Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:02 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:24 pm
Wait...wait...wait...

Now you're actually going to DEFEND that logic?

It's the same logic as, "Some humans are males, therefore all humans are males." Defend that proposition, if you can.

Can't you see your fallacy of hasty generalization form 'some' to 'all'?

That's YOUR fallacy.

You went from "Some people have death-anxiety," to "All, including every Theist and Deist, was motivated by nothing but death anxiety." Put that way, the fallacy is very clear.

You are shooting blanks.

I have argued on the following basis from All to majority;

• DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  Religion is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, thus the majority of humans are religious [theistic and non-theistic].
  Therefore every theist and deist are driven by the existential crisis.

My hypothesis is very tenable.

You gave no explanation.

Now I did.

I have countered whatever you have countered.
Show me one point of yours that I have not countered with rational arguments?

The point is your theistic conclusions are grounded on 'faith' i.e. without proof nor justified reason, thus there is no way you will be able to provide any reasonable justifications.
Faith is grounded on human psychology surrounding the existential crisis.
Thus 'philosophically' the truth can only be discovered psychological and resolved psychologically.
This is not a speculation but is practiced within the various Eastern non-theistic philosophies.

Islam is theological and grounded on faith and from this faith inspires a significant SOME Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts.
To critique Islam is not islamophobic, but very necessary for humanity's sake.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:40 am I have argued on the following basis from All to majority;

• DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  Religion is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, thus the majority of humans are religious [theistic and non-theistic].
  Therefore every theist and deist are driven by the existential crisis.

That's like arguing, "All people get hungry, and the majority like pizza; therefore, the only food people ever eat is pizza."

My hypothesis is very tenable.

No, it's "remotely plausible" at best. It's not tenable. You haven't even shown it's "probable," let alone "definite." And you've not provided anything to show it explains anything about Theists or Flew.

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

Would you accept your own pattern of argument now? But if you would reject your own argument when it was directed to Atheism, why would you even imagine it was rational when applied to anyone else?

The point is your theistic conclusions are grounded on 'faith' i.e. without proof nor justified reason,

That's a false definition of "faith." Biblically, faith is confidence based on previous evidence.

However, the old Atheist trick is to define all "faith" as "irrational belief," and then to claim because Christians speak of "faith" they are all being irrational. Meanwhile, that definition really applies much better to Atheism: for there is not one Atheist who can meet the challenge of proving the non-existence of God, yet they all assert it. Now, that takes (bad) faith: in fact, it's so bad that even Dawkins himself won't do it. But he will accuse "religious" people of doing it.

Faith is grounded on human psychology surrounding the existential crisis.

This is not the Biblical definition of faith at all. It's a leftover bad definition from Freud et al.

To critique Islam is not islamophobic, but very necessary for humanity's sake.

I would suggest that not only Islam, but all ideologies need to be examined by critique. Not only is it not "Islamophobic" (a silly, propagandistic term, in the first place) to criticize Islam, it's not "Atheophobic" to critique Atheism, nor is it "Christianophobic" to critique Christianity's claims. Moreover, it's not "misogynistic" to criticize Feminism's claims, "homophobic" to criticize Queer Theory, or "Nazi" to criticize the Left, or "pinko" to criticize the Right. Rational examination is fair for all: and any religion or ideology that wants to exempt itself has shown itself base, and has merely become propaganda.

So on that, we agree. "Islamophobia" is nonsense. And anybody who even says the word should be slapped across the face with a halibut.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:40 am I have argued on the following basis from All to majority;

• DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  Religion is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, thus the majority of humans are religious [theistic and non-theistic].
  Therefore every theist and deist are driven by the existential crisis.

That's like arguing, "All people get hungry, and the majority like pizza; therefore, the only food people ever eat is pizza."

Where did you get the idea the majority like pizza?
It is very evident the majority of humans like food that are sweet, salty, carbohydrate, and others.
Therefore we cannot conclude the ONLY food people ever eat is only ONE type of food.

But in the case of religion, 95% of people are religionists, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.
Thus my argument above is very logical.
Note I stated we need more details to reinforce the premises.

My hypothesis is very tenable.

No, it's "remotely plausible" at best. It's not tenable. You haven't even shown it's "probable," let alone "definite." And you've not provided anything to show it explains anything about Theists or Flew.

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  4. Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  5. Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

Would you accept your own pattern of argument now? But if you would reject your own argument when it was directed to Atheism, why would you even imagine it was rational when applied to anyone else?

Nope your argument is non-sequitor.

In 3, the majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
Atheists are the minority 10+% [& rising].
Therefore the minority do not follow the majority, thus non-sequitor.

In addition, atheism is merely 'indifferent to the idea of God and the after life'.
It is not that they are atheists because of no afterlife to fear.

Btw, in 1.;

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. Therefore the 10% [a]theists are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.

It is likely SOME or most [a]theists are born with an active existential crisis.
These [a]theists may be religionists [non-theistic] or non-religionists.
But one thing for sure, they are not theists.

The point is your theistic conclusions are grounded on 'faith' i.e. without proof nor justified reason,

That's a false definition of "faith." Biblically, faith is confidence based on previous evidence.

