So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[ddarko]

Ever read this?

A Brain in a Vat

Good article. I hadn’t read this before either. Thanks for sharing this

God Bless

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Good article. I hadn’t read this before either. Thanks for sharing this

God Bless

It’s a classic, and the source of many, MANY, SF stories… the Matrix is a particularly faithful rendering of the idea!

All very Cartesian!

 

[davidv]

I agree that the scientific method is not the sole avenue to knowledge – I don’t need to employ “the scientific method” to know that I’m happy, for example – but when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads.

Why?

If your claim is that another “reality” exists, we would expect to see evidence of it.

As far a I know, there is only one reality and truth is what corresponds to this reality. What is this other reality?

If your “evidence” is nothing but your intuition, then you’ve really got nothing to go on.

Who said it is based on intuition? Sounds like a poorly constructed strawman.

 

[AntiTheist]

Why?

Because if I claim that something is true about the world outside of my head – hang on to your hat – I would expect to find evidence outside of my head to confirm it.

If I cannot find sufficient evidence, my claim is suddenly in question.

As far a I know, there is only one reality and truth is what corresponds to this reality. What is this other reality?

I don’t think there is another reality – some folks seem to think that there’s some other “realer” reality and that this reality is the Matrix. I don’t see any reason to think this.

Who said it is based on intuition? Sounds like a poorly constructed strawman.

I’ve heard theists say about their god claims “I just know” or “I just know that I know” or “I feel god in my heart” or a variety of other versions which suggest that they are using their precious little feelings to defend a claim about the world outside of their heads.

If, however, you think that you actually have sufficient evidence for your god, let’s discuss it.

 

[ddarko]

Because if I claim that something is true about the world outside of my head – hang on to your hat – I would expect to find evidence outside of my head to confirm it.

If I cannot find sufficient evidence, my claim is suddenly in question.

So how does the claim "if I claim that something is true about the world outside of my head – hang on to your hat – I would expect to find evidence outside of my head to confirm it." backed? Do you have EVIDENCE of this matter? I am just baffled at how you can not see this simple fact.

I don’t think there is another reality – some folks seem to think that there’s some other “realer” reality and that this reality is the Matrix. I don’t see any reason to think this.

lol whats up with you and Matrix really haha? That was just a movie. Get over it lol.

I am asking you how you even know the world you are in is real. Forget about ‘other worlds’ being real. The point I am trying to make is that you believe by FAITH or in other words, without evidence that the world you live in is REAL. Yet you make fun of people for having faith. You are being quiet the hypocrite.

I’ve heard theists say about their god claims “I just know” or “I just know that I know” or “I feel god in my heart” or a variety of other versions which suggest that they are using their precious little feelings to defend a claim about the world outside of their heads.

If, however, you think that you actually have sufficient evidence for your god, let’s discuss it.

lol so how do you so stubbornly believe without evidence that

"if I claim that something is true about the world outside of my head – hang on to your hat – I would expect to find evidence outside of my head to confirm it."

Do you have evidence to PROVE that its true ? Is it not true that you simply accept this to be TRUE without evidence?

Even better, do you have EVIDENCE to prove that there is even a need for the above claim? Why should we care about whats real as opposed to anything that makes us happy?

So in short, your mind is blocking you from seeing the simple truth that you yourself by FAITH take certain things to be true. But due to some inherent reason within you, you are willing to overlook it and condemn other people who have FAITH.

Btw, you have not yet answered a single one of my questions properly so please have the courtesy to reply to those as well.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

So how does the claim "if I claim that something is true about the world outside of my head – hang on to your hat – I would expect to find evidence outside of my head to confirm it." backed? Do you have EVIDENCE of this matter?

Yes. The entire history of human beings investigating claims confirms it to be true.

Now a question for you: do you understand the difference between a necessary assumption and the premise of a deductive argument? Please explain the difference in your own words.

