Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not (Redux)

[devolved]

I'd like to review this particular thread, but give it a different perspective that NV may not see it from, hence I'd like to start it on this thread so any tangent discussions relevant to TOE and other tangent subjects may remain there.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin with a few definitions when it comes to the broader discussion of this topic, since the OP did make some narrow assumptions about semantic meaning of the words "Atheism" and "Christianity" than need to be unpacked.

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply. It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence. If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

Therefore, it seems that this discussion predominantly rests with Christianity (or more precisely, Christian claims) being unreasonable, which it will likely boil down to.

Let's begin with context of "reasonable", because context of any given logical and semantic framework matters quite a bit. "Reasonable" is always hangs on the contextual and axiomatic logical framework against which we measure and label something as such.

I think that it's convenient to debate literalim as absurd, and of course it is absurd. But any version of literalism would be. For example, let's take the literal model of electron. If we read it literally, that it's a point particle (not spacial), but it has a spin... the idea is non-sensical and absurd.

Yet, the language of science needs to be qualified prior to us diving into and labeling scientific literature as absurd.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality. Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

What if our religion has came to us via the Spirit? As Spirit is not knowledge therefore it cannot be taught.

 

[devolved]

Before jumping into "God Space" let's dissect the idea of axiomatic knowledge.

Let's get back to the electron example. Prior to any "common knowledge" of electricity, electricity was a phenomenon. "Something happens", but we don't really know what.

So, along came several scientists, that moved the concept of electricity from "something happening" into the realm of working knowledge as to how that particular phenomenon behaves.

We still don't really know WHAT it is, or how it works at the level of the "fabric" or "engine" or reality. What we can do with our models is predict the behavior of phenomenon enough for that model to become a knowledge we can use as we navigate reality and build tools. When it comes to the actual metaphysical nature of it, electromagnetic effect is still very much a mystery. BUT, at the level of observable effects of something that we can't really see or explain (be it readouts on the instruments, or functioning TV)... we can use the ratio-driven mathematics in order to manipulate nature to gain desired effects once we re-create certain causal chain that drives that process to these outcomes.

It's the premise behind the applied science. It doesn't really matter what the "machine of reality" is, as long as we can create adequate predictive models, and these models help us predict the behavior of these phenomenons enough for us to harness these into tools.

The point being, the model is an abstraction of the real thing. We don't know what the real thing is. As long as the models predicts expected behavior... we label it as "reasonable" and "correct".... provisionally.

Going back to the concept of God.

I will propose an axiom here that we can agree on hopefully. Reality and everything it "encapsulates" is a process. The recurring cyclical processes become "recognizable", and as long as these are sufficiently cyclical with minimal variations, we label these as provisionally permanent. Thus, what we label as "time"... would be our comparative measurement of one cyclical process against other.

Human being... can be viewed as individual, or can be viewed as a macro-organism that did not start with your birth and does not end with your death. We simply split into a variation copy, "in form" that copy with memetic data about that particular environment, and that copy then goes on functioning as a sub-process of reality. If we extend that process through time, then we see the same thing we observe at various levels of the process reality - some levels of permanence, with some transitional processes. Humans don't really die... they make "backup copies" that progress into the future, while the expiration date of the "original" is tuned by the surrounding resources.

So, life is a process, just like a human being is a process.

So, if we look at the process that's life, and the process as reality... God is a process of highest order in that particular scheme. It functions as the "top layer" process in the hierarchy of the processes of reality.

I hope I did not lose you yet.

 

[devolved]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Please keep to the OP topic, or start your own thread. You are not injecting much reason into this discussion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'd like to review this particular thread, but give it a different perspective that NV may not see it from, hence I'd like to start it on this thread so any tangent discussions relevant to TOE and other tangent subjects may remain there.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin with a few definitions when it comes to the broader discussion of this topic, since the OP did make some narrow assumptions about semantic meaning of the words "Atheism" and "Christianity" than need to be unpacked.

