Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[Willamena]

It is still a contradiction. Both existing and not existing are proposition, statements, which contradict each other. There is only one context provided which is existence,this fulfills the requirement to be a contradictory statement. If one were to say God does not exist but the concept of God does this is not a contradiction as the statements are in a different context. Until the parameters of context are change the contradiction still stands.

Existence isn't context; rather, context exists. If you put things and their negation in another context, they can co-exist.

 

[`mud]

Presence doesn't prove absence,
Absence doesn't prove presence.
It's all guesswork, belief is necessary.
And true faith is somewhat questionable.
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

Existence isn't context; rather, context exists. If you put things and their negation in another context, they can co-exist.

Existence is the context of the question. A negation of a subject can not be in another context as a negation is context matching to be a negation... Apples are red vs Apples are not red (negation). It is the direct opposition of another statement, it can not be in another context and still be a negation.

 

[Shad]

I explicitly said that it did not invalidate the description. However, it does mean that the glass is not an essentially existent thing. It's at best a conventionally existent thing. The point is that "existence" is a relative concept.

Yet you examples of such difference were to show a contradiction, that glass does not exist. That at one level X exists and on another level it does not. This means that one description, composition of glass, renders glass as an object on another level false. Sorry I do not buy you backtracking. Further more putting forward existence is relative further reinforce my point. You are contradicting yourself.

And reduction of "human" to the level of atoms is not absurd; it's an equally valid means of perceiving what we conventionally call "humans." It's not a superior means, but it's also not incorrect. "Human" is in fact something that we designate for convenience's sake, not something that exists absolutely. That should be clear on analysis.

It is absurd when used an a eliminative view. Again by putting forward glass does not exist but is merely a composition of atoms this is taking the eliminative view since it is attempting to remove an idea from the argument. You are not using it solely as a valid view but a view to invalid another. It would be like saying computers do not exist just wires and pcb boards do.

The problem is that "existence" has no objective definition, so there is no single context in which to frame the question. "God" and "existence" are both abstractions without even an operational definition that would allow us to deal with them in a logical manner. The equivocations you're pointing out are the result of the failure of the semantic models to represent the reality in a comprehensive way.

I agree in part. We do have a definition of subjective existence which is existence which is dependent on a mind. We have physic exitences in the form of "standing out" in reality, distinguishable in principle. This is a logical binary. For something to stand out one must have a priori that reality exists. There is existence outside the physical dominate. However this is the point in which existence becomes clouded as there is no basis for one to distinguish anything in principle. So while there is no unified defination include all of the above there is objective definition for subjective and physical existence. The problem is still on the one proposing a non-physical existence. A materialist can accept the two definitions I provided above without issues.

Ultimately there are no basic parts. There are constituent parts to every perceptible thing, but those parts can also be analyzed and so forth. It's not clear that an ontology can be constructed in any case. It's a question of which model one prefers to employ at the moment, which has to do with utility, not objective reality.

I provided two examples above. So beside these two models it is still up to the non-materialist to provide a valid method. So again it is not a problem for people in general but those proposing non-physical existence., ie you. While we can break down the whole into parts this does not mean the whole does not exist nor invalid the whole.

As for God, the problem is that there's no real definition to work from in the first place. "Transcendence" is pure abstraction, basically the equivalent of taking everything that's a part of human experience and just saying "not this." Forget about reductionism, there's no conceivable rubric by which we could possibly judge whether something transcendent in that way could be said to exist or not exist. If anything, by existing it would exist outside of our world and experience, which is also a way of saying that it would not exist.

Yes most concepts of God are negative definitions not positive definitions as positive definition require observation of the subject not a contrast of an abstract to reality.

Existence outside of physical reality would be to define something as not existing if using a physical model, I agree. An issue is those supporting existence outside of physical reality provide no model from which to derive existence of a subject. Until a model is provided such explanations become sophistry. The lack of a model itself is evidence that only negative definitions can be applied and no true model can be developed by those supporting non-physical existence.

 

[Shad]

As you can see, I am using thought and logic to explore the limits of thought and logic. BTW, I'm not a theist, and am not promoting or defending god proposals, just so you know.

