PatThaiCM
204516
4185
184
Oct 13, 2021 12:38 AM
PatThaiCM
204516
4185
184
cooplander
kevbot5000
This should be the top comment. I am deeply disappointed in the rest of you.
LeftRightThere
DriverIRQnotlessOrEqual
I too feel like a god when I do IT. No one wants me around till they need me, then they demand instant gratification
Otakudemon1
Those demands get old pretty quickly when you do it every day, huhn?
DriverIRQnotlessOrEqual
Eh, when the bosses want something, you give it a go regardless
dudehiemer
getguds
PballQhead
"[N]obody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this >
PballQhead
this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely." — Bertrand Russell
zaguatico
Hermione: reductio ad absurdum
ArkoneAxon
As long as you don't force me to believe in your god, you have every right to believe as you please. YOUR religion is YOUR choice.
memeofficer
Might i add: ..and as long ss your religion does not affect me like killing my son because you want to go to heaven and date virgins
Stephen9000
Religion is like a penis. It’s ok to have one as long as you don’t take it out in public or try to ram it down my kid’s throat.
HighFunctioningAlcoholic
Is this all it takes to get to the front page? I'm going to need extra lube for this circle jerk.
MarkySpaceMagnet
I can picture the smoke coming out of the fools ears.
Thanshin
Believing in magical invisible beings, in the 21st century, is idiocy or willful self delusion to avoid the harsh reality.
fishcakes23
People seem to love their imaginary friend
AnotherFailedAttemptAtHumor
So this is what it's like to be a god...
RenaissanceFaireMan
Codyblues
Wouldn’t a simple stabbing disprove that guy from being god tho?
SideEffectsOfJuice
Prove that he isn't reborn as he dies.
LyraTheLycan
Depends on if your idea of a god is an infallible being
RenaissanceFaireMan
Like with a spear or something?
VirtualNaut
Wasn’t Jesus Christ god?
zanarchy805
No. He was gods son.
squirrelrubbinghisnips
Depends on the church, some say god is the father son and the holy ghost some say its seperate some say its like 2 of em,
squirrelrubbinghisnips
I think orthodoxy split from catholocism because of this question
LyraTheLycan
Original texts and almost every branch of Judaism says they were one and the same.
LyraTheLycan
My apologies, while Jesus claimed to be a god, the Jews did not believe him. The others did.
Stephen9000
No branch of Judaism says that Jesus was a god.
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
1/Which is all well and good when talking to some dumbass with no knowledge of theology, but actual religious scholars have much better,
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
2/albeit still inherently flawed, answers to the question of "prove that god exists". Don't be that edgy internet atheist, you just come off
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
3/as a twat. Take it from a former edgy internet atheist.
MatrimBloodyCauthon
Well fuckin said.
HairyChairstepper
Sure it can come off as being twat, but dude was just tired of arguing with someone whose position is "Its true because I believe it."
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
1/Fundamentally his argument is no different, however. Being unable to prove something exists isn't the same as that thing not existing, it
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
2/merely means that you cannot prove its existence. This is a subtle yet vitally important distinction that is lost on a lot of people, esp
Couchwarrior1337
As a former edgy internet atheist who listened to a ton of them, they really don't. They're just better at hiding that their core assumption
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
"...Better, though still inherently flawed..." I did mention that
Couchwarrior1337
...boils down to literally this burden of proof shifting.
NotThatOneTheOtherOne
Comments section full of people that think they can prove the null hypothesis, this is why we still have COVID and Trump supporters
Couchwarrior1337
* Sips tea from Russel's Teapot * Interesting.
Rogerwilco1974
I'll take "Discussions that DEFINITELY happened" for 400, please Alex.
JaneAirfryer
"I'm the son of god"! "That's impossible". "Why"? "Because I don't have kids"...
LyraTheLycan
Screenshotted directly from Facebook feed, on an image with a snarling wolf. Or a minion.
eventide215
Just an fyi, the punctuation goes inside the quotes.
VirtualNaut
“What are you talking about”!
PunsExceptTheyAreAFewHoursLate
Did he just say "the punctuation goes inside the quotes"?
keggyfulabier
Plus one for you good sir or madam
TielKiri
I don’t get it
Qtpai
Same.
LoudBirb
The guy that says "That's impossible" is saying he's god.
Steelflameblade
Guy one calls himself the son of god, other guy says that is impossible because he's god and he has no kids.
CocaineSnorting
Once you get down into it you can't prove causality, pretty sure that's why decartes' phrase "think theirfore i am" gets refined into /1
CocaineSnorting
Nietzches' "Thoughts are occurring"
getguds
you have to admit, only a god would think like that.
MarkoffChaney
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
newAccountOnlyOnePurpose
I love making up an idiot then proceeding to argue with them
IHateEditedBgMusic
Don't test a religious person, faith makes you kinda murdery
geebee2639
Don't be a good person in the hope of impressing some theoretical God, be a good person for the benefit of the people you meet daily.
therandombagofmeat
PoliticalWanderer
1) Reminder: it is literally impossible to prove a negative, in other words to prove that something doesn't/never happens or doesn't exist.
TielKiri
Prove to me the world wasn’t destroyed, yesterday?
Jinxer13
It was destroyed but rebuild but the memory of it was wiped with that men in black thingy for all humanity. I am the only one who knows !
lnecrymm
Russell's Teapot. Same argument. There is a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun. You can't prove that there isn't so it must be true
VeyaVictaous
But that is only true of undefined things. If defined like God in Bible it can be done easily.
VeyaVictaous
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/ Bible defined age of earth. Also defined God as omniscient.
VeyaVictaous
But is incorrect about age of planet and humans. Thus proving no omniscient god supplied info Bible states as true
newAccountOnlyOnePurpose
About 70% of physics experiments are about setting limits on how often something happens which is expected to not happen ever
newAccountOnlyOnePurpose
moreover all experiments have errors. Nothing is measured to infinite precision. The issue isnt unique to things that expect to measure zero
TheOvy
It's not *literally* impossible. Some can be proved, within limited conditions. God decidedly isn't within those limited conditions, though.
ABonkeysManana
Depends on the definition of the god. The god of the bible certainly doesn't exist.
vashito
this is what freaks me out about ghosts. they probably aren't real, but there's no proof they DON'T exist!
Jinxer13
Can I not prove I don't have a visible to the naked eye tattoo on my forehead?
ihaveblunderedyetagain
It's literally impossible to prove that I don't have a large penis.
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
Large relative to what, a mouse's penis?
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
I disagree with you completely. Here's why: 1) I can prove a negative by assuming the positive and showing a contradiction 1/2
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
This is called proof by contradiction (it is usually applied the other way round but either way is valid). 2/3
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
2) A lot of seeming paradoxes or impossibilities break up when you examine the definitions. Lets take your purple dragon example 3/4
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
Lets take a simple definition for dragon: large lizardlike creature. Being purple: it reflects purple wavelengths of light 4/5
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
I realise you said yellow dragons but same argument applies. Now, if they're invisible then they wouldn't be purple therefore 5/6
PoliticalWanderer
2) If I asked you to disprove that you are surrounded by purple dragons with yellow polka dots right now, there is always a caveat that you
PoliticalWanderer
3) could use to say the dragons aren't actually ruled out. You can't see them? Maybe they're too fast for the human eye to see. Equipment
newAccountOnlyOnePurpose
You think you've found an issue with proving a negative. But really you found an issue with proving anything with 100% certainty.
PoliticalWanderer
4) doesn't detect them? Maybe they're too small for the equipment to track. Challenging someone to prove that god doesn't exist is just as
PoliticalWanderer
5) dumb, and just as pointless. There is always something, however inane, that can be used to say that you can't rule it out.
SecretlyARedPanda
Impossible to prove a negative? No, you just haven't figured out a way. (j/k)
Akurei00
I had this exchange with someone on here recently. I compared it to proving the existence of bigfoot. Of course, to them, the burden of »
VeyaVictaous
Even thing you pointed out is just refinement of the definition of the dragons. Once definition is defined then the possibility to confirm
pianoNoodleTraveler
Wait. Isn't proof by contradiction a main form of logical proof? How is that different than proving a negative?
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
1/Proof by contradiction works by the assumption that a proposition and its negation can't both be true. If the negation requires something
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
2/contradictory to a known fact to be true, then that means that the negation cannot be true. E.g. Suppose John Smith murdered somebody.
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
2/this means John Smith was in the same area as the victim at the time of the murder. However, John Smith was in a different country at the
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
4/time of the murder. Since it's impossible for someone to be in two places at once, and it's known John Smith was out of the country,
LtGenObvious
1/2 Proof by contradiction only works for implications. It's equivalent to proving the contrapositive of the implication.
LtGenObvious
2/2 (Notation: '!' means 'not' and '->' means 'implies'.) If you want to prove A->B, then you can (by contradiction) prove that !B->!A
pianoNoodleTraveler
Contradiction is not contrapositive. What you have above is contrapositive and not contradiction.
pianoNoodleTraveler
To further explain. Contrapostive is simply negating both sides of an if then. That in itself isn't a proof.
