The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[Peter_Plato]

Experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum!

Merriam-Webster

What? Vacuums can’t have experiences?

Experience may not exist in a vacuum, but lint does (along with a few other things.)

 

[IWantGod]

The only certainty that I have is that the experience exists hence (1) doesn’t follow.

So you don’t know that you exist?

Well if that’s all you got, i say the arguments a success.

 

[IWantGod]

Experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum!

Merriam-Webster

 

[Peter_Plato]

The only certainty that I have is that the experience exists hence (1) doesn’t follow.

I think there are inherent problems with your view that the “only certainty you have is that experience exists.” Essentially, what you are doing is taking a fundamentally rich 3D environment which is what most people would call “experience” and you are reducing it to a 2D caricature by stripping out of it everything that isn’t perceptual experience as such. In other words, you are flattening experience by applying a filter you call “absolute certainty” to it.

One problem that arises by you making that move is that meaning, significance, purpose, value, truth, and goodness among other realities have no basis in experience as such so all of these are completely lost to your certainty requirement.

If all you have is perceptual experience as such and that is all that you are certain about, then experience as such cannot give you any glimpse at all into what is true, significant, meaningful, valuable or good.

You are left with a stream of perceptual experiences – that is all. So where does that perceptual stream distinguish between those experiences which are important and which are not? Which are good and which are not? Which are meaningful and which are not? There is no way to distinguish between them unless some other, non-experience-based filter is applied to the stream of perceptions. If, however, there is nothing except perceptual experience as such then there is no source for determining which experiences are meaningful or significant or valuable or true experiences and which are not.

You cannot even tell the difference between hallucinations and authentic perception because you have no way of distinguishing between perceived experience and reality, if all you are certain of is the stream of perceptual experience.

This becomes very important in terms of practical and moral imperative. Here I am, siting in my chair, experiencing the world around me. What do I DO in that world? Merely sit here and experience it? Should I not act in the world? But if the stream of experience is all I have, there is nothing to prompt me to take one action rather than another. I don’t even know if having experiences, as such, is better than not having them. There is nothing in the “certainty” of experience itself which says it is “good” to be having them or whether some experiences are better than others.

Why not turn the channel and have a different set of experiences or turn off the experience “channel” altogether? There is no “certain” way of determining which would be better if all we have any certainty about is the experience stream itself.

Ergo, we are going to have to assume something more than experience simpliciter in order to function each day or our actual existence is simply rendered innocuous and sterile, and our will paralyzed.

Which brings me to the next point. I don’t merely experience a stream of experiences, I “experience” the capacity to affect the experience stream. I can make choices which impact what goes on around me. I can change the stream of experiences in different ways. That establishes, as far as I am concerned, that it isn’t merely experiences that exist, but that there is an “I am,” an “I will,” who is having those experiences and who can fundamentally determine or change a great number of them.

This, again, leads to the question of how do I determine which actions I ought to take from those I ought not? Both of those kinds of actions will impact the stream of experiences. If that question of getting into the stream and changing it is at all important – and it is to me, though it may not be to you – then I have to assume the stream is a 3D environment which includes beauty, goodness, meaning, truth, etc., and reference those 3D layers you are blithely dismissing in the flattened, merely 2D certifiable world you are choosing to endorse.

By claiming certainly only about perceptual experiences simpliciter, you are surreptiously squirreling in certain “values” regarding the non-importance of key realities – truth, significance, meaning, goodness, beauty – merely on the basis that these are not in-your-face obvious as painted on the flattened canvas of experience that you have chosen to accept as the only valid way of seeing the world.

In other words, you are capriciously using the construct of “certainty” to flatten reality into the stream of experience and further claiming that is the only meaningful way of seeing it.

Here we part ways. I do experience truth, beauty, goodness, meaning, purpose, etc., and while I acknowledge these are not visually tangible in front of my eyes, they do exist conceptually in my mind. They aren’t part of the common perceptual world such that I can point a finger at them, they are part of the common human intellectual, spiritual and conceptual experience. How do I know that?

