Would you agree...

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Would you agree...

 ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?

Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?

Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: Sounds like

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm having fun. He'd

Well, I'm having fun. Sticking out tongue

He'd best hurry up though. My available time for foruming is running short. At which point I'm not sure how long it'll be before I can get back online to continue the discussion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:redneF

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

I think that pragmatism and/or pragmaticism was attacked Bertrand Russel as relativism and short sighted practicalism but I find it a nice way to start on understanding things:

Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Welcome back Mr.

Ktulu wrote:

Welcome back Mr. M.

I hope you have been well.  

I'm with Luminon on this, you need to have an observable effect on reality for your internally coherent claim to have any bearing on reality.  

Here's a good definition that implies your attributes but doesn't come out and state them

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29435 post #21

This is by no means a refutation to your point, in fact it reinforces your point, I just found that definition to be one of the more elegant and original ones out there and wanted to share. Smiling you're welcome.  This is also the type of theist that you want to have in your camp.  

As for the weight of number seven, it has roughly the same weight as the concept 'orange'.  In that it weighs as much as the electrons carrying that information in your brain.  With an MRI you can even have a picture of number 7, or 'orange' or 'gray horse'.  Now you tell me how you communicate to someone that was born without any of the five senses, the concept of number 7.  

Oh, and it's good to have you back man, you belong amongst us, I don't think you'd get the same stimulation from any theistic forum.  Let's be honest, you're here because you enjoy having a somewhat intelligent conversation.  Smiling  It's ok, we won't tell on you.

 

WIKI THINGY Quotes about pragmatisim ( pragmaticism):


Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in the imperative mood.

(Peirce, 1903, from the lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.18, also in Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard 'Lectures on Pragmatism', p. 110, and in Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 134-5.)

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The number '7' is a

The number '7' is a logically/mathematically definable concept. It is not a material thing, it can only persist in any detectable form as encoded in a thinking brain, which doesn't have to be as evolved as the human brain. Even pigeons have been shown to be able to count up to at least 7.

This does require some sort of representation of that number in their brains, even if only temporarily.

Like any logical or mathematical concept it is implied in the axioms.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:robj101

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

I think that pragmatism and/or pragmaticism was attacked Bertrand Russel as relativism and short sighted practicalism but I find it a nice way to start on understanding things:

Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

 

You will notice great philosophers from both sides (theist and non-theist). You might argue that there are theist and non theist scientists but science unlike philosophy has no inherant bias which philosophy always brings based on the desire of it's wielder. If a theist scientist wants god to be the cause of animal birth he can't make it evident if it is not whereas philosophy can go either way. Philosophy might help you personally to understand something but even in that it seems to end up being something you wanted to believe in anyway. It's a can't see the forest for the tree's way of thinking. I have read 3 of "the four horsemens" anti religion books, can you guess who's book I have not picked up?

Disclaimer: of course this is just a hick's opinion so it probably should not be taken too seriously.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: ...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?

Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?

Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?

 

 

The universe exists because we can see it and in fact live in it. This is testable therefore it had a creator.

The premise is true, the form is fine and the conclusion is nonsense.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beautiful.

Lol. Beautiful explanation of theism. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:TGBaker

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

I think that pragmatism and/or pragmaticism was attacked Bertrand Russel as relativism and short sighted practicalism but I find it a nice way to start on understanding things:

Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

 

You will notice great philosophers from both sides (theist and non-theist). You might argue that there are theist and non theist scientists but science unlike philosophy has no inherant bias which philosophy always brings based on the desire of it's wielder. If a theist scientist wants god to be the cause of animal birth he can't make it evident if it is not whereas philosophy can go either way. Philosophy might help you personally to understand something but even in that it seems to end up being something you wanted to believe in anyway. It's a can't see the forest for the tree's way of thinking. I have read 3 of "the four horsemens" anti religion books, can you guess who's book I have not picked up?

Disclaimer: of course this is just a hick's opinion so it probably should not be taken too seriously.

I would assume Dennett as a philosophy. Of course Harris as a neuroscientist has an interest in Buddhism.   Don't get me wrong if you read any of my threads where I share my personal background I chucked out the value of philosophy for science when I left the philosophy program in 1984.  I still keep myself abreast of it because you have to confront it. I also continue all my theological and New Testament critical studies thought I they are all fabrications. Philosophy at best may help you see the presuppositions in your opinions and theories.  It can not arrive at any fundamental presentation of reality which is why science broke away from philosophy of physics ( and metaphysics). Sociology left philosophy. as well as psychology. But since they have a philosophical origination they carry presuppositions that are inherent from their sourse. Some of these have been over come some have not. Even in quantum physics you can determine the theories philosophical bias ( and therefore that of the physicist).


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

robj101 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?

Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?

Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?

 

 

The universe exists because we can see it and in fact live in it. This is testable therefore it had a creator.

The premise is true, the form is fine and the conclusion is nonsense.

Love it.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:robj101

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

I think that pragmatism and/or pragmaticism was attacked Bertrand Russel as relativism and short sighted practicalism but I find it a nice way to start on understanding things:

Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

 

You will notice great philosophers from both sides (theist and non-theist). You might argue that there are theist and non theist scientists but science unlike philosophy has no inherant bias which philosophy always brings based on the desire of it's wielder. If a theist scientist wants god to be the cause of animal birth he can't make it evident if it is not whereas philosophy can go either way. Philosophy might help you personally to understand something but even in that it seems to end up being something you wanted to believe in anyway. It's a can't see the forest for the tree's way of thinking. I have read 3 of "the four horsemens" anti religion books, can you guess who's book I have not picked up?

Disclaimer: of course this is just a hick's opinion so it probably should not be taken too seriously.

I would assume Dennett as a philosophy. Of course Harris as a neuroscientist has an interest in Buddhism.   Don't get me wrong if you read any of my threads where I share my personal background I chucked out the value of philosophy for science when I left the philosophy program in 1984.  I still keep myself abreast of it because you have to confront it. I also continue all my theological and New Testament critical studies thought I they are all fabrications. Philosophy at best may help you see the presuppositions in your opinions and theories.  It can not arrive at any fundamental presentation of reality which is why science broke away from philosophy of physics ( and metaphysics). Sociology left philosophy. as well as psychology. But since they have a philosophical origination they carry presuppositions that are inherent from their sourse. Some of these have been over come some have not. Even in quantum physics you can determine the theories philosophical bias ( and therefore that of the physicist).


 

 

Correct about Dennett though I have considered picking his up and may sometime in the future because I do appreciate some of his input despite it's source, many of his conclusions follow common sense despite his reputation.

The interest in buddhism doesn't bother me, we do have a "spiritual sense" and maybe it would be a shame were we to totally lose that. I think we would be losing a good part of what has finally brought us this far, in good part our humanity is imagination and "spirituality" though I think a new term is in order it is what seperates us from the other animals. Both of these items however can make us go forward or back and I think religion now is at best a stopping point and at worst stepping back.

 As to the rest of your post I agree..it's common sense

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:TGBaker

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby.

Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?

 

Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?

I guess so.

 

Well enough put, I really get tired of hearing about this high philosophy carp. When you have to dig so deep to find a scrap of anything to make up something to prove a nothing you have only really dug a very pointless and redundant hole.

No matter what anyone tells you you will never get to China by digging a fukin hole.

What has happened to regular ole' common sense, the ability to simply look around and see wtf is going on?

I think that pragmatism and/or pragmaticism was attacked Bertrand Russel as relativism and short sighted practicalism but I find it a nice way to start on understanding things:

Such reasonings and all reasonings turn upon the idea that if one exerts certain kinds of volition, one will undergo in return certain compulsory perceptions. Now this sort of consideration, namely, that certain lines of conduct will entail certain kinds of inevitable experiences is what is called a "practical consideration". Hence is justified the maxim, belief in which constitutes pragmatism; namely:

In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.

(Peirce, 1905, CP 5.9.)

 

You will notice great philosophers from both sides (theist and non-theist). You might argue that there are theist and non theist scientists but science unlike philosophy has no inherant bias which philosophy always brings based on the desire of it's wielder. If a theist scientist wants god to be the cause of animal birth he can't make it evident if it is not whereas philosophy can go either way. Philosophy might help you personally to understand something but even in that it seems to end up being something you wanted to believe in anyway. It's a can't see the forest for the tree's way of thinking. I have read 3 of "the four horsemens" anti religion books, can you guess who's book I have not picked up?

Disclaimer: of course this is just a hick's opinion so it probably should not be taken too seriously.

I would assume Dennett as a philosophy. Of course Harris as a neuroscientist has an interest in Buddhism.   Don't get me wrong if you read any of my threads where I share my personal background I chucked out the value of philosophy for science when I left the philosophy program in 1984.  I still keep myself abreast of it because you have to confront it. I also continue all my theological and New Testament critical studies thought I they are all fabrications. Philosophy at best may help you see the presuppositions in your opinions and theories.  It can not arrive at any fundamental presentation of reality which is why science broke away from philosophy of physics ( and metaphysics). Sociology left philosophy. as well as psychology. But since they have a philosophical origination they carry presuppositions that are inherent from their sourse. Some of these have been over come some have not. Even in quantum physics you can determine the theories philosophical bias ( and therefore that of the physicist).


 

 

Correct about Dennett though I have considered picking his up and may sometime in the future because I do appreciate some of his input despite it's source, many of his conclusions follow common sense despite his reputation.

The interest in buddhism doesn't bother me, we do have a "spiritual sense" and maybe it would be a shame were we to totally lose that. I think we would be losing a good part of what has finally brought us this far, in good part our humanity is imagination and "spirituality" though I think a new term is in order it is what seperates us from the other animals. Both of these items however can make us go forward or back and I think religion now is at best a stopping point and at worst stepping back.

 As to the rest of your post I agree..it's common sense

I do not disagree with the problem of philosophy we share.I have been researching consciousness for about two years.  The sad thing is in the study of consciousness Dennett and David Chalmers are necessary reads because of the long tradition of philosophy of mind. The one advantage is that Chalmers is scientist who reluctantly became a philosopher to grasp the philosophical presuppositions in his research on consciousness. There is still a need in this area unfortunately to handle our primitive language when it comes to talking about experience and consciousness especially in dealing with neurocscience and the NCC ( neural correlates of consciousness).


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I like Dennett because he

I like Dennett because he bases his philosophy very solidly in science, and is a philosopher in extrapolating from that, plus he also spends a lot of time showing us alternative ways to think about various topics. Some more-or-less technical, such as 'mechanisms' of evolution and the way complexity can spontaneously arise from simple 'universes' such as one based on Conway's game of Life. And other more abstract ideas of purpose and meaning.

I already pointed out to Mr_M how an argument about the existence or otherwise of 'married' or 'unmarried bachelors' could indeed be perfectly sound, but did nothing to establish whether there were any bachelors in existence, if it happened that all men of marriagable age were in fact married.

IOW an argument can be perfect in all the ways described in the OP, but not actually applying to anything that actually exists.

As in the OA. Which amounts to 'if a being corresponding to my definition of God is possible, then it must exist'. But we have insufficient knowledge about what is possible in the Universe to know whether such a being is possible, or even if the definition is coherent, so....

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology