FD: Answer_42 vs Treebeard: Are God Beliefs Special?
Treebeard
including as the original basis. Can a formal FD with a PG be set up
for this? Thanks.
http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/bd62ae7a73f8b2ad?hl=en
On Feb 3, 7:05 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > So, in order to get this discussion out of my epistemic belief thread,
> > > and to perhaps address directly some of the issues. I have two main
> > > points to address here:
> > > 1) You have repeatedly demanded that I provide a belief that I hold
> > > that is like my God belief. However, when I do so, you say that those
> > > aren't the same. It is clear that we are working under different
> > > definitions, but I admit that I am at a loss since I can't find any
> > > set of attributes that you have ever said that clearly outlined what
> > > separates a God belief from any of the othesr a priori. Even in the
> > > latest post, you did seem to give at least two different accounts:
> > > a) "However, in the case of your god beleif, because of its root, the
> > > belief itself is about the existence of the source, and thus is
> > > special. "
> > > b) "Indeed, becasue the belief is ABOUT something real, not about
> > > something whose very existence is unverified, untestable and
> > > unfalsifiable. "
> > > Now, the former sounds a lot like difference is that the belief is
> > > about the existence of something, but we have tons of beliefs about
> > > the existence of things,
> > Such as?
> Um, you don't think that you believe that things exist?
Things that are real, yes.
However, I do not believe they exist, I KNOW they exist.
Now, I may have beliefs ABOUT those things, but that is different.
> > > and so it sounds like you are driving more at
> > > the latter.
> > The latter is just a justification of the former. They are one and the
> > same.
> Hardly. There are things that exist that we believe exist -- and
> don't know exist, or didn't always know existed --
Such as?
> that are in fact
> testable, verifiable and falsifiable, at least in principle. Thus.
> they are clearly NOT the same thing.
> > > So I will give an example of that: other minds. While I
> > > KNOW that I am conscious and have mental experiences, I do not know
> > > that -- I submit -- about anyone else. For very good reasons. So,
> > > that you or anyone I encounter has a mind is unverified, untestable,
> > > and it seems unfalsifiable. Thus, by b) it is precisely the same as a
> > > belief in God. And yet I don't think that you are uncommitted to
> > > other people having minds, nor am I.
> > Nice try, but you failed again.
> > And no, it is nothing like your belief in god.
> > While it is true that at some philosophical level you cannot ascertain
> > whether other minds exist, at least you know you have a mind (I hope
> > you do!). So, you know that minds are real. Again, your belief rests
> > on something that you know is real, as you can verify.
> > So, trying to ascertain whether other minds actually exist is at least
> > justified by the fact that you know that minds are real.
> Okay, this is just getting ridiculous.
The ridiculous part is the lengths you go through to ignore what I am
trying to articulate, which has been the same ever since we first
discussed the topic almost a year ago.
> I pointed out in this post that you had never clearly outlined the
> criteria you were using to judge God beliefs as different,
Yes, I did, many times.
All the examples you ever provided as beliefs rested on things we
know
are real, therefore, those beliefs are statements ABOUT things known
to be real. Not so with god. The core belief in the case of god is
its
very existence. Before anyone can make any statement ABOUT god, we
have to first accept, through pure belief, that god is real.
> and in my
> stupidity I still played along. But at this point, I have no clue
> what you could possibly mean and how you could possibly find a useful
I understand English is not my first language, but I did not think
that my posts were so hard to decipher.
> categorization here. And the thing is that since YOU assert that the
> God belief is different and since YOU claim that it is not special
> pleading, the onus is on YOU to provide:
> 1) A clear, unambiguous definition of the distinction/categorization.
A) You can have beliefs about things/concepts known to exist, either
directly or indirectly
or
B) You can have beliefs about things/concepts that exist only in our
collective imagination.
> 2) A clear justification for why that categorization is useful and
> meaningful.
In the case of A), we make statements representing what we think some
truth values are ABOUT those things on which the beliefs are
focusing.
In other words, once the belief is stated, no one questions whether
the actual object of the belief itself exists or not. For instance,
you say things like "I believe 'M' about 'P'." No one needs to ask
you
to prove that "P" is real. We can proceed directly to "M," i.e. your
belief statement and examine its meaningfulness, accuracy, etc.
Everybody agrees that "P" exists, so there is no need to ever preface
such belief statements with "I believe 'P' exists."
I guess we can divide A) in two:
A-1) You can make statements that are verifiable and falsifiable
about
things that are known to exist.
A-2) You can make statements that are not verifiable and
unfalsifiable
about things that are known to exist.