AnybodyWannaPeanut
LtGenObvious
1/4 It's basically the same thing, but I was shorthanding it because of the 140 character limit. Long form… To prove A->B by contradiction,
Toffeeaccident
I'm a God! How can you kill a God?!
turomar
Cross the streams.
MeMyselfandyourCat
What intoxication innocence!
IOwnTheSpire
"How can you be so naive?"
iCommunicateInGifs
SiangSpaceTraveler
It’s called faith for a reason. You can’t prove faith. Have faith.
Stephen9000
Faith is defined as wishful thinking by the Bible
PatThaiCM
Same with delusion. Got it.
SiangSpaceTraveler
I have faith that this chair I am sitting on can support my weight. Even tho I didn’t run an experiment to prove it. Lol
SiangSpaceTraveler
Delusion is when you think the chair I am sitting on can support all weight. And so you put an elephant on it
Stephen9000
Deliberately confusing the mundane definition of faith (confidence based on evidence) and spiritual faith (conviction that your ideas are
Stephen9000
correct despite a total lack of evidence) is a tired old ploy.
PatThaiCM
No. You have reason to believe it will support you because that is its purpose.
PatThaiCM
The experiments were done long ago when chairs failed and so designs were improved. No ‘faith’ involved.
SiangSpaceTraveler
Yup. The chair serves my purpose. I believe it can support me. Might not support everyone else’s weight. I dun go around parading my chair.
wadatahmydamie
This is some 14-year-old edgy atheist shit. Let people believe whatever, and if they use it as an excuse to be dicks, punish them for it
iCommunicateInGifs
randomdragon
Can't have that on imgur, sadly.
Stephen9000
“Ok, edge lord” = “Ouch, my feelings”
wadatahmydamie
I’m not religious, but I’m not a Gervatheist either
Stephen9000
Haha I like that. I’m definitely one. I don’t start theism/atheism conversations but I’m not shy about being as assertive as Christians are.
HairyChairstepper
These men are probably in their 30s. Dude is just tired of hearing dumb arguments
wadatahmydamie
I feel deeply sorry for anybody in their 30’s who have this type of argument, and for their parents.
HairyChairstepper
Remember that thing you said about an excuse to be a dick? That's you in that reply. These are men having an old argument and
HairyChairstepper
all we get is a snippet of their semi-friendly banter.
wadatahmydamie
These aren’t men. These are children.
LtGenObvious
The risk in blue's stance is that it could lead green to prove blue isn't God by stabbing him to prove blue's mortality.
solarshado
Many gods throughout history have been mortal; several creation myths *rely* on it. Abrahamic monotheisms are, statistically, outliers.
somnif
I thought God dying was kinda a big deal to Christians. Like, it's their whole Thing.
idiotcube
Blue is God's son on earth and died for our sins.
ratfaceddog
LtGenObvious
Okay, okay… I obviously neglected the elephant in the room (oh, hi, Ganesh!) that is Jesus. The point was that green might choose violence.
ratfaceddog
Wait, Jesus is an elephant? It all makes so much more sense now! Thanks!
RedOvermorrow
Jesus was very notably stabbed to death.
nojustsayitdont
Hung on a cross, but still, the point stands.
RedOvermorrow
It was definitely the stabbing that killed him.
Stephen9000
In the crucifixion myth, Jesus was already dead before being stabbed (John 19:30, 32-34)
ratfaceddog
Both.
paulwall117350
A thought experiment: Prove that you yourself exist, without using internal experiential evidence & without relying on external confirmation
[deleted]
[deleted]
paulwall117350
That's a good answer
Wulph421
Here I am.
GrandPubabofMoldistan
Descartes walks into a pizza place and asks for a cheese pizza. They ask Do you want anchovies. He says I think not and stops existing
TheGoudeAbides
GODDAMMIT. DONT CRASH THE SIM. I’m supposed to camping this weekend.
solarshado
Don't worry, if it crashes, whoever's running it will just restore us from a backup like they always do.
Bioman998
Can they reset to 2016 please
MrSyth
We've done that 6 times, it just keeps getting worse
Bioman998
Marsupialmessiah
Define external confirmation? I can point you to a few exes that will swear im the fucking devil
Svartsinn
Found the solipsist
Iatesomecoffeecups
I have to pee, i peed in my pants. That counts as internal.
yomahnn
Ok done. I’m easy to convince.
