Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: That' 's not how it works. You need to give your conclusion in logical steps. Your saying so does not unfortunately make it acceptable as deductive reasoning.

It works for me. I am not going to lay out the past 19yrs of my life and experiences of God for your analysis.

Well okay then. But I wasn't asking for 19 years of experience. Just the reasoning behind you belief which obviously got reinforced in 19 years.

The reasoning involves providing examples within my life, unfortunately something i am not going to do. The life of Brian must be kept under a certain amount of wraps.

Necromancer wrote:To the OP, Søren Kierkegaard has made some important contributions to understanding the reason for religion.
Here are some links from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... es_of_life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_on_Life%27s_Way

I happen to believe Kierkegaard is dead on correct in explaining the becoming of religious person as immersing oneself in religion has a kind of three stages, 1) the aesthetic (seeing whole humans is beautiful compared to injured people), 2) the ethical (as people are considered beautiful, what ways destroy this beauty?), 3) the religious (in all beauty, the world is wonderful, how come all of this grand wonder of the World?)

As one enters this 3rd level/stage, one is lost to religion, consumed with being grateful for all the good aspects of life and seeing/condemning the bad and the pervert/corrupt go/to Hell!

The wonders of life, charms of nature, existence and Universe make such immense impact that one is bound to live it out, to see what death is, to see what the cause of these feelings of life's miracle is all due.

Clearly, I see it as a loss when people turn to Atheism and make the meaning of life "one's stamp collection"! How hard isn't it to be true to the ethics of humanity in such a light? I just question this kind of existence...

Good?

All of the theists here have answered as if I was insulting religion. The OP is not meant to question your belief nor is it meant to establish whether atheism is better or theism. It is simply meant to figure out what kind of reasoning concludes God exists. Whether it is deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning or abductive reasoning. But for some reason, theists here are reacting as if I am attacking religion. I came here to learn philosophy. I actually believe this is the first philosophical question I have posed. (I am still not sure whether it is a philosophical question or a logic question). But for once the question is not of a theist vs atheist nature. So please stop making it one.

Reflex, whom I have put on ignore simply because he has nothing to contribute other than declarations and insults is just doing what he does, so we can safely take him out of the equation. The others hopefully will stop getting influenced by his venom and take the time to understand that the intent behind the question is not mala fide.

I was religious once and I was curious about how I had concluded then that God exists. I figured out that it was through abductive reasoning. It is for you to figure out how you reached your conclusions and share the answer. Nothing more and nothing less.

And before anyone asks the question, I believe most atheists consider the existence of God to be a hypothesis which is inconclusive so far. Other atheists can correct me if I am wrong. So the same question does not apply to them.

I believe most atheists consider the existence of God to be a hypothesis which is inconclusive so far.

Well, duh. So do theists. That's why they call it "faith."

Just to clarify, it is not even about which reasoning is best or better than the other two because there really is no such thing. It is simply about finding out by which one of the three a person arrives at the conclusion that God exists.

It is also not about WHY one is religious.

sthitapragya wrote:Just to clarify, it is not even about which reasoning is best or better than the other two because there really is no such thing. It is simply about finding out by which one of the three a person arrives at the conclusion that God exists.

It is also not about WHY one is religious.

Ontological arguments for the existence of God are not as popular as they once were. Most modern Christian apologetics tend to use cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

Cosmological Argument
wikipedia

In natural theology, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God, is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it.[1][2] It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, or the causal argument. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentiality), and in fieri (becoming).

Ginkgo wrote: In natural theology, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God, is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it.

That would still make it a hypothesis which would need to be checked for its falsifiability. And there seems to be none of that. So this is definitely not deductive reasoning. And that still leaves us with the question of how the high probability became a certainty, making a hypothesis an indisputable conclusion. The reasoning behind that becomes very important here to establish the kind of reasoning by which the conclusion is reached.

For my posting with Kierkegaard, I go with Abductive reasoning, in that God exists as inference to best explanation or inference to most fulfilling explanation. With Leap of Faith as it is in religious terms.

Necromancer wrote:For my posting with Kierkegaard, I go with Abductive reasoning, in that God exists as inference to best explanation or inference to most fulfilling explanation. With Leap of Faith as it is in religious terms.

Thank you. It does seem that the consensus forming is of abductive reasoning.

I was just about to enter a possible deductive reasoning, one that goes like this:
If the soul exists (by Van Lommel studies/Near-death studies) then God exists
The soul exists
God exists

Or:
(If) Many "miracles" (we exist, life can be wonderful, nature is wonderful, our nature as human beings is wonderful) then God (the maker of the Universe and all in it) exists
Many "miracles" exist
God exists

So where am I? Standing on both with one leg on each? Abductive reasoning and deductive reasoning together!

Necromancer wrote:I was just about to enter a possible deductive reasoning, one that goes like this:
If the soul exists (by Van Lommel studies/Near-death studies) then God exists
The soul exists
God exists

Or:
(If) Many "miracles" (we exist, life can be wonderful, nature is wonderful, our nature as human beings is wonderful) then God (the maker of the Universe and all in it) exists
Many "miracles" exist
God exists

So where am I? Standing on both with one leg on each? Abductive reasoning and deductive reasoning together!

Not really. You cannot verify that a soul exists on the basis of one study. It must be conclusively proven. NDEs are not conclusive proof of the existence of the soul.

Similarly, there can be other explanations of what you call miracles. Even if there is no explanation, it does not mean that it conclusively proves the existence of God. The only thing it proves is that there is no explanation yet.

Reflex wrote:

I believe most atheists consider the existence of God to be a hypothesis which is inconclusive so far.

Well, duh. So do theists. That's why they call it "faith."

No, most theists are sure that God exists, based on faith, there is a difference.

thedoc wrote:

Reflex wrote:

I believe most atheists consider the existence of God to be a hypothesis which is inconclusive so far.

Well, duh. So do theists. That's why they call it "faith."

No, most theists are sure that God exists, based on faith, there is a difference.

There are some things in life to which we must commit ourselves 100% or 0%. When you get on an airplane, for example, the certainty that you will arrive safely at your destination is less than 100%. Yet, you are committing yourself 100% by getting on the airplane. Another example: If you were ever to get married, you would not commit yourself to your spouse simply in proportion to the evidence that he or she would make a good partner. That's very bad relationship advice. You assess this person as making a good partner and then you commit yourself -- fully. That’s the nature of a relationship, that's the nature of getting on an airplane, and that's the nature of what it means to be a believer in God despite the fact that the evidence might be less than certain.

Watch the video linked to below for clarification. (though, frankly, I'm still wondering why it is assumed proof of God's existence is something that is necessarily congruent with reason.)

Religion: Reason And Faith


Oh, and just in case someone really is interested in the Philosophy of Religion, here are a couple free pdf books on the subject:

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by MICHAEL J. MURRAY and MICHAEL C. REA

and

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by BRIAN DAVIES

One that can't conclude either way, and so makes a decision on it, perhaps based on some innate tendency, perhaps external, most likely both. Same as a skeptic. I can work both angles, as my philosophical outlook accepts both, and isn't threatened by a deities existence, or it's negation.

It's only when someone tries to establish their conclusion as reality for all, that this becomes an issue. And I do mean this for theists as well as atheists.

Reflex wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Reflex wrote: Well, duh. So do theists. That's why they call it "faith."

No, most theists are sure that God exists, based on faith, there is a difference.

There are some things in life to which we must commit ourselves 100% or 0%. When you get on an airplane, for example, the certainty that you will arrive safely at your destination is less than 100%. Yet, you are committing yourself 100% by getting on the airplane. Another example: If you were ever to get married, you would not commit yourself to your spouse simply in proportion to the evidence that he or she would make a good partner. That's very bad relationship advice. You assess this person as making a good partner and then you commit yourself -- fully. That’s the nature of a relationship, that's the nature of getting on an airplane, and that's the nature of what it means to be a believer in God despite the fact that the evidence might be less than certain.

Watch the video linked to below for clarification. (though, frankly, I'm still wondering why it is assumed proof of God's existence is something that is necessarily congruent with reason.)

Religion: Reason And Faith

I must disagree with the idea that there is a 100% commitment in these cases, certainly you either get on the airplane or in the car 100%, but the commitment to the act is not always 100%. I have spoken to people who fly, but are terrified of getting on an airplane, certainly their commitment to the act is not 100%. I have never flown in my life, and as far as I know I have no fear of flying, it's just that I have never wanted to go somewhere that I needed to fly I have also talked to people who will get married, provisionally, and are ready to leave the marriage if it doesn't work out exactly as they expected. In college I got a ride home with a person who was terrified of big trucks, and so was not 100%committed to driving on the road with them. While on the trip he came up behind a rig and rather than maintaining his speed and passing the truck, he hesitated and hung back, all the while saying that he was sure the trucker was going to pull out in front of him. Sure enough when both of them came up behind another vehicle, the trucker got tired of waiting for the guy in the car to pass and he pulled out to pass the other vehicle. The act might be 100% do or don't, but the commitment is not always 100% to the act.

I will add that I do believe that God's exists, but I understand that the evidence was for me and the others present, and is not something that I can hold up and convince anyone who wasn't there at the time.

Dalek Prime wrote:One that can't conclude either way, and so makes a decision on it, perhaps based on some innate tendency, perhaps external, most likely both. Same as a skeptic. I can work both angles, as my philosophical outlook accepts both, and isn't threatened by a deities existence, or it's negation.

It's only when someone tries to establish their conclusion as reality for all, that this becomes an issue. And I do mean this for theists as well as atheists.

True. As a theist, what I find offensive is the insistence that belief in God can be and must be derived at by objective evidence and/or reason alone, else oherwise I'm talking about fairies and fire-breathing dragons. It's insulting and the reason I'm so derisive regarding this approach. Its interest in religion is limited "superheroism" and has a complete lack of interest in religion in the broader sense.

Besides, it's fun. Atheists here are clearly not accustomed to theists biting back: they dish it out, but they sure can't take it.