In the case of B) we first have to make a statement of belief
regarding the actual reality of the thing being believed in, and
then,
once we have made a statement regarding its existence, without being
able to back it up in anyway, we can proceed to making statements
about that thing which we believe exist. However, in this case, many
people can, and quite rightly so, question whether those statements
even have any significance because the very object of the belief
itself is not known to exist, nor is it necessary that it exist. So,
here, we cannot proceed directly to "M," we have to question the
belief in "P" first. All statements of belief about "P" are double
belief statements, except when you claim "I believe 'P' exists." So,
beleif "M" is not meaningful or useful because "P"is not even known
to
exist in any shape or form. Belief "M" is only interesting to the one
who holds belief "M."
I will also add in this category a special kind of belief. There are
things people believe about real objects/concepts, so, according to
what I have written so far, this type of beleif should belong to A)
above. However, these beliefs I am referring to are beliefs that are
verifiable and falsifiable, and that have been verified and falsified
as false beliefs. Yet some people still insists on believing that
they
are true. Those are irrational beliefs, and as such are no really
different from a pure B) belief because they are useless beliefs that
are not stating anything meaningful in any way. Let's label those
B').
> 3) A clear argument for why God in fact does meet that
> categorization.
I think the text under 2) is clear.
Note that I have stated this point many times, but you have always
refused to address it or claimed you did not get it.
> I've more than done my part by even TRYING to provide examples without
> having this, but at this point my patience has run out. I need you to
> do this so that I can:
> 1) Search through my other beliefs to find one that might match your
> critieria.
All the examples that you ever provided fit the A) pattern above,
under 1).
Only your god belief fits B). I have asked you to provide other
examples of belief you have that are similar to your god belief, i.e.
that match pattern B). You have either failed to do so [by actually
providing something that matched A)] or refused to try.
> 2) Decide whether or not that categorization really should matter in
> how we consider beliefs.
It certainly does.
> 3) Evaluate whether or not MY God belief meets your criteria.
It does.
> It is not possible for me to search through my beliefs to find one
> that meets your criteria if you are unable to communicate what that
> criteria is. If you refuse or cannot do so,
<Sigh>
I have done so many times.
Give me an example of a belief you have that similarly to your god
belief rests on something we do not know exist (and whose existence
cannot be verified or falsified).
See A) and B) above.
> then any reasonable
> person would clearly conclude that you are, indeed, resorting to
> special pleading
I hope the above finally makes it clear that I am not doing such a
thing.
> because even if there IS a criteria that makes God
> beliefs unique the evidence would clearly suggest that you do not know
> what it is.
Yes I do, your inablity to comprehend my posts or my inadequacy in
conveying my thoughts to you notwithstanding.
> Let me point out an oddity in this reply, just to get you thinking:
> Your claim here is that because I can perceive -- and therefore know
> -- that I have a mind, it is not the same to posit that there are
> minds in others because I am basing it on something that I know
> exists. However, my entire point was that from that we cannot
> conclude in any reasonable way that others have minds; that I have a
> mind does not prove that others have minds.
I know, and this is not what I was saying.
I was simply saying that in this case you DO know that "mind" is a
known verified real concept.
Period.
Now, when you go on about other minds, then yes, everything you say
is
valid. But the core beleif is not "I believe that minds exist." but
"I
believe that other OTHER minds exists."
Can you see the connection to your god belief here?
> Therefore, from this your
> categorization has to be "Based on or derived from something that is
> known to be real, even if the existence of that real thing does not
> necessarily support the proposition being considered". To which my
> reply for God would be: The Bible exists,
Yes, a book exist. We know that people write books. We know that
people write about whatever they want to write about, whether it is
something based on reality or something based on the fruit of their
imagination. So, a book, per se, can never prove that something other
that that book is real, unless something in that book can be
corroborated and is know to be real, such as a book of pictures
depicting the lichens that were observed in the Canadian tundra in
2004, for instance.
> and Christians exist,
Yes, Christians are people; and we know people exist. Furthermore, we
know for a fact that people can believe anything, regardless of the
actual reality of the thing being believed.
> so why
> does that not count?
The fact that a book exists and that people who believe in the
content
of said book does not prove that said content is real, in fact, those
two things alone do not help one iota in establishing whether said
content is real.
> Certainly neither of those necessarily support
> the belief ... but then you cannot consider that to be a useful
> criteria because then other minds hits that, too.
> So I hope that you can outline your criteria such that questions like
> this are answered.
> > > 2) The claim about "supernatural". You got upset about my seemingly
> > > bringing up the term and commented that you hadn't used the word, but
> > > I hadn't said you did.
> > Upset?
> > No, just cautious and making sure we are on the same page.
> And, interestingly, you did that by focussing on the word and not on
> my point, since my point was explicitly THAT you didn't use the word,
> but it still influences your thinking.
No, it does not.
> > The point is, in the past, every time I addressed that concept after
> > it had been brought up (by other posters), you somehow objected to my
> > discussing the concept of supernatural. Yet, every single time you
> > seemed to ignore the fact that I was merely addressing a concept
> > others brought up; not a concept that I use or even consider
> > worthwhile. I am usually just indulging in what others are saying.
