So early belief is in some respects easier to think about than modern belief in terms of what one uses to explain certain phenomena. — Manuel

Yes, and here the PoSR has it's strength in assuming that everything has a reason for it's phenomenon or more modernly, cause. Otherwise you incur supernaturalism or revelation or some such. A religious person would say that this is where faith is needed, because belief can only be scrutinized so much.

I advise the PoSR to anyone considering any assumed proposition. Why? Logic and sound reasoning demands so.

How do science and logic rely on the Principle of Sufficient Reason? — Banno

In logic, it's called material implication, in science it's called a cause for every effect.

If you subscribe to the PoSR, then God only makes sense if something came out from nothing. But, to attribute this to God is called creationism or more commonly intelligent design.

Do you agree with this?

No, it's where philosophical theology exceeds your grasp. Don't take that as a pejorative. But there is a definite and real method here if you're patient enough to try and grasp it. — Wayfarer

Read the rest of the post. I instantiate that everything in this world has a cause and effect, per the PoSR. Therefore, if you assume that something came out of nothing, as per the only reason why God can possibly exist according to science (which science labels as intelligent design, assuming that you believe that God exists), then that's how the argument unfolds according the the PoSR.

See the response immediately prior to yours...

Glad your still around.

Like X = X? — James Riley

More like:

Assume X,
Therefore, X

You will encounter in various schools of philosophy, the assertion that God is 'beyond being'. — Wayfarer

This is where language goes on holiday. I believe that with dispensing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that science and logic so heavily rely on, one is committing oneself to the supernatural or creationism.

I think there shouldn't be any dispute about this, or is there?

Well, I'm not addressing the, identification of the Westernized Abrahamic God in terms of his historical or descriptive attributes. I'm more leaning towards treating the existence of God as the sole factor here.

What I found out is interesting.

1) The Principle of Sufficient Reason is necessary for endowing God with an existence in the world, otherwise it's 'woo'.

Does anyone agree with 1)?

Because they start from axioms. Empiricism, for instance, starts from the requirement that whatever is posited is discernable by sense-experience, or is mathematically provable with reference to such evidence, as a matter of course. Logic starts from axioms and rules, such as the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle. — Wayfarer

I think the only response to this would be question begging for the existence of God in any discussion.

One first has to assume what does it mean to say that God exists, and I don't mean this in the traditional sense.

I mention that it can seem just as plausible to believe in Gods existence as the lack of his existence and no amount of empirical evidence would support either conclusion.

It's just a belief.

I'd say an assumption is an assumed proposition.

I see lots of people throw the word "God" around when that term, that concept, has not first been defined in the discussion. — James Riley

An assumed proposition is similar to question begging in asking for no doubt to be utilized in face of a supposition like argument about X to be held as true.

The alternative to the ex nihilo argument is equally not self evident. To accept the alternative would mean what seems like a new form of life is actually just a repetition of what was already expressed. Perhaps all of the Creation stories are trying to move away from that conclusion. — Valentinus

I believe that at the very first of the issue is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To assume something exists means there must have been a cause for it, either intelligent or supernatural. Hence X exists to explain the phenomenon.

Distancing from the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not necessarily wrong; but, isn't what science or logic can deal with. Is this really at it's stripped down core the issue?

Well, if you define God as that which cannot be disproven by science or logic, then there you have it. — James Riley

I'm just saying that it qualifies as a assumed proposition to assume God's existence, no?

Science investigates the sensible world. There's no reason to think God has a sensible body, and even if he did, it would be beyond science to establish that the body in question was God's. For one would have to show that there was a mind inhabiting it - which is not something science can do even in our case - and furthermore that this mind was, among other things, morally perfect - which is once more, not something science investigates. So science is really no more inthe business of finding God than a metal detectorist is. — Bartricks

It seems common sensicle to believe in God; but, when one is confronted with questioning his existence the issue isn't hard to make it likewise common sensicle.

Why is that?

Maybe the persistence of the idea does not come from a set of convictions but a response to experience. I am not causing everything that happens but I do cause some things to happen. Do those disparate observations catch a glimpse of what is going on or not? The question starts from a poverty far removed from explanations of sufficiency. — Valentinus

Again, as per the OP, I believe the importance is the ex nihilo argument that something came from nothing. Yes?

So yeah, something very nebulous, very weird and very big may exist. It doesn't make sense. — Manuel

Well, once you shout out that there's an elephant in the room, one can argue, perhaps persuasively, that it is there. But, this doesn't address the psychological importance of believing itself.

