I am atheist,but I do not like science.

[CliveStaples]

Ok, I think I get it now. You believe the past is practically non-existent. To this I say look at your watch for 5 minutes. You can then be absolutely confident that this memory of yourself looking at your watch wasn't some random memory implanted into you from who knows where, but that it was an historical truth that really did happen in the past.

No, because your memory of having looked at your watch for 5 minutes might itself only be an instant old. You're assuming that your memories are actually accurate. How do you know that?

---

Clive,

Hello, I'm Cato. With the evidence I have I can claim that I posted to this forum before you joined; therefore, I submit that my historic postings relative to you are real and did not poof into existence with the appearance of age at the time you chose to grace me/us with your presence at AF.

How do you know that you actually have that evidence? How do you know that your memories of that evidence are accurate? How do you know that you didn't come into existence three seconds ago with false memories?

To put it another way...
If you are sincere with your 'appearance of age' shit, you must adhere to the idea that your mother and grandmother were non-existents before your birth and only came into existence at the moment of your birth with the appearance of age.

No, I don't even have to think that I was born. That's just a memory I have, which is just a result of my brain being in a particular physiochemical state. How do you know that you and your brain didn't come into existence three seconds ago in your particular arrangement of physiochemical states?

At this point you can argue that nothing existed five minutes ago and we were all created (with common memory of what we call history) five minutes ago. Which is more likely? There was existence and history before us or we were all just created with appearance of age parading around as history?

How are you deciding those probabilities? Is it based on evidence? How do you know what evidence is? How do you that your understanding of the evidence is actually accurate?

It seems like not many people take time to actually question their assumptions.

[FallentoReason]

No, because your memory of having looked at your watch for 5 minutes might itself only be an instant old. You're assuming that your memories are actually accurate. How do you know that?

Then I would suggest going to a neurologist if you can't keep track of 5 minutes.

[CliveStaples]

Then I would suggest going to a neurologist if you can't keep track of 5 minutes.

You're really not following my point.

How do you know that your memories of what neurology is, or what neurologists do, is accurate? You're relying entirely on the accuracy of your memory to make this claim. How do you know that your memory is accurate?

[FallentoReason]

Then I would suggest going to a neurologist if you can't keep track of 5 minutes.

You're really not following my point.

How do you know that your memories of what neurology is, or what neurologists do, is accurate? You're relying entirely on the accuracy of your memory to make this claim. How do you know that your memory is accurate?

I know what you're saying but it's rather pointless in all honesty.

How do you know that you think you know your memory is useless? Isn't it true that you knew this 5 minutes ago? Or are you genuinely coming up with this argument for the first time at every 'instant'?

[Cato]

Ok, I think I get it now. You believe the past is practically non-existent. To this I say look at your watch for 5 minutes. You can then be absolutely confident that this memory of yourself looking at your watch wasn't some random memory implanted into you from who knows where, but that it was an historical truth that really did happen in the past.

No, because your memory of having looked at your watch for 5 minutes might itself only be an instant old. You're assuming that your memories are actually accurate. How do you know that?

---

Clive,

Hello, I'm Cato. With the evidence I have I can claim that I posted to this forum before you joined; therefore, I submit that my historic postings relative to you are real and did not poof into existence with the appearance of age at the time you chose to grace me/us with your presence at AF.

How do you know that you actually have that evidence? How do you know that your memories of that evidence are accurate? How do you know that you didn't come into existence three seconds ago with false memories?

To put it another way...
If you are sincere with your 'appearance of age' shit, you must adhere to the idea that your mother and grandmother were non-existents before your birth and only came into existence at the moment of your birth with the appearance of age.

No, I don't even have to think that I was born. That's just a memory I have, which is just a result of my brain being in a particular physiochemical state. How do you know that you and your brain didn't come into existence three seconds ago in your particular arrangement of physiochemical states?

At this point you can argue that nothing existed five minutes ago and we were all created (with common memory of what we call history) five minutes ago. Which is more likely? There was existence and history before us or we were all just created with appearance of age parading around as history?

How are you deciding those probabilities? Is it based on evidence? How do you know what evidence is? How do you that your understanding of the evidence is actually accurate?

It seems like not many people take time to actually question their assumptions.

How high can we stack the shit? Does stacking shit actually require shit producers? Or, can we imagine shit into existence?

Despite your ability to parse my reply into sections and create argument, you never answered my question so I'll break it out in a manner that even a person with a post graduate degree in mathematics could understand:

Which is more likely?
1. History actually exists despite our lack of participation in events before our existence. OR...
2. We are all poofed into existence three seconds ago ingrained with a common faked history implanted; including our previous posts.

I will assume that you will choose number two in order to be consistent. Then let's assume that I show up at your location in ten minutes and fuck you in the ass with a jackhammer. Three seconds after that you look up to me looking for an answer. Your ass is the size of a small swimming pool and I'm standing nearby with a jackhammer; your entrails dripping from the end.

