Negative Belief and Proof

[Fool]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

 

[The Hammer]

Via negativa? Apophatic theology?

 

[Fool]

Via negative? Apophatic theology?

no, looking more how belief motivates/deters the seeker based on how their belief is positive/negative.

people don't seek something that holds no value for them. it's a risk/reward behavior. some will hold on to their beliefs, both positive/negative and realize a reward, or reality of their belief. some will not but might later be realized by another.

 

[Link]

I've gone both ways. Sought to prove Islam wrong, and sought to prove Islam right, and there came a time when the battle between the two notions in my mind would be at so much so I would wake up one way and sleep the other way and this went on with me tormenting myself between the two views.

I also sought to disprove and prove God.

May God help all truth seekers find it.

 

[Heyo]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

It's called "the scientific method". Make a hypothesis then do your best to disprove it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's called "the scientific method". Make a hypothesis then do your best to disprove it.

Do your best to disprove it? I don't think that's the scientific method. Nothing here about "do[ing] your best to disprove."

 

[Aupmanyav]

would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

No.

 

[The Hammer]

Sought to prove Islam wrong, and sought to prove Islam right

I also sought to disprove and prove God.

Neither of these are necessary for true belief and peace, friend. Serenity can be found within.

 

[F1fan]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

Why would they care? I don't believe Santa Claus exists, why would I bother to rove Santa doesn't exist?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?

Spiritual frauds reject science. If they reject science and facts then they aren't much of a spiritualist. They are certain types of anti-science dogmatist.

Spiritual people are rooted in a foundation of truth, and they will accept facts and science.

would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

No, consciousness is a function of living brains. Why pretend it is something else? It's not truth.

 

[Nakosis]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

Sure, fundamental to critical thinking.
Continue to question that which you accept and that which you don't accept. How else would we be able to self correct?

 

[Nakosis]

Do your best to disprove it? I don't think that's the scientific method. Nothing here about "do[ing] your best to disprove."

Actually, to be through, it would be part of the testing. Scientists often go about trying to disprove each others hypothesis. Of course the individual "scientist" may have a bias to support their own hypothesis. That's why peer review is an important part of science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Do your best to disprove it? I don't think that's the scientific method. Nothing here about "do[ing] your best to disprove."

It's how a hypothesis eventually gets elevated to the status of a theory. When science proposes a hypothesis the next step is to find ways to test the hypothesis, that is to try and find ways to disprove it. If the hypothesis fails the test, it is disproven and can be discarded. If the hypothesis passes the test then that becomes evidence to support the hypothesis. Then they try and find a new way to test the hypothesis. The more different tests the hypothesis passes, the more evidence there is to support it. If after relentless testing a hypothesis fails to be disproven then the hypothesis can eventually attain the status of a scientific theory. Which then becomes the working model for whatever phenomenon is being investigated.

So the scientific method is indeed a process of trying to disprove claims.

 

[PureX]

It's easy to prove something doesn't exist if that something is clearly defined, and the parameters of it's existence can be defined and ascertained. We can prove, for example, that there are no live unicorns in our basement because we can clearly recognize and define the object, as well as the parameters of it's existing.

But without being able to do this, proving non-existence is not possible. Lack of existential evidence is meaningless unless it can be reasoned that such evidence would be recognizable and available.

 

[F1fan]

It's easy to prove something doesn't exist if that something is clearly defined, and the parameters of it's existence can be defined and ascertained. We can prove, for example, that there are no live unicorns in our basement because we can clearly recognize and define the object, as well as the parameters of it's existing.

But without being able to do this, proving non-existence is not possible. Lack of existential evidence is meaningless unless it can be reasoned that such evidence would be recognizable and available.

This is why theists are learning to be more vague about what they believe about God. The more they express what they believe the more it can be examined and assessed for truth. Theists know this. And it is interesting how this doesn't affect why they believe. That sort of doubt would lead to less conviction to a rational mind.

 

[PureX]

This is why theists are learning to be more vague about what they believe about God.

God IS a very "vague" concept. So from that perspective, they are just becoming more honest about it, and less enthralled with past fictional characterizations.

The more they express what they believe the more it can be examined and assessed for truth.

I'm hoping that someday they will be able to let go of their "belief" all together, and rely on their faith, instead. "Belief", from my perspective, is just egotism.

 

[F1fan]

God IS a very "vague" concept.

God is a large set of concepts, some very well described and others vague. The modern Christian is being more vague and less willing to even use the Bible as a source for what they claim is a God existing.

So from that perspective, they are just becoming more honest about it, and less enthralled with past fictional characterizations.

Honest? No. They are being protective and cautious. Even you often insist a God exists, and that atheists are wrong, or deluded, or don't get it, yet you are incapable of offering any evidence, nor a coherent explanation of the evidence that a rational mind finds convincing.

I'm hoping that someday they will be able to let go of their "belief" all together, and rely on their faith, instead. "Belief", from my perspective, is just egotism.

Faith is self-justified, irrational belief. It's nothing to advice as an advantage or good approach.

 

[Willamena]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

The thing is, belief is... well, a belief. It doesn't require proof, per se, just evidence. If the question is how one would go about proving that something doesn't exist, they need nothing more than sufficient evidence.

Beliefs can be struck down by the introduction of new, contrary information in a manner and form that they believe it. Evidence. There is hope for everybody to gain enough interest, to be motivated enough, to adopt evidence as sufficient. Materialism is one that is foundational because it touches on the nature of the world, but it can (and has) been struck down in many people by new, contrary information that they believed.

 

[PureX]

God is a large set of concepts, some very well described and others vague. The modern Christian is being more vague and less willing to even use the Bible as a source for what they claim is a God existing.

That's because they are letting go of traditional dictatorial "belief" and adopting a more open, faith-based concept of God. I think this is a good thing, because I think it's more honest and less 'superstitious' (fear driven).

Honest? No. They are being protective and cautious.

Oh, you're just upset because you can't so easily attack their faith as you did their fictionalized "belief". Faith isn't based on traditional belief (presumption). It's based on hope and the results of the act of hoping. There's nothing there for you to attack in that because there's nothing universally true about it.

Even you often insist a God exists, and that atheists are wrong, or deluded, or don't get it, yet you are incapable of offering any evidence, nor a coherent explanation of the evidence that a rational mind finds convincing.

Wow! You are 'off the mark' in about three different ways in just this one sentence.

1. God exists. That is self-evident. The more appropriate question is, 'what is God?' and in what ways can this God be said to exist? Clearly it exists as an idea that we all are able to grasp with enough universality for us to feel as if we are communicating with and amongst each other. So instead of attacking the endless individualized specifics of the idea, let's look at the collective universality of the idea. I would posit that as being: "the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". As whatever else one might choose to think God is, this general description will most likely apply to the vast majority of human god-concepts.

2. Atheists are only "wrong, deluded, and confused" to the extent that they keep imagining and insisting that there be some sort of "evidence" that they could be made aware of, would recognize, and then appreciate enough to convince them that "God exists". And of course there is no such evidence, nor is any such evidence needed. That "God exists" is self-evident. Nothing more is required. And nothing more is available. SO STOP INSISTING YOU BE GIVEN MORE! It doesn't exist, and it's not necessary, anyway. What you really want to know is 'what is God?' And in what way does God "exist"? And when you start asking THOSE questions, you will quickly realize that none of us knows the answers. All we can do is imagine the answers that we would like to be true, and live as if. And then see what comes of it.

That's called faith.

Faith is self-justified, irrational belief. It's nothing to advice as an advantage or good approach.

No, it's not. But you aren't going to let go of that definition because if you did, you'd have nothing left to condemn. Which brings us to:

3. Atheism is a giant waste of time and energy that gains humanity nothing at all. It's just the negation of a possibility for negation's sake.

 

[F1fan]

The thing is, belief is... well, a belief. It doesn't require proof, per se, just evidence.

What do you mean by "proof"? Evidence is facts, data, or a line of connecting circumstances that allow a person a justification to decide a proposition is possibly true, or likely true, or fairly certain.

Beliefs can be struck down by the introduction of new, contrary information in a manner and form that they believe it. Evidence. There is hope for everybody to gain enough interest, to be motivated enough, to adopt evidence as sufficient. Materialism is one that is foundational because it touches on the nature of the world, but it can (and has) been struck down in many people by new, contrary information that they believed.

There are people who believe in all sorts of untrue things, so their belief may be completely baseless and even implausible. They believe bad implausible ideas for non-rational reasons, and as such they are not able to reconsider their poor judgment.

 

[F1fan]

That's because they are letting go of traditional dictatorial "belief" and adopting a more open, faith-based concept of God. I think this is a good thing, because I think it's more honest and less 'superstitious' (fear driven).

Faith is unreliable and should not be promoted. And religious belief IS superstitious. You're trying to down sell the very thing that motivated believers.

Oh, you're just upset because you can't so easily attack their faith as you did their fictionalized "belief". Faith isn't based on traditional belief (presumption). It's based on hope and the results of the act of hoping. There's nothing there for you to attack in that because there's nothing universally true about it.

Regardless how you try to frame and redefine faith it is still just an emotional approach to ideas that are not rational. It is self-justified, irrational belief.

Wow! You are 'off the mark' in about three different ways in just this one sentence.

1. God exists. That is self-evident.

Really, prove it. You can't. This is an arrogant claim that you know you can't defend.

The more appropriate question is, 'what is God?' and in what ways can this God be said to exist? Clearly it exists as an idea that we all are able to grasp with enough universality for us to feel as if we are communicating with and amongst each other. So instead of attacking the endless individualized specifics of the idea, let's look at the collective universality of the idea. I would posit that as being: "the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". As whatever else one might choose to think God is, this general description will most likely apply to the vast majority of human god-concepts.

No facts here. Just fiction.

2. Atheists are only "wrong, deluded, and confused" to the extent that they keep imagining and insisting that there be some sort of "evidence" that they could be made aware of, would recognize, and then appreciate enough to convince them that "God exists".

Then if there is none of this how can you arrogantly claim "God exists."?

And of course there is no such evidence, nor is any such evidence needed. That "God exists" is self-evident. Nothing more is required. And nothing more is available. SO STOP INSISTING YOU BE GIVEN MORE! It doesn't exist, and it's not necessary, anyway. What you really want to know is 'what is God?' And in what way does God "exist"? And when you start asking THOSE questions, you will quickly realize that none of us knows the answers. All we can do is imagine the answers that we would like to be true, and live as if. And then see what comes of it.

Yet you can't demonstrate how any god is self-evidence. You just make the claim. You offer no explanation or facts. So we throw it out.

That's called faith.
No, it's not. But you aren't going to let go of that definition because if you did, you'd have nothing left to condemn. Which brings us to:

3. Atheism is a giant waste of time and energy that gains humanity nothing at all. It's just the negation of a possibility for negation's sake.

So not being a theist is a waste of time? How is not believing some set of absurd and implausible ideas a waste of time? You're only showing your disdain and intolerance for freedom of thought and reason, and that is the liability of your religious belief.