Proof Doesn't Matter

[Naesala]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

Well a few reasons. To better understand symbolism in novels, to know that one day if he can experience colors, (parallel being if god is real we can one day experience god in heaven) , to make his appearance and home more appealing to others, other reasons along those lines(and other parallels to god, so that you can have eternal happiness rather than eternal punishment, so your life can be possibly better, to give a person hope)

But the equivalent to this discussion would be a blind man (lets call him dave), being told by other blind men, (lets call them the pro-color group) that colors exist. Neither Dave nor the pro-color group have any evidence that colors exist. The reasons you give are based on either 1. the assumption that other people can judge him based on colors, which... when everyone is blind, any judgements made on color would be completely arbitrary. or 2. So that he can adjust his life to live as if colors exist, which... because he is blind, will result in completely arbitrary adjustments in lifestyle that arent based on anything.


To expand, If I came to you and told you that there was a supreme ultimate being in control of the universe. And that such a being has the ability to send your soul to a place of eternal hapiness or pain when you die. His only requirement to send you to a place of eternal happiness, is that you commit aviolent murder in the next five minutes. Would you leave my supreme being as a possibilty? and if so how would you act on this possibility?

Assume, I have provided no evidence of this beings exstence, in fact, I say that it is impossible to know whether the being exists until these five minutes are over.

Well the time limit is a bit of a constraint there seeing as we have 2000+ years of christianity versus a 5-minute interruption. Would I believe the god is a possibility? Yes, I would entertain the notion. How would I react? well depending on how you approached me (lets assume fairly calm and civil, seeming intelligent) I would ask you to tell me more. It is unlikely you could convince me in such a short time (even if we want to argue phenomena, metaphor, unexplained occurances etc. there have been recorded "miracles" and a whole book to push my god forward). If you did convince me, I'd most likely kill you but this would be incredibly unlikely, more likely my current beliefs would take hold and I would not murder because that opposes my current mindset. If no additional evidence was given in those 5 minutes I would default to my current belief system and ignore the person. I do not require impossible evidence like was mentioned before to believe in god.

But let me ask you. Say you were my friend and stood beside me as some man told me this. You leave when I discuss things with him(even if he isnt giving evidence, he just gives me a countdown or something), and later return to find him dead and me gone. You never see me again, and nobody is ever able to find a trace of me. Would you believe the person I killed was right, and that I had been sent to a place of eternal happiness?

[darkrobe]

I would probably believe that you had killed him and run away from the scene of the crime.

I do not see why time limit has anything to do with it. 2000 years of no evidence or 5 mins of no evidence are equivalent in amount of evidence. If belief in nonsense is simply a function of the amount of time nonsense is spouted at you. how strong are your beliefs?

Your assessment that you would keep your current beliefs is very likely. But that is simply based on your familiarity with those beliefs, there is no evidence that the god I proposed is any bit less likely that the god you have purposed.

[Naesala]

I do not see why time limit has anything to do with it. 2000 years of no evidence or 5 mins of no evidence are equivalent in amount of evidence. If belief in nonsense is simply a function of the amount of time nonsense is spouted at you. how strong are your beliefs?

Your assessment that you would keep your current beliefs is very likely. But that is simply based on your familiarity with those beliefs, there is no evidence that the god I proposed is any bit less likely that the god you have purposed.

There is evidence, it is just evidence that you do not count because it isnt evidence enough. So your argument of 2000+ years of nothing doesnt work, because there is something. there are billions of people who have or do believe in the god based on the evidence given to them. The strength of my belief doesnt just come with time, but everything that's happened in that time. it comes from stories of miracles, small and large, it comes from my own thinking (Ive been to church once in my life so I wasnt "spouted at" as you so crudely put it), I have considered other religions and researched them. I've even considered atheism and agnosticism, but based on everything I know I choose my religion.

Familiarity plays a part, but that goes with all things. If youre taught from birth that a book is called a fish by everyone you know and someone comes up and tells you its actually called a book, you arent going to change your mind in five minutes. If you do accept new theories that quick than you are either gullible or unintelligent or both.

[darkrobe]

But if i tell you that all the evidence for your god that you give me is actually proof of my god. would you be able to contradict me? You tell me that your god created a miracle. and I say that you are wrong, that was my god working in ways that you cannot fathom.

