Faith, inference, assumptions, axioms-- is the God idea so unreasonable?

Started by bennyboy, November 01, 2023, 11:46:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bennyboy

I was watching the following (pretty boring because one-sided) debate.  Aron Ra predictably dismembered his opponent:

However, it occurs to me that absolutely ALL claims impose a burden that cannot be proven, because all positions (about the world, about people, about my desk) require assumptions or axioms-- i.e. unprovable foundations.

We discuss issues of mind, for example.  But if I'm a solipsist, how are you to prove to me that your mind exists?  If I think I'm in the Matrix, how are you to prove to me that an objective world exists, in that you and I can confirm it through mutual observation of physical facts?

If I "infer" that you are really conscious, on the basis that you move around and express feelings through emotional movements of your facial muscles-- well, so do figures in my dreams.  So seeming is not enough to accept even a very basic understanding of objects in the material world.  I would argue that even a belief in an objective reality is not arrived at by a true inference at all-- but that the use of the word "inference" is a euphemism for "assumption."

The only thing I know for sure is that I exist and have experiences.  It seems to me therefore that an honest philosophical position must start with solipsism, and expand only with very strong inference-- as opposed to "inference" as a euphemism.

As for the God idea-- it depends how it's arrived at.  If I have experiences of a personal nature, which shed light on(or at least provide feelings about) a sense of social relationship with the Universe or some aspect of it-- can I just identify this as close enough to definitions of God to call it evidence of such?
Insanity is the only sensible response to the universe.  The sane are just making stuff up.

Unbeliever

You're right, we can really only be certain of our own existence, what I call primary knowledge. The things we perceive with our senses I consider to be secondary knowledge. All else is, at best, tertiary knowledge.
But if a thing cannot physically or logically exist then it does not, in fact, exist.
I think a theistic God is nonexistent for exactly that reason.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

bennyboy

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 02, 2023, 12:33:06 AMYou're right, we can really only be certain of our own existence, what I call primary knowledge. The things we perceive with our senses I consider to be secondary knowledge. All else is, at best, tertiary knowledge.
But if a thing cannot physically or logically exist then it does not, in fact, exist.
I think a theistic God is nonexistent for exactly that reason.
In this list (which I mainly agree with at least semantically), what is the difference between "secondary knowledge" and "faith" (or at least "assumption")?  How would you prove, even to yourself, that anything exists outside of your experience of it?  And how would you go from a collection of such proofs to (I'm assuming here) a material monist world view?

Also, in what sense can you say something "physically exists" without assuming the existence of an objective universe, since presumably the only evidence for such a universe would be the (subjective) experience of things?  It seems that such a framework cannot be established due to circularity-- but must be accepted axiomatically.

How can we escape the trap of "convincingly SEEMS LIKE so IS"?
Insanity is the only sensible response to the universe.  The sane are just making stuff up.

Unbeliever

Hell, I don't need to prove any of that stuff, I just enjoy being me every day.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

bennyboy

Eh.  Nothing but crickets, hey?  Not the AF of yore, I guess. . .
Insanity is the only sensible response to the universe.  The sane are just making stuff up.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 02, 2023, 01:02:41 AMHell, I don't need to prove any of that stuff, I just enjoy being me every day.
I enjoy being you too. Coincidence, I think NOT!
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

aitm

Most humans cannot grasp the vastness of the universe, though they think they can, and place a great significance to the universe on the human existence. Many people understand they cannot grasp the vastness of the universe even though they know the numbers and realize the truly insignificance role we play. Some realize that the human mind could never grasp the vastness of the universe or our insignificance to it. Quite simply, the universe has no room for a god... nor need.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Unbeliever

Here is an argument against the existence of God that I just came up with:
1. If a God exists there would be no good arguments against the existence of God.
2. There are good arguments against the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

What do y'all think, is that a good argument?
🤔
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Mr.Obvious

I'm not saying i don't like it, but i guess it Would depend on what properties the supposed god would have.

A non-involved and imperfect creator only focused on observing dark matter and to whom the rest of hus creation doesn't matter?

Very different from the tri-omi, involved judeochristian one.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Sargon The Grape

I don't think theists really understand what they're getting themselves into when they try to scientifically prove God's existence. Scientific knowledge is built from the ground up, which means you can't go looking for something unless the existing body of knowledge suggests that there's something to go look for. For example, dark matter didn't get pulled out of some astrophysicist's ass: we already know there is more gravity holding the Milky Way together than there is apparent mass to generate that gravity, and that's how we know to go searching for this thing that has temporarily been labeled "dark matter" until its true nature is determined.

There is currently no similar impetus to go looking for God. If there was, Christian scientists would be all over it like a drill sergeant's boot on a new recruit's ass. If they aren't bothering to look for him, why the fuck would any layperson think they can do better?
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

My Youtube Channel