Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
As to why are we here. If humans can deduce that then it will be via critical thinking applying the scientific method. As that is the most reasonable philosophy we have.
Also currently no one has the vaguest idea why we are here. I am no exception to that. I'm sorry if that is not satisfying.
Finally you can't expect an average person to understand quantum mechanics or related fields. In the same way they may be ignorant of your speciality you are most likely ignorant of theirs.
-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 4:32 pm to add the following --
Whoops meant to say philosophy created Critical thinking created scientific method created atheism. Or lead to if you prefer.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
I write: without nebulous terminology we would be held more accountable for what we say. Am I wrong?Jacob Needleman writes: ... Being … Is he wrong? Tulku writes: … Being … Is he wrong?
Where do you think those concepts come from? What do you think you are doing when you invoke Plotinus and Tillich and Needleman and Tarthang Tulku and Chesterton, etc.?The search for Being is the search for God; finding Being is finding God. Does rummaging through the garbage heap of others bring us closer to Being?
No doubt if you knew more about the influences on those whose statements you approve of you would not describe knowledge of the history of philosophy as rummaging through the garbage heap.
Heidegger, who influenced Needleman and Tillich, is generally recognized for raising the question of Being, a question he says was no longer asked because it had been overshadowed by the question of God. The search for Being might be the search for God for some, but certainly not for all who address the question of Being. For those for whom the search for Being is the search for God that is due in large part to changes in the concept of God, and Heidegger played a central role in this change.
Heidegger, in his own words, “retrieved” the question of Being from its origin in Greek philosophy. You would not be talking about Being if not for Heidegger and he would not have been talking about it if not for the Greeks.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
I don't think the scientific method is in anyway limiting to thought. Take Einstein's ideas on creative thought for example. It's clear that in his deepest thinking he is doing his utmost to limit his thought as little as he possibly can. At the end though he needs a falsifiable theory otherwise he doesn't have a theory you can draw practical conclusions from. Of course things aren't quite that simple in theoretical physics as some theories may need to have new tools and whole new sciences in order to prove them. Gravity waves for example were predicted by Einstein, but without the incredible success of his theory I doubt the apparatus needed to test the theory would have been built as soon as it was.I do think that people should have more trust in one's own intellect without limiting mind by any specific method of thought. The scientific method is clearly a voluble asset in acquisition of knowledge that has propelled "mankind" to modern golden age of discovery. Yet, I also believe that most people are capable of greater utilization of conscious thought to deduce a broader meaning of life, the reason for multiple galaxies, and the vastness of space. We shouldn't limit our thought to what's in front of us with a "measuring tape" in hand.
When you talked about purpose I didn't realise you meant subjective purpose.Strictly from the selfishness of life in instinct of self preservation, where the greatest threat to a physically healthy human...is another human. It would stand to reason that we will not be happy or safe until other humans are happy and safe.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
No, you didn't.Fooloso4 wrote:
You ignored my post where I clearly show that it does not boil down to three choices.
Do you know how ignorant that sounds? That's true of every pantheist.Did Spinoza believe in God? Yes. Was Spinoza a materialist? Yes. Was Spinoza a pantheist? Yes.
One might, and perhaps many do, but it's not atheism, is it?One might be believe in God but not believe that God created the world, that we can understand nature without resorting to supernatural explanations, in other words, one might believe in God and be a materialist.
One might believe in materialistic pantheism.
Redundant. You're repeating yourself.
I see this every time an atheist explains consciousness as an "emergent property."One might be an atheist but not a materialist, holding to some form of dualism.
One might also talk about circular squares.One might hold that consciousness is fundamental without associating consciousness with God or reducing it to a form of materialism. There is a thread on this.
Yes, and each of those positions can be categorized as materialism, theism, pantheism or simply incoherent. I ignore much of what you say simply because I don't think empty-headed sophistry is worth the effort.Each of these positions are real, have proponents, and are discussed in various places on the net and elsewhere.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
r6---1} "U"niverse aka God
You don't know what the number one means? OMG. If you do not know how integrate the number one with the rest of my hierarchical outline/list, I'm not sure how to assist you. I recall learning about outlines lists as table of contents in grade school.Eduk---by "1}" do you just mean point 1? or does the "}" have any special significance?
