people who profess on faith that transcendental meditation is a gateway to pure knowledge.
Juries don't buy that bullshit, you need EVIDENCE, and your belief your brain is magically telling mine it doesn't have any control is ludicrously preposterous.
I don't care.
That you're convinced of it doesn't make it evidence. Juries don't buy mysticism and they don't buy "I'm innocent" as a defense. Why are you talking about "magic" or that my brain is telling your brain something "magically"? You've lost me again, I didn't say anything about magic. You haven't presented reliable evidence drawn from a legitimate experiment.
You've presented the hocus pocus findings of religious fanatics.
Exactly. All neuroscience shows is that the brain is correlated with thought. They can't show that the brain is the source of thought. The example of the television has been given; the tv components are intimately correlated with the sound and vision of the film but this does not mean the tv writes the script or the music score or anything in the film. The film itself is broadcast from a remote station. The brain = mind theory is often sold on ignorance of the difference between correlation and causation.
Dawkins' argument is a non starter. It is based on the erroneous idea that evolution needs some kind of physical mechanism. If God knows mathematics He can be complex because mathematics is intrinsically, or naturally, complex. With math you get complexity for free.
Numbers are the most primitive processes of iteration and partition.
Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
and so on //////////////////...
Partition each step of the process /, //, ///, ////,...
Suddenly you've go numbers. If God has been contemplating mathematical truth for eternity why can't He be complex? Evolution in the mind does not need a physical mechanism because the mind can evolve purely through contemplation (of numbers, mathematics).
I saw a photograph yesterday of a bunch of people looking at the sky, I guess I should convert to whatever religion they adhered to. There are 6.5 billion people who claim to adhere to the 5 most populous world religions, I guess I should join all 5 of them just to be on the safe side, except that I can't because they all vehemently disagree with each other on some fundamental details.
That people would attest to something as a collective doesn't make it objectively true. There are thousands of anecdotes of people witnessing "miracles" or converting based on "otherworldly" experiences. There are also anecdotes of brain tumours turning people into serial killers. Billions of people have believed in "luck" and mythological creatures, ghosts and faery tales, and thousands of widely varied names, faces and personalities have been ascribed to gods or a god--accepted en masse as incontrovertible Truths. People have been documented as having witnessed mass hallucinations, having lapsed into mass hysteria. It has been documented that sound waves can cause audio and visual hallucinations, as can exposure to certain substances. Confirmation bias is powerfully influential and can operate in many minds at once. It's easy to convince people of things they desperately want to believe. Are you trying to provide evidence that humans are psychologically vulnerable?
Several people have offered generous monetary rewards for evidence of the supernatural that can be documented in real time, yet no one has come to claim them. There have been hundreds of experiments involving alleged psychics and alleged paranormal phenomena that have all come up completely empty.
All major world religions are premised on personal experience and faith that such experiences can be attributed to a god or gods. This would indicate, based on your argument, that personal experience and faith are superior to objective evidence because more than 3/4 of the human religious experience exists in opposition of evidence. In a few major religions, it is clearly stated that a quest for evidence runs contrary to faith and is therefore sinful or counterintuitive. Yet somehow, when a mysterious event occurs, some people are eager to call it Proof.
You just told me that correlation doesn't equal causation, and now you're saying the opposite. I believe what you're attempting is the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
God Who?
Uri Geller was tested in strict lab conditions and he bent strips of metal that were sealed inside glass tubes. It was also done by a number of British kids.
"The paranormal is a term that covers those weird phenomena that are seemingly beyond scientific explanation. For the past hundred years telepathy, extrasensory perception and psychokinesis have baffled researchers brave enough to fly in the face of the scientific establishment. Then came Uri Geller and in his wake others, some of them young children, to challenge orthodox science with their bewildering powers.... John Taylor, a distinguished and respected professor of mathematics, has shocked sceptics and scientists alike with his conclusions from this level-headed experimental investigation into the science of the paranormal; the open-minded will draw their own."
https://www.amazon.com/Superminds-Investigation-Paranormal-Picador-Books/dp/0330247050
Uri Geller has been debunked on several occasions. No one can bend things with their mind, and there were no "strict lab conditions" except those of excluding skeptics and marketing the man as a "real psychic" using cheap parlour tricks to try to maintain his reputation under harsh scrutiny--let's return to the "real" world, shall we?
