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

Quote:

---

This supposes the thesis that there indeed is such a thing as the 'objective' or 'universal' argument.

---

Surely an argument about the universe can be 'universal' :laugh4:

I didn't say detached from its cultural ties, I said understood within it's cultural connections so one can try and understand the intent of the speaker. Two polar opposites methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

how is the universe more of an abstract concept than a hedgehog?

---

"More" is not part of my reply. The one is an abstract concept, the other is not. Regarding the latter: over and above whatever socio-linguistic context is implied with the word hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.

Quote:

---

how does mutual exclusivity matter?

---

What is mutually exclusive cannot be what is precluded by its definition: a square cannot be a circle.

Quote:

---

a thing cannot be both an atom and a hedgehog, because hedgehogs are composed of atoms, right?

---

Right, A hedgehog cannot be an atom. A hedgehog may be composed on atoms, but the meaning of atom and hedgehog are different.

Quote:

---

tldr.

---

I don't know what this means.

Quote:

---

but then objects are just contingent in form, not substance. you can say "object X could be otherwise, or not be at all", but in this universe, under conservation, that means object X's matter could be arranged differently, or could be transformed entirely into energy. so the existence of matter/energy is not contingent, just its form. in order to break conservation, and thus demonstrate that matter/energy is contingent, you have to suppose that a universe can exist without any matter or energy. on its face, this seems absurd, but i'll have to think about it more.

---

I actually changed the word "form" to "composition" as form is too loaded a term. If I understood your point above you are confusing subject and predicate. Materiality is a predication.

Quote:

---

i'll not argue this for the time being. but if a "causal tie" is not determinable, that does beg a question.

---

Yes, one either assumes causality or assumes things come into being ex nihilo.

Quote:

---

free will.

---

It is a question of judgment not free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

How do you arrive at conclusion that a hedgehog is not an abstract thing, but the universe are? Im inquiring because a hedgehog could as well as the universe be an abstract thing to the mind. Where is the exact difference? That you can observe the hedgehog with the senses? I think that has been showed throughly not to fulfill much. (Eg. Hume et. al.)

ps. interresting discussion, keep it up and dont let my comment derail you

---

Hi Sjakihata,

Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

No serious thinker would validate an argument based on the pedigree of its proponents nor would they pass it based on merits of age. Bloodlines and pensions do not a valid argument make. The argument must stand on its own merits not on its debators.

---

Hi Papewaio,

I did not validate any argument, but rather invalidated an argument. I did so based on a supposedly relevant portion of the piece which I quoted. The content of the quote was sophomoric and therefore dismissible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is a question of judgment not free will.

---

i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:

Quote:

---

hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.

---

A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.

On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:

---

I see said the blind man. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.

On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?

---

Hello,

You do not understand. My post(s) say nothing about existence. The focus is the difference between abstract concepts and what is not. Let me illustrate with a different example. Imagine Borat wanted to visit Harvard University. We go up through Cambridge Massachusetts and I show him the JFK School of Government Buildings, the Widener Library, the Malkin Athletics Center, Annenberg Hall etc. After I show him these and other things, imagine he were to say 'All very nice, but I want to see Harvard University make Kazakhstan great: show me University'. I would have to then explain these buildings are what make the University. Harvard University is the larger label we give to these various buildings taken together. Harvard University itself is a mental construct only that gives a certain meaning to the various things shown. It does not have a distinct physicality like the Widener Library or any hedgehog we might happen to see while crossing the yard.

But you could show Borat a spike, then a tooth, then a whisker, and then an eye an he would say "All very nice, but I want to see the hedgehog".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Sjakihata,

Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.

---

This is how I understand noumena: they are objects of the mind, that may or may not exists and they may or may not be acknowledged, if you possesse other abilities of cognition than that of a human being. The problem with noumena arises if it is confused with an object and is thought of as a phenomenon. Therefore, the noumena has to negatively guide us to the limits of the categories, to what can actually be experienced.

So I would say it is the opposite, that the universe is a noumenon and that the hedgehog is a phenomenon. The universe is not necessarily an abstract idea as much as it is a theory (maybe you consider abstract ideas = theories). Anyway, Im not sure exactly of what Im arguing here, Im just inclined to disagree that the universe, as such, is more abstract than the idea of a hedgehog, to me they would either be equally abstract or not abstract at all. As long as they are categorized the same.

edit: i just read your post with the analogy to the Harvard University. I think Im inclined to be more atomistic in my view of the world. To me Harvard University, The Earth or any country could be viewed as abstract, following your reasoning. To me, however, they aren't. Since I think of them also as unities. Denmark consists of seperate parts, true, but these parts brought together constitutes Denmark and that consitution is valid. A hedgehog has legs, spikes, snout and whatnot - these brought together makes a hedgehog. Im aware the the analogy perhaps isnt entirely valid, however, I think it is cogent and that it conveys my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But you could show Borat a spike, then a tooth, then a whisker, and then an eye an he would say "All very nice, but I want to see the hedgehog".

---

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

This is how I understand noumena: they are objects of the mind...

---

This is not correct. Noumena are neither part of the categories or the transcendental. They are not objects of the mind or mental events. Noumena constitute the necessary ontic grounding for phenomena (the Ding an sich) that allow the subject to escape solipsism and have experiential knowledge beyond the self. Concepts alone lack noumenal content. To quote from Kant: "Concepts without sensations are empty"

Quote:

---

edit: i just read your post with the analogy to the Harvard University. I think Im inclined to be more atomistic in my view of the world. To me Harvard University, The Earth or any country could be viewed as abstract, following your reasoning. To me, however, they aren't. Since I think of them also as unities. Denmark consists of seperate parts, true, but these parts brought together constitutes Denmark and that consitution is valid. A hedgehog has legs, spikes, snout and whatnot - these brought together makes a hedgehog. Im aware the the analogy perhaps isnt entirely valid, however, I think it is cogent and that it conveys my position.

