No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

 “I just know”, and “it’s just obvious.”  Those answers carry zero explanatory power. They’re assertions.

And that's why I'm skeptical of your metaphysical assertion that science is the ONLY way to know things. You can't prove it.

I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything. Just like god.

[fredd bear]

@Lady Camus

"Because 'nothing' is logically impossible as a state of being, by its definition."

I'm not sure I understand.

My understanding is that a logical impossibility does not necessarily refer to reality. It's also an unfalsifiable statement, as much as is the existence of god.

I don't believe in gods, and a bunch of other things, including my survival after death, due to a lack of empirical proof..    I can't prove that, nor do I need to, not having made  claim.

Are you saying that individual oblivion is a logical contradiction, or simply that  the absence of an undefined 'something' is a logical contradiction?

I don't understand how to relate your claim to my reality .  

My position is summed up pithily on a  Roman tomb on the Via Apia not far from Rome:

" I was not
 I was
 I am not
 I don't care"

I only had a year of philosophy. Never came across this notion. Just as well, it's doing my head in

Could you possibly explain the basis for this claim, and why it matters, in that it is unfalsifiable ?

Plus, of course the method you used to arrive at such a conclusion.,and of course what makes your inference true.

I'd be most grateful if you use small words; I looked this up on Wikipedia, and couldn't follow the language.

Apologies, Freddy.

Allow me to explain.  I didn't do a very good job the first time. It's kind of a hard thing to communicate, not because it's some highly complex concept, but just because the vocabulary is clumsy:

Theists often ask, why is there something instead of nothing? Let's break this question down a little bit. It could be worded like this: "why are we in a state of things existing, versus a state of no things at all existing?" My response is, what possible state could be a state of no things existing? By it's very definition, any state that is any kind of thing, is some thing.  Do you follow me? A state of non-existence can't be an alternative to a state of existence, because non-existence can't be anything.  If there was nothing, instead of something...then it wouldn't be nothing, would it? It would be something. Even saying, "instead of something, there was nothing, is logically contradictory. "Was" is a tense of "being".  Like I said, it's kind of convoluted to describe, or maybe I just really suck at it. Probably the latter. But the long and short of it is, we are in a state of existence because there is no logical alternative. “Nothing” was never an option, therefore, reality exists because it has to. 

I don't know if I've cleared my position up, or hopelessly confused you, lol. If its the latter, I apologize. Benny could probably do a much clearer, and more succinct job!  Bear in mind, this is all just philosophical, mental masturbation. I can't demonstrate it. It's just something I think about.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

  Thanks; Well, I got the bit about "mental masturbation". That was my first reaction, but I thought I'm just being thick and did not want to offend.

At this point I  will need to read your explanation a few more times. I'll print it out. I don't think you are inarticulate; it's just that it's been a long time since I've done this kind of actual thinking. This is terrific mental exercise.

I'll get back to you if I get stuck.

Think I'l go and some painting. Impressionist flowers. My paintings suck tennis balls, but they are only meant for my enjoyment.

[possibletarian]

I didn't realize we were in a hurry. The arguments are difficult and people tend to misunderstand them. I think science people should be more comfortable saying "I don't know."

Science is very comfortable with a 'I don't know' in fact it's the standard answer to 'where did the universe come from' and many other questions. Why do you keep asking 'what's the hurry' ? either you can demonstrate something, or you cannot.

There's a difference between disagreement to further the conversation and insults to shut it down.

 

Even so, a thick skin will serve you better.

I have tried to be as clear as possible. Maybe I'm talking about one thing and you'd like me to talk about another.

We so far as i can gather you are of the opinion that logic is a good way to truth, and in the context of our conversation specifically to answer the question of 'Is there a god'' you then claim that we can trust metaphysics to answer this question and that you have come across arguments that you cannot defeat. You then go on to claim that despite this you remain unconvinced of the truths of these arguments, so you see we are really unsure what it is you are trying to say.. so let me try and clarify.

1) You lack belief in god(s) you have said this several times
2) You have been unable to defeat metaphysical arguments for the existence of god
3) You do not believe however that these arguments offer sufficient proof or evidence for you personally to believe
4) You do believe however that these types of augments can provide proof of god's existence (you just don't personally believe one has been offered yet)

Is that accurate so far ?

