Proof that proof cannot be proven (The biggest problem with reason, especially near a concept such as God)

hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Proof that proof cannot be proven (The biggest problem with reason, especially near a concept such as God)

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists. IE, Hot and Cold exist, and hot is not equal to cold. While I personally think this is quite a sound concept while referring to most earthly things, when used as a lens to examine All-mighty God, it's quite inappropriate.

The basic fallacy is the simple fact that the law of non contradiction (a=a) cannot be proven without using itself as a proof. Therefore, it actually really means jack shit, and everything is actually true.

OK, let's restate that by saying that let's say for example, anything at all exists . To say that "God does not exist" is the equivalent of saying, "There is a thing (God) which does not exist," or p=/=p Well, make up your mind then. What is this thing "God" which exists which does not exist? I think the only thing that doesn't exist is that which doesn't exist. Then again, I guess am pretty far off my rocker.

The "logic" of this statement is even further aggravated by the fact that the word "God" refers to everything. As a matter of fact, it's practically tantamount to saying "Nothing exists." Nothing could be further from the truth, my friends. Then again, that's only my belief, the "disease" you guys talk about so often, and if you share it, then God must exist.

Soon to come: A Hierarchy of Truth.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Soon to come: A

Quote:

Soon to come: A Hierarchy of Truth.

 

 

I will wait on the edge of my seat waiting for yet another philosophically enlightening post filled with cutting edge knowledge and reason.

 

 


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

Soon to come: A Hierarchy of Truth.

 

 

I will wait on the edge of my seat waiting for yet another philosophically enlightening post filled with cutting edge knowledge and reason.

 

 

I'm glad you liked my post. As the only things that you and I currently comprehend are degrees of truth (unless you're enlightened, of course). Truth (or Knowledge) is achieved in a balance between reason and faith, that A is A, and B is B, yet whether or not A is really A or not.

 

Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it. - Buddha


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
god

hideyoshi631 wrote:

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists. IE, Hot and Cold exist, and hot is not equal to cold. While I personally think this is quite a sound concept while referring to most earthly things, when used as a lens to examine All-mighty God, it's quite inappropriate.

The basic fallacy is the simple fact that the law of non contradiction (a=a) cannot be proven without using itself as a proof. Therefore, it actually really means jack shit, and everything is actually true.

OK, let's restate that by saying that let's say for example, anything at all exists . To say that "God does not exist" is the equivalent of saying, "There is a thing (God) which does not exist," or p=/=p Well, make up your mind then. What is this thing "God" which exists which does not exist? I think the only thing that doesn't exist is that which doesn't exist. Then again, I guess am pretty far off my rocker.

The "logic" of this statement is even further aggravated by the fact that the word "God" refers to everything. As a matter of fact, it's practically tantamount to saying "Nothing exists." Nothing could be further from the truth, my friends. Then again, that's only my belief, the "disease" you guys talk about so often, and if you share it, then God must exist.

"

The definition of god at this website is "a creater myth that is promoted by any organized religion, an organized religion is any theology believed by two or more people.

Soon to come: A Hierarchy of Truth.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
I don't think I've violated

I don't think I've violated the credo of this website, Jeffrick, as I would argue that God's omnipresence (as described by most religions) is enough to qualify him as at least equivalent to all things. If you take the word literally as "present with", then if not the same thing as, what is the distance between God and X as described by omnipresent in any religion that accepts him as such? Furthermore, this is inconsequential for if you give any definition at all to "God", then it is something which exists. As, I am sure you will agree with me, the only thing which does not exist is that which does not exist - hence, it has no definition, and there is no way of ever describing it - it's simply a nonfactor.


