Belief in God is Properly Basic.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Can't post... Big Brother AU is on... and and one of the fav's is about to be evicted.

But I note your comments Veg and will post a special something just for you... because you've earned it.

And Hex... I'm two posts away from responding to your last response.

'Big Brother AU', ROFL, and you imply I'm not brilliant enough to engage with you? Could you get any lower?

[Lev Muishkin]

Silly circular logic.

Whilst this might be true, you are not saying how or why.

Equally... a circular argument does not necessarily make it invalid.

I think, therefore, I am.
I am, therefore, I think.

I'm more interested in this belief that you suggest and claim to be properly basic.

Are you suggesting that an infant is born, or even at the point of conception is imbued somehow with with this properly basic belief?

If not... from where does this properly basic belief come?

Thanks for actually addressing the thread.
The idea is from Alvin Platinga who suggests that Theism needs no justification.
If you follow the link from post no. 1, or google Platinga "properly basic" you should find all you need.

Obviously a circular argument may or may not contain a truth, but the argument for it is false.
eg. Why are you not married? Answer: because I am a bachelor.

[Lev Muishkin]

I'm fucking sick of this. Atheists don't believe in gods, or fairies, or leprechauns. They don't have to justify that to anyone. If you want to believe in that shit then go for it. Just spare us the pseudo 'debates' on the topic.

The smartest Atheists believe in nothing at all.
Believe is what you do when you do not know but desire a thing to be true. For me the only properly basic state of mind is skepticism.

Believe nothing: seek to know.

[surreptitious57]

If something is true and can be proved then I accept it
If something is false and can be proved then I accept it
If something is true and cannot be proved then I do not accept it
If something is false and cannot be proved then I do not accept it

Though for things which cannot be proved I reference probability
The more likely something is true the more likely I think it to be true
The more likely something is false the more likely I think it to be false

It is important not to accept something as being true or false unless one has proof
Proof is absolute by default where as evidence is not and this is what separates them

[HexHammer]

Silly circular logic.

Whilst this might be true, you are not saying how or why.

Equally... a circular argument does not necessarily make it invalid.

I think, therefore, I am.
I am, therefore, I think.

I'm more interested in this belief that you suggest and claim to be properly basic.

Are you suggesting that an infant is born, or even at the point of conception is imbued somehow with with this properly basic belief?

If not... from where does this properly basic belief come?

Brain dead people are, but don't think ..argument destroyed!
It's clearly you don't grasp the meaning of circular logic.

[Sappho de Miranda]

Brain dead people are, but don't think ..argument destroyed!

Oh Dear! You think that functional definitions designed for the sole purpose of harvesting living organs from a living human in some way actually proves that living things are dead things?

Really?
Really!
Really

Well... Put your bib on bad boy... You're about to be spoon fed.

Brain death worldwide
Accepted fact but no global consensus in diagnostic criteria

Eelco F.M. Wijdicks, MD
+SHOW AFFILIATIONS
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Eelco F.M. Wijdicks, Department of Neurology (W8B), Mayo Clinic, 201 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905; e-mail: wijde@mayo.edu
doi: 10.1212/WNL.58.1.20
Neurology January 8, 2002 vol. 58 no. 1 20-25

Source

Do you understand the difference between an 'accepted fact' and a 'real fact'? If your capacity to abuse logic is anything to go by, then clearly you do not understand the difference. But there are others that do have a better grounding in logic that you and would argue against brain based criteria for human death

And on the matter of thinking, I suppose too that I will have to spell it out to you that thoughts of which we are not conscious precede thoughts of which we are conscious. Indeed there is a bucket load of thinking going on of which you will never be made aware yet contributes to the 'I' that thinks and concludes it 'is'.

CONCLUSION
For most of human history, only the concepts of conscious thought and intentional behavior existed. In the 1800s, two very different developments—hypnotism and evolutionary theory—both pointed to the possibility of unconscious, unintended causes of human behavior. But nearly two centuries later, contemporary psychological science remains wedded to a conscious-centric model of the higher mental processes; it hasn’t helped that our view of the powers of the unconscious mind have come largely from studies of subliminal information processing. This research, with its operational definition of the unconscious as a system that handles subliminal-strength stimulation from the environment, has helped to perpetuate the notion that conscious processes are primary and that they are the causal force behind most, if not all, human judgment and behavior (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2002).

