Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[godless dave]

Because (as I did explain) it is assumed that consciousness is a product of the brain due to the fact that it
cannot be verified not to be but is still possibly something that uses the human and other terrestrial forms.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded.

We can positively verify that consciousness is a product of the brain. This is a solid scientific fact.

 

[tsig]

Oh dear, you should check that you've read something properly before posting.

Tassman was saying, "its important to reinforce all reality is natural", I was saying that with myself or Navigator, this is not necessary, it is understood.

Quote:
True. But it’s important to reinforce that ALL reality is natural. It is therefore subject to the laws and constants of nature and available for scientific research.

You might want to indicate which part you're responding to, it looked to me like it was the second part especially since you've hammered on and on about alternate realities.

 

[asydhouse]

<snip>

These examples of things that exist are all derived from the human imagination, it's not surprising that they are imaginary and can be dismissed as such. The concept of god is not exclusively derived from human imagination. It can be derived by both direct experience and philosophical or rational thought. Neither of these derivations are necessarily imaginary.

<snip>

Holy cow! So you are seriously trying to give credence to the possibility that some kind of entity that we would call a "god" enters into some sort of nonphysical interaction with people, and that this apparent interaction cannot be ascribed to faulty reasoning/perception on the part of the recipient?

Your so-called rational thought can allow for a nonphysical something which does not interact via any of the known physical forces or matter, and yet somehow alters the states of these forces/matters without itself actually interacting via those things?

How exactly can you define "rational" to include this non-physical physicality?

I see no possible ratio in the juxtaposition of these two conditions: physical/nonphysical. To me that is to make a mockery of both language and logic.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Not quite. If one wants the possibility considered to be worth investigation or to be taken as in any way likely, sure. If one's just pointing out that something is a possibility in the first place? Not really.

And this is the whole problem with Navigator's approach - jumping from "X is conceivably possible" to an insistence that the question of X must be regarded as unproven and an open question, without providing any evidence at all to support X.

I confess that my argument may have been poorly worded, but only because I wasn't quite spelling out the fail in Navigator's approach in sufficiently careful terms.

This does not follow. Allowing something as possible only addresses one point among many for how reasonable it is to accept that something's the case. Saying that X is possible, but only if completely unsupported conditions A, B, and C are the case and D, despite being a more useful explanation, is wrong is still saying that X is possible. X is very likely wrong and would be an illogical position to hold, even if it were true, in that case, of course.

See above. X is a claim, offered without evidence. In the absence of that evidence, the null hypothesis stands, until and unless evidence is offered to support X. The possibility that X may be true can be applied to any and every fanciful idea if you stretch a point far enough, but it has no practical value. It certainly doesn't mean, as Navigator has previously argued, that no one should express a clear opinion on the existence of fairies, unicorns or gods because they may be technical possibilities.

A hypothetical and theoretical acknowledgement that there might be things we don't know about is par for the course. Attempting to reflect that in either language or actions is less than helpful.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

I can't comment on what Navigator is attempting to do, as I have not studied the whole thread or developed an opinion about this. The impression I do have though is that he is not commenting much on the existence of god, but rather the non existence of such beings and if it can be said logically that they don't exist.

How does that contradict anything I said?

These examples of things that exist are all derived from the human imagination, it's not surprising that they are imaginary and can be dismissed as such. The concept of god is not exclusively derived from human imagination. It can be derived by both direct experience and philosophical or rational thought. Neither of these derivations are necessarily imaginary.

See my previous post. Also, the highlighted sentence is very much begging the question.

You are confusing claim with rational speculation. Is anyone claiming that a certain thing exists, or doesn't exist?

There is nothing rational in speculating about the existence of fantastic fables and expecting those speculations to be taken seriously without any evidence other than your own imagination.

