what would make you change your beliefs?

[Edwardo Piet]

The fact that you're asking shows that you can't imagine where it would go (and that therefore it must have just disappeared), and that's understandable, as neither do I.

So you just assume it does? Why do you assume that? How are you remotely convinced by the fact that you are merely assuming such a thing based on nothing? If you're not really convinced at all by it then by what definition do you really actually "believe" it? Isn't this merely pretension, professing belief? Or have you not thought about it enough to realize you are merely assuming?

We're humans in a physical world, this is all we know. What else is there?

Why would there be anything else? Once again: Assumption.

But having said that, I'm sure we've all heard of people who claim to have seen this or that while away.

They can claim what they like... doesn't give it a shred of truth that it is anything more than their imagination.

EvF

[Godhead]

EvF -

I know that I'm assuming. I can't help it any more than you can help assuming that this physical world is all there is. You see the physical world, you see nothing else, and assume that what you can see is all there is. I see the physical world, I see nothing else, and I assume that I'm not capable of seeing all there is. Which is more reasonable, assuming that what you're capable of seeing is all there is, or assuming that you are limited in what you can see?

I'll throw this into the mix, see what you make of it. I haven't read it all myself : http://www.does-god-exist.net/reality-check.html

[Paul the Human]

Changing the definition of words so that they fit what you want to be true is quite probably the worst system of 'belief' I have ever heard of. Congratulations. I never thought I would find someone's beliefs to be nuttier than Scientology. I think you should change your religious views on your profile. It should read - Religious Views: Make-Believer.

I mean... really.

[Edwardo Piet]

I know that I'm assuming. I can't help it any more than you can help assuming that this physical world is all there is.

Do you not understand the burden of proof?

You see the physical world, you see nothing else, and assume that what you can see is all there is.

Because I know of no evidence to anything further. That's not an assumption... the physical world is self-evident... to believe anything further would be an assumption because there's no evidence for it.

I see the physical world, I see nothing else, and I assume that I'm not capable of seeing all there is.

I'm not capable of seeing all there is either. There are many things I don't see. But since everything I do see is physical... why would I assume there was anything non-physical or spiritual hanging around the corner? That lacks evidence. The physical world doesn't. The physical world is self-evident.

Which is more reasonable, assuming that what you're capable of seeing is all there is,

I never claimed that. There are many things I don't see. I just don't claim the existence of non-physical things without evidence. I do claim the existence of physical things because they're self-evident.

or assuming that you are limited in what you can see?

Of course I'm limited in what I see. I am a limited being. It does not follow logically that because I'm limited then somehow non-physical things exist. To believe they exist is an assumption. To believe the physical exists is entirely rational because it's self-evident.

I'll throw this into the mix, see what you make of it. I haven't read it all myself : http://www.does-god-exist.net/reality-check.html

It seems to be supporting what you believe. That to ask whether God exists first we must define God. And if you define God as everything and energy then that's just saying that energy exists which is obvious. The claim that somehow everything is consciousness is a completely unfounded claim lacking evidence. To call that "God" is just to label your unsupported claim that everything is consciousness.

EvF

[Godhead]

EvF -

You can't see anything other than the physical, but that says more about what you can see than about what there is. By saying : everything I see = everything there is, you're making a positive statement about your capability to see what there is. You're saying that you can see all there is. You're using the fact that you can see certain things to justify a belief that you can see all. Now, if you don't really believe that you can see all, then that immediately opens the door to speculation about other things. Since you can only see certain things, you can't use those things as evidence of other things. So you need to use logic and thought experiments to at least establish a possibility that what you see isn't all you get. Being limited in what you see means that there's a limit to what you can see, which means that there's more. If you admit to being limited, you admit to there being something beyond your limits. Limit doesn't mean absolute end, it means a point where something stops, in this case, your ability to see. When you put an end to something, you don't say "I limitted it", you say "I finished it, I ended it, it is no more". Limit means boundary, restriction, extent. If you're limited, then by definition there is more. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to assume (very safely) that the physical is not all there is. As for evidence that everything is consciousness, I have none.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 in Exodus 33:20-23
20.And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21.And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22.And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23.And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

This seems to me like God did allow Moses to see him at least as he walked away. Or is this another allegory? When Moses requested to see his glory this was the alleged biblical Gods response. It clearly states that he saw his hind parts not that he saw where he had been, that makes no sense when you read the text.

[Edwardo Piet]

EvF -

You can't see anything other than the physical, but that says more about what you can see than about what there is.

Yes.

By saying : everything I see = everything there is, you're making a positive statement about your capability to see what there is.

