Creating God

[JimL]

In other words, you don't have any idea what a properly basic belief actually is. Properly basic beliefs can not be empirically proven. That's what makes them "properly basic".

What I know is that (properly basic belief) is a lot of hogwash.

But now I'm curious, what is the empirical evidence that God doesn't exist? I'd love to see what you have -- or think you have.

The fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god is empirical evidence that no such being exists. I know, I know, a lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack, or however the saying goes. But, again, that's just more hogwash. You believe in a god not because of intuition, but because you want to believe in a god, and because it's been drilled into your head to believe in a god, not because it's a (properly basic belief).

To dismiss properly basic beliefs as "nonsense" is to say that we shouldn't believe anything that can't be empirically proven, which eliminates countless beliefs that we take for granted, including "I think; therefore, I am" and "There exists an external universe that I experience through my senses".

No, what it means is that you shouldn't believe in anything, and then call it a (properly basic belief,) when there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure if you're playing dumb because you think this is all just a game, or if you're genuinely dumb.

It's OK to say, "I don't understand X, Y, and Z. Would you mind elaborating?"

[JimL]

I'm not sure if you're playing dumb because you think this is all just a game, or if you're genuinely dumb.

It's OK to say, "I don't understand X, Y, and Z. Would you mind elaborating?"

Again, what I understand is that (properly basic belief) is made up hogwash. There is nothing about believing in god that is either proper, or basic. That's notion is what's dumb.

[Mountain Man]

Now that I have more time, let's deconstruct this a little further.

What I know is that (properly basic belief) is a lot of hogwash.

The fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god is empirical evidence that no such being exists. I know, I know, a lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack, or however the saying goes. But, again, that's just more hogwash. You believe in a god not because of intuition, but because you want to believe in a god, and because it's been drilled into your head to believe in a god, not because it's a (properly basic belief).


No, what it means is that you shouldn't believe in anything, and then call it a (properly basic belief,) when there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

Again, saying that the concept of properly basic beliefs "is a lot of hogwash" precludes countless beliefs that you take for granted. There's no argument against God as a properly basic belief you can make that doesn't also argue against other properly basic beliefs you take for granted, like the belief that your senses allow you to accurately perceive the world around you, or even something more extreme like the belief that you didn't murder someone this morning simply because you have no memory of doing so. Like any properly basic belief, these can be rationally held in and of themselves despite being impossible to empirically prove.

Secondly, the notion of properly basic beliefs is not the end of the argument for God but merely the starting point; however, if one doesn't understand what a properly basic belief is (which you clearly don't), or accept the premise that belief in God can be rational in and of itself, then there's no point presenting any other argument for theism, just as there's no point presenting a scientific argument to someone if they refuse to accept the basic premise behind the scientific method.

Finally, your claim that "The fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god is empirical evidence that no such being exists" is not logical for the very reasons you state, that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That you acknowledge this and then immediately try to gloss over it doesn't magically make the logical problems disappear. Case in point, there is no empirical evidence that my senses are not lying to me, so according to your logic, this is proof that my senses are lying to me.

I think instead of debating religion and philosophy, you might want to attempt an intellectual pursuit that you're more suited for, such as coloring a picture while trying to stay inside the lines.

[JonathanL]

Again, what I understand is that (properly basic belief) is made up hogwash. There is nothing about believing in god that is either proper, or basic. That's notion is what's dumb.

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief. Good job JimL, you just erased the entire structure upon which all of your knowledge about the universe and existence rested.

[seer]

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief. Good job JimL, you just erased the entire structure upon which all of your knowledge about the universe and existence rested.

My problem with PBB is that criterion used to define such a belief is often arbitrary or inconsistent.

[Mountain Man]

My problem with PBB is that criterion used to define such a belief is often arbitrary or inconsistent.

Not really. It's a pretty well understood concept in philosophy.

[seer]

Not really. It's a pretty well understood concept in philosophy.

The concept is well known, but criterion about what constitutes a PBB is arbitrary.

[JimL]

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief. Good job JimL, you just erased the entire structure upon which all of your knowledge about the universe and existence rested.

Then, unlike the universe and existence, the belief in god isn't what you would call a properly basic belief.

[Tassman]

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief. Good job JimL, you just erased the entire structure upon which all of your knowledge about the universe and existence rested.

Yes the belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief, if you want to argue in those terms. OTOH nothing about believing in god is either proper, or basic, given that such belief is not based upon reasoning from evidence. This is obviously what Jim meant.

[Mountain Man]

The concept is well known, but criterion about what constitutes a PBB is arbitrary.

Not really.

[Mountain Man]

Yes the belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs about the world around you is a properly basic belief, if you want to argue in those terms. OTOH nothing about believing in god is either proper, or basic, given that such belief is not based upon reasoning from evidence. This is obviously what Jim meant.

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

Similarly, the belief that an omnipotent Creator can and would make himself known to his creation can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

Nevertheless, it is rational to accept both of these beliefs as true in and of themselves.

[JimL]

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

Similarly, the belief that an omnipotent Creator can and would make himself known to his creation can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

Nevertheless, it is rational to accept both of these beliefs as true in and of themselves.

Nonsense. What makes belief in an omnipotent creator rational? The notion is simply made up, an imagination, not evidence based!

[Mountain Man]

Nonsense. What makes belief in an omnipotent creator rational? The notion is simply made up, an imagination, not evidence based!

What makes it rational to believe that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs?

[Tassman]

The belief that reasoning and evidence can lead you to true beliefs can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts whereas faith-based beliefs which cannot.

Similarly, the belief that an omnipotent Creator can and would make himself known to his creation can not be proven through reasoning and evidence.

There is no similarity between fact-based beliefs and beliefs based on faith unsupported by verifiable facts.

Nevertheless, it is rational to accept both of these beliefs as true in and of themselves.

It is not rational to accept both of these propositions as true in and of themselves for the above reasons.