As you shove both of your fists in your ass to stop the bleeding I simply state that it never happened. We were both just created and your ass wound is nothing more than a consequence of your implanted memory. You can believe this all you want to, but your ass won't soon stop bleeding.

[CliveStaples]

Which is more likely?
1. History actually exists despite our lack of participation in events before our existence. OR...
2. We are all poofed into existence three seconds ago ingrained with a common faked history implanted; including our previous posts.

I didn't answer the question, because it's unanswerable in this form. How are you assigning the probabilities?

It's like asking, "Which is more likely, event A or event B?" Without knowing anything about how you're assigning probabilities to A and B, I'd just be speculating.

I will assume that you will choose number two in order to be consistent. Then let's assume that I show up at your location in ten minutes and fuck you in the ass with a jackhammer. Three seconds after that you look up to me looking for an answer. Your ass is the size of a small swimming pool and I'm standing nearby with a jackhammer; your entrails dripping from the end.

As you shove both of your fists in your ass to stop the bleeding I simply state that it never happened. We were both just created and your ass wound is nothing more than a consequence of your implanted memory. You can believe this all you want to, but your ass won't soon stop bleeding.

Colorful, but irrelevant. How are you deciding which is more likely?

Even though it's irrelevant, let me point out that I'm not saying our memories are false or that the universe was created three seconds ago with the appearance of age. I, in fact, believe that our memories are usually reliable, and that the universe is quite old--something on the order of 10 billion years.

Now, if you'd read my posts , you would have seen that I never claimed that our memories are unreliable, or that the universe is only three seconds old.

Protip: Asking, "How can we know p?" isn't the same as "p is false."

---

I know what you're saying but it's rather pointless in all honesty.

How do you know that you think you know your memory is useless? Isn't it true that you knew this 5 minutes ago? Or are you genuinely coming up with this argument for the first time at every 'instant'?

The question is important.

Let p = "The universe was not created three seconds ago with the appearance of age."

If there is no evidence for p, then an evidentialist must refuse to believe it (since an evidentialist refuses to believe claims for which there is no evidence).

[Cato]

Clive,

You should be embarrassed as a professional mathematician conflaitng my use of the word likely with mathematical probability. You should know more than others that the scenario I presented cannot be addressed probabalistically. I cannot and would never attempt to assign probability to either.

I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.

P or not-P. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; however, I can almost smell a disengenuous use of Bayes' Theorem following.

[FallentoReason]

The question is important.

Let p = "The universe was not created three seconds ago with the appearance of age."

If there is no evidence for p, then an evidentialist must refuse to believe it (since an evidentialist refuses to believe claims for which there is no evidence).

Agreed, but the matter of the fact is that the evidence is out there. Time elapses and it can be measured.

Why don't we cut to the chase here? What is it that you're essentially getting at? Your own arguments don't seem to work for God. What is a 'Jesus'? The universe spontaneously came into being as I pressed the full stop key for this sentence.

[CliveStaples]

Agreed, but the matter of the fact is that the evidence is out there. Time elapses and it can be measured.

You're not thinking through your assumptions. How do you know that time elapses?

Why don't we cut to the chase here? What is it that you're essentially getting at? Your own arguments don't seem to work for God. What is a 'Jesus'? The universe spontaneously came into being as I pressed the full stop key for this sentence.

I don't know what you mean, here. My arguments "don't seem to work for God"? They aren't about God. They're about how we know things.

---

Clive,

You should be embarrassed as a professional mathematician conflaitng my use of the word likely with mathematical probability. You should know more than others that the scenario I presented cannot be addressed probabalistically. I cannot and would never attempt to assign probability to either.

Well, if you're not using "likely" to mean probability, then I have no idea what you mean by it. When someone says "A is more likely than B", I understand that to mean P(A) > P(B).

I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.

That's not a proposition. "How can you be sure that we weren't created recently, but with the appearance of age?" is a question. It isn't "true" or "false".

I consider that a serious question. If you don't think it's serious, then I don't think you've though through what implications it would have on evidentialism.

P or not-P. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; however, I can almost smell a disengenuous use of Bayes' Theorem following.

P or not-P? Huh?

The options you gave were mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive.

[FallentoReason]

Agreed, but the matter of the fact is that the evidence is out there. Time elapses and it can be measured.

You're not thinking through your assumptions. How do you know that time elapses?

Because the concept works. Tell me how fast you're driving your car and I can tell you when it's expected that you will cross an imaginary line 100 metres in front of you. I'm assuming time can be measured and according to what I see in reality with this example I'll be able to show that the measurement was correct. Therefore it follows that time is real according to reality.

Why don't we cut to the chase here? What is it that you're essentially getting at? Your own arguments don't seem to work for God. What is a 'Jesus'? The universe spontaneously came into being as I pressed the full stop key for this sentence.

I don't know what you mean, here. My arguments "don't seem to work for God"? They aren't about God. They're about how we know things.

You consider yourself a Christian. I'm assuming (and desperately hoping) that amongst all this wreckage about not being able to know anything for certain you've somehow come out with the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord. Any explanations for this convenient conclusion?