Absolutely correct, Wholly.
I used to do Uri Geller TRICKS as a bartender. His tricks are not considered particularly sophisticated among the magician crowd.
That there are still people who think he can do that crap is incredible.
Check out the new ignore feature which has been added to the forum. Very helpful in raising the signal to noise ratio.
Yes, that's true apparently. But the experiments were done under strict conditions and Geller is not the only one who could do these things. It comes to mind that Geller may have been able to do this but he lost his ability and started faking out of vanity. Otherwise we must call the author of the book a liar and I don't think he is.
Geller is a stage magician...and not an especially good one.
His tricks can be done by most amateur magicians.
Not sure about that book author...but he is all wet about Geller.
Anyone who claims to have super powers is either a liar, or they're suffering from delusions, and anyone who supports their claim is either a liar, or naïve, or much less likely suffering from the same delusions.
May I suggest that, to your benefit, you allow yourself the idea that there might be such people, as opposed to letting your mind stagnate in to contentious rhetoric.
I allow myself the idea at all times that if there were such people, then they'd be all over the place. They'd be commonplace and we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would care enough to discuss it at any length. It's that these things don't exist that compels us to discuss them. We cling tenaciously to what ifs. Are you actually implying that someone's mind stagnates if they claim they don't believe in mythology and super powers?
Imagine if I was to believe and agree with everything I hear, surely my mind would blossom into a state of super-intelligence and I'd spend my days brilliantly shining and levitating while solving complex mathematical problems.
I mean, it sounds like that's what you're saying. I could be wrong. Perhaps you have evidence of this stuff, or perhaps you can explain how, if these phenomena are true to life, then why have we only ever seen phonies? I can't get over that suggestion (to my benefit):
Quoting Shamshir
Thanks for adding some cheer to the thread. Isn't there a theme park theme song that urges everyone to believe in magic?
Why would they be all over the place? Are anglerfish all over the ocean?
I, for one, know seers - that I would constitute as having superpowers.
They, by their claim, say anyone can read minds or see in to the future - but, people are simply oblivious to it, being so enamored with the small physical view they're presented.
By their claim, I suppose they're not superhuman - and it's inadequate of me to give them as an example. Nonetheless, I believe they possess super powers.
Quoting whollyrolling
I'm saying one's mind stagnates if one doesn't let it wander off.
Like a chick stuck inside the shell that yells: "THIS IS IT! THIS IS ALL THERE IS!"
And once it breaks the shell, it sees there's a fair bit more.
Well, anglerfish are a species, aren't they, or did you imagine there was just one fish by itself down there?
So you're suggesting that I too should imagine things and then tell everyone they're real. Maybe you could come up with an example by way of which to demonstrate these phenomena.
At the expense of certain social circumstances, various sciences have brought us quite a long way toward understanding ourselves and our environment, and I'd hardly call it stagnation to make progress by contesting bad ideas.
Why do atheists believe in a extraterrestrial life, when there is clearly no such evidence?
Atheism includes no such stipulation.
No, I quite clearly compared you to a chick stuck inside a shell.
And suggested, to your benefit, to wander down the rabbit hole and see where it leads.
I've been down the rabbit hole, it eventually led me to a perception of reality that doesn't include the visions I saw.
By contesting previously established scientific ideas.
If they didn't and merely stuck to what was, we wouldn't have made a step forward.
But I digress.
Early science was mysticism, of course we challenged mysticism, it couldn't be grounded on the scientific method, and it's become a little more difficult to contest scientific theories since those days. Science didn't just progress by overwriting bad ideas, it also progressed by maintaining what was sensibly and objectively evidenced and using it as a springboard into further knowledge. There's such a thing as being too open minded.
Thanks! I will. Can it block out comments like the above?
If according to your hypotheses there are trillions of planets in space, then why, according to your own theory of probability, we have received absolutely no evidence of alien life?
And most atheists are 100% sure that there is no God, than Why intelligent life, only exist on Earth?
Quoting whollyrolling
if you have time then ask for example people on Facebook in atheist groups - Which of you is 100% sure that there is extraterrestrial life. I guarantee you that the results will surprise you
What I find curious is why you presumably think that any [i]reasonable[/I] group of people would give any credence to that? You do realise that there's nothing [I]reasonable[/I] about that, don't you? You're entitled to beliefs based on whim and fancy, but why come to a [i]philosophy forum[/I] to express these kind of beliefs?
What are you talking about, I didn't come up with such a hypothesis or such a theory, so I can't take credit for that, and if I had it would have no direct relation to whether I believe in gods. Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. The results of such a query on social media wouldn't surprise me because in order to be surprised you must first have an expectation based on a series of biases.
For example, if I walked out my front door and stepped onto the surface of the Moon, I'd be surprised because I expected something different based on the biases I formed from having stepped out onto the surface of Earth every other time.
I'd be rather surprised if I discovered it was completely impossible for atheists to argue with each other.
Aren't philosophers ones who should explore ideas, wherever they may lead?
So, shouldn't reasonable people reason that there may be more to something, than their preconceived notions?
Isn't it unreasonable to say that what we're seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting is all there is?
Wouldn't it be reasonable to think, that in the same way there are people blind to this world, we may be blind to some other world?
Under "you" I meant most of the atheists :wink:
You really didn't think that one though, did you? The group of people who are atheists is larger than the group of people who are atheists [I]and believe in extraterrestrial life[/I]. Any atheist who is in the former group but not the latter group doesn't have to justify the additional belief of the latter group. You will find that the atheists here are only in the former group.
Only those worth exploring, and don't assume that the basis for such beliefs hasn't already been explored and found to be severely wanting.
Quoting Shamshir
Possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification.
Quoting Shamshir
I haven't said that. Stay focussed.
Quoting Shamshir
Once again, possibility alone is insufficient grounds for justification.
I just gotta call bullshit on this.
I understand where you are coming from...and I acknowledge your right to do so, but I consider it as wrongheaded as these people who think Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind.
First of all..."atheism" is a descriptor. Some people use it...some do not.
But to suggest that it arises out of "to not 'believe' in gods' is nonsense.
I DO NOT "believe" that any gods exist. That simply is not a "belief" of mine.
But I am NOT an atheist.
If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic."
Not everyone who lacks a "belief" that gods exist choose to use the descriptor "atheist."
There is no requirement that one do so...and, it seem apparent to anyone giving it open-minded consideration, that the ONLY people who do use "atheist" as a descriptor do it because of a "belief" either that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist.
I lack a "belief" that no gods exist.
I lack a "belief" that is it more likely that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that at least one god exists.
The notion that atheism is a result of a lack of "belief" that any gods exist is nonsense.
They're all worth exploring or you stay in the dark.
As to whether they have been explored? Probably.
As to whether they have been sufficiently explored? Doubtful.
Quoting S
It's not about justification; it's taking one foot and putting it in front of the other.
Quoting S
You don't need to say something for me to ask you about it.
Just like how conversations can spontaneously start with: "What's your name?"
Quoting S
Once again, it's not about justification.
It's a question that endears its reader to think; and loosen the bonds of his mind.
Sure, whatever you say. You go run along with your magnifying glass to explore how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then. I'm okay with staying here.
Nothing you've said in the rest of your post changes the situation we started with. It's still curious to me why you presumably think that any reasonable group of people would give any credence to these ridiculous beliefs. It takes a matter of seconds for me to acknowledge that something so seemingly farfetched is at least logically possible, but there are innumerable such possibilities, so it is indeed about justification if you actually expect any reasonable person to believe in one of these possibilities which you believe to be true.
This is an incredibly basic thing in philosophy. Are you new to the subject?
It is not about justification, as nothing wants nor needs your justification.
How can you justify the existence of things? They just are, with or without your justification.
The incredibly basic thing about philosophy is that it is 'the love of wisdom'.
And love is not a contentious thing, as you would desire it to be.