---

Denmark is a political designation and as such is a mental construct. There is nothing in the Jutland Peninsula (and surrounding Islands) that suggest or require the posit. In other words, you can't kick Denmark while you could kick a hedgehog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

---

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ly&btnG=Search

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. Noumena are neither part of the categories or the transcendental. They are not objects of the mind or mental events. Noumena constitute the necessary ontic grounding for phenomena (the Ding an sich) that allow the subject to escape solipsism and have experiential knowledge beyond the self. Concepts alone lack noumenal content. To quote from Kant: "Concepts without sensations are empty"

---

I think you misunderstand me. Im not saying they a category. What Im saying is, that they only make sense thinking of them (with the mind), since they cannot be discovered. Noumena are indeed ding an sich, whereas the phenomenon is the ding für uns. What I mean is that it doesnt make sense to say something has noumenal content, since we cannot know if they have it or not. It is only supposing and I do not agree with the kantian theory since I find it hollow and senseless, although rather complex.

And the definition I quoted was taken by a danish scholar, expert in Kant and Hegel, Im sure it is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ly&btnG=Search

:sweatdrop:

---

Ontically is the adverbial usage of the adjective ontic which itself is derived from the Greek ont or ontos. This is the root of the word ontology that refers to the study of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

I think you misunderstand me. Im not saying they a category. What Im saying is, that they only make sense thinking of them (with the mind), since they cannot be discovered.

---

I see. That is not what "they are objects of the mind..." leads one to typically understand.

Quote:

---

What I mean is that it doesnt make sense to say something has noumenal content, since we cannot know if they have it or not.

---

This is incorrect. Any phenomenal object, by that designation, has ipso facto a noumenal component insofar as it has being.

Quote:

---

And the definition I quoted was taken by a danish scholar, expert in Kant and Hegel, Im sure it is valid.

---

There are no quotes in your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

---

Noob Alert:

So should we qualify this argument by saying we are talking about the concept of the universe rather then the visible/measurable/quantifiable/ known portion of it that we have access to it.

I could state that there is no physical phenomena in the known portion of our universe that states that the concept of God is a physical object. But that does not preclude either the concept or physical object of God existing in the concept of the universe.

Would this be parallel in scope to saying that just because I see a field with no cattle, that it is conceptually possible that there are cattle in another field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

You're dismissing your own 'logic argument' for the existence of God as "begging the question" then. It's why I said "putting it in the premise" in the first place.

Quote:

---

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

---

So a person who was born before L. Ron Hubbard was an Axenuist even before scientology was invented. So everyone was an Axenuist before the word Xenu and its accompanying 'meaning' was even invented? God is just a three-letter word.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No it is not. Without any evidence, proof, knowledge and understanding you cannot define anything. Hence, no definition, no claim.
However, there is a definition and claim borne out of a knowledge-void, hence it is already wrong and it does not exist.

It is worse that a totally blind guy defining color, thunder or blackholes without any evidence, proof, knowledge or understanding.

Worse since color, thunder and blackholes are all physical phenomenon following the laws of physics while your baseless God is metaphysical and does not abide any laws of physics.

Blind & Deaf guy: Colors smell bad, it exist.
Blind & Deaf guy: Thunder is sweet, it exist.
Blind & Deaf guy: Blackholes are soft to the touch, it exists.

They can't even define it hence, whatever they define as colors, thunder or blackholes do not exist! Just as the way you define god.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It has everything to do with the topic. Your god claim is dependent on your 'knowledge' that a God performed a supernatural phenomenon on your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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:

---

It does relate. Why would I mention it if it doesn't? I say, no proof, then it doesn't exist. No proof, then no KNOWLEDGE. You claim your knowledge is derived from God itself. I say, you have no knowledge of God as you claim.

Hence, I can continue with the "No proof, hence it does not exist" line.

Quote:

---

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:

---

The universe follows the laws of physics. You claim, God can manipulate the physical world by rules that DO NOT follow physics (hence, 'one-way'), as it did inside your head (this revelation event that happened to you).

As an analogy of your claim, God can 'click' the mouse without using any physical force. That's impossible.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You just dismissed your very own 'logic' for God as 'begging the question'.

Stupid nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

---

LOL. Nice wording Don Corleone.
Atheism is a rejection of Theistic claim. Hence, you convinced me to reject your claim that God exists.

If I reword my questions to Del Arroyo using your sentiments, then:
1) Name as many, entities/beings/things that you've convinced yourself
that does not exist.
2) How did you convinced yourself they do not exist?
3) What's the difference between these entities/beings/things that do not exist and God that exists.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You use the same to reject Tom Cruise, Heaven's Gate, the Pastafarians, Ghosts and Jedi, etc.

Quote:

---

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?

---

1) When it is possible for a totally blind & deaf guy to define colors, thunder and blackholes, without evidence, proof, knowledge or understanding then it could be possible (defining God is actually far, far worse than that since it doesn't follow the laws of physics) 2)God, as it is defined, has to appear physically

Quote:

---

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.

---

Don Corleone, what are your thoughts on Xenu, Jedi and Leprechauns etc. Do they exist?

Quote:

---

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

---

See the comment above about the totally Blind & Deaf people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Stupid nature.

---

If we are the best it can come up with billions of years of evolution, I am inclined to agree.

in the case of nature, i'd go with "mindless" over "stupid". moreover, i think sentient beings with enough awareness to consider the nature of reality and send their thoughts across a planetary communication network ain't half bad for a couple billion years. nicely done nature. :thumbsup:

Given that the evolutionary principle doesn't actually care about anything more than the members of the species managing to procreate and the offpring managing the same - and even viruses, which don't quite qualify as "living things" in the stricter senses to begin with, can do that much - I'd say we're not a half bad product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Noob Alert:

So should we qualify this argument by saying we are talking about the concept of the universe rather then the visible/measurable/quantifiable/ known portion of it that we have access to it.

