”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.

.
No one denies that the chair is physical, and that this entire physical universe is physical. Your discovery that your chair is made of atoms doesn’t support Materialism.
.
The hypothetical logical system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with various configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions. …,which is your life-experience story, has one requirement: Consistency. …because there aren’t inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Your experience, in your experience-story, is of the experience of a physical animal in a physical world. So don’t be so surprised to find out that your chair is physical. It’s made of atoms. You experience that not by your own experiments, but by being told it by your pre-secondary science-teacher. I’m not denying it. Consistency (remember that requirement?) requires that there be a physical mechanism, a physical explanation for you and your surroundings.
.
At least in our physical world, life depends on there being chemistry. Chemistry depends on there being various different kinds of material, elements, that can interact and combine in various ways, in various combinations.
.
Distinct and consistent different elements depend on some consistent and discrete variation in physical systems. One way to get consistent discrete quantities is by standing-waves.
.
Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.
.
Consistency in your experience-story requires that, when physicists investigate matter and its composition, they find things that are consistent with the physical animal that is you, being here. Biology, chemistry, distinctly different atoms of different distinct and consistent elements that are capable of combining in many kinds of combinations. …there via wave-mechanics.
.
None of that proves Materialism. It just shows physicists’ findings that, as required by the consistency that is the requirement of your experience-story, are consistent with the physical existence of the animal that is you.
.
The physicists had to find something when they began closely examining matter, and it had to be something consistent with your physical origin in this physical universe. So yes, your chair, like you, is made of atoms.
.

I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact.

.
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.
.
Trust me, Materialists who have any idea what they’re talking about in philosophy admit that their objectively-existent physical universe is a brute-fact.
.
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?
.

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.

.
I’ve had many discussions with Materialists at these philosophy forums. They admit that their Materialism has a big brute-fact. They think a brute-fact is necessary and unavoidable.
.
But the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have, include or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?

.
For one thing, someone said that science is faith-based. I answered that, unlike Science-Worship and Materialsm, science isn’t faith-based.
.
For another thing, it isn’t off-topic. While we’re on the subject of beliefs, it’s relevant to discuss what alternative belief most aggressive Atheists believe in.
.
Much, most or all aggressive Atheist argument against Theism depends on an implicit devoted belief in the metaphysics of Materialism.
.
Michael Ossipoff


.

Your hyperbolic rants against materialism…

.
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.
.

, or, as it's now called, physicalism

.
It’s regrettably called that by some people. The problem is that “Physicalism” also refers to something else, a philosophy-of-mind, distinct from its meaning as a metaphysics.
.
So I avoid using the word “Physicalism”, because it has two different meanings.
.
Nowadays, when people say “Materialism”, they mean it to include forces, fields, and not just matter. The mean it with the same meaning as the metaphysical meaning of “Physicalism”.
.

…, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.

.
I’ve stated specific unreasonable-ness of Materialism.
.

[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

.
…meaning that this physical universe is the basis of all, that it’s the fundamental and ultimate reality.
.
That’s like the ordinary dictionary definition that I’ve been quoting.
.

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.

.
Below is something that I’ve repeated very many times:
.
I’ve been saying:

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.

.
It isn’t possible to prove a metaphysics, because it isn’t possible to disprove other metaphysicses, …to disprove an unfalsifiable proposition that has been contrived to explain physical observations.
.
All that can be established in these matters is: Which metaphysical proposal needs assumptions and brute-facts, and which one doesn’t? Uncontroversially, Materialism has and needs a brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
Michael Ossipoff

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

Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. Can physicists be mistaken about the future viability of a theory or law? Of course. They aren't psychics.

"[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.

As pointed out to you above, how something seems to you, and how it actually is, aren't necessarily the same thing.

Astrophysics is usually about the observable universe. It's speculative whether there are different physical laws in greatly distant different parts of this universe. But no, physicists wouldn't say that they're sure that the laws that seem to apply in our part of this physical universe are applicable throughout this entire universe.

It's probably assumed (as a working-assumption) that whatever physical laws apply here apply throughout the observable universe (excluding the region in a black-hole, or within regions smaller than a Planck-length, where that might be questionable), and probably in some universe-subset that extends some distance out beyond the observable universe.

"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.

Again, how science seems to you isn't necessarily how it is. You'd need to find out more about it before making all of these statements about how it seems to you.

Though I doubt that there's an accepted and unquestioned assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout the entire universe, of course there are working-assumptions. ...not offered as dogmatic known truth.

It isn't even known whether the universe is finite or infinite, or what its shape is. Some physicists believe that it's more likely to be finite, or more likely to be infinite.

And an individual can believe that something is so without making an assertion that it's unquestionably true. If I lend someone money it's because I believe that they'll pay me back, but it doesn't mean that I can guarantee that it's true.

That's why, elsewhere in that post, I used "likely" as an adverb when speaking of such beliefs.

"You haven't read much about science."


I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.

It revealed some profound ignorance about science.

"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.

It's a working-assumption that what we do is probably safe, even though we know that there's a chance that it won't be safe. "Article of faith" implies something else. Science isn't about faith.

Well, "faith" is (probably best) defined as "trust". Certainly scientists, when using a working-assumption, have a limited amount of "trust" that it will hold true, at least while they're using it. But your use of the word "faith" implies a more far-reaching, complete and absolute trust.

Michael Ossipoff

It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S

It goes without saying that there's no reason why you should believe what you don't know of reason to believe. No one here would criticize you for that.

...if that's all that you're saying.

But, saying that there isn't reason to believe something is different from saying that you don't know of reason to believe it.

Sometimes you said that you were only referring to the particular beliefs that I referred to as Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism. But, at other times you've said that there' s no evidence for any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all. As long as you're only saying (as you did above) that you don't know of such evidence, then you're reasonable.

But, if people here have misunderstood you, it's because you've contradicted yourself.

Aside from the matter of "evidence", there is the fact that faith, by definition, is belief without, or aside from, evidence. You can say that you don't have faith (except in Materialism and Science-Worship), and that's fine. That's your business, and no one cares.

But if you want to claim that science and logic rule on the validity of religious faith, then you're an evangelistic proselytizing Science-Worshipper, trying to assert the rightness of your own faith and dogma.

Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith? ...and that it's questionable to try to apply science and logic to the matter of Reality itself? Can you just say that you don't know of evidence or any reason for faith? ...and that you just don't know about all religious beliefs and positions? There's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't know everyone or everything.

You like science? Then study science.

Michael Ossipoff

But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata

No, science isn't faith-based. Science-Worship is faith-based. ..the faith-based belief that Science explains, applies to, and covers all.

And the metaphysics called "Materialism" is faith-based. It's based on belief in an unsupported, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.

Materialists believe that this physical universe is all of reality. That suggests that, definitionally, all Materialists are Science-Worshippers, and that all Science-Worshippers are Materialists.

It [science] believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics'

...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.

...or if they really even apply in our region of this physical universe. ...because subsequent experiments might result in overall results better explained by different physical laws.

, it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction).

No it doesn't. It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned. ...or at least won't be overturned anytime soon. But there's so systemwide assumption that all currently accepted physical laws will apply throughout the future history of physics.

That wouldn't be science.

You haven't read much about science. Physicists have no such firm general belief. Sure, sometimes it seems as if a physical law will likely continue to be upheld. But it's well-understood by physicists that it might not.

Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law.

A physical law is a current working-assumption. Sure, individual physicists might believe that it's likely that some particular physical law(s) will continue to be upheld. But it'd more of a working-assumption, and it isn't something that physicists have unquestioning faith in.

Michael Ossipoff

in case it seems as if I was contradicting myself:

The only requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent, because there are no inconsistent facts--even abstract ones.

Therefore, a person's hypothetical experience-story has to include evidence for a physical mechanism for the physical creation of the physical animal that that person is.

So, enter Mr. & Mrs. _________.

Michael Ossipoff

"Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here." — Michael Ossipoff


Lol. That's quite a mouthful. Do did you come up with that yourself? — S

No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses,

Michael Ossipoff

I doubt I can think of anything more futile than wondering whether I was born for a "good purpose" or complaining if I was not. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know where you got that. I didn't express wondering about whether we were born for a good purpose. And I didn't complain. It would be ridiculous to complain about something (my birth) that happened because of me.

I mentioned the obvious observation that we're brought into this world because of reproductive instinct, so that we, too, will reproduce. It doesn't take an antinatalist or an absurdist (I'm definitely not an absurdist) to comment on that as I did. But if you want to talk about complaining, talk to Schope. I didn't complain.

In fact, I emphasized, at the end of my post that the matter wasn't important, in spite of their irresponsibility in bringing us into the world, their not-so-good societal world, out parents have nothing to do with why we're here. We're here because of ourselves. We were born because of ourselves, not because of our parents.

Michael Ossipoff

Antinatalists have a valid point when they ask what was the point of a couple bringing us into this world. They did so either because of physical desire without other intentions, or because of an equally instinctive desire to have children.

...but for what purpose? So that the children will, in their turn, beget further children? So that the children will get to enjoy life (..so that's why we (at least sometimes) regiment them and seemingly do our best to kill whatever life they have)?

That's a valid description of the bizarre events in this physical world and in our lives, and our parents' unjustifiable conduct.

...although it is not an explanation for why we're in a life. ...a whole other matter that I've discussed in other threads

Because it isn't an explanation for why we're in a life, it takes on a low order of importance, and becomes merely a matter of curiosity.

We're here because of ourselves, as I've explained elsewhere in these forums.

Michael Ossipoff

And isn't that the whole point for aggressive Atheists? Abuse is the purpose, not the result, of their evangelistic Atheist zeal.

Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief.

Michael Ossipoff

But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. — Janus

Incorrect. Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here.

There have been objections to that metaphysics in these forums. Those objections always end when the objector is asked what he means by "Objectively Real", "Objectively Existent", "Substantial", "Substantive", or "Actual".

Michael Ossipoff

Moderators &/or administrators:

The reason why I flagged a post by S. on this page was because it's inappropriate for him to share about and solicit for his unusual needs at a philosophy forum.

Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.

Michael Ossipoff

”1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead

.
…because you don’t know what you mean by it, though you seem to always be talking about the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.

, which you have yet to actually state.

.
I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about.
.
”2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

Yes, at other threads. :roll:

.
See above.
.

That is of no help.

.
What help did you want? (rhetorical question)
.

”Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to.
.
”(…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression).” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.

.
Surely there are other forums where S. could invite people to his house to satisfy his peculiar needs.
.

”If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.

.
S. seems to want to imply that I’m neglecting an obligation to explain Theism to him, or to argue Theism vs Atheism with him. Above, in this reply, I stated what I’ve meant to say in this thread.
.

”Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?” — Michael Ossipoff
.

You didn't say anything. You just made vague suggestions which I'm having to tease out of you like blood out of a stone.

.
I said what I meant to. No one asked you to “tease out” anything additional.
.

”Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ha! That's not my task.

.
Wrong. If you say that all Theism is without evidence, then it’s your “task” to show that.
.

The burden is on the theist.

.
The burden is on whoever is making assertions here about Theism vs Atheism.
.
Here, loud aggressive Atheists are the only ones making an issue about Atheism vs Theism.
.

First, I need to be presented with a version of theism.

.
There are Theists who present their version to you, publicly and door-to-door. You’ve been addressing their version. Your error is to believe and claim that your answer applies to Theism as a whole.
.
No one has any obligation to present anything to you about anything that they aren’t asserting to you.
.

I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. That is my position.

.
Good. That’s would be much more modest position, if you can limit yourself to it.
.

”Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Feel free to present it to me if you want me to invest my time and effort on it.

.
You’re too kind. But I didn’t ask you to invest your time and effort in it. First you asked me to present it, and then, after that, I invited you to look it up in posting-records if you want to invest your time and effort in it. In other words, suit yourself.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And you aren't being very clear to us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God.

