It all goes back to what you can prove and how you prove it. You start out with the arbitrary assertion that God exists (as opposed to a Flying Spagetti Monster, or some other diety) and then you make inferences from there. I start with what I can directly sense and go from there. Why do you base your beleifs around what there is no evidence for (beyond sheer, raw feeling) instead of what there is evidence for?
So, is your skepticism applied consistently? Are you as skeptical about, say, the existence of the external world, as you are about the existence of God? The non-question-begging evidence for the existence of the external world is rather lacking. You know, Richard Rorty has compared the idea of an objective reality to the idea that God exists, and suggested that we should reject both as unsupportable superstitions.
So, is your skepticism applied consistently? Are you as skeptical about, say, the existence of the external world, as you are about the existence of God? The non-question-begging evidence for the existence of the external world is rather lacking. You know, Richard Rorty has compared the idea of an objective reality to the idea that God exists, and suggested that we should reject both as unsupportable superstitions.
To anyone who claims the plain evidence of the senses is bogus present the following challenge. Go to the top of the nearest tall building and jump off without a parachute. If the person is serious about what he says, then he will have no excuse for not accepting the challenge. If he is not serious and does not accept you can stop arguing it with him right there.
So, is your skepticism applied consistently? Are you as skeptical about, say, the existence of the external world, as you are about the existence of God?
There’s a minor difference between God and the external world. You can’t see God every time you open your eyes.
You are asserting that all beliefs must be supported by sensory evidence, and rejecting the belief that God exists on that basis. So, why can’t I do the reverse, and reject your assertion that all beliefs must be supported by sensory evidence on the basis of my belief that God exists? One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens, as they say.
On what basis could sensory evidence be negated?
Just in a practical sense, if I get the whole internet,laptop,visual display, text thingy, then ultimately that view(sensory evidence is negatable) would have to mean that everything I ‘see’ is a projection(whatever the source) and that I am commenting to myself
What would have to happen for God to be disproven to you?
Considered the nature of evidence.
There can be no evidence for something which in fact does not exist.
If something, in fact, does not exist, there is no evidence to provide.
This lies near the foundation of the onus of proof principle.
To prove something exists, one need only provide evidence. Proof is the step by step presentation of the evidence to support a conclusion which exists.
Attempting to prove something does not exist, is attempting to provide evidence which does not exist.
To unravel God as an invalid concept, is to become familiar with the uses and misuses of the concepts that God is supposedly anchored on. Valid concepts are those which are properly abstracted, i.e. makes proper use of the evidence available to integrate without contradiction into the sum of one’s own knowledge. This can be challenging enough to do for one’s own self, and more so to guide someone else through the process.
There will never be conclusive proof either way. This gives everyone total freedom to choose either to affirm or deny God. Anything less would rob everyone of that free choice.
There is a quality to love… in that it can only be given by our own free choice.
the rules or laws of evidence are pretty strict; either something is or it is not.
there is always proof of the attributes of a thing(existent) , there is no reason to deny god simply because there is no reason to postulate god
the rules or laws of evidence are pretty strict; either something is or it is not.
That’s right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.
there is always proof of the attributes of a thing(existent) , there is no reason to deny god simply because there is no reason to postulate god
I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose… just as I do.
That’s right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.
I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose… just as I do.
Would you be so kind as to prove that “There is no proof either way.”, or are you just going to continue making that unsubstantiated assertion?
That’s right. But there is no proof either way so you get to freely choose for yourself to either affirm or deny God.
I have absolutely no problem with the choice you have freely made for yourself, Tad. That is the way it should be. There is no proof either way so that you can rightfully receive the just and deserved consequences set into motion by your choice no matter what you choose… just as I do.
I have just had an epiphany, I can actually tell my soul has been somehow redeemed. I realise now the true nature of existence, by God, IT IS.
Would you be so kind as to prove that “There is no proof either way.”, or are you just going to continue making that unsubstantiated assertion?
There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn’t any proof either way. You are welcome to present anything which you regard as proof for either case. But no matter what is said, the free choice to affirm or deny God will always be a personal one and each one of us can only harvest what we planted.
The question of God’s existence will always be completely open… because there is never any coercion in love.
There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn’t any proof either way. You are welcome to present anything which you regard as proof for either case. But no matter what is said, the free choice to affirm or deny God will always be a personal one and each one of us can only harvest what we planted.
The question of God’s existence will always be completely open… because there is never any coercion in love.
Why is this choice a special one? I could easily say by these principles that “My choice to believe in reincarnation is a personal one and we can harvest what we planted”.
There can only be unsubstantiated assertions when there isn’t any proof either way.
The existence of god can’t even be understood. The idea of god is just totally invalid. The nature of the Western concept of god is that there is no way to even think about it. The whole definition of the Western god is basically anything you can’t possibly think about - there isn’t anything you can think about! I can’t disprove god because as a whole the idea is invalid. Hence, god is an invalid concept. If you want to talk about it, fine, but not if you aren’t actually trying to engage in the purpose of discussing Objectivism.
It’s not special. It’s universal. Everyone has the same opportunity to freely choose.
I could easily say by these principles that “My choice to believe in reincarnation is a personal one and we can harvest what we planted”.
Yes, you most certainly can. For every truth is double edged and cuts both ways. No matter what we choose… everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of their choice.
The existence or non-existence of God is not a logical question. Logic can only apply to a deductive framework. Existence is not part of that. Existence pertains to perception. To be rational, one does not accept even the possibility of existence without perceptual evidence. Otherwise, we must accept the possibility of a race of starving creatures on Venus that need our help. You can only help them by contributing to my bank account. Act now! Save the starving Venutians!
To anyone who claims the plain evidence of the senses is bogus present the following challenge. Go to the top of the nearest tall building and jump off without a parachute. If the person is serious about what he says, then he will have no excuse for not accepting the challenge. If he is not serious and does not accept you can stop arguing it with him right there.
ruveyn1
That’s not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though.
There’s a minor difference between God and the external world. You can’t see God every time you open your eyes.
That’s not non-question-begging evidence for an external world, though. The skeptic would deny that what you are seeing every time you open your eyes is indeed an external world.
Just in a practical sense, if I get the whole internet,laptop,visual display, text thingy, then ultimately that view(sensory evidence is negatable) would have to mean that everything I ‘see’ is a projection(whatever the source) and that I am commenting to myself
There’s nothing wrong with sensory evidence. What I was saying in that post is simply that not all beliefs have to be supported by sensory evidence. By analogy, pizza is good food, but not all good food is pizza.