The absolute absurdity of God

[Amarok]

Pure speculation. There is not enough data to show that the way things are is the only way they could be. Conversely, there is not enough data to show that things could be other than what they are.

Yup which shows the whole canard of theism to be that

---

Think about it, if one does not ascribe to a PSR, science does not get off the ground.

Nope science does not require that all things require an explanation on that they tend to have one .

[SteveII]

If the initial conditions of the universe have been different we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Pure speculation. There is not enough data to show that the way things are is the only way they could be. Conversely, there is not enough data to show that things could be other than what they are.

Two points here:

1. There is absolutely no physical or metaphysical reason to think they could not be different. The objection seems manufactured only for the purpose of this argument.
2. Postulating that the initial conditions had to be as they are leads to the question why was the cause of the universe so constrained? This is just kicking the can backwards. At some point you have to address the issues.

[Silver]

Addressing the issue is one thing. Automatically filling in the gaps of knowledge with god is not a solution; it is merely a temporary, addictive, delusional fix.

[pocaracas]

Pure speculation. There is not enough data to show that the way things are is the only way they could be. Conversely, there is not enough data to show that things could be other than what they are.

Two points here:

1. There is absolutely no physical or metaphysical reason to think they could not be different. The objection seems manufactured only for the purpose of this argument.
2. Postulating that the initial conditions had to be as they are leads to the question why was the cause of the universe so constrained? This is just kicking the can backwards. At some point you have to address the issues.

Your bias shows, when you ask a "why" question.
"Why" implies a reasoning entity behind an action.

Just because a question seems logical, doesn't mean that it really makes sense.

However, in this case, you may ask your question as a "what made the cause of the Universe so constrained?"

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

(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.

Thanks for your clarification on (1) and (2).  

I appreciate your question and response in (3).  IMO, it would have been more open-minded and impartial for me to consider the question of whether the above axioms in bold exist independently of humans or if they are the product of human reasoning and sense-making .  I do not have an answer to this question.
  
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

[Silver]

Thanks for your clarification on (1) and (2).  

I appreciate your question and response in (3).  IMO, it would have been more open-minded and impartial for me to consider the question of whether the above axioms in bold exist independently of humans or if they are the product of human reasoning and sense-making .  I do not have an answer to this question.
  
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

You're way too kind; it breaks my heart (if I had one).

[SteveII]

Two points here:

1. There is absolutely no physical or metaphysical reason to think they could not be different. The objection seems manufactured only for the purpose of this argument.
2. Postulating that the initial conditions had to be as they are leads to the question why was the cause of the universe so constrained? This is just kicking the can backwards. At some point you have to address the issues.

Your bias shows, when you ask a "why" question.
"Why" implies a reasoning entity behind an action.

Just because a question seems logical, doesn't mean that it really makes sense.

However, in this case, you may ask your question as a "what made the cause of the Universe so constrained?"

"Why does the sun set in the west?" is a perfectly valid inquiry into the mechanics of the solar system. 'Why' does not have to infer purpose.

[pocaracas]

Your bias shows, when you ask a "why" question.
"Why" implies a reasoning entity behind an action.

Just because a question seems logical, doesn't mean that it really makes sense.

However, in this case, you may ask your question as a "what made the cause of the Universe so constrained?"

"Why does the sun set in the west?" is a perfectly valid inquiry into the mechanics of the solar system. 'Why' does not have to infer purpose.

Perhaps... but, in this context of divine entities, it often does.

[Angrboda]

Pure speculation. There is not enough data to show that the way things are is the only way they could be. Conversely, there is not enough data to show that things could be other than what they are.

Two points here:

1. There is absolutely no physical or metaphysical reason to think they could not be different. The objection seems manufactured only for the purpose of this argument.
2. Postulating that the initial conditions had to be as they are leads to the question why was the cause of the universe so constrained? This is just kicking the can backwards. At some point you have to address the issues.

There's no reason to think that things necessarily had to be the way they are, but there's equally as well no reason to think that things could have been arbitrarily different, either. Both are examples of ignorance and assumption masquerading as knowledge and fact. While some atheists may maintain that things could not have been different than what they are, I find that view rare, and more commonly atheists simply contend that we don't know. On the other hand, theists commonly appeal to the implicit assumption that things could have been arbitrarily different in making the fine tuning argument. So contrary to your assertion above, it happens to be the case that it is the theists who frequently profess to know something they do not because doing so allows them to reach the conclusion they desire. The atheist does so far less frequently.

Science attempts to answer that question, and not just kick it down the road. Religion, on the other hand, prefers to assume what is convenient to its own interests and incentivizes remaining ignorant.

[Amarok]

"Why does the sun set in the west?" is a perfectly valid inquiry into the mechanics of the solar system. 'Why' does not have to infer purpose.

Perhaps... but, in this context of divine entities, it often does.

Also there does not need to be a why