You lust after wisdom, you do not love it; perhaps this is why we misalign.
Your response commits a fallacy of relevance.
Quoting Geo
You're a funny troll. An argument against "You wrong"? :lol:
Reasonable people need it to accept your belief. I'm not saying that you have to be reasonable. I'm just curious what you're doing here if you don't care to be reasonable.
Quoting Shamshir
You aren't paying sufficient attention again. The question is whether or not you can reasonably justify [i]your belief[/I].
Quoting Shamshir
There's nothing wise about indulging folly, and that's what you must do in order to believe the silly things you've said that you believe.
You're saying reasonable people 'need' it, and yet I don't 'have to' be reasonable.
So clearly, I either have to be reasonable or you're unreasonable - evident by how I cannot reason with you.
Quoting S
Read what is written. I don't need to justify my belief, because it is irrelevant to my belief.
Quoting Shamshir
Meaning I can only reason about my belief, your belief and any belief.
Any justification itself, mind you, being a belief.
Quoting S
You're silly. You go about chasing one thing, calling it 'wisdom', and leaving behind another thing, calling it 'folly'. And you end up with neither.
Quoting Shamshir
I plead you give these few words some thought, rather than rushing to prove me wrong - which proves nothing.
Ironically, you're committing the fallacy of taking what I said out of context, which means you're being unreasonable.
You can see the proper context of what I said in the quote above. I said that reasonable people need it to accept your belief. You can't selectively remove the underlined part if you're trying to produce a logically valid criticism. Do you know anything about logic?
Quoting Shamshir
Why aren't you paying sufficient attention to what I'm saying? I said that the question is whether or not you [i]can[/I] reasonably justify your belief, and you replied that you don't [i]need[/I] to do so. Your reply doesn't address what I said. Do you understand the difference in meaning between the words "can" and "need"?
If you're going to switch to "need", then I say that the only context in which you need to justify your belief is in order to demonstrate that you're being reasonable. Please make clear your intention here. Are you going to try to be reasonable, or are you wasting my time?
Quoting Shamshir
That doesn't answer my questions or address the problem.
Quoting Shamshir
Sure, whatever you say.
Quoting Shamshir
I urge you to put more effort into restraining yourself from letting your thoughts wander away from the points that I'm making and the questions I'm asking. You seem very unfocussed.
One last point. There comes a point in an exchange I'm involved in where if my attempts to seek a reasonable response repeatedly fail to be met, I end up giving up. We're drawing close to that point.
If you genuinely didn't care about such descriptors, then you wouldn't get so worked up about being called an atheist rather than an agnostic and you wouldn't rant about it on here as you are wont to do. But you are not like me at all in this respect. You care a great deal about something I consider to be too insignificant to get worked up about.
No. Either reasonable people need me to be reasonable to accept my belief, which in turn means I have to be reasonable - or they're not reasonable; in that number, you.
Dear S, all you do is state your belief.
All I do is state my belief.
Yet, I do not understand, why it pleases you so to dominate me, and why you desire to tower over me and cast a big shadow over me.
I do not understand why you strain yourself so, to put me down.
If you are so great, and you tower over me, why do you care about me so much - as to want to put me down? Do you go out of your way to squash every ant to proliferate your greatness?
If I have, in some way, encouraged you to this demeaning behaviour - I apologise.
I've asked you a few times now to make your intention here clear, specifically as to whether or not you intend to be reasonable. You haven't directly answered that question, and based on your replies, including the rest of your reply quoted above, which I've discarded as irrelevant, I'm going to answer that question myself: you do not intend to be reasonable. Thus, I'm going to end our exchange.
Is there a particular philosophical perspective you have just invented to make this so?
And...what the hell makes you think that because I do not like to use a personal descriptor...means I do not care about such descriptors.
For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that.
I do not rant. I often repeat things...as you do...and as many others do.
I see. BUT...if I've accidentally lead you to suppose I give a rat's ass whether you care about it or not...or whether you and I are alike in any respect...
...please be dissuaded of that notion. I am not even remotely concerned about that.
Anything else I can help you with?
It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That's a massive understatement.
Quoting Frank Apisa
To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Milk, two sugars. Thanks.
Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help.
No it isn't a hinderance...it is, as I said, an aid.
I do not rant...and for pig-headed people, I feel it is necessary to repeat things.
You are, in my opinion, pig-headed...so I repeat for you.
As I said...it often is necessary.
It is not surprising that you think that. But your opinions are so poor...it doesn't make sense to give them too much weight.
Sorta funny. But don't give up your day job. I liked Dingo-Jones' retort better.
Oh, right. The coffee. Sometimes I forget the coffee. And the cup! That mischievous cup. Always running away from me by staying perfectly stationary in the cupboard where I left it. And the kettle! That little rascal. He never boils himself when I tell him to. Sometimes I end up just pouring the boiling water all over the floor on my ceiling in the tower inside the galaxy of my mind.
And my pills! I knew there was something else I forgot.
Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.
Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.
The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.
It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.
What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.
My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts...and now I must call bullshit on your call of bullshit on my earlier call of bullshit on your nonsense.
The idea of "atheism" meaning without a belief in any gods is derived from the mistaken notion that the word come from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god.
But that nonsense is out the door, since any etymological search shows that "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.
Modern atheists have hijacked the "I have no belief in a god" so that they can inflate their ranks with the more intelligent and honest "agnostics." And it allows atheists to pretend they have no "beliefs"...when in fact, every person I've ever known who uses the word...does "believe" that there are no gods...or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I'm not projecting anything on to you. I am calling you on your bullshit.
Not really. So long as you're talking about the same thing, then it doesn't really matter. It only matters if you make it matter, and it just isn't worth the bother.
You're calling bullshit on what grounds, that you insist in present day upon using a definition from 600 BCE? Good call. Let's go back 3,000 years for all our definitions and see how rational things get around here. Let's ascribe godlessness, evil and stupidity to things we don't understand, like how someone could possibly live in absence of a very specific belief system while others insist on its Truth in the absence of evidence relying solely on faith as a guide.
The whole idea of faith, which is the basis for the religious experience, is that someone should strive to believe something that is contrary to what evidence in their environment indicates. It is a struggle to find meaning in the emptiness of being. It takes more effort to believe something that is not evident than to disbelieve it, which is the natural position to take and the reason there are fewer fundamentalists than moderates within any given religion. This is the reason someone would call religion a "hard and narrow path", because it involves a series of motivations to think and act in accordance with a desired Truth even though that desired Truth exists in perpetual doubt.
Religion is a reward system for someone's commitment to a belief in the unseen and actions in accordance with accompanying principles. Atheism is an absence of this commitment. The differences between "godless" and "doesn't believe" and "believes but won't admit it" is negligible and relies on the belief system of someone who is skeptical about atheism.
"Modern atheists" haven't "hijacked" anything, this is categorization--"groupthink". Someone who adopts the label "atheist" doesn't represent all renditions of atheist any more than someone who adopts the label "theist" represents all renditions of theist. "Modern atheists do this or that" is prejudice.
All this "belief" crap in a discussion of whether or not any gods exist...is nothing but blind guesswork.
There is no effort or work involved in simply saying, "I 'believe' a GOD exists"...or for that matter, "I 'believe' there are no gods."
If you want to blindly guess either way...do it, but spare the bullshit that it is anything more than a blind guess. And that "faith" that you talked about is simply insisting that the blind guess is correct.
And we are not talking 3000 years ago.
I defy you to find a dictionary published before 1950...that does not have the definition of atheist as "someone who denies the existence of God (or, a god.)
Get off it.
Modern atheists do want to define anyone who does not have a belief that at least one god exists.
That is a hijacking.
I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".
You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.
And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?
I mean...really?
Use a quote...and argue against that, rather than this nonsense of characterizing what has been said and then mocking your characterization.
Yes...really.
Saying, "I am an atheist" is not guessing.
Saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...IS a guess...a blind guess.
That seems to bother you.
Great!
That is the idea of repeating it.
It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.
Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?
Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies.
I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing."
You can dismiss anything you want.