Logic is not limited otherwise it would not be logic. It is our understanding of logic which is limited as is our application. It is only thought which is limited. When formal logic is applied to a subject with a context errors pop up as we are no longer using simple formulas but a subject itself which can be analyzed before even addressing an argument. This adds a layer of complexity which must be evaluated for a view to be valid and sound. Soundness has always been an issue when it comes to the concept of God.

Yes, agreed. Again, I am not selling personal revelations or the concept of god, so we need not debate that together.

Never said you were. However many still use revelation as if it was anything but subjective views which can not be validate nor proven sound. This is a problem for the believer if revelation is part of their view of God. More so even some modern philosophers can not divorce revelation from their arguments for God. Craig, Swinburne and Plantinga, which are mentioned most often in my experience, both require religious revelation as part of their arguments once you nail their argument down. Point being is until revelation is rejected there is no argument to be had since the presuppositional views are a priority and goal.

If we abandon the seemingly failed search for The Answer, thinking may not be required at all, in fact, it may be an obstacle. I'm just offering this as something to consider. The act of thinking shifts the focus of our attention from the real world to the inner realm of symbols.

Possible. However no one presents any sort of model of investigation. People will use logic when it suits them, discard it when it does not. I do not advocate abandonment of the question. All I ask for a method which can resolve this that is not pure speculation. I have yet to see one that is not speculation.

As example: If someone proposes that there are shoes in my bedroom, the place to look to investigate their claim would be the bedroom, not the garage. Point being, if we're not finding something, anything, in the real world the problem may be that we're not looking in the real world, but at symbols in our head.

Alternatives are, there were never shoes in your bed room, the shoes have been moved, memory error, incompetence or delusion. No need to throw the whole system out without looking at the alternatives. Beside it is still the burden of the one making the claim to support their claim rather than just label a system inadequate because they can not meet their burden.

What I see is that neither theists or atheists have proven that their chosen authority is qualified to deliver credible proven conclusions about the most fundamental nature of reality. Each side attempts to build a logical structure upon a faith based foundation. Thus, neither side can prove anything, which keeps the merry-go-round eternally spinning.

Hard atheists only have failed. Soft atheists have no since the view does not promote the non-existence of God but that the claims and arguments are not convincing. This is the proper comparison since both promote a view as correct rather than rejecting a view proposed by theists.

Yes, logic is adequate for addressing the long history of this inquiry, and coming to some reasonable conclusions about it's effectiveness.

It is not the effectiveness of logic in question but the arguments put forward on a subject. These subjects which cause issues not logic.

No, logic has not been proven adequate for settling the questions the inquiry has attempted to address. In order to do this we would first have to prove that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality (the scale of god proposals) which no one has been able to do.

If one can not accept human reasoning and logic, as part of the theory of knowledge, are valid there is no discussion to be had. We can not prove reasoning is a universal. This is not a defense but a copout. The thread might as well stop at your comment.

EXAMPLE: Can we use logic to fall in love, a process of great importance to most people? No, not really. Logic can be helpful in targeting our search, but in the end a non-logical leap is required.

Emotion can override logic hence why emotional based arguments are fallacious. I see no basis for this argument given this fact. It is not the failure of logic but the failure of the person to separate their emotions from their thinking. Just as a person in love with another in an abusive relationship that can not divorce their abuser. It is their failure of reason and logic that is the issue, not logic itself.

 

[Typist]

Logic is not limited otherwise it would not be logic. It is our understanding of logic which is limited as is our application.

Ok, we could say that the rules of a card game are the rules of that game, and that is that. Agreed. But this does not automatically equal those rules having relevance beyond the scope of that game. If we wish to assert that the card games rules are binding somewhere else, such as all of reality for example, that requires proof.

There are two levels on which such subjects can be discussed.

On one level we could all just assume and agree that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, and then test various assertions against those rules. This is essentially the atheist procedure.

On another level we can challenge the qualifications and relevance of the rules of human reason for some particular inquiry. This is more the theist procedure, but one doesn't need to be a theist to go in this direction.

Soundness has always been an issue when it comes to the concept of God.

