Default position

[Twilight Hue]

Science is a philosophical system and there is a reason it is done as methodological naturalism.

What exactly is the philosophical component of science that your alluding to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What exactly is the philosophical component of science that your alluding to?

This:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can go through it, how it is so that some people agree with this:
"...all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[43] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. ..."

 

[ratiocinator]

Unless you can prove that they ARE NOT the evidence for God that God has provided, that is only your personal opinion, just as it s only my belief that they ARE evidence.

Okay, I should have said that you have not shown or explained how messages can be evidence for god and I see no why in which they could be. In the end, however, it is you how have made the claim that 'messages' are evidence for god, so it's your burden of proof. What's more you have subsequently flatly contradicted yourself by saying:

There is not and never will be objective evidence for God.

There is no logical way to reconcile that with this:

Messengers are the evidence for God.

If evidence is not objective, it is not evidence. If there is no objective evidence for god, there is no evidence for god, therefore, the so called messengers cannot possibly be evidence for god because you've already said there is no such evidence.

Now it is God's fault for the way you think.

This is the big problem with a god with all the omni-s. Omnipotent and omniscient creators of everything, cannot avoid omni-responsibility.

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.

Okay, good. Now, an omnipotent, omniscient god, would, in effect, have decided (as universe design choices) on every single one of those factors.

However, we can make choices because otherwise we would just be pre-programmed robots.

Argumentum ad consequentiam. We would be "pre-programmed robots" from the POV of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. It would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices. Free will works okay from a human point of view (compatibilism) but not from a god's.

As I said in a prior post, the evidence for the Messengers is objective.

I'm not in the least bit interested in evidence for the so called messengers. Only interested in evidence for god, which you have already ruled out.

Begs the question is a term that...

I know exactly what it means, and your statements could be textbook examples. Let's take "The Bible is evidence [for] God since it was inspired by God." It can't possibly have been inspired by god unless there is a god, so your argument that the bible is evidence for god has an implicit premiss that god exits. Are you seriously not able to see the problem with this?

"Invisible little elves cause gravity by pulling things to the ground."
"What's your evidence?"
"Let go of something and the elves will pull it to the ground!"

 

[viole]

I already have, dozens of times...
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yes, like showing evidence which is no evidence whatsoever. Just what some people claim. Which is something everybody can do.

Look: I have a message from Superman. Ergo, I provided evidence of Superman. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More words... If you can somehow make it relevant to the OP!

Okay, here is "I know something". Simple, right? Well, no! Because you have to check if other humans can do it differently. If so, it involves the non-objective.
So the world is in part the objective, the social as shared or different subjective values, individual as one's own values as subjective, formal reasoning as logic and math and what happens if you try to combine it all.

So here are different versions of I know something.
I know that gravity for its effect is objective.
I know that evil is a first person subjective evaluation and that people do that differently.
I know that as me subjectively it makes sense to me to have faith in my version of God.

Notice how I know when it is objective, social or individual. As long as you can do the different versions of I know and don't confuse them, I will leave you alone. So you can believe as you do in God, if that makes sense to you. But the moment you stop being you and enter the social and objective world, I am there too and then it is not just about you. And it is not just about me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It wouldn't help, which is why I wouldn't do it, aside from the fact that I cannot post entire books on a forum.

Unless you can prove that they ARE NOT the evidence for God that God has provided, that is only your personal opinion, just as it s only my belief that they ARE evidence.

...

Yes and that is also the case with you. Your standard of evidence is your personal opinion. So you use a double standard and then declare that, it is not the case, because your version of evidence is universal and mine is not. But your version is not universal, it is your version. That is your trick.

 

[Trailblazer]

Things happen in this world only if your omni-potent and omniscient God desires it. Can anything happen in the world without God desiring it?

That is not true. Things happen in this world that God does not desire because humans desire them and do them.
God allows human free will but God does not desire what some people do with it.

Why is he punishing you, what for, what sin have you committed? He certainly does not seem to love you.

God is not punishing me. I was punished by a human. Now I have to pray for God's assistance in getting over it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes and that is also the case with you. Your standard of evidence is your personal opinion.

No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[an anarchist]

No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.

All Baha'u'llah offered was his personal opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

And my position is not mine. It is the Objective Truth as based on philosophy. Just read Any Rand, Objectivism. It is clearly so and you are mistaken and can't see the Truth.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
In fact, you have contradicted yourself and you have evicted yourself from reality. That is the Truth. And it can't be doubted unless you want to evict yourself from reality. Do you really want to evict yourself from reality???

See, that was easy. I have the correct text because it says so and yours is the wrong one. That is a clear as day.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

How'd you get to be so smart at such a young age? Many people study religions for years and years until they are twice your age, and still haven't figured what you have. That includes Baha'is some of whom think they know so much. I think the problem is that thye are so entrenched in scriptures that they cannot understand basic human psychology and the differences between humans, so if I say I cannot believe God s loving for example, thye seem perplexed! Just reead what Bahaulalh wrote, many respond. Maybe if they had my life they would understand why I cannot believe that God is loving. There are days when I don't know how much longer I can go on like this but the only answer I will ever get from a Baha'i is "read the Writings."

I'm really not that smart. I just have a deep-rooted interest in religion and theology and I don't accept any religion, or theological belief, blindly. Not even Earthseed. In fact, I'm starting to realize that my theology is more grounded in Realism rather than Earthseed or process theology, because I want to encapsulate God into not just change but also what contains all changes: reality. My views and how I understand them are evolving, changing, as I understand the nature of reality better. I'm still trinitarian panentheist: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy are the Godhood of my beliefs, but what contains all three now in a very general sense is just one thing - Reality.

