Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[John Jones]

You said that something has to be detectable in order to be defined as existing. We can't detect quarks, so by your definition of existence, quarks don't exist.

I did not. I said detectability was one definition of existence. You ought to read the links you post.

 

[punshhh]

Actually, it's a very good definition of existence, you just don't like that I was able to provide it so quickly.

I'll accept it as scientific definition of existence. But it is blinkered to those things which have not been detected, or which we cannot detect due to our evolutionary predicament. Do they not exist?

Not to mention the deeper questions regarding existence, you know, the ones which science does not address.

 

[asydhouse]

I'll accept it as scientific definition of existence. But it is blinkered to those things which have not been detected, or which we cannot detect due to our evolutionary predicament. Do they not exist?

Not to mention the deeper questions regarding existence, you know, the ones which science does not address.

You haven't given us any deeper questions. You mean like the meaning of life? Why are we here? How about there is no meaning as an answer to those questions. We provide our own purpose and meaning. It is not imposed by the universe. The universe does not require anything from us.

We are the arbiters and the impetus for ourselves.

You insist on an origin for the surface of a sphere? You haven't understood what I posted and what you dismissed in a tit-for-tat fit of pique as "sophistry".

The hypersphere is a mathematically well-defined form that we cannot envision in our heads, because we have evolved in three dimensions, but a hypersphere is a four-dimensional form. There's no sophistry in that.

If you lack education, you should look into it. You might be able to let go of your origins dogma. There is a real mystery, you are almost there when you say we may not be able to detect due to our evolutionary predicament.

But if the physical universe ever gets affected by something from outside, it of necessity will leave a trace, and we will be able to detect that. So far, nothing which doesn't turn out to be tricks of our brains, mistakes in our perception.

As soon as a real anomaly occurs, we'll be ale to study it using science. And science will be the only tool that will enable us to approach the reality of whatever that anomaly is.

 

[asydhouse]

You said that something has to be detectable in order to be defined as existing. We can't detect quarks, so by your definition of existence, quarks don't exist.

You're quibbling over the definition of detection. Since everything we know about the world outside of our brains is mediated by intervening stages of detection via sensors, from our physical senses to machines like telescopes we have built to enhance those senses, to the constructions our brains make from these raw inputs to create an experience which we naively take to be direct input from the world, to the schemes of understanding we construct on top of that to interpret our various inputs, it's all inferred from interpreting the effects of the "things". You can't touch an atom either, but do you dismiss a scanning electron microscope as being detection of the atoms? You said we can only detect them by inferring their existence by observing their effects. I say that's exactly the same thing we do with every other thing we speak of as existing.

I'd say, if we have a model of reality, and everything we detect fits into that model, and there's nothing missing from the model that would need to be there to explain anything, or any projection from that model, then we have existence wrapped up.

Provisionally, until a gap presents itself. Then we need to adjust the model, if and when required. Trying to squeeze a "maybe gap" into the model where there just isn't one, as in the case of ghosts for instance, is not a genuine challenge to the model. (Because there's no requirement for an extra force beyond the ones we know already in order to account for everything we currently detect). If ghosts occurred, we could detect them.

For all intents and purposes, if something "exists" beyond the model, or beyond the universe, if it doesn't impinge on this model or this universe, it really doesn't exist!

This is maybe a subtle point: Navigator has already misconstrued me to mean that things don't exist until we discover them, which is obviously nonsensical. I'm talking here in the ideal of the perfectly congruent case of our completed model matching exactly the reality of the universe. If the universe does not contain it, then it can not be said to exist. If our model is congruent with the universe, then we can detect it, via it's effects… because the only way we can detect anything is via its effects.

 

[asydhouse]

<snip>

So option 1, no origin, the consequence of which is existing eternally
and option 2, regression,the consequence of which is there is an origin, but an origin infinitely distant.
The paradox, existing eternally is equivalent to infinitely distant. Both alternatives fail in infinite regression which is a human construct.
Care to offer an alternative option?

<snip>

Again, you've answered your own question. The concept of infinite regression is a human construct. I'm not trying to be insulting when I try to point out that you are creating your own problem: you are in the position of an ant on the surface of a balloon searching for the starting place of the surface. I mean this literally. It is the human predicament in this universe.

You are stuck on the concept that there must be an origin of what is. But why should not being be the ground state of the …well, universe (for want of a better word)! (We are limited by our language, because our language arises from within the universe…)

Why should nonexistence necessarily come "before" existence? If you find existence hard to simply accept as de facto, why shouldn't nonexistence be equally as difficult to accept?

As I mentioned in my very first post in this thread, there is a mathematical formulation which says that nothing is an unstable condition, so it would be the case that if ever nothing were to arise, it would immediately demand something to occur. The unstable state of nothing would topple into the more stable state of something. Hence, existence, and the universe!

