Atheisms and the supernatural

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you tell me what a computer is?

Yes, it is originally a human employed to do certain kinds of calculations. It has then been used on certain times of machines.
So depending on context it means different things.

 

[ecco]

You don't know that the sun exists. You assume it and it seems to work.

I read that far and realized that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

You believe in woo. I don't.

G'bye.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I read that far and realized that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

You believe in woo. I don't.

G'bye.

I like how you in effect admit that you believe differently than me. How? You have made no justified reasoning. You simply state how you in effect believe and leave it at that.

 

[ecco]

That's the level of your ability to have a discussion? You post the same link to a philosophical article three times and expect me to read it and go: Of, golly, mikkel_the_dane is just so right!

Really?

Can't you put your arguments into your own words?

Yes, existence has no objective referent.

You posted an opinion. You did not present an argument.

Don't you know the difference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

​

You posted an opinion. You did not present an argument.

Don't you know the difference?

The word "dog" has objective properties and you can interact with a dog using your external senses and body. You can also perform a lot of scientific tests on a dog.
You can't do that with existence. I.e. e.g. you can't see it and you can't interact with it using your body. And existence has no scientific measurement standard and there is no instrument, which can measure it.

 

[ecco]

I read that far and realized that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

You believe in woo. I don't.

I like how you in effect admit that you believe differently than me.

Of course I acknowledge that I believe differently than you. I have been making that clear for the entire conversation. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I agree with someone who believes in woo but doesn't believe that stars exist.

You simply state how you in effect believe and leave it at that.

What a silly comment. I believe the sun is real. Why? Well among other things, if I stay out in it long enough my skin turns red. Also, I can see it. Also, I can see shadows.

On the other hand, you argue that the sun didn't exist until there were humans to see it.

You haven't addressed how humans came into existence to see the sun if the sun was not there before humans.

That is why I said:

You believe in woo. I don't.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, it is originally a human employed to do certain kinds of calculations. It has then been used on certain times of machines.
So depending on context it means different things.

Exactly.
The same happened to Atheism/atheism.
The commonly used meaning is the colloquial "atheism". I'd prefer we'd use the termini technici but I yield to the majority.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I acknowledge that I believe differently than you. I have been making that clear for the entire conversation. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I agree with someone who believes in woo but doesn't believe that stars exist.




What a silly comment. I believe the sun is real. Why? Well among other things, if I stay out in it long enough my skin turns red. Also, I can see it. Also, I can see shadows.

On the other hand, you argue that the sun didn't exist until there were humans to see it.

You haven't addressed how humans came into existence to see the sun if the sun was not there before humans.

That is why I said:

You are not aware that we are doing philosophy. So how do you justify, that you know, that the sun exists?

I believe that my experiences of the sun matches my general experiences and I do believe that they are real, because I believe God is fair and that there is no evil demon tricking me.
I make the assumption that I can trust my existence, because God is fair in regards to this universe not being a case of an evil demon, a Boltzmann Brain, a computer simulation or what not.
So I can't see that the universe is fair in this regards, I have place a mental property on it. It is fair and thus not physical nor natural, but rather a deity, i.e. God.

Here is a modern version of Descartes' problem of how we can trust our senses:
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

"Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race."

So before you establish that you use your senses to see the sun, I am going to ask as a skeptic, how you know that you can trust your senses.

And that leads here:
"Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]"

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
You apparently as least use 1 and 2.
I do share 1. I just don't share 2.

 

[ecco]

The word "dog" has objective properties and you can interact with a dog using your external senses and body. You can also perform a lot of scientific tests on a dog.

Why are you conflating the word "dog" with an actual dog?

Don't you understand they are two entirely different things?

What scientific tests have been performed on the word "dog"?

You can't do that with existence. I.e. e.g. you can't see it and you can't interact with it using your body. And existence has no scientific measurement standard and there is no instrument, which can measure it.

• Walk up to a large angry-looking man.
• Tell him if he lets you measure his hand, you will let him punch you in the face.
• Look in a mirror and ask your face if it believes in the existence of the man's measured hand.
• Report back here afterward.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

• Walk up to a large angry-looking man.
• Tell him if he lets you measure his hand, you will let him punch you in the face.
• Look in a mirror and ask your face if it believes in the existence of the man's measured hand.
• Report back here afterward.

That would be the same in this version of a Boltzmann Brain universe. Objectively the universe is a computer, power source and heat "sink". On the computer runs a simulation of the universe and you are the only mind. The large angry-looking man is a simulation. You are the only mind/consciousness.

So the sun wouldn't be real. The Laws of Nature might not even be those that are simulated to you. Your experiences as experiences are real, but not what they are about in regards to objective reality.

Again prove these as per knowledge and don't just assume them. Prove them as proven basis for knowledge.
"...
Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]

..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Don't assume that you can trust your senses and that the world is natural. Prove it.

 

[ecco]

You are not aware that we are doing philosophy.

You think we are "doing philosophy". I think we are having a silly discussion.

So how do you justify, that you know, that the sun exists?

Didn't you read what I wrote?
Didn't you understand it?
Here it is again...

What a silly comment. I believe the sun is real. Why? Well among other things, if I stay out in it long enough my skin turns red. Also, I can see it. Also, I can see shadows.​

I make the assumption that I can trust my existence, because God is fair in regards to this universe not being a case of an evil demon, a Boltzmann Brain, a computer simulation or what not.

