The Argument From Reason...

[Tassman]

Are you saying that subjective knowledge or experience can't be real? That something must be scientifically confirmed to be accepted?

Subjective knowledge or experience may or may not be “real”. But unless it can be systematically studied via observation and experiment it cannot be shown to be real e.g., someone’s personal experience with Zeus.

[Stoic]

Yes, you start with human reason to ultimately demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason. Really Stoic, that is clearly circular - viciously circular at that.

You don't seem to get it. I haven't tried to demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason.

I don't have to. None of us has any alternative to assuming the (general) trustworthiness of human reason.

Again, not the point. We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable - starting with God offers a deductive way to justify it. Starting with human reason is irrational (circular). That's all, it is a modest point, but valid.

We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable. But I merely assume it, while you use circular logic to try to justify it.

[seer]

No, I simply start with human reason.

Yes, you start with human reason to ultimately demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason. Really Stoic, that is clearly circular - viciously circular at that.

I don't need a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason, any more than you need a non-circular way to justify your belief in God.

So you admit that your reasoning is circular.

In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.

Again, not the point. We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable - starting with God offers a deductive way to justify it. Starting with human reason is irrational (circular). That's all, it is a modest point, but valid.

[seer]

If it looks like reality, waddles like reality and conforms to observable and testable rules of reality, then I’m happy to call it as such.

You are perfectly free to do so, don't let it be said that I discounted any man's faith.

And, in the face of possible infinite regression, simply use Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary simulations, starting with the first.

Why? Perhaps there is just one simulation. Your logic doesn't follow.

What part is an assumption that cannot be shown to be true? That testable natural forces govern the physical universe, or that anything you don’t know the answer to is evidence for God?

Yes an intelligible universe created by a rational Creator makes more sense to me than a rational universe created by non-rational forces. Why would I believe otherwise?

[Machinist]

It cannot be demonstrated that there is a “circle”, or that it’s “being held”, let alone what, if anything, there might be outside of it doing the “holding”.

Holding, maintaining... I'm just groping for words, metaphors at this point.

Human reasoning justifying human reasoning is what I am referring to by "circle". That much is clearly observable right?

I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. It works for practical intents and purposes here in the physical world.

Seer's argument at least has that additional component, even if it assumed. And to me, it makes the argument seem to have more weight.

[Markus River]

But the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was. And that was Descartes point you can not show otherwise, therefore we take reality by faith.

So what?

Sure we all take by it faith that what we perceive corresponds to reality. The point is we can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that that is the case.

If it looks like reality, waddles like reality and conforms to observable and testable rules of reality, then I’m happy to call it as such. You can call it what you like.

Correct. And?

And, in the face of possible infinite regression, simply use Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary simulations, starting with the first.

Except that assumption is a belief that can not be shown to be true.

What part is an assumption that cannot be shown to be true? That testable natural forces govern the physical universe, or that anything you don’t know the answer to is evidence for God?

[Stoic]

Not the point, mine is a deductive justification. Your argument starts with human reason to justify human reason (circular).

No, I simply start with human reason.

Descartes was not trying to prove the existence of God, he was trying to find a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason. Concerning his argument for the existence of God you would have to look at his Ontological Argument.

I don't need a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason, any more than you need a non-circular way to justify your belief in God.

In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.

[Markus River]

Only Seer's view has an outside ontological component to it, that is, a component outside the circle, holding the circle. Of course that too would be a claim beginning with one's own reasoning, so it's easy to dismiss that view as being circular as well. It cannot be proven what's outside the circle.

It cannot be demonstrated that there is a “circle”, or that it’s “being held”, let alone what, if anything, there might be outside of it doing the “holding”.

The atheist will continue to demand physical evidence for what's outside.

It would be nice if the faithful could demonstrate that there is an “outside”. Until you can manage that, all questions of what is in it are somewhat presumptuous.

The only thing the theist can offer is a deductive argument that assumes an immutable God.

If you’ve assumed your conclusion, “therefore immutable God”, it hardly qualifies as a deductive argument.

But at least that's something, and we all can agree that there is at least a possibility for the existence of God.

