Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[amkerman]

Ok so you believe that you can finish another novel this year.

Did you form that belief in your conscious mind?

[Shell B]

I consciously formed the belief, yes. It wasn't when I was sleeping, so I was conscious.

[reverendjeremiah]

1)All of reality is experienced through consciousness.

FAIL! Copper experiences oxidation through time exposed to oxygen. Neither Copper or oxygen have a consciousness.

2)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.

FAIL! The conclusion might be logical, but it was based on a faulty premise on #1

3)Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.

FAIL! There is no way you can conclusively prove this to be 100% true.

4)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.

FAIL! Science is not sentient, therefore science cannot have ideas or observations. Science is a tool, a method.

5)The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.

FAIL! Science is not a sentient being, therefore science is unable to believe in anything. Science is a method, not a being.

6)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.

FAIL! Science is incapable of beliefs or thoughts. Science is a method, not a being.

7)Universal constants are believed to be responsible for the creaton of the universe and everything within it.

FAIL! Some constants, such as the speed of light, could not exist BEFORE the existence of mater.

8)THEREFORE: if consciousness is real it is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it.

FAIL! Things can and do come about without conscious design. Sand dunes form by the wind. Neither sand or the wind is conscious, yet the sand dunes form pyramid and cone shapes, giving the illusion to humanity that they are "designed", but in reality are merely properties of their interactions.

9)If consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it, it could be called "God"

FAIL! Scientists have shown more thn one way for the universe to come about without intelligent design. It is also obvious that many, MANY things come about without "intelligent creation". Crystals form. Stalagtites form. So many things are obviously existing without a "conscious creator" to make or guide them.

10)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".

FAIL! You said in #9 that it "could be called god". Now you say you MUST necessarily believe in God. If a god exists, then belief really isnt necessary. It would be obvious like "this red apple is red" obvious. It would be obvious like "This water is wet" obvious and would not need twisting of words to try to prove. It would be there. You could obviously point out god and it would be obvious.

[amkerman]

OK so you formed your belief trough consciousness.

Do you believe consciousness is real? (Things that are real exists independently of our ideas about them).

---

Jerahmiah. We experience copper oxidation. The copper doesn't experience anything... The copper is not conscious, at least as far as we can tell.

---

Everything you stated Jeremaih you have experienced through consciousness. To believe that reality exists apart from your conscious experience of it is to believe that consious experience is actual reality. in order to believe that reality exists as we perceive it to apart from our consciousness requires the assumption that consciousness is real. if consciousness is real... there is nothing you can say to negate my argument (I don't think). Until you can show me an instance of reality existing without using conscious observation your statements are all the same.

---

you last statement describing God is pretty lame IMO. If God existed "in" the universe necessarily God would be subject to the laws of the universe, thus making whatever you are talking about Not God. You have created a personal "god" in your mind just so you can refute it. The fact that you are able to refute it possibly give you some false sense of superiority and intelligence. It's sad.

[Zen Badger]

And I'll restart my alternative line of questioning:

Do you believe in reality?

(I'm not asking whether or not reality exists, I am asking if you believe it does. can be answered in the affirmative, the negative, or that you don't know. All other answers are nonresponsive to the question)

- I feel like you are so defensive even this seems like a loaded question to you. You think know where this is going, and you refuse to be taken there. It's cognitive dissonance.

Do you dare give me an honest answer?

I don't believe in reality. I know it exists. There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

[amkerman]

If you "know" reality exists, prove it.

[Jackalope]

Oh, yes. I hold many beliefs. Most of them involve capabilities. For example, I believe that I can finish another novel this year. I don't know that for a fact. I could die before I get around to writing it, but I believe I can. I do not believe in reality. I know it to be there.

You know, it occurred to me that there's a disconnect here with respect to the meaning of the word believe / belief.

Belief != faith and belief != knowledge in the epistemological sense. Belief encompasses both concepts - one can believe something with or without it being known in the epistemological sense (i.e. without or without it being a justified and true belief).

So while it is true that you know that reality is real (duh), you also believe it. That being the case does not detract from the truth value of your belief. On the other hand, a belief grounded in faith cannot say anything about the truth of said belief in an epistemological sense.

In short, it's a bit silly to argue of the semantics of belief - it's a term that is too imprecise to have any real epistemological meaning. Theists tend to equate belief with knowledge, atheists belief with faith, and in my opinion, both are wrong to do so.

[Zen Badger]

If you "know" reality exists, prove it.

What would you consider to be quantifiable proof?

[chi pan]

to answer your question amkerman, i have heard of no purpose for life for an athiest besides following by humanistic values. many claim scientific progress is the best goal but what about those who aren't interested in science? they have no purpose because they can't be a scientist? many say benifiting society but for those who only flip burgers they obviously don't do much for society (even though someone has to do it). the truth of the matter is without religion, there is no purpose above society. there is no authority above humans. as long as you don't get caught breaking the law, you can do whatever you want. the only thing you have to worry about other than the law is your health. this is the thing that athiests want to be the truth. there is no god, no divine punishment, no karma; just human and health consequences.

[Michelle_Patton]

Wow, just when I think you can't type anything else that will shock me, you come out with this load of bollocks!

If you honestly believe that we don't do things only because we're afraid of being caught, it frightens me what someone like you would do if they ever lost their faith - without god it sounds like you think people would go around killing and raping and stealing etc......that reflects really badly on you, not us.

The purpose of life is life. This life, not some imaginary afterlife.

I am so offended right now that you've just said my life has no purpose - fuck you and the horse you rode in on!