Logically one cannot compare the viability or likelyhood of the existence of the unknown in the unknown, while the nature of our existence is unknown.
For example, there may be an asteroid approximating the shape of a teapot in the asteroid belt, also there may be a being producing universes as part of a conversation with another being and our universe is an expression of a word in the conversation.The relative likelyhood of these two things existing cannot logically be compared, because the being is external to our current degree of understanding of existence and the probability cannot be calculated. Whereas the probability of a teapot shaped asteroid can in theory be calculated, as the parameters of its physical existence can be measured and compared to other known physical things.

You're prevaricating. I'm sure you understand the difference between teapot-shaped asteroids and actual teapots, and I'm sure you realise the significance of that difference. But the principle is unchanged in either case. You don't get to evade the burden of proof just because you think your claim is completely different, you have to demonstrate that. And then it may well be that some people will disagree with your assessment of that evidence. That's life. You don't get to complain if they think your careful, rational assessment of the evidence is actually ignorant special pleading. But without evidence being offered, I can't see how it could possibly make any sense to believe in your claim.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there really might be a teapot and logic does not include might in its calculation(it may include probability, but only in known domains). I am quite happy for you not to take seriously anyone who claims there is a god, I won't join you though. Sifting crackpot theories is part of the process of doing philosophy and it deals quite well with the consideration of the existence of undetected things, or things elsewhere(than our little corner of this universe).
I would advise reaching a metaphysical perspective on your life and existence, if you are concerned.

Where did I say anything about whether I take people seriously if they claim there is a god? Just like your wider epistemology, you are jumping to all sorts of ridiculous and unwarranted conclusions without evidence.

I'd ask how you think crackpot theories can be meaningfully sifted if we have to acknowledge all possibilities, but I'm forced to acknowledge the possibility that my computer might devour me whole if I did, so I won't.

 

[asydhouse]

<snip>

A hypothetical and theoretical acknowledgement that there might be things we don't know about is par for the course. Attempting to reflect that in either language or actions is less than helpful.

I take you to mean effectively that the hilited part "goes without saying", that it is the correct scientific stance: we are always open to new data overturning our models, as long as the data is sound. [sarcasm](For Navigator's benefit, here I am using "sound" in the British vernacular sense of "logically consistent, or based on solid foundations")[/sarcasm]

The correct formulation of that in either language or actions would be to assume that the models we have are sound and complete, until such time as new data demonstrates an inadequacy in the model.

This assumption of completeness is based on the twin facts that there is no data that we currently have that is not adequately accounted for in the current model, and there is no prediction of the model that can not in principle be observed to actually occur. (Here we have to allow "observe" to include the effects of the entity in question, as with subatomic particles we observe their effects through the bubble chamber tracks which are not the particles themselves, but the effects they have on the liquid in the bubble chamber under the influence of the magnetic fields within the chamber, etc… or indeed, the effects of the force of gravity, even though we cannot observe a gravitational field directly: we have seen no gravitons, and indeed gravity is a conventional word for the effects of the curvature of space-time in Relativity, for instance).

This is why I say it is futile to speculate that there could be an as yet undiscovered "force" which could shoehorn a ghost experience into the physics model we have. There is no undiscovered force required to explain any of the observations we have made.

I've just made this up, and although I've studied physics and maths with the Open University, I have not studied the philosophy of science, so I may have formulated this all with a naive expression. I'm not 100% sure I've got the second of my "twin facts" correctly expressed in the third paragraph here.

I'm just trying to express my understanding of "possible" in the context of what I understand as science.

I'm open to adjustment, if anyone here has more than sophistry to offer in commentary on my statements.

 

[punshhh]

You might want to indicate which part you're responding to, it looked to me like it was the second part especially since you've hammered on and on about alternate realities.

Yes I know, I don't think it required a jaw drop though. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my post.

 

[Navigator]

Your technique is to raise certain absurd or unverifiable notions as “possibilities” and then demand that your opponent refute them. It’s a cheap trick.

No.

The cheap trick is to claim someone has done something that they never did and when this has been pointed out and you are asked to provide the evidence to support the accusation you make, you don't because you can't but continue to make false accusations.

