Round 2

From Agnostic Australian 5/15/05

Brady wrote: Let's begin with the existence of God.

Okay.

Brady wrote: Naturism (the cosmology of western atheism) says that nature is all that exists (i.e. our natural universe, time, space, matter energy and all that is inherent to them), there is no God.

I assume you intended naturalism [1] and not naturism [2] ;-)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism

Brady wrote: Whichever one you choose, the same problem exists: the elements to form a coherent and cohesive epistemology are not there.

Please define precisely "coherent and cohesive epistemology" (CCE).

Do you believe (1) the axiom of god (AG); (2) the deduction of god (DG) from elementary axioms; (3) the hypothesis of god (HG) based on the scientific method; or (4) some other explanation?

If you believe AG, do you also believe other axioms? If not, please explain how AG provides CCE. If so, please enumerate these other axioms and explain why they do not provide CCE without AG. How do you propose to convince me of AG?

If you believe DG, please enumerate the elementary axioms and prove DG.

If you believe HG, please give deductive (necessary) predictions based on HG that may be tested.

If you believe some other explanation, please describe it.

Brady wrote: What makes it true is the inability of any atheist to show (via deductive derivation) that their cosmology has the elements to support an epistemology.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

Brady wrote: Here lies the problem, if effects are not like their causes, and your perceptions are caused by the world around you, what makes you think that your perceptions (effects) are anything like the world around you (causes)?

I don't. Do you?

Brady wrote: I think this is a good beginning for now. I would like to keep these posts as short as possible.

Okay.

From Brady 5/16/05

Hello AA,

I think we can isolate 4 main points that you address in your post. I would like to take them one at a time. After we reach agreement on one, we can return to address another.

Brady wrote: Naturism (the cosmology of western atheism) says that nature is all that exists (i.e. our natural universe, time, space, matter energy and all that is inherent to them), there is no God.

AA responded: I assume you intended naturalism [1] and not naturism [2] ;-)

Actually “naturism” has several meanings. When used as a cosmology it means that nature is all that exists. Naturalism is a complete worldview of which naturism is the cosmology.

Here are actually nine possible cosmologies and an example of their followers:

Naturism: The universe is all that exists. Any God or gods are a product (derived) of the universe. (Western atheism)

Negationism: God does not exist, but is a mere illusion. The universe does not exist; it too is a mere illusion. Everything is mere illusion. (Eastern atheism)

Pantheism: God and the universe have a one to one correspondence. (Hinduism)

Panentheism: The entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. (Process theology)

Dualism: there is more than one God and the universe is a product of these two gods. (Zoroastrianism, Plato)

Godism: the universe is an illusion, only God is real and exists. (Eastern philosophy)

Deism: God created the universe, set everything in motion, and then had nothing more to do with it. (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin were part of the deist movement)

Theism: God is the always existent, original being who created the universe. (Judaism, Islam and Christianity)

Subjectivism: I am all that exists. (Solipsism)

At least these are the ways that my Philosophy prof. defined them, many years ago. They have always worked for me. So, this is what I mean when I refer to them. If you Google “Naturism” and “cosmology” you will find that many uses come up, including nudism, and the way that I suggested above and a few I never thought of. However, I am not a stickler about this; “naturism” is merely the label for the concept. If you prefer to use “the cosmology of naturalism’ or “the naturalistic cosmology,” that is fine with me too. As long as we understand what we are talking about.

So, let me know and I will move on to the next point.

Regards,

Brady