[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[bhsmte]

The truth is Jesus and the Holy Sprit confirms the truth. We agree on this. I'm not sure what your motives are by accusing me of not knowing the truth. Faith is my shield the bible is my weapon and Jesus is my leader. If you still choose to not believe I'm a Christian then I'm done trying to convince you. God knows all things and judges those who wrongfully judge.

It would appear, some use these shields to protect their faith from reality and some use the weapon you mention to attack others who disagree with them.

 

[Chriliman]

Please prove I am not a philosophical zombie.

I believe you are not a philosophical zombie. If you tell me that you are not then you confirm my belief to be factual. You are not, right?

 

[Chriliman]

It would appear, some use these shields to protect their faith from reality and some use the weapon you mention to attack others who disagree with them.

We live in a fallen corrupt and evil world. If you put your faith in the truth of God, he will save you from inevitable death. That's the truth!

 

[bhsmte]

We live in a fallen corrupt and evil world. If you put your faith in the truth of God, he will save you from inevitable death. That's the truth!

You keep doing what works for you.

 

[Chany]

I believe you are not a philosophical zombie. If you tell me that you are not then you confirm my belief to be factual. You are not, right?

Obviously, if I am a philosophical zombie, I would claim that I was not. That's the entire point of a philosophical zombie: philosophical zombies appear to be exactly like regular conscious humans under any examination or trial, but they simply lack consciousness. In other words, there is no difference one can point at to show another person is or is not a philosophical zombie, per the concept of the philosophical zombie itself.

For example, I will make the two following statements as truth claims:

1) I am a philosophical zombie.

2) I am not a philosophical zombie.

Which one of these claims reflects reality. Obviously, I am lying about one of them, but which one?

Why should my testimony be enough for you to claim the belief is factual? If I was on trial for a murder and you believed me to be innocent, would the mere fact alone that I claimed I was innocent be enough for you to claim "not guilty"? If not, why should the same be true here?

Your personal belief on the matter does not help you. Personal beliefs do not have to correspond with reality. You need justification beyond that. Of course, the very concept of the philosophical zombie prevents you from ever gaining that justification, so explain why the second claim I made is true.

 

[KCfromNC]

I lost some brain cells reading this thread.

It is always strange to see how the ultra-faithful suddenly become hyper-skeptical when it suits their narrative.

 

[True Scotsman]

Really? You can directly observe my consciousness? So you can read my mind then?

Of course you can directly observe your own consciousness, but I can't directly observe your consciousness, the only way I could, is if I became your consciousness.

Therefore, I have to believe(accept the truth) that you are conscious without proof of your consciousness.

Same reasoning can be applied to God. I have to believe(accept the truth) that God exists without proof of God's existence and when I believe in Him, He will present evidence of His existence. That evidence may just be sound reason that makes sense.

This is evidence of a person who is stuck on the perceptual level of consciousness. I can observe that you are using concepts and from that I can infer, logically, that you are a conscious individual. The same reasoning does not apply to the concept of gods. I can not logically infer a supernatural consciousness which created everything by an act of conscious will from observing the natural world. I can imagine such a thing, but the primacy of existence principle would show me that what I am imagining could not exist in reality.

So in order to contest God, you first must accept the truth that God exists. But you don't accept the truth that God exists, so you can't contest this truth. Same thing with consciousness, as you stated above.

This is fantastic. I can contest the concept called "God" without accepting that it is valid first. Do you contest the existence of Zeus? Do you accept that Zeus exists in order to do this? That would be nonsensical.

The fact of consciousness is only available on the perceptual level to each individual. We cannot perceive other people's consciousness in the way that that person perceives their own consciousness. Only I(and God) have full access to my conscious mind.

True. I can't perceive other people's consciousness in the same way that I can perceive my own but that is not the only way I can perceive consciousness. For instance as I've already pointed out, I can observe others involved in conscious activity such as putting together a response on an internet forum. Unconscious things do not engage in these type of activities.

 

[True Scotsman]

It is always strange to see how the ultra-faithful suddenly become hyper-skeptical when it suits their narrative.

That is so true!

 

[Chriliman]

Obviously, if I am a philosophical zombie, I would claim that I was not. That's the entire point of a philosophical zombie: philosophical zombies appear to be exactly like regular conscious humans under any examination or trial, but they simply lack consciousness. In other words, there is no difference one can point at to show another person is or is not a philosophical zombie, per the concept of the philosophical zombie itself.

For example, I will make the two following statements as truth claims:

1) I am a philosophical zombie.

2) I am not a philosophical zombie.

Which one of these claims reflects reality. Obviously, I am lying about one of them, but which one?

