Would you buy it?

[Meow Mix]

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

There's a difference between inducing an event based on previous experience or knowledge, and declaring that something exists without evidence.

Your belief that the sun will probably appear to rise tomorrow is justified because of previous experience and more so by at least basic knowledge of physics.

A belief that god(s) exist is in a different ontological category. You can't say that the two beliefs are the same because belief in gods doesn't start with prior knowledge of belief in gods (else where did the original belief in gods come from?)

One is circular, the other isn't.

 

[Willamena]

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.

1. Here is an external object.
2. Here is another external object.
3. Therefore a world of external objects exist.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

What specific properties I give it doesn't matter so long as they are unjustified, which is the point. Whether or not I've used the box or gone through the process of believing it or whether the box really exists are irrelevant... I don't think you understand the purpose of "analogy."

Asking "Why does the box have those properties" when the point of the analogy is just that those properties (whatever they be) are unjustified is sort of like hearing how running up an increasingly shear angle is analogous to pumping oil out of a well (which gets increasingly harder) and then asking "But is he wearing nikes or reeboks?" That's missing the point. That's what's happening here: you're missing the point.

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.

Original process for what?

How is religion different? You haven't told me anything, you've been having ignoratio elenchi regarding the purpose of the analogy though.

 

[Atomist]

1. Here is an external object.
2. Here is another external object.
3. Therefore a world of external objects exist.

Therefore the external world exist. I don't get the face palm... It's not my argument it's a pretty famous argument

Look up "here is a hand" on google.

 

[Meow Mix]

1. Here is an external object.
2. Here is another external object.
3. Therefore a world of external objects exist.

I agree, it's circular and viciously so... I think showing the contextual incorrigibility works better. De jure evidence is just as valid as de facto.

 

[Meow Mix]

Therefore the external world exist. I don't get the face palm... It's not my argument it's a pretty famous argument

Look up "here is a hand" on google.

Famous doesn't mean correct. Aquinas is famous for several awful arguments.

 

[Walkntune]

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.

OK not bad.
He reasoned intuitively and was pretty much always finding himself in resistance to his colleagues.

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.

You are starting out here with a preconceived idea which dictates what you consciousness is going to be allowed to see.This is conscious control of reality.
If you relax the consciousness and let go of all of control you will find yourself in the presence of what is all control.
People put many names on it as a box but what really matters is the fact they have let go of egoic control.
Control of consciousness is an illusion so might as well let it go anyway with or without any preconceived ideas of who or what God is.
You find yourself in the ultimate place of peace and love and the wants for control,approval, and survival all dissipate.
If you have ever been frustrated you know the relief that comes when you finally release the thoughts or feelings.It is because your consciousness was locked around particular thoughts and was not free to open and close.
Well just as we can close consciousness off and not see keys that are right in front of our face,we can also open our consciousness by letting go of that we hold onto consciously.
to the extent that it expands people try to describe with all sorts of different boxes.
Conscious awareness can open up to a place where the intellect can't even go.
Most won't allow the awareness to expand past their intellect because of fear.
The debate about the existence of God will go round and around because people do not find God through the intellect but through awareness or as the scripture says in the heart.This is also the place where intuition and wisdom operate.

 

[Meow Mix]

You are starting out here with a preconceived idea which dictates what you consciousness is going to be allowed to see.This is conscious control of reality.
If you relax the consciousness and let go of all of control you will find yourself in the presence of what is all control.
People put many names on it as a box but what really matters is the fact they have let go of egoic control.
Control of consciousness is an illusion so might as well let it go anyway with or without any preconceived ideas of who or what God is.
You find yourself in the ultimate place of peace and love and the wants for control,approval, and survival all dissipate.
If you have ever been frustrated you know the relief that comes when you finally release the thoughts or feelings.It is because your consciousness was locked around particular thoughts and was not free to open and close.
Well just as we can close consciousness off and not see keys that are right in front of our face,we can also open our consciousness by letting go of that we hold onto consciously.
to the extent that it expands people try to describe with all sorts of different boxes.
Conscious awareness can open up to a place where the intellect can't even go.
Most won't allow the awareness to expand past their intellect because of fear.

This is a very lengthy way of saying that one should be open to possibilities.

