Termie, Ati We Are Living Inside a Computer Simulated Universe

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

That is no prediction
We are similar to animals and the blind can see that; you and omena have eyes
Don't bother because you will come up empty
Creationism makes a commonsensical prediction; information can't create itself

Predictions and tests are at the heart of science.  Evolution predicts that we are compatible enough with animals to have organ transplants from them.  I am sure creation does not.  By your own admission, it predicts nothing useful or testable.

Evolution predicts that too.  Creation does not.

[kadame]

There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not.  But they believe.  On the basis of faith.

Please define belief here as opposed to knowledge as this is merely confusing terms. confusing data with knowledge, actually. Faith is knowledge that does not rely absolutely on data. Like I said, knowledge adds little to the terms atheism/theism/agnosticism. Agnosticism is meaningless if it simply means not possessing complete knowledge/facts/data. That's not what it means. Agnosticism is a refusal to believe/disbelieve precisely because of the lack of data/"knowledge". It's a commitment to openness on the question.

And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not.  But they do not believe in him.

Which one are you? The one who knows or doesn't know if God exists?

These groups are both agnostics in my view.  Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.

That is an imposition on the word agnostic. Those who say God exists are not agnostic, they are theists. Unless you want to define theism as possessing perfect knowledge of God, in which case, lets dump it from the dictionary as virtually no one in the world would be a theist.

The following is an oxymoron in other words:"I believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists". The two cannot come from the same person.

If someone "believes" then they know, the basis of that knowledge may be questionable/testable, it's still a claim to knowledge, though. It is what is called faith.

[kadame]

To make this simple, here's a question "Does God exist?"

An atheist: No
A theist: Yes
An agnostic: Neither Yes nor No; I refuse to say either way.

It's not about "what proofs/facts/knowledge do you three possess?" It's simply, there's a proposition here: God's existence. What say you? In other words, conclusions/beliefs.

The question is, is there an agnostic conclusion/belief? Yes, there is. It was the reason the word was invented. Those who will reject both atheism and theism. They have a label, it's called agnosticism.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

There are countless theists who say they don't know whether God exists or not.  But they believe.  On the basis of faith.

Please define belief here as opposed to knowledge as this is merely confusing terms. confusing data with knowledge, actually. Faith is knowledge that does not rely absolutely on data. Like I said, knowledge adds little to the terms atheism/theism/agnosticism. Agnosticism is meaningless if it simply means not possessing complete knowledge/facts/data. That's not what it means. Agnosticism is a refusal to believe/disbelieve precisely because of the lack of data/"knowledge". It's a commitment to openness on the question.

And there are plenty of atheists too that do not know if God exists or not.  But they do not believe in him.

Which one are you? The one who knows or doesn't know if God exists?

These groups are both agnostics in my view.  Put another way, not all theists are gnostics.

That is an imposition on the word agnostic. Those who say God exists are not agnostic, they are theists. Unless you want to define theism as possessing perfect knowledge of God, in which case, lets dump it from the dictionary as virtually no one in the world would be a theist.

The following is an oxymoron in other words:"I believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists". The two cannot come from the same person.

If someone "believes" then they know, the basis of that knowledge may be questionable/testable, it's still a claim to knowledge, though. It is what is called faith.

Kairetu,

If knowledge and belief are the same thing.  Why even bother making the distinction?

What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point.  It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism.  Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.

[kadame]

Kairetu,

If knowledge and belief are the same thing.  Why even bother making the distinction?

What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point.  It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism.  Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.

Terminator, it was you that came in with that distinction, remember. It wasnt me. You assigned "knowledge" to agnosticism and then belief to atheism/theism. Yet this is not how the words are understood in common parlance. the three are understood as positions on the question of God's existence. So far from confusion, my interest is clarity. The way you are defining the words is highly subjective and makes it confusing to understand what it means.

