I want to highlight this first since it actually responds to the OP. I hope it makes him happy.

As stated by bunny, I'm not asking for you to accept my beliefs. However, it seems that someone in this very thread is trying to tell me that I can't hold my beliefs and be internally consistent. All I've really argued for so far in this thread is that my beliefs are truly my beliefs, and my beliefs do not show my beliefs to be false.

I think my response to this will not be very pleasing to you, but it's the best I can do nonetheless. It comes from something I brought up in the 'psychiatry and religion' thread -- culture. If someone has a belief that can't be shown to be false outright, but that belief is culturally acceptable, then it requires a much different type of mind than it requires to believe something that also can't be shown to be false but is generally culturally unacceptable. This doesn't speak to the veracity of the beliefs in any way. But it certainly says things about the people holding these various beliefs and therefore how we should react to them.

As has been pointed out to you already, you are essentially arguing for materialism. However, 2 things should be noted:
1) I do not have to be a materialist. Whether or not you accept other philosophies is irrelevant; I accept other philosophies and therefore I am not being inconsistent when I act on them and base other beliefs on them.

2) It is not yet settled whether materialism is right or wrong. Unless anyone in this thread is much smarter than I imagine, we are not going to put an end to this philosophical debate right now. Asking for us to do so (your above quote asks us to disprove materialism) is a bit ridiculous.

I'll just assume you're doing it out of ignorance of this realm of philosophy. And that's ok, I have only very little idea what bunny's talking about half the time. But I recognize that and don't assert that he's wrong on such matters.

I already have a point, you're just not paying attention to what it is. FWIW, the existence or otherwise of nonphysical entities is irrelevant to the method by which we demonstrate someone's axiomatic system to be inconsistent.
I don't need to do this. The arguments for Platonism are many and varied. I have no interest in establishing the truth of my axioms. I'm vainly struggling for recognition of their existence. That's all.
Sure - if I was trying to persuade you of Platonism, I'd give it a shot.

Your claim is that all information is either the result of sensory stimuli or is hardwired into our brain. You haven't given any argument for this, nor stopped to consider how convinced you were a few short hours ago that it was entirely the result of sensory stimuli and what this may suggest about the zeal with which you are promoting your most current "obviously true. Prove me wrong, hypocrite!" position.
Weird, since in your view our beliefs are entirely the result of evidence. We don't walk into trees, remember?
Further to the nothing you've so far advanced - you provide the same statement as fact. Well, yes. If there were any doubt I now know what you believe and have some inkling as to why.

Shall we consider what this says about the consistency of ganstaman's beliefs? It won't take very long.

I think this realm of philosophy has a lot to answer for in the context of our new and enlightened understanding of evolutionary biology and neuroscience. I don't see it going smoothly into the future. I have outlined some reasons - in response to Subfallen here - that are equally plausible to explaining 'where logic comes from' as philosophy claims - to some sort of metaphysical origins.

It is relevant because without that existence, the consistency of the entire argument falls apart - for there is no consistent justification (at all) for holding an 'unjustified belief'. All behaviour stems from evidence, for the only way to receive information about reality is via the senses, and a little can be produced via the evolved capabilities of our brain.
I have given argument for it: logical cause-and-effect/structure is hardwired into the DNA code of many other mammals too, meaning that information can only be either produced by this logical structure or received via the senses - and no other way.

Also. I thought I already agreed that I was wrong with respect to 'deriving information', as I should have differentiated between 'producing' and 'receiving' information, but failed to do so. You however, do not appear to be able to admit to you being wrong about your claims that information can be received via elsewhere except the external environment (using senses)...
You misunderstood this sentence because you took it out of context. What I meant with that sentence is that my argument does not imply the existence of anything other than that which is already evidenced in our reality - thus not requiring for me to produce any evidence, which you need to produce in order to justify your claim for - receiving information from somewhere other than the external environment (via the senses)...

P.S. I answered this question and you did not address my answer either.

No*. Even if there are only physical entities, someone who believes otherwise is not necessarily being inconsistent. They are being inconsistent if a statement can be demonstrated to be both true and false from within their axiomatic system.

*EDIT: Well leaving aside the obvious point that there is no justification of an unjustified belief of any description. I dont disagree with that.
Just fill in those intervening steps and you'll be done.