However, you can't have such an open mind that your brain falls out of your head. Any thoughts you have must still be guided by reason; which you seem to be abandoning when you say "conscious awareness can open up to a place where the intellect can't even go." That's false and irrational. The only path to truth and knowledge is through reason by definition.

If you disagree, then you are simply saying that you believe irrationally. Which is fine. If you don't value reason then believing irrationally is fine. Just don't pretend that you're rational if you do so.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

What specific properties I give it doesn't matter so long as they are unjustified, which is the point. Whether or not I've used the box or gone through the process of believing it or whether the box really exists are irrelevant... I don't think you understand the purpose of "analogy."

I know they are unjustified. If I say coffee tastes sweet, you'll disagree with me. Why? Because you've tasted coffee before. That's the process of figuring out what coffee tastes like.
The same is true of religion. You don't go through the process, you'll think the qualities of the 'god' are unjustified. Because you haven't done it. Now, strangely, when I'm telling you how to do it, you refuse. Why?

Asking "Why does the box have those properties" when the point of the analogy is just that those properties (whatever they be) are unjustified is sort of like hearing how running up an increasingly shear angle is analogous to pumping oil out of a well (which gets increasingly harder) and then asking "But is he wearing nikes or reeboks?" That's missing the point. That's what's happening here: you're missing the point.

You put the properties on the box, just as may religions put properties on their god/gods. Your point is valid. Those properties are unjustified if not given any evidence. But with my coffee example, you'd never know if it was sweet unless you taste it. You have to go through the process to find the 'evidence'. I'm offering that process to you, yet you refuse. And you're the one who asked why the box is different than religion

Original process for what?

Answering this question:

How is religion different [than believing in the box]?

You haven't told me anything, you've been having ignoratio elenchi regarding the purpose of the analogy though.

You haven't answered my question yet. Until you do, you'll stay stuck thinking that I'm missing the point (which is strange because I've already said I agree with you on the point of your analogy. Don't know how that's missing the point.)

 

[Willamena]

There's a difference between inducing an event based on previous experience or knowledge, and declaring that something exists without evidence.

Your belief that the sun will probably appear to rise tomorrow is justified because of previous experience and more so by at least basic knowledge of physics.

A belief that god(s) exist is in a different ontological category. You can't say that the two beliefs are the same because belief in gods doesn't start with prior knowledge of belief in gods (else where did the original belief in gods come from?)

One is circular, the other isn't.

Belief in the Eiffel Tower doesn't start with prior belief in the Eiffel Tower. Nothing exists without being evidenced --if there is no evidence of it, it doesn't even get to qualify as "something." A belief is god(s) exists because, obviously, for some people they qualify. Whether they can explain their evidence to others, whether the evidence so far presented is deemed adequate or not, doesn't change the fact that there obviously is something evidenced that is held up as a conviction of god(s) being true, actual and valid.

There's no significant difference to me, and no circularity. It's all quite straight-forward.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Your coffee analogy is a strawman. Because she can touch, taste and smell the coffee. She could prove that the coffee exists.

Your god can not be touched, cannot be smelt and cannot be tasted. You cannot prove your god exists.

Perhaps you could try your argument again but with something that can't be proven to exist.

-Q

 

[Meow Mix]

I know they are unjustified. If I say coffee tastes sweet, you'll disagree with me. Why? Because you've tasted coffee before. That's the process of figuring out what coffee tastes like.
The same is true of religion. You don't go through the process, you'll think the qualities of the 'god' are unjustified. Because you haven't done it. Now, strangely, when I'm telling you how to do it, you refuse. Why?

You're assuming I've never been religious before. I was a Christian up until my late teens. The reason I stopped being a Christian was because of the lack of justification. So, what justification is there for theism?

Are you saying you have to believe, then justify? That's backwards and by definition irrational, if so.

 

[Meow Mix]

Belief in the Eiffel Tower doesn't start with prior belief in the Eiffel Tower. Nothing exists without being evidenced --if there is no evidence of it, it doesn't even get to qualify as "something." A belief is god(s) exists because, obviously, for some people they qualify. Whether they can explain their evidence to others, whether the evidence so far presented is deemed adequate or not, doesn't change the fact that there obviously is something evidenced that is held up as a conviction of god(s) being true, actual and valid.

