I think dose God exists is the wrong question. The question should be, should God exists. The reson I think this is that this question is God good for us or not.

Also it is impossible to convince someone God exists if they disregard the evidence. So I need other ways to convince people.

you more or less getting there but not quite. I'm saying that you took others resoning to make your conclusion. I forget the name of the preson that pushed the idea of epistemic responsibility but I had concluded that his argument, (not yours). Had the problem of circular reasoning. Because his argument only works if science is correct but this is a part of what he was saying.

this is one of your points
"Epistemic responsibility put a responsibility on the ones who make choices without sufficient evidence"

So how do you get sufficient evidence without a postules. If there are postules there is room for doubt. ( postules are an assumption). So if you can prove that science is correct without need for a postule I will agree with you.

Will humanity die out? No, I don't think so -- but a lot of people might wish they had died sooner, once social collapse gets under way.

I agree on that. Humans are surprisingly resilient. However I think it would be irresponsible to leave that world for future generations

you don't understand the metaphysics of the argument your giving
"metaphysics, it doesn't really counter the ethical argument. The result of science is all around us."

Your entire argument is dependent on the question can anything be known. Because if the answer is no (as I believe it is) it makes all believes dangerous.

Yes, you are right to say that a believe, may come violent.

Ok it not Mark's
[quoteI'd replace it with a socialist system, not centered on money per se, geared towards providing both the essentials for everyone--food, housing, health care, education, transportation, etc.--and the things that people desire, which would be discovered via polling, and where the competition for scarce resources is centered on helping others, cooperating, providing things that people need/want. The more you do, via a combo of hard work and/or ingenuity, to provide things that people need/want, the more you have access to scarcer resources.[/quote]

But this is what you said.

Communism is, not centered on money, it is geared towards providing essentials for everyone. People would work to improve the state.

This is were in went wrong.

"What the combo of hard work and/or ingenuity, to provide things that people need/want, the more you have access to scarcer resources "

I thought it mentioned that the more you work the more resources everyone would have access to. Wich is Marxists.

Now that I read it again you mentioned the one

Well let start with that frist he belive we finite resources. He figured that we would look at those resources and divide them up in the best intrest of the state.

I I'm sorry if this is not answering your questions. I think it might of misunderstood somwere

that is the motivation behind all systems. Economics teaches that we have infinite wants and finite resources. The systems we invent are ways of seeing who gets what.

yes that is what I'm saying, don't worry I've met plenty of people that makes that mistake. Also socialism was developed as a way to transition to communism but it never could.

You might want to look up Epistemic Responsibility first.

I'm not some person off the street. I know what it is . We are responsible for what we believe. There you happy with that.

I'm sorry I was unclear what I mean when I said You standing against religion but I have no better way to put it.

Are you writing on a device right now that is the result of scientific research, theories, theoretical physics, engineering ideas etc. Things put together through deduction, induction, trial and error, research, falsifiability methods, cross-checking and so on.

Do you mean to say, that we cannot prove, research and rationally explain things and because of that form and change our world according to it? How then are you writing on a device that is the direct result of science and research?

What do you call that knowledge, research and science?

Knowledge, what we know.
Research, the method we use to find the truth, as defined in the postulates. (I'll get back to this later)
Science, the way we found works but it still can be false.

The premise is still true, no evidence or proof exists of any God or Gods, which means that belief in God or Gods have no truth value whatsoever and should not ethically be an influence on society and other people.

This was again unclear on my part. I'm saying that it is just as logically as anything else

When something has no postules it is definitely true.

Also I have a stance were what we see is your best way of making sense of the universe but it is not actually there. This explains why science works even if the conclusion is false.

no it was communism as Karl Marx purpose. All the people would work for the benefit of the state. We never actually had a communist state.

If that is all you got, fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

Epistemic responsibility put a responsibility on the ones who make choices without sufficient evidence. To choose to believe is to accept a belief without evidence and risk spreading this belief-system.

It is this part of the argument that makes my argument

 How do you know that what you see is true

Related.

I know the argument your presenting inside and out.

You standing against religion
I'm saying that if your correct, science is a based on observations then logical concussions. Observations come from what you see, but what evidence do you have.

If this is not solved it counters your frist argument

No argument has ever been able to prove the existence of God or gods through evidence.

Because it would make it that the reason there's no evidence be that we can't see the truth. Therefore the evidence may be there but impossible to find. This makes the rest of the agreement mean any believe may be dangerous or not, but we have no way to tell. If we have no way to tell we might as well hold whatever believe we think is valid.

yes because it doesn't matter the intended pepose. When rubber meats the road the real test begins. So now you got a better idea for the question and problems, any ideas?

one flaw in see. How do you know that what you see is true

I have considered this. I just have no clue how to go about the construction of it or even it is possible to construct without collapse.

You said “better”, didnt you?

Yes I did. I was asking if we can come up with a better system. Then you said

system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

and I was trying to make a point. By saying that.
Because you didn't get it here it is. We live in the system and so we must account for that. We need a system that encourages people to do what we want us to do. This would be the "better system". When it doesn't encourage what we want, we label it as broken.

Perhaps it's not a type but a degree issue.

maybe it is. but then your saying that it's a cultural problem, are you not?

There are alternatives to the version of capitalism that we have.

For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel

Ok I understand, but I'm asking what should we replace it with and/or in your case how do you think should change it?

socialist system, not centered on money per se, geared towards providing both the essentials for everyone

That is communism, as I said it has motivation problems. When people do something they think they need to get something in return. The only way it could work is if we're all carbon copys of each other.

If I'm wrong please correct me

Ah, but now you arent talking about a system flaw, you are talking about a human flaw. The system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

We human have to live in the system. If we can brake the system it's not perfect is it

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs , is the link to a video you may want to see for yourself. Probably only need the frist 5 minutes to get the idea. All governments have a problem if thay try to help the citizens. Basically you have the problem people in power need to remain in power and there action will reflect that

fair enough. What would you think would make the system work better.

dictatorship is a political system. I'm asking about economic system. There is a connection but there is different.

I don't think that is an entirely accurate application of Kant's philosophy.

No it isn't all kant philosophy. I included him because there are two ideas in agree with. (The principal of universalization, and the mere means principle).

The first is as you said

 they must have the simplest possible form.

The second is you should consider that everyone else is human to.

The rest comes from the bibles teachings. Things like sin is a seed that if you grow it it will spread into parts of your life you thought it would not affect.

But because the bible is not applicable to everyone, I try to make a secondary argument without it.

So would you then say that an undercover officer is morally wrong simply for taking the job which involves lying ? Because in your world, lying is always wrong.

Yes, in my world is always wrong.

How then would this tie in with 'All people should be respected' ?

(Again, prarifrasing Kant) all human deserve to be treated as an individual person with there what's and needs.

To lie to someone undermines there judgment.
Is there job wrong, yes because lie is part of the job.
I prefer to say nothing than to lie.

I understand you point.

So a try to understand this when a cop lies it sends a message saying sometimes liying is ok. If living is sometimes ok, but when is that sometimes. To people like me is like saying liying is not a big deal, wich I think is not true.

I would say no because I believe there should be no exceptions to one's moral code. Also all people should be respected. (Yes, I basically quoted Kant, but I agree with him)

Is skepticism about doubting everyone and everything?

no, skepticism is divided in to two groups. Those that doubt for doubting sake. Then those who are considering what we can actually know with 100% asureance.

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one?

Yes, but we need to trust someting.

To me freedom is the what you can pyisicaly do. Liberty only comes into play when athoraity is involved

It means in our current understand of science it should not be possible

ok I miss the goal you stated.
Alchemy is similar to chemistry in the way it also works with the interactions of matter. It's built on a different base thought. Mostly to do with the idea of purity.

Truth in this case would be how the universe works. I believe the goal is to figure out how the universe works.
Then when it has figured it out, we can manipulate to our needs.
Also one discovery can cause us to remove thouse facts that we use that worked for us at the time.

Science became popular because Christians, like my self. are forbidden from using magic by God. Instead we figured, if we could figure out how his creation works then we could then respect it; without turning to Satan and his demons. I will say this now to avoid confusion, we the Christians believe magic is the art of consulting with demons (as described in the bible, not as pictured in culture). So the study of magic is under the study of Christian-demonology. (Note this is not the only view of magic, but it is the one I'm fimlar with)

I'm not saying science is less legitimate, just it is missing parts. If you don't consider all the parts you conclusion is incomplete.

yes more useful is subjective base on the goal. We have to remember it was not science that gave us gunpowder and the printing press that was alchemy. It was also not modern science that gave us modern medicine that was christianity. If the goal of science is to find the truth, how can it without excepting all the parts.

Secondly we don't know if magic is good or not because as science became more popular it led to more discoverys wich made it more popular leading to more research in it wich made it more discoverys. It then became a run away sinario. It became popular because of the cristians than people cut its ties to christianity. Again it is not using all the parts.

but that is circular reasoning resoning. It is true that science is useful but if you going to say it's the more useful without a comparison it creates a feed back loop.

it's Zeno

This is like Zeno paradoxes. I would look at calculus to solve these questions

how if i may ask.

one. This is why we test the ideas or imputations, two you missed the point. Science only works as long as it's postules do. If you start with a different set of postules you would get different answers. So science is just as logically valid as magic. It just has more approval.

Sounds like Aristotle or Charles Darwin (usually called Darwin pronounced d-AR-win).

I did think the same way then, quantum macanics. It sees us as a result rather than a definite object.

Every idea has a postulate. When the postulates don't apply the idea becomes wrong or irelivent. Science has two postulats I know of. One. what we observe is what is true. Two. Everything has an explanation that can be rooted in previously known science. More postulates are required to explain anything.