As a Fundamentalist Agnostic it is my contention that both theism and atheism are logical structures built upon a foundation of faith

People will use logic when it suits them, discard it when it does not.

Agreed, this is the human condition by and large, which applies equally to both theists and atheists, and Fundamentalist Agnostics too.

I do not advocate abandonment of the question. All I ask for a method which can resolve this that is not pure speculation. I have yet to see one that is not speculation.

Yes, I agree with all this, that's just where I'm headed too.

To head in that direction we might focus on the goal of "resolve". When I look at the thousands of years of this inquiry, I see no evidence that this will be resolved by finding The Answer. To me, continuing to search for and argue about The Answer is an example of doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

That said, abandoning The Answer would not require us to abandon the question. I do have more to say on this, but it's late and I've done too much typing here today already. More to come...

Beside it is still the burden of the one making the claim to support their claim rather than just label a system inadequate because they can not meet their burden.

Yes, anyone making a claim bears the burden or proof, whether they be theist or atheist. In my experience, atheists often don't realize that they too are making an unprovable claim, as their faith in the infinite power of human reason is often so deep and so strong that they take it's qualifications as an obvious given. This is very understandable, but it's still faith, just an unexamined one.

Hard atheists only have failed. Soft atheists have no since the view does not promote the non-existence of God but that the claims and arguments are not convincing. This is the proper comparison since both promote a view as correct rather than rejecting a view proposed by theists.

I have a personal problem. Seriously, not kidding. I am a simple minded person with wishful thinking disease and I routinely get drawn in to challenging atheist views on the assumption that they would welcome such a rational process, which is rarely the case. So if you truly want to go there, we should probably start a new thread, and you'll need to sign a release waiver. Or we can let it go, that's ok too.

If one can not accept human reasoning and logic, as part of the theory of knowledge, are valid there is no discussion to be had. We can not prove reasoning is a universal. This is not a defense but a copout. The thread might as well stop at your comment.

Well, this thread, or any member's participation can stop at any time. Some people are willing to consider that the rules created by one species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies might not be binding everywhere in all of reality, and some are not. To each their own of course.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sure it can. We see x equal any possible combination of numbers in sets. For example a simple parabola will yield x=0 and x=1. However we have now defined x as 0;1 But that is why I don't think math is the best way to intuitively describe violations of the law of non contradiction. Rather it is better to assume the contradiction as truth the way we do the classical axioms of logic. So if we take for instance the statement we know nothing as axiomatic, then we have a system that has not exploded due to the violation of the law of non contradiction. However it is much easier just to do away with the law of the excluded middle. Wherein we can have neither or unknown instead of true or false.

Where did you come up with that?

The focus and vertex are represented by X. In a parabola, they have to be the same. Then there is the Y axis.

Imagine a grid. You have the Y and the X axis. A point drawn on this grid has X and Y coordinates (X,Y). Both variables have to be the same. If the point is at (3, 5), X=3 and Y=5. These variables are thus defined.

The only way possible a variable could hold multiple variables is in the perspectice of different points. Another point can be made and has different coordinates than the other one. This is OK because they are two different points, an entirely different equation. If you combined the coordinates of, you must have defined before entering equation. Unless there are a lot more points that display a pattern, but even then you have to find the variable on each point separately until you can see the pattern, but there would be no equation except for the growth of the pattern.

If an equation involves one variable with 2 different numbers, it is written wrong. If you find a variable you need to plug in variables to test the accuracy of the equation.

To apply this to existence-nonexistence, it's evidence that X cannot be 2 numbers in the same equation. Thus, unless you can define a 3rd option of "existing and not existing" simultaneously, we will remain aware of the two options. Why believe there is a way to be both if it is unfounded?

 

[Shad]

Ok, we could say that the rules of a card game are the rules of that game, and that is that. Agreed. But this does not automatically equal those rules having relevance beyond the scope of that game. If we wish to assert that the card games rules are binding somewhere else, such as all of reality for example, that requires proof.

