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?
Interesting line of reasoning, but the problem with all reasoning is that it cannot bootstrap itself.
So, by asserting that “we have mastered all other streams of thought...” presupposes that we could know what those are. Either way, you come up against the notions of infinity and the absolute. These are the key concepts to be pondered, I would assert. We are finite beings in and of ourselves. The question is whether we can cross the divide from the finite to the infinite. This is where faith comes in, IMHO. If there is an Absolute, an Infinite, then that would be God, and we should look to determine whether God has revealed Himself to us. Note that such revelation, by necessity, cannot be limited to the finite. Thus it would defy empirical scientific “capture”. It would instead work through an entirely separate mechanism. That is what I believe to be faith. Faith is actually a manifestation of the Inifinite, of The God. This is because faith comes from God as a means to help us mortals apprehend the reality of that which is beyond the 4 W’s + H that leads to the 5th W=why.
Faith is not the sort of belief in the finite, like “I believe the sun will rise tomorrow”. This will be true or not and we shall know tomorrow if it will be true.
The faith I refer to is that which, by means of a mechanism associated with the Supreme Being, we are brought to a knowledge, a conviction, of His existence, and of the corollary knowledge that “true” reality, “real” reality encompasses so much more than we can perceive merely through our temporal mortal senses.
By using the temporal mortal sense to deny the Infinite Immortal Being, is certainly within the bounds of logic, but not necessarily within the bounds of Reality. Reality is perceived through this meechanism outside of the senses - faith. Call it whatever you liike, but there must be a way to perceive that there is a fuller Reality if such exists. Such perception is necessarily denied by reliance on the finite and mortal.
Not sure this methaphor works, but it is something like the following:
If you are blind, you cannot see. At least recognize that you may be blind. That is a possibility after all. Atheists, IMHO, attempt to say that because they cannot see, blindness is all there is.