Of course. Accidentally trip on a hole in the lawn that you didn't know about. Now you know not to step there, without having been told it in any language.

Michael Ossipoff

"Belief in God" is not invariably the product of child rearing practices, but it usually is. Parents teach religion to their children. That is where a belief in god comes from.

Adults non-believers are converted by missionaries or by social contact and a wish to belong to the community.

Disbelief is taught in some societies, but where religion is dominant, disbelief is most likely to be the result of individual responses. It is easy to bring a child into religion; an adult has to dig his way out. — Bitter Crank

I was raised Atheist, but later questioned and rejected that faith.

Michael Ossipoff

I certainly do not agree to that. It isnt “like” a religion either. — DingoJones

No, it's just a faith-based belief in a particular version of the ultimate reality. :D

Does QM, definitively affirm the concept of a 'free will'?

No.

But university PhD physicist specialists in QM have said that QM lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.

Michael Ossipoff

as I've pointed out in other comments, in order to reach the conclusion "logic is based on antecedent axioms that are unprovable" you have to use a few axioms yourself to get there which are ALSO antecedent and unprovable. It's a self referring problem. So one now has to doubt the antecedent axioms that got him to doubt antecedent axioms.

.
In my previous reply, I told why I don’t think logic has that problem. It just comes down to a consistency-requirement. Need it be proved that there aren’t mutually contradictory or inconsistent facts, or propositions that are true and false?
.
That consistency requirement is built-into your experience-story, because any definite yes/no matter is, tautologically, one way or the other, and that doesn’t need proof.
.
What I was saying that the describable world, including our own physical world, consists of systems of abstract implications, and that our own physical world consists of a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things (with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth values for those hypothetical propositions).
.
…and that there’s no reason to believe that any of the antecedents of any of the implications are true. I suggest that they’re false.
.
In my other reply, I made a false analogy between that and the mathematics axioms. As you’d surely agree, no one would say that the axioms of the number-systems are in doubt, even though they’re stated as unprovable axioms.
.
You mentioned an axiom that, if A = B, then B = A. I don’t think that has to be regarded as an unsupported axiom. Instead, just say that, for some un-ordered set containing two elements, both elements are the same as eachother. That’s all that need be said. This asymmetrical wording “A = B” as opposed to “B = A” is just a writing-convention (because we write in a line) that makes it look like two different or separate statements, when they’re both just ways of saying: “The elements of that un-ordered set of two elements are the same thing.” The illusory problem results from the fact that we write along a line, always writing one thing before another thing.
.
Likewise the additive commutative axiom: Just speak of combining the two numbers. The apparent need to write one number before the other is just a consequence of our writing in a line. That matter of the order in which the two numbers re written is an unnecessary artificial concern. So the commutative axiom for addition is obvious too. The algebraic symbolic language for addition is intended to model the cardinality of the union of two sets whose cardinalities are known.
.
Of course with some other element-sets and operations, such as some groups and their operations, commutativity doesn’t apply, because it’s a different kind of an operation, an asymmetrical one in which the two elements it’s applies to don’t have identical roles or treatment.
.
Anyway, the matter of the number-system axioms and the more general matter of the antecedents of the abstract implications that I spoke of aren’t the same. But, as I said, a true mathematical theorem is an abstract implication whose antecedent consists, at least in part, of some mathematical axioms.
.
My main point in my other post was just that, because of the not-necessarily-true (probably false, I’d say) antecedents of all those abstract implications that I claim are the basis of our physical world, then having to just accept axioms in mathematics, and have only implications based on an unproven “if “, doesn’t sound so bad, when one considers that that’s just the way things are throughout the describable world. So mathematical theorems’ conclusions (or consequents) are a matter “if “ like everything else in the describable world.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I like defining things so, logic: A method by which humans go from premise to premise that seems to reflect reality if the premises do. What was the "origin" of logic. Why is it that we are simply born with a "rule for deriving rules" and why does it work so well? — khaled

By what is meant by "facts", there can be no such thing as mutually-contradictory or inconsistent facts.

Just by what our words mean, no proposition can be true and false.

The consistency-requirement is inherent in facts and by what we mean when we speak.

For example, in mathematics, you CAN'T be wrong if you follow certain axioms because the axioms DEFINE what being wrong is. However you can never go back and "prove" the axioms you just have to accept them apriori. For example, no one knows why if A=B, B=C then A=C. You can't prove this axiom to be true you just have to accept it. Why is it then that humans can get by using arbitrary axioms that they are born with whose validity they cannot prove? — khaled

But that's true of the whole structure of what describably is. Logical relation among propositions. ....abstract implications. It's a basic structural property of the whole system of what describably is, that there's no proof (and usually no reason to believe) that the antecedents of the abstract implications are true.

For example, when I describe my metaphysics, describing the describable world (including our physical world) as consisting of abstract implications, I emphasize that there's no reason to believe that any of the antecedents of any of those abstract implications are true.

A true mathematical theorem is an abstract implication whose antecedent consists (at least in part) of a set of mathematical axioms.

There's no proof of the truth of that antecedent (the axioms, and whatever else is in the antecedent).

(But, as you know, different axiom-systems choose their axioms differently, so that what is an axiom in one system is a theorem in a different system, and vice-versa.)

That's not just how it is in mathematics. It's true in general, in the describable realm, where there's no reason to believe that any of the antecedents of any of the abstract implications are true.

What there describably is:

Worlds of "If".

Instead of one world of "Is", infinitely-many worlds of "If".

Michael Ossipoff

Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now?

.
No, I didn’t say that. Re-read the dictionary definitions that I posted.
.

Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted.

.
Which one? (Rhetorical question—You needn’t answer.)
.

I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism.

.
Repeat it all you want, but I’ve been talking about Materialism. It has a big, blatant brute-fact. …and, by the dictionary definitions that I posted, it’s a religion. But, as I said, we needn’t quibble about that. We can agree that, with its belief about ultimate reality, it’s certainly so religion-like that definitional-quibbles aren’t important.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Look, do you want me to respond to your posts or not?

.
I certainly don’t forbid you from doing so. In fact, I encourage you, and anyone else, to reply. That should be the spirit of forum-posts. …according to the forum-guidelines, and according to what we mean by the word “forum”.
.
But I never meant to obligate you to reply, or to imply that you should, or to criticize you if you’re unable to.
.
”But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

.
Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?”
— Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
.

I don't know.

.
Thank you for your honest answer.
.
In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact.
.

And I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?

.
I’ve discussed that before, but I’ll repeat as much as is feasible in this post, without making the post too long. (Then I’ll save it in Word, in case the question is asked again.)
.
In the describable realm, the world of describable things, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can mention and refer to them. I don’t claim any other “existence” or “reality” for them. Nor do I claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm.
.
I’ve spoken of complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, and asked Materialists in what verifiable way they believe that this physical world is other than that.
.
…and in what context, other than its own, they want or believe this physical universe to be existent and real.
.
If you, as a Materialist regard abstract implications as “nothing”, then I don’t claim that there’s anything, in the describable realm.
.
Someone could ask “But why are there abstract facts, such as abstract implications?
.
(As I’m using “implication”, an implication is an implying of one proposition by another proposition. That’s a state-of-affairs, and it’s a relation among things (…two popular definitions of “fact”)).
.
(Propositions are things. Things are what can be referred to.)
.
Someone pointed out that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.
.
Someone else answered that there could be a fact that there are no other facts, other than that one fact that there are no other facts.
.
But that would be a particularly blatant ad-hoc brute-fact, calling for an explanation, which would be impossible, because there’d be nothing else, by which to explain it.
.
Besides, I’ve pointed out that any notion that facts share a continuum of interaction, such that there can be a fact that forbids all other facts, a fact that has jurisdiction or authority about all other facts, is an unsupported assumption. …an assumption that there’s no particular reason to believe, and whose falsity is the natural default presumption.
.
A complex system of inter-referring abstract facts neither has nor needs any “reality” or “existence” in any context other than its own inter-referring context. Each such system is quite entirely isolated, separate, and independent of any outside context. There’s no common “medium” or “continuum” that they all share, like some kind of potting-soil.
.
That’s why there are abstract facts, including abstract implications, and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.
.
I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than in their own context. And I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than that we can mention and refer to them.
.
…and I don’t claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm, the world of describable things.
.
That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing.
.

”That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
The form of the question was like a bullet point. I guess I'm supposed to feel stupid now, right? Because I can't answer one of the big questions.

.
No, you’re just supposed to admit that Materialism implies a great-big blatant brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve outlined above, and described in detail in the “How do you feel about religion” thread, neither needs no has any assumption or brute-fact.
.

”Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again:” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Maybe you shouldn't because dictionary definitions aren't wholly reliable. There are different dictionaries with different meanings of the words "materialism" and "religion".

.
That’s why looked it up in Houghton-Mifflin, in addition to Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, as I’ve said, is the premier dictionary in the U.S.
.
In order to communicate in a language, we have to have at least some loose consensus about what words mean. To that end, dictionaries report on usage. But I admit that there can be widely used and accepted definitions that didn’t happen to make it into dictionaries, maybe due to space considerations, etc.
.
I agree that we needn’t share the same definitions. But, with its beliefs about the ultimate reality, Materialism is so religion-like, that it’s pointless to quibble about definitions that say it is or isn’t a religion. I merely quoted Merriam-Webster (and I’ll quote Houghton-Mifflin and SEP if you want) to show that there’s a reported consensus about the meanings of “Materialism” and “Religion” by which Materialism is a religion.
.

”But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
.
I don't understand the reasoning here. Just because materialism may have something in common with religion doesn't mean it is a religion.

.
See directly above.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d posted the following Merriam-Webster definitions. (Merriam-Webster is the premier dictionary in the U.S.)
.
”Materialism:

.
A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

.
Religion:

.
Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

.
Religious:

.
Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”— Michael Ossipoff
.

This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:

.
de•vo•tion
dəˈvōSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.

.
Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. Nowhere in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things.

.
You’ve conveniently missed the presence, in that definition, of the word “commitment”.
.
“Commitment” has a well-established, widely-used, broad range of meanings.
.
…such as emotional involvement or investment. Or espousal of a view. Anyone who espouses Materialism has committed himself to it. …in the dictionary-definition sense of revealing a view.
.
Also, the amount of time that Materialists and aggressive atheists devote to promoting their their cause, in these forums, tautologically tells us that they’re devoted to it.
.

But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.

.
One can be committed to Materialism, as described above. The advocacy of Materialism is very obviously a cause for some people here. Likewise advocacy of Atheism.
.
Of course a core belief of Materialists is that materialism is “scientific” instead of religious. That’s a tenet of that religion.
.
You see, only other religions are religions :D
.
Michael Ossipoff

hat kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? — Purple Pond

When I first answered that question, in a recent post to this thread, I assumed that your "supernatural" translates to "nonphysical".

But "supernatural" is a funny word. What could be more natural than God?

Is all of Reality itself other than "natural" ?

As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is.

I doubt that anything would convince you. It hasn't been my purpose to convince you, or other aggressive-Atheists. What I say is for the benefit of others who have heard you. I merely have wanted to ask you questions about what you mean, in regards to Theism. ...and,in regards to Materialism, to ask what you mean by "objectively-existent", "objectively real", "substantial", "substantive", and "actual". ...and in what context, other than its own, you want or claim this physical universe to be "real" or "existent".

...and to remind you that your Materialism posits a blatant brute-fact (...as i've discussed here many times).

Michael Ossipoff

I can't respond to bunch of bullet points. — Purple Pond

I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post.

But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes? — Michael Ossipoff

That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it.

What is your argument?

I merely meant what i said.

"Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion" — Michael Ossipoff

No it's not. My materialism is a philosophical position.

Call it what you want. According to definitions in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of Materialism and religion, Materialism is a religion.

It's a "philosophical position" about an alleged ultimate-reality, a supposed objective and fundamental reality on which all else supervenes. A belief about all-that-is, amounts to a religion.

Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again:

Materialism:

A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Religion:

Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Religious:

Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

[end of dictionary definitions]

So yes, by those definitions, Materialism is a religion.

But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common. Merriam-Webster agrees, as does Houghton-Mifflin..

Michael Ossipoff

I did have support from Occam's Razor: nothing is the simpler model; there are less moving parts; everything is explained for because there is nothing to explain. — Devans99

Correct, with the understanding that you're talking about the describable realm of metaphysics..

Our universe contains massive complexity; can you not see how strange that should be? All this matter, energy, space-time and the physical rules that govern it. Why is it here?

Good question.

It so far removed from the simple solution of nothing.

Yes. But what if you didn't believe in the objective-existence and objective-reality (whatever that would mean anyway) of this complex and seemingly arbitrary physical universe?

I've been describing and proposing a metaphysics of the describable, wherein this universe is only a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.

...in other words "nothing", from the point of view of the Materialist.

Those abstract implications "are there" only in the sense that we can mention and refer to them. I claim no other "reality" or "existence" for them. ...or for this physical universe, Of course this physical universe is real and existent in its own context, and in the context of our hypothetical life-experience stories. ...which needn't have "reality" or "existence" other than in their own inter-referring context.

So it could be God. In that something impossible has happened and there is something rather than nothing. What can you do but attribute the magic to some sort of Magician; IE God?

Though I'm a Theist, I don't believe that it's necessary to explain describable metaphysics and its things (including this physical universe) outside of its own context, as a complex inter-referring hypothetical logical system.

In other words, the metaphysics of the describable explains itself in its own context. As for the relation and influence of larger Reality or God (though I don't use that word because of its anthropomorphic connotation) on that metaphysical system, I don't claim to know or have an explanation about that. Very little can be said about it.

Michael Ossipoff

What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

The notion that the physical world is all that there is, posits a big, blatant brute-fact:

I've often and amply discussed that brute-fact, and an alternative to it.

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?

And the notion that science, logic and words describe all, is a questionable assumption.

To give a few familiar examples;

No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.

Can you write down a complete description of your experiences?

Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion.

Michael Ossipoff

First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Your answer, your explanation for why there's something instead of nothing is one of the most popular explanations. But it has a few problems that I'll get to farther down in this reply.

But part of what you said sounds like some discussion that we had here a while back.

I've proposed a metaphysics based on abstract facts. ...and said that it explains why there's something insteaad of nothing. I'll copy it to this thread, after I send this post. Anyway, someone asked why there are abstract facts.

The answer given was that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.

But then someone said, "There could be a fact that says that there are no other facts, other than that one fact that there are no other facts."

But, for one thing, that would be a blatant brute fact, in need of an explanation. ...which would be impossible, because there'd be nothing to explain it by.

Besides, I claim that the various different systems of abstract facts are quite separate, isolated, and independent of eachother. ...so there can't be one fact that has jurisdiction or authority over whether there can be all those other completely separate, isolated and independent facts.
---------------------------
Anyway, to return to your answer, one problem of it is that it doesn't say what we could expect there to be, or how or why it's able to be. You said that there's everything. But plainly that's impossible. There aren't mutually contradictory facts. There aren't false propositions that are true.

So, what there is--in the describable metaphysical realm, because that's what we're talking about--is limited by non-contradiction. ...by logic.

But are you sure that there's more, in the describable metaphysical realm, than that logic?

Are you sure that, in the describable metaphysical realm, there's anything more "substantial", "substantive", "objectively-real", or "objectively-existent" than that? ...moreso than all the systems of abstract facts? ...in particular, moreso than all the abstract implications, and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications?

(...where an implication is the implying of one proposition by another proposition, and an abstract implication is an implying of one hypothetical proposition by another.)

I don't claim that those abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things exist or are real, other than in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.

Anyway, next I'll post to this thread a more detailed description of and argument for my metaphysical proposal that our "physical" universe consists only of a complex system of abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.

Michael Ossipoff

Why is there anything at all? Why not just nothing? Let's first define the exact opposite of nothingness! The exact opposite of nothingness is: 'everything existing' or 'all existing things'. Well, since I solved it, the answer lies within why nothingness can't be. Just imagine if there's nothing existing at all, how can the word nothingness mean anything? The word nothingness has no meaning if there's nothing existing at all. If there's nothing existing at all, the word nothingness can't exist either. If there isn't anything existing at all, there isn't anything that can support the fact that nothingness should be and not everything existing. There simply can't be nothing existing at all. We and everything around us exists without a beginning because nothingness can't be at all. — Limitless Science

Atheists are not necessarily materialists or physicalists. — Harry Hindu

Of course. But I was referring to aggressive Atheists, who are mostly Materialists.

Materialism (whatever that means)...

Merriam-Webster gives a good definition.

...isn't the only kind of objective reality that can exist.

Of course. Tegmark's MUH, an Idealism, has been referred to as an Ontic Structural Realism. It's about an objective world-story, as opposed to the subjective experience-story that I've been speaking of.

But of course our experience is subjective.

I think that materialism and idealism are both nonsense. As a matter of fact, there really isn't any real, meaningful distinction between them.

Of course you're welcome to believe and say that, as long as you don't have to support it.

Strictly-speaking, no metaphysics can be proved, because a metaphysics like Materialism, dependent on belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, can't be disproved. Likewise for any unfalsifiable proposition.

You want a distinction between Materialism and the metaphysics that I've been proposing (described in some detail earlier in the "How Do You Feel About Religion" thread)?

Materialism's unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." — Bitter Crank

...and that was in 1848. So where's the change? We can't change the world. Only the few people (the "1%") who own it can change it. Of course now they're in the process of speeding up their change a bit.

So, what can we do? Stay out of the rulers' way, and quietly live out our lives as well and as safely as possible.

A famous person once said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Michael Ossipoff

Nothing here to be self-consciously humble about. — Bitter Crank

Humble about religion, assertive about metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Just to clarify, though we've been talking about aggressive-Atheists, no one here is criticizing Atheists per se, just for being Atheists.

As I've been saying, no one here would criticize you for not believing what you don't know of reason to believe.

Here's what a not-aggressive Atheists might say, if asked:

He doesn't know of any reason to believe what Theists seem to be saying. He knows what the Fundamentalist LIteralist Theists are saying,that they believe, but he probably doesn't claim to know what all Theists believe. How is he supposed to know that? It isn't any fault of his. Nor should anyone expect him to believe anything that isn't well-described or explained to him. He might reasonably point out that if various wanted ;him to believe as they do, then they'd give him some explanation, or some better more detailed explanation. If they don't tell him why they believe, or why it would make sense for him to believe, or even what they believe, then he can be excused for not believing that their beliefs are supported--not having heard those argued for, or even defined. Without knowing what people believe, of course it goes without saying that he doesn't know that there's reason to believe it.

He can reasonably say all that, and no one would criticize him.

Do you really need to say more than that, to take it farther than that?

Michael Ossipoff

When I said that I won’t reply again to aggressive-Atheists about their issue, I didn’t say that I wouldn’t comment on the their peculiar issue itself. I’d like to post this review and summary--these comments on the “discussion”--now that I’m not busy replying to individual aggressive-Atheists.
.
If Atheists post to argue with or comment on what I say here, I won’t reply. As I said, that gets way too time-consuming. If anyone doesn’t like what I say here, and contradicts it, then he gets the last word, because I won’t resume the pointless and humungously time-consuming task of replying to aggressive-Atheists about their issue.
.
…and it is their issue, not ours. As I said, nearly everyone starting threads about that issue is an Atheist. Theists don’t care what Atheists believe, and wouldn’t take the time to start an issue about it.
.
Where should I start?
.
From the start, it’s quite odd that someone else’s belief can be so important. What’s that about? What’s the motivation? Maybe save that question for last.
.
Then what’s the general framework in which the “issue” is brought up? To those starting it, it’s a debate. What does it take, and what would it mean, to “win” that debate?
.
Well, maybe a debate has judges, or an audience that serves as judges. Which party proved the rightness of their position? There are some obvious rules applying to the determination of the winner of a debate. This isn’t supposed to be a complete discussion about debate, but one obvious thing is that if your position is that some position of mine is unsupported, and if I don’t provide support for my position, then you win the debate.

.
Say we have a debate in which one faction, a Theist faction argues that there’s a God, and the other faction, an Atheist faction argues that the Theists have no evidence for their claim. Saying that there’s a debate assumes that that claim is being made. That’s the first problem with the debate. Sure, some Theists are making a claim to Atheists. But not the Theists here. So any meaningful debate would have to be with the Theists who are claiming and asserting. Start, for example, with the pair of suited gentlemen who knock on your door proselytize you.
.
But anyway, if we disregard that for the time being and say there’s a debate here, what we’ve been hearing from the aggressive-Atheists is that they win because the Theists haven’t provided them with evidence for their beliefs.
.
Of course, if the debate is about whether or not there’s support for one party’s position, and that doesn’t provide the opposition and the judges with evidence for their position, then the other side wins the debate.
.
I’ve been telling Atheists that they don’t know all Theisms, and therefore aren’t in a position to say that they’re all unsupported. The answer is always something like, “If you can’t point to a Theism that is supported by evidence, and if you and some other Theists won’t join this debate and provide a Theism for which you tell us the evidence, then we win the debate.”
.
And yes, if 1) it’s first assumed that there’s a debate among people here; and 2) we apply the standards for winning debates (…such as the winning by default if the debate is about evidence for at least one version of a belief, and that evidence isn’t provide to the judges) then the Atheists indeed win their debate.
.
But what does that mean? …winning a debate because some who believe differently from you aren’t participating in your debate, and won’t debate you?
.
What conclusions can you draw from that victory? Not a whole lot. Yes, Atheists, you win your “debate” by default. Subject closed. (...or should be.)
------------------------------------
Someone could say, “It isn’t just a matter of debate. We’re just advising you that your beliefs aren’t reasonable. You shouldn’t believe as you. We’re more scientific than thou.”
.
[Yes, I realize that “Thou” is singular, and we’re talking about groups, but I used it because it’s part of a familiar phrasing.]
.
But, for one thing, that ignores the fact that there are many Theists whose beliefs you don’t know. Their nonparticipation with you lets you win a “debate”, but it also makes nonsense of the statement in quotes in the paragraph directly below the dotted-line above.
.
Unsurprisingly, from the point-of-view of aggressive-Atheists’ belief, it’s their perception and blanket-generalization that they’re right and all who don’t share their belief are wrong. What else is new? Anything surprising about that? No one denies that that’s their perception, from the point-of-view of their belief-system.
.
Why not leave it at that?
.
We get that. You’ve already said it. But you keep on starting more threads to say it endlessly.
-----------------------------------
One more thing: We keep hearing from Atheists about “evidence”. I’ve defined evidence and faith in a previous post to this thread, and there’s no need to repeat those definitions.
.
But (and I acknowledge that others here have pointed this out) all this talk about evidence misses the fact that faith is defined as belief without evidence. Even if you could prove that there’s no evidence for any Theism, that doesn’t mean that faith isn’t justified.
.
Without debating it with you (You win your debate by default), I’ll just mention that, for Theism, there are the kind of reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as I and Merriam-Webster have defined that word (…but it isn’t a matter for proof). But, aside from those reasons, there’s also discussion that justifies faith, which I define as trust, without or aside from evidence.
.
It has been pointed out that Theists aren’t saying that Atheists are unreasonable. It’s only Atheists that are claiming that Theists are unreasonable. I and other Theists have been emphasizing that there’s no reason for you to believe what you don’t know of reason to believe. No problem. …except to you.
.
…but it’s regrettable that you can’t disbelieve it less loudly, aggressively and stridently. Your aggressive loudness suggests insufficiency, and un-satisfied need. …evidently resulting in a need to attack. Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the starting of these debate-threads, and the use of abusive attack-language and characterizations, is almost entirely coming from Atheists.
.
In fact, as I’ve said once before here, it’s plausible that rudeness, abusiveness and attack aren’t the result of your brand of Atheism, so much as a motivation for it. …due to some personal character fault or insufficiency-feeling, or self-esteem problem.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking why there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.

.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact.

.

I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical

.
Not considering that to be a brute-fact doesn’t make it not be a brute-fact.
.

, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".

.
Talking about atoms doesn’t explain your Materialist world as other than a brute-fact. Idealists don’t deny that matter is made of atoms, as I fully discussed in the earlier posts that you’re referring to.
.

”Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin.

.
Don’t worry about it. I assure you that you’ve said enough :D
.

The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.

.
Then maybe S. should look those words up in a dictionary, so that he’ll know what he means. :D
.
As for the dictionary definitions of those words:
.
They’re all in one of two or three categories:
.
Some of them refer to attributes possessed by the hypothetical logical systems that I refer to.
.
Maybe, with some generous interpretation, some of them could be taken to indicate unspecified difference from those logical systems. That wouldn’t answer my question, because I’d asked, “Specifically, what attribute do those words connote that isn’t possessed by the logical systems that I’ve mentioned?” So, indicating unspecified difference from those systems wouldn’t answer my question.
.
Some of them refer to eachother.
.
In other words, none of the dictionary definitions answers my question. So, even if you meant one or more of those definitions, you haven’t answered the question (…but there’s no need for you to keep trying. As I said, you’ve said enough.)
.
Conversation concluded.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, I'm not searching the forums... — Harry Hindu

We've been over that before. No one asked you to search for anything.

...for your incoherent nonsense.

Aggressive Atheists rely heavily on namecalling. In fact, as we all know, such behavior is the motive for, not the result of, aggressive Atheism.

How often does a Theist start a thread to criticize Atheism? We have no inclination, and wouldn't bother. It wouldn't occur to me to take the time to do that.

If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.

Suit yourself. As I said, I'm not going to argue the matter with you.
----------------------------
By the way, I've been trying to answer at least most of the aggressive-Atheist posts, claims and comments, over the past few days. But I don't have time to continue these replies.

Anyway, it would be pointless, because you all seem to be singing from the same hymn-book.

