Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians. — ucarr

I would disagree with that. I can imagine a perfect circle, not a regular polygon with trillions of sides (or something like that).

And anyway, there is uncomputable math. So mathematics isn't limited to computability/finitism and the like.

Your title reminds me of the two books edited with commentary by Stephen Hawking: God Created the Integers and On the Shoulders of Giants. both available from Penguin Books.

In my work I found the concept of God.
"My only contribution is that there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System - it is a very unique thing in the Universal Collection of Components. We cannot object if this unique interaction or this unique component is named God or any other name, for that matter. It is interesting to note that, according to our Understanding - this theory; this unique component does consist of mass or energy that does not change, ..." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians. — ucarr

I would disagree with that. I can imagine a perfect circle, not a regular polygon with trillions of sides (or something like that). — ssu

Can you express the measure of the number of sides of a circle as an integer?

And anyway, there is uncomputable math. So mathematics isn't limited to computability/finitism and the like. — ssu

Can pi be computed to an integer?

Regarding the Halting Problem, does ZFC apply restricted comprehension to it?

When the Universal system and the unique component interact, is there a Venn diagram of shared identity?

The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true. — ucarr

No. The most direct and effective counter-argument to theism concludes by claiming theism is not true.

(2019)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391820

(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672

(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/563185

Does the atheist, on principle, always shun the leap of faith?

Yes. In evidence we trust. :chin:

This is the simulation of God’s uncontainable presence.

Well I prefer apophatic theology ...

:100: Yes, "not true" because it is an incoherent idea. Without the incoherent idea of God, what is left to the believer (apart from remaining in the state of not understanding that the idea is not coherent)? A feeling...? But how could we know the feeling is of, about or from an imagined incoherent entity? Feelings can be "from", but can they be "of" or "about"?

So "not true" as you say in that the idea of God misses the mark, or in other words there is no mark there for us to miss.

It's possible that the better part of the life of the theist isn't spent fretting over the epistemological differences between scientism and the various secular definitions of faith, but instead in practices and perspectives.

That is to say, the rationality of theism, like any behavior, is judged by the objectives it achieves. If your highest objective is to live your life according to the implications of science, even if that should mean accepting a certain level of meaninglessness foreign to a theist, then do that. It's not irrational to do otherwise though.

The atheistic belief that belief is the primary reason for religion and not behavior leads you guys down interesting little paths.

Theism is to be judged as a form of life, not as a proposition with a true value.

The atheistic belief — Hanover

There's no such thing.

Also, whereas theism is a belief (either noncognitive or cognitive), religion is an institutional practice; and 'false hope to pacify false fear' (e.g. E. Becker's terror management) seems, as far as I can tell, the primary motivation for most persons throughout recorded history comforming to either or both of these complementary forms of life (i.e. traditions).

I agree with you. Religion should be a practice, a life-enhancing practice, and not a set of propositional metaphysical beliefs. If people look at belief in God and all its trappings as truth-apt propositions then the dangerous road to fundamentalism opens up.

There's no such thing. — 180 Proof

So atheism is no belief, just an empty set?

Also, whereas theism is a belief (either noncognitive or cognitive), religion is an institutional practice; and 'false hope to pacify false fear' (e.g. E. Becker's terror management) seems, as far as I can tell, the primary motivation for most persons throughout recorded history comforming to either or both of these complementary forms of life (i.e. traditions). — 180 Proof

Assuming that's a correct bit of psychoanalysis, how does it change what I said? A belief is not to be measured in terms of its truth value but in terms of whether it's a preferable form of life.

I'll accept the condescending. If Billy and the rest the world is happier by all measure in belief in Santa Claus, why tell them otherwise unless you think scientific truth adherence has inherent value? And this is a hypothetical, so you can't change the antecedent. It is assumed. That is, he and the world will not mysteriously be unhappier for some reason.

Unless you're willing to commit to my reasoning and thereby claim happiness is advanced by atheism and therefore preferable, then we'll be speaking past each other. So, if the real reason atheism is the best belief is because it makes us most happy, then let's stop submitting all these other reasons and instead advocate it in the market of ideas just like any other, showing how following your belief brings the joy unbeknown to the theist.

I agree with you. Religion should be a practice, a life-enhancing practice, and not a set of propositional metaphysical beliefs. If people look at belief in God and all its trappings as truth-apt propositions then the dangerous road to fundamentalism opens up. — Janus

Yes. Theism is not of the same category as science. The latter is but an empirical gathering tool, occasionally at odds with religious claims. The former an entire way of life.

:up: It is also true that science can be, for some at least, an entire way of life.

When the Universal system and the unique component interact, is there a Venn diagram of shared identity? — ucarr

To my knowledge, no. Simply an interaction - a transfer of mass, energy or information.

