I extrapolated the possibility that the I is illusory from the general modification of CES.

It is a standard objection or caveat to "Cogito Ergo Sum" which you can investigate by looking at the Wikipedia entry. Personally, I formulated the modification independently.
"The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. "

So if Cogito Ergo Sum does not implicate an "I" it has no direct ramifications for Solipsism, and could be conformant along the lines I suggest.

How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings? — TheMadFool

Cogito ergo sum does establish that "Thought" exists now: There is thought now, is how I like to generalize that aphorism. However the "I" seems like an add-on. Maybe the "I" is illusory, erroneous, or doubtful (to use the Cartesian language). So possible Cogito Ergo Sum applies to some kind of "universal mind" of which egos are illusory sub-units. This would be a consistent solipsism. I don't really think this is true, myself, but it is at least arguable.

Chances are the man would stand up to his oppressive regime because he does not fancy living in an oppressive regime. God has nothing to do with hating oppressive regimes. In fact, god will teach him (the scriptures, that is), that all authority derives from god. The person in the oppressed status in the other country will first obey the teachings of his scriptures or his inner voice that demands a fairer treatment. If he obeys the scriptures, he obeys god. But the scriptures say "obey your authority, for all authority derives from god." But the guy does not obey authority; hence, therefore, he is not obeying god.

Your entire simile failed. People don't rebel because of god. They rebel because they figure their lives sould be better. — god must be atheist

My example (it wasn't a simile) didn't fail, you disputed the premise, which is a long way from invalidating it. Cheers.

The manifestation of an illusion. — A Seagull

Interesting. Have you ever read Freud's "Future of an Illusion"?

I omitted your option on purpose. Nothing is good enough to replace god. God does nothing. It has no purpose, no action, no visible effect on the universe. So if you took nothing, and put it in god's place, you'd get the same world, absolutely unchanged — god must be atheist

If a man in a third world nation somewhere stood up to an oppressive military regime because of his belief in God, inspiring a revolution and freedom, would that be nothing? Things like this have happened. Granted, it is the "idea of God" but, really anything that anyone does is because of "the idea of" something, not because of the thing itself.

You omitted my option. Surely no one would deny the role of the unknown in stimulating discovery.

Why is it so much better to explain an experience as hallucinations or wishful thinking than to accept it as an experience of God? If you’re a physicalist, then you would call it a hallucination. If you believe that consciousness is an essential part of existence, then you are probably more open to God — Noah Te Stroete

Unfortunately the term God invokes strong prejudices on both sides. So replace god with ? and I'd agree. The cosmic unknown maybe?

As far as the ongoing pissing match, appeal to authority is generally a poor argument and can itself be a fallacy. Experts validate their credentials through the inherent strength of their actions or arguments, they don't rely on them for validation.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books. — praxis

I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma?

I wonder how many metaphysical ideas have been off the mark. I guess that's the beauty of being a metaphysician, no one really cares when a theory is wrong. — praxis

Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. What I love about Popper is that he is so...balanced. The most important thing to remember about science is it is only ever approximate. Otherwise you end up with Scientism.

For it is a fact that purely metaphysical ideas—and therefore philosophical ideas—have been of the greatest importance for cosmology. From Thales to Einstein, from ancient atomism to Descartes’s speculation about matter, from the speculations of Gilbert and Newton and Leibniz and Boscovic about forces to those of Faraday and Einstein about fields of forces, metaphysical ideas have shown the way.
~ Karl Popper

:ok:

I guess Popper considers the absence of negative evidence i.e. disconfirming observations as better than positive evidence (confirming evidence). — TheMadFool

Well, it's his main thesis, to be scientific, an hypothesis must be falsifiable, so disconfirming evidence must be at least possible. Whereas induction fails to ever rise to the level of certainty, which he establishes in a variety of ways. I find the logical niceties tortuous at times (like this paradox - what could the status of a non-raven entity ever add to the knowledge of ravens?). However the overall thrust of scientific realism, that objectivity is not what we see, but what has been subjected to critical thought, that I very much like.

an inability to falsify a claim counts as support for whatever the claim is
— TheMadFool

You mean confirming evidence counts as support? But how to measure confirmation? — bongo fury

This would be letting confirmation back in through the same door that Popper just tossed it out.

I think Karl Marx really pulls it off.

Au contraire. I provided a version of coherentism founded on enacted belief, based on the well-founded fact that people often misrepresent themselves verbally. It's perfectly possible to act in a coherent way. Sorry if that particular version of coherentism isn't to your liking.

Since there is frequently a gap between what people claim and what people do, the only reliable measure of belief is the actions which those beliefs engender. So as long as a person's actions don't contradict their beliefs, their beliefs may be said to be epistemically coherent. Words are cheap. "Enactive Coherentism". Me.

So you are also an expert on epistemic coherentism now? Along with every possible variety that every person might ever have held?

Ok Frodo.

No, a reasonably held belief has a justification for it. — fdrake

"Epistemic coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds"

By definition, belief is not knowledge. You are treating belief as if it were knowledge.

You keep coming up with sweeping statements like

For claims like "there was a creator of the universe", which already play part in conceptual arguments and constrain empirical matters, the ability to justify them is presumed. — fdrake

Nonsense. A belief is a belief, it isn't knowledge. You don't accept any forms of justification (historicity, tradition, intuition) which clearly are sufficient to the foundation of a belief qua belief. I believe you are of the "last word" school of philosophy, so be my guest.

A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification. — fdrake

Who said it has to be justified? A belief is essentially a hypothesis. Justification goes beyond the hypothesis to its proof. Again, per Popper, the origin of a hypothesis doesn't matter.

Because something has been believed historically and had social institutions devoted to that belief does not entail it is well justified given what we know (even as part of a metaphysics). This is just as true for phlogiston, the theory of humours and homeopathy as it is for creator hypotheses and their associated worldviews. — fdrake

Wow. You have a real issue with this, don't you? Many people (myself included) have an inkling, an expectation, a hope, that there is more to life than meets the eye. The things that happen to people qua people don't resolve into scientific terms. Life is complex and multi-dimensional. Do you really think that what we know exceeds what we don't know?

That's all I have to offer.

You're treating the claim "the universe was created" like it doesn't require any further explication — fdrake

In the sense that it is a metaphysical claim, it doesn't. This is an idea whose origins predate science certainly, probably recorded history. It is an idea that has "historical content" (forgive me, I'm just finishing off R.G. Collingwood's "Philosophy of History" which talks a lot about the self-creation of the mind as historical knowledge). As such, I don't think, prima facie, it requires any more justification than that. As I said, I'm not really into doing a "deep-dive" at this time.

The latest study I read shows that students who use the internet occasionally show measurable improvement in test scores over non-internet users. Those who use it constantly show a marked decrease.

I think it's pretty clear, if you use the internet as a tool, it can be a very good thing. If you use it as a crutch, your mind is going to atrophy. And actual usage trends show which way we are heading....

Anyway let's drop as it has become a question of the legitimacy of metaphysical claims in general which I'm not prepared to argue at this time. :)

Your claim to falsify "The universe was created" by appeal to the total body of knowledge is weak because it isn't possible to ascertain the total body of knowledge. I know further it is impossible to falsify because it is a metaphysical claim, just like the claim that "Forms exist" is a metaphysical claim. These are not scientific claims, they are metaphysical, and can't be proven or disproven unless they do make specific testable claims. So again, if I say that I believe the universe was created (I don't make that claim) then my belief is reasonable. Unless I exhibit a whole lot of other beliefs that appear to be unreasonable, in which case it might be legitimate to question the reasonableness of my beliefs in general.

I see little to no relation between the privileged statements at the core of scientific research programs and creator hypotheses. This would require that they have content amenable to scientific study alone — fdrake

You are construing everything literally and narrowly, instead of addressing the general principle which I over and over reiterated. As I suggested, there are plenty of beliefs that are non-scientific.

The claim simply doesn't fit with what is known and what can be reasonably inferred. — fdrake

Do you mean with what you know? Or with what someone else told you that they know? If you think it possible to precisely and exhaustively describe the scope of human knowledge I'd say that's the most implausible thing I've heard yet. I know that claim is weak. The claim that the universe was created? I know neither the strength nor weakness of that claim can be established. It's a metaphysical claim. Are you saying that all metaphysical claims are unreasonable? Do Forms exist? Who knows? They are widely debated though. They're hypotheses.

So your beliefs are reasonable? Were you ever wrong? Hmmm. And when you were a small child? At what point does one become "reasonable?" My own views have switched from Idealism to Scientific Realism. Were my previous beliefs "unreasonable"? The fact that someone believes it means it is reasonable...for that person. It's how that belief plays out that determines whether its "extension" is also reasonable.

So we need to keep an open mind as to our believes. — Devans99

This is all I am saying. Nothing more. Especially when it comes to establishing a dialog. If we fundamentally disagree, we need to find a common ground not try to persuade one another to alter our viewpoints.

Yes. I understood that was what you were claiming. What I did not see was an argument linking it to your simultaneous reference of falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary and limited nature of knowledge. Can you please explain to me how falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary nature of knowledge establish (or should convince me) that a belief is reasonably held when it is not contradicted by anything known? — fdrake

Sure. Paradigm shifts illustrate that even our most "certain" beliefs are subject to revision. So you may be "certain" that the universe wasn't created because of...well, science, I presume. As I said I don't see any overt contradictions there. You still haven't broached that one.

Likewise, the contingent and limited character of knowledge goes to the same point.

As far as falsifiability, I wasn't arguing that specifically, I guess my reference to Popper sent you there? What I did note was Popper's (correct) position that you can't account for novel hypotheses by evidence, because you would be in an infinite regress. It doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from. It was a general statement of the fact that not every belief in life is scientific, and it is possible to have a reasonable belief which is nevertheless false. Look at children. They develop "superstitious" beliefs about things, but in light of their limited knowledge those beliefs can be seen as "reasonable." You consistently return to the specific case about the created universe, but it's about the general case of believing and I think I have already restated that cogently in several ways now.

Bottom line, people have different beliefs. Do you honestly think that everything you believe is true? I also made reference to Newton, and how different people have different abilities when it comes to grasping evidence. If A and B disagree, no amount of logic is ever going to reconcile that. That's why I am asking. Ok, if the universe was created, what does that change? That's pragmatism. Or pragmaticism if you prefer Peirce (I do).

edit: that a belief IS reasonably held? Not necessarily. But could be reasonably held. That's sufficient.

The argument was about the reasonability of believing in anything that isn't contradicted by existing evidence. As I said, how about you explain why or how "The universe was created" contradicts any known feature of reality?

I kind of see where the "nitpicky logic" tone that a lot of the threads degenerate into comes from now though. Top down I think.

Therefore it's reasonable to believe the universe was created"? How does this possibly follow? — fdrake

You weren't able to follow the line of reasoning about the origin of hypotheses, contingent and limited character of knowledge, and the possibility of paradigm shifting?

Maybe the universe was created. How would the statement "The universe was created" in any way contradict anything else that we know about the universe? Think about it.

Just because it is reasonable to come to hold a belief doesn't mean the belief is necessarily true...

And what do paradigm shifts and the falsifiability criterion have to say about creation hypotheses again? — fdrake

All I'm pointing out is that it is possible for someone to have a legitimate reason for believing that there is a higher form of consciousness, different orders of causality, whatever, which they might choose to characterize as a Deity. Personally, I'm neutral on the subject. I do think there is something more going on. So have many thinkers at many points in history. Some of those intuitions have proven accurate and have toppled outmoded belief systems. I have no prejudices as to what that might entail, and am open to that expectation being falsified. However to think that our current belief-system is somehow "more adequate" than any that has gone before is naive, don't you think?