Why should my testimony be enough for you to claim the belief is factual? If I was on trial for a murder and you believed me to be innocent, would the mere fact alone that I claimed I was innocent be enough for you to claim "not guilty"? If not, why should the same be true here?

Your personal belief on the matter does not help you. Personal beliefs do not have to correspond with reality. You need justification beyond that. Of course, the very concept of the philosophical zombie prevents you from ever gaining that justification, so explain why the second claim I made is true.

This is exactly my point, if all I have to go on is your word then there is no objective evidence to determine if your telling the truth or not. However, if I trust you, I would have no reason to question what you say, so it seems trust is very important when it comes to truth. So tell me, do I have any reason to not trust you?

All the the philosophical zombie proves is that deception and truth are beyond our human capability of detection(we detect physical things), which points to them originating from outside of the physical and not from within the physical.

If you believe a philosophical zombie could exist, then you believe demons could exist.

 

[madera23]

The truth is Jesus and the Holy Spirit confirms the truth. We agree on this. I'm not sure what your motives are by accusing me of not knowing the truth. Faith is my shield the bible is my weapon and Jesus is my leader. If you still choose to not believe I'm a Christian then I'm done trying to convince you. God knows all things and judges those who wrongfull

I have no motives, I simply see no spiritual essence in your posts.
God is spiritual,
we need to also be spiritual, not religious.
or we cannot understand The mystery of Christianity.
I am not judging you, I am just being honest.
You take offence too easily.
madera

 

[Chany]

This is exactly my point, if all I have to go on is your word then there is no objective evidence to determine if your telling the truth or not. However, if I trust you, I would have no reason to question what you say, so it seems trust is very important when it comes to truth. So tell me, do I have any reason to not trust you?

All the the philosophical zombie proves is that deception and truth are beyond our human capability of detection(we detect physical things), which points to them originating from outside of the physical and not from within the physical.

If you believe a philosophical zombie could exist, then you believe demons could exist.

If I told you I was a philosophical zombie, would you believe me?

I know I said that I would reject the idea of being a philosophical zombie if I was one, but that is only because of the context. Mainly, a philosophical zombie acts the same as any human, and any human can engage in thought experiments. Therefore, no matter what I say, you cannot determine I am not a philosophical zombie.

Also, trained people can usually pick up on most deception; just not all of it.

Most importantly, trust is an assumption. When you trust me, you assume I will tell the truth. You might have very reasonable grounds for making this assumption, but there is always an element of an assumption. I may be a crafty liar who spent years upon years painting myself as a trustworthy individual, but you, ultimately, assume that this is not the case because it is so far off that it does not really matter to you.

 

[Chriliman]

I have no motives, I simply see no spiritual essence in your posts.
God is spiritual,
we need to also be spiritual, not religious.
or we cannot understand The mystery of Christianity.
I am not judging you, I am just being honest.
You take offence too easily.
madera

To be honest, I believe as Christians, our motive should be to lift up and encourage those in the body of Christ and spread the gospel of Jesus and make disciples. This is what I feel lead to do.

God bless!

 

[Chriliman]

If I told you I was a philosophical zombie, would you believe me?

I know I said that I would reject the idea of being a philosophical zombie if I was one, but that is only because of the context. Mainly, a philosophical zombie acts the same as any human, and any human can engage in thought experiments. Therefore, no matter what I say, you cannot determine I am not a philosophical zombie.

Also, trained people can usually pick up on most deception; just not all of it.

Most importantly, trust is an assumption. When you trust me, you assume I will tell the truth. You might have very reasonable grounds for making this assumption, but there is always an element of an assumption. I may be a crafty liar who spent years upon years painting myself as a trustworthy individual, but you, ultimately, assume that this is not the case because it is so far off that it does not really matter to you.

Trust is not an assumption. My 3yr old son trusts me because I have never lied to him. Since I have never lied to him, why would he ever assume I'm telling the truth? Only when someone does lie to him and he finds out the truth, does he begin assuming others might actually be lying to him. He doesn't assume I'm telling the truth because he believes I'm telling the truth, no assumption necessary.

We do not start off assuming things, we start off believing things. Assumptions come later, after we've been lied to.

 

[Chany]

Trust is not an assumption. My 3yr old son trusts me because I have never lied to him. Since I have never lied to him, why would he ever assume I'm telling the truth? Only when someone does lie to him and he finds out the truth, does he begin assuming others might actually be lying to him. He doesn't assume I'm telling the truth because he believes I'm telling the truth, no assumption necessary.

We do not start off assuming things, we start off believing things. Assumptions come later, after we've been lied to.

First, using children in epistemology is usually not a good sign. What is good for children to do epistemically is not good for us. He may not have a reason to do things like this, but he has probably not have had knowledge of people lying to him. My point is exactly what you said, he might have no reason right now to question his beliefs.

