Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Genivaria]

Prove it

I'm sure they will provide a photo that includes both them and their dog, if you ask nicely.

This here is Dotty, ain't she precious?

[Estanglia]

I'm sure they will provide a photo that includes both them and their dog, if you ask nicely.

That doesn't actually prove the dog exists.

Then what kinda proof do you need?

[Tarsonis]

That doesn't actually prove the dog exists.

Then what kinda proof do you need?

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

[Dogmeat]

Then what kinda proof do you need?

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

Ah, the appeal to solipsism.

The thing is though, even if this is all just a simulation, it's clearly a simulation with rules. And fully exploring and testing those rules, the way science does, would still be our best bet at cluing into the fact that we're in a simulation.

If their dog were to, for instance, show up at many different places, over many decades, with a slightly different appearance each time... all things that don't fit with the established rules of the simulation... that might be a clue that you're actually living in a video game. Though, in fairness, the Super Mutants should have given it away.

[Genivaria]

I'm sure they will provide a photo that includes both them and their dog, if you ask nicely.

That doesn't actually prove the dog exists.

Uh yes it would.

[Genivaria]

Then what kinda proof do you need?

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

If you're going to embrace solipsistic nonsense then it's clear you're not interested in an honest discussion.

[The New California Republic]

I'm sure they will provide a photo that includes both them and their dog, if you ask nicely.

That doesn't actually prove the dog exists.

Fine. We can arrange a really creepy visit whereby you can personally verify the dog exists.

[Neutraligon]

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

Ah, the appeal to solipsism.

The thing is though, even if this is all just a simulation, it's clearly a simulation with rules. And fully exploring and testing those rules, the way science does, would still be out best bet at cluing into the fact that we're in a simulation.

If their dog were to, for instance, show up at many different places, over many decades, with a slightly different appearance each time... all things that don't fit with the established rules of the simulation... that might be a clue that you're actually living in a video game. Though, in fairness, the Super Mutants should have given it away.

Funny thing is a god does not solve the issue of solipsism.

[Hanafuridake]

At least my dog is real.

Dog is good boi and will never abandon you.
God is massive dick who wants to burn you forever.

It's pretty telling that Jesus calls on his disciples to hate even their father and mother, while in Hinduism, a man earns heaven because he is prepared to renounce heaven itself for the sake of one dog.

At least my dog is real.

Prove it

Doggo: 01
Deus: 00

[Estanglia]

Then what kinda proof do you need?

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

I have a feeling you're doing this to point out that proof of God is impossible or something like that because you can't conclusively prove its existence without making certain assumptions, which is a bad point to pursue because it makes arguing about the existence of any entity pointless because it could just be a simulation or something.

Unless you're engaging in some solipsism, there is quite a big difference between proving God and proving the dog's existence.

Firstly, we can see the dog. Sure that may be discounted as 'hallucinations' (which would need to be proven as such to discount that evidence), but there is also the fact that it occupies, or at least is perceived to occupy, space.

It also can be shown to, even if it's a hallucination, have effects on people it interacts with. God, on the other hand, is, in many, if not all, cases an assumption.

If a dog is brought into a room with a sad person, they play for a bit with the dog, becoming happy, then are asked what made them happy, responding 'the dog', it has much more weight behind it then someone having, say, a close call in life and blaming it on God. In the first one, the dog actually made the person happy, even if they are just a hallucination. In the second, it is entirely an assumption. At pretty much no point did God affect anything outside of maybe in their minds, which we can't prove because we're not mind readers, unless you have the take of 'God is responsible for everything', which is an assumption.

[Kowani]

Finally, someone else who has been enlightened.

Utilitarianism isn't the height of enlightenment.

It is the most rational position to take, though.

[Genivaria]

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

I have a feeling you're doing this to point out that proof of God is impossible or something like that because you can't conclusively prove its existence without making certain assumptions, which is a bad point to pursue because it makes arguing about the existence of any entity pointless because it could just be a simulation or something.

Unless you're engaging in some solipsism, there is quite a big difference between proving God and proving the dog's existence.

Firstly, we can see the dog. Sure that may be discounted as 'hallucinations' (which would need to be proven as such to discount that evidence), but there is also the fact that it occupies, or at least is perceived to occupy, space.

It also can be shown to, even if it's a hallucination, have effects on people it interacts with. God, on the other hand, is, in many, if not all, cases an assumption.

If a dog is brought into a room with a sad person, they play for a bit with the dog, becoming happy, then are asked what made them happy, responding 'the dog', it has much more weight behind it then someone having, say, a close call in life and blaming it on God. In the first one, the dog actually made the person happy, even if they are just a hallucination. In the second, it is entirely an assumption. At pretty much no point did God affect anything outside of maybe in their minds, which we can't prove because we're not mind readers, unless you have the take of 'God is responsible for everything', which is an assumption.

The closest example we have to the 'effects of God' is prayer studies which ironically demonstrated a NEGATIVE correlation with improved health when the patients know that they're being prayed about because of the pressure.
Patients who didn't know they were being prayed for seemed to have no effect at all.

[Tarsonis]

Utilitarianism isn't the height of enlightenment.

It is the most rational position to take, though.

That's highly debatable. Utilitarianism might have some merit, but it's also the most exploitable for evil.

[Genivaria]

It is the most rational position to take, though.

That's highly debatable. Utilitarianism might have some merit, but it's also the most exploitable for evil.

Oh no Divine Command Theory definitely takes the cake for most exploitable for evil.

[Tarsonis]

That's highly debatable. Utilitarianism might have some merit, but it's also the most exploitable for evil.

Oh no Divine Command Theory definitely takes the cake for most exploitable for evil.

I'd say they're about equal actually. Divine Command Theory is at least still bound by some sense of being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is not bound by any such considerations.

[Genivaria]

Oh no Divine Command Theory definitely takes the cake for most exploitable for evil.

I'd say they're about equal actually. Divine Command Theory is at least still bound by some sense of being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is not bound by any such considerations.

No it isn't, it's based on the arbitrary whims of whatever theocratic ruler is in charge and don't question or you're next.

[Kowani]

Oh no Divine Command Theory definitely takes the cake for most exploitable for evil.

I'd say they're about equal actually. Divine Command Theory is at least still bound by some sense of being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is not bound by any such considerations.

Oh, look. Blatant lies.

[Tarsonis]

I'd say they're about equal actually. Divine Command Theory is at least still bound by some sense of being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is not bound by any such considerations.

No it isn't, it's based on the arbitrary whims of whatever theocratic ruler is in charge and don't question or you're next.

Yes, but even that still is bound by some semblance that the greater good must in someway benefit at the macro level. If the King is gonna burn everything with wildfire, Divine Command Theory is likely going out the wind.

[Tarsonis]

I'd say they're about equal actually. Divine Command Theory is at least still bound by some sense of being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is not bound by any such considerations.

Oh, look. Blatant lies.

I don't do things morally. I do things whether or not, it is useful or not useful and whether or not the discussion has a place for benefit at an individulistic level.

Finally, someone else who has been enlightened.

nope, though I should have included the modifier "necessarily"

[Hanafuridake]

Then what kinda proof do you need?

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

[Kowani]

Oh, look. Blatant lies.

Finally, someone else who has been enlightened.

nope, though I should have included the modifier "necessarily"

In their egotistical utilitarianism, the greater good is the self.
In mine, it is the self through the collective. We redefine what is the greater good, yet it still exists.

[Tarsonis]

nope, though I should have included the modifier "necessarily"

In their egotistical utilitarianism, the greater good is the self.
In mine, it is the self through the collective. We redefine what is the greater good, yet it still exists.

Semantics for the win

[Kowani]

In their egotistical utilitarianism, the greater good is the self.
In mine, it is the self through the collective. We redefine what is the greater good, yet it still exists.

Semantics for the win

Translation: I don’t have an actual argument.

[Tarsonis]

Tangible proof that the dog's existence is a metaphysical reality, and not just collective hallucination shared by all persons involved, if such persons truly exits and are not themselves hallucinations experienced by me.

[Tarsonis]

Semantics for the win

Translation: I don’t have an actual argument.

Generally what for the win means dude.