Belief is a predisposition of the mind that something is TRUE. That is knowledge. It may be baseless, but it is a claim to knowledge. Atheism/agnosticism/theism all belong here: What is true to the atheistic mind is that there's no such thing as a God, to the theist it is there is. To the agnostic, what is TRUE, is that the matter is unknowable to him at present, hence it's an open question, his disposition is undecided or decided on remaining undecided/open.

It's just like the question: "Are there animals on a planet 1 billion light-years away?"

Believer: Yes
Non-Believer: No
Agnostic: I wont say either way.

None of those are making statements about some kind of certainty in knowledge. They are stating their current beliefs/mental dispositions. I am agnostic in that sense, I wont say either way whether there's life elsewhere. Per your definition, the third position does not deserve a moniker of its own.

My point? The refusal to distinguish agnosticism from atheism is an error. The words exist for a reason. Agnostics refuse to say that God does not exists, atheists are very comfortable saying that he does not. What you personally believe is not my issue here, it's how you label those beliefs that's been my contention. When you tell people "I am an atheist", you can bet they understand you to be saying that you deny God's existence, not that you are committed to defining what is unknown as unknown. The latter leaves the possibility of a God, which atheism denies categorically.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kairetu,

If knowledge and belief are the same thing.  Why even bother making the distinction?

What I am exactly trying to avoid is hiding behind the minutiae of semantics and play on words to make a point.  It makes the discussion tedious and ripe for escapism.  Where one can simply seek to redefine something and auto-magically make their argument valid.

Terminator, it was you that came in with that distinction, remember. It wasnt me. You assigned "knowledge" to agnosticism and then belief to atheism/theism. Yet this is not how the words are understood in common parlance. the three are understood as positions on the question of God's existence. So far from confusion, my interest is clarity. The way you are defining the words is highly subjective and makes it confusing to understand what it means.

Belief is a predisposition of the mind that something is TRUE. That is knowledge. It may be baseless, but it is a claim to knowledge. Atheism/agnosticism/theism all belong here: What is true to the atheistic mind is that God does not exist, to the theist it is that he does. To the agnostic, what is TRUE, is that the matter is unknowable to him a present, hence it's an open question

It's just like the question: "Are there animals on a planet 1 billion light-years away?"

Believer: Yes
Non-Believer: No
Agnostic: I wont say either way.

None of those are making statements about some kind of certainty in knowledge. They are stating their current beliefs/mental dispositions. I am agnostic in that sense, I wont say either way whether there's life elsewhere. Per your definition, the third position does not deserve a moniker of its own.

My point? The refusal to distinguish agnosticism from atheism is an error. The words exist for a reason. Agnostics refuse to say that God does not exists, atheists are very comfortable saying that he does not. What you personally believe is not my issue here, it's how you label those beliefs that's been my contention. When you tell people "I am an atheist", you can bet they understand you to be saying that you deny God's existence, not that you are committed to defining what is unknown as unknown. The latter leaves the possibility of a God, which atheism denies categorically.

Lets have it mean whatever you want. 

For purposes of discussion.  Agnostics are also atheists. In other  words they don't believe in God.

The theists believe and therefore know about God. 

By this definition.  Any "theist" who says they do not and cannot know if God exists or not, is automatically an atheist.  Even if they pray 60 times a day while facing Mecca or the moon.  If that sounds subjective and could differ from one faith to another, let's ignore it to keep the discussion moving.

The point I am more interested in making is that the concept of what constitutes reality will differ from one person to another.  And I was using colorblindness to demonstrate it.

One person may not be able to see red.  As far as their reality is concerned.  The red wavelength does not exist.  Granted technology can enable them to acknowledge it's objective existence.

Ultimately, the real reality is only knowable in an indirect sense.

