Would anyone want to really go to heaven?

Pushtrak

Assuming that you had a genuine personal revelation (throwing skepticism out the window on that front) I find it peculiar that it didn't include something like "Oh yeah, and that evolution thing? That's true." Or, did god forget to inform you of this on the banana phone?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks.

I wouldn't say 'any' argument, but I would certainly say 'some' arguments are wasted. Let's have a look at an argument I don't think is wasted in light of the above affirmative.

1) You are an atheist who now accepts that a knowledge of God's existance wouldn't be dependent on process. It would only be dependent on God revealing himself.

2) I arrive and I say I know God exists.

3) You cannot raise an objection to my claim by attacking an otherwise suspect process called 'personal revelation' since process wouldn't be relevant to God revealing himself. You'd be barking up the wrong tree, in other words.

Is this alright so far?

Nope. I do not accept that a knowledge of god's existence wouldn't depend on a process. I accepted that once one has knowledge of god's existence one can say that it wasn't dependent on the process. It does depend on a process because you have to use a process before you can say that you didn't need to use the process. It remains to be seen whether you actually have knowledge of god's existence or are deluded. Just because you tell us you have knowledge of god's existence doesn't mean you actually do so it's perfectly valid to say that personal experience is not a reliable method

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nope. I do not accept that a knowledge of god's existence wouldn't depend on a process. I accepted that once one has knowledge of god's existence one can say that it wasn't dependent on the process. It does depend on a process because you have to use a process before you can say that you didn't need to use the process.

If you use a process to arrive at a point where you can say the process itself was irrelvant to you arriving there then you didn't arrive there by the process in fact (even though you thought you were at the time). You would have just discovered that the process was a mere front for something else which brought you to that point. In this case, it would be God.

It remains to be seen whether you actually have knowledge of god's existence or are deluded. Just because you tell us you have knowledge of god's existence doesn't mean you actually do so it's perfectly valid to say that personal experience is not a reliable method

We must first see can you be shifted beyond point 1) of my previous post. Assuming so - given the argument above - the point 3) would stand.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you use a process to arrive at a point where you can say the process itself was irrelvant to you arriving there then you didn't arrive there by the process in fact (even though you thought you were at the time). You would have just discovered that the process was a mere front for something else which brought you to that point. In this case, it would be God.

We must first see can you be shifted beyond point 1) of my previous post. Assuming so - given the argument above - the point 3) would stand.

If god exists then then empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.
If god doesn't exist then empiricism does produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.

Before it can be accepted that empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience it must be demonstrated that god exists. The only valid way to demonstrate that god exists is to begin with the presumption that he doesn't (or at least not begin with the presumption that he does). Otherwise you are presuming the thing that we are trying to establish which makes the whole endeavour pointless.

The only way to logically shift beyond point 1 is for god to demonstrate himself through a method that is reliable whether he exists or not. He cannot do it using a method that is only reliable if he exists because the possibility will always remain that he doesn't exist and the unreliability of the method used has made someone think he does.

KeithAFC

Why is there more believers in god than say reincarnation? At least with reincarnation, you can come back and be something different. I'd love to be a big anaconda and spy on my pray before i bite.

Why would i want to go to heaven to talk to god all day? He must be the most boring and most evil person to of ever lived with the amount of misery he has allowed to happen on earth.

johanz

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why is there more believers in god than say reincarnation? At least with reincarnation, you can come back and be something different. I'd love to be a big anaconda and spy on my pray before i bite.

Why would i want to go to heaven to talk to god all day? He must be the most boring and most evil person to of ever lived with the amount of misery he has allowed to happen on earth.

Reptiles only have the most basic instinctual brain. The do not even know they really exist. Reptiles are driven by instincts. They are like biological robots, following a specific code. They do not have emotions or even consciousness. So yeah, I wouldn't want to be something like that

antiskeptic

My apologies for the delay in responding, Sam..

Sam Vimes wrote:

Nope. I do not accept that a knowledge of god's existence wouldn't depend on a process.

antiskeptic wrote:

If you use a process to arrive at a point where you can say the process itself was irrelvant to you arriving there then you didn't arrive there by the process in fact (even though you thought you were at the time). You would have just discovered that the process was a mere front for something else which brought you to that point. In this case, it would be God.

The above recaps the current sticking point. I say process is irrelevant to a knowledge of God (meaning that arrival by empirical evidence is as valid as arrival by any other process - including personal revelation). You say otherwise.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god exists then then empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.

If god doesn't exist then empiricism does produce more reliable results than internal personal experience.

