This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument.
First, some definitions:
1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence).
2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God.
3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast).
The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
Based off the definition of an Anselmian God
(II) M(There is a God)
If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q)
(IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +
This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with (i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p)) (ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p (iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p) (iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition (v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition (vi) M(L(p)), then L(p)
If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God
Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question .
This is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion.
Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
nice, more people putting words in the mouth of an established astrophysicist, thinking they know him better than he does himself. <3
I'm basing this on what he says himself. Not on what he labels himself as, though. He's clearly an atheist (lacks a belief in a deity/deities). If someone says "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" it clearly means he does not understand what those words convey. Being an agnostic does not exclude being an atheist and vice versa. They answer different questions. Agnosticism is a view that it's not possible to know X, while atheism is a lack of belief in deities, regardless of one's reasons.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously. I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
Here comes a huge and pointless debate about the meaning of the word atheism. I have never understood why anyone actually cares about which of two very similar words they're being described by. I mean, you can call me a God-sympathizer instead of a theist, if you want, but it doesn't make a difference to anything because the name accorded to my beliefs is irrelevant to what my beliefs actually are. Atheism is apparently (according to New Atheists) not a belief, ergo all people who aren't theists of some kind are atheists. This definition of atheism basically means "doesn't have believe in God." It is completely fucking irrelevant to anything, but for some reason atheists in recent years have made this a big issue. Perhaps it's to bolster their numbers or something.
I've stumbled across a justification for being specific regarding a "lack" of a belief in gods, rather than the affirmative claim that gods cannot exist:
Simply lacking belief means that the onus is not on you to provide affirmative proof. You're simply the skeptic, waiting for the theist to prove his god to you. In this case, atheism is the null hypothesis, the default position. It's similar to saying that you're not going out of your way to try and disprove unicorns, but you simply (and somewhat open-mindedly) choose not to believe in them until there is evidence or a good argument made for their existence. This is also the perspective of most atheists. It's like saying bald is a hair color, or "not playing tennis" is a hobby of yours... (weaker) atheism is lacking an affirmative claim and belief.
Many theists argue that atheism and theism are on par with each other as far as requiring "proof" is concerned, and this truly applies to only the atheists who choose to make the claim that gods cannot exist, rather than might exist (but lack evidence and therefore are not believed to exist). It's a matter of the burden of proof, and it tends not to be the atheists' problem.
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results.
Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
nice, more people putting words in the mouth of an established astrophysicist, thinking they know him better than he does himself. <3
I'm basing this on what he says himself. Not on what he labels himself as, though. He's clearly an atheist (lacks a belief in a deity/deities). If someone says "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" it clearly means he does not understand what those words convey. Being an agnostic does not exclude being an atheist and vice versa. They answer different questions. Agnosticism is a view that it's not possible to know X, while atheism is a lack of belief in deities, regardless of one's reasons.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously (i.e. atheist agnostic, theist agnostic). I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
You cannot talk about God and proof of existence in the same paragraph once you're past a certain age. This is coming from someone who, again, is not religious. Your, as you say, "feelings" or "spirituality" have nothing to do with proof. I don't understand why so many people ask for a physical proof of something that doesn't have anything to do with the palpable world.
Because believers in these proposed beings wish to have their faith taken into consideration when making decisions based in and affecting the palpable world, and we then expect them to play by the same rules as any other hypothesis. The message, in short form, would be something like; Back up your claims or keep them to yourself.
Religion has always sought temporal power because it is for some reason granted the luxury of an exemption from the standard burden of proof. This makes it eminently simple for utterly unqualified people to attain positions of immense power and influence. See creationism in school, religious education, opposition to contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of religion, but it cannot, must not, under any circumstances, be given equal consideration compared that which is empirically and scientifically supported.
I am perfectly happy to let people have their toys. Do not bring the toys to my house. Do not try to make my children or anyone else's children play with the toys. Do not try to insinuate the toys into legislation and government. Keep the toys to yourself, and do not pester others with them.
That's all fine and dandy but it has nothing to do with what the OP wants us to discuss. I agree about the societal standards for religion are a bit disconcerting(completely different topic), but that guy is right. This discussion is completely invalid because both sides cannot present any proof. It's like asking a bacteria in our gut to justify an existence beyond its fundamental understanding/capacity. Not believing in god/creator is ignorant for forming an opinion without any substantial proof and this goes for believers as well. Both sides just have no information about the philosophical questions that have existed for thousands of years. Science might one day be able to come close, but that is not today. Basically just believe whatever makes you personally happy/satisfied and leave it at that.
The "burden of proof" (evidence in this case) is on one side and not the other. That it why the topic is about empirical evidence of god and not empirical evidence of non-existence of god.
I think all he's saying is that the burden of proof doesn't mean you have some default belief that God does not exist. Just because we have no evidence of wormholes doesn't mean my default belief is that wormholes don't exist. Thus it is kind of nonsensical to automatically rule out any possibility of the existence of a higher being (which we may define vaguely as some powerful creator of the universe)
Knowledge is not an on/off switch. It is weighted based on evidence (and some other properties). It is perfectly safe to say god does not exist as the weight on the proposition that he does is close to 0. That is because there is no evidence, the proposition itself does not bring anything to the table in terms of explanatory power and also considering the history of the whole idea of god. In normal life when propositions have such a low weight we say they are false. For some reason in philosophy/theology people use different words just so they can sound smart. When I am saying something does not exist, it is always shortcut to saying that the proposition that it exists has low weight based on .... and that it is safe to assume it does not in fact exist .
Also note that word existence is heavily tied to having empirical evidence (be it sometimes subjective) and it is quite possible the word has no actual meaning outside empirical context.
On March 25 2013 02:43 Morufi1 wrote: I think the "can he do something he can not do" question is silly. A satisfying answer for me is: He does not want to. You can see the human rationality as a result of gods will, so the question "Can he make P and not P true?" is not leading to something.
(Saying this all as an atheist)
I disagree with the suggestion that "he does not want to" is an appropriate response for these kinds of questions (as the question is confirming capability, rather than desire), but I also think that these questions aren't very good ones either for proving a point.
Saying things like "Can god create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it" or "Can god create a 4-sided triangle" are poor arguments because they're based on doing things that, by definition, can't occur. It has nothing to do with being omnipotent, and all to do with loopholes and mutually exclusive ideas. The best that can come from them is confirming that omnipotence technically doesn't exist in the most literal sense of "anything goes no matter what", because there is still a domain of things that can't happen by definition. So it really doesn't make much of a difference whether the claim is "all-powerful" or clarified to be "all-powerful within its definition and ignoring contradictions (so an incredibly strong and almighty conjurer)". And I don't think theists who agree to the omnipotent adjective have a problem with submitting to the latter definition either. It doesn't really detract from their position (there are far better arguments), and it's essentially a semantics game.
Anti-theist is more a person who despises the notion of a god, who actively wishes it's not true and takes comfort in the lack of evidence for it, however not necessarily convinced that no god exists. Hitchens was one such person, I suppose I'd count myself as one too.
On March 25 2013 03:22 Roe wrote: The name anti-theist works well for those who say gods cannot exist (rather than calling them "strong" atheists or something).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "antitheist" already refers to people who believe that a belief in god (or even religion) is harmful to society.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: This is not empirical evidence. This is playing with formal systems. I can also prove in standard math that I can split sphere into pieces and then assemble it into two spheres of the same volume as the original one. Apparently this is not an empirical fact, yet I can prove it in some formal systems. Playing with formal systems has nearly no relevance to real world. Only very restricted and specific formal inference can be applied to real world (see theoretical physics) and even then it needs empirical evidence to confirm.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
I consider axiom of choice part of standard math at this point. Yes, there are a lot of people who do not consider ZFC standard math, but you have to throw away a lot of math results if you reject axiom of choice. So , yes, it is possible to prove that using standard math (ZFC). But frankly my example was analogy and I could have used infinity of other examples if need be.
My point is that inferences in formal systems do not have necessarily any relevance to the real world. Even if we assume their axioms are true. Which in case of this issue is far from clear.
The fact is that there is lots of evidence against the existence of God once you start using Bayesian Reasoning (a mathematical measure of belief). Because absence of evidence is evidence of absence, this forces you to recognize how much evidence we have, and yet none of it points to anything supernatural. And yet, we're supposed to still believe that supernatural things exist. How silly.
For particular religions in general, you can quickly realize how little people actually believe in God by taking the Outsider Test of Faith. Using Bayes' Theorem with that, you will realize that a fundamentalist can't really justify a belief in God much greater than 50%. An agnostic can't really justify a belief in God greater than 0.5%, and a serious atheist puts the probability into negligible amounts. Even that is using rather generous assumptions.
God as a subject is moot. If you talk about "proving" the existence of God in the same realm as the theory of gravity you have a complete lack of understanding empirical evidence and the scientific theory. In science there is no proof: scientific theories are based on repeatable hypotheses.
Faith, however, is the anti-thesis because it denies the need for evidence. So drop the Ayn Rand, objectivity basis from the get go because it lacks any meaningful discussion.
Now, getting past the "proof" and scientific theory, there is theoritical evidence for a "creator," though very minimal and not enough for me to "believe" in one. We create AI that functions on its own. There is the possibility our functions were "created" by a mortal being but it's merely a philisophical theory based on a modern understanding of intelligence; good conversation for the realm of critical thinking but no of science.
So as I stand (I guess I have to state this) I'm agnostic: merely because I do not care about what happens after death and partially because of that .00001% idea of there being a mortal creator (Prometheus style.)
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: I used to not believe in God. Then I started thinking it over and I came to the realization that the universe has too much design in place for there not to be one. The laws of the universe all coincide too perfectly. An athiest's usual answer to many questions about the universe is that "its all just coincidence", "it just is", "there is no reason", etc. That's a poor answer. If someone asked someone else why the grass was green replying with "it just is" is a poor answer. There's a reason for everything that happens in the universe and there's always a cause and effect.
Look at the elements. So much synergy. When two hydrogen fuse together and make helium that isn't chance or luck or randomness. That has to happen. There's a rule that makes it happen. They don't combine and make sulfur, or iron, or hydrogen, they make helium. That fusion then produces energy that is also called light. That light is the fuel for all life as we know it. Now if hydrogen couldn't fuse together there would be no light but there is a rule to the universe that makes it so. If that fusion didn't release light then life wouldn't exist but the rule of universe makes it so. If gravity didn't exist then stars couldn't be formed and again fusion would never take place but the rules of the universe make it so. So much design I see but everyone just thinks it's one big coincidence.
When I see the element table I see the recipe and ingredients to life. It's like looking at a cook book. If the universe is infinite then life is everywhere. Little strands of nucleic acids are being formed or have been formed all over the universe. It's not just a coincidence, it has to happen. If life can be formed from a combination of the correct elements then it's supposed to happen, it's not just chance. Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument.
First, some definitions:
1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence).
2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God.
3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast).
The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
Based off the definition of an Anselmian God
(II) M(There is a God)
If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q)
(IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +
This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with (i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p)) (ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p (iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p) (iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition (v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition (vi) M(L(p)), then L(p)
If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God
Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question .
This is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion.
Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
Self consistency means absolutely nothing in relation to the world. Does not mean that using scientific facts and that system you will arrive at scientific facts. There is no reason for me to show what step does not make sense as the whole inference is NOT empirical evidence. Which is what this topic is about. If this topic was about how can we prove God using formal systems I would not touch it with a stick except to say that it is meaningless.
On March 25 2013 01:28 travis wrote: The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's role in a material universe, is the day I will stop believing that there is any sort of transcendental scheme.
The fallacy here is that things need to have a role. Consciousness exiting doesn't necessitate a purpouse for it other then maybe an evolutionary utility. Essentially you're saying "The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's "concept thats does not apply except for magical thinking" in a material universe, is the day I will stop "magical thinking".
It's interesting to call that type of thinking a fallacy when the entire basis of scientific reason is that things have a role, and then the thread is about using scientific reason to show evidence of god/religion.
I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, however. But you aren't being fair. 'Transcendental scheme' should not be equated with 'magical thinking'. Also it's just a position I take I am always open to have my views changed.
Science looks to explain what is and only in this capacity asks after the role of things (e.g. what role does cholosterole play in causing cardiac arrest). The role you' seem to be refering to is the role in "cosmic plan", a reason for something outside of it's immediate application and the believe that things have/need a reason as opposed to existing and playing a "role" (in the sene of funcioning) in existence. Which in turn imlies said "cosmic plan" or "higher agency" or whatever you want to call it. And this clearly is magical thinking.
'Transcendental scheme' implies there is a scheme in place to trancend something (presumably humans) to something (presumably a higher level of existence). Religion in a nutshell in other words.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: I used to not believe in God. Then I started thinking it over and I came to the realization that the universe has too much design in place for there not to be one. The laws of the universe all coincide too perfectly. An athiest's usual answer to many questions about the universe is that "its all just coincidence", "it just is", "there is no reason", etc. That's a poor answer. If someone asked someone else why the grass was green replying with "it just is" is a poor answer. There's a reason for everything that happens in the universe and there's always a cause and effect.
Look at the elements. So much synergy. When two hydrogen fuse together and make helium that isn't chance or luck or randomness. That has to happen. There's a rule that makes it happen. They don't combine and make sulfur, or iron, or hydrogen, they make helium. That fusion then produces energy that is also called light. That light is the fuel for all life as we know it. Now if hydrogen couldn't fuse together there would be no light but there is a rule to the universe that makes it so. If that fusion didn't release light then life wouldn't exist but the rule of universe makes it so. If gravity didn't exist then stars couldn't be formed and again fusion would never take place but the rules of the universe make it so. So much design I see but everyone just thinks it's one big coincidence.
