How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[yossarian22]

Yossarian:
1) Determinism is dead. It's dead, it's dead, it's dead. It has been for over a hundred years. Quantum Mechanics proved it impossible. If you choose to keep holding on to it, you'll be made fun of in science class, teased in the playground, and picked last in dodge ball. It's taken as seriously as Flat Earth believers. Laplace style determinism is dead.

There are lots of ways around the 'problem' of quantum mechanics.
1: There are hidden variables
2: Humans are screened from absolute knowledge, and any uncertainty in result is entirely due to uncertainties in our obeservations
3: Strict determinism may have been disproved, but that is a far cry from proving indeterminism.
Or use the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics

2) Occam's Razor is not a binding scientific law. It is not a matter of being TRUE or FALSE, it is just a piece of advice and nothing more. It is a rule of thumb. If someone told you "look both ways before crossing the street" that is a piece of good advice. It can be wrong. There just might be a hidden camera game show that's handing out a million dollars to the first person they see crossing without looking.
I see entirely too many non-scientists touting this as some kind of imperative that science requires. It's just a rule of thumb and nothing more. It is wrong in many notable examples. (non-existence of magnetic monopoles)

Your example fails to be relevant. Occam's Razor does not care about the truth of a statement, it cares about it's usefulness. Usefulness measured by accuracy of predictions. The existence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter may not or may not be true, but if accepting the existence of the teapot allows us to make reliable predictions, then our belief in the teapot is justified.
Occam's Razor cannot be wrong. It is completely unfalsifiable, making it similar to faith in our experience

3) There is no absolute reality. You know when people talk about Einstein and Relativity and how he was such a smart guy? It's because he found a startling fact about the universe itself: there is no single reality. (Well, that and the whole atomic bomb thing)

I never said there was an absolute reality.
Objective is not equatable to absolute. If you don't believe me, open up a dictionary
Subjective- existing only in the perceiving mind;
Objective is the total opposite of subjective. It is not absolute in the slightest. Especially in the context I am using it in. Objective, in essence, becomes synonymous with an existence independent of observation

4) Universal doubt is not a rational argument for anything. It does not make irrational statements less irrational, it does not make rational arguments less rational, it does not make you clever, it makes you sound like you just got out of your philosophy 101 class and are acting like this is something new. It is not.
Universal doubt does in fact make us take a couple key assumptions that we deem to be rational:
-The axioms of logic are true
-The axioms of mathematics are true
-Causality is true

You just nullified your own case.
An assumption can not, and never can be rational; it is an assumption.
[quote]The debate at hand is not "which ones of us have beliefs"? Because clearly we all do. The debate is about "what beliefs are RATIONAL and based on good reasons".[/quote]
How is blind faith in experience rational at all? How is the assumption of an objective reality rational.
Since you have trouble understanding what exactly I mean when I state that an objective reality exists I will rephrase
Reality exists beyond our experience.
An assumption cannot be rational. It can be necessary for certain things, but that does not equate to rationality

nonsense. blind faith is having a belief with 0% confidence. confidence comes from successful experience.

Really?
And how do you know that you had a successful experience?

how do i have blind belief? i observed the fist, i felt the impact. these are forms of evidence that give certain non-perfect levels of confidence. no blind belief is ever necessary. you repeating yourself doesnt change the fact of the matter.

By accepting your observations you have admitted to having a blind faith in them. You think that what you observe is real, and there really is no valid reason to do so beyond necessity.

that is what observing matter is. no blind faith is required.

I'll point this out again; you put faith in your observation

complete nonsense. you cant form confidence in the existence of electrons by argument. you need OBSERVATIONS. just because you cannot *directly* observe them does not mean you cannot observe them at all. again, you seem to be stuck in this mode of thought where things are either 0% confident or 100%. your ideas are not based on reality.

more dishonesty from the theist camp. did anybody expect anything less? how about you dont tell me what my position is, smartass?

Who says I am a theist, smartass?

Anyhow, you can and do form shift burden of proof for the existence electrons by argument. We cannot observe an electron at all, yet we assume they exist? We don't have direct observation of them, so we are forced to indirectly observe them. Be it a cathode ray tube, capacitive circuit, whatever. The idea of the electron is the best explanation of those various observations we have. If we get new observations, we get a new understanding. In essence, we believe in electrons because of how compelling the argument is for them. Hence the burden of proof shifts to the guy who says “No, electrons do not exist”. You would not believe him, and neither would I.
And we can form a duality between blind belief and everything else. Your belief is either totally unjustified, or it isn't. And guess what? Everybody has unjustified beliefs. You just won't admit to it.