So:

After this reply, there will be no more answers from me to aggressive-Atheists, on anything relating to their Theism vs Atheism issue.

As I said, I don't have time for this.

Michael Ossipoff

”Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? ” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.

.
That’s why I asked. A glance at the passage that you quoted will show that it was a question, not an assumption or statement.
.

Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.

.
As I’ve explained to you many times, my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them are all over these forums, in various threads.
.

By not being able to define what you believe…

.
I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads.
.

…implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.

.
I don’t regard it as a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. I’m not going to argue the matter with you. That’s why I don’t go into the matter here, though I did in various other threads at the various forums here.
.
What “it implies” is that I have no interest in arguing with you about your issue. If you want an argument, then congratulations! You win your argument by default. The Theism vs Atheism issue is your issue, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Michael says:
.
”Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith?”

.
Epistemology certainly seems to apply, at least if the faithful one is making propositional claims about what does and doesn't exist and what is and isn't true.

.
Sure, if you have faith that the Earth is flat, then science can show that you’re wrong.
.
I was referring to religious faith in general.
.
If your religion says that the Earth is flat, then your religion is wrong about that. But neither science nor logic has anything to say about the justification for religious faith in general…unless that faith is about a specifically logical or physical matter.
.

A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary [He means “evidentiary”] justification…

.
Faith needn’t be (and religious faith usually isn’t) about anything that logic or physical evidence applies to at all.
.
That’s hardly surprising, because logic and science are mis-applied, and become pseudo-logic and pseudo-science when a pseudoscientist attempts to apply them outside their self-circumscribed, self-defined limits of applicability.
.
Evidence doesn’t mean proof.
.
Faith (“trust” is the definition of “faith” that I prefer) is belief without, or aside from, evidence.
.
Merriam-Webster defines “evidence” as “outward sign”. …a good concise (and maybe better) way of expressing my own definition as “a reason (not necessarily proof) to believe something, based on its effect or result on something else…as opposed to principle or feeling about the belief’s subject itself”.
.
I’ve stated some reasons to believe, reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as opposed to faith, by the definitions in the paragraph before this one,
.
But there are also discussions (some of them from the Scholastics) to justify faith. …in other words, reasons to believe, without or aside from evidence. There are modern (usually more complicated) versions of those Scholastic arguments. And there are one or more simpler, more modest discussions (…a term that I prefer to “arguments”), more convincing due to that simplicity and modest-ness.
.
Speaking for myself, the reasons qualifying as evidence were the ones that convinced me, but I don’t discount some of the discussions that justify faith—especially the simpler and more modest.
.

A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary [He means “evidentiary”] justification…entirely is that it leaves the content of faith seemingly indistinguishable from the content of psychotic delusions.

.
Difficult for you to distinguish. I guess we should sympathize with your difficulty in evaluating other people’s beliefs. But, for yourself, you needn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe. Just remember that, and you won’t have a genuine problem about it.
.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions of “delusion”. One of those definitions is a generalized definition that just says “incorrect belief”.
To judge whether a belief is “delusion” in that broad, extended, generalized definition, just ask yourself this question: “Is it a belief that I know to be false?”
How complicated is that?
But that generalized definition is an extension, a broadening, from a clinical definition, also mentioned in Merriam-Webster:
.

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

.
As you see, that clinical definition, the one that is more legitimately implied by the word “delusion”, is a more demanding definition.
.
It isn’t enough that the belief by incorrect. It must also be “firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
(…but one could wonder what it would mean for evidence to be incontrovertible without being proof.)
.
To judge whether a belief qualifies as delusion by that definition, then, you’d just need to ask yourself if the belief is false (incorrect), but, additionally, you’d need to ask yourself if there’s incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
I’m glad that I could help you out by posting these two definitions.
.
As for which definition of “delusion” to use, when making that determination, I’d suggest that the clinical definition would be better for you to use, because of your wording of your dilemma.
.
Glad I could help. You’re welcome.
.
(Oh, and if you decide to use the word “delusion”, don’t forget to share the obvious and incontrovertible proof or evidence to the contrary, or at least your proof of falsity, even if it isn’t obvious and incontrovertible.)
.

.
I'm inclined to define 'faith' as something like 'willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief when that belief is imperfectly justified.'

.
No, that amounts to a built-in value-judgment about the justifiableness of faith.
.
Better to just say “Trust. Or belief without, or aside from, evidence.”
.
Michael Ossipoff

Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction. — S

...on S.'s authority :D

Michael Ossipoff

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy — S

Suit yourself. I prefer to say "Materialism", because someone once objected to me that "Physicalism" is the name of a philosophy-of-mind position, not a metaphysical position.

Michael Ossipoff

t it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical. — S

I didn't say I could disprove Materialism. I merely said that it is or has and needs a brute-fact. ...and that a brute-fact is unnecessary in the describable realm, because there's a describable metaphysics that neither has nor needs a brute fact or assumption.

Michael Ossipoff

How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.

Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is. — S

The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.

You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim. — S

So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. I realize the difficult situation you have, wanting to challenge all Theists to your issue-argument, but not being able to communicate with every one of them. ...and not being able to get answers from all of them even if you could communcate with them.

Of course you could argue as follows: If any Theist wants to argue about your issue, then surely he or she would do so at some public forum, and you'd have found it (because you've looked hard for it).

So then, any Theist who doesn't have arguments at the many forums you've searched, can be regarded as not arguing in opposition to you, and you only have to refute the Theists whose arguments you've found.

Fine. Go for it. As far as I'm concerned: congratulations! I declare you the winner of your issue/argument, by default, because I don't regard Theism is a matter of assertion, argument, debate or proof, and I'm not interested in your issue. It's your issue, not mine.

Michael Ossipoff

How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? — Harry Hindu

If they, by their own language and word-use, express beliefs about God, I call it Theism. If they express beliefs that they call Theism, then I call it by what they call it.

Michael Ossipoff

”Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief
[/quote]
.
Yes, for some reason I thought that Harry was attempting a sloppy analogy with Theism :D
.

and put words in my mouth that I never said.

.
Incorrect. I was referring to what Harry said.
.
Harry asserted and claimed. That’s done by evangelistic Fundamentalists, but not by anyone that I agree with.
.
And one thing that Harry asserted was “creation”, by his Humpalumps. Creation is an anthropmorophic notion that Harry asserts, but which I wouldn’t suggest.
.
All I said in the passage that Harry quoted was that the people exhibiting Harry’s Fundamentalist inclinations, typically are only too willing to define and describe their deity. That’s what I said was “odd”.
.

”Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation?

.
Creation is an anthropomorphic notion. Though you say Humpalumps are undefinable and indescribable, you give them an anthropomorphic described and defined role. That’s a bit too much description and definition for something indescribable and undefinable.
.

Again, you go and put words in my mouth

.
I referred to what you said.
.

because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical.

.
Vague. Only Harry knows what arguments he’s referring to.
.

That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine?

.
What definition from me is Harry referring to? Only he knows.
.

If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?

.
If you provide no information about what “Humpalump” refers to, there’d be no basis on which to reject the notion of it. If you merely say that there are Humpalumps, and won’t say what you mean by “Humpalump”, then no, I wouldn’t deny that there are Humpalumps.
.
I might reply that I have no particular reason to believe in your undefined and undescribed Humpalumps. But, without knowing what you mean by “Humpalump”, I won’t comment on whether or not there are Humpalumps or whether or not you should believe in them.
.
If you asserted to me that Humpalumps created the universe then it would be reasonable for me to ask how you support that assertion.
.

Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.

.
Suit yourself. For you, “God” refers to this physical universe. No one should argue with or criticize your definitions. You can call the universe “Humpalump” too, and I have no objection, because it’s none of my business.
.

It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I.

.
I must admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
.

I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense.

.
How very commendable. No one would fault you for that. And I’ve repeatedly said that you shouldn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
.

You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists.

.
I don’t usually use the word “God”, unless replying to someone who has, because of that word’s anthropomorphic connotation. So no, I don’t “call something” “God”.
.
What I will say here—and I say very little in this thread about my beliefs, because, here, that would amount to argumentation, proselytization or preaching—is that there’s a core belief, of the other Theists, that I agree with, and that’s why I designate myself a Theist, though I don’t share denominational, doctrinal, dogmatic, allegorical or anthropomorphic beliefs that some (but not all) Theists express.
.
…not that I make a secret of my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, which can be found in other threads throughout these forums.
.
But I re-emphasize that I don’t assert any beliefs, here or anywhere, or make any claims about Theism vs Atheism, here or anywhere.
.
In fact, I don’t make any assertion or claim about the matter of Theism vs Atheism. That’s your issue, not mine.
.
I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t know what the word “exist” is supposed to mean. I avoid using it.
.
So I have no idea what you’re referring to in the above quote.
.

I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable [He means “unaccepting] of possible truths? You are.

.
No one here would say that you should believe what you don’t know of reason to believe.
.

Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist.

.
I don’t know what you mean by “exist”.
.
I don’t make any claims about Theism vs Atheism. But I do question your apparent belief that all is describable and definable. …your belief that words are universally applicable. …your sureness that reality is completely describable.
.
When someone makes that silly claim, I remind them that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
I sometimes invite them to write down a complete description of their experience of the smell of mint, or of pretty much any experience.
.

If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it.

.
Is that why you discuss it so much?
.

What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe?

.
Harry, I recommend that you study engineering, or maybe physics. But philosophy isn’t for you.
.
What effect would what have on the world, or on what we can observe? I’ve neither defined anything for you, nor made any Theist claim here.
.
Yes I’d need to define whatever I claim, but I haven’t claimed anything about God here.
.

If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".

.
I encourage Harry to not believe anything that he doesn’t know of reason to believe.
.
Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”?
.
But Harry isn’t a believer :D
.
Michael Ossipoff

You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.

What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff


Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because you did a similar thing with me, and it was a straw man.

How about this? To best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence are indeed evidence.

Now it's on you to either present an exception or accept the situation as it is. — S

I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.

Michael Ossipoff

Then Harry is an asserter and claimer about Humpalumps, making him more like the usual Literalist than like anyone that I agree with...who aren't claimers or asserters.

Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.

Congratulations, Harry--You're a Humpalump Fundamentalist.

Those would be my objections to Harry's Humpalump religon--not the indescribability or indefinability of the Humpalumps that he believes in.

Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.

Michael Ossipoff

”It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist.

