attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:59 pm
Ok, I should have not used '
TOTALLY unproven' - since I am stating the 3rd party intelligence has proved its existence to an individual. The point being made is that although an individual can receive proof of God's existence, it can leave that individual without proof for others.
As I had stated, whatever is "proven" to oneself and is not objective is merely a subjective personal belief or an opinion and that does not qualified as knowledge [Justified True Belief] and is not real nor true.
If you believe God exists personally you can do whatever you want with the idea of God, but only confine those acts to yourself and not to others.
The point is when what the individuals believed is proven to exists as 'real' only to oneself or the likes, such a truth cannot be imposed on others.
Would you accept to be killed when theists who insist their God is real and has commanded to kill you as a non-believer?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:28 amattofishpi wrote:The problem you have to step beyond, is that you believe something empirical MUST also be able to be observed by other minds, which is not the definition of empiricism.
Note the definition of empiricism;
- In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
So you have quoted the definition of empiricism which
SUPPORTS my statement. Empiricism does NOT require proof for others to examine. Empirical evidence can be provided to an INDIVIDUAL, and has NO requirement for being evidential to others.
That is the problem with theists, they are so clingy to their God that they are unable to think intelligently and rationally. You should have read further in that article I linked.
Note,
The most credible knowledge of reality is scientific truth which is the standard bearer for all types of knowledge of reality.
Scientific truths are based critically on Empiricism and philosophical deliberations.
Empiricism in the philosophy of
science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#
Scientific Knowledge are verified empirically, justified philosophically.
The critical features of science are testability, repeatability & falsifiability.
Testability and repeatability mean ANYONE can perform the test and the results will be the same as claimed.
The claim that God exists as real is not available for every one to test [empirically and scientifically] and expect the same results.
Note I have proven the existence of God as a real entity is an impossibility;
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Where is your empirical evidence of your 3rd-party-intelligent-being?
I have loads of circumstantial evidence that to a reasonable mind should infer the 3rd party intelligence exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
It may be possible we can reason and rationalize [pseudo] the existence of a God [3rd party intelligence] based on various evidences, but such a pseudo-rational entity cannot be proven to be real, true and as knowledge [JTB].
Veritas Aequitas wrote:God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.
No. It is not false just because you as an atheist demand evidence. If a man finds a large deposit of gold while lost in a desert, makes it home and tells everyone but when attempting to search for it, cannot find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
When a man claim of a deposit of gold but do not provide evidence acceptable empirically, it is still POSSIBLE that it may exists because the concept of gold is
an empirical possibility as proven elsewhere. It is a matter of producing the empirical evidence to justify it really exist.
It is reasonable and accept the claim that there are human-liked aliens in a planet 1000 light years away, because all the variables in this claim are empirically possible.
But the idea of God is
an empirical impossibility, thus whatever claim of God cannot be empirically possible and real to start with.
If you are making the claim that Gods existence is false, then YOU must provide the evidence that it does not exist.
Note, I have provided the argument why God is an impossibility to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:attofishpi wrote:Since that is not part of the definition of 'empiricism' as I pointed out above, it is YOUR personal belief that you require others to also be able to observe the same thing as someone that has been given gnosis.
Unfortunately, that 'faith' thing at the outset was required 1st - so since U have NO faith, you will never know.
Note the definition of empiricism I listed above.
Which supports my account that empiricism does not require proof for others.
Note your oversight about empiricism linkage with reality I mentioned above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:'Faith' [belief without proofs nor reasonable reason] will not justify something as real in reality.
I agree. I simply stated you were required to have faith first before God would provide you as an individual, empirical evidence.
This is ridiculous.
What is empirical evidence is based on the human sensory, perceptual organs and mind, then be verified and justified as real.
What is based on faith omit the verification and justification processes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:attofishpi wrote:
I assure you that when analysing I verified the information presented to me via my senses (mostly sound sight and touch) and justified that indeed the qualia information being presented could only come from a reality where a 3rd party intelligence is able to manipulate ALL MATTER and justified MY conclusion that indeed this 3rd party intelligence is the construct of our reality.
