Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[Anonymouse]

And who came up with these definitions for "rationality" and "retionalism"? Rationalism is an ideology that is based on rationality, which it a characteristic. I am a rational thinker, and thus a rationalist. I do not belong to a cult or wish for everyone/thing to conform to my reasoning any more than you.

Rationalism is a dogma. When something becomes an "ism" it dances with dogmatism. Rationalism is not rationality but the conceit of rationality that the use of reason is powerful enough to formulate undeniable truths. Rationality is about free thinking and openmindedness. Rationalism is about using reason to create intellectual Berlin Walls and build theoretical castles in the sky on limited and scanty information. A free thinker forms a viewpoint (whether from research or revelation) independent of authority and dogma, i.e. based on rationality. Rationalism on the other hand does lead to free thinking, but it does not allow room for any irrational beliefs or thought.

[winoman]

Yes one is free to think whatever absurd thing one wishes...again - some beliefs make more sense then others (as with non-beliefs)...and your posts here prove that I am correct in claiming that your issue is with science and scientific method not with Evolution per se. But we are not talking intangibles...intangibles are not only outside the realm of science but are generally outside the realm of reality - at least shared reality. And if its just your personal reality then why should I or anyone else care...unless just to humor you...

[Anonymouse]

Yes one is free to think whatever absurd thing one wishes...again - some beliefs make more sense then others (as with non-beliefs)...and your posts here prove that I am correct in claiming that your issue is with science and scientific method not with Evolution per se. But we are not talking intangibles...intangibles are not only outside the realm of science but are generally outside the realm of reality - at least shared reality. And if its just your personal reality then why should I or anyone else care...unless just to humor you...

If you have taken a course on philosophy you can understand the things I am referring to. My issue is not with science, or evolution, but with the bedrock of reason which they are built on. They both reflect a conceit of rationality, that reason alone can prove everything. Such a statement proves everything, and also proves nothing. That what is "absurd" to you because it does not conform to the cult of reason, makes perfect sense to someone else. Science does serve an important function, I have not denied that. I have maintained that science is good when it behaves like science, but at the same time it is terribly limited to the domain of the natural, and observable world. If the "reality" you are referring to is based on the five senses, then science is that reality, and therefore is limited. Our senses are limited. Therefore, what is beyond our observable world we do not know. Thus to claim that anything outside it is absurd, is only inferred from your belief in absolute reason, and can in no way disprove or invalidate that which is non tangible.

[winoman]

If your critique is that I value reason and science and understanding of the natural world as best as can be percieved and understood and that anything I claim is bound by such then I'll just let that stand without objection...lol....feel free to attempt to discredit such using intangibles and hypothetical conditions beyond our senses.

I don't deny that there exist things beyond our senses unimaginable - but to choose some belief based on our fancy and imagine then some relevance to reality as we can know it - and as it can effect us - and use such to critique what is accepted based on reason and (the best of our) knowledge (as can be codified by scientific research and understanding) - well then I would say it is you who has stepped out of your realm. I'm very comfortable dealing with each as they are pertinent and valuable.

[ArmoBarbi]

I have taken (and am currently) two courses in philosophy including one that focused on Christianity. It is perfectly acceptable in the philosophical world to derive at an undeniable truth (as you say) with pure reason - its called "logical truth".

[Anonymouse]

If your critique is that I value reason and science and understanding of the natural world as best as can be percieved and understood and that anything I claim is bound by such then I'll just let that stand without objection...lol....feel free to attempt to discredit such using intangibles and hypothetical conditions beyond our senses.

I don't deny that there exist things beyond our senses unimaginable - but to choose some belief based on our fancy and imagine then some relevance to reality as we can know it - and as it can effect us - and use such to critique what is accepted based on reason and (the best of our) knowledge (as can be codified by scientific research and understanding) - well then I would say it is you who has stepped out of your realm. I'm very comfortable dealing with each as they are pertinent and valuable.

I am not attempting to discredit science in the way it observes the natural world (not evolution). I am saying that science is limited to the physical, and cannot be used to prove or disprove that which is beyond it. That is to say, there are two different worlds and exclusivities, one observable and the other not observable. But it is those of the scientific persuasion that step beyond their boundary and attempt to critique or classify that world beyond our senses as somehow "absurd" simply because it does not conform to the cult of reason or cannot be formulated in scientific jargon.

In most cases, as in with your belief, science and reason are not about an open mind using pure reason to establish truth, but gathering data to justify one's apriori sense of truth, i.e. your belief in only this world, or no God. I have throughout maintained that we infer evidence from our apriori beliefs. Use of reason in science is important, but at the same time must be met with skepticism and applying reason to reason itself.

[Anonymouse]

I have taken (and am currently) two courses in philosophy including one that focused on Christianity. It is perfectly acceptable in the philosophical world to derive at an undeniable truth (as you say) with pure reason - its called "logical truth".

You mean, "arrive at an undeniable truth". However, the problem with that is that logic is the pillar of science, and it is limited to this world. If we apply that to the intangible God it doesn't hold. You cannot assert that "God does not exist" since God is not a logically well-defined term. The logical world refers to the physical world of our senses. Most people have a hard time trying to conceptualize this. But then they go on to make the world beyond our senses conform to reason. And since it cannot and should not conform to reason or logic, as it is a different realm, they conclude it is absurd or "not worth believing in". But as Kant showed, there are apriori synthetic truths. Kant made a distinction between analytical truths which you referred to, and synthetic truths which are a priori. So as to be free thinkers, we must remember that there are two crucial assets for humans: caution and openmindedness.

[ArmoBarbi]

You mean, "arrive at an undeniable truth". However, the problem with that is that logic is the pillar of science, and it is limited to this world. If we apply that to the intangible God it doesn't hold. You cannot assert that "God does not exist" since God is not a logically well-defined term. The logical world refers to the physical world of our senses. Most people have a hard time trying to conceptualize this. But then they go on to make the world beyond our senses conform to reason. And since it cannot and should not conform to reason or logic, as it is a different realm, they conclude it is absurd or "not worth believing in". But as Kant showed, there are apriori synthetic truths. Kant made a distinction between analytical truths which you referred to, and synthetic truths which are a priori. So as to be free thinkers, we must remember that there are two crucial assets for humans: caution and openmindedness.

Actually its very easy to create an argument for God's existance based on logic, where IF the premises are true than the conclusion would have to be true. It just hasnt been done with premises that we all accept. "Logical truth" is not really what we look for as "the truth". The arguments end up being perfectly logical yet not sound. Otherwise, philosophy would have solved a lot of problems by now.

P.S. Have you moved to the jungle?

[Anonymouse]

Actually its very easy to create an argument for God's existance based on logic, where IF the premises are true than the conclusion would have to be true. It just hasnt been done with premises that we all accept. "Logical truth" is not really what we look for as "the truth". The arguments end up being perfectly logical yet not sound. Otherwise, philosophy would have solved a lot of problems by now.

P.S. Have you moved to the jungle?

Which is why I said logic cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is beyond the logical. You're stating tautologies. If that weren't so everyone would believe in God. Like you said, all one has to do is blow a hole in the premise and the whole deduction falls apart. In any event what you are arguing for is analytical truth as the endpoint of all. Analytical truth is logical truth, or scientific truth. This was best exemplified at the time by the sobriety of empiricists such as Hume. And I referred to Kant and 'synthetic truth', who was the time's best answer to the analytical thinkers such as Hume.

It is a jungle of hemp plants.

[ArmoBarbi]

I wasnt arguing. I simply responded to your statement about logic not having the ability to assert that God does or doesnt exist.

It does have that ability, BUT the conclusion would only be a "logical truth" - not the kind of truth that would make us all believe either way. I wasnt even disagreeing with you on the actual point, just a "for the record". I dont see why you feel the need to repeat your argument when I clearly understand and accept what you said.

What is a hemp plant?