Freeman/Danivon,

I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. In fact, I asked that we leave the god question out of the conversation for a moment.

All I want to know is whether you believe your statements here to be true.

The atheist position is a belief. The atheist believes his position to be true. Where's the harm in that? It's not a trick question if that's what you're worried about.

Danivon, when you make your arguments against DF lets say, am I to assume you believe the positions you take to be true? or are you simply trying to wind him up with a bunch of sophist nonsense?

None of them are provable

Can I assume you believe this comment to be true? It certainly sounds as if you are making a statement that you believe is true.

I don't think Owen and I are engaging in sophistry. Of course we believe our arguments are accurate. Do you really believe that we don't believe that are beliefs are true? The only reason that I can see for you to insist that we convert these beliefs into truth statements is for you to ask what evidence do we have for that. We have spent quite a bit of time explaining why the burden is on those who are making an argument about the existence of something that cannot be observed to come forward with some evidence. Until that is done we can simply stand on the position that there is no evidence for the claim.

Disputes between atheists and those who believe do not involve competing truth claims. If you disagree that's fine but I don't think you have presented an argument as to why atheists should have to prove the non-existence of God. if someone says UFOs are aliens and you disagree, how would you go about proving that they are wrong?

If you have a complete argument to make on this, please make it instead of insisting on a point (truth statements) and not revealing why you think that is important.

I've been down this rabbit hole with atheists and agnostics in the past which is why I'm insisting that you either admit or deny that you hold your positions to be true. If you don't, then the conversation is dead in the water. If you do, then that tells me you recognize that it's possible for two people to agree that something is true. Recognizing that this is possible is huge and should never be assumed. In my opinion, that two people can agreed that something is true is profound since it establishes in my mind a field or backdrop that suggests truth exists in this universe no matter its degree. I'm not playing games with you. I'm simply curious as to whether it's worth carrying on with the discussion. I've not suggested that there is proof for a God. I don't believe proof for God exists. I certainly don't blame an atheist or agnostic for holding their respective positions no matter how nuanced those positions may be. I do not agree at all that a theist has a "burden" to prove his beliefs to anyone (I thought I explained why earlier?) though it would be courteous for a radicalized fundamentalist, from any religious tradition incidentally, who feels it necessary to kill me unless I accept his truth claims, do to so.

I have no intention of presenting an argument that an atheist should have to prove the non-existence of god. The suggestion that I would is tiresome.

What interests me more is a conversation about what truth is and why this phenomenon exists at all. I would further enjoy discussing with you possible common ground as it pertains to truth.

I don't have an agenda only interest in seeing where the conversation goes.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:.

Danivon, when you make your arguments against DF lets say, am I to assume you believe the positions you take to be true? or are you simply trying to wind him up with a bunch of sophist nonsense?

No. My belief in the truth of arguments about economics or history or politics is honest.

My lack of belief in God is honest. I do not believe - or claim to - that God cannot exist.

That argument you make by extrapolation, by the way, is sophistry.

None of them are provable

Can I assume you believe this comment to be true? It certainly sounds as if you are making a statement that you believe is true.

Because they are all examples of thought experiments specifically designed that way. You could look them up - the latter has become a parody of itself, but the origin was to posit a "creator" that could no be be proven or disproved than the biblical God or any other religion. My mistake though - the middle one is an invisible pink Unicorn, not an invisible elephant:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_ ... ti_Monster

None of them are provable - or disprovable.

There's no argument by extrapolation going on here. Just questions with no agenda for you to fear. You seem petrified to admit that anything can be true. Although I do like the approach of describing your position as honest. That's refreshing at least.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I've been down this rabbit hole with atheists and agnostics in the past which is why I'm insisting that you either admit or deny that you hold your positions to be true.

Here is what you get.

I believe that it is more probable than not that there is no God.

I believe that we will never prove it either way, and any absolutist belief in Gods or a lack of them is a belief based on no real evidence.

I believe it is ultimately unimportant what I believe. If God insists I believe in him to get to Paradise, I can't fake that. So if he exists I am damned. If he doesn't exist (and no other similar God(s) do) then it doesn't matter in a spiritual sense what I believe.

I believe it is hard for people who adhere to a full "belief system" to understand the position of those who don't. Vice versa, I find it hard to understand the mind that believes in a religion.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:There's no argument by extrapolation going on here. Just questions with no agenda for you to fear. You seem petrified to admit that anything can be true. Although I do like the approach of describing your position as honest. That's refreshing at least.

Do you not believe me?

1. I believe that it is more probable than not that there is no God.

Ok. I look at this and appreciate the fact that you believe this position to be true to the best of your knowledge and that you have not closed the door on the subject 100% though it sounds as if you're close to 99% convinced.

2. I believe that we will never prove it either way, and any absolutist belief in Gods or a lack of them is a belief based on no real evidence.

I agree with you as far as proof goes. I do not agree that there is "no real evidence" At least I don't think I agree with you. I will need to understand what you mean by evidence. I assume for now you mean scientific evidence. And no, I'm not going to hang my hat on any kind of teleological argument though some do interest me.

3. I believe it is ultimately unimportant what I believe. If God insists I believe in him to get to Paradise, I can't fake that. So if he exists I am damned. If he doesn't exist (and no other similar God(s) do) then it doesn't matter in a spiritual sense what I believe.

I would say it's important to the God I believe in but not because of any tales of damnation.

4. I believe it is hard for people who adhere to a full "belief system" to understand the position of those who don't. Vice versa, I find it hard to understand the mind that believes in a religion.

I'm not sure how much I adhere to a "full belief system" when it comes to God since there can be so many fallacies that accompany them.

I don't find it hard to understand the position of the atheist or agnostic at all. I empathize with both.

I too find it hard to understand the mind that believes in a set of truth claims for a particular religion.

Well, that wasn't hard. It seems we agree on quite a few things. And, I appreciate your honesty.

You've heard me say before that I enjoy Redscape for the fine minds that accumulate here.

I'm not up to any sophistry. I am fascinated with the possibility of truth. I am fascinated by what I think is a fact that there seems to be a field of truth that exists. Perhaps most notably in math and science but also within the moral realm. And let me add, spiritual realm or realm of consciousness including God consciousness.

One of the things we do know, is that religion has evolved over time...

http://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/04/07 ... religions/

We now that since we became sentient creatures, man has tried to explain the world and existence to themselves through religion or spirituality.
Even the religions based upon "divine" revelations delivered to the faithful are remarkably similar in development across time...
The more one ponders how and why men created and changed their religions, the more it becomes apparent that it is entirely a human construct. And as such, it can be very useful but has also proven to be destructive. As happens with all things humans create.
But since it is a human construct, the various explanations that are offered by religions are not anchored upon a firm foundation of understanding. The behaviors that are usually taught, however, are based upon an understanding of what makes a successful society and what can create happiness. (The experience learned through the ages.)
The difficulty, as always, is that religions often lose their focus and become tools for power seekers. Whether shamans looking for an easy route to food in their tribe or a church hierarchy seeking to prop up an allied ruler or ruling group...
Hence the "evidence" on offer to a skeptical mind is that if God doesn't exist, someone had to invent the concept of God. And we did.
Does that invention create an existence? If we clap our hands and believe?

I think that the idea of something true beyond all doubt has been given up in philosophy, Dags. We have warranted assertability. Descartes set out to ground philosophy by coming up with a certain truth and he came up with his own existence ( I think therefore I am). Kant in response to David Hume's skepticism about causation sought to ground what we know by excluding the thing-in-itself from knowledge--we cannot know a thing as it truly is but only how we perceive it; we can have certainly true synthetic a priori judgment that are grounded in our minds; mathematics, our concepts of space and times, the way our mind organize perceptions into the Categories--these can be shown to be true without reference to experience. But how experience is apart from the way our minds organize it--that is excluded from certainty. As is metaphysics, including religion. The verificationists of the early 20th century thought statements about metaphysics were meaningless, that most of philosophy was meaningless and epistemology should limit itself to analytical knowledge derived from logic and math and empirical knowledge derived from scientific experiments. Later Karl Popper sought to separate scientific propositions from non-scientific ones by requiring that a proposition be falsifiable for it to be a scientific proposition.

So I think there has been a recognition that there is no way to prove 100% certainty other than analytic propositions (things true by definition). Other than that there are a lot if things we are pretty certain about but trying to prove absolute truth is impossible. But it's not really important that we get 100% percent certainty. The best way to get better knowledge about the world is through science. That's the engine that makes our world more knowable, though not perfectly knowable.

Freeman,

I agree with what you've outlined but not entirely with what follows....

The best way to get better knowledge about the world is through science. That's the engine that makes our world more knowable, though not perfectly knowable.

Of course science is a "candle in the dark" as Sagan put it but I believe there are other tools that can be accessed as well in order to better our subjective understanding of "truth." Tools that, depending on how you understand them, fall within the spiritual realm.

Freeman & Danivon, I think the both of you would really dig Ken Wilber. He is, in my opinion, one of the most important American philosophers of our time.

As an existential Christian pragmatist I have been attempting for years to apply Wilbur's integral theory to my own Roman Catholic faith. I must say it's been daunting.

I am linking you to a youtube interview of Wilbur that I think takes place in 7 or 8 segments. Give it a listen and be open to what he has to offer. If you can stick with it for a minute you might take an interest in what he calls "integral theory." This man is no intellectual slouch. He's written some wonderful books on the topic and has spent his life investigating the human experience, specifically as it pertains to the spiritual experience."

In any case, I hope you enjoy the interview. He starts off commenting on a popular spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle in the first part of the interview but ends up diving into some detail on what he means by integral theory.

By the way, I'm not pointing you to him in order to persuade you to see your position in a new light. Like I said before, I have no agenda. I don't need to prove anything about anything. I am curious to get your feedback on what he has to offer. In many ways it will be quite difficult for me to proceed on this topic unless I bring integral theory into the picture.

I'm fairly certain you will appreciate his formidable mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62YM2wtvLQ

This first part will lead you to the others. Enjoy.

I did take a look at his ideas. Count me as a skeptic. I am just skeptical about some unitary system of everything. How do you prove such a thing? Sometimes when philosophers develop elaborate systems their systems ultimately are found to be invalid but they make some penetrating insights about human nature. I note that he does not believe in evolution. To me you need to prove things; I am not really inclined to put much effort in learning a system where it is just asserted to be true without arguments/proof as to why it is true. Admittedly, I pretty much skimmed his writings but I did not see where he was proving his assertions. I am assuming you have looked at his writings in detail so maybe you can state why you think his ideas are important and why they have a likelihood of being true.

freeman3 wrote:I did take a look at his ideas. Count me as a skeptic. I am just skeptical about some unitary system of everything. How do you prove such a thing? Sometimes when philosophers develop elaborate systems their systems ultimately are found to be invalid but they make some penetrating insights about human nature. I note that he does not believe in evolution. To me you need to prove things; I am not really inclined to put much effort in learning a system where it is just asserted to be true without arguments/proof as to why it is true. Admittedly, I pretty much skimmed his writings but I did not see where he was proving his assertions. I am assuming you have looked at his writings in detail so maybe you can state why you think his ideas are important and why they have a likelihood of being true.

I have to say, reading up on his ideas they seem like Buddhist philosophy but with a whole different jargon. I get the idea of dividing human thought and activity based on criteria, and coming up with unifying principles, but not that doing so proves anything about any of it.

Freeman,

On the contrary, integral theory is steeped in evolution. It is at the crux of his thought. But, to be fair, you said you skimmed his work. That's tough to do with anyone let alone Wilber.

Both you and Danivon move straight to the need for proof. I find that interesting. I didn't mention Wilber as a means of presenting any proof. You may recall my earlier posts that I thought were clear in highlighting that I'm not out to prove anything. Nor is Wilber. His system of thought is merely his best shot at making sense of human cartography.

Just for fun, check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4

What's unique about Wilber is the fact that his work is often based upon his experimentation.

Is it proof? No. But it is an example of him demonstrating that his theories are stemming from his experiences of spirituality.

A person who experiences "flatline" is sometimes understood to be dead. Say what you will about the machine he is using, Ken's is far from dead here.

This is a good summary you might enjoy as well...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4jcxxJ_0ok

Well, he denies a wing evolved by chance mutation and natural selection. Therefore, he does not believe in Darwinism. So he believes in evolution but does not believe in the scientific theory that explains it. Here's a discussion. http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wil ... ution.html

I'm sorry, proof is everything. Otherwise, we're talking about nonsense. Can his theories be falsified? If not, then it's basically philosophy. Like I said, philosophers can have some interesting insights about the human condition even though any system they develop is wrong. I doubt very much his integral theory is correct, but maybe he has some interesting insights. From a casual reading I don''t feel the need to go further but that doesn't mean anything. Others certainly find value in his theories but it's not for me.