The hiddenness of God

[BeRational]

yeT

Isn't the default that don't know if existed or not?

I don't think so.

The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.

This is consistent also with not knowing.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Really? If (heaven forfend) you suffered a cardiac arrest in the street one day would you rather an “obsessive rationalist” who’d studied medicine for several years pushed his way to the front of the crowd to help you, or an irrationalist armed with his phial of homeopathic “remedy”, or with a bunch of sage leaves and a box of matches?

See that’s the things when people dismiss rationalism. It’s fine when it’s a free bet if you like that thing, but it really isn’t when it actually matters. Fancy a holiday in Ibiza? Fine. Would you rather fly on a ‘plane designed and built by qualified aeronautical engineers, or constructed by the new school of faith aeronautics where the designers hop backwards in small circles with pencils up their noses off their tits on Benylyn to produce their blueprints?   

That’s called a category error. Being “in love” is just a label we attach to an emotional response to a stimulus, generally one that triggers various hormonal activities. What we’re in love with on the other hand – whether it’s a objectively tangible object in the world or a fantasy – is an entirely different matter. 

Simple enough – just take a blood sample and measure the hormones (adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin etc) when the subject thinks of the object of his love:

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
     
No need to be rude – just try not to be logically hopeless.

Nothing does. What would “the real world” even mean, and how would we know whether we’d identified it? What we actually have is a world we appear to observe, and various ways provisionally to model and make sense of it. Some of those methods produce solutions – ie, answers that appear to be coherent, cogent and consistent such that they enable us to navigate the world we appear to occupy, for example by creating medicines and rockets. Others though (“God” etc) are no more than guessing because they offer no method of testing and investigation.

The former group we call probabilistically “true”, the latter probabilistically not true. If you think of reality as an onion, the guessing is the outer layer – any guess is as epistemically (in)valid as any other: “God”, leprechauns, whatever. Doesn’t matter. The next layer in though is the probable truths layer because it provide functional solutions (aspirin, algebra etc). Now whether there even is a centre of the onion of absolute reality, and how we’d ever know whether we’d found it in any case even if there is is unknowable (the problem of unknown unknowns), but that’s all we have to go on nonetheless.

I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way. I'm certinly not dismissing rationalism - it's very important, and I'm alarmed at the rise in irrational nonsense such as flat earth and bonkers conspiracy theories.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I don't think so.

The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.

This is consistent also with not knowing.

But only when the conjecture is true/not true apt. When the assertion is incoherent ("God" etc) we're in not even wrong territory.

[SteveH]

I don't think so.

The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.

This is consistent also with not knowing.

OK then - demonstrate that you exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I said obsessive rationalists - people who seem to think everything can be explained that way.

What would a non-obsessive rationalist be? Rational except about dragons? Rational except on Wednesdays half-day closing? What?

I see that you've just ignored most of the explanations and rebuttals I posted by the way. Why is that?

[BeRational]

OK then - demonstrate that you exist.

To you or to me?

You could meet me to see that I am a real person, unlike your god for example.

[SteveH]

To you or to me?

You could meet me to see that I am a real person, unlike your god for example.

You might be a hallucination I'm having.

[BeRational]

You might be a hallucination I'm having.

That's true.

Do you often  have hallucinations?

You could meet with other people you know and they would all describe me in the same way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

OK then - demonstrate that you exist.

Depends what you mean by "demonstrate". If you mean something like, "show a functional truth by which it's possible to navigate the world we appear to occupy" that's easy; if though you mean "prove", that's not the argument in any case.

[SteveH]

That's true.

Do you often  have hallucinations?

Not as far as I'm aware, but would I necessarily know? Anyway, this Jura 16-year-old is powerful stuff...

You could meet with other people you know and they would all describe me in the same way.

And how would I know that they're not hallucinating, or that they are not part of my hallucination?

[BeRational]

Not as far as I'm aware, but would I necessarily know? Anyway, this Jura 16-year-old is powerful stuff...And how would I know that they're not hallucinating, or that they are not part of my hallucination?

Depends what you mean by know?

You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a  brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?
You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.

I assume you would not jump?

Why not?

[SteveH]

Depends what you mean by know?

You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a  brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?
You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.

I assume you would not jump?

Why not?

OK, you've got me there - for now. I'll come back to it in the morning, when I'm sober.

[SusanDoris]

Interesting exchange of posts. It is a pity Steve H avoided questions in #74.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Depends what you mean by know?

You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.

How then can you be 100% certain of that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Depends what you mean by know?

You cannot know anything to 100% certainty.
You could be a  brain in a vat being fed sensory data. How would you know?

There would need to be someone feeding you that information.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You cannot know but you have to get on with life as it seems to be, which is why you take the lift from the top floor rather than jumping.

I assume you would not jump?

Why not?

Because the dearth of miracles which are by definition as rare as hens teeth and by dint of the wonderful creation of gravity for getting up and down we are virtually commanded to use the stairs.......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Steve H,

What would a non-obsessive rationalist be? Rational except about dragons? Rational except on Wednesdays half-day closing? What?

I see that you've just ignored most of the explanations and rebuttals I posted by the way. Why is that?

Declaring oneself a rationalist is a bit like sewing gold braiding on your jacket.

As Wikipedia has it
''In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion – the latter aspect's antitheism later softened by politic adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.
In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, a worldview''

[SteveH]

Interesting exchange of posts. It is a pity Steve H avoided questions in #74.

I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.

[torridon]

I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.

Attacking the posters with pejorative language is a poor substitute for engagement with the ideas.  It's lazy.

[floo]

I didn't avoid them; I just couldn't be arsed to answer them. This is what usually happens on these threads - the nerdy antheistic obsessives bang on and on relentlessly, spouting their dribs and drabs of philosophy, until everyone except themselves is bored stiff and gives up for the sake of their sanity, then proclaim themselves the winners.

You really take the biscuit SH...! You were squawking about the behaviour of non-believers, in my opinion you are the rudest poster by far on this forum.

[Maeght]

I don't think so.

The default position is that any claim is not true until it can be demonstrated to be so.

This is consistent also with not knowing.

Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.

[SteveH]

You really take the biscuit SH...! You were squawking about the behaviour of non-believers, in my opinion you are the rudest poster by far on this forum.

Rude, maybe; sarcastic not (or only occasionally).

[SteveH]

Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.

Quite. Be rational, BeRational!

[floo]

Rude, maybe; sarcastic not (or only occasionally).

You are RUDE! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certainly, if a claim is made then it cannot be said to be true unless supported by evidence but saying something is not demonstrated to be true isn't the same as saying it isn't true is it? I don't know but seems different to me.

Yes but if you claim something is false you need to show falsification I would have thought.
If you say God does not exist you similarly need to show falsification.

The default position is ''not proven/demonstrated physically.''

We are still left with the lack of justification for why ''God doesn't exist'' is the default position.