The "There's no proof god doesn't exist" argument.

Dmasterman
atheist
Posts: 58
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The "There's no proof god doesn't exist" argument.

This is probably one of the most brought up arguments of all by theists. The variants go "You can't prove or disprove god, so there is no definite answer" or "because there is no proof that god doesn't exist, he exists" etc etc etc.

 

No matter how many flaws you find in a bible, or qu'ran, or how many times you explain to them, logic, reason, physics, etc etc.

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therfor he may exist"

 

How do you argue back against this argument?

P.S.

 

I think I remember reading an earlier topic where someone had a counter argument to this, but I never could find the article again.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Dmasterman wrote:This is

Dmasterman wrote:

This is probably one of the most brought up arguments of all by theists. The variants go "You can't prove or disprove god, so there is no definite answer" or "because there is no proof that god doesn't exist, he exists" etc etc etc.

 

No matter how many flaws you find in a bible, or qu'ran, or how many times you explain to them, logic, reason, physics, etc etc.

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therefor he may exist"

 

How do you argue back against this argument?

P.S.

 

I think I remember reading an earlier topic where someone had a counter argument to this, but I never could find the article again.

 

I think that the entire concept of atheism is a bit of a joke. A theist believes in gods, an atheist doesn't. What is the definition of a god, according to the Bible or a good dictionary? Anything or anyone who is given veneration or is considered mighty. Much the same as a Lord is someone having authority, usually but not always given to them.

So, even if a god does not exist it exists as a god. I don't believe that Dagon exists as a real person, supernatural or natural. The Bible agrees, and yet it calls Dagon a god. People used to spray paint slogans all over England that Frodo or Eric Clapton was God. Frodo a fictional person and Eric a modest fellow who hated that having been done, were still gods.

So . . . to say that gods don't exist is pretty stupid. Not a well thought out conviction.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
When this happens most

When this happens most people seem to bring up that you can't disprove UFOs, unicorns, or a tea pot that orbits Jupiter (etc). If you know what they are likely to reject out of hand it's easier. Once you find something that they reject, and that can't be disproven; they will likely tell you some reason why what they believe is completely different then other people’s crap. At that point you at least have something to argue with them about.  


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Burdon of Proof. I have no

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

Dmasterman wrote:

This is probably one of the most brought up arguments of all by theists. The variants go "You can't prove or disprove god, so there is no definite answer" or "because there is no proof that god doesn't exist, he exists" etc etc etc.

 

No matter how many flaws you find in a bible, or qu'ran, or how many times you explain to them, logic, reason, physics, etc etc.

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therefor he may exist"

 

How do you argue back against this argument?

P.S.

 

I think I remember reading an earlier topic where someone had a counter argument to this, but I never could find the article again.

 

I think that the entire concept of atheism is a bit of a joke. A theist believes in gods, an atheist doesn't. What is the definition of a god, according to the Bible or a good dictionary? Anything or anyone who is given veneration or is considered mighty. Much the same as a Lord is someone having authority, usually but not always given to them.

So, even if a god does not exist it exists as a god. I don't believe that Dagon exists as a real person, supernatural or natural. The Bible agrees, and yet it calls Dagon a god. People used to spray paint slogans all over England that Frodo or Eric Clapton was God. Frodo a fictional person and Eric a modest fellow who hated that having been done, were still gods.

So . . . to say that gods don't exist is pretty stupid. Not a well thought out conviction.

This is like some wierd ass "No True Scotsman".. There are no true atheist, since the criteria for god has been lowered to mean shit.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Linguistic and intellectual dishonesty

David Henson wrote:

...What is the definition of a god, according to the Bible or a good dictionary? Anything or anyone who is given veneration or is considered mighty.

 

 

Yes, there are many definitions of the word "god" in common usage.

 

In the context of this discussion- particularly as to "whether or not gods exist", is it linguistically and intellectually dishonest to attempt to answer it in the positive by referencing Caesars and Rock-gods, or even Stone Idols or admittedly fictional characters.  Those are not the gods to which the question refers.

 

Saying "Santa doesn't exist" is not a reference to there not being a concept of a fictional character known as Santaclause, nor a reference to the non-existence of mall Santas.

In the context of the discussion, these "gods" are not what people are referring to, and that is not what atheism refers to.  I suspect that you know this- particularly as you are intelligent enough to make use of a computer and combine words into sentences. 


Bottom line:

You aren't ignorant enough to honestly make that argument.  Please don't be dishonest enough to make it anyway. 

Please don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that we're ignorant enough to buy it.

 

Words have generally accepted meanings for a reason- please use them honestly, or not at all.

Thank you.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The word god is an anthro projection

 

defined as something as mighty as the human imagination's ability to conceive it. This must be quite limiting from the perspective of god.

Personally, I am the god of my fish tank and my garden, and the momentary master of any other defenseless creatures or ecosystems in my way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:Burdon of

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

And that is all that is needed.

Someone makes a claim (god exists).

Someone fails to show the claim is reasonable to believe.

The claim must be rejected.

Now, if someone makes a claim with specific qualities, that can be disproven.  Or, if the qualities goes against general definition.

Say, for example, that I say all basketballs are round.  In order for something to be considered a basketball by everyone, we all agree that basketballs are round.

Then someone says "I have a cube for a basketball!"  Then, by definition, it can be refuted as to not exist, as all basketballs have been accepted to be round. 

This is where theists see their opening, and start giving very vague definitions.  Problem is, none of the definitions are accepted by all.  Furthermore, when a paradox is found (such as with infinite power), the "goal posts are moved", and the definition of that type of god with those qualities are then changed, ending with simply a vague notion of gooey blech.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Dmasterman wrote:They will

Dmasterman wrote:

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therfor he may exist"

 

How do you argue back against this argument?

 

Sorry, missed the question.  Since nobody else has really answered it:

 

First, you have to find out if the person believes in logic.  Logic is founded on the principle of non-contradiction; that is, a statement and its exact negation can not both be true.

That doesn't mean "He's in the room"  "he's not in the room"- those are inexact statements; the 'he' in question could be standing in the doorway, or some such ambiguity.

 

The principle of non-contradiction allows for falsifiability when an argument has no possible logical resolution.  Meaning, if the concept is self-contradictory, or patently contradictory to another accepted proposition, then is it false, implicitly, or relative to that alternative proposition.

 

It is often quoted "you can't prove a negative"

This is completely false.  Empirical evidence cannot necessarily prove a negative- but empirical evidence can not prove anything beyond doubt.

Logic, on the other-hand does and exclusively proves negatives.  A negative is the only thing that can be proven beyond any doubt- for example, a god that is by definition self-contradictory.

 

Many fideists (people who base their world views on faith) will agree with the principle of non-contradiction,  and many will not, so you have to choose your battles.

If a person does not accept- absolutely- the rule of non-contradiction, that person is a dialetheist.  Dialetheists believe that true contradictions do in-fact exist, and it's pointless to argue with them or consider them capable of thought or reason- they are not; their minds have been ruined until such a point as they (hopefully some day) reject dialetheism.

At the point when a person has become closed minded to falsifiability- and make no mistake, this is the apex of closed-mindedness, as all things have been innately accepted, and no beliefs are changeable at this point- that person may justify anything he or she wishes.

 

See: ex falso quodlibet

From falisty, whatever you like.

 

Because these people may believe inherently false things, their brains are effectively broken.

 

If the person you are in discourse with does, however, accept logic- and all things within its confines, including the definition of said person's god (if one thing escapes the bounds of logic, you're back into dialetheism via the principle of explosion)- then you may, as others have noted, proceed to point our definitional contradictions, thus disproving the presented definitions of the subject's deity.

 

You must *must* first establish the rule of logic- otherwise any conversation or debate is pointless; a person who would have accepted logic may go back on it if you don't get him or her to agree to it before-hand.  You can do this effectively by explaining the basis of logic, with examples, and the nature of the principle of explosion, and by presenting dialetheism and explaining the flaws inherent in the idea.

 

I also suggest familiarizing yourself with an alternative explanation to the universe.  If you have a couple years free to study it, you might learn about quantum physics, and the many-worlds reconciliation.

Whatever you do, don't allow them to side-track you with bad science; get the upper-hand, or ask them to agree to keep the conversation fully logical (with empiricism right out).


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:Burdon of

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:This is like

neptewn wrote:

This is like some wierd ass "No True Scotsman".. There are no true atheist, since the criteria for god has been lowered to mean shit.

If it ever gets to the point where using bullshit terminology like "ad-hominem" or "No True Scotsman" or "Strawman" as an argument is a thing of the past I would be so much happier. There is no true atheist because they don't really care or know that the criteria for a god has always been shit. The Early Christians had a play on words, referring to Baalzebub as the Lord of Shit.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:David Henson

Blake wrote:

David Henson wrote:

...What is the definition of a god, according to the Bible or a good dictionary? Anything or anyone who is given veneration or is considered mighty.

 

 

Yes, there are many definitions of the word "god" in common usage.

 

In the context of this discussion- particularly as to "whether or not gods exist", is it linguistically and intellectually dishonest to attempt to answer it in the positive by referencing Caesars and Rock-gods, or even Stone Idols or admittedly fictional characters.  Those are not the gods to which the question refers.

 

Saying "Santa doesn't exist" is not a reference to there not being a concept of a fictional character known as Santaclause, nor a reference to the non-existence of mall Santas.

In the context of the discussion, these "gods" are not what people are referring to, and that is not what atheism refers to.  I suspect that you know this- particularly as you are intelligent enough to make use of a computer and combine words into sentences. 


Bottom line:

You aren't ignorant enough to honestly make that argument.  Please don't be dishonest enough to make it anyway. 

Please don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that we're ignorant enough to buy it.