Well, because others around me know and understand what I am talking about when I reference those abstractions and values. They cannot be plausibly denied and other people don’t normally deny that they know what I am talking about. Ergo, experience, by itself, in the 2D version you claim is the only certain one we can have, cannot be the only reality because I am not the only one who endorses a rich 3D landscape of experience which includes intangibles such as beauty, truth, meaning, significance, purpose and goodness to provide depth and contour to the stream of experiences.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

So, if you choose to view reality as a “flat” stream of experience and justify your choice by appealing to a contrived sense of “certainty,” you can choose to do so. The other option is to realize that sensory perception isn’t the only lens through which to view (and understand) reality. We also have intellects which can build understanding and meaning from what is available to the senses. That capacity should not be abrogated merely to satisfy some scrupulous, overly rigorous allegiance to sensory purity. We can think, over and above perceive or experience.

Why not make use of that faculty rather than deny it because you can’t see it in front of your eyes or smell it burning a hole in your brain?

 

[tonyrey]

What? Vacuums can’t have experiences?

Experience may not exist in a vacuum, but lint does (along with a few other things.)

Garbage?

 

[STT]

Experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum!

Experience does’t have any location. The content of experience however has a location, shape, color etc.

 

[STT]

I think you are confusing the meaning of “methodologically precise definition” with “true.” Merely because you expand the definition of materialism to encompass all reality doesn’t make the clams of materialism true. It just generalizes materialism to the point of vacuity.

So is all reality purely “material” in the commonly understood sense?

Yes, you always need stuff (matter), form and extension when it come to studying a subject matter.

Your solution is to change the meaning of “material” to make it mean “whatever constitutes all of reality;” thus watering down the meaning to include basically everything. Does that make the claims of materialism true or just meaningless?

I believe it is true considering the previous comment.

 

[STT]

I think there are inherent problems with your view that the “only certainty you have is that experience exists.” Essentially, what you are doing is taking a fundamentally rich 3D environment which is what most people would call “experience” and you are reducing it to a 2D caricature by stripping out of it everything that isn’t perceptual experience as such. In other words, you are flattening experience by applying a filter you call “absolute certainty” to it.

I don’t think if you can prove that you exist. Do you? We have a sense of “I” but we don’t have any proof that there is a “I”.

One problem that arises by you making that move is that meaning, significance, purpose, value, truth, and goodness among other realities have no basis in experience as such so all of these are completely lost to your certainty requirement.

These are abstract objects. They abstractly exist in absence of our experience but they are not beings that we could perceive them directly through our senses. They however are part of our experiences always.

If all you have is perceptual experience as such and that is all that you are certain about, then experience as such cannot give you any glimpse at all into what is true, significant, meaningful, valuable or good.

You are left with a stream of perceptual experiences – that is all. So where does that perceptual stream distinguish between those experiences which are important and which are not? Which are good and which are not? Which are meaningful and which are not? There is no way to distinguish between them unless some other, non-experience-based filter is applied to the stream of perceptions. If, however, there is nothing except perceptual experience as such then there is no source for determining which experiences are meaningful or significant or valuable or true experiences and which are not.

You cannot even tell the difference between hallucinations and authentic perception because you have no way of distinguishing between perceived experience and reality, if all you are certain of is the stream of perceptual experience.

I already discuss this in the previous comment.

This becomes very important in terms of practical and moral imperative. Here I am, siting in my chair, experiencing the world around me. What do I DO in that world? Merely sit here and experience it? Should I not act in the world? But if the stream of experience is all I have, there is nothing to prompt me to take one action rather than another. I don’t even know if having experiences, as such, is better than not having them. There is nothing in the “certainty” of experience itself which says it is “good” to be having them or whether some experiences are better than others.

Why not turn the channel and have a different set of experiences or turn off the experience “channel” altogether? There is no “certain” way of determining which would be better if all we have any certainty about is the experience stream itself.

Ergo, we are going to have to assume something more than experience simpliciter in order to function each day or our actual existence is simply rendered innocuous and sterile, and our will paralyzed.

I don’t know how this is related to our discussion, proving God. I however agree with you and covered my opinion in the second comment.