However, the old Atheist trick is to define all "faith" as "irrational belief," and then to claim because Christians speak of "faith" they are all being irrational. Meanwhile, that definition really applies much better to Atheism: for there is not one Atheist who can meet the challenge of proving the non-existence of God, yet they all assert it. Now, that takes (bad) faith: in fact, it's so bad that even Dawkins himself won't do it. But he will accuse "religious" people of doing it.

Biblically 'faith' is based on general faith, i.e. without proofs nor reason.
This is very evident, since the idea of God emerged, there is no convincing evidence God exists as real [empirally and philosophically].

Since you are in a philosophy forum, philosophically it is not anyone's obligation to prove non-existence of anything, e.g. God, etc.
The onus of claim is always on the claimant of a positive.

Dawkins is trapped within the scientific framework of no certainty, thus his reservation of a 1/7 possibility God exists. But personally, he had stated the existence of God is as probable as proving Zeus or any of the Greek gods exist which is negligible.

On the other hand, I am not proving the non-existence of God.
What I have demonstrated is the idea of God is illusory, i.e. a transcendental illusion, thus by definition cannot be real and impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.

My approach is, the idea of God is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
There is no feasibility to raise the hypothesis of 'God does not exist.'

Example, the question of 'Does God exist" is like the hypothesis 'Does a square-circle exists as real' [obvious contradiction] which should be thrown into the dust bin straight away.

Faith is grounded on human psychology surrounding the existential crisis.

This is not the Biblical definition of faith at all. It's a leftover bad definition from Freud et al.

Why should we accept the Biblical definition when its ground, i.e. God is illusory thus a falsehood and is not real.
Regardless of what 'faith' means, the fact is the idea of God is believed without proofs nor justified reasons. If 'faith' has various meanings, we can set that aside, but 'the belief in God' is nevertheless based on a illusion and the persistent of the belief of an illusion is delusion.

To critique Islam is not islamophobic, but very necessary for humanity's sake.

I would suggest that not only Islam, but all ideologies need to be examined by critique. Not only is it not "Islamophobic" (a silly, propagandistic term, in the first place) to criticize Islam, it's not "Atheophobic" to critique Atheism, nor is it "Christianophobic" to critique Christianity's claims. Moreover, it's not "misogynistic" to criticize Feminism's claims, "homophobic" to criticize Queer Theory, or "Nazi" to criticize the Left, or "pinko" to criticize the Right. Rational examination is fair for all: and any religion or ideology that wants to exempt itself has shown itself base, and has merely become propaganda.

So on that, we agree. "Islamophobia" is nonsense. And anybody who even says the word should be slapped across the face with a halibut.

Yes, humanity must critique all ideologies plus all acts of evil and violence.

My ultimate vision and mission is "Perpetual Peace for Humanity" thus that has to cover every aspect of human thoughts and actions. Thus my discussions are focused on the above [has to separate threads] with the hope such vision will be realized in the future.

However, in this case, per forum rules we must stick to topic in the OP, i.e. confined to Islamophobia.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:40 am But in the case of religion, 95% of people are religionists, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.

That's about right, if we include agnostics. (about 4%) Otherwise, it's closer to 92%.

But it does not follow at all from the fact that people are religious that the cause of their religion is fear of death. So your argument's no good, because it does not establish the causality you assert. In fact, you haven't even asked anyone WHY they become a Deist or a Theist.

And in the case of both myself and Anthony Flew, you have definite, contrary self-reporting to that theory. I have no hesitation at all to say you can locate a lot more such contrary testimony.

Therefore, to generalize from "I think many people maybe fear death" to a claim like "a particular Deist or Theist (like Anthony Flew) became what he was (contrary to his own report) by of fear of death" is obviously illogical.

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  4. Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  5. Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

Would you accept your own pattern of argument now? But if you would reject your own argument when it was directed to Atheism, why would you even imagine it was rational when applied to anyone else?

Nope your argument is non-sequitor.

Good! Then you see it. Because this is precisely your pattern of argument. All I changed, essentially, was "Theist" to "Atheist," and the explanation of motive. The rest, the whole pattern of reasoning, is cut-and-paste, yours.

Thus, you can see that your argument just does not work.

Biblically 'faith' is based on general faith, i.e. without proofs nor reason.

This is a myth. But it's a common error among skeptics, convenient for their argument; so I can't blame you for parroting it. The strategy is to pretend "faith" is inherently irrational, inherently without -- or even blatantly contrary to -- the evidence, so that it's easy to characterize Christians as believers in unicorns. And then to simply mock it. But such folks generally have not paid even the slightest attention to what the Bible says faith actually is, which is belief in the yet-to-come, premised on the reliability of present knowledge.

Ironically, science itself runs in the very same way: a set of tests and experiments is done, and then scientists project for the future that the effect observed will continue. That's faith, because they have not completed the set of all possible trials...so they're taking for granted the results of never-yet-performed trials. Faith is at the root of science itself, because all empirical "knowing" is of this sort.

But the skeptic doesn't want to hear that, so he'll just go on saying, "No, faith is what I say it is, not what the Bible says it is."

Since you are in a philosophy forum, philosophically it is not anyone's obligation to prove non-existence of anything, e.g. God, etc.
The onus of claim is always on the claimant of a positive.

That's partly true. It's only true as long as a skeptical claim is not phrased as a positive.

For example, if one says, "I do not know that God exists, so I prefer to assume He doesn't," fair enough: if he's really got no evidence, and wants to think one thing or the other, no rational person would ask him to believe anything but what he wants to. On the other hand, if he asserts, "I have not seen God, so therefore God does not exist," he's now made a positive knowledge claim: namely, that he knows that God does not exist. And then he's on the hook for that.

