Dear Athiests:

[sickles]

Im not an athiest, but nor would i classify myself as a thiest. From my pecarious viewpoint upon the fence, i would like to ask a few questions that perhaps hadnt occured to you.

There are some rules id like to follow in responding to this thread.

1. Leave your ego at the door. I understand that you have been convinced /experienced convicing evidence/lack of evidence. I respect that. We should also understand that these are subjective and therefore irrelevant. Even science is objective at a point.

2. I want you to inquire with me. We are going to make a non-scientific inquiry, and so we dont need science. No arrogance or certaintude please. Lets not kid ourselves.

3. As a fence balancer, I must insist that we not talk to each other in an "unprofessional" way. Lets all pretend we are all "professional humans" as we can all read, talk, type and converse, and manipulate things with our thumbs (sorry if you cant) . Addressing each other an undue amount can produce tangents that are irrelevant and non constructive.

4. Assume you know nothing.

Question for debate:

If you were curious about the existance of a god (athiests, before you QQ please read rule 1,2 and 4.) and you had no knowledge of god and neither did anyone else, where would you look? Im not saying what kind of evidence may be found there, or wether that evidence convinced you of a god or of no god. Im asking, where would you look? would you look in a book? would you look amongst man? amongst the universe? where (please please for the love of all that is holy *snicker* be VERY VERY specific.)

There is more about this debate, but I wish to read some responses first. Thanks.

[Artie]

If science is allowed free reign over logic, post hoc fallacy riddled pseudoscience like the above links are what we'll have.

This link is from The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 1997;9:498-510.
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/artic ... leID=99454
The pdf file contains the full article. I would be very interested if anyone knows any scientific unbiased peer-reviewed studies contradicting the findings in these links.

[Clownboat]

...you just described how...all religions were invented...

Actually, I just described how all human knowledge is acquired. Or do you know of some other way that human knowledge is acquired?

That may also be how human knowledge is acquired, but I was talking about how I think religions are created, you brought up human knowledge.

I don't see how it is relevant to this thread whether or not I know of other ways that human knowledge can be acquired.

[Clownboat]

If you were curious about the existance of a god...and you had no knowledge of god and neither did anyone else, where would you look?

God--the belief that Ultimate Reality involves purpose--is an archetype of the normally functioning human psyche. Thus, for each of us, the place to start looking for God is in our own minds.

Did you mean to say that God is the belief that Ultimate Reality involves purpose? Or is it that theism is the belief that God, the Ultimate Reality, involves purpose?

If I were to start looking for God or inquiring about God, I would start with my own thoughts and then I would look around for good and wise people who have also thought about God. I would talk with them, compare notes, and see if I could start building an epistemological raft from the bits of flotsam and jetsam I encountered on my search.

At least for me, you just described how (probably) all religions were invented and I agree that god concepts seem to stem from the mind of man.

Actually, I just described how all human knowledge is acquired. Or do you know of some other way that human knowledge is acquired?

I have to agree with EduChris on this one. All human knowledge starts in someone's mind. And since the sum total of human knowledge is too vast for any one person to even know, let alone discover first hand, we all get at least a good portion of our knowledge from good and wise people who have studied what it is that is the object of our inquiries. Our differences come with who might qualify as good and wise. A self-confessed religious persecutor who sees a vision of a victim of capital punishment and believes that he has traveled to the seventh heaven, does not make it for me.

But it shouldn't end there. We should have some confidence that what passes for knowledge can in principle be derived from first principles.

Reader, please note. I never disagreed with EduChris about how human knowledge is obtained like Mc seems to be suggesting. (I just also think that it is also how religions were thought up).

[EduChris]

...I think you repeat this term (Ultimate Reality) for quite some time. I don't know if there is any "ultimate" reality in addition to reality...

The only thing we cannot doubt is that thoughts are occurring and being experienced. Beyond that, everything else amounts to assumptions which can be doubted.

Our experience of "thoughts being experienced" leads us to surmise that existence is possible, and that there actually exists an entity to whom we refer as "I" or "me" or "myself" who is truly experiencing these thoughts. We then surmise that other persons like us also exist in reality (as opposed to being merely figments of our imagination). And so on.

From this, there follows a long chain of "cause-and-effect" wherein we assume that I am here because I have parents who truly exist, and they are here because they had parents who truly existed, ..., who existed because there is a planet known as "earth" which somehow came to produce conditions necessary and sufficient for life, and so on. We assume that knowledge is possible, and that our memories are sufficiently reliable. We assume that the rules of logic are an aid rather than an obstacle to true understanding. We keep pushing our explanations farther and farther back, accumulating and encompassing more and more assumptions and a larger scope or panorama of what we take to be "reality."

So finally there are two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain or circle of causal regression, in which case the infinite regression itself constitutes "Ultimate Reality," or else there is some "first cause" which gave rise to all subsequent causal chains, and this "first cause" constitutes "Ultimate Reality." Either way, we as human beings cannot possibly know everything about this "Ultimate Reality." Whatever it is, it lies beyond our finite limitations, beyond science, beyond logic--yet we surmise that it is out there even though, by its very nature, we cannot explain it even in principle.

This, then, is what I mean by "Ultimate Reality," as opposed to the more "mundane reality" which we (presumably) encounter directly in our day-to-day living.

...Is my brain functioning incorrectly?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Autodidact]

The only thing we cannot doubt is that thoughts are occurring and being experienced. Beyond that, everything else amounts to assumptions which can be doubted.

I completely agree with this.

I believe this position is called Phenomenalism (not Phenomenology) and was espoused by the British philosopher G.E. Moore, if memory of my freshman philosophy class serves. And when I first heard it, I agreed with it, and I still do.

Everything we believe is based on conclusions we draw from the mental experiences we have, which as mental experiences cannot be doubted.