There's no significant difference to me, and no circularity. It's all quite straight-forward.

The existence of a belief isn't evidence for the existence of justification. I don't see how you connect those dots at all. That's a split hair away from being argumentum ad populum.

 

[Atomist]

I agree, it's circular and viciously so... I think showing the contextual incorrigibility works better. De jure evidence is just as valid as de facto.

Famous doesn't mean correct. Aquinas is famous for several awful arguments.

I didn't say it's famous therefore it's correct... besides that wasn't the point... it was kind of an aside.

I disagree though, it's a pretty good argument... actually in the sense it's very rhetorically convincing and it's actually validly sound... because the original argument is like this:

Let X be a person and let Y be something like brain in a vat
1)If X doesn't know that the not-Y, then X doesn't know that this external world does exist
2)X doesn't know that the Y is impossible
3) Therefore X doesn't know that this external world exist.

The here is a hand argument is saying:
1) X knows that the external world exist
2) Therefore the X knows that not-Y

And since we have more evidence for the external world than Y (since we have no evidence for Y)... we should believe in the external world in favor of Y,

 

[Walkntune]

This is a very lengthy way of saying that one should be open to possibilities.

However, you can't have such an open mind that your brain falls out of your head. Any thoughts you have must still be guided by reason; which you seem to be abandoning when you say "conscious awareness can open up to a place where the intellect can't even go." That's false and irrational. The only path to truth and knowledge is through reason by definition.

If you disagree, then you are simply saying that you believe irrationally. Which is fine. If you don't value reason then believing irrationally is fine. Just don't pretend that you're rational if you do so.

Only those who don't walk in truth need a path as truth is ever present as soon as you accept it.Why look for something unless it is lost?

 

[Willamena]

The existence of a belief isn't evidence for the existence of justification. I don't see how you connect those dots at all. That's a split hair away from being argumentum ad populum.

I don't see how you got that out of what I said, either.

You obviously understand the way in which a bit of data that is not justified doesn't get to qualify as "knowledge." In the same way, conviction in a thing that is genuinely believed in doesn't get to qualify as "not justified." It may be "not justified" to others, but then they also don't believe in it.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't see how you got that out of what I said, either.

You obviously understand the way in which a bit of data that is not justified doesn't get to qualify as "knowledge." In the same way, conviction in a thing that is genuinely believed in doesn't get to qualify as "not justified." It may be "not justified" to others, but then they also don't believe in it.

Then what justifies theism?

Something can be justified and still disbelieved or even false. See: Gettier problems with justification.

Someone is justified in their belief if they have a justifier and no defeater; so if Bob has a justifier for X but doesn't know a defeater for it then he is rational -- even if Sally knows a defeater for X but hasn't told Bob about it and X is actually false; it's still the case that Bob is justified (even rational!)

This isn't even the case with theists as far as I can see. It's not that they have a justifier and just don't realize a defeater; I haven't even seen a justification at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Only those who don't walk in truth need a path as truth is ever present as soon as you accept it.Why look for something unless it is lost?

This is cognitively empty... we may just always talk past each other. Might be time to say good day, and talk about the weather or something. This in no way explains how a believer can be justified in believing theism is true whatsoever.

 

[Willamena]

Then what justifies theism?

Usually, a sound mythology: a cohesive symbolic system that represents the worldview of a culture or peoples.

Something can be justified and still disbelieved or even false. See: Gettier problems with justification.

Someone is justified in their belief if they have a justifier and no defeater; so if Bob has a justifier for X but doesn't know a defeater for it then he is rational -- even if Sally knows a defeater for X but hasn't told Bob about it and X is actually false; it's still the case that Bob is justified (even rational!)

This isn't even the case with theists as far as I can see. It's not that they have a justifier and just don't realize a defeater; I haven't even seen a justification at all.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I'll read about Gettier and get back to you.

 

[Walkntune]

This is cognitively empty... we may just always talk past each other. Might be time to say good day, and talk about the weather or something. This in no way explains how a believer can be justified in believing theism is true whatsoever.

I was hoping you would see there is no justification in the carnal mind.It cannot know God or be subject to His laws.
Romans 8
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

What you are looking for is not possible.

You can argue on the bank how cold or warm the water is but the one who is in the water needs no justification.