Doesn't alter the argument's force. A valid hypothesis will eventually prove its merit. Paradigm shifts are real.

There are certain regularities that only become evident through infrequent idiosyncratic experiences which not everyone has or pays attention to. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that people could find themselves possessed of valid reasons for believing that the universe is an egg from almost anything... anything within the pale of possibility, shall we say. — fdrake

You are being glib. Popper points out that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from. You can't require that a hypothesis be evidentially based, you end up in an infinite regress: what is the evidence for the evidence when you don't already know the law. Why didn't anyone figure out the theory of gravity before Newton? Some people perceive things that others do not.

The fallible and incomplete nature of knowledge is not evidence for any hypothesis of creation. — fdrake

That isn't what I said. I explained my positive hypothesis.

I personally am quite "creator-friendly". As indicated, I just don't see this imposing any other constraints.

What % probability do you assign to the unknown boolean question 'is there a creator' (before hearing the evidence). Is it:
— Devans99

If pushed, almost 0%, it would be very surprising for me. It necessitates a lot of hypothesis with vaguely specified mechanisms relying upon incredible contingencies with no reason to believe them over natural explanations. — fdrake

Here I'd have to disagree. There is barely a consensus as to what knowledge is. However one thing that science has established quite satisfactorily is that there is more that is unknown than known. Moreover science has likewise established its own approximate and ever-evolving nature. Look at historical paradigm shifts.

I suggest that there are types of regularities that perhaps are not evident to trivial observation, that perhaps do become evident through sometimes infrequent idiosyncratic experiences which not everyone has or pays attention to. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that people could find themselves possessed of valid "reasons for believing" in almost anything...anything within "the pale of possibility" shall we say.

So I believe God was the creator of the universe only rather than the theist view that he is actively involved in the universe. So science is in no way invalidated by the existence of God. I believe that God must be a logical/reasonable entity that has to abide by the laws of logic. He was responsible for the creation of the universe and nothing more. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life with the universe I think. So the living surfaces for life are the rocky planets. The energy source for life is the stars. And evolution is God's mechanism for developing intelligent life. — Devans99

I get that. Science points us down roads of further discovery of unknowns. If we allow your Deist assertion, where does that go? What do we discuss next? Does it impose a direction on our subsequent thoughts and inquiries?

I am impressed by your balanced (if dogged) pursuit of your creationist agenda. I think, however, your intuitions about "fine tuning" are a red herring. They presuppose what you are trying to prove (petitio principii) as others have pointed out.

Assuming that your main goal is to justify your intuitive belief, and not merely the "fine tuning" version, which you yourself cite as evidence, my question is this: If we allow that the universe was created, what then? Let's say God did create the universe so that it evolves according to emergent-evolutionary principles. What's next? Do we stop trying to comprehend and study natural processes? What's next?

I think one needs to be cognizant of the relationship between norms and laws here. And the fact that due to some new features of telecommunication the notion of political correctness has resulted in a lot of new anti-norms receiving legislative status. Norms are norms because, by and large, they represent the behaviour of the vast majority of people.

I'm totally tolerant. More than that, I'm supportive of individual differences. But they are just that...differences. My experience with the gay community is that most gay people are quite happy to identify with their birth genders. The actual percentage of people for whom the transgender issue is life-altering is small compared to the number for whom it is not.

I am totally against prejudice and discrimination of every kind. I think the notion that transgender identity has the right to co-opt and alter mainstream gender norms is itself prejudice of the worst sort, and reverse discrimination.

If you wanted to beg the question of God why assume the universe had to be "fine-tuned" from the beginning? God could just as easily have ordained the spontaneous emergence of ordered complexity....