Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 3
    No. (Based on evidence and arguments I've seen, presuming reality to be the way I perceive it to be, assuming the observer has a reasonably solid grasp of our shared reality, and excluding some sort of pantheistic view where one redefines "God" to be the same as the universe.) But God is a conclusion, and reliability describes a process - we can only evaluate the God claim under known processes; it would be up to the theist to present a reliable process if they wish to convince a reliabilist.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented May 24 at 13:04
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy Are you sure the answer is "No" instead of "I don't know"?
    – user66156
    Commented May 24 at 15:36
  • 2
    @Mark It's "No" in the same sense that I would answer "No" if someone asks if Bigfoot is real or if the government is run by lizard people. We just need to establish from the start what can or cannot reasonably (if at all) be definitively proven and where the burden of proof should be, and then "No" could be considered a reasonable answer to such questions. If you want, you can consider "No" to roughly translate to "I have no good reason to think that's true, and every reason to think it's false". I did also add many caveats, and explicitly mentioned the possible existence of such a process.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented May 24 at 16:07
  • 3
    With all these definitions, I'm still confused how a reliabilist can justify anything. They all seem to require a "reliable process" which is only "reliable" if it arrives at the truth, but there still doesnt appear to be any way to actually ascertain the truth in the first place. How do they find the reliability of statements? To me there seems to be an implication that they already know the "truth" and then compare the results of reliable processes to that truth... but how do they establish the truth in the first place?
    – JMac
    Commented May 24 at 16:34
  • 2
    @NotThatGuy Its the part about referencing "truth" that I'm not really getting the point of. I have no problem with the scientific method. But to me a big value of it is that it doesnt really rely on "truth" in the way reliabilism seems to (and maybe I just misunderstand the point). Science seems to decouple the reliability from truth, in the sense that if its reliable, its reliable whether it is true or not, and that's a useful property in a lot of ways on it's own
    – JMac
    Commented May 24 at 18:38