Example, the question of 'Does God exist" is like the hypothesis 'Does a square-circle exists as real' [obvious contradiction] which should be thrown into the dust bin straight away.

Not at all. You've compared an inherent contradiction (square circle) with something that contains no contradiction at all. You might wish to say that you think that God does not exist, but there's no internal contradiction in saying that He does. It would be factually, but not logically, or semantically wrong if He does not...it would not be logically contradictory, like square circles.

I'm not a deist cuz of death fear; I'm a deist cuz deism is an explanation of 'why things are' and 'why things are as they are'. My deism isn't a haven or shelter, it's a foundation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:40 am But in the case of religion, 95% of people are religionists, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.

That's about right, if we include agnostics. (about 4%) Otherwise, it's closer to 92%.

But it does not follow at all from the fact that people are religious that the cause of their religion is fear of death. So your argument's no good, because it does not establish the causality you assert. In fact, you haven't even asked anyone WHY they become a Deist or a Theist.

And in the case of both myself and Anthony Flew, you have definite, contrary self-reporting to that theory. I have no hesitation at all to say you can locate a lot more such contrary testimony.

Therefore, to generalize from "I think many people maybe fear death" to a claim like "a particular Deist or Theist (like Anthony Flew) became what he was (contrary to his own report) by of fear of death" is obviously illogical.

Note my argument again;

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  
  4. Religion is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, thus the majority of humans are religious [theistic and non-theistic].
  
  5. Therefore every theist and deist [religionist] are driven by the existential crisis.

In the above I have argued the cause of religion is due to the fundamental fear of death [subliminal]. Note 'subliminal' fear of death in this case which is not the conscious fear of death.

The deist - belief of a reasoned-God - in included in premise 5 above.

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  4. Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  5. Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

Would you accept your own pattern of argument now? But if you would reject your own argument when it was directed to Atheism, why would you even imagine it was rational when applied to anyone else?

VA wrote:Nope your argument is non-sequitor.

Good! Then you see it. Because this is precisely your pattern of argument. All I changed, essentially, was "Theist" to "Atheist," and the explanation of motive. The rest, the whole pattern of reasoning, is cut-and-paste, yours.

Thus, you can see that your argument just does not work.

I explained why your argument is non-sequitor. It does not work when you change theist [majority] to (a)theist [minority]. Premise 3 is only applicable to the majority not the minority.

• Nope your argument is non-sequitor.
  In 3, the majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  Atheists are the minority 10+% [& rising].
  Therefore the 'minority' do not follow the 'majority', thus non-sequitor.

Biblically 'faith' is based on general faith, i.e. without proofs nor reason.

This is a myth. But it's a common error among skeptics, convenient for their argument; so I can't blame you for parroting it. The strategy is to pretend "faith" is inherently irrational, inherently without -- or even blatantly contrary to -- the evidence, so that it's easy to characterize Christians as believers in unicorns. And then to simply mock it. But such folks generally have not paid even the slightest attention to what the Bible says faith actually is, which is belief in the yet-to-come, premised on the reliability of present knowledge.

Ironically, science itself runs in the very same way: a set of tests and experiments is done, and then scientists project for the future that the effect observed will continue. That's faith, because they have not completed the set of all possible trials...so they're taking for granted the results of never-yet-performed trials. Faith is at the root of science itself, because all empirical "knowing" is of this sort.

But the skeptic doesn't want to hear that, so he'll just go on saying, "No, faith is what I say it is, not what the Bible says it is."

I understand there is a continuum in the term 'faith' i.e. from low level faith [1%] to blind faith [100%].
In the case of the theists, they have to have 100% blind faith that God exists as real to listen and answer their prayers plus granting them eternal life in heaven [not hell] upon Judgment Day.

In the case of the scientist, initially they have faith their hypothesis will be true.
However upon confirmation their hypothesis is verified as true, then the hypothesis is justified true belief, i.e. knowledge. The particular scientist do not need faith to believe his thesis is true.

However the lay-person need to have faith on the Scientist's thesis but the confidence level one place on a theory will depend on various circumstances.
But once the lay-person do the scientific test himself [many times] and verify it is true, then, there is no need to have faith, if needed, at best say 5% but not 100% blind faith.

Since you are in a philosophy forum, philosophically it is not anyone's obligation to prove non-existence of anything, e.g. God, etc.
The onus of claim is always on the claimant of a positive.

That's partly true. It's only true as long as a skeptical claim is not phrased as a positive.

For example, if one says, "I do not know that God exists, so I prefer to assume He doesn't," fair enough: if he's really got no evidence, and wants to think one thing or the other, no rational person would ask him to believe anything but what he wants to. On the other hand, if he asserts, "I have not seen God, so therefore God does not exist," he's now made a positive knowledge claim: namely, that he knows that God does not exist. And then he's on the hook for that.

I am not claiming 'God does not exist' because I have not seen God.

My approach is, the claim 'God exists is impossible to be real' because the term God [as defined] is a non-starter, i.e. moot.
As I have stated many times, to claim 'God exists' is like claiming 'a square-circle exists as real'.
Thus the hypothesis is absurd to start with thus a non-starter.