.
1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.
.
2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website. Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.
.

Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay?

.
Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?
.
Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.
.

Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.

.
Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists. — Michael Ossipoff
.
As opposed to what?

.
As opposed to other Theisms.
.

If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward your understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it

.
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads.
.
If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you.
.
…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression.
.
But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter.
.
I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean.
.
But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms.
.
Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you.
.

, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.

.
It isn’t that I’ve flung it in your direction. It’s the One True God of the aggressive Atheists, which they fling every time they fling something.

.If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light

.
They don’t need my help to do that.
.

, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

.
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms.
.

But then, if this God-as-metaphor…

.
I didn’t say “metaphor”. Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication.
.

…contains nothing inherently theistic…

.
I didn’t say that either. Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too
.
In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you.
.
However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me.
.

, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.

.
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists.
.
At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist.
.
But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Harry Hindu quoted me:

”He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.” — Michael Ossipoff

...and replied:
.
All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.

.
No, You’re the one making a sweeping blanket-claim. If you claim that there’s no evidence for any of the diverse variety of beliefs that you’re referring to, then you need to establish that for every one of those many diverse beliefs.
.
If I assert that there’s evidence for one of them, then it would be necessary for me to demonstrate that there’s evidence for one of them. But I’m not making an assertion or a claim.
.
But you are.
.

”The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof

.
No, it doesn’t necessarily. In physics there can be a big accumulation of evidence that gives a high probability that a theory is correct.
.

, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god".

.
Presumably Harry is saying that there’s no such evidence that can’t be explained by physical science. If that’s what Harry is trying to say, then he’s again repeating his unsupported sweeping blanket claim.
.
As for the word “God”, I’ve been saying that I don’t usually use that word unless I’m replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like Harry.
.

”If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?” — Michael Ossipoff
It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims.

Wrong. Not all Theists have approached Harry.
.
But maybe Harry’s changing his story, and now he’s only referring to the beliefs of those relatively few Theists who have approached Harry. That would be an improvement, for which I would commend Harry. …for backing away from his previous claim that the beliefs of all Theists are without evidence.
.
So now, it’s only necessary for Harry to show that beliefs of those Theists in that much more limited set are unfounded. He’d now only have to specify who has approached him, and specifically what their particular beliefs or claims are, and demonstrating that each is without evidence. (…and of course that would include actually demonstrating that each of their beliefs and claims are without evidence.)
.
But that would definitely be more do-able.
.

I don't go around announcing my atheism.

.
:D
.

”You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.
“If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.

.
Then refer to a particular claimer who hasn’t given a definition (…and no, I’m not making a claim or assertion, other than about your vagueness). Or refer to a specific definition, and show that the claim based on that definition is without evidence.
.
In other words, don’t be so sloppy-vague.

.

The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method

.
No, I say that the scientific method is valid and useful in the physical sciences. What I criticized is the pseudoscientific method, wherein pseudoscientists who don’t know what science is try to apply science outside its self-defined, self-circumscribed, range of applicability.
.

…and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science.

.
Even in describable metaphysics, there are plenty of things that are outside of “physical” science. (Why are we putting “physical” in quotes. Is physical science not really physical?)
.

Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?

.
Science seeks to describe and explain the relations among the things and events in this physical universe. That’s all.
.
Harry is expressing a belief that if there’s God, then God must be an element of the physical world.
.
But is Harry sure that Theists are saying that? Or is that just Harry’s religion.

.

Everything is natural.

.
Of course, if you define “natural” so broadly that it includes pavement and industrial air-pollution.
.
I doubt that any Theist would say that God isn’t natural.
.

There is no such thing as the supernatural.

.
Of course. “The supernatural” refers to the contraventions of physical law that occur in fiction, such as movies about vampires, werewolves, witches, and murderous mummies. It’s something that’s only in movies and other fiction.
.
Or, if Harry means something else by “The Supernatural”, then whether there is or isn’t “The Supernatural” would depend on specifically what Harry means by it.
.
But let’s look at what dictionaries say about what the supernatural is. The dictionaries I consulted didn’t give “Supernatural” as a noun. So we can defined “The Supernatural” as “That which is supernatural”.
.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “supernatural”:
.
“Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”
.
Presuming that all that is physical is potentially “observable” in some manner, then, by the above definition something supernatural would have to be nonphysical.
.
Abstract implications about hypothetical propositions are nonphysical, but they can be “observed” when they’re described, in print for example. So they aren’t the Supernatural.
.
No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
Therefore, the meanings of words (other than the ones whose meaning can be physically expressed in some sort of physical directly-demonstrative sign-language) are part of The Supernatural.
.
So there indeed is The Supernatural.
.
I haven’t yet mentioned Houghton-Mifflin’s definition:
.
“Of or relating to experience outside the natural world.”
.
In other words, The Supernatural is experience of what isn’t natural.
.
So, of course the next thing would be to look up how Houghton-Mifflin defines natural. Its first definition of “natural” is:
.
“Present in or produced by nature”
.
So now we should find out how Houghton-Mifflin defines “nature”.
.
Houghton-Mifflin’s first definition of “nature” is:
.
“The material world and its phenomena”.
.
I’ve mentioned things that aren’t part of the material world and its phenomena. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions. …which “there are”, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
So, by Houghton-Mifflin too, there is The Supernatural.
.
Verdict:
.
By Merrian-Webster, and by Houghton-Mifflin, there is The Supernatural.
.
Sorry if you don’t like that.
.
But, aside from that:
.
I don’t believe that there are contraventions of physical law. If a supposed physical law is violated, then it isn’t a physical law, and it needs to be rewritten or discarded…as has happened in the history of physics. A contravened “physical law” isn’t a physical law.
.
So, if The Supernatural is contravention of physical law, then yes, there’s no such thing as The Supernatural.
.
But I doubt that any Theists would say that God isn’t natural.
.
I’ll take a guess: Maybe by “natural”, Harry means “physical”. Are there things that aren’t physical? Of course. As I said above, there are such things in metaphysics. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. And you needn’t quibble about whether “there are” such things. There are such things in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.