Before it can be accepted that empiricism does not produce more reliable results than internal personal experience it must be demonstrated that god exists. The only valid way to demonstrate that god exists is to begin with the presumption that he doesn't (or at least not begin with the presumption that he does). Otherwise you are presuming the thing that we are trying to establish which makes the whole endeavour pointless.

There is no need to demonstrate that God exists to make a statement about empiricsms validity in the case of God existing . The value of a logical statement like I've made up top is that you can draw conclusions without the logical condition actually being established in reality.

I'm not trying to demonstrate that God exists so this section isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about. Remember, I'm attempting to move you from step 1) to step 3). You're currently refusing ("Nope") to move from step 1). Have I addressed your concern?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for the delay in responding, Sam..

The above recaps the current sticking point. I say process is irrelevant to a knowledge of God (meaning that arrival by empirical evidence is as valid as arrival by any other process - including personal revelation). You say otherwise.

There is not need to demonstrate that God exists to make a statement about empiricsms validity in the case of God existing . The value of a logical statement like I've made up top is that you can draw conclusions without the logical condition actually being established in reality.

I'm not trying to demonstrate that God exists so this section isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about. Remember, I'm attempting to move you from step 1) to step 3). You're currently refusing ("Nope") to move from step 1). Have I addressed your concern?

No you have not addressed my concern. You say you are not trying to demonstrate god's existence but you seem to be completely failing to grasp that your argument is irrelevant until you do because it only applies in a world where god's existence has already been demonstrated. Yes, if god exists then the process of revelation used is irrelevant but the experience you had cannot be said to be a reliable demonstration of god's existence until god's existence is demonstrated in a way that is reliable whether he exists or not. Your experience is reliable only if god exists so the possibility remains that you are deluded and this possibility remains just as much for you as it does for me.

antiskeptic

I'll address mid-your-post then come back to the start. Okay?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, if god exists then the process of revelation used is irrelevant

It might be worth remembering that I'm examing the perspective a 'searching' athiest should logically have. How it is that he should view the issue of his search for God - including how it is he should view someone like me.


It isn't relevant whether God actually exists or not in order for the logical conclusion to stand. Logic allows us to draw a conclusion about the irrelevancy of process in the search for God without knowing whether he does or doesn't exist. Would you agree?

No you have not addressed my concern. You say you are not trying to demonstrate god's existence but you seem to be completely failing to grasp that your argument is irrelevant until you do because it only applies in a world where god's existence has already been demonstrated

Has this element been resolved?

Your experience is reliable only if god exists so the possibility remains that you are deluded.

Which is off the point. We need to hold in focus the perspective I'm examining. That perspective is the 'searching atheists'. Your perspective, not mine.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll address mid-your-post then come back to the start. Okay?

It might be worth remembering that I'm examing the perspective a 'searching' athiest should logically have. How it is that he should view the issue of his search for God - including how it is he should view someone like me.


It isn't relevant whether God actually exists or not in order for the logical conclusion to stand. Logic allows us to draw a conclusion about the irrelevancy of process in the search for God without knowing whether he does or doesn't exist. Would you agree?

Has this element been resolved?

Which is off the point. We need to hold in focus the perspective I'm examining. That perspective is the 'searching atheists'. Your perspective, not mine.

Your logic only applies once god has already been found. It is irrelevant to the search for god. Any logic that begins with if god exists and totally ignores the possibility of if god doesn't exist is worthless to someone who does not already believe that god exists

edit: it's also worthless to people who believe in god because of something like personal experience but they don't realise this because they are ignoring the very significant possibility that they are deluding themselves into thinking god has revealed himself

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your logic only applies once god has already been found. It is irrelevant to the search for god.

Not logical. There is no need for an answer the question "does God exist" in order for logic pertaining to a search for God to be true.

Any logic that begins with if god exists and totally ignores the possibility of if god doesn't exist is worthless to someone who does not already believe that god exists

By all means insert logical conclusions for this condition into your search. It doesn't alter the consequences of the above. If God doesn't exist yet you find him (empirically or by other means) then you're in brain-in-jar territory. If he doesn't exist and you don't find him then you'll never know he doesn't exist.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not logical. There is no need for an answer the question "does God exist" in order for logic pertaining to a search for God to be true.

