Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence

[Berserk]

A detailed refutation of NDE research (including the red running shoe example) is available for your review at the following link:
Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

By your deafening silence, you admit you have not watched the 2 posted short videos, which document the very best evidential NDEs, which of course are shared NDEs in which the bedside family members and friends experience features of the dying person's NDE, so that any hallucinatory or oxygen deprivation explanation is decisively refuted. I know people who have had NDEs and ADCS which are far, far more evidential than any of these. But you are too closed-minded for me to share them with you or other falsification tests I can present to you.

So best of luck in your dialogue with others here on line.

 

[brakelite]

There is evidence all around us, both visibly, spiritually, and experientially, of the existence of God. But it is not the role of the evidence to prove itself by arbitrarily imposing itself upon your conscience and forcing you to acknowledge it as "proof". It is entirely up to you and your choice to accept or reject the evidence in front of you. The evidence that is there has been accepted by others who as a result believed, or knew subsequent to that belief, that God is real, and that knowledge deepened and found greater emphasis in the changes that were wrought in the person's life as a direct result... Changes that were beyond the power of the individual concerned to implement on his own.
It's not up to God, nor us, to prove God's existence. We testify to what we know... The rest is up to you. It's your responsibility... Placing the responsibility for your faith or lack thereof upon others or upon the evidence itself is a cop out.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Was your post intended for someone else? Your question doesn't seem at all relevant to anything I've posted.

its very relevant, im making a point?

 

[OzSpen]

There is evidence all around us, both visibly, spiritually, and experientially, of the existence of God. But it is not the role of the evidence to prove itself by arbitrarily imposing itself upon your conscience and forcing you to acknowledge it as "proof". It is entirely up to you and your choice to accept or reject the evidence in front of you. The evidence that is there has been accepted by others who as a result believed, or knew subsequent to that belief, that God is real, and that knowledge deepened and found greater emphasis in the changes that were wrought in the person's life as a direct result... Changes that were beyond the power of the individual concerned to implement on his own.
It's not up to God, nor us, to prove God's existence. We testify to what we know... The rest is up to you. It's your responsibility... Placing the responsibility for your faith or lack thereof upon others or upon the evidence itself is a cop out.

brakelite,

Which evidence would you point to for a demonstration of God's existence? Granted that people have to make a choice, but for an atheist what are the choices laid out before him or her concerning God's existence?

Oz

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

You'll get more information if you pay more attention. I never said "belief." On the contrary, I said NOT belief. I said I "know."

Then, you assumed I meant to present an "argument", "appeal to your emotions", or "justify my belief." I did not, nor do I have any need to. It is you who are in need, not me; and this I can say, because I "know" what you are missing. Nonetheless, I was merely answering your question and sharing the truth.

You have walked through the desert...and this is how you search for water?

Have you ever studied epistemology? It is intellectually dishonest to claim knowledge of something that is philosophically unknowable. At best, you can only have a strong belief that an unfalsifiable claim is true.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

Do you accept the evidence from historical science or will you accept only empirical science as evidence of substance?

God has provided us with evidence of his existence. Are you open to consider it seriously or must the evidence be according to your presuppositions?

Oz

It appears I will have to explain my epistemology. However, describing how an epistemology functions to produce a reliable knowledge base will take some time. I'm not sure if there is a word limit to these posts. If there is not enough room to post my explanation, I'll have to break it up into several posts. Please give me some time to compose my response. Thank you.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

By your deafening silence, you admit you have not watched the 2 posted short videos, which document the very best evidential NDEs, which of course are shared NDEs in which the bedside family members and friends experience features of the dying person's NDE, so that any hallucinatory or oxygen deprivation explanation is decisively refuted. I know people who have had NDEs and ADCS which are far, far more evidential than any of these. But you are too closed-minded for me to share them with you or other falsification tests I can present to you.

So best of luck in your dialogue with others here on line.

An ad hominem attack (i.e. accusing me of being closed-minded) is logically fallacious and an intellectually inferior form of argumentation. Incidentally, it is far more open-minded of someone to remain skeptical of unfalsifiable claims than to assume a doxastically closed position. I recommend you investigate how confirmation bias operates and develop an epistemology that mitigates for it.