 

[ddarko]

Yes. The entire history of human beings investigating claims confirms it to be true.

lol how? How can you confirm what you presuppose? This is circular logic. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS!!!?!

Now a question for you: do you understand the difference between a necessary assumption and the premise of a deductive argument? Please explain the difference in your own words.

Haha necessary assumption? There are no necessities if you have NO FAITH to begin with. What is a necessity if you DON’T presuppose there is a necessity to begin with? Do you see my point?

Premises of a deductive argument could be TRUE or FALSE. The validity of the conclusion of the argument hinges upon the validity of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

Necessary assumptions are those TAKEN as TRUE without evidence. If they HAVE evidence, then they are NOT necessary assumptions. To say that they are logical or reasonable is just circular logic since these necessary assumptions DEFINE what is reasonable and logical. This is what you are finding so hard to grasp.

You are challenging a common sense fact that in every system of knowledge, certain basic things are assumed on faith. Even in science!! The empirical method for an example is one such example. Just think about it, you can always ask the question “Why” about anything. It never ends. If kept answering “Why”'s our knowledge will never progress. So somewhere down the chain, we accept it as true without an explanation/evidence or proof. You are also not realizing the fact that certain truths just simple cannot be KNOWN on evidence. Metaphysical truths are of this nature. That’s just how every system of knowledge works. You just BELIEVE those things to be true. Your error is that somehow you don’t realize that you do BELIEVE without evidence (FAITH) and think that religious people are nuts for doing so lol. Do you see why I keep calling you ignorant and a hyporcite?

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

lol how? How can you confirm what you presuppose? This is circular logic. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS!!!?!

I’m not confirming what I presuppose.

I observe the world, and I observe that the times I base my ideas about the (apparently) external world on evidence I have drawn from the (apparently) external world, my ideas turn out to be consistent with that (apparent) world (i.e. true) more often than not. I further observe that the times I base my ideas about the (apparently) external world on evidence I have not drawn from the (apparently) external world, my ideas are not consistent with that (apparent) world more often than not.

From my observations, my mind (which naturally works inductively) says, “Oh, gee, one of these methods seems to be better suited to the purpose of determining whether a claim is consistent with the (apparently) external world.”

And it’s not just my personal observations. I can observe that other people who use evidence-based inquiry come to conclusions that are much more likely to be consistent with the (apparently) external world than people who don’t use this method.

 

[ddarko]

I’m not confirming what I presuppose.

I observe the world, and I observe that the times I base my ideas about the (apparently) external world on evidence I have drawn from the (apparently) external world, my ideas turn out to be consistent with that (apparent) world (i.e. “true”) more often than not. I further observe that the times I base my ideas about the (apparently) external world on evidence I have not drawn from the (apparently) external world, my ideas are not consistent with that (apparent) world more often than not.

From my observations, my mind (which naturally works inductively) says, “Oh, gee, one of these methods seems to be better suited to this purpose.”

And it’s not just my personal observations. I can observe that other people who use evidence-based inquiry come to conclusions that are much more likely to be consistent with the (apparently) external world than people who don’t use this method.

lol I think you just described the empirical method to me or in a general sense the scientific method. The scientific method it-self has NO evidence for its TRUTH. The empirical method is it-self NOT PROVEN. Do you see what I am getting at here?

To say that your method even works, you first have to hold that “the laws I discover today will hold tomorrow”, in other words, the Universe is predictable and governed by reason. That cannot be proven. That has no evidence. If you say it worked well up to now, that doesn’t prove anything unless you presuppose it means something. It might be that tomorrow it won’t work. So here is the article of faith that you believe in. You believe the claim that “tomorrow it will HOLD because the universe does not change its laws like that/it will behave reasonably”. That claim is without evidence. In fact, it does not even make sense to say it has evidence. Do you see what I am saying?

So you believe by faith that its true.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you see what I am saying?

I do, but it’s incredibly weak.

