How do you know that I am not teasing you? More assumption from your side, no doubt. Of course we could just have you share your first assumption, you know the one, the assumption that human intellect and human sensory perception are the correct tools to discover ultimate reality. Person A says: What time is it? Person B says: 6:00. Person A says: How do you know? Person B says: I looked at my watch. Person A says: How do you know your watch is the correct time? Person B says: I set it by my clock. Person A says: How do you know you clock is set right? Person B says: I set it by my watch.
The assumption that time is real must be challenged. Is time really what we think it is? Is it everywhere? Does god/God have a watch? Things are not always what they appear to be. JohnnyK "All the world is a stage, and we are merely players", Shakespeare.
There are many assumptions that must be challenged, the first of which is the assumption that human intellect and senses are providing an accurate picture of reality independent of the flaws of human nature. We lack perfect senses, perfect intellect, and perfect reasoning abilities yet make claims of certainty and truth. This is akin to running a flaky computer to process a buggy software program and claiming at a perfect conclusion. The most important questions are unanswered, yet the edifices of human philosophy and science remain standing in the same way the first pig stood in his house of straw.
If you say that human senses and intellect are not providing an accurate picture of reality, then having/holding a religious faith, is simply as much an inaccurate picture of reality as anything else. It's a weird concept to say because of imperfect senses, imperfect intellect, and imperfect reasoning abilities, your computer might not exist but God does!! The most important questions could only be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities. You need them to know to hold your faith. Without them there would be no means by which you would know to have faith. Itâs probably because they are imperfect that you think you should have religious faith
"The most important questions could only be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities." You cannot provide a proof of that claim without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature. I am not saying human sense and intellect are necessarily false in their operations, it is an unknown. Since human mind is naturally limited, since senses are limited, there is logical reason to doubt that they necessarily reveal a truth absolute in nature, and independent of human consciousness. When there is logical doubt, there can be faith. Atheist practice their brand of faith, Theists practice their brand of faith. They both counter the logical doubt with faith. It is just a personal choice of what to doubt, and what to have faith in. However, neither side can win an argument on an absolute basis as there is a conditional and very relative problem in front of us, and we lack objectivity by definition. In the deepest analysis, human conclusions about the nature of life, God, absolute reality boil down to a conditional statement: If __________________, then _______________. How do we verify the if part? How do we know the mind, senses, intellect, etc. are not flawed? If we are a product of evolution as some think, how could we know that the current evolution of mind, senses, and intellect are not flawed, something to be overcome.
Your argumant fails... Me: "The most important questions could only be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities." You: You cannot provide a proof of that claim without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature. YOU: Since human mind is naturally limited, since senses are limited, there is logical reason to doubt that they necessarily reveal a truth absolute in nature, and independent of human consciousness. When there is logical doubt, there can be faith Me: (using your own argument): You cannot provide a proof of those claims without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature. Your own argument fails itself and is the circular one. ps. atheism does not necessitate faith.