There are certain axioms everyone must accept. For example that solipsism is false. Beside this point logic must be applied at all times. If it is not then there is no basis of reasoning for any discussion as reasoning requires logic. You must accept this or propose a new system which works better. I see no such new system. I see people using logic while declaring logic is not good enough when their arguments fail or are flawed, hence flip/flopping. So it is not a problem with logic, it a problem with arguments put forward or that the concept is has no support. So while you may have issue with logic but propose no alternatives I can easily conclude that perhaps the concept is flawed or is unsubstantiated. However since the concept of God is important many will never take this step back from their own view but rather project their failure on to the system

There are two levels on which such subjects can be discussed.

On one level we could all just assume and agree that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, and then test various assertions against those rules. This is essentially the atheist procedure.

On another level we can challenge the qualifications and relevance of the rules of human reason for some particular inquiry. This is more the theist procedure, but one doesn't need to be a theist to go in this direction.

The first one must be accept until a new system is put forward as a model. The second "level" is just a double standard until otherwise. Logic works for everything else fine except for a concept one supports but can not substantiate with evidence or logical proof. I dismiss this alternative for these two reasons. An issue is logic is not a tool one can put aside as it is a basis of all knowledge, all thoughts and all ideas are rooted in. One would need to put aside even a belief in God as the belief is rooted in logic in a way. Although usually the belief is based on omission of observation or faulty observations, these observations are accepted as true. So belief is logically valid but not logically sound. For an argument to be true it must be both.

For example there are two major theories of knowledge; rationalist and empiricist. If one theory is falsified or unsound there is a complete alternative model to use. If one dismisses logic both models become invalid. Science, theology, philosophy along with each sub-division. The issue with this step is that the concept of God and religion is rooted in logic and philosophy. So by dismissing the tool used the question is rendered moot as well.

As a Fundamentalist Agnostic it is my contention that both theism and atheism are logical structures built upon a foundation of faith

I would agree only for theism and hard atheism. Soft atheism is just rejection of the theist claims and arguments. No more, no less. Just as if I claim unicorn exist and you reject this view due to lack of evidence and proof. You need to faith to reject such an argument.

Agreed, this is the human condition by and large, which applies equally to both theists and atheists, and Fundamentalist Agnostics too.

This problem is due to a lack of education. Philosophy and logic fields are not viable career paths in comparison to those found in a science based career. So there is little interest in a field in which jobs are limited to teaching. Neither subject is taught as a fundamental course such as math in public schools. It is a problem for everyone not just people discussing the concept of God. Public education teaches people what to think, not how to think.

Yes, anyone making a claim bears the burden or proof, whether they be theist or atheist. In my experience, atheists often don't realize that they too are making an unprovable claim, as their faith in the infinite power of human reason is often so deep and so strong that they take it's qualifications as an obvious given. This is very understandable, but it's still faith, just an unexamined one.

Keep in mind the difference between soft and hard atheists. Only those putting forward there is no God have this burden. An atheist which does not believe but does not put forward a statement on the exist does not have this burden. It is a rejection of a claim not an opposite claim.

I have a personal problem. Seriously, not kidding. I am a simple minded person with wishful thinking disease and I routinely get drawn in to challenging atheist views on the assumption that they would welcome such a rational process, which is rarely the case. So if you truly want to go there, we should probably start a new thread, and you'll need to sign a release waiver. Or we can let it go, that's ok too.

I would do not agree with you. You are able to communicate your views well enough. You respond to opposing views and engage these views. You understand the key issues even if we do not agree with a solution. In my opinion this is far above the average response I encounter.

Well, this thread, or any member's participation can stop at any time. Some people are willing to consider that the rules created by one species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies might not be binding everywhere in all of reality, and some are not. To each their own of course.

Keep in mind that many of these rules are based on reality itself. P is not Q, this is just a basic thought which distinguishes P from Q. A dog is not a cat. A car is not a plane. Etc. It is a basic principle which is always valid and sound. So regardless of how elaborate an argument for or against an idea is each can be reduced to basic principles.

 

[Curious George]

Where did you come up with that?

The focus and vertex are represented by X. In a parabola, they have to be the same. Then there is the Y axis.

Imagine a grid. You have the Y and the X axis. A point drawn on this grid has X and Y coordinates (X,Y). Both variables have to be the same. If the point is at (3, 5), X=3 and Y=5. These variables are thus defined.

The only way possible a variable could hold multiple variables is in the perspectice of different points. Another point can be made and has different coordinates than the other one. This is OK because they are two different points, an entirely different equation. If you combined the coordinates of, you must have defined before entering equation. Unless there are a lot more points that display a pattern, but even then you have to find the variable on each point separately until you can see the pattern, but there would be no equation except for the growth of the pattern.

If an equation involves one variable with 2 different numbers, it is written wrong. If you find a variable you need to plug in variables to test the accuracy of the equation.

To apply this to existence-nonexistence, it's evidence that X cannot be 2 numbers in the same equation. Thus, unless you can define a 3rd option of "existing and not existing" simultaneously, we will remain aware of the two options. Why believe there is a way to be both if it is unfounded?

That is fantastic now please solve for x^2=x

Have a nice day.

 

[Typist]

Hi again Shad, good conversation, thanks.

There are certain axioms everyone must accept. For example that solipsism is false. Beside this point logic must be applied at all times.

The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything.

In order to debunk such a proposal with human reason we would 1) have to prove the rules of human reason are binding on the arena claims are being made about, all of reality, and then 2) we would have to show that the God proposal violates those rules.

The same thing applies to theism. The theist first needs to show that their chosen authority, say a holy book, is a qualified authority for the realm claims are being made about, typically all of reality. If they can't do that, then they can say "but it's in the Bible!" all day long and we can discard such reasoning, as we have no proof the Bible is a qualified authority.

Imho, both theists and atheists typically wish to rush right on to step 2 without bothering with step 1. This is typically either because they don't realize step 1 is necessary, or they know they can't meet the challenge of step 1, so they try to sidestep the challenge of step 1, hoping perhaps that no one will notice.

The first one must be accept until a new system is put forward as a model.

Apologies, but atheism, hard or soft, is just a competing faith based belief system. No one is obligated to accept it, just as no one is obligated to accept religious faith based claims.

Atheism is not the default, "I don't know" is the default.

Logic works for everything else fine except for a concept one supports but can not substantiate with evidence or logical proof.

Are you asserting that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, the realm being addressed in God claims? If yes, can you prove it?

Soft atheism is just rejection of the theist claims and arguments. No more, no less.

What is that rejection based upon? Once you answer that for yourself you will see the unprovable assertion which is either stated or implied, in any case, required.

Just as if I claim unicorn exist and you reject this view due to lack of evidence and proof. You need to faith to reject such an argument.

Actually I can demonstrate the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists in your house, but we can leave that for another day.

To address your point, yes, we do need faith that whatever authority we are referencing to establish our acceptance or rejection is qualified for the question at hand. We need faith that holy books AND human reason are relevant to the god question, because we can't prove that they are.

Keep in mind the difference between soft and hard atheists.

How about this? I would agree that anyone who keeps their views private, whatever those views might be, bears no burden of proof.

You understand the key issues even if we do not agree with a solution. In my opinion this is far above the average response I encounter.

Thank you much, and allow me to say the same in return. I've engaged many atheists on many atheist forums over a period of years, and your ability exceeds the norm by a substantial margin. So then, it is agreed we are geniuses, and I am content with this outcome.

Keep in mind that many of these rules are based on reality itself.

Based on our understanding of reality itself. What I hoped to illustrate with the space example is that our understanding can seem rock solid, and still turn out to be rather dodgy. We need only the history of science to see this, no religious dogmas required.

A final point. Last night I was too tired to say this coherently.

We seek to resolve these issues without resorting to faith, speculation, revelation etc. This is a goal we seem to share. Plus, if I understand correctly, we share a loyalty to observation of reality as our primary methodology. Yes?

Religion arose for some reason, to address some human need. To the degree that need can be met by some means, the issue is resolved, without the necessity of finding The Answer. I propose observation of reality is such a method.

Have a good one!

 

[Shad]

Hi again Shad, good conversation, thanks.



The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything.

In order to debunk such a proposal with human reason we would 1) have to prove the rules of human reason are binding on the arena claims are being made about, all of reality, and then 2) we would have to show that the God proposal violates those rules.