Example, the question of 'Does God exist" is like the hypothesis 'Does a square-circle exists as real' [obvious contradiction] which should be thrown into the dust bin straight away.

Not at all. You've compared an inherent contradiction (square circle) with something that contains no contradiction at all. You might wish to say that you think that God does not exist, but there's no internal contradiction in saying that He does. It would be factually, but not logically, or semantically wrong if He does not...it would not be logically contradictory, like square circles.

To insist God [illusory] exists as real, is an oxymoron, i.e. a contradiction.

Whatever is an illusion cannot be real.
An illusion of a mirage of an oasis in a desert cannot be a real oasis!

The above is an example is empirical.
God is a transcendental illusion and thus more so cannot be real.
Note my argument;

God is a Transcendental Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27609

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:57 am

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  4. Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  5. Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

...this is precisely your pattern of argument. All I changed, essentially, was "Theist" to "Atheist," and the explanation of motive. The rest, the whole pattern of reasoning, is cut-and-paste, yours.

Thus, you can see that your argument just does not work.

I explained why your argument

It's not mine. It's yours. I literally just did a cut-and-paste on your argument. Do you not even recognize your own pattern of reasoning? You wrote it...you'd think you'd understand it.

I understand there is a continuum in the term 'faith' i.e. from low level faith [1%] to blind faith [100%].

Biblically, there's no such thing as "blind faith." If you have that, you don't have "faith" at all. The object of your faith -- the person or thing you're trusting -- has to be trustworthy, Biblically, or whatever you're believing is of no value.

In the case of the theists, they have to have 100% blind faith

Just false. That's all that can be said. Empirically, statistically, verifiably and obviously false.

The particular scientist do not need faith to believe his thesis is true.

Actually, he does. There are very good arguments from scientists to show this is true. I recommend M. Polanyi. He was both a master physicist and a master chemist, in addition to being a top philosopher of science -- you can hardly get a better scientific credential than that.

Since you are in a philosophy forum, philosophically it is not anyone's obligation to prove non-existence of anything, e.g. God, etc.
The onus of claim is always on the claimant of a positive.

That's partly true. It's only true as long as a skeptical claim is not phrased as a positive.

For example, if one says, "I do not know that God exists, so I prefer to assume He doesn't," fair enough: if he's really got no evidence, and wants to think one thing or the other, no rational person would ask him to believe anything but what he wants to. On the other hand, if he asserts, "I have not seen God, so therefore God does not exist," he's now made a positive knowledge claim: namely, that he knows that God does not exist. And then he's on the hook for that.

I am not claiming 'God does not exist' because I have not seen God.

I didn't say you were. All I said was that some claims that appear "negative" still need proof. And I gave an example.

My approach is, the claim 'God exists is impossible to be real' because the term God [as defined] is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

This is incorrect. There is no internal contradiction in the term, as I said. I wrote,

Not at all. You've compared an inherent contradiction (square circle) with something that contains no contradiction at all. You might wish to say that you think that God does not exist, but there's no internal contradiction in saying that He does. It would be factually, but not logically, or semantically wrong if He does not...it would not be logically contradictory, like square circles.

To insist God [illusory] exists as real, is an oxymoron, i.e. a contradiction.

Not a bit. It's an empirical claim, and is either true or not. It's certainly no kind of contradiction. Unless maybe you're redefining "exists" in some very weird, limited and unconventional way. And I certainly don't concede that that is any way to understand the word "exists."

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:27 pm I'm not a deist cuz of death fear; I'm a deist cuz deism is an explanation of 'why things are' and 'why things are as they are'. My deism isn't a haven or shelter, it's a foundation.

It is not simply 'fear of death', but the subliminal fear of death, not a conscious fear of death that drives one to be a theist, deist or religionists [theistic or non-theistic].

A deist believes in the existence of a reasoned-God not a personal God who listens and answers to prayers.

The deist reasoned something cannot come from nothing.
Thus all evident creations [something] must be created by an ultimate thing, i.e. God.

• P1. The reasoned-God of the deist is driven by the instinct for certainty.
  P2. The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death.
  C3 The reasoned God of the deist is driven by the subliminal fear of death.

P2. The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death.
This instinct is handed down by our ancient ancestors who had survived because they were 100% certain there is a sable-toothed tiger whenever they heard a noise of a broken twigs or dried leaves and out of 'the fear of death' they ran for their life.
Those of our ancestors who doubted in the above scenario has greater chance of death and most died leaving the ones who are more fearful of death.

Thus 100% certainty [or jumping to conclusion upon certain critical decisions] driven by fear of death has great survival values thus was coded as an instinct in the human DNA.

This subliminal instinct has a very strong hold in the brain and mind of deists that they have reasoned to be certain there is a creator-God behind all creations.

This is why Philosophy is so necessary to provide equanimity within the reality of uncertainty, i.e. there is no absolute certainty.

• Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; ..

This is why the approach of SOME Eastern Philosophy, e.g. Buddhism-proper dug deep into the neural algorithm of the inherent instinct that drive ALL of humans toward certainty out of subliminal fears of death, to neutralize its negative elements and thus to optimize the well being of the individual.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:57 am

Look at it this way: it's so weak it can be simply reworded to account for Atheism. It would read:

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the fear of death and the potential of an existential crisis.
  2. The existential crisis emerged from the subliminal [not conscious] fear of death.
  3. The majority of humans are born with an active existential crisis.
  4. Atheism is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of the existential crisis, by advancing the idea that there's no afterlife to fear.
  5. Therefore every Atheist is driven by the existential crisis.

