Can it not exist?

[Clara Tea]

If the detection of spiritual matters was anywhere close to being as consistent as the detection of Dark Matter, the whole issue wouldn't be subject to debate any longer.

What if God is intentionally hiding?

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't really have a fully formed theory about what the word 'exists' means. But I guess that as an initial approximation I'm inclined to think of something that exists as having its own mind-independent reality. Fictional characters are obviously a problem-case. I guess that I'd say that Sherlock Holmes wouldn't exist if there were no minds capable of understanding Conan Doyle's stories. All there would be is squiggles of ink on pieces of paper.



I don't want to embrace what appears to me to be the idealistic premise implicit there. The way I see it the mind-independent reality of certain things (those that exist) is in no way dependent on what we can or can't detect.

What might arguably be dependent on what we can and can't detect is our knowledge of those things. I'm a bit leery of that idea since we can seemingly know of things by inference, as well as by direct detection. But that might still arguably depend on the detections from which we draw our inferences.



I have the greatest respect for and interest in Aristotle. He was probably the greatest thinker in all of human history, judging from his surviving works. But that doesn't mean that I accept all of his views. Aristotle was basically inventing many of his subjects de novo for the first time. He was the first logician, the first scientific biologist and many more. Many of the departments in our universities address subjects that Aristotle first defined. Others followed after and expanded on the intellectual subjects he pioneered, but that doesn't detract from his creativity and vision in initially inventing the subjects. But that's neither here nor there, since nothing I wrote is dependent on Aristotelian philosophy.



The Principle of Sufficient Reason didn't originate with Aristotle. Earlier philosophers like Anaximander and Plato knew it. It didn't culminate with Aristotle either. History's biggest proponent of the Principle of Sufficient Reason was probably Leibniz.

I'm undecided on it and certainly am not wedded to it. I was just pointing out how it can be used in an argument for a Deist-style 'God', even if we have no direct or indirect way to detect such a deity.

Contra the Principle of Sufficient Reason I'm willing to entertain the possibility that entirely anomic states of affairs might sometimes exist, states of affairs inexplicable by and perhaps even inconsistent with plugging earlier physical states into the "laws of physics". But I'm not convinced that random stray states like that actually occur, I just don't want to close off the possibility by fiat.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason does seem to be implicit in the practice of science today. We don't just accept biological species as givens, instead like Darwin we want to know how species originate. If we detect a big flash of light a few miles away, followed by a loud concussion, we want to know what exploded and why. If we see a bird soar overhead, we don't just conclude that it's part of the essence of birds to fly. We want to know about the aerodynamics of how birds do it.

Perhaps it's inherent in human cognition. I'm not sure that my dog thinks in terms of explaining things. Whatever she encounters is simply how things are.



It does seem to lead to infinite regresses. We can ask 'why' repeatedly. Every time we get an answer (our sufficient reason) we can ask 'why' about that reason. That's not a contradiction though, strictly speaking. Though how some theists use the principle to terminate in God certainly seems to be. I agree with you about that.

But isn't it also a contradiction to combine "a thing cannot be the sufficient reason for its own existence" with an attack on use of the principle of sufficient reason to hypothesize an explanation other than itself? The path between that Scylla and Charybdis looks to be exceedingly narrow. There might arguably be problems either way.



The same could be said about mathematics which seems to ultimately be based on intellectual intuition. I can't explain the seeming objectivity of mathematics, but in some of my moods I tend towards mathematical Platonism, which obviously is a metaphysical position.

I personally think that the metaphysical questions are the deepest and most fundamental questions we can ask about pretty much anything. I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in a position to answer those questions. But until we can, the rest of our vaunted understanding will seemingly float without foundations.

And I don't think that we will ever make much progress in the philosophy of religion if we are unwilling to consider the metaphysical issues.



How does one determine truth and falsity in matters like these?

When I was working on an associate degree in philosophy, I learned that Socrates was the founder, but wrote nothing, Plato was his student, and wrote all of the things attributed to Socrates, as well as his own works, and Aristotle was Plato's student. Aristotle stood on the shoulders of giants, but I think that Socrates was the greatest and first.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Believe that your wife loves you and won't run off with the pool boy? Believe that a car will stop for you at a stop sign? The world would be a very dangerous place if we could not believe in anyone. We live our lives with beliefs that we can't prove. Is it too much to ask to believe just one more thing (God)?

Yes, it is too much to ask. It requires faith to believe in gods. It does not require faith to believe that that which experience has shown is likely will happen again. Acting on incomplete information is common in life. Understanding that and thinking in terms of probability is not faith based thought. Faith comes into it when one just decides to choose what is true, and believes and assumes it, without sufficient support.

Let me ask. We see the effects "god" causes for the good or for the bad, and we see how it helps people while the same belief does harm. So, if something exists because we can detect the effect it causes, why wouldn't we say it/god exist since it follows the same line of reasoning?

We don't see the effects of a god belief because there is a god. We see the effects of a god belief because there is a belief in gods. We see the effects of that belief, not of any god. No god is needed for there to be a belief in gods or an effect due to that belief.

 

[Polymath257]

What if God is intentionally hiding?

Then there is no difference between that and non-existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you not understand the meaning of wisdom, insight or perception?

Perception is detecting something with the senses. Insight is a type of intuition leading to new ways of thinking about something. And wisdom is being able to to make good choices.

None of those have anything to do with deities.

 

[Polymath257]

Logically, it is safer to walk down the middle of a road, rather than walk on a sidewalk. This is because only a maniac would drive down a sidewalk, and you don't want to be run over by a maniac. Whereas, sane drivers would stop for you in the road.

Logic can be used to argue many points, even if those points don't seem to make any sense.

Which is why logical consistency of an idea is not enough to show its veracity. Simply being unable to prove something wrong does not make it right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That reason and logic matters, is not reason or logic.

It can be if that belief is based in experience and evidence. Have reason and logic ever been of value to you? They have to me, and that's why they matter. What could be more reasonable than valuing a helpful tool?

Of course, one could also believe that reason and logic matter by faith. Maybe they read it in a holy book and believed what they read without any other reason to believe it. In such a person's case, your statement is correct, but not in the case of a person whose beliefs are drawn from the proper application of reason to evidence.

They also have subjective beliefs, which are without reason, logic and evidence.

Mine are. Cooked broccoli tastes bad to me. Every time I taste it, I get this unpleasant experience that I understand is of my body and mind's making, and though a truth for me, is not a truth for many others, who experience it differently. It is eminently reasonable and logical for me to assume that if I put that cooked broccoli into my mouth and chew it, that it will result in an observable and repeatably bad gustatory experience for me. What is unreasonable and illogical is to ignore that subjective belief and eat the broccoli hoping that it will taste good this time.

Now give objective evidence for the fact, that it is ridiculous claims. Or your claim is ridiculous.

You don't see the irony in that comment? Did you not just declare what you just did ridiculous when somebody else did it?

It is not ridiculous to make a claim without providing objective evidence. It may be ridiculous to expect a critical thinker to accept that claim if it is unevidenced, but that might not be one's purpose in making it.

That is just your opinion.

All declarative statements are "just" opinions, such as the one you just made, and the one I'm making now. Some opinions are correct, and can be shown to be. Calling them "just opinions" does not put them on the same footing as wrong ideas or not-even-wrong ideas (unfalsifiable claims), which your use of the word "just" implies.

You said, "spiritual practice is not based on human logic, you have to put it aside."

What he said was, "You sound like a Q-anon supporter... they have absolutely zero evidence for their ridiculous claims... they just feel that they have a deep intuitive 'knowledge' that they're true. People can convince themselves of absolutely ANYTHING if they simply abandon logic and reasonable thinking."

His opinion is mine as well, and it likely the opinion of everyone who is aware of the conspiratorial thinking of these extremist groups and its basis in unsupported belief, as well as everyone who that anything can be believed by faith.

He's also telling you that your ideas are also faith-based if you come to them by putting reason aside. The critical thinker recognizes that there are two kinds of belief, that arrived at through the proper understanding of evidence (justified belief), and all other belief, which being unjustified must be believed by faith to be believed. These are not the same thing.

I want to repeat a trope here on the topic of some people being unaware that others can know things with practical certainty using reason. There are people who don't really know what critical thinking is or what it can do for those who have mastered it. They are unaware that a disciple for processing evidence exists that reliably churns out correct ideas, by which I mean generalizations about how reality works that allow one to successfully predict future outcomes. Such people assume that all opinions are arrived at the same way, and are equal, because they believe opinions can't be correct. They're all just guesses. Just opinions.

On that note, I think that I'll watch TV. I'll press the TV remote, and the TV will turn on (and I have faith that it will because it has). Many don't know how a TV works (inside), but I do. They have faith that it works, and, when they buy a new TV, they have faith that it will work too.

I don't use the word faith to mean justified belief for just this reason: the equivocation or ambiguity that arises when one calls both justified and unjustified belief by the same name, faith. To believe that the remote or TV will probably work based on the last 100 times that it was tried and did work is not unjustified belief like believing that the TV remote will protect one from evil spirits. Calling them both faith leads to ambiguity and the conflation of distinct ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It can be if that belief is based in experience and evidence. Have reason and logic ever been of value to you? They have to me, and that's why they matter. What could be more reasonable than valuing a helpful tool?

Of course, one could also believe that reason and logic matter by faith. Maybe they read it in a holy book and believed what they read without any other reason to believe it. In such a person's case, your statement is correct, but not in the case of a person whose beliefs are drawn from the proper application of reason to evidence.