[Belacqua]

1) You lack belief in god(s) you have said this several times

Right.

2) You have been unable to defeat metaphysical arguments for the existence of god

"Defeat" is an interesting term. Are we fighting? I'd say that the arguments are difficult and a lot of people get them wrong. Because they are not entirely provable or disprovable with easy arguments, it makes sense to me to withhold a conclusion.

3) You do not believe however that these arguments offer sufficient proof or evidence for you personally to believe 

They may offer sufficiently persuasive arguments for people who understand them better. 

4) You do believe however that these types of augments can provide proof of god's existence (you just don't personally believe one has been offered yet) 

We'd better be careful about the word "proof" as people use that differently. I'd say they might be persuasive. And, again, it may be that one has been offered and I'm not sufficiently up to speed on it yet.

[LadyForCamus]

Edit:

@Belaqua

You say you’re an atheist; that you lack a belief in any god. What would persuade you that god exists, and why?

[possibletarian]

Right.

Okay.

"Defeat" is an interesting term. Are we fighting? I'd say that the arguments are difficult and a lot of people get them wrong. Because they are not entirely provable or disprovable with easy arguments, it makes sense to me to withhold a conclusion.

Okay, lets say that you have been unable to prove them wrong, but still they don't convince you personally, this could be for a few reasons.

1) That you lack sufficient understanding
2) That they are wrong

You also say they are neither entirely provable or disprovable, so for you they have not met the threshold of you personal definition of proof ?

They may offer sufficiently persuasive arguments for people who understand them better.

Well sure they do, arguments of all types can persuade people to believe all manner of things, indeed there are many who believe even without these arguments.

We'd better be careful about the word "proof" as people use that differently. I'd say they might be persuasive. And, again, it may be that one has been offered and I'm not sufficiently up to speed on it yet.

Persuasive is used very differently as well so why not use the word most people understand ? You clearly don't find the arguments you have come across to be persuasive enough for belief.  So if they say it's persuasive and  you say not how do we then decide what is true ?

I've just seen @LadyForCamus post, I would like to know as well, for you what is the missing piece of the puzzle for you to move from unbelief to belief ?

[Belacqua]

the missing piece of the puzzle for you to move from unbelief to belief ?

Difficult metaphysical issues don't strike me as the kind of thing you can make a conclusion about after a single book or lecture. It isn't like viewing a single persuasive syllogism, after which you either accept it or not. 

Remember that moment in the Purgatorio, where the angel is piloting the boat? There are some translation issues there, and it's not clear whether the angel is meant to be too bright to see or too perfect. This symbol, the 20th time or so that I read it, brought home to me important understandings of what Plato's Ideal world is thought to be like. This is not coincidental, of course, Dante was a great genius and wrote the book to teach things in just this way. The fact that I had also read Plato a dozen times and didn't deeply grok that element about ideality made it clear that it isn't a lack of "pieces," necessarily, but a sufficiently deep understanding. 

This is partly what Blake means when he says that the infinity of the world is always present with us, but our senses are closed to it. 

Perhaps people feel I should go about things differently. I get enormous pleasure from my studies, and it has never occurred to me that it was bad to say "I'm not sure yet."

[possibletarian]

the missing piece of the puzzle for you to move from unbelief to belief ?

Difficult metaphysical issues don't strike me as the kind of thing you can make a conclusion about after a single book or lecture. It isn't like viewing a single persuasive syllogism, after which you either accept it or not. 

Remember that moment in the Purgatorio, where the angel is piloting the boat? There are some translation issues there, and it's not clear whether the angel is meant to be too bright to see or too perfect. This symbol, the 20th time or so that I read it, brought home to me important understandings of what Plato's Ideal world is thought to be like. This is not coincidental, of course, Dante was a great genius and wrote the book to teach things in just this way. The fact that I had also read Plato a dozen times and didn't deeply grok that element about ideality made it clear that it isn't a lack of "pieces," necessarily, but a sufficiently deep understanding. 

This is partly what Blake means when he says that the infinity of the world is always present with us, but our senses are closed to it. 

