The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God. — Pantagruel
Great. How can you prove it? — 3017amen
Usually, "existence" denotes physical existence. To make the argument that God, or gods, do not exist as physical entities, I merely need to point out that they have no predictive value, and as such are not part of any theory about the physical world. Since the proper epistemic procedure for establishing what exists physically is the scientific method, that is all that is required to answer the question.
Of course, you could be using "existence" to refer to some other reality. But in that case, I argue that the proper epistemic procedure is a null hypothesis. Since non-physical reality can only be known a-priori, anything that can be known about it is deducible from a-priori knowledge. Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God, or gods, from a-priori principles. Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist. — Echarmion
Of course not. I established my criteria of epistemic adequacy and cumulative knowledge already. You're statement is just...flippant. — Pantagruel
Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist — Echarmion
You're still in the dark. Why do I have goals? — 3017amen
As soon as you make a proposition about a God's existence, you put yourself in a position of defending it. — 3017amen
We agree. But you failed to discuss induction. — 3017amen
That is just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it. Reasons for believing are ultimately contingent on the entire body of an individual's knowledge. If I find a good reason to believe it is sufficient for me. If Dan Dennett (and you) don't, then you speak for yourself. — Pantagruel
Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God.Right. But we can exchange reasons and debate them. It's not a matter of faith, after all. If you have an argument for God that you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look at it. — Echarmion
drawing distinctions between lower life-forms and higher consciousness... . — 3017amen
I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition. — Artemis
Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. — DingoJones
What would you like me to do with them? — 3017amen
Per the rules of a priori formal logic or propositional logic if you prefer. — 3017amen
It's far from describing the nature of consciousness viz. why human's have purpose and goals like Love or music or mathematics or anything of higher consciousness. — 3017amen
That's a good question, probably has something to do with the human condition. Psychological bias, racism, you know, those kinds of things.
To that end, you think it's a pathology of sorts, or just human nature? — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.