 

Words have generally accepted meanings for a reason- please use them honestly, or not at all.

Thank you.

 

If you intend to establish some doubt of the existance of a specific God, it might be a good idea to have the sense to name that god. Not that atheism regards the doubt or disbelief in any specific God by default.

[Edited for unnecessary rudeness.]


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:neptewn

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

It's binary. Whatever you are trying to institute is simply a strawman.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

defined as something as mighty as the human imagination's ability to conceive it. This must be quite limiting from the perspective of god.

Personally, I am the god of my fish tank and my garden, and the momentary master of any other defenseless creatures or ecosystems in my way. 

 

The Hebrew word El, in its various forms, means just what I said it does. El itself means literally, "strong or mighty one." I don't see why that would be limiting from God's perspective. The word is in the eyes of the beholder, so to speak. Jehovah God told Moses to be a god to Aaron and Pharaoh. Exodus 4:16: "And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you [Moses] will serve as God (Hebrew leʼ·lo·him′, pl.; Greek the·on′; Latin De′um) to him."

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:David Henson

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

It's binary. Whatever you are trying to institute is simply a strawman.

 

PERFECT! Whatever I am trying to institute is simply a strawman! You did that especially for me, didn't you! Thanks, I really did enjoy it!


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:neptewn

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

It's binary. Whatever you are trying to institute is simply a strawman.

 

PERFECT! Whatever I am trying to institute is simply a strawman! You did that especially for me, didn't you! Thanks, I really did enjoy it!

lol.. I understand what you are trying to get at and I have seen atheist argue in the same context, regarding the labeling, but the problem still remains that it is a default postion. Since we are dealing with a true dichotomy. If I'm not a thiest what am I?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:David Henson

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

It's binary. Whatever you are trying to institute is simply a strawman.

 

PERFECT! Whatever I am trying to institute is simply a strawman! You did that especially for me, didn't you! Thanks, I really did enjoy it!

lol.. I understand what you are trying to get at and I have seen atheist argue in the same context, regarding the labeling, but the problem still remains that it is a default postion. Since we are dealing with a true dichotomy. If I'm not a thiest what am I?

 

I prefer Hitchin's antitheist. It is more accurate and to the point. More intellectually honest, in my opinion.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dave

David Henson wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

defined as something as mighty as the human imagination's ability to conceive it. This must be quite limiting from the perspective of god.

Personally, I am the god of my fish tank and my garden, and the momentary master of any other defenseless creatures or ecosystems in my way. 

 

The Hebrew word El, in its various forms, means just what I said it does. El itself means literally, "strong or mighty one." I don't see why that would be limiting from God's perspective. The word is in the eyes of the beholder, so to speak. Jehovah God told Moses to be a god to Aaron and Pharaoh. Exodus 4:16: "And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you [Moses] will serve as God (Hebrew leʼ·lo·him′, pl.; Greek the·on′; Latin De′um) to him."

 

 

 

This means god can be anything at all. I have yet to read a coherent definition of god that is not a an enormous generalisation or a fanciful assertion, or both.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I think

David Henson wrote:

I think that the entire concept of atheism is a bit of a joke. 

I know right... cracks me up every time I think about it.  

 

Thanks for the last sentence of your post, it's the subject of a new "you got caught projecting."  You'll see a forum topic on it soon. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Here's that thread for you

 Here's that thread for you David: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19761

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I prefer

David Henson wrote:

I prefer Hitchin's antitheist. It is more accurate and to the point. More intellectually honest, in my opinion.

There is a distinction.

Atheist (A = Without)

Antitheist (Anti = Against)

For example: The classic buddhist does not believe in a God or Gods and yet they are not in opposition to them, it simply is not a factor in their ideology. Are they being intellectually dishonest? I think you'll discover there are those of us who meet the criteria for one and not the other, once you recognize the distinction.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:If to

David Henson wrote:



If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance




A theist is not necessarily just one who believes in the existence of a being some people call a 'god', but more aptly, one who worships a being one calls one's god.  A theist *has* a god.



See atheists in polytheism, and the parallels between henotheism and "stricter" monotheism (not really more strict)- henotheists believe in the existence of the beings, but only worship or consider worthy of worship one (or one hierarchy).



The Judeo-Christian texts are written in references to other gods because they believed them to exist, but they themselves were monotheists because they only worshipped one of them.



An atheist is merely godless- see any common dictionary for a run-down on definitions.  If anybody has said that an atheist *must* believe all beings that other people consider gods not to exist (not just not find them worthy of worship), then that statement was in error.  Usually, however, atheists also lack belief in such beings, on account of rationality.




Like argued in another thread, an atheist can very well believe in the existence of supernatural beings- the atheist just can't call them his or her 'god'/'lord'/etc. as this is a form of subservience and worship, which would make the atheist a *theist*.



The majority of China fits this description; and some probably do cross over the murky line between respect for and worship of ancestors (when it becomes worship, the supernatural being in question is just another god).



Somebody said it pretty well with: "Not all atheists are skeptics, but all skeptics are atheists" (approximate quote)



In order to be a particularly apt atheist, one must be a skeptic, but as definitions go, it's not necessary.




Some of where your confusion may stem from is and assumption which may have been made that to believe is to worship, and worship requires belief in the presence.



One could believe that such beings as Zues and YHWH exist, but not call them one's gods, and not worship them, and as such, be atheist- I am not one such atheist, but I know a few.



Some don't like the more liberal definition, but under the strictest terms, and even in common usage in many regions,  that is the sum of it- and unfortunately, that's what rules definitions.



Many Southern Baptists, for example, define an atheist as a person who rejects following their god Jesus/Trinity (particularly without replacing it with another 'false' god like 'Allah')- but do not conceive of a person who does not believe in the existence of a god at all. (And yes, that atheists secretly believe in the existence of their god but choose to ignore it is what most of them believe).




Quote:
No specific god need be considered.




Discussing who is and isn't an atheist is a different matter from discussing whether any gods exist.



In determining the former, we merely look at the person in question's perspective- most importantly, does he or she *have* any gods?



In determining the later, we do need to consider specific gods and definitions, and the spirit in which the question was asked to determine which definitions that person was asking about.



As long as the person isn't a complete idiot, said person isn't asking about rock gods, fictional characters in books, nor kings, nor emperors, nor stone idols.  We already know these things- it's obvious- and it's not what the question is asking.  



Those are *different* definitions of "god" that are being asked about- ergo the dishonesty of your supposed answer.



Answering the correct question, we only have a few more common definitions to consider:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god wrote:


Main Entry: 1god


Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\


Function: noun


Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god


Date: before 12th century



1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


3 : a person or thing of supreme value


4 : a powerful ruler




4. Is not the question.


3. Is not the question.


2. Also is not the question.



1. IS the question.





If you're really having this much trouble, show me any entry, and I can help you sort out which definitions are and which are not part of the question.




If you persist in answering questions using definitions that were not intended in the question, everything you say becomes pointless.



Fireman: "Are you O.K.? Are you on fire?"



Well, of course you can't say you're not on fire, because fire could be a internet networking site on which you unknowingly have a profile.  Geepers, we gorsh well better be unsure of everything!  Or better yet, say yes to everything!  It's gotta be true under some wording that has nothing to do with the question!



No, not if we want language to be at all useful.  If it's not the question, it's not relevant.



Look at the source.  Stop feigning deliberate ignorance to justify your dishonesty.




You may be somewhat of a troll, but you aren't that incapable of thinking.  You came here because you wanted, evidently, to think and discuss- so do it.  Start using *your* brain to think, and start using *everybody's* words to discuss; otherwise, the only people you'll be able to talk to are the one's living in the magical Mr. David Henson land.





Quote:
Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief.




Empirically proving anything- a negative or positive- to an absolute is not possible because empirical evidence is flawed by perception (that's what science is about- improving perception by eliminating subjective perception flaws).  Proving a negative, however, is very much possible, and the only completely solid proof that can be offered today- we don't prove theories, we gain evidence for them.  We do disprove theories, however, when they are shown to be irreconcilable.  Negatives are routinely and incontrovertibly proven through demonstrated contradictions.



Particularly, most definitions of 'god' have been disproven (as related to the question), and all common definitions have been disproven (as related the the question).  



People using aberrant definitions are twisting language beyond the breaking point, and aren't properly participating in the dialogue.  





Quote:
You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?



Atheists were labeled by theists, not the other way around, and we bear the label because it is not overwhelmingly common.



In China, the word atheist is largely meaningless, and people are confused as to why somebody would want a word for it.



I like that sentiment, and I hope some day we only have to worry about labeling the people who do believe in the Easter-bunny as crazy, and not worry about defining ourselves by the norm.





Quote:
If it ever gets to the point where using bullshit terminology like "ad-hominem" or "No True Scotsman" or "Strawman" as an argument is a thing of the past I would be so much happier.



I'm sure you would, as you seem to have a habit of using them, nobody would be left to call you on your dishonest argumentation stratagems.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I never really cared much

I never really cared much for semantic arguments. Who cares what the actual definition of an atheist is? Atheists surely don't. I gave up on semantics after I read an essay on the defence of Retributive punishment.

When it comes to a question as big as "Is there a God?", I can think of no bigger question. With respect to the OP:

Dmasterman wrote:
This is probably one of the most brought up arguments of all by theists. The variants go "You can't prove or disprove god, so there is no definite answer" or "because there is no proof that god doesn't exist, he exists" etc etc etc.

The two bold types above are (obviously) two different arguments. One admits nothing, the other asserts a God exists for x reason. Naturally the latter is easier to deal with than the former for the reasons provided elsewhere.

Logic won't tell you whether there is a God or not, even if you throw the Law of Non-contradiction in the mix (which is, mind you, slef contradicitng).

There is another "Law" that I would place more emphasis on if I were you - The Law of Excluded Middle, principium tertii exclusi. It does not suffer from the issues that plague the LONC.

Either God exists, or God does not exist, regardless of our knowledge of that fact.

 

Quote:
No matter how many flaws you find in a bible, or qu'ran, or how many times you explain to them, logic, reason, physics, etc etc.

They will always hold faith because "you can't disprove god, therfor he may exist"

Answered elswhere.

 

Quote:
How do you argue back against this argument?

The best argument I can think of - that is, one that cannot lean on semantics, science or theology - is that if a God did exist, what makes you think it has any of the attributes usually associated with <insert their belief here>. Any recital from their book is begging the question = instant win for you.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:neptewn

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

 

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

What is a god? Are you going to play the magic shell game with definitions, switching them around were no one is looking. Arguing for one thing while really meaning another. To me a god is supernatural, and the supernatural is nothing but the arrogance of human being imposing there inner selves on the universe around them. You might feel differently. It don’t 'really matter that much to me what you feel, just like it probably doesn’t really matter that much to you how I feel. I does matter to me what you believe. You probably don’t really understand what I mean by this because you are probably jumping to the conclusion that I am only talking about theism, but I’m not. There are many important beliefs in any society. One of the most important beliefs in modern societies is that you can gain knowledge about the universe through empirical observation. From what I have read of your words you spite in the face of this belief. Would you destroy all the parts of science that don’t agree with your dogma? After everyone is done pruning away what they feel is ‘bad’ in science how much will be left?


I honestly fear that we may be dragged back to the dark ages. I so often see willful ignorance paraded around with pride by those who feel faith is superior to reason. Just because there is a degree of uncertainty doesn’t mean there isn’t knowledge. Just because evidence can be interpreted in different ways doesn’t mean there isn’t truth. The truth is in the pudding as it were. The truth is right in your face. Don’t you see it glowing at you with bright letters? What are you typing on? Truth is switching the switch and having light.


People’s hearts must be protected. We are human, and to forget that is our folly. But to ignore reality for a book written by a few primitive barbarians is also folly. The people of thousands of years ago were not stupid. They probably weren’t all that different from us. They had hearts, and maybe their hearts are resonating with yours through scraps of ancient paper passed down over generation. Yet they are all dead and you are alive. Will you be beholden to the words of the dead for all your life? Will you allow the words of those long gone to ruler your life?


I am not without opinions. Everything I think is not based on pure reason. I acknowledge that I can be, and often am wrong. Yet I am alive, willing to change with the flow of life around me. A part of the world I live in. If you are truly following the bible to the degree you say you are then you are living in a world that is long since dead. Wake up to the world around you, and free yourself from the stagnation of the past. You do not have to worship a book.

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Logic won't

jumbo1410 wrote:

Logic won't tell you whether there is a God or not, even if you throw the Law of Non-contradiction in the mix (which is, mind you, slef contradicitng).

There is another "Law" that I would place more emphasis on if I were you - The Law of Excluded Middle, principium tertii exclusi. It does not suffer from the issues that plague the LONC.

What *are* you talking about?  Me thinks you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Logic can only tell us that something does not exist when it is self-contradictory by definition; as definitions in question of 'god' typically are, and all common ones certainly are.

If you use a non-standard definition for your god, I may not be able to disprove it by internal contradictions, but  I will criticize you for abusing language- if you're going to redefine

everything, use new words.

 

Quote:

The best argument I can think of - that is, one that cannot lean on semantics, science or theology - is that if a God did exist, what makes you think it has any of the attributes usually associated with <insert their belief here>. Any recital from their book is begging the question = instant win for you.

 

This can be a good argument- or starting point- against a fundamentalists' argument, but it doesn't really serve the stated purpose; it just makes them define their god more vaguely.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Let's further

Let's further this:

Quote:

Empirically proving anything- a negative or positive- to an absolute is not possible because empirical evidence is flawed by perception (that's what science is about- improving perception by eliminating subjective perception flaws).  Proving a negative, however, is very much possible, and the only completely solid proof that can be offered today- we don't prove theories, we gain evidence for them.  We do disprove theories, however, when they are shown to be irreconcilable.  Negatives are routinely and incontrovertibly proven through demonstrated contradictions.

We can simplify the proving of a negative through a basic enthymeme:

Dumbo is not blue because he is an elephant.

From here, we have the following syllogism:

All elephants are not blue

Dumbo is an elephant

:. Dumbo is not blue.

Here, we have proved the negative.  If we accept that all elephants are indeed not blue, and we accept that Dumbo is an elephant, then we must accept the conclusion that Dumbo is not blue.

We have, therefore, shown the negative to be reasonable to believe.

The reason atheists will ask for the "burdon of proof" for the claims of theists is that we need to have evidence to show that the assertion is reasonable to believe.  The problem is that we are left by most theists, as Brian37 points out, with a naked assertion and no reason left to believe.  To use the enthymeme:

"God exists because..."

We need the because so we can setup the syllogism, and then we can gather evidence (through logic or through scientific discovery) to show that the premises are true.  Without it, we simply have a claim, and that claim must be assumed false without any evidence to base the major and minor premises (the major premise being the All A are B, and the minor being that C is a subset of A).  Otherwise, we are left with a naked assertion without the basic premises that answer the question "why?" 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What *are* you talking

Quote:
What *are* you talking about?  Me thinks you don't know what I'm talking about. Logic can only tell us that something does not exist when it is self-contradictory by definition; as definitions in question of 'god' typically are, and all common ones certainly are.

I only have a wikki understanding of the Law of Non-contradiction and from what I have seen, the law is in contempt of itself (there is a body of logic that contradict the law of non-contradiction called "paraconsistent Logic", apparently).

Quote:

If you use a non-standard definition for your god, I may not be able to disprove it by internal contradictions, but  I will criticize you for abusing language- if you're going to redefine

everything, use new words.

This is in fact the opposite of what I was asserting about definition-based arguments.

 

Quote:

This can be a good argument- or starting point- against a fundamentalists' argument, but it doesn't really serve the stated purpose; it just makes them define their god more vaguely.

I don't understand why it is just limited to a fundie belief system. I must be tired, but I thought all Gods beg the question?


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Clarification

kidvelvet wrote:

Here, we have proved the negative.  If we accept that all elephants are indeed not blue, and we accept that Dumbo is an elephant, then we must accept the conclusion that Dumbo is not blue.

 

But, of course, that proof is only proved insofar as the premises are true- proving that no elephants are blue is a more arduous task.  Unless the definition of elephant inherently contains "non-blue", I'm afraid it may be impossible to prove without a doubt that no elephants anywhere are blue (inductive logic surely fails us here).

I believe this is to what theists often refer- a supposedly endless chain of premises which require perfect empirical proof.

 

That is, of course, only the empiricists' take- which is not needed to disprove something as trivial, logically, as a god by the common definitions.

 

Rationalists will understand that some positive knowledge can come directly from negation- those things which are not true due to being self contradictory can be known to be so, and by then eliminating all alternative explanations to a thing (an often lengthy process), we may arrive at the only possible true explanation, and believe it with neither premise nor faith.

Such complete logical proof constructs, however, are few and far between.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:I only have

jumbo1410 wrote:

I only have a wikki understanding of the Law of Non-contradiction and from what I have seen, the law is in contempt of itself (there is a body of logic that contradict the law of non-contradiction called "paraconsistent Logic", apparently).

I see.  You have misunderstood some things that you have read; I suggest that you read more into the law of non-contradiction (it doesn't contradict itself- I think you're thinking of the liar paradox), and particular into paraconsistent logic, which abides by non-contradiction.  The Wikipedia articles on these subject are sufficient, but may be hard to understand on the first reading; read them more carefully and you will likely understand them better.

If you have any questions after that, let me know.

 

Quote:

This is in fact the opposite of what I was asserting about definition-based arguments.

 

Can you clarify your assertions about the existence of a 'god'?

 

Quote:

I must be tired, but I thought all Gods beg the question?

Some are absolute statements, defining 'god' as that being which created the universe- the retreat into deism.  The answer to your question, then, is simply "that's what god is- that's the definition, he/she/it created the universe- man or woman, whatever it is, that's god".

Retreating into a more general argument can be halted by proving creator (for example) to be logically impossible or arbitrary.

Either way, the question isn't good at convincing a theist- particularly a fideist- who will see no problem with referencing his or her bible, or saying, simply, "God talks to me in my heart".  Though it may serve to a third party's amusement.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I see.  You have

Quote:
I see.  You have misunderstood some things that you have read; I suggest that you read more into the law of non-contradiction (it doesn't contradict itself- I think you're thinking of the liar paradox), and particular into paraconsistent logic, which abides by non-contradiction.  The Wikipedia articles on these subject are sufficient, but may be hard to understand on the first reading; read them more carefully and you will likely understand them better.

If you have any questions after that, let me know.

Two things I might ask, irrespective of paraconsistent logic:

The LONC is not falsifiable, correct?

What is it about God that violates the LONC?

 

Quote:
Can you clarify your assertions about the existence of a 'god'?

I believe in an omipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, omnibenevolent being - though I don't know how far those terms extend, in what order or how strictly they apply.

For example omniscient could mean "Knows everything there is to know" or just "Knows anything that you can ask" or "knows nothing itself but is never wrong due to one reason or another". I like to call them True Omniscience, Apparent Omniscience and Artificial Omniscience, respectively. To anything that is not omniscient, they are indisitinguishabel from each other, but have implications as to what definition the other attributes of God can have (omnipotence, transcendent etc). 