Rational assumptions are those that can be tested. Those that can be wrong. Those that can produce useful results.

Sounds very much like Occam's Razor combined with an emphasis on falsification. Oh wait, that's exactly what I am saying. So I fail to see how you can object to a single statement that I have made.

Rational Assumption: The axioms of logic are true.
Reasons: Without it, nothing makes sense. Up is down, black is white, existence is nothingness. There is no such thing as true or false. This is something that must be assumed for anything to make sense.

So everything is therefore a blind belief.

Irrational Assumption: The flying spaghetti monster exists.
Reasons: It does not have repeatable tests that can substantiate this claim. It does not provide any additional explaining power over choosing different assumptions.

The flying spaghetti monster is nowhere near equatable to every single flavor of God. I am not going to argue that fundamentalist Christianity is justified or logical. Its absurd and, quite frankly, idiotic
I can, however, argue for another god concept
I will, however, ignore the inane argument you have set up as it is irrelevant. I am arguing that an assumption that God exists can be an assumption of necessity, similar to how the existence of reality is an argument of necessity.

You cannot confirm an assumption. If you can, it is not an assumption is it? You are relying on empirical evidence. We accept the validity of empirical evidence in another assumption.

There are shades of gray. It is not black and white. How rational an assumption is is based on how much support we have for it. Of course no amount of support can prove the assumption, but it can be good enough for us to believe it to be true.
Things that can be proven are great. They're true... it's proven. But things that cannot be proven require a belief. All beliefs are not made equal, however. In the thousands of years mankind has studied mathematics, it has never once been wrong. The axioms of mathematics are therefore a pretty good assumption. The existence of the flying spaghetti monster is a bad assumption.

Besides being totally irrelevant, the 'laws' of mathematics are abstractions of thought. They don't make predictions in and of themselves. They do apply to many things, hence mathematics is useful.

 

[AltF4]

God ****. (Pun intended) This is like talking to F&V all over again. You move from one common misconception to another, Yossarian.

You seem to fail to have a full grasp of Quantum Mechanics. There are no hidden variables. -The uncertainty principle does not describe a limiting factor in being able to measure a particle's position and velocity, but rather say that it does not HAVE a definite position and velocity.

It is not an observational phenomenon, it is a property of matter itself to be unpredictable.

-Occam's Razor is neither right nor wrong. It is not a law that has the property of being correct or incorrect. It's just some advice: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Nothing more.

-Existence does in fact depend on observation. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. There is no objective reality independent of observation.

The rest that you say "isn't relevant" might seem so because it was in response to ComradeSAL, not you.

 

[snex]

Really?
And how do you know that you had a successful experience?

where did i claim to "know" anything? i didnt, so you are once again being dishonest.

By accepting your observations you have admitted to having a blind faith in them. You think that what you observe is real, and there really is no valid reason to do so beyond necessity.

once again you equate the lack of 100% confidence with 0% confidence. i never claimed that what i observed is "real." you are just being dishonest.

I'll point this out again; you put faith in your observation

no, i dont. faith is never required.

Who says I am a theist, smartass?

only idiot theists try to tell people that dont use faith that they actually do use faith. its almost as if deep down they know that faith is absolutely worthless.

Anyhow, you can and do form shift burden of proof for the existence electrons by argument. We cannot observe an electron at all, yet we assume they exist? We don't have direct observation of them, so we are forced to indirectly observe them. Be it a cathode ray tube, capacitive circuit, whatever. The idea of the electron is the best explanation of those various observations we have. If we get new observations, we get a new understanding. In essence, we believe in electrons because of how compelling the argument is for them. Hence the burden of proof shifts to the guy who says “No, electrons do not exist”. You would not believe him, and neither would I.
And we can form a duality between blind belief and everything else. Your belief is either totally unjustified, or it isn't. And guess what? Everybody has unjustified beliefs. You just won't admit to it.

the arguments are irrelevant. what matters is that the predictions of electron theory bear out to experimentation, ie OBSERVATIONS. no amount of mere argumentation will make electrons seem likely.

