Why should I have to justify?

[Meow Mix]

"When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known."

Yes, sort of. I think the metaphysician Frithjof Schuon put it well:

"It has been said that the proof of an affirmation is incumbent upon him who enunciates the thesis, not upon him who rejects it; but this is a perfectly arbitrary opinion, for if someone owes us a proof for a positive affirmation, he equally owes us one for a negative affirmation; it is not the positive character of the affirmation, it is the absoluteness of its character that obliges us to prove it, whether its content is positive or negative. There is no need to prove an inexistence that one supposes, but one is obliged to prove an inexistence that one affirms. It is true that those who deny the supernatural do not lack arguments which in their eyes are proofs of their opinion, but nonetheless they imagine that their opinion is a natural axiom that needs no demonstration; this is rationalist juridicism, not pure logic. Theists, on the contrary, feel that it is normal to support by proofs the reality of the Invisible, except when they speak pro domo, basing themselves upon the evidence of faith or gnosis."

Yep, negative assertions carry an onus of proof as well. Neutral skepticism, however, does not.

 

[ninerbuff]

no i dont

there are many creatures in the oceans still being found...so it, or something similar, very well could exist.

This is in a secluded lake area. There have been many searches for it with specialized equipment (sonar, radar) and there has been no evidence to support that a creature exists. Maybe it's sonar/radar resistant and invisible like god?

 

[Wessexman]

I'm not sure there is such a thing unless you mean Pyrrhonism, but its pronouncements are simply meant to be self-refuting and purging to show the flack of an absolute foundation for dialectic. But that isn't what you mean clearly and is not relevant to the contemporary discussion. I don't think then that there is a neutral skepticism on the level you are referring to. That would mean the very substance of our Intellect would conform to doubt, which would remove its ability to be function. Doubt, in any meaningful way is about specific things and to make a negative affirmation requires as much justification as a positive affirmation.

That doesn't mean you cannot suppose that say God doesn't exist, it is when you affirm and get into philosophical argument that justification is required.

 

[Faithfreedom]

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me.

It is a "big deal" for me because i'm lazy. Its time and energy consuming to look up sources and linking them. I'll rather point the direction and let the inquirer go google it up.
But if i really like the poster, then i would go the extra mile.

 

[blackout]

"the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God..."

And WHY should that be so?

The poet intones:

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?

Yet god - the thing MOST in question - that thing is nowhere to be seen.
Why?

There is a WHOLE WORLD present InSide of me.

Yet beyond the outer manifestations of my Inner constructions
it is not something I will ever be able to "show you".

The Inner Domain is the Seat of my Own Godhood.

Yet it is somewhere you will never see.
Not directly.

This certainly does not mean
that it does not exist.
It most certainly does.

You can intuit/extend the existence of my Inner World
from the fact that you also
have a whole world present inside of you.
If you cannot percieve that construction in you?
If it looks SO MUCH like the outer world that they merge?
Then the extention/intuition of that distinction
will not exist for you.
And that is fine.

As well, you may not feel that this inner world
is the seat of your godhood.
If not, that is fine too.

 

[Atomist]

The Inner Domain is the Seat of my Own Godhood.

Yet it is somewhere you will never see.
Not directly.

This certainly does not mean
that it does not exist.
It most certainly does.

No... god doesn't exist inside of you... a CONCEPT of god exist inside of you. Like saying Mario and Luigi exist is wrong... (in the sense we refer to exist as something that manifest itself in the real world) but the CONCEPT of Mario and Luigi exists in people's minds and in games.

 

[blackout]

No... god doesn't exist inside of you... a CONCEPT of god exist inside of you. Like saying Mario and Luigi exist is wrong... (in the sense we refer to exist as something that manifest itself in the real world) but the CONCEPT of Mario and Luigi exists in people's minds and in games.

MY OWN GODHOOD exists inSide of me.
(ie. the Seat of My Own Godhood)

I exist as the CREATOR of MY OWN DOMAIN,
and sometimes that even extends out
into other people's outer
and even inner domains.

I AM the God/dess of my OWN Domain.

I do what I want there,
exactly as I please.

The "lesser gods" that exist in the Domain of My Godhood
are sometimes "embodied concepts".
Sometimes they are other things.
They exist in the games of my mind, yes.
I -- am their creator. (ie... God of gods)
My mind is their domain.
Sometimes my heart is their domain as well.


(Perhaps some time spent in the LHP forum will help you understand)

 

[Evandr]

I see this response a lot and just wanted to make a generalized, short post about it.

What would it be like if creationists asked biologists for evidence of evolution, and the biologists suddenly started looking all offended, saying "That's preposterous, I don't have to justify it?"

When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known. Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me. I know I haven't been making many friends by requesting justification and asking tough questions: I've been accused on more than one occasion of being a bully, a know-it-all, etc. But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

Just like the finals in college are the transition between the education and the career, this earth life is a transition between pre-mortal and post-mortal life that will point us into the eternities. We are here to have out character tested, character that we all developed to different levels of maturity in the eons of time we spent in pre-mortality. Character can only be truly tested if the absolute proof of the incentive is not given; if it were not so then it would be our lust and greed being demonstrated. True character is only manifest in the face of opposition, for me to be able to "prove" to you beyond the concept of Faith would remove the parameters of the test and we would both fail for the trial would be swallowed up in the pursuit of the sure reward because any animal will do that.

