Limit and Mind | Know the Times

> Show me the evidence > Sure, that's a reasonable request. Here are the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus's life, death, and Resurection > That's not evidence > Ok, how about the myriad of archeological findings that support the historical Biblical account? > That's not evidence > Alright, let's use science. The Big Bang and Fine tuning show that a Creator is more likely than not > That's not evidence > Ok, perhaps a philosophical argument will do the trick. Contingency, MOA, Moral argument, and the Kalam. > That's not evidence > Ok, it's hard to see what you'll accept as evidence at this point. I'm starting to think you don't actually want the evidence.

I don't see it being uninformative, as it's laying out what we need morality to do. I'm arguing that categorical normativity is a non-negotiable feature of anything deserving the label "morality," and subjectivism can't deliver that. Otherwise there is no reason to come up with a new label. Without categorical normativity, your morality reduces to contingent social agreements, which can be discarded whenever convenient. On the subjectivist's view, if an entire society agreed chattel slavery was fine, it would be.

@limitandmind This becomes uninformative then, if you are claiming that subjective morality collapses in on itself because it has no normative force (meaning it denies categorical reasons) then you're effectively saying subjective morality collapses just because it is an anti-realist theory

Yes, if morality is subjective you still have morality No, you would not undercut science if you accept the universe being bru No, Mathematics doesn't require anything extravagant to be true

@Conserberal I actually agree here, this may be an overreach and I didn't understand Penrose's argument, which is what I was really referring to, as well as I thought.

Gödel showed limits of formal systems. he didn't show minds are "magic." This argument very quietly assumes we can reliably see truths those systems can’t prove. Alas, that already assumes what it’s trying to prove (that our reasoning outruns the system). Furthermore, “not one fixed formal system” is not the same as “non-computable.” Computers can model and extend systems too. As is often the case from this perspective, it's an interesting theorem with an overstretched conclusion :)

A few problems: You're begging the question. You say you discharge your burden by pointing to "lack of evidence", but whether the evidence is lacking is the very thing under dispute. Theists point to contingency, fine-tuning, consciousness, and moral realism as evidence. You can disagree it's good evidence, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist and then claim victory by its absence :) The dragon analogy also backfires. Sagan's dragon is designed to be unfalsifiable, every test is preemptively blocked. Classical theism generates testable expectations about the structure of reality. Treating them as equivalent is a strawman. "Minds depend on physical systems" is an overreach. You've observed a correlation in biological organisms and generalized it to all possible minds, including a categorically different kind of entity. That's like concluding matches are the only ignition source because they're the only one you've seen. "Lack of evidence where we'd expect it" is more nuanced than you're letting on. Sure, if God exists we'd expect some signature, but the question is what kind. Theists argue the signatures are everywhere: contingency, intelligibility, fine-tuning, consciousness, moral experience. You're filtering for a very specific type of evidence (empirical, physically measurable) and then declaring the search came up empty. But if God is the ground of existence rather than an object within it, the evidence would look more like "why is there something structured rather than nothing" and less like a lab result.

Yeah, this is familiar territory - What you're trying to do is redefine "burden of proof" as “any non-neutral mental state," but the burden tracks claims about reality, not just what’s going on in your head. If I say “God exists," I’m making a claim about reality and, thus, shoulder a burden. If I say “God does not exist,” I'm also making a claim about reality and, thus, shoulder a burden. But the strength of said burdens depends upon what’s being claimed. There’s still an asymmetry at play - Theism posits a very specific kind of entity (a disembodied, intentional mind behind the universe). My view is that we have no good evidence for that, and everything we do observe points to minds depending on physical systems. So, yes - while I have a burden to justify that view, I do it the same way we justify rejecting other unsupported entities - by pointing to lack of evidence where we’d expect it, and by relying upon well-supported background knowledge. Again... “there’s an invisible dragon in my garage” and “I don’t think there is” are both claims, but they’re not equally supported.

You don't have to understand all of theology to defend your faith. You don't even need a degree in apologetics to explain why you believe God exists. You just need to stop accepting that the burden of proof is only on you. And you need to remember that love is the highest goal. Math rests on axioms. Science rests on the uniformity of nature. Both are unproven, but fundamental commitments. "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us" Have a reason, don't believe the goofs who say apologetics is worthless. You're allowed to say: "I believe in God for the same reason you believe in logic. It makes everything else make sense."

@DaytimePubSmell Yes, you are obsessed with that but I'm much more interested in staying on topic. Do you concur with Godel that there are truths we can apprehend that have not been proven?

@limitandmind Can't we just hey. I directly ask how old you think life on Earth is? I have engaged in the past with people who seemed reasonable but I eventually realised that they were disguising their Flat or Young Earth position.

Yes, they can. This is what all Christians affirm. Faith is trust, ultimately. But it's not blind trust and it doesn't require a PhD to obtain. That's the beauty of it :) Do you believe in hurricanes? If you answer yes I wouldn't then turn around and question your belief because you can't solve the system of atmospheric diff eqs using spectral methods.

@limitandmind Curious, can someone “believe” in something they don’t understand? Like, say, the Trinity. (Or “perfect being”). Seems like without a deep understanding your “belief“ is just a slogan you chant, and a promissory note to cash in the sweet by-and-by. Thoughts?

@DaytimePubSmell Yes, we can easily fool ourselves.

@limitandmind Former, obvs. Psychology and psychiatry are replete with examples of hominids believing false things.

“I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable.” - James Clerk Maxwell

@alexandertolano We are not just computers, whether one computer or multiple that somehow has a sense of self.

@limitandmind The human mind is not one system. We can observe our own thoughts, and so see where they stumble.

@Conserberal Here's why it's exactly symmetric. You do have a burden of proof because your mental state is not neutral. youtu.be/4dalQu-vdMU?si…

Personally, I do believe God is non-existent. So, yes, you might be inclined to view that as a "claim." But it’s not symmetrical, my friend. While you’re claiming there is a mind behind reality, I'm claiming I see no evidence for that and minds appear to require brains. That’s not equal footing. We don’t treat “invisible dragons exist” and “they don’t” as equally supported either.

@NoahIronFaith @OptimalBayes They take potshots of “thats not evidence” behind their impenetrable bulwark of “atheism isn’t a claim and doesn’t need to be defended”

@OptimalBayes @limitandmind Because you are making a claim (even if your claim is about my claim) you are still making a claim, and so have to prove your claim.

@DW2025X As do I :)

@limitandmind The qualifying comes since I don't always remember who I've interacted with ... my bad Beyond that, I stand by my statement

@AristotleRevolt @graves_aar85283 @AleMartnezR1 @aquavitae96 It’s a mystery to me why this distinction is so important for you but I’ll leave it at that

If the dilemma only has two horns, then yes, you go beyond, escape it, or break out of the dilemma; you don't extend it by putting forward a response. Asking why God is good or how we know it is another question altogether, which doesn't deal with whether goodness is arbitrary or prior to God. As to why, the answer is tied to a bunch of scholastic metaphysics and the like, which I'm not inclined to address.

1. To follow what is good and perfect is a non-arbitrary reason for moral action. 2. God's nature is good and perfect 3. Then, following God's nature is a non-arbitrary reason for moral action.

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith Your lack theism is not a neutral mental state, it’s a proposition, even if just probabilistic. So it must be defended.

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith Imagine I tell you that there are 14,582,243,642,224 blades of grass on earth You ask how I know this, and I say the number was revealed to me in a dream You then reject it not because you know the real number, but because I didn't provide sufficient evidence to justify it

You don’t have to qualify every post you make :) That being said, if atheists lack a belief, even in God’s non-existence, that is a proposition that needs to be defended and they don’t get to epistemically privilege themselves to avoid defending their own views. Lack theism is not a neutral mental state that transfers the burden to everyone else. It’s a linguistic dodge.

One of the biggest problems Christians have is NOT understanding that the "burden of proof" is completely on them as the ones making a positive claim Our entire justice system is based on this principle and you're going to have a difficult time having a good faith conversation unless you embrace this reality Even personal experience is better than telling someone to "prove me wrong" Just a thought, I mean no disrespect

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith That’s not what he was addressing

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith Because I dont claim there is no evidence for God, I claim there is INSUFFICIENT evidence to justify believing in god Rationality is not about what can be proven true or false, it is about what models of the world are justified given the evidence

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith Why is Emerson's argument not sound?

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith Nope. The view I hold is that YOUR view lacks sufficient evidence to justify belief This is easy to demonstrate by your inability to differentiate your beliefs from the imaginary or from fiction

Asking for reasons behind the euthyphro horn that escapes the dilemma is not going beyond euthyphro, it's simply extending the PSR to shore up why you think it's proper to ground goodness in God's nature as opposed to His decree. Asking how or why we know that God is good a priori is a natural question and is getting to the same end goal. It's not beyond Euthyphro, it's double clicking into it.

Which was answered in premise 2. The dilemma has to do with goodness yes but in particular l, the issue presented is that if the action is already good it’s good prior to good or if not but only good because it’s willed by god it’s arbitrary. The idea that God himself by his very nature is good itself is a typical repos e and so to ask it again is not a response. We are passed the euthyphro dilemma. The debate then has to deal with god and his nature which the dilemma doesn’t deal with.

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith You've built an elaborate system in which you don't have to defend the non-view that you hold youtube.com/watch?v=4dalQu…

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith You do not understand. Agnosticism is about what can be known. I am an agnostic-atheist, I am both, as are MOST atheists Most atheists accept the possibility that a god could exist, but do not accept that there is sufficient evidence to believe it

The dilemma asks whether something is good because God said so, or if God says so because it is good. The fundamental question of the dilemma is how to ground "goodness", so asking how we know that God is good is getting at the same thing, how do we ground goodness in a way that escapes the classic Euthyphro.

@limitandmind @MartinTweats @graves_aar85283 @AleMartnezR1 @aquavitae96 And what does that have to do with euthyphro dilemma

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith Ok, then my position simply doesn't address you as an agnostic

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith Atheists generally don't have a positive claim that there is no god, most atheists are agnostic-atheistsn which simply means we dont believe a god exists, but dont claim to know Rejecting the claim that God exists for lack of sufficient evidence doesnt imply there is no god