I have no problem with you having no "belief" in any gods. I have no "beliefs" in any gods myself.
But as I said, anyone asserting "there are no gods"...is asserting a blind guess.
If you have a problem with that...let's discuss it.
Alvin Plantinga believes that he "knows" (in the strict sense) God exists, despite the fact that he can't provide irrefutable evidence of God's existence.
Plantinga's reformed epistemology assumes there is such thing as a sensus divinitatus that informs all proper-functioning humans of God's existence. Analogously: you can KNOW you're holding a rose in your hand, but you cannot prove to me that you are doing so (if I'm not seeing it myself). Same with the Sensus Divinitatus: either you sense it or you don't .
Those of us (like me) who do not sense God's existence are not proper functioning. He acknowledges that if God does not exist, then there is actually no such thing as the sensus divinitatus, but if God exists and he instilled us with this sense, then there can be knowledge of God. It's a cute system.
Well yes, it is, in practice. We use guesswork to get past the fact that the things we know are so few. The "feelings" you mention are guesswork, and we have no alternative but to guess, or to proceed with no answer at all.
I have no problem with that...and I agree.
I call my feelings..."feelings." I call my guesses..."guesses."
The reason I do is because that is what they are.
People who call their feelings or guesses...KNOWING...are doing an injustice to reasonable, serious discussion.
You could have stopped at 3. Everything after 3 contradicts 3.
Do you believe that?
— EnPassant
True, but in this case we are talking about the existence of someone or something that has been expressed by millions of people, which is binary and cannot be compared to something that a single person or even a few people claim to have done but can't prove it. To put it quite simply, something either exists or it doesn't; there is no in-between, and this is true whether or not you or anyone else knows whether or not the thing exists. The funny thing about this particular argument, though, is that it continues to be had even in spite of its clearly binary nature, which should be enough to have long since put an end to the conversation. The way I see it, if you are gnostic and on either side of this argument, or for that matter even if you are a full-on atheist or theist, you do not know if God exists. If there is any difference in the gnostic stance, it is that they are at least willing to admit that God may or may not exist, which is the next best thing to saying that they don't know if God does or does not exist. Regardless, though, no one knows if God does or does not exist no matter what they believe, and perhaps more importantly, God either does or does not exist.
No I do not. I do not do "believing."
I KNOW that...not "believe" it.
Then stop doing it.
I don't.
So, you know that but you do not believe that?
Nuh-uh!
Some ask for evidence of God's existence because some require evidence to believe that anything exists.
That is correct. I do not do "believing."
The problem I have with this is that trying to prove that someone or something exist is vastly different than trying to prove to people that you are holding something, and there are and continue to be many examples of this throughout history. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that for example there could be a radio show host who says "I am holding a rock right now," and that is very likely to be believed, first of all because no clear incentive for anyone to say "I am holding a rock" and be lying about it. After all, what difference would it make if he or she is holding a rock? There are of course similar instances where people may have an incentive to lie and may or may not be lying, for instance if they say "I am holding a bag that contains a million dollars right now"; but generally speaking, the concept is still the same, which is either that they are lying or not, or holding something or not, with no possible in-between. Let's compare that now with saying that someone or something does or does not exist. The consequences of this are obviously far more severe, as no one is likely to have an unfavorable opinion of you if you insist that you are holding something that you are actually not holding, as opposed to claiming that a particular person or thing exists, which can lead a person to be deemed as psychologically challenged at the very least. This is probably because in theory it can be proven if you are holding something by someone who may see you holding it, but even for example if you were to tell someone that you were holding a rock yesterday, chances are that they would have a cavalier attitude about it and would not likely give a thought as to whether it was true, even if you went on to describe the experience in detail. If you were to say something such as "I saw God" or the Easter bunny, tooth fairy, bigfoot...yesterday, then chances are that the person you told would immediately dismiss you as being a little off in the head, and would certainly have this attitude if you were to describe your sighting in serious detail. So you can see that there is a big difference between saying that you were holding something and saying that someone or something exists and/or that you saw it. It's interesting, though, that only things whose existence is ambiguous seem to take the heat when it comes to suspicion of someone having seen them. Perhaps, then, it is unwise to compare a plausible scenario to one that could actually be true, especially if it involves a sensitive subject such as the existence of God.