[OldTrees]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

Well a few reasons. To better understand symbolism in novels, to know that one day if he can experience colors, (parallel being if god is real we can one day experience god in heaven) , to make his appearance and home more appealing to others, other reasons along those lines(and other parallels to god, so that you can have eternal happiness rather than eternal punishment, so your life can be possibly better, to give a person hope)

But the equivalent to this discussion would be a blind man (lets call him dave), being told by other blind men, (lets call them the pro-color group) that colors exist. Neither Dave nor the pro-color group have any evidence that colors exist. The reasons you give are based on either 1. the assumption that other people can judge him based on colors, which... when everyone is blind, any judgements made on color would be completely arbitrary. or 2. So that he can adjust his life to live as if colors exist, which... because he is blind, will result in completely arbitrary adjustments in lifestyle that arent based on anything.


To expand, If I came to you and told you that there was a supreme ultimate being in control of the universe. And that such a being has the ability to send your soul to a place of eternal hapiness or pain when you die. His only requirement to send you to a place of eternal happiness, is that you commit aviolent murder in the next five minutes. Would you leave my supreme being as a possibilty? and if so how would you act on this possibility?

Assume, I have provided no evidence of this beings exstence, in fact, I say that it is impossible to know whether the being exists until these five minutes are over.

I would assume it might be possible and that I have no reason to bias either belief about its existence. However my decision would hinge on my moral beliefs which view reward/punishment as irrelevant.
However I have not encountered evidence supporting one self consistent moral theory over another self consistent moral theory. Therefore I should be unbiased in my adoption of a moral theory. Thus I do not know if I would end up adopting a moral theory that advocated murder, nothing or sacrifice in this situation.

[Naesala]

I said I would entertain the notion, you told me you would give me -no- evidence. If you just say "oh no, that was my god. I cant tell you why, you couldnt fathom it" It wouldnt compel me, but since Im already entertaining your idea I would continue to ask for more evidence as to why your god is real. I'd hear out your beliefs etcetera, compare them to what I know of other religions and mythologies, and either change my beliefs or not. Granted this would take more than 5 minutes and thats why time matters.

[darkrobe]

Would you consider your moral beliefs independent of whether or not you choose to believe in a supreme being? @OT

[OldTrees]

Would you consider your moral beliefs independent of whether or not you choose to believe in a supreme being? @OT

Yes. It is possible to believe in an immoral deity. It is also possible to believe in a moral deity but be personally mistaken about morality. In fact there is no set of moral beliefs that could not exist without a deity. Though some moral codes like Divine Command Theory would become extremely morally permissive without a divine being existing.

[darkrobe]

I said I would entertain the notion, you told me you would give me -no- evidence. If you just say "oh no, that was my god. I cant tell you why, you couldnt fathom it" It wouldnt compel me, but since Im already entertaining your idea I would continue to ask for more evidence as to why your god is real. I'd hear out your beliefs etcetera, compare them to what I know of other religions and mythologies, and either change my beliefs or not. Granted this would take more than 5 minutes and thats why time matters.

okay, Granted, philosophical discussions generally take longer than 5 minutes. I guess my definition of evidence is slightly different from yours. Lets assume I had an infinite about of time to describe to you my beliefs and why I believe in them. These include things i describe as personal experiences and explanations. You have whatever amount of time to think about these but your only information about them is my personal word. How would you decide what to believe?

[darkrobe]

lets assume everyones moral beliefs are independent of their beliefs in a or multiple supreme beings. What purpose would belief in such a supreme being serve.

[OldTrees]

lets assume everyones moral beliefs are independent of their beliefs in a or multiple supreme beings. What purpose would belief in such a supreme being serve.

All things equal and assuming we are talking outside the realm of evidence? (Aka no societal bulling and divine appearance would be insufficient evidence) The same lack of purpose as disbelief.

[Naesala]

I said I would entertain the notion, you told me you would give me -no- evidence. If you just say "oh no, that was my god. I cant tell you why, you couldnt fathom it" It wouldnt compel me, but since Im already entertaining your idea I would continue to ask for more evidence as to why your god is real. I'd hear out your beliefs etcetera, compare them to what I know of other religions and mythologies, and either change my beliefs or not. Granted this would take more than 5 minutes and thats why time matters.

okay, Granted, philosophical discussions generally take longer than 5 minutes. I guess my definition of evidence is slightly different from yours. Lets assume I had an infinite about of time to describe to you my beliefs and why I believe in them. These include things i describe as personal experiences and explanations. You have whatever amount of time to think about these but your only information about them is my personal word. How would you decide what to believe?

I would decide based on my current knowledge versus the knowledge you gave me. If your argument was compelling enough and your evidence good enough, I would change faiths. If a requirement of this new faith is to kill someone (anyone) before I die I would most likely do it (although theres a looooooong list of things I would have to consider first. There are rules and sins in the Bible that I regularly break, so i might not kill someone. I would need this long discussion before making up my mind)