Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
What I said on this reply last time was my comment about language barrier. And perhaps this will help make me look less stupid. Your views right now are currently using the lens of science, which requires you to be able to experiment extensively, and only then make a conclusion.
Not the lens of science; the lens of reason. Reason begets science, because the idea is not to assume without proof. Science does not give us absolute truths based on faith, and neither should logical arguments. We would not argue the existence of a round earth without logical proofs any more than we would accept an accused criminal's denial of a crime for the same reasons. The earth is round because of multiple premises, which meet a strict criteria, and must be testable, falsifiable, and make future predictions.
The claim that "God exists absolutely" does not fit even the most basic criteria, and does not rely on any logical proofs whatsoever. If this most basic of religious premises cannot be logically proven, nothing based on it can be valid either.
However, religious views do not require experimentation.
Correction, they cannot hold up to experimentation. Because God is not itself a testable idea, and exists only in the minds of people who believe. Even religious leaders admit as much and the honest ones don't attempt to say otherwise. Apologists, on the other hand, attempt to use sophistry and fallacies to prove that religion is equally or more valid than rational concepts and ideas.
I tried to describe what I glimpsed temporarily as a different mindset entirely from one which has been supported and nurtured by science for as long as it has been in use. What this means for my argument is simply what I have repeatedly stated in this post. Religion is not unreasonable, it uses reason to its fullest capacity as was possible at the time.
This is a misunderstanding of what is reason. Reason is not "reasonable" to an individual's subjective viewpoint which is relatively unexamined. I would not claim that my faith in aliens from Mars is a product of reason unless I had actual proof that aliens did exist on Mars. In the absence of proof, the burden is on the one making the claim. If I say "aliens exist on Mars", I am required to prove that this is logically so. No one else should be coerced into believing me on the basis of "I have faith that this is so". That is not knowledge in any sense of the word.
In fact, I would argue that the nature of cause and effect as a necessity to the scientific method will some day serve as a barrier to science's progress. There is still much that people do not know, and who is to say that cause and effect is a universal rule?
Actually, how you sense and understand nature presupposes cause and effect. Religion, for all its inability to adhere to basic burden of proof, asserts cause and effect. It is the most evident and axiomatic of scientific principles, and this is why we use it as a measuring tool for all logical arguments.
No rational argument can exist without this form.
P1. A is unlike B because reason X. (Reason X could be the originating cause in this case, like a tree spawning acorns)
P2. X is the case.
* Therefore, A is unlike B.
That's a very basic argument of identity. I opted not to use the most basic form which is "A is A and only A; therefore, B is not A" because that would muddle the point and require you to have a working knowledge of epistemology. Which, I might add, is an excellent field of study. No, the point is that even the most basic of attempts to explain the world require cause and effect. Saying it is a potential barrier misunderstands how all-pervasive it truly is in our understanding of the world.
After all, every cause is in essence also an effect, which had its own cause, repeatedly tracing back to the beginning of time. Which is one place where cause and effect reasoning cannot provide an answer. Truthfully, cause and effect reasoning can never provide an answer for this.
I think you've misunderstood the point of scientific theories and method here. It is not the purpose of such things to determine absolutes or to determine things outside of the existence of human beings. It is a method used to glean knowledge which is based on our ability to use our senses and make conclusions from relationships we witness in the natural world. The "beginning of time", if there is such a thing (and our own finite existence owes a lot to this theory) is not empirically verifable.
This also may not prove that religion is reasonable, but it does suggest that it is no less so than any other idea.
There is no proof here, just an assertion that avoids a basic logical foundation. Again, the bottom line is this:
"God exists"
^ This is the foundation upon which a religion exists (except for perhaps Buddhism or traditional Confucianism) and is the underlying assumption in all religious arguments. Until this can be substantiated, none of the other arguments have any merit.
I don't think anybody ever posited that God existed because the Bible said so. In fact, it's the opposite, if anything. The Bible has been posited to exist because of God. God was thought to exist because nobody knew what created everything, how people came to be or how they developed consciousness beyond other animals. I think that's also about where science is, actually. No answer to the main question, still.
Actually, people including JIA, have posited that God exists because of the Bible. The only exceptions I'm familiar with are personal "miracles", which I don't put much stock in either. The idea that creation is so complex it requires a creator or could never be because of naturally occurring principles interacting for billions of years is a huge assumption. The city of New York is irreducibly complex in design, function, and appearance. No one would ever argue one person or one being created New York.
Second, the reasoning is circular for a lot of Christians: The Bible is both proof of God's law and existence, and is written by him (according to the church). No one has seen God's signature in the preface, or his thumb print in the ink on page 45. No one saw him hunched over a desk, scribbling furiously onto papyrus sheets in the candle light, nor magic it into existence.
The Old Testament is thousands of years old, and the New Testament wasn't solidified until many centuries after Christ's birth, and excluded a lot of Gospels, from the Gospel of Thomas to the Gospel of Judas. A lot of Biblical interpretation and tradition has very human origins, including a council to determine if God could be defined as a Holy Trinity, the appearance of angels with wings, and why only four gospels made it into the NT. The church authority also branded some Christians with titles such as "Heretics" and "Gnostics" despite all believing in Christ in some way.
Against my better judgement, I want to post one thought I've had on the subject that grew from my personal experience. The way I see it, you believe in coincidence, or you believe in God.
This is a false dilemma, and therefore I offer you a third option: you see the effects of what we could call random chance or chaos theory that appear as if to be a coincidence, but just because something is astronomically unlikely does not preclude it from ever happening. Given enough time and impacting variables, something expected or desired will happen. There are 'miracles' or 'coincidences' that happen every day. Even something as mundane as being born is a lottery of whether or not you will be afflicted with many diseases, birth defects, or even survive the initial process before you are confronted with countless possibilities throughout your life.
I do not see a basis for your example, so I cannot comment on it. What makes the guy think a volcano is Surtr?
Surtr, a fire giant of Norse mythology, is associated with fire, heat, and smoke and is theorized by some to be associated with the volcanoes on Iceland. Since the lion's share of Norse mythology comes from Iceland, the example had some basis.
But you would not believe for a second that the argument presented for Sutr's existence, as I described above, would be convincing to anyone but an individual raised in ancient Norse culture and relatively ignorant of or suspicious of alternative systems of belief.
No problemo. I can't promise any immediate replies myself. Big assignments due soon, sleep that needs to be gained, etc etc. I do still intend to continue though, because this is still fun.
When you have time, no worries. I have a busy schedule too.