...this is precisely your pattern of argument. All I changed, essentially, was "Theist" to "Atheist," and the explanation of motive. The rest, the whole pattern of reasoning, is cut-and-paste, yours.

Thus, you can see that your argument just does not work.

I explained why your argument

It's not mine. It's yours. I literally just did a cut-and-paste on your argument. Do you not even recognize your own pattern of reasoning? You wrote it...you'd think you'd understand it.

Still cannot get it?
I have explained why your 'cut and paste' don't work.
My argument only work for the majority.
[A]theists are a minority [you agree could be 5%] do work with my model.

I understand there is a continuum in the term 'faith' i.e. from low level faith [1%] to blind faith [100%].

Biblically, there's no such thing as "blind faith." If you have that, you don't have "faith" at all. The object of your faith -- the person or thing you're trusting -- has to be trustworthy, Biblically, or whatever you're believing is of no value.

The Bible do not explain every thing in detail.
Since we are in a philosophy forum, we can use our critical thinking skills [presumably you have it] to rationalize the full range of 'what is faith' which is very obvious in terms of confidence levels.

In the case of the theists, they have to have 100% blind faith

Just false. That's all that can be said. Empirically, statistically, verifiably and obviously false.

Note the Bible can state anything.
To confirm empirically, we have to define 'faith' empirically which is what is stated in the dictionary, i.e. faith = belief without proof nor justified reasons.

The particular scientist do not need faith to believe his thesis is true.

Actually, he does. There are very good arguments from scientists to show this is true. I recommend M. Polanyi. He was both a master physicist and a master chemist, in addition to being a top philosopher of science -- you can hardly get a better scientific credential than that.

Scientists who are theists has the weirdest thoughts and conflate the transcendental illusion with the empirically real.
These theist-scientist can say what they like, but while wearing the scientist hat they have to comply with the scientific method where there is not need for a high level of faith is needed when the tests are done and results confirmed many times.
Do scientists need loads of faith to assert 'water' is comprised of H2O?

That's partly true. It's only true as long as a skeptical claim is not phrased as a positive.

For example, if one says, "I do not know that God exists, so I prefer to assume He doesn't," fair enough: if he's really got no evidence, and wants to think one thing or the other, no rational person would ask him to believe anything but what he wants to. On the other hand, if he asserts, "I have not seen God, so therefore God does not exist," he's now made a positive knowledge claim: namely, that he knows that God does not exist. And then he's on the hook for that.

I am not claiming 'God does not exist' because I have not seen God.

I didn't say you were. All I said was that some claims that appear "negative" still need proof. And I gave an example.

My approach is, the claim 'God exists is impossible to be real' because the term God [as defined] is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

This is incorrect. There is no internal contradiction in the term, as I said. I wrote,

Not at all. You've compared an inherent contradiction (square circle) with something that contains no contradiction at all. You might wish to say that you think that God does not exist, but there's no internal contradiction in saying that He does. It would be factually, but not logically, or semantically wrong if He does not...it would not be logically contradictory, like square circles.

To insist God [illusory] exists as real, is an oxymoron, i.e. a contradiction.

Not a bit. It's an empirical claim, and is either true or not. It's certainly no kind of contradiction. Unless maybe you're redefining "exists" in some very weird, limited and unconventional way. And I certainly don't concede that that is any way to understand the word "exists."

I have argued elsewhere,

God [ontological] is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In the above I stated one can define one's God as

• 1. An ontological God or
  2. An empirical God

By default God is ultimately an ontological God.
In the above, I have demonstrated why an ontological is an impossibility to be real empirically.

An empirical God is possible to be empirically real.
The question is where is the empirical evidence to justify the existence of the empirical God.
Example of an empirical God is the bearded man in the sky or whatever the empirically defined God.

But the point is the empirical God by default is vulnerable to be an inferior God no theists would accept, since there is always a greater empirical God than one that is claimed - leading to infinite regression.
This 'one-up' impulse will lead to the ceiling of the ontological god where no theist will end up with an inferior god whose butt can be kicked by another superior god.

God whatever it is has to be ultimately an ontological God.
An ontological god is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:53 am My argument only work for the majority.
[A]theists are a minority [you agree could be 5%] do work with my model.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't work for anything, at all.

If it depended on majority, then there's absolutely no possibility it would work for Flew...because Deists are a vanishingly small minority of the population, even smaller that the Atheist 4%. Christians are also in the minority, relative to all other ideologies. So there isn't a group for which it DOES work, if you actually require a majority.

I understand there is a continuum in the term 'faith' i.e. from low level faith [1%] to blind faith [100%].

Biblically, there's no such thing as "blind faith." If you have that, you don't have "faith" at all. The object of your faith -- the person or thing you're trusting -- has to be trustworthy, Biblically, or whatever you're believing is of no value.

The Bible do not explain every thing in detail.

Well, it explains that.

In the case of the theists, they have to have 100% blind faith

Just false. That's all that can be said. Empirically, statistically, verifiably and obviously false.

Note the Bible can state anything.

Well, I did not say I meant it was false "Biblically," though we could add that in if you wished. Rather I said "empirically, statistically, verifiably and obviously." In other words, scientifically false.

All you have to do is ask people why they believe, and do the sociological data-gathering. And if they give an explanation such as Flew gave, one based on his reasons not his fears, then you'd have to either say, "Well, he's just lying," or else you'd have to accept that you were wrong. And you could, as I have, talked to a great many more Theists who would tell you similar stories of alternate motives for belief.

It's just a bad theory.

we have to define 'faith' empirically which is what is stated in the dictionary,

Well empirically, people report that they do not have that kind of "faith." You have no better source of empirical evidence. So empiricism is manifestly against the theory.

The particular scientist do not need faith to believe his thesis is true.

Actually, he does. There are very good arguments from scientists to show this is true. I recommend M. Polanyi. He was both a master physicist and a master chemist, in addition to being a top philosopher of science -- you can hardly get a better scientific credential than that.

Scientists who are theists...

Whoops! Polanyi was an agnostic Jew. So there goes your argument.

An empirical God is possible to be empirically real.

What do you mean "empirical God"? I know of no Theists or Deists who affirm the existence of a 'god' that merely exists in the way that a rock or a tree does. So what kind of "existing" are you positing there?

There are different kinds of "existing."

If I say to you, "This rock exists," picking it up and handing it to you, I mean, "exists as a bounded physical entity, as an object for your manipulation." If you say, "I wonder if there's anyone who can free-climb Mount Everest," and I say, "I think such a person exists; would you like to meet him?" I mean something quite different than the bounded concreteness of the rock. If, on the other hand, you have a bad relationship and become depressed, and I say to you, "Cheer up; love exist," I don't mean it "exists" as an object for your manipulation, but as a dynamic you will have to observe by observing the relationship between two other people, and inductively perceiving it from that.

So in what sense are you using the word "exists"? In one of the above senses, or in quite a different one? Because I can't weigh your claim until I know what you mean, and what you expect by using the word "exists."

The question is where is the empirical evidence to justify the existence of the empirical God.

I would say it does. But you'll have to specify what you mean by "exists," and what you regard as adequate empirical evidence to show that fact.

Example of an empirical God is the bearded man in the sky

Well, that depiction evokes quite a different type of "existence." It "exists" only in the sense of "existing" mythologically. That is, among myths, it's one that has (limited) circulation, but which refers to no actual entity -- a fourth way things can be said to "exist."

But everybody knows that. So it will help us to understand one another if you specify what you're looking for, when you say you doubt God "exists".

"It is not simply 'fear of death', but the subliminal fear of death, not a conscious fear of death that drives one to be a theist, deist or religionists [theistic or non-theistic]."

I disagree. It's the overt desire to live, which, of course, has nuthin' at all to do with death fear, subliminal or not.

#

"The reasoned-God of the deist is driven by the instinct for certainty."

I infer Crom through self-interrogation and apprehending the world, conscious on-going acts. Instinct has nuthin' to do with it.

#

"The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death.

I have no instinct for certainty; I'm curious, intelligent: I go where the evidence takes me.

#

"The reasoned God of the deist is driven by the subliminal fear of death."

Crom drives himself; I just recognize he's there.

#

"The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death."

The conscious desire to live (not synonymous with death fear) leads one to investigate.

#

"This subliminal instinct has a very strong hold in the brain and mind of deists that they have reasoned to be certain there is a creator-God behind all creations."

Not a sensible conclusion. What good is Crom in defeating death fear if he's a hand off kinda god? He never aids me, never shelters me, never blesses me, provides me with nuthin' (beyond what he endowed me with [mind/soul/free will]). Crom is not a comfort in troubled times, when I die he'll be as indifferent to me as he is now.

How is my death fear managed through my belief in Crom's existance?

"Islamophobia" is actually "Islamoprejudice."

In all walks of life there shall always be black sheep, those that get things wrong and cause the suffering of others. They should all be rounded up and placed in a sanatorium where they belong, so that everyone can safely and peacefully believe and worship 'whatever' they choose.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:53 am My argument only work for the majority.
[A]theists are a minority [you agree could be 5%] do work with my model.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't work for anything, at all.

If it depended on majority, then there's absolutely no possibility it would work for Flew...because Deists are a vanishingly small minority of the population, even smaller that the Atheist 4%. Christians are also in the minority, relative to all other ideologies. So there isn't a group for which it DOES work, if you actually require a majority.

Read my argument again;
viewtopic.php?p=430875#p430875

I mentioned 'deists' as well in the argument.
It cover all religionists [theistic, deistic, non-theistic, agnostic].

Somehow you are always one step back and I have to get you back to alignment with the point.

All you have to do is ask people why they believe, and do the sociological data-gathering. And if they give an explanation such as Flew gave, one based on his reasons not his fears, then you'd have to either say, "Well, he's just lying," or else you'd have to accept that you were wrong. And you could, as I have, talked to a great many more Theists who would tell you similar stories of alternate motives for belief.

It's just a bad theory.

Do you understand the subliminal effect?

In the subliminal advertising issue, a consumer may think he bought a can of 'pepsi' instead of 'coke'. If ask, the consumer will insist he likes pepsi and give all sort of reasons to justify why he prefer 'pepsi' over 'coke'.
But the reality with the subliminal effect, is the consumer has been subconsciously driven by hidden subliminal messages [e.g. "buy pepsi, its good for you"] which is not heard in pepsi's advertising to buy 'pepsi'.
Such subliminal advertising is now banned, since it is subtle brainwashing.

