Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Whateverist]

You elusive vixen you. Don't make me chase you!

[fr0d0]

I say belief has to be based on the non empirical. Rational thought, produces belief, which produces our understanding of the world. Not the other way around.

I think you're missing a step, though, and that step is testing those beliefs to see if they match up to the external reality. After all, you can't just think something into existence; stopping at the "having beliefs" stage puts you on the same footing as any old crazy person with a fantasy in their head. In fact, it puts you in the position of considering multiple, mutually contradictory beliefs rational at the same time, where they come up.

That's where empiricism comes in. Without it, you're living in a bizarre, solipsistic world, or you're engaging in special pleading.

See that's a huge weakness you have. You refuse to entertain logic which cannot be proven via external reality directly.

Directly, because the logic is consistent with all other logic, that ties with reality. The only difference with the God belief, for example, is that a primary constraint is that it is atemporal. So you must apply everything but that. You refuse to accept the logical constraint, and end up being illogical because of that very fact.

---

That is, if one has a strong existential belief in X, one could only say that one knows one believes X, it doesn't speak to the actual existence of X.

Reason and empiricism seem to me to be at their best when they are complimentary.

1. Absolutely. That's why Christians can't claim empirical existence for God.

2. That's a given.

---

Vagueness and ambiguity is, to my mind, what makes communication in language so powerful. If it didn't have this looseness about it, we'd hardly be able to talk in anything less than book length sentences with any clarity.

Well that's me off the hook!

---

isn't it enough to look for God within without supposing it is something outside of ourselves?

To me, gods perfection is what gives me reference. If he were inside me only, I don't think I could maintain that. I'm in awe of his perfection and when I express my gratitude to him that's when I feel close to him. It's like I'm understanding my part in nature.

---

Ah we have a winner! Drich has voted gnostic.

[Whateverist]

isn't it enough to look for God within without supposing it is something outside of ourselves?

To me, gods perfection is what gives me reference. If he were inside me only, I don't think I could maintain that. I'm in awe of his perfection and when I express my gratitude to him that's when I feel close to him. It's like I'm understanding my part in nature.

---

Ah we have a winner! Drich has voted gnostic.

But Insanity beat him to it. He should get the prize.

I wouldn't see God's residence within as any loss of stature. It simultaneous gives God a place in the world and reminds you that the otherness of the world is in you too.

[Esquilax]

See that's a huge weakness you have. You refuse to entertain logic which cannot be proven via external reality directly.

Explain to me how one would prove something exists without external reality.

Directly, because the logic is consistent with all other logic, that ties with reality. The only difference with the God belief, for example, is that a primary constraint is that it is atemporal. So you must apply everything but that. You refuse to accept the logical constraint, and end up being illogical because of that very fact.

There are plenty of things that are logically consistent without existing: stars exist, stars exude light, candles also exude light, therefore stars are candles. This is a logically consistent, all the premises are true, and yet the conclusion is wrong. Only without evidence, you'd have no way to disprove this; if you're just going on logical consistency, you'd have to accept that as just as true as your god claim.

Equally, there are numerous other logically consistent gods with mutually exclusive properties; if you're just using logical consistency as a measure of truth, then they would all be "true," and therefore no longer logically consistent.

Consider this: I could propose another atemporal being that carries all the same properties of your god, plus the ability to erase your god from existence. That's logically consistent: does it make it true?

Or, hell: I don't want to get into a dumb argument about whether or not that's logically consistent, so say I just proposed that a second, identical god also exists. Does that god now exist because I've proposed it?

[Angrboda]

There are plenty of things that are logically consistent without existing: stars exist, stars exude light, candles also exude light, therefore stars are candles. This is a logically consistent, all the premises are true, and yet the conclusion is wrong. Only without evidence, you'd have no way to disprove this; if you're just going on logical consistency, you'd have to accept that as just as true as your god claim.

Equally, there are numerous other logically consistent gods with mutually exclusive properties; if you're just using logical consistency as a measure of truth, then they would all be "true," and therefore no longer logically consistent.

I'm not sure that your candle proof is actually consistent, but since formal logic is not my strong suit, I'll leave it at that.

I know I've said similar things in the past, but I have to question what measure of truth we have beyond consistency?

We don't have access to "the things themselves," so it would seem the only measure of truth we have is the consistency between what our mind identifies as sensation, and what our mind identifies as inferences and assumptions. What measure can we apply to these mental images that is stronger than consistency?

[fr0d0]

Explain to me how one would prove something exists without external reality.

Bingo! You can't.

so say I just proposed that a second, identical god also exists. Does that god now exist because I've proposed it?

That god is a pointless duplication.

I'm not sure that your candle proof is actually consistent

Seconded

I wouldn't see God's residence within as any loss of stature. It simultaneous gives God a place in the world and reminds you that the otherness of the world is in you too.

The Christian tradition has both of course.

I like your idea. I make use more of God in everything in my awe and wouldn't like to lose that. It'd be a huge loss for me.

And if God possibly could be more, then he has to be it all to be completely God.

[Esquilax]

That god is a pointless duplication.

So what? It's no more or less valid as a concept than the god you believe in, so discarding it while keeping your normal god belief just shows that there's an additional element to your determinations beyond mere logical consistency. I'd venture to call that special pleading.

[fr0d0]

I'm saying there's no improving my God, as far as I know, and I don't say that isn't possible, or that exploration like yours isn't highly commendable.

---

Oh no, 2 gnostics!

[discipulus]

what does it mean to say that God exists empirically?

[fr0d0]

That it's scientifically provable

Maybe I should have made that clearer. I wonder if the two gnostics really are now! :S