The default position.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 443
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Reality as it appears to be

Vs

Reality as it actually is


The Ultimate Reality.


I don't need to prove this exists, your an idiot if you say it doesn't.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
If it isn't as it appears then we can't make any accurate statements about it. If you can't make any accurate statements about it then your claims deserve to be dismissed. So where does that leave us?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If I make accurate statements about it you will just dismiss it in your invincible ignorance.

See, you can't even admit The Ultimate Reality exists. You can't even confess the one God that absolutely must exist.


Reality As it Truly Is.


And this pride will be your downfall, because you have adopted an indefensible position. It would be better for you to repent from your wickedness and admit The Truth. 



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You can't make any accurate statements about it. Not if it isn't what it seems. Also you keep using words like repent and condemn and wicked. Reality does not exhibit any concern for wickedness or repentance and it is not observable able to condemn or forgive. Humans seem to be the only beings we can observe that concern themselves with such things.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is an accurate statement you can make about it...


GOD EXISTS


You can at least admit that...

...unless you're a fool.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Provide physical evidence of anything beyond the observable universe or limit your claims to the observable or I have no reason to accept your claims. This discussion is not going anywhere. Aren't you getting tired of repeating yourself? 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You can't even admit that reality as it truly is exists.


You can't do it because for you to say that exists is to say God exists.


I understand that if you admitted The Truth, you couldn't play your character anymore. 

Well, God is a wizard slayer, oh fool of fools.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Some reality likely exists. That doesn't mean I have to accept your claims about reality. So where does that leave us?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Some reality likely exists?


If there is some reality, There must be Ultimate Reality.

You can be more sure of God's existing than anything. 

But you can't even say t gr at reality exists, yet here you are, an existent being. How ridiculous.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You can't even admit that reality as it truly is exists.
Noumenon "exists" purely as a logical necessity.

You can't do it because for you to say that exists is to say God exists.
I have no problem equating gods with noumenon.

You can't even admit that reality as it truly is exists.
Reality exists by definition.  Reality is testable and verifiable with the scientific method.

You can't do it because for you to say that exists is to say God exists.
I have no problem with your semantic (ontological) choice of exchanging the word "god" for noumenon.

I understand that if you admitted The Truth, you couldn't play your character anymore.
I'm pretty sure the one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Please explain further. 

Well, God is a wizard slayer, oh fool of fools.
Please explain further.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "noumenon" implies that God exists as a mental construct.

I am not talking about god, I am talking about God. They are distinct concepts.

The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on thought. It is The Truth. This is God.


You admit that reality exists by definition. Very good. You already know then that God exists by definition, and you can know that without knowing God.




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Noumenon is not simply a mental construct, it is the logical necessity (prerequisite to phenomenon).

If you want to say that "god" is the logical necessity (prerequisite to phenomenon), then it is indistinguishable from noumenon.

The difference between the two is merely stylistic.
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@secularmerlin
"You can't prove that it isn't red" is a a sentence with two negatives. It should be logically equivalent to "You can prove the ball is red"

For your analogy it means while you believe the ball is red, you are also making the assertion that another person can prove the ball is red. While prove is of course in the loosest of terms. Man walks by faith and there is no proof you won't be hot by a car crossing the road. Looking both ways just gives you enough information to gain assurance in your steps that you believe you won't be hit by a car.

The counter argument in regards to your analogy to religious beleive and atheism is the counter argument to the ball being red is "there is no way the ball can be red."

See the logical equivalent "You can prove the ball is red" is only refuted completely by a mutually exclusive assertion "there is no way the ball is red."

The argument that ball may be another color is not exclusive to the "you can't prove the ball isn't red"

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mhykiel
You are correct about the double negative and also that no one said that the ball couldn't be red. In fact the only time I generally hear the argument "you can't prove it isn't" about anything is when the claimant cannot prove it is. Claims about religions and god(s) are often red ball statements but this analogy can be applied to any undeminstrated claim.

690 days later

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,219
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Scenario feels lacking in context.
If I was on a treasure hunt, looking for a red ball, and you offered to sell me a box, that you claimed had a red ball in it.
I might be inclined to trust you enough to buy the box, depending on how well I know you and your character, and how much I want to complete the treasure hunt.
I would in any case want to verify that there is a red ball in the box after buying it, as 'just you claiming there is a red ball isn't enough for me to believe you.
. . .
Although, one often buys boxes in stores, that are claimed to contain various items.
And we believe them for various reasons.
. . .
Then again, fast food messes up orders now and then, 'even though they claim your order has been successfully put together and placed in the bag.
Rambling.


Weird thread to skim through the posts of.

@NoOneInParticular
Must be a bunch of gay guys on thus site if the most popular thread on the front page is about balls. - Tyronebiggs
Hahaha
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,415
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Yep.... I was only saying recently that humans have a fascination for both, ball action and watching other peoples ball action.

It must be an evolutionary thing.   


Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,219
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, they certainly feature prominently in sports.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
In the hypothetical no one has looked in the box. All you know is that one human who has not looked in the box claims to know that it contains a red ball 
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,219
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I think that amount of certainty that the ball is red is impressive, though I disagree with it.
The person would have 'reasons why he possesses such belief I'd imagine.

Somehow though, a persons certain belief in God, feels more grounded, than some persons staunch certain in the red ball.
More nuanced I mean.
Though I still disagree that God exists.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
Somehow though, a persons certain belief in God, feels more grounded, than some persons staunch certain in the red ball.
Ignoring for a moment that your "feelings" can ultimately be dismissed unless founded on observable evidence why exactly do you feel like that? Is it really harder to imagine a red ball in a box having seen red balls in our physical reality and knowing they exist than it is to imagine some god(s) in any given container or space (infinite or finite)
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,219
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
It's 'possible there is a red ball, but as there's 'no evidence that there's not any other color ball as well. No 'experiences to indicate a red colored ball over any other color ball. Just seems silly.

As TwoMan said,
"A more accurate version of this thought experiment would be that there are 5 billion people who believe (without physical evidence) that there is a red ball in the box. There also exist several books, each of which being a few thousand years old, that claim there is a red ball in the box.

Might that be enough to convince someone? Probably but with no more degree of certainty that your original parameters."
Additionally there's side reasons going into effect, such as the belief in the red ball leading to fulfilling and successful lives and societies for many of those who followed their belief in the existence of the red ball. Even if they didn't understand 'why.
Beliefs such as cleanliness, which they mistook for having supernatural and sacred effects, rather than germs.
Society functioning at a higher level with certain 'give 'in's assumed to be true. Objective morality and such. The continuation of morals of the current time, and later on justification of new morals.
Such as the golden rule.
Or the helping of those dissimilar to oneself, such as the good Samaritan.
The 'success and side connotations 'proving it to those with the belief, and convincing other who did not previously believe. (Though I'm not sure of the reasons behind people who convert to religion)

Though I know you already gave an answer to that line of thought.
I'm just saying a real life phenomenon seems a bit 'too dumbed down in your example.


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
I'm just saying a real life phenomenon seems a bit 'too dumbed down in your example.

Sometimes it is useful to create a simplified hypothetical situation in order to view a more complex actual situation without all the mental and emotional baggage that comes from the actual situation. 

95 days later

Jasmine
Jasmine's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 126
0
3
6
Jasmine's avatar
Jasmine
0
3
6
Yes, I would believe you because why would someone lie about something so insignificant.