Replies

Side note for anyone to see-

I walked away from the computer for my shower before work. As I was walking, I was thinking of this thread. I start my shower and do what I usually end up doing there: contimplate metaphysics and logos.

I had one of my more stunning realizations.

People claiming to be “atheist” or “Christian” or anything at all, are in fact supposing (even, presupposing) the order of our normal logic as far as I’m familiar.

When someone inquires about your association with an event (for simplicity’s sake, lets make it a crime), the first question, whether stated or not, is “Did you do it?”

From the varying degrees of answers and how it plays out from there, we eventually work through the mechanics of the event, and go to the “why”.

This is of interest to me at this time because it builds in my mind this image of a sophist musing over the pet question of human nature. “Why?” And a child’s first questions on an occurance they do not understand, is no different.

When we ask “Why” by our modern reasoning, we are presuposing we have the pertaining information. “Who, how, when, what...” *Where* is usually unimportant in philosophy, but in criminal justice it can be a lifetime in jail.

But this still begs in the back of my mind- if we suppose our current rationales are overall the right way to go about things, then that means that by proclaiming a side on issue of “God?” we assume we have already burned through and can account for all the other questions first- and that we would be lead to the same answer.

By assuming existance or nonexistance of God, we assume we have mastered all other streams of thought into the issue. At least, according to standard laws.

Incomplete babble, I’m sure, but I needed to get it out there. Maybe someone will be able to help me build on it?