Philosophy Discussion Forums

A philosopher on an other forum (philosophicalvegan.com) mentioned the following which made me return to this topic:

We can not say "conclusively" to an absolute certainty anything empirical -- even things like that the moon orbits the Earth and that orbits the sun, or that anything even exists in any way like we assume. ~ brimstoneSalad

Fanman wrote: ↑September 12th, 2023, 10:01 amThat in reality, God can either exist or not exist. Maybe - is not a state of existence outside of our minds.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 12th, 2023, 12:04 pmYour words, "that in reality, God can either exist or not exist", are true, as far as they go, but useless. It is useless because we have no means to determine whether God does exist (or not).

If we had conclusive evidence, we could answer the question of God's existence. But such evidence as there is — i.e. little or none — is not anywhere close to conclusive. ["Conclusive" — having (logically) sufficient reason to justify reaching a conclusion.]

I am not particularly involved with the concept God, but as became evident in diverse topics started by Astro Cat, who as an Atheist academic became involved in discussions with religious people, the idea that God must either 'exists' or not might be invalid.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 18th, 2022, 6:00 am How could God be the foundation for anything at all without being God? In other words, doesn't it seem a necessary condition for God = God to be true before God can somehow make A = A to be true? But that is Identity: it seems as though identity is a necessary precondition for God to be God rather than the other way around!

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 2:08 pm If existence "cannot apply" to God, then I'm not entirely sure what's even being said. Either a god exists or one does not. My post was directed at arguments with a god proposed to exist.

The concept 'Being' is taken for granted in the consideration of what deserves consideration.

When it concerns the philosophical God, it might be argued that it concerns a concept that precedes (fundamentally underlays) Being.

The following book by philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer might be of interest:

Return of the God Hypothesis
https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/

If you would prefer not to talk about God for the 10,000th time, why not choose an alternative example?

value wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 2:29 pm A philosopher on an other forum (philosophicalvegan.com) mentioned the following which made me return to this topic:

We can not say "conclusively" to an absolute certainty anything empirical -- even things like that the moon orbits the Earth and that orbits the sun, or that anything even exists in any way like we assume. ~ brimstoneSalad

I was replying to the following, which was established to be the key aspect of the argument in the OP that I sought to challenge.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2023, 10:43 amBy "justification", I mean to refer to having a good and sufficient reason to reach a definite conclusion. A conclusive reason, if you will.

My argument:

I would agree that one should attempt to reside within the scope of reason but not by an attempt to fixate reason in the form of a pursuit of the idea of (ought) attainability of conclusive reason.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 4:16 pm If you would prefer not to talk about God for the 10,000th time, why not choose an alternative example?

I never mentioned that I didn't want to talk about God or to address it philosophically. It is just that it is not a concept that has been on my list of aspects to investigate as of yet. Similarly, I only recently came to add 'The Absolute' as a concept to investigate while I wasn't naturally inclined to give it serious consideration.

I am most primarily interested in fundamental philosophy and I might agree that the concept God results in intellectual laziness and negligence when it comes to philosophical investigation of certain aspects.

I was made aware in the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, a classic on the subject 'Intelligent Design' (scientific version) with multiple authors including philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, that a primary motive of scientists in general to reject foundationalism or the 'God hypothesis' is that it would reduce the drive to make progress in science because it would make it possible to argue 'God did it' instead of spurring inquiry.

God, The Absolute or the Chinese Tao are concepts that are sort of 'end points' from a language perspective.

The book Tao Te Ching by Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) was written as a poem to unlock philosophical insights into a concept that can be described as God. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 20th, 2022, 2:08 pm If existence "cannot apply" to God, then I'm not entirely sure what's even being said. Either a god exists or one does not.

Therefore I would understand the potential strategic choice for (illogical) Atheism by scientists in general on behalf of the spurring of a motivation for further inquiry, although I believe that it is unwise to use that same strategy as a foundational ground to abolish morality, for 'immoral advance of science'.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

I just wrote a new article about morality that concerns the idea 'morality beyond science'. The article asserts that science is a moral practice and that science is a pursuit of a qualitative truth that is part of the good.