 

[yossarian22]

Small wonder that many look down upon atheists. A shame that the majority of us are pompous ***es who refuse to take their own logic to its conclusion

God ****. (Pun intended) This is like talking to F&V all over again. You move from one common misconception to another, Yossarian.

Or perhaps you have the misconception.
Don't just yell 'misconception!' and laugh heartily. Point it out but still remain in the context of the argument

You seem to fail to have a full grasp of Quantum Mechanics. There are no hidden variables. -The uncertainty principle does not describe a limiting factor in being able to measure a particle's position and velocity, but rather say that it does not HAVE a definite position and velocity.

It does not say that it lacks a definitive position and momentum. It states that we cannot know both the definitive momentum.
There may as well be no difference in practice, but in regards to philosophy it is a vast difference

-Occam's Razor is neither right nor wrong. It is not a law that has the property of being correct or incorrect. It's just some advice: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Nothing more.

What do you think I was saying?
The validity of Occam's Razor is an assumption of the scientific method.
We can't falsify an irreducible assumption

-Existence does in fact depend on observation. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. There is no objective reality independent of observation.

Existence is not dependent on anything at all. It is an assumption in our mind that it exists.
And if reject the idea of objective reality in its entirety, your belief system is no longer consistent and therefore useless bunk.
I am going to stress the difference between absolute and objective yet again, because I doubt that anybody believes in that reality does not exist

The rest that you say "isn't relevant" might seem so because it was in response to ComradeSAL, not you.

And it is still irrelevant.
Assumptions are irreducible by definition. We can't rationalize them.

 

[snex]

Small wonder that many look down upon atheists. A shame that the majority of us are pompous ***es who refuse to take their own logic to its conclusion

yes, there are those of us that say "we do not use faith." and then the pompous ***** come along and say stupid things like "you silly atheists use faith just like everybody else."

no mr pompous ***, "we do not use faith" does not logically imply "we use faith."

 

[yossarian22]

yes, there are those of us that say "we do not use faith." and then the pompous ***** come along and say stupid things like "you silly atheists use faith just like everybody else."

no mr pompous ***, "we do not use faith" does not logically imply "we use faith."

I take it you thought I was referring to you?
That probably says more about you than it does me.

Any confidence you have in your experience is faith. Blind faith. Do you think reality exists? That is faith. It is a far cry from the faith that drives such moronic statements as "The Earth was created in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago", but it is still faith nonetheless.
It is a belief by necessity. Without it, you can't have your logic, your scientific method, or anything else for that matter.

And don't go off on the percentage thing. If I punch you in the face, you do not think 'I am 80% confident that my senses are correct in telling me that Yossarian just punched me in the face"

And I am atheistic, sorry if my statements were too subtle for you.

 

[snex]

Any confidence you have in your experience is faith. Blind faith.

no, it is not. if it were blind faith, it would not be subject to new evidence.

Do you think reality exists?

that some reality exists is undeniable. but whether or not that reality corresponds to my observations is not knowable. but that is entirely irrelevant. any assumptions we hold about the accuracy of our observations are NOT "blind faith" because they are tentative assumptpons that are subject to new evidence. if you suddenly woke up in a field of pods with wires sticking out of you, you would be forced to accept that the reality you once knew was entirely fake.

now, can you quit lying and saying that people who dont use faith actually use faith? why dont you address our arguments, rather than assigning your own strawmen to us and then swiping at those?

 

[yossarian22]

no, it is not. if it were blind faith, it would not be subject to new evidence.

Absurd.
You cannot be seriously proposing that we use evidence we gather from experience to prove the validity of experience.

Our experience is our only source of information. We can only have blind faith when it comes to the validity of our experience, as there is o other alternative to judge with

that some reality exists is undeniable.

Of course it is deniable.
It is just a summarily useless and inane view.

but whether or not that reality corresponds to my observations is not knowable. but that is entirely irrelevant. any assumptions we hold about the accuracy of our observations are NOT "blind faith" because they are tentative assumptpons that are subject to new evidence.

Circular reasoning at its finest...

if you suddenly woke up in a field of pods with wires sticking out of you, you would be forced to accept that the reality you once knew was entirely fake.

