On March 25 2013 02:41 Tachyon wrote: Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
Absolutely not. Have fun conversing with others while you dictate to them the substance of their beliefs though. I'm sure that'll open the dialogue right on up.
Explain to me how this is not the case. There is evidence for all these events occuring in that period of time.
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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
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.
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)
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.
I haven't read the proof, but I will when I have time. Anyhow. Your reasoning is probably sound. However, you can reason anything based on whatever assumptions you make. We can't dispute your reasoning, but we can dispute your assumptions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This man is correct. Interestingly, this means that the job of the anti-theist is now to prove that God's existence is logically impossible since all things are possible until proven otherwise.
On March 25 2013 02:41 Tachyon wrote: Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
Absolutely not. Have fun conversing with others while you dictate to them the substance of their beliefs though. I'm sure that'll open the dialogue right on up.
Explain to me how this is not the case. There is evidence for all these events occuring in that period of time.
Explain to me how this is the case.
The fossil records, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc. etc. From molecular biology, we can compare our DNA to that of gorillas and chimpanzees to calculate with good precision when homo sapiens came about. Most of the evidence suggests ~250,000 years, which only strengthens the argument.
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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
What's your point? That our 80 year life span is now suddenly pointless because the universe will end one day. That if an eternal being designed something that his designs would have to be eternal as well? If God exists and he has a purpose for life. What's to say that the purpose he seeks from his creation can't be found without his creation being eternal. When scientist are in a lab do they need an endless experiment to get the results they seek? Anyway, heat death of the universe is just one theory. Scientists don't understand the nature of dark matter and even though current observations show the universe speeding up as it spreads they don't know if dark matter will suddenly reverse and cause the universe to collapse upon itself and cause another big bang.
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).
On March 25 2013 02:41 Tachyon wrote: Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
Absolutely not. Have fun conversing with others while you dictate to them the substance of their beliefs though. I'm sure that'll open the dialogue right on up.
Explain to me how this is not the case. There is evidence for all these events occuring in that period of time.
Explain to me how this is the case.
The fossil records, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc. etc. From molecular biology, we can compare our DNA to that of gorillas and chimpanzees to calculate with good precision when homo sapiens came about. Most of the evidence suggests ~250,000 years, which only strengthens the argument.
Oh, I thought we were talking about something else lmao
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 can have beliefs regarding a deity without knowing for sure (or at all) whether or not the deity can be proven. Heck, you could think a deity can never be proven, but still choose to believe in it anyway (defense mechanism for comfort and guidance, blind faith, etc.). Even if some positions (e.g., agnostic theism) don't make sense to some people, that doesn't mean they're impossible to have.
As far as your dice analogy goes, that's simple probability and creating an association with previous experiences. I don't know what number will be rolled, but as far my familiarity with dice go (I may assume the integers 1-6 are the only answers, with each side having a 1/6 probability, etc.), I would still predict that the chance is 50/50 between 1-3 and 4-6. Even if my assumptions are wrong (and even if I know nothing about dice), I can still guess based on other reasons (e.g., expected value if I'm offered more money to guess a certain way and win).
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.
This is a much better way to describe how I feel than what I said earlier on in the thread.
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.
With all due respect it may be meaningless to you but other people may enjoy understanding the precise meaning of the words that they use and where they stand. Its nice to clarify what is logically defensible vs what isn't - and although you may see it as the same thing, I think I made a good case that it isn't depending on context. Besides I don't even think its a big complicated debate, I feel like that paragraph pretty much sums up everything!
I think the reason why its important is that atheists are often charged as being the same as theists, but just on the other side in terms of strongly rebuking God's existence (whether its any God or just the Christian God I'm not sure). So its important to clarify who believes what and why, which requires definitions. When you look into it there actually is an irrational form of atheism, and a more rational, moderate atheist agnosticism (in my opinion). It varies based on what type of God you're talking about of course, which is probably why a lot of people default to ignostic in these matters until a specific God is introduced.
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 can have beliefs regarding a deity without knowing for sure (or at all) whether or not the deity can be proven. Heck, you could think a deity can never be proven, but still choose to believe in it anyway (defense mechanism for comfort and guidance, blind faith, etc.). Even if some positions (e.g., agnostic theism) don't make sense to some people, that doesn't mean they're impossible to have.