> > Again, I think that the concept is useless, misleading and
> > meaningless.
> Although my point is that you still seem to categorize things on
> nothing else than that classification,
And you are wrong.
> and your dodging my questions
> here hasn't addresed that.
If you want a "categorization", here is one I actually use:
i) There are things that are real
ii) There are things people imagine are real.
> > So, now, when you brought it up, I made a point of
> > 1) highlighting that YOU brought it up while it was totally
> > unnecessary to do so; and
> > 2) ignoring it thereafter.
> > > I did say that you seemed to divide things
> > "seemed" is the correct word.
> > In fact, I am not.
> Then you should have been able to answer my questions, and should be
> able to demonstrate that, no?
> > Others do, mainly those who believe in so-called "supernatural" things
> > and events.
> > For the gazillionth time, let me repeat that everything anyone ever
> > observes or reports about is part of the natural world.
> > Some of these experiences are confusing, misleading, rare,
> > coincidental, unexplained, illusory, etc.
> Do you have any list of the things that you consider to be those a
> priori, concepts that you consider to be more likely to fall into the
> latter category as soon as you hear about them?
> > > into two categories that just happened to map to what most people call
> > > "natural" and "supernatural". Now, part of this is again caused by my
> > > not being able to see exactly what criteria you used for these things,
> > How can I delineate criteria for something I think is useless and that
> > I do not use?
> Um, you use a criteria to distinguish God from other things,
See ii) above.
> and you
> also seem to at least potentially include other things in that
> criteria. Since you have never made that criteria clear -- ie what is
> or isn't a "mundane" belief -- my thinking that it happens to align
> with "supernatural" might be incorrect. But that's hardly my fault,
> since I'm working blind here.
No, you are not. I have repeatedly written that your god belief is
based on something we do not know is real, AND that cannot be
falsified, verified or observed; whereas every other example you ever
brought up rested on something we know is real and that can be
observed, verified or falsified.
Even with your latest one: "minds." I trust you can verify and
observe
that your own mind is real, right?
> > When posters bring up the "supernatural" my first reaction, if I want
> > to discuss it, is to ask them what they mean by that, precisely
> > because as far as I am concerned, the concept is non-existent and
> > useless. Furthermore, because of the way it gets thrown around willy-
> > nilly, it gives carte blanche to anyone to bring up any fanciful topic
> > they want without first establishing the reality of said topic, such
> > as spirits for instance.
> Well, taking the above, if spirits
IF, indeed.
> are disembodied minds, and I know
> that my mind exists, and I can conceive of it being disembodied,
I can conceive of my mind being materialized in the shape of a
Chocolate Easter Bunny. So, what does that prove?
> then
> how is that in any way special? Or is it?
At least minds are real, so the belief that minds can be disembodied
in not similar to you belief in god. However, if you claim that
ghosts
are disembodied minds, then you have a slight problem. People have
claimed that somehow ghosts had an impact on the world. So, you would
have to show that minds
1) can be disembodied
2) can survive death
3) that survive death and are disembodied can somehow interact with
the material world
So, if you claim that minds can be disembodied, can survive death and
can interact with the world, you are making a claim that fits A-2)
above, under your point 1). Which is not a very useful claim.
If, however, one were simply to claim that "Ghosts are real and I
have
no idea what they are, but they are real." then this would be a
belief
that matches pattern B) above, under 1).
> Seems that it might be exactly as real as other minds.
> > > but part of it is an impression I had about what you thought about
> > > other things. So, let's clarify by adding a few more things:
> > > Ghosts.
> > > Telepathy.
> > > Precognition.
> > > Clairvoyance.
> > > Which of these, if any, fall into the same category of belief as God
> > > does, for you?
> > Nice dodge, Allan.
> Um, it's you doing the dodging here. I'm asking if these things fit
> into the same category as God, so that I can address my impression
> that your category really is "supernatural", and that you don't want
> to address it. It has nothing to do with your demand that I provide a
> belief that fits your category. This is something that I'm ASKING
> YOU. The least you could have done was answer it.
Ghost: Do knot know what ghosts are, so, a priroi, this belief would
be in the same category as a god belief.
The other three: Every single test that was ever conducted to verify
whether those concepts are real were categorical failure. So, those
three concepts WERE verified to be wrong and WERE falsified. So, to
beleive in those things is to ignore the evidence and such belief are
irrational, see B') above, under 1)
> > I asked YOU to give me example of belief YOU hold that is similar to
> > your belief in god, i.e. a belief about the very existence of
> > something that is unverified, untestable and unfalsifiable.
> > Do YOU believe in any of these things?
> Are any of these in the same category as God?
What does it matter?
Do you believe in any of these things or don't you?