What would it take for you to stop believing that god exists?

[invisible chzbrgr]

How would you falsify reality?

Remember, no one is asking anyone to prove a deity, a desk, or even a reality. Quite the opposite. The OP asked is there any scenario you can envision which would disprove your current perception of these things?

I can think of lots of scenarios, even to falsify reality. I could take the blue pill. (Or, was it the red pill? I forget!)

I didn't at all mean to say a circular position is untenable, only that it might seem unreasonable to an outsider.

A creationist asks an evolutionist what would change their mind. An evolutionist can conceive of 1,000 different examples of evidence which would completely revolutionize their attitude, should it turn up.

Swap places, and the creationist cannot conceive of even one example, because their position begins with the conclusion and dismisses or admits facts as needed. Which is the more reasonable position?

Sorry again for the derail

 

[Storm]

Well, to be fair, I can't think of anything that would falsify evolution, either.

 

[Willamena]

But you do agree that it is possible to misinterpret reality (as opposed to falsifying it)?

Only in as far as any one person can claim to know reality.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

OK after a re-reading of the thread which inspired this one, I have to say that many of the posts in there were also in the vein of an "I don't know" or a "Nothing can change my mind." (However, I think the proportion of those who could think of a scenario to those who could not, might be higher over there than in this thread, but perhaps that's only confirmation bias )

So I apologize to peeps, it seems we're all prey to our own presuppositions.

(@Storm - evolution as we know it today would sustain a majorly huge blow if a hominid skeleton were to be found inside a dinosaur skeleton with matching tooth marks on the bones, and in the dinosaur's strata instead of currently-known hominid time periods. That's just one example. )

 

[Heneni]

What would it take for me to stop believing that god exists?

A miracle

 

[MoonWater]

That does clarify a lot for me, but as always, more knowledge opens up more questions!

Why do you believe in these "spirit guides" (i.e. what evidence do you have of their existence)? Are there any specific ones that you know of?

I believe in them because it is my way of explaining why so many cultures have concepts of gods and an after-life and what not. And like I said it doesn't really matter if they exist "physically" or only as mental constructs or parts of our subconscious, in the end they still hold great sway and influence over us if we want/let them. To name any specific ones well, all the gods of all religions, I view as these spirit guides but don't limit them just to them, just as there are countless teachers here on Earth that we will never hear about, let alone have any contact with, so too with these guides.

 

[Imagist]

Only in as far as any one person can claim to know reality.

My personal opinion is that one can only claim to know reality inasmuch as one can produce evidence for one's knowledge of reality. How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

 

[bicker]

However, I do not feel that it is conscious, or that it exerts its forces toward any goal, or that I should worship or pay homage. I empathize with your feelings toward nature, but I still don't see the need or purpose of deifying it or treating it as a god.

No one is forcing you to do so, but to deny the value of doing so by others is indefensible.

So my question is, what about nature leads you to deify it?

It is very important for you to realized that I've answered that question already. Again, you're not required to adopt the pantheist world view as your own.

 

[blackout]

What would it take for me to stop believing that god exists?

A miracle

Why?:areyoucra Does your god perform no miracles?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Why?:areyoucra Does your god perform no miracles?

Lol, it would almost be a reason to start believing in God..

..almost..

 

[Mister Emu]

My personal opinion is that one can only claim to know reality inasmuch as one can produce evidence for one's knowledge of reality.

That seems rather... restricted...

Do you not claim to know what occured during, assuming it is not recorded, much of your daily life?

 

[Imagist]

That seems rather... restricted...

Do you not claim to know what occured during, assuming it is not recorded, much of your daily life?

Most of the events of my daily life produce evidence of their occurrence, be it my memories, or the various things left behind. If I ever commit a crime, I have little doubt that the police will be able to trace my whereabouts easily.

 

[Heneni]

Why?:areyoucra Does your god perform no miracles?

Lets see...he can make ME dissapear - check
He can hide himself from me - check

He can make himself non-exist....hmmm not likely. He is existance.

Heneni

 

[Willamena]

My personal opinion is that one can only claim to know reality inasmuch as one can produce evidence for one's knowledge of reality. How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

What is the evidence for one's knowledge of existence? How does it differ from the evidence for, say, a memory?

Why would one want to determine "the limits of one's knowledge"? I guess I don't get what you're getting at there.

 

[Imagist]

What is the evidence for one's knowledge of existence? How does it differ from the evidence for, say, a memory?

I'm not sure I understand what your first question here means (and given that, I can't really answer the second).

I'm going to add the context to my next quote of you, since this conversation goes back a bit:

The problem I would expect for theists is that what they are describing with their beliefs is, for them, the nature of reality. How would you falsify reality?

It's not a matter of falsification, it's more a matter of misinterpreting reality.

According to whom? (According to the one who has interpreted reality differently.)

But you do agree that it is possible to misinterpret reality (as opposed to falsifying it)?

Only in as far as any one person can claim to know reality.

My personal opinion is that one can only claim to know reality inasmuch as one can produce evidence for one's knowledge of reality. How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

Why would one want to determine "the limits of one's knowledge"? I guess I don't get what you're getting at there.

I claim to know reality only inasmuch as I can produce evidence for my perceptions of reality. When I cannot produce evidence, I no longer claim that I "know" something.

If I were to remove this restriction, I could "know" anything. I could "know" that rattlesnake poison is harmless to me. I could "know" that camel urine is a medicine. I could "know" that the best thing to do is drink flavored cyanide so that I can die with dignity before the communists parachute in and turn me into one of them. It should be very clear that these aren't things a person should "know", but if we remove the restriction that knowledge has to based in evidence, who is to say we don't know these things?

