Yeah, never let clarity get in the way of a good aphorism, that's what I say. I mean, we are talking about how people live. God isn't particularly relevant.

Jib?

Bunny has asked you (and he quotes the instances below) so many times to answer the same question. And even though you post several times below this one you still haven't simply answered the question, directly. You keep picking something else from what he wrote, and ask more questions of your own.

If you can't see that he has good reason to call you out for dodging questions, well, I'd ask that you take a look again I guess.

I'll put $50 that your wrong. Considering this is the exact opposite of everything that I have been say, I feel it is unlikely that it will end like this.

Jib?

I'm pretty sure that I did answer this. If we are talking about a deistic god then there is no implications on your actions. If you are talking about Hinduism, it depends on what flavor you subscribe to.

I don't see why we would need evidence from outside the universe or "before" the big bang. If this is what you require though I feel you are going to have to hold to the underdetermined view.

I doubt I have any knowledge that you don't have.


This is exactly the claim many are making. If you claim God does not exist, or really even if you are claiming that it is possible that God does not exist, then you are making this claim as at least possible. So again, I would require extraordinary evidence to be convinced this is a possibility.


You've seen it, you just pretend it either isn't evidence or isn't compelling.

The universe is a product. If we want to figure out a product of what, we should study the product.



I've never had a personal experience, so I cannot help you there.

Left field probably. If the "God question" is underdetermined that means that there cannot be any evidence for or against God's existence. If there cannot be any evidence for or against then stating your position is based on evidence makes no sense.

I have no one thread that lays everything out.


I don't see how you can see the evidence available (and lack of evidence) and claim there is no compelling evidence. This is where we are going to be at an impasse.

How is that question begging? The question is not whether or not people live, it is what categories those people who are living fall under.

As far as a specific action, I don't have to provide one. I only have to make the case that there are specific actions that one would take if one was to live as if God exists. Everything else falls in line after that.

If I start bringing up specific actions the entire conversation will then turn to arguing over those actions and we will never get anywhere. What actions are inconsequential really.

Remember, my argument is not that "these" people here or "those" people there are living as if God does not exist, but that living as if "I don't know" is an empty statement because it is impossible. Let's look at a "specific" action.

Person A is said to be living as if God exists if Person A makes choice X in situation Y

Person A is said to be living as if God does not exist if Person A does not make choice X in situation Y

Ok, now where does someone who lives as if "I don't know" fall? What action can they make that does not fall them into one of the two statements?

Person A is said to be living as if their mother is alive if Person A makes choice X in situation Y

Person A is said to be living as if their mother is not alive if Person A does not make choice X in situation Y

Ok, now where does someone who lives as if "I don't know if my mother is alive" fall? What action can they make that does not fall them into one of the two statements?

lol. I'll let you know where to send the $50

You realize you just made my point? So you agree that there is not category for living as if "I don't know", right?

Again, so seem to no understanding of what I am even saying, which is clearly seen by this post, as you keep asserting that I am going to say something that is the complete opposite of my argument. Do do understand that, don't you?

Trying to find out if their mother is dead or alive.

Cytri's alien post pretty clearly showed that this position is nonsensical. I cannot claim I am certain aliens exist, invent a bunch of arbitrary rules and rituals that I claim the aliens want us to do and then say that everybody who ignores these rules thinks that aliens cannot or do not exist. Funny that he only got a troll response

You're cracking me up.
a) You must know there are people who don't know whether their mother is alive or not.
b) You claim they can't choose to do X and they can't choose not to do X because then they are living either as if they know she's alive or they know she isn't.
Even though those people exist and make choices whether to do X or not.
Amazing.

lol, I cannot for the life of me figure out why this is so tough for you. You do realize that actions are different from beliefs, right?

a) yes, there are people that do not know whether their mother is alive or not

b) I claim they can choose either and that there is no other choice.

Maybe you are not grasping the phrase "as if".

Let's say that Person A believes that "God exists" so when presented with situation Y chooses action X.

Now Person B believes that "God does not exist" so when presented with situation Y chooses action -X.

Person C hold no belief that "God exists", so when presented with situation Y chooses action ?? Is there a 3rd option? No.

So if person C chooses action X, we would say that Person C is "acting as if" "God exists" is true

If Person C choose action -X, we would say that Person C is "acting as if" "God does not exist" is true.

Let's say that Person A believes "God exists" so when presented with situation Y chooses action X.

Now Person B believes "I don't know whether God exists" so when presented with situation Y chooses action -X.

Person C doesn't believe that "God exists", so when presented with situation Y chooses action ?? Is there a 3rd option? No.

So if person C chooses action X, we would say that Person C is "acting as if" "God exists" is true

If Person C choose action -X, we would say that Person C is "acting as if" he doesn't know whether "God exists" is true.
So nobody acts as if they don't believe god exists.

I'm on my phone now so it's too hard to do the multi-quoting and editing I'd want to do. So I'll just summarize my findings instead: Jib is incredibly sad. His argument makes the same logical mistake over and over and his refusal to be anything but vague is a clear sign that he can't support the idea he's presenting. I don't get how you rationalize this to yourself.

care to point out what you think is a logical mistake? Or would you just throw out insults with nothing to back it up?

You could just as easily conclude that person A (who believes in God) is acting as though he doesn't know God exists since he's behaving like C does.

And what would we say if, for different situations, person C sometimes acts consistently with Person A, and other times acts consistently with person B?

I didn't say we needed evidence from outside the universe, but I don't understand how we can know (using the standard definition of know that I posted) how it was created. You seem to, so I have asked for the evidence supporting your claim. From inside the universe.

We can both know the same thousand things. Eleven of those things are compelling you to hold a particular position. It would help me to know which eleven things. Or if it's even eleven. It would save everyone a lot of time.

Claiming that something is, and claiming that something is possible, are very different claims. If you require extraordinary evidence to accept a claim that something is possible, I'm not sure how you would ever get to is.

You don't seem to want to provide any evidence for your claims about God. Perhaps you can provide some evidence to support this one?

OK. Let's look at salt. It's a crystalline compound that season's food, is abundant in nature, and is necessary at certain levels for us to live. But a compound of what? A soft metal that reacts violently with water, and a poisonous gas. I'm not convinced that understanding the product is enough to understand the cause.

I didn't ask for a personal experience. I asked for scientific evidence.

OK. I'm not claiming that the existence of God is underdetermined, so this doesn't apply here.

Two or three? Or five? Or summarize here?

Perhaps, but again I ask, what evidence? You have claimed numerous times that there is tons of evidence. I have simply asked you to share what evidence is so compelling to you. That is one of the real benefits of this kind of forum to me. If you don't want to share, that's fine. But if you want to keep making inaccurate claims about my actions, motives and beliefs, you really should be prepared to back it up.

I bolded your summary of your claim above. This will be useful in showing that even if I grant all your premises your conclusion still doesn't follow. Now, as I said before, I don't think you can show in any strong sense that a particular action is inconsistent with believing that God exists. But let's say that I'm wrong, that there really are actions that are inconsistent with believing that the Christian God exists. Does that mean that it is impossible to live as if you don't know if the Christian God exists? No. As long as the agnostic doesn't do those actions, that means that she is not living as if the Christian God doesn't exist. But doesn't that mean that she is living as if the Christian God does exist? Again, no. In order to do that, she would have to perform an action that is inconsistent with living as though the Christian God exists. But isn't it an implication of living as the Christian God exists that you are not living as if the Christian God does not exist? Once again, no.

Here's an example. Suppose that it is inconsistent with living as if the Christian God exists that you commit a murder every weekend. So we can say that anyone who does that is living inconsistently with a belief in God. However, this doesn't mean that everyone who is not committing such murders is living inconsistently with God not existing. This is because it is not an implication of believing that God doesn't exist that you kill someone every week. It's not inconsistent with that belief, but it is also not an implication.

In other words, in order for you to prove your point, you will have to find an action that is both inconsistent with believing that God exists and an implication of a belief that the Christian God doesn't exist. It is my view (and bunny's, I take it), that there is no plausible candidate for such an action.

Other than the obvious actions regarding how you honestly answer "do you believe in God?" and so forth.

Whoops, all that build-up and I miss the finale. What I meant to say was, "In order for you [Jib] to prove your point, you will have to find an action that is both inconsistent with believing that God exists and an implication of a belief that the Christian God doesn't exist and that is unavoidable."

