How do athiests know if something is true or not?

This is strange. An empiricist holds the view he does precisely because he supposes himself capable of unconscious and unintended bias! He decries the subjective truth because it may be biased (and so not truth)

Bias isn't inevitable. But in the empiricist view, the only way to demonstrate bias not at work in self is empirical method: the view of the many will confirm whether the view of self was biased or not.

That is your perspective. YOUR referring YOURSELF to outside adjudication (empirical method), so as to establish whether you are biased or not, is a subjective decision of YOURS.
Anything I decide is a subjective decision (if I understand what you mean by subjective decision, and that's a little unclear, actually; what type of decision is not subjective?). So what's the point of the descriptor "subjective?"

Furthermore, by calling my conclusion a decision, you imply an arbitrariness to it. But I'm saying that it is rational and logical to come to the conclusion I have, which means it is the opposite of arbitrary.

You only refer yourself so because YOU (subjective) figure it best to do so. Which has precisely the same validity as you figuring (subjective) it not necessary to do so. In other words: if we are capable of deciding ourselves prone to error we are also capable of deciding we are not prone error. Or any mix of the two.
What example of me referring only to myself are you talking about?
Neither decision need be right. But we've no absolute means of knowing. But since solipsism is useless, we ignore that and suppose ourselves right.
Not sure what you mean by "absolute," but some might say that a logical conclusion is an absolute one. It's absolutely true that there are no unmarried bachelors. I'm not sure that I'm on board with using the term absolute, but even if I believe with 99.99% certainty that there are no unmarried bachelors, I can still go about my life concluding that there are none and I'll be pretty secure.

I mean, you do suppose yourself capable of bias don't you? Well so do I. It's just that I don't suppose myself to quite the same extent as you.
I dunno, how do we compare how much we consider bias to be working in a person? How do we measure that? Why does that matter?

'Best ultimately founded upon initial conditions. What you consider the best tools to be in whatever the circumstances. If you reckon yourself capable of bias/error in a sector then invoke a tool to aid your circumventing that. Similarly, if reckoning no bias/error then forge ahead without corrective tools.
OK, I can agree to that tentatively, but I'm a little suspicious of being able to decide that one's bias is gone is some circumstance. What's better is to always apply the corrective tools, and then you're sure you're taking care of bias.
 
That's fair enough. I'm just saying that other perspectives exist and there is no absolute need to find suffering problematic.

As for heaven/hell the product of your own heart (decisions like words , being the overflow of the heart)?

Bar for Calvinism (which sees God save aside from any condition in or decision of man) Christianity is pretty much drumbeat that heaven and hell are dependent on the will of man.
Thus the unreasonable apologetic in the face of unreasonable and disconnected suffering. It is an unsustainable apologetic over time. 2000 years was a good run. If God is not pragmatic, He is meaningless to us. God can no longer hide behind His majestic and unreadable signature.
 
Last edited:
That witnessed reality needs be as you (or those you chose to align with) witness it is the circular bit.

You need to stay away from circular, full stop, not special plead your own brand.



Real world being the product of subjective decision P1 which is still rotating in a circle. Real means 'really pending a way break out of that circle. Subjectively Real. Real as you detect it to be. Sure we can all say that!



You haven't shown how one subjective decision of yours trumps any other. Best is just 'Best in your own eyes. Sure, we can all say that!
Without known pillars of origin, it is all circular. Good circularity resolves in something we all trust and have in common. Bad circularity resolves in supernatural apologetics... immutable fable and dogma.
 
Anything I decide is a subjective decision (if I understand what you mean by subjective decision, and that's a little unclear, actually; what type of decision is not subjective?). So what's the point of the descriptor "subjective?"
So long as we are clear that the decision to submit yourself to another authority (e.g. empirical method) doesn't alter you being the highest authority. It's subjective all the way down - with only the decision that it is not, avoiding solipsism

Furthermore, by calling my conclusion a decision, you imply an arbitrariness to it. But I'm saying that it is rational and logical to come to the conclusion I have, which means it is the opposite of arbitrary.

It is rational and logical to refer yourself to another authority if you have assessed yourself able to err. It is also rational and logical assess this authority, so as to satisfy yourself that it will err less than you do.

This isn't arbitrary so much as it is reliant on you to do all this assessing as best you see fit. If you can assess yourself errant in areas and assess another authority less errant, can you not also able to assess yourself non errant?

There is nothing irrational or illogical about not being able to err in an area. If rationality can detect error, it can detect non error. No?




What example of me referring only to myself are you talking about?
I said referring yourself (your subjective decisions and judgements) to another court (empirical, group decision and judgement). Not referring to yourself.

