Thanks to Athias for accepting.
SE Chat Room #3
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@Athias
Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.
How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I believe God exists. I don't engage in rites and religious customs dictating a demonstration of my kowtow or devotion. I do however accept God as a logical consequence of perception. For me, God merely is.
-->
@Athias
Before we proceed further, can you provide a definition of God?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
A spiritual being.
-->
@Athias
Can you identify any other attributes of this spiritual being that sets it apart from other hypothetical spiritual beings? For example, how is this God different from ghosts?
I hope you don't mind me continuing to focus on the definition. I think a high degree of clarity is important before we proceed. I'd hate for misunderstandings to arise because you and I weren't on the same page.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Can you identify any other attributes of this spiritual being that sets it apart from other hypothetical spiritual beings? For example, how is this God different from ghosts?
He/it isn't. I suppose we can parse my use of the term spiritual, but I don't suppose it would make much difference. Furthermore, I don't seek to create a distinction, at least at the moment, between God and ghosts, especially considering that in the Hebraic religions, his tertiary manifestation is the "Holy Ghost." Spiritual being should suffice.
I hope you don't mind me continuing to focus on the definition. I think a high degree of clarity is important before we proceed. I'd hate for misunderstandings to arise because you and I weren't on the same page.
Not at all. Ask whatever you deem necessary.
-->
@Athias
Ok, so how confident are you that this God (spiritual being) exists? If you wish, you can respond with a scale, 0-100.
On a scale of 0-100 (0 being "not at all" and 100 being "without a doubt"), how confident are you that your God belief is correct?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
My confidence reflects the consistency of the logic. Since the logic can be either consistent or inconsistent, my answer therefore can be only 0 or a 100. So I am without doubt that my God belief is correct (100.)
-->
@Athias
Thank you for another swift reply.
Could you please outline the reason(s) for such a high confidence?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Because the arguments I use to substantiate the existence of God operate on a consistent logic and irrefutable premises.
-->
@Athias
What are these irrefutable premises/logic, if I may?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Sure you may:
1.All which is perceived must exist.God is perceived.Therefore, God exists.The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.2.All material or spiritual beings exist.God is a spiritual being.Therefore, God exists.The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological
Even though you are merely inquiring, feel free to challenge if the inclination strikes you.
-->
@Athias
He won't. If you observe his other chatrooms, he is intent on gaslighting. He will solely ask why you believe and what makes you so sure over and over again, refusing to quote anything good that you post.
-->
@Athias
As a matter of genuine fact-finding, I'm interested to hear more about the following premises:
God is perceived.
How is he perceived?
All material or spiritual beings exist.
Why is this so?
I appreciate your continuing participation and your patience with my questions. As you can see, RM is very displeased with my conduct. If I offend you at any point, feel free to stop responding. I will only continue communicating if you continue communicating.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
How is he perceived?
God is believed. God is acknowledged by his adherents and even his detractors. Your mere question for example is a demonstration of your perception of God, given that you'd be incapable of acknowledging that which you couldn't perceive. In other words, one couldn't identify nothing. Furthermore, there are those who feel God. That suffices in substantiating that God is perceived.
Why is this so?
This is so by definition. To exist is to have real being whether material or spiritual.
Then it's simply a matter of establishing a logical equivalence using the definition's converse. God has spiritual being; therefore, God by definition exists.
I appreciate your continuing participation and your patience with my questions.
It's no trouble.
As you can see, RM is very displeased with my conduct.
That is RationalMadman's issue to deal with.
If I offend you at any point, feel free to stop responding.
I don't get offended easily, much less express emotion in venues where they're unnecessary. By that very same token, if you've been "holding back," so to speak, please don't. It's like I said before, "Ask whatever you deem necessary."
-->
@Athias
I think it might be useful for me to restate what I think you've said in your own words. I think we're reaching some crucial epistemological territory, and I want to ensure we're on the same page. So, let me know if I'm incorrect in restating anything you've said:
I think you're saying that because believers and deniers can perceive god, god exists. To my understanding, your use of the word "perceive" is synonymous with "imagine" or "conceive." In other words, even a denier can conceive of the notion of god, thus, under your framework, they perceive god, thus making him exist.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I think you're saying that because believers and deniers can perceive god, god exists. To my understanding, your use of the word "perceive" is synonymous with "imagine" or "conceive." In other words, even a denier can conceive of the notion of god, thus, under your framework, they perceive god, thus making him exist.
No. While I do not exclude imagination and conception from the use of the term perceive, I particularly used the words "acknowledged" and "believed." There are several other terms I could use, but I chose "perceived" because it encapsulates many aspects of cognition by relating them. And furthermore, I didn't mention once any "notion" of God.
-->
@Athias
So, should I understand your use of the word perceive to be roughly equivalent to acknowledged and believed?
Thus, if someone believed something, that would mean it is perceived, and because it is perceived it exists?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Yes.
-->
@Athias
Say there was a jar filled to the brim with many little candies. Suppose also that someone firmly believed the jar contained exactly 1,000 candies. Do 1,000 candies exist within the jar?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Say there was a jar filled to the brim with many little candies. Suppose also that someone firmly believed the jar contained exactly 1,000 candies. Do 1,000 candies exist within the jar?
Nice try. Above I clearly delineate the description of existence, which primarily focuses on state of being. You're clearly asking me to quantify that which is contained in a jar. If I offer you a number--any number--I would then have to accept the mathematical standard upon which your query is premised. Your question doesn't seek to explore the scope of belief, but rather, whether "whim" can invalidate accepted standards.
Perhaps, you might try again.
-->
@Athias
Perhaps I'm slow, because I don't think I understand this very well at all:
Above I clearly delineate the description of existence, which primarily focuses on state of being. You're clearly asking me to quantify that which is contained in a jar. If I offer you a number--any number--I would then have to accept the mathematical standard upon which your query is premised. Your question doesn't seek to explore the scope of belief, but rather, whether "whim" can invalidate accepted standards.
I'm so confused that my questions might not even be the right ones to ask, but here I go:
What is the difference between a description of existence and quantification?
Perhaps to be more direct, how is the jar of candies example different from God belief?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I'm so confused that my questions might not even be the right ones to ask, but here I go:What is the difference between a description of existence and quantification?Perhaps to be more direct, how is the jar of candies example different from God belief?
Because you're not asking about existence, you're asking about form using a mathematical standard. So, if I were to say, "yes, there's a 1000 candies in the jar," I would have to accept the number 1000 as 1000, and every other number which relates to the number 1000 as they are. So if there weren't 1000 candies in the jar, it wouldn't qualify its existence, only the metric and abstract used to rationalize that existence. All an incorrect answer would substantiate is that I'm being inconsistent with an accepted standard, not that I'm wrong about the scope of my belief, much less that my belief doesn't inform perception.
In other words, you're merely asking one to gauge a number, which itself is abstract. And that informs my point.
-->
@Athias
So if I did away with the abstraction of quantification, I'd be on track? So, for example, if I said:
I have a black box, and I tell you there may or may not be a cat inside. You firmly believe there is a cat in the box, therefore a cat exists within the box.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Very akin to schrodinger's cat, but changing the abstraction doesn't change the logic. For example, can you prove that a box exists using your presumably materialist standard? And we need not confine it to locations, just demonstrate that it merely is. Or does the "box" exist as an abstract?
Each question you've asked me has attempted to qualify existence using a preset standard, whether it be the number of candies located (notice that I'm not reciprocating the use of the term exist here) in a jar or a cat located in a box. None inform existence, only the abstract to which you intend to subject it.
-->
@Athias
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I feel like I'm still not with you. I apologize for my continued confusion. Perhaps another tack will help us get on the same page.
All which is perceived must exist.God is perceived.Therefore, God exists.
Ultimately, this is the statement I'm trying to understand. So, taking a step back, could you explain how this works for you in practice?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Ultimately, this is the statement I'm trying to understand. So, taking a step back, could you explain how this works for you in practice?
I acknowledge God's being. I believe in God's existence. I understand God's significance in one's spirituality and God's effect in shaping the reality of those who both adhere to and fervently reject him. So let's consider my argument:
All which is perceived must exist.
God is perceived.
Therefore, God exists.
We know that the major premise is true because it is impossible to perceive the nonexistent. The nonexistent provides no information on its being or form. So for example, when one claims that God does not exist, one would have to explain how one would know God does not exist, if God in fact does not exist. God's alleged nonexistence would provide no information on itself to be observed or perceived. So then how can one posit the argument, "God does not exist," which by its very statement indicates a perception of nonexistence? It's paradoxical. Many atheists, like yourself, erroneously conflate immaterial/abstract with nonexistence. But the immaterial/abstract can be perceived, ironically as exampled by abstracts like mathematics--the fundamental basis of materialist standards. So then one would also have to explain how the existent (physical laws) can interact with the alleged nonexistent (immaterial/abstracts like mathematics) when the two are ontologically discrete.
We know that the minor premise is true given anecdotal evidence. I and God's adherents have informed on our perception of God.
The conclusion is an extension of the premises.
-->
@Athias
the immaterial/abstract can be perceived, ironically as exampled by abstracts like mathematics
How is perceiving mathematics like perceiving God? I think what's confusing me is that we can hold the abstraction of math in our heads, but we can also verify its integrity in the real world. It would seem to me that we can't do the same with the concept of God. Am I missing something?
We know that the minor premise is true given anecdotal evidence.
What anecdotal evidence exists to support the minor premise?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
How is perceiving mathematics like perceiving God?
Non sequitur. I'm not stating that perceiving mathematics is like perceiving God. I'm arguing that atheists conflate God with the abstract/immaterial, thereby using that pretext to allege that God does not exist. Alleging that immaterial/abstract = nonexistent undermines the atheist argument, which is premised on a materialist standard, because physical laws are defined by mathematical proof, which is an abstract.
I think what's confusing me is that we can hold the abstraction of math in our heads, but we can also verify its integrity in the real world.
Let's assume that by "real world," you're referring to your experience "outside" of your head, how do you verify its integrity?
It would seem to me that we can't do the same with the concept of God.
Concept of God? Whose discussing the concept of God? Have we rendered God conceptual in our discussion?
Am I missing something?
Yes. But it would be more instructive once you come to that conclusion on your own after further discussion.
What anecdotal evidence exists to support the minor premise?
We know that the minor premise is true given anecdotal evidence. I and God's adherents have informed on our perception of God.