[mettamage]

> Just curious, what would be the 'MVE' (minimum viable evidence) such that you would choose to believe?

I'm simply answering this honestly and I'll confess that I'm not a model citizen on this. In any case, I'm too lazy to think about it. That's the answer. It's why I have a bit of an over the top heuristic. But I also think: surely if one is all powerful, that's not an issue.

> How you can you know 100%? That doesn't make any sense.

God is all powerful, God can devise a scheme in which I'll know it 100%. Here's one for you: I believe that humans have powers that are to quite similar to telepathy, not the same though. We call it WhatsApp. That's extraordinary evidence in such a way that I'll know it 100%. Currently we're moving to machine learning inferring brain patterns. We might actually get to real telepathy.

To me that just sounds insane! But it's true! What?! I am the type of person that finds it quite easy to imagine that I'm simply just a human and nothing more than that. From that baseline our modern world is so crazily magical. It would be awesome if God is in that, but it doesn't need to be in its sheer magicalness.

I have one hypothetical reason why a God (or god-like civilization) might exist. That would be the simulation argument. Also, if we're capable of reproducing consciousness and run simulations, then who is to say that someone isn't already running one? What I do believe is that we might have the potential of becoming Gods as a species. We're trying our damn hardest anyway.

If we're capable of engineering anything and travel anywhere, then one might ask if we can create the exact same universe as we are in right now where (if determinism is real, big if) and if we can do that... Well then again, we might wonder, has this happened before?

So interestingly enough, in my mind, the process of science can turn out to be a very very religious endeavour. Or it might be able to completely dispell it.

It's all speculation during my lifetime though. So I like to keep it to the realms of highly reproduced science (aka engineering and to a big extent physics).

But yea, that doesn't say much about the Christian God, or any religion really. Science is my religion, I simply like the process more of having evidence for things than believing a certain book is the holy word and that I should take it seriously.

I'm sorry if I ranted a bit too much. I don't usually talk about this stuff as it is highly speculative and I have better things to do with my time such as focusing on reality.

I appreciate the non-judgemental tone of the questions by the way.

[elwell]

I appreciate your thorough response. I was questioning the usage of the phrase "know 100%" because I'm very curious about the relationship between "knowing" something and "believing" something. I would argue that there is no such thing as "knowing". And, I think this is an important distinction to make because the common view is that science is somehow fundamentally different to faith, and so we can magically trust it. Actually, science is simply the presupposition by faith that one's senses, mental computations, memory, and experiments are accurate. That's not to say that there aren't qualitative differences, but fundamentally it still rests on faith.

To the extreme, we don't 'know' that 1 + 1 = 2. In fact, you can't be quite certain that you just read that equation correctly. Or perhaps, after you read it your memory (mental or computer) was corrupted: it actually said 2 + 1 = 2.

You believe that 1 + 1 = 2. First, you believed it because someone told you (you trusted your ears). And then you reasoned about it for yourself, and you saw how if you have 1 object and another 1 object and combine them, then you had 2 objects (you trusted your eyes). And eventually you figured that this equation is perfectly knowable because it a metaphysical truth, but you still had to trust your mind to be infallible for that. Even if we believe 1 + 1 has always equaled 2 in the past, we have to take on faith that that is still true in this moment.

[mettamage]

Ah, fair enough. I agree with this. They call this epistemology right?

In any case, I always thought this type of stuff was a bit pendantic. And in some perspectives, I still think it is. Such as the "I need to get stuff done" perspective.

However, when I took truffles in Amsterdam (that's legal), this is exactly what I went through. And from that experience I can truly only know that: I experience therefore I am.

It's a spin on Descartes, but suffice to say I couldn't really think (not logically anyway), but I could still experience. It's really unsettling to be corrupted. You have no clue what comes next really.

Other than that, the idea that I assume reality to be true is already a leap of faith. It might all be a fantasy world or a dream. It also might be what we think it is: real.