The fact that this 3rd party intelligence does NOT present such information from reality to other minds via their own senses is not reason enough to insist that such a person is DELUSIONAL. The information to that individual was and is empirical.
One cannot be hasty in inferring from what is experienced by the senses to a conclusion of an unprovable reality.
Is 23 years of analysis of my experience of God hasty?
Yes, the hastiness is merely once and that same inference is held for 23 years.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:If a person claimed to perceive a snake in the shade and triggered with fear, one cannot be certain it is really a snake or piece of rope until the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes are carried out to confirm it really is, either a snake or piece of rope.
I agree, what is your point? Should this person turn a torch on?
It is the same with the claim of God which is a mental inference in this case.
Since you cannot confirm whether it is
really a snake or rope until a verification and justification process acceptable to all [at least scientifically], you cannot confirm God is
real until your claim God exists is verified and justified.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Just the same, if you experience certain sounds and sight, you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is from a 3rd-party-intelligent being.
Whatever that being or that may be, must be put through the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes before it can be claimed to be real.
I agree, 23 years is not jumping to conclusions though is it?
That is not something that is cumulative and progressive.
As stated above, you concluded one and carry out the same for 23 years. Theologians, collectively has been holding on to their 'conclusion' for hundreds of years.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Whatever you claim is real where there is no way of justifying its basis empirically and philosophically, that is an illusion. If you persist in reifying that illusion as real, that is delusional like what a schizophrenic is claiming for his talking gnome.
No it isn't. Again, you are insisting on proof for everyone, that is inconsistent with the definition of empiricism. God proved its existence to me empirically, I do not need to prove it to anyone.
Then you should not make or defend such a claim in public like in this forum.
I am not too concern with your private theism and claims, but more concern with theists who claimed their God is real to the extent that their God commanded them to kill non-believers and non-theists.
However, the most effective to deal with the above fatal threats from theists is to rely on a FOOL PROOF [of certainty] strategy by weaning off theism and replace it with fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent existential crisis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:attofishpi wrote:
It is very evident with the evidence that the majority of theists will feel terrible if the existence of their "god as real' is threatened.
How else is evidence evidenced?
Note:
If you are not convinced, go a market square in a city in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Muhammad, tear pages of or burn the Quran.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:This is why there are blasphemy laws in the past and still in the present.
People are being killed by theists when perceived as a threat to their theistic belief which they clung to [psychologically] like there is no tomorrow. Note even the drawing of cartoons are perceived as a threat to the theists' beliefs and many are killed for that.
Wherever there is the slightest threat to theism, millions of theists cognitive dissonance will be trigger and hundreds of thousands will demonstrate in the streets and hundreds of innocent non-believers are killed; all these are grounded on an illusion of a 3rd-party-intelligent-being.
The so-called intelligent and less sensitive theists may not be violent but their existential crisis is still active to the extent they will come up with all sorts of defenses [irrational or otherwise] to defend their theism without the justification their God is really real.
As I had stated the cause of theism is the terrible existential psychology that drives theists to cling to a God as a psychological crutch to soothe the inherent existential crisis.
bla bla bla. I guess then I am sooooothed since I know God exists.
Definitely so!
Try this,
just give up [with serious intention] the idea that God exists as real for say, immediately, now, for one day, for one month or longer..
You will definitely feel terrible emotionally with some kind of derangement syndrome and perhaps cold turkey if you extend your disbelief in God for a longer period.
However if you immediately re-surrender or submit to your God, you will immediately feel soothed.
I am confident I am correct on the above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Since thousands of years ago non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, others] had understood the reason for a God is psychological and contribute to evil, thus they resolve the issue by addressing the psychological roots that trigger the terrible existential pains of mammoth proportion at the subliminal levels.
Note - How the idea of God arose within humanity:
Btw just quoting above for info, I am not a Buddhist per se nor is religious in any sense.
Info? ...all i see there is waffle.
If you applied rationality to the above, it makes rational sense.
My point is the belief in a God is grounded on terrible human primal psychology arising from the existential crisis.
There are alternative non-theistic strategies where human side stepped the clinging to a God to soothe the terrible existential pains [Angst] and instead deal with the existential crisis directly.