 

[Nancy]

Since you cannot get "something" from "nothing", how did the endless, beautiful universe get here? The planets perfectly placed. The sun perfectly placed for our warmth and light. Just those things alone convince me that their IS an intelligent designer. Everything came from somewhere. How is it that the whole universe stays put in place so wonderfully? Who is maintaining it? Sure sounds like an independent "entity" for lack of a better word.
The beauty, preciseness and such variety! Have heard said that "The design reflects it's designer". JMO

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Epistemology: Part 1

Epistemology describes the process or method people use to distinguish knowledge from belief and true claims from false claims. The language used to describe an epistemology must be unambiguous because it is the tool we use to communicate a coherent train of thought. As such, the words we choose to represent our thoughts must be defined appropriately in order to minimize confusion. Belief, knowledge, truth, and faith are four key words many people assume are already uniquely defined yet are the source of numerous contextual misunderstandings. Therefore, a reasonable recommendation is to ensure those terms are more precisely understood on the outset.

To begin with, the words “believe” and “know” are often interchanged with each other during casual conversation. For example, I could claim to know an apple exists at the grocery store or claim to believe an apple exists at the grocery store. I might intend for both statements to have the same meaning and arbitrarily choose to say “I know an apple exists at the grocery store.” However, if someone were to ask how I could possibly "know" an apple exists at the grocery store at this very moment since I am currently several miles from the produce section, I would concede such knowledge is unavailable to me for the time being. Although apples are fairly common and usually in stock at the grocery store, I am not located there at this time to observe an apple in the produce section. While it is unlikely the grocery store is completely out of apples, I cannot completely rule out that possibility. Therefore, my use of the word “know” in this case is inaccurate because it implies I have failed to objectively falsify the claim that an apple currently exists at the grocery store. Consequently, it would be more accurate for me to say “I believe an apple exists at the grocery store.” This is because the word “believe” describes a cognitive state where I possess a degree of confidence in the unfalsified proposition that an apple exists at the grocery store. Although I may be able to provide reliable reasons for a high degree of confidence in the belief, it still does not qualify as knowledge until the claim survives a test designed to falsify it.

Meanwhile, most people commonly define “truth” to be that which corresponds with reality and often associate or equate it with knowledge. For instance, I could claim to know an apple exists or claim it is true that an apple exists because my observation of an apple in the produce section validates the claim as corresponding with reality. This understanding of truth seems intuitive and tempts us to accept the definition without further debate. The problem, though, is that our perception of reality and what reality actually is may not be identical. Optical illusions demonstrate where our visual sense perception does not consistently or accurately convey what is “absolutely true” in the external world. Imagine someone places a holographic image of an apple in the produce section which is indistinguishable from a real apple in appearance. If I were unaware that the apple on display was a hologram, it would seem reasonable for me to claim I know the apple exists because the visual observation validates the proposition as corresponding with my perception of reality. However, even though I might refer to my visual observation of an apple as a justification for claiming personal knowledge of the apple’s existence, it would not be entirely accurate to say it is true that the apple exists because the apple’s appearance is just an optical illusion. Fortunately, in this case, all that is necessary to discover the objective truth of the claim is to conduct a test designed to falsify it. If the apple exists, then I should be able to hold it in my hand. When the test fails, I am forced to conclude that the apple is a hologram and does not really exist except as an optical illusion.

Now, consider a scenario where the source of everything you perceive through your senses including site, taste, touch, hearing, and smell is a sophisticated illusion (like in “The Matrix” movies). When you observe yourself eating that apple you purchased from the grocery store, the entire experience would really be an elaborate simulation which you are completely unaware of and unable to escape from. In that situation, none of your senses or cognitive faculties provides you with an ability to “absolutely” know if the sources of your experiences actually exist in the external world you are observing. You would have no way to determine if the apple actually exists independently of your perception of it because, unlike the holographic apple, there is no way to falsify the claim. For instance, if you suddenly found yourself in a completely different reality where an entity identifying itself as the “Master Programmer” demonstrates your previous existence and everything in it including the apple was just a sophisticated virtual reality, how would you know this new reality is not also part of the same or another elaborate illusion? You could not rule out that possibility and would be no closer to knowing the absolute truth of your reality. No philosophical argument, regardless of how convincing it may be, will prove the external world you are experiencing actually exists apart from your perception of it. Therefore, the only “absolute truth” available to you is knowledge of your own conscious existence. This predicament is described in philosophy as the problem of hard solipsism. The problem of hard solipsism cannot be resolved using any type of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, the first epistemological rule must be as follows:

Rule 1: Any Claim which invokes the existence of anything beyond your perceived external reality (the metaphysical) as an explanation for a phenomenon observed within your perceived external reality is unfalsifiable and unknowable.

