When a Christian or a person of another theistic religion says that their God exists, the truth is that they are saying this because they believe that God(s) exists. Regardless of how sure they claim to be or what "evidence" they give, the fact is that is simply what they believe, because no one knows if any God(s) exist, which is the exact reason why no evidence has been provided for the existence of any God(s). I personally do not have an opinion either way regarding God(s) or their presence, so I guess you could call me agnostic, but I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. I'm not arguing for atheists or theists, I'm simply saying that theists don't actually know if God does or does not exist, and therefore they should not claim to know this or try to give atheists reasons why God(s) does exists as opposed to simply accepting that they don't know if God exists. — Maureen
Argument from incredulity.
Perhaps you find this arguement compelling.
— Noah Te Stroete
No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling. — S
This is the part that I, not necessarily object to, but which I mean muddies the waters for those who aren't knowledgable in philosophy. They use "knowledge isn't different than belief" as proof that belief has the same position of truth as claims rooted in rational reasoning, evidence and so on. Maybe a new terminology of knowledge based on supporting information with high scrutiny of skepticism should be named in order not to be confused with "belief", as just by looking at this forum, many get confused by. — Christoffer
I really don't understand when people use "likely" that way. Likely based on what? It seems like it's just shorthand for "based on my intuitive preconceptions . . . " — Terrapin Station
It’s an abductive inference. — Noah Te Stroete
An abductive inference based on what? — Terrapin Station
What do you mean? — Noah Te Stroete
how do you infer that other people are conscious other than that it is a better explanation than that solipsism is true?
Behavior in conjunction with one's first-person knowledge of how one's similar behavior is correlated with mental activity. — Terrapin Station
What makes the supportive/justificational difference between the sentence above and the alternate sentence that you typed? We ask the person above what they're basing their sentence on and they say: "It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood. " Is that good enough? If so, why don't you believe their sentence over your alternate sentence? — Terrapin Station
It seems that there is no mechanistic explanatory model for how conscious life formed. — Noah Te Stroete
Would you say then that you're also essentially arguing that "If matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance, then it seems likely that there would be a mechanistic explanatory model for that by now"? — Terrapin Station
I would argue that even if such a model were given, it still couldn’t rule out some kind of guidance. I would still infer abductively that there is a “divine” consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete
The other issue is how we'd support that there would be some sort of mechanistic explanatory model by now. — Terrapin Station
Atheists who aren't philosophically-educated are just as troublesome in this regard, though, because they wind up saying silly things like "I don't have beliefs," "I don't believe that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen; I know there is," etc.
All you need to do with theists is to explain that knowledge isn't belief simpliciter. It's a qualified species of belief. — Terrapin Station
True. I have a preference for a “divine” consciousness, just as others have a preference for no “divine” consciousness. I gave my reasons for my belief. What are your reasons for yours? — Noah Te Stroete
I was more interested in talking about epistemology in general, and the idea of likelihood more specifically (although we never ended up getting into that). — Terrapin Station
Sure. I also infer inductively by analogy, but it is not something that ALSO doesn’t rely on an abductive inference that everything you experience is really happening. How do you know that you’re not hallucinating and are delusional all the time? — Noah Te Stroete
I said that you'd commited the fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. — S
I am saying that it is a better explanation that conscious life was guided into existence. — Noah Te Stroete
Why? Laziness? — S
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.