Why I'm not an atheist

[Trout]

Before we ask how we prove hypothesis X we need to know what X is. If X is God we need to say exactly what that is and the definition will lead us to a description of the evidence needed to verify that the thing described actually exists. We need to take care that X is sufficiently defined that it cannot be confused for something else.

Great stuff. Is that how you came to know that minds other than your own exist? Or did you know that other minds existed prior to applying this formula?

I suspect that religions are never so careless as to unveil the thing they pretend to worship.

Agreed

As are scientists.

[firstfloor]

Great stuff. Is that how you came to know that minds other than your own exist? Or did you know that other minds existed prior to applying this formula?

[Trout]

Strictly spearing, a person is directly aware only of his own mind. What he sees in other people is behaviour. Even so, there is a very reasonable consensus that bodies (men and other animals) have minds.

So the answer is "no" you didn't apply the formula you posted. Thanks. Care to answer the question: What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist?

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Can you define "wonderland" please?

Do you think humans fly?

Describe this "sense" you speak of. It could be mental illness.

[Cow Poke]

I suspect that religions are never so careless as to unveil the thing they pretend to worship.

wow

[Juvenal]

Good question. What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist? Maybe I have that one. Or, maybe I have a different one.

A ship that you can fold up into your pocket that unfolds into the best of all ships.

[Trout]

A ship that you can fold up into your pocket that unfolds into the best of all ships.

Don't they call that a ship of fools?

[Jedidiah]

Quoth the free thinking herd member. Trust me when I tell you I'm a skeptic of the highest order.

Freethinkers, like teenagers, think they have an open mind.

[Jedidiah]

You caught some flies, LT. Have fun with them.

[Juvenal]

Don't they call that a ship of fools?

You say to-mah-to, I say Skid-blad-nir.

[Trout]

I say Skid-blad-nir.

Your arguments are gathering coherence. Bravo.

[firstfloor]

Care to answer the question: What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist?

[37818]

Before we ask how we prove hypothesis X we need to know what X is. . . .

I propose that X is the uncaused existence in and of itself. And it does not need any kind of god. Only it can qualify as self existent, nothing else can. The uncaused existence as the base identity for God.

So to say "God does not exist" would be like saying existence does not exist. That part of this problem is solved.

[Trout]

By the way, personal experience (of the divine) does not count as evidence in the usual sense because it cannot be shared.

while I appreciate the readings from the gospel of evidentialism, I cannot help but feel as though the formula you have posited isn't, in fact, the way you came to know that other minds exist.

Plus, you're also saying that personal experience is the only way to know of something's existence if you're truly an evidentialist. So why would you discount personal experience when that suit doesn't fit?

[firstfloor]

while I appreciate the readings from the gospel of evidentialism, I cannot help but feel as though the formula you have posited isn't, in fact, the way you came to know that other minds exist.

Plus, you're also saying that personal experience is the only way to know of something's existence if you're truly an evidentialist. So why would you discount personal experience when that suit doesn't fit?

I think we need to consider two kinds (there may be others as well) of personal experience: the sort that is localised in one or a few people at a time and the other that is available to anyone at any time.

The experience of other minds is of the later type and therefore not controversial.

When are you going to get to the hocus pocus?

[firstfloor]

I propose that X is the uncaused existence in and of itself. And it does not need any kind of god. Only it can qualify as self existent, nothing else can. The uncaused existence as the base identity for God.

So to say "God does not exist" would be like saying existence does not exist. That part of this problem is solved.

I agree that it is reasonable to suppose that the thing from which our local Universe sprang was eternal.