Still, I'm not fond of the 'law' metaphor. — norm

I don't like it because it sets up the idea that if there are laws there must be a lawmaker. I prefer the term logical axioms. But as far as we can tell, they are absolute. You cannot have any discourse without them. As soon as you argue against them you are using them to do this.

If there were a god, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that there is a god. — Banno

Problem is you are choosing your version of 'overwhelmingly obvious'. The believer sees God in all things. Feels God inside them. Says that God deliberately remains elusive for X reasons. Hence the problem. The fact that you and I require an actual God to show up and say, 'Here I am kids, I can clear this up in a second' has no impact on many arguments, like the notion of divine hiddenness. Or Deism wherein God created the world and then went away.

For me a hidden God is functionally exactly the same as no God. There would still be no good reason to believe.

I don't for a moment think you are an atheist. You are making a theist case, and you disguise yourself as an atheist.

Many atheists use the same stupid and deplorable, but all-too-obvious and transparent tactic to denounce religion, and many theists employ the same method to denounce atheism.

What's the point? You remind me of a joke that floated around in the old country:

"Who is the absolute reactionary? The person who joins the Communist Party, and immediately upon acceptance for membership commits suicide, only in order to have one less communist party member."

Your pretense of saying "I am an atheist, but I recognize that atheism is a completely screwed up and false belief system" does not cut the mustard for me.

"Who is the absolute reactionary? The person who joins the Communist Party, and immediately upon acceptance for membership commits suicide, only in order to have one less communist party member." — god must be atheist

Nice joke. :up:

@Franz Liszt, I also think that most atheists like rock music way more than classical, and most theists prefer to enjoy classical over rock. This is not an absolute statement, and many exceptions exist, but by-and-large it is true in my experience.

:grin:

How do we know that meaning or logic are not a product of the natural universe? This would also need to be demonstrated. — Tom Storm

Meaning and logic are human's tools to explain things. In and by themselves they don't exist. If there were no human minds, logic would not exist, nor would meaning. Meaning, in and by itself, is nothing but a process or else part of the process or else else a convention to recreate reality as models of reality in the humans' minds.

This may be a proof of god not being the creator of logic and meaning. If humans don't exist, for instance via extinction of the species, and logic doesn't exist as a consequence, then it's not a creation of god, since god could maintain his one creation even if another of god's creation perishes.

For me a hidden God is functionally exactly the same as no God. There would still be no good reason to believe. — Tom Storm

This is good for the atheists as a supportive documentation, but to theists it is not an excluding factor. That is the problem for both sides. No exclusive proof can be built using logic, either way. All ontological arguments include at least one fallacious reasoning, and all anti-religious propaganda miss the point of something being possible even if no evidence exists.

It is, on the other hand, ridiculously easy to falsify the possible existence of the biblical god. Unfortunately the Christian god is not the only god that is an only god in existence by believers.

There is another hurdle for the theists: what is god's nature, and what attributes does it have? Nothing can be hung on him (no pun intended) that is not purely belief, or unsupported superstition. Nobody knows anything about the real god, if one exists, so how can some pretend to assume god is this way or the other way. This applies to all scriptures: fiction. Not substantiated, and therefore they contain less believability by empirical, speculative or a priori considerations, than conspiracy theories.

Meaning and logic are human's tools to explain things. In and by themselves they don't exist. If there were no human minds, logic would not exist, nor would meaning. Meaning, in and by itself, is nothing but a process or else part of the process or else else a convention to recreate reality as models of reality in the humans' minds. — god must be atheist

So what? The point - they would argue - is that logic was created by God for humans. Of course it has no application for a rock. But neither has morality. And can you prove the axioms don't exist in heaven in some neo-Platonist realm? I have seen philosophers really struggle to manage this.

Good questions. My points were aimed at an atheistic audience, not at a religious or else at an analytic albeit atheistic audience. The audience should, I mean, the audience is required to self-select in case they attend a point delivered on the existence or non- of a god. Otherwise the point won't work.
:lol:

There is another hurdle for the theists: what is god's nature, and what attributes does it have? Nothing can be hung on him (no pun intended) that is not purely belief, or unsupported superstition. Nobody knows anything about the real god, if one exists, so how can some pretend to assume god is this way or the other way. This applies to all scriptures: fiction. Not substantiated, and therefore they contain less believability by empirical, speculative or a priori considerations, than conspiracy theories. — god must be atheist

I think this is a common view but not sure it has much impact on the debate. There are many people who believe they have access to knowledge about God and see evidence of God's works. All you are saying is you disagree. And there are many others who say God is meant to be a mystery. Read some sophisticated theology (if you can bear it) the debate is far more complex and nuanced.

I hear you, Brother.

IMO, studying philosophy (which involves some emotional work, no doubt) leads (some at least) to make peace with a fuzzier view of the world. — norm

:up:

I daresay there's not even one philosophical position that has been proved conclusively. — TheMadFool

Agreed. But that's because they (when conceptually coherent and self-consistent) are noncognitive proposals (e.g. criteria, methods, aporia, speculative counterfactuals (i.e. gedankenexperiments), critiques, ...) and not propositions: that is, they 'suppose Y is true instead of X, then ...' rather than 'It is true that X is the case, therefore ... Z'. "Philosophical positions" express conceptual, or reflective, stances (for the sake of argument aka "ideas" rather than as dogmatic commitments aka "beliefs") with regard to the real but not determinations of what is or is not the case, which consist of truth-claims in need of truth-makers like the sciences or history.

Having logic on our side since antiquity has made no difference to humanity's collection of truths ...

But this expression itself presupposes logical truth – grammatical sense – in order to be intelligible either as a proposal or proposition, which therefore renders what you say here incoherent, Fool. After all, logic is just grammar in the most general sense (TLP, Witty). Thus, if, as the OP contends, "logic is an illusion" then ... :roll:

E.g. explain the real world, effacious, applicability of mathematics (Wigner) or information theory or universal turing machines 'without logic'.

What's the point? You remind me of a joke that floated around in the old country:

"Who is the absolute reactionary? The person who joins the Communist Party, and immediately upon acceptance for membership commits suicide, only in order to have one less communist party member."

Your pretense of saying "I am an atheist, but I recognize that atheism is a completely screwed up and false belief system" does not cut the mustard for me. — god must be atheist

:clap: :fire:

There are many people who believe they have access to knowledge about God and see evidence of God's works. — Tom Storm

Now, here I disagree. They may see it that way; but that's not enough to claim that their way of seeing it is pervasive and necessarily true. If we put the onus on the negative truth, it can't be done; and it can't be done if we put the onus on the positive truth either (empirically; empirical evidence is missing).

Your argument goes like this: "1. a person who believes in god 2. claims that he understands god and has direct evidence of god's existence in his mind." This is circular reasoning in one short step. Back to square one, without even ever having left it.

All you are saying is you disagree. — Tom Storm

I am saying just a tad little more. I am disagreeing for a reason: no empirical or a priori evidence is extant. Those who say they have direct line to god or direct knowledge, are incapable to convey this to be other than delusion or imagination or a straight lie. That must amount to something. If one can do it, all should be able to do it. But all are not able to do it.

You may also counter, "if one can't do it, nobody should be able to do it." And that leads back to my claim: no positive, no negative proof exists, and it is a matter of belief. However, to get at the ATTRIBUTES then mere belief in existence is not enough. Some evidence is required outside of faith. Those who claim the evidence is extant to them, base it on faith. So that's dismissable. Evidence in the mind alone is not accountable evidence.

I prefer the term logical axioms. But as far as we can tell, they are absolute. You cannot have any discourse without them. As soon as you argue against them you are using them to do this. — Tom Storm

IMO, these laws are redundant and/or tautological and/or 'grammatical' in some Wittgensteinian sense. (Not saying they are wrong or false, though.) The laws of identity and contradiction are almost definitions of 'identity' and 'contradiction.' I suspect that these 'laws' are about as useful as the luminiferous ether. There are just ways that we must use words if we want to be intelligible. Still, someone can say I'm mad and I'm not mad. Or this cigar is not a cigar. In the right context, it could be witty, it could be appropriate. Think of a background of expectation and a foreground of surprise.

IMO, there redundant and/or tautological and/or 'grammatical' in some Wittgensteinian sense — norm

Early or late Wittgenstein?

You may be right. I would like to hear a solid academic account of this. We know the axioms are tautologies. They are also called that by some.

I don't for a moment think you are an atheist. You are making a theist case, and you disguise yourself as an atheist.

Many atheists use the same stupid and deplorable, but all-too-obvious and transparent tactic to denounce religion, and many theists employ the same method to denounce atheism. — god must be atheist

Do you really think so? Such an approach would ultimately be the worst propaganda for theism.

Time will tell (please be telling the truth, @Franz Liszt), but I think this is a case of the metaphysical heebie-jeebies.

Early or late Wittgenstein?

You may be right. I would like to hear a solid academic account of this. We know the axioms are tautologies. They are also called that by some. — Tom Storm

I have later Wittgenstein in mind, but I'm pointing at a cloud of thinking on the issue of meaning, so I'm using Wittgenstein as a symbol for this cloud and what I've made of it. Lee Braver's Groundless Grounds is the kind of book/thinking I have in mind.

Agreed. But that's because they (when conceptually coherent and self-consistent) are noncognitive proposals (e.g. criteria, methods, aporia, speculative counterfactuals (i.e. gedankenexperiments), critiques, ...) and not propositions: that is, they 'suppose Y is true instead of X, then ...' rather than 'It is true that X is the case, therefore ... Z'. "Philosophical positions" express conceptual, or reflective, stances (for the sake of argument aka "ideas" rather than as dogmatic commitments aka "beliefs") with regard to the real but not determinations of what is or is not the case, which consist of truth-claims in need of truth-makers like the sciences or history. — 180 Proof

So you admit it then? Philosophy hasn't proven anything at all and it's simply an activity that involves the exploration of possible realities i.e. it's nature approaches that of math, assuming certain axioms and seeing what they lead to. The purpose of logic in all this is both to construct good arguments based on whatever axioms philosophers begin with and to come up with refutations and counterarguments for such. It's hard to deny that logic has been more effective in the latter role than in the former, more successful in bringing down than propping up philosophical "ideas." This suggests a rather uncomfortable truth viz. philosophy is synonymous with bad ideas; after all, not a single philosophical claim/idea/theory/hypothesis has survived an encounter with logic. I suppose we could say that the whole of philosophy is simply a tribute to logic for only logic emerges unscathed from the brawl between proponents of ideas and their adversaries.

But this expression itself presupposes logical truth – grammatical sense – in order to be intelligible either as a proposal or proposition, which therefore renders what you say here incoherent, Fool. After all, logic is just grammar in the most general sense (TLP, Witty). Thus, if, as the OP contends, "logic is an illusion" then ... :roll: — 180 Proof

I didn't say that there are no truths which would've made my statement self-refuting and thus incoherent. What I did say though was that philosophy hasn't made any contribution to our stockpile of truths. If we could take a before philosophy and after philosophy picture of our knowledge bank, it would be impossible to tell the difference. In short, philosophy hasn't added to what we know. To be fair though philosophy has proven itself as the one powerful tool in humanity's toolkit for fixing what are essentially delusions (believing falsehoods).

You've misread what I wrote. More plainly then: claiming that philosophy hasn't proven anything is like claiming an unmarried man still beats his wife – my point is that philosophy, as I understand it, isn't in the "proving" business, Fool, any more than is music or religion. It's nonsense to blame P for what P does not endeavor to do. Anyway, when philosophy seeks to "prove" something it calves-off into one of the sciences, the production of which alone has made philosophy indispensable to culture and civilization.

You've misread what I wrote. More plainly then: claiming that philosophy hasn't proven anything is like claiming an unmarried man still beats his wife – my point is that philosophy, as I understand it, isn't in the "proving" business, Fool, any more than is music or religion. It's nonsense to blame P for what P does not endeavor to do. Anyway, when philosophy seeks to "prove" something it calves-off into one of the sciences, the production of which alone has made philosophy indispensable to culture and civilization. — 180 Proof

It's quite possible that I'm under some kind of illusion but can you name something philosophy has proved?

Perhaps I've misread you again but then that would mean philosophy is in the business of disproving things. If that's what you mean, I'm in full agreement.

Please don't talk about the sciences. As Islamic scholar Hamza Tzortzis said in a debate with scientist Lawrence Krauss, science is inductive and not deductive and so can't/doesn't prove anything at all. I can go easy on those who still feel science is capable of proving things and concede that it does but only under the condition that the "proofs" are contingent, liable to be overturned/modified in light of new evidence.

... can you name something philosophy has proved? — TheMadFool

:roll:

You've misread what I wrote. More plainly then: claiming that philosophy hasn't proven anything is like claiming an unmarried man still beats his wife – my point is that philosophy, as I understand it, isn't in the "proving" business, Fool, any more than is music or religion. It's nonsense to blame P for what P does not endeavor to do. Anyway, when philosophy seeks to "prove" something it calves-off into one of the sciences, the production of which alone has made philosophy indispensable to culture and civilization.

There is obviously nothing I can do to convince you that I am atheist. Just because an atheist has asked a question that might seem to go against atheism, it doesn’t mean you should just reject it. I thought we were all past dogma.

Your argument goes like this: "1. a person who believes in god 2. claims that he understands god and has direct evidence of god's existence in his mind." This is circular reasoning in one short step. Back to square one, without even ever having left it. — god must be atheist

I was unclear - I agree with you. My point was that believers keep making this old argument from personal experience . The problem with it is we may know it is BS, but how do we help them understand it is?

I once shook up a Baptist fundamentalist by saying - "Everything you've told me, every single point I have heard exactly the same from a Muslim in defence of Allah and the idea that Jesus is not divine but a human. How can anyone from outside tell the difference between your personal experience of truth and the Muslims?' There was a long silence and a frown, followed by, "I guess you can't.'

I am getting the feeling that you belong only to a small community of teenage rock music, satanist (in an atheistic sense, not the worshiping devil sense). Many atheists are lovers of classical music, like myself. Look at my pseudonym.

No. Just because an atheist is saying something that might seem pro–theism, it does not mean I am a theist. I thought we were all about leaving dogma, and instead in reach of questioning god and other religious claims.

You can convince us/me that you're an atheist by making your best argument for rejecting religious and/or philosophical theism. Not that you owe anyone that, but just in the interest to pushing back against suspicions about your motives. FYI: I've been called-out a few times for playing advocatus diaboli in defense of theism just for shitz-n-giggles.

No. Just because an atheist is saying something that might seem pro–theism, it does not mean I am a theist. I thought we were all about leaving dogma, and instead in reach of questioning god and other religious claims. — Franz Liszt

I do believe you. I was just being playful. Sorry I wasn't more careful. I did say (teasingly) that I thought you had the metaphysical heebie-jeebies, and that's because you mentioned Enformationism, and I don't like that kind of thing and couldn't resist a joke. But I did hear the siren song of metaphysics once, so I understand, even if I have stopped my ears since then.

Religious theism is just absurd, so I think I will talk more about philosophical theism, and reasons I reject such claims.

The first cause is more or less the biggest argument for theism. As well as this, the leibnizian cosmological argument is generally their need for a necessary being. However, what if we suggest that the universe was necessary? The instant reaction is to say: But we know it began to exist!
This does not mean that it is not necessary. We can define the universe as something, and although I am cautious that science does change from time to time, it’s not necessarily impossible that something can come from nothing.
If something can come from nothing, it was always possible when there was nothing, for something to happen. Given that, outside the universe (theoretically there is no outside but I imagine you understand what I mean) there was all the time (even though it had no time, there is in a theoretical sense possibility to happen) so it had to happen.

1. Something can come from nothing (not completely proven, but nearly there)

2. In the nothing, it was always possible for something to appear

3. Something would always eventually happen (at the same time)

I am having difficulty expressing why I believe the third premise to be true. I have other arguments for atheism, but I am not going to waste my time proving I am an atheist like it’s the Middle Ages trying to work out if I am a witch.

I don't see how this "necessary universe argument" is a rejection of theism. What am I missing?