Where is the ad hominem in his posts?

Ad hominem is the attack on a person's character, or a judgement about the person themselves, Brian has done none of that.

He's actually gone out of the way to ensure he doesn't attack you in this way.

I'm sorry that you perceive my words as an "insult". They are not insults, but if you want to believe they are insults, I can't stop you.

Here are a couple of famous people you know who have a different attitude towards insults.

Here's a pesky SOB who just happened to have something to do with the founding of our country:

and

My point in quoting Jefferson was not to make the claim that he was an atheist. He wasn't.

My point in quoting both Freud and Jefferson was to get you beyond your insecurities. I want you to be, at least with me, focussed not on my choice of words or my blasphemy, but focussed on the arguments that I am making.

Others here have the patience to meander down the yellow-brick road. I don't have that patience. I will flat out admit to being the so-called 'bad cop' on this board, but I am not a bad guy.

All joking aside, I do want you here personally because I find the verbal boxing stimulating, so do yourself a favour and treat us all as individuals here, because we really are.

Look, if this doesn't convince you to drop the fallacious "name calling" argument I don't know what will.

If you want to equate me to Hitler, for example, because I don't believe in a god, or equate me to Stalin or Po Pot, I don't care. It wouldn't hurt my feelings. My objective isn't to stop you from making that claim(not you personally, just that countless others in the past have) I have NEVER, nor will I ever say, "DON'T SAY THAT" I will, and have always responded with "OK, why do you say that?" Then I respond with my reasoning as to why that is a bullshit "fallacy of equivocation".

When humans allow mere words to boil them to the point of anger violence is quick to follow. If humans do the right thing and control themselves without dictating to others, words only have the power to present information. YOU are allowing the word "bullshit" to control you.  Once you get beyond that, you will see that I piss and fart and do stupid things from time to time just like every other human.

The issue over words is a "comfort" issue and everyone has different levels of comfort in how and who and when they exchange ideas. . The only thing I can advise you to do is not respond to my posts if you don't like my choice of words. Just like if I were in a church and wanted to stay there IN THAT CONTEXT, my behavior would adapt to the situation if I wanted to stay there.

In this context this thread "bullshit"  is nothing more than a verbal boxing match. I am not out to get you, but I most certainly am out to thrash your claims about. A claim that cannot withstand blasphemy is not a claim worth holding. I am simply unabashed about my approach.

It is OK for you to say whatever you want to me as well(but we are only talking about me) others here have different ways of interaction, and that is fine too. Stopping at threats of violence of course, that is something no one should resort to.

SO, can you please stop focusing on my words and lets get on with the meat of your claim? PUTTY PWEASE?

Robby, are you serious?  I lifted direct quotes from Brian.  He call me a whiny crybaby, a hypocrite, and said I'm full of shit.  If none of that constitutes an attack, then I will start to use insults in my responses regularly and see how you like them.

At any rate, I will no longer engage Brian until he has learned to lay aside the charged rhetoric for actual engagement of my points directly and doesn't misrepresent them or construct strawmen.  At this point it seems he would rather get the last word in and constantly appeal to mockery (another logical fallacy) than actually respond to what I in fact write.

IC XC

David

Atheistextremist, a lengthy discussion of the theological differences between what I believe and, say, a Roman Catholic or even your typical Evangelical Fundamentalist would need to go in-depth on historical and doctrinal minutiae as well as the concepts which underpin certain terminology.  Even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not conceptually the same in the East as it in the West.  I adhere to traditional Christian doctrine, so if there is some finer point you would like me to discuss I can do that.  But it has to be in the context of history, language, philosophy, and so forth.

When you say "you [have an] understanding of our general no-god position but you are still in the shadow and seem to want to contend the key points three steps to the right of your faith," what exactly do you mean?  Could you clarify?

