by jimwalton » Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 am
> It's not impossible at all though, when the referent is something else's similar existence.
When it comes right down to it, in a Cartesian (etc.) understanding, we can only ever be certain of our own existence, if even that. Epistemology gets shaky when we talk about ontology.
> We can have an ontological understanding of how the figurine on my desk exists by referencing other physical objects that exist.
This is true. We make assumptions based on associations.
> whenever we reference existence, we're referencing something in space and time--and when we say "X doesn't exist," we mean "X isn't found in space and time."
This is not necessarily true, because we believe many things exist that don't exist in space and time, as in my first post.
> Yes--and this is what is required when claims are made like "god is existence, god doesn't instantiate in anything else, all things are possible because of god." I agree with you, we've descended into the absurd. God doesn't instantiate in space-time...so in what does god instantiate?
We presume to have evidence for all that we believe as rational or reasonable. But this raises many questions:
* What is evidence?
* What is existence?
* What is the relationship between my self (consciousness) and the alleged evidence for what I presume exists?
* What properties must a belief I hold have for me to be justified incepting it without space/time evidence?
* Am I only justified in believing in the existence of something exclusively on the basis of empirical evidence?
Shaken down, we all believe that we are not alone in the universe—there are other beings who think, feel, perceive, and believe. But it's also true that not one of us can perceive another being's mental states. Thoughts and passions don't occupy time and space, they are non-material and intangible. While a person's thoughts and feelings instantiate for them (presumably), that's not the case for someone else outside of them. How can I ever know, for instance, that someone else is in pain or not? What is justifiable evidence? Sometimes I can see someone else is in pain, which means I interpret his body language and verbiage to that end, though I can never really know.
I can determine with sight that Bill's face has red spots and his skin is flushed; I cannot determine by normal observation if his blood contains measles. I can determine by reading a newspaper that an event happened; I cannot know if by observation. I can only determine if someone else is in pain if they let me see it. I can only determine a news article is true by some sense of association with other propositions or assumptions. By the same principles, I can determine that God created the world by some sense of association with other propositions or assumptions (such as orderliness, purpose, or beauty—all of which exist but none of which occupy space or time). The question always comes down to: How can I know anything?
It is only by presuppositions, interactions, associations and assumptions that I presume any ontology, as I presume my own. And yet, I can speak with confidence in the real world about the existence of the sun, a hot summer day, the table on which my computer sits, and the food in my stomach. I can construct sound inductive arguments for each of these conclusions.
Though scientific and empirical evidences ultimately fail, I can reasonably conclude that someone else is in pain and that the external world truly exists in space and time. The way we live life is that for any person there are direct and convincing arguments for the proposition in question, and given that there is no comparable evidence against those propositions, they must be more probably true than not. This is the case in almost all of my commonsense beliefs about the mental states of others: they are more probable than not on my total evidence. Weighing the evidence for the existence of God (even outside of space and time) against the evidence against theism, belief in the existence of God (though it may not convince you) is by no means irrational. Given that there are no completely provable positions, I can conclude that I can rationally hold a contingent, corrigible belief even if there is no deductive and conclusive answer to the relevant epistemological question (How do I know, and how can I be sure?).
You claim that God doesn't instantiate in space-time, and yet the Bible (as opposed to Islam and Hinduism) claims differently. In the Bible God acted in space-time history with evidential manifestations, and then in the person of Jesus entered the space-time continuum for a period of observable time and empirical evidence (1 Jn. 1.1). Here, 2000 yrs later, it's more like investigating a cold case than setting up a scientific experiment. We are left with evaluating the documents of his instantiation along with assessing the course of history following his alleged incarnation to determine whether or not God truly exists and instantiated Himself in space-time. I have weighed the evidences and come to a confident conclusion that God exists and that He visited the Earth in the person of Jesus. The evidence and logic are there for each person to weigh and come to conclusion on one side of the fence or the other.
> It's not impossible at all though, when the referent is something else's similar existence.
When it comes right down to it, in a Cartesian (etc.) understanding, we can only ever be certain of our own existence, if even that. Epistemology gets shaky when we talk about ontology.
> We can have an ontological understanding of how the figurine on my desk exists by referencing other physical objects that exist.
This is true. We make assumptions based on associations.
> whenever we reference existence, we're referencing something in space and time--and when we say "X doesn't exist," we mean "X isn't found in space and time."
This is not necessarily true, because we believe many things exist that don't exist in space and time, as in my first post.
> Yes--and this is what is required when claims are made like "god is existence, god doesn't instantiate in anything else, all things are possible because of god." I agree with you, we've descended into the absurd. God doesn't instantiate in space-time...so in what does god instantiate?
We presume to have evidence for all that we believe as rational or reasonable. But this raises many questions:
* What is evidence?
* What is existence?
* What is the relationship between my self (consciousness) and the alleged evidence for what I presume exists?
* What properties must a belief I hold have for me to be justified incepting it without space/time evidence?
* Am I only justified in believing in the existence of something exclusively on the basis of empirical evidence?
Shaken down, we all believe that we are not alone in the universe—there are other beings who think, feel, perceive, and believe. But it's also true that not one of us can perceive another being's mental states. Thoughts and passions don't occupy time and space, they are non-material and intangible. While a person's thoughts and feelings instantiate for them (presumably), that's not the case for someone else outside of them. How can I ever know, for instance, that someone else is in pain or not? What is justifiable evidence? Sometimes I can see someone else is in pain, which means I interpret his body language and verbiage to that end, though I can never really know.
I can determine with sight that Bill's face has red spots and his skin is flushed; I cannot determine by normal observation if his blood contains measles. I can determine by reading a newspaper that an event happened; I cannot know if by observation. I can only determine if someone else is in pain if they let me see it. I can only determine a news article is true by some sense of association with other propositions or assumptions. By the same principles, I can determine that God created the world by some sense of association with other propositions or assumptions (such as orderliness, purpose, or beauty—all of which exist but none of which occupy space or time). The question always comes down to: How can I know anything?
It is only by presuppositions, interactions, associations and assumptions that I presume any ontology, as I presume my own. And yet, I can speak with confidence in the real world about the existence of the sun, a hot summer day, the table on which my computer sits, and the food in my stomach. I can construct sound inductive arguments for each of these conclusions.
Though scientific and empirical evidences ultimately fail, I can reasonably conclude that someone else is in pain and that the external world truly exists in space and time. The way we live life is that for any person there are direct and convincing arguments for the proposition in question, and given that there is no comparable evidence against those propositions, they must be more probably true than not. This is the case in almost all of my commonsense beliefs about the mental states of others: they are more probable than not on my total evidence. Weighing the evidence for the existence of God (even outside of space and time) against the evidence against theism, belief in the existence of God (though it may not convince you) is by no means irrational. Given that there are no completely provable positions, I can conclude that I can rationally hold a contingent, corrigible belief even if there is no deductive and conclusive answer to the relevant epistemological question (How do I know, and how can I be sure?).
You claim that God doesn't instantiate in space-time, and yet the Bible (as opposed to Islam and Hinduism) claims differently. In the Bible God acted in space-time history with evidential manifestations, and then in the person of Jesus entered the space-time continuum for a period of observable time and empirical evidence (1 Jn. 1.1). Here, 2000 yrs later, it's more like investigating a cold case than setting up a scientific experiment. We are left with evaluating the documents of his instantiation along with assessing the course of history following his alleged incarnation to determine whether or not God truly exists and instantiated Himself in space-time. I have weighed the evidences and come to a confident conclusion that God exists and that He visited the Earth in the person of Jesus. The evidence and logic are there for each person to weigh and come to conclusion on one side of the fence or the other.