Everything is interconnected

.
That’s a questionable statement. There are completely unrelated, separate, mutually-isolated, mutually-independent systems of inter-referring abstract implications.
.

and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science.

.
As I said, science seeks to describe and explain elements of the physical world in terms of eachother. Period. (Full-stop.)
.
Maybe Harry means that this physical universe is inter-connected and its internal relations are potentially explainable in terms of science. Sure, that’s a reasonable thing to say.
.

Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god.

.
Religious wars have a way of being wars with material motivation, cloaked in religious justification. (But I’m not claiming that that’s always the case.) But that’s a whole other topic for a different thread.
.
But sure, religions, and conceptions of God, differ so much that it’s ridiculous and astoundingly conceited for Harry to claim that none of those conceptions have evidence, unless he finds out each of them, and then demonstrates that each one of them is without evidence.
.

Science knows no contextual limitations.

.
Spoken like a true Science-Worshipper.
.
Harry’s speaking from his devout religious belief, and that’s why it’s not really possible to worthwhile-ly talk to him.
.

True science is open to new evidence for anything

:D …anything that’s physically-measurable or physically-observable.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Yes, Theists shouldn't waste time debating Atheists.

As I said, I don't directly debate the matter. I've just been questioning what Atheists mean or are trying to say, and their own uncritical belief in Materialism's brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

The answer to most of Harry’s post:
.
I refer Harry to my post that he’s “replying to”. He shouldn’t need for it to be repeated to him. He’s just continuing to repeat what I’ve already answered.
.
He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.
.
The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.
.
We all get that Harry himself doesn’t know of any evidence or reason to believe anything that can be called Theism. No one’s criticizing him for that. But Harry has the astounding conceit to believe that he knows all the beliefs of all Theists, and the reason or motivation for that variety of beliefs, and that that none of the diverse beliefs of any Theists are supported by evidence.
.
Aside from that, Harry doesn’t understand that the topic here is Reality itself. In such matters, different, separate from, and outside the specifically-self-circumscribed describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he can validly apply the rules that we’re familiar with in the describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics outside of their specific domain, where the pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers want to apply to it.
.
So, in matters outside the describable realm of physics and describable metaphysics, the matter of the justification for faith (often, and probably best, defined as trust), aside from any evidence, Harry’s pseudoscientific approach just isn’t relevant.
.
There, the “scientific method” becomes the pseudoscientific method.
.
In other threads, I’ve amply discussed my own impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them (the “outward signs” that fit Merriam-Webster’s definition of evidence). No, I’m not going to repeat it all here for Harry.
.
When I discussed those reasons, I wasn’t arguing or asserting about the Theism vs Atheism issue. I was merely telling of some reasons, without claiming that Harry should agree about them, or that Atheists should change their beliefs.
.
Additionally, the Scholastics have discussed justification for faith, aside from evidence. …regarding a matter not within the purview of the scientific method and logic. Those “arguments” (I call them “discussions”) are intriguing. There are of course more elaborate, more modern versions, but also other, similarly-intriguing, but simpler and more modest discussions. Does Harry have a sweeping demonstration that all of those are wrong?
.
No doubt there are other Theists similar to me, and maybe or probably, a wide variety of them different from me, but also completely different from what Harry understands from his own dogmatic Theism.
.
I don’t directly argue the Theism vs Atheism issue. I indirectly discuss it when I discuss the matter of what Atheists are trying to say, and the matter of their typical dogmatic belief in their own religion of Science-Worship and Materialism.
.
Most aggressive Atheists firmly, unshakably and dogmatically believe in Materialism. From the definitions, in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of “Materialism” and “Religion”, Materialism is a religion.
.
But whether or not Harry agrees with those dictionaries, the fact remains that Materialism claims an unsupportable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact in the physical world and in metaphysics…where there’s no need for a brute-fact, and where a brute-fact is regarded as discrediting. Harry needs to understand that, if he believes in Materialism, he’s very much a believer in something without support.
.

Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with.

.
Sure, I’d be glad to help you: There’s no reason why you should believe anything that you don’t know of any reason to believe.
.
But shed some of your conceit. You aren’t qualified to authoritatively blanket-rule on justification for all (unspecified by you) beliefs of all Theists.
.
If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?
.
If you want an argument about Theism vs Atheism, then I declare you the winner of your argument, by default.
.

Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it?

.
…Materialism’s brute-fact that you believe in. …you who don’t think that you’re a believer.
.

That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.

.
Even in metaphysics there uncontroversially are timeless things. We’ve discussed them in other threads, though they’re off-topic here. Timelessness isn’t unheard of, even in describable metaphysics.
.
As for “uncaused”, the difference is that Materialism’s brute-fact is in the physical world and describable metaphysics, where the familiar rules of logic and science apply, and where a brute-fact is quite unnecessary and usually disapproved-of.

.

Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no?

.
Yes.
.
You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.

What is a "god"?

.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

”No, you don’t.
.
“You know what some Theists believe.
.
“You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic.

.
If you want to make a claim about mistakes in logic, you’d need to be more specific.
.

You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.

.
For one thing, different Theists (the ones who make claims) make different claims. For another thing, I don’t make claims, assertions or arguments in the Theism vs Atheism issue, because I don’t regard it as that kind of a subject (…though I’ve expressed my own impressions—not assertions). I merely comment on some funny things about Atheist beliefs.
.
You’re still a Fundamentalist Literalist, Harry. You’ve traded one dogmatic Fundamentalist Literalist, denomination or belief for another.
.

”Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
“As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
“In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do

…rather more than one :D
.
Your use of the word “one”, when it’s pointed out to you, should help you to understand your fallacy of your sweeping blanket criticism of all of the various meanings when God is spoken of. …your dogmatic belief that they’re all one.
.
Criticisms about belief should refer to one or more beliefs well-specified by the speaker. Otherwise such claims are meaningless.
.
(As I said, I usually avoid using the word “God” (except when answering people who use it, including Fundamentalists like you), because it has an anthropomorphic connotation.)
.

- your particular god that you claim exists…

.
Wrong. I didn’t make that claim, because, as I said, I don’t regard that matter as an issue for claims, assertions, arguments, debates or proof. In various other threads, I’ve expressed impressions.
.
But I accept your assurance that you were making claims when you were a Theist, just as you now are. …claims about the same doctrinaire, dogmatic Biblical Literalism that you formerly believed in, and now loudly disbelieve in.
.
Thank you for clarifying that the God that you believed in when you were a Theist, and now express disbelief in, is, to you, like the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc.
.
Your beliefs, when you were a Theist, may very well have been like that. I take your word for it that they were.
.

…while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist.

.
I don’t “reject” them in the spirit in which you do. They aren’t as important to me as they are to you. But I must admit I just don’t know of a reason to believe in them.
.
And you likewise don’t know of any reason to believe anything that could be called Theism. No one should say that you should believe what you don’t know of a reason to believe.
.
But when you blanket-criticize widely-varied beliefs unspecified by you, then you can expect some people to remind you that you don’t know what you mean.
.

Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews?

.
It’s been said that Aristotle spoke of what you’d call God. Was that, too, the God of the Jews?
.
Theism isn’t specifically about the God of the Jews.
.
I don’t subscribe to a denomination.
.

It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.

.
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
.
Michael Ossipoff

I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe.

.
No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.
.

Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it.

.
Depending on what you used to believe, that may very well be true.
.

Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.

.
…that you believed in :D
.
Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Bertrand Russel was quoted:

“Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable

Regarding religion, I'd say it's unprovable, un-assertable matters. But I don't know if "speculation" is the right word. "Speculation" implies wondering about which potentially-provable factual way it is.

I thought it was more a matter of impression and feeling.

There are the 5 arguments, but I don't consider it a matter for assertion or argument, and certainly not proof. There are interesting discussions about it. That's what I call them instead of arguments. Some of the discussions seem convincing, and some others seem possibly convincing in some form. I consider some of those discussions to be intriguing and interesting.

You said that the matter is indeterminate. With respect to proof, argument and assertion, sure.

But faith means believing something that isn't provable, and something that you wouldn't assert or argue. (...though of course you could tell what suggests an impression about it.)

Regarding that matter, and the impressions that I've expressed about it, I can't prove it, I don't assert it or argue for it. ...and I don't doubt it.

Russell must not have spoken to many religious people if he regards it as a matter of speculation about what the potentially-provable truth of the matter is.

I'm not criticizing him. No doubt he was very good at what he was good at.

Continuing the Russell quote:

; but like science, it [philosophy] appeals to human reason rather than to authority,

Yes, I've often been saying that metaphysics has much in common with science. ...for example, as regards the requirements and desiderata such as falsifiability and no-brute-facts.

whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

Then that's Russell's notion about what religion is. It sounds more like that of the religious-promoters who knock on my door, than like the authors I agree with.

All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science

No. Definite things can be reliably said in metaphysics. Sure, no one can disprove an unfalsifiable, unverifiable assertion of a brute-fact, in metaphysics. But isn't that true in physics too? A difference is that physics has more opportunity for a mountain of experimental evidence to pile up, but, in principle an unfalsifiable proposition remains un-disprovable. ...discreditable, but not disprovable....just as in metaphysics.

But even though I can't prove that Materialism's unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact isn't true, I can tell you why it's an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. That's the best that you can do in metaphysics. Discredit a discreditable proposal.

; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

He's all wrong there. Philosophy is full of dogma. And not all Theists espouse or express dogma.

Michael Ossipoff

:

”Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” “— Rank Amateur
.
If reason is the path to faith, then why, pray tell, don't we all have faith in a magical sky daddy?

.
1. Because some of us are befuddled by a belief in what we incorrectly imagine to be reason.
.
2. If reason is the path to (toward) faith, that needn’t mean that everyone reasonable continues past reason along that path, to an interest in what’s outside reason’s purview.
.
“…when reason can say no more.” But maybe not everyone wants to pursue more.
.
3. You’re equating faith with “SkyDaddy”. If you’d said that at the beginning of this thread, maybe that could be excusable. But you’re still saying it even after several people have explained to you, many times, in various ways, with many quotes from respected writers, that your SkyDaddy doesn’t define or characterize what faith is about, or what is meant when people speak of God. SkyDaddy is what Biblical Literalists like you have devotedly latched onto. You want to attribute it to Theists in general. It’s been more than amply explained to you that you’re wrong.
.
Your continued repetition of something that you’ve been amply corrected about suggests that you don’t qualify for a reply here. I won’t waste time replying to you again. I don’t know why anyone else here would.
.

If you're a sensible type with an interest in truth, then when reason can say no more, you'll close the case

Then close it, instead of saying things that you can’t support.

When reason can say no more, then don’t keep on saying more about what reason says.

(When I don’t reply to S., that doesn’t mean that he’s said something irrefutable. It’s just that he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t rate a reply.)
.
Michael Ossipoff

you are either a troll or an idiot, there are no other options — Rank Amateur

:up: :up: :up: :grin:

Or it hinges on what this "God" you folk talk about is supposed to be?
— jorndoe

Of course, and so it would make a lot more sense if you could confine your comments to a particular specific belief, if you feel a need to make an issue of the beliefs of others who don't bother attacking you. In other words, maybe a good rule would be to know, and specifically say, what you're criticizing or disagreeing with.

Now, there are professed Theists who come to your door and give you a bad time if you don't convert to their religion. They do attack you. So, feel free to criticize their religion, because they "open the door" to the issue (to use a court term).

But at least be specific about what you're criticizing.

It's not just about half a dozen or so quotes about obscure abstracts, but also about what people actually believe, and their actions.

