Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
26 online now:
Heathen, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why try to disprove people's beliefs?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 16 of 72 (457510)
02-23-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
02-23-2008 8:15 PM


That is exactly what they do. And once they do, they set about pointing to things they suppose to be real in ordre to demonstrate the reality (they suppose to be real) is real.

Perhaps you could quote me an actual example of whatever it is you're talking about?

I can assure you that this practice cannot be common amongst those who disagree with you, or I should have observed it at least once.

I, certainly, do not behave or reason in any way like the "materialists" that you describe. But perhaps you do not consider me a "materialist"?

I don't need one. The objection has been driven to stalemate.

That is a non sequitur unless you believe that "driving an objection to stalemate", whatever that means, is an excuse for sloppy thinking on your part.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 02-23-2008 8:15 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 4:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 17 of 72 (457511)
02-23-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
02-23-2008 7:39 PM


Thanks for clarifying my point Chiroptera! That is, indeed, what I meant.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 02-23-2008 7:39 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 18 of 72 (457514)
02-23-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
02-23-2008 7:51 PM


"How do you know that you are not a character in some alien kids Playstation game" is the equivilent & opposite I tend to use. If a materialist can simply suppose that what he perceives as reality is reality then there is no reason I can think of why I can't do the same.

How is that the opposite? Asking me to prove that I am not a pawn in some alien kid's video game is the same as asking me to prove that I am not a pawn in some deity's "plan for Earth."

I can do neither one, however, I see no evidence for either one and so, for the sake of parsimony, I choose not to add invisible (or otherwise unseen) entities into the equation.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 02-23-2008 7:51 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 19 of 72 (457519)
02-23-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
02-23-2008 7:34 PM


Schism Ahoy!
CK writes:

Thankfully we've got the CofE pretty much beat.

Actually, I think they're doing a bang up job of beating up on themselves. I couldn't hope to achieve so much.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-23-2008 7:34 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1036 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 72 (457523)
02-23-2008 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
02-23-2008 8:15 PM


iano writes:

Dr Adequate writes:

And if it is pointed out to you that "materialists" do not "simply suppose that what they perceive as reality is reality"

That is exactly what they do. And once they do, they set about pointing to things they suppose to be real in order to demonstrate the reality (they suppose to be real) is real.

But, materialists have to subject their perceptions to testing. Theists do not. A person is allowed to hold whatever beliefs he/she/it wishes, and doesn't have to subject them to anyone's perception of reality. Not even their own.

Materialists have to abandon their beliefs when their worldview (materialism) works against them. Supernaturalists can just ignore whatever evidence they want.

iano writes:

Dr A writes:

..."he does it too" is not a justification for sloppy thinking, what's your second-best excuse?

I don't need one. The objection has been driven to stalemate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Materialists provide at least some kind of evidence to support their views. You don't.

Materialists can't drive objections to stalemate: we have to work it to its conclusion. In fact, that's part of the reason why we have debates. We're not trying to "disprove beliefs" (as this forum asks) but are trying to find the truth by debating each other's observations.


Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 02-23-2008 8:15 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 8:43 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 72 (457561)
02-24-2008 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ChristianJuggalo
02-23-2008 6:03 PM


Why do some atheists try to disprove God?

Because they are too thick to realise that this is impossible to do.

Why do some Christians try to prove God?

Because they are too thick to realise that this is impossible to do.

While there are very few atheists that try to disprove God, since it is not part of our faith to do so, there are a huge number of Christians who are too thick to realise that it is impossible to prove that there is a God.

Atheists have more important things to do with their time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ChristianJuggalo, posted 02-23-2008 6:03 PM ChristianJuggalo has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 22 of 72 (457562)
02-24-2008 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
02-23-2008 8:56 PM


iano writes:

That is exactly what they do. And once they do, they set about pointing to things they suppose to be real in ordre to demonstrate the reality (they suppose to be real) is real.

The materialist starts out like anyone else. They assume their perception of reality is real. For example, they presume those around them are real. They presume the scientific instruments they use to verify things about reality are real.

This base assumption, "what I perceive to be real is real" is not testable. Which renders all "tests" connected to it assumed too.