I have given links to zombied-ants, where the ants are controlled by parasites in the brain to climb up to the tip of grass only to be eaten by cows, goats to assist the parasite in its life-cycle. If such ants can talk, they would likely to say, they like to sun tan not knowing they are controlled at the subconscious level by parasites.

As for people who believed in a God that is illusory [no convincing evidence and proof], and when asked why they believe, they will give all sorts of answers. These theists do not realize, like the zombied-ants, they have been driven by the existential crisis to believe in a God.
Note my arguments;
viewtopic.php?p=430875#p430875
why theists are driven to believe in a God.

we have to define 'faith' empirically which is what is stated in the dictionary,

Well empirically, people report that they do not have that kind of "faith." You have no better source of empirical evidence. So empiricism is manifestly against the theory.

When a person believed a proposition [view] without evidence, proof nor justified reason, that is 'faith' as defined.
This is very evident empirically as observed in ordinary life, e.g. a parent may insist his son [studying in a uni 1000 miles] will do well in an examination without seeing how he had studied for it, the father's conviction is based on faith [as defined].
There are so many examples one can observed by "faith" is practiced empirically.

The degree of faith will depend on the degree of available evidence and strength of justifications.
In the case of theism, it is so obvious there is no convincing evidence to justify God exists since the idea of God emerged thousands [10s and 100s] of years ago. As such, this would be categorized as 100% faith or blind faith.
At the extreme we have scientific theories which are supported with evidence and justifications, as such we can rate them as based on 1-5% faith.

An empirical God is possible to be empirically real.

What do you mean "empirical God"? I know of no Theists or Deists who affirm the existence of a 'god' that merely exists in the way that a rock or a tree does. So what kind of "existing" are you positing there?

There are different kinds of "existing."

If I say to you, "This rock exists," picking it up and handing it to you, I mean, "exists as a bounded physical entity, as an object for your manipulation." If you say, "I wonder if there's anyone who can free-climb Mount Everest," and I say, "I think such a person exists; would you like to meet him?" I mean something quite different than the bounded concreteness of the rock. If, on the other hand, you have a bad relationship and become depressed, and I say to you, "Cheer up; love exist," I don't mean it "exists" as an object for your manipulation, but as a dynamic you will have to observe by observing the relationship between two other people, and inductively perceiving it from that.

So in what sense are you using the word "exists"? In one of the above senses, or in quite a different one? Because I can't weigh your claim until I know what you mean, and what you expect by using the word "exists."

That you know of none, do not mean there are none who do believe in an empirical god.

Any theists who believed their God can listens and answers prayers or other empirical acts, such a God is an empirical God.
Theists who believed their God has Anthropomorphic qualities are empirical in nature which are common in primitive religions.

The question is where is the empirical evidence to justify the existence of the empirical God.

I would say it does. But you'll have to specify what you mean by "exists," and what you regard as adequate empirical evidence to show that fact.

• Exist = have objective reality or being.
  Google Dictionary

To have objective reality means be able to be justified empirically [scientifically] and philosophically [logically, critical thinking, rationally, wisdom].

If a thing do not exists as real, then it does not "exists" at all as a thing.
When a thing do not exists as real, what exist as real are merely the thoughts and neural activities that support such a thought that give rise to an illusion.
E.g. a square-circle do not exists as real, what is real are merely the neural activities that support such a thought of a square-circle.
Thus the basis of theistic belief is merely psychological confined to activities within the human brain.

Note when a theist claims his God exists as this or that, no other persons [theist nor (a)theist] can observe that God that he is claiming to perceive.
What is really going on is merely thoughts and neural activities that is confined to the brain of the theists.
Such neural activities can be empirical represented by specific activities of neurons in the brain which is common to all theists who are experiencing God.

• 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study
  https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... uroscience
  Brain scans of nuns have revealed intricate neural circuits that flicker into life when they feel the presence of God.

Point is those who claimed to have had experiences with God but are mentally ill [schizo, etc], those with brain damage, those who took hallucinogens and other drugs, meditators, etc, also display similar specific pattern in their brain.

Thus it is possible those who insist they genuinely experienced God could also suffer from some kind of mental problems or that whatever is an experienced of God is merely a mental activity involving certain parts of the brain.

We can go deeper??

Example of an empirical God is the bearded man in the sky

Well, that depiction evokes quite a different type of "existence." It "exists" only in the sense of "existing" mythologically. That is, among myths, it's one that has (limited) circulation, but which refers to no actual entity -- a fourth way things can be said to "exist."

But everybody knows that. So it will help us to understand one another if you specify what you're looking for, when you say you doubt God "exists".

Nope, in the olden days the majority would have believed there is real empirical-based "bearded man in the sky" who is supreme, created the universe and ruled over humankind.
In some old tribal cultures, theists still believe in such an anthropomorphic God.

I have stated there are two main categories of God, i.e.

• 1. the empirical based God or
  2. the ontological God

If your God exists as an empirical God, then bring the empirical evidence to justify its empirical existence.
But I have stated, the empirical God is an inferior kind of God no rational theists will accept to avoid their God being an inferior god to another greater God. Thus theists will end up with the ontological God where nobody's God can be greater than another.

If your God is the ontological God [a deist would definitely believe in such a God] then such a God is impossible to be real empirically [scientifically] and philosophically [logically, critical thinking, rationally, wisdom].