That is true. I have never contested that your logic works if god exists. My objection is two fold:

1) Your logic does not bring us any closer to actually answering the question of if god exists and it is nothing but a thought exercise until the question is answered.
2) Personal experience cannot answer the question for me or for you because it can only be said to be reliable if god exists, i.e. once the question has already been answered. You can't know that god exists any more than I do until you get a demonstration that is reliable whether god exists or not. God's existence can only be said to be demonstrated when it is done in a way that eliminates (or renders negligible) the possibility of delusion and personal experience does not do that.

edit: your logic is:
If god exists then personal experience is reliable
god's existence has been demonstrated to me through personal experience
Therefore personal experience is reliable

The problem is:
God's existence (and anything for that matter) can only be demonstrated through personal experience if personal experience is reliable.
And personal experience is only reliable if god exists
Therefore god's existence cannot be demonstrated through personal experience. Something cannot be reliably demonstrated using a method that is only reliable if the thing that is supposed to be demonstrated is true. The reliability of the method must be established before it is used to demonstrate anything

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is true. I have never contested that your logic works if god exists.My objection is two fold:

1) Your logic does not bring us any closer to actually answering the question of if god exists and it is nothing but a thought exercise until the question is answered.

It was not designed to bring you any closer to answering the question of "if God exists". (At least not by any route that you would be expected to assent to. But I have my own agenda here )

You are incorrect in saying that it is just a thought exercise. There is a hard, logical conclusion to which your search is now subject. And because you are currently in the mode of search you must also bear that logical constraint in mind - in all your subsequent dealings.

2) Personal experience cannot answer the question for me or for you because it can only be said to be reliable if god exists, i.e. once the question has already been answered.

The question of the reliability of any process evaporates at the point of God turning up. Process is irrelevant in the case the question is answered - as I have been saying.

You can't know that god exists any more than I do until you get a demonstration that is reliable whether god exists or not. God can only demonstrate himself in a way that eliminates the possibility of delusion and personal experience does not do that.

Which has you back at relying on process (in the case of Gods existance) when up top you say that process is irrelevant (in the case of Gods existance). How can process be irrelevant in the case of Gods existance (you agree) whilst at the same time being something God must rely on in the case of Gods existance?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was not designed to bring you any closer to answering the question of "if God exists". (At least not by any route that you would be expected to assent to. But I have my own agenda here )

You are incorrect in saying that it is just a thought exercise. There is a hard, logical conclusion to which your search is now subject. And because you are currently in the mode of search you must also bear that logical constraint in mind - in all your subsequent dealings.

The question of the reliability of any process evaporates at the point of God turning up. Process is irrelevant in the case the question is answered - as I have been saying.

Which has you back at relying on process (in the case of Gods existance) when up top you say that process is irrelevant (in the case of Gods existance). How can process be irrelevant in the case of Gods existance (you agree) whilst at the same time being something God must rely on in the case of Gods existance?

Right, process is irrelevant in the case that the question has been answered. So how does one answer the question, bearing in mind that personal revelation can only be said to be reliable once the question has already been answered and therefore cannot be used (even by you) to answer the question?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, process is irrelevant in the case that the question has been answered.

Remember that process is rendered irrelevant in the light of the potential for the IF condition ("God exists") being true. Because the state of the IF condition isn't known during the search, one cannot say anything concrete about process - rendering process irrrelevant.

Right, process is irrelevant in the case that the question has been answered. So how does one answer the question, bearing in mind that personal revelation can only be said to be reliable once the question has already been answered and therefore cannot be used (even by you) to answer the question?

If the process is rendered irrelevant once the question is answered then all aspects of the process are rendered irrelevant - including questions about the reliability of the process.

We can see that one doesn't answer this question (in the way that one answers questions about the existance of other things). If the question is to be answered, it is to be answered by God. A logical outworking of him being the originator of process.


From the start of your previous posts edit

Sam wrote:

edit: Your logic is:

If god exists then personal experience is reliable

My logic is: If God exists then personal experience is irrelevant.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

one cannot say anything concrete about process - rendering process irrrelevant.

Declaring process to be irrelevant is a very concrete thing to say about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the process is rendered irrelevant once the question is answered then all aspects of the process are rendered irrelevant - including questions about the reliability of the process.

So the logic is: If god exists then process is irrelevant, therefore process is irrelevant.

Or expressed formally: If P then Q therefore Q

I'm honestly having trouble wording a reply to that, it's total nonsense. Let's try some more examples of that logic shall we:

If antiskeptic killed someone then he is a murderer, therefore antiskeptic is a murderer
If oxygen is poisonous then anyone who breathes is will die, therefore we are all dead
If gravity doesn't exist then the earth and the life on it can't form, therefore we don't exist
If the bible is made up then Jesus was not the son of god, therefore Jesus was not the son of god
If god doesn't exist then he didn't reveal himself to antiskeptic, therefore god didn't reveal himself to antiskeptic

Yes antiskeptic, if we assume to be true that which we are trying to establish we can "prove" anything we want but that way madness lies. The valid logic here is:

If P then Q. P, therefore Q

You are skipping the bit in bold, rendering your argument invalid

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Declaring process to be irrelevant is a very concrete thing to say about it.

