You would find the reference in the language game but he very specifically speaks about everything having a reference. — Shwah

“The mistake here then is (Baker &) Hacker's thought that what is problematic for Wittgenstein—what he wants to critique in the opening remarks quoted from Augustine—is that words name things or correspond to objects, with the emphasis laid on the nature of what is on the other side of the word-object relationship. Rather, we contend that what is problematic in this picture is that words must be relational at all—whether as names to the named, words to objects, or ‘words' belonging to a ‘type of use.'It is the necessarily relational character of ‘the Augustinian picture' which is apt to lead one astray; Baker & Hacker, in missing this, ultimately replace it with a picture that retains the relational character, only recast. There is no such thing as a word outside of some particular use; but that is a different claim from saying, with Baker & Hacker, that words belong to a type of use. For a word to be is for a word to be used. Language does not exist external to its use by us in the world.”(Phil Hutchinson and Rupert Read)

Atheism is not a belief but a being against. Against god-beings they probably fear ( :wink: @universeness). While in fact there is absolutely nothing to fear! Well, maybe one particular kind of them. I will reveal the truth about this later. A dream I had last night convinced me. And it's a very comforting truth. To a broad extent...

@universeness

Don't tell me you don't fear them cause they don't exist! :wink:

Just listening to the Sean Carroll Mindscape podcast in the background as I work on one of my oil paintings, in-between posting comments on this thread. He was discussing 'time reversal' based on a question he had been asked. It's on the first 20 mins. I think you would enjoy that. He also tells you how to submit questions!

If that's your preferred way of thinking then I don't want to barge in on that. That being said you asked two questions which would attack my ontological positions so it'd be odd for you to say the epistemological nature is all you want but then question the applicability of my positions.
This distinction is really what comes at play here. You cannot approach theism from an epistemological standpoint or you simply can't ask the questions you did. In that then it's useless to define theism as belief rather than propositional statements.

I will answer the propositional questions regarding the ontological nature of theism.

I don't really care to speak about my religion but suffice it to say that many theistic conceptions are naturalist entirely or idealist (spinoza, aristotle are an example of the former and berkeley and, perhaps, hegel are examples of the latter). I will say science, which is concerned with nature in a particular way, can't ever deny supernaturalist concepts because no supernatural objects etc ever go into its domain.

The conception of a pentaune god does not require the communication nor livingness of said conception of god to exist. I don't have to worship a pentaune god to develop a thought puzzle around this. This applies towards any science or math field as well (e.g. we can theorize gravitons and what they may do if they exist without being forced to base our physics on it or even insert it at all). We also apply ethical conundrums into thought puzzles. In any case the main point is you can't use an epistemological definition for theism to ask this and if you're questioning these things then you necessarily are using an ontological nature to interpret and question these things (you need a framework to do so). Atheism, while being the negation of theism de jure (linguistics) and de facto, is not an ontological framework but the rejection of one. In that you can't ask these questions through atheism but through some other framework you may be or may not be conscious of using. That ties more into the point that atheism is not a position one can meaningfully get to without separating atheism from theism and implying atheism is just some random name for a gaming group that has shared likes and dislikes. A huge fall away from all atheist claims and from new atheist claims and from hitchens and all before him.

Sure but you would say aristotle's prime mover is valid for God like Aquinas did no? The cosmological argument would include aristotle's prime mover.

Don't tell me you don't fear them cause they don't exist! — EugeneW

I have commented to you before about the many times I have personally challenged the god power since I was 15. I almost reached a stage where I quite enjoyed the emotion of fear.
What would convince you that I have no fear of gods or their supporters/enforcers such as Satan and his crew.

I like a quote from a song by crowded house. 'god is just jealous because the devil looks so cool in red.'
I like it when creative people attempt to reduce the ability of the god fable to invoke fear in others.
This is also why I love films like 'The life of Brian' or most of the words in 'Jesus Christ superstar.'

