Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

I question the utility of logic as way of proving something exists without reference to evidence for that thing existing.

I have a rock on my desk. We know that rocks and real are that they do exist and that their existence is easily demonstrated. Yet there is no logic that can prove my claim is true, the only way for other people to know my rock is there with any reasonable certainty is for someone do something to demonstrate that I have it.

If pure logic doesn't work for things that we know can be real, how can it work for things that can't be demonstrated to exist?

[Aristocatt]

How do you know that rock isn't just an illusion being produced by a demon dangling you by your feet over a cauldron?
#ooohhhhsooooodeeeeeep

[Harry Nevis]

Good that you acknowledge my bolded.  But by extension what should one's stance be toward other 'instinctual' beliefs such as a flat earth or the rotation of every other object in the sky around our most special of planets?  Do we just accept that which we're inclined to believe or attempt to gain a more comprehensive perspective?

My everyday stance is to trust but verify. The alternative is to doubt everything until proven otherwise. My point is that while the second has its place it shouldn't be considered the default position all the time for everything.

I cannot go through life on the assumption that my instincts are always wrong, or that my senses are entirety unreliable or that reason is ineffective.

Neither can I.  Instinct is just part of the data collected to verify things.  By itself it isn't worth much.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I question the utility of logic as way of proving something exists without reference to evidence for that thing existing...If pure logic doesn't work for things that we know can be real, how can it work for things that can't be demonstrated to exist?

The objective evidence includes the fact there is something rather than nothing, that things can persist in their being despite change, the consistency of cause and effect relationships, etc. To account for this evidence there are logical demonstrations justifying the belief in God as a likely explanation, one that already conforms to subjective intuition, cross cultural encounters with the ineffable, and common apprehension of the sublime.

For the purpose of this thread, I say it takes a special effort to dismiss or explain away the evidence by showing that either the evidence isn't what we naturally suppose it to be or the logic of the demonstrations are flawed or that reason itself is suspect or our notions of causality are suspect. It is just like your rock example. The default position is that the rock exists and it takes lots of philosophical heavy lifting to bring its existence into question. Same for God, even if for the sake of argument I grant that God's existence does not have same level of immediacy as a rock.

[Whateverist]

I question the utility of logic as way of proving something exists without reference to evidence for that thing existing...If pure logic doesn't work for things that we know can be real, how can it work for things that can't be demonstrated to exist?

The objective evidence includes the fact there is something rather than nothing, that things can persist in their being despite change, the consistency of cause and effect relationships, etc. To account for this evidence there are logical demonstrations justifying the belief in God as a likely explanation, one that already conforms to subjective intuition, cross cultural encounters with the ineffable, and common apprehension of the sublime.

For the purpose of this thread, I say it takes a special effort to dismiss or explain away the evidence by showing that either the evidence isn't what we naturally suppose it to be or the logic of the demonstrations are flawed or that reason itself is suspect or our notions of causality are suspect. It is just like your rock example. The default position is that the rock exists and it takes lots of philosophical heavy lifting to bring its existence into question. Same for God, even if for the sake of argument  I grant that God's existence does not have same level of immediacy as a rock.

Seems odd to cite a few generalizations about things as you find them in order to justify a finding that there is something non-detectable and ineffable 'behind a veil' which is the cause and explanation of everything we see.  That really does require a lot faith and/or confirmation-bias IMO.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Seems odd to cite a few generalizations about things as you find them in order to justify a finding that there is something non-detectable and ineffable 'behind a veil' which is the cause and explanation of everything we see.  That really does require a lot faith and/or confirmation-bias IMO.

Perhaps you and many of your fellow atheists have not experienced these things as I have. It is a type of gnosis that has a certainty about it that goes beyond ordinary experience. Everyday reality seems rather pale by comparison. YMMV. Even if you never had such personal experience, highly specific disciplines like yoga meditation and contemplative prayer have consistently produced these kinds of experiences that are consistent across cultures. A skeptic can always dismiss these as self-inflicted delusions. Perhaps. But skeptics can find reasons to doubt pretty much anything including their our consciousness.

[Whateverist]

But even with the eye opening experience one can (should?) still choose carefully how to frame and carry its upshot.

[Nonpareil]

The objective evidence includes the fact there is something rather than nothing, that things can persist in their being despite change, the consistency of cause and effect relationships, etc.

None of these things are evidence for the existence, necessity, possibility, or even likelihood of a god.

To account for this evidence there are logical demonstrations justifying the belief in God as a likely explanation

No, there aren't.

There are quite a lot of things that claim to demonstrate this, but none of them actually succeed.

As for the lack of a logical proof for the existence of a specific rock, that is a simple category error. Logic is the process of constructing valid arguments - that is, building conclusions that are true if the premises are true. Determining whether or not the argument is sound - that is, determining whether the premises are actually true, and thus whether or not the conclusion is actually true - is where the gathering of evidence comes in. And proving it to others is more a matter of making said evidence widely available than it is about logic as a system.

[Whateverist]

Seems odd to cite a few generalizations about things as you find them in order to justify a finding that there is something non-detectable and ineffable 'behind a veil' which is the cause and explanation of everything we see.  That really does require a lot faith and/or confirmation-bias IMO.

Perhaps you and many of your fellow atheists have not experienced these things as I have. It is a type of gnosis that has a certainty about it that goes beyond ordinary experience. Everyday reality seems rather pale by comparison. YMMV. Even if you never had such personal experience, highly specific disciplines like yoga meditation and contemplative prayer have consistently produced these kinds of experiences that are consistent across cultures. A skeptic can always dismiss these as self-inflicted delusions. Perhaps. But skeptics can find reasons to doubt pretty much anything including their our consciousness.

But even with the eye opening experience one can (should?) still choose carefully how to frame and carry its upshot.

Uncertainty may not be but jumping to conclusions is avoidable.  You know what they say, anything worth doing over is worth doing right the first time.

[Amarok]

An experience alone proves nothing