resolving god

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

resolving god

Post by Advocate »

"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: resolving god

Post by Dontaskme »

Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:01 pm "Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
A question probing into the ''WHAT IS'' that self-evidently IS without doubt or error, is part of the same whole mystery that is unknowable.

That's a nondual answer to a dualistic question.

.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: resolving god

Post by DPMartin »

Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:01 pm "Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
well isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience? is a revelation of significance a experience? one must experience the presence of God to know God or that there is a God and that could only be achieved with a living God, correct?

so genuine Christians have been proclaiming that experience (again genuine) for almost a couple a thousand years, when they declare repent and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (you brought it up)

fyi on that though, He see your heart like you see some ones face, there's no hiding anything.

anyway one can experience God and therefore know God.

also the bible is all about a people's experience with the Living God.


one should understand He is a Living God therefore can chose to reveal Himself to whom ever He pleases, when He pleases.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:01 pm "Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
Confusing the world of logic with the real world is a recurring philosophical idiocy.

The notion of "proof" is undefined/unspecified outside of logic! Proof is just syntactic/grammatical correctness.
It's about the structure, not the content of arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can no more "prove" God than you can "prove" Gravity.

Asking people to "prove" stuff is nothing but a social experiment which tests whether people are stupid and willing to jump as high as you want them to jump.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: resolving god

Post by Advocate »

>well isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience? is a revelation of significance a experience? one must experience the presence of God to know God or that there is a God and that could only be achieved with a living God, correct?

All experiences are real but not necessarily Of something real. To be externally meaningful the idea must be externally validated. To say that one has experienced god coveys no information about reality.

Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
That's not how science works...

Many people claim to have experienced hallucinations on DMT. Where is the evidence/validation "out here" that it actually happened?

Oh, eh!
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: resolving god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502686 time=1615910126 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]
Confusing the world of logic with the real world is a recurring philosophical idiocy.

The notion of "proof" is undefined/unspecified outside of logic! Proof is [b]just[/b] syntactic/grammatical correctness.
It's about the structure, not the content of arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can no more "prove" God than you can "prove" Gravity.

Asking people to "prove" stuff is nothing but a social experiment which tests whether people are stupid and willing to jump as high as you want them to jump.
[/quote]

Proof can mean any number of things, like all the ordinary ones, and my contention will still hold true. Set proof as anything that can be externally validated and god cannot be proven. You're imagining my argument is flawed because it is not exhaustive, again. I need not suffer the accusation of insufficiency based on non-standard, exceptionally precise versions of the idea of proof that are not directly accounted for. In other words, i dismiss your disagreement as both irrelevant and made in bad faith.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:18 pm Proof can mean any number of things, like all the ordinary ones, and my contention will still hold true. Set proof as anything that can be externally validated and god cannot be proven.
The same goes with Gravity.
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:18 pm You're imagining my argument is flawed because it is not exhaustive, again. I need not suffer the accusation of insufficiency based on non-standard, exceptionally precise versions of the idea of proof that are not directly accounted for. In other words, i dismiss your disagreement as both irrelevant and made in bad faith.
I dismiss your dismissal as uncharitable.

Until you "prove" Gravity according to the same standard of "proof" you expect for God.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: resolving god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502692 time=1615911394 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502688 time=1615911183 user_id=15238]
Many people have experienced god for 15 minutes with DMT. Where's the validation of that god out here in reality? If one defers validation to faith, they're epistemologically groundless.
[/quote]
That's not how science works...

Many people claim to have experienced hallucinations on DMT. Where is the evidence/validation "out here" that it actually happened?

Oh, eh!
[/quote]

Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.

All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.

The fact remains that to be externally useful an idea must be externally validated. Anyone can say something is true, with or without an accurate communication motive. Believing they have no reason to lie is external validation. Believing many people believing the same thing makes it more likely to be true is external validation, but those kinds of evidence can only themselves be believed for internal reasons based on ones own particular perspective and reasoning. I do not have reason to believe any possible evidence could outweigh the fact that science continuously discovers new casual chains, so you cannot provide evidence that i can accept, no matter how strong you believe yours to be.

External validation is absolutely mundane for actually real things.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:37 pm Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
You'll hate to learn THAT placebos are scientifically and medically valid to be effective.

Even though there's no external validation (or reason) for them to actually work.
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:37 pm All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
If God is a placebo, and the placebo has a discernable effect in a randomised control trial - that is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: resolving god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502702 time=1615913004 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
Validation by anecdote is trust, not evidence. Hallucinations occur inside so there's no call for external validation, but it could be if you were on an MRI.
[/quote]
You'll hate to learn THAT placebos are scientifically and medically valid to be effective.

Even though there's no external validation (or reason) for them to actually work.

[quote=Advocate post_id=502698 time=1615912668 user_id=15238]
All of which is completely irrelevan to the point of whether god can be validated. If you define god as only needing to have internal existence to be "real" that's obviously not at all what i am talking about.
[/quote]
If God is a placebo, and the placebo has a discernable effect in a randomised control trial - that is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God.
[/quote]

If someone says they've experienced x, there are three options; they're mistaken, they're lying, or they're right. None of those options can be known externally without external evidence.

A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:49 pm A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?

Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.

You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: resolving god

Post by DPMartin »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:49 pm
If someone says they've experienced x, there are three options; they're mistaken, they're lying, or they're right. None of those options can be known externally without external evidence.

or you can see for yourself if it is true. not all true things have external proofs, philosophy isn't scientific though in todays world people think that.

ether a statement stands true against scrutiny, or not.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: resolving god

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502710 time=1615914509 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502704 time=1615913359 user_id=15238]
A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
[/quote]
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?

Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.

You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
[/quote]

A placebo isn't a placebo if it just makes the patient report feeling better, it's a placebo if they actually Do feel better, which requires external validation. Again, your disagreements are full of subs and furry, signifying nothing. God is still impossible to validate in any meaningful way.

*sound and fury, but autocorrect was more fun this time
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: resolving god

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:08 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:49 pm A placebo is an external thing in the first place and it's outcome is external, so fuck off. You're not even trying to address my actual points.
In what way is the outcome of a placebo "external ?!?!?

Patient takes sugar pill. Patient feels better.

You are spinning up a web of self-deception about epistemic methodology.
A placebo isn't a placebo if it just makes the patient report feeling better, it's a placebo if they actually Do feel better, which requires external validation. Again, your disagreements are full of subs and furry, signifying nothing. God is still impossible to validate in any meaningful way.

*sound and fury, but autocorrect was more fun this time
Yeah! That "feeling better" part is NOT an "external outcome"!

How exactly do you validate that the patient actually feels better?
Post Reply