However, my entire argument is that we, rational adults aware of philosophy and discussions of skepticism and the limits of knowledge, do not have that luxury. No matter how hard I try, I can no longer ignore the possibility that my perceptions are being lied to and that I am actually a brain in a vat. Assumptions come when we start to realize that we are fallible; that we are prone to error and that we can make mistakes. Once when your son grows older and discovers people lie, he can no longer rationally believe every single person he meets will tell him the truth. If he did, he would be naive and foolish. Therefore, he has to assume others are telling the truth. He may not consciously do it; often, we don't consciously to decide at all. However, when I play the skeptic and push him against the intellectual wall, he must admit that there is the possibility that anyone he knows is secretly lying to him; this possible world might be so far-off that it seems weird to even consider it, but the world is still a possible one. He must acknowledge that there is a chance, no matter how small, that the possible world is the actual one. He is rationally justified in making this assumption; so rational, in fact, that we consider it epistemically obligatory that he do it in some cases. But there will always be the assumption, no matter how well justified and rational, when it comes to the limits of our knowledge.

Beliefs do not influence reality. If someone believes in God, what does it matter for the actual existence of God? If someone does not believe in God, what does it matter for the actual existence of God? Merely because you believe me to be a conscious human being and I claim to be one does not make me one; I still might be a philosophical zombie. To use substitution to show the absurdity of this position, a member of the Peoples Temple might have believed Jim Jones to be a proper religious figure, and Jim Jones claimed to be a proper religious figure. However, this alone does not indicate that it is true that Jim Jones is a proper religious figure.

Beliefs alone do not generate knowledge. Justification does. And no system of justification is without its limitations.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Have you ever read the Holy Bible?

Yes, several times.

Are you telling me we've come this far in science just to describe a concept that has already been described in the Bible 2000 years ago? Yet you still choose to not accept the Bible as true? Really?

No, as I have no reason to accept the Bible as true just because there is some vague similarity between some idea of mine and something in the Bible.

The Hindu religion is fond of describing vast lengths of time, even in terms of millions or billions of years -- just like Science(!!!!!) -- but that is no reason to accept Hinduism as true.

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come. The Almighty."

That is timeless, defined in a way we could understand.

Sorry, but that isn't unambiguously a claim of timelessness. Not that it really matters.

So has God. And he exists in the present and he exists in the future. He's timeless.

That makes me "timeless". I existed in the past, exist in the present, and will exist in the future. I will not do so for all of time, but your quote doesn't specify that.

(Incidentally, this is not what I mean when I call the universe timeless. I mean that the universe doesn't exist in a larger context of time.)

So now you believe something that exists can go out of existence?

Yes, I was a baby at one time. That baby that I was no longer exists. Why? Change.

You just said "The cosmic egg no longer exists.", doesn't this imply it once existed, but now it does not exist, meaning you believe it is "nonexistent" at the moment? I thought you didn't believe in nonexistence. You're starting to confuse me with your contradictions.

*facepalm*

There is no contradiction. I said that I don't believe that there was ever a time in which nothing at all exists. That's not at all the same thing as believing that something can cease to exist as a particular entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madera23]

To be honest, I believe as Christians, our motive should be to lift up and encourage those in the body of Christ and spread the gospel of Jesus and make disciples. This is what I feel lead to do.

God bless!

To be honest, I believe as Christians, our motive should be to lift up and encourage those in the body of Christ and spread the gospel of Jesus and make disciples. This is what I feel lead to do.quote

If you love the bible so much, why do you not do what the psalm "be still and know that I am god". tells you to do? It means to meditate In silence
Your mind is so full of scripture it is impossible to be still in order to hear God.


Spread that one.

No further response.
Madera

 

[dlamberth]

To be honest, I believe as Christians, our motive should be to lift up and encourage those in the body of Christ and spread the gospel of Jesus and make disciples. This is what I feel lead to do.

God bless!

I believe as Christians, their motive ought to be making God a reality, today, where He is needed the most. That's done, as Jesus kept saying over and over, through Love, Compassion and Helping those in need.

.

 

[Chany]

.

 

[madera23]

I believe as Christians, their motive out to be making God a reality, today, where He is needed the most. That's done, as Jesus kept saying over and over, through Love, Compassion and Helping those in need.

.

Even atheists help people Christians or not.

 

[quatona]

Lets consider consciousness for a sec. There is no objective evidence for my consciousness and it is not falsifiable, yet you believe that it's true that I'm conscious. Why is that?

The entire "believe that it´s true" stuff isn´t accurately describing my notions. At this point it seems to me that you are a conscious being - I might eventually find it more plausible that you are a bot, though. Or that it doesn´t matter to me if you are a conscious being or not.