The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

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?

1. Your question seems to be: are human perceptions reliable? I would say yes. We are long past the days where we do not look for causes of everything. We understand facts and counterfactuals. We understand inferential and deductive reasoning. We understand mathematics. We understand human limitations. Do we understand everything? No. But enough to know a lot of what we don't know. 

2. I didn't say that if we cannot trust our perceptions, we can know nothing. We cannot be certain of anything. There is a difference. It inserts systematic doubt into everything. There is no justification for such a position.

3. Where the axioms of PSR, the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-Contradiction derived from human reasoning? Would they not all apply if there were not humans to think about them? I think they would. So, I think they are fundamental features of reality. In 'possible world semantics', these would exist in every possible world.  

4. At some point you have to develop a metaphysical framework in which to operate any investigation. You seem to be saying that holding firm to a framework is somehow counterproductive. I would say that not holding to a framework actually prevents meaningful investigation or attaining knowledge. Think about it, if one does not ascribe to a PSR, science does not get off the ground.