You Can't Argue Against God

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're obviously putting off that no-air-for-half-an-hour experiment which I told you is rather persuasive.

...

Well, that is not evidence as to what objective reality is in itself. It is only evidence for what is real to you as you experience as such.

 

[Nakosis]

None of that contradicts what I said ─ the only way in which God and other supernatural entities are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

Good, I'm not trying to contradict you. I'm trying to find common ground.

I agree 100% with what you're saying. However after that, you stop being skeptical. I don't.

 

[blü 2]

The evidence is everywhere. The problem is that you want "objective" physical evidence, and that doesn't exist because God is not an objective physical phenomenon.

That's what I keep saying ─ the only way in which God is known to exist as as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

Yet you continue to ingnore the stupidity of your demanding it, anyway, so that you can continue using your not getting it as some phony rationale for your otherwise completely unfounded belief that no gods exist.

They do exist, in their millions, but only as I said above. They do not exist in the world external to the self.

And you will continue ignoring this criticism because you are not really interested in critical thought at all.

This is about evidence, not about ignoring criticism. If you say God is objectively real, then produce [him], put [him] where we can see [him] and ask him questions and so on. Let [him] do some miracles under controlled conditions, let [him] teach us to work miracles too. That's how reality works.

You're really just interested in being right.

Well, I don't like losing a debate, but I try not to pretend I haven't really lost, not least because I've learnt a lot by being wrong about various things.

But regardless, on this question, you can win the debate and I'll readily acknowledge you were right and I was wrong, WHEN you satisfactorily demonstrate the objective reality of God ─ as distinct from simply asserting it. We'll need in advance a useful definition of "godness", the real quality a real God will have and a real superscientist who can make universes, raise the dead, and so on, will lack.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's what I keep saying ─ the only way in which God is known to exist as as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

...

That same with real. You can't point to either. They are both concepts in the mind.

 

[blü 2]

That same with real. You can't point to either. They are both concepts in the mind.

As I said ─ come back and assert that when you've gone without air for half an hour.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like I said ─ come back and assert that when you've gone without air for half an hour.

Well, that doesn't mean anything in regards to objectively real, because the test is in effect in part subjective as it requires a mind.
So here is the joke about your axiom of real. If real was a fact, you wouldn't need it as an axiom in your thinking and reasoning, but because real is an idea in your mind you have to assume it is true.

 

[blü 2]

Well, that doesn't mean anything in regards to objectively real, because the test is in effect in part subjective as it requires a mind.

It requires your brain, to be precise. My point is that you'll be able to tell whether either reality is out and is the place air comes from, or it's not, by this simple experiment.

And you can assume a world exists external to you afterwards, if not before.

Let me know how it goes and what you've learnt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It requires your brain, to be precise. My point is that you'll be able to tell whether either reality is out and is the place air comes from, or it's not, by this simple experiment.

And you can assume a world exists external to you afterwards, if not before.

Let me know how it goes and what you've learnt.

No, you could be in a Boltzmann Brain universe and in some variants there would be no air.
That is your problem of naive empiricism in effect.

There is an external world but what that is as external from the mind is unknowable. That is the reason you start with 3 axioms.
And why we have methodological nautralism.

 

[Muffled]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

I believe those who argue know what can be known from books and people but of course that is limited to individual experience.

 

[Muffled]

One can reject the claims of others about their gods, which they define.

I believe one may reject reality also but that doesn't make it rational.

 

[firedragon]

It strikes me as odd to imagine epistemology as fixed, when I read anthropologists talking about things like “transvaluation” and “creative epistemology”.

How can something as creative as epistemology be fixed and unchanging?

If nothing changes and nothing evolves, in what sense is it creative?

You can of course change your epistemology. Millions of people do. But what you cannot do is get into category errors or contradictions. There is a thing called epistemic responsibility

 

[Muffled]

People make a claim of a god and they provide evidence for it. I get to evaluate that evidence to see if I am
Convinced by it. All I need to do is understand their claim and evidence for it.

I believe evaluation suggests bias. I believe validation would be a better word. In logic rules are in place and an argument that doesn't follow the rules is invalid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can of course change your epistemology. Millions of people do. But what you cannot do is get into category errors or contradictions. There is a thing called epistemic responsibility

Do you got an actual link for that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe the sun will be somewhere in the sky tomorrow. How about you?

Yes, I agree your empirical beliefs work the same for you as they do for anyone else.

Is that what you want? To find out what is actually true?

Yes. I see no point in holding beliefs just for the sake of holding them.
I actually care about my beliefs being an accurate reflection of reality instead what merely makes me feel good or whatever.

Good luck with that. I kind of doubt you will and we have to settle for accepting an concept of reality that seems to work best for you.

Here's the thing: the more accurate the beliefs, the better they'll work.
That's why meds work while exorcisms don't.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I believe evaluation suggests bias. I believe validation would be a better word. In logic rules are in place and an argument that doesn't follow the rules is invalid.

I agree, but most arguments presented for the existence of god are not formal arguments.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I agree your empirical beliefs work the same for you as they do for anyone else.



Yes. I see no point in holding beliefs just for the sake of holding them.
I actually care about my beliefs being an accurate reflection of reality instead what merely makes me feel good or whatever.



Here's the thing: the more accurate the beliefs, the better they'll work.
That's why meds work while exorcisms don't.

You are working on the assumption that your perceptions provide you with an accurate picture of mind-independant reality. But this is a baseless assumption, because your perceptions themselves are anything but mind-independant.

Here's the thing: something appearing obvious to you, is no rational basis on which to assume that your perceptions are either universal, or objectively true.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, I agree your empirical beliefs work the same for you as they do for anyone else.

Yes, common ground.

Yes. I see no point in holding beliefs just for the sake of holding them.
I actually care about my beliefs being an accurate reflection of reality instead what merely makes me feel good or whatever.

Yes, most people would say the same thing. However, it actually usually is the later though most would also deny applying it to themselves.

Here's the thing: the more accurate the beliefs, the better they'll work.
That's why meds work while exorcisms don't.

Based on what you and I have experienced, I would agree. However different people have had different experiences.

Also, meds don't always work. I've had to go through different meds with to find something that does work.

How many exorcism have you tried.

 

[PureX]

That's what I keep saying ─ the only way in which God is known to exist as as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

All that means is that God is a meta-idea. Just like your "objective reality" is a meta-idea. That means that they are ideas that we use to understand all our other ideas about what is real and true.

They do exist, in their millions, but only as I said above. They do not exist in the world external to the self.

Nothing but unrecognized and undifferentiated phenomena exists "external to the self".

This is about evidence, not about ignoring criticism.

There ... you just ignored the criticism, yet AGAIN.

It's about the logical necessity for an ultimate existential source.

If you say God is objectively real, then produce [him], put [him] where we can see [him] and ask him questions and so on.

No one is saying that God is objectively real beyond God being omnipresent. In which case EVERYTHING is God, and God is everywhere.

Let [him] do some miracles under controlled conditions, let [him] teach us to work miracles too. That's how reality works.

Creating everything that exists isn't miracle enough for you? You want magic tricks too? ... That you will of course only dismiss, anyway.

Well, I don't like losing a debate, but I try not to pretend I haven't really lost, not least because I've learnt a lot by being wrong about various things.

But regardless, on this question, you can win the debate and I'll readily acknowledge you were right and I was wrong, WHEN you satisfactorily demonstrate the objective reality of God ─ as distinct from simply asserting it. We'll need in advance a useful definition of "godness", the real quality a real God will have and a real superscientist who can make universes, raise the dead, and so on, will lack.

I don't care about winning any debates. I don't even care about debating. It's mostly just a waste of time and energy.

God exists as the source that determined that everything that is possible, is possible, and everything that isn't, isn't. Logically, there must be a source that set these parameters for what could happen, and what couldn't, ... and then set it all in motion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you got any objective evidence that you prefer evidence to be objective?

That's a very strange question to ask.

Do you got any objective evdience that all subjective evidence is on par with "i saw a ghost last night"?

Do you have an example of "subjective" evidence that isn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree 100% with what you're saying. However after that, you stop being skeptical. I don't.

After what? And how does he stop being skeptical?