When I see the element table I see the recipe and ingredients to life. It's like looking at a cook book. If the universe is infinite then life is everywhere. Little strands of nucleic acids are being formed or have been formed all over the universe. It's not just a coincidence, it has to happen. If life can be formed from a combination of the correct elements then it's supposed to happen, it's not just chance. Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
I thought a black hole just referred to a gravitational body where light can't escape. I don't think you need infinitely dense singularities for that... so aren't you just talking about specific properties of black holes that we don't know yet?
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: I used to not believe in God. Then I started thinking it over and I came to the realization that the universe has too much design in place for there not to be one. The laws of the universe all coincide too perfectly. An athiest's usual answer to many questions about the universe is that "its all just coincidence", "it just is", "there is no reason", etc. That's a poor answer. If someone asked someone else why the grass was green replying with "it just is" is a poor answer. There's a reason for everything that happens in the universe and there's always a cause and effect.
Look at the elements. So much synergy. When two hydrogen fuse together and make helium that isn't chance or luck or randomness. That has to happen. There's a rule that makes it happen. They don't combine and make sulfur, or iron, or hydrogen, they make helium. That fusion then produces energy that is also called light. That light is the fuel for all life as we know it. Now if hydrogen couldn't fuse together there would be no light but there is a rule to the universe that makes it so. If that fusion didn't release light then life wouldn't exist but the rule of universe makes it so. If gravity didn't exist then stars couldn't be formed and again fusion would never take place but the rules of the universe make it so. So much design I see but everyone just thinks it's one big coincidence.
When I see the element table I see the recipe and ingredients to life. It's like looking at a cook book. If the universe is infinite then life is everywhere. Little strands of nucleic acids are being formed or have been formed all over the universe. It's not just a coincidence, it has to happen. If life can be formed from a combination of the correct elements then it's supposed to happen, it's not just chance. Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
We have evidence of black holes, you just mentioned some of it. We have no conclusive evidence about every aspect of them. We have absolutely no evidence of god whatsoever. Plus black holes do not necessarily equal "infinitely dense singularities". It is enough they have gravity strong enough not to allow light to escape.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: I used to not believe in God. Then I started thinking it over and I came to the realization that the universe has too much design in place for there not to be one. The laws of the universe all coincide too perfectly. An athiest's usual answer to many questions about the universe is that "its all just coincidence", "it just is", "there is no reason", etc. That's a poor answer. If someone asked someone else why the grass was green replying with "it just is" is a poor answer. There's a reason for everything that happens in the universe and there's always a cause and effect.
Look at the elements. So much synergy. When two hydrogen fuse together and make helium that isn't chance or luck or randomness. That has to happen. There's a rule that makes it happen. They don't combine and make sulfur, or iron, or hydrogen, they make helium. That fusion then produces energy that is also called light. That light is the fuel for all life as we know it. Now if hydrogen couldn't fuse together there would be no light but there is a rule to the universe that makes it so. If that fusion didn't release light then life wouldn't exist but the rule of universe makes it so. If gravity didn't exist then stars couldn't be formed and again fusion would never take place but the rules of the universe make it so. So much design I see but everyone just thinks it's one big coincidence.
When I see the element table I see the recipe and ingredients to life. It's like looking at a cook book. If the universe is infinite then life is everywhere. Little strands of nucleic acids are being formed or have been formed all over the universe. It's not just a coincidence, it has to happen. If life can be formed from a combination of the correct elements then it's supposed to happen, it's not just chance. Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
Not true; Just because you can not go to a black hole (that's "a black hole", not "the black hole") or put it in a lab does not mean it lacks evidence for it's existence.
On March 25 2013 03:22 Roe wrote: The name anti-theist works well for those who say gods cannot exist (rather than calling them "strong" atheists or something).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "antitheist" already refers to people who believe that a belief in god (or even religion) is harmful to society.
I'm just saying it'd be useful to distinguish them based on positive or null claims.
But from wikipedia:
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of maltheism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to a god's existence.[2] The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all.
Phase 1 of this thread was pretty much ended on the first page. This is a completely pointless and impossible exercise as we all already know that you cannot empirically prove the existence of any god. At best Phase 1 of this thread is going to turn into a likeminded circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back and condemning those who feel differently. I attempted to report the original post specifically for that reason but it appears that someone beat me to it. There is absolutely nothing constructive that can come of this thread.
This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument.
First, some definitions:
1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence).
2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God.
3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast).
The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
Based off the definition of an Anselmian God
(II) M(There is a God)
If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q)
(IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +
This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with (i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p)) (ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p (iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p) (iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition (v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition (vi) M(L(p)), then L(p)
If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God
Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question .
This is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion.
Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter:
i) It is possible that god does not exist
ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world
iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world
iv) god is a necessary being
v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist
TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
EPT
. 
Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating! 
