|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
1) You could be a brain in a jar and all of this could be the product of your imagination.
OR 2) You could cohabit an external reality in which other conscious perceiving beings also exist and in which you can interract with them. In the case of the first you can never meaningfully know that this is the case. In the case of the second the nature of the reality in which you coexist with your fellow perceiving consciousnesses (lets call them people) can be empirically investigated and objectively verified through consistent independent corroboration. In the case of the second those conclusions that are formed by this process of corroboration and communication are more reliable indicators of the workings and nature of the reality in which you exist than conclusions which cannot be tested by this process (e.g. that the reality in question was created by a physically undetectable being). Iano - You are continually trying to have your cake and eat it.Either you are a brain in a jar (or whatever other metaphorical equivalent) and your God is as much a figment of your imagination as everything else. Or you live in an objective reality in which empirical investigation is a superior means of determining the nature of that reality than the wholly persoanl subjective and untestable. Which is it? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I know there is a pc screen on front of me just as much as I know that God exists and just as much as I know what I thought 5 seconds ago. I don't add "non-conclusively" to pc screens or thoughts. Nor do I to God. The difference is that you can invite me (or anyone else - lets not get too cosy) to verify that the thing in front of you is a PC. Whether I am imaginary too or not is irrelevant at this point. The difference is that you cannot invite anyone along to verify your personal knowledge of God. You are either a brain in a jar imagining both me and the PC. (granted this is a possibility)OR We are independent beings who together are able to verify the existence of the PC in a way that we cannot the existence of God Your thinking is inherently 'all or nothing' and as such self defeating. The only way you can give your knowledge of God equal status to your knowledge of the PC in front of you is if you deny that anything is real at all. Including your God!!!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Iano's confused thinking seems to reduce down to something like -
IF it is possible that my knowledge in it's entirety is wholly subjective and false.THEN every individual aspect of my knowledge is equally subjective and open to falsehood How exactly the premise leads to the conclusion and how this logic deals with the possibility of his entirety of knowledge not being false (i.e. not being a brain in a jar) he has yet to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I cannot test the overarching hypothesis: "I perceive reality as objective and external".
I am not claiming to test this hypothesis. As far as I am concerned it cannot be tested. On this I think we agree.
The trouble is that you cannot tell which it is
None of my points make any claim to tell us which is the case.
As we might now see, neither of us can tell. I know what I assume and I think it's what you assume. I think we both assume our perception of reality is that it is objective and external to us.
I have assumed nothing. I have simply followed the logical consequences of the two possibilities I will try again as you are obviously missing the point I am trying to make. There are two possibilities under consideration.1) Brain in jar scenario 2) Independent conscious bengs in an objective physical reality scenario No claim is to be made that we can distinguish between 1) and 2). In the event of 2) being true - Conclusions regarding the workings and nature of the reality in question can be independently corroborated and tested.In the event of 1) being true the same tests can appear to take place but with no meaningful result despite appearing equally as meaningful to the 'brain in the jar' Still I make no claim as to being able to differentiate between the two scenarios. In the event of 2) being true conclusions that cannot be tested and which are not independently corroborated are inherently more prone to error and personal delusion than those that can be tested and corroborated.In the event of 1) being true conclusions that cannot appear to be tested and cannot appear to be corroborated appear to be inferior and more prone to personal delusion as compared to those that it appears can be tested. However they are in fact equally as (in)valid as any other conclusions as all conclusions are the subjective result of the 'brain in the jar' alone. I still make no claim as to which scenario is true. I do claim that IF the objective reality scenario is true then some conclusions are more valid than others.I do also claim that IF the brain in the jar scenario is true then all conclusions are equally prone to personal delusion. Which of the above do you dispute?Please don't insist that I have assumed an objective reality at any point. I have not and will continue to make no claims or assumptions regarding which scenario might be true during this debate. Edited by Straggler, : crap typing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You have not assumed objective reality true. But you have assumed that if true then majority perception will reflect that reality more truly. Well this at least some progress in the debate. The question has now changed. The question now becomes whether or not the perceptions and experiences shared by the many are more reliable and less prone to delusion than the experiences of the one (in the case of an objective reality existing) Do you accept that this is now the question that needs to be explored to reach a conclusion in this debate? NOTE: I am not discounting the possibility of the brain in the jar scenario. Nor am I claiming that it is possible for us to determine which scenario is true. I am however concentraing on the objective reality scenario as this is where the difference of opinion regarding the reliability of evidence seems to exist.
