Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[thomas t]

I can't believe you're still trying this. Why is it evidence of a god? Where is the actual argument?

it's evidence of a loving force behind, as I see it. I call it God, the Bible God, for instance, is one of love.
There is no evolutionary pressure on this landscape to look this beautiful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that's the case, investigate the Quran, find any errors. Athiest are either too lazy or won't accept researching other faiths especially Islam. They have found faults and disproven Christianity and then lumped all religions together. What I mean about atheist is that they believe in western progress being God.

1. How can we and the universe come from nothing?
2. What's the cause of all living things?
3. How is this earth so finely tuned?

Athiest who are prominently western Europeans & Chinese perceive all brown and black people inferior. They would never tolerate investigating or accept belief in a perceived Arab religion.

Well, that is not true.
As for your 3 question I don't know, yet I believe differently than you.
But you are apparently a product of product of a culture, what values truth. You have that in common with a lot of Westerners. But I am not one of them, because as a skeptic I don't believe in truth as most humans do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't believe you're still trying this. Why is it evidence of a god? Where is the actual argument?

What is the evidence of any positive metaphysical claim of what the world really is?

 

[ratiocinator]

it's evidence of a loving force behind, as I see it.

Why? Where is the logic?

There is no evolutionary pressure on this landscape to look this beautiful.

Well the weather looks calm - could be good for hunting but that doesn't really matter, even if I accept that why we find landscapes nice to look at is a total mystery, claiming that this is evidence for a god is still bizarre and appears to be based on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I mean, do you think god wants to give us evidence that it exists? If yes, then this is a bit pathetic, if no, then what? Did it make a mistake?

 

[Heyo]

Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

God who, and besides either way, who cares?

What do you think is worse, ignorance or indifference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you think is worse, ignorance or indifference?

Why do you use a subjective evaluation?

 

[blü 2]

I define blû 2 to mean doesn't exist, so by the power of this denition you don't exist and that is true and a fact.

Ah, so you're a solipsist changing your world with the power of imagination.

And you've imagined me out. you say?

Then I guess you won't find me there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But in this case the brain's understanding is based on observation of the world external to the self, and supernatural beings by definition aren't found in nature. So reality is free of supernatural beings not only via observation but in principle.
I don't understand what you mean by "metaphysics" in this context.
...

That is magical thinking. Here is how. You think the world is natural. That is what you do, when you define the world as being natural. But that you define it so, won't cause it to be natural.
So we are playing what the world is to you as per your experiences versus independent of your experiences(metaphysics) and apparently you are functionally unable to understand the difference.

So here it is for 2 different natural world, where the worlds as independent of your experiences are different.
A real world versus a Boltzmann Brain universe physically consisting of some space, a computer and a powersource. On the computer is a simulation of the universe and you running as subroutine. I don't exist as me and your definition doesn't change anything as to what the world is as independent of your experience of it.
This example with a Boltzmann Brain universe can be formalized in a more general sense:
- A real world causes you to have your experiences.
- A non-real world causes you to have your experiences.

Ah, so you're a solipsist changing your world with the power of imagination.

And you've imagined me out. you say?

Then I guess you won't find me there.

Now my above example are not metaphysical/ontological solipsism. They are epistemological skepticism for what knowledge is and how to understand your magical thinking by believing the world is natural, because you define it so.

NOW LISTEN!!! I am not a solipsist and that you are unable to understand that, is your problem and not mine.
I am a skeptic. I check my own thinking and other humans' thinking and you can't think the world to be natural by defining the world to be natural. That is a case of magical thinking, because it means that your thinking is what causes the world to be natural.
That you are like some other people and unable to understand the difference between solipsism and skepticism as for knowledge, is not my problem.
In effect you seem unable to understand the difference, so reduction ad absurdum I use your magical thinking on you. You don't exist, because I define you to be non-existence. You won't accept that, because you know, that is not how thinking works. But you believe that your thinking as your definition of what the world is, decides what the world is. It doesn't!

 

[blü 2]

That is magical thinking. Here is how. You think the world is natural. That is what you do, when you define the world as being natural. But that you define it so, won't cause it to be natural.

Yes it will. The definition 'natural' meaning 'arising in the course of nature' isn't confined to me. Nor is the idea that nature is a word for the world external to the self.

What word would you prefer to use to describe the world external to the self, the one we can only know through our senses?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes it will. The definition 'natural' meaning 'arising in the course of nature' isn't confined to me. Nor is the idea that nature is a word for the world external to the self.

What word would you prefer to use to describe the world external to the self, the one we can only know through our senses?

We can't know through our senses. You can only trust them or not.

You really don't understand that you use knowledge as not belief. But that is apparently not possible. So you just keep claim your belief that you can trust your experiences are knowledge. You don't know I know anything, because you don't know that I exist. You keep using a "we" that you have no knowledge of.

In effect your treat your assumptions and definitions as not of your subjective thinking and treat your experiences as real, even though real is subjective and have no objective referent. Real is a first person cognitive evaluation of whether you trust your senses or not. That is it.
The dog is black - is an experience. The dog is real - is a subjective judgement in you.

You keep conflating those 2 and treat the dog is real as true per objective correspondence. It is not such a case.
You seem to take your subjective thinking as objective, real and what not. It is not.

The natural world is natural whether you are in a real world or a Boltzmann Brain universe and neither are a case of metaphysical/ontological solipsism.

Now read all of this, I mean it.
"In epistemology, epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. The existence of other minds and the external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence."
Even that has a limit as for what existence is and ends up being a tautology, which is in effect empty of any practical meaning.
Epistemological solipsism - Wikipedia
Methodological solipsism - Wikipedia
Metaphysical solipsism - Wikipedia

You have to learn to understand and differentiate between these 3.
I use use epistemological solipsism as a skeptic in regards to knowledge. I use methodological solipsism as I only know of the world as me and in practice I can only explain the world as it includes me.
I don't do metaphysical solipsism.

You are in effect doing naive realism, because you claim assumptions and then turn around and do real as objective true.

 

[thomas t]

Why? Where is the logic?



Well the weather looks calm - could be good for hunting but that doesn't really matter, even if I accept that why we find landscapes nice to look at is a total mystery, claiming that this is evidence for a god is still bizarre and appears to be based on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I mean, do you think god wants to give us evidence that it exists? If yes, then this is a bit pathetic, if no, then what? Did it make a mistake?

where is the logic behind any claim regarding evolution? Is it logical that a Last Universal Common Ancestor is behind every organism on earth?
Where is the logic there?
Is evidence always logical?
When parents want to cheer up their children, they give them something beautiful sometimes.
That's the logic behind what I claim.

The Last Universal Common Ancestor is not called "argument from ignorance".
So, my evidence shouldn't be called that way either.

I don't think that the moment something looks like a complete mystery.... it cannot count es evidence for something else, anymore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I don't think that something being a complete mystery should rule out that it still can serve as evidence.

I think differently.

 

[ratiocinator]

where is the logic behind any claim regarding evolution? Is it logical that a Last Universal Common Ancestor is behind every organism on earth?
Where is the logic there?
Is evidence always logical?

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that is tested by looking at the evidence, which is plentiful, explained and predicted by the theory, and not explained by alternative proposals. In other words, it is testable and falsifiable.

When parents want to cheer up their children, they give them something beautiful sometimes.
That's the logic behind what I claim.

This looks like an affirming the consequent fallacy. Just because parents give their children beautiful things sometimes, doesn't imply that everything beautiful is deliberately given.

The Last Universal Common Ancestor is not called "argument from ignorance".

That's because it isn't. It doesn't take something that is unknown and try to draw a direct conclusion from it (in your case, that there is no natural explanation for beautiful landscapes).

I don't think that the moment something looks like a complete mystery.... it cannot count es evidence for something else, anymore.

If something is unknown, it's unknown. It doesn't (by itself) make your favourite story about it any more likely to be correct. This is just a god of the gaps approach.

 

[blü 2]

We can't know through our senses. You can't only trust them or not.

Then the disagreement between our points of view will not be solved by further discussion, so let's leave it there.

 

[thomas t]

In other words, it is testable and falsifiable.

you can test for the perception of beauty, too.
It is falsifiable. In theory, there could as well be no beautiful countryside, at all.

This looks like an affirming the consequent fallacy. Just because parents give their children beautiful things sometimes, doesn't imply that everything beautiful is deliberately given.

I didn't claim it would.
Just explaining the logic behind.

If this is god of the gaps, than the LUCA is the LUCA of the gaps.
It is as simple as that.

[the theory of the LUCA] doesn't take something that is unknown

To the best of my knowledge, the LUCA is not known either,
you don't know where its origins are, nothing.
It is unknown, I think.

So, please, don't resort to special pleading here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

you can test for the perception of beauty, too.
It is falsifiable. In theory, there could as well be no beautiful countryside, at all.

I didn't claim it would.
Just explaining the logic behind.

If this is god of the gaps, than the LUCA is the LUCA of the gaps.
It is as simple as that.

To the best of my knowledge, the LUCA is not known either,
you don't know where its origins are, nothing.
It is unknown, I think.

So, please, don't resort to special pleading here.

Don't play with knowledge.
The unknown in the strong sense is everything else than you existing as: I think, therefore I am.
Now you can't with reason deicide between the world being natural or from God. Both are unknowable and thus there can't be assigned no properablity to either. In practice you either believe in the one or the other.

So stop trying to reason, which one is correct. It is unknowable. In effect you have faith, that is it. If there is a God, that can only be known by God.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

you can test for the perception of beauty, too.
It is falsifiable. In theory, there could as well be no beautiful countryside, at all.

You simply don't get this at all, do you? We already know that there is beautiful countryside, so your proposal is not falsifiable. Evolution is, and could easily have been with the discovery of genetics, for example.

If this is god of the gaps, than the LUCA is the LUCA of the gaps.
It is as simple as that.

Once again you just don't seem to understand. There is plenty of evidence that life descended from a common ancestor, and the notion is falsifiable, by, for example, the discovery of a radically different genome that didn't fit with the pattern. We aren't just taking an unknown and making up a story about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You simply don't get this at all, do you? We already know that there is beautiful countryside, so your proposal is not falsifiable. Evolution is, and could easily have been with the discovery of genetics, for example.



Once again you just don't seem to understand. There is plenty of evidence that life descended from a common ancestor, and the notion is falsifiable, by, for example, the discovery of a radically different genome that didn't fit with the pattern. We aren't just taking an unknown and making up a story about it.

What do you mean be the bold one+

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes: Because "God" is a word that seems to describe the experience of being a conscious extension of a larger existence.

No: Because most of the time, the usage is specific to a person's history and experiences.

 

[thomas t]

I think I do understand the subject at hand

We already know that there is beautiful countryside, so your proposal is not falsifiable.

theoretically it could be.
It could be that for any given countryside, as many people could be found that like it as there are that don't like it.
Still today.
Taste is different for anyone.

There is evidence for the LUCA, just as there is for the loving creator. But the LUCA itself is totally unknown.
You call God the God of the gaps and by the same reasoning... the LUCA is the LUCA of the gaps, in my opinion, that was my point.