Well, there you have at least two mistakes.

One is believing your god is real. The other is believing that your God is fair. Ask the mother of a four-year-old if it is fair that her daughter is going to die of leukemia before age five.

So I can't see that the universe is fair in this regards, I have place a mental property on it. It is fair and thus not physical nor natural, but rather a deity, i.e. God.

That is unintelligible.



I didn't bother reading past "Here is a modern version of Descartes' problem" for reasons already stated in previous posts.

 

[ecco]

That would be the same in this version of a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Again, you believe in woo. I don't.

G'bye.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
One is believing your god is real. The other is believing that your God is fair. Ask the mother of a four-year-old if it is fair that her daughter is going to die of leukemia before age five.
...

You can't even read straight.
I make the assumption that I can trust my existence, because God is fair in regards to this universe not being a case of an evil demon, a Boltzmann Brain, a computer simulation or what not.

I said fair with this caveat: "God is fair in regards to this universe not being a case of an evil demon, a Boltzmann Brain, a computer simulation or what not."

Well, real has not objective referent. You can see or otherwise engage it with your external sense or body. And it is not a scientific term. It has no measurement standard and no instrument to measure it. Real is in you brain just like god. You just believe in it. I don't believe in real.
Tell me what it looks like, feels like by touch and so on. Its weight and other measurements. It is a manmade word. A cognitive construct and only real if you believe in it. Just like my God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, you believe in woo. I don't.

G'bye.

Make an reasoned argument.
Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.

The computer simulation is not spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
And it is not unconventional in philosophy since it is over 400 years old. It even has modern version based on science. It is just philosophy and you would be taught that if you ever learned philosophy.

 

[ecco]

Make an reasoned argument.
Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.

The computer simulation is not spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".

Your beliefs are, to put it mildly, unconventional.

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".
Your belief that we may be living in a computer simulation has no scientific basis.

So, you admit your beliefs are WOO.

G'bye.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".

Your beliefs are, to put it mildly, unconventional.

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".
Your belief that we may be living in a computer simulation has no scientific basis.

So, you admit your beliefs are WOO.

G'bye.

Now here:

Now this is 2 scientists debating one version.

Here is an article.
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
"...
Such conversations may seem flippant. But ever since Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford wrote a seminal paper about the simulation argument in 2003, philosophers, physicists, technologists and, yes, comedians have been grappling with the idea of our reality being a simulacrum.
..."

You just have to google and use Youtube and you will find articles about this.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, as long as you understand that it is subjective as "However, I think..." and not as such science but an in effect ideological approach to make different kinds of knowledge.
So why do you want to do that?

The scientific method of inquiry isn't a kind of knowledge, but rather a tool or methodology that allows human beings to discern reality. It is the only tool we have come up with to date that truly mitigates the primary obstacle in human beings ability to discern reality and evaluate our world, the cosmos, etc. That obstacle is the fact that human beings are imperfect, fallible observers of reality. We cannot, and should not, trust our individual thoughts and perceptions of reality.
Knowledge is that body of facts that holds true over many observations by many fallible observers over time.
Philosophy (as I defined in earlier post) is not knowledge, just the musings and untested thought experiments of an individual flawed observer.
Science leads to knowledge while philosophy is a fun mental pastime.

 

[night912]

Theism asserts that God/gods exist in a way that affects our (humanity's) existence.

And I reject that as being the definition of theism because that's not the definition of theism. That is just what you believe to be the definition of theism. PureX asserted that theism asserts that God/gods exist in a way that affects our (humanity's) existence. Your belief is irrelevant.

So now what? How do we move forward with the discussion?

 

[MikeF]

That isn't possible, as science cannot make any determinations about anything beyond or apart from physical interaction. It's why humans engage in philosophy, and art, and religion.

Philosophy, art, and religion are simply the expressed thoughts and feelings of individuals and are not constrained by reality. Such thoughts and feelings are limited only by the imagination of the one expressing a particular thought or feeling. Whether a particular idea comports with, or reflects reality is only true if it is corroborated by science. The scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable tool available with which to evaluate our thoughts, ideas, and feelings and expand our limited, but growing, understanding of the universe and ourselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientific method of inquiry isn't a kind of knowledge, but rather a tool or methodology that allows human beings to discern reality. It is the only tool we have come up with to date that truly mitigates the primary obstacle in human beings ability to discern reality and evaluate our world, the cosmos, etc. That obstacle is the fact that human beings are imperfect, fallible observers of reality. We cannot, and should not, trust our individual thoughts and perceptions of reality.
Knowledge is that body of facts that holds true over many observations by many fallible observers over time.
Philosophy (as I defined in earlier post) is not knowledge, just the musings and untested thought experiments of an individual flawed observer.
Science leads to knowledge while philosophy is a fun mental pastime.

Well, as longs as you accept these limits to science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

And that you understand and admit that this is not science: Science leads to knowledge while philosophy is a fun mental pastime. It is not that, since you in the context of your post uses it as an evaluation of worth. Evaluating worth is not science.
You have basically made an argument for the usefulness of science, but the usefulness of science is not science.
In fact we can't test what you claim using science because usefulness can't be observed.
You think science is useful. Fair enough. As long as you admit that this is not science that you are doing in your post.