Would you buy it?

[blackout]

Appearances are everything. Before the realization that the widgets are bathed in red light, the belief is that they are red. After the realization that the widgets are bathed in red light, the belief is that they are bathed in red light. Belief in each case is the conviction of something true, actual and valid --that doesn't change. Justification is supplied by truth, actuality and validity, each of which are appearance.

Well, and the widgets aren't "RED"
so much as our own eyes and brain translate
their vibration as (the experience of) 'red' to us.

Every thing we name, identify and measure
we name, identify and measure
through the being of our own human vessle,
which maybe says more about US
than any "thing" we observe.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

How did you learn to swim? How did you learn to run? How did you learn to ride your bike? How did you learn to drive? How did you learn to read? How did you learn to type?
God is the same way. You must experience God before you can know what God is.

I got in the water, i put one foot in front of the other, i sat on a bike, i got in a car, i went to school and i used a computer.

All of which was possible because i could see and touch the water, the ground, the bike, the car, the book and the computer.

Yet i can't touch or see your god.

Another STUPID strawman argument, except this time you didn't even try to address my point. I will put it below for you.

How do you suggest i get a taste of something that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for.

Your god can't be touched, tasted, heard, smelt or seen. All you've got is fantasy and until you can do better than fantasy your argument will remain stupid.

If you don't understand what i'm saying, just ask and i'll rephrase it for you.

-Q

 

[Thief]

So this has turned into another prove god episode.

Someone mentioned coin flipping?

If I find a coin laying on my table, I know someone else has been there.
If I find the coin spinning on it's edge, I know someone is close by.

I don't' believe in dead universes.

The motion of all things around us proves God.

Nothing 'just happens'...no matter how many equations you throw with your denial.

As for that 'box'....you're in one.
You cannot get out of your body by wishful thinking.

You're stuck in there.

Later....you go into another container...another box.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.
no sunlight...no moonlight...no starlight...no philosophical light.
Really is dark down there.

You are not your own handiwork.
Nothing 'just happens'.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

So this has turned into another prove god episode.

Someone mentioned coin flipping?

If I find a coin laying on my table, I know someone else has been there.
If I find the coin spinning on it's edge, I know someone is close by.

I don't' believe in dead universes.

Your beliefs are not proof anything but your ability to believe in things.

The motion of all things around us proves God.

No it is proof of motion and NOTHING ELSE.

The god part is the belief that you have and in NO WAY proof of anything.

-Q

 

[Gloone]

A company is selling a box with wonderful attributes. After all, it explains why evil exists and how the world was created. Furthermore it grants you eternal life. Sometimes if you ask it for things then it will happen for you, other times it won't (the box is temperamental, or has a higher purpose that it doesn't want your wishes to inferfere with sometimes). Many people who've purchased the box have had good things happen to them and many gained a lot of self-confidence to drop drugs and other things like that. In fact, there were a few people who had their cancer go into remission inexplicably after purchasing the box! There are even reports of people hearing the magic in the box. One time, there was a cloud that looked exactly like the box -- logo and everything.

The catch is, though, that you can never look inside it while you're alive; or scan or probe it. Also the box is $1,000 USD.

Sorry, you get most of the benefits of the box after you both purchase the box and then die (don't worry, eternity and all those answers are waiting for you inside the box right?)

So, who here would buy the box? Surely $1,000 and taking some time to whisper desires and thankfulness to it as well as taking the time to indoctrinate the children towards getting their own boxes* is worth the time, right?

(* - you DO want them to live forever right?)

If not, why not?

I think it's incredibly obvious what I'm getting at here.

Edit: Also the box still works even if it's physically destroyed because you live eternally inside the spiritual box. So, nobody can point to the fact that some of the boxes will decay after a person's death and use that as evidence that the box's claims of immortality are false.

I don’t think the box will do anyone any good after they are dead, unless it holds some type of magical properties. I don’t see the point in buying a box if it can’t be open, that would be pointless. Chances are it holds more value to someone else. Like to someone that found it in a gutter somewhere because its original owner didn’t really care much for it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Who ever said truth has to justify itself to mans reason.Man assumes truth reveals itself to his logical thinking and has created a box.He thinks he is in control.Truth can reveal itself anyway it chooses.
People can sense the presence of God in music.

If you don't think you need to justify theism then your theism is simply irrational.

As I said, if you don't value being rational that's fine. Just don't pretend to be rational if you believe irrationally though.

 

[Meow Mix]

You start with the belief that there is a God. You don't know what God does, how he/she/it exists or anything else about this God. Add in that when you find God, you will know you have.
Then you start looking.

That IS irrational. To spend your time looking for something like that is irrational. But when you find it, you won't think its quite so irrational. That's why its called faith. Not belief without evidence, but trust that this is actually there, and the evidence will come after you start looking.

It's an "I don't know how this is going to work, but I'll try it" kind of thing. Isn't that how you learned to swim? To ride your bike? To drive? God is the same way.

You're right, what you describe is 100% irrational and entirely unacceptable for anyone who values reason and rationality.

You can't believe first, then justify. That's entirely epistemically irresponsible.

So, it appears that you argue for irrational belief which is unacceptable to me or anyone that values reason. We may be at the end of what we can converse since we value different things.

 

[Wotan]

If you've never tasted, smelled, or touched coffee before, and I told you it was cold and sweet, how would you dispute me? In essence, coffee does not exist in your world. Not until you actually went to the cup, touched, smelled and tasted it, at which point you would find out that coffee is hot and bitter. Now coffee exists for you and anyone who tries to tell you that coffee is sweet, you can tell them its not with certainty. Because you've tasted it.
God is the same way. Right now, you don't know what God is. The only sure way to find out is to 'taste' God. Any other explanation is bound to be confusing and distorted by personal bias.
Just a side note: If all you thin exists are things you can see, touch, feel, hear or smell, your worldview is incredibly narrow.

Yes, narrowly focused on what IS not on what I or others might prefer. Believe in god is wishful thinking - or pure fear - writ large.

BTW, have you had an "sense" of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If not why not?. Don't you believe strongly enough?

 

[Willamena]

Yes... but we know not-Y more than we know Y... it's called a morrean fact

I have no problem with Moore's argument, just with your interpretation of it.

Moore's argument is against skepticism, but it isn't an argument against an external world. The skeptic argument assumes a) that there is an external world, and b) that we cannot know it. Moore's counter argument successfully says a) that there is an external world, and b) that if we don't it, then we don't know anything (i.e. there is no knowledge if the world isn't what we are knowing).

I agree with that. However, both arguments assume a) that there is an external world.
Edit: They don't prove or disprove it. And proving existence is another matter entirely.

 

[Willamena]

Well, and the widgets aren't "RED"
so much as our own eyes and brain translate
their vibration as (the experience of) 'red' to us.

Every thing we name, identify and measure
we name, identify and measure
through the being of our own human vessle,
which maybe says more about US
than any "thing" we observe.

You old Adam, you.

 

[Willamena]

You can't believe first, then justify. That's entirely epistemically irresponsible.

I agree. One can't believe without first having something justified in which to believe.

However --and I think this is what strikevipre was getting at --it's difficult to develop new concepts with a different paradigm once current paradigms are already known. Immersion is one way to aquire a new paradigm (hence the whole symbolism of baptism). You keep asking what the justification is, but hearing other's justification when it's not our own doesn't help us develop new concepts within our rigidly fixed paradigm. That doesn't work for anyone. My point earlier was that the recognition of genuine belief should help us to understand that there is something justified that is being believed in. Just because we haven't justified it, and hence don't believe in it, doesn't mean that there is nothing justified in which to believe.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree. One can't believe without first having something justified in which to believe.

However --and I think this is what strikevipre was getting at --it's difficult to develop new concepts with a different paradigm once current paradigms are already known. Immersion is one way to aquire a new paradigm (hence the whole symbolism of baptism). You keep asking what the justification is, but hearing other's justification when it's not our own doesn't help us develop new concepts within our rigidly fixed paradigm. That doesn't work for anyone. My point earlier was that the recognition of genuine belief should help us to understand that there is something justified that is being believed in. Just because we haven't justified it, and hence don't believe in it, doesn't mean that there is nothing justified in which to believe.