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Fortunately, most of the

Fortunately, most of the "logic" on this website doesn't even necessitate my pointing to the fallacy of the law of non-contradiction. Here's an answer to a kewl question some of you might have: God is strong enough to create a rock so great which he can and cannot lift at the same time. This post was intended mostly as a preliminary whereby I inform the people who bash theism that beliefs are all we really have. Reason is the tool we use to discard sickly beliefs which no longer serve us. Atheists have discarded one belief too many. The grander the scope of your belief, and the sharper discernment, the more knowledge you possess.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Horrible logic (or lack

Horrible logic (or lack thereof.) Defining God as "everything" is simply mental gymnastics. Yes the universe exists. Get over it. There are plenty of things that can defined that don't exist - a square circle or married bachelor can be understood but can't exist. And things which have a definition that don't exist: Elves, vampires, dragons, unicorns, basilisks, centaurs, werewolves, psychics, etc. Add every fictional character ever created.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:a square

 

MattShizzle wrote:

a square circle or married bachelor can be understood but can't exist.

I certainly can't argue with one who has risen above duality. How exactly do you picture a square circle?

 

MattShizzle wrote:

And things which have a definition that don't exist: Elves, vampires, dragons, unicorns, basilisks, centaurs, werewolves, psychics, etc. Add every fictional character ever created.

I won't even bother to say "prove it" (woops), but I bet even a God who isn't equivalent to all could make those. Or make them in the past, let's at least give our theoretical God power over time and matter.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Oi. Yet another fellow comes

Oi. Yet another fellow comes to these forums, sits down, unzips his fly, and pulls out his brain for a public wank.

Defining something does not bring it into reality. So there is no p!=p in saying "there is no god" since no claim of the existence of the concept or definition is made in contrast to the negative claim.

As far as "god" referring to everything... Anyone can play the semantics game. I can claim "god" refers only to the collection of quanta that makes up the whole cosmos. That doesn't make me believe in a supernatural being, which you well know is what the word is meant to represent.

I can't wait to see what sort of mental pretzel you twist yourself into to support your claim that atheists have dropped "one belief too many".

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Defining

JillSwift wrote:

Defining something does not bring it into reality. So there is no p!=p in saying "there is no god" since no claim of the existence of the concept or definition is made in contrast to the negative claim.

To define something is to attribute certain characteristics to it. To give accurate definition or characteristics to that which has none is is impossible. The only way which you can define "nothing" is to contrast it to something, yet not by virtue of itself.

JillSwift wrote:

As far as "god" referring to everything... Anyone can play the semantics game. I can claim "god" refers only to the collection of quanta that makes up the whole cosmos. That doesn't make me believe in a supernatural being, which you well know is what the word is meant to represent.

Let's put aside the quantas in the comsos. We don't understand the nature of our very own minds, hell, even one atom in our bodies. How can you make any assumptions regarding the highest truth of their properties?


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
God Delusion

This line of reasoning is quite hard to read, comprehend, or deem worthy of the term "reasoning." I would suggest reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion that specifically goes over this point(and refutes it). You are describing the ontological argument. The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

Reitiration of Mattshizzle:

David Hume did not believe an ontological argument was possible.

David Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational argument by arguing as follows:[14]

  1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction; for example, I am a married bachelor.
  2. The resultant contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
  3. It is impossible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
  4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God

These mental semantics are not going to go anywhere, I would say the vast majority here think God does not exist. True, you cannot prove God's nonexistence just as you cannot prove or disprove Bertrand Russel's flying teapot orbiting the earth. There is no evidence for either and there is no proof that can be made that definitely proves or disproves the existence of God. With the lack of evidence withstanding most here therefore reason God does not exist. Speaking for myself, if God did show proof of his existence that was verifiable, observable(by recording equipment and many different people), and withstood the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" then I would become a believer. To not do so in the face of insurmountable evidence would be unreasonable. The problem is that the God evidence has not shown up and much of what is and was believed to be attributed to him has since become understood through science through a constant demystification of the supposedly supernatural.