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply. It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence.

I don't know how important this issue is to you but I would disagree that atheism is neither reasonable nor unreasonable. If evidence for God's existence was abundant, and then he opened the sky and appeared to us all, telling us things that we would never discover in a million years, then atheism would be rather unreasonable. Apologists tend to think that at least the first of these is true - that evidence for God's existence is abundant - and so they would definitely say that atheism is unreasonable. I and other atheists think that atheism is reasonable because we think that "no" is the one and only reasonable answer to, "Do you believe a god exists?"

If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

But it's not the one and only qualification of "reasonable."

Therefore, it seems that this discussion predominantly rests with Christianity (or more precisely, Christian claims) being unreasonable, which it will likely boil down to.

I can tentatively accept that premise for the purposes of this thread.

Let's begin with context of "reasonable", because context of any given logical and semantic framework matters quite a bit. "Reasonable" is always hangs on the contextual and axiomatic logical framework against which we measure and label something as such.

I think that it's convenient to debate literalim as absurd, and of course it is absurd. But any version of literalism would be. For example, let's take the literal model of electron. If we read it literally, that it's a point particle (not spacial), but it has a spin... the idea is non-sensical and absurd.

But I don't think literalism as it pertains to the Bible is absurd, unless you really think Jesus is a door when he says he is the door. I know this is a big topic with Christians on both sides of the issue so I won't go into it unless you want to.

Yet, the language of science needs to be qualified prior to us diving into and labeling scientific literature as absurd.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality. Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

OK, I'd like to see that.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

OK, but there is no one concept of God unless you're referring to the concept of the omni-God. And the concept of that God is not reasonable. What do you have to say on that topic?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Before jumping into "God Space" let's dissect the idea of axiomatic knowledge.

Let's get back to the electron example. Prior to any "common knowledge" of electricity, electricity was a phenomenon. "Something happens", but we don't really know what.

So, along came several scientists, that moved the concept of electricity from "something happening" into the realm of working knowledge as to how that particular phenomenon behaves.

We still don't really know WHAT it is, or how it works at the level of the "fabric" or "engine" or reality. What we can do with our models is predict the behavior of phenomenon enough for that model to become a knowledge we can use as we navigate reality and build tools. When it comes to the actual metaphysical nature of it, electromagnetic effect is still very much a mystery. BUT, at the level of observable effects of something that we can't really see or explain (be it readouts on the instruments, or functioning TV)... we can use the ratio-driven mathematics in order to manipulate nature to gain desired effects once we re-create certain causal chain that drives that process to these outcomes.

It's the premise behind the applied science. It doesn't really matter what the "machine of reality" is, as long as we can create adequate predictive models, and these models help us predict the behavior of these phenomenons enough for us to harness these into tools.

Well, if there is utility to religion, or if it makes predictions, I'd be shocked. Religion, if left to its devices, almost always results in human rights violations. Religion ruling the world a dystopia of terror.

Does the fact that Christianity helps to feed and shelter the poor outweigh the decades (and presumably millennia) of child rape that was covered up in a worldwide conspiracy? I'd think not. And let's face it, the Catholic church would still be happily accepting our money while raping our children to this very day had they not been outed. I don't think the church is sorry, other than sorry for being caught. And I'm sorry but I just don't see the practical application of religion.

The point being, the model is an abstraction of the real thing. We don't know what the real thing is. As long as the models predicts expected behavior... we label it as "reasonable" and "correct".... provisionally.

And no one can do any kind of test to confirm the existence of God, or effects that come from him, so I don't understand this analogy at all.

Going back to the concept of God.

I will propose an axiom here that we can agree on hopefully.

Keep in mind that as a nihilist I reject all axioms. I only tentatively accept those that are useful. To accept an axiom as "true" is quite a meaningless concept to me. As such, I can tentatively accept *any* axiom for the purposes of debate, no matter how silly or useless.