Your self-awareness and sensory experiences are, therefore, limited to that which corresponds with the reality you perceive. If your metaphysical reality is something different from the reality you perceive, then knowledge of that absolute truth is inaccessible to you. However, your self-awareness and sensory experiences do enable you to distinguish imagined things (the conceptual) from observable things (the empirical) within the boundaries of what is objectively falsifiable. For example, when you imagine yourself eating an apple like the one you observed at the grocery store, your senses do not detect the existence of an apple in your external reality as they would for an apple you purchased at the grocery store. You can also imagine yourself throwing an apple at your glass window and predict what your senses would observe if such an event actually took place. Conversely, taking the action of actually throwing the apple you purchased from the grocery store at your glass window will result in observable and objective consequences your senses will definitely distinguish as not imaginary. This is not only the case for apples and windows but for everything observable in the external world including yourself. In other words, there are demonstrable, consistent, and objective consequences for various actions taken by and on things which are perceived to exist in the external world unlike things which only exist as mental concepts. Under this revised understanding, you can subdivide “truth” into three categories: Metaphysical truth, Conceptual truth, and Empirical truth.

The “Empirical” truth is represented by the observable apple which experiences predictable and objective consequences for actions taken on it. Because you can observe the apple either through direct empirical observations with your senses or through indirect empirical observations using reliable technology which functions to extend or amplify your senses (like a mass spectrometer or a microscope), it is possible to know you are not just imagining an apple. Furthermore, because the observed objective consequences (empirical evidence) of throwing an object at another object have been consistent in the external world, it is possible to reliably predict the consequences of throwing an apple at your window. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to predict the apple would suddenly stop in midair before hitting the window because you have no empirical evidence of apples or other similar objects having ever behaved in that way before. This is summarized in the second epistemological rule:

Rule 2: Only direct or indirect empirical evidence can be used to obtain knowledge of empirical truths.

(To Be Continued)

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Epistemology: Part 2

The imaginary apple from the example illustrates “Conceptual” truth. While the imaginary apple does not empirically exist in the same way as an observable apple does at the grocery store, you can at least know the imaginary apple exists as a true concept. This is because the apple you are imagining is a conceptual representation of something already known to exist. In other words, the imaginary apple is supported by “implicit empirical” evidence. However, the conceptual version of the apple which only exists in your imagination cannot be substituted for the apple which empirically exists at the grocery store. You cannot gain nutrients by eating an imaginary apple. Similarly, just because you can imagine a window being damaged by throwing an apple at it does not indicate such an event must have occurred or will occur. The only way to personally know a window was damaged by an apple is to obtain direct or indirect empirical evidence from the event itself. Meanwhile, your prior experience with the consistent and objective consequences of throwing solid objects as glass objects provides sufficient implicit empirical evidence for you to know it is at least conceptually possible for a window to be damaged by throwing an apple at it. Therefore, you can know the claim that the window will brake if you throw an apple at it is at least conceptually true. On the other hand, your ability to imagine an apple stopping in midair just before impacting the window does not imply such an event is conceptually possible. Since you have no implicit empirical evidence of an apple or any other solid object stopping in midair after being thrown, you cannot know the possibility exists. As such, the conceptual claim that an apple stopped in midair after it was thrown could not be validated through experimentation as conceptually true. Accordingly, the following rules are added to the epistemology:

Rule 3: Conceptual evidence only applies to conceptual claims.

Rule 4: Conceptual evidence without implicit empirical support cannot demonstrate the conceptual claim is possible.

