For all of us here, when we get to the end, all we have is trust in ourselves, our judgment, and our experience. Thinking about it now, maybe that is the fundamental fact of philosophy. — T Clark

Bold mine.

Western philosophy warns us against it. Trust in ourselves is often betrayed. Isn't this why logic and rationality are so vehemently emphasized? We need an unbiased and reliable mediator between us and reality. That role is currently played by logic and it's doing a fine job.

The Tao doesn't diminish the importance of reason and logic. In fact I think, owing to its poetic composition, it relies heavily on the reader's logic to infer the message the Tao wishes to convey.

That said, I think logic and rationality aren't enough to comprehend the whole of reality. Logic and reason fail at the scale of atoms and the universe. Didn't someone say ''if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.'' Also ''the heart has reasons the mind knows not''.

Only by means of its sense (how it relates to other words in a language system), since there is no actual or real referent — Cavacava

Some things about the definition of nothing:

The scope of nothing's definition is quite broad. At one end it could simply be the negation of something and at the other, it negates everything. The common thread between the two being the notion of absence.

If we take the former, negation of something, it's quite easy to comprehend e.g. take a box, remove its contents, and the meaning of nothing is adequately conveyed. Repeat this with other objects and the comprehension improves. The latter, negation of everything, can be understood simply by extending the particular understanding we can grasp to the general.

So, in my opinion, nothing as the negation of something, has referent(s) and nothing as the negation of everything is understood in terms of the former.

I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements

The three major religions are revelatory in nature. They weren't born out of deduction, rather, intuition seems to be it. Of course one could speculate that god could be an answer to ''who created this universe?'' It's only later, perhaps influenced by the Greeks, that logic had anything to do with religious beliefs. So, the point you're making can only be understood from a modern perspective.

That said, I think there's a bit of reasoning, as in logic, going on in religion e.g. miracles are/were offered as proof of the divine.

Anyways, my point is that many Christians who believe they have some direct access to 'God' are about as crazy as C.C Lewis said about someone who tried to claimed they where a fried egg — dclements

This is a judgment of ''craziness'' is based on our experience of the usual, mundane, run of the mill day to day existence AND the lack of experience in the spiritual. To assume the world is just what we can observe and understand is folly. To assume there's more to reality than just the physical is pure speculation. Only realize that a healthy skepticism is in order, even with well-established truths such as discovered through science.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable — Coldlight

I'm agnostic and so the OP pinches me where it hurts. I wouldn't want to hold self-defeating thoughts - it's so hard to find them and getting rid of them is even more difficult.

To get to the point...

I believe that, as of now, God is unknown. I'm sure you'll agree, because the lack of evidence for/against God rationally demands such an epistemic stance. It's like when you meet a person for the first time. Lacking evidence we can't say s/he is good or bad. Only when we've spent adequate time with that person, gathering evidence, can we make any form judgment.

As to the self-defeating nature of such a view, other posters have adequately explained that, in a nutshell, the agnostic doubt doesn't extend to all knowledge i.e. it doesn't entail global skepticism.

The other variety of agnosticism which is that god is unknowable is, in my humble opinion, rather difficult to hold. I don't know why and how god can be unknowable. However, we can cut some slack for those who hold such a view on the basis of the narure of god's definition. Some definitions of god are such that they put god beyond human comprehension e.g. god is a non-physical, infinite, etc. entity.

Also, think of an ant. The intricacies of the human mind, e.g. mathematics and music, are unknowable to it. Likewise is the epistemic relationship between man and god.

In short, for the present, the issue of god remains unresolved and the rational thing to do is withhold judgment.

I'll try to get back to you on that — Srap Tasmaner

Thanks...please share your insights

Discard the Ego — CasKev

To discard the ego is only possible at a certain level of consciousness. Is this success/failure I can't tell because if you look at it one way, ants and bees, egoless workers with only one thing on their mind - the colony, are very successful creatures but from another vantage point they're dumb.

Perhaps I'm distorting your POV. May be you don't really want to discard your ego. Rather you wish to moderate the ego's role in life.

If, instead, you actually look at nature instance by instance, you'll find overwhelming evidence of self-organization at every level can you think of, all of it happening without any sign of a conscious agent behind it all. — Srap Tasmaner

First, hank you for you interest in my argument.

However, as you directed me to point 2 of your post, note that the issue is whether the universe is designed or not. You can't say (I'm quoting you) "you'll find overwhelming evidence of self-organization at every level can you think of, all of it happening without any sign of a conscious agent behind it all.". Wouldn't that be begging the question?

The design argument infers the connection that order-->person through observation (perhaps falsely perceiving an absence of order in what hasn't been touched by a human). Nevertheless, man-made order has that unique quality that suffices to make the distinction man-made vs. natural. It's comparatively very recent, through science, that we've discovered that natural laws determine all the goings on in the physical realm. To add to this mounting evidence we only need to understand that man-made order is bound within the limits set by natural laws. From this we can infer a higher power, a greater being, whose laws are, to us, unbreakable.

agnostic — Sapientia

I'm agnostic.

Do you assume that because you don't get what I get, that it doesn't have value? — T Clark

No. No. I don't mean that at all. The Tao clicks with me too (not saying that I understand it well). I believe that there's more to reality than meets the eye. However, it worries me that such a view could be wishful thinking growing out of a fertile imagination, and that we know, bottomline, is self-deception.

Ok. Are you an atheist, theist or agnostic?

I'm sorry to burst the bubble here but I find the Tao Te Ching to be like a horoscope - ambiguous and vague enough to fool people into believing something which they really wouldn't.

So well written. Thanks.

In my humble opinion, violence can't be surgically removed from religion. This isn't the fault of religon because if one considers other categories such as politics, civilization, culture, geography, etc., we still find violence. I think violence is better associated with being human rather than one particular aspect of what it is to be one (in this case religion, Islam in particular). So, violence as a distinguishing feature of religion is a poor metric for the reasons I mentioned above.

That said, there's an important characteristic of religious violence which is very important to take note of. Whether Christian, Moslem, etc. religious violence is always used as a means to the true end which is peace. I don't know how far people will assent to this view but people always say my religion (whichever) is a religion of peace. It makes sense because, for example, had the crusades been successful worldwide we'd all be Christian and there would be peace, even if in a narrow sense. Does this fact about religious violence allay the percieved evil?

The PSR makes 2 claims

1. Every event has a cause
2. Every proposition has a reason

Surely 1 is in the realm of science

From what I read on anti-realism (not much sorry) it's got to do with the unobservable aspects of science. However there are plenty of mathematical laws that describe observable phenomena e.g. the flight of a rocket, the flow of water through a pipe, machines, etc.

They don't amount to what you'd need to make your argument work — Sapientia

What standards of evidence will convince you?

The question that's left is whether we do possess such a concept and possess it innately — Srap Tasmaner

I don't understand how the nature of the concept of order, as to its being innate or acquired, bears on my argument. Anyway I read up a bit and here's what I think you want to say...

First, given that the concept of order is acquired, we'd actually need to have observed some universes created by a Gods to generate the causal inference order-->God. Lacking this kind of observation we aren't justified to make this inference.

My answer: We're a part of this universe and this relationship, as far as I know, is not voidable. We can't just come out of this universe and observe other universes (if they exist) and look for the presence or absence of a creator.

So, this objection, good as it may seem, is, for all practical purposes, a dead end. It appears to make sense but is a pointless objection. When paleantologists and archeologists make inferences from fossils and ruins we don't object. We don't say that since they weren't there during the time of the dinosaurs or ancient mesopotamia their inferences are completely invalid. I agree some gaps will be filled by the imagination but that's how the game must be played. We don't have a choice. This objection to the design argument is like denying the Big Bang Theory because nobody saw it. There are reasonable recommendations/objections/proposals bit asking for the impossible is not one of them.

Second, given the universe is ordered, we lack a comparison (chaos?) to make sense of what we mean by order.

I think this is your main point. To that my simple reply is imagination. We are endowed with this powerful thinking tool that can contemplate almost anything, chaos being one of them. So, the issue of whether the concept of order is innate or acquired is moot because we can imagine the antithesis of order.

No problem. Thanks

For example, you talk of what you claim to be evidence accumulated by science, but I've explained the problem with that: hasty generalisation. — Sapientia

Hasty generalization?! All the mathematical laws written in scientific books and journals amount to nothing then?

You're falling back into making your earlier error where you mistake atheism for one version of it. — Sapientia

Thanks. I can see that I've overlooked the nuances of what atheism means. Yet, my concern is why (going back to my OP) atheists would infer a person from an ordered room and find it hard to do the same with the universe. This hasn't been adequately explained by you.

If nothing has no referent how do we define it?

The whole thing please

I think nothing is very important. To me it is the essence of possibility and thus without it nothing is possible. Take for example a page from a book and a blank sheet of A4. Which of the two has potential? Which of the two allows for possibilities? Indeed the page from a book may have value - wisdom, knowledge, joy, sorrow, etc. - but the blank page is brimming with infinite possibilities that can be actualized.

Thus nothing had to exist. Otherwise, the universe wouldn't have existed at all.

I am not saying we should not follow obligations as the economic system requires to not fall apart, but rather that it should not be something to force others into. — schopenhauer1

I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday.

We were children once. I don't know what happened?

If that's the case then science should be thrown out the window. After all it relies on induction (multiple observations confirming a principle stated in a scientific hypothesis), the same methodology I've used to support PSR.

Another thing...you haven't given me a counterexample that disproves the PSR.

Yet you're clinging to an argument that was refuted way back in the 18th century — Sapientia

The refutation is equally old and actually less plausible given the evidence we've accumulated through science.

Vast swathes of the universe remain unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything of this sort about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole? — Sapientia

I'm glad you brought that up. It applies in equal measure to atheism. In fact I'd go further and say it applies more to atheism than theism because the proof of theism may be found on Earth or on some remote star system but the proof of atheism has to include the entire universe.

And bringing up the god of scripture seems to be a red herring you employ to evade addressing the parts of the argument that are relevant to your argument here. — Sapientia

No red herring here. The strongest refutations are against the god of scripture. My God is only a creator, nothing more and nothing less. Where I found relevance I responded accordingly.

There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael

Notice that you've used "might" which is the truth - we don't know - and that's insufficient as evidence against PSR. I need stronger evidence than just doubt to deny a well established principle. Please read my reply to Terrapin Station below.

Give me something that actually supports the supposed principle. — Terrapin Station

A) 65 million years ago: The dinosaurs were killed because of an asteroid

B) Now: Terrorist attacks in the West [/i]because[/i] of ISIS ideology

And also EVERYTHING between A and B serves as evidence for the PSR.

The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

This is the 21st century. So many discoveries have been made in science and mathematical laws dominate them. Do you think if Philo or Demea knew what we know they'd be so confident in pronouncing judgments like that? Also, their arguments seem to be classic examples of argument from ignorance. I think we can let that slide because they were arguing with theists who believe in the god of scripture.

The issue is whether they are all types of one and the same thing and whether you can tell they are just by looking, from the moment you're born. — Srap Tasmaner

I can't understand you. Can you simplify?

Give me a counterexample to the PSR.

That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything — Michael

Give me a counterexample to the PSR.



Give me a counterexample to the PSR.

Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles? — Srap Tasmaner

To the extent that we can posit a creator of the principles.

there are principles at all — Srap Tasmaner

That's it.

Science does not assume some event is true just becasue it has not been falsified. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Perhaps sloppy writing is to blame. I don't mean to say PSR is simply assumed to be true. There's evidence that spans all of history - from the jurassic extinction 65 million years ago to the current terrorist attacks in Europe that are making headlines. All of these have a reason. Do you deny that? Given this degree of depth and breadth of evidence isn't it rational to believe in the PSR?

You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise you also haven't been able to provide a single counterexample to PSR.

Furthermore, this line of argument makes no sense we with respect to PSR. PSR is posited as a logical necessity. It's the force we supposedly need to make logical distinctions coherent. It doesn't have an empirical form to confirm of falsify through observation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As far as I can see PSR applies to two domains:

1.The physical world (for it says there's a cause for every event)

2.The other is the domain of rationality (propositions need evidence).

As is evident (from 1) PSR does have empirical form (which you're denying).

You reject PSR which means you reject 1 or 2 or both.

If you reject 1 then please provide a counterexample (I've asked this many times).

If you reject 2 then so much for rationality, the world, this forum, this argument we're having.

And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar — Srap Tasmaner

The similarity is the existence of principles that is common to both a house and the universe.

Perhaps you could be more specific — Srap Tasmaner

A house is organized - the plumbing, the lighting, the orientation, the layout, the furniture, etc. - all are designed for convenience, comfort, energy efficiency, structural stability, etc.

The universe is organized - there are laws that govern matter-energy and their interaction. Netwton's laws, Theory of Relativity, Laws of thermodynamics, etc.

Suppose I built a house and God created this universe.
Tell me exactly what those two acts have in common — Srap Tasmaner

The organization/order is what's common.

he may just like to hear himself talk — Thinker

Thanks for the compliment. :s

You had better, or your analogy doesn't get off the ground. — Srap Tasmaner

If it's all the same'' then they're identical, which is not the case. Surely you can see the difference between man-made order and natural order?! Natural law is immutable, so far - a round lead ball will sink in water everywhere, anytime. Man-made order can be overriden e.g. when a strong wind scatters a ream of neatly stacked papers. So, the two are NOT identical in that respect. However, the common feature that unites the two is order/organization/rules. It's only this aspect (order) that's of any relevance. Thus, human derives from man-made order AND god derives from natural order. Simple.

Assuming that there are really reasons for anything (and it's not simply a way that we think about things), no amount of experience is going to justify it as a principle. Hence, there being no good reason to buy it as a principle — Terrapin Station

You're contradicting yourself. You used the word ''hence'' which is an instance of PSR. So, you do, deep down somewhere, believe that it's nonsense to believe without reason. I think the whole edifice of philosophy is based on this premise, this very thread being, your participation, being proof of the PSR. Anyway, to the point, give me an example that negates PSR. You can't. However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius
. Etc. Etc. Your turn.

That's inconsistent. — Sapientia

There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. If I'm right all scientific principles are open to challenge. No scientist makes claims to absolute truths. I think they call it falsifiability. However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR.

That's an argument from ignorance — Sapientia

But there's evidence for PSR and none to the contrary. You have failed to provide a counterexample to the PSR.

You're pushing these flawed arguments, and at the same time, acting as though you occupy some kind of balanced middle-ground which escapes criticism — Sapientia

Sometimes the correct answer is ''I don't know''. As important as it is to be confident in our knowledge is the awareness of our own ignorance. This is an option many fail to see.

It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that — andrewk

Just give me a counterexample to PSR.

What's at issue is whether it's true as a principle. — Terrapin Station

How would you go about proving/disproving this principle? I'd say the PSR is grounded firmly on evidence which spans across all of history. If you think it's false then the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

I'm saying that there are possible exceptions — Sapientia

I agree. There could be exceptions - it's possible - but where are they? Until such a time that the PSR is disproved I'll continue to accept it as a valid principle.

Btw, I'm almost certain Hume had a related argument that the order you perceive in the universe could be the order only of the little bit you have knowledge of, and that for all you know the far greater portion of it is a seething chaotic hellscape, or words to that effect — Srap Tasmaner

You're right but the order could also be universal. Remember I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm only trying to counter an atheist's position, specifically his/her refutation of the design argument. I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence.

Once you say those things are all the same, you've lost the ground for attributing anything to conscious agency. — Srap Tasmaner

I didn't say they're ''all the same''. There's a difference in degree. Natural order is of a higher degree than man-made order. Think of it like an office. You, as an employee, have your own set of rules that guide your behavior, work habit, the setup of your room, etc. BUT your rules must be sub-ordinate to your boss's rules.

I think you're the first person I met who broke down the notion of immortality into categories.

I think immortality of type 1 and 2 are becoming more and more plausible with advanced in medicine and genetics. Type 1 immortality is very much a reality with many people aging well i.e. able to lead independent and fulfilling lives and I think some in this forum prove that. I don't know about others but I see a real advantage for young folks that people live to their 90's now - the knowledge and experience they can gain are incalculable. Of course there'll be a few exceptions - some people we can do without - but overall I think we stand to gain.

Type 2 immortality is still a dream but, I think, achievable. Knowledge would grow exponentially as (some) people will invest themselves wholly in the information age - something like in type 1 but on a much greater scale.

Type 3 immortality will be a singularity. Unpredictable! Will people thirst for the vast amount of knowledge, which is growing as we speak, availabe or will we become couch potatoes. God will become redundant because the only real thing we desire from him is, well, immortality. That also raises the question of the value of morality. Also, on the flip side, since we won't be able to hurt each other, bad would also be meaningless.

There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later. — andrewk

I said may. Again, I see a difficulty in proving non-existence which doesn't relate to the PSR. Can you tell me where exactly non-existence and PSR connect?

What makes you think that? — andrewk

We can't prove that something doesn't exist directly. We have to first assume that it does. The next step would be to look for it. When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. In short nonexistence can be proved only negatively.

Likewise, to prove something has no reason/cause we have to first assume that it does (an instance of PSR) and only when such a search comes up with nothing can we say that said thing has no reason.

Also, you said

Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk

To what do you attribute the failure to prove non-existence?

A counter-example to the PSR would be a proof of non-existence. Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk

Liquid methane is nonexistent on the surface of the Earth because the temperature, pressure conditions are not right. Liquid water is nonexistent on Mercury because the temperature conditions are not right. I could go on.

