In this thread I would like theists to provide a SOLID ARGUMENT for the existence of a God. I've asked people to elaborate on some points and they failed to reply. Here are some examples:

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

God speaks to us in many ways.

Most of us simply fail to pay attention.



quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

OP seems to think that the deity portrayed in the Bible is the only possible conception of God.

A common error among the ignorant and unevolved.

If God exists, you will have no trouble providing physical evidence illustrating this existence. If not, suggest a repeatable experiment that affirms God's existance. This is not a big ask, assuming there is a God.

Don't go down the "personal enlightenment" track. Whatever you think happens in your mind while you "pray" can very well be a figment of your imagination. It isn't hard to make unreal things seem real in your own mind. Ask someone who's been in a K-Hole.

Science is slowly gaining ground on religion. It's filling the gaps of understanding about our world that were once explained simply as "God's work". Religion has never disproved scientific explanations. Science will only gain ground on religion and I expect that all aspects of our existence will eventually have a scientific explanation. There will be no place for a God if/when we have a logical explanation for everything.

That is why I would like you to provide an argument that will, beyond any doubt, substantiate the existence of god. (I'm not just talking to ArmsMerchant, anyone who can provide this argument please go ahead)

Do you know what faith is?

Science (to me), just seems to be one way of looking at things. It used to be that religion was the way in which we interpreted and looked at things, and then we discovered science.

It just seems to me that man is looking for some big meaning to everything, something that we can explain everything with. All we are doing is applying different thoughts and ideas to the world around us, none of which are necessarily correct (or incorrect, for that matter).

Yeah, probably none of that makes sense, but I'm tired, so I don't give a shit.

The difference is science can be proven correct with experiments.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Do you know what faith is?

Do you know what a solid argument is? "Trust" is a moot point.

Yeah, but religion can be interpreted in a billion different ways. I'm not religious, but I do believe that there is some sort of divine energy in the universe, that keeps everything running smoothly. Just something that's there, and you can always feel it.

I'm not trying to argue here, as I'm completely out of my depth, I'm just saying that...fuck, I don't really know what I'm saying. In any case, just chill and let others believe what they wanna believe.

quote:Do you know what a solid argument is? "Trust" is a moot point.

I was just pointing out that most (not all) theists of reasonable intelligence don't think they can prove their beliefs.

So, do you consider faith an acceptable base for ideas?

No I do not. There is a logical explanation to all things that exist.

So if you found out that a faith based idea had found its way into your mind you would cast it out?

Can you give me an example of said faith-based idea?

As soon as you answer the question.

I suppose I would, assuming there way no way for me to prove it.

Example me already.

Science asserts and is based on the existence of a world that exists outside of the mind as well as the accuracy of the senses, both without proof and in a direct contravention of Occam's Razor.

And when a belief is asserted without evidence, it is based on faith. Science is based on faith.

Edit: Wow, I just realised how hard to read that first sentence is, I'm gonna re-write it here:

According to Science:

1. There is a world the exists independently of the mind.

2. The senses portray this independent world accurately.

Both of these go against Occam's Razor.

Both of these are without proof.

It is impossible to prove either.

And when a belief is asserted without evidence, it is based on faith. Science is based on faith.



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-28-2006).]

So you're telling me I shouldn't accept scientific explanations because I can't trust my own senses? It sounds like you're suggesting we could be living in The Matrix.

How is something existing outside our minds a negative point for science? It's inside our minds where crazy interpretations can occur. In a controlled experiment where all that is recorded are the results, there isn't much room for different opinions. The results of different scientific investigations support each other, and are the result of independently observed evidence. Differing religions contradict each other.

Are you arguing that religion is right because it is the simplest explanation, or that science is wrong because you think there are too many uncontrolled variables in all experiments? (In relation to "Occam's Razor")

Edit: You edited while I was typing. *Rereads*

The fact that experiments can be repeated by anyone with the correct skills with similar observations indicates that there is nothing wrong with our senses.

[This message has been edited by bobsled (edited 12-28-2006).]

quote:How is something existing outside our minds a negative point for science?