Your mistake here is that you think that we have to prove a claim absolutely 100% proof positive or else it’s all “faith.” That’s not the case at all. All knowledge is tentative. When I say things like, “I know the sun will rise tomorrow,” I’m not making a claim to absolute, perfect knowledge of this fact. I’m merely saying that the evidence for it is so good that it is incredibly likely – so likely that it would be absurd to question it.

It’s the same with statements like, “Evidence-based inquiry works.” We have so many examples of evidence-based inquiry working (like, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on) that it would be absurd to question that claim.

 

[ddarko]

I do, but it’s incredibly weak.

Your mistake here is that you think that we have to prove a claim absolutely 100% proof positive or else it’s all “faith.” That’s not the case at all. All knowledge is tentative. When I say things like, “I know the sun will rise tomorrow,” I’m not making a claim to absolute, perfect knowledge of this fact. I’m merely saying that the evidence for it is so good that it is incredibly likely – so likely that it would be absurd to question it.

It’s the same with statements like, “Evidence-based inquiry works.” We have so many examples of evidence-based inquiry working (like, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on) that it would be absurd to question that claim.

Its not “pretty weak” if its the truth. I am just stating to you what you believe. That’s a fact not an argument. While its true that you can live your life ignorant to what you actually do in which case you are just ignorant and nothing I’d say can convince you.

Also, I am not saying just that all knowledge is tentative. I am saying there is no knowledge and even no need for knowledge unless you believe certain core assumptions WITHOUT evidence, i.e. FAITH.

Now this is once again an example of you using circular logic

---

“It’s the same with statements like, “Evidence-based inquiry works.” We have so many examples of evidence-based inquiry working (like, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on) that it would be absurd to question that claim”***

No evidence can confirm that “Evidence-based inquiry works” because you are already assuming its true to USE evidence to PROVE it. Do you see my point? Either you accept it with FAITH or you don’t. If you are not picking up on this absurdity, this is similar to saying I know the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Now anyone with a decent IQ should clearly see how dumb that claim was. So I hope you have the intelligence to see the problem with your claim. Lots of you atheist unfortunately seem to miss this simple point which really questions your intellectual capacity .

So NO, its not a weak or strong argument. Its a FACT. You for some reason are in denial because of some inherent refusal to accept that you have FAITH. You are probably so used to asking religious people for EVIDENCE that you yourself forgot that you believe a whole damn set of things WITHOUT evidence. Ironic isn’t it?

Now its about time you asked yourself what your actual problem with religion is. Because to argue that Religion has faith while you don’t is obviously DUMB, **HYPOCRITICAL **and LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with your own position. So if you want to still be an ANTI THEIST, you better show some good reason or I will just have to consider you an idiot who doesn’t like reason

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

i think what antitheist is getting at is that simply because logic can not prove the validity of logic itself, the accuracy of the predictions it gives is enough evidence to assume the model is accurate. Much like how mathematics works.

The difference between using logic and faith is that the predictions that faith implies either can not be shown, or are accurately predicted over a variety of belief systems, while predictions that logic uses are directly observable.

That being known, you can see how it takes less “faith” to believe that the world exists than it does to believe that God exists.

 

[ddarko]

i think what antitheist is getting at is that simply because logic can not prove the validity of logic itself, the accuracy of the predictions it gives is enough evidence to assume the model is accurate. Much like how mathematics works.

The difference between using logic and faith is that the predictions that faith implies either can not be shown, or are accurately predicted over a variety of belief systems, while predictions that logic uses are directly observable.

That being known, you can see how it takes less “faith” to believe that the world exists than it does to believe that God exists.

Actually that is just an emotional difference and objectively speakings there is no difference.

For an example, the claim that “Evidence proves things true” cannot be verified by evidence. To verify something with evidence pre-supposses that “Evidence proves things true” is true. Therefore it becomes circular logic. This is called circular logic in mathematics and any other fields of logic. So unless you take by faith that the claim “Evidence proves things true” IS true, you cannot make the claim that we have enough evidence to assume any model is accurate. That is my point and which this Atheist is not seeing.