Reality and everything it "encapsulates" is a process. The recurring cyclical processes become "recognizable", and as long as these are sufficiently cyclical with minimal variations, we label these as provisionally permanent. Thus, what we label as "time"... would be our comparative measurement of one cyclical process against other.

Human being... can be viewed as individual, or can be viewed as a macro-organism that did not start with your birth and does not end with your death. We simply split into a variation copy, "in form" that copy with memetic data about that particular environment, and that copy then goes on functioning as a sub-process of reality. If we extend that process through time, then we see the same thing we observe at various levels of the process reality - some levels of permanence, with some transitional processes. Humans don't really die... they make "backup copies" that progress into the future, while the expiration date of the "original" is tuned by the surrounding resources.

So, life is a process, just like a human being is a process.

So, if we look at the process that's life, and the process as reality... God is a process of highest order in that particular scheme. It functions as the "top layer" process in the hierarchy of the processes of reality.

I hope I did not lose you yet.

You did lose me... I don't know what your proposed axiom is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Keep in mind that as a nihilist I reject all axioms. I only tentatively accept those that are useful. To accept an axiom as "true" is quite a meaningless concept to me. As such, I can tentatively accept *any* axiom for the purposes of debate, no matter how silly or useless.

...I do keep this in mind, and because of this set-up you have for double-talk, I can't take much of what you say very seriously (other than those statements you may make on the nature of mathematics, that is).

And I will make sure to keep all of this in mind going forward ...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

...I do keep this in mind, and because of this set-up you have for double-talk, I can't take much of what you say very seriously (other than those statements you may make on the nature of mathematics, that is).

And I will make sure to keep all of this in mind going forward ...

Ok... I don't mind being proven wrong. I assume, then, that you are aware of some axiom which can be proven as true without appealing to other axioms, external definitions, postulates, or primitive terms. After you present it, collect your Nobel Prize.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok... I don't mind being proven wrong. I assume, then, that you are aware of some axiom which can be proven as true without appealing to other axioms, definitions, postulates, or primitive terms. After you present it, collect your Nobel Prize.

Lol! You make it sound like I'm a Foundationalist or a Reliabilist. Yeah...............in some ways, NV, I'm not unlike you. I don't go all 'in' for relying on big axioms and/or the supposed guarantees of deductive thought.

 

[devolved]

I don't know how important this issue is to you but I would disagree that atheism is neither reasonable nor unreasonable. If evidence for God's existence was abundant, and then he opened the sky and appeared to us all, telling us things that we would never discover in a million years, then atheism would be rather unreasonable.

The problem is that you are locked into a frame of reference of scientific reductionism, so it's very difficult to explain to you concepts that extend beyond that frame of reference.

I'll try again, so it's more clear using the electron analogy.

When electron was postulated as a model , it was not directly observed. It was never observed directly. We have no clue as to what it's really like. We have no clue what the underlying fabric or reality is when it comes to how the electrons operate. We don't know whether electron is a particle or something else. We axiomatically presupposed an entity which is electron, ascribe some effects to it under specific causal conditions, and then built a ratio-metric mathematical model that can predict certain outputs given certain input.

Hence, in context of our frame of reference, we can only observe the indirect effects of something that we call electron, and then form imaginary models of what it's like using the existing framework of our language.

God is to religion as to electron is to physics. Except that electron is an axiomatic description of the "process of the lower order" to which certain attributes and effects are ascribed. God is an axiomatic description of "the process of the higher order" to which certain attributes and effects are ascribed.

We can't test for existence of the electron. We can only test our model of it. Models are tested to see if these can be applied to predict concistent occurences.

The same is with God. God, in context of religious framework, is A MODEL for describing a "higher order process" of reality we do not directly observe... although we do ascribe certain complex effects to it. We as humanity, suspect it exists, and we build various models in our attempt to consolidate and describe what that "process" is really like. The models were much more primitive in the past, hence if you pick up any given religious stories from 1000s of years ago, they are attempting to pack certain observed complex model of reality into narrative stories... the only communication tool available to humanity for a while.