Mine are. Cooked broccoli tastes bad to me. Every time I taste it, I get this unpleasant experience that I understand is of my body and mind's making, and though a truth for me, is not a truth for many others, who experience it differently. It is eminently reasonable and logical for me to assume that if I put that cooked broccoli into my mouth and chew it, that it will result in an observable and repeatably bad gustatory experience for me. What is unreasonable and illogical is to ignore that subjective belief and eat the broccoli hoping that it will taste good this time.



You don't see the irony in that comment? Did you not just declare what you just did ridiculous when somebody else did it?

It is not ridiculous to make a claim without providing objective evidence. It may be ridiculous to expect a critical thinker to accept that claim if it is unevidenced, but that might not be one's purpose in making it.


...

Okay, I get you now. You can differentiate between subjective and objective differently than some other people do. You and I are maybe not that different after all.

 

[F1fan]

No, your analogy was incorrect, for both are aware of the truth. Dave just presses his luck (he's not denying the existence of the threat),
My point was, that in order to argue the matter of truth, there's a subjectivity in who will get the answer correct - wisdom and perception allows one to discern the facts more accurately than another. What one does with that knowledge is a different issue.

It's not truth, it is potential outcomes and consequences. Mature people calculate risks differently than immature folks. Bad consequences don't always happen, it's just more likely with more risks.

Can you admit that you're actually the one employing conjecture?

Not when I'm addressing a theists claims that not only have no evidence, but are also inconsistent with what we know of reality. the conjecture is on the believer like yourself. That I offer a more realistic and factual alternative does not mean religious claims get a free pass.

Do you not know what ambiguous means?

That you should be unsure your religious beliefs are true given the lack of evidence? Theists often refer to their gods, why should we accept these assumptions?

 

[F1fan]

The same with vaccines and all the benefits. The advances in biology can be used to make better vaccines or better bio-weapons. Both choices are politics in the end.
Science can be likened to a hammer. How you use it, has nothing to do with it in itself. So stop treating science like a good hammer!!!

Science is the manufacturer of hammers. You're trying to vilify science for some reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is the manufacturer of hammers. You're trying to vilify science for some reason.

Abd your are trying to glorify it.

 

[F1fan]

What if God is intentionally hiding?

Then God is to blame for those who lack belief, and theists still can't be sure any version of God exists.

God knows what it is doing, and is it helping, or causing problems?

 

[F1fan]

Abd your are trying to glorify it.

How does my comment suggest I'm glorifying it?

 

[F1fan]

Abd your are trying to glorify it.

And I notice you didn't dispute my comment, so you admit you are trying to vilify science for some reason? Do you have any self-reflection on why that is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does my comment suggest I'm glorifying it?

Because you listed inter-subjective benefits and dismissed negatives as politics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I notice you didn't dispute my comment, so you admit you are trying to vilify science for some reason? Do you have any self-reflection on why that is?

So you spotted that. Well, I was pressed for time and did it to fast. I should have written more and differently, so yes I made a mistake and I admit it.

 

[F1fan]

Because you listed inter-subjective benefits and dismissed negatives as politics.

Irony? You claimed I was glorifying science. That means intent and specific statements. What did I write that glories science?

A number of us have already acknowledged that science works with politics. But science as an endeavor has a strong set of ethics. But these ethics do have to be compromised for the sake of national policies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irony?

A number of us have already acknowledged that science works with politics. But science as an endeavor has a strong set of ethics. But these ethics do have to be compromised for the sake of national policies.

Yeah and of course it is something else than pure good science when science is used of "bad" purposes. Did you know that a form of math where improved upon to allow it for guns to be hit their target better. Of course that is not proper math, I know. Or the Internet or GPS.
Stop trying to differentiate science as an unique special human behavior. It is not and nor is religion.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah and of course it is something else than pure good science when science is used of "bad" purposes. Did you know that a form of math where improved upon to allow it for guns to be hit their target better.

And how is this bad for a police officer or the military? It isn't until the technology is used by criminals or the other side of war. This is just the way technology works, and it comes down to the mentality and beliefs of users.

Of course that is not proper math, I know. Or the Internet or GPS.

If the math works, then the math works.

Stop trying to differentiate science as an unique special human behavior. It is not and nor is religion.

Another accusation of something I didn't do. I notice you didn't back up your previous wrong accusation of me, instead just made another one. Can you back up this one, or will you make yet another wrong accusation?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And how is this bad for a police officer or the military? It isn't until the technology is used by criminals or the other side of war. This is just the way technology works, and it comes down to the mentality and beliefs of users.


If the math works, then the math works.


Another accusation of something I didn't do. I notice you didn't back up your previous wrong accusation of me, instead just made another one. Can you back up this one, or will you make yet another wrong accusation?

So we agree. The technology is neutral and like a hammer. It can be both used for "good" and "bad".