Which brings me to the next point. I don’t merely experience a stream of experiences, I “experience” the capacity to affect the experience stream. I can make choices which impact what goes on around me. I can change the stream of experiences in different ways. That establishes, as far as I am concerned, that it isn’t merely experiences that exist, but that there is an “I am,” an “I will,” who is having those experiences and who can fundamentally determine or change a great number of them.

Your capacity to affect the experience could be the result of a simple (name removed by moderator)ut and output of your brain. There might be no “I” who will.

 

[STT]

This, again, leads to the question of how do I determine which actions I ought to take from those I ought not? Both of those kinds of actions will impact the stream of experiences. If that question of getting into the stream and changing it is at all important – and it is to me, though it may not be to you – then I have to assume the stream is a 3D environment which includes beauty, goodness, meaning, truth, etc., and reference those 3D layers you are blithely dismissing in the flattened, merely 2D certifiable world you are choosing to endorse.

Your experience has a content, your environment, your felling, etc. This experience is used as an (name removed by moderator)ut for the next step. “I want” could be mere illusion.

By claiming certainly only about perceptual experiences simpliciter, you are surreptiously squirreling in certain “values” regarding the non-importance of key realities – truth, significance, meaning, goodness, beauty – merely on the basis that these are not in-your-face obvious as painted on the flattened canvas of experience that you have chosen to accept as the only valid way of seeing the world.

I am not. These (bold part) are of course a part of content of our experiences always.

In other words, you are capriciously using the construct of “certainty” to flatten reality into the stream of experience and further claiming that is the only meaningful way of seeing it.

Here we part ways. I do experience truth, beauty, goodness, meaning, purpose, etc., and while I acknowledge these are not visually tangible in front of my eyes, they do exist conceptually in my mind. They aren’t part of the common perceptual world such that I can point a finger at them, they are part of the common human intellectual, spiritual and conceptual experience. How do I know that?

Well, because others around me know and understand what I am talking about when I reference those abstractions and values. They cannot be plausibly denied and other people don’t normally deny that they know what I am talking about. Ergo, experience, by itself, in the 2D version you claim is the only certain one we can have, cannot be the only reality because I am not the only one who endorses a rich 3D landscape of experience which includes intangibles such as beauty, truth, meaning, significance, purpose and goodness to provide depth and contour to the stream of experiences.

Continued…

I don’t think that my view is 2D. I also believe in the concepts such as ugly, beauty, etc. I believe that our experience could not have any meaning without these abstract objects.

… from last.

So, if you choose to view reality as a “flat” stream of experience and justify your choice by appealing to a contrived sense of “certainty,” you can choose to do so. The other option is to realize that sensory perception isn’t the only lens through which to view (and understand) reality. We also have intellects which can build understanding and meaning from what is available to the senses. That capacity should not be abrogated merely to satisfy some scrupulous, overly rigorous allegiance to sensory purity. We can think, over and above perceive or experience.

Why not make use of that faculty rather than deny it because you can’t see it in front of your eyes or smell it burning a hole in your brain?

I think that my view of experience is pretty similar to you, in your word, it is 3D.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think that my view is 2D. I also believe in the concepts such as ugly, beauty, etc. I believe that our experience could not have any meaning without these abstract objects.

Are the abstract things objects in the sense that atoms are objects?

Even atoms were imagined before they were discovered.

How and why were they imagined before there was no such thing known to exist?

The “ugly and the beautiful” refer to subjective experiences of objects we perceive with our senses. But there are also “objects” other than those we perceive with our senses, such as God, and the devil, and eternity. The atheists will say these things are falsely imagined to exist. If so, then why do these “objects” persistently appeal to our consciousness as realities that must be encountered? Simply because they **are **realities. The “ugly and the beautiful” can refer not only to sensible objects, but also to objects we experience in the supernatural realm, such as God and the Devil.

With atheistic materialism nothing is explained, but only defined and described … mostly as imaginary and delusional. There is not consideration by the atheistic materialist that
his own position could be imaginary and delusional.

It certainly defies all possible expectations of being useful or consoling.

 

[STT]

Are the abstract things objects in the sense that atoms are objects?

No.

Even atoms were imagined before they were discovered.

Yes.

How and why were they imagined before there was no such thing known to exist?

There are two scenario when you divide matter into pieces: (1) Either you reach to atom or (2) Division goes forever.

The “ugly and the beautiful” refer to subjective experiences of objects we perceive with our senses. But there are also “objects” other than those we perceive with our senses, such as God, and the devil, and eternity.

Well, ugly and beautiful are abstract objects. They are different from Devils and God.

The atheists will say these things are falsely imagined to exist. If so, then why do these “objects” persistently appeal to our consciousness as realities that must be encountered?

This is a very hard question. Do beings, such as God, exist because we can imagine them? I am thinking about this question right now.

Simply because they **are **realities. The “ugly and the beautiful” can refer not only to sensible objects, but also to objects we experience in the supernatural realm, such as God and the Devil.

I agree that Devils exist. I experienced them.

With atheistic materialism nothing is explained, but only defined and described … mostly as imaginary and delusional. There is not consideration by the atheistic materialist that
his own position could be imaginary and delusional.

It certainly defies all possible expectations of being useful or consoling.

We don’t know what matter really is. Perhaps Devil has a body made of matter prime, something different than matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think if you can prove that you exist. Do you? We have a sense of “I” but we don’t have any proof that there is a “I”.

…

Your capacity to affect the experience could be the result of a simple (name removed by moderator)ut and output of your brain. There might be no “I” who will.

I don’t think you can “prove” that experience is the simple (name removed by moderator)ut and output of your brain any more than I can prove there is an “I” who has the experience; that is, if we accept your assumption that the only grounds we can have for knowing anything is direct experience.

I directly experience “I” who acts in the world but I don’t directly experience my brain. Ergo, I have more warrant for thinking that it is “I” who wills and acts in the world – because I directly experience that – than I have for thinking that experience is the result of (name removed by moderator)ut and output from my brain, which I cannot directly experience.

I have no more need to “prove” the existence of myself to myself than I need to prove that I experience the world. No proof is necessary.

You do, however, need to “prove” that my experience is the result of (name removed by moderator)ut and output from my brain, which without my actual experience of that happening – according to your thesis – isn’t even possible.

Your inconsistency here is astounding.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree that Devils exist. I experienced them…

What has been your experience with devils?

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t think if you can prove that you exist. Do you?

I don’t see why I would need to prove that I exist. I have my birth certificate in hand which is all the government needs.

 

[STT]

I don’t think you can “prove” that experience is the simple (name removed by moderator)ut and output of your brain any more than I can prove there is an “I” who has the experience; that is, if we accept your assumption that the only grounds we can have for knowing anything is direct experience.

Experience is the result of brain process when the process grants a conscious state.

You can never be sure that that is “you” who want something. Everything could be simply an (name removed by moderator)ut inside your brain and output outside your brain.

I directly experience “I” who acts in the world but I don’t directly experience my brain. Ergo, I have more warrant for thinking that it is “I” who wills and acts in the world – because I directly experience that – than I have for thinking that experience is the result of (name removed by moderator)ut and output from my brain, which I cannot directly experience.

What you experience is the “I” created by your brain activity. “You” cannot be subject and object at the same time. “You” cannot be inside a framework watching “yourself” which is outside the framework. That is inconsistent. There is a nice video on TED on this very topic, “I”. You can find it here.

I have no more need to “prove” the existence of myself to myself than I need to prove that I experience the world. No proof is necessary.

You need. Just watch the video.

You do, however, need to “prove” that my experience is the result of (name removed by moderator)ut and output from my brain, which without my actual experience of that happening – according to your thesis – isn’t even possible.

I just said it could so I don’t need to prove anything. I am not the one who is insisting that it can prove God.

Your inconsistency here is astounding.

There is no inconsistency.

 

[STT]

What has been your experience with devils?

All sort of experiences. Such as being scared to death.

 

[STT]

I don’t see why I would need to prove that I exist. I have my birth certificate in hand which is all the government needs.

The reality that you are referring to might be a mere illusion.

 

[Tomdstone]

The reality that you are referring to might be a mere illusion.

The government clerk does not think so.

 

[STT]

The government clerk does not think so.

Here we are talking about a proof for God. Don’t we? What I am stressing is that one needs to prove that universe exists before trying to prove that God created the universe. Is that make sense?