Rule 5: Conceptual evidence with implicit empirical support can be used to obtain knowledge of conceptual truths but does not demonstrate empirical truth.

If an eyewitness claimed to have observed someone damage a window by throwing an apple at it, you cannot personally know the event occurred exactly as described just because the eyewitness’s testimony was found to be compelling or credible. Since testimonial evidence represents someone else’s memory of a perceived event, it only exists in the mind of the eyewitness and must be classified as conceptual evidence. You did not directly or indirectly observe the event yourself to know the claim is empirically true. However, empirical data from similar events you have previously observed demonstrates that an impact from an object (like an apple) on another object (like a window) consistently produces catastrophic results for one or both objects. You could also reproduce the event exactly as described with an apple and a window to observe that the empirical results are consistent with the eyewitness testimony. Therefore, even though you were not on scene at the time the reported event occurred, the implicit empirical evidence allows you to know the claim is at least conceptually true. Consequently, you would be justified in accepting the eyewitness’s testimony as conceptual evidence to support your confidence in the belief that the event occurred. Unfortunately, your high level of confidence in the belief would still not qualify as knowledge that the claim is empirically true. As such, the next epistemological rules are established:

Rule 6: Testimonial evidence is conceptual evidence.

Rule 7: Testimonial evidence without implicit empirical support cannot demonstrate the claim is conceptually possible.

Rule 8: Testimonial evidence with implicit empirical support can be used to obtain knowledge of conceptual truths but not empirical truths.

Now, imagine someone presents you with an ancient manuscript that claims over 100 ancient eyewitnesses from the legendary city of Atlantis previously observed an apple stop in midair after it was thrown. Compelling as this information may be, these ancient testimonies would still be classified as conceptual evidence for the same reasons already discussed. However, in this scenario, let’s presume various archaeological discoveries of an ancient civilization from the time and place the city of Atlantis is thought to have existed are offered in support of the claim. Unfortunately, archaeological artifacts only serve as empirical evidence for the existence of Atlantis and not for the extraordinary event which was claimed to have occurred there. Nevertheless, you can determine if the extraordinary claim has implicit empirical support to know if it could at least be conceptually true. Unlike the previous example, though, this extraordinary claim cannot be reproduced to know if such an event is possible. No matter how many times you throw an apple, it never stops in midair. Logically, this limitation not only prohibits you from personally knowing if the reported event is conceptually true but would make it irrational for you to believe it was even conceptually possible.

(To Be Continued)

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Epistemology: Part 3

To be clear, the possibility of “supernatural” intervention is not being arbitrarily dismissed here, but supernatural claims must survive tests designed to falsify them before they can serve as explanations. Unfortunately, every attempt to test a supernatural claim thus far has failed because it either lacked reproducible evidence or was superseded by a natural explanation that survived all the tests designed to falsify it. Even when there are no known natural explanations, it would be premature to conclude a supernatural cause is the best explanation until it can be tested as a possible candidate. The proposition that invisible fairies used their magic to interfere with the trajectory of the apple to make it appear as if it stopped in midair is not a viable candidate hypothesis even though it offers an explanation where no natural explanation currently exists. Likewise, the proposition that the apple appeared to stop in midair after it encountered a temporary supernatural force-field also serves as an explanation yet is equally inadmissible as a candidate hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to falsify either supernatural claim. As such, there is no way to know which supernatural explanation is superior to the other since neither can be ruled out. Furthermore, there is no mechanism by which you can rule out the possibility that some natural explanation does exist but has yet to be discovered.

On the other hand, if you have ever observed and understood how illusions occur, then that experience and knowledge will serve as conceptual and implicit empirical evidence for the alternative claim which suggests large groups of people can misperceive an event. Illusions can occur naturally as is the case for mirages and can also result from natural invisible forces like magnetism. Of course, a skilled illusionists can also artificially cause large groups of people to misperceive an event using “sleight of hand” techniques or clever applications of technology. Although you could not know if this alternative explanation for the reported claim is empirically true, it is at least conceptually possible for those ancient eyewitnesses to have misperceived the event in such a way that it appeared to them as though an apple stopped in midair after it was thrown. If someone could demonstrate how the misperception could occur, then that demonstration would serve to validate the misperception hypothesis as conceptually true. No matter how implausible it might seem, the misperception claim should be preferred over the supernatural claim since it can be replicated either naturally or artificially. This establishes the next rules for the epistemology:

Rule 9: Historical evidence for a claimed event is conceptual evidence.