You are right, I think, that there are a couple of definitive issues which allow me to embrace (and feel justified in embracing) a broad number of unprovable claims.  These could be said to relate to metaphysics, epistemology, and perhaps psychology and ontology.  The higher unprovable claims (for example that such-and-so saint did such-and-so miracle) simply follow from the prior commitments and worldview.

I apologize if you feel like I've been dodging your points, it hasn't been my intent, but some of these ideas take time to articulate or to digest and are not the "knowledge on the cheap" sort of approach which seems to be favored by many theists.  I don't think someone can just pick up a C.S. Lewis book (though I'm not putting him down, I like the guy) and presto, all the issues have been dealt with.  When I can carve out the time to elaborate I definitely want to give a go-around, as it is right now though, computers call.

IC XC

David

P.S. What is unusual about me?  That I am 25-years-old, an IT technician, or both, or something else?

v4ultingbassist,

Precisely.  The reason this is a major problem for evidentialists however is that their position is that a belief is only justified if evidence has been presented for that belief.  Their premise is not supported by any evidence whatsoever (unless they want to re-define evidence to include their belief, but that still begs the question) so it's special pleading, not to mention the fact that really they only consider a certain type of evidence to be genuine and there is no evidence for that selection either and no reason is given for why I should embrace what they call good evidence and reject what they (without any argument) reject.  I am more than happy to say that my axioms are unprovable but that they have more explanatory power, and that is a claim I am willing to defend here when I have more time, say on the weekend.  In fact, I believe that at least some of my axioms must remain unproven through reason if my system is even true or coherent.  I believe that if all my axioms could be proven to be true, then they would be false so that the truth of my position depends on having some beliefs that are unprovable.  This is a fine, coherent position for me to hold (I believe) but the evidentialist not only begs the question, his very premise refutes itself because it fails to live up to its own criteria.

IC XC

David

Atheists have no rational answers.   They behave like a pack of rabid hyenas in a mindless frenzy.  They are loaded with hatred.

Let's see how long they tolerate getting their butts kicked on the facts.

How many apples do you have when you put one next to another?

I've never claimed there is no god.

Show me the evidence that anything doesn't exist.  I've already admitted to an assumption of physicalism, not a declaration.

The scientific method is the opposite of 'untested speculation.'  Religion is untested speculation that often refuses to acknowledge errors in its dogma.

v4ultingbassist,

I need to clarify.  First, I might not say that evidentialism is arbitrary (random picking and choosing) but it is impossible to gather what considers 'true' evidence until one has at least a rough idea of what constitutes evidence.  We could say that this problem is to methodology what the problem of the criterion is to the epistemology.  The problem of the criterion is this: suppose you are asked to sort good apples from bad.  Prior to this project one must have at least some idea of what counts as a good apple and what counts as a bad one, or they can never get started.  Furthermore, any attempt to define the criteria by which one knows 'good' from 'bad' will be self-referential.  If I say to you, "This apple is bad because it has bruises," it is because I assume (for whatever reason) that bruises are a indicative of bad apples, and I cannot justify that criterion on its own but now appeal to some other standard.  In the same way one must have some irreducible criterion by which they establish good evidence and bad evidence, or non-evidence, and this criterion cannot be justified by itself.  Now I have no problem with the thought that there are some irreducible axioms, but what I have problem with is any axiom that would be a 'special case,' such as in the case of evidentialism.  Evidentialism must first select for what counts as good evidence (which usually means to rule out religious experience - but why?) but the premise of evidentialism cannot be established by the methods of natural science, and it fails to meet its own criteria.  If some other criterion is appealed to in defense of evidentialism, then the premise of evidentialism is undermined; but if no other criterion is appealed to but this belief is simply held as a matter of course, it is special pleading.  I do not see how evidentialists can escape this conundrum.

