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 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.

Gödel showed that any formal system strong enough to do arithmetic contains true statements it cannot prove. This is one of his famous Incompleteness theorems. We see those truths anyway. So either the human mind is a formal system that has quietly violated its own theorem, or the mind is not a formal, computable system. Pick one. Both answers are interesting, but only one is allowed. If you choose the latter, we have another reason to think that consciousness is not simply a computation. It's qualitatively something different, and non-physicalist interpretations should be taken seriously.

@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.

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."

@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

@Conserberal There's no line blurred, simply your misreading of what I actually wrote. If you claim that God does not exist, that's a positive claim and you have just as much a burden of proof as any other positive claim.

@limitandmind Sure, but your post does blur the line. Logic/math = shared reasoning tools. Science = tested models. God = a specific existence claim. Those aren’t parallel, my friend. The burden doesn’t vanish, but it does stay with the claim being made.

@OptimalBayes @NoahIronFaith Shifting the burden to atheists, who have a positive claim that God does NOT exist and who you claim not to be, is not the same as denying that we have any burden of proof. It's simply an acknowledgement that we won't continue to pretend like we have the only burden.

@limitandmind @NoahIronFaith You're both admitting to engaging in burden of proof fallacy.. If you claim a god exists, then yes the burden of proof is on you I dont claim there is no god My claim is that *your* claim lacks sufficient evidence to justify belief

@Conserberal Nobody said that the burden of proof disappeared

One may certainly believe without mastering theology, however, their burden of proof doesn’t just disappear. And, “axioms” don't equal “God exists.” While math uses definitions and science tests patterns, “God makes everything make sense” is just a feeling, not an explanation. Logic works because it’s shared and testable. God isn’t in that category.

@AristotleRevolt @MartinTweats @graves_aar85283 @AleMartnezR1 @aquavitae96 He's asking why we should accept the second premise, as it's merely stated that God is good and perfect

@MartinTweats @graves_aar85283 @AleMartnezR1 @aquavitae96 @limitandmind You forgot to read the 2nd premise

@NoahIronFaith Exactly. I've found that inviting them to help me design a God detecting experiment, falsifiable, repeatable, measurable, only invites crickets

@limitandmind The best apologetics are is just shifting the burden of proof. “God isn’t real” “How do you know that?” “Jesus was just a good teacher” “How did you come to that conclusion?” Focus them the ground their worldview