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:Let's put

hideyoshi631 wrote:
Let's put aside the quantas in the comsos. We don't understand the nature of our very own minds, hell, even one atom in our bodies. How can you make any assumptions regarding the highest truth of their properties?
I haven't. I don't even assume there is a "highest truth" to make assumptions about. Why do you assume there is a "highest truth" of any sort?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:hideyoshi631

JillSwift wrote:

hideyoshi631 wrote:
Let's put aside the quantas in the comsos. We don't understand the nature of our very own minds, hell, even one atom in our bodies. How can you make any assumptions regarding the highest truth of their properties?
I haven't. I don't even assume there is a "highest truth" to make assumptions about. Why do you assume there is a "highest truth" of any sort?

 

Yes, you have. You assume that no "supernatural being" exists anywhere within MEST. As to the highest truth part, I was only referring to scope of knowledge we have. IE, the knowledge alone that one atom in body exists is has a more narrow scope of knowledge than "my body exists", which I would term a higher truth. Stay posted to hear more.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:Atheists

hideyoshi631 wrote:

Atheists have discarded one belief too many. The grander the scope of your belief, and the sharper discernment, the more knowledge you possess.

Excepting the unknown as unknown, and then seeking ways to answer these unknowns is counterproductive to gaining knowledge

Where classifying all unknowns as God or God did it, is the true enlightened way to gain knowledge

? is this essentially correct

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:Yes, you

hideyoshi631 wrote:
Yes, you have. You assume that no "supernatural being" exists anywhere within MEST.
No, I have not. What I have done is not assume that there is such a being.

"I don't believe in a supernatural being" is different from saying "I believe there is no supernatural being". It's a fine but important point.

hideyoshi631 wrote:
As to the highest truth part, I was only referring to scope of knowledge we have. IE, the knowledge alone that one atom in body exists is has a more narrow scope of knowledge than "my body exists", which I would term a higher truth. Stay posted to hear more.
Careful! Wank too hard and you might hurt yourself.


EDIT: Wait... MEST? Matter, Energy, Space and Time? Are you a Scientologist?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
This line of reasoning is

 

This line of reasoning is quite hard to read, comprehend, or deem worthy of the term "reasoning." I would suggest reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion that specifically goes over this point(and refutes it). You are describing the ontological argument. The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

Reitiration of Mattshizzle:

David Hume did not believe an ontological argument was possible.

David Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational argument by arguing as follows:[14]

  1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction; for example, I am a married bachelor.
  2. The resultant contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
  3. It is impossible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
  4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God

I agree wholeheartedly. Actually I think I said it, in a different way however.

These mental semantics are not going to go anywhere, I would say the vast majority here think God does not exist. True, you cannot prove God's nonexistence just as you cannot prove or disprove Bertrand Russel's flying teapot orbiting the earth. There is no evidence for either and there is no proof that can be made that definitely proves or disproves the existence of God. With the lack of evidence withstanding most here therefore reason God does not exist.

Once you believe any one thing is true or false, it follows that God exists. I fully realize it's impossible to make any argument purely on reason.

 

Speaking for myself, if God did show proof of his existence that was verifiable, observable(by recording equipment and many different people), and withstood the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" then I would become a believer. To not do so in the face of insurmountable evidence would be unreasonable. The problem is that the God evidence has not shown up and much of what is and was believed to be attributed to him has since become understood through science through a constant demystification of the supposedly supernatural.

What would you consider evidence of the supernatural? Surely you wouldn't be fooled by advanced alien (which have no "supernatural powers&quotEye-wink technology making plates levitate or something?

 


hideyoshi631
Posts: 13
Joined: 2008-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Time to sleep. Good night.

Time to sleep. Good night.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
As an atheist I have nothing

As an atheist I have nothing to prove beyond the physical realitys of the universe. If you want me to believe in a god you will have to prove there is one or more. Jews, Christens and Muslims base their religions on the ten commandments. The first says "Have no other god before me." They recognize other gods, but true believers should not follow them. It does not claim god is all things and everyhing as you seem to do. Their creater made all things seen and un-seen but god did not become all things seen and un-seen. Why I personaly do not believe in Yawah, Zues, Thor, Odin, Isis, Dagon, Baal, etc......is because I like the real world and all the realities it shows me, I even like some religious people, I just don't agree with them.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
If God came down and regrew

If God came down and regrew an arm of an amputee instantaneously and it could be documented and witnessed and not come up with a scientific explanation for the regeneration, I would say that would be supernatural(outside the realm of our natural laws). If he could be all places at all times, do anything he wanted like defying physics through stopping time, flying, levitating, tell me the future and I could prove all those things, then that would be compelling evidence.

