Well, if this is the case: that one can prove it in metaphysics, using those tools, then the proof has not effectively convinced, certainly the lay public, and even within metaphysics the proof (or proofs) are not consensus accepted as holding up. — Coben
The specific proof that I was talking about, however, is not currently widely known. So we cannot really look to the expert community's judgement about it, for it has not yet been formed. — Bartricks
Interesting. Have you ever read Freud's "Future of an Illusion"?The manifestation of an illusion. — A Seagull
although I may be ill-equipped to critique it. — jgill
You equated "your true self" as "how you really are"
— god must be atheist
False. I tend to regard it as emptiness. — praxis
It's not secret - I've made it on this forum before - it's just not on topic. But here it is boiled down to its basics:
1. Prescriptions of Reason exist — Bartricks
If a man in a third world nation somewhere stood up to an oppressive military regime because of his belief in God — Pantagruel
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
You are saying you regard yourself as emptiness.
That's actually right on the dot. — god must be atheist
Yes. I predict, like I say, that you will either end up questioning the probative value of any argument for anything, or you will dismiss the argument on the grounds that it has premises that entail its conclusion (which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing). — Bartricks
1. Prescriptions of Reason exist
2. All prescriptions have a mind that issues them.
3. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them.
4. None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course)
5. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them, and the mind in question is not my mind, or your mind.
That mind - Reason's mind - is a god, and with a few more steps it becomes more reasonable than not to suppose that the mind in question is 'God' (where 'God' is taken to be a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent). — Bartricks
Please display yours. If they exist I'm not seeing much evidence. — jgill
But then, I have almost none, so what do I know? (I can guess your reply) — jgill
Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands — Bartricks
If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap. — praxis
↪A SeagullThis is the classic 'god of the gaps' argument. — A Seagull
No it isn't. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Do you have any formal qualifications in philosophy? — Bartricks
None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course) — Bartricks
And Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'"
Matthew 4:7 — praxis
My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's monads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is. — jgill
Here's looking at you, Bartricks:↪god must be atheist Can something non-agential write a prescription? — Bartricks
My prof laughed at metaphysics. — jgill
Well, to be fussy, no, I don't think that's the case. I have seen people mount excellent arguments and use ad homs. It might be a tactic used by someone who cannot put forward a rational argument or it might not.BTW I hope you realise that ad hominems are a disappointing tactic used by people who cannot put forward any rational argument. — A Seagull
It's a transitive process. You have to demonstrate it to someone and in this case, at least most experts. They nod their heads when you're done. I don't think this is going to happen. I could be wrong, it's an intuitive position. I haven't seen it happen (seen in the broad sense, but that is hardly proof). I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I doubt it.You expressed in an earlier post your conviction that God's existence could not be demonstrated rationally. — Bartricks
Most of those metaphysicians were living in times where your profession, life, family were all in jeopardy if one openly believed there was no God. They were likely trained and evaluated by believers whose lives, families and professional lives were similarly dependent on that.But there have been expert metaphysicians for millennia. And most have thought God's existence can rationally be demonstrated. — Bartricks
It certainly doesn't rule it out. At all. But here we are, without expert consensus or majority in favor of it. I am focused what the in situ situation for most people is. I am not saying the proof you consider a proof is wrong (I read it quickly and the only conclusion I can draw so far is that one person has no idea what a God of the gaps argument is and is not). I am focused on position most people are in. But as I expressed earlier, I don't really see this as a problem. I think experience is a great way to learn.As such lack of widespread current acceptance doesn't really tell you anything important about the credibility of the argument. — Bartricks
I have had this experience in a wide variety of fields. Medicine might provide a good example, let's see.Say an expert in a field thinks he/she has made a discovery in that field. You - a non-expert - think that X is the case. But this expert in the field is very confident that X is not the case. His evidence has yet to become widely known in the field and so it has not yet been widely scrutinized. — Bartricks
I think it works better if it is a consensus of experts, and I tend to take it seriously. But they've been wrong. I have the unpleasant but highly educational experience of a child where the supposed experts on the mind/body treated a member of my family for their emotional (and practical) troubles. The police and the courts were involved so there were experts from other fields confirming that the experts making decisions about my family members were the relevant and best experts. My gut feeling was it was wrong. My family member's gut feeling was that it was wrong. I investigated, during differnet periods and filled out my critique of consensus with more knowledge and also found fringe experts who supported my position. I became very confident that there was a systematic/paradigmatic problem. Now I took the experts opinions seriously. In fact, I and we had to. But beyond that I don't find it easy, in some new situation, to dismiss experts, unless I have already dismissed them over a longer period of time.What should you, as a reasonable person, now think? You know that this person knows a lot, lot more about this matter than you. And you know as well that this person is very confident that X is not the case (which is unusual, because normally experts are more circumspect).
Well, I think you should take very seriously that X is not the case. — Bartricks
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.