The moral good is simply more than just the qualitative truth of science and that explains the idea of morality beyond science.

American philosopher William James once said the following about it. The quote was provided by Thomyum2 in this topic.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pm I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

This basically explains the reason of my argument against the assertion of the OP. Justification, or a definite conclusion or conclusive reason is simply part of a belief in good.

Gee wrote: ↑September 12th, 2023, 11:38 pmPeople are always saying that there is no evidence for the god concept, I think you even stated it in an earlier post in this thread, but it is not true. There is a ton of evidence worldwide going back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, statues, symbols, totems, etc., and a lot of written evidence from literally EVERY culture or nation that has existed since writing has existed. I brought this idea up in a science forum, you know where they love to hate religion, and although they tried, they could not find any culture that could disprove the universality of the god concept. We are not talking about coincidence here.

Denying this concept would be like saying that gravity is just coincidence -- just because it is everywhere does not make it real. Maybe not, but being causal makes it real, and the god concept is causal. The only difference between these two ideas is that we finally learned something about gravity, but have not yet learned about the god concept. One day we will learn, but in the meantime, we will interpret it in various ways through various religions.

Gee

Interesting perspective.

I recently discovered a topic by an author who might be Robert M. Pirsig (IQ 170), the author of the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies). His posts showed that he held a similar idea as you and was actively investigating it within his philosophical work.

New reading material for fans of Robert Pirsig
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18771

Robert Pirsig is known to have mixed Chinese and Western philosophies.

ChaoticMindSays wrote: ↑September 20th, 2010, 9:58 pm Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

value wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 2:29 pm A philosopher on an other forum (philosophicalvegan.com) mentioned the following which made me return to this topic:

We can not say "conclusively" to an absolute certainty anything empirical -- even things like that the moon orbits the Earth and that orbits the sun, or that anything even exists in any way like we assume. ~ brimstoneSalad

value wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 11:12 pm I was replying to the following, which was established to be the key aspect of the argument in the OP that I sought to challenge.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2023, 10:43 amBy "justification", I mean to refer to having a good and sufficient reason to reach a definite conclusion. A conclusive reason, if you will.

My argument:

I would agree that one should attempt to reside within the scope of reason but not by an attempt to fixate reason in the form of a pursuit of the idea of (ought) attainability of conclusive reason.

I'm inclined to comment on this ... but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that — sometimes, or at all times — conclusive reason is unattainable? An impossible dream? Or are you aiming at some other meaning?

value wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 11:12 pmI would agree that one should attempt to reside within the scope of reason but not by an attempt to fixate reason in the form of a pursuit of the idea of (ought) attainability of conclusive reason.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 7:11 am I'm inclined to comment on this ... but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that — sometimes, or at all times — conclusive reason is unattainable? An impossible dream? Or are you aiming at some other meaning?

Vitally, my argument is, in line with the quote of William James and the highly interesting post by Thomyum2, that the idea of conclusive reason is merely possible within the context of a belief in good, which has diverse implications.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pmMay I suggest a little bit different take on the question? ... in relation to your post here, it is to beliefs that justification applies, and not to logical arguments, so I think there might be a bit of a category error in the question here.
...
I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

William James wrote:Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

The 'ills' of religions and dogmas are widely known, and I quoted Bertrand Russell with his view that ethical notions, which are essentially 'ought conclusive reason', can result in violence and war.

My own perspective is similar that an attempt to fixate reason in the form of ethics or the idea of ought attainability of conclusive reason (which concerns the idea of truth separated from the belief in good) can undermine morality.

"What once was perceived as good, is put in front of the charier as it were, and that is where the war begins..."

My concern about the danger of the idea of 'ought conclusive reason':

value wrote: ↑August 24th, 2023, 4:01 amWith your argument, in the face of a generic perceiver that is to receive wisdom on behalf of 'what to do?', the idea is put forward as apparently unquestionable, that justification beyond belief - knowledge of a fixating kind - is ought to be obtained.

