In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. — TheMadFool
However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. — TheMadFool
What determines plausibility? For example, miracles are plausible to me, but they must obviously be quite rare, otherwise they wouldn't be miracles in the first place, but common occurrences.plausibility — Terrapin Station
Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you?The problem with Pascal's wager is that there's no reason to believe that if there is a God, anyone knows what the consequences of not believing in the God in question are. — Terrapin Station
You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience - in the Eastern countries, non-belief in God is taken to be a form of psychosis, since people are expected to be aware of a spiritual reality in which they partake. So this consciousness that "there is no good reason to believe" is by all means not common to all of mankind - I'd go as far as saying it's not common to MOST of mankind.With God, there's only hearsay, but no good reason to believe any of the hearsay. — Terrapin Station
In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. That is, propositions are assumed false until proven true. — TheMadFool
However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. Yet, there are people, atheists, who outright reject God. Compare this situation to the one about dogs I described above. While it was wise to assume the existence of a big nasty dog, it is considered unwise to assume there's a God. This despite the close similarity between a Dog and God.
What determines plausibility? — Agustino
Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you? — Agustino
You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience — Agustino
What does that mean though?God exists — Terrapin Station
How do you delimit what is your mind? Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, probably in isolation from the rest of reality?No, that would be evidence of things that my mind is doing only. — Terrapin Station
What does that mean though? — Agustino
Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, — Agustino
probably in isolation from the rest of reality? — Agustino
That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold.That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc. — Terrapin Station
How could there be such evidence? :s It's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of evidence here it seems to me.Because there's no evidence that thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. per se are anything else. — Terrapin Station
There appear to be none because all thoughts by default are perceived within your mind, but that doesn't tell us that your mind is their source. It's just like your eyes - just because trees are perceived with your eyes doesn't tell us that there are no trees outside your eyes.To believe something else I'd need to observe external-to-me thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. But there appear to be none. — Terrapin Station
What location? Thoughts have a spatial location? :sThey simply occur in a different location than other things. — Terrapin Station
It is very different because bowling can be perceived by the five senses, whereas thoughts can't.That's no different than the fact that bowling, say, occurs in a different location (like bowling alleys) than other things (like beaches). — Terrapin Station
No, because I have rarely and not in much depth discussed metaphysics with you - and I don't usually read your posts, since we generally participate in different kind of threads, so how would I be expected to know that? :sBut don't you already know my views on this stuff? I mean, how many times do I have to type the same thing before one remembers? — Terrapin Station
That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold. — Agustino
Yes. God is not a being the way you and me are beings. Theism makes a distinction between the created - beings - and the Uncreated - God. If you look around you, you will see that everything in this Universe is created - there was a time when it was not. So what we know as beings are all created things. A certain rearrangement of atoms, with certain properties, etc. etc. but fundamentally created things.Which part would "Theism" or Pascal disagree with? That we're talking about a being? — Terrapin Station
Then how do you get your notion of being if not from the things which you see around you, which are all impermanent and created? :sIf you were to ask me if "being" implies "created," I would say, "No." So that doesn't amount to disagreeing with me. — Terrapin Station
Then how do you get your notion of being if not from the things which you see around you, which are all impermanent and created? — Agustino
I thought you were an empiricist but okay. How would you define a "being" then? And does your concept of being apply to God in-so-far as it pertains to real things, or in-so-far as it pertains to abstract matters of the intellect - or both?Say that that's how I acquire my concept of "being." That does not imply that my concept of "being" includes an implication that beings are created. To assume that it would have to would be to not understand the act of abstraction in general.
For example, we could say that we acquire our concept of "triangle" by observing shapes and angles and relations etc. that we observe. That doesn't imply that our concept of "triangle" necessarily involves non-straight lines, lines that are not one-dimensional, angles that do not add up to exactly 180 degrees, etc.--even though we don't actually observe those things. — Terrapin Station
And does your concept of being apply to God in-so-far as it pertains to real things, or in-so-far as it pertains to abstract matters of the intellect - or both? — Agustino
I will take independent to mean separate from you. Well granted that theism generally holds that God sustains everything in existence at all moments, it seems to me that it would be wrong to think of God entirely as an "independent entity" - rather God is both within and without - both dependent and independent relative to you.It's some sort of "independent entity" — Terrapin Station
No, it's absolutely not, because theism isn't pantheism. But the fact that God is both external and internal is true. For example, St. Augustine writes:If it's simply a synonym for "everything," then I'd say that a lot of the talk about it is nonsensical. — Terrapin Station
No, it's absolutely not, because theism isn't pantheism. — Agustino
Okay, we will move on if that's all you were saying. So you agree that your terms don't imply that God is purely external of you, correct?You agree. So let's move on. — Terrapin Station
Good. Next I have to ask you:Yes. — Terrapin Station
What does "supernatural" mean? Is the fact of the mere existence of the natural world a supernatural fact? And what does control over events & entities in the world mean?That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc. — Terrapin Station
It takes your eye to perceive an external tree. Does it take your mind to perceive an external thought?So re "How could there be such evidence?"--by there being thoughts, emotions, etc. (whatever the list was) that are external to me. That's straightforward enough. — Terrapin Station
What does "supernatural" mean? Is the fact of the mere existence of the natural world a supernatural fact? And what does control over events & entities in the world mean? — Agustino
So Joe has the limited ability to alter some existing matter, by for example spilling ink on the paper. That's natural control to you. So then altering the chemical composition of water to form wine is a natural or supernatural control then, and why?Joe has some natural control over things in the world. For example, Joe can pick up a pen and write something on a piece of paper. — Terrapin Station
So then altering the chemical composition of water to form wine is a natural or supernatural control then, and why? — Agustino
The reason I'm asking you these questions is because it appears that the distinctions you draw are somewhat arbitrary. For example, you define natural control to be what Joe can do. But why would more powerful ways of affecting matter than those accessible to Joe count as supernatural? Is it just because they're not accessible to average people or what?Do we have to play the robot/retard game? — Terrapin Station
For example, you define natural control to be what Joe can do. — Agustino
They're not retard-like answers/questions at all, but if you want to be thorough in one's discussion, one needs to elucidate all such matters, even though they may be boring. Without such engagement it is impossible to reach any conclusions, and our discussions won't be productive because we'll misunderstand each other. I remember you said in a different thread you're easily entertained, but that doesn't appear to be so now.Again, it's my experience that people engage in philosophcial discussion--especially on message boards and the like--by basically pretending that they're robots or retards (at least I'm hoping they're pretending). So that gets one into the habit of trying to anticipate the retard-like responses you'll receive. — Terrapin Station
By what criteria for example would you distinguish internal thoughts from external thoughts granted that you perceive both with your mind? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.