Justhuman wrote:The conclusion that it's all in a mind, and that this mind can only be from a very powerfull 'being', is a presumption. If one believes in God one tries to explain things according to that believe. Aren't you (and others) with that form-theory (unwillingly?) working towards a God-only solution?
1. God exist, and He created all there is.
2. Thus, the only conclusion can be that anyway we look at it, the solution must be an can only be God.
3. Thus, any theory that might indicate otherwise, is and must be false.
There is certainly a repulsion towards metaphysics, understanding underpinnings to reality, that more empirically-minded positivist persons (which would describe many secular scientists) wish to deny, don't wish entertain or even discuss.
Aristotle and Plato did not appear to start with belief in God (certainly not the God I identify), such neither preclude God or even gods. Rather, their guide is reasoning ability, their own mind, and what logic and reason alone seem to define. Aristotle perhaps somewhat more than Plato moved things closer to God with his unmoved mover and like. Certainly, his bare minimum "god" isn't the God I believe. Yet, such philosophical thinking perhaps merely lays the framework of logical possibilities rather than what is the case of the reality we find ourselves within (which is better identified by science).
In light of all this, I think it naive to be dismissive of where such reasoning appears to lead. Although I will say unlike myself, Plato and Aristotle were firstly philosphers. I make no apology myself about firstly being theologian, even Christian as was Thomas Aquinas. My life and personal experiences have set me firmly in such, so you could say ALL of my own arguments are reasoning to a conclusion I had, that my whole arguments amount to confirmation bias of sorts. Yet, I think my own starting position is logically irrelevent to any said arguments made or reasoning put forward. Just as much as your being taken by Atheism means I should reject out-of-hand any arguments you might make against Theism or Christianity.
Now certainly, there might be a bias. Some might start with God existing and so then proceed to reason to such, perhaps even I do this unknowingly. Which I think means we must be careful to identify our biases, and to deal with the substance of actual arguments themselves rather than focus on the people making them. I'm upfront with mine. You yourself have your own bias and positions you'd be more receptive of. So then, for any argument you might make, would it be logical for me to identify you as an Atheist and so just reject any arguments you present against God's existence as mere bias?? No, such isn't fair, I should deal with the substance of your arguments. In fact, if I reject your arguments because of who you are, what I believe your bias and motivations to be, then such is entirely irrelevant to the
actual substance of any argument made -- I'd here be committing a genetic fallacy of sorts.
Now deeper logical thinking about the world, the foundational nature of reality -- in my experience the discussion of such appears scary to those who like to feel certain of things, have textbook answers, have all nails in their life nailed down, who wish to cling to something stable, predictable and known. Such might identify as pragmatists, working from where they are to what they see is practical for them in their immediate life. Questions that fall outside are meaningless to pursue, why bother about things we can't be certain of like I can my own physical existence, family, friends... so then, many seem disinterested in more foundational questions about reality, like what does it matter anyway? Such perhaps feel we should just deal with more certain things in life that a more directly felt and experienced, that which is repeatable and predictable in the world provides stablity that we can plant our feet upon and move forward to increase our own happiness in life.
Yet understand, what is pragmatic or practical isn't necessarily true or correct. SImilarly, ignoring such questions, thinking them irrelevent, doesn't mean they're unimportant. Such people I see have a rather shallow and surface-level construction of reality, they ignore their own philosophical underpinnings, the ontology that undergirds their faith in their own experiences and/or empiricism. And contrary to the belief that deeper questions of reality are silly mind games philosophers play, I'd say the answers we have to such foundational questions will also often shape the way we live our life, how we will treat others and what we cling to as really important in life when push comes to shove.