It would naturally propagate dogma by the simple fact that one is to subject to a higher judgement external to ones belief and that higher judgement is naturally to be within the control of a body, an authority, such as a Church organ or a 'scientific establishment' that acts 'on behalf' of that presumable non-belief worthy higher judgement, because who is he/she to know it better?

Therefore your idea put forward as unquestionable that justification - a qualitative knowledge different from belief - is ought to be obtained seems to be a basis to propagate dogma and ethical fixation, because what else are people to do when they are held a carrot in front of them that poses that justification beyond belief it to be attained as a greater good, and one is better to adhere to what the dogma about that justified truth is telling them, because who are they to 'know it better' than [fill in your authority here]...

value wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 11:12 pmI would agree that one should attempt to reside within the scope of reason but not by an attempt to fixate reason in the form of a pursuit of the idea of (ought) attainability of conclusive reason.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 7:11 am I'm inclined to comment on this ... but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that — sometimes, or at all times — conclusive reason is unattainable? An impossible dream? Or are you aiming at some other meaning?

value wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 10:55 am Vitally, my argument is, in line with the quote of William James and the highly interesting post by Thomyum2, that the idea of conclusive reason is merely possible within the context of a belief in good, which has diverse implications.

Belief in good? You don't think that sufficient and conclusive reason is a consequence of the application of logic (and reason)?

value wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 10:55 am Vitally, my argument is, in line with the quote of William James and the highly interesting post by Thomyum2, that the idea of conclusive reason is merely possible within the context of a belief in good, which has diverse implications.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 12:33 pmBelief in good? You don't think that sufficient and conclusive reason is a consequence of the application of logic (and reason)?

The post of Thomyum2 was very strong on behalf of a defence of that idea and your reply was weak in my opinion, considering the significance of his contribution to the topic (in my opinion).

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pmHello Pattern-chaser, long time no see. Thanks for your OP - I think you've posed a thought-provoking question, for me at least.

May I suggest a little bit different take on the question? In thinking about how to answer here, I happened to pull up the Wikipedia entry on 'justification' and find it defined there as "the property of belief that qualifies it as knowledge rather than mere opinion." I find it interesting in that justification doesn't really distinguish between truth and falsehood as much as it does between whether or not we qualify some specific belief as being 'knowledge'. I'm not sure though that there is a really clear boundary between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' as this appears to me to be a somewhat subjective distinction.

That said, in relation to your post here, it is to beliefs that justification applies, and not to logical arguments, so I think there might be a bit of a category error in the question here. Understood in this way, logic itself is really one form of justification, and probably one of many. We justify beliefs by other means - e.g. personal experience, reliance on credible sources or testimonies, common sense, etc. - in addition to logic, which is a specific kind of justification, i.e. conclusions that have been derived by sound reasoning from self-evident or true premises. However, it's worth noting that even the soundest logical conclusions are not always accepted. So what 'justifies' a belief for one person may not justify it for another - again leading back to the idea that this is, at least in part, a subjective matter. One person may say they know something, and another may counter by saying no, that's just your opinion.

I actually think you were on the right track in responding to JackDaydream above when you asked if there is a moral element to justification, and I do think that's the case as it is such an individual and personal determination, almost like a moral decision, like deciding a right from a wrong, but just with different criteria and faculties involved. Deciding that something is justified is a kind of a value judgement, just as it's a value judgement to hold that a logical argument is sound, or that a premise is true.

I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

William James wrote:Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

Your reply to his post:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2023, 10:43 amBy "justification", I mean to refer to having a good and sufficient reason to reach a definite conclusion. A conclusive reason, if you will.

My question is based solely in logic and reason...

In general the assertion is that morality is applicable to the concept truth by which (the idea of) 'conclusivity' of any form of logic and reason is fundamentally made questionable, i.e., is to be considered within the scope of a 'belief in good'.

value wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 3:07 pm The post of Thomyum2 was very strong on behalf of a defence of that idea and your reply was weak in my opinion, considering the significance of his contribution to the topic (in my opinion).

In my own defence, I posted a topic about argumentational logic, clearly-constrained. I tried really hard to focus attention on this simple question, revolving only around logic and reason. But the assembled throng thought otherwise, to my disappointment.

