Would you buy it?

[Meow Mix]

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's an entirely justified belief, though the event is not actual. It's not "blind," which is a figure of speech that does refer to having no evidence, hence being unable to justify belief--but then, as I said, the word "belief" is often abused.

Those are two contexts of "faith" though.

Your (indeed, justified) belief that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow is inductive, which you have no reason to be skeptical of without counterexamples.

That's entirely different from belief in the ontological existence of something. So, I get what you're saying but it's equivocation; it's not comparable.

There are three contexts of faith I can think of:

1) Reasonable induction ("The sun will most likely appear to rise tomorrow")
2) Trust in friends, the future, or even strangers -- which actually is just another example of induction, so perhaps there are only two contexts of faith?

3) Ontological beliefs without justification

(3) is the pertinant one when it comes to theism and the box.

 

[Meow Mix]

Haven't you ever done anything out of habit? Do you knit? Do you think about each stich as you make it? (I hope not, else you're missing out on all the fun of knitting, most of which invovles entertaining daydreams.)

It's not meaningless at all.

Your brain is still active when you're doing those things. Stopping rational thought isn't going to get you to truth or knowledge, either: knowledge is by definition justified true belief, and justification requires thought.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well it actually goes deeper. It is awareness that is beneficial.I actually find that creating habits even that are good is also a limitation on awareness but none the less better then bad habbits.
When you have freed your mind from all thoughts your mind actually thinks much clearer.It is not the thinking that is the problem.It is holding on consciously that is the problem and what cause a restriction. If Someone makes you upset the mind wants to continuously hold on to the situation analising it over and over until you make a conscious effort to release what you are holding on to. This holding on is what blinds awareness. To what extent awareness can open depends on how much you can release consciously and subconsciously.Awareness comes to the truth of reality and not that which we hold in mind consciously for control. Your consciousness can only see as much as you allow your awareness to open as you relate this to not seeing keys in front of your face until you release the panic or fear of not having them.Once you have released the restrictions of your awareness caused from the mind, suddenly you see the keys were in front of your face the whole time.

The system you're describing doesn't lead to truth or knowledge though.

Knowledge requires justification, which only comes through the use of reason.

You haven't explained why it's rational to believe theism is true.

Is it rational to invest in the box or not? If not, then how is it different from investing in theism?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I am saying let go of trying to control reality in the intellect so the awareness can open up.

When you remove intellect you are left with NOTHING but fantasy.

And you are removing the one thing that can prove the existence of your fantasy.

No matter how you spin, no matter how many times you are rewording it, all you are saying is:

Stop thinking
Start believing

Because your god does not stand up to the burden of thought.

-Q

 

[.lava]

hahaha

well.. i am the box. i am not for sell... and yes, everything is within

.

 

[Walkntune]

What does this quote from Einstein mean to you?
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

Answer this question and I will answer yours.

 

[Walkntune]

hahaha

well.. i am the box. i am not for sell... and yes, everything is within

.

There is so much truth in this!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Well now if you want to argue that my car keys dont exist you'll also have to argue that RF doesn't exist and also that you don't exist.

 

[Atomist]

Well now if you want to argue that my car keys dont exist you'll also have to argue that RF doesn't exist and also that you don't exist.

The coolest argument I've heard for the existence of the external world is the "Here is a hand argument"

1. Here is a hand
2. Here is another hand
3. There are at least two external objects in the world
.: Therefore an external world exists

I seems to be bordering on strawman but... since we can know more about the external world than we can about say a possible situation like a brain in a vat... we can assume that the existence of this external world is more likely than if we're being deceived. Since there is no reason to assume we're in a brain in a vat.

 

[Meow Mix]

The coolest argument I've heard for the existence of the external world is the "Here is a hand argument"

1. Here is a hand
2. Here is another hand
3. There are at least two external objects in the world
.: Therefore an external world exists

I seems to be bordering on strawman but... since we can know more about the external world than we can about say a possible situation like a brain in a vat... we can assume that the existence of this external world is more likely than if we're being deceived. Since there is no reason to assume we're in a brain in a vat.

The best argument for an external world I can think of is that it's self-contradictory to doubt it in a debate.

Else, who are you doubting it to?

If you utter aloud "There may not be an external world" to someone with the intention of changing their minds or getting them to see your point of view, you're being as self-contradictory as if you said with words "I doubt words have meaning."

Therefore the only possible self-consistent way to doubt external reality is by not saying anything at all because the moment you do you contradict yourself.

Thus in effect, having a debate or conversation at all already entails the assumption on both parties that something external exists and neither can doubt it due to its contextual incorrigibility. One can argue that perhaps solipsism is true and that you're just talking to a part of your mind that you're not conscious about -- but note please that such is indistinguishable from objective reality.

 

[Meow Mix]

What does this quote from Einstein mean to you?
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

Answer this question and I will answer yours.

He probably means that it's difficult to develop new concepts with a different paradigm once current paradigms are already known, but I guarantee you that Einstein's persuit to truth didn't involve not thinking or not reasoning.

There's a difference between trying another (but valid, and rational) approach and abandoning reason/thought.

You seem to be advocating the latter. Is that true or have I misinterpreted you?

