RE: The absolute absurdity of God
August 9, 2018 at 5:08 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2018 at 5:17 pm by Kernel Sohcahtoa.)
(August 9, 2018 at 12:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:(August 8, 2018 at 5:56 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I'd like to clarify that I'm asking questions and /or seeking clarification on the ideas/thoughts that you have posted here. My intent is not to debate or to engage in other forms of win-lose competitions.
That said, regarding (1), is it possible that the principle of sufficient reason (everything has a cause or reason) is just a result of the human mind attempting to make reality conform to its observations, perceptions, thought processes, etc.? In the pursuit of objective truth, how often do humans end up projecting their own meaning onto that truth?
Regarding (2), as previously mentioned, is it possible that the concept of a "first cause" is just the human mind projecting itself onto reality, rather than the human mind actually trying to objectively interpret reality as it is?
1. No, I think we derive a PSR from every observation that ever was with no exception. Why would we doubt those observations?(1) If we are going to go that far down the hyper-skepticism path, then your stance becomes that we can know nothing.(2) Do you have examples of where humans universally projected their own meaning on something? This argument avoids any personal projection of truth by referring to axioms like the PSR, the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-Contradiction.(3)
2. Related to (1), I think the human mind (collectively) is capable of working out fundamental features of reality. You don't have to have any biases to engage the argument. The inductive nature does not demand the conclusion is true--but even atheists have to concede that a first cause is a real problem for a purely naturalistic worldview. Isn't it special pleading when you encounter a problem your worldview can't deal with to say "well maybe we are projecting our thought onto reality"--when in literally every other area of science (and life) we act like we can navigate through it?(4)
(1) Must every observation that ever was conform to how humans observe? Does reality operate solely within humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making?
(2) I clarified in my last post that I’m asking questions and am trying to learn more about your ideas and am interested in your responses to the questions that I’ve asked: I’m taking no stance. Personally, I’ve made no final conclusions about reality, and as a result, I’m curious. That said, if reality does not conform to the ways that humans observe and make sense of things, then why must the conclusion be that humans can know nothing? Why can’t it be that humans can still know and understand features of reality provided that they minimize personal bias and are willing to interpret reality in a more neutral, objective manner that seeks to understand how reality works (rather than assuming that reality operates in a given way from the beginning)?
(3) IMO, if one assumes that reality conforms to humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making, then it would seem that the following axioms posted above would also hold as they were derived via human reasoning. However, if it is not the case that reality conforms to humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making, then how can one be sure that the above axioms will have universal validity in reality and that using them isn’t just some form of anthropomorphizing reality?
(4) If one insists on framing intellectual conversations in a competitive way, then such a response could be perceived as special pleading to keep the contest alive. However, I’ve already stated that my intent here is to ask questions: the last thing I want is for this exchange to devolve to some sort of contest. That said, as stated in my response to (2), perhaps humans can navigate through life while learning cool, fascinating, and fundamental features of reality provided that they are willing to do this with a mindset that does not seek to explain via its own preconceptions/starting points but seeks to gain an understanding of that reality via inquisitiveness, neutrality/impartiality, and open-mindedness, so that it can explain reality in a more objective way. What are your thoughts?