From my OP:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 8th, 2023, 9:50 am I've posted this in the Scientific part of the forum because it concerns reason and logic, which are core values for science. Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

...

It is my contention that argument according to reason and logic requires justification for any and every step we take. I hope this is not too contentious a claim?

You are right, my reply to ThomYum2 was "weak", because I sought to refocus attention on my OP. There were other interesting posts too, also outside the simple problem I hoped to discuss. So yes, I am guilty as charged. Sorry.

value wrote: ↑September 14th, 2023, 3:07 pm In general the assertion is that morality is applicable to the concept truth by which (the idea of) 'conclusivity' of any form of logic and reason is fundamentally made questionable, i.e., is to be considered within the scope of a 'belief in good'.

So are you suggesting that the pursuit of logically-conclusive argument(s) is a bit like pursuing Objective Truth (i.e. pursuing something that is unattainable)? Or are you thinking that argument must always take morality into account? Or something else...?

Fanman wrote: ↑September 13th, 2023, 1:01 pm Gee,

No Fanman, reason and critical thinking supports the latter. People are always saying that there is no evidence for the god concept, I think you even stated it in an earlier post in this thread, but it is not true. There is a ton of evidence worldwide going back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, statues, symbols, totems, etc., and a lot of written evidence from literally EVERY culture or nation that has existed since writing has existed. I brought this idea up in a science forum, you know where they love to hate religion, and although they tried, they could not find any culture that could disprove the universality of the god concept. We are not talking about coincidence here.

Subjectively, through personal testimonies and experiences, there is evidence for God’s existence. When someone’s life corresponds with scriptures or texts, that can be seen by some as evidence for God. But that introduces the problem of biases and how the scriptures - are interpreted. Objectively, there isn’t anything we can point to as confirming his existence. Yes, there are churches, statues, symbols, etc., but they are culturally diverse, which creates the problem of which God (or gods) are the real ones. The Bible makes a positive claim for God’s existence, but is what it purports to be the truth reflected anywhere, giving us valid reasons to claim that he exists objectively?

I am going to answer you first because I must seriously shorten my response. In order to understand the god concept, you must first understand that gods are interpreted emotion, then you need to understand the unconscious aspect of mind, how it works, and why it produces the ideas that it does. Then you have to understand that emotion is very real, which makes the god concept very real. I can't even come close to giving you an understanding in this thread as it is off topic. So don't ask here.

There are huts, houses, tents, castles, and teepees, which are "culturally diverse" -- so does that mean we can not confirm a home that exists? All the "Gods" are the "real ones", just like all the diverse residences are "real" "homes".

I know that a lot of people see the Bible as the word of "God", but it is also a history book, and I have never read a history book that didn't lie through it's metaphorical teeth.

Gee

Pattern-chaser,

To place God on the Rejected pile would be the result of concluding (with sufficient reason) that God does not exist. Nothing less than this can logically justify Rejecting God. So you are exactly correct to say that "maybe" is not enough grounds to believe. You simply fail to realise that, having (correctly) found that acceptance is not justified, we have two choices remaining, not one. This is not a binary issue. We can accept or reject God, or we can retain God's position on the Maybe pile. Only the latter can be logically justified, in the absence of evidence.

I agree. Logically, we can have an agnostic position on the existence of God. Whereby he remains a maybe. But in the absence of evidence. Rejecting that God exists is also logical. Objectively, there isn’t any evidence, but subjectively, people have reasons for believing in God, anecdotal evidence. When Biblical scriptures correspond with someone’s life - That gives logical reasons for them to believe in God as the scriptures are validated. As objectively, his existence is a maybe, I think that all three positions, Accept, Reject and Maybe, can be logically justified. Therefore, each one has validity.

Pattern-chaser wrote:To place God on the Rejected pile would be the result of concluding (with sufficient reason) that God does not exist. Nothing less than this can logically justify Rejecting God. So you are exactly correct to say that "maybe" is not enough grounds to believe. You simply fail to realise that, having (correctly) found that acceptance is not justified, we have two choices remaining, not one. This is not a binary issue. We can accept or reject God, or we can retain God's position on the Maybe pile. Only the latter can be logically justified, in the absence of evidence.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 7:06 pm I agree. Logically, we can have an agnostic position on the existence of God. Whereby he remains a maybe. But in the absence of evidence.

OK.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 7:06 pm Rejecting that God exists is also logical.

No it isn't. I started this topic to oppose this viewpoint, as I shall now attempt to do, once again.

First, it is important to note that the complementary phrase, "Accepting that God exists is also logical", is also incorrect, for the same reasons; reasons based solely in logic and reason. There is no faith; no feeling; no belief — God is only an example here, not the topic under discussion.

God is a good example because there is no evidence — that a scientist would recognise and accept as 'evidence' — at all, for or against. But brains-in-vats or we-are-simulations would do as well, if using "God" clouds the issues here.

The idea of Sufficient Reason is central to logic. Logic says that to take any step along a chain of (logical) reasoning, or to reach a (logical) conclusion, is only valid if there is sufficient reason. Sufficient, that is, to justify the conclusion reached. And that conclusion might be Acceptance, or it might be Rejection. Focussing here on the logical structure of the argument itself, Acceptance and Rejection are no different, in the sense that both of them require sufficient reason for their adoption. If the reason is insufficient, no conclusion can be logically justified.


But I have simply stated here an argument that I have stated many times in this topic. This might encourage "yes it is", "no it isn't", exchanges. So let's have a look at your justification for the proposition that "Rejecting God is also logical":

Fanman wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 7:06 pm Objectively, there isn’t any evidence, but subjectively, people have reasons for believing in God, anecdotal evidence.

I accept this without reserve. My point(s) apply only to argument that is governed solely by logic and reason. By that standard, this is not sufficient reason to Accept the existence of God.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 7:06 pm When Biblical scriptures correspond with someone’s life - That gives logical reasons for them to believe in God as the scriptures are validated.

No, it gives reasons, but not logical reasons, and not sufficient reason to accept your conclusion.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 7:06 pm As objectively, his existence is a maybe, I think that all three positions, Accept, Reject and Maybe, can be logically justified. Therefore, each one has validity.

No, as above, neither Acceptance or Rejection can be logically justified. There is insufficient reason, logically speaking. There are reasons outside of logic, that you have referred to, but that changes nothing of what I have said. Only Maybe has a logical justification, and even that is really a description of a lack of logical justification for either of the stronger conclusions. Lacking sufficient reason, logic and reason dictate that we may not reach a conclusion.

Pattern-chaser,

First, it is important to note that the complementary phrase, "Accepting that God exists is also logical", is also incorrect, for the same reasons; reasons based solely in logic and reason. There is no faith; no feeling; no belief — God is only an example here, not the topic under discussion.

You’ve answered your question here. If faith, feeling (intuition), and belief - are removed from the equation. And we have no logical (in the strictest sense) reasons to believe God exists. How can it be illogical to reject the idea that he does? If there are no logical reasons to believe that God exists, what reasoning could justify not only that he does exist but also that he could – the maybe pile?

God is a good example because there is no evidence — that a scientist would recognise and accept as 'evidence' — at all, for or against. But brains-in-vats or we-are-simulations would do as well, if using "God" clouds the issues here.

That is problematic - By all accounts, God is a spirit. Who works through the minds and hearts of people. Therefore, to ignore feelings and beliefs would be an error. The logicality of those factors has its place. Anecdotally - the workings (or presence) of God have never been discoverable through scientific enquiry but in the testimonies of people. It is up to us whether we believe the anecdotal evidence.

The idea of Sufficient Reason is central to logic. Logic says that to take any step along a chain of (logical) reasoning, or to reach a (logical) conclusion, is only valid if there is sufficient reason. Sufficient, that is, to justify the conclusion reached. And that conclusion might be Acceptance, or it might be Rejection. Focussing here on the logical structure of the argument itself, Acceptance and Rejection are no different, in the sense that both of them require sufficient reason for their adoption. If the reason is insufficient, no conclusion can be logically justified.