When on a search path, irrelevancy derives from the as-yet unknown state of the IF condtion. Because we don't know about the state of the IF condition we don't know where process fits rendering it irrelevant to our search. We don't know if we can rely on it or not.


When at the end of a search path in which the IF condition is discovered to be true, irrelevancy has to do with God being the author of process.

Irrelevancy of process on the journey and at the destination. My point below looks at the second of these: at the destination

If the process is rendered irrelevant once the question is answered then all aspects of the process are rendered irrelevant - including questions about the reliability of the process.

So the logic is: If god exists then process is irrelevant, therefore process is irrelevant.

What I'm saying here involves a point in time at the end of a search where the IF condition is established to be true ("once the question is answered"). You can't deem process irrelevant at that point in time and at the same moment ask whether the process is reliable. Once the process is deemed irrrelevant by the IF condition being true, everything associated with the process (such as it's reliability and questions about it's reliability) become irrelevant.

Bearing that in mind and looking at your original question

Sam wrote:

So how does one answer the question, bearing in mind that personal revelation can only be said to be reliable once the question has already been answered and therefore cannot be used (even by you) to answer the question?

We can see that a person in this position of knowing God exists cannot know it according to a process. They simply know. Hence my saying that I know God exists in the same way that I know the reality outside exists: there is no process wherreby I can establish the external reality real, I simply know it is. And if it's not in fact, then I'm in brain-in-jar territory.

Which is useless. And so I take the only route left: I know God exists.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

When on a search path, irrelevancy derives from the as-yet unknown state of the IF condtion. Because we don't know about the state of the IF condition we don't know where process fits.

When at the end of a search path in which the IF condition is discovered to be true, irrelevancy has to do with God being the author of process.

Two different ways to see irrelevancy of process.

Only the second way it a way to see the irrelevancy of the process. Not knowing "where is fits" is not the same as being able to declare it irrelevant. That would be knowing where it fits

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I'm saying here involves a point in time at the end of a search where the IF condition is established to be true ("once the question is answered"). You can't deem process irrelevant at that point in time and at the same moment ask whether the process is reliable. Once the process is deemed irrrelevant by the IF condition being true, everything associated with the process (such as it's reliability and questions about it's reliability) become irrelevant.

Bearing that in mind and looking at your original question

Jesus tap dancing christ man I know that. You keep saying that. I know that. Stop saying that. That is the whole point that I am making, that your argument for how one gets to the point in time at the end of the search only works if one is already at the end of the search, which doesn't make any sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can see that a person in this position doesn't know according to a process. They simply know. Hence my saying that I know God exists in the same way that I know the reality outside exists: there is no process wherreby I can establish the external reality real, I simply know it is. And if it's not in fact, then I'm in brain-in-jar territory.

Which is useless. And so I take the only route left: I know God exists.

If there is no process by which you can establish something then you cannot know it, you can only assume it and hope you're not deluding yourself, which is exactly what you are doing. And you are attempting to convince yourself that you are not deluding yourself using logic that only works if you assume you are not deluding yourself. Your whole argument here is based on the nonsense of If P then Q therefore Q therefore P. I can safely say that you do not know that god exists without placing us in brain in a jar territory because the reasoning you are using for how you can know that god exists is flawed. I can use exactly the same logic to say that I "know" that you are a murderer, that Jesus was a fraud and that the earth doesn't exist. It's nonsense.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Only the second way it a way to see the irrelevancy of the process. Not knowing "where is fits" is not the same as being able to declare it irrelevant. That would be knowing where it fits

Given no knowledge on the nature of the 'IF' condition during a search, silence on the place of process is in order.

What relevance silence?

Jesus tap dancing christ man I know that. You keep saying that. I know that. Stop saying that. That is the whole point that I am making, that your argument for how one gets to the point in time at the end of the search only works if one is already at the end of the search, which doesn't make any sense.

Okay. Process irrelevant at the end of a search concluding in God. And process potentially irrelevant due to the potential of a search concluding in God.

My focus is on your status on the search path. So, can I propose a test to see where you stand at present? Would you agree that you could now safely make the statement (in your position of 'searcher')

"God. I'm looking for you and don't know if you exist. If you exist, would you make yourself known to me either by empirical revelation or direct revelation. I recognise that if you do exist and do make yourself known to me then either way of doing so would be valid"

If there is no process by which you can establish something then you cannot know it, you can only assume it and hope you're not deluding yourself

Like I say, a logical conclusion arising from the IF condition being true is your transcending process (because process becomes irrelevant in that case). "Knowing" God exists would be like "knowing" reality exists - an assumption on which subsequent process-type knowledge is built. What you can't do is suppose process knowledge superior.