So, if you are waiting for a bearded person to show up, show you some tricks, and tell you all of the secrets of the Universe, then that's not what God is.

 

[devolved]

But I don't think literalism as it pertains to the Bible is absurd, unless you really think Jesus is a door when he says he is the door. I know this is a big topic with Christians on both sides of the issue so I won't go into it unless you want to.

You are contradicting yourself here, hence I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. You say that literalism isn't absurd, and then you give an example which would make it absurd.

My point is precisely that Biblical literalism, if left unqualified, renders a rather caricature version of God which is very easy to ridicule and dismiss.

OK, but there is no one concept of God unless you're referring to the concept of the omni-God. And the concept of that God is not reasonable. What do you have to say on that topic?

Any given concept of God would be an approximation model of the real thing, because just like with electron analogy, we are attempting to describe a process by means of the observed effects that we ascribe to it, even though we are unable to observe it directly.

You may say, well since we can't observe it directly... that means that we are justified to be "atheistic towards it", but that's not the case with theoretical science, and that's not the case in philosophy. We do that all the time in these fields... we attribute observable effects to unobservable causes.

There's nothing unreasonable about that as long as the model works, or in the very least useful.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Lol! You make it sound like I'm a Foundationalist or a Reliabilist. Yeah...............in some ways, NV, I'm not unlike you. I don't go all 'in' for relying on big axioms and/or the supposed guarantees of deductive thought.

I don't understand your point. You act like I'm unreasonable for saying that axioms are not intrinsically true, but then when I ask you to show me one which is intrinsically true you retreat to whatever it is that I'm quoting.

 

[devolved]

Well, if there is utility to religion, or if it makes predictions, I'd be shocked. Religion, if left to its devices, almost always results in human rights violations. Religion ruling the world a dystopia of terror.

It's very difficult to build any civilization absent of moral framework that religion provides. That's why you find major civilizations around the world are built on the framework of religion.

Any discussion of the human rights is meaningless without a context in which such concept is possible. So your are filtering out positives of religious framework, and you choose to focus on the political ramifications of enforcing any given religion as a societal fabric... which obviously would have happened using the force, just like the law enforcement today would be happening use the same force.

Does the fact that Christianity helps to feed and shelter the poor outweigh the decades (and presumably millennia) of child rape that was covered up in a worldwide conspiracy? I'd think not. And let's face it, the Catholic church would still be happily accepting our money while raping our children to this very day had they not been outed. I don't think the church is sorry, other than sorry for being caught. And I'm sorry but I just don't see the practical application of religion.

You would have a point if Christianity advocated child rape. It doesn't.

And you seem to think that "feeding and sheltering the poor" is the only adequate benefits of Judeo-Christian religion . Western Civilization was built on the framework of Jude-Christian religion. It's the foundation that allowed everything else to progress.

And no one can do any kind of test to confirm the existence of God, or effects that come from him, so I don't understand this analogy at all.

I don't want to repeat myself too much, since I've already explained it. We don't test existence of things we observe indirectly. We test our models that describe our guess as to what these things are like. If these models predict something, then we deem them as useful and provisionally true. Concept of "true or false" doesn't apply to the things we can't directly observe.

 

[devolved]

Ok... I don't mind being proven wrong. I assume, then, that you are aware of some axiom which can be proven as true without appealing to other axioms, external definitions, postulates, or primitive terms. After you present it, collect your Nobel Prize.

Axioms by definition are the necessary "truths" that we have to accept for any subsequent statements of truths to work. Axioms require no proofs, only our collective agreement.

For example: I exist. My senses provide adequately accurate and useful picture of reality. Space is three-dimentional. Time can be quantized.... etc... etc..

ALL, and I do have to emphasize that ALL of our framework of philosophy, science and religion are built on axioms, or fundamental "truths" that can't really prove as true, but accept as such.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The problem is that you are locked into a frame of reference of scientific reductionism, so it's very difficult to explain to you concepts that extend beyond that frame of reference.

I'll try again, so it's more clear using the electron analogy.

When electron was postulated as a model , it was not directly observed. It was never observed directly. We have no clue as to what it's really like. We have no clue what the underlying fabric or reality is when it comes to how the electrons operate. We don't know whether electron is a particle or something else. We axiomatically presupposed an entity which is electron, ascribe some effects to it under specific causal conditions, and then built a ratio-metric mathematical model that can predict certain outputs given certain input.

Hence, in context of our frame of reference, we can only observe the indirect effects of something that we call electron, and then form imaginary models of what it's like using the existing framework of our language.

God is to religion as to electron is to physics. Except that electron is an axiomatic description of the "process of the lower order" to which certain attributes and effects are ascribed. God is an axiomatic description of "the process of the higher order" to which certain attributes and effects are ascribed.

We can't test for existence of the electron. We can only test our model of it. Models are tested to see if these can be applied to predict concistent occurences.

The same is with God. God, in context of religious framework, is A MODEL for describing a "higher order process" of reality we do not directly observe... although we do ascribe certain complex effects to it. We as humanity, suspect it exists, and we build various models in our attempt to consolidate and describe what that "process" is really like. The models were much more primitive in the past, hence if you pick up any given religious stories from 1000s of years ago, they are attempting to pack certain observed complex model of reality into narrative stories... the only communication tool available to humanity for a while.

So, if you are waiting for a bearded person to show up, show you some tricks, and tell you all of the secrets of the Universe, then that's not what God is.

So when you compare God to the electron and religion to science, you're not intending to imply that religion has any use, makes any predictions, and etc, right? You're merely saying that both are models for reality. And then you go on to clarify that your axiom is that God exists.

While I said that I would tentatively accept anything as an axiom, what you're doing here is pointless. You need to either start with common notions and then from there demonstrate that God exists, or at least most probably exists; OR you need to start with the assumption that God exists and then make accurate predictions about reality from that starting point. Merely starting with the assumption that God exists and then doing nothing from there proves absolutely nothing about absolutely anything. Oh, and that position is absolutely unreasonable.

You are contradicting yourself here, hence I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. You say that literalism isn't absurd, and then you give an example which would make it absurd.

I'm not contradicting myself; you're just making a straw man of literalism. Just because they call themselves literalists doesn't mean they take *everything* literally. They just take *as much as they can* literally. Their MO is to take everything literally unless it obviously cannot be taken literally.

Saying that literalists take *everything* literally is like insisting that Pizza Hut only sells pizza due to their name and utterly denying the reality that they also sell things like hot wings and bread sticks.

Or can you really find me someone on this forum who thinks that Jesus is a door, or a vine, or whatever?

My point is precisely that Biblical literalism, if left unqualified, renders a rather caricature version of God which is very easy to ridicule and dismiss.

Perhaps... but then again I don't know of any theology that results in a reasonable depiction of God. In any case, I'm not here to fight their battles, but I do not see any point in strawmanning them. In their defense, Proverbs 3:5 says to lean not on your own understanding, but rather trust in God. This seems to be an obvious endorsement of literalism and possibly suggests that hermeneutics is a heretical practice.

Any given concept of God would be an approximation model of the real thing, because just like with electron analogy, we are attempting to describe a process by means of the observed effects that we ascribe to it, even though we are unable to observe it directly.

OK, but what observed effects of God are you talking about? You said, "...just like with electron analogy, we are attempting to describe a process by means of the observed effects that we ascribe to it..." so you clearly believe you have evidence of God's existence, and yet you also said, "The problem is that you are locked into a frame of reference of scientific reductionism..." as if to imply that I should not be expecting evidence.

You may say, well since we can't observe it directly... that means that we are justified to be "atheistic towards it", but that's not the case with theoretical science, and that's not the case in philosophy. We do that all the time in these fields... we attribute observable effects to unobservable causes.

I never asked you to show me God. I asked you to show me evidence of his existence. So no, I would never say, "well since we can't observe it directly... that means that we are justified to be 'atheistic towards it'."

There's nothing unreasonable about that as long as the model works, or in the very least useful.

I don't see how you've shown either.

 

[devolved]

While I said that I would tentatively accept anything as an axiom, what you're doing here is pointless. You need to either start with common notions and then from there demonstrate that God exists, or at least most probably exists; OR you need to start with the assumption that God exists and then make accurate predictions about reality from that starting point. Merely starting with the assumption that God exists and then doing nothing from there proves absolutely nothing about absolutely anything. Oh, and that position is absolutely unreasonable.

Using the above framework you set up, please demonstrate to me that time exists.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's very difficult to build any civilization absent of moral framework that religion provides. That's why you find major civilizations around the world are built on the framework of religion.

Correlation does not imply causation. I don't see how you established a link there at all.

Any discussion of the human rights is meaningless without a context in which such concept is possible. So your are filtering out positives of religious framework, and you choose to focus on the political ramifications of enforcing any given religion as a societal fabric... which obviously would have happened using the force, just like the law enforcement today would be happening use the same force.

Name one thing unique to religion - any religion on earth - that benefits society. If you cannot, then religion is worthless.

Keep in mind: just because religion has X doesn't mean that religion is the only thing that has X, and thus it cannot be said that religion is necessary for X.

You would have a point if Christianity advocated child rape. It doesn't.

The church privately advocated child rape. Did it not?

And you seem to think that "feeding and sheltering the poor" is the only adequate benefits of Judeo-Christian religion . Western Civilization was built on the framework of Jude-Christian religion. It's the foundation that allowed everything else to progress.

Secularism is and always has been the key to progess. America, the first overtly secular nation on earth, emerged as a nation without a king. That's progess. America has blundered since then, due to Christianity asserting itself, but modern Europe has since modeled itself after this kingless secularism and has improved.

I don't want to repeat myself too much, since I've already explained it. We don't test existence of things we observe indirectly. We test our models that describe our guess as to what these things are like. If these models predict something, then we deem them as useful and provisionally true. Concept of "true or false" doesn't apply to the things we can't directly observe.

I can't directly observe your brain without seriously injuring or killing you. Does that mean I cannot say it's true or false that you have a brain?

Axioms by definition are the necessary "truths" that we have to accept for any subsequent statements of truths to work. Axioms require no proofs, only our collective agreement.

Right. And nothing you've said indicates that axioms are intrinsically true, so I don't see your point. Unless you're saying that you agree.

For example: I exist. My senses provide adequately accurate and useful picture of reality. Space is three-dimentional. Time can be quantized.... etc... etc..

I think you're saying that you take the accuracy of your senses as an axiom. That is dangerous and reckless.

ALL, and I do have to emphasize that ALL of our framework of philosophy, science and religion are built on axioms, or fundamental "truths" that can't really prove as true, but accept as such.

Correct. Except I would fix it like this:

ALL, and I do have to emphasize that ALL of our framework of philosophy, science and religion are built on axioms, or fundamental "truths" that can't really prove as true, but TENTATIVELY accept as such.

Therefore, nihilism.

Using the above framework you set up, please demonstrate to me that time exists.

System: a collection of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a region of space.

State: a particular arrangement of the elements of a system.

Time: the mechanism by which a system changes from one state to another.

We observe systems changing from one state to another, so the existence of time is apparent. I used common notions to reasonably demonstrate the existence of time. Now, what was the point of that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't understand your point. You act like I'm unreasonable for saying that axioms are not intrinsically true, but then when I ask you to show me one which is intrinsically true you retreat to whatever it is that I'm quoting.

