Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[dan964]

I do not accept philosophical certainty. I do not even accept that this reality I percieve is a real thing. But at least I don't let that belief interfere with my ability to function in society. You, on the other hand.

Really? My conversation previously seems to doubt the consistency of that statement.

 

[Paradoxica]

Really? My conversation previously seems to doubt the consistency of that statement.

Just because I don't want to, doesn't mean I can't. I do my best given the circumstances.

 

[dan964]

And furthermore, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes.

Where is the factual basis for that claim? You cannot claim to have this above all standpoint that everything is relative, with a reasonable justification.
1+1=2
(but it can also be 1+1=0 because binary).

 

[Paradoxica]

Where is the factual basis for that claim? You cannot claim to have this above all standpoint that everything is relative, with a reasonable justification.
1+1=2
(but it can also be 1+1=0 because binary).

The discussion is clearly talking about empirical certainty, not logical certainty.

 

[dan964]

What things about / in nature give us a heads up of the existence / attributes of a deity?

note: question open to all

The vastness and bigness of nature; complexity; order; things like that we can take for granted.

 

[dan964]

The discussion is clearly talking about empirical certainty, not logical certainty.

I would argue that initially a lot of the constructs require empirical certainly; there is overlap; even the logical ones. But more important philosophy requires sound logic. Empirically we can make the claim that the system of logic that we use, is consistent and absolute.

It is fallacious logically; to say that absolutely all truth is relative, because then the claim becomes indeterminate (or more strictly presumptuous) or false; i.e. an infinite regression. of relative logical statements. Even excluding that to say that this claim that all other truth is relative; is still presumptious. If we can establish empirically one thing, that is absolutely true in all cases, at least as far as it concerns any living thing, that is existence of the universe; i.e. reality exists; it shows that already the claim is at least to some degree not true, to claim that the only absolute is the existence of no other absolutes.

 

[dan964]

Just because I don't want to, doesn't mean I can't. I do my best given the circumstances.

Yeah I am aware. I understand that.

I do not accept philosophical certainty. I do not even accept that this reality I percieve is a real thing. But at least I don't let that belief interfere with my ability to function in society. You, on the other hand.

The problem is it becomes a bit of an inconsistency.

1. Statement A is believed to be true.
2. Statement A is true if and only if Statement B is false.
3. Yet person acts as if Statement B is true.

My argument is that if your belief in absolute philosophical uncertainty (which itself is presumptuous because it presumes that it is impossible to prove something definitely) is only true if there is no absolute empirical reality. Statement B then becomes the claim that the universe exists - the reality itself (even if we cannot comprehend it).
===
You act as if reality exists, but then make the implicit suggestion that it does not exist by necessity. It is as presumptuous as the Principle of Sufficient Reason (or with sufficient certainty).

Because the way you act, presumes that you have at least sufficient reason to act as if the reality is real.

 

[dan964]

I didn't reply to these messages because I clearly in previous posts said that if the "Islamic" countries aren't following what Islam teaches they can't be called Islamic and they're actions don't show what Islam teaches.

Umm, you do know I am talking about a large amount of countries esp. in the middle east/central asia where Islam is the religion of the state. Now you, as a Muslim, may think that justifies the punishment for apostasy and the restrictions that are imposed on other faiths; as per your original "explanation"; but it doesn't cut it for me and for others on this thread.

I am talking about countries that do follow Islam, and this is what it is ended up with. I am less concerned with groups that are obviously* not Islamic, such as the Islamic State in Iraq & Syria or Boko Horam. It is the more subtle cases, the ones without names; the governments that wish to impose or have already imposed sharia law, a particular understanding of such law, which seriously undermines the religious freedom you claim Islam supports.

And the whole question of what Islam actually teaches is definitely a complex one for different reasons then say with a different religion, and especially with the whole issue of taqiyah as well and the presumable "Islamic 'persecution' in the west" that some progressives try to convey with the use of labels such as Islamophobia and all that.

I appreciate your conversation and I do get that you might indeed be frustrated at some things. I hope you understand I mean well mostly.

(*for me personally, generally speaking the agreement on this cannot be found. That said, they still "use" the Quran).

 

[Drsoccerball]

I appreciate your conversation and I do get that you might indeed be frustrated at some things. I hope you understand I mean well mostly.

I just don't like repeating things and came upon the realisation that whatever I say it's not going to change anything so there's no point wasting either of our time. What I perceive of Islam I think is the correct way otherwise I would've found a more correct way and followed that. You can say the same for you Christian beliefs

 

[Drsoccerball]

I do not accept philosophical certainty. I do not even accept that this reality I percieve is a real thing. But at least I don't let that belief interfere with my ability to function in society. You, on the other hand.

It's just another excuse not to believe in something

Serving society is serving God. What have I done that interfered with my ability to function with society? You know me, so please point it out so I can change it If I did?

 

[dan964]

I just don't like repeating things and came upon the realisation that whatever I say it's not going to change anything so there's no point wasting either of our time. What I perceive of Islam I think is the correct way otherwise I would've found a more correct way and followed that. You can say the same for you Christian beliefs

What makes you say that? Don't jump to conclusions. It important to realize that you are still showing how Islamic Western person as yourself perceives things and that.

The second underlined statement unfortunately can be said by anyone else and other Muslims who think that there is the correct interpretation (and yes they may not be Muslims in your eyes vice versa). The same issues lies in most religions and ideologies, and yes even Christianity, although I will comment that the most major divides in Christianity, actually comes down to whether they use the Bible or not as their ultimate authority or not on matters of faith.

The core tenants of the faith are generally agreed on in most religions; but in Islam, it isn't known as much for its teachings on peace, and so there is disagreement on certain moral issues, such as apostasy, sharia law, honour killings within genuine Islam.

 

[dan964]

Serving society is serving God. What have I done that interfered with my ability to function with society? You know me, so please point it out so I can change it If I did?

You do realize your first statement presumes he believes in God, which last time I checked, he doesn't. And even as a theist:
serving society does not equate serving God, especially if the society is corrupt etc.

 

[Drsoccerball]

You do realize your first statement presumes he believes in God, which last time I checked, he doesn't. And even as a theist:
serving society does not equate serving God, especially if the society is corrupt etc.

But that's what I believe which I stated because he's accusing me of not being able to function in society so... Well trying to change the corruption in society is service to the society.

 

[Paradoxica]

Yeah I am aware. I understand that.


The problem is it becomes a bit of an inconsistency.

1. Statement A is believed to be true.
2. Statement A is true if and only if Statement B is false.
3. Yet person acts as if Statement B is true.

My argument is that if your belief in absolute philosophical uncertainty (which itself is presumptuous because it presumes that it is impossible to prove something definitely) is only true if there is no absolute empirical reality. Statement B then becomes the claim that the universe exists - the reality itself (even if we cannot comprehend it).
===
You act as if reality exists, but then make the implicit suggestion that it does not exist by necessity. It is as presumptuous as the Principle of Sufficient Reason (or with sufficient certainty).

Because the way you act, presumes that you have at least sufficient reason to act as if the reality is real.

No. I do so because it is the only "reality" I believe in. If I felt that there was another reality beyond this one that would come forth after the cessation of my existence, then that would be essentially equivalent to religious concepts of the afterlife. But I cannot be certain one exists, so given the available information, I live my life in this world as though it is the only one, because it is.

 

[Paradoxica]

But that's what I believe which I stated because he's accusing me of not being able to function in society so... Well trying to change the corruption in society is service to the society.

Statistical uncertainty acts against your service, because there will always be a roughly uniform distribution of the entire spectrum of morality.

 

[dan964]

No. I do so because it is the only "reality" I believe in. If I felt that there was another reality beyond this one that would come forth after the cessation of my existence, then that would be essentially equivalent to religious concepts of the afterlife. But I cannot be certain one exists, so given the available information, I live my life in this world as though it is the only one, because it is.

Well then your comment makes no sense to say you don't let your belief in this reality affect you functioning in society, when actually you do, see the bold. So your original comment comes across just as saying that well at least I don't let my beliefs deteriorate my ability to function in society, which presumes that religion actually does that (some do and some don't).

If there is a reasonable explanation for existence of reality and by extension the universe, then the ontological argument infers that such explanation may be found in God. But yes that is if there is need to explain existence; or if there of course sufficient reason which is not necessarily the case.

Available information, I am presuming your scope is limited to scientific data. Do you accept the most plausible, certain explanation of things, or do you just go meh, and the like?

If no, then fine, but I guess you cannot complain about the lack of evidence.
If yes, then there are certain things that might demand an explanation (whether conceivable or not). One of those is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Christians celebrate every Easter. It is one of those things, where the evidence is very strong for.

Unless one has some other authority that explicit means that we doubt reason to believe that Jesus indeed died (which is the case in Islam; and in Gnostic/pseudigraphical works). We establish therefore that there is a dead body, and that this dead body is unaccounted for. Kind of like a crime scene investigation.

 

[Paradoxica]

Well then your comment makes no sense to say you don't let your belief in this reality affect you functioning in society, when actually you do, see the bold. So your original comment comes across just as saying that well at least I don't let my beliefs deteriorate my ability to function in society, which presumes that religion actually does that (some do and some don't).

If there is a reasonable explanation for existence of reality and by extension the universe, then the ontological argument infers that such explanation may be found in God. But yes that is if there is need to explain existence.

Available information, I am presuming your scope is limited to scientific data. Do you accept the most plausible, certain explanation of things, or do you just go meh, and the like?

I don't label my standards, because they don't fit any of the given conventions. i.e. mine are as arbitrary as yours.

 

[dan964]

Statistical uncertainty acts against your service, because there will always be a roughly uniform distribution of the entire spectrum of morality.

Depends on what you define morality. If it is completely relative, then what is the point?

 

[dan964]

I don't label my standards, because they don't fit any of the given conventions. i.e. mine are as arbitrary as yours.

That's presuming you know my standards. But apart from that. I need not say more.

 

[Paradoxica]

Depends on what you define morality. If it is completely relative, then what is the point?

I leave that to the sociologists...