---

The universe is an abstract concept. It is a concept used to provide a certain context and meaning to a host of objects: planets, stars, hedgehogs etc.

Quote:

---

I could state that there is no physical phenomena in the known portion of our universe that states that the concept of God is a physical object. But that does not preclude either the concept or physical object of God existing in the concept of the universe.

Would this be parallel in scope to saying that just because I see a field with no cattle, that it is conceptually possible that there are cattle in another field.

---

Yes, one could argue that. This is not a standard view of Deity under most theologies however. God is typically seen as distinct from and independent of the created order (that which is contingent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

You're dismissing your own 'logic argument' for the existence of God as "begging the question" then. It's why I said "putting it in the premise" in the first place.

---

---

The above doesn't follow. See the previously noted reference and commentary:

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... (Such a consistent) approach suggest(s) 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.

Dogmatic non sequiturs are not interesting.

I thought I would have missed a whole lot more since I was here last, but the discussion slowed down to a complete stop from the philosophizing and nit-picking.

anyway...

Theists can't produce any moral or intellectual reasons for faith that are any better than those moral and intellectual reasons for the rejection of faith...

in nine pages of heated debate, I have yet to find even one good reason to become a Theist and abandon Secular Humanism/Agnosticism/Atheism... not one reason why it is in any way better than Secularism.



is anyone reading (or has already read) Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion ? - I found an audiobook version I'm going to listen to later...



and Happy Festivus and Merry X-mas to everyone celebrating over the next few days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-mas

I personally an celebrating Christmas/X-mas with my family, but because there is absolutely nothing religious about the occasion, the term 'Festivus' is probably just as valid a term for the occasion (though there is no 'Festivus pole', and the 'airing of grievances' is usually kept to a minimum, and 'the feats of strength' is usually replaced with a game of cricket)

we have a decorated Christmas trees (no angels or jesus-related ornaments though) and will exchange presents and have a family banquet... yum!

...no jesus, no prayer, no church... everybody is happy...

I'm getting my little brother Monty Python's: The Life of Brian on DVD, I don't think he's seen it yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Theists can't produce any moral or intellectual reasons for faith that are any better than those moral and intellectual reasons for the rejection of faith...

in nine pages of heated debate, I have yet to find even one good reason to become a Theist and abandon Secular Humanism/Agnosticism/Atheism... not one reason why it is in any way better than Secularism.

---

Hi Claudius,

This is not the issue you put forward. When I asked what your issue was you asked: "Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?" This was answered. The above is a different focus. In the above you raise two points: 'intellectual and moral' reasons for a theistic or secular stance. If intellectual means rational then that has been covered. I have already shown how strong atheism is an absurdity (logically incoherent) and weak atheism is irrelevant. I have also given in the course of the thread a simple proof for god that none have been able to show was invalid and was in fact recognized as valid by several would be skeptics. This would seem to solve the first issue. Regarding the moral question that can be dealt with if you wish.

Whether you want to pursue the topic further or no you should be aware that atheism is not a new idea, but in the 2500 year course of the Western Intellectual Tradition it has had few supporters. There are reasons for this. You may wish to note there are no examples of full atheistic philosophical systems. The view is philosophically problematic.

Note: you made a remark about nit picking. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but be aware that rationality is concerned with rigor, rigor means a more narrow focus is often necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Claudius,

This is not the issue you put forward. When I asked what your issue was you asked: "Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?" This was answered. The above is a different focus. In the above you raise two points: 'intellectual and moral' reasons for a theistic or secular stance. If intellectual means rational then that has been covered. I have already shown how strong atheism is an absurdity (logically incoherent) and weak atheism is irrelevant. I have also given in the course of the thread a simple proof for god that none have been able to show was invalid and was in fact recognized as valid by several would be skeptics. This would seem to solve the first issue. Regarding the moral question that can be dealt with if you wish.

Whether you want to pursue the topic further or no you should be aware that atheism is not a new idea, but in the 2500 year course of the Western Intellectual Tradition it has had few supporters. There are reasons for this. You may wish to note there are no examples of full atheistic philosophical systems. The view is philosophically problematic.

Note: you made a remark about nit picking. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but be aware that rationality is concerned with rigor, rigor means a more narrow focus is often necessary.

---

Hey Pindar,

okay rephrasing... Would Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc benefit considerably from an organized yet secular community structure?

You mention a simple proof of god... which simple proof of god is this? I either missed it or forgot about it... IF it's the argument of determinism then I already posted that article several pages ago by Richard Dawkins (Why there is almost certainly no god) which directly criticized the deterministic argument.

I don't see strong Atheism as logically incoherent, and I do see weak Atheism as still relevant. your arguments for those two points were not convincing.

I'm very aware that Atheism is an old idea, I've studied a bit of ancient philosophy...

the 'nit-picking' is just a comment that the discussion seemed far more about Hedgehogs and the definition of 'The Universe' than it did about Atheism and other secular views.

and keep in mind please that I'm a Humanist - which has a quite extensive philosophy... Atheism by itself doesn't really need such an extensive philosophy as a separate ideology from that of Humanist philosophy.

if you want to argue that Theism/Religion is ethically superior to Atheism and similar views (ie: Humanism), then go ahead... I don't see much evidence to support that though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Hey Pindar,

okay rephrasing... Would Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc benefit considerably from an organized yet secular community structure?

---

Howdy,

To what end? As previously explained: atheism and agnosticism are epistemic stances concerning an Absolute. The stances alone need no organization. Humanism is a rhetorical focus. It does not require an organization either.

Quote:

---

You mention a simple proof of god... which simple proof of god is this?

---

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 infinite 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 Dawkins' piece you posted did not respond to the argument. The Dawkins' piece was a rant that showed no familiarity with philosophical discourse. An argument is either valid or invalid. If you believe the above is invalid demonstrate it. If you cannot then the argument holds.

Quote:

---

I don't see strong Atheism as logically incoherent...

---

Then you did not understand. This is the stance again: "The strong form (of Atheism) 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." If you believe one can prove a negative do so, otherwise the argument holds.

Quote:

---

(A)nd I do see weak Atheism as still relevant.

---

This is the criticism of the weak form: "The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject ..." A belief position that makes no knowledge claim about the larger universe is irrelevant as it is simply self reflective.

Quote:

---

your arguments for those two points were not convincing.

---

Whether you are convinced is not my concern. Rationality revolves around logic which is independent of personal opinion.

Quote:

---

I'm very aware that Atheism is an old idea, I've studied a bit of ancient philosophy...

---

Then you should be very aware of the various problems with the view.

Quote:

---

and keep in mind please that I'm a Humanist - which has a quite extensive philosophy... Atheism by itself doesn't really need such an extensive philosophy as a separate ideology from that of Humanist philosophy.

---

Humanism and atheism are not the same. The one does not entail the other. Atheism as part of a larger philosophical rubric implodes which is why there are no philosophical belief systems that include it. Atheism as a stand alone epistemic claim faces the problems already noted.

Quote:

---

if you want to argue that Theism/Religion is ethically superior to Atheism and similar views (ie: Humanism), then go ahead... I don't see much evidence to support that though...

---

I have no particular wants. I'm not asking any questions. If the moral issue interests you we can explore that, but first I would rather you are clear on your first claim(s) which are readdressed above.

Note: simply citing random sites off the internet is not helpful. It does not demonstrate any understanding of the issue(s). It is better to exercise your own faculties to come to a defendable conclusion or accept the rational alternative.

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 infinite 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.

---

I seem to have overlooked this thread, and now my head's swimming. Anyway this looks like an interesting formulation, so can I ask for some definitions, Pindar?

Does "being" have the strict sense of a lifeform, or is it merely referencing a thing which exists? On what basis does #4 work, that only "beings" can be causes, and assuming beings are lifeforms, does this not imply that "non-beings" have no consequences, or is it explicitly defining beings as the only cause of beings? Is the Universe regarded as a being?

I'm sure these seven points are just a contraction of a treatise in 25 volumes, so I want to sort out short-hand from its essentials :2thumbsup:


EDIT: after a quick think, I believe the crux of my questions can be summed up as: does this mean the existence of LIFE proves the existence of God, or that existence itself proves it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

EDIT: after a quick think, I believe the crux of my questions can be summed up as: does this mean the existence of LIFE proves the existence of God, or that existence itself proves it?

---

Hello macsen,

The proof is not life specific, but concerned with being as such.

(Given Claudius resurrected this thread and is the source of the questions I'm waiting to see if he has any counter arguments to the points he challenged. )

Thanks Pindar; I have a gut feeling there's still an assumption buried in there somewhere, but it'll take some thinking about, and I'll be offline for the next week or so, so hope I get back before the thread's totally dead and buried.

Hmmm, if I understand correctly, a necessary being is a being which can't not exist, but I don't yet see how this necessarily makes it "God" in the accepted sense. Surely our rules of logic are derived from within the Universe, this necessary being would have to be 'outside' the Universe and beyond any frame of reference we have, ergo we can't make any deductions concerning the nature of the necessary being itself? Our reasoning concerning what occurs 'beyond' the Universe is untestable, so I can't see that it is a proof.

Dunno 'bout you, but steps #4 and #5 bug me something fierce. They seem to be based on the unstated premise that "contingent beings" must result from the 'action(s)' (or whatever; this whole "causality" thing here seems a little vague) of another being. And this looks suspiciously like the conclusion being its own premise to me, in other words a circular argument...

In any case the premises of the whole thing would seem to be rather incompatible with the basic premise of the atheistic view, which I would sum up roughly as "shit happens" (ie. no cause, as the above seems to use the term with certain undettones suggesting intentionality, is required as such; merely circumstances). The "why" and "how" is WIP, but the progress on the topics thus far at the very least appears to me as rather less fundamentally narcissistic and downright naive than the various postulations citing "divine" actors (ie. "non-contingent beings" - or this is what I take the term to be under the make-up job).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Thanks Pindar; I have a gut feeling there's still an assumption buried in there somewhere, but it'll take some thinking about, and I'll be offline for the next week or so, so hope I get back before the thread's totally dead and buried.

---

Oki Doki

Quote:

---

Hmmm, if I understand correctly, a necessary being is a being which can't not exist, but I don't yet see how this necessarily makes it "God" in the accepted sense. Surely our rules of logic are derived from within the Universe, this necessary being would have to be 'outside' the Universe and beyond any frame of reference we have, ergo we can't make any deductions concerning the nature of the necessary being itself? Our reasoning concerning what occurs 'beyond' the Universe is untestable, so I can't see that it is a proof.

---

Necessity is part and parcel of the meaning of God. Something warranting the title cannot be dependent on some other and still be God. If one wants to put forward some other candidate that has necessary being that is fine. Earlier in the thread one suggested the universe, but this suffers from the reification fallacy.

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Dunno 'bout you, but steps #4 and #5 bug me something fierce. They seem to be based on the unstated premise that "contingent beings" must result from the 'action(s)' (or whatever; this whole "causality" thing here seems a little vague) of another being. And this looks suspiciously like the conclusion being its own premise to me, in other words a circular argument...

---

Hi Watchman,

Step 4 is an either or position: insofar as there is a contingent X that X is either caused by another contingent X or a non-contingent X. This does not seem particularly remarkable. Step 5 points out the reductio issues if one posits only contingent Xs which does end up begging the question.

Quote:

---

In any case the premises of the whole thing would seem to be rather incompatible with the basic premise of the atheistic view, which I would sum up roughly as "shit happens" (ie. no cause...

---

Atheism does not require believing things come into being ex nihilo. Such a view would of course undercut the whole of science.

Did you miss the further clause "...as the above [line of reasoning, ie. #1-7] seems to use the term with certain undertones suggesting intentionality..." ? I'm not stupid, thankyouverymuch.

Causality does not require intention, now does it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Did you miss the further clause "...as the above [line of reasoning, ie. #1-7] seems to use the term with certain undertones suggesting intentionality..." ? I'm not stupid, thankyouverymuch.

Causality does not require intention, now does it ?

---

Sorry, I didn't follow your point. There is no reference to intention in the proof.

Just an observation/clarification:

It seems to me that Pindar and some of his opponents has a different take on God. As I see this discussion some confuse Pindars understanding of God (at least regarding this debate). To me Pindar is refering to God as the First Mover we find in Aristotle, while some thinks he is referring to the christian God.

A first mover is indeed used in some philosophical system to avoid the infinite regression, which does cause a problem, at least in classical metaphysics.

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments form can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but they can go horribly wrong as well. Especially with the Fregean predicate logic you cannot prove validity, only semi-validity which constitutes a major problem. Also the difference on the realist logic and the idealist logic makes two very different perspectives. Just a note on logic and that it isnt bullet proof.

edited: for to form

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments for can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but the can go horribly wrong as well. Especially with the Fregean predicate logic you cannot prove validity, only semi-validity which constitutes a major problem. Also the difference on the realist logic and the idealist logic makes two very different perspectives. Just a note on logic and that it isnt bullet proof.

---

Excellently put Sjakihata. :bow:

And here I was trying to discount logic altogether to respond to that statement. :tongue3:

Quote:

---

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

---

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Sorry, I didn't follow your point. There is no reference to intention in the proof.

---

Don't know about you, but it is very difficult for me to not interpret "non-/contingent being" in this context as what might be termed as actor, ie. an entity that acts with at least a degree of purpose. A subject, the opposite of an object.

I may be misinterpreting something here, but as things stand your 'proof' lights in my head the alarms of a circuitious argument where the existence of a "noncontingent being", in practice a deity, is part of both the premises and the conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

---

This it where it goes wrong. He did indeed prove the existence of a god or a necessary being, and that phrase leads me to think of a first mover, not the christian god. When he says god you immeadiately associate that with the christian god, which I think was not exactly what pindar wanted to prove.
Whether it is or isnt the christian god doesnt per se make a difference, as long as the god in question have the capacity to start the chain so to speak.

As I said earlier, God necessarily implies other qualities than those that are in the necessary being; my point is that, regardless of whatever you want to call it, the necessary being has no religious qualities attached to it. A proof of soccer ball is not proof that the only soccer ball you think of, viz the one you know of in your hand, is the one that was used to win the world cup.


My position, as related to religion in general and God already been stated. It is not worth my finite time to place necessarily poor guesses on what ought to be worshiped and how.

As said, I may be merely misunderstanding parts of the terminology used. Nevertheless I can't shake the feeling the reasoning has its own conclusion at least partially included in its premises.

That aside, if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood - particularly in the context of atheism, which by itself merely denies the existence of the divine. Right ?
:stupido3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Just an observation/clarification:

It seems to me that Pindar and some of his opponents has a different take on God. As I see this discussion some confuse Pindars understanding of God (at least regarding this debate). To me Pindar is refering to God as the First Mover we find in Aristotle, while some thinks he is referring to the christian God.

---

Correct. There is nothing sectarian in my posts. Neither is the proof sectarian. Personal animus for religion in general or Christianity specifically are irrelevant to the particular focus which is theism.

Quote:

---

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments form can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but they can go horribly wrong as well.

---

Logic isn't about truth, but validity. Rationalists assume logic is a vehicle to the true (that truth is rational). Rationalists and non-rationalists cannot dialogue as they have no common ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

---

---

There is nothing misleading in my posts. There are no references to Christendom. The proof is a proof for God. Nothing sectarian is mentioned.

Quote:

---

Don't know about you, but it is very difficult for me to not interpret "non-/contingent being" in this context as what might be termed as actor, ie. an entity that acts with at least a degree of purpose. A subject, the opposite of an object.

---

What is non-contingent may or may not be an agent, such is irrelevant to the proof which revolves around contingent and necessary being.

Quote:

---

I may be misinterpreting something here, but as things stand your 'proof' lights in my head the alarms of a circuitious argument where the existence of a "noncontingent being", in practice a deity, is part of both the premises and the conclusion.

---

There is nothing circular. There are no premises that assert the conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

As I said earlier, God necessarily implies other qualities than those that are in the necessary being...

---

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

Quote:

---

my point is that, regardless of whatever you want to call it, the necessary being has no religious qualities attached to it...My position, as related to religion in general and God already been stated. It is not worth my finite time to place necessarily poor guesses on what ought to be worshiped and how.

---

The proof is not concerned with devotion. Your personal conviction or the lack therefor are not at issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That aside, if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood -

---

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God. This has been the case from the foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition. This can be seen in Plato forward.

Quote:

---

...particularly in the context of atheism, which by itself merely denies the existence of the divine. Right ?
:stupido3

---

Atheism does deny the existence of God. I have already discussed the logical issue with atheism in both its strong and weak forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Logic isn't about truth, but validity.

---

Yes, I know that. And the only smart way of proving whether a specific logical form is valid, is by proving that the form can have true premises and a false conclusion, then the form is rendered invalid. You do that either by making a table, asserting different values (true or false) to each item (P,Q,R,S etc) or by making a tree, the result is the same. Im not speaking of truth, but true and false within the realm of logic not connected with anything else.

