And if we want to expand our search for accepted truths without proof -- how about the big bang theory? Here they really don't have a proof, per se. But what they claim is, it is testable, mainly by the presence of 3 things, among them CMB, cosmic microwave background, which they call evidence.

So what's the difference between a proof and presence of evidence? A proof is the actual explosion that we witnessed or captured through some device. That's the proof. That's never gonna happen. Evidence is the background support for the plausibility of the big bang happening, evidence such as expansion of the universe, presence of CMB, and abundance of elements.

Going back to the issue you touched on earlier -- life and death situation as against other topics that others might simply dismissed as philosophical inquiry. So, you think since the god topic is an all important life situation that we must require proof, whereas, other things in life could pass as not requiring proof.

And as I countered, in philosophically sound argument, we do not put importance on life and death situation. So I guess my question to you is, should we? Should we put hierarchy on issues when we're doing philosophy?

Please see above. I am agreeing with W as far as being content with our self-reporting habit of pain -- no proof required except our own account of it.

These are important, but what about intermediate theories which remain blurry and plausible? — lll

Okay we can also include those. But, again, my point is, we don't require proof for certain things we claim to be true or we accept from accounts of other people.

Wittgenstein said (paraphrasing) "When you're in pain, you know you're in pain; uou don't justify/require proof that you are in pain." — Agent Smith

Yes. And I don't disagree with W.

Okay, I misspoke when I said "philosophical proof". That needs explaining. What I meant was, proof that we accept as epistemologicaly sound-- so it could be empirical proof (which includes scientific proof) or logical proof. Heck, even induction is acceptable as philosophical argument.

Our culture doesn't make much of dreams, so we don't care enough to challenge them. The God issue is connected to bloody wars and issues like abortion and assisted suicide. As one might expect, claims that 'God told me X' are held to far more scrutiny. — lll

Fortunately, in a philosophical argument, we don't distinguish between life and death situation when requiring proof to back up our claims. I mean, just search for Descartes's cogito and see how much time and space was devoted to it just so we talk about existence and the self. In epistemology, we don't put hierarchy on topics.

If I try to sell a cancer-curing concoction without making a case for its effectiveness, I might get a visit from the government. — lll

And now we are venturing into the legality of it, which again fortunately for the purpose of this topic, is not a requirement. I just really meant philosophical proof.

:up:

Naturalism is grounded in the apodicticity of the principle of causality. — Constance

Okay, you got one thing right -- causality. But did you read what Schopenhauer wrote (I posted a passage in this thread). See where the necessity lies -- not in the thinking.

As to the definition of the naturalism as a philosophical view, please read up on the definition. I think you're missing the main point of naturalism. Yes, it is nature - but I want you to think in terms of philosophical argument.

The grammar of sensation and pain is a bit special. In general, we do not question or doubt such statements. One 'cannot be wrong' about 'appearance' or 'what things seem like.' This grammatical habit is too readily taken as some great logical principle or discovery. — lll

I agree. And that is also true of the other 4 points I outlined. We give them the benefit of the doubt.

We should note exceptions though. How many doctors have doubted claims of 'back pain' from claimants who clearly want opiates? — lll

Yes, this happens but under a different circumstance that what I'm trying to say in the introduction. Of course there would be liars.

If you tell me that you dreamed vividly of 'round squares' but refused to draw one for me, I might doubt you. — lll

Might. But in general, we do not have strict requirements for reports of dreams.

No supernatural ability has ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, so I conclude that its just a product of human fear. Born from all the scary reptilian screeches we heard when we hid in caves at night because we were unable to fight in the dark! No natural night vision ability. You would think a benevolent god would have at least given us night vision when we lived in the caves, if it had then perhaps we would not have needed to develop the ability to sleep for 8 hours a day. — universeness

You missed the point of my argument about the existence of dreams. And you totally did not get the dreams/dreaming exist. There's no doubt about it, people dream. My point of saying that while dreams exist, and people really do dream, we cannot show proof that we're dreaming. Yes, maybe a brain scan of a person dreaming might show some active parts of the brain through imaging, but the imaging wouldn't show the "dream" itself, only that the person's part of the brain is at the moment active.

If you ask me, those guys who stole the car, got drunk and killed ten people on the highway were anything but free in their actions. Even as they began their adventure of debauchery, and reviewed the law, the consequences, the danger, this was not sufficient for freedom, for the struggle to decide was a matter contained within the inner tensions between possible actions. Had their been more motivation on the side of care rather than carelessness, they wouldn't have done it. So why was there stronger motivation to do it? — Constance

I don't think this is the "thinking" we're talking about in this thread. I gave examples of Descartes, Aristotle, and Schopenhauer's idea of freedom in thinking. It is rational thinking. And we don't always think rationally, of course, such as in your example above. The point of freedom in thinking is, we do have it at our disposal if we are so inclined. There is deliberation, there is decision, and there is future possibilities. That's what they mean.

But in our daily affairs, when we stand in conscious wonder about what we do, who we are, why we exist and so on, we are free of motivation. Doe this make us a spontaneous cause? — Constance

Yes, this is more like it. But spontaneity is not the idea here. We could be spontaneous and still be unthinking and undeliberative. We're after rational thinking.

So if the universe changes from "no-time" to "time", that in of itself is a temporal process, making it necessary that "no-time" is actually time. So time never begins. — Kuro

This bothers me. Time count begins when something changes. A void with no space-time has no time. Time starts at the mark of a change. "Universe and no-time" don't go together.

@EugeneW
Could you be arsed to go outside of this thread and have a smoke outside the building? You're loitering.

Stop it. You don't understand what a proof is.

