M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Yes, please remember that when somebody gives you a logical argument for the existence of God:coffeeread:.
- Status
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Do you have empirical evidence that physical reality objectively exists?:hypno:
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That’s interesting; because some Christians say that they couldn’t get through life, or make sense of it, or make sense of moral guilt with out making a practical assumption about Gods existence. Many Christians believe in God because the world is completely unintelligible, despairing, and morally deprived, without the assumption of God.
I am just saying that its quite interesting…:hypno:
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Yes. Every experiment ever done adds weight to the argument that objective reality exists. The fact that I am constantly receiving sensory data adds weight to that argument.
it would be more accurate to say that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy my criteria for belief that reality exists. I accept reality. I don’t see the point in even worrying about reality not existing since it would be completely outwith my control anyway.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Did i say i was a solipsist?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Weather Mindovermatter is a Solipsist or not is inconsequential, he got you to concede to the fact that basic presumptions about the nature of universe are required.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I never said they weren’t… There’s a whole hell of a lot of difference between accepting basic presumptions about the nature of the Universe and accepting omnipotent super beings.Weather Mindovermatter is a Solipsist or not is inconsequential, he got you to concede to the fact that basic presumptions about the nature of universe are required.
Is that really what philsophy comes down to? I give an inch and you and your tag team partner take a mile?
J
JohnDamian
Guest
If you accept principle : LogicI never said they weren’t… There’s a whole hell of a lot of difference between accepting basic presumptions about the nature of the Universe and accepting omnipotent super beings.
You nessecarily have to consider Logical arguments valid
So at least we have progressed from “empiricism only” to “logic is acceptable”
Logic leads us to God.
In a philosophy discussion both sides exchange arguments untill one makes a concession, then they unravel that concession like a thread and lead to their conclusion!
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Well, you see the thing is, my acceptance of physical reality is based on a set of assumptions, and assumptions are logical fallacies, are they not?If you accept principle : Logic
You nessecarily have to consider Logical arguments valid
So at least we have progressed from “empiricism only” to “logic is acceptable”
Logic leads us to God.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I see… So being new to philosophy, what do you advise? Should I answer any questions that look like traps with a “no comment”?
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Actually holding “premises” about the world around us is how we make decisions; it just forms part of the way of presenting an argument:
Premise + Premise = Conclusion.
Then people either challenge the premises, the links, or the conclusion in order to refute or countrargue, or they accept it.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
That doesn’t really answer my question. Since there is no chain of reasoning, and basically what amounts in logical terms to a blind assumption that my senses are telling the truth has led me to accept that reality exists, isn’t my acceptance of reality logically fallacious?Actually holding “premises” about the world around us is how we make decisions; it just forms part of the way of presenting an argument:
Premise + Premise = Conclusion.
Then people either challenge the premises, the links, or the conclusion in order to refute or countrargue, or they accept it.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
So you think the assumption that physical reality objectively exists is evidence that the scientific evidence reflects how objective reality really is?
Not really because you haven’t provided any “scientific” evidence that proves to me that physical reality exists objectively and isn’t just a “persistent illusion”. If science is merely a science of how things appear, then we have no “scientific grounds” upon which to say that science is a science about “objective truth” as it exists out side of mere appearances. We are merely assuming. Science claims to be about truth. If we want a science that is more than i tautology, then we require pre-scientifc philosophical considerations to back up our reasons for believing that it is rational to think that science is a science about objective truth, and not illusions.
You are obviously willing to accept that change might be a persistent illusion, and you obviously don’t see that your experience of it is good reason to say that we know that it exists or that we know what it is. So surely you can see the point i am making? Why not be agnostic about scientific discoveries? Only philosophical discourse can provide the answers.
We accept the reality to which we are presented. To some degree this is true. But then what is the point of questioning the existence of change?
The reason i have brought up all this whole business about knowledge is to show that there are other means by which we can obtain rational reasons for belief outside the scientific method.
For instance i know that i exist; not because Science told me, but because it would be a logical contradiction for me to have knowledge of my existence if i did not in fact exist. The existence of God works in a similar fashion. The professional Thomist is showing that it would be a logical contradiction for potential reality to exist if God as defined by Gods attributes did not exist. I am not going to go in to the arguments now, but it is enough to say that the Thomist is working according to a principle of knowledge that does not require “scientific verification”.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
If this is not reality, then it is indistinguishable from reality. In this simulation, dream whatever you want to call it, the scientific method holds true.
Indeed, if my mind is the only thing in this reality that I know to be real, why should I listen to you or anyone else?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Why don’t you just accept that i have just crushed your whole position in to a tiny ball barely worthy of even a kick?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Because you haven’t actually convinced me of anything except that you ask all the wrong questions all the time.
If you could point out to me an example of momentum being created or destroyed outwith the Heisenberg principle, or a mammal that isn’t bilaterally symmetrical or a closed system with decreasing entropy, then my position would be utterly destroyed.
All you have done is utter platitudes. Your whole position is ridiculous. If I admit I have to make the assumption that reality exists, I have to accept that science doesn’t yield meaningful answers? I’m sorry but that is utter balls. Science works from here to the edge of the observable Universe, according to six and a half billion observers. That’s about as close to objectivity as you’re ever going to find.
K
kildare
Guest
Just wondering…What evidence would you give a chimapanzee that he lived on a sphere and not, in terms that he could understand? How could you make this intelligent animal understand such a concept. I think its beyond him. Similarly understanding Gods origin may be beyond us. If both Atheists and Thesists accept this as reasonable, then doesnt it make sense that if the deity existed, he would only make himself known to the parts of the universe that came to have the faculaty of awareess(ie us) through a slow process of revelation.
Also, the universe has certain properties, one of which evlved only very recently and that is awareness, so through us, the universe is aware of itself. Perhaps there are more properties which will develop, but if we take time out of the picture then these properties have to exist intrinsically. Somehow a self aware universe was ineviatble at the beginning, or at the Big Bang.
Finally, if God “loved” humans equally, regardless of time and circumstance, would he make it easier to those who were endowed with higher than normal benefits(intelligence, free time)? On teh contray Belief in God cuts right across the social and synchronical spectrum
Also, the universe has certain properties, one of which evlved only very recently and that is awareness, so through us, the universe is aware of itself. Perhaps there are more properties which will develop, but if we take time out of the picture then these properties have to exist intrinsically. Somehow a self aware universe was ineviatble at the beginning, or at the Big Bang.
Finally, if God “loved” humans equally, regardless of time and circumstance, would he make it easier to those who were endowed with higher than normal benefits(intelligence, free time)? On teh contray Belief in God cuts right across the social and synchronical spectrum
J
JohnDamian
Guest
By such a concession you understand that as we claim that God is outside the observable universe we cannot offer you any scientific or “empirical” evidence for his existence; outside of his causes (which you no doubt would challenge).
And by consequence therein, we have to accept that as you do not accept logical proofs, we are unable to provide you with evidence for the existence of God.
By your own arbitrary boundaries you impose on us (empiricism), we nessecarily cannot help prove God’s existence within these parameters.
- Status