What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[Nakosis]

You are taking empirical realism for granted.

Why should I not?

It is the reality I experience and remains consistent to that experience.

I suppose philosophically I can understand the desire to question it but really not the practicality of questioning it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why should I not?

It is the reality I experience and remains consistent to that experience.

I suppose philosophically I can understand the desire to question it but really not the practicality of questioning it.

You are in the real reality.
You are in a Boltzmann Brain situation. You are a program running on computer and the real reality is an simulation.

To me, it means that I don't claim a metaphysical privilege about that I know what objective reality really is as independent of my mind. I just state what I believe.

 

[Nakosis]

So you know of the-thing-in-itself? How?

Not what I said nor relevant really.

You know what works, what continues to work and remains consistent in that. As long as that remains true, knowledge of the thing in itself is not necessary.

In fact, the knowledge of the thing can be completely wrong. Its rightness or wrongness is not relevant, only that the knowledge works consistently.

 

[Nakosis]

You are in the real reality.
You are in a Boltzmann Brain situation. You are a program running on computer and the real reality is an simulation.

I don't see this as a problem. The objective "truth" of reality doesn't matter. Only that my experience of it remains consistent. It this consistency that knowledge is based on, not knowing objective reality.

To me, it means that I don't claim a metaphysical privilege about that I know what objective reality really is as independent of my mind. I just state what I believe.

Can you claim knowledge of what continues to work? For example, do you know you can't physically walk through a brick wall?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"...
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes. Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation. For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality."

That you don't understand how science is a set of unprovable axiomatic assumptions, which equates to beliefs, is your problem, not mine.

I rebutted that. I explained how results based on such assumptions can validate them if the assumptions lead to useful ideas.

You didn't even acknowledge that you saw such an argument, much less attempt to rebut it by telling me exactly where you disagreed and why. You just repeated your claim unchanged. The discussion died right there. I can see that there is no future trying to make progress with ideas with you. You aren't interested in supporting your beliefs or rebutting contradictions to them, just repeating yourself as you did here.

And you ignored what should have been for you a stimulating discussion of subjectivism versus objectivism. But no. Not even a mention. What is your purpose here then? It seems to be to say that nothing can be known without any interest in dissenting opinions.

Remember this: "I have tried to broach this to Mikkel a few times, and will again presently, but he has previously declined to discuss it." Yet again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see this as a problem. The objective "truth" of reality doesn't matter. Only that my experience of it remains consistent. It this consistency that knowledge is based on, not knowing objective reality.

Your position is a variant of the theory of truth as per coherence.

Can you claim knowledge of what continues to work? For example, do you know you can't physically walk through a brick wall?

Why do you care about other humans? If it works for you then that is all that matters:
"I don't see this as a problem. The objective "truth" of reality doesn't matter (to me). Only that my experience of it remains consistent. It (is) this consistency (to me) that knowledge is based on, not knowing objective reality."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not what I said nor relevant really.

You know what works, what continues to work and remains consistent in that. As long as that remains true, knowledge of the thing in itself is not necessary.

In fact, the knowledge of the thing can be completely wrong. Its rightness or wrongness is not relevant, only that the knowledge works consistently.

Yes, coherence is in the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I rebutted that. I explained how results based on such assumptions can validate them if the assumptions lead to useful ideas.

You didn't even acknowledge that you saw such an argument, much less attempt to rebut it by telling me exactly where you disagreed and why. You just repeated your claim unchanged. The discussion died right there. I can see that there is no future trying to make progress with ideas with you. You aren't interested in supporting your beliefs or rebutting contradictions to them, just repeating yourself as you did here.

And you ignored what should have been for you a stimulating discussion of subjectivism versus objectivism. But no. Not even a mention. What is your purpose here then? It seems to be to say that nothing can be known without any interest in dissenting opinions.

Remember this: "I have tried to broach this to Mikkel a few times, and will again presently, but he has previously declined to discuss it." Yet again.

Take 1: Both assumptions and useful ideas are in your mind and they are not objective. You are so in your own mind of what is useful to you.

Take 2:
I accept that your belief system is useful to you. I also accept that mine is not useful to you. That is all.
You haven't solved anything. You just believe differently. How do I know that? Because we are apparently both still here. We think differently and yet we are apparently both still here.

Take 3:
I can't do everything subjectively. I can't do everything objectively. So I don't believe in your versus.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, coherence is in the mind.

Consciousness is in the mind. I accept the rest is the reality of that condition.

I suppose you worry that this is not objective reality? I see it to be the only reality we will ever know so why worry about something we will never have knowledge of?

 

[Nakosis]

Your position is a variant of the theory of truth as per coherence.
Why do you care about other humans? If it works for you then that is all that matters:
"I don't see this as a problem. The objective "truth" of reality doesn't matter (to me). Only that my experience of it remains consistent. It (is) this consistency (to me) that knowledge is based on, not knowing objective reality."

Why do I care about other humans?
Because they are part of my experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Consciousness is in the mind. I accept the rest is the reality of that condition.

I suppose you worry that this is not objective reality? I see it to be the only reality we will ever know so why worry about something we will never have knowledge of?

There is no we in your mind as including other humans. We can go over it, but you are confusing you with the content of your mind and how that works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do I care about other humans?
Because they are part of my experience.

But they are not there as a part of objective reality. They are not them. They are nothing but you.

 

[Nakosis]

But they are not there as a part of objective reality. They are not them. They are nothing but you.

If that is true then that's ok. We deal with them as if they were separate from us because they possess a consistent independence from us.
God, like dreams, does not possess this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that is true then that's ok. We deal with them as if they were separate from us because they possess a consistent independence from us.
God, like dreams, does not possess this.

That is objective reality in practice. Those experiences you can't control with your mind alone, but comes to you.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no we in your mind as including other humans. We can go over it, but you are confusing you with the content of your mind and how that works.

I'm not confusing it. I'm just accepting that I only have the one to work with. That which I can't work with is, well, entertaining I suppose to speculate about, not useful beyond that entertainment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah! So to you the universe always existed.

This is the case by definition of "always" in a sense...

"always" = for all of time.
And indeed, at any point in time, the universe existed.

That's more in line with the big bounce theory where it always existed but periodically collapses and re-expands.

No. It's simply a conclusion from our current cosmological knowledge.
Time is a property of the universe. The space-time continuum. Whenever there was time, there was a universe.

There is no point in time that the universe did not exist.
Hence, the universe has always existed.

So in this tiny very dense place(a singularity) does time still exist? I guess in reality its would have to.

I don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same as yours. Same as everybody's.



Our current framework of the cosmos is incompatible with the notion of a "before".
I don't know how many times it must be repeated.

Time is an inherent part of the universe. it doesn't exist when the universe doesn't exist.
For a "before" to exist, there must be a temporal context. But there is none.

The word "before" is invalid in this context.
So is "causality", as causality also requires temporal conditions. Causes happen before effects.

I can sympathize with him a bit. Relativity tends to make my brain hurt. It is hard to conceive of there not existing a Before the Big Bang. Mathematically it can be demonstrated. But that does not help us poor mortals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can sympathize with him a bit. Relativity tends to make my brain hurt. It is hard to conceive of there not existing a Before the Big Bang. Mathematically it can be demonstrated. But that does not help us poor mortals.

Well, if you can show that the universe is nothing but mathematical, you have point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if you can show that the universe is nothing but mathematical, you have point.

One can demonstrate that the universe follows mathematical models. One cannot formally "prove" that it does so. But that is far more than opponents to the idea can do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One can demonstrate that the universe follows mathematical models. One cannot formally "prove" that it does so. But that is far more than opponents to the idea can do.

The universe. That is a really big word. That is everything, including that I can write: "No, you can't model the universe mathematically." The joke is that everything includes this. In practice your idea is that you can do the universe coherently, but that is not possible, because that requires that everything can be reduced to being in effect the same in a positive sense.

How? Look at the law of non-contradiction. Something at a given limited time and space in a given sense and not different. But that is not everything, because there is also differences. Namely that in practice everything is in time and space same, similar and different senses, but coherent is: Logical and consistent. But consistent is: Constantly adhering to the same principles. So what is your idea of consistent, if I can disagree. How do you make yes and no the same principle?

It doesn't work, because you are in effect claiming that everything adds up logically and consistently and I can disagree.
Your idea is an idea in your mind, but it doesn't work in practice. How? Well, either I am right or I am wrong, i.e. illogical. But then the illogical is a part of the universe or the universe is not everything, because the illogical is not a part of the universe.

Regards
Mikkel