Anyway, we prove nonexistence in the negative i.e. we first try to prove existence and when this can't be done we default to nonexistence. This actually works against your views on the PSR. Because to say some thing or event has no reason, you'd have to first look for a reason. Only upon finding none can you say that there's no reason for such and such.

There are plenty of things for which we have no explanations. Dark Matter is one that springs to mind. It is entirely possible that there is no explanation. But how could we ever know for sure that there isn't one — andrewk

That's exactly my point. Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. Kind of like when you do a proof by contradiction. You can't escape the PSR.

Btw you haven't given me an example that negates PSR.

Thanks andrewk. You're always there to keep me (and others) on track.

Your objection as pertains to the discussion between me and @TheWillowOfDarkness implies that you don't accept the PSR (at least not in the way I'm using it).

All I want from you and TheWillowOfDarkness is ONE example which falsifies the PSR. I'm not asking for much am I?

I didn't appeal to PSR at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

From wikipedia:

"The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

1) For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.

2)For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.

3)For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true."

I think you did. Look at 3). Please explain.

PSR is incoherent — TheWillowOfDarkness

BECAUSE...

The idea is built out of ignoring logical distinctions. PSR posed as the glue which logically distinguishes one thing from another, which allows us to say "why" a tree is tree rather than a rock (or anything else). Without PSR, supposedly, nothing can make sense.

In this suggestion, though, people are ignoring how things have already been defined as distinct in themselves. We are asking how the tree is defined in the first instance. We've already accounted for the logical distinction which we supposedly have to explain. The meaning and logical distinction are already there in the first instance. PSR is doing no work at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You've just PSR to reject PSR. Self-contradictory?

Please explain.

Why would you think that I buy the principle of sufficient reason? I'm challenging the notion that there's any good justification for it — Terrapin Station

If you deny PSR then please give me an example that disproves it.

There's either a reason or there isn't. If you claim to know that there's a reason, then the burden is on you. — Sapientia

Ok. My belief in the PSR is cemented by all the fields of knowledge from prehistory till now. The dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth about 65 million years ago. Leibniz's PSR is suspect because he had theological agenda. And so on.

You reject the PSR. Give me proof why.

There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible — Sapientia

That's great! That's reasonable.

What? Why would that be necessary? It doesn't work like that. — Sapientia

Take for example a man from Biblical times. With his background knowledge flying is implausible. Now consider a man from this century. With his background knowledge flying is not only plausible but also a reality. Comparing the two, who's knowledge is more extensive? Likewise before an atheist says God is implausible he must have knowledge of the entire universe - because that's the extent of the possibility that God exists - and that, we all know, isn't the case.

This has nothing to do with the original argument. — Srap Tasmaner

Michael raised an interesting objection and I responded.

It's hard to navigate the world of thoughts - with our errors and biases - and so I present my argument to the forum in the hope that others will see my mistakes or, preferably, confirm my beliefs.

If it looks like I'm making up stuff ''to hold it together'' I probably am but...are there any logical errors? That's the question that I care about.

I'm talking about this from more of a psychological angle though--whether one feels there's a need for a background reason for every x or not. Either you need that or you do not.

That's different than whether there's "really" a reason behind something. — Terrapin Station

Ok. You prefer not to ask the questions I'm asking. That's fine by me. Have you considered how The Principle of Sufficient Reason may apply here?

All I need to do is give an example in which it is not known whether or not there's a reason, which I can — Sapientia

Kindly provide an example...

But we were talking about possibility, and then I brought up plausibility. My point was that possibility alone means next to nothing, and if, on top of that, it seems absurd and implausible, then the burden is even greater. — Sapientia

To my knowledge possibility has to do with logic and plausibility with knowledge. An atheistic position deals with the former - denying god is tantamount to asserting god is impossible. They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. So, I still think my focus on possibility is appropriate to the issue that concerns me.

...namely the hardest type. I am not one of them — Sapientia

That's great to hear.

Sorry, but your argument is bad because it's fallacious, as has been shown multiple times. — Sapientia

Please read above.

It's a simple matter of logic — Terrapin Station

If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle had many theories in science, none of which were subjected to empirical verification. And they were false.

Galileo began the empirical approach to science and look where we are.

Reason alone doesn't lead to knowledge. A good balance between theory and experimentation does. So, while I have faith in logic I don't think we should put all our eggs in that basket.