As far as your dice analogy goes, that's simple probability and creating an association with previous experiences. I don't know what number will be rolled, but as far my familiarity with dice go (I may assume the integers 1-6 are the only answers, with each side having a 1/6 probability, etc.), I would still predict that the chance is 50/50 between 1-3 and 4-6. Even if my assumptions are wrong (and even if I know nothing about dice), I can still guess based on other reasons (e.g., expected value if I'm offered more money to guess a certain way and win).
That's a good point, people definitely could believe something even if they don't know. I just was responding to the claim made that calling yourself an agnostic, and denying that you are an atheist, is a claim made with ignorance with regard to what those terms mean. I wanted to show that it is perfectly defensible to call yourself an agnostic and not an atheist, as it depends on the degree of agnosticism.
Also you certainly would bet 50/50 as any sane person would . I just wanted to point out that based on that equal chance, there are no grounds for forming any "belief" about the die rolling a *specific* number. Of course you can believe in 50/50 odds, my question was meant to show the silliness of forcing someone to ascribe a higher probability to one side vs the other, as I see rational belief as the consequence of probability.
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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
What's your point? That our 80 year life span is now suddenly pointless because the universe will end one day. That if an eternal being designed something that his designs would have to be eternal as well? If God exists and he has a purpose for life. What's to say that the purpose he seeks from his creation can't be found without his creation being eternal. When scientist are in a lab do they need an endless experiment to get the results they seek? Anyway, heat death of the universe is just one theory. Scientists don't understand the nature of dark matter and even though current observations show the universe speeding up as it spreads they don't know if dark matter will suddenly reverse and cause the universe to collapse upon itself and cause another big bang.
The point is the designer is either incredibly inept and incompetent, or incredibly callous and uncaring. Either way it would be unworthy of worship. Something that is greatly at odds with most people's idea of god.
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.
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 kind of stuff relies on a difficulty with interpreting nested statements(curry paradox). all ontological arguments have within the definition/property etc of god that it exists, such that an assertion of a statement is equated to its existence. that's just a clue that the logic is problematic.
That's a fair argument, but in specific cases. Can you point to a specific part of the argument that fails because of the fallacy you mentioned. I don't think there are any self-referencing statements/prepositions here.
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.
Ontological Arguments aren't hard to understand, this has just been phrased in a more scientific manner.
- We have a concept of God - Therefore God must exist
Or
-We have a concept of perfection -Nothing in the world is perfect -Something must be perfect for us to have this concept -This thing is God
Or
-God is perfect -To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections -Therefore God exists
etc.
Most Ontological Arguments are dismissed nowadays. They're a bit old fashioned. People like Kant and Hume destroyed them.
You can't just lump all ontological arguments into one group; each one has to be shown to be incoherent individually. Can you show me the issue with this one?
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.
Ontological Arguments aren't hard to understand, this has just been phrased in a more scientific manner.
- We have a concept of God - Therefore God must exist
Or
-We have a concept of perfection -Nothing in the world is perfect -Something must be perfect for us to have this concept -This thing is God
Or
-God is perfect -To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections -Therefore God exists
etc.
Most Ontological Arguments are dismissed nowadays. They're a bit old fashioned. People like Kant and Hume destroyed them.
Thanks for the explaination, I was trying to find the point in soon.Cloak's argument but I was confused and gave me the befinifit of the doubt. Looks like that flasily phrased "argument" was actually really really really bad.
- We have a concept of Aliens/Dragons/Zombies - Therefore Aliens/Dragons/Zombies must exist
or
-We have a concept of perfection -Nothing in the world is perfect -Something must be perfect for us to have this concept -This thing is Aliens/Dragons/Zombies
Or
- Aliens/Dragons/Zombies are perfect - To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections - Therefore Aliens/Dragons/Zombies exists
Am I just missing a point or what
Well, kinda- this argument is a little more rigorous than those. But it really isn't terribly complicated. If you are willing to devote some time to figuring it out, it should be figure-out-able. Also, if you have a specific question about a step, I should (hopefully) be able to help (eventually- midterms )
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 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.
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.
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.
Anyway, all the responses are appreciated. Keep 'em coming :D.
. I just wanted to point out that based on that equal chance, there are no grounds for forming any "belief" about the die rolling a *specific* number. Of course you can believe in 50/50 odds, my question was meant to show the silliness of forcing someone to ascribe a higher probability to one side vs the other, as I see rational belief as the consequence of probability.
)
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! 