When you say "independantly corroborated" you mean by x number of similar individuals to the single individual whose individual perception is judged prone to error/delusion. Yes. This is not how I would have phrased it but essentially this is what I mean. I think it is this point that needs to be explored further. I think we agree that the brain in the jar scenario leads to all conclusions being equally subjective.I think we also agree that there is no way to determine which of the two possible scenarios we are actually in. Let me know if you do disagree with either of these statements as I will assume you do not otherwise. If you do agree with all of the above I will restrict further argument to attempting to demonstrate that the experiences of the many outweigh the experiences of the one in terms of reliablity in the case of a shared objective reality existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But couldn't RealityTM be some combination of the objective and subjective? Does it have to be all or nothing? I don't think anyone is arguing that our personal perception of reality is not a mixture of both. The question is whether or not there is an objective and common reality that we are all percieving in our own subjective ways or whether it is all just the wholly subjective imaginings of a 'brain in a jar' type situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sure iano could. iano could invite me along and I would agree that iano's God is real. I happen to have a personal relationship with the same God. Is it the same God? How do you know? I won't detail all the tests we could do independently to verify that we are looking at the same PC. But the key difference is that the tests do exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
From all the conversations I have had with iano and the many posts that I have read where iano talked about his God. Yes they are one and the same God. I am sure your descriptions are very similar. However this is like me and you describing the colour red to each other.No matter how similar our descriptions may be we can never ever no if that which we actually perceive is identical. We cannot look with the others eyes. We can however undertake independent tests to determine the physical properties of red and to confirm that we both consistently identify these properties as 'red'ness. In this way we can establsh that red objectively exists even if we can never know that we perceive it identically. No such tests are available to your descriptions of God. No such evidence of your god existing anywhere but in your head are possible. That is the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your thinking seems to be summed up thus -
I could be a brain in a jar If I am a brain in a jar all knowledge is necessarily equally subjective I can never establsih whether I am a brain in a jar or a conscious being sharing a reality with other conscious beings. Because it is impossible to know which scenario is true all knowledge is equally subjective regardless of which scenario is true. I agree wholeheartedly with the first three statements. However the last statement is false as it does not recognise the possibility that in the case of an objective reality shared with other conscious beings there are tests which can be done to determine the nature of that reality more objectively. The questions then becomes whether or not such tests are possible and do indeed make some forms of investigation more reliable than others. It is this last question that needs to be explored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Fair play. I know what it is like to start a thread in which the world and his dog all feel the need to explain to you exactly why they believe you are wrong all at once.
It can be exhausting and very time consuming. In your own time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
One day I will die, and one day iano will die. If we are correct and there is a God we will meet and I will know who iano is when we meet. Well this is pushing the limits of what can be described as testable somewhat........ Testable conclusions usually require that the result of the test can be determined either way. If you are wrong about the afterlife any conclusions could be difficult to establish........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Isn't it you, who (in the other thread) implies this very idea, by believing that everything is just matter, that we are (in a sense) only brains in a jar? AAArrrggghhh! I am not sure I can cope with tackling you on two seperate fronts relating to almost the same questions. Lets keep this to the thread you started. Multiple brains in multiple jars each connected to sensory perception devices that feed us individual information realting to a shared external reality would be a better description (very Matrixesque) Anyway likeI say lets keep this to the "What is science" thread you started. Once I have got my head round the contents of your essay there is ample opportunity to pick up on this sort of thing. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If you accept that you cannot establish it being the case that there is an objective reality as described, then it doesn't matter that the possibility is ignored. Totally untrue. It very much matters in terms of establishing whether or not different forms of evidence MIGHT be superior or not. In post 21 you stated
As we might now see, neither of us can tell. I know what I assume and I think it's what you assume. I think we both assume our perception of reality is that it is objective and external to us. Yet now
A possibility that cannot be established is hardly a possibility worth investigating or testing Is the very nature of the reality that you have so readily agreed that YOU assume to exist not worth investigating? This seems like an evasion tactic There are only two possibilities. We exist in one of them. If we wish to understand the nature of reality both of them are very much worth considering on the basis that either one may be true. In one possibility it is evident that some forms of evidence are superior to others (I have argued)In one possibility all forms of evidence are equally valid (we both agree to this) Your assertion that all forms of evidence are equally valid regardless of which possibility is true is based ONLY on the 'brain in the jar' scenario (and on your desire for this conclusion to be true) This is selective reasoning at best. What if we do exist in the first scenario? The scenario you have actually claimed to assume!!!! UNLESS you can demonstrate that your assertion applies to BOTH possible scenarios you MUST logically accept that it is wholly possible that we exist in the objective reality scenario and that it is thus possible that some forms of evidence are superior to others. Your argument falls apart unless you can successfully argue that independent corroboration has no bearing on standards of evidence in an objective reality and that all evidence is equally valid regardless of scenario. Thus far you have evaded tackling that question Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Rob, you're putting words in his mouth: he didn't say this (unless you meant to reply to this post). Maybe he has personally taken a belief that God does not exist, but this is really not much different from your (and my) belief that God does exist: neither one is based on anything that any of us could ever prove definitively and unobjectively without direct divine intervention (i.e. without Him showing up before us). So, your implication that you are being more scientific in regards to God's existence is inaccurate. Straggler's signature (though quite accurate) is not a definition of what is and isn't "scientific." For the record I would not say that I have concluded that God definitely does not exist. Just that he and any other god that I might care to dream up (maybe the great god wooboo has just revealed himself to me exclusively and I have mistaken this for a product of my imagination) are all equally (un)likley given the lack of reliable evidence for any of them. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What evidence would you be willing to accept? What proof of God's existence do you seek? Well the independently repeatable verification of a specific measurable physically detectable prediction that itself is both logically derived from the hypothesis 'God exists' and currently unknown to science would be a very good start......... Think along the lines of Big Bang theory and the subsequent detection and measurement of the CMB radiation. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024