Von Smith

It has everything to do with *Kant's* point, and you were the one who dropped his name. To both Idealists and the Rationalists before them, there was an important difference between "ideas" with a lower-case 'i' (stuff people come up with, like IPUs or the $100,000 you owe RAFH) and "Ideas" with an upper-case 'I' (formal entities with discernible properties and definite roles in our reason and understanding, like time, space, substance, God, etc.) Kant's argument that capital 'I' Ideas are proper objects of knowledge, in spite of not being amenable to *empirical* inquiry, rests crucially on this distinction.

But to me, and I suspect to most of "us infidels", they're *all* just stuff people come up with, lower-case 'i' ideas. Kant's magical realm of Things We Can Know to Be True Without Empirical Evidence just doesn't exist in this scheme. That's why you find your God claims confronted with a menagerie of counter-examples like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Dragon in My Garage, and the Hundred Grand You Owe RAFH. A Rationalist or Idealist could take refuge behind the objection that these were just ideas, whereas God was an Idea. You don't have resort to that distinction. They're all just ideas.

You don't seem to understand Kant's insights on this score at all; like all the authors in your trade-book anthology about existentialism, he is just another imagined intellectual ally whose ideas don't actually help your case. That's because Kant's ideas are ideas about Ideas, not ideas about ideas.

You can't refute the Invisible Pink Unicorn, either, nor the $100,000 you owe RAFH. So what? They're all just ideas. There are no Ideas.

Ubercat

So, maybe there is a god somewhere. So what? How is it relevant? As much as you detest them, reason and our senses are all we have to go by. If they can't detect any gods, then from our perspective they don't exist. If they exist and wish us to find them, then they'll enable us to. If not, let them stay hiding in their dark closet. It makes no difference to me.

-Ubercat

FatherMithras

Except you haven't shown how it actually supports your claim. You've merely asserted God gives us a justification, when it's been shown that, in fact, it doesn't.

Bullshit, I've actually responded, part by part, to a significant number of your posts, and have inf act, shown how you use fallacies and faulty logic almost exclusively to make your point. You continue to say that "God" gives us a justification of the universe, when it's been pointed out that if a god existed, he could change anything at a whim and thus that reason is invalid. You simply ignore everything posted and call us dogmatic for not accepting your numerous logical fallacies. Once again, making assertions without a shred of evidence, and then claiming your logical fallacies (which, oddly enough, tend to be textbook examples of such) are somehow legitimate arguments. Oh, and you ignore most of Kant, ask us to read Kant, and then when the issues of wy your interpretation fails to hold up, you say we should only hold to th epart which, when selectively quoted, aids your side.

I call you a dogmatist because you assert, regardless of reason, logic, and refutation, that we are unjustified in trusting our observations. You had a position, were refuted through numerous methods, and cling to the conclusion, failing to address any of the posts without making fallacious arguments.

decalog10

yWell I disagree with Von Smith
We dont need to adopt Kants innate Ideas to benifit from his insight that the limits of REASON must be admitted, and that this is not to be taken as the same thing as limiting REALITY, as your so want to do.
To make this a little more concrete for you. Its those 'prophets of science', Sagan, Dawkins and Atkins, who come along proclaiming an atheistic critique of of religion in the name of science. Their scientific work has no real relevance for the truth or false hood of the religious claims discussed here.

FatherMithras

Atheism doesn't need prove, it's the negative case. Their scientific work just makes it easier for gullible people fooled by silly, magical ideas to abandon them.

decalog10

Your right, Atheism doesn't need "prove", and belief in God doesn't need proof, fundamentally because we cant prove either.
Science must leave God out their considerations, they simply have not the tools to deal with the question of God's existence. God is not an object of the observable universe to be placed under a mircroscopoe. And while atheism may be understandable, it is therefore most certainly not necessary.

FatherMithras

Wrong. The reason atheism doesn't need proof is because it's a negative position. IF the universe was designed by a god, there would be things indicative of it. And if not, then there's no use to a god, and no reason to assume it's existence.

According to you. I disagree. If a god created things, it should be apparent. It is theoretically possible for there to be a god who'd create a universe exactly identical to one without it, but what use is that? It's like saying we should believe in "gravity fairies!"

Huh? Who said it's necessary? It's simply the position best suited to the universe. You seem to come to ideas about reality for very weird reasons. You believe in things with no evidence, or reason that is exclusive to your explanation. I suppose I could do the same and believe in Dark matter leprechauns, gravity fairies, and te mysterious and lovely IPU and not offend your reason.

Cheerful Charlie

I disproved god to you. You just ignore the facts. Atheism does indeed prove god is impossible, that god of Bible, Quran and Vedas is almost trivial to disprove.

You now just ignore me and repeat yourself ad nauseum.

Yes, we can disprove God of the Bible, Quran and Vedas.

Cheerful Charlie

decalog10

Charlie, actually your doing the ignoring. My post is not about the God of the Bible, Quran and Vedas. Where do you see me using these references in my post?
Get with the program Charlie and I won't ignore you anymore

decalog10

Please give me a few specifics, examples of what you mean, by "IF the universe was designed by a god, there would be things indicative of it."

In the mean time I will comment on what I think you mean.
What I affirm is not the same thing as faith in a 'supernatural intervention' of God in the process of world evolution. Biology has demonstrated more and more that such a 'divine intervention' has become superfluous. However, the evolutionary process cannot either shut out [ or in] an origin, an 'Alpha,' nor a final meaning and goal in the evolutionary process.
An understaning of God as 'up there on a throne who controls everything' doesn't really gel well with me.
God doesnt just work 'every now and then' at special points , like a 'God of the gaps' but continually as in Panentheism.