[kadame]

By this definition.  Any "theist" who says they do not and cannot know if God exists or not, is automatically an atheist.  Even if they pray 60 times a day while facing Mecca or the moon.  If that sounds subjective and could differ from one faith to another, let's ignore it to keep the discussion moving.[/b][/u]

My point is that this person you are describing does not exist. To the man praying 60 times a day, there's no question of "whether God exists or does not exists". It is that he exists. That question was long ago answered for him. It may be because he trusts those who brought him up in his faith, or it makes sense to him, or whichever way he came to that answer, the point is that he has an answer to the question of God's existence. He may even doubt on occasion, yet he has a firm position in his mind that God exists. If these "doubts" are a permanent predisposition like you are describing, then what you have is an agnostic. If that question--God's existence--remains without an answer to that man, he is agnostic.

The point I am more interested in making is that the concept of what constitutes reality will differ from one person to another.  And I was using colorblindness to demonstrate it.

One person may not be able to see red.  As far as their reality is concerned.  The red wavelength does not exist.  Granted technology can enable them to acknowledge it's objective existence.

There's no disagreement about that for me Even mystics believe in God long before they have any direct experience of him.

Ultimately, the real reality is only knowable in an indirect sense.

I agree that it is known indirectly, yet I refuse to say that this is the only means it can be known. I think that is not something that can be said categorically.

[kadame]

To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

About reality.  The way people perceive reality as described in my example is not the only way.  I just use it to demonstrate how subjective our respective experiences of reality are. 

The challenge for those interested in objective knowledge is how to get around this barrier that necessarily makes each one's experience subjective.

Your question

To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?

I have no problem.  If you read earlier through the thread, I do mention that we are all agnostics; even though I am not pushing that point for purposes of this discussion.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

About reality.  The way people perceive reality as described in my example is not the only way.  I just use it to demonstrate how subjective our respective experiences of reality are. 

The challenge for those interested in objective knowledge is how to get around this barrier that necessarily makes each one's experience subjective.

Your question

To make this simple, let me ask: What's your problem with calling yourself agnostic, if your position is, as you said, keeping the unknown as unknown?

I have no problem.  If you read earlier through the thread, I do mention that we are all agnostics; even though I am not pushing that point for purposes of this discussion.

Like I mention above.  The problem is how to overcome the challenge of subjective experiences to arrive at an objective reality. 

I think it can never happen in principle.  Arriving at objective reality. One can only get approximations which can be improved ad infinitum.

If one believes that knowledge is subjective.  They will not put much stock in whether it is testable.  In other words, they don't require proof to accept something as true or false.

There is no question in my mind that we can never know everything.  This is an argument for the limitations of our own knowledge.  An argument for humility from us.  Using this fact to argue that it allows for the existence of anything we can imagine is not humble, objective, or useful,

The scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way.  In a nutshell, it says.  You make a claim.  You want prove it.  You don't make a claim and ask a challenger to prove his doubt before you prove your claim.

It is this point that has some us defining atheists in a narrow sense, as those making a claim negating the existence of an entity whose existence itself is in question.

I just bothered to look at Dawkins, one of the more rabid atheists.  His position.  He says there is no good reason for him to believe in a deity.  Just as, most will agree, there is no good reason to believe in tooth fairies.  He says the chances that there is a deity are not great.

The sum total of his experiences makes him biased against the existence of a deity.  I mention elsewhere, that everything we know is on the basis of faith.  The only difference between religion and science is the readiness of one to shift position as soon as new information, especially the contradictory type, comes in.

[kadame]

Questions to ponder for those who care:

1) What is "proof"? Is deduction proof? Or is it just induction? How did we decided that induction alone is proof? Both are methods of reasoning, and both are used every day to come to conclusions...truthful conclusions at that. Claiming induction apriori as the only proof limits the answers one arrives at long before they ask the question. So that the answer is decided from the beginning as "Not God--whatever else might be true, God is not it". Or, "It must be material to be true"....and yet truth is the supposed object being sought in the inquiry. So a good question would be, what is the investment in limiting/excluding deductive methods of finding answers-- or deductive proofs--when it comes to the question of reality?