Ive been posting various versions of this hierarchal outline/list for many months in many threads in Philo Forums. You don't appear to know what a hiearchial outline list is. Do you know what a table of contents is? Think of 1, 1a, 1b, 1c etc as a table of contents for a book. I first learned what number one is this context in grade school.
As identifier. To distinguish{ make distinct } from other uses of same word with different identifiers because definition is not the same. You have to read the whole to understand this. You apparently did not read the whole or you would have noticed the difference.Why are you writing universe as "U"niverse?
Again your reading a hierarchical outline list--- think table of contents ---and from 3rd grade through out 12 years of primary school in U.S. we had these table contents with subcategory's of the whole. "U"niverse is the greatest whole concepts ie it is the most inclusive set. A
Again, you do not seem to be able to integrate the idea of the sub-catagorical parts 1a, 1b 1 c etc to the greater whole. Please search internet for hierarchy, outline list, table of contents. You way behind the 8-ball dude.
There are various ways to identify the same word in different ways to draw attention to the point that using different definitions for same word.
Again, 1} "U"niverse is defined by all lines of text that follow it this hierarchical outline/list. Ex 1, 1a, 1b etc are subcategory of the greater whole "U"niverse.
See what I stated above, as identifier to make clear distinction between "U"niverse, Universe universe etc.....Simple stuff dude. Not sure why your making what is obvious more complicated.What is the special meaning of quotations around the U?
I also italicize the capital "U" to signify a relationship to 1a that is also in italics. You don't yet seem to understand that 1a is a subcategory of 1. Simple stuff I first learned in grade school here in U.S.
You need to start at the beginning dude. "U"niverse = God. If you still don't know the definitions of "U"niverse then read 1a, 1b 1c etc...this is simple stuff dude. I'm going play mind games with you for much longer.When you say universe also known as God, what do you mean?
"U"niverse/God or "U"niverse is God or "U"niverse = God. How many ways does it have to be stated before you get what is obvious what I mean. I will not play mind games with for much longerDo you mean the universe is God?
How do you define God?
No more mind games dude. "U"niverse/God. You really need to educate yourself on what a hierarchical outline list and table of contents are.
Our finite, occupied space Universe--- aka Uni-V-erse ----is a subset of the greater whole "U"niverse. Learn what a hierachal outline list and table contents is, please.And how do you define universe?
Universe is 1c and I posted this very clearly in one of my initial posts in this forum and many many versions in this forum.
...1c} our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse
.......1c2} spirit-2 i.e. fermions bosons and any aggregate thereof ex biologicals ergo our observed reality as physical/energy/time/motion and expressed as a sine-wave topology ^v, or /\/\/ etc,
.......1c3} spirit-3{ metaphysical-3 } gravity----positive shaped geodesic of space,
.......1c4} spirit-4{ metaphysical-4 } dark energy----negative shaped geodesic of space.
Many many versions of this above in this forum others. None have ever offered any rational, logical common sense that adds too or invalidates any of my givens as stated. Far easier for their ego to just make irrational, illogical comments in my direction because they know they have nothing valid to offer, in my these regards.
"U"niverse is most inclusive set as it includes 1a, 1b and 1c and these are the three primary aspect of existence. Ive been very clear from day one here at Philo Forums. So what part do others not get?
"U"niverse > Universe > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
"U"niverse > Uni-V-erse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Here is the part most get, and that is that their ego that puts in place, mental blockages to rational, logical common sense givens Ive stated from day one.
I've read plenty nonsense in forums for many years. To state non-sense sometimes is correct call. Not with what Ive stated clearly for years now. Except for bad grammar.
'U"niverse / God is defined by 1a, 1b and 1c and any subcatagories that follow. Simple not difficult.
Ive always been available to those with sincere desire to have rational, logical common sense discussion. Very few of those on the net. Mostly people want to play mind games, offer 'alternative facts' and allow the ego to run wild with ridicule unnecessarily.
Atheism cannot be supported because the word God/god/God{es}/Goddess etc.. exists.
Now when any philosophers around here ever want to stop playing mind games and have sincere rational, logical common sense discussion, then they only need start with my cosmic hierarchy--- in its many versions ---and go from there. Ego blocks most from that rational, logical common sense discussion with me.
Maybe two or three have made some short term attempts to have sincere discussion. Rare.
"U"niverse/God <-----diametric opposites---> Ego/I-verse
"Universe is everything including me,
environment is everything excluding me." Bucky Fuller---thank God for his sincere desire for rational, logical common sense desire for truth in many respects.
r6
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
I guess you will you have gathered by now that there are one or two seemingly quite deranged people on this philosophy forum. Most drift away eventually. Some don't. They generally have a long, long history of posting the same incoherent ramblings to lots of different people and getting more and more angry when each of those people, after trying honestly to find out what they're talking about, eventually learns to ignore them. Unless you have the patience of a saint and are willing to keep asking simple, sensible questions only to get abuse back, there's no other option. Once you've been through the routine of trying and failing to get through to them (as so many have before you), just treat them as background noise.
On your comments in post 2751:
The usual word for that is indeed Materialism, but with a knowledge of the fact that there is something interesting and strangely circular about the idea that a brain can discover laws which describe its own workings, including the workings which give rise to its thoughts, including the thoughts which constituted the discovery of the laws!How would you define someone who thinks everything is physical in nature. Including things like consciousness. But doesn't know how this is possible. Nor can exactly define what matter is or the laws that define it.
Personally I think the way to deal with this question of "what matter is" is to remember that matter, like everything else, is simply one of the mental models that we find helpful in describing and predicting our observations. It's easier to see this if, instead of considering matter, you consider energy. If you consider the way that physicists define energy it's clear that it is an extraordinarily abstract concept. It's harder to see that with matter because it intuitively seems less abstract. You may be interested in a topic I started on this a while ago:
onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 55#p170055
I think the notion of some kind of boundary between the quantum world and the macro or "classical" world is a whole different subject. In principle there is no such boundary. The laws of quantum mechanics entirely contain the laws of classical mechanics as a special case.How quantum effects turn in to macrophysical effects for example.
Another interesting one. Causality (the idea of chains of cause and effect) is often thought of as a fundamental principle of reality that is somehow deeper than mere laws of physics. I don't think it is. Like all of the generalizations that we create in order to make sense of our observations (of which the laws of physics are examples), causality is arrived at by a process of Inductive reasoning. Or so it seems to me.Believes that cause and effect while seemingly a fact leads to an impossible infinite regression.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
Fooloso4 wrote:
You ignored my post where I clearly show that it does not boil down to three choices.
No, you didn't.
If every pantheist believes in God and is a materialist then by choosing C one also chooses A and B, but choosing A and B is not equivalent to C, since not all who believe in God are pantheists and not all materialists are pantheists, but some who believe in God are materialists. So, A and B would be a fourth choice.Do you know how ignorant that sounds? That's true of every pantheist.
You said:
Accordingly, a pantheist cannot believe in God if God is “the personality of the First Source and Center". So, by one of your own claims your other claim sounds ignorant.To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism.
In addition, not all pantheists are materialists although some are, so B and C would be a fifth choice.
But of course, your definition of God as the First Source and Center is not the only definition, and so, one might reject all three of your alternatives by believing in a God who is not First Source and Center. So, none of the above would be a sixth choice.
Now you are beginning to understand. In answer to my question about what an atheistic belief system is you said materialism. It only took you five pages to come around to seeing that materialism is not atheism.One might, and perhaps many do, but it's not atheism, is it?
The term is not redundant. Not all materialists are pantheists and not all pantheists are materialists.Redundant. You're repeating yourself.One might believe in materialistic pantheism.
If one is a mind/body dualist consciousness is not an emergent property, it is fundamental, it does not emerge.I see this every time an atheist explains consciousness as an "emergent property."One might be an atheist but not a materialist, holding to some form of dualism.
One might, but if one read the thread one would see that it is not a contradiction in terms.One might also talk about circular squares.One might hold that consciousness is fundamental without associating consciousness with God or reducing it to a form of materialism. There is a thread on this.
Not incoherent just unknown or incomprehensible to you. Neither reality nor thought conforms to your categories.Yes, and each of those positions can be categorized as materialism, theism, pantheism or simply incoherent.
It should be pointed out again that theism is not synonymous with First Source and Center.
What you call sophistry I call a clear explanation of why your categories are insufficient and your terms ill-defined.
-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 9:13 pm to add the following --
If you prefer to ignore such distinctions your claim comes down to - there is at least one god and there is no god. Of course the same could be said of anything. It is trivial and tells us nothing.
-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 9:15 pm to add the following --
That should be or no god not and no god.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
Eduk, unlike Steve, Ive not seen anyone getting "more and more angry" here at Philo Forums. Not saying it has not happen Ive just not seen it. Steve has been a member longer than me and probably seen many posts Ive not seen.Steve3007 wrote:They generally have a long, long history of posting the same incoherent ramblings to lots of different people and getting more and more angry when each of those people, after trying honestly to find out what they're talking about, eventually learns to ignore them.
I have seen people make false quotes of others, false projections of others ideas, 'alternative facts'{ skewed information } to others ideas and the list goes on of some treating others unfairly, unnecessarily. How people respond to being treated unfairly can vary also.
Many times this unfair and uncalled for treatment occurs because they have no rational, logical common sense that addresses other ideas as stated.
Atheism can be logically supported because the word God exists irrespective of 100 different people having at least 50 different definitions.
There can exist no rational logical common sense discussion if there can be no common agreement of definition for God or any word/concept.
Ex Ive given the most rational, logical common sense definition for God many times and many threads and no one has ever offered any rational, logical common sense that would invalidate my definition of God.
Again, when these people fall short with any rational, logical common sense, they resort to a few different actions, however, all of the various actions Ive see, stem from fundamental ego based mental blockage to truth, as presented to them in rational, logical common sense ways, formats, outlines, lists, hierarchies etc.
Far easier to save ego and just make false claims of the other. We see this in politics these days in the most gross terms ever.
"U"niverse/God <----diametric opposite---> Ego/I-verse.
123, ABC Thats how easy "U"niverse/God can be...sung to M, Jackson tune.
r6
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported
Oh, geez.Fooloso4 wrote:Dark Matter:
(Nested quote removed.)
No, you didn't.If every pantheist believes in God and is a materialist then by choosing C one also chooses A and B, but choosing A and B is not equivalent to C, since not all who believe in God are pantheists and not all materialists are pantheists, but some who believe in God are materialists. So, A and B would be a fourth choice.Do you know how ignorant that sounds? That's true of every pantheist.
You said:
Accordingly, a pantheist cannot believe in God if God is “the personality of the First Source and Center". So, by one of your own claims your other claim sounds ignorant.To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism.
In addition, not all pantheists are materialists although some are, so B and C would be a fifth choice.
But of course, your definition of God as the First Source and Center is not the only definition, and so, one might reject all three of your alternatives by believing in a God who is not First Source and Center. So, none of the above would be a sixth choice.Now you are beginning to understand. In answer to my question about what an atheistic belief system is you said materialism. It only took you five pages to come around to seeing that materialism is not atheism.One might, and perhaps many do, but it's not atheism, is it?The term is not redundant. Not all materialists are pantheists and not all pantheists are materialists.(Nested quote removed.)
Redundant. You're repeating yourself.
If one is a mind/body dualist consciousness is not an emergent property, it is fundamental, it does not emerge.(Nested quote removed.)
I see this every time an atheist explains consciousness as an "emergent property."
One might, but if one read the thread one would see that it is not a contradiction in terms.(Nested quote removed.)
One might also talk about circular squares.
Not incoherent just unknown or incomprehensible to you. Neither reality nor thought conforms to your categories.Yes, and each of those positions can be categorized as materialism, theism, pantheism or simply incoherent.
It should be pointed out again that theism is not synonymous with First Source and Center.
What you call sophistry I call a clear explanation of why your categories are insufficient and your terms ill-defined.
-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 9:13 pm to add the following --
If you prefer to ignore such distinctions your claim comes down to - there is at least one god and there is no god. Of course the same could be said of anything. It is trivial and tells us nothing.
-- Updated February 16th, 2017, 9:15 pm to add the following --
That should be or no god not and no god.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023