And you are attempting to convince yourself that you are not deluding yourself using logic that only works if you assume you are not deluding yourself. Your whole argument here is based on the nonsense of If P then Q therefore Q

You say my logic is "If god exists then process is irrelevant, therefore process is irrelevant" but I'm not saying that. The process is potentially irrelevant and because you're on the path and can't know whether or not you need to take an agnostic position. If aliens land and reveal a Wizard of Oz figure behind the Biblical God then process (them demonstrating how they did it) would be very relevant.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given no knowledge on the nature of the 'IF' condition during a search, silence on the place of process is in order.

What relevance silence?

Declaring it to be irrelevant is not silence therefore you cannot declare it to be irrelevant. You have not eliminated the possibility that process is relevant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Process irrelevant at the end of a search concluding in God. And process potentially irrelevant due to the potential of a search concluding in God.

My focus is on your status on the search path. So, can I propose a test to see where you stand at present? Would you agree that you could now safely make the statement (in your position of 'searcher')

"God. I'm looking for you and don't know if you exist. If you exist, would you make yourself known to me either by empirical revelation or direct revelation. I recognise that if you do exist and do make yourself known to me then either way of doing so would be valid"

Like I say, a logical conclusion arising from the IF condition being true is your transcending process (because process becomes irrelevant in that case). "Knowing" God exists would be like "knowing" reality exists - an assumption to which process-type knowledge is subject.

You say my logic is "If god exists then process is irrelevant, therefore process is irrelevant" but I'm not saying that. The process is potentially irrelevant and because you're on the path and can't know whether or not you need to take an agnostic position. If aliens land and reveal a Wizard of Oz figure behind the Biblical God then process (them demonstrating how they did it) would be very relevant.

No I can't say "If you exist, would you make yourself known to me either by empirical revelation or direct revelation" because direct revelation can only be considered reliable if god exists, therefore it cannot be used as a method to demonstrate his existence. The most your logic allows me to do is say that process is potentially irrelevant but asking god to make himself known through direct revelation requires me to believe that it is irrelevant which it is only if god exists. Basically in order to ask god to make himself known through direct revelation I must already believe in god, which is kind of pointless.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Declaring it to be irrelevant is not silence therefore you cannot declare it to be irrelevant. You have not eliminated the possibility that process is relevant.

I've accepted the potential relevance of process (were you to arrive at a negative answer to the IF God question):

If aliens land and reveal a Wizard of Oz figure behind the Biblical God then process (them demonstrating how they did it) would be very relevant.

Until that potential is released by arrival at an answer, you've only got potential. And in the face of all this potential regarding process relevance, you need to occupy an agnostic position.

No I can't say "If you exist, would you make yourself known to me either by empirical revelation or direct revelation" because direct revelation can only be considered reliable if god exists, therefore it cannot be used as a method to demonstrate his existence.

But if God demonstrates himself empirically then he would be also revealing that empiricisms reliability exists only because he exists. And so he can't demonstrate his existance empirically - by this reckoning of yours.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've accepted the potential relevance of process (were you to arrive at a negative answer to the IF God question):

Until that potential is released by arrival at an answer, you've only got potential. And in the face of all this potential regarding process relevance, you need to occupy an agnostic position.

I know that, that is the position that I occupy. I am an agnostic atheist. The whole point that I am making is that your logic does not bring me any closer to answering the question.

And what you don't seem to realise is that you must also logically occupy an agnostic position because the experience that you claim allows you to "know" that god exists can only be said to be reliable if god exists. Your experience cannot be said to be a demonstration of god's existence because it does not eliminate the possibility of delusion

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if God demonstrates himself empirically then he would be also revealing that empiricisms reliability exists only because he exists. And so he can't demonstrate his existance empirically - by this reckoning of yours.

Not at all, empiricism's reliability exists whether god exists or not. The reliability of direct revelation depends on the assumption of god's existence but the reliability of empiricism does not, it depends on the consistency of the results that it produces. That is the difference. God cannot demonstrate himself using a method that is only reliable if he exists but he can demonstrate himself using a method that is reliable whether he exists or not because we are not then relying on the assumption of his existence to demonstrate his existence.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know that, that is the position that I occupy. I am an agnostic atheist. The whole point that I am making is that your logic does not bring me any closer to answering the question.

An aside:

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist

Surely all atheists are agnostic atheists given that no atheist can claim (with a straight face) that he knows that a diety doesn't exist.

