Atheism and the Universal Knowledge of God

[variant]

Can anything be justified using only abstract reasoning? That's not the point of abstract reasoning in the first place.

Which is why we don't fret over the problem of induction. It would intrinsically put abstract reasoning primary to observation itself.

Abstractions being projections, expansions and representative of observations themselves, so it makes little sense to put the abstraction ahead of the thing it is abstracting in ones epidemiological foundation.

Personally I think experience and knowledge are primary to abstract reasoning, that we gain our reasoning ability from our ability to observe and not vise versa (included in observation would be observing via evolution so it takes care of the problem of needing some coherent pre-programmed reasoning ability at birth).

Notice presuppositionalism does not even register a footnote in this article. No one takes this nonsense seriously, save those who already believe. Even most Christian apologists avoid it.

I think it's pretty easy to rule out the idea that we're experiencing well executed apologetics.

Or, in this case, someone who could properly execute an argument that relied on the problem of induction that came to a conclusion that God existed.

That would be a bit more interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Mathematics?

But then you end up with mutually contradictory systems both being "justified" in that case depending on what you assume. Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry, for example, are both equally justified. Now what?

 

[brightlights]

Premise 1 is still unsupported. Please demonstrate that there are no other reasons that could lead to the universe being consistent.

This is a burden of proof that's impossible to bear. It would be better to ask anyone to give one other reason other than God's existence. If another reason could also justify the belief then we can accept the belief as reasonable.

Also I don't need to justify using it as an axiom because it is justified by working.

Not necessarily. Flat earth theory "worked" for a certain time until they figured out it was wrong. Just because it worked for them doesn't justify the belief.

Premise two is mis worded because:

I 'know' a consistent universe until shown otherwise (believe would be something not in evidence). The consistency of the universe is a description I would give it based upon my past experience with it.

Knowledge is always belief. Knowledge is justified, true belief. Nothing more.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which is why we don't fret over the problem of induction. It would intrinsically put abstract reasoning primary to observation itself.

Abstractions being projections, expansions and representative of observations themselves, so it makes little sense to put the abstraction ahead of the thing it is abstracting in ones epidemiological foundation.

Personally I think experience and knowledge are primary to abstract reasoning, that we gain our reasoning ability from our ability to observe and not vise versa (included in observation would be observing via evolution so it takes care of the problem of needing some coherent pre-programmed reasoning ability at birth).

I think we're both on the same page here. The problem of induction sucks from a pure reason standpoint, and yet everything we do on a daily basis stops working if we follow through on our doubts about it.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is a burden of proof that's impossible to bear.

Then perhaps you should stop making claims based on this impossibility.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But then you end up with mutually contradictory systems both being "justified" in that case depending on what you assume. Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry, for example, are both equally justified. Now what?

That's the point of abstract reasoning, I suppose.

If you assume that
All greebles are flurbs
and
All flurbs are zuppos,

Then all greebles are zuppos.

If you assume different things, then maybe no greebles are zuppos.

 

[bhsmte]

Then perhaps you should stop making claims based on this impossibility.

But its all he has.

 

[KCfromNC]

But its all he has.

Not my problem

 

[KCfromNC]

That's the point of abstract reasoning, I suppose.

If you assume that
All greebles are flurbs
and
All flurbs are zuppos,

Then all greebles are zuppos.

If you assume different things, then maybe no greebles are zuppos.

Yeah, I follow that part. But are any of these nonsense results justified just because you can make up things about them using certain rules?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Turning this argument on its head...

Everyone presupposes a godless natural universe in order to reason.

In a godless natural universe, water does not miraculously turn into wine. In a universe with a God, water might turn miraculously into wine at God's whim, contrary to water's nature, at a moment's notice.

In a universe with a God, the reliability of reason is rendered impossible. Only in a universe that does not have the possibility of supernatural intervention can reason be reliable.

So, Christians assume the truth of atheistic naturalism in the act of arguing for God.