You can assume the possibility of God. A lot of unlikely things are possible. You cannot assume the existence, or even necessity, of God.

[Machinist]

But the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was.

So in principle, it's not real. In reality, it's not real. Neither in principle nor in reality would the simulation be real if it were not real. It's difficult to stay focused on what "is" in this argument. I keep losing sight of it myself.

[seer]

So what? If the simulation is designed with sufficient subtlety and sophistication, that after any conceivable test it’s not possible to detect its false state, then it’s real. If it fails any test, its false nature is then revealed, and a new true simulated state is observed. So far, no test has demonstrated our reality’s nature to be other than that which we perceive.

But the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was. And that was Descartes point you can not show otherwise, therefore we take reality by faith.

Of course. But you are signally unable to demonstrate that our testable perceived reality is something other than that.

Sure we all take by it faith that what we perceive corresponds to reality. The point is we can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that that is the case.

And what if all this is just a simulation? Can you demonstrate that the creators of the simulation are not themselves operating within someone else’s simulation. And that the creators of that simulation are not. . . . etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Correct. And?

Well, for me nothing is “an article of faith.” It’s just that so far, and to the limits of our current knowledge, natural forces have explained every physical manifestation within our universe. Whatever is currently missing is best described as, “I don’t know.” Not, “Therefore God.”

Except that assumption is a belief that can not be shown to be true.

[Machinist]

Only Seer's view has an outside ontological component to it, that is, a component outside the circle, holding the circle. Of course that too would be a claim beginning with one's own reasoning, so it's easy to dismiss that view as being circular as well. It cannot be proven what's outside the circle. The atheist will continue to demand physical evidence for what's outside. The only thing the theist can offer is a deductive argument that assumes an immutable God. But at least that's something, and we all can agree that there is at least a possibility for the existence of God.

[Markus River]

[A] simulation is not the same as a strictly material world.

So what? If the simulation is designed with sufficient subtlety and sophistication, that after any conceivable test it’s not possible to detect its false state, then it’s real. If it fails any test, its false nature is then revealed, and a new true simulated state is observed. So far, no test has demonstrated our reality’s nature to be other than that which we perceive.

And science only works in a simulation if those controlling it deem it so.

Of course. But you are signally unable to demonstrate that our testable perceived reality is something other than that.

And what if all this is just a simulation? Can you demonstrate that the creators of the simulation are not themselves operating within someone else’s simulation. And that the creators of that simulation are not. . . . etc. etc. ad infinitum.

They could undermine it all, or any part of it, at a whim.

Only if the creators of their own simulation allow them to. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

And I will remind you of your unsubstantiated article of faith - that natural forces created this universe.

Well, for me nothing is “an article of faith.” It’s just that so far, and to the limits of our current knowledge, natural forces have explained every physical manifestation within our universe. Whatever is currently missing is best described as, “I don’t know.” Not, “Therefore God.”

[seer]

The ONLY unsubstantiated article of faith in this discussion is your subjective claim of the existence of immaterial spirits and souls and gods.

Are you saying that subjective knowledge or experience can't be real? That something must be scientifically confirmed to be accepted?

[seer]

How do you deduce that there is a good, honest Deity?

Not the point, mine is a deductive justification. Your argument starts with human reason to justify human reason (circular). Descartes was not trying to prove the existence of God, he was trying to find a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason. Concerning his argument for the existence of God you would have to look at his Ontological Argument.

[Tassman]

Tass a simulation is not the same as a strictly material world.

Of course a simulated world as per Prof. Nick Bostrom is material. You are surely not suggesting that it would be partly immaterial - like your incoherent body/mind dichotomy?

And science only works in a simulation if those controlling it deem it so. They could undermine it all, or any part of it, at a whim.

Science “works” by its systematic approach in examining how the material universe functions. It is the only vehicle for providing repeatable results and eliminating subjective human opinions.

And I will remind you of your unsubstantiated article of faith - that natural forces created this universe.

The ONLY unsubstantiated article of faith in this discussion is your subjective claim of the existence of immaterial spirits and souls and gods.