I agree, but we shouldn't assume that anything anyone believes is justified and that we just aren't aware of the justification. We must be neutral about whether there exists a justification for their belief even to their own epistemology -- hence my continual requests for what the justification could possibly be (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have one at all).

It seems to me that strikevipre was going beyond saying that we should just be open to new paradigms -- which I agree 100% with. It seems to me he was saying we should fully believe theism before seeking to justify it. If so, that's wholly irrational. If not, then I've misunderstood and am just awaiting clarification on what he means.

 

[Willamena]

I agree, but we shouldn't assume that anything anyone believes is justified and that we just aren't aware of the justification. We must be neutral about whether there exists a justification for their belief even to their own epistemology -- hence my continual requests for what the justification could possibly be (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have one at all).

Having had "God" justified to me, I can say that it's not something that can easily be explained in a post on the Internet. It does require a new paradigm, something you have to write yourself. That's not an easy thing.

Hence myth --the story of self.

 

[Meow Mix]

Having had "God" justified to me, I can say that it's not something that can easily be explained in a post on the Internet. It does require a new paradigm, something you have to write yourself. That's not an easy thing.

Hence myth --the story of self.

Justification should be explainable in principle unless it's raw qualia (like the sensation of "redness").

If you're saying theism is justified by raw qualia the problem becomes one of insufficient anecdotal claims unsupported by anything external; which quickly becomes an epistemic quagmire.

 

[Willamena]

Justification should be explainable in principle unless it's raw qualia (like the sensation of "redness").

Oh, it's explainable, has been explained many times --but people are resistant to rewriting their paradigms. Go figure.

 

[tomato1236]

That... doesn't appear to have any cognitive meaning. No offense. That doesn't explain anything.

So believing in something blindly is "letting go of that which we hold on to consciously?"

Do you believe everything you hear so as to avoid holding onto anything consciously?

You should send me $500, I'll give you my paypal account information. It's important that you do so.

Did you believe that last sentence? If not, why not?

Sorry, but you're not really justifying faith in any meaningful way... you're stringing together words that mean something individually but you're not really saying anything meaningful. Can you try rephrasing maybe?

Haha thanks for being frank here. There are quite a few folks on here who think that being spiritual and wise means saying a lot of nothing. The more words you can use to communicate nothing, the more spiritual you are.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I got in the water, i put one foot in front of the other, i sat on a bike, i got in a car, i went to school and i used a computer.

All of which was possible because i could see and touch the water, the ground, the bike, the car, the book and the computer.

Yet i can't touch or see your god.

Another STUPID strawman argument, except this time you didn't even try to address my point. I will put it below for you.

You see it as a strawman because you think God is a end. God is a means. God is the action, not the direct object or the subject.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You're right, what you describe is 100% irrational and entirely unacceptable for anyone who values reason and rationality.

You can't believe first, then justify. That's entirely epistemically irresponsible.

So, it appears that you argue for irrational belief which is unacceptable to me or anyone that values reason. We may be at the end of what we can converse since we value different things.

It is only 100% illogical when you cannot do what is being asked, or have no understanding of what is being asked.

I'll use myself as an example. I can't smell. 'So would it be logical for me to say anything at all about how things smell, considering I can't smell in the first place?

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh, it's explainable, has been explained many times --but people are resistant to rewriting their paradigms. Go figure.

I haven't seen the explanation, and everyone I press to give the explanation beats around the bush. It's an old trend by now.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is only 100% illogical when you cannot do what is being asked, or have no understanding of what is being asked.

I'll use myself as an example. I can't smell. 'So would it be logical for me to say anything at all about how things smell, considering I can't smell in the first place?

If you're saying theism is justified through some kind of sensory perception that's all you had to say, rather than paragraphs of nebulous mysticism.

Anyway, if you can't smell then you don't have a lot of room to talk about the qualia of smells, but you can certainly confirm that odors exist in double blinded experiments with people who do claim to have this sense (smelling) that you're unfamiliar with and therefore easily establish its efficacy.

Still not a good analogy for theism, where no such justification has occurred.