On a side note, logic must be empirical, as a formal system like that cannot be its own content, it must infer from something, the outside world, showed by Gödel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Howdy,

To what end? As previously explained: atheism and agnosticism are epistemic stances concerning an Absolute. The stances alone need no organization. Humanism is a rhetorical focus. It does not require an organization either.

---

no matter, I thought perhaps the previous question was too narrow. don't worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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 infinite 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.

---

okay, this argument of yours essentially looks like Thomas Aquinas' first three 'proofs' of God's existence - all involving an infinite regress: I found this following quote which rebutes this argument/s for God to my satisfaction at least.

quote -:
Thomas Aquinas first three proofs that God exists:
1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.

2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effort has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.

3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments [and yours too Pindar], rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts.
...
it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.
:- endquote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The Dawkins' piece you posted did not respond to the argument. The Dawkins' piece was a rant that showed no familiarity with philosophical discourse. An argument is either valid or invalid. If you believe the above is invalid demonstrate it. If you cannot then the argument holds.

---

sorry, perhaps I was thinking about a different article or was concentrating on a different argument, I can't remember which right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then you did not understand. This is the stance again: "The strong form (of Atheism) 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." If you believe one can prove a negative do so, otherwise the argument holds.

---

one can't prove a negative like this (that it's impossible), but one can argue that it is certainly highly improbable that god exists:

along the lines of the argument that "god must exist because everything looks as though it had been designed" - a favourite of Intelligent Design proponents... the counter argument goes:

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable"

I'm trying to find a good summary Of Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" Gambit arguing this point, but can't find a great one as yet. here is a small wikipedia summary of the argument, though it may not be detailed enough for some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God...inly_is_no_God
apparently this sort of argument is two centuries old and has yet to find a theological rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is the criticism of the weak form: "The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject ..." A belief position that makes no knowledge claim about the larger universe is irrelevant as it is simply self reflective.

---

only fundamentalists take a position and state that is is absolute truth, this is true for both Theism and Atheism. and there are far more theistic Fundamentalists than Atheistic Fundamentalists by far...

This continuous spectrum (with seven representative milestones of "belief/non-belief percentage" in an individual) is useful IMO:

moderate atheism is just as sensible as moderate theism. it's when you start dealing with absolutes that you get the nut-jobs on the fringes.

quote -:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very High probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know weather God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong Atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
:- endquote

I personally am somewhere between 5 and 6. where would you be Pindar (or anyone else)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Whether you are convinced is not my concern. Rationality revolves around logic which is independent of personal opinion.

---

see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then you should be very aware of the various problems with the view.

---

and theism (in all its various forms) doesn't have problems? i hardly see that as a disincentive from Atheism Agnosticism or Humanism or whatever other non-theistic views one could list. Personally I'm happy where I already am and will very likely have no regrets about being a secular humanist for the rest of my life (and beyond if such a thing is possible, though I doubt there is an afterlife - and I'm okay with not having an afterlife to hope for or fear about).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Humanism and atheism are not the same. The one does not entail the other. Atheism as part of a larger philosophical rubric implodes which is why there are no philosophical belief systems that include it. Atheism as a stand alone epistemic claim faces the problems already noted.

---

I'm not familiar with the detailed philosophical discussions regarding Atheism, I only have my own experiences to go on...

for 20 perhaps 21 years of my life I considered myself an Atheist if anything at all. I was not taught either that thers is a god or that there is none. I was and still am completely free to have my own belief system and make up my own mind. two or three years ago I heard or read about Secular Humanism for the first time (it was never a topic at either home or school or among friends or peers) when I investigated Humanist philosophy I found that it is exactly what I already thought when I defined myself as simply an Atheist. I was unchanged by Humanist/secular humanist philosophy except for a new word or two to define my views more clearly for others.

to put it simply, from my experiences and from others i've met and become friends with in university, Atheism + Secular Ethics = Secular Humanism with very little changing between the two.

I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have no particular wants. I'm not asking any questions. If the moral issue interests you we can explore that, but first I would rather you are clear on your first claim(s) which are readdressed above.

---

later then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

(Given Claudius resurrected this thread and is the source of the questions I'm waiting to see if he has any counter arguments to the points he challenged. )

---

have at thee! :smash: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

---

but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

This it where it goes wrong. He did indeed prove the existence of a god or a necessary being, and that phrase leads me to think of a first mover, not the christian god. When he says god you immeadiately associate that with the christian god, which I think was not exactly what pindar wanted to prove.
Whether it is or isnt the christian god doesnt per se make a difference, as long as the god in question have the capacity to start the chain so to speak.

---

would the 'first mover' be the Deist God? - that is, quantum physics, astrophysics and various other types of physics (probably excluding metaphysics) personified as a deity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There is nothing circular. There are no premises that assert the conclusion.

---

there is a conclusion for which there is no evidence, only an argument. the 'first cause' is labelled God when it could just as easily be labeled as something else - like the big bang singularity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something else. To put 'God' as the first cause implies something sentient, probably physical or that interacts with the physical world, and more often than not implies absurd things such as answering prayers, a moral absolute, omnipotence, omniscience, breaking its own universal laws in the form of 'miracles', and often an obsession with sinful behaviour and that humans worship it.

Quote:

---

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

---

We are in agreement then, if we switch our words around.:book: ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

The proof is not concerned with devotion. Your personal conviction or the lack therefor are not at issue.

---

I am not concerned with the proof, it was a stand alone statement related to the thread Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc... it is my own belief system in something that makes sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God.

---

Meaning ?

As for the contingent/noncontingent being proof thing, and leaving aside possible dodgy issues with its premises, doesn't it actually boil down to the statement of roughly "for things to exist, the universe must exist, and the universe must have come from something" ? While this would certainly seem to be rather difficult to dispute it would also appear to be a really rather trivial observation - stating the obvious, as it were. And gets us nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Yes, I know that.

