Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Would anyone want to really go to heaven?
Comments
-
-
No offense here, but there are so many holes in your logic that as I said a week or two back in relation to something else, I'm at a loss to know where to start pointing them out. Though that's not stopped some of the forum's more durable contributors from having a go -- good on 'em!antiskeptic wrote: »If you've an issue with a point of it then by all means. I've no problem if there's a hole in it.
Yes, I hope you do. It's enjoyable not only for the interesting stories, each well-turned, but many are rather touching too. If nothing else, it should certainly help you to develop a more evidence-based understanding of the link between mind and body -- and from the typewriter of a man who's spent a lifetime at the coalface, rather than some distracted theologian, sitting in his hermitage, grinding a few of his political axesantiskeptic wrote: »(turns out my wife has that book "The man who mistook his wife for a hat". I'm off on holidays soon so will try to have a read of it then. Apparently it's quite enjoyable!)
0 -
-
-
MagicMarker wrote: »I'd like to hear antiskeptic's thoughts on evolution and why he 'doesn't not subscribe to that particular theory'.
It's probably not the place to get into it but my position hinges on a couple of points.
1) Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with.
2) God says he provides a delusion (I know, I know) to blind those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth. I take this to mean that God provides an emotionally and intellectually (if not spiritually) satisfying resting place for those who would maintain their desire to reject God. Unbelievers aren't to be left in a vacuum in other words - it would interfere unduly with their maintaining unbelief. Since science (especially when it comes to evolution) is used as a core plank in the rejection of God one has extra reason to distrust.
I know it's a simple analogy but have you ever seen that optical illusion (delusion) involving the old hag/young woman? The exact same information can be interpreted in two completely different ways.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html
Now imagine that someone figured the picture was an old hag. All their tests and theories harmonize to drumbeat that same message - for all the information supports that conclusion. But what about the other interpretation. A completely different one is possible. The spanner called evolution can now be fully dispensed with.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »1) Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with.
So basically you're going to ignore the facts to suit your religious beliefs?antiskeptic wrote: »2) God says he provides a delusion (I know, I know) to blind those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth. I take this to mean that God provides an emotionally and intellectually (if not spiritually) satisfying resting place for those who would maintain their desire to reject God. Unbelievers aren't to be left in a vacuum in other words - it would interfere unduly with their maintaining unbelief. Since science (especially when it comes to evolution) is used as a core plank in the rejection of God one has extra reason to distrust.
So presumably you are dubious of all scientific theories? The theory of Gravity for instance?antiskeptic wrote: »I know it's a simple analogy but have you ever seen that optical illusion (delusion) involving the old hag/young woman? The exact same information can be interpreted in two completely different ways.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html
Now imagine that someone figured the picture was an old hag. All their tests and theories harmonize to drumbeat that same message - for all the information supports that conclusion. But what about the other interpretation. A completely different one is possible. The spanner called evolution can now be fully dispensed with.
If you don't believe in evolution then where do you think we came from? Adam & Eve? And if so, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm going to apply your logic to political ideology to show why it is flawed.
Me: How you know that a particular communist policy is the best one to apply in a given situation?
You: If Karl Marx was right then communism is the best ideology and therefore it is the best one to apply in this situation
Me: What if Karl Marx wasn't right?
You: You misconstrue the place of 'if Karl Marx was right'. That is there for your benefit (so that you can examine the logic) not mine. When you suggest I consider "If Karl Marx wasn't right" you might as well suggest I consider "If this reality isn't real". Next stop solipsism. Which is useless.
This reasoning is useless to anyone who does not already accept that Karl Marx was right (in which case there would be no debate because we would already agree) just as your reasoning is useless to anyone who does not already believe in god. You cannot convince someone to believe in god by telling them that they should join you in simply ignoring the possibility that he doesn't
If only I was trying to prove God exists or convince someone to believe in God. I'm not trying to do that in this argument. I'm only interested in the consequences for someone like you, someone who would say that they won't/can't believe in God until they get clear empirical evidence for his existance.
You've decided to introduce the question of what happens if God doesn't exist without actually facing fully, the dilemma for you if he does. If your willing to complete the former task, I'm quite willing to face the latter. My mistake for attemping a swift answer. My mistake for being diverted.
Assuming you agree with this then perhaps we could recap. If you disagree at any stage stop me at that point.
1) According to previous argument we have seen that if God exists, then the process whereby he reveals himself to us is irrelevant to our knowing he exists. His demonstrating himself empirically is as valid as his demonstrating himself directly and personally, in other words. The one process is to be trusted as much as the other.
2) Are you interested in finding out that God exists - if he where to exisit. I'll assume a 'yes' answer for now
3) Would you now (in light of 1) above) be equally happy with God demonstrating his existance to you empirically or directly personally - in the case that he did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you? In other words, would you now expect personal revelation to provide as much certainty as empirical revelation - in the case that God did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you?
4) If the answer to 3) is 'Yes' then we have concluded our task and can now look at what happens if God doesn't exist, if you like.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »If only I was trying to prove God exists or convince someone to believe in God. I'm not trying to do that in this argument. I'm only interested in the consequences for someone like you, someone who would say that they won't/can't believe in God until they get clear empirical evidence for his existance.
You've decided to introduce the question of what happens if God doesn't exist without actually facing fully, the dilemma for you if he does. If your willing to complete the former task, I'm quite willing to face the latter. My mistake for attemping a swift answer. My mistake for being diverted.
Assuming you agree with this then perhaps we could recap. If you disagree at any stage stop me at that point.
1) According to previous argument we have seen that if God exists, then the process whereby he reveals himself to us is irrelevant to our knowing he exists. His demonstrating himself empirically is as valid as his demonstrating himself directly and personally, in other words. The one process is to be trusted as much as the other.
2) Are you interested in finding out that God exists - if he where to exisit. I'll assume a 'yes' answer for now
3) Would you now (in light of 1) above) be equally happy with God demonstrating his existance to you empirically or directly personally - in the case that he did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you? In other words, would you now expect personal revelation to provide as much certainty as empirical revelation - in the case that God did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you?
4) If the answer to 3) is 'Yes' then we have concluded our task and can now look at what happens if God doesn't exist, if you like.
The answer to 3) is yes if god exists. Any argument that depends on the statement if god exists is wasted on anyone who does not already think they know if god exists. The question of if god exists must be answered before this reasoning can be applied, this reasoning cannot be used to answer the question of if god exists nor can we ignore the question of if god exists and simply assume he does. How are you not getting this?
I'll try it one more way. Let's say I have a decision to make and I have two choices. I can either make the decision with a coin toss or I can study it for months and work out the best choice. A coin toss has a 50/50 chance of picking the best solution. I could just toss the coin and go with it but I can never be sure if this solution was the best one. If I do the months of work I have a 50/50 chance of coming up with the same answer as the coin toss and after doing all that work I could say that it was a waste of time because I ended up with the same answer I got from the coin toss. The point you're missing is that I can't say that the work was unnecessary until after I've done the work. I have to do the work before I can say I didn't have to do the work because, although I might end up with the correct answer with the coin toss, I don't know that it is the correct answer until I've done the work.
Basically, god must demonstrate himself empirically before we can say that he didn't have to demonstrate himself empirically because the reasoning for why he doesn't have to demonstrate himself empirically only applies once he has demonstrated himself empirically. So we still wait for empirical evidence of god despite the protests of people telling us we don't have to because they had a hallucination that they thought was god0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
My apologies for the delay in responding, Sam..Sam Vimes wrote:Nope. I do not accept that a knowledge of god's existence wouldn't depend on a process.antiskeptic wrote:If you use a process to arrive at a point where you can say the process itself was irrelvant to you arriving there then you didn't arrive there by the process in fact (even though you thought you were at the time). You would have just discovered that the process was a mere front for something else which brought you to that point. In this case, it would be God.
The above recaps the current sticking point. I say process is irrelevant to a knowledge of God (meaning that arrival by empirical evidence is as valid as arrival by any other process - including personal revelation). You say otherwise.If god exists then then empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.
If god doesn't exist then empiricism does produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.
Before it can be accepted that empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience it must be demonstrated that god exists. The only valid way to demonstrate that god exists is to begin with the presumption that he doesn't (or at least not begin with the presumption that he does). Otherwise you are presuming the thing that we are trying to establish which makes the whole endeavour pointless.
There is no need to demonstrate that God exists to make a statement about empiricsms validity in the case of God existing. The value of a logical statement like I've made up top is that you can draw conclusions without the logical condition actually being established in reality.
I'm not trying to demonstrate that God exists so this section isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about. Remember, I'm attempting to move you from step 1) to step 3). You're currently refusing ("Nope") to move from step 1). Have I addressed your concern?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »My apologies for the delay in responding, Sam..
The above recaps the current sticking point. I say process is irrelevant to a knowledge of God (meaning that arrival by empirical evidence is as valid as arrival by any other process - including personal revelation). You say otherwise.
There is not need to demonstrate that God exists to make a statement about empiricsms validity in the case of God existing. The value of a logical statement like I've made up top is that you can draw conclusions without the logical condition actually being established in reality.
I'm not trying to demonstrate that God exists so this section isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about. Remember, I'm attempting to move you from step 1) to step 3). You're currently refusing ("Nope") to move from step 1). Have I addressed your concern?
No you have not addressed my concern. You say you are not trying to demonstrate god's existence but you seem to be completely failing to grasp that your argument is irrelevant until you do because it only applies in a world where god's existence has already been demonstrated. Yes, if god exists then the process of revelation used is irrelevant but the experience you had cannot be said to be a reliable demonstration of god's existence until god's existence is demonstrated in a way that is reliable whether he exists or not. Your experience is reliable only if god exists so the possibility remains that you are deluded and this possibility remains just as much for you as it does for me.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That is true. I have never contested that your logic works if god exists.My objection is two fold:
1) Your logic does not bring us any closer to actually answering the question of if god exists and it is nothing but a thought exercise until the question is answered.
It was not designed to bring you any closer to answering the question of "if God exists". (At least not by any route that you would be expected to assent to. But I have my own agenda here)
You are incorrect in saying that it is just a thought exercise. There is a hard, logical conclusion to which your search is now subject. And because you are currently in the mode of search you must also bear that logical constraint in mind - in all your subsequent dealings.2) Personal experience cannot answer the question for me or for you because it can only be said to be reliable if god exists, i.e. once the question has already been answered.
The question of the reliability of any process evaporates at the point of God turning up. Process is irrelevant in the case the question is answered - as I have been saying.You can't know that god exists any more than I do until you get a demonstration that is reliable whether god exists or not. God can only demonstrate himself in a way that eliminates the possibility of delusion and personal experience does not do that.
Which has you back at relying on process (in the case of Gods existance) when up top you say that process is irrelevant (in the case of Gods existance). How can process be irrelevant in the case of Gods existance (you agree) whilst at the same time being something God must rely on in the case of Gods existance?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »It was not designed to bring you any closer to answering the question of "if God exists". (At least not by any route that you would be expected to assent to. But I have my own agenda here)
You are incorrect in saying that it is just a thought exercise. There is a hard, logical conclusion to which your search is now subject. And because you are currently in the mode of search you must also bear that logical constraint in mind - in all your subsequent dealings.
The question of the reliability of any process evaporates at the point of God turning up. Process is irrelevant in the case the question is answered - as I have been saying.
Which has you back at relying on process (in the case of Gods existance) when up top you say that process is irrelevant (in the case of Gods existance). How can process be irrelevant in the case of Gods existance (you agree) whilst at the same time being something God must rely on in the case of Gods existance?
Right, process is irrelevant in the case that the question has been answered. So how does one answer the question, bearing in mind that personal revelation can only be said to be reliable once the question has already been answered and therefore cannot be used (even by you) to answer the question?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
They should be but unfortunately that doesn't mean they all are. Most on this forum are.
Is that another way of saying that you think some atheists are deluded too?Yes of course the "or not" would evaporate with god's empirical appearance and you are right to say that if god made an empirical appearance I'd then be in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god
If process is rendered irrelevant by God turning up then you can ask God ("if you exist") to turn up by any process. You would be merely aknowledging before a potential event, what would be the case were the event to take place.but god has not made an empirical appearance so the "or not" has not evaporated and I am not in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god.
See above.The problem with your entire line of argument is that it requires me to pretend that I am and/or accept that you are even though god has not demonstrated himself empirically to you either.
You seem to have missed a word out here. "I am and/or accept that you are ...... even though"The point is:
Direct revelation is reliable if god exists
Direct revelation is not reliable if god doesn't exist
Empiricism is reliable if god exists
Empiricism is reliable if god doesn't exist
The reliability of empiricism is not dependent on god's existence so your assertion that "empiricisms reliability exists only because [god] exists" is wrong.
I'm not asserting that empiricisms reliability exists only because God exists. Rather, I seem to have your agreement on the place of empiricism if God exists. Once we've established your position wrt the device of this 'prayer' then we can draw other conclusions about how you view someone like me.Your reasoning does not "render me neutral on the subject of you claiming to know God exists" because your reasoning leaves open a very significant possibility that you are deluding yourself. The probability of this could be reduced through empiricism because the reliability of empiricism does not depend on an assumption of god's existence but never reduced to zero.
Assuming we can have you pray that prayer (with conviction), I think we can have a re-look at this. 0 -
-
Yesantiskeptic wrote: »Is that another way of saying that you think some atheists are deluded too?antiskeptic wrote: »If process is rendered irrelevant by God turning up then you can ask God ("if you exist") to turn up by any process. You would be merely aknowledging before a potential event, what would be the case were the event to take place.
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. Asking god to show up by any process requires me to believe that process is irrelevant which it is only if he exists. I must believe in god before I can ask him to show up by any process which makes asking him to show up pointless because I would already believe in him. Honestly antiskeptic, what you actually need to do here is simply consider the possibility that god doesn't exist. You say that's like asking you to say that reality is not real but that is reality as far as I'm concerned and there is no point in talking to me until you can at least fathom the position that I am in. Everything you are saying is only convincing to another person who cannot fathom a world without god and that is not me.antiskeptic wrote: »A simple way to show why this is false is contained within your own statement - for the statement contains turtles-all-the-way-down reasoning. I've colour-coded references to knowledge in your statement and in my parallel statement to better highlight the problem.
You say that in order to arrive at X knowledge we must first know that the process whereby we come to X knowledge is itself reliable. But how do we come by this Y knowedge ( the process is known to be reliable). Well, your statement tells us how that must be: it must be by a process that is known to be reliabile. Clearly this latter process can't be the same as the process whose reliability we are trying to establish - otherwise we'd go in a circle. The alternative to circularity is to go on forever: it's process-turtles all the way down.
The above demonstrates that all knowledge suffers from Catch-22. There is no solid ground under any of it.
What happens in practice is that we assume the external reality (as it appears to be) is real and that base things we perceive about that reality are "knowns". From these assumed knowns (such as the 'knowledge' of the existance in reality of similar individuals to ourselves) we build further levels of knowledge. But we are never free of the base assumption that reality as we perceive it is real. We cannot point to a 'reliable process' to establish the actual existance of other individual beings in this reality.
The fact that God cannot be demonstrated by process (because he would have designed process and cannot be subject to it) is precisely as you'd expect it to be. As the real-est thing of all, he would be simply part of reality and you can either assume he exists when finding yourself faced with him (just like you assume the rest of reality when faced with it)
Or you can suppose yourself a brain-in-a-jar. Which we know to be a useless thing to consider. And so I know God is real - not because he (or the rest of reality) is necessarily real, but because the alternative is useless solipsim.
You keep saying how useless brain-in-a-jar territory is but that is where you keep trying to bring us because that is the only place where what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever, that is the only place where direct personal revelation is as reliable as empiricism. I do not need to invoke turtles-all-the-way-down to say that something can be known to be reliable, empiricism can be shown to be reliable because it produces consistent results. I can perform an experiment a million times and get the same result every single time, I can make predictions using empiricism and people can stake their life on these predictions, i.e. rely on them, because empiricism's consistency has shown it to be reliable. Excluding brain-in-a-jar territory, which we both acknowledge is useless, I can say with as much confidence as a human can possibly muster that empiricism is reliable. It is possible to say that something is reliable without invoking either circularity or turtles-all-the-way-down.
Your logic is both circular and based on turtles-all-the-way-down thinking. You seem to realise and acknowledge this so really my trying to point this out to you for the past while has been a waste of time. Your whole purpose here is to try to make out that all reasoning is circular turtles-all-the-way-down thinking that cannot demonstrate the reliability of empiricism over personal experience but I'm afraid you fail very very badly. The area that you describe as "useless solipsism" is the only area where personal experience is as reliable as empiricism. The only alternative to the reality that I am relying on the process that has brought us from living in caves to landing on the moon and you're listening to voices in your head and calling it god is, as you say, useless solipsism.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement