If you can counter Hume on causality from psychology*, you’ll likely win a Nobel Prize for Philosophy.
Hume did not use the term psychology, but Hume argued the fundamental grounding of ‘causality’ is human experience which implied is psychology, i.e. human behaviors.
Note even ‘reason’ which most think is something universal, but there are arguments that the fundamental grounding of ‘reason’ is from biology to psychology.
Problem is you do not look deep and wide enough.
To dig deep and wide require serious hard work, thinking and reflecting.
As they say, one has to be child-liked and keep asking “Why” endlessly without any finality.
Note in Physics, once physicists believed the fundamental of everything of reality is a particle, but was surprised the fundamental of reality could be either a particle or wave depending on context of observations.
I think Hume presents a good challenge to causality. My problem is not with P having that belief, but rather the way considers it a turning point in the history of ideas: that Hume changed the way people think. But he didn’t, not in any wider sense, not in the scientific community. QM did more to raise issues around causality, though even with that the bulk of the scientific community and the educated classes still work with cause and effect as givens.
It is as if what he reads is the way the world thinks. His experience and conclusions get projected over the planet. So he can say ‘this is theism, this is not theism’ and Kant showed that X is the case and that’s that. His authorities, those people who have convinced him or who confirmed for him his ideas are authorities he can simply cite to others. It’s very solipsistic, apart from the fallacies involved.
Of course my proposition was ignored. Prismatic 567 seems to be possessed by the myth of his autonomous thinking ego as the philosophical hero who vanquishes the monster god of Western monotheism. Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism. It’s a way to go. And he has plenty of company and the support of some brilliant thinkers, does he not?
Brilliant thinkers don’t spew rhetoric and merely defend against others out dated ideas. Rhetoric isn’t philosophy. The idea of god he argues against isn’t genuine, nor the arguments made against it. Can’t make an argument against something interpreted wrongly, then claim you’ve won when the view from the beginning is skewed and merely adopted.
But this god idea, clung too? I’d guess a lot of religions are way off the mark and it can be attributed to some fairly nasty behavior. I don’t think that’s a god’s fault. Also can be attributed to some fairly kind events and I don’t think that’s to a gods credit.
Nothing, ‘poof’ something. That’s tough to wrap your mind around.
Our reasoning is relative, I think.
No, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated anything. What you may have demonstrated is reason doesn’t go there. A really big question remains.
How did ‘here’ get to be a here? I’m not sure we’ve got our hands wrapped around that. Was here always here as an absolute location?
What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.
The idea of God have led to terrible evil and violent consequences to humanity since the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness - must be since more 10,000 years ago or even > 50,000 years ago.
The God or Allah of Islam is responsible for >270 millions non-Muslims as commanded by Allah in the Quran and will continue to do so in the future with the possibility of exterminating the human race, since life on Earth according to Islam is a sham.
If any group of Muslims were to exterminate the human species they have nothing to lose but instead will be greatly rewarded in the Islamic paradise filled with virgins and eternal erections.
Note fact is nukes and various WMDs are getting cheap and easily accessible in the black market. Al-Qaeda the Islamic terrorist group has a specific department handling nuclear and WMD weapons.
You don’t have any concern for the above?
Where is your moral compass?
While I have argued away God to deal with the above God-related evil and violent acts, I have provided alternative fool proof solutions to substitute religions in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis that originally drive the majority to theism.
In parallel with dealing away with God related evil, humanity will develop various moral strategies to deal with secular evil and violent acts.
What I have done is providing rational argument to support my view and they are very transparent and objective.
All you need to do is to prove my premises are false and my conclusion can be deservingly squashed.
You are being rhetorical here and jumped to conclusion on the above.
I am not into the above modernism, positivism and nominalism.
What I relying upon are the philosophy of critical empirical-realism.
So far my arguments are always empirical and philosophical based criticisms and they are being realistic. Prove to me, I am none of these.
Prismatic567. Thank you for replying to my comments. You ask me to prove that your premises are false. They’re false in so far as Christian orthodoxy is concerned. You can find definitions of God in the creedal statements and catechisms of mainstream churches. You claim to know what absolute perfection is whereas the well documented traditional Christian understanding of God has always maintained that God (and therefore God’s perfection) is beyond human comprehension. Thus, your entire argument is a Straw Man as far as the Christian doctrine of God is concerned.
You’re playing a game you cannot lose. You have chosen an idiosyncratic definition of God that no Christian subscribes to. And if anyone disagrees you disqualify them for not arguing in terms of your definition.
Besides, you have dismissed or ignored many of the strong arguments made by others above. So, in spite of your opinion of yourself, your thread shows that you are not an objective judge of how the debate is going. That being the case, only a fool would play with you on your terms.
Am I being rhetorical? I don’t know how knowledgeable you are of the history of philosophy, but if you like I can expand on how your brand empiricism is thoroughly modern, positivistic, nominalistic.
So, you want to go empirical. What then is your empirical evidence for the efficacy of your argument? Has it persuaded anyone who didn’t come to your thread already an atheist?
It is so easy for any one to claim what they believe existing as real is beyond human comprehension.
All theists make the same claim that their God is beyond human comprehension.
Muslims claim their Allah [God] exists as real which is beyond human comprehension. Allah exhorts all Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under vague conditions.
If we convinced there is no such real God which is beyond human comprehension, there will be no more Muslims believing in such a God that command them to kill non-Muslims.
What theists are are ignorant of is the inherent existential crisis that drive them to cling to a God. Other non-theistic religion [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] recognize this fact and deal direct with the existential crisis rather than depend on a God [with negative baggage].
Btw, Schizophrenics will claim the people [even gnomes] they had a conversation with, thus direct personal experiences is beyond the comprehension of other people.
I can claim XYZ thing [more powerful than your God] exists and that is beyond human comprehension, what can you do about that?
Nope I have not ignored any arguments by others - which one?
I strive to maintain intellectual integrity and would never leave any challenge unchallenged.
I am reasonable knowledgeable of the full range of Western Philosophy including Eastern Philosophy.
You are being rhetorical into pigeon-holing me into philosophical pigeon-holes without knowing my actual position.
I am not into positivistic , i.e. positivism which is no more popular and not into pure nominalism.
As stated I am into empirical realism with critical thinking.
My argument is grounded on the empirical.
I don’t take a leap out of the empirical to jump to the conclusion that something non-empirical exist as real.
I argue that leap is due to psychological reason within the human psyche.
Yes it is all humans including the clinging to a God.
If you claim and insist God exists as real, where is your evidence and justification to prove your claim.
I am an atheist. I claim no such thing. I simply argue your claim that a god does not exist as real. I don’t personally have a god. I have questions about the “here” of here and don’t have an answer for them. The god you argue against does not answer them for me. Whether there is a god that can, remains to be evidenced. I agree with Felix in the regard that you have a fairly limited definition of what a god might be. A particle or a wave, Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity?
Don’t get me wrong. Looking at the question relatively is a sound pragmatic process, but to think you’ve crossed into absolutes, is a mistake of a lack of imagination. I would encourage you to practice the latter in equal proportion to the former.
Belief, I think is a key to your argument. It lacks proof in the same way any other belief can be held.
We spoke earlier of an absolute certainty which can not be reached.
Yet these uncertainties remain. There seems a required reflexivity in the statement as well. You can not claim to ‘know’ what is absolutely unreal either. Therefore what you hold is a belief that god is an impossibility.
Yes, belief is a key to my argument, but it is based on rationally justified belief, not a highly subjective belief.
Belief comes in a continuum from;
Opinion - free flowing very loose subjective views
Belief - beliefs ranging from low personal convictions to higher justified-beliefs.
Knowledge - justified true beliefs [JTB] as in Science, etc.
My argument is based on rationally justified beliefs, i.e. logical arguments.
Note my argument is not of an absolute certainty which cannot be reached, it is that there is no absolute-certainty to be reached.
E.g. the analogy of a square-circle, it is a non-starter. No matter what, it is not a thing which can not be reached. There is no square-circle to be reached for a start.
Similarly, God is an impossibility, the question whether God exists or not is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
What is absolutely unreal is absolutely falsehood, why we should be bother with that.
There are loads of possible unknowns.
But what is possible unknowns which can be real must be empirically justified, i.e. has empirical elements.
I can predict unicorns [horses with one single horn on the head] exists somewhere in a planet > one light year away in the universe. This is not an impossibility to be real because all the elements in the above statement are empirically laden which can be empirically justified if the empirical evidence is brought forth.
If one insist one’s God is a monkey existing more than one light years away - creating the universe - then I can agree such a monkey-God is possible to be real. All you need is to bring that ‘monkey’ for empirical verification. This is possible in theory but not probable in reality.
But, the-has-to-be ultimate God is a thought and idea that has no possibility of any empirical attribute [as defined] thus an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
The word ‘god’ can be defined to be impossible, or to be possible.
The ancients defined ‘god’, theos, as natural force…so, for them, the word has meaning that they could experience.
Moderns, infested by Abrahamism, defined god as an absolute. They idealized and mystified the word, to ensure the manipulation and exploitation of morons throughout the ages.
They defined the word out of existence - beyond space/time.
You can define words like morality, value, love, in ways that makes them impossible - supernatural, ideological. Then morons can spend a lifetime looking for what does not exist, the way they’ve defined it.
All the so-called divine attributes are windows into infinity. Infinity is not knowable. It literally means “not finite”. It is defined analogically by what it is not. So with all the other attributes. Omnipotence. We know what finite power is. Infinite power is not that. And so on with omniscience, perfection, omnipresence, etc. Now if you claim infinity is impossible, I ask YOU to prove it. Cuz, until you do, I can’t imagine it.
Prismatic567 Here is an example where you only superficially address one of a respondent’s seven arguments, go off on a irrelevant tangent about your divine mission to save the world from theism( how’s that going for you, by the way?) and dismiss the rest. Your response is not exactly conducive to a meaningful dialogue.