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:44 pm "It is not simply 'fear of death', but the subliminal fear of death, not a conscious fear of death that drives one to be a theist, deist or religionists [theistic or non-theistic]."

I disagree. It's the overt desire to live, which, of course, has nuthin' at all to do with death fear, subliminal or not.

• P1 To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.
  P2 To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
  C3 Therefore to overtly desire to live, one has to fear death.

This logic is implanted in all human via evolution.

• P5 To be a deist is driven by the overt desire to live
  P6 To overtly desire to live, one has to fear death [from C3]
  C7 Therefore a deist is driven by the fear of death [subliminal].

#

"The reasoned-God of the deist is driven by the instinct for certainty."

I infer Crom through self-interrogation and apprehending the world, conscious on-going acts. Instinct has nuthin' to do with it.

What is "Crom?"
Crom = God?

"The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death.

I have no instinct for certainty; I'm curious, intelligent: I go where the evidence takes me.

#

"The reasoned God of the deist is driven by the subliminal fear of death."

Crom drives himself; I just recognize he's there.

#

"The instinct for Certainty is driven by the subliminal fear of death."

The conscious desire to live (not synonymous with death fear) leads one to investigate.

#

"This subliminal instinct has a very strong hold in the brain and mind of deists that they have reasoned to be certain there is a creator-God behind all creations."

Note my arguments above.

Not a sensible conclusion. What good is Crom in defeating death fear if he's a hand off kinda god? He never aids me, never shelters me, never blesses me, provides me with nuthin' (beyond what he endowed me with [mind/soul/free will]). Crom is not a comfort in troubled times, when I die he'll be as indifferent to me as he is now.

How is my death fear managed through my belief in Crom's existance?

Here's the test.

Try to denounce [seriously] your "Crom" as false, non-existence, illusory for 10 seconds, one hour, one day or longer.
The moment you denounce your "Crom" as false, non-existence, illusory, you will feel a sense of unease, insecurity and the likes. If you don't feel the unease for 10 seconds it will come on either in the next minutes or hour. Such unease are exuded from the subconscious mind to the conscious mind driven by the subliminal fear of death culminating in an existential crisis.

If you do the above tests and when you feel the unease, then when you revert to claiming "Crom" as existing and real, then the unease will disappear.

Thus it is personally proven, belief in the existence of 'Crom' as real defeats the unease cause by the subliminal fear of death.
QED!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:01 am Read my argument again;

I didn't just "read" it again. I cut-and-pasted it directly, and showed why it was wrong.

I mentioned 'deists' as well in the argument.
It cover all religionists [theistic, deistic, non-theistic, agnostic].

That's of no consequence. It won't fix the pattern of "logic" there, which fails on any terms.

All you have to do is ask people why they believe, and do the sociological data-gathering. And if they give an explanation such as Flew gave, one based on his reasons not his fears, then you'd have to either say, "Well, he's just lying," or else you'd have to accept that you were wrong. And you could, as I have, talked to a great many more Theists who would tell you similar stories of alternate motives for belief.

It's just a bad theory.

Do you understand the subliminal effect?

Ah.

So you're going to say that they don't know why they actually believed. That even those who thought something else made them Theists or Deists simply did not understand their own "subliminal" motives.

But you do, because you're so much smarter than them, and know them so much better than they could possibly know their own motives. So even a thoughtful kind of person like Flew was deluded in a way you'll never be...

Is that really your argument? No hubris there, though.

In the case of theism, it is so obvious there is no convincing evidence to justify God exists

Sure there is. But some people just don't want to be convinced. And there's nothing anybody can do when that happens.

an empirical god.

You'd better explain this phrase. I have no idea what you mean by it. I know what "empirical" means, but how you think it applies, or should apply, to God remains very unclear to me.

• Exist = have objective reality or being.

If that's it, then God exists. But I don't see how the word "empirical" applies.

To have objective reality means be able to be justified empirically [scientifically] and philosophically [logically, critical thinking, rationally, wisdom].

"Empirically" means, "detectable by observation or experience," and is not the same as "logic, critical thinking, or rationality," which are non-empirical ways of knowing. As for what "wisdom" has to do with the "empirical," I cannot imagine why you think they're the same at all.

You just need to get a real definition of "empirical," it seems. Try this: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/empiric

E.g. a square-circle do not exists as real,

That is true, but it is not the problem with the words "square circle." The real problem is that of self-contradiction. It is this self-contradiction that makes the concept irrational, not merely that no square circles "happen" to exist.

There is no such self-contradiction in the concept "God."

What is really going on is merely thoughts and neural activities that is confined to the brain of the theists.

How did you "empirically" discover that this is so? Did you do the experiments? Or are you just imagining it yourself, and taking it as given?

In that case, your argument "is merely thoughts and neural activities that is confined to the brain," just as you say.

Brain scans of nuns have revealed intricate neural circuits that flicker into life when they feel the presence of God.

Heh. Correlational fallacy.

If I hold up an ice cream cone, or a picture of one, your neural circuits will flicker into life, signalling "ice cream cone." That does not mean that the ice cream cone doesn't exist -- it may, or it may not. But you have no idea which it is. All we can say is that you are perceiving "ice cream cone" at that moment.

And it certainly doesn't imply no "ice cream cones" exist in the world.