We propose an alternative perspective, in which unconscious processes are defined in terms of their unintentional nature and the inherent lack of awareness is of the influence and effect of the triggering stimuli and not of the triggering stimuli (because nearly all naturally occurring stimuli are supraliminal). By this definition of the unconscious, which is the original and historic one, contemporary social cognition research on priming and automaticity effects have shown the existence of sophisticated, flexible, and adaptive unconscious behavior guidance systems. These would seem to be of high functional value, especially as default behavioral tendencies when the conscious mind, as is its wont, travels away from the present environment into the past or the future. It is nice to know that the unconscious is minding the store when the owner is absent.

In the rest of the natural sciences, especially neurobiology, the assumption of conscious primacy is not nearly as prevalent as in psychology. Complex and intelligent design in living things is not assumed to be driven by conscious processes on the part of the plant or animal, but instead by blindly adaptive processes that accrued through natural selection (Dennett, 1995). This is not to say that human consciousness plays no role or that it is not special in its powers to transform, manipulate, and convey information relative to the mental powers of other animals, but that this consciousness is not necessary to achieve the sophisticated, adaptive, and intelligent behavioral guidance demonstrated in the emerging priming literature. Unconscious processes are smart and adaptive throughout the living world, as Dawkins (1976) contended, and the psychological research evidence that has emerged since the time of his writing has confirmed that this principle extends to humans as well. In nature, the “unconscious mind” is the rule, not the exception.

Source

Now... What was it that you had destroyed? Oh yes... Your credibility.

Sappho 2
Hex 0

[Sappho de Miranda]

see next post

[Sappho de Miranda]

Can't post... Big Brother AU is on... and and one of the fav's is about to be evicted.

'Big Brother AU', ROFL, and you imply I'm not brilliant enough to engage with you? Could you get any lower?

He he he. I know... I know... I stand guilty as charged. Call it my Mensa Madness. I do.

Must be quite a crushing blow for peeps like you and Hex to be too often bested by a Big Brother fan.

Oh, by the way, your inferiority complex is showing... Not a good look.

[Sappho de Miranda]

Thanks for actually addressing the thread

No probs at all. Welcome to the forum!

I see you've met a couple of our resident pseudo-trolls. Don't let them put you off. They are quite valuable you know. Some of us treat them as light relief as they let others Muse their way into tangents; important to lifting and lightening the mood, giving the reader a mental rest, before moving on deeper into the discussion. The clever ones, with a mind for the reader, such as Blaggard, will seek to entertain in these thread down times.

The idea is from Alvin Platinga who suggests that Theism needs no justification.
If you follow the link from post no. 1, or google Platinga "properly basic" you should find all you need.

Thanks. I feel a little more comfortable with the topic now. I quite liked This as an exploration of the tension between that which is incorrigible or not and it all seems to rest or turn on the definition as to whether something is properly basic. Platinga's definition of 'God' is orthodox and as such, I dispute it.

As to the matter of incorrigible things, then again, we must be careful that the definition being tested is, at least, logically sound before claiming it self evident. So, for example, iff the definition of God is that of a life force permeating the universe that creates, then claimed that definition incorrigible, who could dispute that God exists?

That which is self evident first satisfies the test of validity.

[HexHammer]

Do you understand the difference between an 'accepted fact' and a 'real fact'? If your capacity to abuse logic is anything to go by, then clearly you do not understand the difference. But there are others that do have a better grounding in logic that you and would argue against brain based criteria for human death

And on the matter of thinking, I suppose too that I will have to spell it out to you that thoughts of which we are not conscious precede thoughts of which we are conscious. Indeed there is a bucket load of thinking going on of which you will never be made aware yet contributes to the 'I' that thinks and concludes it 'is'.

All this circular logic proves nothing, other than you have beautiful rhetoric.

When do we really know the difference between "accepted fact" and "real fact"? I see science articles being rewritten each week, so what scientists know as fact are merely an accepted fact, and "real facts" doesn't really exist, only for every gullible people.