___________


My logic isn't aiming to bring you closer to answering the question. My aim is to render you neutral on the subject of my claiming to know God exists. Part of that would be achieved by you arriving at step 1.

And what you don't seem to realise is that you must also logically occupy an agnostic position because the experience that you claim allows you to "know" that god exists can only be said to be reliable if god exists. Your experience cannot be said to be a demonstration of god's existence because it does not eliminate the possibility of delusion

Perhaps we can come back to the position I must occupy. It's not that I'm shy of dealing with it but I'd like to establish your position if possible.

Not at all, empiricism's reliability exists whether god exists or not. That is the difference. God cannot demonstrate himself using a method that is only reliable if he exists but he can demonstrate himself using a method that is reliable whether he exists or not because we are not then relying on the assumption of his existence to demonstrate his existence.

I've made the point that God turning up empirically destroys the notion that empiricism has a reliability "whether God exists or not". The "or not" piece would evaporate with his empirical appearence. You'd now be in a position of realising all your trust in empiricism derived from God - in fact.

But God cannot simply demonstrate himself so in your mind - he requires some or other independent process. Something that doesn't lead back to him.


Could you deal with that problem?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside:



Surely all atheists are agnostic atheists given that no atheist can claim (with a straight face) that he knows that a diety doesn't exist.

___________

They should be but unfortunately that doesn't mean they all are. Most on this forum are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My logic isn't aiming to bring you closer to answering the question. My aim is to render you neutral on the subject of my claiming to know God exists. Part of that would be achieved by you arriving at step 1.

Perhaps we can come back to the position I must occupy. It's not that I'm shy of dealing with it but I'd like to establish your position if possible.

I've made the point that God turning up empirically destroys the notion that empiricism has a reliability "whether God exists or not". The "or not" piece would evaporate with his empirical appearence. You'd now be in a position of realising all your trust in empiricism derived from God - in fact.

But God cannot simply demonstrate himself in your mind - he requires some or other independent process. Something that doesn't lead back to him

Could you deal with that problem?

Yes of course the "or not" would evaporate with god's empirical appearance and you are right to say that if god made an empirical appearance I'd then be in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god
but god has not made an empirical appearance so the "or not" has not evaporated and I am not in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god. The problem with your entire line of argument is that it requires me to pretend that I am and/or accept that you are even though god has not demonstrated himself empirically to you either. The point is:

Direct revelation is reliable if god exists
Direct revelation is not reliable if god doesn't exist

Empiricism is reliable if god exists
Empiricism is reliable if god doesn't exist

The reliability of empiricism is not dependent on god's existence so your assertion that "empiricisms reliability exists only because [god] exists" is wrong. I do not need to assume that god exists in order to say that empiricism is reliable, unlike with direct revelation.

Your reasoning does not "render me neutral on the subject of you claiming to know God exists" because your reasoning leaves open a very significant possibility that you are deluding yourself. The probability of this could be reduced through empiricism because the reliability of empiricism does not depend on an assumption of god's existence but never reduced to zero.

Sam Vimes

If you wouldn't mind, please highlight what you consider to be the flaw in this reasoning. Note that "reliable" means "eliminates the possibility of delusion and simply being wrong" and direct personal revelation is shortened to DPR

In order to come to know something it must be demonstrated in a way that is known in advance to be reliable
Therefore in order to come to know that god exists through DPR, it must be known in advance that DPR is reliable

DPR is only reliable if god exists, therefore you must know that god exists before you can say that DPR is reliable.

This is a catch 22 situation. You must know that DPR is reliable before you can know that god exists but you must know that god exists before you can know that DPR is reliable. Therefore DPR cannot logically allow you to come to know that god exists and consequently, you cannot logically claim to know that god exists

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They should be but unfortunately that doesn't mean they all are. Most on this forum are.

Is that another way of saying that you think some atheists are deluded too?

Yes of course the "or not" would evaporate with god's empirical appearance and you are right to say that if god made an empirical appearance I'd then be in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god

If process is rendered irrelevant by God turning up then you can ask God ("if you exist") to turn up by any process. You would be merely aknowledging before a potential event, what would be the case were the event to take place.

but god has not made an empirical appearance so the "or not" has not evaporated and I am not in a position of realising that all my trust in empiricism derived from god.

See above.

The problem with your entire line of argument is that it requires me to pretend that I am and/or accept that you are even though god has not demonstrated himself empirically to you either.

