Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Ostronomos]

The Axioms of Reality:

1.] Reality is the set of all things that exist.

2.] Reality is reduced to axioms.

3.] Reality is One.

4.] Reality is real.

5.] Reality is logical.

6.] Reality is therefore a mind.

7.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. However, reality is not matter.

 

[Ostronomos]

Alright. If that's how you're going to respond, I have my own response to your post.

God genuinely was proven using logic. There are 5 proofs for the existence of God; the teleological argument, the moral argument, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, and the transcendental argument.

All of these arguments have been disproven since they were first made. The most recent one to be disproven was the Argument from Design, which has been irrelevant since the Theory of Evolution. That's why evolution marks the time when serious philosophers began to transfer from Deism to atheism.

No, logic is not reality. It is an abstraction of reality. To treat logic itself as real would be "mistaking the map for the territory," which is an informal fallacy. It's also quite close to magical thinking, which is when we infer an implausible causal relationship between mental contents and the external world. It would be quite illogical to believe that logic is reality.

However, I do think that reality operates according to its own logic. The natural world is rife with mathematical patterns. Also, the natural laws can be conceptualized as computer algorithms so well that we can create virtual simulations of nature to make scientific predictions.

I disagree with this definition of reality. I think Abraham Lincoln's life is real, even though it no longer exists, for instance.

Instead, I propose that "reality" is another name for the external world. That is, the world which is evident to our sensory perceptions. It contains all things that exist, yes, but it is not the set of all things that exist. That would be a rather improper use of set theory, and it would count as a "persuasive definition," which is another informal fallacy.

How is that?

As an epistemic rationalist, I'm inclined to nitpick at how you conflate hard logic and empiricism. Personally, I think it's rationalism that is important, not empiricism, although that does include some "empirical evidence" during the process of a posteriori reasoning. I think there's a difference between rationally analyzing empirical data and being an outright empiricist, though.

Also, if you were an empiricist, I think you would almost certainly be an atheist.

I would never for a second convert to the evils of atheism. *Staff Edit*

Empiricism tends to go hand-in-hand with apistevism; if there is no empirical evidence for the existence of something, then an empiricist would say that it is unreasonable to believe in its existence. Since there's no empirical evidence for gods, and even you are mostly trying to give analytical deductive arguments rather than empirical inductive arguments for a God, the empiricist would have to not believe in the existence of gods. If you are without any belief in gods, then you are an atheist under the common use of that word.

As far as hard logic is concerned, God has been disproven for nearly two centuries now.

If only that were true I would entertain it. So why aren't I entertaining it? I certainly champion truth, and since God is truth, I do not entertain it.

It only further proves that you have a hidden agenda of evil, which leads me to ask, are you part of the AF cult of evil atheists who tried to prove materialism until they were defeated in argument?

Depending on how the song was playing, this is more likely to be either apophenia or an auditory hallucination.

Apophenia is very common as far as supernatural beliefs go. It's used to find signs from gods and spirits across many different belief systems. It tends to be closely associated with magical thinking, which I mention earlier.

I am a little concerned here, because you're showing signs of eccentric magical thinking, apophenia, and maybe even hallucinatory experiences. I suspect that your line, "IT WAS ALSO DEMOSTRATED THAT REALITY IS THE SET OF ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. THEREFORE QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTIONS HINT AT A REALITY FROM BEYOND WHICH THEY ENTER INTO THIS ONE FROM THE ASTRAL REALM." may represent a form of non-logical inference beyond what one would expect in an ordinary sample.

Personally, I have found therapy and psychiatry to be extremely helpful when I've felt confused about reality. Have you considered making an appointment with a mental health clinician? You might find it helpful, too.

Another example of your attempt to undermine the fact that God is real, in spite of my noble attempt to prove it in the caps lock above.

My belief in God does not rest on mere faith, but logic and empiricism. Your belief in atheism rests on faith, not logic. If you tell me otherwise, then I would know your intent is malicious. Of this I am 100% certain.

You appear to be targeting me because you know I am a threat to the false worldview of atheism. *Staff Edit*

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Axioms of Reality:

1.] Reality is the set of all things that exist.

2.] Reality is reduced to axioms.

That is a bit circular already. The second is a throw away statement.

3.] Reality is One.

And we go further off the tracks. What do you mean by "One"? When you use terms, especially a term with an upper case letter at the beginning of it for no know reason you need to be able to define it. What does this even mean?

4.] Reality is real.

Okay, more circularity.