You are too quick to judge and make assumptions, I know the current definition of "brain dead" isn't sufficient, as it only involves pain and iris reflexes. I think it was about 4% that was buried alive in Arlington Cemetery and people with Cataplexy are often mistaken for dead, also around the world there are plenty reports of people waking up in the morgue or out of the hospital bed after being declared dead.
It was around a year ago we had such case in Denmark where a girl woke up after being declared dead.

1 thing is to declare a person dead based on outdated methods, another is by MR scan and such, where we can really 100% diagnose any activity.

[Sappho de Miranda]

1 thing is to declare a person dead based on outdated methods, another is by MR scan and such, where we can really 100% diagnose any activity.

y.

Objective: To provide an update of the 1995 American Academy of Neurology guideline with regard to the following questions: Are there patients who fulfill the clinical criteria of brain death who recover neurologic function? What is an adequate observation period to ensure that cessation of neurologic function is permanent? Are complex motor movements that falsely suggest retained brain function sometimes observed in brain death? What is the comparative safety of techniques for determining apnea? Are there new ancillary tests that accurately identify patients with brain death?

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and included a review of MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1996 to May 2009. Studies were limited to adults.

Results and recommendations: In adults, there are no published reports of recovery of neurologic function after a diagnosis of brain death using the criteria reviewed in the 1995 American Academy of Neurology practice parameter. Complex-spontaneous motor movements and false-positive triggering of the ventilator may occur in patients who are brain dead. There is insufficient evidence to determine the minimally acceptable observation period to ensure that neurologic functions have ceased irreversibly. Apneic oxygenation diffusion to determine apnea is safe, but there is insufficient evidence to determine the comparative safety of techniques used for apnea testing. There is insufficient evidence to determine if newer ancillary tests accurately confirm the cessation of function of the entire brain

Source]

[Sappho de Miranda]

Bottom line is that we just don't have a comprehensive definition of life or death.

But we are getting closer all the time

[Lev Muishkin]

Thanks for actually addressing the thread

No probs at all. Welcome to the forum!

I see you've met a couple of our resident pseudo-trolls. Don't let them put you off. They are quite valuable you know. Some of us treat them as light relief as they let others Muse their way into tangents; important to lifting and lightening the mood, giving the reader a mental rest, before moving on deeper into the discussion. The clever ones, with a mind for the reader, such as Blaggard, will seek to entertain in these thread down times.

The idea is from Alvin Platinga who suggests that Theism needs no justification.
If you follow the link from post no. 1, or google Platinga "properly basic" you should find all you need.

Thanks. I feel a little more comfortable with the topic now. I quite liked This as an exploration of the tension between that which is incorrigible or not and it all seems to rest or turn on the definition as to whether something is properly basic. Platinga's definition of 'God' is orthodox and as such, I dispute it.

As to the matter of incorrigible things, then again, we must be careful that the definition being tested is, at least, logically sound before claiming it self evident. So, for example, iff the definition of God is that of a life force permeating the universe that creates, then claimed that definition incorrigible, who could dispute that God exists?

That which is self evident first satisfies the test of validity.

For me the tendencies of humans to be curious and skeptical are the only properly basic things we can bring to this debate. Where ever that leads - to agnosticism, polytheism, or pantheism is not given by any incorrigibility.
A starting point has to be atheism. If any thing is properly basic then it is that. One has to assume that our ancestors having no concept of "god" were ipso facto atheistic. It remains to be seen if that position is deserving of any revision.
I do not accept that there is any meaningful way of asserting "a life force permeating the universe creating", sounds like anthropomorphic wishful thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, Lev.

You're looking for someone to defend Plantinga's view of belief in God as "properly basic"? Okay.

But first we'd best define "properly basic," because your respondents so far don't know what that expression means, and that is causing them frustration. That's why they're missing you completely.

Why they're choosing to become abusive -- well, I don't really know.

At the risk of going over territory I'm sure you already know, "properly basic" means a belief that is fundamental to all subsequent premises. It does not imply that such a belief is held without or contrary to evidence, but that it can be held perhaps only on strong inductive warrant (e.g. empirical evidence). It does not, as your detractors argue, mean "a belief based on no evidence," or "a belief contrary to evidence." But since defending atheism depends on misunderstanding your question, I wouldn't expect them to recognize this. They're working with a definition of "properly basic" as meaning "based only on faith," and a definition of faith as meaning "belief with absolutely no warrant at all." So they're frustrated with you because they think you're advocating belief without any evidence.

