Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:03 am
Kurieuo, thanks for your contentious answer. It will take me some time to answer.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
Science is what is done.Nils wrote:I am not certain whether you agree with me or not. Science builds on evidence, the "toched" if you want, but can build laws and models of the "undiscoverable", if you by this term mean what is not directly sensed but can be verified or falsified using scientific methods. OK?PaulSacramento wrote:Any yet, that is how science discovers things.Nils wrote:Yes, we have good reasons to say that we know some things exist beyond our senses but only if we can get evidence of these things. To do that we have to build a model (or law) from our direct sense observations using the methods of natural science.PaulSacramento wrote:If we can't trust or senses and our ability to reason it means that any statement is void, including the one that says you can't trust your senses or reasoning obviously.
BUT we also know that there is more to the universe than what can be perceived solely by our senses.
We can't see/hear/taste and touch anything immaterial or anything outside our ability to see or hear YET we know that things do exist beyond these sense, correct?
Other things that we can not get evidence of we have good reasons not to believe in. How could it be possible to get reliable knowledge from our intuitions, feelings or introspection? There is no way to test such information.
If we "settled" on only what can be observed or "touched", science would never progress and never find the "undiscoverable".
There are lot of things to comment in your post and I'll try to cover them.Kurieuo wrote: We cannot directly sense in the manner a bat senses the world around them. I wonder if your views on reliable knowledge, shared experience, testing and the like isn't too simple. Further to this, the premises that your senses are reliable and you can in fact test this, is well, quite rather a circular argument in that your testing depends upon your senses being reliable.
As for my response to you, I actually spent much time generating one before noticing that you didn't really take up the challenge. Then the boredom I spoke of kind of set in, and I have better things to do. Sorry, I don't mean to offend. It's just the way I feel after 20 years of the the same 'ol stuff (really, not much has really changed in arguments). So I prefer to dedicated my time to more productive things, get annoyed when I waste time responding to something for the nnnth time (not your fault, sometimes I can't help myself). For example, I was frustrated that I ended up spending time responding to certain challenges made with multiverse and first causes (same 'ol stuff to me), before realising that you basically brush away needing to have anything underpinning your materialistic beliefs. It seems to me you think that you can just assume without offering anything for them, except to reason through some pushbacks against assuming God. Nonetheless, despite this, I'll see where I was at and try finish it off, maybe open a different thread because multiverse/first cause stuff veers off more towards debating theism as I see.
So then, I found some of your response was generally already covered in my original post (e.g., see below "Now, regarding the last part of your post..."), other parts of your post did make me tire. Why? Well it seemed to me throughout much of your response that you are simply turning the tables with this is what you believe and justifying such by pushing against what you see as theistic arguments (rather than putting something on the table via making positive arguments for your beliefs).
What is wrong with that? Well, besides being a rather typical Atheist tact, even if "no God" was a logical possibility (understand I see God as a logically necessary being) and the world around us just was as Materialists believe, such doesn't rationally justify your beliefs. So I'd be interested in you putting justifications for your beliefs on the table, giving your reasons for them, rather than simply presenting a materialistic conception of the world and then swiping theistic views of reality off.
Perhaps you see no onus to do so, for you say there is a stalemate in the discussion. We really can't know either way. So, you end with "this is metaphysics and probably we will never get any evidence about which solution is correct." Yet, you're not being entirely honest here. You don't believe there is a stalemate at all, because you quite passionately believe in your Materialism. And, for me, I don't believe there is a stalemate at all. I see God as a logically necessary being in many ways that go beyond your simplistic summary of some first cause argument.
So then, given you clearly believe in your Materialism, put something on the damn table and stop simply pushing back on theistic logic like all you need to do is remove such arguments and you're rationally justified by default. You may want to rest upon fideism with your Materialism, however so long as we're clear this doesn't make you rationally justified, I can accept this. But, I don't buy that Materialism is the default rational position at all. There are many things that are more than meets the eye, and often taking things at first glance leads us to rather primitive and simplistic conclusions that actually don't represent the truth at all.
Now, regarding the last part of your post, this gets to the heart of the matter as I see which I'm also trying to get at above. For, it seems my opening post was somewhat prophetic of what your response would be regarding dead people coming back to life. Understand though, the questions are intended to more get people thinking about the nature of reality and other possibilities, and to really justify their world ontology. I feel you left the question open as to whether someone comes back from the dead depending upon what one believes. So you seem to again want to leave it in a stalemate, yet such belies your strong Materialistic beliefs which you so laid out for us. You don't believe it is a stalemate, so then put your reasons on the table for your beliefs, rather than merely stating what they are.
Let me try explain what I'm getting at again, only more in context to what you wrote on this:Now I wrote in my opening post the typical response is one like "dead people don't come back to life." This is pretty much how you responded. If we read what I originally wrote in total, hopefully it becomes obvious you have kind of missed the point I was making. I'll quote the relevant part here:There is a last question in your OP: "Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?"
I don't understand why it is important to you but my answer is:
In my materialistic view there has never been any living thing that has come back from the dead, by definition. But if I am mistaken and there is a God that created the universe and the laws I can't see any problem for him to wake somebody up from the dead or doing any miracle he wants.So as I said, you seem to want to leave this question as a stalemate like: "Why, if God exists, then yes, Jesus can be risen; if God doesn't, then no." And yet, you very much passionately believe in your materialistic view of the world. You presume you know what the world really is and where it ends. Which is why something like Jesus' resurrection is just not on your table of beliefs you are able to choose to believe in, perhaps no more than pink unicorns flying around the sky.Kurieuo wrote:For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!
Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!
Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.
An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?
In summary, clearly you don't believe there is a stalemate at all. You seem content with your Materialism and you appear to accept it as default without requiring much if any justification. Rationally, such is no better than Christians raised Christian who believe in their default position in life without justification. It doesn't mean you or they are wrong, but it "passes the buck" so-to-speak. Getting back to what I said earlier, I don't buy that Materialism is the default rational position (there are really zero neutral positions as I see) and think only someone being rationally superficial, even gullible, would take the world at face value without looking more carefully at the face they see and pondering more deeply about it.