When you say that "reality is the evidence," I fail to see how this helps at all, because many believe that reality is wider than the material universe.  One might define reality so as to rule out all phenomena which cannot be extracted from the methods of natural science and / or which fall outside the realm of natural phenomena, but on what basis does a person do so?  I understand well that the measure of reality for the naturalist is the natural order and very often naturalism relies on materialism, but simply to say that "reality is the evidence," when one must have to define the parameters of reality before they can select for what counts as genuien evidence simply assumes your own position.  This is circular.

As for the lack of re-definition among religious institutions, it is easy to cite examples of churches or religions that do this but keep in mind that this stubbornness is not unique to religious institutions but is found among all fields of inquiry where an old paradigm comes to be replaced by a new one.  This is not to say that these institutions were not seriously mistaken or tended to confuse points of dogma with natural science, but one would need to demonstrate a causal link between religious dogma per se and outmoded scientific theories.  And even if one proves that there is a necessary connection between the dogmas of a church and its outmoded scientific theories it would only prove it for that institution and not necessarily for religion in general; it would address one position on the spectrum but it would not serve to refute all positions on the spectrum.  To circle back, it is not a unique phenomena among religious institutions that there is some emotive or subjective investment in a belief system.  In fact, this occurs in the natural sciences all the time.  One is invested in a particular belief about the nature of science because of certain other beliefs to which they are committed.  What one is committed to, that which one invests in, is not an objective enterprise but rather subjective.  Some positions are just preferable to others for every person, and every person is different in terms of what he or she values.

For you and other naturalists (I take it you are a naturalist, if I am wrong please correct me) coherence is an important criterion.  As you note, this criterion is unprovable but is necessary for the truth (?) of a scientific thesis.  I take it you also value other scientific standards, such as parsimony and something's being independently verifiable and falsifiable.  If your belief could be shown to be philosophically inadequate to the task of fulfilling these criteria, you could either abandon it or go back to the drawing board to refine each of these criteria until your position was to be more consistent and coherent.  I hope to show in future posts that naturalism actually fails to meet its own criteria so it cannot be true, or at the very least is intellectually unattractive and should be undesirable to naturalists themselves.  As an aside the process of revision while operating under the same assumptions is existential proof of the fact that people are committed to and invested in certain beliefs and want to retain them for as long as possible before they are forced to transition to another set of beliefs.

[Natural] Science is certainly useful to describe [natural] reality, but it is only by wittling down the concept of reality to that which contains only spacetime (dubious at best given the discoveries of quantum mechanics) where serious problems arise.  For if one just takes natural science to be the standard by which reality is interpreted, and defines reality in such a way as to include the natural order, then the system is perfectly self-consistent yet perfectly tautological.  I have caught a lot of flack for my position that the existence of God is unprovable through reason and the methods of natural science, and that His being unprovable is actually necessary to the truth of His existence (if He were provable, He would not be the Christian God to say the least) and necessary for belief in God to be coherent.  Because I simply do not define reality in such a way that rules out supposed non-natural phenomena I can recognize that the methods which yield knowledge of one aspect of reality (nature) are inappropriate when applied to another aspect of reality (supernature).  This is fully consistent with my belief that God is outside the natural order; if something is outside the natural order then natural tools will not suffice to prove its existence.  This is matter of presuppositions and other aspects of reality which naturalism, materialism, physicalism, empiricism, rationalism, and evidentialism do not, in my view, explain coherently, consistently, or cogently.

The major thing I reject about evidentialism is that it selects, without warrant, for only one type of evidence based on the assumption that there is nothing outside the natural order, and thus it reduces to a rather naive empiricism.  It is not that I don't think claims which can in principle be verified or falsified by natural science should not be subjected to evidential considerations, but that I believe that there are many aspects of existence which cannot be reduced to simple evidence and that faith in God is just one (albeit the most important, from the religious perspective) of the axioms which cannot be reduced to basic rational proofs.  I allow natural science to test things within nature, to collect empirical data and to interpret these according to some paradigm.  I defer to scientists when it comes to biology and quantum theory.  I study science because I enjoy it.  I study the philosophy of science.  I simply have philosophical problems with naturalism because if the naturalist is consistent then his position hinders scientific progress since he must reject realism about material objects, realism about other minds, and realism about logical and moral facts.

