What if there was no god?

[Etienne]

Yes, I am referring to what is referred to as essence or substance.

But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.

Then the difficulty here is merely one of semantics. Your position is truly one of agnosticism, a "non-knowledge." This would be one where you would neither affirm nor deny because you have not received information. Of course that opens the whole question of what constitutes valid information...

Yes, perhaps you could see it as a problem of semantics, although I don't think it's limited only to semantics. I wouldn't say my stance is only of "non-knowledge". I can say: "God doesn't exist (keeping in mind the eternal, but not used practically, doubt) because there is no bases for such a belief. I might as well believe in chimeras." It is not just an "I don't know" it is a "There is no reason to believe, therefore I don't believe." I don't think the difference is only semantic, but whatever this doesn't really matter after all.

You misunderstood my position. I did NOT claim that ALL observations are to be doubted, but the reasonable position that not all observations are true. Therefore we must always take a position that all knowledge is provisional, since we are never precisely sure where error will creep in. I am no fan of dogmatic religion of any stripe, either. I firmly believe that much, if not all, of the trouble that religious belief has caused in the world is precisely because people act as though there is no doubt as to what the truth is. My position is we should always leave room for doubt in recognition of our inability to know anything perfectly. This does not deny that we can know things, merely that we know them as well as we think we do.

Yes, yes, I believe we were then saying the same thing, and scientific method says the same as well. This is my main concern as well, I do not care whatever people might believe in, but it's the dogmatism that is my main concern.

You are missing my point. You could not understand what Aristotelian physics is without having faith that what you were told Aristotelian physics constitutes really was the physics of Aristotle. You had to have faith people weren't pulling your leg and that there was really an Aristotelian physics to understand at all.

Well whatever the name given to it, I can understand it. Tell me 2+2=5, and tell me it's Aristotelian physics, if I understand that 2+2=5 doesn't work, well I have understood what it is, after this it's simply a matter of name.

Oh and I think, concerning his metaphysics, that he was pulling our leg, he simply wanted to confuse people

In other words, this is the same position that you argued correctly above, that one must have faith in something in order to have any possibility of knowledge.

I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.

Considering the limits of time, space and humans, we must inevitably come to understand some things through faith (not necessarily religious).

Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.

For example, I have faith in my senses that New York City exists (I am in New York City) but I have to trust other people that Oakland, California exists (though Gertrude Stein famously remarked of the city, "There is no there, there.")

But here's another distinction: The existence of Oakland or Montreal (I'm in Montreal ) exist, is empirical data.

No, I said that SCIENCE is not equipped to answer ontological questions. Clearly theology is an attempt to deal with ontological issues.
Philosophy and theology were not so much confused as that philosophy grew out of religious beliefs.

Alright, only, for the second part, philosophy didn't grew out of religious beliefs, philosophy was adapted to religious beliefs and mostly developed in parallel while being interested in theological questions (intrusion almost always fought by theologians during the whole Middle-Age).

[QUOTE]Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.

The question here appears, at least on one level, of what we are to take as our axioms and which to exclude. Nothing at all wrong with that as the utility of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries shows. My point here is not to say that one set of axioms has any privileged position, in fact I hold the contrary position. What I am arguing for is merely a recognition that a scientific, or a materialistic, or a religious, or a (fill in the blank) conception involves a selection of axioms. This selection determines what kind of questions can be fruitfully asked within the conceptual model. The basis of judgment on the particular model should be how well it answers the questions that belong to the set of well-formed questions that can be posed within the model.

Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.

Spoken like an Aristotelian! Unfortunately it does not always work like that. As shown above for germanium and neutrinos, there was no empirical demonstration of the existence of the particles before they were postulated.

Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

EDIT: Wow this is getting to be big messages, there is a few parts however that are pretty much done, agreed and understood, or perhaps less relevant to the discussion, so let's cut them down :P

[Etienne]

I don't know why this would bother you as you have an excellent facility for doing it yourself. I have seen you take my statements many times and try to explain to me what you believed I meant. I can speak for myself, I've done it for 47 years.

Send me a private message with quotes of me doing this, we'll discuss it, if you want.

[Pendragon]

Send me a private message with quotes of me doing this, we'll discuss it, if you want.

I am nothing if not fair. I could find none. However, I should point out that many posts have been deleted.

I will, however, go with the evidence at hand and apologize. My deepest apologizes for an accusation that apparently is unfounded. Please forgive my error.

God Bless

Dale Harris

[Etienne]

I am nothing if not fair. I could find none. However, I should point out that many posts have been deleted.

I will, however, go with the evidence at hand and apologize. My deepest apologizes for an accusation that apparently is unfounded. Please forgive my error.

God Bless

Dale Harris

Fair enough, if I ever did it was that I had misunderstood you, perhaps, and was not done on purpose.

[greenburke]

"An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

We find that even subjective feelings and emotions, like pain, stand in need of objective definition for the person to think that they are, in fact feeling that way.

Moreover, not only do there need to be an agreement of objective criteria between humans, but humans need an objective criteria outside of themselves to validate their knowledge and beliefs (epistemology) and reality (metaphysics).

As discussed in Plato's, Theaetetus:

"Socrates: Then you were quite right in affirming that knowledge is only perception; and the meaning turns out to be the same, whether with Homer and Heracleitus, and all that company, you say that all is motion and flux, or with the great sage Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things...



"Socrates: I am charmed with his [Protagoras] doctrine, that what appears is to each one, but I wonder that he did not begin his book on Truth with a declaration that a pig or a dog-faced baboon, or some other yet stranger monster which has sensation, is the measure of all things; then he might have shown a magnificent contempt for our opinion of him by informing us at the outset that while we were reverencing him like a God for his wisdom he was no better than a tadpole, not to speak of his fellow-men-would not this have produced an over-powering effect?

For if truth is only sensation, and no man can discern another's feelings better than he, or has any superior right to determine whether his opinion is true or false, but each, as we have several times repeated, is to himself the sole judge, and everything that he judges is true and right, why, my friend, should Protagoras be preferred to the place of wisdom and instruction, and deserve to be well paid, and we poor ignoramuses have to go to him, if each one is the measure of his own wisdom?

Must he not be talking ad captandum [an unsound argument that is likely to gain popular acceptance] in all this?

I say nothing of the ridiculous predicament in which my own midwifery and the whole art of dialectic is placed; for the attempt to supervise or refute the notions or opinions of others would be a tedious and enormous piece of folly, if to each man his own are right; and this must be the case if Protagoras Truth is the real truth, and the philosopher is not merely amusing himself by giving oracles out of the shrine of his book."

If man cannot be the measure of all things, nor pigs, nor aliens, nor the host of other creatures that have been granted sensation... for they could not use transcendent methods of objective reliabilty to communicate truths between each other... they could know nothing for certain, even their own sensations would be void of objective certainty.

What is needed is God. A transcendent source of Truth, by which people's ability to deduce Truth would rely.

Else we would not know whether emprical, spritual, religious, or simple feelings were a path to truth. All of these would be left in the dark, because we would not know why they were the right ways to establish the validity of truth versus falsehood. As humans we would be left to observation and psychology... but these too would be mysticism, because we could not know if they were the right way and moreover empricism cannot be proved as the right philosophy/science by empirical methods. As Wittgenstein said, "The inner process stands in need of an outward criterion."

Also...
What people need more than pleasure is love. If pleasure alone gave people satisfaction then prostitutes, theives, killers, over-induldgers, and un-disciplined people, who act on impulse/instinct to fulfill their desire, should be not only the happiest, but most satisfied people.

But pleasure alone is not the key, pleasure needs a proper context, that context being love. Pleasures are fleeting but love never fails.

Love is exemplified in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (NIV),

"1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails."

Footnotes:

a. 1 Corinthians 13:1 Or languages
b. 1 Corinthians 13:3 Some early manuscripts body that I may boast

This need for love is leaves to lyrics, like Green Day's Boulevard of Broken Dreams,
"I walk alone/I walk alone/I walk alone...
My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone"

This need for love is more than other people can provide, more than we can achieve. And that is what religions in general try to do, acheive some higher state, enlightenment, freedom from suffering, god-status, even a achieve a ticket to heaven... following the lie told in the garden by the serpent,

"4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV)

But salvation and life is not acheived through our works; we are in need of a Savior... who took the burden off of us and bore our transgressions. That Savior being Jesus, God incarnate.

"13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

Colossians 2:13-14 (NIV)

Footnotes:

Colossians 2:13 Or your flesh
Colossians 2:13 Some manuscripts us

Paul talks about the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 (NIV)...

"3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 15:3 Or you at the first
1 Corinthians 15:5 Greek Cephas


John 3:16-21,

"16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]"

Footnotes:


f. John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son
g. John 3:18 Or God's only begotten Son
h. John 3:21 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 15.


Ask forgiveness for your sins, believe that Jesus died on the cross for your transgressions and was raised to life for your justification and be saved.

2 Corinthians 1:20-22,

"20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

[Etienne]

That Wittgenstein quote is very much taken out of context, and you make him say what he did not, I'm afraid. Also the premise of your argument is non sequitur with it's conclusion. You are only doing the same method as Descartes, for example, who wanted to find an a priori statement from which we could build a knowledge using reason. Your a priori knowledge here is the existence God, but the very point of this discussion is about the existence of God, if the conclusion is the same as the premise, then it is circular logic.

If you think there is no a priori knowledge or no axioms on which we can lay bases of philosophy, then God is a far less rational answer as a correct premise than many others have used.

Also I don't the point of your Bible thumping like this, as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

[RichardHresko]

[QUOTE=Etienne;508797] 1) But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.



Yes, perhaps you could see it as a problem of semantics, although I don't think it's limited only to semantics. I wouldn't say my stance is only of "non-knowledge". I can say: "God doesn't exist (keeping in mind the eternal, but not used practically, doubt) because there is no bases for such a belief. I might as well believe in chimeras." It is not just an "I don't know" it is a "There is no reason to believe, therefore I don't believe." I don't think the difference is only semantic, but whatever this doesn't really matter after all.



Yes, yes, I believe we were then saying the same thing, and scientific method says the same as well. This is my main concern as well, I do not care whatever people might believe in, but it's the dogmatism that is my main concern.



Well whatever the name given to it, I can understand it. Tell me 2+2=5, and tell me it's Aristotelian physics, if I understand that 2+2=5 doesn't work, well I have understood what it is, after this it's simply a matter of name.

Oh and I think, concerning his metaphysics, that he was pulling our leg, he simply wanted to confuse people



2) I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.



Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.



But here's another distinction: The existence of Oakland or Montreal (I'm in Montreal ) exist, is empirical data.



Alright, only, for the second part, philosophy didn't grew out of religious beliefs, philosophy was adapted to religious beliefs and mostly developed in parallel while being interested in theological questions (intrusion almost always fought by theologians during the whole Middle-Age).

Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.



Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.



4) Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

EDIT: Wow this is getting to be big messages, there is a few parts however that are pretty much done, agreed and understood, or perhaps less relevant to the discussion, so let's cut them down :P

In your message quoted above I identified three main areas to discuss: 1) is concerned with whether or not an essence can be said to exist, and the evidence appertaining to it, 2) is on the nature of axioms and what role faith has to do with same, 3) is on the question of direct versus indirect empirical evidence. In order to keep the posts more wieldy I will post on each point in a separate post that will follow directly.

[RichardHresko]

But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.

I am not sure how you are arguing this one, to be honest. What in this context would a basis (a priori or otherwise) be for deciding for or against the existence of an immaterial mode of being that would be satisfactory? If you rule out immaterial beings on the basis that they are not material then you are merely reasserting your premise, not concluding anything.

[RichardHresko]

I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.



Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.


Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.

The problem here is a bending of the idea of what an axiom is. An axiom is not based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge by its very definition. The classic examples are of course from Euclidean geometry: point, line, plane. There is no demonstrable or empirical evidence of them for the simple reason that they do not and can not physically exist.

Axioms are accepted without proof so that there is some possibility to build knowledge. That in itself neither makes it scientific, nor non-scientific.

A decision to accept something as true without proof is an act of faith.

Now I would agree with you that faith as such does not at all imply a deeply held belief or even certainty in the object of the faith. One can, and often does, have faith in things for the sake of the argument.

I think that what is important here is that one does two things: 1) recognize that there is no path to perfect knowledge, and 2) as a consequence distrust any system that claims that there is such a path.

In other words, I argue for a position of provisional knowledge somewhere between radical skepticism and dogmatism.

[QUOTE=Etienne;508797]

Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.

Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

Now that sounds good, but there are two problems.
The first is that you are denying theimportance of the distinction between direct and indirect observation. If one is going to use empirical evidence this distinction should be borne in mind. Note for example you yourself slipped from the deer probably being close to your certainty that the puzzle piece was missing.

The danger of this is made clear by the separate problem. That is the problem of the planet Vulcan. This planet was predicted on the basis of perturbations of orbits of Mercury and Venus, and its mass and orbit (which was closer to the sun than Mercury) were predicted. The difficulty is that Vulcan does not exist. The perturbations however could be accounted for by relativistic effects, which was how the mystery was resolved (at least for now).

[Etienne]

I am not sure how you are arguing this one, to be honest. What in this context would a basis (a priori or otherwise) be for deciding for or against the existence of an immaterial mode of being that would be satisfactory? If you rule out immaterial beings on the basis that they are not material then you are merely reasserting your premise, not concluding anything.

My point was in view of your post that discussed the limits of science by not being able to reach the essence. Your statement was not false, and I do not disagree, I was only saying that it is not necessarily a limit and there might be nothing out of science's reach. The term "essence" and many other metaphysical terms really do not mean anything. Even if an essence exist and the term "essence" refers to something, we have no idea beside speculation about what it is. We can speculate all day about ethereal squirrels living on Bételgeuse, but as long as it's wild speculation (the essence does stay wild speculation) I find using such a concept as the premise of an argument rather weak. It was perhaps more a precision, or a small digression, maybe.

The problem here is a bending of the idea of what an axiom is. An axiom is not based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge by its very definition. The classic examples are of course from Euclidean geometry: point, line, plane. There is no demonstrable or empirical evidence of them for the simple reason that they do not and can not physically exist.

I think this is really just a misunderstanding here. I wanted to represent axioms as something demonstrated in themselves, "a priori" knowledge. The term "empirical" is probably the source of the misunderstanding and an imprecision on my part, I used it for a reason, but I'll retract it (in a few words, I meant their... "translation" application to reality, easy example, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept but if I add two coconuts to two coconuts, I will have four coconuts, thus 2+2=4 could be said to be demonstrated empirically).

A decision to accept something as true without proof is an act of faith.

Absolutely not, as it is "a priori" knowledge. That some unknown knowledge might relativise some of the axioms, that is possible, however in the systems and where they are used and applied they are true by their very nature and definition, no matter how you turn it around or take it apart.

In other words, I argue for a position of provisional knowledge somewhere between radical skepticism and dogmatism.

Well that's a rather imprecise position as there is a world and a half between the two poles. I myself argue for an acceptation of knowledge based on it's demonstrated value (this means to different degrees) but always keeping in mind that the process of falsification is never over, and therefore nothing is never completely validated. After this it is only a matter of the strength of the demonstration or induction.

The first is that you are denying theimportance of the distinction between direct and indirect observation. If one is going to use empirical evidence this distinction should be borne in mind. Note for example you yourself slipped from the deer probably being close to your certainty that the puzzle piece was missing.

I am not denying the importance of the distinction, I am only saying that indirect observation is part of the induction process. After this, not all demonstration or induction holds the same value but both ways DO have some value. In the same way, it was not a slip, as there is no homogeneity in the conclusions that can be held from different observations, direct or indirect.

The danger of this is made clear by the separate problem. That is the problem of the planet Vulcan. This planet was predicted on the basis of perturbations of orbits of Mercury and Venus, and its mass and orbit (which was closer to the sun than Mercury) were predicted. The difficulty is that Vulcan does not exist. The perturbations however could be accounted for by relativistic effects, which was how the mystery was resolved (at least for now).

But this is exactly why I am not saying that any conclusion on indirect observations (or even on direct observations) is necessarily true, but that it grants a "level of truth" (in the provisional, intelligible sense of the term). So it's value can be only enough to justify further investigation on the probability, but that is still something. Looking for gold in my backyard is not justified unless there is a reason to think there might be gold in my backyard. And with this, we are coming back to the topic at hand and the belief (but more the doctrinal belief) in God, religions, metaphysical "truths", etc.

[RichardHresko]

My point was in view of your post that discussed the limits of science by not being able to reach the essence. Your statement was not false, and I do not disagree, I was only saying that it is not necessarily a limit and there might be nothing out of science's reach. The term "essence" and many other metaphysical terms really do not mean anything. Even if an essence exist and the term "essence" refers to something, we have no idea beside speculation about what it is. We can speculate all day about ethereal squirrels living on Bételgeuse, but as long as it's wild speculation (the essence does stay wild speculation) I find using such a concept as the premise of an argument rather weak. It was perhaps more a precision, or a small digression, maybe.



I think this is really just a misunderstanding here. I wanted to represent axioms as something demonstrated in themselves, "a priori" knowledge. The term "empirical" is probably the source of the misunderstanding and an imprecision on my part, I used it for a reason, but I'll retract it (in a few words, I meant their... "translation" application to reality, easy example, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept but if I add two coconuts to two coconuts, I will have four coconuts, thus 2+2=4 could be said to be demonstrated empirically).



Absolutely not, as it is "a priori" knowledge. That some unknown knowledge might relativise some of the axioms, that is possible, however in the systems and where they are used and applied they are true by their very nature and definition, no matter how you turn it around or take it apart.



Well that's a rather imprecise position as there is a world and a half between the two poles. I myself argue for an acceptation of knowledge based on it's demonstrated value (this means to different degrees) but always keeping in mind that the process of falsification is never over, and therefore nothing is never completely validated. After this it is only a matter of the strength of the demonstration or induction.



I am not denying the importance of the distinction, I am only saying that indirect observation is part of the induction process. After this, not all demonstration or induction holds the same value but both ways DO have some value. In the same way, it was not a slip, as there is no homogeneity in the conclusions that can be held from different observations, direct or indirect.



But this is exactly why I am not saying that any conclusion on indirect observations (or even on direct observations) is necessarily true, but that it grants a "level of truth" (in the provisional, intelligible sense of the term). So it's value can be only enough to justify further investigation on the probability, but that is still something. Looking for gold in my backyard is not justified unless there is a reason to think there might be gold in my backyard. And with this, we are coming back to the topic at hand and the belief (but more the doctrinal belief) in God, religions, metaphysical "truths", etc.

I think we are in agreement on the provisional nature of knowledge. I will argue that my imprecision is appropriate since different matters of knowledge are well-established to varying degrees.

There seem actually to be only two areas of active disagreement. The first is the nature of axioms. The second is on metaphysics.

On axioms I think we essentially agree except that since "a priori knowledge" is not empirical and is accepted therefore without proof, it really does constitute a matter of faith, as uncomfortable as the term may be. That approximations can be made in the physical world is not empirical proof of an axiom. Mathematical points, lines, and planes have no existence in the physical world.

The second point is very interesting. You allow for knowledge that is not based on empirical information (the axioms) and in fact has no physical existence at all, and relegate all of metaphysics as speculation. There seems to be a conflict, if not an outright contradiction here.

Once again, the main stumbling block here is the issue of whether scientific or empirical knowledge is the only form of knowledge possible. Unless one is willing to consider metaphysical truth as a possibility outside of science (which is not designed to find any such thing and is an inappropriate tool for that purpose) then one has ended the inquiry before it has started.

[Etienne]

The second point is very interesting. You allow for knowledge that is not based on empirical information (the axioms) and in fact has no physical existence at all, and relegate all of metaphysics as speculation. There seems to be a conflict, if not an outright contradiction here.

I don't think there is any contradiction here. Let's take the axiom a+b=b+a, it is self-evident it does not require demonstration. The existence of God or the observation that you have purple monkey answering to the name of Socrates on your head, do require demonstration and is not self-evident at all.

[RichardHresko]

I don't think there is any contradiction here. Let's take the axiom a+b=b+a, it is self-evident it does not require demonstration. The existence of God or the observation that you have purple monkey answering to the name of Socrates on your head, do require demonstration and is not self-evident at all.

What does it mean to be self-evident, though?

It appears as though you are failing to distinguish between something that does not require demonstration (whatever that might be) and something that is accepted that can not be demonstrated (such as a mathematical point). The distinction is crucial.

Further a+b = b+a is only valid in certain circumstances, and therefore not necessarily as self-evident as one might think. Let a = "putting on socks" and b = "putting on shoes." Clearly the commutative law does not work in this case.

If however we restrict ourselves to purely abstract mathematical operations of algebra the statement is true. But we now slip out of the empirical yet again.

This is why I think there is a problem here.

[brightfame]

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

Of course it would.

:
:
On the other hand, I am betting you got your own concept of God taught to you by your family and your society. So actually what you believe in your heart comes from the opinions of others about there being a God. As for needing a God now even more, I'd say we need more solidarity and human understanding.



I think you are making my argument. Religion is taught to us. We have this need for a higher being simply because we can't explain our universe and ourselves. As for reading Nietzche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence.

"...As for reading Nietzche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence..."

Yes...but...........he was also a lunatic.

...I think this is important!?


It is interesting how in his 1882 work The Gay Science, Nietzsche has the character "madman" say the phrase that later made Nietzsche famous: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him!", ...then Nietzsche, the world renown atheist phylosopher, made famous by that very quote of the "madman", goes insane in 1888, and dies a raving lunatic in 1900.

God has a sense of humour.

bright

[rosa]

Hi I am Rosa
Do you mean that we only behave in a certain manner because religion dectates principles we must follow?
After 2000 years of Christianity of couse becomes difficult to separate man and religion because they have become very much one thing.Of course we are talking here of a tradition that goes back to the cave man who recognised the existence of a superior beeing and very much was afraid of it. Can we really ever achieve the certanty that the whole thing is fantasy even if prouves are given to us?
I do not believe so.Man need a superior beeing even the one that says he doesnt,that it why religion is so powerful and unbreakable.
The influence of religion is eternal.It is a great thing.
Would I change my attitude if I were sure God did not exist?
I do not think so? I could I ? I was born in a christian contest and learnt to live with it one way or another.Refused it as a young person like most of people, not so much now.It is part of me.
Somebody up there is greater than I am and that put me in my place, I could be at times ribellius but I have common sense. Never mind God,religion teaches good principles that are valid and sensible,why would I want to change ways if they are good and positive?
The question here is different.
Would somebody behaving well unwillingly modify his behaviour if discovered God was a fantasy?
But how many people nowdays modify their behaviour for religion?