I don't have to accept a new reality any more than I had to accept the old reality.
You can't use experience to prove the validity of experience.
Enlighten me; where, besides our experience, can we gather evidence?

now, can you quit lying and saying that people who dont use faith actually use faith? why dont you address our arguments, rather than assigning your own strawmen to us and then swiping at those?

You seem to accuse people of lying alot. Its neither effective nor thought provoking.

Now then, how are any of my arguments strawmen? Point out where I misrepresented your position.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Oops. Double post.

 

[ComradeSAL]

snex's law:

As time approaches infinity, the proportion of "YOU ARE LYING" statements that Snex uses in a debate approaches one while the proportion of real arguments approaches zero.

 

[snex]

you verify experience by making PREDICTIONS and having those PREDICTIONS come true more often than is possible by pure chance. if the PREDICTIONS stop coming true, then you abandon experience as a workable assumption.

what is so hard to understand about this?

the reason i accuse you of lying is because that is exactly what you are doing. MY position is "i do not use faith." critique that position, do not assert that i DO use faith when i just told you that i do not. saying i use it when i just said i dont is LYING.

 

[yossarian22]

you verify experience by making PREDICTIONS and having those PREDICTIONS come true more often than is possible by pure chance. if the PREDICTIONS stop coming true, then you abandon experience as a workable assumption.

So lets summarize shall we.
1. make a prediction 2. collect evidence from our experience to test the validity of our prediction.

How does that confirm experience at all? At best, you show that experience is consistent. You have yet to show validity

what is so hard to understand about this?

I could say the same to you.
I don't think you fully comprehend what having no faith in anything means.

the reason i accuse you of lying is because that is exactly what you are doing. MY position is "i do not use faith." critique that position, do not assert that i DO use faith when i just told you that i do not. saying i use it when i just said i dont is LYING.

So, I disagree with your position, therefore I am lying? Absurd. I am, at worst, mischaracterizing your position.

So, you posit that you have no faith? Here is my critique of your position; it is idiocy.
If you have no faith, then you reject logic and reality, making your position useless and valueless.

I doubt that you reject either logic or reality, hence I state that you have faith. You just, for some inane reason, refuse to recognize it.

Edit: here is a more formalized version

1: We must take the 'truthiness' of experience as a matter of blind faith
2: All thought and reasoning is formed from our experience
3: Logic and reality are consequences of ourthought and reasoning
4: Therefore, if somebody states that they have no faith, they do not accept the validity of logic or reality

You will, in all likelihood, object to premise 1. Present something with better construction than 'testable predictions'. Any evidence we collect is through our experience, so your suggested solution is circular and useless.

 

[adumbrodeus]

that some reality exists is undeniable. but whether or not that reality corresponds to my observations is not knowable.

Why? Because you say so?!

Whether an objective reality exists is a constant topic in high-leveled philosophical discourse and subject to the same evidentiary rules as any other debate. I suggest you study Nihilism.

You have no right to deny the question simply because you say that it's undeniable.

If you believe that the existence of reality is undeniable, provide some evidence to support that conclusion, otherwise recognize that he is correct, that it is unknowable.



And remember, no evidence from reality, that's using the assumption that your argument is true to prove that it is true, a logical fallacy known as "begging the question".

 

[yossarian22]

To address the initial question, we all accept our experience as 100% truth. We cannot doubt our experience yet simultaneously retain a consistent belief system, as we must apply any doubt to [everything]. So personal experience is a valid reason for personal belief.

 

[RDK]

Why? Because you say so?!

Whether an objective reality exists is a constant topic in high-leveled philosophical discourse and subject to the same evidentiary rules as any other debate. I suggest you study Nihilism.

You have no right to deny the question simply because you say that it's undeniable.

If you believe that the existence of reality is undeniable, provide some evidence to support that conclusion, otherwise recognize that he is correct, that it is unknowable.



And remember, no evidence from reality, that's using the assumption that your argument is true to prove that it is true, a logical fallacy known as "begging the question".

True, but at some point you have to accept casuality in order to actually go anywhere in an intelligent debate. Nobody who actually believes in pure Nihilism is taken seriously in high-end philosophical debates. Even Nietzshce speculated about the flaws in Nihilist theory, and he was possibly its greatest staple.

Although, you could flip it all around and say the exact same thing about the possibility of a creator, which has just as weak (if not weaker) arguments than Nihilism.

Meh. I suppose this is why we have these debates then.