I believe that we are all the children of a living God and not mere animals. For us the parameters of existence are far different than any others in the animal kingdom. To turn away from that reality and responsibility because we do not like the fact that the trial does not provide for temporal proof outside the need for faith and a "personal" relationship with our Heavenly Father is to ignore all that we ARE given. I believe that for most, demanding proof is either a display of ignorance or a convenient excuse and a method for trying to escape the inescapable, to justify failure, and to bury fear.

 

[Pegg]

It appears that what you consider evidence and what others consider evidence are two very different things.

thats exactly right

the evidence i've seen from the bible convinces me of the truthfulness of the writers, and while those writings alone cannot prove the miracles they certainly give me confidence that they really happened

I know this is not enough for the skeptics, but its enough for the believers.

 

[Pegg]

This is in a secluded lake area. There have been many searches for it with specialized equipment (sonar, radar) and there has been no evidence to support that a creature exists. Maybe it's sonar/radar resistant and invisible like god?

im fairly open minded about these things because not being able to see something does not negate its existence

we cannot see black holes or gravity or the wind, but we know they exist

 

[Herr Heinrich]

im fairly open minded about these things because not being able to see something does not negate its existence

we cannot see black holes or gravity or the wind, but we know they exist

We can observe all of those things in action though. And we can mathematically prove them. Also wind can directly be experienced by going outside. God cannot be mathematically proven, seen, or, in my experience, experienced.

 

[Pegg]

I can do you one better. I have a[youtube]4PL1ns00h-4[/youtube]
video!

There are also many accounts in ancient history, including the Bible. Wiki link

well the unicorn mentioned in 'some' bible translations does not mean the mythical unicorn

the hebrew word translated as 'unicorn' is from a word that means 'of one horn' (reem) in hebrew. Unicorn is simply the latin word that means 'one horn'...it could be a rhino.

Lastly, the willingness to die for one's beliefs doesn't indicate that the belief itself is true. It only indicates that the believer strongly believes that it is.

no it doesn't, that's true, but it certainly does confirm the persons conviction.

 

[Pegg]

We can observe all of those things in action though. And we can mathematically prove them. Also wind can directly be experienced by going outside. God cannot be mathematically proven, seen, or, in my experience, experienced.

we cant in fact observe a black hole...we can only observe how it affects the objects around it.

True, God cannot be seen or proven physically unless he shows himself, but people can experience him and do experience him every day. I'm sure you've experienced God and probably not even realized it...have you never felt the inner happiness that comes from giving?

 

[darkendless]

we cant in fact observe a black hole...we can only observe how it affects the objects around it.

True, God cannot be seen or proven physically unless he shows himself, but people can experience him and do experience him every day. I'm sure you've experienced God and probably not even realized it...have you never felt the inner happiness that comes from giving?

There's a difference here.

Black holes can be measured by their affects where as God is unmeasurable and unobservable.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

we cant in fact observe a black hole...we can only observe how it affects the objects around it.

True, God cannot be seen or proven physically unless he shows himself, but people can experience him and do experience him every day. I'm sure you've experienced God and probably not even realized it...have you never felt the inner happiness that comes from giving?

Okay I should have been more specific about the black hole. Yes that is called compassion and it is a selfish emotion.

 

[Pegg]

Okay I should have been more specific about the black hole. Yes that is called compassion and it is a selfish emotion.

emotions are not 'selfish'...they are simply the way we feel and there is no way to explain why giving to others makes us feel so satisfied
From an evolutionary standpoint, giving detracts from ourselves which is not beneficial to any organism.

the good effects that we feel from giving is well explained as a quality of God...we are experiencing one of the fruits of Gods spirit because love, joy, peace...these are all aspects of Gods spirit and all of us (whether we believe in him or not) experience these godly qualities because we were made in his image and therefore can 'experience' God for ourselves.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

emotions are not 'selfish'...they are simply the way we feel and there is no way to explain why giving to others makes us feel so satisfied
From an evolutionary standpoint, giving detracts from ourselves which is not beneficial to any organism.

the good effects that we feel from giving is well explained as a quality of God...we are experiencing one of the fruits of Gods spirit because love, joy, peace...these are all aspects of Gods spirit and all of us (whether we believe in him or not) experience these godly qualities because we were made in his image and therefore can 'experience' God for ourselves.

Or they're evolutionary modified biochemical/social actions/reactions and not supernatural comfort food passed off to reinforce the "we are the special unique snowflake of ponies and sunshine and sugar and spice of the universe." mentality.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Or they're evolutionary modified biochemical/social actions/reactions and not supernatural comfort food passed off to reinforce the "we are the special unique snowflake of ponies and sunshine and sugar and spice of the universe." mentality.

This.

 

[Pegg]

Or they're evolutionary modified biochemical/social actions/reactions and not supernatural comfort food passed off to reinforce the "we are the special unique snowflake of ponies and sunshine and sugar and spice of the universe." mentality.

perhaps

but that doesnt explain why have them

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

perhaps

but that doesnt explain why have them

If you mean emotions I should have expounded on their function as a biological imperative. So yeah actually it DOES explain why we have them.