Occam's Razor favours the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. Saying that nothing exists outside of our minds makes no assumptions and postulates no hypothetical entities. Hence it should be seen as a more accurate theory than the alternative. But it is not, because science is based on faith.

quote:In a controlled experiment where all that is recorded are the results, there isn't much room for different opinions.

Since the senses can't be trusted, you can never know that an experiment is truly controlled, or that the results are accurate - without faith.

quote:The results of different scientific investigations support each other,

Since the senses can't be trusted, you cannot trust those other investigations.

quote:and are the result of independently observed evidence.

It is impossible to observe evidence without using the senses, which cannot be trusted.

quote:Differing religions contradict each other.

Are you arguing that religion is right because it is the simplest explanation, or that science is wrong because you think there are too many uncontrolled variables in all experiments? (In relation to "Occam's Razor")

I am not arguing for religion. Just that everyone but a solipsist uses faith, and that no faith can be demonstratively more accurate than another.

quote:The fact that experiments can be repeated by anyone with the correct skills with similar observations indicates that there is nothing wrong with our senses.

We can't trust the results of these experiments without faith in our senses.

Everyone has faith in something...

I have faith in my senses, I believe that what I see/hear/feel/taste/smell is there...

I have faith in my friends, I believe it when they say they're there for me when I need em...

I have faith in my girlfriend, I believe she won't cheat on me...

I have faith in totse, I believe they won't flame me for this http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I have plenty of faith... just not in god...

Faith isn't something solely reserved for existentialist/religious argument...

And your assumption is that Occam's Razor is 100% correct, every time.

GG?

quote:Originally posted by Dazzle:

Everyone has faith in something...

I have faith in my senses, I believe that what I see/hear/feel/taste/smell is there...

I have faith in my friends, I believe it when they say they're there for me when I need em...

I have faith in my girlfriend, I believe she won't cheat on me...

I have faith in totse, I believe they won't flame me for this http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I have plenty of faith... just not in god...

Faith isn't something solely reserved for existentialist/religious argument...

Precisely.

quote:And your assumption is that Occam's Razor is 100% correct, every time.

It's more like the icing on the cake, the argument stands without it.

I don't think it is fair to argue that a faith in god is the same as faith in one's senses. You can cut an eye open and view the rods and cones under a microscope. They responds to photons of light which bounce off objects. Plain, simple, proven.

I know you're going to catch-22 me with that by saying "but you're viewing those cones with your eyes" http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:

I don't think it is fair to argue that a faith in god is the same as faith in one's senses.

Life's not fair. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:You can cut an eye open and view the rods and cones under a microscope. They responds to photons of light which bounce off objects. Plain, simple, proven.

but you're viewing those cones with your eyes.

Since faith is well, faith, we also cannot know the probability of our faith being accurate, so your faith in your senses is no more justified than a theist having faith in God.

Not to mention that you are now obliged to stop believing in science http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Life's not fair. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Let me reprase: Trying to undermine science by saying we "believe" in our senses is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

4 srs, do you actually think our eyes are deceiving us or something?

In dreams, our senses receive information that is not accurate. How do you know you're not dreaming now?

What about people having hallucinations? How do you know you are not having one now?

I know I am not dreaming now because I cannot twist the laws of physics as I can when lucid dreaming. (Also I've been dreaming with the same theme for a good 8 months now, and that theme isn't occurring at the moment. Just thought I'd add that in http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif))

You could hook me up to a brainwave machine and see that the readings don't correspond with those of someone in REM state (I know nothing on this topic but I'm sure it can be done)

I'm not entirely sure how to prove that I'm not hallucinating at the moment, but I hope you aren't arguing that all scientists happen to have been hallucinating at the time they conducted their experiments.

Ok, maybe those were bad examples. My point is that you have no real reason to accept your senses as accurate except social convention. And you, as an atheist, must surely dismiss social convention as a good way of finding truth.

I thought those examples pretty much summarised your argument that we can't trust our senses.

The reason I should accept my senses is because people have the same observations with the same sets of eyes. Any man or woman can watch a scientist perform an experiment illustrating that lightning is a bolt of electricity arcing to earth due to a difference in charges. Not something Zeus plucked out of his butt.

