Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Typhon · 07-28-2002, 02:41 PM

In the end, I find myself satisfied, if such can be said, that regardless whether or not god or gods may be possible, there remains no credible evidence for their existence.

That my life is but a winged invertebrate's dream is likewise possible, but I have no evidence that this is the case, and much to suggest otherwise.

I think god or gods are possible, but very, very unlikely.

Until such time as we have reason to believe otherwise, I remain an atheist who holds that the preponderance of the evidence points towards a completely naturalistic universe, with neither need nor place for gods.

.T.

"Gods are made, not born."

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

Jayhawker Soule · 07-28-2002, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
ReasonableDoubt,
As a direct answer, I would say that logical possibility does not imply necessity of belief.

Forget, for the moment, necessity of belief. What reason for belief? I would accept, for example, that Deism is logically possible, but why would I consider it reasonable?

ManM · 07-29-2002, 05:09 AM

ReasonableDoubt,
Since reason cannot choose between two consistent worldviews, I would have to propose some sort of intuition. We tend to believe those things which are closest to human experience.

ex-preacher · 07-29-2002, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
ReasonableDoubt,
Since reason cannot choose between two consistent worldviews, I would have to propose some sort of intuition. We tend to believe those things which are closest to human experience.

In my experience, reason points to only one logically consistent and coherent "worldview." Other "wordldviews" are sustained not by reason, but by wishful thinking, fear of painful consequences, intellectual laziness, and thousands of years of inculcated tradition.

WJ · 07-29-2002, 06:25 AM

Reasonable!

"Then let me repeat the question posed to WJ: is there any reason whatsoever to presume that the logical possibility of a concept is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?"

I think that there is sufficient reason the belief, out of *logical necessity* (aka your words ..."concept") that the 'concept' God exists.

If, we consider self consciousness is an atribute of human existence or *Being*, and we find that there is no conclusive evidence or proofs for the creation, evolution or nature of such consciousness, then we can reasonable infer Deity (not to mention the cosmological argument which would be s similar type of inference).

In other words, because we posess higher levels of consciousness, it is only natural to wonder or attach our own issues of *Being* to logically necessary truth's (about the world) when we ponder issues of conscious existence. So by the very nature of consciousness, we certainly can be prompted by 'intrinsic' association to assume that *Being* is also necessary.

This is similar to Kant's necessary existence of the synthetic apriori. But the question still returns to, can the "concept" God exist in a more meaningful way?

a. Categorical judgment, All X is Y. Is there not a complete or ultimate subject that is not a predicate. Is there not a substantial self? This is the topic of speculative or rational psychology.
b. Hypothetical judgment, if X, then Y. Is there not a complete series of causes and conditions ending with an unconditioned conditions ending with an unconditioned condition? The complete series is signified in the term, WORLD. This is the topic of rational cosmology.
c. Disjunctive judgment, Either X or Y. Is there not some complete complex of possibilities and perfection's? Such completeness is signified in the term GOD. It is the topic or rational theology.

First, I don't mean to be rhetorical, but does anyone know why I am asking that question? Or, why should I ask (default)to such a question relative to (conscious) existence? Is it a reasonable question? I think the answer to the latter is yes.

But what about the former? Let us explore the notion of "Why" us...? (Why am I self conscious.) What are some possible reasons to some of these questions? Someone on page one mentioned 'energy'...

Walrus

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

ManM · 07-29-2002, 06:33 AM

ex-preacher,
Do you consider naturalism to be sustained by reason simply because you think it is consistent? Is solipsism not logically consistent? How is the naturalist supported by reason any more than solipsist? It seems to me that you have defined all systems of belief other than your own to be unreasonable, simply because you find them unconvincing.

ex-preacher · 07-29-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
ex-preacher,
Do you consider naturalism to be sustained by reason simply because you think it is consistent? Is solipsism not logically consistent? How is the naturalist supported by reason any more than solipsist? It seems to me that you have defined all systems of belief other than your own to be unreasonable, simply because you find them unconvincing.

When I say "consistent," I mean consistent with reality (empirically valid) as well as internally consistent (rational).