I never made such a statement.

You're saying that you can see all there is.

No.

You're using the fact that you can see certain things to justify a belief that you can see all.

No.

Now, if you don't really believe that you can see all, then that immediately opens the door to speculation about other things.

I'm fine to speculate about anything. I just don't believe without evidence.

Since you can only see certain things, you can't use those things as evidence of other things.

Induction at best can be used.

So you need to use logic and thought experiments to at least establish a possibility that what you see isn't all you get.

Never made such a claim.

Being limited in what you see means that there's a limit to what you can see, which means that there's more.

That's not evidence that everything "out there" is consciousness. That's merely evidence that there's other things out there.

If you admit to being limited, you admit to there being something beyond your limits.

Yes.

Limit doesn't mean absolute end, it means a point where something stops, in this case, your ability to see.

Yes.

When you put an end to something, you don't say "I limitted it", you say "I finished it, I ended it, it is no more".

Yes.

Limit means boundary, restriction, extent. If you're limited, then by definition there is more.

I think you already made that point.

That's why it's perfectly reasonable to assume (very safely) that the physical is not all there is.

No because there's no evidence for anything non-physical.

As for evidence that everything is consciousness, I have none.

I thought as much.

EvF

[Godhead]

EvF -

This is what you're saying, from what I can make out : You're limited to only perceiving the physical. This tells you that there's something else, other than what you're limited to perceiving, namely, the nonphysical. Yet you say that there's no evidence for the nonphysical. Ok, you may not perceive the nonphysical, but you acknowledge that it must exist. If evidence means something you can perceive, then ok, there's no evidence that you can perceive (which again refers to your ability rather than what's really there). But if evidence means a reason to believe, then you believe.

The consciousness bit I'll give you (that's just my thing).

[Edwardo Piet]

This is what you're saying, from what I can make out : You're limited to only perceiving the physical.

As far as I know because I know of no evidence of anything non-physical.

This tells you that there's something else, other than what you're limited to perceiving, namely, the nonphysical.

No, that doesn't follow. Just because there are things that I don't perceive doesn't mean that any of it is non-physical.

Yet you say that there's no evidence for the nonphysical.

As far as I know, yes.

Ok, you may not perceive the nonphysical, but you acknowledge that it must exist.

No. How must it exist?

If evidence means something you can perceive, then ok, there's no evidence that you can perceive (which again refers to your ability rather than what's really there).

I didn't understand this part. No evidence that I can perceive what?

But if evidence means a reason to believe, then you believe.

Evidence is a reason for me to believe. And I hope to go for valid evidence before I believe.

The consciousness bit I'll give you (that's just my thing).

Irrationally holding on to it eh? Try doubting a bit. Try asking for evidence for that belief of yours until you realize "Why would it be true? Where's the evidence? Oh yeah I get it. It makes no sense to believe it truly is the case with no valid reason/evidence backing it whatsoever."

EvF

[Godhead]

EvF -

Ok, you believe or assume (it has to be one or the other, unless you claim to know) that you are only capable of perceiving the physical. If you're limited to perceiving what's physical, then you can't be in a position to say for sure what else there is. After all, if you don't have the means to perceive it, you don't know, you ca't tell. But what you can say is that you're limited to perceiving the physical. We agree that "limited" means that there's a point at which your ability to perceive stops. Your ability. That's about as subjective as it gets, isn't it? If "evidence" means something that you can perceive, then there's no evidence for you of anything else. But again, it comes down to you. If "evidence" means a reason to believe, then, surely, with limited perceptions, you can only judge your reasons by what is perceivable to you, with your limited perceptions. It's like being in a box, and thinking that the box is all there is, or that anything outside the box is probably like all the things in it. You're using your own limitations to make judgments about that which is not in the jurisdiction of your perceptions. But you're not supposed to be able to do that, you're limited. The fairest starting point is "I don't know, at all, no assumptions either way, none". But that's just a starting point. If you want to go on from there, the options are : Everything outside the box is like the things in the box, which makes no sense, as the very nature of outside"ness" (of the box) would make that unlikely, or, put another way, the fact that you can't perceive beyond the physical must mean there's a reason, it must mean that it's nature is different. Otherwise you'd be able to perceive it, it would have qualities which would ake it perceiveable to you. The other option is : Acknowledge that anything which exists and which is unperceiveable by your physical senses, has a symptom, which is : your inability to perceive it by physical means. It's beyond your senses. Physical senses perceive physical things, that's what they meant to do. If anything exists that you can't perceive, it must have a nature which makes it beyond your physical senses.