On the other hand, very few people report religious experiences. Some people say they see God. This cannot be reproduced and seen by anyone, so it is likely a result of their imagination.

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:

The reason I should accept my senses is because people have the same observations with the same sets of eyes.

Plenty of false things are internally consistent. If you take a broken calculator and it repeatedly answers 2+2 as 5, that does not make it right. Many religions are also internally consistent.

Is not skepticism the heart of science? Should you not doubt all your tools in order to stop you coming to a false truth?

quote:Any man or woman can watch a scientist perform an experiment illustrating that lightning is a bolt of electricity arcing to earth due to a difference in charges.

Sure, using faith in their eyes.



What this discussion has so far consisted of is you listing examples of how science is proved, and me responding that since they rely on the senses, these examples require faith to accept. This cycle has already been iterated enough times to demonstrate that one of us needs to change their methods.

So, can you prove that your senses are accurate without committing a circular argument by assuming they are accurate in your premises?

Also, can you prove that anything other than your mind exists?



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-28-2006).]

Can you please stop spouting complete rubbish?

"So, can you prove that your senses are accurate without committing a circular argument by assuming they are accurate in your premises?"

Yes. I already mentioned it but here is a summary of the eye and how it works for people in good health:

http://tinyurl.com/d4s92

"Also, can you prove that anything other than your mind exists?"

What is this? Are you joking? Our mind responds to stimulus. These stimuli are a result of (believe it or not) the world we live in. I don't even remember how our discussion is relevant to the topic.

This running circles as a result of some catch 22 trickery is irritating. The topic is prove that god exists.

Put up or shut up.



[This message has been edited by bobsled (edited 12-28-2006).]

Look, let's say we can't prove God exists or not. Some of us just believe in God. Now, what do you lose by believing in God? I can be a God-believing scientist can't I?

Jeez, mind your own business and believe whatever you like.

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:



That is why I would like you to provide an argument that will, beyond any doubt, substantiate the existence of god. (I'm not just talking to ArmsMerchant, anyone who can provide this argument please go ahead)

You do not provide any definition of God so I propose this one:

quote:God is Consciousness that pervades the entire universe of the living and the non-living.

-Ramakrishna

The proof of consciousness existing is superfluous, the evidence this is god exists in the definition of god as the highest principle or the controlling principle.

In other words god(not the churchian image of god), the effective god, that is the faculty that controls, supervises, makes decisions, in effect the controlling power of one's life is consciousness.

quote:It is both near and far, both within and without every creature; it moves and is unmoving. In its subtlety it is beyond comprehension. It is invisible, yet appears divided in separate creatures. Know it to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer.

Dwelling in every heart, it is beyond darkness. It is called the light of the lights, the object and goal of knowledge, and knowledge itself.

-Bhagavad Gita 13:15-17

THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe"; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND.

"THE ALL IS MIND; THE UNIVERSE IS MENTAL."--THE KYBALION.

God is Spirit

Gospel of John



Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 12-28-2006).]

As far as I am concerned, the mere fact that we are here is ample evidence of the existence of God.

That, plus the fact that we communicate regularly.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Ok, maybe those were bad examples. My point is that you have no real reason to accept your senses as accurate except social convention. And you, as an atheist, must surely dismiss social convention as a good way of finding truth.

That's not true at all. Take a child and have it raised in the woods, far away from society. Have it be a "feral child". It will trust and believe in its senses even though it has no social conventions to conform to.

We trust in our senses becuase it is in this way that we percieve. There are no other roads open to us, so we must accept this. Even mathematics has ideas that must be taken for granted*, and the idea that what we percieve exists seperatly from the mind is no different.



*What are these called again? I haven't taken a math course in ages.

They're called axioms.

quote:Can you please stop spouting complete rubbish?

This is not rubbish, but a serious philosophical question that has significant bearing on the topic.

quote:Yes. I already mentioned it but here is a summary of the eye and how it works for people in good health: http://tinyurl.com/d4s92



Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It is a type of argument that does not produce true results. This is a textbook example of begging the question. Check it out:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

quote:These stimuli are a result of (believe it or not) the world we live in.

Is this your idea of proof? simply stating something does not make it true. Can you prove that?

quote:This running circles as a result of some catch 22 trickery is irritating. The topic is prove that god exists.

Oh how cruel of me to insist you contain yourself to arguing within the laws of logic.

quote:I know I am not dreaming now because I cannot twist the laws of physics as I can when lucid dreaming. (Also I've been dreaming with the same theme for a good 8 months now, and that theme isn't occurring at the moment. Just thought I'd add that in )

I can't believe I missed this before. How do you know you are not dreaming that you can lucid dream? How do you know that you are not dreaming that you always dream the same thing? More begging the question.

quote:That's not true at all. Take a child and have it raised in the woods, far away from society. Have it be a "feral child". It will trust and believe in its senses even though it has no social conventions to conform to.

Good point.

Perhaps I should not have said social conventions, but intuition. And intuition cannot be said to be an accurate way of knowing the truth without begging the question once more.

quote:We trust in our senses becuase it is in this way that we percieve. There are no other roads open to us, so we must accept this. Even mathematics has ideas that must be taken for granted*, and the idea that what we percieve exists seperatly from the mind is no different.

Ah, but there is another road open to us. And this road requires no assumptions and is therefore more preferable according to Occam's Razor. That road is solipsism.

If one dismisses solipsism because they don't like its repercussions, then how can they criticise a theist for dismissing atheism for the same reasons?

Axiom is just a fancy word for a nearly ubiquitous assumption, and is not self justified. There was a time when the existence of God was considered as an axiom in nearly all arguments.

Axioms only have power when they are accepted by all parties to be true. Since, in this discussion at least, I do not accept them, simply saying something is true by axiom is nothing more than saying I think it is true.



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-29-2006).]

Faith in a Deity or some such being is simply that, faith.

"Faith: A belief without evidence or proof"

They don't need to prove that it is really there because its a faith, and I don't think its sciences job to disprove it either.

I think you are putting far too much emphasis on Occam's Razor here, which is after all a human concept and certainly not a concrete law of the universe.

The razor is just used (unsuccessfully in this case) to prevent someone making an erroneous statement to the tune of solipsism being simply a crazy religion.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Saying that nothing exists outside of our minds makes no assumptions and postulates no hypothetical entities.

If you're blind, deaf, anosmic and numb, then fair enough. But we have perceptions, sense data, and the simplest theory is to assume they are correct, in light of the fact there's no evidence that our senses are being constantly decieved at any given moment. This is consistent with Ockham's Razor.



quote:Originally posted by Dazzle:

Everyone has faith in something...

I have faith in my senses, I believe that what I see/hear/feel/taste/smell is there...

I have faith in my friends, I believe it when they say they're there for me when I need em...

I have faith in my girlfriend, I believe she won't cheat on me...

I have faith in totse, I believe they won't flame me for this http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I have plenty of faith... just not in god...

Faith isn't something solely reserved for existentialist/religious argument...

Let's ruin this semantic bullshit, shall we?

Senses: see above. If you were schizophrenic and saw people who others said did not exist, would you still believe your senses were totally reliable, in light of the new evidence?

Would you have "faith" in a friend who regularly betrayed you? No? If you're judging someone by their track record of actions and relationships, then it's science, in its most basic form.

Same again, if your girlfriend slept around, would you continue believing she's not likely to betray you?

Fuck you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Essentially, people take predictions based on past events, and label them "faith". It's not "Faith" since there's evidence. If you have no evidence, then you can't say comment about an issue [try and give me an example of where you can have a logical staement with no evidence. I spent a while trying to think one up]]. If you're contravening the evidence you have, that's called retardation, delusion, or faith and sometimes 'hope'.

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

Look, let's say we can't prove God exists or not. Some of us just believe in God. Now, what do you lose by believing in God? I can be a God-believing scientist can't I?

Jeez, mind your own business and believe whatever you like.

You: Listen. You're the same as every single idiot who says this.