The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true. — ucarr

No. The most direct and effective counter-argument to theism concludes by claiming theism is not true. — 180 Proof

Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology? This question seeks to examine the connection - the identity linking narrative God and human psychology - in a correspondence relationship of truth. This would be an argument against your claim theism is not true.

A) To the degree the sine qua non claims of theism (i.e. a mystery (1) that created existence (2) and intervenes - causes changes - in the universe (3)) are falsified, Theism's Negation is true (re: anti-theism — 180 Proof

Do you have criteria establishing the falsifiability of (1) and (2)?

Antitheism: theism (Type) is not true (i.e. empty). — 180 Proof

If truth emerges from an identity correspondence - a=a - then how does emptiness, wherein there is no identity and therefore no correspondence, have relevance to truth?

I'd found, after the first twenty-odd years of unbelief, that it's more profitable to argue with (religious) theism which exists than to argue against gods which do not. Thus, atheism matured into antitheism, and my career in freethought became even freer, a vocation; these last decades, theism can be shown to be not true, and the rest follows. — 180 Proof

In your acknowledgement of theism, undeniably a component of human psychology - and thus your acknowledgement of theism a simultaneous acknowledgement of theistically textualized human psychology - do you make a corollary acknowledgement of theistic narratives as acknowledgably real human psychology?

E.g. celibacy is not a sexual position or preference. Sad Socrates thrives (reason) whereas a Satisfied Swine merely survives (faith).

Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology? — ucarr

Like magical / wishful / group thinking – no I don't "deny" it.

Btw, ucarr, what do you mean by "God consciousness"? :sparkle:

Do you have criteria establishing the falsifiability of ...?

Yes, defeasible reasoning.

If truth emerges from an identity correspondence - a=a[/u]

Tautologies are empty expressions. Truth claims require truth makers.

... theistic narratives as ... real human psychology?

I.e. delusions, fantasies, etc

When the Universal system and the unique component interact, is there a Venn diagram of shared identity? — ucarr

To my knowledge, no. Simply an interaction - a transfer of mass, energy or information. — Pieter R van Wyk

Why don't you think an interaction contains a component of shared identity? A transfer of mass, energy, and information involves three components shared by both parties to the exchange.

Can you express the measure of the number of sides of a circle as an integer? — ucarr

Infinity isn't defined as an integer. But the geometric aspects of a circle indeed show the existence of infinity.

And basically, finitism is in a way rather naive and simplistic. The only good aspect is that a finististic critique of let's say analysis just show how little we still know about infinity.

Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology? — ucarr

Like magical / wishful / group thinking – no I don't "deny" it. Btw, what do you mean by "God consciousness"? — 180 Proof

God consciousness is meant to be a straightforward term. Like it says, there's a concept of an existing God held in the mind of a believer. In other words, a believer, in his mind, is conscious of a God presenting to his perceiving mind.

Regarding magical_wishful_group thinking, why do you think there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you? I'm asking this question backwards in order to expose the logical content, which goes as follows: I say you assume there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you in order enable you to then turn around and deny it. You must assume existence of something - at the very least in theoretical abstraction - before you can deny it.

Next point: if God consciousness can be characterized as a function of human psychology writ large - there's broad consensus about some of the bible passages being wisdom narratives giving instruction for intelligent navigation of moral, political and social precincts (The Book of Job) - then what essential logic forbids theoretical scalable consciousness beyond the human scale?

Can you express the measure of the number of sides of a circle as an integer? — ucarr

Infinity isn't defined as an integer. — ssu

Indeed, it's not. In the face-off between, say, an infinite series and a discrete interval like, say, all of the odd numbers between one and ten, we've got a high-contrast pairing of infinite and finite.

Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians. — ucarr

And anyway, there is uncomputable math. So mathematics isn't limited to computability/finitism and the like. — ssu

What does it mean for math to be able to ask questions it can't answer? Moreover, especially what does it mean for math to able to ask questions it can't answer regarding infinite values such as Turing's halting question about a computer program knowing when another program will either halt or run on an infinite loop?

Regarding magical_wishful_group thinking, why do you think there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you? — ucarr

I don't grok you.

I'm skeptical about your claim not to understand that the Christian God examples a scale of consciousness greater than your human scale of consciousness. I'm also skeptical about your claim not to understand that your thinking about God's thinking mirrors your thinking about your thinking.

My interpretation of your anti-theism says your reading of theistic narratives has lead you to conclude human type consciousness at cosmic scale has not been logically established. Nowhere in your counter-narratives have I seen compelling logic precluding the mirroring of humanoid consciousness to a grand scale.

Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the transition from randomness to order?

Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the possibility of human consciousness knowing empirically first hand true randomness. Perception and analysis assume a very highly ordered ecology wherein the question of the possibility of instantiating true randomness is unanswered.

Atheism, to preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. Can it uncouple itself from order? How could it do so and maintain its purpose to learn the truth?

