Rehash god/proof debate

[viole]

Okay, and now I ask about the latter.

Cool. Since that is a philosophical position, I have no analytical proof to show (otherwise the matter, so to speak, would be settled).

But I can defend it using logic and the principle of parsimony.

After all, we know nature exists, while we never observed a God. And if we do not find obvious defeaters that nature is all there is, and the fact that a totally naturalistic case can easily be defended with logic, then the principle of parsimony dictates that there is no need to introduce additional actors, like Gods, that add no explanatory value . That is, they are totally superfluous.

This, of course, assumes that the principle of parsimony (aka Occam's razor) is a reliable epistemology to find truths about state of affairs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rrobs]

Yeah, beliefs can help you cope, but that is not limited to Christianity.

True enough. If we breath we believe. I mean we all believe in something, even if it's that we don't believe in something. Believing is fundamental to consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cool. Since that is a philosophical position, I have no analytical proof to show (otherwise the matter, so to speak, would be settled).

But I can defend it using logic and the principle of parsimony.

After all, we know nature exists, while we never observed a God. And if we do not find obvious defeaters that nature is all there is, and the fact that a totally naturalistic case can easily be defended with logic, then the principle of parsimony dictates that there is no need to introduce additional actors, like Gods, that add no explanatory value . That is, they are totally superfluous.

This, of course, assumes that the principle of parsimony (aka Occam's razor) is a reliable epistemology to find truths about state of affairs.

Ciao

- viole

As to the bold - No, we don't know, unless you have solved epistemological solipsism. And since we are now in philosophy, you have to ground knowledge and not just hold it as axiomatic as in e.g. methodological naturalism.

 

[rrobs]

You don't believe that faith (or if you will, superstition) in fairies and other supernatural creatues had an effect on how people acted? Did they not inspire daily little house rituals that were common long into the arrival of Christianity as the official state religion of many areas in Europe?

I'm not sure why you would reply like that. I just asked whose life was changed by a unicorn.

But to answer your questions:

First of all, faith is not superstition. It is more like trust. You sit on a chair without giving a second thought, not because of superstition, but because you trust it will hold you up.

Of course one's belief affects on how people act, including their little house rituals. One's worldview is based on their beliefs and therefore on how they act.

And yet, antisemitic beliefs (and by extension, WW2, and the creation of Israel) had a profound effect on the world we live in today.

Yes.

Of course it can be discounted if we choose to do so

Just as we can discount the evidence of evolution.

What we are debating here is religious people's desire for their beliefs to be vindicated. Which means, of course, that this debate is very likely going to be fundamentally fruitless and deeply unproductive, as people will circle around their deeply-held beliefs and fight over elements of their core identities

Can't argue with that.

 

[viole]

As to the bold - No, we don't know, unless you have solved epistemological solipsism. And since we are now in philosophy, you have to ground knowledge and not just hold it as axiomatic as in e.g. methodological naturalism.

You are confusing knowledge with certainty, right? To make you an example, I know who I am, but I cannot exclude I am just a simulation on some computer, or a brain in a vat.


What is knowledge for you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are confusing knowledge with certainty, right?
What is knowledge for you?

Ciao

- viole

I am a strong skeptic. I don't believe in knowledge. Let me explain.

You know that the world is natural.
At least one person know that the world is not natural.
One of you don't have knowledge, yet you are both in the world.

So I figured out I don't need knowledge and apparently I am still in the world. I have beliefs that apparently works, but they are beliefs without knowledge, evidence, proof and/or what not.
You made the positive claim of knowledge. Now deliver. I have made no positive claim of knowledge, so you are on now.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Something CT made me think....

What proof do nonbelievers (to whom this question is appropriate) want for god?

Why wouldn't proof be how it chances a person's life and not something explained objectively?

If something changed your life profoundly, would you use logic to verify your experiences, or?

It is only through logic that we can verify rational proofs as to the existence of God.

The ability to use rational proofs to verify God is also the capacity not to.

The animal world is bound to nature, a rational intelligence allows man to transcend nature and bring forth virtue and morality, but it is a choice.

Baha'u'llah gave a good logical meditation as to the validity of a Messenger or Prophet.

He asked us to consider that given the intelligence that man possesses, why would an intelligent man claim to be a Messenger if it was not the truth, knowing that it will lead to naught but persecution of their own selves and all that embrace that truth.

Baha'u'llah offered his life as a Logical, rational proof.

Regards Tony

 

[viole]

I am a strong skeptic. I don't believe in knowledge. Let me explain.

You know that the world is natural.
At least one person know that the world is not natural.
One of you don't have knowledge, yet you are both in the world.

So I figured out I don't need knowledge and apparently I am still in the world. I have beliefs that apparently works, but they are beliefs without knowledge, evidence, proof and/or what not.
You made the positive claim of knowledge. Now deliver. I have made no positive claim of knowledge, so you are on now.

Do you know what are you talking about?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know what are you talking about?

Ciao

- viole

You claimed knowledge! Now do it! Leave me out of it. You do it!

 

[Kooky]

Of course one's belief affects on how people act, including their little house rituals. One's worldview is based on their beliefs and therefore on how they act.

But does that make the objects of their faith real and factual? I would argue that it does not.

Just as we can discount the evidence of evolution.

Sure, we can do that all day, every day.

We can argue all day that fossils were placed by gods, devils, dead cannibal giants, dragons, ancient aliens, or a combination of the above. There is literally no boundary to our creativity in this.

The question, I would argue, is not whether we could come up with alternate possibilities for why birds exist and trilobites no longer do, but whether "God did it, it was a miracle, don't think about it please" is ever going to further our understanding of the natural world and its underlying processes, let alone to a similar degree that genetic science and evolutionary biology can.

Of course, for people who have no interest in understanding the natural universe, but rather have a motivation to protect their conceptions of religious authority and hierarchy from outside challenges, the weight is going to shift considerably towards explanations hostile to science and scientists. This is understandable; our beliefs are ultimately informed by our identities and our social structures (among other factors).

 

[viole]

You claimed knowledge! Now do it! Leave me out of it. You do it!

You forgot "touché".

I, like anybody else, cannot possibly have a rational conversation with someone who does not believe in knowledge. Ergo, with someone who does not believe to know what he is talking about, among other things. For instance, with someone who does not believe to know the basic laws of logic, that make any rational discussion meaningful.

Don't you think you sinked yourself into a self defeating hole that makes you, by definition, unable to defend anything you know...well, that you do not believe to know?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rrobs]

But does that make the objects of their faith real and factual? I would argue that it does not.

We're all in the same boat here. Some of what we believe is true and some isn't, but it is still true that our lives are very much shaped by how we believe. I thought that was the issue, hence my comment.

Sure, we can do that all day, every day.

We can argue all day that fossils were placed by gods, devils, dead cannibal giants, dragons, ancient aliens, or a combination of the above. There is literally no boundary to our creativity in this.

The question, I would argue, is not whether we could come up with alternate possibilities for why birds exist and trilobites no longer do, but whether "God did it, it was a miracle, don't think about it please" is ever going to further our understanding of the natural world and its underlying processes, let alone to a similar degree that genetic science and evolutionary biology can.

Of course, for people who have no interest in understanding the natural universe, but rather have a motivation to protect their conceptions of religious authority and hierarchy from outside challenges, the weight is going to shift considerably towards explanations hostile to science and scientists. This is understandable; our beliefs are ultimately informed by our identities and our social structures (among other factors).

I was being a bit facetious in that reply. But it does beg the question, why can we discount the testimony of billions of Christians, but we can't discount the testimony of the fossil record? You don't know how any Christian's life was changed. You are telling them their experiences are invalid. At least that's what I think you're doing. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[Kooky]

I was being a bit facetious in that reply. But it does beg the question, why can we discount the testimony of billions of Christians, but we can't discount the testimony of the fossil record? You don't know how any Christian's life was changed. You are telling them their experiences are invalid. At least that's what I think you're doing. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I wasn't facetious when I said we can do both. I just wouldn't find it a particularly productive avenue for a scientist to dismiss the evidence for evolution because that approach tends to produce really terrible science.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but the same goes for everyone else; if you grant yourself the right to disqualify historical European ritualistic practices as superstitious nonsense, then it is only fair that you grant others the right to judge your own beliefs in a similar manner.

As for invalidating others' experiences - experience is fundamentally subjective in nature; as such, I don't think it's fair to expect people to trust in the facticity of your beliefs when they have not had these experiences, cannot find understanding in the terminology you use to describe them, and - for whatever reason - don't put trust in the same regimes of truth (your spiritual leaders, organizations, fellow believers) as you do.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As a former atheist, my experience came first and then I used logic to make sense of what I had experienced. The verification was that when I read or heard experiences others had had, I could say "Yes, that is what happened to me" and that was validating.

I'd give it merit if 100% of people, regardless of religion, experienced the same thing as you did.

 

[Valjean]

You want empirical evidence as if God is an object that can be measured and studied.

Yes.
If it can't be measured and studied, ie: perceived, why should anyone believe in it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Before I can answer your question I need a clear definition of the real God you speak of so that when I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not.

(I know about gods that are purely conceptual / imaginary, but I take it you're talking about a being that's not imaginary and has objective existence. Please correct me if that's wrong.)

I don't know what a "real" god is. I know that when people use the term it refers to profound experiences (whether the experiences, the practice of them, or a source(s)). Unless they are illusionary experiences, I'm not sure what a real god is in relation to that definition (in the OP).


No. I'm talking about subjective profound experiences that people call god (as an experience) and wondering what other evidence would a believer give that fits the criteria of the god non-believers are asking for evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. It's the belief that does that. Not the subject of the belief.

I'm not denying beliefs can have impact. They obviously do. Demonstrably so. All the time.
And we have precedents that this is true, regardless of the beliefs being true or false.

A lot of people can't differentiate belief from impact and experience. So when you ask about god you're actually asking what source impacted their life and conviction.

Huh? I don't understand the question.

Oh. Outside of believers personal experiences, what other proof can they give for a god non-believers want evidence for?

Why not?

Not sure how that answers my question or a comment to it. Can you give some context?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was being a bit facetious in that reply. But it does beg the question, why can we discount the testimony of billions of Christians, but we can't discount the testimony of the fossil record? You don't know how any Christian's life was changed. You are telling them their experiences are invalid. At least that's what I think you're doing. Maybe I'm wrong though.

What bearing do any of those billion Christians' testimony have on the existence of God?

 

[blü 2]

I don't know what a "real" god is. I know that when people use the term it refers to profound experiences (whether the experiences, the practice of them, or a source(s)). Unless they are illusionary experiences, I'm not sure what a real god is in relation to that definition (in the OP).


No. I'm talking about subjective profound experiences that people call god (as an experience) and wondering what other evidence would a believer give that fits the criteria of the god non-believers are asking for evidence.

Thanks for the clarification.

Since the phenomenon is entirely personal and internal, why doesn't that point to an aspect of the evolved human brain as the explanation? The same parts that are involved in various schools of eg ecstatic meditation, or the religious consumption of magic mushrooms or as the case may be?

What else could it be?

 

[blü 2]

One approach is panpsychism, the idea that the universe itself is conscious. There's a lot of reference on the internet to this including this from Scientific American. I would call that, God manifest and thus the "suspect" is everything that exists.

Thanks for the link.

I may have missed something, but I don't see how the good professor can on the one hand say he's identifying consciousness with the ability to experience, and on the other say he's not talking about self-awareness. I find it meaningless to say that sodium and chlorine experience their bonding into NaCl or magnesium and chlorine experience their bonding into MgCl2 since there's nothing there capable of experiencing. And when I come to experience the flavor of salt, I can identify the neural pathways involved.

Even more simply, I know the dead are dead and have ceased to be aware, ceased to experience.