Some of my philosophical reasons for rejecting naturalism can be found in Michael Rea's World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism.  If you are into philosophy and don't mind reading works which will challenge your worldview, then I recommend any atheist or naturalist to take up this book.

IC XC

David

TruthMatters,

You are quite right that mathematical constructs are not derivable from the methods of natural science.  This is because concepts are not derivable from the methods of natural science and methematical axioms are formulated independent of experience, yet seem to conform to our experience.  One must wonder how it is possible to formulate axioms independent of experience that conform to experience.  Though I disagree with much of his philosophy, I wonder if anyone here has read Plato's Meno.

IC XC

David

Like I said before, no position can escape the conundrum of self-justification.  And for naturalism/physicalism, religious experience is not ruled out.  I assume you know that we posit that experiences can be false in terms of reality that others can know.  As in, taking mushrooms and hallucinating is a similar event to out-of-body experiences.  The difference is that you posit the existence of a non-physical reality while I posit that chemicals are doing something funky to your mind.  The evidence, the experience, is not discounted, only explained differently.

Again, the difference lies in the status of externally real or internally.  I don't deny the existence of ghosts.  I deny the existence of ghosts having any reality external to our minds.  All non-physical things I ascribe as real only in conceptual terms; I don't agree in arguments that they exist in the universe and interact with other objects external to the mind.

I understand that religious people aren't the only ones who are stubborn.  I entirely agree that I will work to fit an idea into my worldview before I reject my worldview as false.  The issue I have usually revolves around political/social ramifications.  Obviously the vast majority of people don't seriously examine their beliefs and views.  Consequently, they can pass on views that are detrimental without realizing it.  Religion is good at that.  We teach our kids the religion we grew up with because it's what we were taught as true and it became a part of our lives.  Certain things get passed on because people don't take the time to understand what they claim to believe.  This allows things like homophobia, racism, and sexism to continue unchecked.  Even worse, there can be a anti-intellectual push back like there is here in the states with fundamentalism, where people blatantly deny things we discovered/learned were true centuries ago.

Physicalist, I guess.  See my position on philosophy below; I don't really care if it is 'philosophically adequate.' 

You can change views without being forced.  It happened to me from catholicism to atheism, gradually and painlessly.

Again, I arrived at naturalism; I didn't start with it.  Humans went from thinking gods supplied what we now know is weather.  Humans used to think that god made us, and now (some of us) know that we evolved from lower life forms.  It is this trend that leads me to conclude that the things we don't understand are more likely to be physical than they are to be tied to some supernatural existence that leads to people to believe (stubbornly, as you pointed out) in things that can be harmful to others.  I'd rather promote critical thinking and introspection of beliefs than atheism itself.

Again, it doesn't dismiss evidence, it explains it differently.  There is no such thing as 'types' of evidence, in this regard.  There is evidence, and conclusions drawn from it.  You conclude that an out-of-body experience is evidence of a non-physical reality.  I conclude that there is something weird going on in your brain.  We use the same evidence, and arrive at different conclusions.

My issue with philosophy is that it is entirely useless for my life.  Hardly anyone I know in person has bothered with it, and this reflects the general population.  I don't need a sound philosophical argument to convince someone of something.  Pragmatically, philosophy is useless because only an extreme minority of people know anything about it.  This is the realistic side of me.  I know what has impacted me and my life.  I have not had any religious experiences.  I have not felt god.  I question people who claim to, and ask for evidence.  Obviously it's hard for me to accept someone's word, because, as I said, our minds are capable of providing us with experiences that external reality cannot.

I feel like the biggest distinction here lies in the mind-body problem.  Obviously I'm in the mind=brain camp.  My reason?  Our understanding of neurology and psychology continually grows and continually challenges the notion that are minds have some existence independent of our brain.