The problem with allowing faith to go unhampered is that, with faith being something people accept without question, it allows people to usurp the allowance, and to have faith that in doing some sort of evil is virtuous. As the old adage goes...

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

The razor is just used (unsuccessfully in this case) to prevent someone making an erroneous statement to the tune of solipsism being simply a crazy religion.

To elaborate on the Razor:

The principle is to assume whatever implies that which needs the least evidently unsupported explanation.

Supposing that one is a brain in a vat or that the world is a hallucination implies a HUGE amount of unsupported claims. What is the nature of perception? Where actually is the "real" universe? How many dimensions does it have? What is my true nature? How am I able to project such perceptions? etc. ad infinitum/boredum.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

As far as I am concerned, the mere fact that we are here is ample evidence of the existence of God.

That, plus the fact that we communicate regularly.

Care to elaborate on this 'evidence'?

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

Look, let's say we can't prove God exists or not.



Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it shouldn't be analyzed. Gravity cannot be proven 100%, but it has been proven to within all reasonable doubt.

quote:

Some of us just believe in God. Now, what do you lose by believing in God?

Time? Life?

I mean, why does this time on earth matter if we can spend eternity in heaven.

And if this is a rephrasing of Pascal's Wager this has the same flaws, that an omniscient God would see through a false belief.

quote:

I can be a God-believing scientist can't I?



A scientist believes something because of evidence and proof (to a high degree), whilst belief in God isn't based on any evidence or proof.

quote:

Jeez, mind your own business and believe whatever you like.

When this belief extends to deciding many of the laws and morals wherever you life, it ceases becoming ones own business.



[This message has been edited by Kooper0 (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote:If you're blind, deaf, anosmic and numb, then fair enough. But we have perceptions, sense data, and the simplest theory is to assume they are correct, in light of the fact there's no evidence that our senses are being constantly decieved at any given moment. This is consistent with Ockham's Razor.

Simplest, as it is used in the razor, means least assumptions. What you have done is add an assumption, because you like the repercussions of doing so. Quite the opposite to Occam's razor.

How can you justify assuming something to be accurate, just because it is there?

If you find a piece of paper with a statement on it, and you don't have any means of testing this statement, is it logical or scientific to assume this statement is true? No.

quote:Supposing that one is a brain in a vat or that the world is a hallucination implies a HUGE amount of unsupported claims.

1. I am not arguing for an alternate reality, but no reality - apart from my mind.

2. Even if that statement were true (I look at that below), any alternative theories are in worse breach of the razor.

quote:What is the nature of perception? Where actually is the "real" universe? How many dimensions does it have? What is my true nature? How am I able to project such perceptions?

These are not examples of unsupported claims contested by solipsism. Solipsism simply uses logic to say that the answers to these questions cannot be known (because any answers are guilty of begging the question). No assumptions or unsupported claims being made here.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Faith in a Deity or some such being is simply that, faith.

"Faith: A belief without evidence or proof"

They don't need to prove that it is really there because its a faith, and I don't think its sciences job to disprove it either.

As defined from dictionary.com, science is :

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

Since faith isn't based on evidence or proof, and therefore has a high potential to be false, then it is science's job to disprove it.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Simplest, as it is used in the razor, means least assumptions. What you have done is add an assumption, because you like the repercussions of doing so. Quite the opposite to Occam's razor.

What assumption have I added?

"If you're blind, deaf, anosmic and numb, then fair enough. But we have perceptions, sense data, and the simplest theory is to assume they are correct, in light of the fact there's no evidence that our senses are being constantly decieved at any given moment. This is consistent with Ockham's Razor."

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

1. I am not arguing for an alternate reality, but no reality.

2. Even if that statement were true (I look at that below), any alternative theories are in worse breach of the razor.

Does "I think therefore I am." not solve that?

Reality exists. It's self-evident.

It was incorrect of me to have said 'reality' instead of 'reality apart from my mind', when I meant the latter.

'I think therefore I am' is the base of solipsism.

edit: thanks for pointing that out. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

"If you're blind, deaf, anosmic and numb, then fair enough. But we have perceptions, sense data, and the simplest theory is to assume they are correct, in light of the fact there's no evidence that our senses are being constantly decieved at any given moment. This is consistent with Ockham's Razor."