ManM · 07-29-2002, 09:25 AM

ex-preacher,
How do you know that solipsism isn't consistent with reality? Can you show me a piece of empirical evidence that isn't loaded with interpretation?

TooBad · 07-29-2002, 09:41 AM

If ex-preacher can show you evidence that isn't loaded with interpretation, then solipsism certainly isn't consistent with reality.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 10:44 AM

Why do theists, who argue that without God there is no such thing as an objective universe, always sailor dive into solipsism whenever it is pointed out to them what such an objective universe necessarily entails?

I believe God, therefore I believe in an objective universe that is entirely the construct of my own mind and can never be proven to exist externally.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

07-28-2002, 02:41 PM	#41
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	In the end, I find myself satisfied, if such can be said, that regardless whether or not god or gods may be possible, there remains no credible evidence for their existence. That my life is but a winged invertebrate's dream is likewise possible, but I have no evidence that this is the case, and much to suggest otherwise. I think god or gods are possible, but very, very unlikely. Until such time as we have reason to believe otherwise, I remain an atheist who holds that the preponderance of the evidence points towards a completely naturalistic universe, with neither need nor place for gods. .T. "Gods are made, not born." [ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

07-29-2002, 06:25 AM	#45
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Reasonable! "Then let me repeat the question posed to WJ: is there any reason whatsoever to presume that the logical possibility of a concept is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?" I think that there is sufficient reason the belief, out of logical necessity (aka your words ..."concept") that the 'concept' God exists. If, we consider self consciousness is an atribute of human existence or Being, and we find that there is no conclusive evidence or proofs for the creation, evolution or nature of such consciousness, then we can reasonable infer Deity (not to mention the cosmological argument which would be s similar type of inference). In other words, because we posess higher levels of consciousness, it is only natural to wonder or attach our own issues of Being to logically necessary truth's (about the world) when we ponder issues of conscious existence. So by the very nature of consciousness, we certainly can be prompted by 'intrinsic' association to assume that Being is also necessary. This is similar to Kant's necessary existence of the synthetic apriori. But the question still returns to, can the "concept" God exist in a more meaningful way? a. Categorical judgment, All X is Y. Is there not a complete or ultimate subject that is not a predicate. Is there not a substantial self? This is the topic of speculative or rational psychology. b. Hypothetical judgment, if X, then Y. Is there not a complete series of causes and conditions ending with an unconditioned conditions ending with an unconditioned condition? The complete series is signified in the term, WORLD. This is the topic of rational cosmology. c. Disjunctive judgment, Either X or Y. Is there not some complete complex of possibilities and perfection's? Such completeness is signified in the term GOD. It is the topic or rational theology. First, I don't mean to be rhetorical, but does anyone know why I am asking that question? Or, why should I ask (default)to such a question relative to (conscious) existence? Is it a reasonable question? I think the answer to the latter is yes. But what about the former? Let us explore the notion of "Why" us...? (Why am I self conscious.) What are some possible reasons to some of these questions? Someone on page one mentioned 'energy'... Walrus [ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

07-29-2002, 09:41 AM	#49
TooBad Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Oblivion, UK Posts: 152	If ex-preacher can show you evidence that isn't loaded with interpretation, then solipsism certainly isn't consistent with reality. [ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

07-30-2002, 10:44 AM	#50
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Why do theists, who argue that without God there is no such thing as an objective universe, always sailor dive into solipsism whenever it is pointed out to them what such an objective universe necessarily entails? I believe God, therefore I believe in an objective universe that is entirely the construct of my own mind and can never be proven to exist externally. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2002, 05:09 AM	#43
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	ReasonableDoubt, Since reason cannot choose between two consistent worldviews, I would have to propose some sort of intuition. We tend to believe those things which are closest to human experience.

07-29-2002, 06:33 AM	#46
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	ex-preacher, Do you consider naturalism to be sustained by reason simply because you think it is consistent? Is solipsism not logically consistent? How is the naturalist supported by reason any more than solipsist? It seems to me that you have defined all systems of belief other than your own to be unreasonable, simply because you find them unconvincing.

07-29-2002, 09:25 AM	#48
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	ex-preacher, How do you know that solipsism isn't consistent with reality? Can you show me a piece of empirical evidence that isn't loaded with interpretation?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.