I cannot understand why you can’t see – that a complete lack of objective evidence for the existence of an entity provides sufficient reason for rejecting the proposal that the entity exists.

No, it gives reasons, but not logical reasons, and not sufficient reason to accept your conclusion.

Even though I remain agnostic - Two chapters of scripture contextually correspond with my life accurately - Psalm 23 NLT and Psalm 1:1-3 NIV. In this case, I would be justified to believe that (as the Christians say) God is with me because the correspondence is factually accurate. I can point to examples in my life where they are true. Of course, it doesn’t provide objective or tangible evidence of God’s existence, but it would give me a logical (or sufficient) reason to believe in him. I remain on the fence because that is not enough to make me a believer (again). But my point is that - in the strictest sense. Belief in God can be validated - Just not to the standard required for complete objectivity. Once again, anecdotal evidence is the keyword - when discussing sufficient reason to believe God exists. If considered valid (which some people do) - it can support the claim that God exists.

No, as above, neither Acceptance or Rejection can be logically justified. There is insufficient reason, logically speaking. There are reasons outside of logic, that you have referred to, but that changes nothing of what I have said. Only Maybe has a logical justification, and even that is really a description of a lack of logical justification for either of the stronger conclusions. Lacking sufficient reason, logic and reason dictate that we may not reach a conclusion.

The way I see things, there is sufficient (logically justifiable) reason for all three positions. And that is the reason why we have theists, atheists and agnostics. Unless you are claiming that only agnostics are logically correct?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 9:06 am First, it is important to note that the complementary phrase, "Accepting that God exists is also logical", is also incorrect, for the same reasons; reasons based solely in logic and reason. There is no faith; no feeling; no belief — God is only an example here, not the topic under discussion.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 12:37 pm You’ve answered your question here. If faith, feeling (intuition), and belief - are removed from the equation. And we have no logical (in the strictest sense) reasons to believe God exists. How can it be illogical to reject the idea that he does?

What does logic tell us about accepting or rejecting any idea? It tells us that we should do neither unless we have sufficient reason. As you say, "we have no logical (in the strictest sense) reasons to believe God exists", just as we have no logical reasons to believe She does not exist. Our starting point is that God might or could exist, so She goes onto the Maybe pile, as all ideas do before we consider them in any detail. To move Her from there to the Accepted or Rejected piles requires sufficient reason, and we don't have that. So on the Maybe pile She must stay.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 12:37 pm If there are no logical reasons to believe that God exists, what reasoning could justify not only that he does exist but also that he could – the maybe pile?

Prior to more detailed consideration, all ideas belong on the Maybe pile. Some can be Rejected or Accepted quickly and easily. For example, the idea that trees are mammals can be Rejected because of strong and sufficient evidence to the contrary. The idea that North America borders the Atlantic Ocean on its East side can be easily Accepted, again for sufficient reason. But many ideas are not so easily dealt with. If we have no obvious reason to accept or reject, then logic dictates that we leave them on the Maybe pile, doesn't it? What other justifiable conclusion could there be?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 9:06 am The idea of Sufficient Reason is central to logic. Logic says that to take any step along a chain of (logical) reasoning, or to reach a (logical) conclusion, is only valid if there is sufficient reason. Sufficient, that is, to justify the conclusion reached. And that conclusion might be Acceptance, or it might be Rejection. Focussing here on the logical structure of the argument itself, Acceptance and Rejection are no different, in the sense that both of them require sufficient reason for their adoption. If the reason is insufficient, no conclusion can be logically justified.

Fanman wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 12:37 pm I cannot understand why you can’t see – that a complete lack of objective evidence for the existence of an entity provides sufficient reason for rejecting the proposal that the entity exists.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Fanman wrote: ↑September 18th, 2023, 12:37 pm The way I see things, there is sufficient (logically justifiable) reason for all three positions. And that is the reason why we have theists, atheists and agnostics. Unless you are claiming that only agnostics are logically correct?

Yes, I claim the latter. Even though I am a believer. My beliefs are not in accord with logic — this applies to many beliefs held by humans, it is not unique to religious or spiritual beliefs.