Reasoning can be flawed, I do not argue this. However it is logic which is still applicable. Keep in mind I was talking about logic itself. Logic is binding otherwise it would not be logic just as math must be binding or it would not be math.

The same thing applies to theism. The theist first needs to show that their chosen authority, say a holy book, is a qualified authority for the realm claims are being made about, typically all of reality. If they can't do that, then they can say "but it's in the Bible!" all day long and we can discard such reasoning, as we have no proof the Bible is a qualified authority.

Imho, both theists and atheists typically wish to rush right on to step 2 without bothering with step 1. This is typically either because they don't realize step 1 is necessary, or they know they can't meet the challenge of step 1, so they try to sidestep the challenge of step 1, hoping perhaps that no one will notice.



Apologies, but atheism, hard or soft, is just a competing faith based belief system. No one is obligated to accept it, just as no one is obligated to accept religious faith based claims.

Atheism is not the default, "I don't know" is the default.

Again the is a difference between hard and soft is if one is putting forward a claim of non-existence versus a rejection of a claim. It is not I do not know, it is you have failed to provide a convincing argument so there is no reason to believe it. Just as if a prosecutor fails to provide a convincing argument with evidence that X murdered Y. It is not a faith position that X is not a murderer, they could be. It is the argument for the proposition failed. This works for any concept one can choose. Just as with a pink unicorn. If I fail to provide evidence and an argument for the claim you can reject it.

Are you asserting that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, the realm being addressed in God claims? If yes, can you prove it?

No, logic is binding not reason. Reason come after logic as a filter between basic logical principles and the

What is that rejection based upon? Once you answer that for yourself you will see the unprovable assertion which is either stated or implied, in any case, required.

There is no direct evidence of God. All secondary inferred evidence is the same scientific ideas present now but just add +God to it which violates Occam's Razor. None of this is an unproven assertion s part of the rejection. The argument of rejection is putting forward the claims for God are just assertions.

To address your point, yes, we do need faith that whatever authority we are referencing to establish our acceptance or rejection is qualified for the question at hand. We need faith that holy books AND human reason are relevant to the god question, because we can't prove that they are.

Nope, faith is to believe in something without evidence. We have trust in various systems as there is evidence that these systems are reliable. We have trust in math and logic for this reason. We have faith in religion since it uses neither and mostly relies on revelation and subjective experience. We can test the reliability of the former, we can not do so with the later.

How about this? I would agree that anyone who keeps their views private, whatever those views might be, bears no burden of proof.

These views would not be known since the views are never expressed. However this is never the case. an atheist position is a response to the claims of those already putting forward their views.

Thank you much, and allow me to say the same in return. I've engaged many atheists on many atheist forums over a period of years, and your ability exceeds the norm by a substantial margin. So then, it is agreed we are geniuses, and I am content with this outcome.

I can live with that!

Based on our understanding of reality itself. What I hoped to illustrate with the space example is that our understanding can seem rock solid, and still turn out to be rather dodgy. We need only the history of science to see this, no religious dogmas required.

Keep in mind "rock solid" can only be applied to logical arguments which are valid and sound. When it comes to science we can never have 100% absolute certainty so it is not a fair to expect this from science. Science deals with probability up to 99% but never 100%. For example we can create a high probability that the sun with rise(metaphor) tomorrow since it has for the last 4.5 billion years. However we can not put forward that it will 100% do so tomorrow. This is the problem of induction in which no amount of evidence can provide 100% certainty for a claim

"All Swans are white"

This was based on evidence of only observing white swans. However this is flawed since it is make a universal from individual observations. All it takes is one black swan to falsify this claim, which did happen with Black Swans from Australia. Inductive logic created the argument but due to a failure in language used the claim is in error.

"All observed Swans are white"

This would be the correct statement to make. It is not a certainty outside of what has been observed, it is not a universal. The issue is not with logic but with how we communicate these ideas. We take short cuts with the word we use. Read Language Games by Wittgenstein and Waismann. The issue with language is that philosophical and scientific ideas have each a technical language in which words have a certain meaning in context but have variation outside of this context. An example would be the word theory, hence "It is just a theory". For those that have knowledge of the technical word theories are the end result of a scientific claim. For those that do not the word is treated as an idea which does not carry the same requirements as the technical version.