2) Belief in God is not belief in "anything and everything". It has been supported time and again using logic. It is certainly no less grounded in objectivity than evolution, the big bang theory or any scientific theory. Really depends on what objective methods one is prepared to not-exclude apriori to keep unpreferred answers out of circulation.

 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Questions to ponder for those who care:

1) What is "proof"? Is deduction proof? Or is it just induction? How did we decided that induction alone is proof? Both are methods of reasoning, and both are used every day to come to conclusions...truthful conclusions at that. Claiming induction apriori as the only proof limits the answers one arrives at long before they ask the question. So that the answer is decided from the beginning as "Not God--whatever else might be true, God is not it". Or, "It must be material to be true"....and yet truth is the supposed object being sought in the inquiry. So a good question would be, what is the investment in limiting/excluding deductive methods of finding answers-- or deductive proofs--when it comes to the question of reality?

2) Belief in God is not belief in "anything and everything". It has been supported time and again using logic. It is certainly no less grounded in objectivity than evolution, the big bang theory or any scientific theory. Really depends on what objective methods one is prepared to not-exclude apriori to keep unpreferred answers out of circulation.

 

1 is an important, meaningful and useful question. 

Proof is confirmation of a claim.  Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.

[kadame]

1 is an important, meaningful and useful question. 

Proof is confirmation of a claim.  Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.

Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that

"the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

1 is an important, meaningful and useful question. 

Proof is confirmation of a claim.  Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.

Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that

"the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."

Objectivity is the value of being independent from the observer.  In other words a claim remains true regardless of who is observing.  It contrasts with subjectivity.  With subjectivity one can claim that their mental exercise and conclusion is enough proof.

Any method that seeks an objective result, must provide mechanisms to separate the claim from the observer.  A prediction should be made by the claim under interrogation that can then be independently verified.

How can this be done?  One derives a prediction that should be true if the claim is true.  Then one devises a test(s) that will independently arrive at the prediction.  Only then can one generally assume a claim to be true.  This is scientific.

Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to  advance an argument is meaningless.  Because it cannot be tested.

[kadame]

1 is an important, meaningful and useful question. 

Proof is confirmation of a claim.  Showing someone else that the claim you make is true.

Question 1 is asking you to "confirm the claim" that

"the scientific method is the only tool that meets the criteria required to prove things in an objective way."

Objectivity is the value of being independent from the observer.  In other words a claim remains true regardless of who is observing.  It contrasts with subjectivity.  With subjectivity one can claim that their mental exercise and conclusion is enough proof.

Any method that seeks an objective result, must provide mechanisms to separate the claim from the observer.  A prediction should be made by the claim under interrogation that can then be independently verified.

How can this be done?  One derives a prediction that should be true if the claim is true.  Then one devises a test(s) that will independently arrive at the prediction.  Only then can one generally assume a claim to be true.  This is scientific.

This is a reason why induction is a method of finding truth. It does not explain the claim that it is the only objective one.

Why must a prediction be made for something to be true? In court, no prediction is required to show A did X. What is required is a reasonable explanation why only the prosecution's explanation makes sense (in a criminal trial) or in a civil trial, why one party's story is more reasonably possibly truer than the other's. Methods of proof necessarily depend on the kind of reality you are dealing with. So my question is how we can decide that there is only one way that claims on reality can be confirmed--a way that necessarily PRESUMES from the get-go that reality fits a box called matter.

Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to  advance an argument is meaningless.  Because it cannot be tested.

That we cannot know everything is not a proof for God and as far as I know, never is claimed as one. It is an answer to the problem I've just cited here, to the attempt at confining "proofs" to what will give us the answers we find acceptable. To say it cannot be tested is more proof of that--Why can it not be tested? To put it differently, why must methods dependent on matter be the only ways of "testing" such claims? Is it because reality=matter?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

This is a reason why induction is a method of finding truth. It does not explain the claim that it is the only objective one.

Why must a prediction be made for something to be true? In court, no prediction is required to show A did X. What is required is a reasonable explanation why only the prosecution's explanation makes sense (in a criminal trial) or in a civil trial, why one party's story is more reasonably possibly truer than the other's. Methods of proof necessarily depend on the kind of reality you are dealing with. So my question is how we can decide that there is only one way that claims on reality can be confirmed--a way that necessarily PRESUMES from the get-go that reality fits a box called matter.

Importantly, any approach that relies on the fact that we cannot know everything to  advance an argument is meaningless.  Because it cannot be tested.

That we cannot know everything is not a proof for God and as far as I know, never is claimed as one. It is an answer to the problem I've just cited here, to the attempt at confining "proofs" to what will give us the answers we find acceptable. To say it cannot be tested is more proof of that--Why can it not be tested? To put it differently, why must methods dependent on matter be the only ways of "testing" such claims? Is it because reality=matter?

The prosecution presents its case.  Which is subjected to tests.  The tests are based on what is generally accepted as likely or unlikely(predictions) if a crime has been committed.  A good lawyer's job is to challenge these predictions with alibis and whatever other tools they have at their disposal.  And it swings back and forth.  Predictions.  Challenges.  Predictions.  Challenges.  Until the most sensible position is arrived at.

I am going emphasize objective when I refer to reality.  I can conjure up anything in my mind.  And it would be a true thing, in my mind.  The question is whether it is objective.

On the issue of matter or non-matter, the same approach is the only approach if one is interested in objectively arriving at a conclusion.

[kadame]

The prosecution presents its case.  Which is subjected to tests.  The tests are based on what is generally accepted as likely or unlikely(predictions) if a crime has been committed.  A good lawyer's job is to challenge these predictions with alibis and whatever other tools they have at their disposal.  And it swings back and forth.  Predictions.  Challenges.  Predictions.  Challenges.  Until the most sensible position is arrived at.

Those tests only exclude what might be discovered that contradicts the story. Hence, should some fact be found in future that contradicts the story, it disproves it necessarily and the decision can be over-turned (depending on the conditions for admitting new evidence after the conclusion of a case). When you say that only that which predicts is true, if you mean prediction as consistency with the claim, then that does not exclude God and God's existence is certainly "testable"...just not in lab with a test-tube, but with logic, yes. No less than any scientific theory. Saying that "predictions" means that some particle of God must be taken to a lab for direct observation is making an unjustifiable claim about what constitutes "truth". So the leap you are saying you want to avoid, (taking something as true without proof), you are already making right from the beginning.

It's funny you should mention likelihood/unlikelihood, though, because the sheer unlikelihood--to put it mildly--of so many phenomena happening randomly is itself an excellent proof for intelligence being the cause.

I am going emphasize objective when I refer to reality.  I can conjure up anything in my mind.  And it would be a true thing, in my mind.  The question is whether it is objective.

Reality is reality, deduction is no more subjective than induction. They all spring from known facts of reality. They just go about drawing conclusions a different way. If direct observation is the only means of finding truth then induction should be dropped for the same reason deduction is being rejected apriori. Nobody proves God by the kind of experience you are implying, that is, offering their own subjective experience as proof; certainly not in the debates on God that have occupied philosophy for centuries. 

On the issue of matter or non-matter, the same approach is the only approach if one is interested in objectively arriving at a conclusion.

This restates the claim without proving it per your own definition of proof. In the end, what does not contradict objective facts (not theories) is a possibility. The materialist approach says that only material tests can then go the next step to prove reality, hence they are denying apriori and without proof what they cannot exclude as a possibility. It is against this unsupported presumption that it is usually pointed out to them that they cannot just go about setting limits to objective reality for no reason. You make the same claim when you state that the scientific method--which is induction--is the only objective method. The objection to this is no different than telling someone not to use a thermometer to measure sound. To demonstrate, without presuming that matter is all there is to reality, what other logical---and yes, OBJECTIVE--conclusions could be drawn about what is observed in reality? What should the "theory" of a divine creator predict? I can think of two things, proof of intelligibility in the universe and existence itself. Why are these not "objective tests/predictions" for the theory in question for you?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The predictions being made for a divine being.

1. Proof of intelligibility in the universe.  Suppose that is the case.  That leaves the minor issue of the leap from a physical intelligence to a deity.  The better argument with a well known precedence would be of a physical intelligence.

2. Existence itself.  A tautology.  God made us because we are here.

None if these claims are testable. 

Granted.  There is reality outside of objective reality.  I experience it too.  But I don't expect one to accept it merely because I can imagine it.  Mental gymnastics is just that.

The scientific method claims no certainties.  In fact uncertainty is its engine.  If that goes away, we are heading back to the caves.

[kadame]

The predictions being made for a divine being.

1. Proof of intelligibility in the universe.  Suppose that is the case.  That leaves the minor issue of the leap from a physical intelligence to a deity.  The better argument with a well known precedence would be of a physical intelligence.

So the intelligence made itself too? Did it exist first in order to plan and create itself? If we are being consistent, then that intelligence cannot be that very thing for which we are seeking an explanation for its existence in the first place--matter! A physical creator is just another section of the universe. It is no more an explanation for the universe than the universe is an explanation for the universe.

2. Existence itself.  A tautology.  God made us because we are here.

A tautaolgy is easily demonstrated where it exists. The "test" you provided is nothing more than facts that are consistent with the claim. From the simple fact of existence, the "hypothesis" of a creator has been made immemorially, because From nothing, nothing comes. The fact that there is something and not nothing is proof that there was never "nothing". That demonstrates a cause has always been there. That is why existence is a proof. Like I told Bittertruth, the argument for God is predicated on the premise that we actually exist and are not simply imagining our existence. If we exist, then so does God.

None if these claims are testable. 

That is just an arbitrary claim. If a test is an explanation for the facts, then how is intelligence and existence not a "test"? Just because you declare it?

Granted.  There is reality outside of objective reality.  I experience it too.  But I don't expect one to accept it merely because I can imagine it.  Mental gymnastics is just that.

Again, you are making false implications. WHICH argument has been made to you based on a personal subjective experience? Is it that you just expect that such claims will be made? I dont get why you keep making this point about an argument from "subjective experience" as proof and then going ahead to argue against it. If conclusions are mental gymnastics, so are scientific theories. After all, you only believe them because facts don't contradict them. How does that make them more "testable" than God? It is easy to show that facts do not contradict God and in fact point to him; the beginning of the universe, the unlikelihood of the universe, the intelligibility and order of the universe, these are all facts that are consistent with an intelligent creator beyond the universe Somehow, they don't constitute "tests", but not so where scientific theories are based only in explanations of facts, where they become magically "testable".

The scientific method claims no certainties.  In fact uncertainty is its engine.  If that goes away, we are heading back to the caves.

That is true, irrelevant though. Because no one is attacking the scientific theory. Just the yet unsupported claim that it holds an exclusive place in determining truth.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The physical creator argument can go on ad infinitum with much the same right some ascribe to an eternal let alone yet to be proven deity. 

The only difference is there is already an objective experience of the physical.  It takes the smaller leap of faith to believe. 

A physical creator is more consistent with observations than the deity.  Whatever claims one makes for a creator, there is always going to be a stronger claim to the same argument for a physical one.

Outside of unprovable claims, nobody has witnessed a deity create anything. 

If nothing comes out of nothing.  Suppose there is a good reason to believe in a deity.  The question of what creates the deity remains. 

The exercise ultimately leads to unfalsifiable territory where nothing new is conveyed or learned.

The claim for science's exclusive domain is on objective reality.  The field is wide open(only limited by the number of observers) for subjective reality.