- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,219
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It depends what constitutes "evidence". It's unfortunate when material reductionists demand evidence for something that is ontological in nature. The two schools are entirely different. Ontological schools have different evidence requirements that material rationalist schools. The two schools are not in competition and one isn't more right than the other. They different philosophical branches.
I demand evidence that you exist, watsup, and aren't an algorithm.
Taken further... prove that anyone around you is conscious and not just a simulation. At the subatomic level we are all 99.8% empty space. Atoms contain almost nothing. Prove to me that this isn't all just some simulation.
Do you see the problem?
It's hard to demand evidence for ontological processes.
I feel that people like you need to understand that ontology is a huge part of the human experience, even if we're not talking about "God". Human function relies on so many day to day nonprovable assumptions that we take them for granted. The "God" one is low hanging fruit. I'd like to see somebody tackle why I should give a crap about any other human being, since they're not me and I can't prove that any other person has feelings like I do. I just assume that they do. Yet I can't see their thoughts so why do I do that? If I hurt somebody else, it's no skin off my back because I'm not the one in pain, assuming that these other creatures around me even register pain. Why can't I practice solipsism to the nth degree? What evidence do I have that I shouldn't?
Don't report me... just answering the hypohetiscal...It depends what constitutes "evidence". It's unfortunate when material reductionists demand evidence for something that is ontological in nature. The two schools are entirely different. Ontological schools have different evidence requirements that material rationalist schools. The two schools are not in competition and one isn't more right than the other. They different philosophical branches.
I demand evidence that you exist, watsup, and aren't an algorithm.
Taken further... prove that anyone around you is conscious and not just a simulation. At the subatomic level we are all 99.8% empty space. Atoms contain almost nothing. Prove to me that this isn't all just some simulation.
Do you see the problem?
It's hard to demand evidence for ontological processes.
I feel that people like you need to understand that ontology is a huge part of the human experience, even if we're not talking about "God". Human function relies on so many day to day nonprovable assumptions that we take them for granted. The "God" one is low hanging fruit. I'd like to see somebody tackle why I should give a crap about any other human being, since they're not me and I can't prove that any other person has feelings like I do. I just assume that they do. Yet I can't see their thoughts so why do I do that? If I hurt somebody else, it's no skin off my back because I'm not the one in pain, assuming that these other creatures around me even register pain. Why can't I practice solipsism to the nth degree? What evidence do I have that I shouldn't?
No...I don't...No. You don’t.
Without at least one other Universe to compare it to, you have no idea how complex or simple ours is.
Don't report me... just answering the hypohetiscal...
Come over here and I will show you why, son.
Up to you. If it is a simulation, then you have plenty of reference material from the past of the simulation to predict how things might go.I'm not offended.
But that does lead to the question -- do you believe that reality is determined by the senses? i.e. if I go over there and see/interact with you, I should conclude you're real and not a stimulation?
I'm not offended.
But that does lead to the question -- do you believe that reality is determined by the senses? i.e. if I go over there and see/interact with you, I should conclude you're real and not a stimulation?
Wouldn’t be too bright to be debating with a simulation, would it?
You're not really understanding the premise of what I'm saying.
You're trying to challenge ontology with material reductionism. They are fundamentally incompatible because they come from different philosophical schools.
It would be like asking to prove that your subjective feelings/emotions are real, or asking to prove that the thoughts in your head are real, since we can't see them mechanically moving. In other words, prove to me that you are conscious beyond all the axioms and self-affirming diatribes of society that say you are. You can't. You being conscious is ontological. We believe it to be true. It is an axiom of belief. We don't question it, yet it's not provable.
In other words, "reason" and belief in God are not compatible. You don't give reasons for God or no-God, it's ontological. Another facet of this is human rights and secularism, which have ontological bases. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. was written based upon the principle that we have in-born, uninalienable rights. This ontological premise governs the whole legal structure of the U.S. Yet it is not based in anything substantive, material, or mechanical. The founding fathers believed the premise was real and so it became law.
This is philosophy 101. You are comparing apples and oranges. I think it's problematic to try and deconstruct ontology by using the school of rationality because you may unknowingly be undermining something that actually informs secularism, i.e. your very right to question the existence of God in free speech comes from an ontological premise. Reason didn't invent human rights. Reason didn't invent God.
You're not really understanding the premise of what I'm saying.
You're trying to challenge ontology with material reductionism. They are fundamentally incompatible because they come from different philosophical schools.
It would be like asking to prove that your subjective feelings/emotions are real, or asking to prove that the thoughts in your head are real, since we can't see them mechanically moving. In other words, prove to me that you are conscious beyond all the axioms and self-affirming diatribes of society that say you are. You can't. You being conscious is ontological. We believe it to be true. It is an axiom of belief. We don't question it, yet it's not provable.
You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.Try making sense.
If I know something I neither believe it or disbelieve it.....BECAUSE I KNOW IT.
Once you know something, belief (or lack of it) plays no role .
Example.You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.
Everyone has a belief system and much of psychiatry is based on this fact.
Yeah, I got that bass-ackwards. You can't believe something before you know it's true unless it's faith.I believe Nebraska will win their first game this saturday.
I know that they lost to Oklahoma last weekend.
See the difference.
Not sure if it is a system. Maybe just a bunch of diverse things you think are true.You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.
Everyone has a belief system and much of psychiatry is based on this fact.
I can't argue with that analysis.Not sure if it is a system. Maybe just a bunch of diverse things you think are true.
I know Nebraska lost to Oklahoma last week.Yeah, I got that bass-ackwards. You can't believe something before you know it's true unless it's faith.
Your example does nothing to refute my logic. You believe Nebraska will win based on faith, not factual evidence.
Whatever. You’re a philosopher. I’m an atheist. No evidence, no God.
You say there is no evidence for God but then you are willing to uphold the value of other things for which there is no evidence.
Name some of the other things.
There are things that we, as a society, believe in that can't be proven. For example, inalienable rights granted at birth, simply for being human. We believe that to be a good thing so the belief becomes axiomatic. It is self-affirming. At it's core, it is based on nothing but an affirmation, one that could easily be undermined by rationality. Do we care? No. The ontology affirms an essential morality that maintains our society's structure.
Reason didn't invent human rights. Reason didn't invent God.
Similarly, we accept that human beings are conscious, even though we don't know what consciousness is and don't have a direct test for it. We can indirectly test for consciousness by interviewing someone or measuring their electrical output, but we still don't know what consciousness is. There is no model to mechanistically understand it. Yet we ontologically accept that consciousness is real and that everyone possesses it.
Let’s get back to the beginning, which is EVIDENCE, not “proof”. I have not asked for “proof” of God, just for any EVIDENCE that such an entity actually exists. In the paragraph above, you are mixing the apples of God, which supposedly is an actual entity, with the oranges of the manner in which humans have come to certain decisions. Two different topics, whether you care to admit it or not.
What you are describing is Humanism, namely humans using their own experiences to determine the manner in which they want to from social bonds, such as a government. I don’t think that “inalienable rights” needs proof or evidence, as long as the humans who, in this case, constructed this particular government, felt that it was appropriate as a foundation. If they want to claim that these “rights” were granted by God, that is up to them, but that is the part that could not be proven.
There is plenty of evidence for consciousness, whether you care to admit it or not, namely the brain waves recorded on EEGs. Scientists can also measure the differences in the brain when the human involved experiences different moods, such as happiness and sadness, and scientists know that what is happening the brain involves electro-chemical exchanges. And no, I’m not going down the philosophical rabbit hole with you on this one. What is stated above is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for consciousness, buttressed by the fact that “death” results on the cessation of said brain waves. No such evidence exists for a “God”, none at all, other than pure “belief”, which is the easiest thing in the world. Anyone can “believe” absolutely anything without the slightest bit of evidence as to its reality. Like “God”.
This is hairsplitting. Let's parse this out...
Whether you call it proof or evidence (yes, I know the difference), you're asking to be given a reason for why you should even suspect God is real, but the reasons you are asking for pertain to a philosophical school that does not deal in reason. It's like asking a creative person why they are creative. How should they know? They just are. I mention creatives because they deal in irrationality, i.e. many artists create for the sake of creating, it has no reason.
Secondly, I am not talking about the nature of God. In my conversation with you, only you are mentioning the word "entity." I disagree that how humans decide things and the existence of God are apples and oranges. To answer if God is real you also have to consider who is asking the question, and how that person is arriving at their answer. The question doesn't exist in empty space, it is being generated from a mind that is asking. That is the whole basis of philosophy, which, whether you are willing to admit it or not, is central to this.
Giving it another name (humanism) doesn't change the underlying prima facie, which is that humanism is based upon principle tenets which are ontological. The bill of rights refers to God-given rights on purpose because they are ontologically asserting that there is a superior force greater than humans which grants humans their innate, in-born rights and freedoms, and no other human can realistically take those away. This is a huge claim, one that our fundamental rights (in America, anyway) are based upon. You may find this irrelevant but it's not because if the superior force is no longer a factor then the principles are no longer ontologically elevated and therefore any human can deny human rights. That is the reason why the Founding Fathers put God in there.
Which brings me back to the original point. Things don't need material evidence to be a driving force behind the creation of materially valuable institutions. All they need is agreement (internal to the person, or social to the society). If you talk to any person who truly believes in God they will say that there is evidence everywhere.
It's your epistemology vs. theirs at the end of the day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?