A Question for Theists...

[Hockeycowboy]

Your spiritual or philosophical "everything we experience/imagine is all a hop, skip and jump away from reality" idea is decidedly not what I meant

Now, you know that’s not what I said, right? I said everything we experience is reality.


“Ex nihilo, nihil fit”. But something is here — many varied and extremely complex things. That’s why the OP question is moot, imo.

Besides, you can’t prove a negative.

 

[Valjean]

let's say the proof is pending

for everyone

the moment you let go your last breath
God and heaven will be there to see what stands from the dust

if no One in Charge is there....no god
you stand into chaos

or you stand not at all....and you follow your body into the ground
eternal darkness is physically real

And if the deceased were confronted by Osiris, holding a balance to weigh his heart?

 

[PureX]

For me, it's kind of easy because of how I answer the question "what is real/existing."

In order for my gods to not exist, they could not be known in any way (by humanity).

I agree. The question is not do they exist, but HOW do they exist, to us? As a moral ideal? As a mythical entity? As an artifact? As a self-help mechanism?

... because conceptual existence is still a form of existence. [/QU)TE]Exactly. "Existence" is a concept.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your question is misdirected.

It's just a question. Unless you're asserting that theists universally would agree with your assertions here?
(Which I would dispute)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Now, you know that’s not what I said, right? I said everything we experience is reality.

Yes, I know what you tried to cast "reality" as. I do. Which is why I corrected you back onto the path I was initially on. What I meant by "reality." You aren't allowed to simply replace my version of reality from my quote with your own and pretend yours trumps mine. Give me a break. The first reply between us that contained the word "reality" was mine. So we are, decidedly, talking about what I meant by "reality." And "everything we experience" is NOT contained within the "reality" I was discussing. "Aspects of reality" that I mentioned are those things that we can verify are fundamental BETWEEN us. This even includes things like your (or my) consciousness - which can be demonstrated. What can't be demonstrated are objects that exist only in your thoughts that amount to no more than imagination at work - or are only as good as that, because they cannot be demonstrated. Those OBJECTS (the SUBJECT of your thought) have no presence in reality... even if YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THEM do. Do you see the difference?

“Ex nihilo, nihil fit”. But something is here — many varied and extremely complex things. That’s why the OP question is moot, imo.

This is a terrible, completely dishonest injection of your ideas/ideals into the OP. You should be ashamed of yourself, truly. The OP says NOTHING about whether or not "something is here" or "nothing is here" or even "the state of nothing may have been possible" - like you very much seem to be implying. The only thing it asks is:

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

Your assertion that "something is here", in response to an OP that makes no claims about that subject, is you, attributing your God with the fact that anything is here at all, before even contemplating the question in the OP! It's ridiculous. It's like your mind can't even entertain the idea that God does not exist - which is an intellectual weakness. Do you think I, as an atheist, can't entertain the notion that God exists? Why... I do it all the time. If you can't do the opposite, then shame on you. You should strive for better. I am being 100% honest. In not doing so, you have proven yourself to have not considered all options. You have proven that your position is based on nothing better than the fact that you are set in your ways. You haven't thought about this... not seriously, and it discredits you in the eyes of people like me to no end.

Besides, you can’t prove a negative.

Friend, we're asking you to prove a positive. You're the one with the "positive" claim in the first place. And as a method of trying to make you see where you are going wrong, the question of whether or not you even have examined exhaustive criteria by which you are even capable of drawing the conclusion you do is important - whether you like it or not.

 

[Left Coast]

Great point, Left Coast.

Which, of course, raises the question of whether we can have a "justified true belief" (i.e. knowledge) that is irrational? That is, can a true belief be justified by non-rational means? For to have a true belief that is unjustified clearly is not knowledge. So, I might say that I know god exists via non-rational means, but unless I can show those means provide justification for my true belief, I really cannot say I KNOW god exists via those means.

Example:

I know god exists because I have "directly apprehended" god.
But the definition of knowledge is "justified true belief".
So, does the direct apprehension of god justify my true belief in god?
(i.e. even if I grant that my belief is true, only if my belief is also justified can I be said to have knowledge. To hold a true belief but not a justified true belief is not called "knowing" -- it is called, "guessing and getting it right".)

The only kind of direct apprehension that would do is something independently verifiable. Otherwise we have no way of telling if our direct apprehension is a hallucination or illusion or something.

 

[Left Coast]

Nothing I would have experienced from God so far would have happened.

What have you experienced from God so far?

 

[Thief]

And if the deceased were confronted by Osiris, holding a balance to weigh his heart?

well then....good luck

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Interesting post, except for.....

You have proven that your position is based on nothing better than the fact that you are set in your ways.