Rule 10: Historical evidence without implicit empirical support cannot demonstrate the claim is conceptually possible.

Rule 11: Historical evidence with implicit empirical support for a claimed event can be used to obtain knowledge of conceptual truths but not empirical truths.

“Metaphysical” truth, meanwhile, is represented by the absolute reality of the observable apple and everything else you perceive as existing in the external world. If the apple is just a sophisticated virtual component of an elaborately simulated environment which your senses interpret as an external world, then that would be the metaphysical truth under those circumstances. Conversely, if the apple and everything else in the observable external world absolutely exists independent of your perception of them, then that would be the metaphysical truth. However, as previously demonstrated, the unresolvable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible for you to know if the apple exists as part of an elaborate virtual world your mind interprets as an external reality or exists independently of your perception of it.

At best, you can evaluate the logical consistency of a metaphysical claim about the apple’s absolute reality from a philosophical perspective to determine if it could at least be conceptually possible, but no quantity or quality of valid philosophical arguments will ever demonstrate the metaphysical truth of the apple’s existence. For instance, it is valid to argue that it is logically possible for the apple and everything else you perceive as existing in the external world to be part of an elaborate simulation, but the problem of hard solipsism still prohibits you from validating if the claim is metaphysically true. It is pragmatic to realize, though, that regardless of what you believe about the metaphysical truth of the observable apple, the empirical consequences of throwing that apple at your window in the reality you experience are still predictable and knowable. In other words, conceptual and empirical truths which can be known are all that is needed to inform your decisions in the reality you perceive even without having access to metaphysical truths. So, the next rules established for the epistemology are as follows:

Rule 12: Metaphysical claims can be evaluated for logical consistency, but logically valid philosophical arguments do not demonstrate metaphysical truths.

Rule 13: Regardless of what the metaphysical truth of reality might be, it serves no purpose in informing any decision you can make in the reality you experience.

(To Be Continued)

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Epistemology: Part 4

Finally, the word “faith” generates a disproportionate amount of confusion in conversations about epistemology. Colloquially, the word “faith” is interchangeable with the word “trust.” The accusation that we all exhibit faith in our sources of knowledge is grounded on an equivocation with the concept of trust. If the meaning of “faith” always directly paralleled the meaning of “trust”, then it would resolve much confusion assuming everyone has the same understanding of what it means to trust. For example, you might trust an apple exists at the grocery store despite the fact that you are not on location to observe it. The foundation of your trust in this case is based on implicit empirical evidence you have collected from previous visits to the grocery store where you consistently observed apples in the produce section. Therefore, the application of faith here is reasonable because it refers to a conceptual truth as supported by an implicit empirical foundation. However, having a reasonable faith in a claim does not mean the claim is empirically true or that you can claim to know it is empirically true.

Conversely, if you had no prior knowledge of apples being sold at the grocery store, you would lack the implicit empirical foundation upon which your faith in the claim would be justified. Likewise, if your prior experiences with grocery stores were that they never maintained a supply of apples in the produce section, trusting the aforementioned claim would not be reasonable because the implicit empirical evidence contradicts it. Similarly, if a grocery store advertises an apple for sale with the capability of stopping in midair after it is thrown, you would have neither a conceptual nor implicit empirical basis to trust the advertisement. In fact, the available conceptual and implicit empirical evidence would better justify faith in the alternative claim which suggests the grocery store is advertising an optical illusion which creates the misperception of an apple stopping in midair. With that, the following rules are added to the epistemology:

Rule 14: Where faith and trust share the same meaning, the application of faith is only justified when the conceptual truth of the claim is supported by implicit empirical evidence.