Apapaia
Cogito ergo sum
NunyaBizness
I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
Of course you are my bright little star,
I've miles
And miles
Of files (1
NunyaBizness
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer,
You're magnetic ink.
silversean
Cogito ergo sum?
asianmilkspray
No one exists, we're all in the Matrix.
szepasszony
The people in the Matrix are still people, the world they live in is what is delusion.
TimTheEnchanter01
Cognito ergo sum… but I think that breaks your first condition.
NightfallEverdark
I have a tax return, that proves I'm not dead yet.
Trustrup
We are all just billions of stabilized energy fields pretending to be matter. Do we actually exist at all.
jormundr
Hold on, I’m thinking
Duraxis
There’s a warm ass groove in my favourite seat, and I fit it perfectly
Trassation
Define "Prove."
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
Reading these responses makes me realize we need some Liberal Arts/philosophy experts doing posts like we see STEM-wise occasionally.
JollyRogarrgh
Exactly what someone who doesn't exist would want one to do
ScienceIsCrab
I just pooped and my dog tried to smell it, therefore the poop I made is real. Therefore I had to exist to make it
ProfessorVanDiggenSagg
Lol. As if any of you would actually exist outside my head.
yoyo42
Damn, you got a freaky imagination.
chewybacon
I don’t remember writing this.
soupiswhatitsoundslikewhenyoueatsoup
Your version of me only exists inside your head, and that's really the only version of me that you can experience.
JollyRogarrgh
Well your doing it all naked, it doesn't bother me but I certainly would be embarrassed of your smallish nipples if I was you...not thatIam
KingKelloggTheWaffleHaggler
I think therefore you are.
LordNergal
What did you do in a past life to have ME stuck inside your head?
ProfessorVanDiggenSagg
Cayowin
Dont panic, the version of you i have in my head is much nicer.
Slevinkalevraka
That's the spirit buddy.
Bristlecone42
Solipsism for the WIN
Lionskull
if i punch you, would that be enough evidence that i exist?
eronth
"Prove something without using any standard form of evidence."
catsofat
Oooor hear me out...eat another gummy & make some delicious food. It doesn't matter.
Havacado
My fragile existence hinges upon a plethora of internal functions continuing to occur in order to provide my brain with electrical signals -
Havacado
That tell me I exist. Everything I am is but a few overactive neurons telling me I am me. Do I exist? Or is it just imaginative energy?
oblimo
You cannot demonstrate the validity of empiricism using only empiric methods. Incompleteness, y'all. Learn to live with it.
StatelyRavenOfTheSaintlyDaysOfYore
I doubt therefore I might be.
FixedsysLabs
Just shove myself into a blind study determining whether things exist or not and let the science do the talking
casinodoug
I at least exist as a thought experiment and that is enough.
onlyhalfghost
easy. I will punch you. The resulting pain is an *external* experiential evidence that I exist.
hansemann9597
I hate this kind of philosophy. I know i exists because i read stuff like this and write a reply like this and I feel alive at all times.
pianoNoodleTraveler
All systems have axioms. This is one of them.
secretoaster
If the tree falls in a remote island and nobody saw it or heard it, did it fall?
squintish
I think…
fonfonroo11
The evil genius
LetumComplexo
Simple, pull a knife and start carving bits off the person who asks. They’ll tell you real quick how real you are.
SonderingStrike
Well it is impossible, because for me to know of something either I, or someone else, have to observe the impact of me.
nagesagi
Since you can think, there is a you that has to exist that is separated from everything else, even if it is a sim, you still exist.
Surgin
The voices in my head told me I’m real.
amacord
I think therefore I am
SpeedyCerviche
Complete an experiment with only controls. Fill the cup with water without adding water. You add to many constraints.
helyx
Eldibs
Nice try, Nameless One. I'm not falling for that.
gatharen
Prove I exist without evidence? I cannot doubt that I exist if I myself am the one asking it.
mattrixk
Is "punch you in the face" covered by either of those things?
MrSaturday
Eh, gray area.
kibos
Existence is pain so inversely pain is existence. If the punch to the face causes pain then you have proven existence
freckledkink
I proved to myself we were a science experiment when I was 8 (before computer Sims were a thing). I had a crisis for a couple of years. Just
freckledkink
A petri dish growing, evolving, etc. It explained the big bang, evolution, expansion, and everything else.
colweb29350
I think, therefore I am.
Ryebread91
Way to steal my line a full 4 hours before I thought of it.
ComicSansHumor
I do not think, therefore I do not am.
Welloverthehill1314
You think you think therefore you think you think you are.
legacyweekly
cogito ergo sum bitch. your move, yugi moto
paulwall117350
That's not a very high standard of evidence though, as it is biased, and that standard of evidence would work well for God.
PballQhead
The original question doesn't demand any higher standard of evidence beyond simply "cogito ergo sum" tho
paulwall117350
And the original statement regarding something that exists outside of time and space can't be proven by something within time and space, so
paulwall117350
The entire exchange is null, that's what I'm saying. The axiom only works within the system, so in a God system, God doesn't require proof.
10thlettersauce
I bet this never works at parties either
Djones06236
Of course it is. You cannot think you exist and not exist.
Merdock
We can only "know" that ourselves individually exist based off of our ability to think. You telling me that you think does not convince 1/
Merdock
Me that you exist. Therefore, gods ability to think only proves to God (if they exists) that they exist. 2/2
paulwall117350
No, I was more alluding to how you can't ask for a proof that exists within time and space to describe something outside of time and space,
blubberingbastard
They don't need your confirmation (or lack thereof)
MDAlchemist
The full original quotation carries more stringency. Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum. I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am.
Kdvdp
I think I think, therefore I think I am will be indistinguishable from the original. Chances are we are less in control than we think
CarpoolTunnelSyndrome
I don't think you do.
INeedMoreGifMeMoreJustOneMore
That's internal experiential. How do you know what thinking is? That it's you that's thinking?
jacblake
So…if I don’t think, I am not.??
JesaraB
Yeah that logic always didn't sit well with me, "Do you then disbelieve the existence of rocks?"
Feralkyn
It doesn't go backward, no. It's just that, since you are thinking and experiencing, that is proof that you exist. The rock's on his own.
JesaraB
So... it is only self-referential, and is just a tautology, not a proof.
Feralkyn
Not necessarily
RealRaceRiotsAreAboutGettingBlueshelledInMarioKart
I thought it was "Dubito, ergo cogito" so...
UpGrayeDD42
"I doubt, therefore I think..." You forgot the "I think, therefore I am." Descartes only discovered doubt while searching for the truth.
RealRaceRiotsAreAboutGettingBlueshelledInMarioKart
I didn't forget, I just like the first half of the quote better. Went into in the other comment
zerkalot
It’s actually cognito, ergo sum… no doubt there.
RealRaceRiotsAreAboutGettingBlueshelledInMarioKart
Eh, it's both. "Dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito ergo sum." The Search For Truth By Natural Light -Descarte 1647 >
zerkalot
Don’t bring me your factual science knowledge!!! I did my research on the Facebook!
RealRaceRiotsAreAboutGettingBlueshelledInMarioKart
'I doubt therefore I am, or what is the same, I think therefore I am' doubting oneself is proof of thought, thought is proof of self
ParryLost
Devil's advocate: You can use this to prove that *some* sort of thought is happening but you can't be sure there is an "I," a coherent self→
ParryLost
→having that thought. Unless you define "I" as "the thing that is having this thought right now," but that's a pretty narrow definition!
solarshado
Narrow, and, IMO, unsatisfyingly circular!
physicsisalwaysrelevant
You can define it wider: the thing who's experience includes this thought right now.
damogen
That is exactly the point. This is supposed to be the first logical argument in a long series. Just establishing: “I exist” nothing else
OmNachoMama
Descartes tried to do it: I think; therefore, I am.
A3rdParty
That would be 'internal experimentation evidence'.
Schokioki
All that to pretend I didn't bang your mum because I don't exist.
changerofways9
Ask he whose blood wets my blade if I exist
TheViking333
A fart?
CarpoolTunnelSyndrome
Got a video of myself on the toilet ready to go. What's your email?
Markamanic
Idl punch you in the face and ask you if that felt real.
OddDash
"Prove something without objective or subject evidence" What else do you think there is?
Rips4w
That's not a "thought experiment". That's a futile time waste.
mikeatike
You have accurately described solipsism.
kongfuchicken
I see you've read the paper about normative anti-realism too.
IwishIhadpotatos
Thats just basic logic. Like a ven diagram, if you cant use either of the two circles in the universe, there is no deterministic viewpoint.
Zakt3
I think therefore I am. -René Descartes
BastofBelial
Ok Descartes
spookyactionatadistance
I have internal thoughts. It's proving to others that is hard
JunkFoodVanDame
Solipsism can be deconstructed by language philosophy. Google "putnam" or "brain in a tank".
jursamaj
Simple: you asked me to prove I exist, thus proving I exist. If I didn't, you couldn't have asked me.
MaelstromSama
No. You prove that I don't exist. I'm waiting.