I have made no such demand on you or anyone else. There is simply no need or logic from my position to make any demands as my position is that I don't know either way on the idea of 'god' or 'afterlife' and since that is the case, it is also the case that I am not looking for anyone to refute or to verify what I don't know about what is unknown and at present unknowable.

 

[Brian-M]

These examples of things that exist are all derived from the human imagination, it's not surprising that they are imaginary and can be dismissed as such. The concept of god is not exclusively derived from human imagination.

Many of us would argue that the concept of God IS exclusively derived from human imagination.

It can be derived by both direct experience and philosophical or rational thought. Neither of these derivations are necessarily imaginary.

Neither of these derivations are necessarily non-imaginary either.

Hallucinations are a form of direct experience that is purely imaginary. You can also produce all kinds of imaginary concepts through philosophical or rational thought, such as tachyons or luminiferous aether.

Although, I'd like to see an explanation of how God can be derived from rational thought without use of logical fallacies such as argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance.

 

[Navigator]

And this is the whole problem with Navigator's approach - jumping from "X is conceivably possible" to an insistence that the question of X must be regarded as unproven and an open question, without providing any evidence at all to support X.

I confess that my argument may have been poorly worded, but only because I wasn't quite spelling out the fail in Navigator's approach in sufficiently careful terms.

X is defined as 'might be possible' and acknowledged as something which science cannot confidently measure and for that reason isn't equipped to provide absolute statements regarding the impossibility of X.

As to my position, I cannot confidently say one way or another as to such ideas as I don't know without relying on some form of belief which is something I like to avoid because I view beliefs systems as illogical regardless of their opposing positions.

It was put to me that a null hypothesis on X makes the statement 'X does not exist' a statement of science however since X is not defined by science there is no possibility of hypothesis, null or otherwise.

 

[I Am The Scum]

No.

The cheap trick is to claim someone has done something that they never did and when this has been pointed out and you are asked to provide the evidence to support the accusation you make, you don't because you can't but continue to make false accusations.

I have made no such demand on you or anyone else. There is simply no need or logic from my position to make any demands as my position is that I don't know either way on the idea of 'god' or 'afterlife' and since that is the case, it is also the case that I am not looking for anyone to refute or to verify what I don't know about what is unknown and at present unknowable.

[Show me] Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.

Uh huh...

 

[I Am The Scum]

By the way, I know I sound like a pretentious snob when I point out stuff like this (though when has that ever stopped me?), but I think some of you should familiarize yourself with with the concept of logical possibility^WP. It is the simplest and broadest use of the term "possible." It is logically possible that Russell's Teapot actually exists. It is logically possible that the world is flat. It is logically possible that you are a cylon and you don't even realize it.

 

[Navigator]

Well... not really with me. I'm fine with saying that lots and lots and lots of things are possible, regardless. I'm generally far more interested with what reasons there are for why I should accept things as the case, though.

The idea of god, afterlife and any other ideas which fit into the unknown/unknowable for now category interests me. Especially afterlife concepts because this body of mine isn't going to live forever and the fact that the is no absolute evidence the possibility remains.

As I have said, it is something akin to a 'hobby' - and in relation to my position and understanding of my limitations, it is very reasonable to acknowledge what I do and don;t know and acknowledge that there is so much that I don't know which includes things which I cannot know.

I myself accept these things as the case in relation to possibilities but leave it to others to define for themselves why the should accept things as the case, whatever those things might be.

 

[Navigator]

Uh huh...

How about you provide the evidence in the full context. What you have provided could be a demand (though it looks like a request) but I know in context it was neither. It was a response to the claim that 'god' ( X undefined) did not exist, so asking for evidence supporting the claim in the context of the interaction was from an obvious position of irony.

I certainly wasn't actually expecting anyone to be able to provide any evidence.

 

[I Am The Scum]

How about you provide the evidence in the full context. What you have provided could be a demand (though it looks like a request) but I know in context it was neither. It was a response to the claim that 'god' ( X undefined) did not exist, so asking for evidence supporting the claim in the context of the interaction was from an obvious position of irony.