Folk often think this is a higher court they are referring themselves to. But it can't be higher if you are the one giving it authority! It's like the authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium that Catholics point to. "Who gives it authority over you" I ask. "If not yourself?"

Not sure what you mean by "absolute," but some might say that a logical conclusion is an absolute one. It's absolutely true that there are no unmarried bachelors. I'm not sure that I'm on board with using the term absolute, but even if I believe with 99.99% certainty that there are no unmarried bachelors, I can still go about my life concluding that there are none and I'll be pretty secure.

My point was that the decision 'I err' is one side of a coin. The other side is '"I don't err". There is no external mechanism available to us to elevate one of those starting decisions above the other. We conclude for ourselves which it is.

If we figure we err, we refer ourselves to another, less errant court. If we figure we don't err then not. If we figure we're a mix err/don't err depending, then we act accordingly.



I dunno, how do we compare how much we consider bias to be working in a person? How do we measure that? Why does that matter?

It matters enough for us to refer ourselves to empirical method to correct for it

But as to measure? That's a self assessment, per my above comments.


OK, I can agree to that tentatively, but I'm a little suspicious of being able to decide that one's bias is gone is some circumstance. What's better is to always apply the corrective tools, and then you're sure you're taking care of bias.

I asked why so above (2 sides if a coin)

I do apply corrective tools - my theology isn't fixed, for example. I puzzle, pray a bit, talk to others who have the same sense I do. On this latter: It makes the same sense to collectivize the senses of others, once detecting ability to err in your own. It helps lead to a more accurate end point
 
That was a completely content-free post that fails to give any actual reasons for God-belief.

God turned up. That's the reason I know how God exists.

How do you know any aspect of reality exists? If Rationalism, then prove it.
 
Without known pillars of origin, it is all circular.
Exactly.

Good circularity resolves in something we all trust and have in common. Bad circularity resolves in supernatural apologetics... immutable fable and dogma.

I Googled "good circularity" in order to see the argument for it. Nothing. Seemingly, we don't all trust or have in common the idea of "good circularity".

Rendering it just good old fashioned circular reasoning. And not very good circular reasoning at that.

I trust empirical method in some areas + you trust empirical method in all areas = reality is the areas of common trust.

Bonkers!
 
Thus the unreasonable apologetic in the face of unreasonable and disconnected suffering.
Against what measure unreasonable? I mean, if the misery bestowed on earth was 100 times what it has been, what would make that unreasonable?

"Nothing is worth it" is not an answer. You, in that statement would be making an emotional statement.

But what if its an accounting statement?

The value of our will being expressed vs. the price of our will being expressed.

You go figure and come back to me.
 
God turned up. That's the reason I know how God exists.
What makes you think God turned up? Are you claiming a direct experience of God? If so, how do you know it was God rather than something else? And why have you been attacking empiricism if your own basis for belief is also empirical?

How do you know any aspect of reality exists?
Cogito ergo sum. I am an element of reality that exists. QED.

If Rationalism, then prove it.
You do realize that by definition one or the other of empiricism and rationalism must be true, right?
 
So long as we are clear that the decision to submit yourself to another authority (e.g. empirical method) doesn't alter you being the highest authority. It's subjective all the way down - with only the decision that it is not, avoiding solipsism
It's not about submitting oneself to an authority like the empirical method. The issue is matching the goal with the process. If the goal is to understand the objective, real world, then the method that uses objective, real evidence is going to get you to that goal. Now, one can subjectively, to use your word, decide that one doesn't care about what the objective, real world is. Nothing wrong with that, that's one's own decision.

It is rational and logical to refer yourself to another authority if you have assessed yourself able to err. It is also rational and logical assess this authority, so as to satisfy yourself that it will err less than you do.
There is a fundamental issue that comes into play before we talk about error in whatever one is doing, and that's what I've noted right above. If we can get that cleared up, then we can talk about what happens if we make mistakes.

This isn't arbitrary so much as it is reliant on you to do all this assessing as best you see fit. If you can assess yourself errant in areas and assess another authority less errant, can you not also able to assess yourself non errant?
The issue isn't the error rate between oneself versus some other authority. See above.
There is nothing irrational or illogical about not being able to err in an area. If rationality can detect error, it can detect non error. No?
See above.
I said referring yourself (your subjective decisions and judgements) to another court (empirical, group decision and judgement). Not referring to yourself.
See above.

Folk often think this is a higher court they are referring themselves to. But it can't be higher if you are the one giving it authority! It's like the authority of the Roman Catholic Magisterium that Catholics point to. "Who gives it authority over you" I ask. "If not yourself?"
This problem crops up only if you frame the issue in the terms you have been using, as two authorities, oneself and empiricism (I guess). But my original point in this post is that the way to frame it that dissolves that problem is a match between goal and process or method.


My point was that the decision 'I err' is one side of a coin. The other side is '"I don't err". There is no external mechanism available to us to elevate one of those starting decisions above the other. We conclude for ourselves which it is.
If one respects objective reality, one cannot rationally claim that one never or can't err. If we're talking outside of objective reality or rationality, then I have no interest in that type of conversation.


If we figure we err, we refer ourselves to another, less errant court. If we figure we don't err then not. If we figure we're a mix err/don't err depending, then we act accordingly.
See above.
It matters enough for us to refer ourselves to empirical method to correct for it

But as to measure? That's a self assessment, per my above comments.
Again, empiricism isn't as much a way to correct our errors (although it can do that) as its a match for the best method to figure out what objective reality is.

I asked why so above (2 sides if a coin)

I do apply corrective tools - my theology isn't fixed, for example. I puzzle, pray a bit, talk to others who have the same sense I do. On this latter: It makes the same sense to collectivize the senses of others, once detecting ability to err in your own. It helps lead to a more accurate end point
See all of the above.
 
It's not about submitting oneself to an authority like the empirical method. The issue is matching the goal with the process. If the goal is to understand the objective, real world, then the method that uses objective, real evidence is going to get you to that goal
This is, in the context of our discussion thus far, somewhat gobbledygook. As if ships passing in the night.

What "objective, real evidence" are you talking of?

Or, more importantly, how do you figure it objective and real to begin with? Does reality as you perceive it get a free pass (in the sense of it just being there and you commence investigating it as would a man landing on the Moon)? Surely then a reality as I perceive it, which includes God, is to be approached the same way? That is: God is part of the landscape some folk encounter and they merely go about exploring that landscape.

You might clear this up, for it appears you've made an unexpected leap of faith. "Objective and real" are sounding like they have to be made of bricks and mortar and things that everyone can 'touch. Which would be special pleading these terms.
 
Last edited:
(I'm going to drop the swans and dragons, unless there's a point there which you think is important to come back to.)

That's shifting the burden of proof. Harrison has to establish to a 50.1% certainty that it was a case of answered prayer. One of the things Harrison would have to account for is all the other mundane, human-psychology type explanations that don't require the background knowledge that a god exists to answer prayers, which makes it the better explanation under Occam's razor. Note that rejecting the prayer explanation because of not accounting for a human-psychology explanation is not claiming that the explanation is human psychology. There might be only a 10% likelihood or certainty for a psychological explanation, but if the God explanation is 1%, then we just say, "We don't know."
We generally use "burden of proof" when one person is attempting to persuade another, which isn't the situation we're considering. Are you saying that Believer-Harrison has an obligation to establish a preponderance of evidence in order to overcome the objections of Skeptic-Harrison? That seems off to me, but if we're using that frame, Believer-Harrison is saying "I know the nature of my mental state before the prayer; I know the nature of my mental state after the prayer; I know myself well enough to know that I wouldn't go from the former to the latter spontaneously; and the only relevant event I know of between the former and the latter was my prayer for relief."
 
Sorry, background knowledge as Im using it has a technical definition under Bayes' Theorem. I provided it early on, although. Background knowledge is knowledge we already have so it doesn't have to be established for a claim that is based on that background knowledge. Like knowledge that swans exist is background knowledge for the claim that a black swan exists, and we don't have background knowledge that interstellar spaceships exist for the claim that I have an invisible interstellar spaceship.

Can you explain exactly how one would reasonably believe they experience God's presence having examined one's perception, critically looked at it, and through what method one would confirm that?

But I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a God to exist, so there's no need to put X at 0.


I agree (assuming I calculated all the negatives in your sentence correctly, but the God claim isn't just about an internal experience like being sad. It's making a claim about objective reality, that God actually exists. That's why you can't just rely on your internal experience when making a claim about something external to your consciousness.

That's shifting the burden of proof. Harrison has to establish to a 50.1% certainty that it was a case of answered prayer. One of the things Harrison would have to account for is all the other mundane, human-psychology type explanations that don't require the background knowledge that a god exists to answer prayers, which makes it the better explanation under Occam's razor. Note that rejecting the prayer explanation because of not accounting for a human-psychology explanation is not claiming that the explanation is human psychology. There might be only a 10% likelihood or certainty for a psychological explanation, but if the God explanation is 1%, then we just say, "We don't know."


Its very silly to take your approach concerning God. Its as if you are wishing to establish self esteem in the face of being very dumb about something. I can admit when I am dumb about a subject.... Its no problem.

Here is what your problem is. Jesus himself said it.

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen,
but still you people do not accept our testimony."


There is only one solution..

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

Plenty of people have the evidence you keep asking for. They found it for themselves by being able to believe in Jesus. The range of the people who have this evidence varies from people who are near idiot to genius.. It runs the whole gamut, because they all took the gambit.

If you remain the same as you are dying? You will be found to be without excuse. For no matter how you may bitch to God that it was "unfair," God will have his arsenal of souls who were just like you before they chose to believe.

No excuses will be accepted.
 
Exactly.



I Googled "good circularity" in order to see the argument for it. Nothing. Seemingly, we don't all trust or have in common the idea of "good circularity".

Rendering it just good old fashioned circular reasoning. And not very good circular reasoning at that.

I trust empirical method in some areas + you trust empirical method in all areas = reality is the areas of common trust.

Bonkers!
The real term for the Google engine would be viscously circular and virtuously circular. An example of a viscously circular argument is the self-referring paradox. Belief in the Bible falls into this category. The circularity is unresolvable. The term virtuous circle refer to chains of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop with resolvable and favorable results. Even though we rely on the self verification of the senses, trusting them provides resolution of necessary functioning for meaningful existence. Christianity obviously does not fulfill this as billions of people who do not profess the faith pursue the necessary functioning for meaningful existence..
 
Against what measure unreasonable? I mean, if the misery bestowed on earth was 100 times what it has been, what would make that unreasonable?

"Nothing is worth it" is not an answer. You, in that statement would be making an emotional statement.

But what if its an accounting statement?

The value of our will being expressed vs. the price of our will being expressed.

You go figure and come back to me.
It didn't take me long, because it is not an accounting statement at all. It's not a measure of "how much". It is a measure of "how applied". God meting out consequence, or even establishing a mechanism of natural consequence, to respond to the choices of one's own will is certainly an appropriate and understandable feedback loop. But any suffering outside of that feedback loop loses value and meaning. Does God apply a "lesson" in gratuitous suffering of one man without applying the same to the other? Why? Did the other man not need the lesson? How did that inequality of need come about? Would this innocent child learn a great lesson from their cancer, a lesson that would only be meaningful in a very short and strife ridden life - if the child even had the capacity to understand at all? Would these parents learn something valuable from their child's great suffering, yet other families need not apply for such suffering for they didn't need the lesson. How did this inequality in need transpire? Appealing to the mystery of God may offer some measure of sentimental and psychological relief, but that type of mental relief can be experienced outside of theology.

This may be an argument that evokes emotion, but it is not an emotional argument. It is a logical argument that if God represents order in the chaos, He doesn't seem up for the job, or if He loves us and wants us to know Him, He lacks the language or ability to have that come about.
 
Last edited:
This is, in the context of our discussion thus far, somewhat gobbledygook. As if ships passing in the night.

What "objective, real evidence" are you talking of?

Or, more importantly, how do you figure it objective and real to begin with? Does reality as you perceive it get a free pass (in the sense of it just being there and you commence investigating it as would a man landing on the Moon)? Surely then a reality as I perceive it, which includes God, is to be approached the same way? That is: God is part of the landscape some folk encounter and they merely go about exploring that landscape.

You might clear this up, for it appears you've made an unexpected leap of faith. "Objective and real" are sounding like they have to be made of bricks and mortar and things that everyone can 'touch. Which would be special pleading these terms.
I'm going to pass on this "what is real" conversation.
 
We generally use "burden of proof" when one person is attempting to persuade another, which isn't the situation we're considering.
The burden of proof attaches to a claim. A claim is not demonstrated or established until the burden of proof is met. So, when a person makes a claim, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the claim should be accepted.

Are you saying that Believer-Harrison has an obligation to establish a preponderance of evidence in order to overcome the objections of Skeptic-Harrison?
It doesn't matter who is making the objections. The objections, if proper, stand by themselves, regardless of who is bringing them up. Any rational person has to provide sufficient evidence for a claim about objective reality in order for any rational person to accept the claim.

That seems off to me, but if we're using that frame, Believer-Harrison is saying "I know the nature of my mental state before the prayer; I know the nature of my mental state after the prayer; I know myself well enough to know that I wouldn't go from the former to the latter spontaneously; and the only relevant event I know of between the former and the latter was my prayer for relief."
It's the "I know myself well enough" that will get you into trouble. Our brains/minds are far more complex that our brains/minds will know. Furthermore, most of what our minds/brains do goes on without our conscious awareness. And, we do know brains/minds well enough to know that people can fool themselves. So there has to be some way to check initial conclusions.
 
Back
Top