What's not just about that? What is it that you're talking about what it's about? What you're criticizing? You speak of what people actually believe, but then you need to clearly specify what people or beliefs you're referring to and criticizing.

"It's about" everyone,who is religious, or so you mean to imply?

Also ask ministers, pundits, imams and pagans what their "God" is supposed to be, and their ($fulltime) apologists how they justify.

But isn't that what you need to do first, and then specify what particular belief(s) you're making an issue about?

I mean, you're the one making an issue of their beliefs that you aren't specifying..

I don't know why I bother answering this never-ending spew from self-styled scientific debunkers and Defenders of Science.

Seems the word "God" is up for grabs

Translation: Different people (including loud self-esteem-problem Atheists) use it with different meanings..

, maybe we all ought come up with something of our own

Go for it. And then maybe even quiet down until you have something definite to say.

Michael Ossipoff

Mr. Ossipoff, please do yourself a favour and quit the propaganda-speak of "True-Believing Science-Worshippers".

.
Call it what you want, but “True-Believing Science-Worshippers” isn’t an exaggeration.
.
There are actually people who believe that science, logic and “reason” are universally-applicable.
.
You know, people who fervently and loudly believe that faith is in conflict with reason. Maybe you know someone like that.

.

I'm not trying to apply reason, science or logic outside of its legitimate range of applicability. So your comment has no bearing on my position. And if you think otherwise, then the burden lies with you.

.
You’ve been repeatedly saying that faith conflicts with reason. Alright, then share some of your reason with us. Tell us how reason contradicts all religion, all religious faith, all of whatever various meanings people mean when referring to God, or faith in God.
.
Hint: Don’t just disprove your SkyDaddy belief that the common loud variety of Atheists, like other Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists, have so devotedly, fervently and loudly latched-onto.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I think if there is a difference it is in attitude, where someone loves a parent and is grateful to them and has a fulfilling life so they don't feel imposed on.

.
Certainly.
.

The problem is once someone’s life goes bad it can seem like an imposition.

.
Especially if it starts out bad or adversely.
.

I don't know if there is a correlation between parent-child bond and value of one’s own life.

.
Parenting, good or bad, can make all the difference in the child’s life, at the time, and afterwards.
.

I think a kidnapping is partly condemned because of the distress caused.

.
The distressing thing for me is amount of people not providing a fulfilling life and environment for their children.

.
More than that, it’s at least sometimes a matter of bringing a child into the world, and then killing that life just starting out.
.

This is why I think we really need to take action to change the dialogue on having children and enforce greater children's rights.

.
Now we have the inexplicably ridiculous situation in which anyone can reproduce and parent, just because they choose to…or accidentally reproduce.
.
Proof of emotional and moral qualification should be required, and an official permit needed, to bring a child into the world or to raise a child. Of course there’s the question of who would decide that, and I’m not saying that it’s feasible under current conditions.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

because I don't believe that only I objectively exist. — Michael Ossipoff

I shouldn't say "objectively exist", when speaking of any of what is in the describable world.

By the way, regarding the abstract implications that I spoke of, of course I don't claim that any of their antecedents are true. ...reminding me of when Roy McAllister, in the move Wolf, said, "Is any of that true?"

Michael Ossipoff

"Because what and who you are is the protagonist of a life-experience-story, then it would be meaningless to speak of you not being in a life." — Michael Ossipoff

I do feel solipsistic and think the nature of consciousness is solipsistic. So not so much one of many life stories but the center of some kind of game where I am the central protagonist. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, Subjective Idealism really seems right. There are various definitions of Solipsism, Maybe the Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism that I've been proposing could fit one of those definitions.

But I don't know if it should be called Solipsism, because I don't believe that only I objectively exist.

I feel that, among what's in the describable world, Consciousness, each experiencer, is fundamental and prior. That's how it seems, and there's no reason to believe that that isn't how it is.

By the way, the Subjective Idealism is one of the matters on which I disagree with the metaphysicses of Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark, described as Ontic Structural Realism. They posit an objective world-story, whereas I speak of a subjective experience-story. It's obvious to me that the individual's experience is what it's about.

Michael Ossipoff

”As I said, you're the reason why you were born.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

I didn't understand that entirely.

.
It refers to something that I’d said earlier in the thread. By the metaphysics that I propose, you’re in a life because you’re the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience story. In other words, among the infinity of life-experience-stories, there’s one whose protagonist is you. That’s what and who you are.
.
Because what and who you are is the protagonist of a life-experience-story, then it would be meaningless to speak of you not being in a life.
.
That’s why you’re in a life. It’s got nothing to do with your parents.
.
Of course socially, yes it’s the parents’ doing, and they’re responsible for that.
.
Background explanation:
.
There are abstract facts, at least in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.
.
In particular, there are abstract implications, at least in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.
.
I don’t claim any other reality or existence for those abstract implications.
.
(An implication is an implying. In this particular usage, it’s an implying of one proposition by another proposition.)
.
Therefore, there are also (in the same limited sense) infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Some of those infinitely-many complex hypothetical logical systems fit (with appropriate naming) the description of someone’s experience. …the experience of an animal in a physical world. I call those “hypothetical life-experience-stories”.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience is other than that. As the protagonist, the experiencer, of that experience-story, you’re one of two complementary parts of that story: You and your physical surroundings are the two complementary parts of your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
In 1844, Michael Faraday pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists of other than logical and mathematical structural relation. There’s no reason to believe in the supposed objectively-existent “stuff” that the structural-relations are about.
.
That’s consistent with what I’ve been saying above.
.
Yes, of course your experience isn’t always of logic and mathematics. The only requirement for your experience is that it be consistent. Your experience of your physical surroundings/world must be consistent, because there are no such things as inconsistent, mutually-contradictory, facts.
.
But that consistency-requirement brings logic into your experience of your physical world. So your life-experience possibility-story (about an animal’s experience of its physical surroundings) is a logical system.
.
As I said, there timelessly is that hypothetical experience story. You are a complementary part of it. There’d be no “You” without that hypothetical life experience story. It’s about you, and it’s the reason for you, and you’re the reason for it.
.
…and you’re the reason why you’re in a life.
.

”It's difficult to believe that it was supposed to be for me. But for whom then??” — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think the problem is that your parents probably aimed their parenting towards you but had no idea who the real you was.

.
…or who the real Them was either. People who have serious personality-problems shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce or parent. For example, my mother was a bully, a coward who needed someone smaller, in order to compensate for her own self-esteem problems.
Bullies? The was no shortage…parents, or at school, or in the ambient society in which we grew up.
.

Would I feel equally coerced if I had great parents and more self esteem?

.
No. It’s because of the conditions in childhood—the parents in particular.
.
I think that kidnapping analogy is spot-on: We never agreed to have those parents. So what’s the difference between kidnapping and having a child?
.
Michael Ossipoff

So it is not like I am here because of my parents rationality and positive intentions

:) Well said.
— Andrew4Handel

and I think anyone has a justifiable right to be angry and resentful about being born especially if they had an abusive childhood.

No, don't feel angry or resentful because you were born. As I said, you're the reason why you were born. It would be futile and pointless to be angry and resentful toward yourself for being what or who you are.

But yes, we certainly can have good reason to feel angry and resentful about being born to a couple who are entirely unqualified to be responsible for children. I personally testify to that. Socially, that folly was their doing and their responsibility.

An abusive childrhood--From the social standpoint, we have good reason to resent that too. i personally testify to that too.

What kind of fanciful thinking were my unqualified parents engaged in when they decided to have children? And the way of life that was portrayed to, offered to, imposed on me by elders (at home, and in the bizarrely shabby thing called "school") who were supposed to know better than I...Whom was that for? It's difficult to believe that it was supposed to be for me. But for whom then??

Michael Ossipoff

Some people do argue we choose our parents. However I think choosing our parents from some other spiritual realm doesn't make sense unless one can prove that we forced our parents to reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

We didn't choose our parents. But we're the reason why we're in a life. ...for the reason that I mentioned in my previous post.

Out predispositions and inclinations are what "chose" our world for us.

In my previous post, I agreed that socially-speaking, in the context of this physical world, our parents are fully responsible for our being in this world.

And I agreed that reproduction is undesirable when it overpopulates the Earth.

Michael Ossipoff

Then it would not be a god. — Sir2u

Thank you for sharing with us your unique knowledge of the necessary nature of the one true God, even though your God is only one of various different meanings being referred to when various different people mention God.

Michael Ossipoff

I mean, what kind of person thinks that leaps of faith are reasonable? Or that they wouldn't run into conflict with reason, if reason is the standard by which we're judging the matter? — S

Reason is that standard by which you're judging the matter. And that's where you're wrong.

Reason isn't applicable to everything. Only a True-Believing Science-Worshipper thinks thinks it is.

To try to apply reason, science or logic outside its legitimate range of applicability is in conflict with reason, science or logic.

Michael Ossipoff

God is everything in existence — Lif3r

Alright, you meant that you're suggesting that there is God, and you were just saying that God isn't what you referred to in your thread-title.

Sure, many Theists would agree that, when God is referred to, what is meant is Reality, ...all that is.

I agree with that.

Why use that name? I usually don't, because it sounds anthropomorphic. But it expresses an impression about Reality, discussed in other threads.

I don't make assertions about the nature or character of Reality. It's a matter of impression,not assertion, argument or proof.

Michael Ossipoff

I believe we should consider another definition of "God" other than the definition that seems to be prevalent of "Magic sky person". — Lif3r

Then feel free to consider it. ...and believe in it if you want to.

[Edit: I misread your post the first time, and thought that you were saying that we should consider the definition stated in your thread-title, and were, as so many Atheists do, suggesting that that's what all Theists believe in.]

Of course that's the definition of the One-True-God for Atheists and other Biblical-Lliteralists. ...the One True God that Atheists so loudly believe in disbelieving in.

Michael Ossipoff

When a criminal commits a crime, his parents, heredity, and societal influences are fully to blame...and so is he.
It isn't either/.or.

Likewise your life.

Before you fully blame your parents, realize that the matter of why you were born depends on what metaphysics you're going by. Some of us are Materialists and just assume that the Materialist interpretation is the right one here. Don't be so sure.

I suggest that you're in a life because you're the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience-stories...which there timelessly are. That reason why you're in a life has nothing whatsoever to do with your parents. If Mr. & Mrs. ________ had been celibate or infertile, or had never met, you'd still have been born into a life. ...as a person similar to the one you now are, in a world similar to this one.

Of course you'll disagree with that if you're a Materialist.

But no, that doesn't let your parents off the hook. Socially-speaking, n the context of this physical world, they are responsible for your being here. ...and probably at least partly for you being the way you are (without claiming that we're only the product of our environment).

But, in any case, if you reproduce, then you're adding to the Earth's overpopulation, with all of its adverse consequences. There's no metaphysical way around that, no matter what your metaphysics is.

Michael Ossipoff

I have defined all of the terms you have questioned and pointed out phenomenological differences between reality and your hypothetical systems.

.
You haven’t non-circularly told what you mean by “reality”, “exist” or “actual”. You’ve said that it has to do with things that act on something or someone. Characters and things in a story act on other characters and things in that story. Oh, but you mean things that actually and really act on other things. Do you see the circularity?
.
You didn’t non-circularly answer my questions.
.
Look, we’ve both stated our positions, arguments and answers. Now it’s time to agree to disagree on metaphysics.
.
But, in your most recent reply to me, you said something that I more nearly agree with, when you said:
.

As for explaining the existence of contingent reality, sound deduction shows that it is maintained in being by a necessary Being whose essence is its existence.