Mathematics doesn't need proving.  It is rules built on axioms.  Axioms that I argue are fundamental to nature and discovered, not created, by humans.

Atheist means I don't believe in god.  There is a difference. 

If your premise is that the mind is natural, then it is entirely possible for mathematics, and consequently concepts, to be derived from nature itself.  I entirely disagree that mathematical axioms are formulated independent of experience.  At the basis, use of non-contradiction can be observed in lower life forms, in that they can distinguish between two different things.  It is so basic that it is instinctual, so we know it because farther back along the evolutionary line a life form learned it.

Excuse me.  Even animals can count.  Newton developed calculus from his observations of the motions of the planets.  Science does NOT assume mathematics is "true" (whatever that is) but rather scientists use mathematics as a tool - where it is appropriate.  I do not have to assume my hammer is true in order to use it to drive a nail.  I don't use it to paint a wall.

Atheist simply means 'does not believe in god'  I am a fairly 'hard' atheist, but if confronted with any real evidence of a god, I would be willing to accept it.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists.  Conversely, if I have to believe in something to "make it so", that something does not exist.

Morals, or ethics are not derived from god.  They are derived from our need to function in a society that has consistent, fair rules.  Ethics have been demonstrated in dogs, ravens, monkeys and tiny children - none of which can have received their direction from religion. 

I haven't got a clue what you are about with "Atheist Madness."  An atheist may kill an animal if he needs to eat, but it takes a theist to kill one in order to examine its entrails to figure out what god wants.  And then burn (waste) the carcass as a sacrifice.

Johny Carson, "I the great Karnack, will tell you what is in this envelope"

Ed McMann "Hot air?"

Johny, "CUT, Damn it Ed, we are behind schedual we cant afford another retake, just go with it".

(END SARCASM)

And pret'ell, please wow us with your earth shattering "pragmatic" universal evidence. Let me guess, your bible just happens to be the model of reality, right?

You mean the same book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? That kind of "pragmatic" value of "reality"?

The same book that magically pops out adult humans out of dirt?

The same book that magically pops out adult plants without the aid of photosynthesis?

The same book that magical makes a baby without a second set of DNA?

The same book that has human flesh surviving rigor mortis?

.................

I think the only "pragmatic" thing you could do for us if you want us at your level is to sell us some of what you are smoking, it must be some good stuff.

I would hardly call a 2,000 year old book of tribal myth an "accurate model of reality". I would simply call it a book of myth. THAT is reality.

Us Hitler worshipers say, "Naked assertion" come on, when in Rome, right?

I did give you an argument. Here it goes again. And I will use your motif if you like.

1. Thoughts require material.

2. God is immaterial

3. God cannot exist because thoughts require material.

Now go get me a sample of God's brain since we have soooooooo much evidence for it. I am sure we will find as much evidence for your god's brain as we will for Allah's brain or Thor's brain.

Myth is fiction. BOTH are are words that are a glorified replacement for the word "LIE".

Considering WHEN polythiests and your monotheism started, without the aid of modern science, and the tribal gang club mentality all cultures had back then, a "pretty lie" can sell well to the masses if the marketeers and powers that be are good at selling the lie.

FICTION AND MYTH describe your claim quite nicely, just like it does for Thor and Apollo. The people who believed in those gods believed in them as fervently as you do in yours now. The gods of Abraham exist as claims, not because the claims are true, but because humans still want to believe they are true, and because they have SOME pretty stories in them that cheer lead for the club to defeat the villain, people like and buy this motif.

 You sure have been eating your wheaties this week Brian.

I believe in the invisible little pixies that are going to go make my coffee in the morning and bring it to my room. So don't you dare make the bald naked assertion that my belief is false. STOP CALLING ME NAMES. I mean it Brian, you better stop. 