Now, I’m gonna call you on this.

Is that really all you see?

I ‘proved’ that my position is based on (what I feel is) solid conclusions from examining all the evidences, and the cooperation science has discovered between these.

Have a good day.

 

[viole]

My comments are directed not to all epistemologists. My comments are pointed towards the notion that only that exists which mind-senses can know.

Mathematician Godel proved such a notion to be wrong.

How did he prove that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

It's just a question. Unless you're asserting that theists universally would agree with your assertions here?
(Which I would dispute)

I am asserting my opinion: that the question is misdirected. I base that opinion on the idea that theism is a position based on faith, and not on knowledge, or evidence. And that regardless of what some theists believe, and preach, the pretense of knowledge is neither knowledge nor faith. It is just a pretense.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Interesting post, except for.....


Now, I’m gonna call you on this.

Is that really all you see?

I ‘proved’ that my position is based on (what I feel is) solid conclusions from examining all the evidences, and the cooperation science has discovered between these.

Have a good day.

I used more definitive language than I should have, simply because I thought I had already framed the situation up enough for you to understand that IF you are engaged in the types of things I was discussing - meaning you simply CAN'T think about the universe without God - then you have proven that your position is rested upon nothing more than the fact that you are stuck there. That really is a simple fact - even if you are ultimately proven to be correct about everything! Because as it stands, you have no way to demonstrate the truth of any of your claims. No demonstration of God, or God's ties to "nature" or "DNA" or "creation" or "the foundations of logic." You can't show me that link. If you had those things to rest your position on, then it would make sense if you hadn't really thought about "what if that weren't the case." But even then, it is sort of a falling down, intellectually. Because it still traps you into one perspective, and if eventually, you did run into a situation that runs contrary to your blanket-accepted model, you won't know what to do with yourself.

And what I was pointing out was that your initial answer to the OP, and then your language use later in the thread certainly DID seem to impart that exact thing - that you simply can't fathom the universe without God fitting into it somehow. And again, this is an intellectual failing. You may think it is ultimate "loyalty" or you showing "reverence" to God, but it is no more than you towing a line that has been chained to the deepest recesses of your mind. It is no more than total dictatorship-style control over your thought processes. A dictatorship that YOU would be responsible for having installed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I used more definitive language than I should have, simply because I thought I had already framed the situation up enough for you to understand that IF you are engaged in the types of things I was discussing - meaning you simply CAN'T think about the universe without God - then you have proven that your position is rested upon nothing more than the fact that you are stuck there. That really is a simple fact - even if you are ultimately proven to be correct about everything! Because as it stands, you have no way to demonstrate the truth of any of your claims. No demonstration of God, or God's ties to "nature" or "DNA" or "creation" or "the foundations of logic." You can't show me that link. If you had those things to rest your position on, then it would make sense if you hadn't really thought about "what if that weren't the case." But even then, it is sort of a falling down, intellectually. Because it still traps you into one perspective, and if eventually, you did run into a situation that runs contrary to your blanket-accepted model, you won't know what to do with yourself.

And what I was pointing out was that your initial answer to the OP, and then your language use later in the thread certainly DID seem to impart that exact thing - that you simply can't fathom the universe without God fitting into it somehow. And again, this is an intellectual failing. You may think it is ultimate "loyalty" or you showing "reverence" to God, but it is no more than you towing a line that has been chained to the deepest recesses of your mind. It is no more than total dictatorship-style control over your thought processes. A dictatorship that YOU would be responsible for having installed.

Yes, I have “installed” the Scriptures ‘into my psyche’, if you will, because I see, and have experienced, the benefits of living by them. But not always; I was searching in my early years.

BTW, I enjoy your posts...you have an eloquent way about you.

Best wishes.

 

[atanu]

Atanu my friend - you are correct that something may exist that our mind-senses cannot perceive. But if our mind-senses can't perceive it, we have no rational reason to believe such a thing actually does exist even if intellectually we acknowledge it could.

I am not asking you to believe that there are things that mind-senses cannot perceive. I am giving you evidence that when you are in deep sleep you exist without your mind-senses being aware of it.

So, I am asserting that mind-senses cannot even perceive existence of the self under deep sleep state. I am also pointing that ‘natural’ need not be limited to only that which mind-senses can cognise.

 

[Left Coast]

I am not asking you to believe that there are things that mind-senses cannot perceive. I am giving you evidence that when you are in deep sleep you exist without your mind-senses being aware of it.

We've gone over this. The only reason you know you still exist when in deep sleep is because you have experiences via your mind-senses when you wake up. You've observed others sleeping and see that they don't cease to exist during sleep.