I understand what you mean now.

Does this express it well?

Theory: My perceptions of this apple can be trusted.

Evidence: I percieve the apple exists. My perceptions do not change in relation to my previous perceptions. Others agree I am perceiving the apple correctly.

Problem: The only way I can percieve these congruent perceptions is via my perception. This assumes the perception by me of the previous perceptions by and the perceptions of others can be trusted.

Implied Theory: My percpetion of my previous perceptions and the perceptions of others can be trusted.

And so on to infinity?

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

I understand what you mean now.

Does this express it well?

Theory: My perceptions of this apple can be trusted.

Evidence: I percieve the apple exists. My perceptions do not change in relation to my previous perceptions. Others agree I am perceiving the apple correctly.

Problem: The only way I can percieve these congruent perceptions is via my perception. This assumes the perception by me of the previous perceptions by and the perceptions of others can be trusted.

Implied Theory: My percpetion of my previous perceptions and the perceptions of others can be trusted.

And so on to infinity?



I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Are you agreeing with me that that argument is flawed (yes, that argument is what I am criticising), or saying that argument is correct?

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

Care to elaborate on this 'evidence'?

What part of "we are here" is not clear to you?

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

What part of "we are here" is not clear to you?

The part where you make a pseudoknowing statement and fail to back it up with any explanation.

And you can use rent-a-revolution's "razor" against your argument that we are here. In fact, I think you could use that against pretty much everything.

[This message has been edited by bobsled (edited 12-30-2006).]

I just saw this thread on the Hot Topics list, I don't know what misconceptions you've built upon your image of me, through your own willful imagination process, yet I'm not sure that I am required to displace all of them, in order to for anything necessary to be expressed about my beliefs.

So in short, what do you want?

And why do you think I'm a theist?

Basically, that's the first reason I think you've built many misconceptions. The second is because you've made this thread in the first place.

Until you have no misconceptions, our communications will not yield as much as you think they will. As much you thought you they would, hence, when you made this thread.

Misconceptions upon miconceptions...

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

The part where you make a pseudoknowing statement and fail to back it up with any explanation.



....you..don't know you're here....?

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:

The difference is science can be proven correct with experiments.

Do you know what a solid argument is? "Trust" is a moot point.

Nothing can be proven "correct", everything relies on some degree of faith.

ok bobsled, prove science is right.... prove that the big bang really happened and that we are evolved from apes, you cant... because

big bang=theory

missing link=still missing

so science is even flawed....

quote:Originally posted by 2k5:

ok bobsled, prove science is right....

so science is even flawed....

Pay attention. I'll clear this up for you in four words - You are fucking retarded!

^You should write a book.

A fairly consistent misconception being made in this thread is based around trying to disprove rent-a-revolution's Solipsism argument. Here is an example:

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:

I'm not entirely sure how to prove that I'm not hallucinating at the moment, but I hope you aren't arguing that all scientists happen to have been hallucinating at the time they conducted their experiments.

The above already presumes an independent reality with Other Minds. One cannot possibly refute a Solipsist argument by bringing in outside sources such as other people, experiments, or any evidence of any kind whatsoever. This is because within a Solipsist argument an external world does not exist. Stating "you are wrong because I perceive my friend Bob and he says he exists" is irrelevant since the only possible way you are aware of Bob's existence is through the senses, which have yet to be (and never can be) objectively determined as real*.

There is no possible way to disprove or refute Solipsism - it is an entirely insular philosophical argument. Be that as it may, Solipsism demonstrates that it is correct to say that Science always rests upon a foundation of faith that an external world exists independently of the mind. There are also two other huge faith-bound leaps made by Science that have hitherto gone unmentioned: (1) the external world is rational/consistent, and (2) the external world can be understood by human beings.

Repeatable experiments and independent observations are rather irrelevant without all three premises being accepted as true. For example, can you prove the sun will rise from the East tomorrow? Can you prove that if I throw a ball into the air, it will fall back down? Absolute proof of such things is impossible. The best we can do is state that the sun has risen in the East and balls fallen to the ground the last million times and we are reasonably certain that they will do so tomorrow. In the end, it is merely convincing, not proven. Past observations do not prove anything other than the past observations themselves (or that we at least perceived past observations).