And when you point out that I have to walk to the coffee maker on my own two feet as evidence that my belief is false, well everyone knows that evidence is bullshit. People can't even agree that is evidence. Science is just a bunch of people making random assumptions. We don't know that 1+1=2. You can't prove my pixies don't exist. You can't prove evidence is evidence. Nothing is provable, therefore I will ignore all evidence and believe what I want. We can't really tell what is real anyway so we actually don't even know that we exist because you can't prove it. So since I don't exist and the pixies don't exist we both actually don't exist together so they will bring me my coffee tomorrow. Ha. Disprove that.  

I think that about sums up the entire thread.

v4ultingbassist, 

I will respond to your post later when I can sit down and flesh out my thoughts; I thought I would begin by asking you various questions just so I get clarification on where you fall along the naturalist spectrum.  But first I need to address Brian's argument.

Brian, first, how do you find "thought" and how do you define "material"?  Why do you reject the belief of many philosophers and theologians throughout history that thought is immaterial, and what is your argument for the premise that thought requires material?  Could you elaborate on this, please?

Christian doctrine is that God is immaterial, yes, but what about God do you believe Christians teach is immaterial?

There seems to be a leap in your logic.  Perhaps you should include another premise (which is acceptable under Boolean logic) that the only concepts which exist are those which have thoughts.  Then it would follow that if thoughts require material, if God is immaterial then He is thoughtless, and if a concept is thoughtless then it does not exist; God (the Christian says) is immaterial, therefore He has no thoughts, and therefore He does not exist.  Would this round out your argument?

Or perhaps you refer to the concept that God is Pure Thought.  If this is the case, then I reject the belief that God is Pure Thought.  I would say that God has thoughts but that He is irreducible to Pure Thought.  There is more to God than just "thought," however it is construed.  God also acts.  In fact that Orthodox Christian is adamant that one cannot ever know the thoughts of God but can only come to know God [if He exists] through His actions.

So to recap, I need to know why you reject the belief that thoughts are in fact immaterial and that they require material, what it is you believe that Christians mean when they confess that God is immaterial, and why you believe that something which is does not have thoughts does not exist?

An ancillary point, but one which I believe may help clarify: something can be material yet not have any thoughts.  Most of nature is like this.  Do those material things which do not have thoughts exist?  If they do exist then it is possible for a thing not to have thoughts and yet exist; thus, God could (in theory) have no thoughts and yet He could exist.  He could conceivably be immaterial and thoughtless, just as the rock or tree is material and thoughtless, and yet exist.  Not that I believe this but it weakens your argument.

If you choose to believe that something can be thoughtless yet exist, because it is material, then really the measure of whether or not something exists is if it is material and therefore thoughts only exist under the condition that an object is material.  But wait, your argument at least implies that God does not exist because He does not have thoughts, or else I do not see how we come to the conclusion that because God is immaterial, and thought requires material, therefore God does not exist.  It is a non-sequitur unless we suppose that only those concepts which can have thoughts exist and those which are thoughtless (such as anything immaterial, by your standards) do not exist.  Therefore if thoughts exist only under the condition that an object is material but something can be material without thought, and those objects which are without thought do not exist, then only those material objects which have thoughts exist.  Since it is impossible to prove that other minds exist, then your position must embrace skepticism about the reality of other minds, also known as solipsism.

This is a double blow since it would force us to conclude not only that we may never know if other minds exist, but we cannot know if material objects exist.  We operate under the assumption that they do, we collect and test data, but if the interpretation yielded by our minds is always suspect and can never be any more than a subjective attribution of my individual mind on an object, but never properties which are intrinsic to that object, then the project of natural science is futile.  Given what Kuhn wrote about paradigms and how they are "incommensurable," how raw data is never interpreted in a thought-vacuum but always attended by received beliefs which do not rest on evidence themselves, it would seem impossible for science ever really to progress.  Kuhn destroyed that notion since he demonstrated that progress is not linear but revolutionary.

All around I find most of your premises questionable and I wondered if you could elaborate on why you reject the doctrine that thoughts are immaterial and why you believe that if something has no thoughts then it does not exist.

