(October 2, 2019 at 6:25 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean.

.....exactly.

Quote:We can define 'God' in many different ways.

Let's not.  

Quote:I don't think God is an "ultimate brute fact" or the natural universe might as well be God.

The church is really not doing well these days if it's adherents think god is reducible.

Quote:If we accept that everything has an explanation then there must be something absolutely simple. It makes the most sense that that is the end of explanations, so why stop the reasoning process before we reach it? The argument is that if we can't observe it somehow, it doesn't matter.

Why indeed.  So, reducible god.  What is it's explanation?  Who or what created it?

(October 2, 2019 at 6:22 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 2, 2019 at 6:11 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: The possibility of supernatural causes. Miracles. This might be essentially what divides the theist from the atheist: belief that nature is absolutely uniform or relatively uniform.

But once again, with the data provided to me by theists, and the lack of confirmed, verifiable miracles or supernatural causes to examine, isn't my disbelief in a god rationally based?

Even if, and that's a big if, miracles and supernatural causes could be confirmed. That still would not mean a god is responsible. You can't get to 'therefore god exists', from, 'something supernatural occured.

Of course disbelief and skepticism can be rational. So can faith and belief. I don't think atheists are all irrational, but I contend that neither am I.

The existence of a supernatural cause is distinguishable from no supernatural cause, because of the difference between an absolutely uniform, or relatively uniform, causal chain of natural events. I don't understand what you mean by "a god"' if you don't mean a supernatural cause.

It's possible for rational people to have irrational beliefs.

(October 2, 2019 at 6:45 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:

(October 2, 2019 at 6:22 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But once again, with the data provided to me by theists, and the lack of confirmed, verifiable miracles or supernatural causes to examine, isn't my disbelief in a god rationally based?

Even if, and that's a big if, miracles and supernatural causes could be confirmed. That still would not mean a god is responsible. You can't get to 'therefore god exists', from, 'something supernatural occured.

Of course disbelief and skepticism can be rational. So can faith and belief. I don't think atheists are all irrational, but I contend that neither am I.

The existence of a supernatural cause is distinguishable from no supernatural cause, because of the difference between an absolutely uniform, or relatively uniform, causal chain of natural events. I don't understand what you mean by "a god"' if you don't mean a supernatural cause.

No, belief can be rational, faith by definition is belief that is asserted without rational basis and without admission of its dubiousness because it lacks rational basis.

The existence of a supernatural cause is distinguishable from no supernatural cause solely by the observer's eagerness to become satisfied with accepting some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency.

If he is easily satistfied with some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever other than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency, than he would call his faux explanation "supernatural".   He would exhibit his complacency by letting all his inquiry stop at "supernatural" and going no further.  

If he wants an explanation which provides any theoretical portal to further defining why and how, then that explanation would not even occur to him as being "supernatural".
 

---

(October 2, 2019 at 4:14 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 2, 2019 at 12:51 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Your god seems pretty weak, vague an inseparable from nothingness. I, however, can describe my God (and let's be honest the real one) in full robust language and can even give you illustrations of Its glory from artists who've seen it around the world and through time.

RAmen.

You'll never win me as a convert,  but if the FSM is what connects you to God then I say go for it.  It all  boils down to you and God.

Well, at least FSM is good for boiling.

Yours, not so much.

(October 2, 2019 at 6:29 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: .....exactly.

Checkmate? 

Quote:The church is really not doing well these days if it's adherents think god is reducible.

"God" is not a helpful word here. There is something that is absolutely simple. That's where our reasoning should begin, if we're consistent; not in a brute fact. The brute fact may be the limit of our physical powers of observation; we have no logical reason to declare that it's the limit of existence.

---

(October 2, 2019 at 6:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: You should be careful what exactly is a fact and what contradicting fact means.    For example, belief in ghosts might legitimately be called superstition, but exactly how do ghosts contradict known facts?

You said faith contradicts known facts. I said that faith must be consistent with known facts, or else it's superstition. I don't know if every single belief in ghosts or a ghost is superstitious, or whether superstition must contradict known facts to be considered superstition (or legitimately be called as such).
[/quote]

Quote:Also, how is heresay relative to the observer anymore than an observation of a fact is relative to the observer?

Heresy is contradicting some proposition of faith, so it's relative to the faith of the believer. A heresy cannot be observed. Compare with a superstition that contradicts known facts, objectively considered.
[/quote]

Quote:How is "superrational truth" not dependent upon the holder of the faith of superrational truth being you?   If you were me, I would dispense with that faith and dismiss superrational truth as overbearing flimflam - a superstitious worship of ego and intuition.

That's the same thing as saying all faith is superstition. We disagree about that, at least conceptually. I accept the possibility that some truth may be beyond my natural reasoning ability, or beyond the natural reasoning ability of any human being.

Quote:What exactly is "superrational truth"?

