Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

Yet, logically this is what we have to live with, and why solipsism is logically unassailable. But why do we need logical justification to know all facts? Yes, logic plays a roll, but first, to even start, we have to make unprovable assumptions

I just don't see how you can avoid contradiction if you say that it is a fact that "we" don't know if what goes on in "our" heads corresponds to reality. In that case, you don't know if I exist and thus there is no "we" that you can talk about with any certainty. You can only talk about yourself. So how can you establish a fact that would go for me given your own statement?

You cannot both claim it is a possibility that everything that goes on in your brain might be an illusion and at the same time claim certain things to be facts about human reality when you just claimed that all you know about it could be an illusion. I am not quite sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. It seems you want to open the "sceptical" door a little in order to let faith in. I am just not too sure you understand what follows in terms of contradictory logic.

[Charles]

No Tass, they are reasonable arguments. And again, how can God be tested and verified? You you have a particular experiment in mind?

You seemed to suggest we could know by observation:

Of course you can know: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork." In other words a rational universe points to a rational Creator. And you would naturally intuit that fact except sin has clouded your cognitive faculties.

I hope you get the circularity in using the Bible's own statements about the existence of God to argue for the existence of God. It is like saying "Of course you can know my religion is true. It claims so itself." And after pointing to rationality as part of the proof, you do something completely irrational. That is, you attack my person, go for the ad hominem approach and basically just say that "If you do not agree with me, you are a sinner". It has been a long time since you were able to win discussions that way in our part of the world, seer.

[seer]

I just don't see how you can avoid contradiction if you say that it is a fact that "we" don't know if what goes on in "our" heads corresponds to reality. In that case, you don't know if I exist and thus there is no "we" that you can talk about with any certainty. You can only talk about yourself. So how can you establish a fact that would go for me given your own statement?

But certainty as you define it Charles probably does not exist. You can not argue against the logic. I can not prove, with that kind of certainly, that other minds similar to mine exist (the philosophical zombie thing). But I "trust" that my mind corresponds to reality, and I "trust" that it is so that other minds similar to mine exist - including yours. I can not deductively prove this however, or empirically, since logically it is possible that I am being deceived. And Charles you can not reject this reasoning just because you don't like the possible consequences, one would have to refute the actual argument.

You cannot both claim it is a possibility that everything that goes on in your brain might be an illusion and at the same time claim certain things to be facts about human reality when you just claimed that all you know about it could be an illusion. I am not quite sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. It seems you want to open the "sceptical" door a little in order to let faith in. I am just not too sure you understand what follows in terms of contradictory logic.

Charles it is not me making the argument, it goes back centuries, and has not been refuted. What, am I to whistle pass the grave yard because I don't like logical consequences? Should we just hold hands and agree that is doesn't matter and move on?

[seer]

I hope you get the circularity in using the Bible's own statements about the existence of God to argue for the existence of God. It is like saying "Of course you can know my religion is true. It claims so itself." And after pointing to rationality as part of the proof, you do something completely irrational. That is, you attack my person, go for the ad hominem approach and basically just say that "If you do not agree with me, you are a sinner". It has been a long time since you were able to win discussions that way in our part of the world, seer.

Yes Charles, creation points to a Creator. If it doesn't point to a Creator what does it point to? And it is not in the least irrational to claim that. And yes, I have a Biblical Worldview, and part of the Worldview is the belief that human beings are sinners and that sin has clouded our judgement.

[Jedidiah]

It can only be tested from the inside. Such testing is incomplete.

[Tassman]

It can only be tested from the inside. Such testing is incomplete.

Inside what, the universe? This assumes that there's an outside of the universe and there's no reason to think this might be the case.

[Tassman]

No Tass, they are reasonable arguments.

No they are not "reasonable arguments", they all beg the question.

And again, how can God be tested and verified? You you have a particular experiment in mind?

Imaginary beings cannot be tested and verified, that's the point.

[Tassman]

I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm saying that we have faith that what goes on in our mind corresponds to reality. That reality is a fact.

It's quite possible that we exist in a virtual universe, some physicists and philosophers think it more likely than not, but regardless we have no choice other than to act as though it is real. We still need to eat and sleep, take care of our loved ones and look both ways when we cross the road.

[seer]

No they are not "reasonable arguments", they all beg the question.

Then prove that a natural source created this universe without begging the question. I will be waiting!

Imaginary beings cannot be tested and verified, that's the point.

See you can't, if God is real you could bring no test to confirm that. So why on earth would your testing and verification question have any merit? It doesn't.

[seer]

It's quite possible that we exist in a virtual universe, some physicists and philosophers think it more likely than not, but regardless we have no choice other than to act as though it is real. We still need to eat and sleep, take care of our loved ones and look both ways when we cross the road.

And if it a was a virtual universe then that would take a MIND to create - correct?

[Tassman]

Then prove that a natural source created this universe without begging the question. I will be waiting!

do know that the material world and its phenomena exist, as opposed to a supernatural one. So the place to look for understanding lies with what we know, not with an imaginary deity.

See you can't, if God is real you could bring no test to confirm that. So why on earth would your testing and verification question have any merit? It doesn't.

And if it a was a virtual universe then that would take a MIND to create - correct?

Oh yes. But not necessarily a supernatural mind.

[Charles]

And if it a was a virtual universe then that would take a MIND to create - correct?

And according to your own logic that mind would not know what reality was, it would have to believe that the reality in which it created our virtual universe was real. So it could have fake ideas about many things. Perhaps it would believe it was a God, perhaps it would believe it could reveal the truth to the beings in the virtual universe. And perhaps a guy named seer would actually believe it, while just one layer behind this mind was another mind creating a virtual universe, in which the first mentioned mind, seer's God, created our virtual universe... And I could go on. It still get the impression you do not completely understand the implications to the full extent.

[seer]

And according to your own logic that mind would not know what reality was, it would have to believe that the reality in which it created our virtual universe was real. So it could have fake ideas about many things. Perhaps it would believe it was a God, perhaps it would believe it could reveal the truth to the beings in the virtual universe. And perhaps a guy named seer would actually believe it, while just one layer behind this mind was another mind creating a virtual universe, in which the first mentioned mind, seer's God, created our virtual universe... And I could go on. It still get the impression you do not completely understand the implications to the full extent.

What, I don't believe in a virtual universe even though some physicists are suggesting that, Tass brought that up. And again Charles if you are still on about the faith thing, unless you can present a deductive argument refuting it, or a deductive argument excluding the possibility of deception then the implications naturally follow.

[seer]

Oh yes. But not necessarily a supernatural mind.

Well it would be a pretty smart mind, or minds at least!

[Charles]

What, I don't believe in a virtual universe even though some physicists are suggesting that, Tass brought that up. And again Charles if you are still on about the faith thing, unless you can present a deductive argument refuting it, or a deductive argument excluding the possibility of deception then the implications naturally follow.

If you cannot refute it, you could be in the situation I described. It could be the reality about your God.