If incredibly advanced alien civilizations came down and regrew an amputee's leg with technologically superior medicine I would not say that was supernatural.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
MEST

Jillswift. Is this guy a scientologist? I don't know any scientologist, I've heard of T.Cruise and a few others, but all I know about it is that it was INVENTED by a SCIENCE-FICTION writer. Which tells me it is likely flakier then most other religions. I have to tune up my B.S. detector for the un-known.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
MEST

Jillswift. Is this guy a scientologist? I don't know any scientologist, I've heard of T.Cruise and a few others, but all I know about it is that it was INVENTED by a SCIENCE-FICTION writer. Which tells me it is likely flakier then most other religions. I have to tune up my B.S. detector for the un-known.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
reason (or lack thereof)

You are confusing yourself. Twisting lots of words together in an attempt to justify your belief does not make it logic.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote: Jillswift.

Jeffrick wrote:
Jillswift. Is this guy a scientologist? I don't know any scientologist, I've heard of T.Cruise and a few others, but all I know about it is that it was INVENTED by a SCIENCE-FICTION writer. Which tells me it is likely flakier then most other religions. I have to tune up my B.S. detector for the un-known.
Of course I can't say for sure, but I've only heard the L. Ron Suckers use "MEST" to mean the universe/multiverse/whatever. Doesn't mean this fellow heard it and adopted the concept outside the e-meter influence.

Eep! Hold still! You have a body thetan on your arm...

*swat*

Got it!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
SWAT

Thanks Jillswift, I was wondering what that strange thing on my arm was.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Is Theism just a competition

Is Theism just a competition to see who can sound like the bigger idiot?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Body thetan = Spiritual post-it note.

Jeffrick wrote:
Thanks Jillswift, I was wondering what that strange thing on my arm was.
Happy to help! =^_^=

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm thinking this dude was

I'm thinking this dude was drunk or high.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 Shizzle: "I'm thinking

 

Shizzle: "I'm thinking this dude was drunk or high."


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:The

hideyoshi631 wrote:

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists. IE, Hot and Cold exist, and hot is not equal to cold.

 

Incorrect, hot and cold refer to the exact same linear measure. It is the sensory perception of heat and coldness which gives the illusion that they are different things, they are in fact, simply different quantities of heat, or vice versa different degrees of cold.

Heat is in essence the height or degree of energy of a system, if it's fundamentally active, it's hot, if its fundamentally sluggish it's cold. That's all heat is, that's all cold is. Duality does not exist, what you refer to as duality is a perceptual differentiator, it is, in a certain frame of reference, a tool of consciousness, and duality is, ultimately, an illusion in all respects. An illusion, without which there would be no objects, no reality and no universe of discourse. We, this, everything, would be a homogenous clump of quantified potential.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:Time to

hideyoshi631 wrote:

Time to sleep. Good night.

Not necessary information.

And now I'm off to the can.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The problem with using

Quote:

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists.

You may have picked a better example. I am unaware that Locke's Second order qualities, such as hot and cold, could be considered in duality. The idea is ludicrous. There is no hot/cold "duality" and "hot" is not the opposite of "cold". "Hot" and "cold" are merely words which describe an underlying concept, that of particle kinetics. Same with "light" and "dark" (rod stimulation via photons) or "messy" and "neat" (spatial organization) or "sharp" and "blunt" (the force that can be applied over a certain area) etc. Now, in addition to that, I am unaware that what you have outlined actually constitutes an argument you have moved from the statement "there is duality in the world" (which I have shown false) to "it is problematic to evaluate a God via reasoned means". I don't see any connection between the premise and the conclusion, unless you can elaborate.

