Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.

You make reference to Occum's Razor, but this is merely a rule of thumb scientists use when trying to interpret data-- it is not a Law, not a Theory, not even a Hypothesis. It states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, and its biggest weakness is that it relies on a human judgement based on the information he has on hand. Based on the data available to most people in the ancient world, the explanation of a flat Earth would have almost certainly seemed like the simplest. Later investigation, of course, proved this to be untrue.

Furthermore, I feel from the way you talk that you must have a very restrictive concept of what God could be. You say you believe in science, but science is only an imperfect human art which attempts to methodically explain observable phenomena. By its own admission, it is plagued by flaws, inaccuracies, mistaken assumptions and downright falsehoods-- all part of the continuous, and interminable, process of investigation.

So, do you believe that if humans, using the Scientific Method, arrive at a certain conclusion, that it is always correct? What if it is later proven false-- was it correct before it was disproven and incorrect afterwards? Or is there a higher truth, something that rises above human perception and control, which is constant, always, forever?

And if so, why can we not call this truth, God?

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

---

In science we seek to explain the world. We have a current best answer and it doesn't include god. Nothing irrational about that. It would be much easier to explain the world using god, in your example we could say the earth is flat because god made it so and leave it at that. But it wouldn't be true. Given the evidence we have for a round earth, surely you wouldn't still believe a "god made the earth flat" scenario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In science we seek to explain the world. We have a current best answer and it doesn't include god. Nothing irrational about that. It would be much easier to explain the world using god, in your example we could say the earth is flat because god made it so and leave it at that. But it wouldn't be true. Given the evidence we have for a round earth, surely you wouldn't still believe a "god made the earth flat" scenario?

---

Well, why can't you believe a "God made the world round" scenario?

And again, I question the restrictions you seem to be placing on your concept of "God". How do you define God? I invite you to summarize your own concept here for us.

Mithrandir: Our system of justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty because its goal is to keep social order, not determine truth. Just because you assume they are innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I mean, come on, that's elementary logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Mithrandir: Our system of justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty because its goal is to keep social order, not determine truth. Just because you assume they are innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I mean, come on, that's elementary logic.

---

Which is why evidence has to be presented to prove the opposite ~:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Well, why can't you believe a "God made the world round" scenario?

---

My question would be why the need to postulate something which you can't prove, Del Arroyo? Of course you can believe it, if you so choose. The real question is why would you need to do so? Such a belief might have been needed before rational explanation was possible, at the dawn of human civilization, perhaps.

If an explanation exists which doesn't require a deity, why invent one, which just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. I submit that the reason belief in the mystical still exists is simply because it developed before humans had the critical skills and knowledge to explain the world without a need for such beliefs. The mystical explanation is an artifact of a time before rational thought. As such those beliefs can't be disproven. I don't feel any need to disprove them. They are no longer relevant.

Del Arroyo,

1) Name as many 'creatures' that do not exist.

2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.

3) What's the difference between these 'creatures' and God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

If an explanation

---

This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.

You have a rock. You can use science to determine how heavy it is. You can use science to determine its spacial dimensions. You can use science to determine its approximate mineral and then chemical composition, and its likely geological origins.

But what do you do with it? Science has no answer.

Do you throw the rock? Make it into a tool? Save it? Leave it? You could do any of those things, and science might possibly be a tool you use to help you make your decision-- depending on its size and composition, it might be better suited for one use than another, for example. You could even analyze yourself, your motives and needs, chart the probabilities of your different potential decisions, then, after the decision, repeat the analysis and provide a hypothesis as to why that particular decision was taken.

But the decision is still up to you. How will you be able to make that decision, if science can provide no clear answers?

You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.

Tell me, Aenlic, does your mother really love you, or does she merely act on the selfish biological instinct to protect her own genetic material? Try as you might, the scientific process cannot provide an answer to such a question. Assumptions and terms could be defined, and experiments designed, but in the end no matter what they resulted in it would be entirely irrelevant to a matter which depends wholly on your own heart, and your own soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Del Arroyo,

1) Name as many 'creatures' that do not exist.

2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.