[100%atheist]

...I think you repeat this term (Ultimate Reality) for quite some time. I don't know if there is any "ultimate" reality in addition to reality...

The only thing we cannot doubt is that thoughts are occurring and being experienced. Beyond that, everything else amounts to assumptions which can be doubted.

Our experience of "thoughts being experienced" leads us to surmise that existence is possible, and that there actually exists an entity to whom we refer as "I" or "me" or "myself" who is truly experiencing these thoughts. We then surmise that other persons like us also exist in reality (as opposed to being merely figments of our imagination). And so on.

From this, there follows a long chain of "cause-and-effect" wherein we assume that I am here because I have parents who truly exist, and they are here because they had parents who truly existed, ..., who existed because there is a planet known as "earth" which somehow came to produce conditions necessary and sufficient for life, and so on. We assume that knowledge is possible, and that our memories are sufficiently reliable. We assume that the rules of logic are an aid rather than an obstacle to true understanding. We keep pushing our explanations farther and farther back, accumulating and encompassing more and more assumptions and a larger scope or panorama of what we take to be "reality."

So finally there are two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain or circle of causal regression, in which case the infinite regression itself constitutes "Ultimate Reality," or else there is some "first cause" which gave rise to all subsequent causal chains, and this "first cause" constitutes "Ultimate Reality." Either way, we as human beings cannot possibly know everything about this "Ultimate Reality." Whatever it is, it lies beyond our finite limitations, beyond science, beyond logic--yet we surmise that it is out there even though, by its very nature, we cannot explain it even in principle.

This, then, is what I mean by "Ultimate Reality," as opposed to the more "mundane reality" which we (presumably) encounter directly in our day-to-day living.

Thank you very much for your explanation of Ultimate Reality. It really sounds like some old philosophical theory. The major problem with it is that this approach of getting to the Ultimate Reality description is firmly based on the assumption that the first "mover"/cause exists. Moreover, the description refers to a sequence of events in time. If there were the first cause then there would be no place for "infinite" regression. And visa verse, if the regression of events is infinite, then there is no first cause. Also, as we know now, time is not absolute, and this may change somewhat the perspective of events and causes in time. One needs to place the "first mover" outside of time ... which does not make much sense to me, and I don't know how to explain the "cause" outside of time. In other words, the Ultimate Reality in the way you described it, does not look realistic.

[EduChris]

...this approach of getting to the Ultimate Reality description is firmly based on the assumption that the first "mover"/cause exists...

Not at all. The concept of "Ultimate Reality" is a logical conclusion, which is based on the assumptions I listed--assumptions which we all share.

...Moreover, the description refers to a sequence of events in time...

Not at all. Causes might be temporal or logical.

...If there were the first cause then there would be no place for "infinite" regression. And visa verse, if the regression of events is infinite, then there is no first cause...

That is precisely the point I made.

...time is not absolute, and this may change somewhat the perspective of events and causes in time...

Irrelevant, as causes can be logical rather than merely temporal.

...One needs to place the "first mover" outside of time ... which does not make much sense to me, and I don't know how to explain the "cause" outside of time. In other words, the Ultimate Reality in the way you described it, does not look realistic.

As I said, whatever Ultimate Reality is, we cannot fathom it or explain it. Nevertheless, we can't avoid it as a logical consequence of the thoughts which we all, as humans, experience.

[100%atheist]

...this approach of getting to the Ultimate Reality description is firmly based on the assumption that the first "mover"/cause exists...

Not at all. The concept of "Ultimate Reality" is a logical conclusion, which is based on the assumptions I listed--assumptions which we all share.

Well, including the assumption that there is the "first cause". As you said, there is a possibility of a circular global causality. How does the "first cause" apply to this possibility.

...Moreover, the description refers to a sequence of events in time...

Not at all. Causes might be temporal or logical.

...If there were the first cause then there would be no place for "infinite" regression. And visa verse, if the regression of events is infinite, then there is no first cause...

That is precisely the point I made.

...time is not absolute, and this may change somewhat the perspective of events and causes in time...

Irrelevant, as causes can be logical rather than merely temporal.

Point taken, but
can you provide an example of a logical atemporal cause?

...One needs to place the "first mover" outside of time ... which does not make much sense to me, and I don't know how to explain the "cause" outside of time. In other words, the Ultimate Reality in the way you described it, does not look realistic.

As I said, whatever Ultimate Reality is, we cannot fathom it or explain it. Nevertheless, we can't avoid it as a logical consequence of the thoughts which we all, as humans, experience.

Again, you generalize on all "humans" your own vision of the world. Sorry, I don't share it. You "Ultimate Reality" concept is identical to the "first cause" concept. I see no need or logic in the necessity of any first cause. Even if the universe is created via the Big Bang by some smart alien [see, I don't reject the concept of god ], there is almost no chance (logically) that that individual will have anything in common with Yahweh or Jesus. So, logically, if Christians want to be consistent about the "ultimate reality" as you define it, they should first through the entire Bible under the bus.

[Clownboat]

As I said, whatever Ultimate Reality is, we cannot fathom it or explain it. Nevertheless, we can't avoid it as a logical consequence of the thoughts which we all, as humans, experience.

What is the point of assigning a name to something we cannot fathom or explain?

It would be like saying, here is something I cannot fathom or explain, and I call it "X". That does nothing to help us determine what "X" even is. It seems pointless (granted, I could be missing something).

[EduChris]

...What is the point of assigning a name to something we cannot fathom or explain?...It would be like saying, here is something I cannot fathom or explain, and I call it "X"...

Mathematicians do this all the time. Ever heard of "infinity" or "imaginary numbers"? Science as we know it would come to a stop without our ability to label a concept and use it, even though we cannot really fathom it.