Our consciousness helps us to understand the world by giving identities and meanings to its objects. But the question is how understanding and meaning of something become explicit in our consciousness?
According to Kant we are born with “Predetermined Conceptual Schemes.” In other words, our sub consciousness presupposes some prior consciousness of the world which gives us the foundation for interpreting our perceptions to appraise relevant meanings of the outside world. All experiences and meanings are then somehow mapped in the brain which mind deploys for the enhancements of our conceptual world.
There are numerous mind structures and when these are put together in the right way we get a more complex structure that represents the things as having the properties and that thereby provides us with a token of belief. For example, we believe that “Oranges are juicy.”
Once the concept is formed it serves as a new mental unit. Concept is a mental integration of two or more elements into a new mental structure. We reduce the number of numerically and qualitatively distinct objects to a single unit. We could go on grouping these new mental units together into higher order concepts to expand the scope and reach increasingly high levels of abstraction. Mind has a splendid ability to form quite new beliefs by means of novel combinations of the relevant beliefs.
Since belief is veridical, most beliefs constitute knowledge. However, not all beliefs can be taken as knowledge. One drawback with our senses is that they can be fooled easily and consequentially we may unintentionally promote wrong ideas and beliefs. The traditional analysis of knowledge maintains that a person has knowledge provided he has a justified true belief. But justified true belief might also not qualify for the status of knowledge because of its defective source(s). For example, formerly people believed that the Earth is flat or the sun moves around the Earth. Therefore, there should be some way to overcome this cognitive flaw.
We have the ability to extract information about objects and phenomena by integrating what we perceive. To notice common properties and ways of acting, to classify things accordingly, and to extract universal principles and trues that are applicable to the things are the abilities that we use to build logic and reasoning to gain knowledge about discernible and indiscernible objects and phenomena. We develop logic to discover new connections by means of generalisations.
Logic is the language for reasoning. It stands for intelligibility and ordered thought which goes beyond mere sensual perceptions. Logic attempts in a systematic way to give principles to a valid reason. As a tool for characterising a rational thought, logic crosses many philosophical boundaries delving into metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of mind and language. It is a tool for working on basic notions like reference, predication, identity, truth, negation, quantification, existence, necessity, definition, and entailment.
When logical reasoning combined with sense perceptions that reduces the probabilities of getting erroneous beliefs specially about indiscernible objects and phenomena. Therefore, it is essential to identify the conditions beliefs must meet if they are to acquire the status of knowledge.
All cases of finding facts are built upon cumulative study on different bits of evidences. If all the bits of evidences fit well enough in the given hypothesis, then those bits transform the given hypothesis into a cherished fact. For example, we now know about the existence of Black Holes although we cannot perceive them directly.
However, in order to investigate a given concept one must have some element of belief to start with. It is obvious that we cannot know that something is the case if we do not even believe it or if we suspend our judgments on too many points all at once. The main reason of disbelief in most cases is the Desire for not exploring the certain concept for the sake of comfort and pleasure.
This sort of desire can easily infect the justified concepts with desire-based imaginational associations. Desire conduces to pleasure seeking behaviour sometimes even by underestimating the judgments of right and wrong.
Conclusion:
This concise briefing on how we gain knowledge is the ground on which I have developed Argument 1. This argument, in fact, is only a reflection of what eminent philosophers have already argued in favour of the existence of God. Furthermore, I have grouped my Argument 1 with a qualitatively distinct Argument 2 which was developed by Theodore Michael Drange to give additional substantiation to the innate idea of God.
Argument 1
There are many popular concepts in the world about which people have no knowledge. For example, a large number of people live whole of their lives without even knowing about Big Bang Theory. However, there is not a single mature and healthy person in the world who do not have the concept of God.
Believer and nonbeliever share the concept of God equally. They disagree not about the concept itself but about its content. They disagree whether the Being this concept is describing really exist.
It is beyond the power of merely conceptual analysis to produce something out of nothing. Therefore, the source that presupposes the Concept of God is consciousness. We have concept of God embedded right into our consciousness. The concept of God is innate insofar as it does not depend on abstraction from sense experience.
Argument 2
Precise balance of cosmological constants allows the observable universe to exist as it does. If the constants were slightly different, the universe would be significantly different. The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for life to exist in the universe whereas life itself is finely tuned to match the conditions of its environment.
Based on these facts Theodore "Ted" Michael Drange has formulated the following argument:
Quote:
(P1) The particular group of values that exists for the fundamental physical constants of our universe (call it "GPC") is just one of a huge number of different groups of values, all of which are physically possible (i.e., not ruled out by more basic laws).
(P2) For all, or at least a large number, of the various groups of values mentioned above, the probability of the existence of any particular group is not considerably less than the probability of the existence of GPC itself.
(P3) It is not the case that there exist a great many worlds (or regions of space-time), separated from our observable universe, each with its own group of values for fundamental physical constants.
(C4) Therefore [from P1, P2, & P3], the existence of GPC is exceedingly improbable.
(P5) GPC is the only group of values for the fundamental physical constants of a world (or region of space-time) that would permit the origin, development, and continuation of life as we know it within that world.
(P6) The capability of permitting life as we know it is a very special feature within the set of hypothetical physically possible worlds.
(C7) Hence [from C4, P5, & P6], the existence of GPC is remarkable, surprising, and in need of explanation.
(P8) Given the truth of (C7), the hypothesis that GPC was a product of intelligent design (call it "IDH") is the very best explanation there is for the existence of GPC.
(C9) It follows that there is good evidence that IDH is true.
unquote
Reference:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
Idea of God is innate and both universe and life cannot be the product of chance.
