(July 16, 2009 at 5:31 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 16, 2009 at 1:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So you're saying God physically exists then Evie? When's the baptism?

He exists physically as an idea in the brain, fr0d0. Not separately from that as an actual deity in the external universe - in any shape or form (as far as we know anyway (he almost certainly doesn't exist )).

EvF

If I say he certainly does exist does that trump you 'almost' certainly? Are you agnostic (don't know) where I'm gnostic (know)? (By Adrian's definition on his blog)

If God literally exists in your mind isn't that simply saying that he exists? God is in this universe - everywhere at the same time I heard. If you can prove he exists in one place then surely you can be more certain of his existence in other places too. You just experience him personally?

Trump it? What, in the sense you're more certain? (in an absolute sense, because you're gnostic). How do you mean 'trump it'??

Certainty doesn't make its existence any more likely whatsoever. Obviously[/i.] (That is; [i]if you were implying any such thing).

When I say he exists in my brain, I don't mean a supernatural being that created the universe exists in my brain. I mean he exists as an idea in my brain, and that idea is something physical in my brain. There's nothing 'God shaped' (if he has a shape!! (?)), that has any 'God capabilities', that created the universe, is a deity, and is "God" - in that sense - in my brain. I just mean 'he' exists as an idea in my brain. Just as the FSM does, lol. I don't mean there's a little FSM or a little "God"(/s) in my brain...I never meant they exist in that sense...I just mean - as I said - that they exist as ideas.

Just as how 2+2 exists as a concept for how to measure, and it can also exist on paper and in computers, etc, etc, you can put it down - but there isn't a single physical thing out there, that is 2+2 itself. 2+2, if it exists at all; as far as I know only exists as a concept - in our brains, on paper, in computers, etc, etc, etc. I'm saying the same for God and the FSM (etc).

And I do not see how on earth 'him' 'existing' as an idea, a concept within my brain - means that I should be any more certain that he exists "in other places too" (as you say)???

EvF

Well say I'm certain and you're not does that make the balance of probability tilt in my favour? If my conviction is substantively stronger than yours does that make my conviction more convincing?



(Hey how come you edited your post and it doesn't say 'edited'?)

So the God concept exists in your brain. What proof of God is there apart from precisely that? There is the effect of people acting on the concept.

(July 16, 2009 at 6:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well say I'm certain and you're not does that make the balance of probability tilt in my favour?

No. How? You're claming what you can't know, without any evidence. That makes it a hell of a lot less convincing in my view. Absolute certainty based on absence of evidence - is not convincing in my book!

Quote:If my conviction is substantively stronger than yours does that make my conviction more convincing?

No.
Not at all, as I said.

Not to me anyway.

And I wouldn't say it's actually substantially stronger. I mean it's a lot stronger because it's absolute...But I'm about as certain (or as certain(?)) as you can get without being absolute. It's not like my 'convictions' are weak!

I don't care about how certain I am, it's the logic behind it that matters to me. Whether the certainty is logical - and probable - or not, is based on the logic of it itself...not the certainty in such logic! That, seems pretty damn circular to me!

EvF

Yet you're not so sure to say you know (gnostic) like I am.

So that you're (possibly) less certain in your logic doesn't detract from your logic when opposing conflicting logic? Surely your reasoned position should adopt the strongest logic?

No. Doubt is rational when there's no evidence that a negative can be disproved absolutely!

I can't be absolutely the FSM doesn't exist , only almost certain (as with God), because I'm also almost certain that it cant be absolutely disproved (because that's fallacious (I'm almost certain of ), so knowing this - knowing this possibility that it could possibility exist because it isn't (and can't be) disproved - I'm only almost certain of the FSM, as well as God.

And with either God or the FSM or whatever...because it's illogical to be absolutely certain that they absolutely don't exist because you can't disprove them, it's a fallacy - so no, logical fallacies are not more logical simply by being 'more certain'.

It's the logic that makes the logic logical...not the certainty in the logic!

If I'm 100% certain that the FSM exists that doesn't make it any more likely that I'm right, right? And being absolutely certain about it and claiming it definitely exists - if anything just shows how illogical I am about it for claiming to know what I cannot know, right?

The logic is what matters...when it comes to logic (itself)! Not the certainty in such 'logic' (whether it's actually 'logical logic' or not).

EvF

EvF,

You know that all this proselytizing you do for the FSM is going to form a new religion when the world is cleansed by nuclear fallout don't you? The information is stored on shielded servers in a military bunker. (They don't trust us godless heathens)

There will be crusades against the Invisible Pink Unicorn while the Discordians look on in awe at the religious zeal of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's followers.

Just sayin'
Rhizo

Are you a heretic? Not to mean anything bad by that...it's just that you sound almost as if you deny the FSM.

!

EvF

Well EvF,

I want YOU to like me so... OK Blessed be His Noodly Appendage! There is actually a whole section of Hentai that... I'll stop there.

Rhizo

Oh I bet you can Kyuu but, if we go by that then no matter what you do or what you say you are redefining a word.

I found a definition that made sense, was usefull and made clear my point which was the difference between the two words.

As an example, a hallucination. Often I see things that are not there when I am extremely tired, are those things real? Of course not, they do not exist in our world. They do exist though, not as the strangers or objects that I see but, as imaginary items of my imagination.

If I were to explain the situation to another without the distinction between existing and being real I would have a very hard time because I would be explaining nothing.

I can cite a million places where the definitions are worded differently, or perhaps say different things. If I get caught up in that then making up my own definition is the only option, lose/lose by your response.