I am much more afraid of what my fellow humans might put me through than I am of gods.
Fellow humans can directly affect my life, gods have demonstrated no ability to do so.
I don't think they exist and that IS a reason for my lack of fear of them but I also despise them if they do exist due to the evil they allow humans to do.

Yeah I agree with that entirely. For wittgenstein it wasn't use itself but use from a language someone used. I disagree with that but yeah I see no way to have words not refer to something without fundamentally only saying vapid things.

He was discussing 'time reversal' based on a question he had been asked — universeness

The fact time goes forward is proof of the benevolence of the gods. And at the same time of their laziness. Time goes backwards only for virtual particles. The vacuum contains an eternal fluctuating in time, the fluctuation time being the Planck time. And just like there is an asymmetry between two opposite directions in space (in the light of wrongly assumed basic weak interactions), there is an asymmetry in time (in the same light). In the mirror universe the asymmetries hold too. Between anti quarks and anti-leptons. But because these contain the same preons as the quarks and leptons in our universe, the asymmetry is due to an asymmetry in space itself.

am much more afraid of what my fellow humans might put me through than I am of gods. — universeness

You're close to the truth, soon to be revealed on this forum! The world of philosophy, religion, and physics will shake in its foundations...

like a quote from a song by crowded house. 'god is just jealous because the devil looks so cool in red.' — universeness

Devils are not involved in the tale of creation... The situation, once known, is a mundane one. An understandable one. I think the gods are glad me telling the revelation. They had trouble reaching their creation. But they found a loophole... The dream.

I appreciate your rigour from the standpoint of pointing out to me, philosophical rules that I must contend with when I make the statements/comments on theism and atheism that I have made so far on this thread. I have admitted to being a philosophical novice at best. I will try my best to respond to the points you have made but please be understanding If I display a frustrating level of command of academic philosophy.

You cannot approach theism from an epistemological standpoint or you simply can't ask the questions you did. In that then it's useless to define theism as belief rather than propositional statements. — Shwah

Logic is my chosen epistemology to begin with, why can I not approach theism using logic. I don't see that belief or 'propositional statements.' have no basis in logic. I think therefore I propose. If the logical deliberations of a physicist results in them proposing a new label such as 'the cosmological constant,' once called a biggest mistake but not so much now. Then why was it illogical for a creature such as a cro magnon to look at the big shiny think in the sky and grunt 'god?'
I don't really care if some ancient or modern recognised philosopher says it is not valid to use logic to question the theistic position. (If that is what you are saying?) Most propositional statements have a basis in the logical thought processes of the thinkers involved in making the proposals.

I don't really care to speak about my religion but suffice it to say that many theistic conceptions are naturalist entirely or idealist (spinoza, aristotle are an example of the former and berkeley and, perhaps, hegel are examples of the latter). I will say science, which is concerned with nature in a particular way, can't ever deny supernaturalist concepts because no supernatural objects etc ever go into its domain — Shwah

I know the story of the life of Spinoza but I haven't read anything by him. I have watched a few YouTube vids about his life and his contributions to philosophy and I view him in a similar way to Christopher Hitchins. He was persecuted by theistic dogma. Science can and cosmologists in partiular, mainly do deny supernaturalist concepts and they will continue to do so until evidence proves otherwise.
Your argument that nothing supernatural can enter the domain of nature gives the supernatural no importance or relevance at all towards the existence or events in this Universe other that the theistic belief that it manifests as god and thus the creator of said Universe. As an atheist, I reject such claims.

The conception of a pentaune god does not require the communication nor livingness of said conception of god to exist. I don't have to worship a pentaune god to develop a thought puzzle around this. This applies towards any science or math field as well (e.g. we can theorize gravitons and what they may do if they exist without being forced to base our physics on it or even insert it at all). We also apply ethical conundrums into thought puzzles. — Shwah

I agree.

In any case the main point is you can't use an epistemological definition for theism to ask this and if you're questioning these things then you necessarily are using an ontological nature to interpret and question these things (you need a framework to do so). — Shwah

I used ontology all the time in computing to categorise variables and data types etc. In philosophy, I get that ontology refers to categorising the metaphysical. I have limited interest in the 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' stuff. I am a naturalist/physicalist/materialist/scientist etc. I do find metaphysical discussions interesting but any conclusions produced by them demonstrate very poor predictive power in my opinion.

That ties more into the point that atheism is not a position one can meaningfully get to without separating atheism from theism and implying atheism is just some random name for a gaming group that has shared likes and dislikes. A huge fall away from all atheist claims and from new atheist claims and from hitchens and all before him — Shwah

Who said it was a random name? It's a valid label that indicates rejection of the posit of theism.
Atheists are not a gaming group as such is entertainment-based. Atheists argue amongst themselves as much as any other labeled grouping of humans.
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above. I have as much in common with Mr Hitchens, Mr Dawkins, Mr Harris, Mr Dennett, Mr Dillahunty, Mr Carrier, Mr Atwill and the many other well-known atheists and the ancient ones such as Democritus as I have ever had. I think they are correct and the theists are incorrect.

soon to be revealed on this forum! The world of philosophy, religion, and physics will shake in its foundations.. — EugeneW

:rofl: A good build-up EugeneW, be careful you don't over-reach.

A good build-up EugeneW, be careful you don't over-reach. — universeness

Just an episode, universeness, just an episode... Or maybe, the final chapter...(don't get me wrong though)

Although the exchanges between folks on this forum can be heated at times, the first most important concern is that we all stay as healthy as we can, in mind and body!

Yeah it's not a problem.

Logic itself isn't really a meaningful statement with no predication. Classical logic, which you may be referring to, asserts the law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle (along with law of identity and maybe a few others depending on the specific language). Fuzzy logic denies those two former laws and we use it in electronics and there are tons of logic languages besides that.
I'll go a bit further and say everybody uses their logic language of choice, even if they don't know it or contradict themselves, so saying "logic is my epistemological choice" is trivial at best.

As for the assumption that the world is material, math cannot be material at least epistemologically. That is to say it may in fact be ontologically material but we have no way to approach that from this limit that physics necessitates math to do physics. This is an asymmetric relationship where we don't need physics to do math (as that would be circular).
In addition, modern math/logic is based on the principle of being more universally applicable than to material objects (as shown by frege's reasoning here).


Also physics is very much a philosophical endeavor and was called natural philosophy (as a group name with chemistry, biology etc) until a century and a half ago.

Also you can't even reject theism with atheism. You're using naturalism, materialism or whichever frameworks you're using. There's no way to get to an "atheist" position ontologically or epistemologically.

I'll go a bit further and say everybody uses their logic language of choice, even if they don't know it or contradict themselves, so saying "logic is my epistemological choice" is trivial at best. — Shwah

I appreciate that as your philosophical analysis of my statement and I fully endorse the rigor of the scientific method so I can't complain when you employ philosophical studies to critique the methodology I employ to debate theism. I remain respectfully unconcerned about the points you are raising here.

math cannot be material at least epistemologically. — Shwah

I have heard this many times. Mathematics is a logic-based language with very impressive predictive power, unlike metaphysics or metamaths for that matter.

This is an asymmetric relationship where we don't need physics to do math — Shwah

Force=mass*acceleration is as much from the physics world as it is actioned in the mathematics world
A screwdriver and a paintbrush can be considered two quite different tools but you need them both when hanging a new door. I would not call a screwdriver and a paintbrush symmetric, would you? so the idea that maths hand physics might in some philosophical reference frame be deemed asymmetric seems of little consequence in the real world.

As for your comment from 'Frege,' who I have never heard of (but I am not blaming you for that.)
I would say well so what? All such require context. How many/big/small/far etc.

Also physics is very much a philosophical endeavor and was called natural philosophy (as a group name with chemistry, biology etc) until a century and a half ago — Shwah

No, Physics is a scientific endeavor. The fact that it had a less accurate label in the past means little.
Philosophy has sub-headings such as ethics, metaphysics etc and many other sub-divisions that physics has nothing to say about.