 

[AltF4]

Whether an objective reality exists is a constant topic in high-leveled philosophical discourse and subject to the same evidentiary rules as any other debate. I suggest you study Nihilism.

I suggest you study physics. Unlike philosophers, scientists have real answers.

 

[adumbrodeus]

True, but at some point you have to accept casuality in order to actually go anywhere in an intelligent debate. Nobody who actually believes in pure Nihilism is taken seriously in high-end philosophical debates. Even Nietzshce speculated about the flaws in Nihilist theory, and he was possibly its greatest staple.

Although, you could flip it all around and say the exact same thing about the possibility of a creator, which has just as weak (if not weaker) arguments than Nihilism.

Meh. I suppose this is why we have these debates then.

But the point is that objective reality is not PROVEN, not necessarily that it doesn't exist. There is a very large difference between the two. The point that was made from this is that this makes belief in such an article of faith, something which snex claimed to reject.





As for the tangents:

Nietzshce, while being a foundational inspiration to Nihilism, was not an advocate. In fact, he was highly opposed. Furthermore, his Nihilism is not modern Nihilism.

As for it's weaknesses, well, bring them, really errors in nihilism tend to be errors in precisly defining what the philosophy is as opposed to any actual counter-proof, in other words, proof that an objective reality does exist.

I suggest you study physics. Unlike philosophers, scientists have real answers.

Physics references to reality to obtain it's answers. You cannot prove something exists through an argument that presumes it exists, that's begging the question.

So, physics is out.

 

[adumbrodeus]

*meant to add on, not post a new message*

 

[AltF4]

I was just taking a stab at philosophers, adumbrodeus, lol. Not trying to make an argument. I love philosophy because it's fun, but it's totally worthless.

 

[Deleted member]

It's not like Physics is the fast-track to level 70 Enlightenment

 

[AltF4]

It's the fast track to level 70 useful information that you can get a job with!

With a philosophy degree, you get to think really long and hard... about being unemployed.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Well, keep in mind that philosophy basically fathered the scientific method, so it can't be all that bad.

 

[snex]

How does that confirm experience at all? At best, you show that experience is consistent. You have yet to show validity

consistency combined with a high level of correct predictions is all that matters. you seem to think that one needs some "higher level" of justification than that, but you are wrong. we could imagine a world where i see objects in front of me, but i cant grab them. that world would force me to doubt my experience.

Why? Because you say so?!

the fact that i am here to perceive anything at all is proof that reality exists. even if that reality is just my imagination, its there.

 

[cF=)]

Guys, this is how you spell the great philosopher's name correctly: N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E

To expand on snex's post, what matters is that we try to understand the world we live in, not understand whether reality's "real" or just the conception we have of our surroundings. Even if we are all imagining this reality, the laws binding it are observable through repeated experiences.

 

[Taymond]

It's the fast track to level 70 useful information that you can get a job with!

Physics only provides useful information if reality exists. Physics provides information about reality. If reality doesn't exist, that information isn't useful.

 

[snex]

Physics only provides useful information if reality exists. Physics provides information about reality. If reality doesn't exist, that information isn't useful.

wrong! physics provides information about what we perceive and how it seems to behave. it is useful whether or not its actually "reality."

 

[Taymond]

Well you're offering a limited meaning for the word "useful."

Say you're dreaming, and in your dream, your subconscious has created rules about how the dream world is structured, geographically, even in regard to local physics. They're relevant inside the dream, because they tell you how the dream world works. But the world of your dreams is separate from the world of your waking. In the world of your waking, outside the world of your dreams, knowledge about how the dream world works has no value, it's without use.

You could argue that knowledge has worth purely for the sake of knowledge acquisition, yes. But if reality isn't real, then that knowledge has no practical application in whatever outer structure is real, if any exists. Physics provides information about reality, but if reality is only fantasy, then what's the use of that knowledge? The results and affects of reality don't matter outside of reality.

Edit: How did I type purple instead of purely...?

 

[yossarian22]

consistency combined with a high level of correct predictions is all that matters. you seem to think that one needs some "higher level" of justification than that, but you are wrong. we could imagine a world where i see objects in front of me, but i cant grab them. that world would force me to doubt my experience.

