Have you considered how The Principle of Sufficient Reason may apply here? — TheMadFool
Kindly provide an example... — TheMadFool
To my knowledge possibility has to do with logic and plausibility with knowledge. An atheistic position deals with the former - denying god is tantamount to asserting god is impossible. — TheMadFool
They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. So, I still think my focus on possibility is appropriate to the issue that concerns me. — TheMadFool
Please read above. — TheMadFool
You can't just presuppose teleology because that would beg the question. — Sapientia
There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible. Atheism is defined primarily in terms of belief, rather than possibility. I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists (unless you define "God" as something that I do believe exists, but that'd just be wordplay and sophistry). I also believe that God, according to some conceptions, does not exist, and according to some conceptions, can not exist. — Sapientia
It's a silly question, so it deserves a silly answer. Yes, logic is my God. I worship it five times a day and pray to it whenever things don't go my way. Satisfied? — Sapientia
Good for you, but this isn't the time or the place for that. This is a philosophy forum. If you want to share your feelings, but you're averse to critical thinking, then this probably isn't the right place for you. Try Facebook. — Sapientia
Yes we can. I don't need to be Spock to be able to separate my feelings from my thoughts to the extent that I am able to avoid the fallacy of appealing to emotion. — Sapientia
Would you likewise go as far as acknowledging that they could be the intentional product of a creative intelligence?I only went as far as claiming that they could be brute facts, not that they are. — Sapientia
How should we determine what counts as evidence and how much is sufficient?That's more warranted than either position unless and until there's sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. — Sapientia
It is impossible to leave all of our presuppositions behind.In such circumstances it's more reasonable to leave such presuppositions behind. — Sapientia
Why would you think that I buy the principle of sufficient reason? I'm challenging the notion that there's any good justification for it — Terrapin Station
There's either a reason or there isn't. If you claim to know that there's a reason, then the burden is on you. — Sapientia
There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible — Sapientia
What? Why would that be necessary? It doesn't work like that. — Sapientia
This has nothing to do with the original argument. — Srap Tasmaner
PSR is incoherent — TheWillowOfDarkness
The idea is built out of ignoring logical distinctions. PSR posed as the glue which logically distinguishes one thing from another, which allows us to say "why" a tree is tree rather than a rock (or anything else). Without PSR, supposedly, nothing can make sense.
In this suggestion, though, people are ignoring how things have already been defined as distinct in themselves. We are asking how the tree is defined in the first instance. We've already accounted for the logical distinction which we supposedly have to explain. The meaning and logical distinction are already there in the first instance. PSR is doing no work at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I didn't appeal to PSR at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I can't see the PSR, in variant 3 or any other variant, being invoked in Willow's post, implicitly or explicitly. In which part of the post do you believe it was invoked, and what makes you believe it was invoked there?I think you did. — theMadFool
3)For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true." — TheMadFool
and the proposition (which is the PSR, which is not widely believed outside the Rationalist camp)
2. All things have explanations. — andrewk
If you deny PSR then please give me an example that disproves it. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.