(ctd)
Please understand that I am not defending position (ii) - or (i) - only trying to clarify my understanding of the dilemma on the background of epistemological similarities as I see them. And I am certainly not trying to convert you!

Although I am grateful to you for challenging me to express my views on these matters in only very few words, I am still afraid, that I am not making myself understood, for which, of course, I am not blaming you but myself.

>>you would need to say: "I would disagree only if you used these facts to make conclusions about the existence of mathematics”<<
This just shows that we indeed have different understandings of the word “existence”: surely mathematics, astronomy, astrology, chemistry, alchemy, religion, politics etc all exist. You cannot deny the existence of religion or any other of these, you can only have opinions about their contents, usefulness, etc.

I still maintain that Pascal had in mind an individual, his contemporary, who believed or not in God, heaven and hell, and had to make a decision on these things, and not on becoming or not “tortured and assasinated” by whomever.

I see I wrote more than I intended to, although, as mentioned, I am afraid we have reached a stage when we are talking past each other.

.

Dear George,

.

I am sure you are right in thinking we still have a lot to learn about what "exists in reality" and what does not - not just within our galaxy but beyond - from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.

You write: "surely mathematics, astronomy, astrology, chemistry, alchemy, religion, politics etc all exist". Am I not right in thinking that these are particular types of knowledge and beliefs which exist in our minds - the fruit of our intellect, our imagination?

Philosophers generally make a distinction between thought and reality, defining the latter as "the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined". This would seem to suggest that the various intellectual endeavours you mention do not, in fact, "exist in reality".

Carl Sagan's second proposition (ii) "that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe of which it is the cause and purpose, which Itself has no cause and no purpose ", has an à priori interest due to the fact that it was posited by a well known American astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist.

A proposition in this sense is, of course, no more than the indication of a possibility. Sagan described himself as an agnostic. His wife declared after his death that he was "not a believer" and that they knew they "would never see each other again".

Please be assured that I can see and appreciate that you are "certainly not trying to convert" me. Having had the privilege of learning something of your early life, I must say that your own world view is perfectly logic and comprehensible to me.

Allow me to add that I have found this exchange quite positive. It's time for me to take a bow and wish you well until our paths cross again on this forum which I look forward to with pleasure.

.

Dear Banjo,

May I reciprocate what you wrote in your last sentence by saying that I also found this opportunity to exchange views with you quite positive, and - let me add - also fruitful for myself.

However, there is one thing I have to respond to. It is a misunderstanding that illustrates the clumsiness of my English:

What I call Sagan’s maxim (that I also referred to a couple of times on this OLO) is what I listed as alternative (i), full stop. See “The (physical) cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be”, the opening lines of his book and landmark television series. I thought he considered himself an atheist, even materialist. I am not aware of Sagan even considering the alternative (ii) as a rational possibility.

The alternative (ii) - a logical negation of (i) - is purely my construction. It was a reaction to many atheists’ claims on this OLO that they neither believed God (gods, divinities, etc) existed nor that He/they did not exist. They put their position as “lack (or absence) of belief”. So I formulated my own position also as being based on a “lack (or absence) of belief” in Sagan’s maxim, i.e. in (i).

.

Understood, George ...

.

though that was a bit naughty of you ...

Here is something to keep your spirits up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkS-tV017rM&feature=related

.