There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. — Noah Te Stroete

And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. If you use abductive reasoning to arrive at true conclusions, you fail to understand when to use abduction.

I claimed what I believe. It may be true, it may not. Just like your atheistic beliefs.

I claimed what I believe. It may be true, it may not. Just like your atheistic beliefs. — Noah Te Stroete

My atheistic "beliefs" are not beliefs. I don't accept something as true without any support for it being true. That's not belief, it's the lack of belief, the lack of belief in anything unsupported. Now you're just doing a straw man attempt by trying to attack atheism when it has nothing to do with your unsupported belief. Your belief is also irrelevant within philosophy, you need more than mere belief. You can try and justify it however you want, but the truth is that you fail basic philosophy through the way you reason your argument. And now you're just being stubborn instead of improving your argument. That's called evangelism and it's not allowed on this forum. If you want to rant your personal beliefs with no interest in listening to counter-arguments, go to Twitter, Facebook or some religious forum.

How is my explanation "bad"? — Noah Te Stroete

It's not supported by any of the things which you assert support it, and you're just buying for time instead of getting on with it. Just turning up and presenting a bad argument isn't anywhere near meeting your burden of justification. Nor is just saying shit without backing it up with reason.

How does one explain something by not reaching a conclusion? — Noah Te Stroete

A conclusion is reached. That conclusion is that we don't know enough. Given that we don't know enough, your conclusion is unwarranted.

I don't think that that's hard to understand.

I'm bored and tired of the whole atheism/theism debate. You're being ridiculous. I'm not evangelizing. That's libel, and you're just being an ass.

I fail to see how you're being reasonable yourself. The pot calling the kettle "black".

"I have no beliefs regarding God, but I will try without good supporting reasons to tear down anyone who holds a belief and gives reasons for it. It is not knowledge, therefore it is not philosophy."

That's what you two sound like. It's drivel, hogwash, nonsense, and a total waste of my time.

I'm out the door to donate blood for the 14th time, so I only have a second.

Being held in existence is not up for debate because the alternative is not only unintelligible, it's downright insane. Think of the philosophical contrary and the square of opposition.

Give me enough time and an open mind and I will turn the person around.

Why? Because we're being held in existence, and only One entity exists as an intrinsic necessity performing that ongoing fact. If something else besides God is holding you in being and THAT Supreme Being is going to have you cease to exist then it's not much of a holder now! — Daniel Cox

But you've given me no reason to believe anything you just said. (Well, setting aside your first sentence about giving blood. And good on you, by the way). I've been trying to get you to realise how you come across to a sceptic by bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I take it you don't believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessarily under your bed right now?

I would be interested to hear how you explain consciousness using the physicalist model. — Noah Te Stroete

As I've said a number of times, I'd not get involved in arguments based on whether something is explained or not if we don't first establish a general set of criteria for explanations. The criteria should work so that it passes through things that you'd say are explained, but so that it doesn't pass through things that you'd say are not explained. We'd need a few examples of each in addition to the criteria.

JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF? — Daniel Cox

Not such a smart person after all. Belief doesn't imply certainty. Knowledge, which is a more limited, qualified type of belief, doesn't even imply certainty.

Unless you have a history of mental illness accompanied by severe delusions, or you've been talking some serious drugs, it's pretty safe to say the fridge is real. — whollyrolling

Which is aka asserting a belief. The belief is likely true and justified. Hence you know it; it's knowledge.

Christoffer
510

Fuck Russel. — Frank Apisa


Really? You're pretty insignificant compared to his contribution to philosophy and you pretty much ignore him just because it's convenient for you. If that's the level you want to hold the discussion, then goodbye.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Christoffer

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Okay, so you can't reasonably support your own claims. Got it. You go from "highly likely" to "I prefer it". That's pretty ridiculous, and way below the standards of good philosophy.

On Russell, I would have phrased it a bit different; its possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time. There is no basis in logic for his strident atheism.

