Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[firedragon]

Positions.

So what is your theory? And what exact different positions did you speak of?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Theories of knowledge.

Well, not according to the dictonary as Oxford languages: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Theories of knowledge is epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

 

[Tomef]

So what is your theory? And what exact different positions did you speak of?

I don’t have one, theories are perspectives to think from, not things you need to ‘have’.

 

[Tomef]

Well, not according to the dictonary as Oxford languages: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Theories of knowledge is epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

Fine, I thought you were getting at knowing, as that is the verb you’ve been using. So what is your point about being?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My experience, my memories, this conversation with you, tells me that. Everything around me tells me that. Whether those things are part of a natural, physical universe, a continually updated illusion, or anything else is totally irrelevant. Within that experience, of me being and experiencing those things regardless of how they are generated, the experience of sandwiches and characters in books are fundamentally different.

But they are not if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe because neither has an actual ontological referent. They are in that case not fundamentally different. They are the same as they are both experiences without an actual ontological referent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine, I thought you were getting at knowing, as that is the verb you’ve been using. So what is your point about being?

See above.

 

[Tomef]

But they are not if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe because neither has an actual ontological referent. They are in that case not fundamentally different. They are the same as they are both experiences without an actual ontological referent.

Whether they are different things within an illusion or different things as part of a natural world, they are still different. How do you not understand that?

 

[Tomef]

But they are not if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe because neither has an actual ontological referent. They are in that case not fundamentally different. They are the same as they are both experiences without an actual ontological referent.

I’m sure you can read. What I am talking about is experience. How would your experience be any different if the things you experience are real or not? How would the difference between your experience of eating a cheese sandwich or reading a book be affected by whether or not those things are natural and real or some kind of illusion?

 

[Tomef]

But they are not if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe because neither has an actual ontological referent. They are in that case not fundamentally different. They are the same as they are both experiences without an actual ontological referent.

Answer another question like the one you didn’t answer earlier. What is the same, and what is different, between lines 1 and 2, and how do you know?

1) Sheep live quite well

2) horokdjjwbhduhhqaaaaaaahhj

What’s the difference? How do you know what the difference is?

 

[firedragon]

I don’t have one, theories are perspectives to think from, not things you need to ‘have’.

So nothing specific?

 

[Tomef]

So nothing specific?

About what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether they are different things within an illusion or different things as part of a natural world, they are still different. How do you not understand that?

Yeah, but your point is about the cheese sandwisch being real and gods not. That is not relevant in a Boltzmann Brain universe as both are not real. That is my point. You didn't start your arguement about this with my argument in mind. You did so because the cheese sandawich exists and gods don't. That is the point of not fictional versus fictional: of, relating to, characterized by, or occurring in fiction : invented by the imagination.

The cheese sandwish is ontological real as existing as non-imagined where as gods are not. That is your point.
As a skeptic I challanged that you know the ontological status and you retreated into it being only about your experinces and not about real versus imagined as was your orginal point.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but your point is about the cheese sandwisch being real and gods not

No, it isn’t.

 

[Tomef]

The cheese sandwish is ontological real as existing as non-imagined where as gods are not. That is your point.

Nope. Read again.

 

[Tomef]

you retreated into it being only about your experinces and not about real versus imagined as was your orginal point.

There is nowhere to retreat from, as I have repeated endlessly your notions about ‘real’ have nothing to do with things being different.

 

[Tomef]

That is not relevant in a Boltzmann Brain universe as both are not real.

Within that illusory universe sandwiches and fictional characters are still different things. Whether or not they have an existence you would consider real has nothing to do with their being different things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My claim is that a cheese sandwich and god are different things. That is consistent with everything I experience. It is consistent with the fact that we are having this conversation. Whether or not cheese sandwiches or gods are ‘objectively real’ by your definition has nothing to do with the reality that when you write god you mean one thing and when you write cheese sandwich you mean something else.

I tried and go back in the line of posts and see what I found, That is my point of this whole series of posts: How do you know that as a fact?
Not your experinces of it, but the fact of it.
That is it. That is your epistemological and in effect ontlogical postive philosophy. You know facts about things.

 

[Tomef]

The cheese sandwish is ontological real as existing as non-imagined where as gods are not.

No. Sandwiches exist, or they don’t. Books with fictional characters exist, or they don’t. Regardless of whether or not they exist, they are different things.

 

[Tomef]

I tried and go back in the line of posts and see what I found, That is my point of this whole series of posts: How do you know that as a fact?
Not your experinces of it, but the fact of it.
That is it. That is your epistemological and in effect ontlogical postive philosophy. You know facts about things.

We are having a conversation- that is a fact. It doesn’t matter if this involves actual real phones, physical brains, or whatever. We’re having a conversation regardless of how it is occurring.

 

[Tomef]

I tried and go back in the line of posts and see what I found, That is my point of this whole series of posts: How do you know that as a fact?
Not your experinces of it, but the fact of it.
That is it. That is your epistemological and in effect ontlogical postive philosophy. You know facts about things.

Yes, and so do you. You know these are different:

1) Pumpkins are round.

2) hakiebbdjlapll

You know for a fact that 1 and 2 are different things. You can explain the differences. How do you know that, and why can you explain it?