If you're not advocating abandoning reason, then please provide justification for theism or for why belief in the box is different from belief in gods in principle.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

For the sake of analogy of course. In order to give you a concept of what the box is I had to make up some properties of it. I easily could have also said that inside the box is a leprechaun (but that you would only find this out after you died).

Yes you could. You could also say that the box was made by a pink unicorn that lives on the far side of the moon. But you didn't. You gave the box properties, and gave no evidence to support these properties, and no real way to determine if the effects that happen after you buy the box are really tied to the box. So in essence, you made your own argument work. I believe that is called a strawman. Honestly, I don't care. I already agree with you here. I do not agree that the box=gods, however, and am trying to show you why.

As I said, the specific properties of the box are irrelevant (I just tuned them to be similar to commonly held religious beliefs for fun). What matters for the analogy is that the properties aren't justified and that you're expected to invest belief in it without justification.

It's missing the point (Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to nitpick a part of an analogy that has nothing to do with the point. The point is about investing belief in something without justification that's difficult to justify (e.g. "you'll find out after you're dead"). If you agree it's irrational to take the box at its word, do you agree it's irrational to take religions at their word?

Yes, I do agree. But I'm trying to answer your original question e.g. Why is believing in the box different that believing in a religion?

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes you could. You could also say that the box was made by a pink unicorn that lives on the far side of the moon. But you didn't. You gave the box properties, and gave no evidence to support these properties, and no real way to determine if the effects that happen after you buy the box are really tied to the box. So in essence, you made your own argument work. I believe that is called a strawman. Honestly, I don't care. I already agree with you here. I do not agree that the box=gods, however, and am trying to show you why.

You're sort of getting it without getting it. That's exactly the point. People give gods properties and give no evidence to support them and have no real way to determine if the effects of said gods happen after you invest belief in them. See? That's the analogy.

Yes, I do agree. But I'm trying to answer your original question e.g. Why is believing in the box different that believing in a religion?

Exactly!

What evidence is there for the properties of the gods people believe in?
What way is there to determine if the effects of said gods happen after investing belief in them?

You're right on the cusp of appreciating what I was trying to get at.

 

[Willamena]

Those are two contexts of "faith" though.

Your (indeed, justified) belief that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow is inductive, which you have no reason to be skeptical of without counterexamples.

That's entirely different from belief in the ontological existence of something.

How so? The inductive conclusion is something. It exists.

 

[Willamena]

Your brain is still active when you're doing those things. Stopping rational thought isn't going to get you to truth or knowledge, either: knowledge is by definition justified true belief, and justification requires thought.

Your brain is still active in Walkntune's example, too. If it isn't, you're dead.

 

[Willamena]

Well now if you want to argue that my car keys dont exist you'll also have to argue that RF doesn't exist and also that you don't exist.

Good thing I don't want to argue that, then.

Of course, there's still the matter of proving existence left on the table.

 

[Atomist]

The best argument for an external world I can think of is that it's self-contradictory to doubt it in a debate.

Sometimes masturbating is fun. I'm just kidding it's always fun.

Else, who are you doubting it to?

If you utter aloud "There may not be an external world" to someone with the intention of changing their minds or getting them to see your point of view, you're being as self-contradictory as if you said with words "I doubt words have meaning."

Therefore the only possible self-consistent way to doubt external reality is by not saying anything at all because the moment you do you contradict yourself.

Thus in effect, having a debate or conversation at all already entails the assumption on both parties that something external exists and neither can doubt it due to its contextual incorrigibility. One can argue that perhaps solipsism is true and that you're just talking to a part of your mind that you're not conscious about -- but note please that such is indistinguishable from objective reality.

But...
1) Here is a smiley
2) Here is another smiley
3) there exist atleast 2 smileys in the external world
Therefore the external world exist...

 

[Willamena]

I'm curious on what you mean by justified... because I think it's justifiable to believe the sun will rise tomorrow... given we know what "rise" means and that the earth spins on an axis while rotating around the sun... to give the illusion of "rising" which is predictable on a time frame we call an "earth" day.

I probably mean the same thing you do.

 

[Atomist]

You're sort of getting it without getting it. That's exactly the point. People give gods properties and give no evidence to support them and have no real way to determine if the effects of said gods happen after you invest belief in them. See? That's the analogy.

Don't be ridiculous the bible and general Revelation and personal revelation is strong evidence to support God... so in order for your box analogy to work you have to create a box manual, give general revelation and personal revelation to the box.

oh wait...

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You're sort of getting it without getting it. That's exactly the point. People give gods properties and give no evidence to support them and have no real way to determine if the effects of said gods happen after you invest belief in them. See? That's the analogy.

I see the analogy. But it is a strawman because box does not equal religion (or at least what I'm trying to show you is religion). So can we get past this and can you answer my original question: Why did you give the box those properties specifically? Did you use the box? Did you actually go through the process of believing in the box? is there one?

Exactly!

What evidence is there for the properties of the gods people believe in?
What way is there to determine if the effects of said gods happen after investing belief in them?

You're right on the cusp of appreciating what I was trying to get at.

There is no evidence. You don't put these properties on at a whim, which is what you're doing with the box, and what most religions do with their gods. That was not always so, however, and I'm trying to show you how the original process worked. I've already said I agree with you that this analogy is absurd. Now I'm telling you why it isn't religion.