.
I was sure that you were a Materialist, but evidently not.
.
Essence that’s existence. I agree with that too. Benevolence.
.
What you said sounds like it’s related to the Cosmological Argument. Those arguments aren’t what convinced me (…but they’re interesting, and I don’t claim for sure that there’s no validity to them). For me, it was a matter of an impression that what-is, is good, and that there’s good intent behind what is, and that Reality is Benevolence itself. I’ve posted about reasons that point to that impression.
.
Additionally, aside from those reasons, I suggest that Faith can be justified by a discussion that maybe somewhat resembles the Ontological Argument, but is simpler and more modest.
.
But, for one thing, I agree with those who don’t use the word “Being” in that context. We aren’t talking about one of various beings, sharing that noun-description with them.
.
Here’s another disagreement with your position:
.
In earlier times, such as Medieval times, there was a desire and perceived need to invoke God as the direct explanation for the events of the physical world, and it was considered heresy to speak of physics as the direct explanation for physical events, for example. Later, it was found that, things that happen in the physical world are related to eachother by physics, and it became understood that that in no way contradicted religion.
.
Physics describes how things happen in the physical world, and all that happens in the physical world is consistent with physics. That doesn’t contradict religion. God didn’t need to contravene physics to make there be the Earth.
.
Same with evolution. I’ve told Fundamentalists that they needn’t believe that God contravened His own physical law when creating us. Why couldn’t it have been done via physical law?
.
Well, now we have the same situation with regard to metaphysics. I say that all in the describable realm can internally be directly related explained, by describable metaphysics, in terms of the rules and starting-point of describable metaphysics (which I’ll say more about below). That doesn’t contradict religion either. The describable world doesn’t need assumptions or brute-facts. It’s (internally) self-sufficient, like it’s subset, the physical world. Internally self-consistent, with its internal relations explained with respect to itself and describable metaphysics’ rules, and whatever basic starting-point it has.
.
Just like physics, describable metaphysics, the matter of what describably is, is self-consistent and explained in terms of its own rules and starting-point.
.
I don’t claim or believe that describable metaphysics describes all of Reality. I don’t believe that Reality is describable, explainable, or lends itself to words and concepts.
.
But, internally, within itself, the describable realm is describable by its describable metaphysics. The only thing that it doesn’t explain is the whole reason for it. But it has or is a thorough explanation and description of its things and events with respect to its own rules and starting point.
.
What rules and starting-point am I talking about, with regard to the describable realm and describable metaphysics?
.
The rules consist of logic.
.
The starting-point? There uncontroversially are abstract implications (as I’ve been describing) in the sense that we can refer to and speak of them.
.
Could there have not been abstract implications? I’ve discussed that many times in previous threads. It’s enough now to just say that previous discussion showed that there couldn’t have not been abstract facts, including abstract implications and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications.
.
The describable realm is internally explained and described via logic and that uncontroversial starting-point.
.
In that sense, the describable realm is self-sufficient and complete. …explaining everything wihin and about itself. …even though of course it has nothing to say about Reality, or the describable realm’s relation to Reality.
*********************
Just as God didn’t need to contravene physics to create the Earth or the animals that are us, neither did He need to contravene logic to make there be what describably is.
*********************
.
You’re invoking the necessary causeless cause to directly explain why there’s the objective physical reality that you believe in. I disagree with that, just as I disagree with the Medieval claim that physical law was contravened to create us.
.
Your objective physical reality is a brute-fact. …a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact.
.
The describable world doesn’t need that.
.
The metaphysics that I propose and have been describing needs no assumptions or brute-fact.
.
Your objectively-existent physical world is a brute-fact, and your brute-fact is what I disagree with. What describably is, is self-explanatory within its own descriptive realm. …self-explanatory only as far as it goes within is own descriptive-realm, but nevertheless self-explanatory within that realm.
.
…as is the physical world.
.
None of that contradicts what you said about the Causeless Cause, all of what-is, Reality.
.
Describable metaphysics can’t say anything about Reality, and, about that we’d best take Wittgenstein’s final advice.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Allow me to complain about this mischaracterization. You haven't broken the rules, but the idea you've been unusually polite by the standards of this forum isn't remotely true. So, you have the right to ignore schopenhauer1's complaints about you, but please don't bring the rest of us into it. — Baden

I didn't mean to compare myself to written theoretical guidelines. I meant to compare myself to actual conduct.

Undeniably, easily-demonstrably, with respect to the mid-range of the politeness-scale here, I'm far to the polite side of it.

Unprovably, but plausibly, I suggest that I'm on the polite side of the mean, median and mode too.

Of course the evaluation of politeness, and especially an estimate of its mean and median, is subjective and definitely doesn't lend itself to agreement.

Michael Ossipoff

Again, scornful characterizations of my arguments are not going to get you anywhere in this debate. — schopenhauer1

Oh I don't know...The whole point is to answer what someone said, not necessarily to convince them. Did you think that anyone would consider that even a remote possibility?

One sometimes just answers for the benefit of visitors to the forum, for example.

Do you think of it as some sort of call to arms.. that I must defend my honor?

I throw down the gauntlet ! :D

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're too sensitive. You see attack-manners and rudeness where there is none. I merely answered things that you said. By the usual standards of this forum, I've been unusually polite. You're the one with all the individual criticism. You're the one who posts messages about a person instead of about the topic.

Why didn't you get this upset when someone said something like, "it isn't the world that's broken--It's you." ?

I don't think I'm sounding more critical than Posty McPostface.is.

You'd benefit by listening to what he says. ...but of course you never listen.

What's your objective?

You mean why bother? As I said, it isn't to convince you, but only to post answers, for the benefit of anyone who is interested in answers to your pessimism. (Is it rude to call it pessimism?)

I guess I answer just in case someone else has felt perceptions similar (but genuine) to what you're saying.

But, I have to admit that, more and more, I doubt your sincerity about what you're saying. That's why I used the word "Schtick".

Michael Ossipoff

Engage? Meaningful conversation? I guess that's what you call your oblivious interminable repetition of your same old assertions.

It's more of a never-ending monologue than a meaningful conversation

Michael Ossipoff