Would you buy it?

[Willamena]

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 argument assumes, as a premise, an external world (the "not-Y").

 

[Meow Mix]

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


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

A sound mythology isn't justification. Justification isn't just any ol' thing that causes people to believe something; to justify something must provide warrant (i.e. must be more reasonable to believe than not believe). For instance deciding what to believe based on a coin flip -- does flipping a coin count as justification? Certainly not. Neither does a "sound mythology." Otherwise I'd be justified in literally and truly believing Tolkien's mythology, as it's more lucid and far more entertaining to me than any other.

As for Gettier and being justified even if wrong, here's an example Dunemeister gave that I liked.

You're standing in front of an assembly line and some widgets are coming down the line that appear red to you. "Those are red widgets" you might think, justified with your direct sensory experience and the fact that you have no reason to believe otherwise (e.g. it's not extraordinary for widgets to be red).

However, what you don't realize is that the widgets are actually just being bathed in a red light.

"Those widgets are red" is a justified, rational belief. It isn't a true belief, but you are rational for believing they are red since to your knowledge you have no defeaters for that belief.

Theism isn't even that far: it's not that theists have justified belief and just aren't aware of some defeater that atheists know... it's that they haven't even gotten to the point of justifying at all in the first place as far as I can see!

 

[Atomist]

The argument assumes, as a premise, an external world (the "not-Y").

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

 

[Walkntune]

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.

Also wanted to add as a musician I sometimes find myself playing music that takes me into a realm that can't be described intellectually.It can calm the salvage beast where no words can.
There is a reason music is used in churches and they have praise and worship.
It opens consciousness to a higher realm.Sometimes it can leave you speechless.

 

[Wotan]

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.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying. First you decided to believe this myth(s). THEN you really believe them.

That has been the argument I have seen from every theist every time. If you don't KNOW god you can't comment on god. And since theist KNOW god and others don't theist are the only ones who can comment intelligently about god. The person in the water analogy is exactly this argument. The fault of course is that is possible to determine what the temp of water IS. An objective fact easily arrived at.

But god(s) have NO objective existence so we cannot get an objective description of them.

The same old crap we see all the time. MY imaginary invisible friend is real. Yours is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also wanted to add as a musician I sometimes find myself playing music that takes me into a realm that can't be described intellectually.It can calm the salvage beast where no words can.
There is a reason music is used in churches and they have praise and worship.
It opens consciousness to a higher realm.Sometimes it can leave you speechless.

Experiencing music doesn't justify the existence of anything though.

 

[Atomist]

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

Okay... I see what you're trying to say now... no it's not circular because I'm not trying to argue that external objects exist... I'm trying to argue the external world exist... to do that all I have to show is that at least one object exist in the external world... it shows 2... namely two hands.

While I agree it's borderlining on strawman... it also is stronger than all arguments against the existence of this external world... as we have absolutely no evidence except that it's theoretically possible.

It's no different than if someone said it's theoretically possible that a loving God exist... so prove to me that a loving God doesn't exist or else you have no justification to believe that it doesn't.

All I have to do is say there is no evidence to assume that a loving god exist... but evidence that such doesn't... namely the lack of evidence for it (even though it's a small piece of evidence that can change when new evidence arises). Which is precisely what the here is a hand argument is doing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay... I see what you're trying to say now... no it's not circular because I'm not trying to argue that external objects exist... I'm trying to argue the external world exist... to do that all I have to show is that at least one object exist in the external world... it shows 2... namely two hands.

But you're assuming the hands are external and not, say, a figment of your imagination. It is indeed circular.

 

[Atomist]

But you're assuming the hands are external and not, say, a figment of your imagination. It is indeed circular.

No... because I'm not trying to show that the external objects exist... I'm trying to show that the external world exist. I can show external objects exist=>external world exist.

Also, since you can't demonstrate that it is a figment of my imagination... just that it's theoretically possible, what you're doing is sneakily asking me prove a negative. Whereas the argument is saying "here's some evidence for the this external world" now show why it isn't evidence for this external world instead of that it could theoretically not be.

from the above post

"It's no different than if someone said it's theoretically possible that a loving God exist... so prove to me that a loving God doesn't exist or else you have no justification to believe that it doesn't.

All I have to do is say there is no evidence to assume that a loving god exist... but evidence that such doesn't... namely the lack of evidence for it (even though it's a small piece of evidence that can change when new evidence arises). Which is precisely what the here is a hand argument is doing."

Edit (this plus grammar):So yes, it would be a circular argument to say this proves that possibilities as "figment of imagination" don't exist... but it's not a fallacy to say that "here is a hand" is an argument for the external world and there is no argument against the external world that isn't based on theoretically possibleiness of a different external world.

Analogy: Basically, I'm not saying that the absence of evidence proves that god doesn't exist... I'm saying the absence of evidence is a piece of evidence that supports the claim god doesn't exist. Now give me some evidence to refute my evidence namely proof of god's existence instead of pointing out that absence of evidence doesn't disprove god.