IC XC

David

"Thoughts" are no more a thing than the number "1" is a thing. BOTH are merely words we use to describe the natural process we observe.

"thoughts"  is the word used describe the product of the act of  communication. 

"Love" is not a thing either. It is a word that we use to describe the REAL actions we observe.

Just like running is not a thing but a manifestation of a physical process.

And still, none of this has anything to do with the zombiegod yellow brick road you are attempting to distract me from.

Go find a 3 day old dead body and get it to magically reconstitute itself. Then get this replicated and falsified and independently verified. Good luck with that.

Atheistextremist,

I just wrote a few responses to you, all of which are now swallowed up in cyberspace.  Will write when I have time and am not so tired.  (Had to go to court today, that in itself was a drain.)

I like the latest bits and gizmos but I am not about the tech bling (best smartphone, best James Bond iWrist Watch, etc).  I suspect that the reasons I enjoy IT are the same reasons that drew me to, say, logic and analytic epistemology.  Also the mathematics and science of computers fascinate me and I enjoy the philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science as well.  As for Friday nights, well, I have been out on Friday nights and those experiences led to more experiences... This may be the easiest thing in the world for you to believe, but I prefer to be by myself most of the time, and avoid the trouble, like many IT people.

Now when I have time I will address your other points in seriousness.  Good evening.

IC XC

David

Show me one intance anywhere in human history(outside your book of myth) where a thought was not the emergent property of of a human brain.

I already told you what my evidence was. Human brains, there is no such thing as a magical super being with a "human like " invisible version of such. You merely like the idea of a super hero.

No you do not believe that God is a super brain. I agree that you truly believe that. so what?

The "poof" people buy in stage acts from magicians, people accept as not being real, but made up. It is real only in the sense it is an illusion. Some people still today, believe in "magic"

"poof" the earth was made. to ME is no different than the story in the Harry Portter book of a "human like" character, "poof" turning into a cat.

You merelly want to believe on is real when BOTH are fiction. You want to pretend your god is not different than Superman, I am telling you BOTH are made up and both are only "material" in the sense that they are REALLY, in real life, MADE UP. The only difference is that you have allowed your own emotions and credulity to swallow one fantastic claim and not another.

Superman was never sold as a fact. You god claim was, but neither are different. God is immaterial in the reality that their is no such thing. But god is material in that, just like people utter the word "superman", still doesn't make either real.

Ok? I can make up a god too. WATCH, I'll do it right now.

My Snarfwidgit did it. See, I can utter things too. Now that I have uttered "Snarfwidget", it is material.

Why don't you believe in my Snarfwidget?

I can also make fantastic claims about my "Snarfwidget"

My Snarfwidget created the universe. Because the universe is pretty, my Snarfwidget "poof" did it.

Of course you don't believe that anymore than you believe that Superman can fly.

Try understanding why you reject my "Snarfwidget" in this example then you will see why I reject your fantastic claims too.

Brian,

Where is the evidence that thoughts require material?

Can something exist without thoughts, per se?

How does it follow that if God is immaterial He does not exist?

When did I ever say that God thinks or that God is an invisible brain?

Is me having a personal investment in my belief relevant to the truth of that belief?

IC XC

David

mellestad,

Your comment to me looks familiar; if you posted it before and I read it, I apologize for not responding at the time.  I may have intended to reply but become too busy and forgot.

First, we need to define terms.  What is naturalism?  I take it to be the supposition that there is nothing outside the natural order.  It may be coupled with materialism and / or physicalism, in which case mind reduces to matter, specifically the brain (as Brian wants to assert endlessly).  But it should be kept in mind that not all naturalism is materialist; some is idealist, some believe that mind is distinct from matter but is still part of nature.  Like supernaturalism, naturalism is a view which attempts to explain all existential phenomena in terms of nature, however it is construed.  Thus it takes as a basic source of evidence the discoveries, experiments, and methods of natural science, and it rejects religious experience as a source of evidence, usually by explaining religious experience purely in terms of nature.  Evidentialism then, upon which much naturalism rests, only refers to a specific type of evidence - the findings of natural science.  But there is nothing from natural science which proves the assumptions either of naturalism or supernaturalism.

There is no more evidence for the belief that nature is all there is, if we use the methods of natural science, then there is for the belief something can be or is outside of nature.  Thus while the atheist can comfortably say that his simply lacks belief in God, I do not think he can say the same about his positive convictions and bias toward natural science and against religious experience as a source of evidence.  Nah, he still has to defend his claims to naturalism, but naturalism cannot be defended by natural science since it is not a belief that can logically arrive at through studying nature but is a framework through which one interprets that data one has collected.

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge (epistemology - that is philosophy, NOT science!) which asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered from sense experience.  Though I believe that knowledge can and does arise from sense experience, I reject the assumption that all knowledge requires evidence of this sort.  Certainly, the very premise of empiricism - that knowledge is acquired through sense experience - is not a premise that was, or can be, acquired through sense experience.  Therefore, if empiricism is right, then it is wrong.  There are at least some beliefs which are held not on the evidential basis of sense experience but on some other basis (say, pure reason?) and if we are to reject any belief until it has been verified by sense experience, then we should reject empiricism on the basis that it has not yet been verified by sense experience.

IC XC

David

Was that a general commentary, or was that meant as an answer to my questions?

You obviously believe in something outside of naturalism/materialism.  We don't need to get cute with defining those because it isn't germane to the question, nor do we need to discuss empiricism unless one of us was using it in a novel form, which we are not.  I'm also not asking how you verify the root assumptions of either system.

I'm asking, what is it about reality that makes you think a non-naturalist/physicalist/materialist/yadda-yadda viewpoint is needed?  The last couple sentences almost made it sound like you think that you have some sort of intuitive knowledge of the supernatural that makes you reject naturalism, but I'm having to assume a lot about your position to get to that point.

I guess I have a hard time believing you woke up one day and decided that, since the basic assumption of naturalism cannot be verified then there must be a supernatural system instead.

mellestad,

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."  I believe that naturalism, together with classical foundationalism, empiricism, evidentialism, materialism, physicalism or any other views on which it relies can be eliminated as impossible beliefs since they fail to give an adequate account for the realism of other minds, the realism of material objects, moral realism, or realism in language for starters.  Though I do not believe that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason, I believe that the philosophy of naturalism can be shown to be impossible and to lead to nihilism.  That is it in a nutshell.

IC XC

David

P.S. Note that this is not a proper argument, I have just expressed the reasons why I reject naturalism and not an argument for any of these theses.

EDIT: From one angle my belief is simply a rejection of naturalism; I do not need to give positive proof that there is something outside of nature so long as I can show that nature cannot be all there is.

Brian,

I am sorry, but if you offered an argument to the effect that mind is reducible to matter then I missed it.

If brains are the proof that thought requires material, because neurons require some sort of brain, then what is the argument that mind is reducible to matter?

What is the argument that we think with only our physical brains?  What is the argument against the notion that the mind uses the brain to think?

How does the rest of what you write have anything to do with whether or not my belief is true?  Is it possible for someone to believe the right thing for the wrong reason?

IC XC

David

So can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it and study chemical changes in it. Sounds like matter to me. 

When part of the brain stops working thoughts can be impaired. There is no evidence to support the idea that there is some kind of separate mind that uses the brain. The argument that there is would be equivalent to arguing that there are invisible puppet strings tied to my fingers that control their movements and my brain has no control over them.

Once again I ask, do you have any evidence that suggests there might be a separate mind that uses the brain? Or does your argument boil down to "Well you don't really understand how the brain works so there must be a god" A line of reasoning used for thousands of years to promote gods. It used to be rain that we couldn't explain.