Moore said a lot about common sense, no?

I agree with your analysis and seem to be stuck on the referent that X exists. X being, as you said, a Turtle, Goddess, or in a farfetched dream of a giant.

So, it's an assumed proposition to say that God exists. Hence from this one cannot assume that God doesn't exist even when confronted with facts or scientific theories denying his existence.

I understand that. But, just as Wittgenstein told Russell that there might be a rhinoceros in the room, and you couldn't disprove it, so too is the God argument when consider God's existence as an asserted proposition, no?

Scientific investigation cannot do so because the question of deity lies outside of if scope of inquiry. Science deals with the natural universe, and claims of the existence of deity are, by their very nature, supernatural claims. — Michael Zwingli

Well, this is what I was attempting address in regards to ex nihilo arguments, when they are raised by inquiry. This is what Stephen Hawking wrote about that science can prove that something out of nothing need not be true to render the asserted proposition that God exists as true.

Hope that made sense.

"Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove that there is a hippopotamus sitting on your head?" Absurdly stupid question you say? "Obviously no hippopotamus is sitting on my head!" Try proving it, and if you cannot, then obviously there must be one sitting on your head. — tim wood

Yes, isn't this an asserted proposition then to assume that God exists when presented with science or logical arguments?

What? — Banno

It's an asserted proposition to say that God exists, no?

So, what's the reason for believing so despite science and logic?

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc arguments in his favour, but they are far from convincing. — Banno

It's not convincing if you assume the supposition that God exists. Following from this everything I say is moot.

So, what's the justification for this bedrock belief?

In case anyone is confused about what got reduced or eliminated from the original BBBA act, Investopedia has a good list of what's in and what's out.

https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817

I recall that some of the infrastructure spending was lumped into existing programs. Anyone care to comment about this?

It's actually deafening.

Antinatalists are screaming.

But of course, God transcends time.

Here's what's going on in America,:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/big-oil-climate-change-hearing-10-28-21/index.html

I don't believe people have a natural capacity to critical thinking; but, reason or rather rationalize they can.

Now what? Pretentions about Stoicism?

I studied Stoicism and know what it means. I also read The Meditations and The Enchiridion. CBT was studied.

I think I have a grasp on Stoicism; but, simply fail at it when I become apathetic. Humdrum.

It's really a shame that Al Gore was the only politician with enough gusto to make the case for action on climate change, at least in the US. Europe is making a lot of progress on green technology. I don't quite understand why jihad was waged against nuclear by ecoterrorists in Germany.

The only positive thing that I've seen coming out of COP26, was from Russia, regarding defining nuclear as green technology.

I'm glad to see my country of former residence (Poland) opting for nuclear in the near future to offset carbon emissions.

You're not practicing Stoicism anyway. — baker

I'm not matching expectations? I'm pretty sure I know what Stoicism is; but, I don't perform it well in manner, yes?

So, do away with the Stoicism? Just disregard it?

It's an edifying philosophy to say the least. What should I do?

I'd like to thank Shawn for starting this worthwhile discussion; much appreciated. — Amity

Prego, Hamity. :halo:

I hope LENR finally becomes a reality. I also know fusion is making progress on becoming a reality.

Do you like to wonder and wallow? — baker

Yesh, I wallow a lot.

Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

That cart is in front of the horse. My intuition tells me that the philosophy you mention is culturally relevant.

It seems to me that your problem is about organization and productivity, not necessarily about ideology. As a Stoic, one is supposed to get things done, not wonder and wallow. — baker

What's wrong with wondering and wallowing?

This is so vague. What about rule following or the chess game example and the famed meter stick?

Does inner calm disprefer indifferents, and inner peace prefers indifferents, or the other way around? — god must be atheist

Sorry if I made you confused. I suppose what I mean is that when confronted in life with so many potential ways of action and behavior with regards to different types of indifferents, then it can be a challenge to attain anything like inner calm and inner peace...

At best living inside the inner citadel of the stoic is a constant strife or struggle and attaining peace and tranquility at best amounts to apathy.

do you have the answers, would you be willing to share ? — Amity

I don't profess to wax and wane on answers. I just believe that Stoicism encourages one to desire a state of apathy. The state of being apathetic is wallowsome and quite perfunctory. Nothing seems to transpire or come to realization when being apathetic. That's why it doesn't cause me any joy or happiness or pleasure to be apathetic. Sometimes I would prefer to read a book or a magazine rather than just apathetically wait until I'm ready to do so, whenever or whatever that means.

Hope that offers some clarification.