Also, Mathematics cannot be used to verify its own validity. It is meaningless to even try. So even in the case of mathematics, you must first accept its core assumptions as TRUE without EVIDENCE.

The most basic concept people miss is that for any system of knowledge, the basic concepts have to be accepted WITHOUT evidence. It simply does not make any sense to provide evidence for them. Thus in any system FAITH is essential for any knowledge.

Now don’t confuse me as equating Logic with Faith. What I am saying is that Faith defines what is logical. You cannot provide evidence for what is logical so you have to accept it by faith. Once you accept them by faith, then you use logic. Any evidence you gain does not in anyways confirm the validity of your logic. In other words, logical consistency of a system does not provide any information whether its actually true. That is the mistake you are making.

So your statement “you can see how it takes less “faith” to believe that the world exists than it does to believe that God exists” is simply a psychological stumbling block that clearly lacks any rational basis. You do believe in mathematics and other systems of knowledge by accepting their core assumptions on faith. Yet you are willing to question religious people simply because they have faith. Do you see the hypocrisy in the claim the atheist is making?

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

headtilts well i’m not saying that accurate prediction is an example of evidence towards logic. Its simply an observable accurate prediction using a specific model. The model can still be wrong, but the predictions it gives are measurable and generally accurate. If logic’s predictions are generally acturate, it would be utilitarian to say that logic is a model that gives accurate predictions and thus use it to generate said predictions even though the model itself can not be proven. Much like String Theory.

The same can not be said for faith which does not provide measurable predictions, and if it does, those same predictions can be upheld for a variety of systems of faith.

 

[ddarko]

headtilts well i’m not saying that accurate prediction is an example of evidence towards logic. Its simply an observable accurate prediction using a specific model. The model can still be wrong, but the predictions it gives are measurable and generally accurate.

The model of faith does not give measurable predictions, and if it does then those predictions can be said to be true of many different systems of faith.

So, probability wise, it is easier to believe in measurable predictions, then claims that can not be measured.

Aaah once again, you are missing the ultimate point that all knowledge is built on faith.

Take this “model based prediction” that you talk about. There are several assumptions that you have taken on faith to come up with such a model. You have assumed that

1. we must model and predict and make Accurate predictions instead of inaccurate ones
2. The universe is reasonable/predictable. It does not change without rhyme or reason.
3. If my model works on all past predictions, then it will predict correctly in the future
4. A method of verifying a model: in your case “evidence verifies the model”

Now no evidence can prove points 1) - 3) which are basically the most important aspect of the “model based prediction”. The fact that “4) evidence verifies a model” is it-self unprovable WITH evidence. So you implicitly have FAITH in all those points and many more than I can jot down above.

Essentially its not about making predictions at all. Do you even have evidence that** “a model can be verified by making predictions and observing”** is true? This claim is pretty much the same as “evidence makes X true” which I have shown cannot be proven by any evidence.

So the truth of a system of knowledge is NOT in general dependent on observing and verifying predictions. That is the biggest misunderstanding of the 21st century. The claim that “only verifiable knowledge is true” is self-defeating since the claim it-self cannot be verified in this way.

Do you see what I am saying? Please let me know and I will be happy to clarify

God Bless

You have also taken

 

[Soulewolf]

Aaah once again, you are missing the ultimate point that all knowledge is built on faith.

Take this “model based prediction” that you talk about. There are several assumptions that you have taken on faith to come up with such a model. You have assumed that

1. we must model and predict and make Accurate predictions instead of inaccurate ones
2. The universe is reasonable/predictable. It does not change without rhyme or reason.
3. If my model works all past predictions, then it will predict correctly in the future
4. what it means to verify a model: evidence verifies the model

Now no evidence can prove points 1) - 3) which are basically the most important aspect of the “model based prediction”. The fact that “evidence verifies a model” is it-self unprovable WITH evidence. So you implicitly have FAITH in all those points and many more than I can jot down above.