How would that world force you to doubt your experience at all? You have no way of knowing if you have a sensory impairment. Consistency is all that matters within the context of experience itself.

the fact that i am here to perceive anything at all is proof that reality exists. even if that reality is just my imagination, its there.

Just inside your imagination. Yet you treat it as real. We have no option but to have unwaivering faith in our experience. We can't remain consistent unless we do.

 

[snex]

How would that world force you to doubt your experience at all? You have no way of knowing if you have a sensory impairment. Consistency is all that matters within the context of experience itself.

it is not consistent with my memories if i see objects that i cannot grab. i must either doubt my memory, doubt one or more of my senses, or doubt that reality is the same as it used to be. in every one of these cases, your claim that i use faith is WRONG.

Just inside your imagination. Yet you treat it as real. We have no option but to have unwaivering faith in our experience. We can't remain consistent unless we do.

repeating your lie yet again doesnt make it any more true.

 

[adumbrodeus]

the fact that i am here to perceive anything at all is proof that reality exists. .

It's proof that SOMETHING exists in some form.

And that something is the observer, aka you. Think about it, certain mental disorders cause you to believe that things exist that do not, and even if this wasn't an established fact, you cannot assume that your senses are giving good information without proof.

So, you have proven to yourself that you exist in some form. Of course, there is no way for you to communicate that to me without using my senses (which cannot be proven to be trustworthy because they could be telling me things that do not exist, are there) so I can access no proof that anyone exists except myself.

So, there is no proof that the universe isn't me imagination, or imposed by an unknown outside force. I cannot even positively know if I am the only entity that exists.


Reality is an axiom, something we basically accept on faith because it's unprovable, yet not believing makes everything useless.

even if that reality is just my imagination, its there

That makes no sense, if it is just your imagination, then it is not there. You just contradicted yourself.

 

[snex]

It's proof that SOMETHING exists in some form.

And that something is the observer, aka you. Think about it, certain mental disorders cause you to believe that things exist that do not, and even if this wasn't an established fact, you cannot assume that your senses are giving good information without proof.

So, you have proven to yourself that you exist in some form. Of course, there is no way for you to communicate that to me without using my senses (which cannot be proven to be trustworthy because they could be telling me things that do not exist, are there) so I can access no proof that anyone exists except myself.

So, there is no proof that the universe isn't me imagination, or imposed by an unknown outside force. I cannot even positively know if I am the only entity that exists.


Reality is an axiom, something we basically accept on faith because it's unprovable, yet not believing makes everything useless.



That makes no sense, if it is just your imagination, then it is not there. You just contradicted yourself.

way to miss the point entirely. even if the world i observe is just my imagination, it is still the world i observe. i will still die or be severely injured if i step in front of a bus, no matter how imaginary that bus is.

which, if you think about it, is evidence that the world is *not* just my imagination. if its just my imagination, why does it seem to follow fixed rules that i cant break? why are there things that other people seem to know but that i do not know? if its all my imagination, the world should contain nothing that i do not know.

 

[Knight-errant]

the reason i accuse you of lying is because that is exactly what you are doing. MY position is "i do not use faith." critique that position, do not assert that i DO use faith when i just told you that i do not. saying i use it when i just said i dont is LYING.

You do use faith. Everybody does. It doesn't necessarily mean "faith" as in "I believe in some creator out there." It just means faith in the sense of "I believe that event A will happen if I perform action B."

For example, why do you turn a light switch on to turn the lights on? Because you have faith in--or believe--that flipping on the switch will also turn on the light.

Another example: you eat food in faith that it will give your body energy.

Why is this faith? Because those things you are believing aren't necessarily true. Just because you flip the switch doesn't mean the light can't stay unlit. Just because you eat food doesn't necessarily mean it'll be good for you; it might make you sick instead.

Yet you perform those individual actions without researching them each time because you have faith that they will work as they usually do.

 

[ComradeSAL]

way to miss the point entirely. even if the world i observe is just my imagination, it is still the world i observe. i will still die or be severely injured if i step in front of a bus, no matter how imaginary that bus is.

ORLY? How many times have you jumped in front of a bus, and out of that number, how many times did you die?

 

[snex]

You do use faith. Everybody does. It doesn't necessarily mean "faith" as in "I believe in some creator out there." It just means faith in the sense of "I believe that event A will happen if I perform action B."

For example, why do you turn a light switch on to turn the lights on? Because you have faith in--or believe--that flipping on the switch will also turn on the light.