“But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 106-
According to Kant we are born with “Predetermined Conceptual Schemes.” In other words, our sub consciousness presupposes some prior consciousness of the world which gives us the foundation for interpreting our perceptions to appraise relevant meanings of the outside world. All experiences and meanings are then somehow mapped in the brain which mind deploys for the enhancements of our conceptual world.
There are numerous mind structures and when these are put together in the right way we get a more complex structure that represents the things as having the properties and that thereby provides us with a token of belief. For example, we believe that “Oranges are juicy.”
Once the concept is formed it serves as a new mental unit. Concept is a mental integration of two or more elements into a new mental structure. We reduce the number of numerically and qualitatively distinct objects to a single unit. We could go on grouping these new mental units together into higher order concepts to expand the scope and reach increasingly high levels of abstraction. Mind has a splendid ability to form quite new beliefs by means of novel combinations of the relevant beliefs.
Since belief is veridical, most beliefs constitute knowledge. However, not all beliefs can be taken as knowledge. One drawback with our senses is that they can be fooled easily and consequentially we may unintentionally promote wrong ideas and beliefs. The traditional analysis of knowledge maintains that a person has knowledge provided he has a justified true belief. But justified true belief might also not qualify for the status of knowledge because of its defective source(s). For example, formerly people believed that the Earth is flat or the sun moves around the Earth. Therefore, there should be some way to overcome this cognitive flaw.
We have the ability to extract information about objects and phenomena by integrating what we perceive. To notice common properties and ways of acting, to classify things accordingly, and to extract universal principles and trues that are applicable to the things are the abilities that we use to build logic and reasoning to gain knowledge about discernible and indiscernible objects and phenomena. We develop logic to discover new connections by means of generalisations.
Logic is the language for reasoning. It stands for intelligibility and ordered thought which goes beyond mere sensual perceptions. Logic attempts in a systematic way to give principles to a valid reason. As a tool for characterising a rational thought, logic crosses many philosophical boundaries delving into metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of mind and language. It is a tool for working on basic notions like reference, predication, identity, truth, negation, quantification, existence, necessity, definition, and entailment.
When logical reasoning combined with sense perceptions that reduces the probabilities of getting erroneous beliefs specially about indiscernible objects and phenomena. Therefore, it is essential to identify the conditions beliefs must meet if they are to acquire the status of knowledge.
All cases of finding facts are built upon cumulative study on different bits of evidences. If all the bits of evidences fit well enough in the given hypothesis, then those bits transform the given hypothesis into a cherished fact. For example, we now know about the existence of Black Holes although we cannot perceive them directly.
However, in order to investigate a given concept one must have some element of belief to start with. It is obvious that we cannot know that something is the case if we do not even believe it or if we suspend our judgments on too many points all at once. The main reason of disbelief in most cases is the Desire for not exploring the certain concept for the sake of comfort and pleasure.
This sort of desire can easily infect the justified concepts with desire-based imaginational associations. Desire conduces to pleasure seeking behaviour sometimes even by underestimating the judgments of right and wrong.
Conclusion:
This concise briefing on how we gain knowledge is the ground on which I have developed Argument 1. This argument, in fact, is only a reflection of what eminent philosophers have already argued in favour of the existence of God. Furthermore, I have grouped my Argument 1 with a qualitatively distinct Argument 2 which was developed by Theodore Michael Drange to give additional substantiation to the innate idea of God.
Argument 1
There are many popular concepts in the world about which people have no knowledge. For example, a large number of people live whole of their lives without even knowing about Big Bang Theory. However, there is not a single mature and healthy person in the world who do not have the concept of God.
Believer and nonbeliever share the concept of God equally. They disagree not about the concept itself but about its content. They disagree whether the Being this concept is describing really exist.
It is beyond the power of merely conceptual analysis to produce something out of nothing. Therefore, the source that presupposes the Concept of God is consciousness. We have concept of God embedded right into our consciousness. The concept of God is innate insofar as it does not depend on abstraction from sense experience.
Argument 2
Precise balance of cosmological constants allows the observable universe to exist as it does. If the constants were slightly different, the universe would be significantly different. The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for life to exist in the universe whereas life itself is finely tuned to match the conditions of its environment.
Based on these facts Theodore "Ted" Michael Drange has formulated the following argument:
Quote:
(P1) The particular group of values that exists for the fundamental physical constants of our universe (call it "GPC") is just one of a huge number of different groups of values, all of which are physically possible (i.e., not ruled out by more basic laws).
(P2) For all, or at least a large number, of the various groups of values mentioned above, the probability of the existence of any particular group is not considerably less than the probability of the existence of GPC itself.
(P3) It is not the case that there exist a great many worlds (or regions of space-time), separated from our observable universe, each with its own group of values for fundamental physical constants.
(C4) Therefore [from P1, P2, & P3], the existence of GPC is exceedingly improbable.
(P5) GPC is the only group of values for the fundamental physical constants of a world (or region of space-time) that would permit the origin, development, and continuation of life as we know it within that world.
(P6) The capability of permitting life as we know it is a very special feature within the set of hypothetical physically possible worlds.
(C7) Hence [from C4, P5, & P6], the existence of GPC is remarkable, surprising, and in need of explanation.
(P8) Given the truth of (C7), the hypothesis that GPC was a product of intelligent design (call it "IDH") is the very best explanation there is for the existence of GPC.
(C9) It follows that there is good evidence that IDH is true.
unquote
Reference:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
Idea of God is innate and both universe and life cannot be the product of chance.
“But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 106-