Suppose I grant that an understanding of logic has evolved in human brains and also in animals.

How does this imply that there is no other way for us to receive information other than by sensory stimuli or by creating it through this logical structure?
Maybe you did, I dont know. I dont care whether you're wrong or not (I have an inkling you might be right). I'm pointing out to you that you were absolutely "I can't believe you dont understand this!" convinced about something you now think is wrong.

How can you be so blindly confident you're now correct given your retraction of only a few hours ago?

Well you havent yet advanced any argument against platonism (and I havent really made any attempt to justify it) which is where I think we learn a lot of our information. I'm happy to admit I might be wrong though (I only recently became an atheist, so I have a proven track record of eventually recanting my previous views, if you'd like some empirical evidence).
Of course I need to provide evidence, were I to be arguing for you to accept my axioms. I'm not. How many times would you like me to say that I dont care whether you accept my foundational beliefs or not? It's irrelevant.

The only point is that differing ways to view the world exist. It is not sufficient to point to one (ie ganstaman's) and say "A-ha! This contradicts empiricism! Hypocrite! Inconsistent! Etcetera!" It is only inconsistent if the person holding those views happens to also be advocating empiricism as being the only source of beliefs.

I didnt really have a follow up. I was just curious why you singled out mammals (and not lizards, for example).

I certainly some think animals have rudimentary reasoning skills.

I already address this point. I know you read my response because you quoted and responded to the very end of it. I would suggest trying to understand all of it, however.

Oooh, can I answer this one?

Cognitive science may well yield answers to the mind body problem and perhaps resolve the question of the existence or otherwise of abstract entities. There is essentially nothing controversial in what you say here.

Note though that here you are saying there may be a materialist answer to these issues. Throughout this thread you have been claiming the materialist answer is the only consistent approach - not that it is 'equally plausible'. That's the only point of disagreement that I care about (or have been addressing). There are many consistent ways of looking at the world - the choice of axioms we make is not really about consistency (we're all going to abandon inconsistent sets of axioms). It's about plausibility and a subjective judgement as to what is 'likely' correct and even of what is interesting.

I admit I'm somewhat ontologically promiscuous - I'll grant existence to anything that glances my way. Ultimately, I think that's because my approach to these things is far more concerned with ontology than epistemology. I'm quite happy to later recant some view or to 'merge' two previously distinct categories, but it's necessary for me to think about things to get some working hypothesis as to how things are. The question of how or whether we can know about those objects is not terribly interesting to me - I figure we'll end up only talking aout those things we're able to, so it will all sort itself out in the end. Someone who was more concerned with epistemological rigour would no doubt find your approach to philosophy superior to mine. Again though - it's not because of consistency that your approach or mine should be preferred (those inconsistent approaches are easily destroyed) and it's not even objective. It's just a difference.

:/ I didnt intend that as accusatory as it sounded.

It was genuine puzzlement. Obviously I'm talking about differing axiomatic systems and he has just moved from one (albeit closely related) to another. Surely he can appreciate that there might be others which are consistent, even though further removed?

It's the doing of mathematics which is the best argument for platonism, in my view. Thinking about it and arguing about the philosophy of maths always sounds like formalism or some other linguistic approach is going to work. Maintaining the belief that it's an invention rather than a discovery is pretty difficult though when you're actually there puzzling something out - nothing is quite the same as that exquisite moment when the proof of a theorem goes from arcane to trivial.

It was a semantic retraction brought upon by new information that may or may not even be verified. I simply had to split 'derive' into 'produce' and 'receive' in order to articulate my point more clearly, but this new information did not contradict the overall message that I was trying to convey anyway. I was just not conveying it accurately, and for that, I was wrong.
I respect your views and fundamentally I agree with you. I may be a little hard-headed with empiricism but I am struggling to understand why equal consideration should be given to axioms and beliefs that rely on nothing else but consistency. I'm sure I can think of a completely absurd and improbable axiom + belief that is completely consistent. Such beliefs to me however, warrant no interest, for they are not equally practical, nor equally capable of making predictions relating to the reality within which we live. These two criteria are far too important to me.

