David Mathews

Hello owleye,

David: Excellent comments. I always enjoy reading comments which are invested with thought and intellect. I suppose that our whole life is research into this subject matter, and that every one of us are going to die before we gather enough information to reach a trustworthy conclusion.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Laurentius

Our ignorance should generate humility, and our humility should generate tolerance. That is how Christians and atheists can live side by side in a world where their viewpoints differ so dramatically.

If I were to name the most proxim feeling to tolerance, I'd choose love, not humility. Humility may trigger a wide range of reaction, among which resentment. I doubt it that the type of tolerance accompanying humility would be more than just a conformist one.

And I shouldn't forget: Tolerance, in my opinion, derives from dignity and respect for Man's nature.

AVE

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

joedad

Star-Bellied and Plain-Bellied Sneetches aren't "dramatically" different, or have you forgotten your Dr. Seuss?

Sounds to me like you need to get past tolerance, and onto acceptance. But would that still be "Christian?"

Maybe you need to just get beyond being "Christian".

joe

Automaton

Same ol' same ol' circular Christian psuedo-reasoning. Assume God exists. Then assert God is a fundamental aspect of reality. Reinforce the fact that noone can absolutely 100% know everything about reality. Then smugly smile and say God is as good as proven.

• This notion of reality is incompatible with God anyway -- why would God create an imperfect reality that does not encompass and reveal his true light to the creatures he supposedly created and loved?
• You are making a truth claim about reality, and as such, you have to back it up. We could be simply blissfully unaware of a dragon behind Jupiter, or even the aether (even though it is all around us) but that is not a good reason at all to automatically jump to the conclusion that they exist.
• Why should we believe every logically possible model of reality, just because someone hasn't disproven it? By your "logic", we should believe in every infinite possible concept of "hidden reality".
• Even if the relfection was a god, why would it be the Christian God? Why not the god of Plato?

1. Define reality. Gladly. Reality is the total sum of all existence, and its interactions. Since God is a logically impossible concept, there is no good reason to include him in a model of this.
2. Demonstrate empirically and objectively that this definition of reality is complete and inclusive. There is no way it can be incomplete, as it is a "sum of all", and it is an analytic concept, not synthetic, it is in a totally different category to those that require empirical justification.
3. Prove rationally or logically that all those things which you deny and exclude from existence cannot possibly exist. Alright. Using modal logic, p = any logically possible proposition.<ol type="1">[*]&lt;&gt;p (true by definition, if it is a possible thing)[*] &lt;&gt;p -&gt; &lt;&gt;[]p (the axiom M10)[*] &lt;&gt;[]p (modus ponens from 1 and 2)[*] &lt;&gt;~p -&gt; []&lt;&gt;~p (the axiom S4)[*] ~[]&lt;&gt;~p -&gt; ~&lt;&gt;~p (modus tollens reversal)[*] ~[]&lt;&gt;~p -&gt; []p (solving ~&lt;&gt;~ to [])[*] ~[]~[]~~p -&gt; []p (solving &lt;&gt; to ~[]~)[*] ~[]~[]p -&gt; []p (double negation)[*] &lt;&gt;[]p -&gt; []p (solving ~[]~ to &lt;&gt [*] []p (modus ponens from 3 and 9)[*] []p -&gt; p (axiom M)[*] p (modus ponens from 10 and 11)[/list=a]Therefore, everything that is possible exists necessarily and is actual. So if something exists it is because it is logically possible, and if something doesn't exist it is because it is logically impossible. Everything that exists does so necessarily.

David Mathews

Hello Automaton,

David: Based upon what you wrote above, how would you prove logically that you exist?

Would you use a subjective argument such as "I think, therefore I am." What are the objective criteria which you would use to logically prove your identity?

Once you have establishes these tests of existence, how would you go about proving:

1. God can exist. Yes or No?

2. God does exist. Yes or No?

3. "I" can exist. Yes or No?

4. "I" do exist. Yes or No?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

thefugitivesaint

David,
To even assert the premise of ones nonexistence is a joke. To ask whether or not you "are" requires you to "be" in some form or another thus negating the very 'question' itself. The obvious fact is that regardless of whether we are all merely living within an illusion of some powerful demons construction, brains-in-vats or existing in a 'matrix' world of some sort the operational difference, to us, is nil. It would be absurd to raise ones own hands before ones own face and ask, "How do i know these are my hands or if these hands are even there?" There is no possible context in which these doubts could have meaning. As if a man were to buy several copies of the same daily paper just to verify that what the 1st copy said was indeed true.

You said that: But, i ask, how can this be? Reality presses itself upon each of us and is unrelenting about its presence. You can define it how you like, percieve it as you wish, hide from it with pearly layers of protective myths but reality cares little for our collective vantage points. Earthquakes, torandoes, floods, famine, disease, etc. all reinforce the lack of control we all think we have concering our lives and the world we live in. Reality cannot be bargained with and we possess no tender it finds valid. It is amoral and is not concerned with our existence. It is and we are part and parcel of it.

If this is, in fact, true then how can you explain the overtly successful endeavour of science and its naturalistic bases? No intellectual and philosophical tool has shaped our world so strongly and had such deeply felt ramifications across cultures around the world. We may not have a complete picture of "reality" but it is quite obvious to me that this aspect of your critique is an empty one as science does well enough with the limited, provisional knowledge it possess.

It may be a grandoise beleif to think that we will one day come upon a unified theory of everything or that we will arrive at some complete understanding of the fundamentals of the universe we reside in. Or, maybe we will come to some point were we have exhausted all there is to know and will be able to us that knowledge, if we haven't wiped ourselves out as a species or suffered from some unseen natural event.

Who knows?

And as to "denying" or "excluding" anything from "reality" i do not do so. I do, however, examine specific, defined claims and see how they fair well to skeptical inquiry and examination. The notion of "god" is one of them. Does any "god(s)" exist? Well, no proof has been forthcoming after all of this time, no definition has withstood logic and come out intact on the other side, and i see no "gods" prclaiming there actuality. I do see some of my fellow human beings claiming to speak in this or that "gods" name but i see no reason to take what they have to say seriously. I've visited the churches, the temples, the mosques, the synagogues, etc. and they all make the same basic claims in their own particular ways. Not a one of them has ever rung true to me.

Does this rejection of theism entail a rejection of the notion of "god?" Am i fascinated by the shadows on the wall while a whole other perspective lies for me to discover it? Most likely not if my 28 years on this planet can attest to anything. Naturalism explains more than the supernatural ever could and it makes more sense while doing it. A science based on a naturalistic assumption has been successful where other endeavours related to it but based on mysticism and occult foundations have failed.

That's just my quick two cents. I'll give a more thoughtful, coherent and detailed repsonse later when i have the time to do so.
-theSaint

John Page

David, You didn't answer the question. Again.

Bluenose

1. Define reality.
QV: my new thread.
2. Demonstrate empirically and objectively that this definition of reality is complete and inclusive.
This question is loaded with too many explicit and implicit presuppositions and would require more time than we have at the moment.
3. Prove rationally or logically that all those things which you deny and exclude from existence cannot possibly exist.
You have again loaded one question with a whole semester of philosophy 101 debate topics.

I invite you David to try to answer these questions you pose without any loaded presupositions or trick definitions. Try using Einstein's method of "operational definitions".

Sincerely, B

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

emphryio

Maybe David's just hear to distract us from doing something useful?

David Mathews

Hello emphryio,

David; If you have something useful to do, you should go ahead and do it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews