As a pithy explanation for the divide between the believer and the secularist, this is textbook-worthy.We discuss the reasons why such processes cannot achieve what non-believers wish them to achieve, and then the non-believer in the discussion shrugs and says, “well, offer me a process and we can talk.” After agreeing that there is no epistemology for empirically proving non-physical claims.
Theism and atheism are descriptors about what you believe or have been convinced of.
Let’s examine your assertion – since, I would claim, it has already fallen into the realm of ‘category error’.
You’re getting all twisted up again, here. On one hand, you’re talking about ‘logic’, but on the other hand, after appealing to logic, your conclusion is based on empirical evidence. That’s not a reasonable approach.
I get that you’re proposing an analogy, and analogies are never perfect, but this one only has the appearance of plausibility: here, you’re still dealing in assertions about the physical world which, if true, must be able to be measured empirically. I agree with you – those claims which deal with measurable, repeatable, physical phenomena can be believed preliminarily, but are not certain until verified empirically. In our discussion, however, we’re not talking about physical phenomena, and therefore, this approach is deficient.
Are you making that claim with a straight face? I can’t tell if you’re joking. You sound like a transcendentalist philosopher: “things which I have not experienced, therefore do not exist.”
Some atheists say that. Not all. Some also take it a step further and claim that God does not exist, based on their logical analysis. (Some just shrug and say “you believers are wrong.”)
Sorry: you’ve stacked the deck, even before your example got off the ground. You’ve presumed that the gumballs exist.
That’s a poor conclusion. “Since I didn’t verify it, that means it didn’t happen”? I guess that you disbelieve all the history of the world, up until the moment you were born, then?
This is an important insight. Newman discusses it in his explanation of the illative sense, but often, in these discussions, we make the mistake of mischaracterizing the game we’re playing here. This isn’t a question of proof (and therefore, it isn’t a discussion of God being disproved); rather, it’s a question of acceptance of sufficient proof. In other words, this isn’t a discussion about objective reality, but about subjective conclusions. All we really achieve is the agreement that non-believers are unconvinced.
I was pretty clear to point out that it is about justified belief, not that it is absolutely true to be the case. Plato probably did exist, even though we anecdotal information about him. However, the claims about Plato are no different than any other claims about our philosophers today. So it is reasonable to have a justified belief that someone called Plato probably existed. However, everyone knows that the claims about the divine in flesh are not remotely in the same claims about Plato. I’m fine with the idea of a man called Jesus. But to claim that he was divine, is a step too far. The divine is claimed to have magical powers. There is currently zero ability for us to investigate another realm, to investigate magical powers of anything, or in any way point to any evidence of magic anywhere ever. That is why it is unjustified belief currently at this point. Again, I am never arguing for hard solipsism. Only reasonable justified belief. Setting a bar to having justified belief only when you have perfect knowledge is not how anyone actually concludes justified belief in my experience.
I was arguing that logic is grounded first in the observed interacted reality we experience. A does not equal B because this is what everyone universally experiences about this reality. A comes before B, excluded middle, etc. are all universal experiences we all have about this reality. That was my point. Hope that clarifies it. But I don’t see what your problem is here though with this line of thought.
We discuss ideas in relation to other similar ideas that we understand. From you statement it logically can follow that any imagined idea that can not be verified in this reality in any detectable way is a valid justification for belief. That’s how I see it from what you stated here. How is that ever going to be a way for finding out the actual truth about our reality? We have to be able to tell the difference some how between an imagined idea and that idea actually being true. How can you tell the difference between those two by what you just concluded there? I would like to know how you can do that.
Nope, that’s hard solipsism. I’m only ever talking about justified belief. I’ve never been to Japan, but I believe that Japan is there and people are on it. I have examples of land, people, actual people that claim to be from there, etc. Lots of data points. Where is your data points for magic and the supernatural? Then we can infer that there may have been magic and the supernatural 2000 years ago in a man called jesus. At this point, it is justified to believe that there could have been a man called jesus that also claimed to be a shaman. But did he actually have magical powers? That is not a justified belief at this point since we can not investigate the supernatural or its magical abilities at all. That claim is currently, tentatively, still indistinguishable from a made up claim and we don’t have the tools to tell the difference yet.
I’m not, so could you go with what I am presenting? If you want to talk about other people we can do that to. Any one that makes the positive claim that deities exist or don’t exist have to present why they believe they are justified in concluding that. But that’s not what I am presenting. I haven’t presented any thing about my claim about deities at all. I’ve only ever responded to your reasons for your claim of justified belief in a deity. I haven’t presented my position about a deity at all.
Just as you presuppose a deity exists. But since it’s just a simple analogy, I’ll take this as just good fun banter.Sorry: you’ve stacked the deck, even before your example got off the ground. You’ve presumed that the gumballs exist.
Not that it didn’t happen. In the gum ball analogy, it did happen that there is actually an even or odd number of gumballs, correct? But without counting them can anyone be justified in concluding there is actually an even amount? or an odd amount? no, no they can’t. That’s the point of the analogy. There could be a deity, there could not be a deity as well. But since no one can know this yet, how can anyone be justified in concluding either way?
Yes - that’s all atheism is. It’s a response to a single question about a single issue. Are you convinced that a deity exists? Nope.This is an important insight. Newman discusses it in his explanation of the illative sense, but often, in these discussions, we make the mistake of mischaracterizing the game we’re playing here. This isn’t a question of proof (and therefore, it isn’t a discussion of God being disproved); rather, it’s a question of acceptance of sufficient proof. In other words, this isn’t a discussion about objective reality, but about subjective conclusions. All we really achieve is the agreement that non-believers are unconvinced.
For most atheists, wouldn’t a second question also need to be answered, namely, are you convinced that a deity does NOT exist? And the answer would be yes.
+100 points for our resident Jewish friend.
They’ve learned they can’t prove it either.I’m talking about only ever, “justified belief”. That is always tentative. I never argue for hard solipsism since no one ever operates on the assumption that absolute knowledge is the only way to know if something is true or not. We operate on what is most likely to be predictably true or not, ie: what is most likely justified belief. Beliefs can become facts, but we are not justified in believing that until the evidence matches that label.
Do you understand the difference between
It’s also enormously relative. Do you not see that?
As someone who chose to believe in the Catholic Church later in life, your assertion here appears genuinely silly and arbitrary. As such, so do your subsequent conclusions and codependent distinctions.
What you “know” and what you “believe” both obviously come from your experienced reality…
Oh, you don’t know you’re sitting in a chair?
But it IS in the physical realm. Let me remind you, if the claim only pertains to the alleged non-physical realm, no rational person will ask for physical evidence. (The result of Angels vs. Demons soccer game ended 2 to 1 for the Angels.) But as soon as the claim refers to the physical realm, you are in “our” court, where empirical evidence is necessary.
Strangely it has been claimed that bread has actually been transformed into some human heart-tissue with an AB type of blood. And it is asserted that a “true” miracle has happened. You can’t have it both ways. Ain’t that a “pisser”?
Both talk about some non-physical realm, which interacts with the physical one. They are two peas in a pod. The claims about the Lourdes “miracles” don’t hold up either. Yet they are claimed to be “true”.
Because God is assumed to be “love itself”. Of course, as soon as you start professing that God is indifferent, we shall “shut up”. And incidentally, it is NOT “must”, but “should”, if he would wish to live up to his reputation. As far as the evidence goes, God is the typical “deadbeat dad”.
Maybe you claim that this is what you believe, but your actions belie your claim. Every instance of intercessory or supplicative prayer treats God as a slot machine. Millions of them every minute. Then every time a prayers seems to be “granted”, the believer touts is as a positive outcome of the “test”. The ones which are not “granted” are not counted as “negative” outcomes (you know… if it is “heads” I win, if it is “tails”, you lose.
). Of course the meditative prayers are different. But if you look at the “Prayer Intentions” section, all you will see “slot machine” type of prayers.The point is that you (in general) cannot offer ANY objective epistemological method to substantiate your claims.And that’s where these discussions tend to fizzle out. We discuss the reasons why such processes cannot achieve what non-believers wish them to achieve, and then the non-believer in the discussion shrugs and says, “well, offer me a process and we can talk.” After agreeing that there is no epistemology for empirically proving non-physical claims.