---

The comment wasn't necessarily directed at you. You have to indulge me. I'm responding to several posters.

Quote:

---

On a side note, logic must be empirical, as a formal system like that cannot be its own content, it must infer from something, the outside world, showed by Gödel.

---

If A then B
A
Therefore B

The above is not empirical yet valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

okay, this argument of yours essentially looks like Thomas Aquinas' first three 'proofs' of God's existence - all involving an infinite regress: I found this following quote which rebutes this argument/s for God to my satisfaction at least.

---

It is much much older than St. Thomas.

Quote:

---

All three of these arguments [and yours too Pindar], rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.

---

The argument revolves around necessity and contingency not regress. The reductio issue is problematic because it begs the question. To posit God is contingent is oxymoronic as God by definition is self existent.

Quote:

---

one can't prove a negative like this (that it's impossible), but one can argue that it is certainly highly improbable that god exists..

---

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

Quote:

---

only fundamentalists take a position and state that is is absolute truth, this is true for both Theism and Atheism. and there are far more theistic Fundamentalists than Atheistic Fundamentalists by far...

---

No doubt.

Quote:

---

I personally am somewhere between 5 and 6. where would you be Pindar (or anyone else)?

---

Based on your personal ranking you are agnostic, not atheistic.
I'm a theist.

Quote:

---

and theism (in all its various forms) doesn't have problems?

---

Your focus was atheism/ agnosticism with humanism thrown in.

Quote:

---

I'm not familiar with the detailed philosophical discussions regarding Atheism, I only have my own experiences to go on...

---

That's fine. As I mentioned before, I think you would be better served in that regard if you moved away from internet willowing to support a predisposed view and simply thought over the respective issues, regardless the conclusion. Dogmatism is usually a bad thing regardless the object defended. There are strong counter arguments to theism that could be put forward, but you don't know any of them. What you have referenced thus far have been quite shallow. This isn't your fault, but given the lack of formal study on the issue a more authentic approach would be more profitable I think.

Quote:

---

to put it simply, from my experiences and from others i've met and become friends with in university, Atheism + Secular Ethics = Secular Humanism with very little changing between the two.

I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

---

Secular Humanism doesn't require atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

Quote:

---

but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already.

---

---

The above doesn't relate to my quoted post.

Quote:

---

would the 'first mover' be the Deist God?

---

If you are referring to historical Deism then no. Conceptually one could make ties.

Quote:

---

that is, quantum physics, astrophysics and various other types of physics (probably excluding metaphysics) personified as a deity?

---

No.

Quote:

---

there is a conclusion for which there is no evidence, only an argument.

---

This is a category mistake. Logic is not science. It is formal. It is theoretical.

Quote:

---

the 'first cause' is labelled God when it could just as easily be labeled as something else - like the big bang singularity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something else.

---

The issue isn't simply assigning labels, but the meaning of the ascription. That is how the point is approached.

Quote:

---

To put 'God' as the first cause implies something sentient...

---

No, it does not. Do not confuse a sectarian understanding with the focus.

(That was a long post!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

We are in agreement then, if we switch our words around.

---

---

I don't follow the second clause.

Quote:

---

I am not concerned with the proof, it was a stand alone statement related to the thread Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc... it is my own belief system in something that makes sense...

---

I see. Previously you were concerned with the proof. If your recent post was simply a testimony then I will leave it as it stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Meaning ?

---

---

Meaning this comment: " if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood" was ill considered.

Quote:

---

As for the contingent/noncontingent being proof thing, and leaving aside possible dodgy issues with its premises, doesn't it actually boil down to the statement of roughly "for things to exist, the universe must exist...

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is much much older than St. Thomas.

---

I won't dispute this, I simply found his first 3 'proofs' as being very similar. I don't know where exactly these arguments originated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The argument revolves around necessity and contingency not regress. The reductio issue is problematic because it begs the question. To posit God is contingent is oxymoronic as God by definition is self existent.

---

the two arguments look extremely similar to me, but I'll bite... what exactly would the difference be between the 'regress version' and the 'necessity and contingency version'? - and how would this make the question and therefore the answer different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

---

this is almost a straw man. you're saying that the only atheists in the world are those fundmentalists (I know of no example of such a person) who claim to know for a fact that God (by any definition) does not exist and never has or will exist.
this is like saying that the average theist - like most people of moderate religious faith are not actually theists but are only agnostics, and that the only real theists are the ones who claim to know the existence of 'God' is an absolute fact.

to go back above to the belief spectrum I posted above (post 290), look at number 6 - De Facto Atheist:
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

strong Atheism is an absurdity just as strong Theism is an absurdity (points 1 and 7 on the spectrum)... the difference is that there are many thousands or perhaps millions of people who would be strong Theists while very few who would be strong Atheists like this. However point 6 - 'De Facto Atheism' is not an absurdity.


I hope it has helped to use that belief spectrum thing, I would encourage people to use it to avoid misunderstandings when talking about different levels of belief and non-belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Based on your personal ranking you are agnostic, not atheistic.
I'm a theist.

---

so you are saying that you put yourself at position number 1: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

because by classifying every position inbetween 1 and 7 as Agnosticism, you are directly saying here ("I'm a theist.") that you see the existence of God as an undeniable 100% fact - essentially this makes you a fundamentalist. I don't say this in an insulting way, and if I've concluded incorrectly I'll apollogise. - but this looks to be exactly what you are saying.

Would you describe points 2 and 3 as Agnosticism because they don't regard the existence of god as absolute 100% fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your focus was atheism/ agnosticism with humanism thrown in.

---

that doesn't answer the question.

anyway - are there serious problems with De Facto Atheism (point 6 - see above) in your view?