5.] Reality is logical.

I am not sure if reality is "logical". In what sense? How? I would simply state that reality simply is.

6.] Reality is therefore a mind.

Whoa!!! HOLD YOUR HORSES PARDNER!!! Okay, now you have gone off the deep end it seems. How do you justify that conclusion? That appears to be a huge non sequitur.

7.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. However, reality is not matter.

Wait, what? How do you even justify introducing God into this non-argument? Is that supposed to be some sort of conclusion? To what point?

Do you think that you just proved anything?

 

[Ella S.]

I would never for a second convert to the evils of atheism. *Staff Edit*

I internally facepalmed at this. Didn't you just complain about another user personally attacking you rather than actually addressing anything you said?

If only that were true I would entertain it. So why aren't I entertaining it? I certainly champion truth, and since God is truth, I do not entertain it.

Sounds more like a tautological excuse to shut down discussion than an actual counter-argument to me.

It only further proves that you have a hidden agenda of evil, which leads me to ask, are you part of the AF cult of evil atheists who tried to prove materialism until they were defeated in argument?

Do you seriously believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a part of a hidden cult of evil?

I'm going to be honest with you, there is only one other atheist from this forum that I speak to on a regular basis and most of our conversations are about how to be better people and how to better find, understand, and share truth. That's pretty far from a cult of evil atheists trying to prove materialism.

I have taken materialist positions in debates, but that's mostly for the purpose of testing the position through debate. I'm looking to see if other people can successfully poke holes in materialism. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm still open to the possibility. You're very antagonistic towards materialism, so I'm thinking you might have a decent rebuttal of it, but all you've given me so far is non sequitur and rhetoric.

Another example of your attempt to undermine the fact that God is real, in spite of my noble attempt to prove it in the caps lock above.

I'm not trying to undermine anything. I'm merely trying to provide a more likely explanation, like I said. It could be that your description is strong evidence of God, but you've failed to demonstrate that. Quite frankly, your so-called "attempt to prove" the fact that God is real was incredibly weak and illogical, so it doesn't even need me to undermine it. I'm doing you a favor by pointing out what should be obvious to you, because I want to have an actual discussion.

My belief in God does not rest on mere faith, but logic and empiricism. Your belief in atheism rests on faith, not logic. If you tell me otherwise, then I would know your intent is malicious. Of this I am 100% certain.

You shouldn't be 100% of anything that's the product of inductive or a posteriori reasoning, such as what my intent is or what my beliefs are based on.

Maybe 99.5% certain. Maybe 99.95% certain. Not 100%. That's a statistical impossibility.

This is also intentionally putting me in a no-win scenario. It demonstrates that you are being completely illogical in this discussion, because you are not amenable to any logical counter-arguments to your position. You won't even entertain the idea that someone could disagree with you for good-faith reasons and you refuse to even address most of what I'm saying.

All you're doing is accusing me of being evil, which isn't a counter-argument. It's a way to avoid having an actual conversation. Why is that? Is it because you have no real argument for your position? That's what it seems like to me.

You appear to be targeting me because you know I am a threat to the false worldview of atheism. *Staff Edit*

I'm not targeting you. I'm discussing theological concepts with you in the "Theological Concepts" section of the forum. If you don't want people to respond to your posts in a public forum, then don't post in a public forum.

I'm genuinely not threatened by you, I promise. I am getting a bit bored of the fact that you seem incapable of or unwilling to forming a coherent, well-reasoned argument, so if I stop responding, that's probably why.

 

[Yazata]

The Axioms of Reality:

What makes them "axioms"? That Christopher Langan has pronounced them such?

1.] Reality is the set of all things that exist.

That's just replacing "reality" with "exist" and hence "existence". Doesn't look very informative to me unless you can give some persuasive account of what 'existence' is. (I don't think you can.)

Where does your axiom leave propositions about the past (and controversially, the future)? What about modal stuff like possibilities?

'If I drop this glass, it will probably break.' What are we to make of statements like that, which seemingly can be true, even if the glass is never dropped? (That raises the issue of whether there might be 'laws of physics' that have never been manifested, since the necessary conditions for that manifestation have never pertained. Suitable energies or whatever.)

What are we to make of propositions like 'There are no scissors in my drawer'? The absence of scissors in the drawer would seem to be real even though it's the non-existence of something there rather than the existence that makes it true.

2.] Reality is reduced to axioms.

