Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

13567

Comments

  • #62
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    If I say "God has evidenced himself" then I'm merely reporting to you, something that God has done. That you don't believe it is neither here nor there. What matters is whether I've been convinced or not - something which depends on an act of God (whatever means he uses to demonstrate himself). There is no need for me to look for further evidence if already convinced

    Voices in your head / self delusions are not 'evidence'.


  • #63
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The OP can be simply countered by apply the contrary IF NOT/THEN NOT. If god doesn't exist, then the reveals aren't genuine and nozz's assertion is not false. In order to claim your version is more valid than the NOT version, you need to start with the assumption that god exists, which is circular logic.

    I've no problem with that. I'm merely objecting to nozz making such a positive claim when he's no way of knowing whether God exists or not. I, on the other hand can know that God exists (it only takes him existing and for him to reveal that fact to me) and whilst I can't prove God exists, it is not unreasonable to simply state that I do know he does if asked.

    A guess that is right is still a guess. Even IF god exists AND he reveals himself, your (or my) own surety of that reveal is not a measure of its validity, as you (or I) have no way of knowing if that surety is genuine or not. Different people are equally sure of the existence of contradictory gods, so it is clearly possible for people to achieve absolute surety of non-existent gods
    .

    You seem to be saying that God is not able to reveal himself to his creation. And seem to be conflating people being in error (which is something that stems from within people) with something that would stem from God.

    But in a brains-in-jar sense I suppose you're right. We must always hold out the possibility that that's what we are..
    This was a non sequitor the first time you tried arguing this years ago and its been a non sequitor every time since.

    There are fads and fashions in internet discussions. I remember 'cognitive dissonance' making it's appearance about 10 years ago and it wasn't long before everyone was accusing everyone else of it. Similarly, dismissing a persons point by labelling it with some or other logical fallacy has been done absolutely to death. It's so 5 years ago.

    If you reckon you can make a case for what I've said being a non sequitur then by all means point it out.

    Tedious? From the guy spouting universe spanning arrogance about how he is special enough to see the evidence only gods chosen can see while the rest of us are blind?

    That's your projection onto me. I never said nor suggested my being special was the reason God turned up.

    I'd prefer you address problems like this though - rather than ducking out with a rant.


  • #64
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    pauldla wrote: »
    If a person wants to believe that they can see a blue spacemonkey that others can't see (note to self: poss TV comedy), I don't see how there is any problem at all, as it is none of my business. I hope it can continue to be none of my business. But how seriously should I take the person who sees things that cannot be shown to others?

    You might get to wondering a little when lots and lots of perfectly sensible and intelligent people also start seeing a blue space monkey. It doesn't make them right but it does give some support to the notion you might just be blind.


  • #65
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    How can you tell the difference between those non-empirical means and total fiction or delusion? (Either for yourself or for others.)

    How can you tell that those non-empirical means are accurate?

    Either you can't do either of these things and non-empirical means are not very useful, or you can but only through empirical means.

    What else can you show or know to be true using non empirical means, or is God a special case?


    Maybe you could focus on the OP. As I say, I've not tonnes of time and I'd prefer to a least resolve that particular issue.


  • #66
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Polarix wrote: »
    Would you accept that equally the person could be self deluded and that no one, including the person themselves could tell the difference ?

    Are you deluded?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So what? Again, if I cannot convince anyone else of something I supposedly experienced why shouldn't I doubt it?

    So what? You decide you've got good reason to suppose why it is you can't convince others of what you've experienced. And they perform accordingly. What about that should cause you to doubt myself?

    I mean, I've got good reason why it is I can't convince my 2 year old that the square root of 9 is 3. Does that mean I should doubt the square root of 9?

    He says on his computer on the internet.

    ?


  • #68
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I, on the other hand can know that God exists (it only takes him existing and for him to reveal that fact to me) and whilst I can't prove God exists, it is not unreasonable to simply state that I do know he does if asked.
    Where does this fit in with people that know some other god, which is not your god, exist? What are we to think of people that have exactly the same reason as you for believing there particular religion or god is the correct one?