Remember that I am merely responding to the "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" objection. My answer is that I assume my perception of reality is an accurate one. Not testable perhaps but hey! aren't we all in the same boat?

That is a non sequitur unless you believe that "driving an objection to stalemate", whatever that means, is an excuse for sloppy thinking on your part.

See conclusion above. The objector sails in the same boat as me. That's what I mean by stalemating an objection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2008 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jaderis, posted 02-24-2008 6:37 AM iano has responded
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2008 7:45 AM iano has responded
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-24-2008 2:23 PM iano has responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 23 of 72 (457567)
02-24-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
02-24-2008 4:56 AM


The materialist starts out like anyone else. They assume their perception of reality is real. For example, they presume those around them are real. They presume the scientific instruments they use to verify things about reality are real.

Of course. How else could we "assume" that the IV pump used to deliver medicine/fluids would work? How else would we "assume" that the aspirin used to ease your headache would work? How else would we "assume" that the computer you are using to communicate with us works?

This base assumption, "what I perceive to be real is real" is not testable. Which renders all "tests" connected to it assumed too.

Of course it is testable. Whatever made you think otherwise?

And if the perceptions are testable and repeatable, what makes you think that everyone that conducts or views such tests aren't operating under verifiable "reality?"

Remember that I am merely responding to the "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" objection. My answer is that I assume my perception of reality is an accurate one. Not testable perhaps but hey! aren't we all in the same boat?

Why should he "remember" that you are responding to my question when you didn't respond to my question?

However, no, we are not in the same boat. My perceptions of reality are testable. Yours are not.

You not only have to test and show that there is some supernatural element to the reality we (most of us) see, but you also have to show that this supernatural element has something to do with the Christian God and not Shiva or Ra or Nesaru or Mara or just some spiritual energy that no one can define or explain.

The objector sails in the same boat as me. That's what I mean by stalemating an objection.

How does the objector "sail in the same boat?" Because neither of us have evidence?

That is a silly argument. I know you have heard this a hundred times before, but I have no evidence that shows that a leprechaun is dancing around my feet demanding that I type these words to you. Can you disprove it? No. You can only say that you see no evidence for the crazy leprechaun and so you can only attribute my words to me. Why shouldn't I get away with pawning my words onto some invisible little green guy?

Or does your God deserve more respect than my Leprechaun?

(Sorry...I had a vision of my uncle showing me a little green door in a tree and telling me a leprechaun lived there...it has nothing to do with you or I being Irish)

I don't need evidence for your god. My world operates just fine without woo explanations. You are the one that needs to show that your goddidit. If you can show it, then show it. If not, my world still goes on like it ever did.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 4:56 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 2:08 PM Jaderis has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 24 of 72 (457579)
02-24-2008 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
02-24-2008 4:56 AM


In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Hi Iano,

You are making a logical error in assuming that a materialist's assumption that reality is real has any equivalence to your presumption that God exists.
Let us assume that we are indeed merely characters in some alien child's computer game (although I can't imagine what an enjoyment an alien child would get from playing out my life. Maybe he really enjoys watching me type). We would have no choice but to assume that what we experience is real, because it seems internally consistent. Assuming reality seems to work and we have no "in-universe" reason to suspect that it is not.
But what happens if we try to consider the reality of the child playing the game? We have no way of perceiving the "out-of-universe" child. We can say nothing about him, her or it. We can only speculate. Were I to say "I believe that the alien child has green eyes." it would be ridiculous in the extreme. I have no way of knowing and indeed, no way of perceiving anything that even seems real about the child.
You are in exactly the same position with regards to gods. Your god is just like the alien child of your example. We can't know with any certainty whether he exists or not. The best that we can say is that we have no evidence. You have only the same "in-universe" reality as everybody else, yet you choose to go beyond the limits of what seems to be real and start speculating upon theoretical "out-of-universe" entities and simply assuming that they exist, without even the appearance of reality to guide you.
A materialist would stick to only what can be perceived. Even if the assumption of reality is in error, it is the only useful assumption to make. "Is reality really real?" is a pointless question to ask. Speculating about whether or not reality is real is a waste of everybody's time.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 4:56 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 1:25 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 72 (457614)
02-24-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Granny Magda
02-24-2008 7:45 AM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Granny Magda writes:

Let us assume that we are indeed merely characters in some alien child's computer game (although I can't imagine what an enjoyment an alien child would get from playing out my life. Maybe he really enjoys watching me type). We would have no choice but to assume that what we experience is real, because it seems internally consistent.