It's interesting that education goes to such lengths to infect everyone with a compulsion to prove and deny reality simultaneously.

Asking for evidence is a very complex question for the atheist to ask. In the simplest sense 'evidence' is just a body of objects, facts, situations etc. Every dust mote, every galaxy, every living being is evidence. Evidence for what?

That is the difference between evidence and 'evidence for'. 'Evidence for' is subjective. Two people can look at a body of facts/evidence and argue differently as to what this body of facts is 'evidence for'.

There is a whole universe of evidence in this sense.

Atheists have convinced many people that the mystery of being is mystery concerning matter and can be addressed in the context of materialism. I disagree. The true mystery of being is an onthological question; the mind is connected to a vast ontological universe of art, mathematics, creativity, religion, music, intelligence. This vast ontological universe is the soul and mystery of being. Why does it exist? What is it?

What the atheist is really asking is "where is the material evidence?" In other words, they are looking for evidence in their own terms. But even in their terms it is everywhere; what is the material universe evidence for? They have their answers prepared. But what about the onthological universe of consciousness and imagination? It is, they argue, an accidental artifact of accidental evolution. In other words, they dismiss it.

You say that if the God exists people could provide 'evidence'. But evidence is everywhere already! What is it evidence for? It is not a question of providing evidence it is a question of providing a coherent and convincing argument as to what the evidence means.
The atheist will respond to this by saying "We want public evidence. Evidence that can be shared and agreed upon." But objective evidence of this kind pertains only to the primitive world of matter and intellect and science. And matter, mathematics and science are primitive and basic. Onthological questions are more sophisticated and evolved. The human intellect is not up to the task. It is earthbound and imprisoned in a web of tautologies and imprecise language.* Materialism and intellect are not able to answer questions concerning ontology and consciousness. The atheist balks at answers that come from consciousness rather than intellect (or a mix both). The only way to answer the atheists is to tell them that these questions pertain to the ontological arena and not (only) the material world.


*As has been said above 'It is possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time'.

What should be obvious to everyone is that in an Internet forum devoted to Philosophy...if the subject of the existence or non-existence of gods arises...

...proponents of neither side should state their case as an assertion or claim. The moment one does that...a burden of proof accrues that just cannot be met.

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. They happen to be in opposite directions...but that is almost incidental.

The "But my guess is more likely than your guess" nonsense...is laughable.

You wrote, "without any support for it being true," but you have a side you're arguing for and a side you're arguing against. I've never met anyone in my life who forfeits an argument by claiming, "Your side has the support for its conclusions and my side doesn't, I'm switching sides."

Claiming "I'm accepting this because it has support, and you only have faith in what you're claiming and no support" is nothing but a religious tautology. Announcing what side of a dispute you're on doesn't score points with judges or juries.

I've never seen one scintilla of proof for the word "atheism." It's 100% evangelical.

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. — Frank Apisa

Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God.

To be 100% confident in making a decision whether to believe in god’s existence or not, you need to study all the related topics (e.g. biology, physiology, psychology, evolution, all religion, etc). Then you would need critical thinking skills to evaluate truth from falsehood and any connections between the subjects. You would also need a lot of time, money and will to do that and this is the reason why so many people cannot speak about the subject meaningfully. Science is valid because of evidence, and evidence needs to be adequate to approve or disprove a hypothesis. There are multiple forms of evidence but science focuses on gathering empirical evidence because it is viewed as the strongest type of proof. Empirical evidence is information collected through MULTIPLE observations and experimentation. It focuses on observing behaviours of different things and experiments with different interventions to observe their responses. Looking for evidence to approve god’s existence you will find only testimonial evidence (e.g. Bible). Like in courts, testimonial evidence is information spoken or written under oath. This type of evidence strongly relies on the witness’s understanding which can be inaccurate. This is why it is considered weak evidence. In order to prove or disprove god’s existence we would need his presence in order to observe his behaviour.
If we refer to god as the all loving/caring father who guides us and waits for us in heaven, then there is no sufficient evidence for his existence. To the extent of my knowledge, the only evidence present are the bible, the church, religious people and their sayings, and personal need for greater purpose. The validity of the bible is questionable since through the years it was probably tampered with. If we assume it is 100% original then the problem is that it is simply the testimony of men. Thinking about ancient religions, we can see how our ancestors worshipped their gods. However, beliefs seem to change through the years and this may suggest that it is a human tendency to believe to something greater and noble. Often, people claim that they encountered god’s face (or a loved ones) in smoke/fire etc. They are probably not liars but there is some science behind that. For example, in psychology, pareidolia is a term for the tendency to see patterns and interpret them as something meaningful. There is also auditory pareidolia (hearing things). Then there is the personal need for purpose. Refusing this feeling would result in a meaningless life. Understanding that feelings act as a feedback mechanism for optimal living/survival and that behaviour has been developed through evolution, then we might be susceptible to a new meaning of life. It seems that as I improve my knowledge my belief diminishes. However, drawing absolute conclusions with so many questions is ignorant.
If we refer to god as a creating force then the meaning of life would be survival and evolution. Survival would depend on our decision making (free will) and reproduction (passing our genes to the next generation) and evolution would depend on personal growth. In this case, religion would be symbolic. God allows suffering for adaptation, thus greatness, thus closer to him. For example, in exercise physiology, stressing/damaging a muscle results in its growth. So suffering is part of evolution. I grew up as a Christian, switched to atheism, and now I believe that god (the creator) is not something that we can comprehend (at least at this point). If you know human physiology you can understand that electricity is also present in the human body and not only in the surrounding environment. Oxygen too. What I want to say is that the existence of life is linked to the matter that surrounds it. This might be the reason our ancestors thought the Earth as a god. Maybe we are part of a giant organism that is too sophisticated for us to understand. If god exists, it is not a mere religion.

Existence is the ability to act. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not act on me, but a Supreme Being holding me in existence is an ongoing act extraordinaire.

I'm skeptical of the claim of "atheism" and "naturalism." The skeptical sword cuts both ways.

EnPassant
81

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. — Frank Apisa


Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God. — EnPassant

Some would say they are Napoleon.

The expert in philosophy, Dr. Dennis Polis, Ph.D. (Physics) 67 video curriculum is entitled Open Philosophy. He referred me to you here. The transcription demonstrated on about 20 different points how knowledge is not any type of belief.

Do you want to try a different approach?

I'm not all that brilliant, I'm just really great at learning stuff that interests me. Trying to impinge my fifteen million dollar education doesn't hurt my feelings one bit because Dr. Polis is unequalled on these subjects and I haply defer to him as you should have noticed by my repeated copy & pastes of material I copied by hand from his book, and from his 67 videos. Videos I transcribed.

He routine lectures for the International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies at their international symposiums. It's probably close to $400 for a ticket. For the last month I've been trying to raise money for my soap ministry, Alyssa Michelle Soap. I've been emailing pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux. I contacted some people involved in the 113 year Easter Sunday Sunrise Service Pilgrimage here in Riverside asking about some help for my ministry. The lady said a fellow handling it would be at a prayer breakfast, I should talk to him. I said, "Great! When and where is the prayer breakfast." She gave the place and time and then said, "Sixty dollars." F*ck, am I allowed to say that here? Sixty dollars is 180 ten dollar soaps!! One whole fair's worth.

No one has paid a crying dime, not one red cent.

Not all that smart? You're probably right, but I'd rather be blessed anyway. Forty-thousand dollars an hour is a soft multiple of what my Dad made 35 years ago.

Do you appreciate the difference between “Philosophy of Religion” and “Theology”? Don’t pull the wool over your own eyes, this is a philosophy forum so to assume authority of theism here is a no starter, sorry.

Philosophy of Science is the analysis of religion without the presumption of belief in any said ‘god’. Atheism was a term used by the religious to sully someone’s name; funny thing is people started to take it more and more as a compliment :) — I like sushi

I understand the difference between philosophy of religion and Theology, hence why my arguments are always initiated with or acknowledged that God is a presupposition. And no, I did not assert Authority - at all, I just addressed that theism, must at least be respected as a belief and I don't think it should be neglected in the table of Philosophy.

Some would say they are Napoleon. — Frank Apisa

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true.

Hi, two hundred doctors, 67 doctors and their teams, had the test evidence before and after these two miracles. Duane Miller was miraculously healed of paralysis and he was miraculously healed of all the scar tissue.

...The doctor suspected then, that the virus may have penetrated the myelin sheath that insulates the nerves in the vocal chords. To get a picture of this, imagine a copper wire. That's a nerve. Now imagine black, rubber insulation around the wire. That's the myelin sheath. If you gently squeeze the two with a pair of plyers, you may indent the insulation, but the wire inside it remains unharmed. That's what usually happens when a virus invades your body. It may "indent" the insulation around the nerves, but rarely invades the nerve itself.

"Not only are you okay," he said, "but I can't find any evidence that you ever had a voice problem!"

He sat down and looked at me, amazed. "Even if I could explain how you got your voice back by coincidence -- which I can't -- I could never explain what happened to the scar tissue." He sighed. "Scar tissue _never_ disappears. It just never happens!"

This physician, a nonbeliever so far as I know, was so impressed that he eventually obtained hundreds of copies of the audiotape of when the healing occurred and sent them out to his friends and colleagues with a letter that said, "Look, we hear about these types of cases all the time, but I'm telling you, I witnessed this one, I have the test evidence. This one is _real."_

My doctor writes textbooks for medical schools. He specializes in neurology as it relates to speech -- and he personally verified the miracle with the most prestigious of his colleagues.

Out of the Silence by Duane Miller.

As a Reverend I've been noticing a pattern over the last 38 years how naturalists twist science to conform to their canons and flippantly dismiss any science that contradicts their most preciously held beliefs. When we argue for a position the first thing we must do is know our opponents' arguments better than they do, and never leave a flank exposed.

Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists. — Christoffer

The scrutiny was not applied to my arguments presented, well, at least I think so. Everyone just started to be baffled and attack my claim that theism, is and deserves to be in the table of philosophy. And my arguments have nothing to do with evangelisation, I don't want to evangelise any of you. But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing.

To add, I think theism is just moved by perspectives that acclaim labeling us as delusional, or beliefs being unjustified - and I will expect people to affirm that into its as-a-matter-of-factness.

To be 100% confident in making a decision whether to believe in god’s existence or not, you need to study all the related topics (e.g. biology, physiology, psychology, evolution, all religion, etc). Then you would need critical thinking skills to evaluate truth from falsehood and any connections between the subjects. You would also need a lot of time, money and will to do that and this is the reason why so many people cannot speak about the subject meaningfully — akourios

Personally I don't think study or intellect has anything to do with belief in God. It has to do with consciousness. The intellect is not the only way to knowledge. Knowledge (of God and the world) can come directly through consciousness. That is what the atheist cannot accept and dismisses as delusion.

Existence is the ability to act. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not act on me, but a Supreme Being holding me in existence is an ongoing act extraordinaire. — Daniel Cox

Look, how can I put this: declaring ridiculous things is not doing philosophy. Do you understand that?

I just addressed that theism, must at least be respected as a belief — SethRy

No it doesn't, and I don't.

You go from "highly likely" to "I prefer it". That's pretty ridiculous, and way below the standards of good philosophy. — S

I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. Just like a intuitively feel like you are more likely to punch a baby in the future than I am. I have no proof of the future, but I’m almost certain I’m right.

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true. — EnPassant

Right, the difference is that you really do know God. (Just like he really does know that he's Napoleon).