It's a challenge to either:
1) agree that I have more evidence to believe my position (lack of god/this external world) than of an alternative position and accept my position (at least until new evidence arises)
2) show me why (god/another external world) has more evidence in support of it than this external world.

 

[Walkntune]

Experiencing music doesn't justify the existence of anything though.

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.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

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.

 

[Skepsis2]

It’s been fun following this thread, but 15 pages to debate “wishful thinking”

You believe something because either you have enough supporting evidence or because you’ve been conditioned to believe it without evidence or someone has fibbed to you and told you there is evidence but you never looked in the box.

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

Carl Sagan

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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?

You haven't been, not this kind of religious. If you went to church, you most likely were given a list of beliefs and a list of things to do based on those beliefs. I don't know about you, but that's sounds like a political platform to me, not religion.
What justifications? That's a question you have to answer for yourself. But first, you have to define what you mean by theism. If it means a belief in a God/gods, then you have to define what those God/gods are and what they do. If you were raised Christian, those God/gods are most likely just like the Judea-Christian God. If so, drop that idea. Erase it completely.

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

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.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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 but i can go down the shop and buy some coffee. Then i can touch, taste, smell and see.

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.

-Q

 

[blackout]

That is EXACTLY what they are saying. First you decided to believe this myth(s). THEN you really believe them.

That has been the argument I have seen from every theist every time. If you don't KNOW god you can't comment on god. And since theist KNOW god and others don't theist are the only ones who can comment intelligently about god. The person in the water analogy is exactly this argument. The fault of course is that is possible to determine what the temp of water IS. An objective fact easily arrived at.

But god(s) have NO objective existence so we cannot get an objective description of them.

The same old crap we see all the time. MY imaginary invisible friend is real. Yours is a figment of your imagination.

To some religious
(especially LHP types like mySelf)
"belief" is more like
"I believe that if I do this un-usual thing,
It will likely be a satisfying experience
and some thing of un-usual (or personal) worth
may very well manifest as a result"

My own "religion" concerns itself far more with
Suspension of Disbelief
(for a purpose),
than "belief".

Belief for me, in general, is more like a loosely held "contention",
or sometimes even a game,
or a "pretense" for a personal experiment.

You might say that the one "unjustifiable belief" I hold to is
"I am my own God".
Whatever that may mean in your mind,
I hold my own sceptre
because it is an empowering
and personally rich way to live.
(You might even say that is my "justification"?)

Now, "Other Gods" (my pantheon... and such)
exist in, and through me.
I "become" them,
and they "become" me.
(which still makes me god of my gods,
even if I choose to take a lesser role)

EDIT: I suppose you might say I WerShape (shape mySelf to)
my Own I'mage'in'nation.
My Own "I"
My Own "Mage"
My Own "In"
My Own "Nation".

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You believe something because either you have enough supporting evidence or because you’ve been conditioned to believe it without evidence or someone has fibbed to you and told you there is evidence but you never looked in the box.

Or you trust the person that told you enough so that there is no need to look in the box. Once that happens, the box will provide more than enough evidence. It already is, in fact. You just have to allow yourself to see it.

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

Carl Sagan

If science says its true, or it can't be true, that's fine with me. It doesn't disprove my faith, nor will it ever. That Bible is not the reason I have faith, so you can bash it all you want. It's a tool, nothing more.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Yes but i can go down the shop and buy some coffee. Then i can touch, taste, smell and see.

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.

-Q

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.

 

[Willamena]

Otherwise I'd be justified in literally and truly believing Tolkien's mythology, as it's more lucid and far more entertaining to me than any other.

You can believe in a mythology, or have a mythology as a justification for theism. But those are two different things.

As for Gettier and being justified even if wrong, here's an example Dunemeister gave that I liked.

You're standing in front of an assembly line and some widgets are coming down the line that appear red to you. "Those are red widgets" you might think, justified with your direct sensory experience and the fact that you have no reason to believe otherwise (e.g. it's not extraordinary for widgets to be red).

However, what you don't realize is that the widgets are actually just being bathed in a red light.

"Those widgets are red" is a justified, rational belief. It isn't a true belief, but you are rational for believing they are red since to your knowledge you have no defeaters for that belief.

Theism isn't even that far: it's not that theists have justified belief and just aren't aware of some defeater that atheists know... it's that they haven't even gotten to the point of justifying at all in the first place as far as I can see!

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.

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by Meow Mix
I'm not using "belief" in any alien context or anything so I don't understand why you're asking me what I mean by it. You know what believing something means; it's a conviction that something is true.

Such as the conviction that god=box?

I asked why gods=box. Why is god all those things you mentioned? Because you were told? Because the Bible says so? Why?

Roman Catholics believe in "God in a Box".
Literally.
Actually they purpousely PUT God in a (very expensive) Box.

"God in a Box"

I don't know why I find this so funny.

Or from this perspective...
"God in a Box, in a Box" :cover:

(church building = very large box)

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

You haven't been, not this kind of religious.

i would appreciate you not being presumptuous to the point of being rude.
do not pretend to understand the experiences of others.