So, I am asserting that mind-senses cannot even perceive existence of the self under deep sleep state. I am also pointing that ‘natural’ need not be limited to only that which mind-senses can cognise.

You can't co-opt imperceivable things as part of nature. Sorry, when you go there you enter the realm of the supernatural. You are trying to rationalize belief in a God that you're admitting we can't perceive in any way. We only have our mind-senses to give us information about the world. If you have a belief that is not rooted in observations of your mind-senses, it's not rational.

 

[atanu]

We've gone over this. The only reason you know you still exist when in deep sleep is because you have experiences via your mind-senses when you wake up. You've observed others sleeping and see that they don't cease to exist during sleep.

No. Please try to say what you say from within sleep. We are concerned with 'knowing' power of mind in sleep only.

OTOH, what you say actually implies a linking consciousness that enables knowledge of "I slept blissfully". Else, how does waking mind know?

You can't co-opt imperceivable things as part of nature

I am not co-opting imperceivable things. You are in nature or not? Do you know that you exist in deep sleep?

When mind is not aware of self in deep sleep and when it fights with lions in dreams, how are you 100 % certain that waking state objects are not chimerical too?

For example, Dennett and his followers consider the waking state objects (brain and its various states) as objective truth. But Dennett declares the conscious subject to be an illusion. The funny part is the brain states (that Dennett et al declare to be objective truths) are known employing the very consciousness that Dennett et al declare illusion.

This is not science. This is imposition of a biased philosophical commitment on certain correlation data of behaviour versus brain states and claiming that the correlation is causation.

Where is the competence for cognition in neuronal firing? I pointed out earlier that there are two components in mind. One is rising thoughts. And another is cognition of the thoughts. Is there any causal model that shows how physically measurable events of brain give rise to competence for cognition?

 

[Left Coast]

No. Please try to say what you say from within sleep. We are concerned with 'knowing' power of mind in sleep only.

When I'm unconcious? When I'm unconscious I know nothing. I know things when I wake up.

OTOH, what you say actually implies a linking consciousness that enables knowledge of "I slept blissfully". Else, how does waking mind know?

If I sleep through the night without waking up, and I feel rested upon waking, I would say I slept blissfully. If you fall asleep and never wake up, that's called death. Or coma. Again, everything you know about quality of sleep is a function of mind-sense data.

I am not co-opting imperceivable things. You are in nature or not? Do you know that you exist in deep sleep?

Yes, I do, because of my knowledge of sleep from observing others and others telling me about what happens when I sleep (all mind-sense data). And yes, I'm in nature. A God that is literally definitionally imperceptible is not.

When mind is not aware of self in deep sleep and when it fights with lions in dreams, how are you 100 % certain that waking state objects are not chimerical too?

Independent verification. I can ask you, hey atanu, do you see the lions behind us? If you don't, there's a good chance I'm mis-perceiving.

For example, Dennett and his followers consider the waking state objects (brain and its various states) as objective truth. But Dennett declares the conscious subject to be an illusion. The funny part is the brain states (that Dennett et al declare to be objective truths) are known employing the very consciousness that Dennett et al declare illusion.

This is not science. This is imposition of a biased philosophical commitment on certain correlation data of behaviour versus brain states and claiming that the correlation is causation.

Not here to defend Dennett.

Where is the competence for cognition in neuronal firing? I pointed out earlier that there are two components in mind. One is rising thoughts. And another is cognition of the thoughts. Is there any causal model that shows how physically measurable events of brain give rise to competence for cognition?

You're asking how I know that my happy thoughts can be categorized as a thing we call "happy" in English? Social learning theory and language acquisition are good starts.

 

[Dell]

I like the perspective of the reversing the normal question to Christians "how do you know God exist" to "how would you know God doesn't exist".

Atheist know how God doesn't exist by understanding enough physics to know miracles as recorded in the bible are impossible. The is no such thing as being above the laws of physics. Unless we are living in a simulation.. miracles and spirit beings are physically impossible.

 

[PureX]

I like the perspective of the reversing the normal question to Christians "how do you know God exist" to "how would you know God doesn't exist".

Atheist know how God doesn't exist by understanding enough physics to know miracles as recorded in the bible are impossible.

God is not defined by the biblical mythology. So these atheists are disproving nothing.

 

[night912]

Clarification invited ....

• Sunstone wrote: "I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate."
• Me: If I answer the question privately, which you posed publicly, it seems to me that you are proposing that I debate the subject with myself and keep my results to myself, no?

As for the question which you posed, having been rightly corrected by Hockeycowboy, if my God did not exist, neither would I.

But you haven't nor attempted to answered the question. And you do exist, but your god doesn't exist. So are you saying that you don't know if your god didn't exist? Or don't care?