And so I've come to realize that I'm a Realist from that point of view, although I disagree with the Church of Reality on their apparent ignosticism and quasi-atheist stance they take towards God. Honestly, I can't tell if the Church of Reality is ignostic/atheist or panentheist, because reading up on it I've come to realize there are articles on their website the both argue for the existence of God - as reality - and other places where it argues for secularism and ignosticism. And relating this back to the default position topic of the thread, one could in theory say that the belief that reality exists is a default position, but whether reality is or isn't God is up to each individual as he or she may understand it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

....one could in theory say that the belief that reality exists is a default position, but whether reality is or isn't God is up to each individual as he or she may understand it.

:Winner:

 

[Balthazzar]

It depends on who I'm speaking to. I am a Christian Evolutionist who stands on what's true or right, verifiable by evidence, whether it's objective or subjective. I can claim atheism also. Atheism is, or rather I like to say, my fail-safe position, given my panentheistic leanings. I can also identify with Luciferian views inasmuch as they pertain to logic, reason, facts, and individuality, which is where my subjective truth is evidenced. I am a Christian Evolutionist. That's my religion. If religion, any religion claims truth, then they should at the very least support what has been evidenced objectively, namely through physics and science, astronomy, etc. True is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

And my position is not mine. It is the Objective Truth as based on philosophy. Just read Any Rand, Objectivism. It is clearly so and you are mistaken and can't see the Truth.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
In fact, you have contradicted yourself and you have evicted yourself from reality. That is the Truth. And it can't be doubted unless you want to evict yourself from reality. Do you really want to evict yourself from reality???

See, that was easy. I have the correct text because it says so and yours is the wrong one. That is a clear as day.

*OPTIMISTIC*

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*OPTIMISTIC*

Right back at you. You have your understanding based on what makes sense to you. I do the same as what makes to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right back at you. You have your understanding based on what makes sense to you. I do the same as what makes to me.

That's fine. That is all we can do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's fine. That is all we can do.

Well, you do more. Because you have the One True God, so we are not doing the same thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, I should have said that you have not shown or explained how messages can be evidence for god and I see no why in which they could be. In the end, however, it is you how have made the claim that 'messages' are evidence for god, so it's your burden of proof.

I never claimed that messages are evidence for God, I said I believe that Messengers are evidence for God.
I have no burden of proof since I am not making a claim. The Messenger made the claim so He has the burden of proof and I believe He met His burden.

What's more you have subsequently flatly contradicted yourself by saying: There is not and never will be objective evidence for God.

There is no logical way to reconcile that with this: Messengers are the evidence for God.

If evidence is not objective, it is not evidence. If there is no objective evidence for god, there is no evidence for god, therefore, the so called messengers cannot possibly be evidence for god because you've already said there is no such evidence.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that there is no objective evidence of God, since God can never be observed. I did not mean that there is no objective evidence for God. The Messengers are the objective evidence for God.

This is the big problem with a god with all the omni-s. Omnipotent and omniscient creators of everything, cannot avoid omni-responsibility.

Omnipotent and omniscient does not imply responsibility. Humans are responsible for themselves.
God has no responsibilities to any humans. Whatever God gives us is by God's bounty and grace alone.

Okay, good. Now, an omnipotent, omniscient god, would, in effect, have decided (as universe design choices) on every single one of those factors.

Where did you ever get such a hokey idea, that an omnipotent, omniscient God, would have decided human free will choices?
Please explain your reasoning.

Argumentum ad consequentiam. We would be "pre-programmed robots" from the POV of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. It would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices. Free will works okay from a human point of view (compatibilism) but not from a god's.

Explain why an omnipotent, omniscient creator would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices.
If God already decided them then they are not our free will choices. The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time.

God knows our fate becaue God is all-knowing, but God does not always determine our fate. Some of our fate is determined by our free will choices but some of our fate is outside our control, and that is the fate that is determined by God or by other people who make choices that affect our fate.

I'm not in the least bit interested in evidence for the so called messengers. Only interested in evidence for god, which you have already ruled out.

The evidence for God is the Messengers since that is what God has provided. You can take it or leave it.

I know exactly what it means, and your statements could be textbook examples. Let's take "The Bible is evidence [for] God since it was inspired by God." It can't possibly have been inspired by god unless there is a god, so your argument that the bible is evidence for god has an implicit premiss that god exits. Are you seriously not able to see the problem with this?

I know full well what the problem with this is since I have posted about it extensively. It is a circular argument.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

God exists because the bible says so.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint.
A weak aspect of this argumentation is that both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true then God exists.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent although it is still circular.

There is nothing wrong with this argument just because it is circular. If the bible is true then God exists. The circularity does not reduce the validity of the argument in any way. However, this does not mean that the argument is sound.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I cannot assert the conclusion that God exists.
And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

Case closed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, you do more. Because you have the One True God, so we are not doing the same thing.

Why do we all need to be doing the same thing?

 

[Aupmanyav]

God allows human free will but God does not desire what some people do with it.

God is not punishing me. I was punished by a human. Now I have to pray for God's assistance in getting over it.

What a crazy thing to do! First allow humans to do things and then punish them for it! Is it some game?
That human would not have been able to punish you unless God desired it.