So... God

[B_spiker067]

It's highly inappropriate to end your remark with "QED" since you neither addressed the point of discussion, nor actually demonstrated anything (other than your vanishing ability to engage in rational discourse).

In any case, your assertion has been shown to be indefensible. Please move along.

The QED was a joke.

The point addressed is the alleged ability (or premise) of the atheist position to begin in a vacuum, presupposing nothing and being able to maintain it.

I disbelieve that.

 

[D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah]

Religion is always a good and fun topic to bring up

Now will someone pass the wine..please, i need a drink

 

[B_spiker067]

You do realize they can't explain anything fundamentally, right?

Philosophically true I'd guess.

Could you explain what you mean by that though? Because you can fundamentally understand aerodynamics (w/o understanding molecular forces of air) and make a plane. But you still can't make an anti-gravity scooter (though you can make an elevator). There is something more nuanced about gravity I can't remember off hand. Oh, yeah something about a grand unifying something or other. How did that go again?

Can you empirically prove that assertion though because I'm starting in a vacuum presupposing nothing?

 

[B_spiker067]

Religion is always a good and fun topic to bring up

Now will someone pass the wine..please, i need a drink

What do you want Red, White, Asti Spumante, Zinfandel,...?

 

[D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah]

What do you want Red, White, Asti Spumante, Zinfandel,...?

Actually if its no trouble vodka would be great..otherwise white will do fine thanks :wink:

 

[B_spiker067]

Actually if its no trouble vodka would be great..otherwise white will do fine thanks :wink:

Here you can have the vodka bottle but please behave miss. I have to beat it (now, now, clean mind here girl) because I'm tired.

 

[clarkma86]

Could you pop me a link to Dawkins probability calculation?

It's not a calculation per se, just a logical argument. He doesn't put numbers on it, the "trillions to one" was my own fabrication.

 

[B_spiker067]

It's not a calculation per se, just a logical argument. He doesn't put numbers on it, the "trillions to one" was my own fabrication.

Well thats usefull your 'trillions' fabrication .

I've seen fundamentalist make some kind of ridiculous probability claim that implies God had to do it all.

I currently disbelieve them as I disbelieve Dawkins. Neither are mathematically inclined.

 

[D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah]

So who's got the biggest willy here?

 

[B_spiker067]

So who's got the biggest willy here?

I believe LordPendragon is this biggest in this thread.

 

[clarkma86]

Well thats usefull your 'trillions' fabrication .

I've seen fundamentalist make some kind of ridiculous probability claim that implies God had to do it all.

I currently disbelieve them as I disbelieve Dawkins. Neither are mathematically inclined.

Not to be entirely confrontational, but may I ask why you see fit to constitute every other post in this thread?

 

[B_spiker067]

Not to be entirely confrontational, but may I ask why you see fit to constitute every other post in this thread?

Because I'm the only one who is holding a position contrary to everyone else.

Some posts would only replied by me and no one else. But I can stop. G'night.

 

[clarkma86]

I must be completely honest, I haven't read the whole thread, and I couldn't decipher what your position was exactly from what I had read.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

SGOT,
Yes, I guess you got the problem down to probability estimations, yours and mine.

Now you are using the imperfect knowledge argument (funny). I'm using Creator:Creation terminology for the moment, not "designer".

Creator in it's widest form however, doesn't need a conciousness, if you start talking about what created the Unvierse, we enter the realm of science and any talk of God can be discarded.

I talk about God or a Designer, because that implies sentience, or some sort of being; which is necissary for any idea of "God" unless you are gonig to make an exceedingly wide definition of God.

How does God needing a God disprove God. I'm willing to stop at the first iteration of God at this time. BTW, God seems to be outside the Universe looking in. Think along Rat Biosphere example.

I'm sorry, but you cannot just "stop" and say "There is no god of gods, or any god of gods of gods" because that is a leap of faith and you start developing a theism, which you claim not to be doing.

The logical step from "everything has a designer" is that "God has a designer" if you deny that step, you deny logic, and faith rears it's ugly head.

Just because you say they are good reasons does not make them so.

Again, your 'compelling' reasons are against a White Haired Man God (that you borrow from Dawkins) and not the base class Creator God

I have a qualm with any designer God, everything I have said is applicable to any God who is thought of as the designer of the unvierse.

Don't make the guy a whiner. He says, "There is no empirical evidence to prove conclusively either way. Though we can inductively attempt to determine the (non)existence of Creator God"

As you say yourself, there is never any conclusive proof either way, thats why we talk about probability. And as I've already mentioned that God is illogical, and unnecissary, I think that takes the probability waaaay down.

It is probably 50-50 chance there isn't a Creator (or not proving a negative). Not the 99-1 odds you so comfortably would probably espouse.

Prove it. I seem to be the only one giving reasons here, I don't think you are exempt, and proving a negative still has very little to do with it - you can't prove that we arent simply brains in vats thinking that we have this conversation...

Get a hold of inductive reasoning and read some of JA's less empirical posts and you will start to see several reasons to start considering different probability odds.

I am very much aware of what Inductive reasoning is (I even read a passage from one of my favorate books about logic to check that I was correct), and unless you can point out what exactly you mean, this looks like diversion tactics to me, as I'm not very well going to sit and read through every one of JA's posts.

No it wasn't the empirical approach, it was a faith based point of view.

You can continue to make playground "no it;s not" statements all you like, but I have yet to see you reason properly here.

As I see it some 'rat' could come up with the idea of there being no Creator (or need for a Creator) despite common observations and assert a negative with every expectation of being able to prove it. But in the end being unable to do so for lack of empirical evidence and relying on inductive reasoning and therefor having to take some of his premises on 'faith'.

spiker

P.S. Don't forget to consider Pascal's wager.

Ok, finally I get something to work with, you actually state what you mean for once instead of just saying "no" everytime I say something.

I have not made a properly inductive arguement here, as an inductive arguement runs like this:

(I'm coining my own logic language here)
Key:
tx = "Time x"
P = Any observable proposition
a > b = "At 'a', 'b' was the case"

1: t1 > P
2: t2 > P
3: t3 > P

4: Therefore: P

You are very correct that an inductive arguement isn't very good logic and it's a generalisation (exactly the one I pointed out that you were using - "everything I have observed..." to "Everything in the Unvierse"), however, I'm using a different line of arguement here than you are thinking, I'm saying the following:

[This is in Propositional Logic defined by Prof Paul Tomassi]
P: Nothing can be proven to a point of certainty either way
Q: Everything is a matter of probability
R: By 'Probability' I mean weighing up the evidence for vs the evidence against and seeing which is the more likely
S: I have seen several good arguements against the existence of a God/designer/sentient creator
T: I have seen no Good arguements for the existence of a God/designer/sentient creator
U:It is very unlikely that a God/designer/sentient creator exists

1: P
2: R
3: S
4: T
5: R -> (P -> Q)
6: ((Q & R) & (S&T)) ->U
7: P -> Q 2,5 MP
8: Q 1,7 MP
10: Q&R 2,8 &I
11: S&T 9,10 MP
12: (Q & R) & (S&T) 10,11 &I
13: U 12,6 MP

Notice my deployment of "unlikely" into the whole thing, making this an deductive rather than inductive arguement, proveable by logic.

I have possibly made a mistake or two with that proof, it's been a while since I had to express something formally, but maybe now this arguement can get somewhere.

And you can shove Pascal's Wager sideways, I've already pointed out why its a piece of piss. :tongue:

As I mentioned in PM, this is an interesting read, for sure. However, this essay is nothing more than semantic doublespeak. In terms of formal logic, nothing is actually demonstrated at all.

And so, on the tenth page, HazelGod said "Let there be Formal Logic!" And SomeGuyOverThere sayeth "It is so!", and lo it was so, and all was good in the thread, for logic had atlast been created.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

I must be completely honest, I haven't read the whole thread, and I couldn't decipher what your position was exactly from what I had read.

It only really made sense to me about page 10, before that it was a knife fight in the dark.

What he's saying is, basically:

1: Any Position which claims that God does not exist, is false (inductive reasoning/proving a negative)
2: We have no good proof either way
3: The only holdable position is that God may or may not exist
4: If we cannot prove God doesn't exist, Atheism is no good.

5: Therefore: Atheism is no good.

I think. Thats what I've managed to extract in any case, Spiker, maybe you coould clear it up?

What I'm argueing is that premises 1, 2 and 3 are dodgey, and that ultimately, Atheism is more convincing than agnosticism which is what he is argueing for.

Logically, it runs something like:

P: We cannot prove God doesn't exist
Q: Atheism is no good
R: We have no good proof either way

1: R
2: R -> P
3: P -> Q
4: P 1,2 MP
5: Q 3,4 MP

As you can see, the logic is perfectly valid, but I think the premises are iffy.

 

[B_spiker067]

4: If we cannot prove God doesn't exist, Atheism is no good.

Just about right. The only big fix is:

4: If we cannot prove God doesn't exist, atheism is a belief held with no empirical evidence to support it, like any faith based belief. No more right or wrong than an abstract class of God belief.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Just about right. The only big fix is:

4: If we cannot prove God doesn't exist, atheism is a belief held with no empirical evidence to support it, like any faith based belief. No more right or wrong than an abstract class of God belief.

You're an anbopperbasterist and you have no grounds to prove that you are.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

You're an anbopperbasterist and you have no grounds to prove that you are.

I think you mean he has no grounds to prove that he isn't. :tongue:

Which is pretty much Russell's point with the Celestial Teapot arguement which I think is a very good counter to the talk of non-provable negatives.

 

[B_spiker067]

You're an anbopperbasterist and you have no grounds to prove that you are.

Well I've never heard of the concept of bopperbasting. What is it? Maybe I am one maybe I'm not one.

Lets see if we can work this one out. It could actually be useful.

Addl' Remark: I continue to reserve the right to cross all earlier posts of SGOT. Just because they haven't been doesn't mean his points even begin to be valid. And who will fess up to being SomeGuyOverThere. A name that seems to be a set up name perfectly contrived for philosophical discussions. Please also try to keep your posts shorter. I'll try to do the same.

Amygirl should be happily expectant of this definition, if she really doesn't know what bb is.

 

[HazelGod]

The point addressed is the alleged ability (or premise) of the atheist position to begin in a vacuum, presupposing nothing and being able to maintain it.

I disbelieve that.

You are, of course, free to beleive or disbelieve anything as you see fit. In this matter, however, your stated disbelief is neither rational nor reasonable.

Philosophically true I'd guess.
...
Can you empirically prove that assertion though because I'm starting in a vacuum presupposing nothing?

Yes, my statement hinges on your use of the term fundamental. We have no fundametal understanding of gravity, nor any other force known to exist. We also have no certain understanding of the fundamental nature of matter, although nuclear physics have come a long way in the last 50 years.

Beginning tabula rasa, we cannot definitively demonstrate that we possess a fundamental understanding of matter, energy, or any interaction therein. We have constructed some decent paradigms that model them well given our current level of knowledge, but that's far from a fundamental understanding.