Another example: you eat food in faith that it will give your body energy.

Why is this faith? Because those things you are believing aren't necessarily true. Just because you flip the switch doesn't mean the light can't stay unlit. Just because you eat food doesn't necessarily mean it'll be good for you; it might make you sick instead.

Yet you perform those individual actions without researching them each time because you have faith that they will work as they usually do.

none of that is faith, as has already been explained.

ORLY? How many times have you jumped in front of a bus, and out of that number, how many times did you die?

i have EVIDENCE that jumping in front of a bus would lead to the fate i mentioned. and since i can perform experiments on non-deadly objects, like toy cars, and watch them smack into me, and i will feel minor pain from them, i dont need faith to infer the same about buses.

you people still cant seem to tell the difference between evidence and faith. why is that? is there something wrong in your brains?

 

[adumbrodeus]

way to miss the point entirely. even if the world i observe is just my imagination, it is still the world i observe. i will still die or be severely injured if i step in front of a bus, no matter how imaginary that bus is.

You will THINK you're severely injured, but you have no way of confirming that fact without resorting to your senses, which as we already established, have no independent confirmation, so cannot be trusted.

Even if we were to accept that you were truly injured by being hit by an imaginary bus (which is of course, unproven) then it still proves nothing. There is no proof that the unreal if believed strongly enough, cannot affect one's state.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, are you familiar with the placebo effect? The opposite reaction has been observed as well.

Also, dying is quite possible from these effects... assuming it's possible for you to die of course. Do you have any confirmation outside of other people telling you that it is possible for your consciousness to cease to exist.

which, if you think about it, is evidence that the world is *not* just my imagination. if its just my imagination, why does it seem to follow fixed rules that i cant break? why are there things that other people seem to know but that i do not know? if its all my imagination, the world should contain nothing that i do not know.

I never said it was your imagination, I merely mentioned it as one of many possibilities that exist where this world is an illusion. It could be imposed by an unknown outside force.

But if it is your imagination (or more likely from my prospective, my imagination) then you can easily impose restrictions upon it without even realizing it. What do you think phobias are? Even in your own flights of fancy (aka, when you imagine things) you impose restrictions on what can and cannot happen, some consciously and some unconsciously.

What makes you think that your dream of the universe would be any different, if you did make it up?




Ultimately you are depending on your senses to confirm the accuracy of your senses. That's like relying on mislabeled measuring cup to give accurate readings. Sure, they'll be consistent, but consistently wrong. You need something other then it to confirm, and until then you do not know.

 

[snex]

You will THINK you're severely injured, but you have no way of confirming that fact without resorting to your senses, which as we already established, have no independent confirmation, so cannot be trusted.

Even if we were to accept that you were truly injured by being hit by an imaginary bus (which is of course, unproven) then it still proves nothing. There is no proof that the unreal if believed strongly enough, cannot affect one's state.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, are you familiar with the placebo effect? The opposite reaction has been observed as well.

Also, dying is quite possible from these effects... assuming it's possible for you to die of course. Do you have any confirmation outside of other people telling you that it is possible for your consciousness to cease to exist.

none of this actually addresses my point.

I never said it was your imagination, I merely mentioned it as one of many possibilities that exist where this world is an illusion. It could be imposed by an unknown outside force.

But if it is your imagination (or more likely from my prospective, my imagination) then you can easily impose restrictions upon it without even realizing it. What do you think phobias are? Even in your own flights of fancy (aka, when you imagine things) you impose restrictions on what can and cannot happen, some consciously and some unconsciously.

What makes you think that your dream of the universe would be any different, if you did make it up?

why would my dream universe follow discoverable laws of physics that use mathematical equations that i did not understand at one point in my life? your scenario simply does not make sense.

Ultimately you are depending on your senses to confirm the accuracy of your senses. That's like relying on mislabeled measuring cup to give accurate readings. Sure, they'll be consistent, but consistently wrong. You need something other then it to confirm, and until then you do not know.

i am not depending on my senses to confirm the accuracy of my senses, and youd know this if you paid attention. i am confirming the *precision* of my senses and using them to *predict* things. faith cannot do either.

 

[adumbrodeus]

none of this actually addresses my point.