Irrelevant to the subject matter of this thread, but there is no reason to think that the nihilist who acts out of concern for others for non-selfish reasons is being inconsistent. People sometimes assume that if you accept nihilism that means that you think that you should just act selfishly, but that is obviously wrong. You could accept nihilism and then equally well decide to devote your life to complete altruism. Of course, your motivation for doing so (if you are consistent) won't be because it is moral to be altruistic, but that's fine. On nihilism there is no moral imperative to act altruistically or selfishly.

Maybe you forgot where this conversation came from as well. OP asked a question about my faith (though not to me directly) and so I answered. You asked me how I could have that faith and I answered. I never asked you to give it any consideration at all, much less equal consideration. All you really have to understand here is that my beliefs are not hypocritical, and then you can never think of them again past that if you don't want to.

The whole claim god exists is a non-sequitur when it applies to some amorphous 'thing.' You're not really saying anything at all just that this amorphous 'blob' is there. It is literally saying nothing.

Buts if you start to get descriptive about this thing you call god then you start to make overt scientific claims about reality, claims that are theoretically testable and that fall under the scientific or logical axiomatic worldview. Such as 'God is all powerful all knowing and all good.' To which I can say well why then is evil? And disprove this god logically via reductio. Now bunny is rightly claiming that you can morph your axiomatic starting point to contradictorily allow this god with your reality but it's really just a mental leap in defending pre-existing faith rather than a starting point and anyone can plainly see this (even bunny admits it), but as I said the more specific you get about what exactly this 'god' is the more the line gets blurred in the consistency of the worldview and the more ad-hoc morphing of the axiomatic starting point you have to do.

Should we allow this kind of emotional placation?


You missed the point entirely. Harris trounces that argument when he says that the more specific you get with any metaphysical claim, the more you are beginning to make an overt scientific claim and theism is the only domain of discourse in which we 'allow' people to have these delusions because we are afraid culturally of offending theists' sensibilities. In every other domain people immediately pay a price for unscientific, illogical, and kooky beliefs (such as Elvis is still alive). There is no good reason this same common or practical sense shouldn't also apply to god-belief. It holds us back and even kills people, just like dark age reasoning held us back for centuries. Once we started to hold irrational beliefs to task we started to progress as a species,, and in the extremely unlikely event god-belief becomes a thing of the past we will surpass even that progress by leaps and bounds.

No one is going to tell you that you can't believe in god. But anyone with half a brain can plainly see the trick you are being allowed to use. I have to sheepishly accept it because I can't argue with math.

Evil disproves God? I'm sure there are threads on this very topic, very likely the thread on suffering I linked to in what I believe was my first post in this thread. Evil stems from free will. No reason it can't be consistent with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent (is that a/the word?) God.

You will never see me making scientific claims about God, so it's going to be difficult for you to scientifically disprove that which I call God. You can tell me I'm not saying anything at all if you want, but that's not the point as I'm not trying to defend my beliefs, just show that they are my beliefs and they are not inconsistent.

Probably. What's the harm in allowing people like me to believe as I do? (maybe an unfair question as I'm not sure you know enough about me)

If someone makes illogical or incorrect scientific claims (whether through God or otherwise), this should be pointed out (and ridicule may be appropriate). I have done this time and time again in this forum alone.

But this doesn't address my response to Harris. We don't (or shouldn't) ridicule people for having beliefs that culture has instilled in them. If someone was raised to belief Elvis was alive, that's a very different scenario than someone coming to that belief later in life.

1) People in this very forum are telling/have told me that I can't believe in God. I already told you this. Do you not believe me?

2) You don't have to accept my beliefs, just recognize that they aren't the result of some messed up brain process or lack of intellectual thought on the subject or anything of the kind. At least for me and those like me. Creationists do have problems and need to be laughed at.

EDIT: also, are you really female? It doesn't matter at all, but I don't want to mess up my pronouns again.

Yes, a tri-omni god. The problem of evil has still not been answered very well. Plantinga is the one most people use but it's not a very good answer.

Ya, you can hide behind this obvious loophole. And you can prescribe to some form of deism. Lots of rational people do this. I suggest not getting specific.



Well off the top of my head it's a slippery slope.




No it's not because theism is pervasive in culture. No one comes to specific god-belief without the aid of culture.



I believe you. I don't think ANYONE can reasonably believe, and I know for a fact that the vast majority are taught their beliefs.

As I said, faith is an evolutionary function of the brain. But it can be over-rided.

No, male. In the strong spirit of misogyny, why would someone think me female?