No the question is "Does everyone who cannot be said to be 'living as if God exists' therefore be said to be 'living as if God doesnt exist'?" You have stated many times that this is obviously true, that you can't see how anyone can deny it, that it seems clear to you, etcetera... The only attempt at justifying it through argument was to claim it was implied by the law of the excluded middle. However, as you then conceded, the negation of "X lives as if God exists" is "It is not the case that X lives as if God exists". You are then incorrectly deeming this to be logically equivalent to "X lives as if God does not exist" - this is begging the question, since it implicitly assumes the conclusion in dispute.

Bear in mind it is not obvious to me and (as far as I can tell) to anyone else in this thread that anyone who is not 'living as if God exists' is therefore 'living as if God doesnt exist'. This is your claim which is being challenged - repeating that it's obvious, or providing an argument where it is implictly assumed within the premises is not a fruitful exercise.

I am prepared to provide a proof by counterexample - my friend Dave*. I don't think you will classify him as living as if God exists. I also don't think you will classify him as living as if God doesnt exist. I know him really well (and can ring him if necessary) so I think I will be able to answer any questions you might need to know the answers to. You don't have to engage with this counterexample, however given one has been proposed and you don't have any argument to establish your claim beyond 'it's obviously true' I hope you will at least concede that there's no reason for anyone else to believe you?
Personally, I think you should be worried at this. You are continuing to argue from the general - hoping to demonstrate on logical grounds that your conclusion must follow. It seems obvious to you that the world must include this dichotomy, and yet it is not equally obvious how you go about determining who is in which category. I think you should be concerned that your best argument is "It seems like anyone who doesnt live as if God exists must be living as if God doesnt exist" (counter to most others' intuition, it seems) and yet you don't have an obvious example of some action which Dave must be taking inconsistent with living as if God exists.
For my part I have no particular drive to prove you wrong, so I'm not going to argue just for the sake of it. If you bring up one of these specific actions and I agree then the conversation will be over - you'll be right.

Bear in mind though, it is not actually enough to demonstrate an action which everyone who lives as if God exists must take. You also have to demonstrate that one wouldn't take that action if one was living as if God doesnt exist.
Just to clarify. Are you saying there are two categories and we don't know who is in which category?
Original Position hopefully made this clear - there does not appear to be any such choice X and situation Y (beyond things like honestly answering whether you believe in God).

If they exist, it would be great to hear what they are.

EDIT: *To repeat the counterexample to your claim that everyone falls into one of those two categories:

"I have a friend who doesnt go to church, donates a moderate amount to charity, donates heavy amounts of time in things he considers to be 'worthy causes', really likes hot chocolate, works in the theatre industry, is unmarried (and considers marriage to be an error for everyone), says he doesnt know if God exists but can't see how the universe would just 'pop into' existence, thinks that morality is subjective,....

How is he living? Do you need anything else? When he drinks coffee he has one sugar and milk."

Yeah, perhaps I should have been making this more explicit too. I do not dispute that some people live as if God exists, nor that some people take actions due to their belief in God. Clearly the difference is that Jibninjas seems to think that if you don't do these things it is therefore an assertion that God doesnt exist.

The important actions though are those which would be implied by 'living as if God doesnt exist' I wonder if Jibninjas thinks it is purely failure to take a God-consistent action?

Well, you didn't, and you continue not answering it below.

I can't tell if this is 'Yes, deists are living as though god does not exist' or 'No, deists are not living as though god does not exist'.

As above. I am not being unreasonable here; this is not a courtroom and I can't insist you answer solely 'Yes' or 'No'. In fact, I'm happy if you do more than that, and go into detail about why you think what you think. But neither do I have to pretend a whitewash is anything other than a whitewash.

And like I said, yes, there's more to come once you finally do answer. The fact that we can't get there until you answer is not my responsibility.

Well, as I said, I was on my phone and unable to set up the posts as I would have liked to show my point. Plus, I knew someone would say it for me so I wouldn't have to worry about phrasing.

So, here is bunny backing up my insults that you're being illogical in your arguments here:

Since the logic fails, you can only show yourself to be correct by pointing out specific examples of what you're talking about. But you refused to do so. It would seem to me, then, that you recognize that you're wrong and just don't want to admit it to yourself yet.

But I've been wrong before. Maybe you just really don't get it.