You seem to have missed a word out here. "I am and/or accept that you are ...... even though"

The point is:

Direct revelation is reliable if god exists
Direct revelation is not reliable if god doesn't exist

Empiricism is reliable if god exists
Empiricism is reliable if god doesn't exist

The reliability of empiricism is not dependent on god's existence so your assertion that "empiricisms reliability exists only because [god] exists" is wrong.

I'm not asserting that empiricisms reliability exists only because God exists. Rather, I seem to have your agreement on the place of empiricism if God exists. Once we've established your position wrt the device of this 'prayer' then we can draw other conclusions about how you view someone like me.

Your reasoning does not "render me neutral on the subject of you claiming to know God exists" because your reasoning leaves open a very significant possibility that you are deluding yourself. The probability of this could be reduced through empiricism because the reliability of empiricism does not depend on an assumption of god's existence but never reduced to zero.

Assuming we can have you pray that prayer (with conviction ), I think we can have a re-look at this.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you wouldn't mind, please highlight what you consider to be the flaw in this reasoning. Note that "reliable" means "eliminates the possibility of delusion and simply being wrong" and direct personal revelation is shortened to DPR

Okay

In order to come to know something it must be demonstrated in a way that is known in advance to be reliable. Therefore in order to come to know that god exists through DPR, it must be known in advance that DPR is reliable

A simple way to show why this is false is contained within your own statement - for the statement contains turtles-all-the-way-down reasoning. I've colour-coded references to knowledge in your statement and in my parallel statement to better highlight the problem.

You say that in order to arrive at X knowledge we must first know that the process whereby we come to X knowledge is itself reliable. But how do we come by this Y knowedge ( the process is known to be reliable). Well, your statement tells us how that must be: it must be by a process that is known to be reliabile. Clearly this latter process can't be the same as the process whose reliability we are trying to establish - otherwise we'd go in a circle. The alternative to circularity is to go on forever: it's process-turtles all the way down.

DPR is only reliable if god exists, therefore you must know that god exists before you can say that DPR is reliable.

This is a catch 22 situation. You must know that DPR is reliable before you can know that god exists but you must know that god exists before you can know that DPR is reliable. Therefore DPR cannot logically allow you to come to know that god exists and consequently, you cannot logically claim to know that god exists

The above demonstrates that all knowledge suffers from Catch-22. There is no solid ground under any of it.

What happens in practice is that we assume the external reality (as it appears to be) is real and that base things we perceive about that reality are "knowns". From these assumed knowns (such as the 'knowledge' of the existance in reality of similar individuals to ourselves) we build further levels of knowledge. But we are never free of the base assumption that reality as we perceive it is real. We cannot point to a 'reliable process' to establish the actual existance of other individual beings in this reality for instance.

The fact that God cannot be demonstrated by process (because he would have designed process and cannot be at the same time subject to it) is precisely as you'd expect it to be. As the real-est thing of all, he would be the overarching and you can either assume he exists when finding yourself faced with him (just like you assume the rest of reality when faced with it).

Or you can suppose yourself a brain-in-a-jar. Which we know to be a useless thing to consider. And so I know God is real - not because he (or the rest of reality) is necessarily real, but because the alternative is useless solipsim.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that another way of saying that you think some atheists are deluded too?

Yes

antiskeptic wrote: »

If process is rendered irrelevant by God turning up then you can ask God ("if you exist") to turn up by any process. You would be merely aknowledging before a potential event, what would be the case were the event to take place.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. Asking god to show up by any process requires me to believe that process is irrelevant which it is only if he exists. I must believe in god before I can ask him to show up by any process which makes asking him to show up pointless because I would already believe in him. Honestly antiskeptic, what you actually need to do here is simply consider the possibility that god doesn't exist. You say that's like asking you to say that reality is not real but that is reality as far as I'm concerned and there is no point in talking to me until you can at least fathom the position that I am in. Everything you are saying is only convincing to another person who cannot fathom a world without god and that is not me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A simple way to show why this is false is contained within your own statement - for the statement contains turtles-all-the-way-down reasoning. I've colour-coded references to knowledge in your statement and in my parallel statement to better highlight the problem.

You say that in order to arrive at X knowledge we must first know that the process whereby we come to X knowledge is itself reliable. But how do we come by this Y knowedge ( the process is known to be reliable). Well, your statement tells us how that must be: it must be by a process that is known to be reliabile. Clearly this latter process can't be the same as the process whose reliability we are trying to establish - otherwise we'd go in a circle. The alternative to circularity is to go on forever: it's process-turtles all the way down.

The above demonstrates that all knowledge suffers from Catch-22. There is no solid ground under any of it.

What happens in practice is that we assume the external reality (as it appears to be) is real and that base things we perceive about that reality are "knowns". From these assumed knowns (such as the 'knowledge' of the existance in reality of similar individuals to ourselves) we build further levels of knowledge. But we are never free of the base assumption that reality as we perceive it is real. We cannot point to a 'reliable process' to establish the actual existance of other individual beings in this reality.

The fact that God cannot be demonstrated by process (because he would have designed process and cannot be subject to it) is precisely as you'd expect it to be. As the real-est thing of all, he would be simply part of reality and you can either assume he exists when finding yourself faced with him (just like you assume the rest of reality when faced with it)

Or you can suppose yourself a brain-in-a-jar. Which we know to be a useless thing to consider. And so I know God is real - not because he (or the rest of reality) is necessarily real, but because the alternative is useless solipsim.

You keep saying how useless brain-in-a-jar territory is but that is where you keep trying to bring us because that is the only place where what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever, that is the only place where direct personal revelation is as reliable as empiricism. I do not need to invoke turtles-all-the-way-down to say that something can be known to be reliable, empiricism can be shown to be reliable because it produces consistent results. I can perform an experiment a million times and get the same result every single time, I can make predictions using empiricism and people can stake their life on these predictions, i.e. rely on them, because empiricism's consistency has shown it to be reliable. Excluding brain-in-a-jar territory, which we both acknowledge is useless, I can say with as much confidence as a human can possibly muster that empiricism is reliable. It is possible to say that something is reliable without invoking either circularity or turtles-all-the-way-down.

Your logic is both circular and based on turtles-all-the-way-down thinking. You seem to realise and acknowledge this so really my trying to point this out to you for the past while has been a waste of time. Your whole purpose here is to try to make out that all reasoning is circular turtles-all-the-way-down thinking that cannot demonstrate the reliability of empiricism over personal experience but I'm afraid you fail very very badly. The area that you describe as "useless solipsism" is the only area where personal experience is as reliable as empiricism. The only alternative to the reality that I am relying on the process that has brought us from living in caves to landing on the moon and you're listening to voices in your head and calling it god is, as you say, useless solipsism.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. Asking god to show up by any process requires me to believe that process is irrelevant which it is only if he exists.

But you consider the process of empiricism relevant don't you? So ask that he show up that way. And if he did, and the process would be rendered irrelevant by his doing so, isn't it pointless to specificy this or any other process?

I must believe in god before I can ask him to show up by any process which makes asking him to show up pointless because I would already believe in him.

You don't need to believe in God in order to ask him to turn up empirically. Do you?

Honestly antiskeptic, what you actually need to do here is simply consider the possibility that god doesn't exist. You say that's like asking you to say that reality is not real but that is reality as far as I'm concerned and there is no point in talking to me until you can at least fathom the position that I am in. Everything you are saying is only convincing to another person who cannot fathom a world without god and that is not me.

Perhaps the above has narrowed things down a bit so that you can see how you don't have to believe in God in order to understand that process is irrelevant.

You keep saying how useless brain-in-a-jar territory is but that is where you keep trying to bring us because that is the only place where what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever, that is the only place where direct personal revelation is as reliable as empiricism. I do not need to invoke turtles-all-the-way-down to say that something can be known to be reliable then fine empiricism can be shown to be reliable because it produces consistent results. I can perform an experiment a million times and get the same result every single time, I can make predictions using empiricism and people can stake their life on these predictions, i.e. rely on them, because empiricism's consistency has shown it to be reliable. Excluding brain-in-a-jar territory, which we both acknowledge is useless, I can say with as much confidence as a human can possibly muster that empiricism is reliable. It is possible to say that something is reliable without invoking either circularity or turtles-all-the-way-down.

Empiricism is a process which holds, for instance, that reliability is better assured through repeated, consistant-result experiment. By which process does this knowledge come about (given your claim that all knowledge is delivered via a process otherwise known to be reliable)? If 'consistant-result' itself is taken as proof of reliability then the process of empiricism is demonstrating that the process of empiricism is reliable. Which is circular.

All that 10,000 people seeing the same thing in the same way means is that 10,000 people see the same thing in the same way. It doesn't mean they see it as it actually is. It is a convention that decides reliability is acheived this way. However, a convention isn't an example of a demonstrably reliable process which you say all knowledge must come by.

poppyvalley

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Where were you all before you were born?

We know the universe has existed for billions of years but most of us didn't experience much of anything up until a few decades ago when we opened our human eyes.

That's what I imagine await us, and to be honest, I was fine with being nothing for the first few billion or so years, so I think I'll be grand to return to dreamless sleep once again.

yeh the idea of complete non-existence appeals to me more than some good or bad afterlife