But since inductive warrant (empirical evidence, not formal perfection) is all science itself ever has (deductive warrant being only possible in maths and pure logic), the presence of inductive warrant would make the "properly basic" belief in God a reasonable first postulate. It would remain afterward to see what scientific inductive evidence warranted.

Your interlocutors claim there is no evidence for such a postulate. Theists deny that. They argue that there is strong inductive warrant from the natural world, as well as from formal arguments like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, or my favourite, the Moral Argument, and that the deductive warrant for things like spontaneous generation of a universe ex nihilo, absent a God, would be insufficient.

The truth of the situation is that you have Atheists arguing one kind of conclusion from the evidence, and Theists arguing another kind of conclusion from the evidence. Both beliefs can be said to be "properly basic," in Plantinga's sense.

What Plantinga has realized is the truth of the old axiom, "Ontology precedes epistemology." That means that before you can perform induction from any evidence, you have to have already decided what evidence exists: that is, what basic constituents of the empirical field exist to be observed. Only afterward can you gather your evidence either for or against the existence of a Supreme Being. and whether you rule in or out the existence of a Supreme Being is going to make a huge difference to how you interpret the ensuing evidence -- whether as further evidence of His existence, or as further evidence of the activity of impersonal forces and chance.

[Lev Muishkin]

Hello, Lev.

You're looking for someone to defend Plantinga's view of belief in God as "properly basic"? Okay.

But first we'd best define "properly basic," because your respondents so far don't know what that expression means, and that is causing them frustration. That's why they're missing you completely.

Why they're choosing to become abusive -- well, I don't really know.

At the risk of going over territory I'm sure you already know, "properly basic" means a belief that is fundamental to all subsequent premises. It does not imply that such a belief is held without or contrary to evidence, but that it can be held perhaps only on strong inductive warrant (e.g. empirical evidence). It does not, as your detractors argue, mean "a belief based on no evidence," or "a belief contrary to evidence." But since defending atheism depends on misunderstanding your question, I wouldn't expect them to recognize this. They're working with a definition of "properly basic" as meaning "based only on faith," and a definition of faith as meaning "belief with absolutely no warrant at all." So they're frustrated with you because they think you're advocating belief without any evidence.

But since inductive warrant (empirical evidence, not formal perfection) is all science itself ever has (deductive warrant being only possible in maths and pure logic), the presence of inductive warrant would make the "properly basic" belief in God a reasonable first postulate. It would remain afterward to see what scientific inductive evidence warranted.

Your interlocutors claim there is no evidence for such a postulate. Theists deny that. They argue that there is strong inductive warrant from the natural world, as well as from formal arguments like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, or my favourite, the Moral Argument, and that the deductive warrant for things like spontaneous generation of a universe ex nihilo, absent a God, would be insufficient.

The truth of the situation is that you have Atheists arguing one kind of conclusion from the evidence, and Theists arguing another kind of conclusion from the evidence. Both beliefs can be said to be "properly basic," in Plantinga's sense.

What Plantinga has realized is the truth of the old axiom, "Ontology precedes epistemology." That means that before you can perform induction from any evidence, you have to have already decided what evidence exists: that is, what basic constituents of the empirical field exist to be observed. Only afterward can you gather your evidence either for or against the existence of a Supreme Being. and whether you rule in or out the existence of a Supreme Being is going to make a huge difference to how you interpret the ensuing evidence -- whether as further evidence of His existence, or as further evidence of the activity of impersonal forces and chance.

Thanks for the comprehensive and relevant answer, but after a week of waiting I think I've lost the will to live.

The only thing I'd like to say is that I disagree with your implication that Theism and Atheism are symmetrical, in the they both qualify for the status of properly basic equally.
It seems to me that Atheism, is at its most primitive and basic, a position which makes no claim whatever, being a position of skepticism, a precursor to any suggestion of gods.
At it's mature state it is parasitic, in sense, upon theism, being irrelevant or unnecessary in the absence of Theism or one kind or another, and can only thrive propositionally in distinction against various pan/mono/bi/poly/tri- theistic claims. In fact the word is a reflexive term originally used by Theists against others who disagreed with them.
I consider the most logical position to be post-theism.