I believe in the "Christian" God, though I admit my belief is out of ignorance rather than knowledge. "I don't know" will be a common answer, as it is among Atheists when the question of Origin is raised.

 

Quote:

Some are absolute statements, defining 'god' as that being which created the universe- the retreat into deism.  The answer to your question, then, is simply "that's what god is- that's the definition, he/she/it created the universe- man or woman, whatever it is, that's god".

Retreating into a more general argument can be halted by proving creator (for example) to be logically impossible or arbitrary.

Either way, the question isn't good at convincing a theist- particularly a fideist- who will see no problem with referencing his or her bible, or saying, simply, "God talks to me in my heart".  Though it may serve to a third party's amusement.

Fair enough.

 

 

EDIT: Clarity.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:The LONC is

jumbo1410 wrote:



The LONC is not falsifiable, correct?




Non-contradiction is a logical statement, so it can be tested.  Lets do that now.



"A formal statement P and its exact direct negation not P can not both be true (at the some time, in the same sense, etc.)."




*bing*



Lets see what the results are.... nope.... no contradictions there.




Falsifiable, as in can it be tested?  Yes, it is a definitive claim in the bounds of formal logic.



False?  No.




The only alternative to the statement; that they can both be true:



Falsifiable: Yes.



False: Yes.  The proposition is contradictory, holding in itself overlapping and negating truth states for P and not P, and providing for false consequences.




As such, due to Non-contradiction not being false, and the only alternative being false, non-contradiction is true.






Non-contradiction is the foundation of all logic and reason... it's not something like 'excluded middle'.  Things like 'excluded middle' rely on non-contradiction.  Excluded middle is no good when the middle can simultaneously be included without being there.



Non-contradiction is the ultimate bar of falsifiability- it is the means by which things are falsified.  Without it, everything is equally true and false, and completely true, and completely false- generally a mad-house of absurdity.  That's explosion.



Ex falso quodlibet.



See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion





Quote:
What is it about God that violates the LONC?




Statements such as-



1. Omnipotent- all powerful



2. All creator



3. Omnibenevolent- all good



4. Perfect



5. Omniscient- all knowing



6. Supernatural




Additionally, often but not necessarily always:



7. X Scriptural- pursuant to contradictions in given scripture




I may have missed some of them.  I have seen no common definition of a god that does not include one of propositions 1-6.  Most also include 7, but only one contradiction is necessary.





Quote:
I believe in an omipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, omnibenevolent being - though I don't know how far those terms extend, in what order or how strictly they apply.



Uhhh.... yeah...



You know... you can't be partially omniscient and still be omniscient.  If you know everything, that means you know everything, and not that you know 50% of everything, or just things that suit your fancy.



Same with omnipotent.  If something just seems to be god-like, is that the same as actually being so?




If you don't actually *use* the definition of the words, then they aren't useful.  If you aren't going to assert any of them- or even one of them as being true, you haven't defined anything...



I could say the same thing about my left shoe- no offense.  I don't mean to bash you, but you haven't said anything.




I really appreciate your openness about this, but you do realize that with all of the disclaimers, you didn't say anything, or define anything?




The key of definitions- of any statement- is merely differentiation.  You don't have to know everything about your god.  If you can give one statement about your god that differentiates him/her/it from things that are not your god, that will do.





Quote:
I believe in the "Christian" God, though I admit my belief is out of ignorance rather than knowledge. "I don't know" will be a common answer, as it is among Atheists when the question of Origin is raised.



I appreciate the admission.



Mind, though- *most* atheists.  I don't respond with "I don't know".  I can give you a breakdown of our universe as we know it, and demonstrate the nature of materiality and time to be very different from what you may believe- this whole thing about time being something that comes and goes, and our current observational state being the reality- and turn causality on its head.



I can tell you that creation and origin is both irrelevant to the universe, which is demonstrably and logically a time-space wave phenomena that implies an "outside" view of a static series of states of the 'multiverse', discrete to the quantum level in all directions across all dimensions (that an outside view were possible, conceptually speaking, which it is not- this is merely for conceptual demonstration).



In a brutally short summary: The universe no more requires creation than does the number pi- it is our relative perspective of the universe that imparts information, and "objectively" it doesn't exist- like an equation with no variables to feed into it.



*if* you really need a causal explanation, I can explain it in quantum-physics terms, which are just as valid, but may pose as more confusing: without going into the universe as a wave and the source of uncertainty and wave phenomena, I can say merely that probabilistically, empty space is fizzing with energy popping in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle (which has a clear and uncreated source- and I can tell you why if you need to know), and that every given explosion of energy throughout time could be just as easily be said to be a "big bang".



If you want to understand the origins of the universe, study quantum physics, relativity, and the reconciliations thereof.  I can explain these things in brief, but you'd be better served learning them for yourself in depth and then coming back to my explanations.  I can give you links to some starting material.



It's introductory, but this is a good read for beginners:


http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Cat-Quantum-Physics/dp/0553342533



Hawking also has some good work.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:jumbo1410

Blake wrote:

jumbo1410 wrote:

 

The LONC is not falsifiable, correct?


 

Non-contradiction is a logical statement, so it can be tested.  Lets do that now.

 

"A formal statement P and its exact direct negation not P can not both be true (at the some time, in the same sense, etc.)."


 

*bing*

 

Lets see what the results are.... nope.... no contradictions there.


 

Falsifiable, as in can it be tested?  Yes, it is a definitive claim in the bounds of formal logic.

 

False?  No.


 

The only alternative to the statement; that they can both be true:

 

Falsifiable: Yes.

 

False: Yes.  The proposition is contradictory, holding in itself overlapping and negating truth states for P and not P, and providing for false consequences.


 

As such, due to Non-contradiction not being false, and the only alternative being false, non-contradiction is true.




 

Non-contradiction is the foundation of all logic and reason... it's not something like 'excluded middle'.  Things like 'excluded middle' rely on non-contradiction.  Excluded middle is no good when the middle can simultaneously be included without being there.

 

Non-contradiction is the ultimate bar of falsifiability- it is the means by which things are falsified.  Without it, everything is equally true and false, and completely true, and completely false- generally a mad-house of absurdity.  That's explosion.

 

Ex falso quodlibet.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion



 

Quote:
What is it about God that violates the LONC?


 

Statements such as-

 

1. Omnipotent- all powerful

 

2. All creator

 

3. Omnibenevolent- all good

 

4. Perfect

 

5. Omniscient- all knowing

 

6. Supernatural


 

Additionally, often but not necessarily always:

 

7. X Scriptural- pursuant to contradictions in given scripture


 

I may have missed some of them.  I have seen no common definition of a god that does not include one of propositions 1-6.  Most also include 7, but only one contradiction is necessary.



 

Quote:
I believe in an omipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, omnibenevolent being - though I don't know how far those terms extend, in what order or how strictly they apply.

 

Uhhh.... yeah...

 

You know... you can't be partially omniscient and still be omniscient.  If you know everything, that means you know everything, and not that you know 50% of everything, or just things that suit your fancy.

 

Same with omnipotent.  If something just seems to be god-like, is that the same as actually being so?


 

If you don't actually *use* the definition of the words, then they aren't useful.  If you aren't going to assert any of them- or even one of them as being true, you haven't defined anything...

 

I could say the same thing about my left shoe- no offense.  I don't mean to bash you, but you haven't said anything.


 

I really appreciate your openness about this, but you do realize that with all of the disclaimers, you didn't say anything, or define anything?


 

The key of definitions- of any statement- is merely differentiation.  You don't have to know everything about your god.  If you can give one statement about your god that differentiates him/her/it from things that are not your god, that will do.



 

Quote:
I believe in the "Christian" God, though I admit my belief is out of ignorance rather than knowledge. "I don't know" will be a common answer, as it is among Atheists when the question of Origin is raised.

 

I appreciate the admission.

 

Mind, though- *most* atheists.  I don't respond with "I don't know".  I can give you a breakdown of our universe as we know it, and demonstrate the nature of materiality and time to be very different from what you may believe- this whole thing about time being something that comes and goes, and our current observational state being the reality- and turn causality on its head.

 

I can tell you that creation and origin is both irrelevant to the universe, which is demonstrably and logically a time-space wave phenomena that implies an "outside" view of a static series of states of the 'multiverse', discrete to the quantum level in all directions across all dimensions (that an outside view were possible, conceptually speaking, which it is not- this is merely for conceptual demonstration).

 

In a brutally short summary: The universe no more requires creation than does the number pi- it is our relative perspective of the universe that imparts information, and "objectively" it doesn't exist- like an equation with no variables to feed into it.

 

*if* you really need a causal explanation, I can explain it in quantum-physics terms, which are just as valid, but may pose as more confusing: without going into the universe as a wave and the source of uncertainty and wave phenomena, I can say merely that probabilistically, empty space is fizzing with energy popping in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle (which has a clear and uncreated source- and I can tell you why if you need to know), and that every given explosion of energy throughout time could be just as easily be said to be a "big bang".

 

If you want to understand the origins of the universe, study quantum physics, relativity, and the reconciliations thereof.  I can explain these things in brief, but you'd be better served learning them for yourself in depth and then coming back to my explanations.  I can give you links to some starting material.

 

It's introductory, but this is a good read for beginners:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Cat-Quantum-Physics/dp/0553342533

 

Hawking also has some good work.

GOD DID IT! HE HAS THE TRUMP CARD OF FIAT BY PROXY OF NAKED ASSERTION!

If you're a gap and you know it clap your hands

If you're a gap and you know it clap your  hands

If you're a gap and you know it and you really wanna show it

If you're a gap and you know it clap your hands

 

Now stop bothering the righteous believer with pesky little things like facts. It destroys their case of the warm fuzzies.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


rose15
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
laser hair removel

If you want to getting rid of unwated hair, I have a option laser hair removal  is the best way to remove hair permanently.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
rose15 wrote:If you want to

rose15 wrote:

If you want to getting rid of unwated hair, I have a option laser hair removal is the best way to remove hair permanently.