[T]o preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. — ucarr

Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc

Sad Socrates thrives (reason) whereas a Satisfied Swine merely survives (faith). — 180 Proof

Yeah, that's not at all how Mill seperated the higher and lower pleasures. It had nothing (as in zero) to do with epistemic methods. Moral concern was specifically among the higher. The virtue of religious practice would be measured by utility.

Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc — 180 Proof

Since you argue for human determinism, do you also argue for cosmic determinism? If so, why isn't cosmic determinism, i.e., a deterministic God, just a valid scaled up human determinism? Yes, this would allow for a God who prefers atheism by programming, thus suggesting a yin-yang relationship between the two isms.

How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid? In all cases, no sentient choice is involved.

How do you explain the determinism of your conscious preference for atheism as against the determinism of your theism? If all of this is determined, you're merely an atheist by impersonal programming, and theists likewise. Sans debates by selective sentients, the dialectic is just programming. Differences are trivial.

I expect you to have a wealth of nuanced arguments with hair-splitting distinctions in the denotations of words. Doesn't this spin you back towards a paradoxical claim to possess the power to choose?

If we're allowed programmatically to pivot between the two isms, then we swim in an ocean of uncertainty, determinism notwithstanding. If this is the case, then philosophy, as I've thought, examples another flavor of entertainment.

Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the possibility of human consciousness knowing empirically first hand true randomness. Perception and analysis assume a very highly ordered ecology wherein the question of the possibility of instantiating true randomness is unanswered.

Atheism, to preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. Can it uncouple itself from order? How could it do so and maintain its purpose to learn the truth? — ucarr

Perhaps I misunderstand you, I'm interested in your idea of atheism; does it need tweaking? Apologies if I have you wrong. Some of what you write indicates you are only talking about rationalist forms of atheism.

I am an atheist. All atheism means is to have no belief in gods. Theism simply hasn't captured my imagination. There’s no need for alternative cosmologies, I’m not seeking to replace one source of meaning with another. I'm not interested in trying to adapt Thomistic rationalism to 'demonstrate' a state of godlessness. More of that later.

There are atheists who believe in the supernatural; ghosts, clairvoyance, etc. Some may be idealists. Some others (the ones best known because they’re the loudest) might be the Dawkins-style scientistic thinkers. But the only thing they have in common is the lack of belief in gods.

I’ve often said that theism is a bit like a sexual preference, for some it's possibly innate and separate from reasoning. We can’t help what we’re attracted to. And of course, culture and upbringing add a strong incentive to the beliefs we chose. We then use reasoning as a post hoc justification to try to demonstrate the superiority of our “lifestyle choice.”

I don't think humans have access to reality as it is in itself, the best we do is generate provisional narratives that, to a greater or lesser extent, help us to make interventions in the world. These stories tend to be subject to revision and never arrive at absolute truth. I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise.

Does the atheist, on principle, always shun the leap of faith? (If not, then rationalist atheism has no discrete separation from theism.) — ucarr

Isn’t this a commonly offered conclusion about atheism (often expressed by the better American fundamentalists)?

Since you argue for human determinism ... — ucarr

No I don't. I'm a compatibilist.

How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid?

I'm not at all familiar with these terms.

Since you argue for human determinism ... — ucarr

No I don't. I'm a compatibilist. — 180 Proof

You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely is spite of deterministic events that control your life?

Do you see that your free will maintains its independence in spite of common ground wherein impersonal causation and personal choice intersect?

To illustrate the object of the question, let's imagine the common ground as being like the field where the x and y axes intersect. The x-axis represents the domain, which is the set of all possible input values (independent variable) for a function. The y-axis represents the range, which is the set of all possible output values (dependent variable) that the function can produce.

The input of an independent causal event (It's raining.) determines your response output of a chosen behavior (I walk outdoors under my umbrella.). The function is your reasoning mind which decides the umbrella response is best. There's a causal relationship between the rain and your choice of an umbrella, but you could've chosen to walk in the rain without an umbrella, so your choice of an umbrella was free. Your walk in the rain under your umbrella is the intersection (common ground) where input and output intersect.

Why don't you think an interaction contains a component of shared identity? A transfer of mass, energy, and information involves three components shared by both parties to the exchange. — ucarr

Perhaps I did not explained myself properly. You are quite correct in your (above quoted) statement. I just do not know what is inside the Venn diagram that you are speaking of.

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise — Tom Storm

In the context of exposing your atheism (as I promised earlier in another thread),

So, you're not asserting God or something definite, but something indefinite, as a metaphysical justification?

You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely [in] spite of deterministic events that control your life? — ucarr

Once more: I'm a compatibilist – my conscious volition (i.e. decision-making, choosing) is a function of, or constrained by, prior unconscious involuntary processes (i.e. one brain-body of many ecologically-situated in the cosmos structured by invariant regularities and constants). In other words, "free will" (free action) is not un-conditional much as chaotic systems as such (e.g. weather, radioactive decay, disease vectors) are not in-deterministic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

:up: :up: