-->
@3RU7AL
I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,
Not 'usually, but sometimes.
I believe that the concept of God, believing in God 'can help with an iPhone,Take individuals who suffer from cyberbullying,Many individuals by God and religion,Are able to discover game theories, that aid in durability of character and understanding,As well as their faith placed, will endure in understanding or strength standing.Though not believing in God myself,I prefer 'my apparent truth of atheism,And find what tools from it and elsewhere, that aid me.
I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,Not 'usually, but sometimes.
It is interesting to note that J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, was an atheist and a scientist, but culturally Jewish.
We don't know if we can reproduce an effect until we do it, and based on humes problem of induction if we do it again we wont know for certain if it will work that time until its done.
All of them demonstrate the frailty of empircism.
We don't know if we can reproduce an effect until we do it, and based on humes problem of induction if we do it again we wont know for certain if it will work that time until its done.confidence in reproducibility is quantifiable in units of sigma
I would agree, its necessary to have faith in things.
I just don't see much of a clear symmetry breaker between a belief in other people existing and God except through direct sensory perception, which in itself isn't provable to be reliable.
I opened up this forum as a critique of atheists who think the idea of god is ridiculous to show they're hypocrites. Its such a shame that all of science and metaphysics gets broken down to an ad populum fallacy. A logical fallacy is your greatest proof to believe things and not others.
"The symmetry breaker is that you observe and can interact with people. Their existence is not in question - only the nature of what they are, whether they are real or NPCs in a simulation or something else."
the only mechanism we have of telling anything - is our perception - we have nothing else. So yeah - If you take away the only mechanism we have of telling anything at all we can’t tell anything at all.
The science and metaphysics all breaks down to the single assumption “that reality exists” - that’s it, that’s all that is assumed.
If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity?
"If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity"
You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are. On top of that i cant imagine you can prove other people to be more than figments of your imagination. Think of Descartes's evil demon. Even if it is a symmetry breaker of sorts, if they turn out to simply be figments of imagination and simply agreeing with you evil demon style, how can you then appeal the shared perception and agreement as valid truth belief? it still seems like you rely on the ad populum fallacy for faith in the belief of many things.
We don't necessarily have to take perception away, i simply want to know how we can trust our perception, which senses can be trusted and which ones cannot, when and where?
True! but what constitutes reality and what constitutes imagination or evil demon spells?
The need for worship demonstrates a serious deficiency, which contradicts the idea of him being perfect.
"As I said - it’s a shared assumption - if you’re calling into question that our reality exists then it’s not possible to make any claims about anything - God included"
If our collective perceptions of our reality are false - in some way, then that precludes has making any claims about anything - including God - as we don’t have anything else.
The framing of your questions presume the answer is knowable. If there is no actual way to tell between imagination, and evil demon spells, or people - then the truth is unknowable.
The point of this sentence is simply a hint at the fact there isn't any certainty to the fact of an outside world. It acts as a hint at empiricism not being as robust as people think in their day to day idling.
world "perfect" at least when it comes to character/behaviour implies moral conduct. To say god cannot be perfect for wanting to be worshipped, i would consider unjustified if its a moral argument. As i imagine you're incapable of proving what something would need to be like to be morally perfect without appealing to a subjective moral code/emotions.
Simply wanting something isn’t an imperfection, only God can be the judge of that.
A desire to be worshipped, and to act on that desire by creating an entire species and then instructing them to do so, demonstrates a serious deficiency.
Without said deficiency, none of this would have been necessary
To claim only god can judge it is to claim that you are not capable or perhaps not allowed to think for yourself and form you're own opinions
You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are.
Einstein did, carl Sagan did. Many of the greatest philosophers did. Why does theism (especially pantheism) become very common among the greatest intellects (the top 1% of the 1%) of the planet?