Underlying Philosophy

Entities seems to be the wrong word if we are talking about logic, morality etc. but I think I get what you mean.I guess the short answer is that human concepts of things like logic and morality are the result of human brains evolving in the natural world. The universe (esp at the macroscopic scale we experience it) seems to operate in a consistent and logical manner. We need to be able to think logically to understand that world around us in even the most basic sense. What would an illogical world look like and how could a thinking creature survive in it? I am not even sure we can imagine such a thing really.The evolutionary origins of morality are similarly rooted in having evolved in the natural world. The natural world consisting of our fellow humans and our evolution as a social species.Is this the sort of thing you meant?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You covered morality but I am interested to know your thoughts on the origins of logic (or I would say - the origins of the human concept of logic). Which was the other "entity" mentioned specifically in the OP aside from morality.

But I am not saying that the development of logic as a concept was logically decided upon. That would be circular.I am saying it evolved in response to the apparent logicality of the world around us.Seriously - If the world wasn't logical in any way, if logical contradictions happily abounded all around us in the macroscopic reality we exist in, do you think our concept of logic would be any different?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Much the same as the baseless assumption that gods are "unknowable" then. Well quite........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am simply pointing out that people in glass houses should be careful where it is they remove their underpants. Yes - The presupposition of yours that I find incoherent is the one that you have not included here.

No I mean the supposition that you seem too embarressed to actually unambiguously state outright. But that also seems to underlie a great deal of your thinking. Consider the following: All of which suggest that you are operating under the presupposition that there is a whole realm of non-empirical reality in which gods exist.If not - then my bad. But all I ask for is a frank and unambiguous clarification on what your position actually is on such matters. As opposed to your usual tactic of relentlessly stating what it isn't.

Yes I didn't think that a "frank and unambiguous clarification" would be forthcoming. One lives in hope. No doubt in much the same way that your subjective evidence arguments have "NOTHING" to do with your deistic arguments. Message 402. Despite the fact that you had to later admit that in fact they do. There is no underlying philosophy behind atheism in general. As has been stated and explained many times here. But most atheists here would probably be united in opposing the assumption that there exists a non-empirical but potentially objective realm of reality. There lies a commonality even if not a philosophy as such. Your carefully worded and characteristically unedifying posts on this subject not withstanding of course. Pfffft. I can look as foolish as I choose in as many threads as I choose. As can you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well if anyone wants to say that their god exists in much the same way that a perfect circle exists I for one won't stand in their way.

Maybe in some cases. It depends which deist we are talking about I guess. In the case of our resident faith based agnostic with his much publicised deistic opinion it would only apply if perfect circles are capable of creating the universe and it's physical laws.

How about:"Did God create man or did man create god?"As the question to consider?

It seems to me that most never get beyond asking whether or not science can disprove the existence of god rather than considering any evidence that the concept of god was invented by humanity. Well that may be your experience. But I suggest that there are plenty of dicks who have asked that question and plenty of decent people who think such questions rather pointless. I don't think you will find much correlation between the two. I would further sugggest you are extrapolating your personal experience unjustifiably. I personally think it is an intellectually interesting and socially relevant question. But again I think you are extrapolating your own highly subjective experience as to the personal effects of asking such questions too far.

Whether or not there is scientific evidence favouring god as a human invention is of course a scientific question. Why wouldn't it be? People may choose to ignore or deny that evidence because it conflicts with their faith. They may even assert that science can say nothing at all on this question because they fear the answers. Bot none of this means there isn't an evidence based answer to be had. Why should what "NOT be asked"?

Why? If the evidence is entirely one sided. And so you you fall back on the inability to disprove the existence of god exactly as predicted. What can be proven? Why do we need to prove anything? Why, if the evidence strongly favours human invention over the actual existence of god, would we not legitimately draw that conclusion? How can you "know the truth"? If we only know what we can prove we know nothing at all.All you can do is seek the best, most objectively evidenced, answers and work on the basis that they are the closest approximation to reality available.Bertrand Russel Writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

So evidence based enquiry can tell us nothing about the past? Anthropology, sociology, psychology, history - These areas of evidence based investigation can tell us nothing about the sort of questions mankind is prone to asking and the sort of answers mankind is prone to inventing? That is what he is saying.

So you think we are psychologically incomparable to our ancestors? If you actually look at the evidence rather than just dismiss all relevant evidence on the baseless assumption that any question pertaining to god must be inherently unanswerable then you will see that anthropology, sociology, psychology and history can tell us a great deal about mankind’s need for explanation, meaning and purpose. Both past and present. They can also tell us a great deal about how mankind sets about meeting these needs, the mistakes we are prone to making and the premium placed on making ones beliefs immune from direct refutation at the expense of being accurate or reliable. So remind me what role does god play in your life and on what basis are you asserting that we are unable to question this belief in terms of evidence?Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Once again you fall back on demands for proof which are as pointless and futile as they are irrelevant. Lack of proof either way does nothing to stop us comparing the evidence that favours the conclusion that god was invented by humanity with the evidence that god actually exists. On this question the evidence is entirely one sided Can you give me an example of a scientific conclusion that is known with absolute 100% certainty to be true with no shred of tentativity, doubt or philosophical possibility of being incorrect in any way at all?