Creative soul...
...I do not do "believing."
If that bothers you...deal with it.
You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."
If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...
...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things."
When you make a statement about something, do you believe that what you say is true?
So then would such a person not believe that George Washington existed because they don't have any "evidence"? I mean look, the fact is that life in general requires at least some measure of trust in spite of other things that can be questioned, so if you are one who is just going to question everything that has happened or everything that is said to have happened, then there is basically no reason to live. It would not even be worth the level of paranoia that you would regularly experience.
Evidence is measured in terms of relevancy and adequacy/sufficiency. The evidence for Washington's existence far exceeds the evidence for God's in both measures.
Let me try this once again:
I do not do "believing."
Okay?
I'm not asking you if you 'do believing' whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm asking you simple questions with yes/no answers. Why not just answer?
Okay?
Okay.
Yes or no.
Have fun with that!
Quoting creativesoul
I am.
^My problem with that statement is that ANYONE can make a "guess, estimate..." and use that as a safeguard to say they do not believe this or that, if they wish to do so. Nonetheless, having a guess is pretty much the same thing as a belief, as to say that "I'm making a guess that this happened or that so and so exists, because..." would in the grand scheme of things be the same as saying "I believe this happened because..." in that you are giving reasons in both cases. On the other hand, if you were to say "I'm making a guess that this happened," it would pretty much be a moot point unless you gave a reason why, since anyone can guess when given two binary options such as "this did or did not happen" or "this thing does or does not exist." Unless you give reasons for something, then it really does not matter if you say you guess, estimate, etc." something as opposed to saying you "believe" it, because the implication is the same regardless and varies only if you give reasons to support it.
Maureen...what I am saying is that if I make a guess...I prefer to call it a guess rather than a "belief."
Normally this doesn't matter. But the issue being discussed here is about religion...about whether there is at least one god or if there are none.
There is NOTHING whatever wrong with making a guess in either direction.
But if that guess is couched in terms of a "belief"...there are consequences.
For some this doesn't matter. They want to say, "I believe (in) God"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is that there is a God."
Some want to say, "I believe there are no gods"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is there are no gods."
I prefer to be honest about it.
I honestly do not understand why you do not see my position as reasonable...or why you show antagonism toward me because of it.
Belief is far more broad than belief statements about God. However, in the context of belief in God, your position seems fine to me.
Thank you, CS.
I agree that "belief" statements go very far beyond Gog/no god...but I decided about 20 years ago to avoid the "I believe" metric entirely...so that there was consistency in my considerations.
For certain, using "I believe I'll have another slice of the coconut cream pie" is no problem...as is "I believe he means to kill himself with that motorcycle racing" or even, "I believe the GIANTS are going to win the NFC East this year."
The refusal to use the expression is just an arbitrary decision of mine.
Glad to see my position was cleared up for you.
Why would god have created a universe where we could conflate its existence with delusions, or where delusions of any kind exist?
Whatever type of universe is created, conflation of existence with delusions is likely possible. Put it this way, on God's required features list for the universe, this would be way down the bottom.
I think a lot of the problems with discussions like this one are encapsulated in what you say. When applied to God, 'existence' is not binary. Does it refer, for example, to (detectable and verifiable) 'existence' in the space-time universe that science describes so well? I don't think so. This is a mistake most atheists make ... and not a few believers too. To claim objective existence for God in the same way as we claim objective existence for (say) horses, is to make a false claim.
Personally, I believe that God exists, but not in that literal way that derails most discussions like this one. God's existence is more metaphorical than literal, I think. It may even be that She is just a moral story that I subscribe to. I don't know, and I don't care, because it would affect my beliefs not a jot. But that's just me.
Just one valuable thing I can offer in this discussion: if you apply binary thinking, as you have above, you will neither find nor understand God, as She is understood by believers.
:smile: :up:
I was being facetious. It is ridiculous to say that an immediate experience is a delusion. Delusion does not relate to being, only to becoming.
I would like to provide a critique of your claims that a theist has no evidence outside of their own belief, that nobody knows if God really exists, and that theists should not attempt to convince atheists of the existence of God.
You state, “When a Christian or a person of another theistic religion says that their God exists, the truth is that they are saying this because they believe that God(s) exists.” That’s true: a person wouldn’t be a theist if they didn’t believe in God’s existence. However, you then claim that belief is the only factor present, saying, “Regardless of how sure they claim to be or what "evidence" they give, the fact is that is simply what they believe, because no one knows if any God(s) exist, which is the exact reason why no evidence has been provided for the existence of any God(s).” The last part of this assertion should be reversed; a lack of knowledge of God doesn’t necessarily entail that there is no evidence, but I assume you’re saying that there can be no knowledge of God because there is no evidence of Him. You seem to be implying that a theist’s beliefs lack foundation. I believe that this claim fails to note that a theist might consider themselves to have evidence of God’s existence, and a better route might be to question the validity of that evidence, rather than denying its existence altogether. You seem to do that in the first half of the above claim, but then switch to asserting that there is no evidence, and I think that picking one or the other would better serve your purpose. An atheist would likely agree with your claim, but if you were to tell a theist, "You have no evidence of God other than your belief," I doubt that they would accept it. I also think the "no evidence" claim is vulnerable to counterargument, and perhaps you should have defended it in your original post.
You state, “...I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists.” Clarity would be helpful here. Do you mean that nobody knows if God exists because there is no evidence of it, or regardless of evidence? This doesn’t necessarily refute theistic beliefs: if no one knows if God exists, does anybody know that He doesn’t exist?
You conclude, “If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. I'm not arguing for atheists or theists, I'm simply saying that theists don't actually know if God does or does not exist, and therefore they should not claim to know this or try to give atheists reasons why God(s) does exists as opposed to simply accepting that they don't know if God exists.” My issue with this is that you’re claiming that there is no way to know if God “does or does not exist.” Under that logic, atheists should provide “irrefutable evidence” that God doesn’t exist. This entire section of your argument could be reversed by switching the words “theist” and “atheist.” You claim that you’re not arguing for atheists or theists, but they could both employ this idea that the other side cannot truly have correct knowledge of God’s existence, and this argument doesn’t specifically challenge theists.
1. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence.
2. Christians cannot easily provide irrefutable evidence.
3. Therefore, Christians don’t actually know that their God exists.
I think premise 1 is objectionable. I don’t think knowing something entails that you can “easily provide irrefutable evidence” for it. For example, I can witness something, like someone getting pushed, and I would know it happened, but I would not be able to easily provide irrefutable evidence to someone who was not there. I could also see a weirdly shaped cloud and know it exists, but I would not be able to easily provide irrefutable evidence to someone who was blind. I could get a glimpse of a very attractive person in a public place and know that person exists, but if I try to point him out to a friend, and he is no longer there, then I can no longer easily provide irrefutable evidence for the person’s existence.
Furthermore, a lot of your argument has to do with knowing, but it’s hard to “know” what it means to know something. The following paradox is an example of this:
A. If I know I have hands, then I know I’m not a handless brain in a vat (BIV).
B. I know I have hands.
C. I don’t know I’m not a handless BIV.
A, B, and C all seem true, yet they can’t all be true because they would contradict each other. C seems true since if I was a handless BIV, I would not know that I was one so I can’t say I know that I’m not one. At what point would Christians be considered knowing that God exists if doubt can be placed on the existence of my own hands? I think doubt can be cast on any subject. We can’t even really know that we aren’t dreaming right now. However, I think for at least some Christians who claim to know that God exists, they believe that they know because of evidence that isn’t easily shared, like spiritual experiences, or possibly after looking through and weighing various philosophical arguments for both sides. Things like that are then supported by how their evidence for God existing dovetails with their evidence for everything else in the world. It’s like how there can be doubt cast on me typing on my laptop right now, like if I was being deceived by some being into thinking I was typing on my laptop. However, me typing on my laptop dovetails with my evidence for everything else in the world so I say I know I am doing it even if there can be doubt cast.