Yes it does, you have no way of confirming you are injured therefore your scenario is useless.

why would my dream universe follow discoverable laws of physics that use mathematical equations that i did not understand at one point in my life? your scenario simply does not make sense.

Assuming that the universe is your sole dream, which is only one of the MANY possibilities....






Because you do not realize that you understand them...

Or more precisely, you understand them at a subconscious level because you created them, and when you were "taught" them, it became conscious.

Or you simply generated them as the need came up, before you generated them, any examples were mere gibberish.

i am not depending on my senses to confirm the accuracy of my senses, and youd know this if you paid attention. i am confirming the *precision* of my senses and using them to *predict* things. faith cannot do either.

Where is the independent measure? Is there one single scrap of evidence that is not directly from your senses or is not accessed through your senses that can confirm any of your predictions?

Every assertion you have made is backed by data from senses, that you will get hurt if you go in front of a moving bus ("touch" for yourself and sight for objects you have seen), your observations of science (all 5 senses, though sight most often), etc.

Whether the world was imposed on you from outside or merely dreamed by you, it would have a degree of internal consistency otherwise it would not be convincing. The delusions of people in padded rooms have their own internal consistency after all.

The point being, that of course it will be predictable, but predictability and validity are very different things. Something might be very predictable, but if there isn't any proof that it's actually measuring the right thing, then it's not valid.

For instance, I could use number of pirates to measure global climate change. If there is a negative correlation, does that mean that less pirates actually means greater climate change? No, unless there is proof to that effect, it's not a valid measure because there is no causation, merely correlation.

 

[AltF4]

I made a thread a while ago on A Priori knowledge. This discussion might make more sense under that topic. It's deviated quite a bit from religion.

 

[Taymond]

why would my dream universe follow discoverable laws of physics that use mathematical equations that i did not understand at one point in my life? your scenario simply does not make sense.

Your subconscious is capable of doing enormous amounts of things that your conscious is not aware of. It's more than possible that your subconscious would simply deprive your conscious self of that knowledge, if it chose to construct a dream world for you to inhabit. It would use knowledge that you as a whole had at once possessed, but you would not be allowed that knowledge freely anymore.

You completely misunderstand what the people here are defining as reality. If the world around you is just your imagination, it's not reality, it's a relative reality. The actual reality is wherever you are imagining from, if there is such a place. If you're dreaming this life, then this life is not reality, it's the waking world.

You also misunderstand the definition of the word faith and its application here. Every "proof" you try to make here involves accepting something unproven to begin with and then using that to prove something else. You seem okay admitting that your senses can deceive you. You seem okay accepting the possibility that you are simply imagining what you perceive is reality. If your senses can be fallible, than you cannot trust what your senses tell you. You can't gain evidence from fallible senses to support what those fallible senses perceive.

To use a classic example, say I sell you a stick that keeps away tigers. You're dubious that it works, but you buy it anyway and monitor the amount of tigers you encounter afterwards. Pretty quickly, you see that no tigers seem to approach you. You gain evidence that supports the claimed function of the stick, and you're able to confirm experimentally that the stick does, indeed, keep away tigers.

Clearly there's something missing from this situation. It's overlooking the possibility that tigers wouldn't be around you to begin with. A similar sort of error exists in your examples. You cannot reinforce your beliefs about reality, as preserved by your sense, by using your senses to observe reality. You're assuming in the first place that your senses work, but you have no reason to believe that. You cannot confirm that your senses work by observing that they work consistently how you think they're supposed to.

No tigers approached you, but that doesn't mean the stick kept tigers away. When you touch something, you feel it, but that doesn't prove that touch exists, because what you feel could be a deception of your mind.

You have this misconception that every fragment of knowledge you possess MUST be conscious knowledge. Why must that be so?

 

[AltF4]

The easiest way to show that some basic fundamental assumptions MUST be made:

Every argument and proof comes in the form:

Premise 1
Premise 2
...
Premise n
----------
Conclusion

You can then try to justify your premises with further proofs, which must contain more premises. And what you have in an infinitely recursive proof of premises. Something must be assumed "on faith" as it were in order to accept any argument or proof.

This is how we get around the problems of universal doubt. There are many basic fundamental assumptions that we deem to be "rational" and make on a daily basis.

So if that is your definition of me "having faith in something" then yes. But I would say that such a phrase is misleading at best, and is designed entirely to misrepresent my viewpoints.