That was me. It wasn't a deduction based on anything from this thread, it was from a previous thread when I thought you made some comment "as a woman". I must have got you confused with someone else. That happens to me relatively often when new people turn up, I'm afraid.

Personally, I think you should continue to "be hard headed" which I'm going to take to mean "prosecute the case for empiricism strongly". It's important to defend ones position and to be aware of the assumptions one operates under.

My argument is not that all systems of belief are equal. Nor that they should be given equal consideration - I would agree that we could easily append arbitrary axioms to our foundational beliefs, but that doing so is a bad idea. I reject such systems based on parsimony, not consistency. I may label its adherents profligate, but not hypocritical.

If evolution and God are both true, when was the first human eligible to go to heaven? Where would you draw the line when each generation is almost exactly like the next?

I like this image because it helps people visualize evolution. If each word was a generation, when did we become the humans we are today? When did we begin having souls?



If humans today have souls, you would have to say each previous generation has a soul. Why wouldn't our fish ancestors have souls? Why wouldn't the very first single-celled organisms have souls?

You can't just say it happened 200,000 years ago, when we started to resemble humans. Each generation then was almost exactly the same as the next generation, just like at any point in history.

When was humanity's first soul? It's tough to pick out the exact point. But just imagine if you had to pick the exact generation if there were millions of generations lined up. (Ignore the words, the image is taken from an evolution of text site. I took the picture because it showed 15 different stages of our history.)

I think there are 2 good acceptable answers.
1) I don't know (and is knowing the answer really so relevant? Is it reasonable to say that since I don't know, I can't logically really believe in God and evolution?).

2) When God decided it was time. Surely at some point the organisms were clearly humans, and so then when God was ready He got started. Sure, that leaves off some number of prior humans and almost-humans, but is this something that really makes the whole idea objectionable?

Are you claiming that this issue is settled though, and that my position has no logical grounds on which to stand? If not, then 'disprove' might be a stronger word than you intended to use.

I'm not looking for a loophole, these are my actual beliefs. I can get as specific as you want with them. I have nothing to hide.

So you have no problem with my beliefs in and of themselves, you just think that giving me any respect for them could lead to you having to respect other beliefs you do have a problem with? I don't get why there has to be a slippery slope here anyway. I certainly don't respect all religious beliefs.

I don't understand what you are saying here or how it's a response to what I said (though I likely don't see how it's a response because I don't understand it to begin with).

You said that no one is saying I can't believe as I do. I told you that you were wrong and people have said that I can't believe as I do. Your response is that you accept that -- meaning that you admit you were wrong in saying that no one is saying I can't believe as I do? -- and then what's with the next sentence? How does that fit into this part of the conversation?

So? How is this a response to what I said? I'm not following exactly what you are saying here.

Based on your nitpick response, I think you're just here to argue but I'll oblige you one last time.


I don't know exactly what you believe but the christian god has no logical basis on which to stand, that is absolutely correct. In fact I would go so far as to say any descriptive theistic claim trespasses so violently upon the landscape of logic that none that I have heard of are logically reasonable. What bunny and I have been bouncing back and forth on is whether you can believe reasonably at all, and we agreed you can if you alter your axiomatic principles enough. However, this does not include having the basic axiom 'evidence based logic is the best way to determine facts about reality' because the descriptive theistic gods can be theoretically proven under that axiom so there is no need to revert to other axioms such as 'the bible is the word of god' for that claim to have grounding.



Yes but the ability to even believe it reasonably is the result of an mathematical loophole. That's all I'm saying.



I think deism is closer to theism is closer to fundamentalist types of dogma is closer to violent and irrational fundamentalism. That kind of slippery slope.

Don't respect how? If you can hold an unjustified belief because your axiomatic starting point is different, then other people can too, no matter what they are.



What I mean is that theism is rarely if ever a default axiomatic system. It is always learned in the context of the reigning cultural apparatus. No one is born believing the bible or qu'ran. It is arguably always taught and learned. Just that fact alone weakens the ability to hold the bible as a starting point in my opinion, because it could never be personally ascertained without outside guidance.



You're a free person. No one can control what you believe but you. That's all I meant. I'm sure there are people that tell you you can't believe what you believe but that doesn't make much sense.

Define soul for me, so then we're both on the same page, before continuing...