-->
@3RU7AL
I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,
Not 'usually, but sometimes.
Atheists are hypocrites
Posts
Total:
465
-->
@3RU7AL
Does humes problem of induction not demonstrate empiricism is based on sketchy terms? All of them demonstrate the frailty of empircism.
-->
@Ramshutu
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.
-->
@3RU7AL
" doesn't matter if the phenomenal world is "a simulation" or not
science can still identify reproducible effects
otherwise, we wouldn't be able to engineer machines"
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.
-->
@Lemming
An iPhone can warn you about God as in the case of god sent disasters and plagues.
But God cannot help you with your iPhone.
If you don’t qualify for an iPhone membership, God might be your only hope to communicate wirelessly.
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.
An iPhone would aid you greatly.
I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,Not 'usually, but sometimes.
You can capture those moments on your iPhone if you own one.
Or confess about them in Church is you are a Catholic.
-->
@K_Michael
Just finished the story you recommended, I found it interesting.
Link to stories chapters, if anyone wanted to read the later chapters and found difficulty navigating the them.
I preferred the true ending myself,
And thought the human values in part 4 made a good job in showing an aspect of humans in a different time as dislikable/strange for their differences.
I found the early part encouraging, on encouraging rationality, thought, discussion, before action.
It is interesting to note that J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, was an atheist and a scientist, but culturally Jewish.
-->
@FLRW
It is interesting to note that J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, was an atheist and a scientist, but culturally Jewish.
Point taken, when atheists are Jewish they are infinitely more dangerous.
It might explain why God approached the Jews first and handed them 613 commandment/rules. Which God did not find necessary for other races.
But Israel going nuclear is a contradiction of God’s Will unless it is designed for self annihilation and the end times spoken by Jesus explaining why he was sent .
Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
-->
@Ehyeh
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
-->
@Ehyeh
All of them demonstrate the frailty of empircism.
and yet somehow, magically, we have bridges and automobiles
Yes, we do have bridges and automobiles. Sadly there's an element of faith involved in believing the universe couldn't spontaneously cease or your engine fail on you. Damn this forum be BUSSIN
-->
@3RU7AL
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
You are looking for something that is consistent with masturbation. Was that really Humes problem?
-->
@Ehyeh
I would agree, its necessary to have faith in things.
As I said - it doesn’t need faith. I explained why.
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.
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.
God on the other hand cannot be observed and you cannot interact with him. That’s a clear cut symmetry.
Secondly - 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.
This is, however, a bit of a reducteo ad absurdeum.
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.
If you think our position is an ad-populum fallacy - you don’t understand the position.
The science and metaphysics all breaks down to the single assumption “that reality exists” - that’s it, that’s all that is assumed.
That’s a common assumption for everyone, and anyone making any truth claim about anything.
I mean after all - If our senses and our reality and observations aren’t valid and reality doesn’t exist as we understand it - then this would make the concept of God equally unsupported too.
Your argument here throws your baby out with the bathwater. God largely fails either way you fall on the assumption that reality exists
-->
@Ramshutu
"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."
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.
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.
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?
The science and metaphysics all breaks down to the single assumption “that reality exists” - that’s it, that’s all that is assumed.
True! but what constitutes reality and what constitutes imagination or evil demon spells?
-->
@Ehyeh
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?
Not sure what these two things have to do with each other.
What you're touching on is the concept of absolute certainty, which is really nothing more than a distraction here. Theism and atheism address what we believe. Certainty isn't required in either sense.
As far as God being a logical absurdity, that's just the result of mutually exclusive qualities being asserted at the same time. I have no issue telling you that the God of the bible doesn't exist because he is self refuting. He is asserted to be a perfect being and yet created us wanting us to worship him. The need for worship demonstrates a serious deficiency, which contradicts the idea of him being perfect. Therefore this God cannot exist.
The problem is that any theist can simply tell me the answer is simple; God is not perfect. And just like that, my argument has no application here. This highlights another problem; in order to claim God doesn't exist one must begin with a conception of God. And since every theist has a different conception of god there is no way for any atheist to take a definitive position on whether they all exist. This is why asserting atheism as the belief that no gods exist is useless and the vast majority of atheists understand this. I could tell you that every god concept I've ever thought about definitely doesn't exist. That still does not mean I refute every god concept within theism.
-->
@Double_R
"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"
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.
-->
@Ehyeh
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.
I am not. No one is. No one ever has.
I am saying that our apparent shared perception of and common agreement we have about reality is the only tool we actually have to tell anything.
Saying that our common reality is presented as some absolutely truth is a straw man.
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 shared reality exists in some way, then our observations are valid, and God can be thought of as invalid. If our shared reality doesn’t exist - then everything is invalid - including God.
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?
It’s not about trust. It’s not that we assume ultimate truth in anything - it’s that our senses are all we have; and our broadly shared, common consistent observation of reality, is the only sense we have of it.
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.
True! but what constitutes reality and what constitutes imagination or evil demon spells?
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.
-->
@Double_R
The need for worship demonstrates a serious deficiency, which contradicts the idea of him being perfect.
Simply wanting something isn’t an imperfection, only God can be the judge of that.
-->
@Ramshutu
"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"
I disagree. There will soon be a philosophical revolution in many years to come. Things will become a whole lot more certain one day, its certainly possible if we can tweak kants categories of mind to be analytic a posteriori, then we wouldn't have to rely on logical fallacies to justify our perception of "reality".
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.
I would agree ramshutu, i don't think we can currently be certain of anything beyond ones own existence. This will one day change.
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.
Ha! watch.
-->
@Lemming
Nice
-->
@Ehyeh
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.
This has nothing to do with my post, in fact I'm pretty sure I made clear that this is a complete distraction from the conversation if whether a God exists or if empiricism is accurate.
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.
Again, I went through this already when I pointed out that all one needs to do is change the requirement by redefining what perfect means. You responded by redefining what perfect means.
Feel free to read my post again and address the points I made.
-->
@Tarik
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, in which case what you say no longer carries any weight.
-->
@Double_R
Well no, you claimed you can show the biblical god or some gods as wrong based on contradictions if they're said to be perfect. Forgive me if i misunderstood.
-->
@Double_R
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.
Maybe if your judging on the standard of the average person but God isn’t an average person.
Without said deficiency, none of this would have been necessary
Who said it was necessary? This was solely His choice, He could’ve chose different if He wanted to.
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
But we’re not discussing opinions now are we? We’re discussing perfection which is completely out of both of our leagues.
-->
@Ehyeh
I did, but then I went on to explain how this shows us that refuting god's existence requires us to start with a clearly defined example, and since everyone will define him differently there is no way any one person can conceive of let alone take a position on the existence of every god proposed.
The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say god is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are. This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
99.9 % of the prisoners in the U.S. federal prison system believe in a God. 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.
-->
@FLRW
and theism is the reason itself why they're criminals? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/
Why is it that the best scientists and the most well known seem to be more likely to be theist? Considering the fact over 90% of scientists don't believe in God. 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?
-->
@Ehyeh
You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are.
how does this relate to the topic at hand ?
-->
@3RU7AL
Its a response to the fact that we base what is empirical based on shared experience (to confirm) yet this is based on shaky foundations if people cant be proven to even be self-conscious.
-->
@Ehyeh
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?
pantheism CONTRADICTS the existence of the christian god (as well as any other gods and or goddesses with human characteristics)