Now, consider how the word “faith” is used in the following statement, “It is by faith you know the apple stopped in midair after it was thrown.” Here, faith is given as the method (epistemology) used to distinguish knowledge from belief. When the word “trust” is substituted for the word “faith” in this context, the statement suggests you acquired such knowledge by trusting the event happened exactly as described. However, there is no objective reason given to justify why that particular claim should be trusted. Therefore, your decision to trust the claim must have either been arbitrary or influenced by some form of undisclosed bias. As such, you could have equally chosen not to trust that particular claim for some arbitrary or biased reason and applied your faith towards another competing or contradictory claim instead. This ability to achieve multiple different or contradictory conclusions through the application of the same method exposes the unreliability of using faith as an epistemological foundation for acquiring a functional knowledge base. As such, the associated epistemological rule is as follows:

Rule 15: Faith is an unreliable method for distinguishing knowledge from belief because its ability to be applied equally in support of competing and incompatible claims produces logical contradictions.

(To Be Continued)

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Epistemology: Part 5

To summarize, an epistemology is a set of rules and conditions people construct for themselves to distinguish what they know to be true or false from what they believe to be true or false. Language is a necessary component of an epistemology, and the words people use to communicate coherent thoughts must be clearly defined to avoid confusion and misinterpretation. As such, certain words like “truth," "knowledge," "belief," and “faith” are often too ambiguous for use in an epistemology and must be further clarified. While knowledge is a form of belief, not all beliefs are knowledge. Only falsifiable beliefs that have survived every test designed to falsify them qualify as knowledge. Metaphysical truth, conceptual truth, and empirical truth describe three distinct contexts of “truth” where an epistemology can establish the criteria and limits for knowledge. The unresolvable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical truths beyond knowledge of your own existence even when a metaphysical claim is logically consistent. Knowledge of conceptual truths are acquired by evaluating conceptual claims for corroboration with implicit empirical observations but do not necessarily imply empirical existence in the perceived external world. Empirical truths are known only through the process of testing falsifiable empirical claims about the external reality we experience. Finally, “faith” is often equivocated with “trust” and is an unreliable method for obtaining knowledge of any category of truth because it lacks an objective foundation and can lead to contradictory conclusions. By applying these epistemological rules, we are able to develop a functional knowledge base which can be used to better inform our decisions.

 

[brakelite]

brakelite,

Which evidence would you point to for a demonstration of God's existence? Granted that people have to make a choice, but for an atheist what are the choices laid out before him or her concerning God's existence?

Oz

I wouldn't class myself as a critical thinker, so I seldom venture into discussions involving philosophy and such. I can only the back to my own testimony and offer that to others... They choose whether I am lying, insane, or real. My life then should reflect which class I am. Having never been an atheist in life, I guess I am really in no position to judge them or discuss their options having never been in their shoes... And probably shouldn't have posted here in the first place.
I guess the evidence that I see and and immediately give God the credit for is a matter of choice... Whether an atheist has that choicei would imagine depends of the conviction of the holy Spirit within. And I suppose the holy Spirit would convict in response to anyone wanting to understand the truth.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Since you cannot get "something" from "nothing", how did the endless, beautiful universe get here? The planets perfectly placed. The sun perfectly placed for our warmth and light. Just those things alone convince me that their IS an intelligent designer. Everything came from somewhere. How is it that the whole universe stays put in place so wonderfully? Who is maintaining it? Sure sounds like an independent "entity" for lack of a better word.
The beauty, preciseness and such variety! Have heard said that "The design reflects it's designer". JMO

We recognize design by comparing it to things which occur naturally, not by beauty or complexity. The reason we know a watch found on a beach was intelligently designed is because we never observe watches occurring naturally. If watches grew naturally on trees, then we wouldn't recognize a watch as something that was intelligently designed.

The science fiction author, Douglas Adams, had this to say about intelligent design arguments:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

As for the origin of the universe question, the only intellectually honest answer I can give is that I personally don't know what the state of universe was prior to the Big Bang. There are some scientists who dare to speculate how our local universe could have been produced within an infinite multiverse. Naturalistic Pantheism would suggest there is some sufficiently powerful, eternal, and necessary unknown natural force that created the universe. Of course, all of these ideas are no more or less plausible than the God hypothesis and equally unfalsifiable at this point. With regards to the claim about something not coming from nothing, then this must apply equally to God in that he could not have created the universe from nothing either. So, if God did it, where did he acquire the materials? I suspect people like us are probably not qualified to reach any conclusions about the origin of the universe. It will be best if we allow the professional cosmologists to continue working on the problem.

 

[ScottA]

Have you ever studied epistemology? It is intellectually dishonest to claim knowledge of something that is philosophically unknowable. At best, you can only have a strong belief that an unfalsifiable claim is true.

I don't know about all that, but you just described the severity of your ignorance.

Your ignorance about the greater sum of life, is not the measure of it, but rather--just your own part.

Thanks for your transparent confession!

 

[OzSpen]

It appears I will have to explain my epistemology. However, describing how an epistemology functions to produce a reliable knowledge base will take some time. I'm not sure if there is a word limit to these posts. If there is not enough room to post my explanation, I'll have to break it up into several posts. Please give me some time to compose my response. Thank you.

BGE,

There is no need to go into a lengthy explanation of your theory of knowledge - epistemology. Please tell me if you accept historical science and the investigation of the actions of Abraham Lincolcoln (USA), James Cook (Australia), Adolph Hitler (Germany), and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I wouldn't class myself as a critical thinker, so I seldom venture into discussions involving philosophy and such. I can only the back to my own testimony and offer that to others... They choose whether I am lying, insane, or real. My life then should reflect which class I am. Having never been an atheist in life, I guess I am really in no position to judge them or discuss their options having never been in their shoes... And probably shouldn't have posted here in the first place.
I guess the evidence that I see and and immediately give God the credit for is a matter of choice... Whether an atheist has that choicei would imagine depends of the conviction of the holy Spirit within. And I suppose the holy Spirit would convict in response to anyone wanting to understand the truth.

brakelite,

What is the evidence Romans 1:18-20 states to demonstrate God's existence?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Epistemology: Part 1

Epistemology describes the process or method people use to distinguish knowledge from belief and true claims from false claims. The language used to describe an epistemology must be unambiguous because it is the tool we use to communicate a coherent train of thought. As such, the words we choose to represent our thoughts must be defined appropriately in order to minimize confusion. Belief, knowledge, truth, and faith are four key words many people assume are already uniquely defined yet are the source of numerous contextual misunderstandings. Therefore, a reasonable recommendation is to ensure those terms are more precisely understood on the outset.

To begin with, the words “believe” and “know” are often interchanged with each other during casual conversation. For example, I could claim to know an apple exists at the grocery store or claim to believe an apple exists at the grocery store. I might intend for both statements to have the same meaning and arbitrarily choose to say “I know an apple exists at the grocery store.” However, if someone were to ask how I could possibly "know" an apple exists at the grocery store at this very moment since I am currently several miles from the produce section, I would concede such knowledge is unavailable to me for the time being. Although apples are fairly common and usually in stock at the grocery store, I am not located there at this time to observe an apple in the produce section. While it is unlikely the grocery store is completely out of apples, I cannot completely rule out that possibility. Therefore, my use of the word “know” in this case is inaccurate because it implies I have failed to objectively falsify the claim that an apple currently exists at the grocery store. Consequently, it would be more accurate for me to say “I believe an apple exists at the grocery store.” This is because the word “believe” describes a cognitive state where I possess a degree of confidence in the unfalsified proposition that an apple exists at the grocery store. Although I may be able to provide reliable reasons for a high degree of confidence in the belief, it still does not qualify as knowledge until the claim survives a test designed to falsify it.

Meanwhile, most people commonly define “truth” to be that which corresponds with reality and often associate or equate it with knowledge. For instance, I could claim to know an apple exists or claim it is true that an apple exists because my observation of an apple in the produce section validates the claim as corresponding with reality. This understanding of truth seems intuitive and tempts us to accept the definition without further debate. The problem, though, is that our perception of reality and what reality actually is may not be identical. Optical illusions demonstrate where our visual sense perception does not consistently or accurately convey what is “absolutely true” in the external world. Imagine someone places a holographic image of an apple in the produce section which is indistinguishable from a real apple in appearance. If I were unaware that the apple on display was a hologram, it would seem reasonable for me to claim I know the apple exists because the visual observation validates the proposition as corresponding with my perception of reality. However, even though I might refer to my visual observation of an apple as a justification for claiming personal knowledge of the apple’s existence, it would not be entirely accurate to say it is true that the apple exists because the apple’s appearance is just an optical illusion. Fortunately, in this case, all that is necessary to discover the objective truth of the claim is to conduct a test designed to falsify it. If the apple exists, then I should be able to hold it in my hand. When the test fails, I am forced to conclude that the apple is a hologram and does not really exist except as an optical illusion.