(Sick of presuppositionalist nonsense.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

This is a burden of proof that's impossible to bear. It would be better to ask anyone to give one other reason other than God's existence. If another reason could also justify the belief then we can accept the belief as reasonable.

You are the one making the assertion so it is your job to prove it.

Premise 1 is an unsupported. Thanks, argument over.

We have already given you several reasons describing the universe as consistent is justified.

Not necessarily. Flat earth theory "worked" for a certain time until they figured out it was wrong. Just because it worked for them doesn't justify the belief.

Which is fine because we know our kind of knowledge is always tentative. If the universe turns out to be inconsistent your theory on God is also incorrect and needs to be revised and you can't deal with that any better than I can.

When it stops working I will rethink my position on it.

Knowledge is always belief. Knowledge is justified, true belief. Nothing more.

And in this case I know the universe is consistent because I observe it to be so consistently.

That is a known proposition because it is not contradicted by my experiences so far.

Tell me why it is unjustified to base my claims of knowledge on direct and non contradicted experience?

 

[variant]

I think we're both on the same page here. The problem of induction sucks from a pure reason standpoint, and yet everything we do on a daily basis stops working if we follow through on our doubts about it.

I don't think I have the power to doubt my consistent observations out of existence.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

(Sick of presuppositionalist nonsense.)

You know what I'd like? I'd like the presuppositionalists who tell me "You really do believe in God, you just suppress it" to have a sit-down with the other Christians who tell me "You never really believed in God; if you truly believe, apostasy is impossible" and get that discrepancy sorted out. If there really are a bunch of people walking around out there who know what's going on in my mind better than I do, I'd like to know which ones to listen to.

 

[brightlights]

You have a small set of subjective experiences that you use to draw universal, normative conclusions. You make an irrational leap as I demonstrated in a previous syllogism. Logically demonstrate why I should accept a consistent universe. I suspect any syllogism you give will be invalid but I'm willing to hear an argument.

 

[variant]

Turning this argument on its head...

Everyone presupposes a godless natural universe in order to reason.

In a godless natural universe, water does not miraculously turn into wine. In a universe with a God, water might turn miraculously into wine at God's whim, contrary to water's nature, at a moment's notice.

In a universe with a God, the reliability of reason is rendered impossible. Only in a universe that does not have the possibility of supernatural intervention can reason be reliable.

So, Christians assume the truth of atheistic naturalism in the act of arguing for God.

(Sick of presuppositionalist nonsense.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

Neat

 

[bhsmte]

You have a small set of subjective experiences that you use to draw universal, normative conclusions. You make an irrational leap as I demonstrated in a previous syllogism. Logically demonstrate why I should accept a consistent universe. I suspect any syllogism you give will be invalid but I'm willing to hear an argument.

You still haven't supported your own claims.

We are still waiting....

 

[variant]

You have a small set of subjective experiences that you use to draw universal, normative conclusions. You make an irrational leap as I demonstrated in a previous syllogism. Logically demonstrate why I should accept a consistent universe. I suspect any syllogism you give will be invalid but I'm willing to hear an argument.

You're saying it's irrational to believe the sun will rise in the morning.

I reject your premise.

I don't have to logically demonstrate the premise it is demonstrated every single day to every rational observer.

I also reject your hidden premise that abstract logical reasoning is the only way to justify a premise.

 

[brightlights]

Eudaimonist made an interesting move but I think it also reveals some of the hidden sentiment of atheism. Why would God's existence threaten our reason? Only if God is capricious, unjust, and unreliable. So the argument assumes that God is morally bad. It's not just that belief in God is unreasonable, it's also that if God existed he would not be worthy of trust.

 

[brightlights]

You're saying it's irrational to believe the sun will rise in the morning.

I reject your premise.

I don't have to logically demonstrate the premise it is demonstrated every single day to every rational observer.

I also reject your hidden premise that abstract logical reasoning is the only way to justify a premise.

What reason do you have to believe in a tomorrow?

 

[variant]

What reason do you have to believe in a tomorrow?

The inference based upon the nature of my experience to this point.