Perhaps people feel I should go about things differently. I get enormous pleasure from my studies, and it has never occurred to me that it was bad to say "I'm not sure yet."

Of course it isn't bad to say ''I'm not sure yet'' in fact if you are not sure it's the only honest thing to say.

[Belacqua]

''I'm not sure yet'' in fact if you are not sure it's the only honest thing to say.

It occurs to me, on reflection, that Mrs. Camus and I are at odds here at least in part about something that has long been identified as a trait common in the American character. 

In Hofstadter's classic book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, he makes a distinction between intelligent people and intellectual people. A person can be both, or only one, or neither. He points out that America has long valued intelligent people, and he gives Edison as an example of such a person. Americans like him because he was practical, applied his intelligence to concrete immediate solutions, and made money. In contrast, he describes the intellectual as someone who loves and works on ideas. Americans tend to be skeptical of such people, seeing them as "eggheads," and using that most damning of Internet judgments: "mental masturbation." 

Mrs. Camus reeks of this American attitude. When I asked her if her screen name referred to the philosopher Camus, she neglected to answer me, but she may have read some existentialism at some time. When I asked her where she had mastered every single serious argument for the existence of God (an amazing achievement!) she declined to answer. Still, we can see from her responses here that she expects me not to contemplate things in a mental masturbatory way, but to say now, clearly, what I need. 

Hofstadter gives two qualities that he uses to define the values of an intellectual. One he calls piety. And before people flip out over the religious-sounding term, it just means here a respect for ideas, even if they are not immediately practical. The other he calls playfulness. This is an intellectual's pleasure in working with ideas. It looks to me to come ultimately from Aristotle, who said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Here is some of what he says about playfulness:

Piety, then, needs a counterpoise, something to prevent it from being exercised
in an excessively rigid way; and this it has, in most intellectual temperaments,
in the quality I would call playfulness. We speak of the play of the mind; and
certainly the intellectual relishes the play of the mind for its own sake, and finds
in it one of the major values in life. What one thinks of here is the element of
sheer delight in intellectual activity. Seen in this guise, intellect may be taken as
the healthy animal spirits of the mind, which come into exercise when the
surplus of mental energies is released from the tasks required for utility and mere
survival. "Man is perfectly human," said Schiller, "only when he plays." And it
is this awareness of an available surplus beyond the requirements of mere
existence that his maxim conveys to us. Veblen spoke often of the intellectual
faculty as "idle curiosity"- but this is a misnomer in so far as the curiosity of the
playful mind is inordinately restless and active. This very restlessness and
activity gives a distinctive cast to its view of truth and its discontent with
dogmas. Ideally, the pursuit of truth is said to be at the heart of the intellectual's
business, but this credits his business too much and not quite enough. As with
the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of truth is itself gratifying whereas the
consummation often turns out to be elusive. Truth captured loses its glamor;
truths long known and widely believed have a way of turning false with time;
easy truths are a bore, and too many of them become half-truths. Whatever the
intellectual is too certain of, if he is healthily playful, he begins to find
unsatisfactory. The meaning of his intellectual life lies not in the possession of
truth but in the quest for new uncertainties. Harold Rosenberg summed up this
side of the life of the mind supremely well when he said that the intellectual is
one who turns answers into questions. This element of playfulness infuses
products of mind as diverse as Abelard's Sic et Non and a dadaist poem. But in
using the terms play and playfulness, I do not intend to suggest any lack of
seriousness; quite the contrary. Anyone who has watched children, or adults, at
play will recognize that there is no contradiction between play and seriousness,
and that some forms of play induce a measure of grave concentration not so
readily called forth by work. And playfulness does not imply the absence of
practicality. In American public discussion one of the tests to which intellect is
constantly submitted when it is, so to speak, on trial is this criterion of
practicality. But in principle intellect is neither practical nor impractical; it is
extra-practical.

I am not claiming to be an intellectual in any successful way. I just see some of the friction on this forum as relating to this distinction.

[Catharsis]

And that's why I'm skeptical of your metaphysical assertion that science is the ONLY way to know things. You can't prove it.

I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything.  Just like god.

I'm sure you don't mind. So why bother?