Why do you not believe in God?

[frankiej]

This is one of the most pointless discussions ever. Such a retarded topic... it is almost as pointless as the sandwich debate.

[CliveStaples]

No, the memory is reliable, and the proof of it lies in the memory (properly basic).

Properly basic in what sense? It's not like "Cogito ergo sum"; I can deny without contradiction that my memories correspond to reality.

Additionally, basic beliefs--whether 'proper' or not--are not justified by other beliefs. That is, in what sense do your memories 'prove' that they are reliable?

---

This is one of the most pointless discussions ever. Such a retarded topic... it is almost as pointless as the sandwich debate.

rofl

If you think epistemology is a pointless discussion, then you must not be interested in knowledge. I haven't really seen any convincing arguments for ignorance before; care to offer yours?

[Mystic]

No, the memory is reliable, and the proof of it lies in the memory (properly basic).

Properly basic in what sense? It's not like "Cogito ergo sum"; I can deny without contradiction that my memories correspond to reality.

Additionally, basic beliefs--whether 'proper' or not--are not justified by other beliefs. That is, in what sense do your memories 'prove' that they are reliable?

The experience of the memory. When I experience pain, I know what pain feels like. When I experience a reliable memory, I know for certain that the past occurred by virtue of the experience of the memory.

It doesn't need to be justified by something else. A reliable memory is a reliable experience and informs reliably of the past. I don't need to prove that, the experience proves it.

[CliveStaples]

The experience of the memory. When I experience pain, I know what pain feels like. When I experience a reliable memory, I know for certain that the past occurred by virtue of the experience of the memory.

It doesn't need to be justified by something else. A reliable memory is a reliable experience and informs reliably of the past. I don't need to prove that, the experience proves it.

But you don't have access to past experiences. You only have access to memories of past experiences.

Let's say you experience a memory--that is, you have a recollection of some experience. Your reasoning seems to be, "Well, since I remember it, it must be that the experience actually occurred." That is, that all memories are reliable by definition.

Does this stand to reason? Are we incapable of forming false memories? It seems to lack both a posteriori and a priori support--that you have a memory does not imply that the content of that memory accurately reflects some past state of affairs.

[frankiej]

This is one of the most pointless discussions ever. Such a retarded topic... it is almost as pointless as the sandwich debate.

rofl

If you think epistemology is a pointless discussion, then you must not be interested in knowledge. I haven't really seen any convincing arguments for ignorance before; care to offer yours?

You don't know me very well, so you won't know how much I hate many areas of philosophy... a little philosophy here and there are fine, but when trying to debate whether your memories are real or reliable is taking the cake and shoving it on your cock. Discussions like these provide nothing for actual knowledge. It is pretty much equal to a masturbation circle.

[Mystic]

Let's say you experience a memory--that is, you have a recollection of some experience. Your reasoning seems to be, "Well, since I remember it, it must be that the experience actually occurred." That is, that all memories are reliable by definition.

Does this stand to reason? Are we incapable of forming false memories? It seems to lack both a posteriori and a priori support--that you have a memory does not imply that the content of that memory accurately reflects some past state of affairs.

There is different type of memories. There is some memories we feel, but are not certain of. There is other memories we remember, and are certain of. In the latter, they are a reliable connection to the past.

I don't infer because I have this memory, the past must have occurred. I infer that this memory gives me knowledge of the past occurring by virtue of the properly basic experience I get from the memory. Not from an inference.

If God can remember something reliably then so can we. If he can remember the past reliably, then so it's possible that we do.

Unless you say, not even God can know of the past in a sure manner, then there is no reason to assume humans cannot have knowledge of the past that is reliable.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

Do you reject both?

I reject the belief in god. So I repeat, can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

[CliveStaples]

You don't know me very well, so you won't know how much I hate many areas of philosophy... a little philosophy here and there are fine, but when trying to debate whether your memories are real or reliable is taking the cake and shoving it on your cock. Discussions like these provide nothing for actual knowledge. It is pretty much equal to a masturbation circle.

Well, that's a fine opinion. Let me give an equally-supported one:

"Arguments about whether God exists provide nothing for actual knowledge. God obviously exists; atheist discussions are pretty much equal to a masturbation circle."

Since everything you claim to know and have evidence for depends crucially on your epistemology, I'd think that you'd be more interested. You know, if you were an actual skeptic, instead of just a pretend one.

[KnockEmOuttt]

CliveStaples I asked you a question. Can you provide non-circular evidence that god exists?

[Ryantology]

I believe the past is reliable because memory is ubiquitous. All animals are capable of at least some form of information storage and recall, as well as many non-animals, and of course, computers.

It's true that at the bottom, accepting the past as reality requires an assumption to be made. But, all assumptions are not equally valid. Belief in the reality of the past is an assumption which sits on the very edge of solipsism, to the point where only a solipsistic argument can be made to dispute it. That might be fun for a philosophy discussion, but it's useless for establishing truth in any practical sense, and Christianity demands that you accept God and Jesus as practical realities, not as mere philosophical possibilities.

After all, if we go down that route, how do I know that God isn't something I personally made up in childhood?