I can only comment and say these aren't really fruitful objections for either of us. Some of its handwaving and others are just negating the point with no justification and the points have seemed to take a life of their own and have lost any reference to a main point that we were discussing. I can't meaningfully respond to that without going down the path of complete tangentiality.

I have nonetheless enjoyed our exchange here. You can take some credit perhaps in that the more I read the points raised by the 'philosophy' angle (for want of a better phrase). The more compelled I feel to take greater care when considering how to form a response to someone on TPF.
I don't mean that I will be less antagonistic to those who I think are being antagonistic. I just mean, any improved understanding of philosophy will hopefully improve my future responses on TPF. If I continue my presence on the forum.
I am an interloper here due to my lack of philosophical credentials but I think I have other credentials of value to threads that have scientific, political or religious aspects to them.

You certainly do, appreciate the conversation.

Thank you for your kind, supportive reply. :smile:

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker

As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe. — Gregory A

You're working with a fallacious reduction of options. There aren't just "either believe in God, or believe in mere chance". It's also possible to not have any particular opinion on the matter. Or believe that Earth is controlled by beings from other galaxies. And whatever other cosmogonies people believe in.


I asked you
Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

This is to point out that most people who have ever believed in God, have not done so as a result of careful consideration and choosing, but were simply born and raised into a monotheistic religion. They were taught to believe in God, they never chose to do so.

The people who _choose_ to believe in God are a minority.

Do you have any comment on this?

every religion that rejects worship all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities
— 180 Proof

A fallicious entailment. You think I worship any of them? No way. — EugeneW

An egotheist, then.

There's no way to get to an "atheist" position ontologically or epistemologically — Shwah

Unless you declare the ontology and epistemology of theism empty. But indeed, from the scientific òntology and epistemology alone you can't deduce the non-existence of gods.

An egotheist, then — baker

Haha! A selfish theist? Or a theist thinking he's a god himself? Only gods give meaning to life. That's the reason for believing in them. And the fact that science can't explain the presence of the universe. The laws of nature and the basic stuff in it is too stupid to cause its own existence.

I think that's a method but I don't think it's practical as we would just all have to forget that God(s) exist whatsoever and probably spiritualism too and even ethics could eventually lead back to God a bit directly. In any case theism is verifiable by any conception of God.
Yeah science can't dictate those and atheism literally has no ontology or epistemology to speak of.

Yeah science can't dictate those and atheism literally has no ontology or epistemology to speak of. — Shwah

By the very fact an atheist denies gods he accepts their existence. He only wants proof they exist.

I 100% agree otherwise you're saying something trivial (nothing is nothing, which without anything to parse meabs nothing) which is immaterial to being the negation of theism.

nothing is nothing, which without anything to parse means nothing — Shwah

There you go!

This thread is quite hot! 14 pages in 4 days. Seems atheists have a lot to talk about for non-existent gods!

side example, your grandma says "I love you, do you believe me?" — Shwah

Sorry, I had intended to respond to this side point you made, but forgot to.

Do you compare love between blood relations with a feeling of 'biological loyalty/responsibility,' or 'loyalty based on previous/current acts of nurture such as feeding/clothing etc, a love born of such dependencies perhaps?' Love has many levels and manifestations.
There is of course also the question of what we define as love in comparison to obsession or power over others or love of pain/violence or love as an addiction, etc

My simple answer is that sure, if grandma says she loves me then I will initially accept her word. In a similar way a child might accept being told by a 'loving father' that god exists but If grandma then went on to behave in ways towards me that were not what I consider loving, then I would reject her posit until her behavior changed or as I got older and started to question the logic of daddies god posit and he suggested that god was not to be questioned by me and I must just accept its existence as fact then there would be rejection on my part. So, if people tell me god exists then I need the evidence just like I need the evidence from granma that she loves me.