The gist of my argument is that God, being immaterial and therefore not subject to empirical observation, can only be denied via pure reasoning — ucarr
pure reasoning, as a channel to valid conclusions, necessarily entails some measure of Plato's objective idealism — ucarr
Since to deny God means denying objective existence of an absolute moral sentience, such denial entails embracing objective moral truth of a different sort from theism, or wholly denying objective moral truth, which entails embracing objective truth of a sort that excludes objective moral truth. — ucarr
Whatever the particulars, denial of God entails embracing a priori mental constructions of objective-transcendent idealism. — ucarr
Is it your understanding that God's being includes a physical component? — ucarr
Why would that follow? Why would linguistic/conceptual analysis showing that certain terms or predicates are mutually exclusive require "access to the physicalist-spiritual point of contact", or imply that "grammar of logic is extant independent of human reasoning"? Once again this just appears to be a gigantic and unwarranted leap.Are you saying that grammar of logic is extant independent of human reasoning? I ask because if not, then you suggest atheist logicians, in refuting God, access the physicalist-spiritual point of contact. If this is denied, then independent grammar of logic is an objective idealism. — ucarr
Why would linguistic/conceptual analysis showing that certain terms or predicates are mutually exclusive... — Seppo
...imply that "grammar of logic is extant independent of human reasoning"? — Seppo
Is it not true that before the question of God's causal relationship with the physical world can be examined via the benchmark of physical evidence, the examiner must presuppose a physical component within God's being?. — ucarr
There's a perennial debate whether numbers are discovered or invented. I'm asking a parallel question about logic. — ucarr
No evidence is contradicting it either. Who says a lightning striking a church is not caused by the gods? — Dijkgraf
My question advances a line of attack on a type of atheist argument that uses the invented abstract structures of logic. — ucarr
If the speaker is reacting to claims made to that effect, then the seeker must proceed from the premise that the immaterial being possesses a physical component that makes contact with material onjects. — ucarr
Do you allow that transduction between spirit-matter being possible is the premise of the atheistic seekers to whom you've been referring? — ucarr
And since its not obviously impossible on any a priori grounds, the matter is to be decided on empirical ones: we look to see if there is any evidence of such causal interactions between God and the observable world (and, finding such evidence to be lacking, decrease our confidence in the truth/probability of theism accordingly). — Seppo
I'm not sure the matter is sufficiently well-defined to answer the question definitively. It doesn't appear to be logically impossible (it doesn't appear to entail a contradiction), but whether it is nomologically/metaphysically possible is ambiguous (which is, again, itself a problem for theism's credibility). — Seppo
Atheism (atheistic metaphysics) has a responsibility to examine the same question, with intent to show impossibility. — ucarr
"Atheism" : only nature :: "solipsism" : only me.
Nothing to do with one another. — 180 Proof
...Language can only exist and have meaning in relation to the empirical world and social/linguistic habits of communities of language-users. — Seppo
The concept as a Type of deity (e.g. theism) can be shown to be empty, establishing every Token of that deity Type (e.g. Allah, YHWH, Zeus) as imaginary .Each specific theism must be refuted individually. — ucarr
Grounds for "categorical refutation" ...Conclusion – Atheism is a theory of not-theism. If offers no categorical refutation of theism as a whole.
I claim (to know) that theism as such is not true.Therefore, atheism, like theism, is an article of faith. As the theist seeks evidence of a cosmic, teleological sentience, the atheist seeks refutation of a cosmic, teleological sentience.
(Click my handle-link.)As an antitheist (inspired by Via Negativa)... — 180 Proof
The concept as a Type of deity (e.g. theism) can be shown to be empty, establishing every Token of that deity Type (e.g. Allah, YHWH, Zeus) as imaginary — 180 Proof
If one says numbers are discovered, then such person lands somewhere in the vicinity of the objective idealism camp. — ucarr
The two above choices pose a problem for the atheist because any type of idealism, being, cognitively speaking, the express lane to theism — ucarr
Talking specifically, this means there can be no wholesale, set-theoretical refutation of all possible theisms. — ucarr
Therefore, atheism, like theism, is an article of faith. — ucarr
Sufficiency of being requires transcendence of being & transcendence of self across a spectrum that incorporates the empirical universe & the transcendent Logos of deity. — ucarr
Now I fall back on argument from theory: theory can't be conclusively proven, but rather must ever withstand new onslaughts as they arise, as with Newtonian Physics. — ucarr
It's perfunctory and insufficiently speculative (re: by contrast e.g. ).What is your response to the following characterization of pandeism? — ucarr
They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong).Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the the ontological status of flights of fancy?
Jesus, being claimed as the physical manifestation of God, obligates atheists to refute the resurrection of Jesus as God in the flesh.
Since atheism denies the resurrection of Jesus on the cross, it must refute verbal evidence handed across two millennia with contrary evidence, say, another verbal account, contemporaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus. — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.