Honestly, it is much more fun to simply give up the notion of an origin as a crippling limitation of the human mind, and rise into the expanded space of simply being!

 

[I Ratant]

Read post #361.
STAY ON THE *********** TOPIC OF THE DAMNED THREAD!
Jesus!
It's about Islam!

 

[asydhouse]

Read post #361.
STAY ON THE *********** TOPIC OF THE DAMNED THREAD!
Jesus!
It's about Islam!

Funny, I thought it was about atheism, and whether atheists are such because of faith or logic.

The OP starts with a bunch of faux philosophical faulty logic to try to direct that discussion into his proselytising for Islam, and that aspect of the thread was pretty well dealt with and I felt dismissed on the first page.

The reason I am posting here is to discuss the logic of believing or knowing, addressing points made by Navigator mainly, which I felt were also employing faulty logic to reach the conclusion that what I believe are logical conclusions about the nature of consciousness and the universe are actually matters of faith.

If this thread was supposed to only be about Islam, I suggest the OP should have been honest about his intentions in the first place.

Have you got some reason for being so apparently annoyed about our carrying on the thread instead of declaring it dead after the first few posts had demolished the dishonest intentions of the OP?

For what it's worth, the risible contention that mike continues to make that the quran is the greatest piece of Arabic literature, or indeed of literature in general, and that it is without error, are so obviously false as to make further comment redundant.

Happy now?

And another thing, I have been hoping that mike might notice that his primitive approaches to cosmology in the quran have been superseded by modern thinkers and more advanced notions about reality. I had hoped we might demonstrate real logic and real debate, so that he could see that proselytising religion by stealth isn't going to fly.

I guess your response puts the lie to that hope!

Jesus!

 

[I Ratant]

Walls of text that are off topic but are the poster's main burr under their own saddle..
Quibbles over definitions.
Attacking those definitions ad-infinitum.
SOP nowadays.
How does that point the OP into the direction of freedom from his religion?

 

[godless dave]

I think it is safe to say, that at no point in history have a group of individuals been able to produce a piece of work (as in literature, poetry, etc.) which was constructed solely by oral means, produced without requiring revision, and the finished product was without error.

What makes you think the Koran wasn't revised?

 

[godless dave]

1: How do you figure that to be so?

It's the basis of human wisdom.

2: I have already covered this.

Not that I've seen.

3: If anyone is absolutely certain that when they die that is the end of their existence, would you say they were a 'fool'?

Anyone who is absolutely certain of anything is a fool.

 

[I Ratant]

What makes you think the Koran wasn't revised?

.
The history of the book starts with revisions.
And memories, as I mentioned, of what we will say Mohammed would have said,
which were tossed up, batted around, and the less popular ideas not included.

 

[asydhouse]

Walls of text that are off topic but are the poster's main burr under their own saddle..
Quibbles over definitions.
Attacking those definitions ad-infinitum.
SOP nowadays.
How does that point the OP into the direction of freedom from his religion?

By demonstrating the narrowness of his borders of knowledge and thought.

He's obviously not responding to the frontal approach. He just ignores the information linked which shows the mistakes in his quran, which he simply dismisses and then repeats his claims of perfection etc. His history of the quran is a lie.

You've already posted the history of it's origins in depth more than once, and yet he ignores it. He needs to see other minds and ways of thinking at work.

Do you really think the conversation we've been having is worthless?

I thought it was worthwhile, or I wouldn't have put so much effort into it.

Shall we take a vote?

On second thoughts, I'll just leave you to it. Good luck with your impossible task of arguing mike out of his delusion by telling him it's a delusion.

So long, and good luck to you all.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Do you really think the conversation we've been having is worthless?

..l.

.
Yes.
Debating the "real" value of "nothing" is just pinheads and angels.
Why not a query on the ABSOLUTE stupidity of the Shi'a-Sunni wars?
They're not even about differences in doctrine, but who is going to be the next Imam..... following the last guy who died 1000 years ago?
How can that be rationally defended?
And yet, today someone(s) is getting killed for that sole reason in Islam.
WTF?

 

[gentlehorse]

By demonstrating the narrowness of his borders of knowledge and thought.

He's obviously not responding to the frontal approach. He just ignores the information linked which shows the mistakes in his quran, which he simply dismisses and then repeats his claims of perfection etc. His history of the quran is a lie.

You've already posted the history of it's origins in depth more than once, and yet he ignores it. He needs to see other minds and ways of thinking at work.

Do you really think the conversation we've been having is worthless?

I thought it was worthwhile, or I wouldn't have put so much effort into it.

Shall we take a vote?

On second thoughts, I'll just leave you to it. Good luck with your impossible task of arguing mike out of his delusion by telling him it's a delusion.

So long, and good luck to you all.

I don't know if Mike's gotten anything out of what you've been saying, but I have. I appreciate what you say and the way you say it. Who knows? Maybe Mike will think a bit about what you wrote. Stick around. You can't please everybody, but I'd be surprised if I'm the only one who likes your stuff. Keep posting!

 

[asydhouse]

.
Yes.
Debating the "real" value of "nothing" is just pinheads and angels.
Why not a query on the ABSOLUTE stupidity of the Shi'a-Sunni wars?
They're not even about differences in doctrine, but who is going to be the next Imam..... following the last guy who died 1000 years ago?
How can that be rationally defended?
And yet, today someone(s) is getting killed for that sole reason in Islam.
WTF?

Well if you can misread the discussion about whether or not god exists, or how we can know that, and the validity of logic in determining such issues, and what is valid scientific reasoning as opposed to invalid reasoning… I guess there's no hope for the OP.

I am in sympathy with your concerns, but they are not the subject that was proposed for this thread.

Frankly I feel very disappointed that you can dismiss all my efforts to demonstrate sound logic as a worthless effort.

I give up.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think this thread is a rather nice juxtaposition of what atheists have to deal with.

 

[punshhh]

I'd say, if we have a model of reality, and everything we detect fits into that model, and there's nothing missing from the model that would need to be there to explain anything, or any projection from that model, then we have existence wrapped up.

Provisionally, until a gap presents itself. Then we need to adjust the model, if and when required. Trying to squeeze a "maybe gap" into the model where there just isn't one, as in the case of ghosts for instance, is not a genuine challenge to the model. (Because there's no requirement for an extra force beyond the ones we know already in order to account for everything we currently detect). If ghosts occurred, we could detect them.

For all intents and purposes, if something "exists" beyond the model, or beyond the universe, if it doesn't impinge on this model or this universe, it really doesn't exist!

This is an example of what is sometimes called naive materialism. You are making existence subject to the human condition, placing the current understanding that humanity has on a pedestal.

This is maybe a subtle point: Navigator has already misconstrued me to mean that things don't exist until we discover them, which is obviously nonsensical. I'm talking here in the ideal of the perfectly congruent case of our completed model matching exactly the reality of the universe. If the universe does not contain it, then it can not be said to exist. If our model is congruent with the universe, then we can detect it, via it's effects… because the only way we can detect anything is via its effects.

Fine, I don't see that this in dispute. But what about the things that exist which we are not aware of?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It's probably too late to suggest this, but this topic has gone in two different directions and should have been split a while ago. The first was discussing Islam and the second was discussing existence. Honestly, I find both conversations interesting, yet at the same time, cumbersome to read when mashed together in the same thread where I don't know what to expect next. I hate to say this, but the discussion on existence feels like a derail that belongs in a separate thread; this is not to say it doesn't deserve the care and attention people have devoted to their arguments.

 

[gentlehorse]

This is an example of what is sometimes called naive materialism. You are making existence subject to the human condition, placing the current understanding that humanity has on a pedestal.

No. Not even close. The point is that if it interacts with the universe, then science can, in principle, detect it. If it doesn't interact with the universe, then it cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

But what about the things that exist which we are not aware of?

If they interact with the universe, then science can detect them, in principle.

(I'd rather have read asydhouse's response, as I'm not nearly so eloquent, but...)

 

[punshhh]

Again, you've answered your own question. The concept of infinite regression is a human construct. I'm not trying to be insulting when I try to point out that you are creating your own problem: you are in the position of an ant on the surface of a balloon searching for the starting place of the surface. I mean this literally. It is the human predicament in this universe.

I don't think we have much of an argument, or that our positions are that far apart, the discussion is of some interest though. I would suggest that in your model logic is the ant.

You are stuck on the concept that there must be an origin of what is. But why should not being be the ground state of the …well, universe (for want of a better word)! (We are limited by our language, because our language arises from within the universe…)

No I'm not stuck on the origin, I'm just discussing "nothing", which is where I joined the discussion.

Why should nonexistence necessarily come "before" existence? If you find existence hard to simply accept as de facto, why shouldn't nonexistence be equally as difficult to accept?

I did not say before, that's why I used the word origin.

As I mentioned in my very first post in this thread, there is a mathematical formulation which says that nothing is an unstable condition, so it would be the case that if ever nothing were to arise, it would immediately demand something to occur. The unstable state of nothing would topple into the more stable state of something. Hence, existence, and the universe!

This is a limited scenario, you can't discuss this in terms of maths or physics. Maths is too abstract to be applied to existence, even though being useful in modelling physical phenomena. We can't determine the extent that physical phenomena reflects existence. Physics is too close to home.

Honestly, it is much more fun to simply give up the notion of an origin as a crippling limitation of the human mind, and rise into the expanded space of simply being!

Already there(and have been for some time). I'm looking at what logically can be said about the existence we find ourselves in.