I agree

Assuming reality seems to work and we have no "in-universe" reason to suspect that it is not.

I agree.

But what happens if we try to consider the reality of the child playing the game? We have no way of perceiving the "out-of-universe" child. We can say nothing about him, her or it. We can only speculate. Were I to say "I believe that the alien child has green eyes." it would be ridiculous in the extreme. I have no way of knowing and indeed, no way of perceiving anything that even seems real about the child.

I agree. This because the child is ex-universe

You are in exactly the same position with regards to gods. Your god is just like the alien child of your example. We can't know with any certainty whether he exists or not. The best that we can say is that we have no evidence.

You can speak with certainty only about yourself and those who share your reality. God is in-universe for me and many like me. And we have no reason to suspect he is not in universe.

There is as little point in posing "how do you know it's not Shiva /delusion / wishful thinking... instead of God" questions at me as there is me posing "alien playstation" questions to you.

You have only the same "in-universe" reality as everybody else, yet you choose to go beyond the limits of what seems to be real and start speculating upon theoretical "out-of-universe" entities and simply assuming that they exist, without even the appearance of reality to guide you.

By what means do you suppose I have the same "in-universe" reality as everyone else? I don't speculate as to God's existance. I know he does exist as surely as I know this computer screen sits on front of me.

A materialist would stick to only what can be perceived. Even if the assumption of reality is in error, it is the only useful assumption to make. "Is reality really real?" is a pointless question to ask. Speculating about whether or not reality is real is a waste of everybody's time.

I agree. I do as the materialist does: I stick only to what I perceive as reality. Yet I get asked "how do you know the reality you perceive is real". The simple answer is I don't (in an absolute sense). No more than anyone knows they are not a character in a playstation game - in an absolute sense.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2008 7:45 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2008 3:22 PM iano has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 26 of 72 (457618)
02-24-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jaderis
02-24-2008 6:37 AM


iano writes:

This base assumption, "what I perceive to be real is real" is not testable. Which renders all "tests" connected to it assumed too.

Jaderis writes:

Of course it is testable. Whatever made you think otherwise?

What test would you apply? Note: assuming some implement real so that you can utilise it in a test for the reality of something else ends in an assumption of reality.

And if the perceptions are testable and repeatable, what makes you think that everyone that conducts or views such tests aren't operating under verifiable "reality?"

Your running ahead of yourself here. "Everyone" and "everything" are perceived by you to exist. You trust that this perception is real but cannot test that it is real in anyway. For all you know it you are a brain in a jar.

There is no point in supposing this to be the case of course. No more that there is for me to suppose my own perception of reality is anything but real.

You not only have to test and show that there is some supernatural element to the reality we (most of us) see, but you also have to show that this supernatural element has something to do with the Christian God and not Shiva or Ra or Nesaru or Mara or just some spiritual energy that no one can define or explain.

Neither of us can test core aspects of reality. We just perceive and decide to trust our perception or not.

How does the objector "sail in the same boat?" Because neither of us have evidence? That is a silly argument.

View it as you will - it doesn't alter the case. I am as confined to trusting what I perceive to be the case as you are and am telling it like it is for me. God is as real as real can be.

Or does your God deserve more respect than my Leprechaun?

The point was to neutralise your objection - not to add more weight to the case for God vs Leprechaun

I don't need evidence for your god. My world operates just fine without woo explanations. You are the one that needs to show that your goddidit. If you can show it, then show it. If not, my world still goes on like it ever did.

The only evidence worth anything to you would be God turning up in your reality too. So I don't try to show Goddidit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jaderis, posted 02-24-2008 6:37 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Jaderis, posted 03-01-2008 1:58 AM iano has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 669 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 27 of 72 (457622)
02-24-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
02-24-2008 4:56 AM


iano writes:

The materialist starts out like anyone else. They assume their perception of reality is real. For example, they presume those around them are real. They presume the scientific instruments they use to verify things about reality are real.