 

I'm guessing that was directed at you, Brian37?

 

Rose definitely makes a good point, and I'm glad She's on my side here.

 

That aside, though, please take it easy on quoting my entire posts.  I'm long winded as it is without taking up twice as much space per post!

 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Non-contradiction is a

Quote:
Non-contradiction is a logical statement, so it can be tested.  Lets do that now.



 

"A formal statement P and its exact direct negation not P can not both be true (at the some time, in the same sense, etc.)."




 

*bing*



 

Lets see what the results are.... nope.... no contradictions there.




 

Falsifiable, as in can it be tested?  Yes, it is a definitive claim in the bounds of formal logic.



 

False?  No.




 

The only alternative to the statement; that they can both be true:



 

Falsifiable: Yes.



 

False: Yes.  The proposition is contradictory, holding in itself overlapping and negating truth states for P and not P, and providing for false consequences.




 

As such, due to Non-contradiction not being false, and the only alternative being false, non-contradiction is true.






 

Non-contradiction is the foundation of all logic and reason... it's not something like 'excluded middle'.  Things like 'excluded middle' rely on non-contradiction.  Excluded middle is no good when the middle can simultaneously be included without being there.

Maybe you should post on wikki and tell them that. It says down the bottom:

"As is true of all axioms, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating. Since the early 20th century, certain logicians have proposed logics that denies the validity of the law. Collectively, these logics are known as "paraconsistent" or "inconsistency-tolerant" logics. Graham Priest advances the strongest thesis of this sort, which he calls "dialetheism".

 

Look, I really don't know that much, but I do know that there are differences between the LONC, Law of Ecluded Middle and Bi-valencies. LOEM is not based on LONC, just as LOEM is not based on BV. The LONC always seems to me to be... self contradicting. I prefer LOEM - but in the end I don't think it matters, a fortiori with respect to your post below:

 

Quote:

Statements such as-



 

1. Omnipotent- all powerful



 

2. All creator



 

3. Omnibenevolent- all good



 

4. Perfect



 

5. Omniscient- all knowing



 

6. Supernatural




 

Additionally, often but not necessarily always:



 

7. X Scriptural- pursuant to contradictions in given scripture




 

I may have missed some of them.  I have seen no common definition of a god that does not include one of propositions 1-6.  Most also include 7, but only one contradiction is necessary.

I'm guessing that the definitions of omni-attributes is what violates the LONC?

As you stated, the LONC states "A formal statement P and its exact direct negation not P can not both be true (at the some time, in the same sense, etc.)."

So if P means "God is omnipotent" then that to me means "God is omnipotent" and "God is not omnipotent" constitutes a violation of the LONC.

Since no theist that I have ever heard of would state such an explicit contradiction, how is it that God violates the LONC in the defined sense?

If it is the formal contradiction of p v ~p, as opposed to the explicit contradiction of p v ~p (Plantinga), does that still imply a violation of the LONC in the defined sense, and if so, why?

 

Quote:

Uhhh.... yeah...



 

You know... you can't be partially omniscient and still be omniscient.  If you know everything, that means you know everything, and not that you know 50% of everything, or just things that suit your fancy.



 

Same with omnipotent.  If something just seems to be god-like, is that the same as actually being so?




 

If you don't actually *use* the definition of the words, then they aren't useful.  If you aren't going to assert any of them- or even one of them as being true, you haven't defined anything...



 

I could say the same thing about my left shoe- no offense.  I don't mean to bash you, but you haven't said anything.




 

I really appreciate your openness about this, but you do realize that with all of the disclaimers, you didn't say anything, or define anything?




 

The key of definitions- of any statement- is merely differentiation.  You don't have to know everything about your god.  If you can give one statement about your god that differentiates him/her/it from things that are not your god, that will do.

Hmmm, I understand your frustration. I don't want a debate about semantics or linguistics either. I don't know the definition (in the strict sense of the word) of omni (all) potent (powerful). I believe All-Powerful means "Strong enough to bring the world into existence, but not strong enough to bring Logicaly Impossible things into existence". Whether or not LI things can exist is another matter. Does that answer your question?

I understand that this has been on the forums a million times. I've forgotten how it ends.

 

Quote:

Mind, though- *most* atheists.  I don't respond with "I don't know".  I can give you a breakdown of our universe as we know it, and demonstrate the nature of materiality and time to be very different from what you may believe- this whole thing about time being something that comes and goes, and our current observational state being the reality- and turn causality on its head.


I can tell you that creation and origin is both irrelevant to the universe, which is demonstrably and logically a time-space wave phenomena that implies an "outside" view of a static series of states of the 'multiverse', discrete to the quantum level in all directions across all dimensions (that an outside view were possible, conceptually speaking, which it is not- this is merely for conceptual demonstration).

...And what brought those states about?

 

Quote:
In a brutally short summary: The universe no more requires creation than does the number pi- it is our relative perspective of the universe that imparts information, and "objectively" it doesn't exist- like an equation with no variables to feed into it.

...And why do we have a perspective to begin with?

 

Quote:
*if* you really need a causal explanation, I can explain it in quantum-physics terms, which are just as valid, but may pose as more confusing: without going into the universe as a wave and the source of uncertainty and wave phenomena, I can say merely that probabilistically, empty space is fizzing with energy popping in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle (which has a clear and uncreated source- and I can tell you why if you need to know), and that every given explosion of energy throughout time could be just as easily be said to be a "big bang".

Well, I don't want to derail your enquiries into my beliefs so I will keep this short:

 

1. What is a wave?

2. Is space just another aspect of time as defined by Einstein?

3. Is space-time eternal for this wave to exist in? Or;

4. Does this wave create space-time?

5. This "Energy" you speak of, it has no source? Is it safe to say then that it comes from nothing? Or;

6. Does this energy come from something but we don't know what it is?

7. If the source for this energy is uncreated, is this uncreated source eternal?

 

The only reason I ask is that your explanation might violate the LONC, in that "fizzing energy" either comes from something, or it comes from nothing - but not both.

I am looking forward to your response.

Quote:

If you want to understand the origins of the universe, study quantum physics, relativity, and the reconciliations thereof.  I can explain these things in brief, but you'd be better served learning them for yourself in depth and then coming back to my explanations.  I can give you links to some starting material.

I am interested in how you put your own beliefs into words, just as you are interested in how I put my beliefs into words.

I won't refer you to a Theologian, and you won't refer me to a Physicist.

I will explain all the terms I use as best I can, and you explain all of your terms as best you can, sound fair?

 

EDIT: Clarity, formatting, spelling.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:David Henson

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

I prefer Hitchin's antitheist. It is more accurate and to the point. More intellectually honest, in my opinion.

There is a distinction.

Atheist (A = Without)

Antitheist (Anti = Against)

For example: The classic Buddhist does not believe in a God or Gods and yet they are not in opposition to them, it simply is not a factor in their ideology. Are they being intellectually dishonest? I think you'll discover there are those of us who meet the criteria for one and not the other, once you recognize the distinction.

In the case of Buddhism as you have pointed out, no. No dishonesty there, and almost everyone I know is an atheist and don't have any opposition to gods, they, however, would never take the time or energy to be an outspoken militant atheist like what posts on message boards such as these. There are two things that I have noticed that differ with the atheists I know in what we are going to call "real life" and what we are going to call the "World Wide Wasteland" or superhighway of misinformation, and that is . . . hold on a second, I forgot what I was talking about, I'll have to scroll . . . oh, yeah, the two differences are 1. atheists online seem to be preoccupied with God more than a Christian and B. science is their religion.

Go to any Christian message board or discussion group and announce you don't believe in God and gauge their reaction and then go to any atheist message board or discussion group and announce that you don't believe in evolution and gauge their response and compare them and it becomes pretty obvious. At least it always does to me.

The average militant atheist I have a discussion with online is hardly "without" God, they are against those who are "with" God and it has nothing to do with God, it is sociopolitical.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:"As is true

jumbo1410 wrote:

"As is true of all axioms, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion."


I was holding it to the fundamental standards that all of the same statements must be assessed by.  It is not "non-falsifiable" in the sense that some statements about divinity are said to be, in that is is accessible, testable, and adheres to its own rules.

I'm sorry, but if you think the law of non-contradiction is self contradicting, you either fail to understand it, or I have no respect for your reasoning skills.

I really hope it is the former, as you seem like a nice person.  I hope that you will investigate it further, and read some of the relevant writings of ancient philosophers who first discussed it if need be.

The law of non-contradiction is *very* simple; it's doesn't take a genius to understand it.

Other rules of logic are reliant on the law of non-contradiction, because without it, any false statement can be proved.

Acceptance of a contradiction allows anything to follow (that is, any proof without an included middle, etc.).  Any other 'logic' is useless without it, and this has been well understood for thousands of years.

It's not something I will argue, but is essential for any acceptance of any kind of logic, and for any argument to occur at all.


Quote:
Collectively, these logics are known as "paraconsistent" or "inconsistency-tolerant" logics. Graham Priest advances the strongest thesis of this sort, which he calls "dialetheism".


Dialetheism is an absurdity I often address- it is not a formal logic, and does not confront explosion, but denies it on grounds of faith.  You should study dialetheism, and the refutations of it- this will help you understand the essentially of non-contradiction.

Formal paraconsistent logics do not violate non-contradiction, but use special mechanisms to avoid contradictions such as compartmentalization, and gradients of truth values (fuzzy logic).  They are made to deal with contradicting readings, etc. that can occur due to human or machine error.