I certainly wasn't actually expecting anyone to be able to provide any evidence.

That's not true.

The context is that Tsig asked you what you would consider to qualify as evidence. Then you demanded (not requested) that Tsig show you evidence that God does not exist, which, as far as I'm aware, is a proposition that Tsig has not argued in favor of.

The context makes the exchange look even more bizarre, and certainly, less favorable for your contention.

This is all summarized by the quotations in post #605.

 

[tsig]

By the way, I know I sound like a pretentious snob when I point out stuff like this (though when has that ever stopped me?), but I think some of you should familiarize yourself with with the concept of logical possibility^WP. It is the simplest and broadest use of the term "possible." It is logically possible that Russell's Teapot actually exists. It is logically possible that the world is flat. It is logically possible that you are a cylon and you don't even realize it.

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true. Thus, "the sky is blue" (and all other actually true propositions) is logically possible: there exists some logically coherent way for the world to be such that it is true, viz., the way that the world actually is. But this "way for the world to be" need not be the way the world actually is; it need only be logically coherent.

IOW a logical possibility has nothing to do with reality.

It's a LP that ice will spontaneously form in boiling water, that dead people will rise and no river will ever find the sea.

It's also a LP that you will hit every time you draw to an inside straight but you don't want to bet that way.

 

[tsig]

That's not true.

The context is that Tsig asked you what you would consider to qualify as evidence. Then you demanded (not requested) that Tsig show you evidence that God does not exist, which, as far as I'm aware, is a proposition that Tsig has not argued in favor of.

The context makes the exchange look even more bizarre, and certainly, less favorable for your contention.

This is all summarized by the quotations in post #605.

Thanks

It was that exchange that made me question whether of not the misunderstandings were honest or not.

Not won.

 

[punshhh]

Holy cow! So you are seriously trying to give credence to the possibility that some kind of entity that we would call a "god" enters into some sort of nonphysical interaction with people, and that this apparent interaction cannot be ascribed to faulty reasoning/perception on the part of the recipient?

There is testimony that people have been contacted by God/god, make of it what you will, it is there. Yes much of it can be ascribed to "faulty reasoning/perception", but this does not show that it does not happen on occasion.

Your so-called rational thought can allow for a nonphysical something which does not interact via any of the known physical forces or matter, and yet somehow alters the states of these forces/matters without itself actually interacting via those things?

I would not go that far in ascribing what it is or does, but certainly that there is a rational train of thought resulting in the idea of an intelligent creator/fabricator/manipulator.

How exactly can you define "rational" to include this non-physical physicality?

Simple, another kind or form of material, other than the physical material we are aware of, perhaps a primary material and ours is secondary.

I see no possible ratio in the juxtaposition of these two conditions: physical/nonphysical. To me that is to make a mockery of both language and logic.

Well yes if one considers that physical material is all that is or could exist. But Logic is an intellectual principle and presumably applies whatever the material circumstances.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It's a LP that ice will spontaneously form in boiling water,

This can actually happen in a vacuum.

 

[fuelair]

To the OP specifically.. Neither (though logic plays a part). Simply complete and irrevocable, so far, lack of evidence. And, just in case: eyewitness reports are not evidence unless you wish to accept a panoply of gods - as a large number of different gods have been reported by observers. None, however, have left any actual evidence that could not have been physically manufactured by nature or humans.
At the risk of repeating myself and large numbers of others: the bible, which is supposedly the infallible and direct recording of the word of god, is fraught with different versions with loads of internal inconsistencies of stories, lineages and laws/procedures which, to be the direct and complete and unalterable word of god, can only mean god is insane and has multiple personality disorder such that he can consider and spout millions of impossible things over breakfast and simply dropped random ones into his holy book. This is not a god I could have any kind of faith in, or a book I could in any way trust except as a folklore collection of writings from long ago.

Also, if god, god=mass murderer/torturer.