An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser
Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
— praxis
Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance. — Jake
Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years. — Jake
No, science isn't faith-based.
It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
— yazata
"[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe."
Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.
"It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned."
Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there.
"You haven't read much about science."
I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.
"A physical law is a current working-assumption."
And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.
Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. — Michael Ossipoff
I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction. — S
.Your hyperbolic rants against materialism…
., or, as it's now called, physicalism
.…, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.
.[metaphysical] 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
.But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of [metaphysical] 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.
.I can’t prove that this physical world doesn’t have some kind of objective, fundamental, metaphysically-prior “reality” or “existence”, (whatever that would mean) as a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, the uncontroversially-inevitable hypothetical logical system that I’ve spoken of.
I am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur
Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist - — Rank Amateur
This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact. — Rank Amateur
Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science. — Rank Amateur
I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to [be] in conflict with fact. — Rank Amateur
It seems we are violent agreement on many things - — Rank Amateur
other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position. — Rank Amateur
It [science] certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is.
All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you. — Rank Amateur
I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. — praxis
A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality — praxis
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. — praxis
.”All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions.
.I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact.
.So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.
.Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?
Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality, — praxis
God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality? — praxis
God is a concept, which is "thought," — praxis
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
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality.
— praxis
Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc. — Jake
Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it. — Jake
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
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
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
God is a concept, which is "thought,"
— praxis — praxis
Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff
Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down. — Michael Ossipoff
What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? — praxis
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff
A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. — praxis
Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions. — praxis
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser
I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion. — praxis
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.