That looks like a category error. It isn't reality that's reduced to axioms, it isn't even statements about reality. Axioms would only seem to apply to deductive inferences based on some of those statements. They are just the assumptions upon which we base the inference.

3.] Reality is One.

Maybe. One word 'reality' encompasses everything that exists (or used to exist or might exist, or something). But why must we assume that the word 'reality' names some quasi-divine existent? Maybe reality is simply an abstract set that collects together a multitude of things.

4.] Reality is real.

Isn't that circular?

5.] Reality is logical.

Maybe. I guess that it appears to behave in accordance with logic as far as we are concerned.

6.] Reality is therefore a mind.

How does that follow? Isn't there a hidden premise in there that anything that is logical must be a mind? That's going to be hard to justify I think. You would be on a stronger footing if you just said 'Reality is therefore orderly'.

7.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. However, reality is not matter.

You haven't convinced me, Ostro.

 

[Ella S.]

If that were the case I think there would be even fewer theists among scientists todaym

Not all scientists are consistent empiricists. Scientists are more likely to be consistent empiricists, which is why fewer of them are theists, though.

If there is empirical evidence for any kind of god, then go ahead and submit it to a scholarly journal. It would revolutionize the academic sciences. That hasn't happened yet, because no such evidence has been found.

Richard Dawkins doesn't even go as far as to say disproven.

Yet all of the 5 proofs of God have been disproven through counter-argument. I don't care what Richard Dawkins has to say in the matter.

I'm concerned by your behaviors by playing armchair shrink and telling someone to seek psychology help over holding a belief that doesn't inherently indicate a psychological disturbance. Doing that does real damage amd harm, it's unethical, and this is probably one of the worst examples of it I've seen here.
You might as well have told that member to seek help for using all caps.

What an uncharitable interpretation of my post. Way to stigmatize mental health.

I agree, holding beliefs don't inherently indicate psychological disturbance. Eccentric and bizarre word salad, paranoid accusations, grandiose views of oneself as a genius without equal, mentions of hallucinatory experiences, and impaired reality-testing are potential symptoms of mental illness, though.

I'm not making a diagnosis. I'm pointing out that they might need help. Maybe I'm reading too much into what they're saying, sure, but it would be irresponsible of me to not recommend seeing someone, from what I've seen. Let the actual mental health professionals decide whether there's a further diagnosis to be had.

I've had people point out to me when I was being unreasonably paranoid in the past, which I sought help for and discovered was hypervigilance from PTSD. I'm not accusing Ostronomos of being insane to write off what they're saying, even though they're doing that to everyone else.

Do you even actually care? Serious question.

ETA: And you think it's harmful and unethical to advise people to seek help when you're concerned about their health? Really?

 

[shunyadragon]

Reminds me, Jane Goodall believes chimps have a sense of spirituality.

They possibly do, but I do question the spirituality of humans based on their behavior.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ETA: And you think it's harmful and unethical to advise people to seek help when you're concerned about their health? Really?

When the behavior isn't indicative of symptom or illness, yes.

Not all scientists are consistent empiricists. Scientists are more likely to be consistent empiricists, which is why fewer of them are theists, though.

No one is a consistent empiricist.

Yet all of the 5 proofs of God have been disproven through counter-argument.

No, they haven't.

I don't care what Richard Dawkins has to say in the matter.

You probably should regarding this subject. Science doesn't deal with proofs. That's math. God hasn't been disproven, and any decent empiricist, regardless of personal beliefs, understands why.

I agree, holding beliefs don't inherently indicate psychological disturbance. Eccentric and bizarre word salad, paranoid accusations, grandiose views of oneself as a genius without equal, mentions of hallucinatory experiences, and impaired reality-testing are potential symptoms of mental illness, though.

Not when it's presented as a run of the mill religious experience. Believing a god influenced a song on the radio is no different than the Western idea of what Karma is.

I'm not making a diagnosis. I'm pointing out that they might need help. Maybe I'm reading too much into what they're saying, sure, but it would be irresponsible of me to not recommend seeing someone, from what I've seen. Let the actual mental health professionals decide whether there's a further diagnosis to be had.

You're telling someone to seek medical attention over what appears to be a fairly typical religious experience.

 

[DNB]

You might want to step off the Bible then friend.

Well, there you have it - the comprehension between those that believe that we came from monkeys, and those whose thoughts are able to transcend the secular and physical realms.

 

[DNB]

Those are some interesting beliefs that you have, DNB. Of course, everything you've stated isn't an absolute fact but merely your personal Christian beliefs.