A final point. Last night I was too tired to say this coherently.

We seek to resolve these issues without resorting to faith, speculation, revelation etc. This is a goal we seem to share. Plus, if I understand correctly, we share a loyalty to observation of reality as our primary methodology. Yes?

Religion arose for some reason, to address some human need. To the degree that need can be met by some means, the issue is resolved, without the necessity of finding The Answer. I propose observation of reality is such a method.

Have a good one!

Both rationalist and empiricist share observations as evidence. Empiricists use observation as part of it's primary methodology; subjective, objective. Rationalists use the mind as the primary method. I am a rational empiricist which uses the primary of the mind and empiricist methods but have discarded innate knowledge for the most part. Evidence provides a basis from which to work with but we need the mind as a filter to create ideas from the evidence we see. For example if I found a piece of pottery I do not need evidence of the pottery maker directly. I can use the mind and previous data to conclude there has to be a pottery maker. Pottery is not naturally occurring therefore it must be constructed. Constructed objects require one to construct thus someone made the pottery. So observation in part of the method but not the method itself, at least for me. However there are people that only accept observational evidence, ie scientism.

Observation does provide a way to understand reality which many people need/want to understand. The issue is not every need can be answered in this way. Have you considered that "need" can become so overwhelming that it overrides the ability for one to accept what observation provides for us? For some people the need to have a purpose of their life is so strong that they will turn to any answer which resolves this need. An answer which goes beyond observation. Could your own need be classified in this way?

 

[Typist]

Keep in mind I was talking about logic itself.

Me too. Logic. The invention of a single half insane species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Is logic useful for very many things? Yes, proven beyond doubt. Are the rules of logic binding everywhere in all of reality? Not proven at all. Logic says a thing can not both exist and not exist and yet arguably space, the vast majority of reality, does just that.

Again the is a difference between hard and soft is if one is putting forward a claim of non-existence versus a rejection of a claim.

Rejection is based on something, a reference to an authority of some kind. If a fundamentalist Christian rejects gay marriage, they are doing so by referencing their chosen authority, probably the Bible. By trying to sell their point of view they are making a claim that their chosen authority is qualified for the subject at hand. If that claim can not be proven, they are operating from faith.

If this person has a very deep and sincere yet unexamined faith in their chosen authority, they may not realize they are making a claim, as they may take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given. This is often the case with many atheists, they may believe without questioning that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, and thus they sincerely don't realize that they are making a counter claim when they reject religious beliefs, or at least when they try to sell their rejection.

Which brings us back to this. Even though this inquiry has been searching for The Answer for thousands of years, we are still in a position where all claimed answers from every side can be successfully challenged. If one should listen to that huge pile of evidence, the theist vs. atheist debate begins to fall away, as it starts to become clear that debate serves no useful purpose beyond entertainment.

There is no direct evidence of God.

Nor any proof that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, the scope of the god proposal. And without such proof, a lack of evidence means little. If the rules of poker can not be shown to be binding in all of reality, then the fact that some God idea violates a poker rule is of little use to us.

Nope, faith is to believe in something without evidence.

Yes, like the belief that the rules of human reason are binding in all of reality, even though we don't even know what "all of reality" actually refers to.

We have trust in various systems as there is evidence that these systems are reliable. We have trust in math and logic for this reason. We have faith in religion since it uses neither and mostly relies on revelation and subjective experience. We can test the reliability of the former, we can not do so with the later.

I can see you are intent on participating in a theist vs. atheist debate. As you can see by now, I'm neither a theist or an atheist, and see little evidence that debate is going anywhere. I'm not arguing against the theist or atheist position so much as I am arguing against the contest between them. In other words, I am a party pooper. But given all my too many words, perhaps I am more accurately labeled a Fundamentalist Party Pooper.

Both rationalist and empiricist share observations as evidence.

If we discard a search for The Answer, we no longer need evidence. However we may need evidence that discarding such a search is the best course of action.

For example if I found a piece of pottery I do not need evidence of the pottery maker directly. I can use the mind and previous data to conclude there has to be a pottery maker.

This is of course a leading argument for God. Sorry, cheap shot, my bad.

Have you considered that "need" can become so overwhelming that it overrides the ability for one to accept what observation provides for us? For some people the need to have a purpose of their life is so strong that they will turn to any answer which resolves this need. An answer which goes beyond observation.

Yes, imho, this is pretty much the situation for both committed theists and atheists. There is a strong need for some authority which can be trusted, something which can be relied on, a rule book to follow, an answer. And thus, participants may choose to ignore the fact that the qualifications of their chosen authority have not been proven.

Assuming that the beliefs they derive from their chosen authority aren't hurting anybody else, and are enhancing their own lives, such a faith based operation can be considered reasonable, if not meeting the highest most ideal standards of investigation procedure. Life is short, life can be hard, everybody gets through however they can.

Could your own need be classified in this way?

It appears my primary need is to keep the keyboard keys a clacking, to trumpet the glorious sound of my own little voice throughout the nerdosphere, for I am Typist.

I should try to type more clearly, for we are talking past each other to a degree. You wish to participate in a theist/atheist debate it seems, while my goal is to discard what I see to be a proven failed process in order to continue the age old inquiry by hopefully more promising methods. But this is just a goal, not a demand, and Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.

Well, we're on page five already, and there hasn't been a big shootout among participants yet. Good for us, free beers for everybody!

 

[Willamena]

..

Existence is the context of the question.

If you make it so, but then you make it a thing.

It's debatable whether existence is a thing, or (contrarily) if things exist. I favour the latter.

A negation of a subject can not be in another context as a negation is context matching to be a negation... Apples are red vs Apples are not red (negation).

No argument, there. "Red" is a property. "Existence" isn't.

Else "subjects" could not exist.

It is the direct opposition of another statement, it can not be in another context and still be a negation.

Or (more appropriately) consciousness is the subject of both existence and non-existence.

 

[Shad]

..

If you make it so, but then you make it a thing.

Do you doubt your own existence? Do you doubt the existences of reality around you; family, animals, etc? Again there is no context provided beyond whether God exists or does not. It has already become a thing by the very question. Existences was long established before anyone questioned God's existences.

It's debatable whether existence is a thing, or (contrarily) if things exist. I favour the latter.

Existence has definition and parameters to meet. So is not debatable.

No argument, there. "Red" is a property. "Existence" isn't.

The Apple argument was about a contradiction, not properties. Your reply has nothing to do with the point of the comment.

Or (more appropriately) consciousness is the subject of both existence and non-existence.

Again simply answering sample questions in the first part of this post is enough to cover if consciousness exists.

 

[Willamena]

Do you doubt your own existence? Do you doubt the existences of reality around you; family, animals, etc? Again there is no context provided beyond whether God exists or does not. It has already become a thing by the very question. Existences was long established before anyone questioned God's existences.

I wasn't talking about God, but about existence.

And no, I don't doubt it.

So is not debatable.

That's debatable.

The Apple argument was about a contradiction, not properties. Your reply has nothing to do with the point of the comment.

It has to do with my comments.

Again simply answering sample questions in the first part of this post is enough to cover if consciousness exists.

That consciousness exists isn't at issue.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That is fantastic now please solve for x^2=x

Have a nice day.

One.

 

[Curious George]

One.

1 and 0

 

[idav]

..

If you make it so, but then you make it a thing.

It's debatable whether existence is a thing, or (contrarily) if things exist. I favour the latter.


No argument, there. "Red" is a property. "Existence" isn't.

Else "subjects" could not exist.


Or (more appropriately) consciousness is the subject of both existence and non-existence.

Its existing which is every objects default property. It is being some specific object which I s not default and requires an observer. Without an observer everything is just being.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So if I wanted to be both atheist and theist what would I call myself? Ortheist? Northeist?

 

[Typist]

So if I wanted to be both atheist and theist what would I call myself?

Once we realize that we simply don't know such things, then we are liberated from categories and can jump from position to position day by day, exploring each in turn.