You may claim that religion is different, but I took all of the examples above from religions. And mainstream religions aren't necessarily less extreme; the pope's recent claim that condoms don't prevent HIV will likely kill more people than Jim Jones ever did.

All of these strange ideas are things that people claim to know, and they lead people to do really terrible things like handle rattlesnakes, drink camel urine or kool-aid mixed with cyanide, or not use a condom when having sex in a country where a large percentage of the population carries HIV.

One could, of course, believe only that god exists, extrapolate nothing else from that, and believe nothing else without evidence. That clearly wouldn't be harmful. But if the need for evidence is removed for that, I don't see why one should stop there, and I don't know of a religion that does stop there.

Now, I don't want to argue on this thread that evidence is the only way to know the limits of your own knowledge - that's a topic for another thread. I'm only trying to establish that it's highly important that we know the limits of our own knowledge.

So I'll ask again: How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Imagist
My personal opinion is that one can only claim to know reality inasmuch as one can produce evidence for one's knowledge of reality. How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

Originally Posted by Willamena
What is the evidence for one's knowledge of [correction: reality}? How does it differ from the evidence for, say, a memory?

I'm not sure I understand what your first question here means (and given that, I can't really answer the second).

Sorry, I misquoted you there in my haste.

My personal opinion is that reality evidences itself to each of us to the extent of our experience of it. Any "evidence for one's knowledge of reality" is knowledge of the experience of reality. No one can claim to know reality and hold others to the reality that is evidenced only to them. Your claim to know reality is as valid as the claim of the person experiencing hallucination, because the significance of that claim extends no further than an individual's experience of the world.

Elsewise is to say that some particular ones of us have the ability to know a "really-real" reality apart from the reality that we each experience. Hence it is possible to misinterpret reality only in as far as any of us can claim to know reality apart from reality as we know it. (Of course, this is apart from the so-called intersubjectively real experiences.)

Hope that makes sense.

I claim to know reality only inasmuch as I can produce evidence for my perceptions of reality. When I cannot produce evidence, I no longer claim that I "know" something.


If I were to remove this restriction, I could "know" anything. I could "know" that rattlesnake poison is harmless to me. I could "know" that camel urine is a medicine.

We "know" things based on experience and knowledge --agreed? If the rattlesnake has bitten and caused no harm, then the knowledge of reality is that the rattlesnake has bitten and caused no harm. To extrapolate that claim is to either make a prediction or a generalization, both of which do not represent "knowledge", at least not well.

As for camel urine, if it has demonstrated itself to be a useful medicine in the past then I have no problem with declaring it to be "known" useful medicine (of course, my opinion of medicines in general is pretty low: camel urine may actually rate above some of them).

It should be very clear that these aren't things a person should "know", but if we remove the restriction that knowledge has to based in evidence, who is to say we don't know these things?

The evidence I favour is, as I said, experience first, and second-hand knowledge second --that is, individual case- and context-specific experience of the world. I don't think that is actually removable.

So I'll ask again: How do you determine the limits of your knowledge? At what point to you say, "I don't know"?

Your question, to me, looks like you are asking me to specify a quantity to how much I have experienced and learned in my life-time. I suspect, though, that you are asking where should the line be drawn in defining what qualifies as knowledge, and that has to be further qualified by what it is "to know". As I said above, the prediction and the generalization are two examples of things that do not represent "knowledge" well, even though we can rely on them to "know" reality. It's a good question, that I will think more about.

I could say "I don't know" to things I am asked about that I have not experienced and have not heard or read of anyone experiencing.

 

[Sententia]

Well, to be fair, I can't think of anything that would falsify evolution, either.

Really?

 

[Sententia]

OK, so it's circular reasoning to believe in my desk?

In this context it is. You say there is a desk. What is a desk? What is its nature? Could I see your desk? You can show, prove and understand the nature of a desk.

We could establish how the various laws affect your desk, gravity, themodynamics etc etc.

You say you have seen the most powerful being or force ever and therefore how can it be it circular? What is the nature of this? How does it affect us? Can you show it to others or look at it whenever or was it a one time experience?

We could go on and on.

The evidence that you have seen anything even something as real as a rare butterfly you happened to glimpse once but never saw again is far outweighed by the evidence that you probably imagined or hallucinated or deluded yourself. IMHO. When you exasperate the claim to say the subject is not a butterfly but a god like being then the evidence against does not even warrant investigation of your ludicrous claim.

Asking if its circular to believe in a desk as a comparison to your claimed glimpse of god is nothing like your argument and I think that is clear.

 

[Sententia]

Lets see...he can make ME dissapear - check
He can hide himself from me - check

He can make himself non-exist....hmmm not likely. He is existance.

Heneni

Why make such baseless claims of utter nonsense? You have no evidence and this post serves no purpose except possibly to clarify that you would never disbelieve in god because your position is that he... (I guess god is a boy) is existance... :drool:

 

[Sententia]

Remember, no one is asking anyone to prove a deity, a desk, or even a reality. Quite the opposite. The OP asked is there any scenario you can envision which would disprove your current perception of these things?

I can think of lots of scenarios, even to falsify reality. I could take the blue pill. (Or, was it the red pill? I forget!)

I didn't at all mean to say a circular position is untenable, only that it might seem unreasonable to an outsider.

A creationist asks an evolutionist what would change their mind. An evolutionist can conceive of 1,000 different examples of evidence which would completely revolutionize their attitude, should it turn up.

Swap places, and the creationist cannot conceive of even one example, because their position begins with the conclusion and dismisses or admits facts as needed. Which is the more reasonable position?

Sorry again for the derail

Cheers! The company of one who isn't sure he is right is infinitely preferred to the one who knows he is right.

“Every person who has mastered a profession is a skeptic concerning it.”