    MrP


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Maybe you could focus on the OP. As I say, I've not tonnes of time and I'd prefer to a least resolve that particular issue.
    How can you tell the difference between those non-empirical means and total fiction or delusion? (Either for yourself or for others.)

    How can you tell that those non-empirical means are accurate?

    Either you can't do either of these things and non-empirical means are not very useful, or you can but only through empirical means.

    What else can you show or know to be true using non empirical means, or is God a special case?
    It answers the point in the op. If the non empirical means is indistingushable in every way from fiction or delusion then it's not rational.

    If this is not the case can you explain how it is distinguishable and is able to be shown to be accurate?
    Can you point to another case when non-empirical means can be used to know or show something in true?


  • #70
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    It answers the point in the op. If the non empirical means is indistingushable in every way from fiction or delusion then it's not rational.

    You might take a stab at answering the questions in the OP. It would help answer your own question perhaps.

    Can you point to another case when non-empirical means can be used to know or show something in true?

    I'm sure people have known they loved their wives in the years before brain scans supposedly "proved" such a thing. I'm not sure how you'd prove it to anyone else though (as opposed to a fiction).


  • #71
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Are you deluded?

    That won't get you out of answering the question.
    Perhaps you'd be kind enough to deal with the question instead of trying to slip it.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Where does this fit in with people that know some other god, which is not your god, exist? What are we to think of people that have exactly the same reason as you for believing there particular religion or god is the correct one?

    MrP

    Maintain an agnostic stance, stepping back from definitive statements which suppose your own god (e.g. Empiricism) is true.


  • #73
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Polarix wrote: »
    That won't get you out of answering the question.
    Perhaps you'd be kind enough to deal with the question instead of trying to slip it.

    I wasn't trying to slip out of anything. When you follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole you end up in brain-in-jar territory. And that problem applies as much to you as it does me: on what basis to I hold anything I perceive of reality to be the case (as opposed to delusion).

    Ultimately, that which is evidenced empirically has value to you because you assign value to empiricism. You, ultimately, are the arbitrator of whether something is fact, fiction or delusion. There is no higher court of appeal than the court of you.

    And if that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.


  • #74
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wasn't trying to slip out of anything. When you follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole you end up in brain-in-jar territory. And that problem applies as much to you as it does me: on what basis to I hold anything I perceive of reality to be the case (as opposed to delusion).

    Ultimately, that which is evidenced empirically has value to you because you assign value to empiricism. You, ultimately, are the arbitrator of whether something is fact, fiction or delusion. There is no higher court of appeal than the court of you.

    And if that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.

    You want me to accept that a voice in your head is evidence, and I'm supposed to accept this is evidence ?

    You'll have to do a lot better than that.

    If I told you I know that aliens exist because an alien planted a gut feeling or voice in my head, and that it was because I was predestined by aliens instead of you, would you accept that as evidence ?


  • #75
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Polarix wrote: »
    You want me to accept that a voice in your head is evidence, and I'm supposed to accept this is evidence ?

    a) You don't know whether it's God or a voice in my head and your response would do better to take account of what you do not know.

    b) I'm not asking you accept what I say as evidence. I'm asking you to accept that if I figure I'm not deluded then that's as good for me as you figuring your not deluded. Which is why I asked you were you deluded.


  • #76
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    a) You don't know whether it's God or a voice in my head and your response would do better to take account of what you do not know.

    b) I'm not asking you accept what I say as evidence. I'm asking you to accept that if I figure I'm not deluded then that's as good for me as you figuring your not deluded. Which is why I asked you were you deluded.

    I claim an alien has planted a voice / gut feeling in my head that aliens exist.
    Do aliens exist because I claim this ?
    Whether I say I am deluded or not,
    Is it in any way credible evidence for aliens ?
    Yet the rational world accepts that there is of yet, no evidence for alien life whatsoever.
    The possibility for alien life is not evidence of alien life.
    Believers don't seem to get this.


  • #77
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You haven't evidenced yourself as God. You give all the evidence of being an atheist who doesn't like addressing the point.

