Religious Epistemology

Presumption of Atheism

Read 19191 times

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: There is at least one impossible fact
« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2019, 01:57:36 pm »
Creation requires a creator.  Pretty simple.  To recognize the necessity of God is not to say "God made it"; it's to say that every painting has a painter, and every building a builder, and every creation a creator.  Simple.  Absent God you have only absurdity, the notion that absolutely nothing creating everything.

Not if the initial condition of the Universe,"Creation," is uncaused and hence uncreated.
TP is correct, and the flaw of the theologians is substituting imagination for science. God can be proved, but to advanced souls there is no need. They see the marks of His work in their souls. Scientists will no doubt continue to deny the possibility of a Creator, backing their ideas by big mathematical tomes. Yet in the end, the theologians will deny God too.

1

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: There is at least one impossible fact
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2019, 09:19:55 pm »
Do you think that the things and events in this world are arbitrary? Then there must be a reason for everything that happens, even at the most minuscule level. This is the same as saying that Reason itself is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

2

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: There is at least one impossible fact
« Reply #62 on: August 30, 2019, 12:26:51 pm »
Do you think that the things and events in this world are arbitrary? Then there must be a reason for everything that happens, even at the most minuscule level. This is the same as saying that Reason itself is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
Reason exists in (some) minds, not in nature. Causes and effects are not a branch of logic. To admit things are caused and are not arbitrary, is not the same as saying Reason causes them. You appear hung up in a lingual bind, adding extra elements to the definition of “arbitrary,” insisting if it is not arbitrary then it must be reason. A raw cause is not rational. You’re also mixing up two definitions of “reason,” as a cause, or mental faculty.

It is apparent that I am unable to describe my position satisfactorily to you, and you are unable to describe your position satisfactorily to me. I continue nevertheless to maintain my position, describing it various ways, while you are only able to describe your position one way, unable to find a single cogent example. Your mind is rejecting the principle that when something can only be described one way, it is probably not real. Conversely one could state the principle that when people are discussing real things, for the purposes of clarification it is often necessary to describe them in several ways, until the point is better understood. Other people than myself, who accept this principle, might view you as an illogical or irrational person, or as I have said, one who is caught in a false abstraction, not assigning realistic meaning to his words. So even were there something real behind your argument that logic is a ruler or controller, this controller has failed to bring logic in you. Then you have to explain how when logic controls everything, some people become illogical. And if there are people who accept the principle I relate, why are they different?

To be fair, let me try to summarize your argument so far, that seems to be that logic is the source of stability in the world. Attempting to find an example for your idea logic is the world controller, you first expressed amazement that the world abided while you closed your eyes. Next you cited a mathematical paper by a lone individual unsupported as yet by other scientists, arguing that some aspects of quantum theory correspond with certain logical propositions. Next, while implying those who didn’t agree with you might not be sane, you pointed to the general agreement among people about the material realities. So in essence you saying logic is a controller, without being able to communicate what that might mean, i.e. saying a thing in one way only, a sign that what you see may be unreal.

The most pressing argument against you appears to be that the humans are in constant disagreement about everything that is not legislated, and usually there too. To be in disagreement means that logic is not the same in every mind, i.e. even did logic control the material realities, it has failed in the living entities. You also posited that someone, not yourself, may eventually provide a theory that the bodies and personalities were constructed by logic, at the same time failing to admit, evidently from lack of conceptual power and logic in your own mind, that war, crime and opposition generally are signs logic fails among humans. As you point to logic as the putative world controller, you have established no difference from the theists positing a God of their imagination. You are taking this by faith, and it might be shown generating this idea merely to be different.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 12:28:27 pm by jayceeii »