.
I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God.
.
Theists who believe as I do don’t make claims in those matters. It isn’t a matter for claims, assertions, argument, or proof. It isn’t a debate-issue (except to aggressive Atheists, and the Theists from whom they borrow their version of God).
.
How many times is it necessary to say that?
.

According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps

.
Again I’ll assume that you’re referring to your (not my) existence-issue.
.
You’re still asserting your belief that God is describable and definable.
.

, not me, in order to reject their existence.

.
Yes, so that people will know what you’re saying, you’d need to state what you’re rejecting the existence of.
.
Quite aside from all that, suppose one Theist took the time to explain his version of Theism to you. Suppose you refuted it. Now that would add up to two Theisms that you’ve refuted: His, and your usual Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist belief that you so fervently and loudly express your disbelief in. You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you?
.
Michael Ossipoff

"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

.
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You have yet to speak for yourself.

.
Harry wants me to promote a religion here. Sorry, Harry. No.
.
(…but my comments about my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, are available throughout these forums, in various other threads.)
.
I’m visiting this thread only to comment on what Atheists are trying to say. …what they mean.

These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth

.
Wrong. It becomes your definition too, when you choose it and adopt it.
.
You’ve chosen and adopted the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists’ God as your own One-True-God to devotedly, fanatically, loudly and never-endingly disbelieve in.
.

How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists?

.
Good question. Then don’t.
.
No one here would say that you should believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
[/quote]
.
They are theists definitions of God.
[/quote]
.
…some Theists’ definition. (singular, not plural) …and now your definition too, because you’ve adopted it.
.

If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.

.,
Definition? For one thing (as I’ve told you many times) I don’t usually use the word “God”, because it has anthropomorphic implications.
.
But there are Theists who agree with me, and who do use that word. There are two reasons why I won’t post a definition to this thread:
.
1. My purpose in these Atheist threads isn’t to promote a religion to you. It’s merely to show others that you aren’t clear about what you mean.
.
2. Words, definitions, descriptions are as inapplicable to the matter of the nature and character of Reality as a whole, as are proof, assertion and argument.
.
Anyone claiming to say something meaningful about that has the burden of proof to show that he is doing so.
.
What you Atheists are so loudly pursuing is a silly tempest-in-a-teapot between two Fundamenalist Biblical-Literalist factions: Atheists and Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theists.

.

The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.

.
1. You have devout faith that all that is, is definable and describable. I commend you for your faith.
.
2. Anyway, the word “exist” is metaphysically undefined. And anyway, there are Theists (including me), who suggest that, even if “exist” meant anything, it would only apply to describable things.
.
3. And, aside from all that, the matter of God, or of the character and nature of Reality or What-Is, isn’t a matter for claims. …or assertions, arguments or proof.
.
So I, and whatever other Theists agree with me, make no claims about the matter.

.

I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.

.
:D
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.
.
You always seem to be speaking of the God of the Fundamenalists Biblical-Literalists, but nearly all aggressive Atheists seem to fervently and devoutly believe that what you’re saying applies to whatever anyone does, or could ever, mean when saying “God”.

.

The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.

.
:D See what I mean? (in the paragraph directly above the quote above this line). Thank you for exemplifying it.
.
You’re glibly speaking of “every notion of God”, with the astounding conceit of believing that you know every notion of God, or that what you’re saying applies to every notion of God.
.
Anyway, arguably, “notion of” only applies to what is knowable. How sure are you that God is knowable?
.

When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?

.
It’s for you, not me, to say what you’re talking about.
.
It’s for you to be specific about what God or Gods you’re “rejecting the existence of”.
.
But I’ve already said that, haven’t I. We wouldn’t want to keep “going around in circles”, would we.
.
So do everyone a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself, and find different topic to discuss.
.
Michael Ossipoff

First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption" — Michael Ossipoff


I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? — Pattern-chaser

Yes.

What is this miracle of philosophy?

Admittedly, people don't like giving up assumptions.

If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.

I've finally caught onto the desirability of saving some of my posts in Word. So I'll just find a good example there, and paste it into this conversation.

Michael Ossipoff



4 hours ago
Reply
Options[/quote]

God is a concept, which is "thought,"
— praxis — praxis

I then said:

"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality." — Michael Ossipoff

Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?

Do you know what mint leaves smell like? Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down.

But no, I don't claim to have knowledge or understanding of matters not covered within the self-defined and self-circumscribed applicability-limits of description, logic or physical science. ...unlike you, with your conceptual knowledge about such matters.

Michael Ossipoff

Materialism's gaping hole is its brute-fact, and Materialists inability to define the "objective reality", "objective existence" and "actuality" that they attribute to this material universe, to argue for Materialism over Idealism.

Some Materialists declare that the world of their Materialism is absurd (They're called "absurdists"). Of course they're right about that. ...but it doesn't seem to make them question their Materialism.

I'm dismayed by the way this thread is going. Yes, Ram's post spoke of some negative things, but so, uniformly, do the shorter posts of our aggressive Atheists.

When I reply to aggressive Atheists here, I reply to at least some of the points that they make in their posts and which I disagree with. That's what a reply is. I don't use one-line dismissals of what they say.

Michael Ossipoff

If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me. — Jake

But isn't it mostly Atheists who are interested in starting these threads?

Michael Ossipoff

God is a concept, which is "thought," — praxis

What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality.

Michael Ossipoff