I’m don’t really care if you approve of my word use as long as I understand what you don’t understand what I am trying to say. You seem to be just gainsaying what I am trying to communicate instead of actually wanting to communicate ideas. So it’s not really worth my time continuing this with you. I’ll leave this up to the fair-minded readers to understand what I was attempting to say.
Fair enough. Yet, the objections to claims about Christ are that there isn’t any physical evidence (which flies in the face of what would be reasonable to ask about other historical figures in antiquity). You’re in our court – but you’re asking for “your” 21st standards of evidence. It’s a non-starter.
Nah, it ain’t. Don’t conflate the claims. The claim of a Eucharistic miracle isn’t a claim for the reality of the Eucharist. It’s merely a claim that a particular event happened in the real world. To substantiate it, empirical proof is necessary. (However, all that can be substantiated is the physical part: is it truly human flesh? Is it truly human blood? That part admits of physical evidence. Once that’s established, we get down to the real question: is it a miracle? That’s the part that cannot be established or disproven through empirical evidence, and therefore, cannot simply be disregarded as false. You cannot disprove a non-physical assertion through empirical means. You can’t have it both ways. Ain’t that a pisser?
Again, the physical dimension can be discussed; what cannot be proven is the ‘miracle’. You cannot hold up the god of empiricism as the destroyer of the transcendental. It’s just illogical.
Who made the claim that “love itself” is equivalent to “explain everything to me”? I mean, you can claim that it would be nice if God did so, or that you’d like it if God did so. But that doesn’t entail a requirement for full disclosure, nor does it prove indifference.
Ahh… now this is a far better tack for you to take! OK – let’s follow this one down. If we’re saying that it’s not the case that God must disclose, then tell me… why is it the case that He should?
Yep. I remember saying the same thing about my parents when I was a teen: “they don’t care”; “they don’t love me”; “they’re just bums.” I got over that as I matured…
Not really. Intercessory prayer says, “God, you know what I want; if it’s your will, please give it to me. If not, please help me trust that you have my highest good in mind for me.”
Not true. There’s just no objective empirical method.The point is that you (in general) cannot offer ANY objective epistemological method to substantiate your claims.
That’s not what occurring at all. You just appear to be pretending that “justified belief” is this objectively identifiable thing.
Hey, looks like you’re onto something here. If certainty is a spectrum, then doesn’t that imply disparities between the materiality of different perceived truths as some are more certain than others by varying standards?
As to how pi is calculated, how would one tentatively know about a 15th decimal place in a final way that does not suggest the existence of a 16th? 17th? Especially in a reality where there demonstrably is one.
Can’t handle it when someone rejects your fundamental premises? Fair-minded reader can see that too…
Does the typical atheist, or theist for that matter, think in such philosophically logical terms? Probably not IMO. That is why I say that most atheists believe that G-d does NOT exist. You may be one of the exceptions.
They’re hanging their hat on the false notion that “the disbelief in god” is somehow not the contrapositive of “the belief in no-god”.
The atheists that are like me are of the world view of methodological naturalism. Since the supernatural is indistinguishable from an imagined idea, we have no way of investigating it to determine the difference. So we don’t make claims about the supernatural or use it as a possible reason to explain something until we can tell the difference. Once we have justification for determining the supernatural is different from an imagined idea and we can investigate it for how it actually manifests in reality, then we’ll start implementing it as a possible solution to problems. At this point, all we say about the supernatural claims is, “I don’t know and I don’t see how anyone can make justified belief claims about it either.” We’re never stating that there is a deity or not a deity because that is to make claims about the supernatural, which we can not investigate currently in any way. We are only ever responding to the positive claims made about the supernatural that the theists are making. That the theist is claiming an even number of gumballs without ever actually investigating the jar of gumballs. Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience youtube channel has some points on this view as well for references.
The “New Atheism” in perfect microcosm. Very well done again, Gorgias.The atheists that are like me are … never stating that there is a deity or not a deity
Gorgias;14787110:
that’s all that the deity comes across as, a cultural literary character; not something that actually exists in reality.