This base assumption, "what I perceive to be real is real" is not testable. Which renders all "tests" connected to it assumed too.

Remember that I am merely responding to the "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" objection. My answer is that I assume my perception of reality is an accurate one. Not testable perhaps but hey! aren't we all in the same boat?

So, perhaps it is impertinent of me to ask for some more "personal" detail on this, but am I correct to assume that you are talking here about something like the Hindu concept of "maya" -- that all physical sensation is illusion, that our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin and internal organs including the brain (which are themselves all illusory, obviously) are merely purveyors of insubstantial and irrelevant perceptions, that there is no tenable definition, in terms of anything physical, for the concept of "reality"?

Yeah, that's clearly the maximally astute/unassailable/satisfying perspective -- bravo! But then, why are you sitting at a keyboard in front of a monitor? Or are you? Okay, maybe you aren't -- in any case, I guess we should all be grateful that you could take time out from your normal schedule of fasting in the wilderness and staring directly at the sun all day. You do that too, don't you? It's the only sensible activity to go along with this sort of world view. (LOL! -- I mean, if pure solipsism is the game, let's really have some fun with that, eh? Play it to the hilt, dude!)


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 4:56 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 2:31 PM Otto Tellick has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 28 of 72 (457623)
02-24-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Otto Tellick
02-24-2008 2:23 PM


The aim of huffing and puffing is to blow the house down Otto.

:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-24-2008 2:23 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-24-2008 2:58 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 669 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 29 of 72 (457625)
02-24-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by iano
02-24-2008 2:31 PM


iano writes:

The aim of huffing and puffing is to blow the house down Otto.

I hear ya, iano, and I get it. But wait... what house? The house is an illusion, ain't it?

And all the money spent on keeping it warm all year -- total illusion. (I never even see that money! If only the tax collectors would believe me, but wouldn't you know, they're not in the same reality as me! What can a devout solipsist do?)

:) back atcha.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 2:31 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 30 of 72 (457629)
02-24-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
02-24-2008 1:25 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Iano writes:

You can speak with certainty only about yourself and those who share your reality. God is in-universe for me and many like me. And we have no reason to suspect he is not in universe.

...and no reason to believe that he does. If he is in-universe, and we can "speak with certainty about those who share your reality", why is it not possible to proves that God exists? How do you know that he is even in-universe at all?
When materialists make assumptions that reality is real, they do so on the basis of evidence, because evidence for the reality of existence is widespread beyond ubiquity, and is consistently observed. We assume the "alien child" is not real, because we cannot know about out-of-universe entities.
When you assume that God is real, you are making an entirely different category of assumption, i.e. that you can know that God exists in-universe, on the basis of what might charitably be called extremely weak and inconsistent evidence. If God is in-universe, we should judge the likelihood of his existing by the same means by which we judge the reality of other in-universe entities, such as bears, sofas, neutron stars, etc., that is to say, by means of empirical observation. Your imaginary friend fails that test. Thus, you are committing to one extra unprovable belief as compared to our materialist.

There is as little point in posing "how do you know it's not Shiva /delusion / wishful thinking... instead of God" questions at me as there is me posing "alien playstation" questions to you.

Actually, I would thank you for not portraying me as being as closed minded as you are. If you can provide convincing evidence that God exists, I'm listening.

By what means do you suppose I have the same "in-universe" reality as everyone else?

Parsimony, as well as the uselessness of contemplating any other possibility, as any kind of ultimate answer to such speculation is unknowable. Enough with this already. Solipsism is juvenile and a waste of time.

I don't speculate as to God's existance. I know he does exist as surely as I know this computer screen sits on front of me.

Yes you do and no, you don't. You only think God exists. A lunatic who thinks he is Napoleon may say that he "knows" he is Napoleon. The only differences between his delusion and yours is that yours is more common and less imaginative.

I get asked "how do you know the reality you perceive is real". The simple answer is I don't (in an absolute sense). No more than anyone knows they are not a character in a playstation game - in an absolute sense.

Nice way to contradict yourself Iano.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 1:25 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 7:36 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019