    If I say "God has evidenced himself" then I'm merely reporting to you, something that God has done. That you don't believe it is neither here nor there. What matters is whether I've been convinced or not - something which depends on an act of God (whatever means he uses to demonstrate himself). There is no need for me to look for further evidence if already convinced.

    Now that you know I've not been convinced your God by you, perhaps you could go back and actually address the point?
    There is so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start. Remember throughout this reply that I am basing my analysis on your criteria.

    The point that I am addressing is that you have asked me to elaborate on a point that I made. Specifically, you wrote:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You'll have to elaborate. You're envisaging a situation where God exists and decides to demonstrate himself to a person but that they need further evidence?

    And I replied:
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Yes.

    Here is such a situation.

    I am God, and I have decided to demonstrate Myself to you now, by telling you that I am God on this internet forum, without using a computer to make My comment appear here. I just willed this comment to appear on this forum, and it did, as My demonstration to you that I am God.

    Do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

    You are now saying that I haven't evidenced Myself as God. But I have done this, according to your criteria, which is that I as God get to evaluate the most appropriate way of demonstrating My existence. Are you now changing your criteria to that you as a human get to evaluate the most appropriate way that I as God choose to demonstrate My existence?

    (As an aside, I am not sure why you have shifted from the word verb demonstrated to the verb evidenced. Perhaps you can clarify why you have done this? In the meantime I will assume you mean by both words something like showing the truth of a claim by providing evidence.)

    You then say: "You give all the evidence of being an atheist who doesn't like addressing the point." But, by your criteria, what supposed evidence that I am an atheist could trump Me demonstrating to you that I am God by willing these comments to appear on this forum without the aid of a computer?

    You then say: "If I say "God has evidenced himself" then I'm merely reporting to you, something that God has done." But that does not follow from your statement. Actually, if you say "God has evidenced himself", all that you are doing is reporting to me that you believe that something that you believe to be God has done something.

    You then say: "That you don't believe it is neither here nor there." But, by your criteria, whether or not I believe it is central to its truth, because I am God, and I as God know everything.

    However, if you were hypothetically addressing that point to another human, then you are saying that whether a human believes it to be true is neither here nor there. That is correct, and it applies to you just as much as it does to any other human. My existence as God is either true or false, independently of what you or any other human believe about it.

    You then say: "What matters is whether I've been convinced or not - something which depends on an act of God (whatever means he uses to demonstrate himself)." Now you are conflating two different actions. Me demonstrating myself as God is something that I as God does, and you being convinced or not is something that you do. And whatever you are convinced of, you might be mistaken, because you are a human.

    Maybe your point is that I as God can choose to cause you to be either convinced or not convinced? If that is your point, then I as God might have chosen to demonstrate Myself to you in a way that does not convince you. I might be doing this to test your faith in Me. Have you considered that possibility?

    You then say: "There is no need for me to look for further evidence if already convinced." But of course there is reason to look for further evidence. It is a significant belief, and you as a human being might be mistaken, just as you recognise that members of other religions are mistaken.

    Finally you say: "Now that you know I've not been convinced your God by you, perhaps you could go back and actually address the point?" But I am addressing the point. You asked me to elaborate on a scenario that I proposed, and I did so.

    You have not in any way undermined my scenario, while sticking by your criteria that I as God get to determine the most appropriate way to evaluate the validity of a claimed demonstration of My existence.

    You could, of course, undermine my scenario by arguing that humans, not Gods, get to determine the most appropriate way to evaluate the validity of a claimed demonstration of a God's existence.

    But you're not arguing that. Or are you?


  • #78
    Maphisto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭Maphisto


    If after 2000 years God chose me to secretly reveal himself, I would require more than proof of existence. I would want explanations and much more than the mystery of faith or other codology.

    Here's a taster:

    1) You created everything - Children's Bone cancer is a real beaut
    2) You're all powerful - Haiti, they had nothing so you sent a tidal wave and then Cholera.
    3) The Sandihook school massacre - you couldn't have given the guy a heart attack.

    I could go on so he better be prepared for a long talk.


  • #79
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    a) You don't know whether it's God or a voice in my head and your response would do better to take account of what you do not know.

    b) I'm not asking you accept what I say as evidence. I'm asking you to accept that if I figure I'm not deluded then that's as good for me as you figuring your not deluded. Which is why I asked you were you deluded.

    If a person is hearing voices, we should take their word for it that they aren't some form of mental problem? Doesn't sound very rational.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #80
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You haven't evidenced yourself as God. You give all the evidence of being an atheist who doesn't like addressing the point.

    And you have shown no evidence to support your assertion, nor has your god ever given any. That is the whole point.

    So instead of Michael not addressing the point, it is you failing to understand a basic analogy.


  • #81
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wasn't trying to slip out of anything. When you follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole you end up in brain-in-jar territory. And that problem applies as much to you as it does me: on what basis to I hold anything I perceive of reality to be the case (as opposed to delusion).

    Ultimately, that which is evidenced empirically has value to you because you assign value to empiricism. You, ultimately, are the arbitrator of whether something is fact, fiction or delusion. There is no higher court of appeal than the court of you.

    There is no rabbit, rabbit hole, brain in a jar. The voice in your head is your own.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Polarix wrote: »
    There is no rabbit, rabbit hole, brain in a jar. The voice in your head is your own.

    That's not an argument. NEXT!


  • #83
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    And you have shown no evidence to support your assertion, nor has your god ever given any. That is the whole point.

    The whole point is the OP. My asserting God exists is by the by and not something I'm asking anyone to believe. It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.


  • #84
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SW wrote: »
    If a person is hearing voices, we should take their word for it that they aren't some form of mental problem? Doesn't sound very rational.

    See my point to Brian above. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it.


  • #85
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's not an argument. NEXT!

    Funny then it was you who introduced them.
    You haven't dealt with the issue or questions, shouting next won't slip you out of it either.


  • #86
    Polarix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭Polarix


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The whole point is the OP. My asserting God exists is by the by and not something I'm asking anyone to believe. It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.

    What consequences ?
    If I hear aliens in my head, or I convince myself they exist, and aliens are later proved to exist, it hardly means aliens were actually contacting me, nor is it evidence of such.


  • #87
    Maphisto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭Maphisto


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The whole point is the OP. My asserting God exists is by the by and not something I'm asking anyone to believe. It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.

    Pascal's gambit -yawn


  • #88
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The whole point is the OP. My asserting God exists is by the by and not something I'm asking anyone to believe. It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.

    People don't have long enough lives to live as if the consequences of all religions were right. It's irrational as there isn't evidence to support the decision to do such a thing.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #89
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The whole point is the OP. My asserting God exists is by the by and not something I'm asking anyone to believe. It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.

    That’s not accurate.

    Your OP was not about the consequences of you potentially being right. You are introducing that now, for whatever reason, and it is distracting attention from what your OP was actually about.

    Your OP was actually about the validity in terms of reason and justification of believing in the existence of God, based on the possibility of the existence of a God who demonstrates his existence to the satisfaction of some people but not others.

    And you haven't replied to my last contribution.


  • #90
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It's the consequences of my potentially being right which need dealing with - not whether I'm actually right.

    The consequences of you being right, as you've no evidence at all to support your assertion, are so remote that it would be more profitable for me to develop a hard hat strong enough to survive a Boeing 777 engine falling on my head from the sky, yet light enough to wear than figuring out a strategy to placate a spoilt toddler with great powers whose just thrown a hissy fit (based on the bible description this is an accurate representation of your god).

    In all seriousness your scenario is so remote as to not be worthwhile worrying about. I'll continue to live my life as a good person and if your god exists and wants to punish me for (logically and rationally) not believing him, I'll quote the following at him:
    Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals wrote:
    I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs, a very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree. And even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior
    and follow up with "I am your moral superior, mission accomplished."


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    B9K9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭B9K9


    the moment a believer admits the disbeliever has a superior morality is the moment the jig is up. Now go back and read the OT genocides and tell me I am right.


Advertisement