 
Quote:

So if P means "God is omnipotent" then that to me means "God is omnipotent" and "God is not omnipotent" constitutes a violation of the LONC.


Omnipotence itself is a violation of logic.  You need to fully express those statements- including the definitions of the words you are using.  Often deductive implications can reveal the contradictions that may otherwise be hidden at first sight.

There are many more things that are contradictory than those which seem it- and many things that seem it which are not.

 

Quote:
I believe All-Powerful means "Strong enough to bring the world into existence, but not strong enough to bring Logicaly Impossible things into existence". Whether or not LI things can exist is another matter. Does that answer your question?


Yes, that helps, thank you.

That's a much more clear definition.  It doesn't satisfy omnipotence, but it isn't logically impossible, so that's good.

So, basically, if the thing can't do what it can't do, then the thing can only do what it can do- which I could say about an ant too.  If it's impossible for the ant to do anything it can not possibly do, then the ant is omnipotent, because it can do anything it can possibly do...

With one exception- you did set a minimum limit.

So long as a being is powerful enough to create our world, then, it is a god.  So, that perhaps rules out our ant.

If this is your requirement, though, then any alien being with a planet making device within its power would satisfy your definition of your god?

Why would you worship this being and call it god, were not not perhaps just as easy that you should be at the helm of this planet making device?  What if this being is particularly dastardly?  What if it rules through fear and violence, devours small children in their sleep and wipes out entire planets, and wears white after labour day?

If this is all that's required of your god, I can't argue that it doesn't exist- although I would say that your choice of "god" seems very arbitrary.  Not a terribly impressive god.

Is there any other requirement?  Or can I aspire to be 'god' by making a planet?

Honestly, I don't think this fits any common definitions.

 

Quote:

...And what brought those states about?


They are subjective states experienced as reference frames.  If you could witness them objectively- which isn't impossible, because from an objective standpoint they contain no information and don't exist, but for the sake of argument- each state could be represented by a single real number.

Those states, from this fictional objective view, would appear as the infinitesimal gradation along a number line.  If you can visualize this, you will understand how no information genesis has actually occurred from this objective point of view.


Quote:
...And why do we have a perspective to begin with?


Because we are within, looking out- we're part of the relative information construct; there's no way that we could obtain an objective view (one without that perspective), as the information we are made from is derived from further perspective views.

Everything is made of information- us included- and information is a matter of perspective.  Piling relative upon relative does not an objective view make.
 

1. What is a wave?


Simply?  It's a probability field.  In more complexity?  True probability doesn't exist; a wave is the process of quantum divergence into different reference frames (perspectives) of the universe.


2. Is space just another aspect of time as defined by Einstein?

Dimensions can be solved for in many ways- there are many metaphorically/variably correct ways of stating them in terms of each other.

For example:  is light speed in terms of matter and energy?  Is energy in terms of light speed and matter?

Well, all of the above.


3. Is space-time eternal for this wave to exist in? Or;


Necessarily, yes, it includes time, so the idea of finite or eternal is not relevant.


4. Does this wave create space-time?

It is space-time.


5. This "Energy" you speak of, it has no source? Is it safe to say then that it comes from nothing? Or;


All expressions of matter and energy are relative information.

When you think about the genesis of anything, it's better to think about merely the genesis of information (at least, easier to understand).

Information can not be objectively created from nothing, but from the perspective of any given reference frame, space is boiling with information (energy, matter, etc.) spontaneously auto-creating and destroying.  This is an expression of the divergence (which is really a poor manner of speaking, because it implies time- nothing is actively diverging, but out experiences are in a causal synchronicity that give us the perception of time which suggests this) and propagation of the universe wave.


6. Does this energy come from something but we don't know what it is?

The information comes from perception and the propagation of the universe's wave (as per our reference point), but nothing is being objectively created.


7. If the source for this energy is uncreated, is this uncreated source eternal?

The reference frames are eternal from an imaginary objective standpoint (imaginary, remember, because from that perspective, all we have is a "number line" which contains no information at all).


Quote:
The only reason I ask is that your explanation might violate the LONC, in that "fizzing energy" either comes from something, or it comes from nothing - but not both.


Nope, no violation.

It comes from the perspective of our frames of reference, which do not objectively exist.  Information, energy, matter, are relative.




Quote:

I am interested in how you put your own beliefs into words, just as you are interested in how I put my beliefs into words.

I won't refer you to a Theologian, and you won't refer me to a Physicist.

I will explain all the terms I use as best I can, and you explain all of your terms as best you can, sound fair?


Not really.  This is apples and oranges.

We're dealing with discussions that require a background understanding.  I'm happy to put my thoughts into words for you, but I can't explain everything from the ground up, as it would takes months, if not years (unless you want to pay tuition).

If I had never heard of religion, if I didn't understand the concept of original sin, the trinity, metaphysics, or free-will, I would fully expect you to refer me to a wikipedia article on it.  If I didn't know revelation, or any relevant biblical verses, I would not expect you to type the bible for me- references to other sources for foundational information is important.

For the record, I largely disagree with the Author of "in Search of Schrodinger's Cat" on many precepts, but it nonetheless is a good outline of some of the background information on physics.  
He is not making the argument that I am making.

I guarantee you that I fully understand any theological concept you can reference.  I need you to be able to do the same of quantum physics, otherwise this isn't really fair, as I am at a disadvantage in explaining my thoughts to you, and you at an advantage in explaining yours.

The difference is time- time which I do not have, and which results in you succeeding at me understanding you, but my failing at conveying my thoughts successfully to you.

How is that fair?


It's a good book- easy to read, and relatively unbiased (it presents many viewpoints).
It will give you background information, and if you understand that, we'll be on a more fair footing to have further discussions.

 

If you understood all of my answers- that's great, maybe you don't need to read any books on quantum physics.  If not, please read the book.


John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
The "There's no proof god doesn't exist" argument.

Hi Dmasterman.  I posted a disproof of god argument some time earlier.  That might or might not be the counter argument you are remembering.  The easiest way to find it is to look in the 'Kill em with Kindness' forum.  It is called The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof.  I hope it helps you.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:, yeah,

David Henson wrote:

, yeah, the two differences are 1. atheists online seem to be preoccupied with God more than a Christian and B. science is their religion.

 

1)-I'm not, I'm much more interested in talking about how we can better our species for the future than debating whether god exists or not.  It just turns out that religion is a part of that and it must be addressed in the process of our progression.  How the atheists and theists are going to deal with eachother as the world continues to go on without devine interuption is impoirtant.  So I'm not at all pre-occupied with God, I'm pre-occupied with bettering our world and species (whatever meisly part or contribution I may have in it), thinking about and discussing religions affect on our world now and into the future in very important.     

 

2)-Religion def:

A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

 

How is science any kind of religion? 

 

 

 

 


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:neptewn

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

I prefer Hitchin's antitheist. It is more accurate and to the point. More intellectually honest, in my opinion.

There is a distinction.

Atheist (A = Without)

Antitheist (Anti = Against)

For example: The classic Buddhist does not believe in a God or Gods and yet they are not in opposition to them, it simply is not a factor in their ideology. Are they being intellectually dishonest? I think you'll discover there are those of us who meet the criteria for one and not the other, once you recognize the distinction.

In the case of Buddhism as you have pointed out, no. No dishonesty there, and almost everyone I know is an atheist and don't have any opposition to gods, they, however, would never take the time or energy to be an outspoken militant atheist like what posts on message boards such as these. There are two things that I have noticed that differ with the atheists I know in what we are going to call "real life" and what we are going to call the "World Wide Wasteland" or superhighway of misinformation, and that is . . . hold on a second, I forgot what I was talking about, I'll have to scroll . . . oh, yeah, the two differences are 1. atheists online seem to be preoccupied with God more than a Christian and B. science is their religion.

Go to any Christian message board or discussion group and announce you don't believe in God and gauge their reaction and then go to any atheist message board or discussion group and announce that you don't believe in evolution and gauge their response and compare them and it becomes pretty obvious. At least it always does to me.

The average militant atheist I have a discussion with online is hardly "without" God, they are against those who are "with" God and it has nothing to do with God, it is sociopolitical.

Perhaps the problem David isn't that you see this behavior in atheist but that you are looking for it.. After all, i'm not on a theist forum calling you a joke am I?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll be

I'll be brief:

Quote:
Omnipotence itself is a violation of logic.  You need to fully express those statements- including the definitions of the words you are using.  Often deductive implications can reveal the contradictions that may otherwise be hidden at first sight.

You have not shown how omnipotence itself is explicitly self contradictory. Keep in mind that the definition of the LONC states that a proposition p is explicitly denied in the same sense, in the same way.

An explanation of your assertion would be appreciated.

 

Quote:
That's a much more clear definition.  It doesn't satisfy omnipotence, but it isn't logically impossible, so that's good.

 

I disagree. It does satisfy the literal meaning of the word. "Omni" is All, and "potence" means powerful. Some translations will say it means "Unlimited power", but then "Omni-vore" would take on a peculiar defintion if "Omni" were to mean "Unlimited or Infinite". It makes more sense to say an omni-vore eats All kinds of foods rather than to say an omni-vore eats unlimited or infinite kinds of foods.

This is exactly the point I made earlier - how you define "Omni..." will affect all the other atributes of God. Arguing against a definition of Omni(potence) that I don't support is a Strawman fallacy.

 

Some obscure referencing:

"The ROOT-WORD is MONI which comes from the Latin omnis meaning ALL" - http://www.english-for-students.com/omni.html

"The term OMNI was coined early in the history of FlyerTalk by its members. It refers to the Latin roots of the word which mean "all" or "every."  - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/t-1036605.html

 

Quote:
So, basically, if the thing can't do what it can't do, then the thing can only do what it can do- which I could say about an ant too.  If it's impossible for the ant to do anything it can not possibly do, then the ant is omnipotent, because it can do anything it can possibly do...

With one exception- you did set a minimum limit.

So long as a being is powerful enough to create our world, then, it is a god.  So, that perhaps rules out our ant.

If this is your requirement, though, then any alien being with a planet making device within its power would satisfy your definition of your god?

*Confuzzlement*

The Ant analogy failed, but you asked about a planet-making alien? Well yes, I would consider it God if it met all of the aforementioned criteria of not just omnipotence, but omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence etc.

"Eternal" would be another inicator that I was speaking to a God.

 

Quote:
Why would you worship this being and call it god, were not not perhaps just as easy that you should be at the helm of this planet making device?  What if this being is particularly dastardly?  What if it rules through fear and violence, devours small children in their sleep and wipes out entire planets, and wears white after labour day?

If this is all that's required of your god, I can't argue that it doesn't exist- although I would say that your choice of "god" seems very arbitrary.  Not a terribly impressive god.

Is there any other requirement?  Or can I aspire to be 'god' by making a planet?

As stated above, it would have to be omnibenevolent, among other things, for it to be worthy of God status.

 

Quote:
1. What is a wave?

Simply?  It's a probability field.  In more complexity?  True probability doesn't exist; a wave is the process of quantum divergence into different reference frames (perspectives) of the universe.


 

OK. I want to take this really slowly.

"A wave is a probability field. True probability doesn't exist." 

WA = Wave that does not truly exist.

Quote:
4. Does this wave create space-time?

It is space-time.

 

WA = Wave that does not truly exist and created/is the Universe.

Isn't this a violation of the LONC in that something has come from "truly nothing" - or worse still, the universe is truly nothing yet clearly something exists?

 

Quote:
A wave is the process of quantum divergence into different (perspectives) of the universe

Does Divergence here mean "the act of moving away in different direction from a common point"?

 

Quote:
4. Does this wave create space-time?

It is space-time.

 

Then how is it's existence (or non-existence?) anything other than arbitrary?

I mean, we have this wave that cannot be said to truly exist, is there for eternity/is irrespective of time, produced everything out of itself or nothing, its existence is apparently arbitrary...

 

Quote:
All expressions of matter and energy are relative information.

When you think about the genesis of anything, it's better to think about merely the genesis of information (at least, easier to understand).

Information can not be objectively created from nothing, but from the perspective of any given reference frame, space is boiling with information (energy, matter, etc.) spontaneously auto-creating and destroying.  This is an expression of the divergence (which is really a poor manner of speaking, because it implies time- nothing is actively diverging, but out experiences are in a causal synchronicity that give us the perception of time which suggests this) and propagation of the universe wave.

 

Here I take it to mean that Energy is analogous to information.

"Information cannot be objectively created from nothing."

- The contrapositive of the above statement is "Information has to be objectively created from something".

"Space is boiling with information spontaneously auto-creating and destorying (itself?)"

- but how can this be? Above you said that information/Energy has to come from something. Do you mean it comes from the Wave?

"The spontaneous appearance of Energy/Information is an expression of the diverging Wave."

- Again, this wave is said to not truly exist. How is it that Information/Energy can be said to come from something, but that something does not truly exist?

"Nothing actually Diverges, it just appears to because of our frame of reference."

- So everything is subjective and objectivity does not exist? Or is it vice versa?

 

Quote:
6. Does this energy come from something but we don't know what it is?

The information comes from perception and the propagation of the universe's wave (as per our reference point), but nothing is being objectively created.

So the Information/Energy comes from our perception of the wave not the Wave itself, and nothing is objectively being created at all?



Quote:
7. If the source for this energy is uncreated, is this uncreated source eternal?

The reference frames are eternal from an imaginary objective standpoint (imaginary, remember, because from that perspective, all we have is a "number line" which contains no information at all).

 

*Choke*

Quote:
Nope, no violation.

It comes from the perspective of our frames of reference, which do not objectively exist.  Information, energy, matter, are relative.

OK, you lost me. Are you saying that subjective existence does not objectively exist?

 

"Circular reasoning, also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion supports the original premise." - http://www.conservapedia.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:Perhaps the

neptewn wrote:

Perhaps the problem David isn't that you see this behavior in atheist but that you are looking for it.. After all, i'm not on a theist forum calling you a joke am I?

This is an Atheist vs. Theist forum.

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

I'm apolitical, being no part of the world. Not voting or involving myself in politics in any sense of the word. I have no public position on abortion, homosexuality, or what is taught in the schools outside of my own opinion. As far as I can tell the only reason you and I have to have any sort of discussion is that we are on a forum called Atheist vs. Theist. Correct?


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:neptewn

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Perhaps the problem David isn't that you see this behavior in atheist but that you are looking for it.. After all, i'm not on a theist forum calling you a joke am I?

This is an Atheist vs. Theist forum.

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

The Rational Response Squad

A place for activist atheists to unite 

You mean you are on a subforum (Atheist vs Theist) hosted by the Rational Response Squad.

David Henson wrote:

I'm apolitical, being no part of the world. Not voting or involving myself in politics in any sense of the word. I have no public position on abortion, homosexuality, or what is taught in the schools outside of my own opinion. As far as I can tell the only reason you and I have to have any sort of discussion is that we are on a forum called Atheist vs. Theist. Correct?

David Henson wrote:
basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

Wait you are "apolitical"? You sure you don't really mean "antipolitical"?

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:David Henson

neptewn wrote:

David Henson wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Perhaps the problem David isn't that you see this behavior in atheist but that you are looking for it.. After all, i'm not on a theist forum calling you a joke am I?

This is an Atheist vs. Theist forum.

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

I'm apolitical, being no part of the world. Not voting or involving myself in politics in any sense of the word. I have no public position on abortion, homosexuality, or what is taught in the schools outside of my own opinion. As far as I can tell the only reason you and I have to have any sort of discussion is that we are on a forum called Atheist vs. Theist. Correct?

The Rational Response Squad

A place for activist atheists to unite 

You mean you are on a subforum (Atheist vs Theist) hosted by the Rational Response Squad.

David Henson wrote:
basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

Wait you are "apolitical"? You sure you don't really mean "antipolitical"?

 

 

Being antipolitical would imply political, wouldn't it. I mean I have nothing to do with politics. You didn't answer my question.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's important to bear in mind that


David Henson wrote:

The average militant atheist I have a discussion with online is hardly "without" God, they are against those who are "with" God and it has nothing to do with God, it is sociopolitical.

 

When arguing with theists, deconverted atheists can readily conceptualise the alternative reality of god-think in their heads and will project this in their arguments, often argue strongly contesting biblical points, apparently owning the text they are using to debunk the myths they are opposing. For instance, I might say I don't believe in god because he is a violent psychotic bastard. This does not mean I believe in god. It means I oppose the idea of god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:basing

David Henson wrote:
basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?
neptewn wrote:

Wait you are "apolitical"? You sure you don't really mean "antipolitical"?

David Henson wrote:

Being antipolitical would imply political, wouldn't it. I mean I have nothing to do with politics. You didn't answer my question.

Sorry Dave by your own admitance you can't claim to be "apolitical", so you are either a hypocrite or a troll.

David Henson wrote:

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

I believe in the Cosmic Egg, through 30 years of intense study of the Egg.

1. Everything that happens has a cause.
2. At one point, something came from nothing, the Egg or the Chicken came into existence.
3. This must have had a cause.
4. Since Science has failed to identify which came first, the cause must have been God.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: I am a

David Henson wrote:

 

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

 

Oh no!!! Your a Joho?  I was raised one, funny little cult it is.  Or do you just believe that is the name of god?


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:You have not

jumbo1410 wrote:

You have not shown how omnipotence itself is explicitly self contradictory.

You are already familiar with our differences in definition, and as to the ant analogy:

If omnipotence is merely the ability to do things that are possible, then anything and everything is omnipotent, because we can all do things that are possible for us to do.  My point is that using this later definition makes the meaning of the word irrelevant as a qualifier of a god.  This is not the case for omnivores, which is a reference to a particular subset of "food chain" foods- omni, in the case of potency, is not in reference to any particular subset of actions and limitations.

When one has a particular group, and says "omni", one means all of that group- alternatively referencing different parts of that group with other qualifiers.

When speaking of potency, we have no predefined subset, so the only rational (and non-arbitray) subsets we can come to are: All inclusive, including possible and impossible things. *OR* All possible things.

The former is definitionally impossible, the later is irrelevant.

If you don't understand this difference, I can explain it in more detail, but I hope that's clear enough.

 

Quote:
Arguing against a definition of Omni(potence) that I don't support is a Strawman fallacy.

 

You misunderstood my argument.  I was arguing against your definition based on its  triviality, and arguing against the only other reasonable definition to which you could refer- that's not a straw man, just thorough and preemptive.

 

Quote:
Well yes, I would consider it God if it met all of the aforementioned criteria of not just omnipotence, but omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence etc.

"Eternal" would be another inicator that I was speaking to a God.

 

I have explained how omnipotence is either impossible, or by your definition an irrelevant qualifier.  If you discard that qualifier, though, we can move on to the others.

 

The consequences of omniscience are also vulnerable to the same fate- either they are impossible, or it is an irrelevant qualifier.

 

Is your god a relative thing?  If somebody is merely more wise or intelligent than another, is that person a god?

Are we gods to mice?  Are mice gods to ants?  Does your god have gods?

 

Omnipresence needs to be defined more clearly, but suffers similar fates. 

Disputing it more quickly, however (with less investigation into your exact definition), merely requires mentioning relativity- which if you accept, makes omnipresence impossible.

 

What is Transcendence supposed to mean?

 

Eternal, like omnipotent, is either impossible or irrelevant.

 

If you reject relativity (by which right you should probably stop using the internet, as networks contain computation that accounts for it), and you reject all quantum physics and consider Bose-Einstein condensates scientific propaganda (this would be far fetched, and I'm not saying that you do- I hope you don't), and use a very particular meaning of omnipresence, then that's the only definition you've listed that might skirt a logical disproof (pending finding out what you mean by Transcendence- transcendent of what?).

 

Quote:
As stated above, it would have to be omnibenevolent, among other things, for it to be worthy of God status.

 

Benevolence is a human construct of opinion, which is capable of contradiction (one human doesn't necessarily agree with another).  By definition, omnibenevolence is impossible- any god that is defined as having this quality is impossible.

If you wanted to redefine "goodness", you will have to determine it relative to something other than human opinion.  If you opt to determine it relative to your deity (good is that which is god, god is that which is good), you have created a circular and invalid definition which you can not use to define your deity by. 

I won't be rude enough to quote the definition of circular reasoning to you, as I do have some respect for you.

 

Quote:
OK. I want to take this really slowly.

"A wave is a probability field. True probability doesn't exist." 

WA = Wave that does not truly exist.

WA = Wave that does not truly exist and created/is the Universe.

Isn't this a violation of the LONC in that something has come from "truly nothing" - or worse still, the universe is truly nothing yet clearly something exists?

 

No, it isn't.  Seriously, this isn't fair of you to ask me to explain wave mechanics- it took me months to understand it in university. 

Theology is highly subjective, and every opinion is different- these are things you could easily look up (and will need significant background to understand).  It's a very basic, and fundamental definition that I just need you to understand in order to proceed.

I will give one last try:

A wave is described as a "probability field"; probability fields exist relative to reference frames, though objective "probability" doesn't exist (this would imply an objective sense of chance, or luck).  It's even more difficult to explain what is necessary with all of the caveats needed to prevent misinterpretation.

You can think of a wave as a cloud of locations where a particle "somewhat" exists, but more accurately "potentially" exists (and by exist, I mean is centered on as yet along probability cloud).  It will, objectively (from the imaginary objective perspective), exist in all of those locations in different divergent branches, with the density of occurrence of particular branches (which aren't as distinct as branches imply, but is as good a metaphor as I can give at the moment) relative to the weight of the "probability field" at each place in the cloud.

I do not believe that I have time to explain this to you. 

 

If you don't understand, and if you won't buy a book (which I highly advise at least checking out from a library if you have any interest in genuinely and honestly understanding reality as we have found it), please read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

If it makes sense to you, you probably didn't understand it (and I don't mean that as an insult).  Please read it again until it doesn't make sense.

When it stops making sense, think about it for a few weeks until you're completely confused, and then read up on many worlds.  Then read up on the Copenhagen interpretation, and think about them again for a while.

When it makes sense again, after all of that, let me know.

 

If anybody else has a better way of learning basic wave mechanics, please chip in- that's just a summary of how I got it.  It's not "enlightenment", but it's also a little counter-intuitive, so it's tricky to grasp.

 

Quote:
Does Divergence here mean "the act of moving away in different direction from a common point"?

Yes, insofar as the movement is not physical movement over time (as we are speaking in terms of 'universes'[slices of the universe] diverging from an objective point of view outside of time- an objective point of view which, remember, I have classified as imaginary).

Think more of looking at the branches of a dead tree, and saying they are diverging.  Yes, they are, as you follow them with your eyes up the branches.  However, the divergence has nothing to do with time, but is a qualitative measure of the branches becoming different from each other.

 

Quote:
Then how is it's existence (or non-existence?) anything other than arbitrary?

I mean, we have this wave that cannot be said to truly exist, is there for eternity/is irrespective of time, produced everything out of itself or nothing, its existence is apparently arbitrary...

If I understand what you are asking, you may be getting at part of my point- that is, that existence is relative.

Arbitrary is not necessarily the best word to use, because existence is from every available point of view, and not just a singular view point- as arbitrary would imply.  These are "different" existences, though, as far as our perception would tell us, were we to perceive them.

 So, Arbitrary- no.  Relative- completely.

 

Quote:
Here I take it to mean that Energy is analogous to information.

"Information cannot be objectively created from nothing."

- The contrapositive of the above statement is "Information has to be objectively created from something".

Nope.  Here:

- "Information can not be objectively created"

- "Information can be (not only can be, but constantly is, and unstoppably so) relatively created from nothing beyond the perspective/reference frame it is formed relative to"

 

Quote:
"Space is boiling with information spontaneously auto-creating and destorying (itself?)"

 

Yes, within/relative to a reference frame, but it is not creating itself- if you need a source, the combination of perspective and divergence is "creating" it, but that belies a false sense of time.

 

Quote:
- but how can this be? Above you said that information/Energy has to come from something. Do you mean it comes from the Wave?

"The spontaneous appearance of Energy/Information is an expression of the diverging Wave."

"Comes from" is a bit of a misnomer; "is an emergent property of/ within" is more precise.  It's not emanating from some "wave" entity.

You are simplifying, and anthropomorphizing (in a way) to our perception of chronology.

 

Quote:
- Again, this wave is said to not truly exist. How is it that Information/Energy can be said to come from something, but that something does not truly exist?

The information properties that we are observing do not objectively exist, because they rely on a perspective reference point for their relative existence.

 

Quote:
"Nothing actually Diverges, it just appears to because of our frame of reference."

- So everything is subjective and objectivity does not exist? Or is it vice versa?

 

Subjective, but not in every sense of the word, because that implies opinion, which has nothing to do with it.  Everything is relative to our perspective/reference frame.

Objective "information", in the sense of matter/energy/etc. as viewed from outside of the relative reference frames in space-time doesn't exist.  That is to say nothing of objectivity itself, which exists, but contains no distinct i.

 

Quote:
So the Information/Energy comes from our perception of the wave not the Wave itself, and nothing is objectively being created at all?

It could be stated this way, save that perspective is rather essential to the nature of the wave itself, and that the information is rather part of the wave.  That is, our perspective/reference frames could be said to be the source of information, the quality of which, as whole, defines the wave of the universe.

Bear in mind that this "perception" has nothing to do with human perception, but has to do with the universe as seen (not with eyes- eyes are not needed- perhaps as 'it is as' is a better way to put it) from a reference frame.

Many people who misunderstand quantum physics most drastically trip up on words like perception and observation, which don't have anything to do with people looking at things in this context.

 


Quote:
OK, you lost me. Are you saying that subjective existence does not objectively exist?

 

Objective subjective existence *is* a subjective existence. 

If that doesn't make sense, take this analogy:

Imagine that objective existence is a positive number, and subjective existence is a negative number.  Objective x subjective = subjective.  Subjectivity is logically "contagious", as it is.

 

From an objective standpoint, all available subjective existences exist, but the only way to 'sample' them is to input as much information as you get out.  Objective reality is "empty" of distinguishing information- it's like an equation without variables.

 

Quote:
"Circular reasoning, also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion supports the original premise." - http://www.conservapedia.com/

 

I didn't expect you to be so rude, so this was a surprise- I *thought* we could have a civil discussion.

I *thought* that you were trying to understand, as you seemed to imply.  Were you deceiving me, and merely pursuing an ulterior motive of 'proving' your own point by insulting me without considering mine?

Consider me insulted.  Congratulations.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

David Henson wrote:

 

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

 

Oh no!!! Your a Joho?  I was raised one, funny little cult it is.  Or do you just believe that is the name of god?

 

Jehovah is an old approximation from the Hebrew name of the god of Abraham- otherwise called simply the tetragrammaton.  Funny thing, because they aren't supposed to say the name of their god (or are only permitted in certain conditions), the pronunciation has become largely uncertain.

יהוה

This has been approximated as YHWH, or Yahweh, when including vowels.  Iehovah, or Jehovah, are among the earliest English names on record.

Many people don't know that the Abrahamic god has a name.  At some points, he also claims to be El, who was another popular deity, and may have had a wife in Asherat, who was the bride of El, if that is to be believed.  Ancient gods did quite a bit of switching names, diverging, and re-combining.

After YHWH, Jewish purism about their god (as commanded) has kept that particular god more distinct from the other deities in the region.

 

I'm by no means an expert, though; this is not my area.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
A friend and I had a debate

A friend and I had a debate about it the other day. I did use the "ufo" thing. I told him a ufo was going to land and give everyone a snickers bar. I told him I had faith in this, I just KNOW it's true! Maybe I had a dream, or vision of sorts to back it up. He just said that was silly and that he had a bible that says his religion is true.

I asked him if it was not as silly to believe in a mythological being who controls your life and your entire world. He starts spouting random crap from the bible.

I told him the bible was written by men, several men in fact. He said "No it wasnt, they just found the bible"......yea, I laughed at him and said OH RLY!

I went over several things such as slavery in the old testament, killing of rebellious children (which he did not want to discuss at all)

I tried to break down the bible for what it is, an attempt at societal control by ancient men. It is so clear to me, what men back then would have liked, and understood, he just thinks that my interpretations are wrong. On that note he (and I have heard this before) said that he iterprets the bible the way he wants too. I told him flat out, "that's pretty handy huh".

I asked him if god created us in his own image, why does god need ears, eyes nose mouth, feet and hands etc? So he literally is like, a man in space? He really did not have much to comment on about that.

Anyway, after our arguement I had to draw the conclusion that a: my friend is terribly stupid, or  b: so blinded by what he was raised with that he is terribly blind and closed minded.

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