Hey there,

Screw proofs, look for good reasons to believe, that's what you do in your everyday life. All proofs need a starting point. Transcient, mortal people can play with the starting point all they like. And that's exactly why the existence of god question spilled much ink.

There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

I don't need to spell out the usual reasons for belief in God here. The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Now look at what happens in the real world here : [John ate delicious teriyaki ribs], and ask the atheist how does he get to the existence of John? Whatever the answer might be, it would be really stupid of him to say he figured out the cooking recipe, and that he doesn't need John anymore. And if he didn't see John, he still saw the teriyaki ribs on the table before dinner, suddenly disappearing moments later.

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

"Here is why you should believe in God."

Which God? Thor? Odin? Allah? Jesus? Zeus? Anansi? etc etc etc etc etc?

What a pretty way to regurgitate the same old shit.

Believe if you want to believe.

As far as I'm concerned all you've presented are a bunch of bullshit assertions that don't warrant a belief in a god. I will not validate the bullshit.

(March 26, 2020 at 1:48 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

It's fun to ponder.  We may be biological automatons reporting first person perspectives.  I still think that either way, if there's a little man behind the eyes or we're robots...."I" could still know other things.  

We could probably let it ride, and assume that the little man behind the eyes and the robot are both equally capable of rational inference.  Whichever one we happen to be -must- be...since we are, and I can think of no reason why the other would be incapable.  We know that machines can do logic.    

Quote:Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

That's alot to unpack.

There are alot of people who don't interrupt their lives to read or listen to something that would be informative. 

People act on self doubt at all times.  That self doubt might be brought on by some epistemological vacuum...but in the case of reductive theories of consciousness...it's hard to see why. 

Do you have a list of stupid reasons to think that reductive theories of consciousness are false?

Can you elaborate of why knowledge of god would be impractical?  No benefit...really?

Quote:Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

That would be an axiomatic argument.  Do you have a compelling axiomatic argument for the existence of god..such that a person hearing it would find god's existence equally compelling?

Quote:One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

Needing good reasons to believe is axiomatic.  I'm not sure what you're clarifying here, or for whom.   I think we can all agree that we all like to have good reasons to believe in anything.  Do you have any of those reasons to share?

Quote:The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Well, that depends.  Many god claims throughought history - which is to say many claims to good reasons to believe turned out to be natural reactions or events.  In no way separate to be worthy of note as divine™.  There's a literal embarassment of riches to be had here, as to how many times the faithful have exclaimed that some impentrable mystery of god is the only explanation for x...to turn out that sneezes were the explanation for x.  

Insomuch as you propose a god to explain otherwise explicable things and get relevant facts wrong in the process...yes, it's a good reason to believe that what you have to say is false, that your god - that you have saddled with inept claims...doesn't exist. 

Maybe some other god.

Quote:Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with.

No, it isn't.  It's not even -an- explanation.  It's a misunderstanding of natural law.  You believe in a prescriptive lawgiver - that's the kind of law that needs a lawgiver.  Natural law is descriptive.  It's not what anyone says it is or determines it to be, only a description -of- what is.  However things are in any universe, no matter what they are - would be natural law.

Quote:Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

That's a great story...but a deeper dive would tell you that the luminiferous aether wasn't the prima facie explanation at all.  The scientific establishment fucked up on that one for a very different reason - multiple times....and they kept using the same name, lol.   Interestingly enough, it has it's origin in what was assumed to be "the stuff of the gods".  An alchemical fifth element.  We just keep inventing aethers for every age.

In any case, I'm not going to bother you for any kind of utopian certainy..just good reasons to believe.

Belief - how insecure adults hang on to childhood bedtime stories...

(March 26, 2020 at 1:48 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Hey there,

Screw proofs, look for good reasons to believe, that's what you do in your everyday life. All proofs need a starting point. Transcient, mortal people can play with the starting point all they like. And that's exactly why the existence of god question spilled much ink.

There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

I don't need to spell out the usual reasons for belief in God here. The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Now look at what happens in the real world here : [John ate delicious teriyaki ribs], and ask the atheist how does he get to the existence of John? Whatever the answer might be, it would be really stupid of him to say he figured out the cooking recipe, and that he doesn't need John anymore. And if he didn't see John, he still saw the teriyaki ribs on the table before dinner, suddenly disappearing moments later.

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

Your argument stupidly assumes that nobody of other religions have ever used the same lingo or tatics.

What I have found in my 19 years of debating online is that every religion has followers who make the same arguments. 

Funny how scientific method always works outside religious bias. But religious bias can never agree on science. 

Scientific method is why a passenger jet will carry a Buddhist and Jew and Hindu and Christian and Muslim. And scientific method is why a computer works in Iran, or Nigeria or Ireland or Japan or South Korea or Saudi Arabia or Mississippi. 

I especially find this logic absurd today, especially knowing that , a microscopic virus is holding the entire planet hostage regardless of nationality, race, religion or politics.

(March 26, 2020 at 1:48 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists.

You can prove a lot of things but not to people who decide the result before looking at the evidence - which is exactly what you are promoting here. Then no amount of evidence can convince you, like let's say people who decided to believe in God say that fossils are created by the devil to make people disbelieve in Jesus. That's why you have to learn how to think first.

Can I come to your church and teach evolution?

So, a wall of text that provides nothing?

Sounds like god.