I never asserted that you didn't, I asked if you did. And I did so in the hopes that you would acknowledge this reduces claims to the plausibility of X to claims of certainty that Y.

Which brings us back - finally - to 'How can you possibly be sure your premises are valid?'

These comments go back to the OP.

First, where in Yugoslavia if I might ask? Both my maternal grandparents emigrated from Yugoslavia in the early 1900's from Slovenia, not real far from Ljubljana.

Second, specific religious traditions may not be the best starting point for theism. For me, I drifted away from those traditions when I started grad school, probably due to the environment. I started in a physics department and religion is not a well received subject there. I came back by a path that first was a general acceptance of theism followed by a return to specific religious traditions due to personal familiarity and familial acceptance.

Third, it is without a doubt possible to develop a logical self-consistent world view as either a theist or an atheist. Both positions require some leaps of "faith" to fill gaps, but properly constructed they are logically sound.

Fourth, in my opinion it is difficult to get to a theistic position rationally without considering the phenomena of "consciousness" and "free will". For the first, there is no physically demonstrated process that can objectively be shown to lead to your self-awareness. That can be considered an indication, maybe even non-conclusive evidence that there is something going on which science does not address. For the second, "free will" is subject to endless debate if you are trying to demonstrate that it exists objectively. From a personal point of view though, the question becomes "Do you experience it"? If you perceive that you do, then someone arguing that you do not has a very profound burden of proof.

If you get to the point where you accept that theism is logical although granted it is not uniquely logical, then the question of response is complicated. Seeking some kind of personal revelation in religious concepts may make sense.

The problem of consciousness is certainly tricky at this stage, especially since no one seems to agree on what they even mean by the word "consciousness". But be careful of using a gaps argument (your wording suggests that you are cognizant of this).

Part of the problem is that people refer to "consciousness" as if its one thing. I suspect rather its a collection of attributes, slowly evolved over time.

Now, while I will conceed that science hasn't cracked this particularly complex nut, as I understand it, progress is being made.

Brain Stem may be key to consciousness

Steven Novella discussed Ray Tallis' views on consciousness

The Global Workspace – Consciousness Explained?


I'm not positing that these articles have "explained" consciousness, but it does demonstrate that science is getting closer and one should be even more cautious about using gap type arguments here.

You asked in a way that makes an assertion, especially given the comment.

I would be interested in a comprehensive logical and coherent atheistic world-view. I can't think of any. Not asking you to develop it here, but if you have a specific reference.

No, the comment was a joke, referring to the ambiguity of 'plausibility'.

I live (and was born) in Ljubljana.

As far as free will goes. I think I experience what you call free will the same way as you do. I experience whole process of making choices same as everyone else, but intellectually it doesn't make sense to me that this process is somehow uncaused (why does it have to be?). I honestly can't imagine something that is both uncaused and non random, it is way too abstract for me.

Concscniouess has always been pretty intruiging phenomena to me, though. Never read much about it unfortunately, so I am pretty ignorant to scientific research on this topic. But I have nevertheless never really experienced it as something that somehow must be parted from physical world or else it couldn't existed.

I can easily imagine it as a spiritual object if I want to, though. As opposed to concept of free will, which is really unimaginable to me - my brains literally start hurting when I try to think of this non-caused non-random mechanism.

Idk.

wow NR has really done a number on himself. batair sumed it up nicely iyam.

Agreed.

I have a felling that agree is not a good agree... tell me this though. What illogical view do i hold by not knowing if there is a God? Because that is the whole of my atheistic world view.

My position isn't that the bare statement "I don't know if there is a God" is illogical or irrational. What I mean involves a worldview that makes truth claims about objective reality.

The only thing my atheist would view claims is i dont know if there is a God.

No one can contest your subjective state of mind.

The question is is my atheistic world view logical given im not lying about not knowing if there is a God. If it is then there is one example of a logical atheistic world view.

Stating "I don't know if God exists" isn't the expression of a worldview. A worldview is a position regarding objective reality. The statement "God doesn't exist" is a worldview statement.

The fact that a particular religion has a worldview that they say describes objective reality does not make it superior to a worldview which does not purport to make statements about objective reality, if the claims about objective reality provided by the religion cannot be objectively verified.

So atheism can be logical as long as it's not expressed as a worldview. Got it.

Ok lets try this.

Im an atheists, you say there are no logical atheistic world views. Tell me what is illogical about my atheism?

I'm not going to play the label game.

See my post to JA. Saying "I don't know if God exists" isn't atheism, but forget the label, the key is it makes no statement that can be called a worldview.

Its a view in the world so i dont know how its not a world view... But either way if you want to keep attacking straw man atheists who claim they know there is no God do it to it.

No such animal.

Wait a second. It is only a strawman if no one actually believe that no-God exists. Do you really think this is true?

Ugh, I get in such trouble when I stumble into more formal philosophical debates. I much prefer more pragmatic debates. Philosophical ones usually start off on the wrong foot because the debators have different understandings of the words being used. I've looked up worldview in wiki and I'm not sure now if what I have would be considered worldview in those terms or not.

If I say I'm a materialist, does that count as a worldview? A secular humanist? If I say that I will follow the evidence regarding objective reality and in general defer to scientific consensus when the issues go beyond my understanding, is that a worldview? Do I have to pretend to have all the answers re the origines of the universe to be worldview?