There is evidence people dream. I dream you dream, everyone dreams. My dreaming is proof of your dreaming. If you say you dreamt I believe you. — EugeneW

This is not evidence! I knew you were gonna say this.
Look, if I said I dreamed I was floating, I would not be able to produce proof of me floating. What is YOUR evidence of MY claim?

What about it?

Can anyone explain why we readily claim that we dream, or that we readily accept that this or that person had a dream, when we can't provide evidence of it? Why does everyone talk about the scenery in dreams when they can't produce proof of it?
But if we do the same with the existence of god, people want evidence? If I can't produce proof that I dreamed I rode a sleigh pulled by reindeers, no one would say I didn't dream, or dreams don't exist.

L'elephant. The question should be: is there evidence they don't exist. No! So do they exist? Yes! — EugeneW

Let's not use this. This is a fallacy.

Can we bring this thread back to the compound of sanity?

What kind of evidence do atheists ask? Scientific? Then, no. There's no scientific proof for the existence of god.

Funny. The existence of dreams works the same way -- you can't show scientifically what you dreamed of last night. If you dreamed of riding a giant quark, you couldn't show this scientifically, not in pictures, not in actuality. Yet, everyone on Earth had claimed at one time or another that they dreamed about something. And that dreams exist.

So, if I demand that you show me the proof that you dreamed of something last night, I am acting like the atheists.

I was never a voracious reader. My reading habits only developed when I studied philosophy. So, my reading habits is what you get when you read philosophical writings -- you read passages not the whole book, you jumped from one philosopher to the next, you jumped from one notion to another, you only really focus on one idea at a time, and you neglect to read fiction.

There is no just war. (Do not start me with self-defense as it is a silly notion).
War happens because diplomacy and agreement failed. Country A might have a compelling reason to invade country B, but a compelling reason (and it might even be necessary to invade) is not the same as just war. If country A is forced to declare war, A is doing it not because it is a just thing to do. A is doing it because it is the only thing left to do.

It is a good approach to an analysis of the self. The self is fashioned after a model of plurality, witnessed in the world of others. This idea has a history and I think it was Herbert Mead who is most famous for it. So when I observe myself, my behavior, feelings my own thoughts, I am working within a structure of social organized affairs: I AM the "other" of a conversation, as I witness myself. — Constance

Yes, thanks for reference on Mead. I didn't know he wrote extensively on this subject -- the development of sense of self. So, to him, from my cursory reading about him, the development of the "I" came about when we developed language.

The illusion? What do you mean? What question is begged? Not that I disagree, but how do you frame this? — Constance

I made two posts in this thread about the critics who argue against the idea that we have freedom in thinking. The naturalists, or followers of naturalism, argue that we don't have freedom in thinking, like Descartes, Aristotle, and Schopenhauer implied or directly wrote about. Instead, it is only an illusion brought about by our biology, the nerves and cells and chemicals in our brain. When we think, we think in such a way that our thoughts are produced by the environmental stimuli acting on our nerves and cells and make us believe that it is our own voluntary thinking from which our thoughts are produced.

And I said this is question begging coming from the naturalists because they started off by claiming because of our nerves, cells, and chemicals, our thoughts are only produced by nerves, cells, and chemicals.

Thank you for these passages. The Petrarch one is what I had in mind about renaissance. Your comments are on point.

@Bob Ross
I understand that you said "positively assert anything".
There is more than one way to skin a cat. It's all positive if you asked me.

What the fuck happened to thread? How did this become a troll enclave?

It is not a weaker position because it doesn't positively assert anything — Bob Ross

Incorrect. Atheists do assert something: God does not exist.

Zeus does exist. — EugeneW

In mythology no less, sir.

There is no "should or shouldn't" in math. Use "or".

Who said that? I was referring to the article you linked, which referenced 6 BCE, and then proceeded to describe the pygmies as non-spiritual, non-superstitious, non-religious, and no concept of a god or gods.

:halo:

I find that article suspect because pygmies would not have been able to make a statement, god does not exist. If they didn't have a concept of spirituality or deity, they would not have been able to make that statement -- which is essential to be an atheist, no?

I mean, they could not be called atheists. Maybe something else -- but not atheists.

reductive Reason — Gnomon

You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason.

Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any. — _db

Except that sex gets stale, money does not.

There is polytheistic. Belief in all gods.

I guess the thing is, the onus is on the atheists, not the theists.

Theists: God exists, we believe in god.

Atheists: God does not exist, we don't believe in the existence of god.

Note that the atheists deny the existence of god, not that they would not believe it if god exists. If god truly exists, the atheists would turn into theists.

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument.

It seems like a poor use of phrasing many people use. — TiredThinker

It is not. At least not mathematically. "Times" is the inverse of division. Try, ten times weaker. Does that sound like the phrase "5 times fewer"?

A rebuttal to the naturalistic view of mind -- freedom in thinking is only an illusion - is this: how do the adherents of naturalism determined this "illusion"? Did they arrive at this conclusion through the brain processes? In that case, their conclusion is also an illusion.

They cannot assert that we do not have freedom in thinking because their conclusion is begging the question.

Okay. NATO represents the west.

You can't negotiate with bad faith. It's why the whole thing started anyway: a party that makes clear that they are only willing to deal in bad faith makes thereby clear that they understand only one thing: lethal force. — baker

I'm not following what's going on in the war. Who did bad faith?

True. Is that your propaganda?

Well, think fast.

:grin:
Are you gonna be nice now?

I hope some of your late grandma's wisdom rubbed off on you. — Agent Smith

And on you.

While I’m hesitant to accept this, I won’t reject it either, without some proper argument to judge it by. — Mww

If I've come across an explanation I will post it here.

Maybe you could start a thread on that. lol. How did we achieve self-awareness when there was none before. I'm guessing evolution and language development. But still, I'm not sure about that either.