Now, consider a scenario where the source of everything you perceive through your senses including site, taste, touch, hearing, and smell is a sophisticated illusion (like in “The Matrix” movies). When you observe yourself eating that apple you purchased from the grocery store, the entire experience would really be an elaborate simulation which you are completely unaware of and unable to escape from. In that situation, none of your senses or cognitive faculties provides you with an ability to “absolutely” know if the sources of your experiences actually exist in the external world you are observing. You would have no way to determine if the apple actually exists independently of your perception of it because, unlike the holographic apple, there is no way to falsify the claim. For instance, if you suddenly found yourself in a completely different reality where an entity identifying itself as the “Master Programmer” demonstrates your previous existence and everything in it including the apple was just a sophisticated virtual reality, how would you know this new reality is not also part of the same or another elaborate illusion? You could not rule out that possibility and would be no closer to knowing the absolute truth of your reality. No philosophical argument, regardless of how convincing it may be, will prove the external world you are experiencing actually exists apart from your perception of it. Therefore, the only “absolute truth” available to you is knowledge of your own conscious existence. This predicament is described in philosophy as the problem of hard solipsism. The problem of hard solipsism cannot be resolved using any type of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, the first epistemological rule must be as follows:

Rule 1: Any Claim which invokes the existence of anything beyond your perceived external reality (the metaphysical) as an explanation for a phenomenon observed within your perceived external reality is unfalsifiable and unknowable.

Your self-awareness and sensory experiences are, therefore, limited to that which corresponds with the reality you perceive. If your metaphysical reality is something different from the reality you perceive, then knowledge of that absolute truth is inaccessible to you. However, your self-awareness and sensory experiences do enable you to distinguish imagined things (the conceptual) from observable things (the empirical) within the boundaries of what is objectively falsifiable. For example, when you imagine yourself eating an apple like the one you observed at the grocery store, your senses do not detect the existence of an apple in your external reality as they would for an apple you purchased at the grocery store. You can also imagine yourself throwing an apple at your glass window and predict what your senses would observe if such an event actually took place. Conversely, taking the action of actually throwing the apple you purchased from the grocery store at your glass window will result in observable and objective consequences your senses will definitely distinguish as not imaginary. This is not only the case for apples and windows but for everything observable in the external world including yourself. In other words, there are demonstrable, consistent, and objective consequences for various actions taken by and on things which are perceived to exist in the external world unlike things which only exist as mental concepts. Under this revised understanding, you can subdivide “truth” into three categories: Metaphysical truth, Conceptual truth, and Empirical truth.

The “Empirical” truth is represented by the observable apple which experiences predictable and objective consequences for actions taken on it. Because you can observe the apple either through direct empirical observations with your senses or through indirect empirical observations using reliable technology which functions to extend or amplify your senses (like a mass spectrometer or a microscope), it is possible to know you are not just imagining an apple. Furthermore, because the observed objective consequences (empirical evidence) of throwing an object at another object have been consistent in the external world, it is possible to reliably predict the consequences of throwing an apple at your window. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to predict the apple would suddenly stop in midair before hitting the window because you have no empirical evidence of apples or other similar objects having ever behaved in that way before. This is summarized in the second epistemological rule:

Rule 2: Only direct or indirect empirical evidence can be used to obtain knowledge of empirical truths.

(To Be Continued)

BGE,

Do you know how to turn people OFF reading and responding to your posts? Do what you did here with 5 lengthy posts on your view of epistemology?

This is not a forum for Stanford University's degrees in philosophy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

We recognize design by comparing it to things which occur naturally, not by beauty or complexity.

Who said so?

Are you telling us that the design of the universe recognised by NASA scientists is not related to the complexity of the universe?

NASA has examined the 'complex molecular universe'.