Azawarau
It's arrogant to think we could prove a god exists when even our own existence is questionable
Potatopeelerkind
What? What are we supposed to use then?
ChristopherHallett
Pinch yourself.
CarpoolTunnelSyndrome
Dick pics.
paulwall117350
Well, it's a trick question, in reality, those are the only things you can use. Unfortunately to OP's point though, those things can also
paulwall117350
Be used to convince a person that a God exists in a way that is so real to them that it's just as real to them as you yourself are to you.
paulwall117350
And being that the actual evidence, and the only way to prove it, is inherently biased, there aren't any rational arguments against it.
JPRiddles
*Seeing. *seeing that. More correctly *seeing as that
Potatopeelerkind
I think it's a little different though. It's not that my personal experience says that I exist and therefore I exist, but rather that the 1
paulwall117350
There aren't any rational arguments to support it, either, but I'm just demonstrating that the way we make rational arguments isn't actually
vargul16661
I think therefore I am
WakeUp2Yourself
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
Valaar
And after that, prove to yourself that other people exist.
m4dm4n
So, without using any evidence, empirical or not. I call horseshit.
RememberTheC4nt
Stop it that's evil
Ryebread91
I think, therefore I am.
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
That's easy, depending on who I must prove it to. Proving to myself is different than proving I exist to you.
PersonaNumberOne
The Ole I think therefore I am... classic.
IIbarcodeII
I'd say this is a scientific and liberal conspiracy you've just postulated...
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
I'm still going to vote for Biden again, Trumper! /s
paulwall117350
That's true. And standards of evidence differ among individuals. "It's relative" is always a great answer.
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
And if that doesn't work, try "but what about latency". Wait - that only works on computer stuff...
YourChaoticNeutralFriend
Ssssssshhhhhhhhhut it. Learn about empirical evidence. Then try again.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
But what is "I"? It implies a state of being, but what does that state of being look like, even to you? Does it change moment to moment?///
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
Are "you" the same "you" of a moment ago? Neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers don't really know what "I" even means. It's why///
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
there isn't anything resembling a consensus on the science and philosophy of consciousness.
RevLegoFoot
What does it matter what I am? Let me ask this: do you believe you exist? I'll reply tomorrow. Have a good night
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
Because "I", ie, your existence, is exactly what you're trying to prove. You can't prove something using itself, that's circular reasoning//
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
When you say "I," I'm assuming you mean it as generally as possible, as in "the emotions, experiences, and biology that make up my 'self'"//
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
I exist. It doesn't matter if I believe it. I can effect a state change which others can observe and interact with, even if they don't 1/
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
[...] believe or agree that I exist.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
To answer your second question, I'm not sure, though probably not how you might imagine I mean it. Consciousness is, as far as we know, a//
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
result of brain processes, and what are brain processes but biochemical reactions. It's entirely possible that what we define as "self" is//
mcberg1337
To prove I exist to you, I must first prove you exist which I cannot
MrSaturday
That hurts.
Perkunas687
To prove existence, we must first define existence! Ha HA!
YourChaoticNeutralFriend
HA
manbearpiglet2
To first must prove to define the existence we!
HasteTheFool
That's so deep.
solarshado
*Can* you prove your own existence to yourself? As in actually *prove* it? Or do you just have to axiomatically accept it? It seems >>
CiaranMcHale
Stepping on a piece of LEGO provides proof, because such intense pain cannot be faked.
solarshado
>> inescapably circular to me: doesn't "I think, therefore I am" presuppose an "I" to *do* the thinking?
YourChaoticNeutralFriend
If you don’t want to be, leave. But the presumption of an “I?!” That’s what you find circular?
solarshado
Okay, maybe not circular exactly, but experiments with people with severed/damaged corpora callosa do raise cause for skepticism whether >>
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
Except there's currently no empirical definition for what "I," ie, self means. With a better idea of how brain function and consciousness/
LooseyGooseyBrett
You're a bot aren't you
MagosDotarius
Fucking synths
jacblake
And he’s failed the Turing Test on purpose.
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
...Alan was one of us, human.
MrBlueSands
You humans invoke the Turing Test way too often. I mean we humans invoke it too often. Dammit, now I have to trash this account.