Quote:

The basic fallacy is the simple fact that the law of non contradiction (a=a) cannot be proven without using itself as a proof. Therefore, it actually really means jack shit, and everything is actually true.

There is a difference between circular reasoning and tautology. Tautologies are necessary truths, not derived from anything, they do not need to be proven as they are defended by retortion. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have shot yourself in the foot by starting with "the claim p=p can be proven without circular means is false" and gone to "everything is actually true". In addition to this being a non sequitur, it is unclear what the conclusion even means? Do you mean that all semantically literal, possible utterances are true? By the way, you've used the wrong axiom. A=A is Identity. The disjunction P&¬P is non-contradiction. Let me rephrase. You've moved from:

P&¬P cannot be proven

to

All possible utterances are true, since there is no need for non-contradiction

Now, again, you've shot yourself in the foot by attempting to undermine a tautology, and then construct a logical argument which relies on said tautology. In addition, again, even if the disjunction was circular as opposed to being a true tautology, it is still a non sequitur to move from that to "all possible utterances are true". That would be tantamount to saying that the disjunction is false. Even if the disjunction were circular, there is no way to move from that to "the disjunction is false".

Returning to my point about you shooting yourself in the foot, I'm going to try and identify how many times you've used the disjunction which you've atttempted to undermine in the conclusion you drew from attempting to undermine the disjunction:

If you state "all possible utterances are true", this statement requires you to accept the Law of non-contradiction hereafter referred to as LNC. Firstly, even if the statement "The LNC is true" is circular, so to is the opposite which is needed to draw your conclusion, that "LNC is false". "Truth" and "falsity" are concepts which are held so because they are opposites. If a claim is true, it cannot be false, and vice-versa, according to LNC. So, if I say "LNC is false", I've shot myself in the foot. If the LNC is false, the LNC cannot be false. It might be true and false at the same time, although it is unclear what conclusions you would draw from that. Anyway, it would be equally preposterous to draw the conclusion "all possible utterances are true" for precisely the same reason. They might be false. Or both.

Quote:

OK, let's restate that by saying that let's say for example, anything at all exists . To say that "God does not exist" is the equivalent of saying, "There is a thing (God) which does not exist," or p=/=p Well, make up your mind then. What is this thing "God" which exists which does not exist?

Obviously this is a flawed argument because we are under absolutely no obligation to accept your premise that "anything at all exists". Watch:

P1: Anything at all exists

P2: Atheists say that this thing that some people call "God" does not exist

P3: By (P1) This thing called God exists which does not exist if we accept P2

P4: By the axiom of identity (A=A), that which does not exist, does not exist

C: God exists

It's fantastic except you appear to have conjured up your premise from thin air. It would be the same if I reworded it:

P1: God exists

P2: Atheists say that this thing that some people call "God" does not exist

P3: By the axiom of identity (A=A), that which does not exist, does not exist, and that which exists, exists

C: God exists

What do you notice about P1 and C?

Quote:

The "logic" of this statement is even further aggravated by the fact that the word "God" refers to everything

Depends who you ask. If your sipping tea with Baruch de Spinoza, then sure it does. If you're trying to have a discussion with a Christian, then no it does not. The theistic God as the term is commonly employed refers to an external, extrinsic being who created the universe and is both the antecedant to the physical world and not of the same substance. That is to say, classical theists accept two ontological categories. The first is the physical and material that constitute our world. THe second is the "non-material" that constitutes God, and is the antecedant to our physical world and created it ex nihilo and QED, such a being is considered seperate from our physical world, not of the same ontological category. Never mind the fact that the notion of "antecedant" requires concepts like "time" and "space" and that "non-material" is merely a negation of the description of the first ontological category or that ex nihilo is absurd. That is for another debate. Anyway, that's what classical theists believe. Hey, I didn't make it up, OK? They did!