Objective reality beyond the scope or range of reasoning. Accurate intuition is another kind of superrational assent.

Quote:Does really wishing an assumption to be true and seeing all sorts of flowers and rainbows when you think of those assumptions being true makes it "truth"?

Wishful thinking is not faith. "What's the difference?" Wishful thinking is based on imagination, not revelation. "What's the difference?" Revelation is superrational truth communicated by a supernatural cause. "How do you know there is a supernatural cause?" I'm convinced by the cosmological argument.

Quote:If they are essentially nothing more than assumptions, than is the fact you chose to enloften them with the word "truth" a an act of delibrate contradiction against the fact that they are no more certain to be true than any assumption which does not contradict facts that are known today, but may yet turn out to contradict facts that would be found tomorrow?

Deliberate contradiction? It's a sincere belief that something is true but beyond my reasoning ability. Subjectively, it's similar to trust in an authority. Objectively, it's based on the possibility of revelation.

What you are saying is but this:


Because means of clearly defined methods of truth finding that has demonstrated efficacy and  reliability does not point to what you like be true,  you will assert means demonstrated to be unreliable to now be now reliable so you can pretend what you like to be true is indeed true.

(October 2, 2019 at 4:14 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 2, 2019 at 12:51 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Your god seems pretty weak, vague an inseparable from nothingness. I, however, can describe my God (and let's be honest the real one) in full robust language and can even give you illustrations of Its glory from artists who've seen it around the world and through time.

RAmen.

You'll never win me as a convert,  but if the FSM is what connects you to God then I say go for it.  It all  boils down to you and God.

That's ok there are many lost sheep. FSM doesn't connect me with god, FSM is god.

May his noodles unharden your heart.

RAmen

(October 2, 2019 at 12:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Since he is indescrible in human terms, I can only give attributes.  I use "he" for lack of another pronoun.  He always existed and will always exist.  He was not created, but he is the creator of the physical universe - omnipotent, omniscient, loving, personal, without gender, no form, etc.  He exists in and apart from the universe and sustains it every second.  I'm not of the Sikh religion, but my image of God is pretty much the same.  The holy book of Sikhism is the "Sri Guru Granth Sahib".

From a logical perspective, indescribable is synonymous with non-existent.

Also, for conveniently knowing nothing about god, merely for the sake of an apologist argument, theists still seem to know all about the being in order to have a personal relationship with it.

But you just keep making this shit up in order to hold onto that cognitive dissonance.

(October 2, 2019 at 7:09 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, belief can be rational, faith by definition is belief that is asserted without rational basis and without admission of its dubiousness because it lacks rational basis.

There is a rational basis to accept the possibility of revelation if we accept the rational arguments for a supernatural cause. Faith is belief that something is supernaturally revealed, and does not contradict known facts.
[/quote]

Quote:The existence of a supernatural cause is distinguishable from no supernatural cause solely by the observer's eagerness to become satisfied with accepting some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency.

This is your asserted opinion. A supernatural cause opens up the possibility of revealed truth, which is the object of faith, which is motivated by a genuine desire for truth.

Quote:If he is easily satistfied with some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever other than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency, than he would call his faux explanation "supernatural".   He would exhibit his complacency by letting all his inquiry stop at "supernatural" and going no further.  

On the contrary, the motive of understanding is not limited. We just aren't capable of developing an epistemology beyond the natural (which is relative to our powers of perception), so our knowledge is limited.

(October 2, 2019 at 8:31 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:

(October 2, 2019 at 7:09 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, belief can be rational, faith by definition is belief that is asserted without rational basis and without admission of its dubiousness because it lacks rational basis.

There is a rational basis to accept the possibility of revelation if we accept the rational arguments for a supernatural cause. Faith is belief that something is supernaturally revealed, and does not contradict known facts.

Quote:The existence of a supernatural cause is distinguishable from no supernatural cause solely by the observer's eagerness to become satisfied with accepting some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency.

This is your asserted opinion. A supernatural cause opens up the possibility of revealed truth, which is the object of faith, which is motivated by a genuine desire for truth.

Quote:If he is easily satistfied with some faux explanation that really provides no understanding and is useless for any purpose whatsoever other than acquiring a smug sense idiot complacency, than he would call his faux explanation "supernatural".   He would exhibit his complacency by letting all his inquiry stop at "supernatural" and going no further.  

On the contrary, the motive of understanding is not limited. We just aren't capable of developing an epistemology beyond the natural (which is relative to our powers of perception), so our knowledge is limited.

No, a "supernatural cause" actually doesn't do anything by itself.    All it does in the hands of the person who asserted it is to let that person shout down the possibility of examining the so called "revealed truth" by more demonstrably reliable yardsticks to determine whether it is likely to be true or not.   

It does not open up any possibility whatsoever of getting closer to any sort of truth which could be verified by means less flawed than a person's fervent wish for something to be true.