So essentially its not about making predictions. Do you even have evidence that “a model can be verified by making predictions and observing” is true? This claim is pretty much the same as “evidence makes X true” which I have shown cannot be proven by any evidence.

Do you see what I am saying? Please let me know and I will be happy to clarify

God Bless

You have also taken

yes i understand the faulty wording i used. i have since changed it. if you want to, please go back and re read the post. or i can post it again.

and yeah i do fully understand the problem of induction.

 

[ddarko]

yes i understand the faulty wording i used. i have since changed it. if you want to, please go back and re read the post. or i can post it again.

Ok maybe I am missing something. I read the new post. But it seems to say the same thing in essence no?

You still have to face the problem of having faith in how “prediction” and “verification” works. You have to say verification as “having evidence for a claim” when that it-self cannot be justified with evidence. See my point?

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

Ok maybe I am missing something. I read the new post. But it seems to say the same thing in essence no?

You still have to face the problem of having faith in how “prediction” and “verification” works. You have to say verification as “having evidence for a claim” when that it-self cannot be justified with evidence. See my point?

God Bless

yes i understand the problem of induction and that you have to take some things on faith such as “i exist” etc. but it is not conducive to any situation to dismiss evidence simply because it cant be proven that evidence proves something. headtilts i could say that your evidence that supports your argument is meaningless because you cant prove that your evidence means anything and we are back to square 1. no offense but its kinda a newbie argument and doesn’t lead the discussion anywhere near a greater understanding of the universe.

people follow logic not out of faith, but out of utility.

 

[ddarko]

yes i understand the problem of induction and that you have to take some things on faith such as “i exist” etc. but it is not conducive to any situation to dismiss evidence simply because it cant be proven that evidence proves something. headtilts i could say that your evidence that supports your argument is meaningless because you cant prove that your evidence means anything and we are back to square 1. no offense but its kinda a newbie argument and doesn’t lead the discussion anywhere near a greater understanding of the universe.

people follow logic not out of faith, but out of utility.

lol. No offense but this was dumb

" could say that your evidence that supports your argument is meaningless because you cant prove that your evidence means anything and we are back to square 1."

I am the one arguing that I have faith. I simply have faith that reason works. I simply have faith that logic and reason works. So you can’t use that argument against me lol. Come on, I thought you were smarted than that The reason I can use that against you is because you have a logically inconsistent position in having faith in those things while denying religious faith. You are the hypocrite. Not me lol.

People can’t follow logic on utility. What does that even mean? Just answer my question, how do you define “verification” and “prediction”? what does it mean to be “utilizable”? Aren’t those definitions accepted on faith ? Or are you going to be stupid enough to say they are accepted on “utilizability” haha?

So yes, this might be a newbie argument (if you say so Einstein haha), but the point stands. Right now you are getting whooped by a newbie then

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

lol. No offense but this was dumb

" could say that your evidence that supports your argument is meaningless because you cant prove that your evidence means anything and we are back to square 1."

I am the one arguing that I have faith. I simply have faith that reason works. I simply have faith that logic and reason works. So you can’t use that argument against me lol. Come on, I thought you were smarted than that The reason I can use that against you is because you have a logically inconsistent position in having faith in those things while denying religious faith. You are the hypocrite. Not me lol.

People can’t follow logic on utility. What does that even mean? Just answer my question, how do you define “verification” and “prediction”? what does it mean to be “utilizable”? Aren’t those definitions accepted on faith ? Or are you going to be stupid enough to say they are accepted on “utilizability” haha?

So yes, this might be a newbie argument (if you say so Einstein haha), but the point stands. Right now you are getting whooped by a newbie then

God Bless

any evidence you just gave to prove me wrong is meaningless because you havent proved that your evidence means anything.

you are using logic to denounce logic which… doesnt work. its begging the question.