Why is everyone absolutely incapable of differentiating between evidence and personal opinions?
I offered anthropological facts.

 

[DNB]

Do you not understand your own phrase "that's it" ?

Did you?

 

[DNB]

And what qualification do those people lack?

Perception and sound judgement.

 

[DNB]

Did you mean apes? We are apes. That's not an opinion, it's simply a fact - albeit one you dismiss. Not sure how monkeys got into this.


"In fact, not only did Darwin never propose that humans are descended from monkeys, but the very idea is erroneous."

- Did We Evolve From Monkeys? Darwin’s Misunderstood Theory | OpenMind

Maybe you're an ape, but not me.

 

[DNB]

To be fair, humans have been seeking all sorts of things since forever, and have believed in God, gods (many still do), all sorts of other similar (many still do), and it probably has only been in the recent tens of thousands of years that most have settled on the one God concept, even if they can't always agree as to anything appertaining to this God (and hence causing conflicts), with many of course not accepting any of this (and such growing). But I suppose you aren't really bothered as to events past ten thousand years or so ago, given that the Bible explains it all to you.

Of course it probably is more sensible to have the one God belief - with economy in mind - but your proof or evidence seems still lacking unless, as you seem to think, evidence simply abounds all around us on appearance alone - whilst also seemingly dismissing much that would contradict such - and particularly your aggressive negative attitude to science or anything coming from science. But such tends to be the defensive mechanism of someone afraid of or incapable of actually looking at any science.

The laws of science are factual, precise, predictable and have been invaluable for man to survive on this planet - because God architected it so.
My problem is not at all with science, but with myopic scientists who are incapable of drawing accurate conclusions based on the evidence before them.
It is the dilemma that exists between scientific fact and explanation, that separates the discerning mind from the blind and foolish secularist.
Both appreciate the significance of science, and employ it within their investigation. But one is limited to it and can't see beyond it, while the other understands that scientific laws and principles themselves are not random, and are derived from a greater mechanism and design.

 

[DNB]

And sorry to say, but we were modeled after something closer to its image.

Maybe you and your cohorts are, but not myself.
Thanks anyhow.

 

[DNB]

That's all we can ask. Keep your ears and your eyes open, and your mouth shut, and you might be amazed at what you can see and hear. "Let those who have ears to hear, hear."

You are the king of misinterpreting the Bible.
Not that I haven't seen worse, but you have no discipline in your hermeneutics.

 

[Ella S.]

When the behavior isn't indicative of symptom or illness, yes.

Now who's making a diagnosis? Shouldn't that be for actual professionals to decide?

No one is a consistent empiricist.

Some are more consistent than others.

No, they haven't.

You probably should regarding this subject. Science doesn't deal with proofs. That's math. God hasn't been disproven, and any decent empiricist, regardless of personal beliefs, understands why.

It's not just math. It's also logic, which is what the 5 proofs for God are based on, and they have been disproven in analytical philosophy for awhile now.

Science is not relevant to the question.

Not when it's presented as a run of the mill religious experience. Believing a god influenced a song on the radio is no different than the Western idea of what Karma is.

In isolation, if that's what's being described, yes, I agree.

That's stripped of context and ignores everything else I've been saying.

You're telling someone to seek medical attention over what appears to be a fairly typical religious experience.

By your own admission, you've been watching my posts, waiting for the right one to attack me for what you deem to be "unethical." Don't you think that might be skewing your interpretation of the situation a little bit, maybe?

That's a rhetorical question. I'm going to continue doing what I think is right, and you're free to stew in your vicious outrage.

 

[Windwalker]

You are the king of misinterpreting the Bible.

Says you. No, I know that Bible quite well. I just happen to understand it in ways that you aren't able to hear or see where you are at with everything.

Not that I haven't seen worse, but you have no discipline in your hermeneutics.

I don't? I'll bet I've been a student of it longer than you. Considering what I've seen of your hermeneutics, I'd say it's really more just repeating doctrines on your part and not really seeing with your own eyes yet. I mean seriously, you miss a lot of really obvious truths that are surprising to me. But I guess some don't dig much deeper than what they've been told. And that's fine. It's fine that is until they attempt to put down others who know more than them, that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you're an ape, but not me.

I see that you are still claiming to be a giraffe or maybe an ostrich. Maybe a penguin, you do seem a bit stiff at times.

 

[Secret Chief]

Did you?

Yes. Hence your subsequent post contradicted the first.