3) What's the difference between these 'creatures' and God?

---

Who said God was a creature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Who said God was a creature?

---

LOL. Let me rephrase:

1) Name as many 'entities' that do not exist.

2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.

3) What's the difference between these 'entities' and God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

LOL. Let me rephrase:

1) Name as many 'entities' that do not exist.

2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.

3) What's the difference between these 'entities' and God?

---

And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.

I invite you to please elaborate the definition of God which you are using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.

---

Those are not things you have to believe in.
They are biological processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.

I invite you to please elaborate the definition of God which you are using.

---

I'm an atheist, I have no definition of God. I'm using theist's definition.

You're a theist. What's your definition of God?

:elvis:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.

You have a rock. You can use science to determine how heavy it is. You can use science to determine its spacial dimensions. You can use science to determine its approximate mineral and then chemical composition, and its likely geological origins.

But what do you do with it? Science has no answer.

Do you throw the rock? Make it into a tool? Save it? Leave it? You could do any of those things, and science might possibly be a tool you use to help you make your decision-- depending on its size and composition, it might be better suited for one use than another, for example. You could even analyze yourself, your motives and needs, chart the probabilities of your different potential decisions, then, after the decision, repeat the analysis and provide a hypothesis as to why that particular decision was taken.

But the decision is still up to you. How will you be able to make that decision, if science can provide no clear answers?

You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.

---

Basically, Del Arroyo, your argument boils down to your concern for the soul of the rock, and mine basically states I don't care if the rock has a soul, it isn't something important.

You seem stuck on this idea of science. Perhaps you've confused my arguments with someone else's? I haven't said science, I believe. If I did, it was only in passing. I've very carefully used broader terms. You've chosen to deliberately misstate my position. As for ethics and morals, you are making broad and entirely baseless assumptions that they require religion to be valid. This is no more sensible than religion itself. The basis of all human interaction is self-interest and mutual benefit, the later because self-interest when thought through fully implies mutual benefit since no one can survive long alone. It's a function of society. You claim on the other hand that morals and ethics derive solely from some nebulous, immaterial and ultimately unverifiable source outside yourself. If that makes you feel more comfortable with your self-interest, then fine for you. I don't need that crutch. :beam:

Quote:

---

Tell me, Aenlic, does your mother really love you, or does she merely act on the selfish biological instinct to protect her own genetic material? Try as you might, the scientific process cannot provide an answer to such a question. Assumptions and terms could be defined, and experiments designed, but in the end no matter what they resulted in it would be entirely irrelevant to a matter which depends wholly on your own heart, and your own soul.

---

Incorrect assumptions again. How do you know that love isn't exactly that - a selfish biological instinct? You don't. You make unprovable assumptions based on belief in an unprovable system. And yes, since you insist on making this a question of science versus mystical belief, science may one day very well be able to determine exactly what the biological basis is for emotions. Science is already close, in fact. Deny it all you like, it is coming. But it isn't just science which pushes that edge. It's rational thought and critical thinking. We don't need religion to be ethical, we don't need religion to feel emotion, we don't need religion to look at the stars and wonder how they were made. Well, many of us don't, I should say. Some still need that nightlight and favorite blankie to protect them from the unknown. :wink:

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

Blah,Blah and blah. Believe in what you want and give others the same privledge.Sometimes i think there are atleast as many preachermen in atheist´s as there in religious persons.:laugh4:

Look people, depending on which epistemically basic assumptions you make, you are going to branch off into differing views, and even if two people share the same basic assumptions, they may have radically differing paradigms. People are apt to place their belief system higher than others, and that's how it is always going to be.

Let's all leave it at that, eat some ice cream, and celebrate Michigan's trip to the BCS Championship. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Atheists are hypocrites. They pretend superiority to those with irrational beliefs, based on their own irrational belief in the non-existence of a God.

---

Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.

Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.
Again it's about how you define god/deity. if you define it as an something as unsubstantial as an 'idea', then it exists because ideas exist, if you define a god/deity as something in the physical world or involved in the workings of the physical world, then it is unproven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Many self-proclaimed adherents of humanism are also hypocritical, claiming to be freed of the shackles of dogma, only to go on writing up tomes upon tomes of their own dogmatic points.

---

Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I think Reenk Doink got it right in noting that Reason itself must be accepted irrationally. I would caution all of my fellow Org-ahs to take care in selecting the principles by which to live their lives-- at their core, these principles cannot be rational. If you pretend that they are rational, you are fooling yourself, and may be in danger of basing your entire life on false, failed products of circular deception, far, far away from that which is Right and True.

---

fine, but so what? - even if Rationalism/secularism is somehow terribly flawed (I have yet to see any evidence of this), what alternative can said to be really better?

Why should we become theists? why should we change and adopt faith over reason? I have yet to see any good reason why... certainly no an ethical reasons and certainly no an intellectual reasons...

Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages. ~ Richard Lederer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.

---

God can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore Atheism is just as likely an answer to 'the question' as Theism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.

---

that's assuming the 'soul' exists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.

---

so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?

while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

---

if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...

-------------
there are some quite interresting quotes here (both for the theistic arguments and atheistic arguments)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Irreligious

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Agnosticism


-----------

A new question for the Secular people here: What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?


I like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (and it's offshoots), and Jediism, and Unitarian Universalism...

Quote:

---

What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?

---

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

---

Try starting here.

Mankind finds a way, whatever their motivations or supposed beliefs. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

---

Warrior monks! :stare:

One world-religion overview book I read for an university exam seemed to almost delight in the interesting case of a Sri Lankan prince who pretty much stuck a Buddhist relic on his spear and went on what amounts to a crusade against his Hindu neighbours but a few centuries after old Gautama left this plane of existence. And the Japanese temples notoriously liked to settle their disputes with private armies, which were also employed to bully temporal authorities from time to time.

Not that the basically pacifistic undercurrents of Buddhism ever particularly kept its adherents from donning their war gear and ventilating their neighbours anyway. Sort of how Christians were awfully quick to forget the early "one cannot be both a soldier and a Soldier of God at once" idea right fast after the Roman Empire went officially Christian, I guess.
:juggle2:

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

---

The reason why I'm asking you these questions:
1. Name any 'thing' that does not exist.
2. Why do you say it does not exist?
3. What's the difference between this 'thing' and God

is if you say X 'does not exist' and God 'exists', and at the same time cannot tell the difference between X and God, then:

You cannot tell the difference with 'what exists' and 'what do not exist' even from your very own account!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

---

They just shout out my name.


ok, too easy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.

---

Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by claudius the god

Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.
...
while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.

---

Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

that's assuming the 'soul' exists...

---

"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?

---

More like science provides the What and religion provides the Why. I also personally see a large distinction between "religion" and "organized religion".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...

---

This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.

..

As a personal disclaimer, I do not have a particularly strong faith in anything, and, if pressed, I would probably term much of the story of Christ (for one example) and church rituals as "superstition". But I do know that there is something bigger than me, and I do take the time now and then to be quiet and listen. These, I think, are two of the important first lessons of religion-- humility, and patience.

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

We aren't going to get anywhere like this. Your defining religion and science just the way you want to. Since when is religion the why? Your encapsulating too much with that word. You can follow a moral code without being religious, a moral code on it's own is not enough to qualify as a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

---

Uh, I don't want to double attack you on this, but I felt I needed to get a word in edgewise.

Logic is based on unprovable assumptions. This is true. However, it is where these assumptions lead and how they relate to each other that is important. This is the only way we can "judge" which assumption is "better" and which can be discarded. Material results matter if you don't just care about an argument. As far as I can tell, not much modern progress has been created out of instinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.

---

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

---

Who can argue with it? For several thousand years, most of the population of the world would argue with it, except for a very small group/cult of people living in relatively miniscule portion of the world.

Unless, of course, you believe that Jehovah announced his superiority to all the other peoples of the world as well, being all-powerful and such. So, without evidence, you'll claim that Jehovah made that announcement to more than just .001% of the world's population at the time? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

---

Their partner(s) name obviously.

'Oh My Santa/Easter Bunny/Mummy/God' only one of which is testable, and that belongs to the serial killers school of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.

---

proof isn't necessary, only evidence... the problem is that there isn't even any realistic evidence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.

---

Secular society neither has religion, nor bows, nor has gods...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.

---

the theistic idea of the 'Soul' has little evidence to support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.

---

nonsense... religion and faith claim intellectual superiority through 'divinely revealed knowledge', while Science is skeptical and works to become more accurate and is constantly improving itself in answering important questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

---

I can argue with that... it gives no intellectual nor moral reason why we should have no other God, nor any God at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

---

Hi Pindar,

I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.

the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...

Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

---

very funny... this I think is just an expression, not a way in which the atheist communicates with 'god'... I sometimes swear loudly: "God-damn-it" and other similar expressions that are used by many... wouldn't yelling out "Oh God!" during sex be just as "blasphemous" as saying "God=damn-it" when angry...??? - there is no real belief behind the saying, just a way to easily express anger, pain, frustration, and sexual ecstasy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Hi Pindar,

I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.

---

Hi Claudius,

The problem with the above is in applying a scientific schema to a decidedly non-scientific object. To attempt to do so is to commit a category mistake. This is so regardless of any evidentiary (or its opposite) appeal.

Quote:

---

the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...

Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...

---

The issues with strong atheism I explained are not amenable to psychological, anthropological or any sociological context. The issue is formal: applying to the basic logical structure of the claim. If one posits "there is no god" under a deductive rubric then they beg the question. If one asserts "there is no god" under an inductive schema then they have committed a different fallacy in concluding a universal negative. The logical problems for strong atheism are severe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

---

All strong positions on god are illogical. But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true? There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

All strong positions on god are illogical.

---

No, they are not.

Quote:

---

But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true?

---

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

Quote:

---

There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.

---

Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, they are not.

---

Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:

Quote:

---

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

---

What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.

Quote:

---

Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.

---

You should try doing something logically absurd sometime, it's fun. By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

---

I think IMDHO by irrelevant Pindar-san means the same irrelevance as someones favourite colour, drink or food has to the universe at large. The question of 'is there a god?' is not answered by an individuals choices, but by a far more universal criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:

---

Was that the reaction to that guy's miss? I would have :beam: 'd.

"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.

1) Not if you add it in your premise.

2) It's more of a rejection of a claim (everyone was born at point 0; i.e no belief). Without theists there would be no atheists.

It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.

Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way (i.e does not follow the laws of physics hence undetectable). Well, your brain is physical, it only responds to the laws of physics.

And you do not want to share what God is telling you since it is akin to casting "pearls before/unto swine" (I don't know what that means and I don't exactly remember the phrase).

Then, what language is God using (given you understood the message), since you're saying God communicates with you, and hence there's a metaphysical signal albeit is undetectable?

Lastly, there are only two Christians I know that that claim that God is sending signals straight to their head, that's you and Pat Robertson.

Am I right to be skeptical since the other Orgahs aren't receiving this signals and Pat Robertson is certainly sharing these personal messages to the world?

Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:

http://www.serversunderthesun.com/tin/DCP_0536.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:

---

Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

The above is a simple valid argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

Quote:

---

What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.

---

---

You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.

Quote:

---

By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

---

See Papewaio's comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.

1) Not if you add it in your premise.

---

This is not correct. It begs the question.

Quote:

---

Without theists there would be no atheists.

---

This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position.

Quote:

---

It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.

---

This is a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way...

---

I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:

---

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

The above is a simple valid argument.

---

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

Quote:

---

You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.

---

And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

See Papewaio's comment.

---

I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god.

---

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.

Quote:

---

And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:

---

"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.

Quote:

---

I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:

---

OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:

1) Bob is a Martian.

2) I believe Bob is a Martian.

1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

---

Are saying first cause = god?

Quote:

---

This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.

---

When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?

Quote:

---

"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.

OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:

1) Bob is a Martian.

2) I believe Bob is a Martian.

1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.

---

You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?

---

Who says we can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Are saying first cause = god?

---

---

My above comment concerns validity. As far as the argument: yes.

Quote:

---

When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?

---

?

Quote:

---

You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.

---

The focus is the meaning of knowledge claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

I don't understand what you meant by the last part of that snippet Sasaki, but yes, it is possible to have two differing but both reasonable beliefs about something:

As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):

Quote:

---

All men can be divided into two classes

(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.

(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.

But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.

---

Note: (parentheses mine)

Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.

In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.

..

Quote:

---

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

---

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

Quote:

---

As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):


Quote:
All men can be divided into two classes

(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.

(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.

But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.

---

Very interesting, Reenk Roink, though I would argue as to whether a creator cannot exist in an eternal world. (It may depend on the sense of the word "creator".)

..

Sasaki Kojiro: I feel that the essential answer to all your many questions here is this-- Stuff is more complicated than you thought it was. Surprise surprise. You are young now, you'll keep on learning til you die.

It has also been said that some things are beyond human understanding.

If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?

However, something else Pindar said struck me as much more profound.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

I was thinking about this very issue in Church yesterday, and it made me a little sad. At the end of the day, those of you who have convinced yourself that it is not possible that God exists (Quietus, et. al) or thiat is not possible to logically fathom whether God exists or not (Sasaki, et. al.) have commited the same error of logic that you accuse believers in God of.... you have precluded the possiblity that you might be wrong. There is nothing, no evidence, no proof that I could provide to Quietus that would convince him that God's non-existence is in fact erroneous. Any evidence on the matter (and at the end of the day, faith is belief in the absence of empirical evidence) would be rejected through one interpretation of facts or another. I sadly suspect even an encounter with the Almighty Himself would be rejected. Likewise, Sasaki would sit, judgement neutral, refusing to commit, even under such circumstances.

I'm not picking you two out to embarrass you. I just find that you two make as glib arguments for your respective positions as anyone, so I'm making you symoblic figureheads of your respective camps.

To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?

I can in fact freely admit that it's very possible that I am wrong and God doesn't exist. For me, question 2 is more difficult to answer, but I suppose it would come down to an absence of the personal, anecdotal 'evidence' (and it's not empirical evidence, I just use that term for a lack of a better word). You see, I truly see prayers answered in my life. Sometimes I don't recognize them as such, but upon further reflection, I do. Were I to describe these events to you, I'm sure they would sound like campfire ghost stories, but there is a sense of authenticity, at a fundamental level, that I look for and recognize. It's not just random events, and it's not always a favorable outcome. Were these reinforcing, incredibly unlikely, meaningful 'coincidences' (I guess that's the best way to describe it to you) cease, I suppose my faith would falter and I would have to entertain the notion that I had previously been wrong and I had misinterpreted meaningful twists of fate.

How about you? Could you be wrong? When would you begin to suspect that you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Who says we can't?

---

Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.

Which logical claim is more valid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.

Which logical claim is more valid?

---

As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.

God is logically possibly, but undefinable. You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god. I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator. Arguing that atheism is absurd because the creator isn't disprovable is a straw man really.

In the end you think god approves of certain things and approves of others based on what you were taught and what you've considered on your own, and I consider some things right and some things wrong based on what I was taught and what I've considered. The difference isn't that great.

I'm sure some things are beyond understanding Del Arroyo. Perhaps one of them is a universe operating without god?


And Don, I'm sure I could be convinced that there was a God. I'm convinced there's something in the dark after watching a scary movie ~D it's a natural human predilection.

Quote:

---

I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator.

---

A deist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

A deist?

---

Deism is essentially atheism. How do you live your life differently if you believe there was a creator or if you believe there wasn't? Not in the slightest. Perhaps you wonder more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.

---

This was actually the type of answer I was looking for. Since belief requires a judgement concerning the preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?

---

It is possible that the secular camp is wrong, and it is also possible that the theists are wrong...

personally I find it tedious and uninterresting after a while to ask the simple question of the existence or non-existence of deities. no one has reliable answers, just arguments...

personally, as an Atheist/Humanist, I find it more interresting to say for the sake of the argument that there is something in the universe that some would interpret as god/s... okay, assuming (without evidence of course) that there are deities and so on... what sort of deities would they logically be?

I find it more interresting to ask this question because many deities that are currently popular are incredibly absurd, even nonsensical... many of them make the Flying Spaghetti Monster look rational in comparison...

so instead of asking the basic question of weather deities do or do not exist, I ask theists - what rational argument can you give to say that YOUR God/s exists?

not even "Intelligent" Design could create a rational argument as to why there must be an intelligent designer...

Even if there is some force in the universe that some interpret as God/s, why should that mean that it operates on things such as Heaven, Hell, Sin, judgement and forgiveness of Sins, love, hate, and divine intervention?

why is this thing seen as the supernatural creator of everything?

why should it be assumed that this thing desires worship and sacrifices or demands that intelligent animals such as Humans live by various moral codes and laws?


I think that the basic argument over the existence vs non-existence of gods is a debate that can never be answered to any satisfaction... but the question of the existence of specific gods promoted in religion and scripture... that is an interresting question to me...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god.

---

If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.

I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arrayo

A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

---

Eloquent and all, but how's that fit with the way the believers pretty much per definition have to declare Scriptures other than their own to be, uh, rubbish, to put it mildly ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

---

What was the Book's point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.

I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.

---

perhaps... the difference in my mind between atheism and agnosticism is the argument favoured by Atheists: that Deities are man-made ideas which helps to answer difficult questions, organize and bring order to sociey, and give some measure of comfort to people... the Atheist view is that God/s are entirely artificial.

though I think you are correct when saying that when looking at specific gods - ie the god of the Bible - that Atheists are quite firm in the belief that this or that specific god does not exist as theists would have it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

---

I'm sorry to say that I agree with you on this, many of us in the Secular camp (myself included) have been guilty of criticizing Christians based on the entirety of the Bible taken literally... it makes a better argument to highlight the horrors of Deuteronomy and so on...

still, even Jesus himself is not above strong criticism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

---

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

---

This does not make logical sense.

How so ? If you remove assumptions of divinity from the book - as for example a Christian interested in not letting his or her confessional affiliation get in the way of analysis might, and Atheists and Agnostics do more or less by default - it's 'just' a writing of considerable historical and social significance. But then, so is Das Kapital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. It begs the question.

---

Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.

Quote:

---

This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position.

---

Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.

Quote:

---

This is a non sequitur

---

Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.

Quote:

---

I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.

---

You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.

I just couldn't add those myself until now since you broke off discussion with me, remember?

Quote:

---

Arroyo.

Quote:
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

---

Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:

Just looking at it myself, I'd guess that this argument can also be attacked on grounds of circular reasoning/begging the question, and maybe on other points as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

---

And the darkness surrounded the light and said, "Hey, look, a party! Where's the keg?"

All things considered, I'll just have to say no to the Holy Underwear, but thanks anyway! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

---

Hi Del Arroyo,

Logic's formal start is Aristotle's Organon. This may be rather dry reading. Aristotle can be tedious for those not used to it.

As far as simple introductory textbook: Copi's Introduction to Logic is quite good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?

---

A contingent being can be caused by another contingent being. The issue is if the entire line is only contingent. The problem that leads to the reductio ad absurdum is that there is no way to ultimately ground being. This is because any noted causative contingent agent is not self causative and is always already dependant on a prior cause. Thus, one asserts contingent being without explanation which then either begs the question or can no longer be considered a knowledge claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Deism is essentially atheism.

---

This is not correct. Deism is a theism. Divine interaction is a separate consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.

---

No, it does not. You do not understand. The argument is valid.

Quote:

---

Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.

---

Chronology does not impact the meaning. Atheism is conceptually distinct. Atheism and neutrality regarding Deity are not the same.

Quote:

---

Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.

---

This comment: "It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all." is a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.

---

I have never made this comment: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." neither does it relate to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:

---

Hi Red Peasant,

Actually the argument finds reference in Plato. It was also used by Aristotle. St. Thomas picked up the idea from Aristotle's work via Maimonides.

There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.

In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.

---

I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=50127&page=6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

What compelled you to believe there is 'god' in the first place (that is if you wish to elucidate).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Nothing has compelled me to believe in God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

Ok, let me rephrase: at what point in your life did you start believing in 'god'? (doesn't have to be specific at all).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Does it matter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

To me yes. Because I have a follow up question: What caused you to be a believer at that point in time? (again, you do not have to answer this)~:)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelation

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

Pindar, absolute not! ~:) You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.

I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.

---

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.

---

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

I don't know what ephenomenon means.

As I said, maybe.

As I also mentioned: there is no standard for examining one side of the dynamic: God, and given experience is relational this seems a problem. There doesn't seem to be a verification schema for the subject either, meaning: 1), if say a brain wave analysis was given at the time of a revelation and some spike registered, how does one guarantee that the spike equals a Divine communique? 2) if the experience is "metaphysically contained" then no physical register would occur. For example, in the Book of Acts, Stephen while standing before the Sanhedrin declares he can see God sitting on His throne with the Lord standing to His right. Now the Sanhedrin, who would moments later have him killed, could see nothing. This would suggest something 'not normal' occurred, if it occurred. If revelation is an opening of the soul to a higher order then standard empirical appeal is not helpful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big John (old post)

also, if you can share, what information did your revelation convey to you? or at least what sort of information?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

No, I don't think so. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Matt. 7:6

Not that there is anything wrong with being swine mind you. ~:grouphug:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin Rules (old post)

Well, the discussion is more or less at an end if you can't give us that. It is indeed the lynchpin of your entire belief in God and the basis of all the arguments you have presented here; if it is out of bounds, we can't reach any further conclusions regarding your ideas. It's your prerogative, of course, and I am not asking you to reveal it. Perhaps we should return the discussion to the Religion/Cult topic?

---

Where's the inaccuracy Del Arroyo?

Quietus: Nothing which you have posted here has any relevance to this topic. You only show your own weakness of spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

You only show your own weakness of spirit.

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

:inquisitive:

---

*insert casting magika joke here*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

*insert casting magika joke here*

---

:laugh4:


his resistance to magika is so low! cast magic missle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=50127&page=6

---

This does not relate to the topic. Neither does it show me saying: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." Either your memory was poor or you did not understand. Given what you posted and the series of partial quotes my guess is you did not understand. For example your use of God sending signals that are "one way". Note my original post and what it was in response to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?

Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.

---

---

Now, unless one wishes to argue science can and does breach the metaphysical barrier this seems a rather obvious point.

I provided a good number of posts in the thread you cited which should have been (and I think remain) useful. This was the last posted by me to yourself:

Quote:

---

There is a reference in Brothers Karamazov where Russian students are considered unique in that they combine absolute arrogance with total ignorance. The example is then given: if an Astronomer handed a map of the solar system to a Russian student, the student would return the map with corrections on it.

You have continued to engage on a subject matter that you are clearly unfamiliar. Your comments on basic logic are incoherent. References to truth, superlatives, or universal agreement are not relevant. It isn't prudent to spar on subject matter you have never studied. It isn't prudent to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word in the face of direct evidence. Both approaches suggest an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. I can do nothing further for you. I must leave you to your dogma. Alas.

---

I continue to insist you would be better served if you actually studied logic before making pronouncements about the discipline. It appears by your posts since that time, this has not occurred. It also appears you would rather pursue private agendas since none of your posts to me relate to the focus of the thread. This also is unfortunate.

does anyone here read the Free Inquiry magazine?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...=fi&page=index
there are links to some of the articles here for people interrested in this Humanist magazine...

back-issues are somewhat difficult to find...


and here is one more link about Humanism as a life stance which wasn't posted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

Arguments for and against the existence of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Ethical Culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture

Quote:

---

There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.

---

For God to be, God must be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

For God to be, God must be?

---

No. Contingent means dependent. A contingent being is one that owe's its existence to another being. Pindar is pointing out that the concept of an Almighty God that in fact owes his existence to another being is absurd.

That line of reasoning struck me as being somewhat excessively stuck on the existence of "beings" (I would presume the term does not cover, say, rocks) you know. It seems vaguely narcissistic if not outright solipsistic to me to think that the existence of the universe were inherently dependent on there always existing "beings" in it to take note of the matter.