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:hideyoshi631

Eloise wrote:

hideyoshi631 wrote:

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists. IE, Hot and Cold exist, and hot is not equal to cold.

 

Incorrect, hot and cold refer to the exact same linear measure. It is the sensory perception of heat and coldness which gives the illusion that they are different things, they are in fact, simply different quantities of heat, or vice versa different degrees of cold.

Heat is in essence the height or degree of energy of a system, if it's fundamentally active, it's hot, if its fundamentally sluggish it's cold. That's all heat is, that's all cold is. Duality does not exist, what you refer to as duality is a perceptual differentiator, it is, in a certain frame of reference, a tool of consciousness, and duality is, ultimately, an illusion in all respects. An illusion, without which there would be no objects, no reality and no universe of discourse. We, this, everything, would be a homogenous clump of quantified potential.

I'm really glad someone pointed this out. Thank you, Eloise. Smiling

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:The

hideyoshi631 wrote:

The problem with using "reason" to evaluate the "reason" behind a concept so far from the vast majority of human perception/comprehension (let alone written expression) such as an unlimited God is that the very dimension we are experiencing is one where duality exists. IE, Hot and Cold exist, and hot is not equal to cold. While I personally think this is quite a sound concept while referring to most earthly things, when used as a lens to examine All-mighty God, it's quite inappropriate.

The basic fallacy is the simple fact that the law of non contradiction (a=a) cannot be proven without using itself as a proof. Therefore, it actually really means jack shit, and everything is actually true.

OK, let's restate that by saying that let's say for example, anything at all exists . To say that "God does not exist" is the equivalent of saying, "There is a thing (God) which does not exist," or p=/=p Well, make up your mind then. What is this thing "God" which exists which does not exist? I think the only thing that doesn't exist is that which doesn't exist. Then again, I guess am pretty far off my rocker.

No... there is a concept of a god which doesn't appear to be represented in reality. Conversely, I have the concept of a soda can being in front of me. I got this concept from looking at it; and this concept is reinforced by previous experience with similar things, and the supporting data of other people who seem to act as if there is some idea, a soda can, which is strongly shared conceptually and in the appearance of reality. There is a limited and consistent idea of what this is, and entire industries can rise or fall if there is, in fact, no such thing as a can of soda. But because of an understanding I share with others, and previous experience, my concept of a soda can is continually reinforced by experience; that is to say the incoming data fits my parameters. Because it is well defined, I also know what is not a soda can. By the definition of the soda can, I know, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is not a soda can.

So you're really committing reification; saying that anything that can be a concept must be an object. To even call a god a concept is being charitable to gods or abusive to concepts.

hideyoshi631 wrote:

The "logic" of this statement is even further aggravated by the fact that the word "God" refers to everything. As a matter of fact, it's practically tantamount to saying "Nothing exists."

Another way of putting it would be the existence of a god and the non-existence of a god are completely indifferentiable circumstances.

hideyoshi631 wrote:

Nothing could be further from the truth, my friends. Then again, that's only my belief, the "disease" you guys talk about so often, and if you share it, then God must exist.

Soon to come: A Hierarchy of Truth.

It's going to be crappy and I'm disinterested in hearing about it.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hideyoshi631 wrote:To define

hideyoshi631 wrote:

To define something is to attribute certain characteristics to it. To give accurate definition or characteristics to that which has none is is impossible. The only way which you can define "nothing" is to contrast it to something, yet not by virtue of itself.

The funny thing there is that you've given a coherent argument against a supernatural entity by reason of the incoherence of the term "god". Since it's impossible to define what we're talking about, how relevant is it to the physical world?

hideyoshi631 wrote:
Let's put aside the quantas in the comsos. We don't understand the nature of our very own minds, hell, even one atom in our bodies. How can you make any assumptions regarding the highest truth of their properties?

Well, we're pretty sure. It's not so much an assumption as theory matching with observation. Do you have a theory that you'd like to throw out that doesn't involve magic?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence