Crazy Anglican, that doesn't make it correct though. We're not talking about how to improve your life, we're talking about whether or not something is true.

Christians can be scientific except about Christianity, where they clearly reject their science. Particularly if you reject the possibility of God not existing totally- that is profoundly unscientific, since no scientist claims absolute certainty about anything.


Can I bring this back to the original question though, why do you think that your faith is valid as an argument in favour of god's existence?

Trust me, Im as atheistic as anyone, but It is completely reasonable and fairly logical to accept things as true, even if there is no evidence to support it. In Physics for instance, every successive model for atomic structure was a reasonable belief. Each one took all of the evidence and data from experimentation and experience and pieced together a theory that was "consistent" in the logical sense. Never once, not even today, did anyone "know" the truth.

It is a matter of taste as to whether you prefer "the simplest explanation" or the one that is devoid of one thing or another. As long as they are consistent to the world around us, there is no way to distinguish any further level of truth.

That having been said, "God acts beyond the understanding of humans," is a cure all explanation, to which many attach. It can never be inconsistent with experience, because it supercedes experience.

I prefer nonetheless to rule it out as a matter of taste.

"Acosmist: at risk of being petty, I didn't say it because it was obvious."

I guess I'll fill in the correct words when you say incorrect things from now on. But I hate assuming; didn't that get me into trouble earlier in this thread? It happened somewhere, to be sure.

"I'm not a logical positivist."

Do you think science should deal with the physical universe, and nothing more?

"Rejecting all logic renders all logic unsound, and would be far simpler for you, but please, can you furnish me with an example where disjunctive syllogism is not valid?"

Paraconsistent logic doesn't reject all logic. Where did you get that idea? It's a logic, after all, and it has its logical rules.

Far simpler for me? I didn't invent this logic; I'm not even sure I buy the idea! But it certainly poses quite a challenge for LNC.

"can you furnish me with an example where disjunctive syllogism is not valid?"

Paraconsistent logic! I already did that, though. But let's take your attempt at explosion. If the logic at issue accepts some contradictions, then it is sometimes true that (p ^ ~p). So, p. Now you introduce a disjunction, like you did - p v q. But ~p is also true. So, from p v q and ~p we deduce, by disjunctive syllogism, that q. But hold on - the disjunction p v q is true even when ~p and ~q, because, after all, p ^ ~p is the assumption with which we started. Under paraconsistency, it's PERFECTLY valid to reject that this kind of explosion works.

You seem to think that I'm rejecting rules willy-nilly to make my own assumptions work. First of all, they aren't my assumptions - they're challenges to explosive logics introduced and refined by experts in the field of philosophical logic. I have no dog in this race, so to speak. Second, there is a consistency in the procedure by which these logicians work. They aren't revising their rules post hoc to make their assumptions work; they are adopting a set of principles that makes the "obvious" not seem as obvious anymore.

In fact, Graham Priest deals with the explosion objection FIRST in his article in The Law of Non-Contradiction. New Philosophical Essays. It's not as if these people overlook explosion, and they didn't do anything inconsistent with their assumptions in rejecting the rules of inference that would lead to successful explosion.

So, if you want an "example" I've provided it - it was the same one I linked to before, though...

Science, by definition, can only deal with the measurable. From the logical positivism does not follow. I have greater sympathy for the falsification principle, but I can see the potential for issues with it.

I'm not totally sure how we got into this discussion about logic, but can I ask, as a means of breaking out if it, is your faith a priori or a posteriori?

And I want to break out if it because we've just completed the circle.

"Science, by definition, can only deal with the measurable."

Science could not, then, posit the existence of or non-existence of things that aren't measurable.

"I'm not totally sure how we got into this discussion about logic, but can I ask, as a means of breaking out if it, is your faith a priori or a posteriori?"

A posteriori.

"we've just completed the circle."

?

"Science could not, then, posit the existence of or non-existence of things that aren't measurable."

If something isn't measurable, it has no effect that you can measure. Therefore it cannot be a creator god, therefore it cannot be a Christian God. Your God is susceptible to science.

If something has no effect whatsoever, I would say the concept of its existence becomes meaningless.

"A posteriori."

So we are dealing with evidence, and not pure logic. I presume you take faith as your evidence?

"we've just completed the circle." ie we've come to the stage where we are posting the same argument twice.

"If something isn't measurable, it has no effect that you can measure."

What is the effect of the entire universe?

"So we are dealing with evidence, and not pure logic. I presume you take faith as your evidence?"

No, I don't think that my faith is justified by my having faith. That would be a weak, self-serving sort of evidence.

"ie we've come to the stage where we are posting the same argument twice."

We should stop doing that. Let's step into the same river twice next time :)

The universe in the future is the effect of the universe. I should correct myself to the positive proposition that if something has an effect that you can measure, it is measurable. God has the effect of the Universe, and therefore is measurable.

"No, I don't think that my faith is justified by my having faith. That would be a weak, self-serving sort of evidence."

Ok, so what justifies your faith (presumably something, since it is a priori)

With what do you measure the entire universe? Remember, the entire universe includes the thing you're measuring with.

True, it does. But if I cause the entire universe, I have to cause a small part of it, too, so that isn't a problem.

Repeat: what justifies your faith (presumably something, since it is a priori)?

"True, it does. But if I cause the entire universe, I have to cause a small part of it, too, so that isn't a problem."

I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about the impossibility of making the entire universe an object of scientific knowledge. That shows that there exists at least one thing that is not subject to scientific reasoning. Thus, you have to go beyond science to believe in it.

"Repeat: what justifies your faith (presumably something, since it is a priori)?"

I assumed you were going to correct the typo...

These are the things I take as evidence supporting my faith:

-the reality of mathematical objects
-the concept of morality

These are the objective bases that lead me to consider it impossible for God not to exist. I have subjective bases, as everyone does. I'm not sure what to make of, e.g., Gödel's ontological proof or a Jamesian pragmatist criterion of religious belief...I guess they'd be weaker varieties of evidence but I don't know what category I would put them in.

sorry, a posteriori I meant, of course.

"I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about the impossibility of making the entire universe an object of scientific knowledge. That shows that there exists at least one thing that is not subject to scientific reasoning. Thus, you have to go beyond science to believe in it."

But you can make every object in it individually a scientific object, agreed?

"-the reality of mathematical objects"
In what way are mathematical objects "real"

"-the concept of morality"
Why can this not be either psychological or purely logical.

"But you can make every object in it individually a scientific object, agreed?"

In theory, yes. I say that with appropriate hesitation because if you're going to model a physical phenomenon, you're going to be "using up" part of the universe in doing it...at some scale this becomes impossible, like creating an accurate computer simulation of the entire universe. Between "Hey look a star" and "Hey look the entirety of existence" there is a point at which you can't actually deal with it scientifically, and the limitation is FUNDAMENTAL.

"In what way are mathematical objects 'real'"

Mathematical facts about the world are not universally dependent on the position by humans of the properties of abstract entities. To some extent, things can be mathematically true without having been posited ex ante (or without being derivable by things posited ex ante).

"Why can this not be either psychological or purely logical."

Then it's not morality. I don't know what a purely logical morality would BE.

Right, ok, I'd like to point out that it is not true to say that you cannot study something with itself: look at the human eye: I can observe my own eye using a mirror, I can also observe the mirror at the same time. It is true to say that [my eye and the mirror] are observing [my eye and the mirror]

That analogy doesn't work. The eye isn't sufficient to "study" itself.

"Mathematical facts about the world"

What do you mean by that?

"Then it's not morality. I don't know what a purely logical morality would BE."
Yes, it isn't morality. But why do you think there is such a thing as morality.

As for a purely logical morality, that is something Ayn Rand attempted, at least.

Why I say study, I'm actually talking about measurement.

I can perform tests on my own body, using my body, so in that way, something can measure itself.

btw, I've just answered your PM.

"What do you mean by that?"

Things in math can be judged true or false even absent deductive proof from posited axioms and rules of inference.

"Yes, it isn't morality. But why do you think there is such a thing as morality."

Because of my experience of it in the actual world.

"As for a purely logical morality, that is something Ayn Rand attempted, at least."

Ayn Rand, really? <_<

"Why I say study, I'm actually talking about measurement.

I can perform tests on my own body, using my body, so in that way, something can measure itself."

Measurement implies judgment. The eye cannot judge itself.

Acosmist? Is a human incapable of measuring the diameter of their waist or the speed of their heart rate or their allergic response to some substance in an objective manner? Just put a measuring tape around your middle, a finger to your wrist, or prick your skin with the questionable allergen and measure the bump it makes. Sure, there will be margins of error but these can be overcome with more sophisticated tools.

Uh...

I don't know what you think I said that my answer to that could be in any doubt.

Also, much of this was discussed off-site after Ghost and I stopped posting here, so you'll probably have difficulty getting us to rehash that.

I didn't read the entire thread but it sounds more like your father is using religion as a shield and an excuse to protect his hatred of others and project his arrogance and sadism in a way he can justify to himself as righteous instead of atrocious.

To be fair, we went wildly off topic onto whether or not mathematical realism was correct.

"Things in math can be judged true or false even absent deductive proof from posited axioms and rules of inference."- but then again, you need the axioms, which don't pertain to the "world", and nor do the results (what is a number, exactly?)

""Yes, it isn't morality. But why do you think there is such a thing as morality."

Because of my experience of it in the actual world.
"

TGM: But you can easily maintain that that is directly affected by your psyche
Acosmist: It doesn't look like you have a way to decide that in your system

Morality could be real or "psychological"
______
Quite right, which is why you cannot use it as a premise to prove the existence of God. Morality would have to be self evident not assuming the existence of god to be a valid premise, but then it cannot be evidence for the existence of god, either.

Also, you need to solve the euthyphro dilemma before you start with this.
_____________

That and extending the eye and the mirror to the body, mind and mirror, and Acosmist accepted that "Now your analogy works". Then we entered whether or not mathematical objects were real, and that didn't get very far at all.
_______________
However, we have moved off the topic of faith here, because Acosmist clearly doesn't believe in God on the basis of a leap of faith (a la Kierkegaard), and I said at the start that the person who thinks that a leap of faith is justified with regard to God is the person I couldn't understand, not the person who thinks they've proved God's existence. Acosmist or CrazyAnglican, do either of you reject that?