Still, I'm not fond of the 'law' metaphor. — norm
If there were a god, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that there is a god. — Banno
"Who is the absolute reactionary? The person who joins the Communist Party, and immediately upon acceptance for membership commits suicide, only in order to have one less communist party member." — god must be atheist
How do we know that meaning or logic are not a product of the natural universe? This would also need to be demonstrated. — Tom Storm
For me a hidden God is functionally exactly the same as no God. There would still be no good reason to believe. — Tom Storm
Meaning and logic are human's tools to explain things. In and by themselves they don't exist. If there were no human minds, logic would not exist, nor would meaning. Meaning, in and by itself, is nothing but a process or else part of the process or else else a convention to recreate reality as models of reality in the humans' minds. — god must be atheist
There is another hurdle for the theists: what is god's nature, and what attributes does it have? Nothing can be hung on him (no pun intended) that is not purely belief, or unsupported superstition. Nobody knows anything about the real god, if one exists, so how can some pretend to assume god is this way or the other way. This applies to all scriptures: fiction. Not substantiated, and therefore they contain less believability by empirical, speculative or a priori considerations, than conspiracy theories. — god must be atheist
:up:IMO, studying philosophy (which involves some emotional work, no doubt) leads (some at least) to make peace with a fuzzier view of the world. — norm
Agreed. But that's because they (when conceptually coherent and self-consistent) are noncognitive proposals (e.g. criteria, methods, aporia, speculative counterfactuals (i.e. gedankenexperiments), critiques, ...) and not propositions: that is, they 'suppose Y is true instead of X, then ...' rather than 'It is true that X is the case, therefore ... Z'. "Philosophical positions" express conceptual, or reflective, stances (for the sake of argument aka "ideas" rather than as dogmatic commitments aka "beliefs") with regard to the real but not determinations of what is or is not the case, which consist of truth-claims in need of truth-makers like the sciences or history.I daresay there's not even one philosophical position that has been proved conclusively. — TheMadFool
But this expression itself presupposes logical truth – grammatical sense – in order to be intelligible either as a proposal or proposition, which therefore renders what you say here incoherent, Fool. After all, logic is just grammar in the most general sense (TLP, Witty). Thus, if, as the OP contends, "logic is an illusion" then ... :roll:Having logic on our side since antiquity has made no difference to humanity's collection of truths ...
:clap: :fire:What's the point? You remind me of a joke that floated around in the old country:
"Who is the absolute reactionary? The person who joins the Communist Party, and immediately upon acceptance for membership commits suicide, only in order to have one less communist party member."
Your pretense of saying "I am an atheist, but I recognize that atheism is a completely screwed up and false belief system" does not cut the mustard for me. — god must be atheist
There are many people who believe they have access to knowledge about God and see evidence of God's works. — Tom Storm
I am saying just a tad little more. I am disagreeing for a reason: no empirical or a priori evidence is extant. Those who say they have direct line to god or direct knowledge, are incapable to convey this to be other than delusion or imagination or a straight lie. That must amount to something. If one can do it, all should be able to do it. But all are not able to do it.All you are saying is you disagree. — Tom Storm
I prefer the term logical axioms. But as far as we can tell, they are absolute. You cannot have any discourse without them. As soon as you argue against them you are using them to do this. — Tom Storm
I don't for a moment think you are an atheist. You are making a theist case, and you disguise yourself as an atheist.
Many atheists use the same stupid and deplorable, but all-too-obvious and transparent tactic to denounce religion, and many theists employ the same method to denounce atheism. — god must be atheist
Early or late Wittgenstein?
You may be right. I would like to hear a solid academic account of this. We know the axioms are tautologies. They are also called that by some. — Tom Storm
Agreed. But that's because they (when conceptually coherent and self-consistent) are noncognitive proposals (e.g. criteria, methods, aporia, speculative counterfactuals (i.e. gedankenexperiments), critiques, ...) and not propositions: that is, they 'suppose Y is true instead of X, then ...' rather than 'It is true that X is the case, therefore ... Z'. "Philosophical positions" express conceptual, or reflective, stances (for the sake of argument aka "ideas" rather than as dogmatic commitments aka "beliefs") with regard to the real but not determinations of what is or is not the case, which consist of truth-claims in need of truth-makers like the sciences or history. — 180 Proof
But this expression itself presupposes logical truth – grammatical sense – in order to be intelligible either as a proposal or proposition, which therefore renders what you say here incoherent, Fool. After all, logic is just grammar in the most general sense (TLP, Witty). Thus, if, as the OP contends, "logic is an illusion" then ... :roll: — 180 Proof
You've misread what I wrote. More plainly then: claiming that philosophy hasn't proven anything is like claiming an unmarried man still beats his wife – my point is that philosophy, as I understand it, isn't in the "proving" business, Fool, any more than is music or religion. It's nonsense to blame P for what P does not endeavor to do. Anyway, when philosophy seeks to "prove" something it calves-off into one of the sciences, the production of which alone has made philosophy indispensable to culture and civilization. — 180 Proof
:roll:... can you name something philosophy hasproved? — TheMadFool
Your argument goes like this: "1. a person who believes in god 2. claims that he understands god and has direct evidence of god's existence in his mind." This is circular reasoning in one short step. Back to square one, without even ever having left it. — god must be atheist
No. Just because an atheist is saying something that might seem pro–theism, it does not mean I am a theist. I thought we were all about leaving dogma, and instead in reach of questioning god and other religious claims. — Franz Liszt
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.