You're right, you're not understanding me, which is surprising for someone with your brain power.

I actually agree with you, to a limited extent, that axioms are not intrinsically true, although I likely think this for other reasons than you do (i.e. I have epistemological reasons). However, it seems to me that when it comes to jumping to conclusions, you're about as bad as hyper-fundamentalistic Christians are when you overstate your case about how Nihilism supposedly applies to constructs of human "meaning."

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply.

Disagree. Atheism is a label that describes a position on a specific claim.
That position can be reasonable or unreasonable.

It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence. If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

No. It's perfectly legit to call it "reasonable" to not accept claims that have not met their burden of proof, while it is also perfectly legit to call it "unreasonable" to do the opposite.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality.

The problem is that these "higher orders" are just asserted to exist, without proper justification.

To just assert such things, is unreasonablee
When you start from unreasonable premises, you are not going to end up with a reasonable conclusion.....

Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

You could not, because you would always necessarily have to start with unreasonable premises.

GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

That a god exists, is one of those unreasonable premises.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Before jumping into "God Space" let's dissect the idea of axiomatic knowledge.

Let's get back to the electron example. Prior to any "common knowledge" of electricity, electricity was a phenomenon. "Something happens", but we don't really know what.

So, along came several scientists, that moved the concept of electricity from "something happening" into the realm of working knowledge as to how that particular phenomenon behaves.

We still don't really know WHAT it is, or how it works at the level of the "fabric" or "engine" or reality. What we can do with our models is predict the behavior of phenomenon enough for that model to become a knowledge we can use as we navigate reality and build tools. When it comes to the actual metaphysical nature of it, electromagnetic effect is still very much a mystery.

Errrrrr..... electrons, electricity, physics in general.... is emperical - not "metaphysical".

BUT, at the level of observable effects of something that we can't really see or explain (be it readouts on the instruments, or functioning TV)... we can use the ratio-driven mathematics in order to manipulate nature to gain desired effects once we re-create certain causal chain that drives that process to these outcomes.

It's the premise behind the applied science. It doesn't really matter what the "machine of reality" is, as long as we can create adequate predictive models, and these models help us predict the behavior of these phenomenons enough for us to harness these into tools.

The point being, the model is an abstraction of the real thing.

Right. Also called "theory".

We don't know what the real thing is. As long as the models predicts expected behavior... we label it as "reasonable" and "correct".... provisionally.

yep. With emphasis on the "as long as the models predict expected behavior...". Also known as "backed by empirical evidence"

Going back to the concept of God.

I will propose an axiom here that we can agree on hopefully. Reality and everything it "encapsulates" is a process. The recurring cyclical processes become "recognizable", and as long as these are sufficiently cyclical with minimal variations, we label these as provisionally permanent. Thus, what we label as "time"... would be our comparative measurement of one cyclical process against other.

Human being... can be viewed as individual, or can be viewed as a macro-organism that did not start with your birth and does not end with your death. We simply split into a variation copy, "in form" that copy with memetic data about that particular environment, and that copy then goes on functioning as a sub-process of reality. If we extend that process through time, then we see the same thing we observe at various levels of the process reality - some levels of permanence, with some transitional processes. Humans don't really die... they make "backup copies" that progress into the future, while the expiration date of the "original" is tuned by the surrounding resources.

My children are not "back up copies" of myself.
My children are brand new individuals, which can be traced back to me - sure. But they are not copies of me nore are they backups of me.

Also, what if I die without having children?

So, life is a process, just like a human being is a process.

If you wish.

So, if we look at the process that's life, and the process as reality... God is a process of highest order in that particular scheme.

It functions as the "top layer" process in the hierarchy of the processes of reality.​

Why? Because you say so?
How have you concluded this?

Why do we agree that dogs exist, but not god?

I hope I did not lose you yet.

You didn't lose me. You just didn't make any sense.