In any event, the only "flaw" of Solipsism is that it is a fairly irrelevant observation, considering that all Solipsists not currently dying of thirst/hunger or otherwise wasting away operate under the assumption that their actions, whether real or imagined, correspond with a persistence of their mind. A Solipsist that doubts an external world exists or that he/she even has a body nevertheless goes through the motions as though it were true - obtaining a glass of water when thirsty, for example, or being motivated to argue in favor of Solipsism. Even if Solipsism is 100% accurate, it nevertheless seems as though the natural state of the mind is to assume that most perceptions (especially of the basic kind) demand attention, illusionary or not.



*The sensations are objectively real to you, but whether they correspond to an objective world beyond your mind can never be determined.

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:



Insanely good post.

quote:Originally posted by ate:



....you..don't know you're here....?

And how does that link in to evidence of God's existence?

Depends on how you look at it of course.

This may not really prove anything, But you ever had the feeling that your just down right scared for no reason like creeped out. I pick up a bible and read it when im scared.

It soothes me. "For he will command his angels concerning you, to guard you in all your ways. And they will lift you up in their arms so you will not strike your foot on a stone." Psalm 91 11-12 That is one of the most soothing verses I know. I tells me that someone is looking out for me, they have my back.

Freud certainly regarded belief in God as an illusion that mature men and women should lay aside. The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind. [A History of God]

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Are you agreeing with me that that argument is flawed (yes, that argument is what I am criticising)

Agreeing http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by GatorWarrior:

This may not really prove anything, But you ever had the feeling that your just down right scared for no reason like creeped out.

Well that's a psychological problem. Religion is an antidote, yes, but religion also brings different psychological problems.

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:

Above

I agree, awesome post.

Yes, we most all have faith upon that level. But considering that our perceptions are the only perceptions we percieve we have [that correlate with each other], we must assume that they are correct. In fact, within RR's post, there's evidence that our perceptions are correct in that they indicate a method continuing our perception. If we, in our perceived world, fail to fulfil our perceived thirst or hunger for long enough, we will cease percieving. Though. Do we genuinely cease to perceive, or only perceive such?

You say you base all this stuff on "science" but have you ever wondered where all the laws of science came from.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

Yes, we most all have faith upon that level. But considering that our perceptions are the only perceptions we percieve we have [that correlate with each other], we must assume that they are correct. In fact, within RR's post, there's evidence that our perceptions are correct in that they indicate a method continuing our perception. If we, in our perceived world, fail to fulfil our perceived thirst or hunger for long enough, we will cease percieving. Though. Do we genuinely cease to perceive, or only perceive such?

I was fascinated with Solipsism initially because it appeared to be the only worldview which did not have faith as a prerequisite. But as you correctly gather from my prior post, Solipsism in practice requires the same degree of faith as anything else - true Solipsists are dead or dying as we speak, not deigning themselves to believe that illusionary water or other sustenance is required to maintain their consciousness (or whatever). This is a far cry from the supposed Solipsists on Totse or those encountered in "real" life, who generally carry on the usual activities of human beings. Any cursory interest in an outside world or other minds invalidates the worldview in the same way as nihilism.

I reject Solipsism (and nihilism for that matter) based on the above and also based on the practical considerations of the worldview in question. "The is no proof that an external world exists." Okay, so what? The worldview is an intellectual exercise and that basically sums up its usefulness entirely. A Solipsist which makes any decisions or judgments whatsoever is still using some kind of criteria or worldview to guide those decisions/judgments regardless of the composition of reality (real, unreal, or unknown). Thus, it really cancels itself out in the end.

To answer your specific question, I would say that ceasing to perceive as such is really the same as ceasing to perceive period. To argue otherwise is to inject faith into the Solipsism equation, which renders the worlview moot.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

You say you base all this stuff on "science" but have you ever wondered where all the laws of science came from.

let me guess, it was written on one of satans apples.