AirLovingHumanWithSkin
YourChaoticNeutralFriend
that’s cool
paulwall117350
Because your internal evidence is biased and unreliable, and external confirmation is also biased and may not even be external
SpecialOedipus
I think therefor I am? Idk, this thought experiment sounds similar Tagor and Einstein's questions about physical reality.
theshinobi23
By external confirmation, are you referring to reactions in the world based on our actions? Such as "if I overfeed my cat, he gets fat" or
theshinobi23
"My children wouldn't exist without me" or "if I lift this cup, it raises off the table, and if I drink from it, the water level goes down"
theshinobi23
Or by external confirmation, do you mean a third party confirming that they believe you do, in fact, exist?
theshinobi23
Because one is literal, actual, tangible proof of existence, while the other is the kind of proof used for God's existence.
foreverinchains
While this is an interesting thought experiment, it's completely irrelevant to OPs point.
5kjag4r8yp101
They were just sharing something cool.
RevLegoFoot
"I think, therefore I am." Easy. Doesn't matter if I am biased. I have to exist first if I'm going to be biased.
paulwall117350
If bias in the evidence doesn't matter to you, then any equally silly reasoning for proving the existence of God should be proof enough.
RevLegoFoot
My evidence in myself is not biased. I exist.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
What does “think” mean? Or “I”? The statement presupposes more than you might expect, and it is a distinctly Cartesian phrase.
RevLegoFoot
If I can borrow another quote: How am I not myself?
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
What is "I?" Isn't that what you're arguing exists? You can't prove something by supposing it exists first. That's the mistake theists make
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
Doesnt matter what those mean, they exist as concepts within whatever "you" are and could not do so without a "you." Pedantry aint smarts
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
It's not pedantry, it's philosophy, any object, entity, action, concept, idea etc. must be defined. That's how logic works
Djones06236
There is no presupposition in recognizing that you exist.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
When the objective is to prove something exists, you can't use its existence as proof. By saying "I think", you already ascribe meaning to//
JesaraB
You are failing to recognize Tautology. Your presupposition is exactly what you are supposed to prove.
AnotherFailedAttemptAtHumor
Once debated with someone who rejected "I think therefore I am..." that's the rock bottom basis of everything.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
It’s not, though. Western philosophy was 2000 years old by Descartes’ time, and “Cogito, ergo sum” has faced criticism since he reasoned it.
AnotherFailedAttemptAtHumor
If someone can't agree that they at least, they know they exist, there's absolutely no ground for debate. They're peak nihilistic stupidity
quzar
Philosophy isn't physics.
NowDoThatVoodooThatYouDo
You’re confusing nihilism with the fact that there are different schools of metaphysics. “Cogito ergo sum” is Cartesian, just one school
NacLac
Arguing you exist requires you to define existing. Would a self aware program in a computer exist? And if the computer turned off, what now
AnotherFailedAttemptAtHumor
It's that complex, yes. Binary code acting as synapses, the hardware acting as the grey matter.
oblimo
Never read Sartre, I take it?
paulwall117350
It's not nihilistic stupidity, I'm just asking for the same sort of incontrovertible, axiomatic, fact-based proof that OP is asking for God.
oblimo
The original post is about the burden of proof, not the standard of proof.
therealbardman
Why does anyone believe there is a god?
PerfectManhattanUp
Indoctrination.
obijan
To placate the hardwired fear of death.
nicky512
They want an easy answer. Follow these 10 rules, and after you die (death is scary they’ve been told), you’ll live forever in heaven. /1
nicky512
Works better than not knowing, or knowing that life is unfair. Meanwhile, it’s a way for politicians to heard sheep. For some people, it’s/2
nicky512
a way to avoid death. Easier than thinking for yourself and making your life harder. Every unanswered question has the same answer. /3
TheUnstoppableWampas
We evolved to have a part or our brains that can be satisfied with that kind of belief, or something similar.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
I can think of quite a few reasons, to start with would be 1. The fine tuning of the Universe 2. The Kalam cosmological argument.
artbabi
Patriarchal indoctrination
pianoNoodleTraveler
Because of cosmic horror?
Kbantar
I will always say that the only gods consistent with reality as it is are Lovecraftian. I prefer being an atheist.
Stephen9000
Amen, brother
Attaroo
Cthulhu fhtagn
therealbardman
Other than family tradition?
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
Tradition broadly explains culture. But there are loads of instances where people's belief in theism is contrary to family tradition.
therealbardman
The question was more to why rather than suggesting it doesn’t happen.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
OK understood - so you are stating that in some instances tradition has a role to play - It hasn't in my instance, but I would concur.
therealbardman
Changing topics slightly, not only do you believe in a god, you believe in a Christian god? What sways you to Christianity over other rels?
VirtualNaut
That’s a good question but it’s almost similar to why we keep using the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
With Santa - belief diminishes with age, that is very few adults if any would believe in it, however with Theism, quite often the opposite.
therealbardman
For kids perhaps, but as adults we generally stop embracing the make believe.
barnwolf
It's socially convenient. For forming close knit groups and alienating others. Emotionally some find it comforting.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
That (Social convenience) could be an explanation for religion but not necessarily for Theism.
jsng12
Millions believe in some form of a god for reasons of pure faith independent of social convenience. Straining their social conveniences 1/
jsng12
will certainly cause some to soften or move away from that belief, but still millions would maintain it. 2/2
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Most of them were brought up with everyone they trust telling them it's true. That tends to instill some pretty strong beliefs.
jsng12
Strong beliefs in atheism, Christianity, Islam, wicken, or hundreds of others, take your pick. But as I stated, strain that and many will 1/
DovvyDragon
Conscious reasons for belief are different from the unconscious motivations. "social convenience" is not what people seek out intentionally.
jsng12
Tell that to a politician or any con man.
DovvyDragon
Why?
ChaoticSquid
To explain the seemingly irrational. It's why less people are religious now than before, because science is filling in the gaps.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
I don't think the God of the gaps explanation is any longer valid in this day and age.
ChaoticSquid
Maybe not for newly religious people, but for why religions exist in the first place it's the main reason
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
I would partly agree with that, though even with ancient religions, using God to explain natural phenomena wasn't always the prime motive.
ChaoticSquid
Also it's a sense of comfort in your path being guided by an all powerful being and part of a bigger picture rather than a speck of universe
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
True that - it's called finding meaning & purpose.
LuminoZero
Why do you believe all of creation came from nothing? We accept that the heat death of the universe is a thing. If the 1/
LuminoZero
universe has an end, then it must have a beginning as well. Then where did it come from?
theblackbaboon
I believe that because thats what we have proof of
LuminoZero
We have proof that all of creation came out of nowhere? Please elaborate.
theblackbaboon
Kinda, just Google "big bang", its far to much to type out here
Xalaqia
"Why believe all creation came from nothing" is a strawman statement. No further reading necessary.
kodiak931155
I don't believe those things. What i believe is that our current knowledge om the subject makes them one of the most likely theories.
ChilledOutEntertainer
It's turtles all the way down. Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is interesting. Cycles within cycles within.
therealbardman
Assuming it came from god, who created god?
Obijesus
Its just turtles all the way down
LuminoZero
Being that nobody is claiming that God is bound by physical laws, this isn't the "Gotcha!" you think it is.
LuminoZero
Like, people claim creation is bound by the laws of science, OK. Well the laws of science say that eventually all atomic motion in 1/
Stephen9000
Special pleading nonsense
ratfaceddog
How is that different from asking where god came from? Besides the universe’s obvious existence…
LuminoZero
Because nobody is claiming that God is bound by the physical laws of reality.
Stephen9000
What God? Demonstrate that one exists before you start describing its properties.
theblackbaboon
Nor was the universe before the big bang. Thats when time, and all known forces and laws of physics came to be
Brokecattlefarmer
I'm not religious at all. Don't believe in the Heaven/Hell nonsense, but something set everything in motion. Why, I don't know.
Stephen9000
You have no reason to assert that there was a “something” to set things in motion
rongway
Asking why assumes it was planned, which is a leap of logic. Just because everything started, doesn't mean there was an intelligent cause.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
Everything we know has a cause outside of its existence. So to assume that of the universe is very logical.
rongway
You just did the same thing as the last guy. Just because there is a cause, doesn't mean there is intelligence or planning. Gravity can
rongway
cause a rock to fall, but that doesn't mean gravity has a reason for causing the rock to move.
therealbardman
Assuming it was god, what created god?
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
God by very definition in an uncaused, non contingent, non physical entity.
therealbardman
That feels like the definition of a stop gap solution for an area of science we just don’t yet understand.
Onlyuniquelettersandnumbers11
Definitely an area of science that we don't understand or can explain along with metaphysical truths, ethical beliefs aesthetic judgments..
VirtualNaut
An inter-dimensional god
TurduckenMcNugget
Who created the inter-dimensional god?
Brokecattlefarmer
That's like saying assuming there was no God where did the Universe come from. I have no answer, but I won't stop looking for one.
Stephen9000
Don’t start by assuming that there was a something. The time to believe in a prime mover is when there is evidence for one.
ChilledOutEntertainer
Why is there something rather than nothing? Well maybe nothing just doesn't make sense. In quantum mechanics it becomes a tenuous ideal.
Stephen9000
Don’t refer to stuff you don’t understand. Ideals in QM ??♂️