foundations of reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
However, it is obvious that, like I just said, thinking rationally is surely more likely to lead to the truth (IF it IS possible to find the particular truth in question) than thinking irrationally!---------------hamilton------------------------------

Do you think mystical contemplation of the universe is "irrational"?

yes

Originally posted by knightmeister
I never ever had any serious “ideas about the universe "popping" out of nothing” since that wouldn’t be based on the EVIDENCE nor reason, -now would it!-------------------hamilton--------------------------


Do you believe that every effect requires a cause? Do you subscribe to an infinte regress of causes or an Uncaused Cause?

…Do you believe that every effect requires a cause? .…

I do not assume the universe MUST necessarily be an “effect”.

…Do you subscribe to an infinite regress of causes or an Uncaused Cause?...…

Neither -because I do not know how I can derive either conclusion from the evidence and reason.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Well, thinking rationally is surely more likely to lead to the truth than thinking irrationally! -don’t you agree?--------------------------------------------------------hamilton-----------

I do agree , but such an approach will only work if the ultimate truth itself is rational and reasonable. A Theist has much more hope of this being true than th ...[text shortened]... ions because they believed in God and believed the universe should be rational because of this.

…I do agree , but such an approach will only work if the ultimate truth itself is rational and reasonable.…

Exactly what do you mean by “rational and reasonable”? -if you simply mean “with purpose” then clearly there is no reason why we necessarily cannot comprehend various aspects of something that was not created for a “purpose” -if you want an example: my shadow was not created for a purpose and yet I can comprehend from my understanding of the behaviour of light what determines its shape etc.

-but if what you mean by “rational and reasonable” is ”comprehensible” then firstly I don’t make the assumption that ALL aspects of the universe are comprehensible and secondly it is obvious that IF it is comprehensible in its entirety then the best chance of comprehending it is through rational thought rather than irrational thought -you appear to actually agree with this in you last post.

Can you clarify for me so that I don’t have to keep guessing what you mean: exactly what do you mean by truth being “rational”? do you mean “with purpose” or ”comprehensible” or both or what?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Also, I don’t assume that thinking rationally WILL lead me to the truth regarding the big questions since I am unlikely to have sufficient data
=======================================


1.) Do you consider "Is there a God?" one of the big questions?

2.) Do you as an atheist think you have sufficient dat ...[text shortened]... I think that you have a perculiar stance that the effect of a cause is greater than the cause.[/b]

…Do you consider "Is there a God?" one of the big questions?.…

No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.

…Do you as an atheist think you have sufficient data to announce that there cannot be a God? ..…

It is not the presence of data that contradicts the god hypothesis that tells me that there is no god but the absence of data that supports the god hypothesis that tells me that the probability of there being a god is, although not quite zero probability, is vanishingly small.

=======================================
Is this then an admission that you have just gone from being an Atheist to being an Agnostic? ..…

No -because although for I know, the nature of the universe may be such that it may in fact be impossible for any type of thinking (whether rational or irrational) to be able to actually lead us to knowing the truth about answers to ALL these big questions, logic can at least allow me to dismiss the probability of some proposed answers to these big questions of being true to be vanishingly small.

…I think KM is saying that if you believe that the tool factory (if you will) of the universe is not rational how can it produce reliably rational tools?

How did a chaotic and irrational universe furnish you with rational tools? .…

I have yet to see clarification from him of exactly what he (and you) means by “irrational” in this context but, as far as I can tell, I think I have already given a very full comprehensive answer to that: -carefully read my 29 Aug '08 14:13 post on page one of this thread.

…I think that you have a peculiar stance that the effect of a cause is greater than the cause.
.…

Why can’t an effect of a cause be “greater” than that cause?
I think you mean that “a cause cannot be greater than its effect”?
-But ether way, it would be wrong!

Why can’t a cause be greater than its effect?

Have you got any reason or evidence to backup this claim?

How would you define “greater” in this context? -the word has ambiguous meaning -it certainly has no scientific meaning!

A tiny noise can set of a huge avalanche -I have no idea how you would define “greater” but I presume this would be regarded by you to be an example of an effect being "greater" than its cause?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Do you consider "Is there a God?" one of the big questions?.…

No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.

…Do you as an atheist think you have sufficient data to announce that there cannot be a God? ..…

It is not the presence of data that contradicts the god hypothesis that tells me that there is no god but the absen this would be regarded by you to be an example of a cause being "greater" than its effect?[/b]

You wrote:

===========================
No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.
======================================


Sorry. I do not consider that the thoughtful reply even of a mature Atheist.

Most atheists who have arguments I think are thoughtful enough to think about and debate about I doubt would make such a statment.

That is the whole reason they are atheists , because it IS one of the Big Queations.

This kind of smacks of raw arrogance more that anything else.

Originally posted by jaywill
You wrote:

[b]===========================
No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.
======================================


Sorry. I do not consider that the thoughtful reply even of a mature Atheist.

Most atheists who have arguments I think are thoughtful enough to think about and debate about I doubt would make such a statm ...[text shortened]... t IS one of the Big Queations.

This kind of smacks of raw arrogance more that anything else.[/b]

…Sorry. I do not consider that the thoughtful reply even of a mature Atheist…

How is that answer not “thoughtful”? I answered the question truthfully as “no” AND I gave a brief explanation for that answer even though no explination was asked for.

…Most atheists who have arguments…

I do have arguments but the question demands that I should give an answer but didn’t specifically demand an “argument” thus I simply answered the question truthfully but without an accompanying "argument" (Reminder: I was asked “Do you consider "Is there a God?" one of the big questions?” -this is NOT the same as asking "why don’t you believe there is a god?"!).

What mysteries would there being a god existing solve without creating at least as many (if not more) mysteries as it solves? -this is why I don’t regard “is there a god” as one of the “big” questions (meaning one of the questions that would have an answer that would explain the most).

…That is the whole reason they are atheists , because it IS one of the Big Questions.

Not necessarily. An athiest is simply somebody who doesn't believe there is a god. Some atheists would regard the question of “is there a god?” as a “big” question and some atheist’s (like myself) don’t.

Do you regard the question of “is there a Santa” as one of the “big questions” and, if not, does that mean you MUST believe there exists a Santa? -of course not -so you don’t believe there is a Santa even through you don’t regard this as one of the big questions (I presume).

I am not only an atheist but a vegetarian and yet I don’t regard “should we eat meat” as one of the “big” questions.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
yes

An interesting answer. I presume that this means you believe that whatever the reality behind the existence of life itself actually is - it will be perfectly understandable and explicable (and not a mystery)

However , there's a problem with this , can you spot it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Do you consider "Is there a God?" one of the big questions?.…

No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.

…Do you as an atheist think you have sufficient data to announce that there cannot be a God? ..…

It is not the presence of data that contradicts the god hypothesis that tells me that there is no god but the absen ...[text shortened]... this would be regarded by you to be an example of an effect being "greater" than its cause?[/b]

No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.
--------hamilton---------------------------

Agreed . So what would solve the mystery of existence then?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Sorry. I do not consider that the thoughtful reply even of a mature Atheist…

How is that answer not “thoughtful”? I answered the question truthfully as “no” AND I gave a brief explanation for that answer even though no explination was asked for.

…Most atheists who have arguments…

I do have arguments but the question demands ...[text shortened]... t a vegetarian and yet I don’t regard “should we eat meat” as one of the “big” questions.[/b]

What mysteries would there being a god existing solve without creating at least as many (if not more) mysteries as it solves? ----------------------hamilton------------------------

You really don't get it do you. The whole point is that the mystery of existence is endless and cannot be "solved" . The only "solution" is to realise this and embrace it as such. To say God exists is to state the mystery but one could also just say that existence is eternal and Uncaused.

Has it ever occurred to you that looking for a solution might just be a cul-de-sac anyway. The mystery IS the solution. How likely is it that the depths of all existence can really be understood by humans?

Originally posted by knightmeister
An interesting answer. I presume that this means you believe that whatever the reality behind the existence of life itself actually is - it will be perfectly understandable and explicable (and not a mystery)

However , there's a problem with this , can you spot it?

I don’t know what you mean here. I answered “yes” to this question you asked me:

“ Do you think mystical contemplation of the universe is "irrational"? ”

-so how do you conclude from this “yes” answer to THIS question that says nothing about “life” nor “existence” that:

“this means you (me) believe that whatever the reality behind the existence of life itself actually is - it will be perfectly understandable and explicable (and not a mystery) “ ?

Also, what does this above statement mean? -I mean, what do you mean by “the reality behind the existence of life itself “ -do you simply mean: “what gave rise to the existence of the very first life” ?

And, as for the “it will be perfectly understandable and explicable (and not a mystery)” part -do you mean from that that it is theoretically possible to understand it ALL but don’t understand it ALL in the present (in which case I would agree) or do you mean that we DO understand it ALL in the present (in which case I would disagree because obviously science is still working on it) ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I do agree , but such an approach will only work if the ultimate truth itself is rational and reasonable.…

Exactly what do you mean by “rational and reasonable”? -if you simply mean “with purpose” then clearly there is no reason why we necessarily cannot comprehend various aspects of something that was not created for a “purpose” -if you ...[text shortened]... mean by truth being “rational”? do you mean “with purpose” or ”comprehensible” or both or what?[/b]

Can you clarify for me so that I don’t have to keep guessing what you mean: exactly what do you mean by truth being “rational”? do you mean “with purpose” or ”comprehensible” or both or what?
-----------------hamilton------------------------

To pursue a path of rational scientific enquiry on anything means that one subscribes to the hypothesis that what one is investigating can make rational sense and is able to be understood.

If the universe sprang by random chance from a square purple lemon the size of manhattan then we might be able to find this out via a process of rational enquiry into the universe. However , we would still be non-the-wiser . We would have stumbled upon( via a rational process) something that was chaotic , irrational and unreasonable. It would not just be mysterious it would be stupid and lacking in purpose and meaning.

Many Atheists suggest random and purposeless beginnings to existence devoid of meaning , structure. There is supposed to be no reason (or logic) to why we are here at all - but nevertheless logic and reason are heralded as the way to go. In the world of the purple lemon to what purpose does it serve to place one's faith in rationality when rationality itself disintegrates the closer we get to the truth?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can you clarify for me so that I don’t have to keep guessing what you mean: exactly what do you mean by truth being “rational”? do you mean “with purpose” or ”comprehensible” or both or what?
-----------------hamilton------------------------

To pursue a path of rational scientific enquiry on anything means that one subscribes to the hypothesis tha ...[text shortened]... ne's faith in rationality when rationality itself disintegrates the closer we get to the truth?

In other words, both 🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
What mysteries would there being a god existing solve without creating at least as many (if not more) mysteries as it solves? ----------------------hamilton------------------------

You really don't get it do you. The whole point is that the mystery of existence is endless and cannot be "solved" . The only "solution" is to realise this and embrace ...[text shortened]... tion. How likely is it that the depths of all existence can really be understood by humans?

==================================
You really don't get it do you. The whole point is that the mystery of existence is endless and cannot be "solved" .
=====================================


I guess it never occured to you that there is something called "Speaking for yourself".

You assume if it is not solved for you it is not solved for anyone else.

Maybe that is not a valid assumption. IE. "Why should ANYONE know something that I don't know?"

Well, it could be a matter of timing.


========================================
The only "solution" is to realise this and embrace it as such. To say God exists is to state the mystery but one could also just say that existence is eternal and Uncaused.
========================================


Well, you say it is not one of the big questions. But your activity on this Spirituality Forum as a vocal Atheists that it is a big question that you have some opinions on which you'd like to share publically.

So I think you do regard the existence of God as a big question. And your big answer is No.

===================================
Has it ever occurred to you that looking for a solution might just be a cul-de-sac anyway.
====================================

It has not occured to YOU that God may be trying to communicate with US on the matter by way of revelation.


=================================
The mystery IS the solution. How likely is it that the depths of all existence can really be understood by humans?
======================================


That's nice but again. I think there is something called speaking for one's own self.

Maybe the search is the solution to you. Could be that you're only opened and waiting for your prefered answers.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Do you believe that every effect requires a cause? .…

I do not assume the universe MUST necessarily be an “effect”.

…Do you subscribe to an infinite regress of causes or an Uncaused Cause?...…

Neither -because I do not know how I can derive either conclusion from the evidence and reason.[/b]

I don't understand.The evidence and rationale is all around you. the whole universe works via causality. One event leads to another. So what was the very first event in the whole of existence and why did it happen. Did the Big bang just ....erhem ...happen for no reason? If we found out the reason then how would then explain that? Was there ever a time when life itself did not exist? If so , why did it just not continue not existing? These are the "big" that you seem to think are not important.


It's reasonable to assume that the universe is either a) eternal or uncaused b) temporary and has a cause or c) came from nothing at all.

So , if we discount c) as nonsense that leaves a) or b) , but since the universe looks like it has a beginning and a postulated end as well then b) looks the best bet by quite a way. And if b) is true how did it get here?

I am wondering how deeply you have thought about this. Surely you realise that the further we trace back a causal chain of events we are left with a) , b) or c)? Life either came out of something , has always been without cause or we are into an infinite regress of causes.

How far back can we trace causality until the point where the buck stops? Or is there an infinite chain of cause and effect?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
You really don't get it do you. The whole point is that the mystery of existence is endless and cannot be "solved" .
=====================================


I guess it never occured to you that there is something called "Speaking for yourself".

You assume if it is not solved for you it is not solved for on to you. Could be that you're only opened and waiting for your prefered answers.[/b]

JAYWILL!

I think you may have confused me with hamilton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:'(😲