I know you see serious problems with point 7, and I mostly agree. this is because of that can't prove a negative thing.

perhaps it would help if I clarify something. to me (and many others), weak Atheism is point 5 and strong Atheism is point 6. point 7 is the extremist view and is often irrelevant to most (perhaps all) Atheists and Agnostics who appreciate Logic and Reason and the Scientific Method and so on, because we can't proove a universal negative this view is largely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

That's fine. As I mentioned before, I think you would be better served in that regard if you moved away from internet willowing to support a predisposed view and simply thought over the respective issues, regardless the conclusion. Dogmatism is usually a bad thing regardless the object defended. There are strong counter arguments to theism that could be put forward, but you don't know any of them. What you have referenced thus far have been quite shallow. This isn't your fault, but given the lack of formal study on the issue a more authentic approach would be more profitable I think.

---

sure, as I said, I'm not an expert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Secular Humanism doesn't require atheism.

---

agreed. as I said though, this is based on the personal experiences of myself and several friends, it's not an absolute thing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The above doesn't relate to my quoted post.

---

not direrctly no; it relates to the 'proof' you gave for God's existence based on necessity and contingency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, it does not. Do not confuse a sectarian understanding with the focus.

---

what is the alternative then? what do you see as the 'first cause'? and why should it be considered first? - and what similarities or differences does it have to a Creationist God or Intelligent Designer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I won't dispute this, I simply found his first 3 'proofs' as being very similar. I don't know where exactly these arguments originated.

---

The base argument comes from Plato, though Aristotle's formulation is more well known.

Quote:

---

the two arguments look extremely similar to me, but I'll bite... what exactly would the difference be between the 'regress version' and the 'necessity and contingency version'? - and how would this make the question and therefore the answer different?

---

You do not understand. It is not a question of version, but the focal point of the argument. The reductio is simply a consequence of a single line of inquiry. If one posits a contingent X and then is asked for the source of that X then either the source is another contingent X or something non-contingent. A causality rubric of simple contingency: as in X, X-1, X-2, X-3 etc. begs the question as there is no point within the sequence that does not already posit the very thing in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

Quote:

---

this is almost a straw man. you're saying that the only atheists in the world are those fundmentalists (I know of no example of such a person) who claim to know for a fact that God (by any definition) does not exist and never has or will exist.

---

---

No, it is not a straw man, it is the correct understanding of the issue. Atheism and theism in logical terms are knowledge claims. The words themselves indicate as much. Moreover, an improbability schema is a simple skepticism. I previously explained how atheism can be divided into strong and weak forms. The weak form qualifies itself as a belief of the subject. A knowledge claim that is simply self-reflective can be dismissed as irrelevant. The problem with the multi-point breakdown you put forward (aside from the fundamentalist label which is typically a negative label applied to the religious zealot) is the focus is the individual's penchant as opposed to the logic of the knowledge claim as such. Belief, regardless the passion, is still self-reflective and does not speak to the larger universe.

Quote:

---

strong Atheism is an absurdity just as strong Theism is an absurdity...

---

No, it is not. The simple proof I gave is valid. It is not an absurdity. It was because of presumptive comments like this I gave the proof originally.

Quote:

---

so you are saying that you put yourself at position number 1: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

---

I don't think the measuring rod of conviction you put forward has any value when it comes to epistemology. I said I'm a theist. The reasons are many. I gave one simple proof that stands independent of probability.

Quote:

---

that doesn't answer the question.

---

Perhaps not, but it is loyal to your thread's focus. The problems a theism faces are different.

Quote:

---

anyway - are there serious problems with De Facto Atheism (point 6 - see above) in your view?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

not direrctly no; it relates to the 'proof' you gave for God's existence based on necessity and contingency.

---

This comment: "but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already." doesn't relate to the proof either. Using evidentiary language for logic is to commit a category mistake. To charge a foregone conclusion is erroneous as the premises are all clearly laid out with no concluding assumption implied or indicated.

Quote:

---

what is the alternative then? what do you see as the 'first cause'? and why should it be considered first? - and what similarities or differences does it have to a Creationist God or Intelligent Designer?

---

The first cause would be God. It is considered first by definition (both of necessary being and godhood). The difference between a first cause simplicitur and a creative/designing god is the activity of the being in question. This is again distinct from any attending worship.

Pindar, what do you think of this quote:

"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Pindar, what do you think of this quote:

"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."

---

Hi Kojiro,

I think it demonstrates neither an understanding of the topic or any sophistication of thought. In short, it is a vacuous comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Kojiro,

I think it demonstrates neither an understanding of the topic or any sophistication of thought. In short, it is a vacuous comment.

---

Actually, jumping into this thread late, i'd be inclined to agree that he has a point there.

The same way that each religion dismisses the others is the same way atheists dismiss them all.

Why to people even bother to say "God doesn't exist" or "God exists"? If God exists, the following is true:
1. God will act deterministically, in the sense that he will always choose what is most good, according to his measure of what is good. His measure of what is good is according to all religious people an absolute, unchangeable truth
2. therefore, since God is a deterministic factor, his actions would be included into all statistics just like any other factors, and therefore statistic models would still not be less accurate (or more accurate) for prediction than if God didn't exist.
3. the God concept doesn't need to be included in the scientific models because by Occam's razor there's no use to mix in more variables and factors than are needed to get a simple description of the world, a description that is simple enough to allow us to make calculations for predictions, dimensioning of technological products, and other things that scientific models (and less formal models such as those used in ethics, philosophy etc) are used for.

And if God doesn't exist, we have an almost exactly similar situation.

So there's really no difference between the two cases, and as such it's of academic interest whether God exists or not. There are really only two situations where it's actually debated whether it matters whether God exists or not:

The debate of whether it's of any use to pray to God, and whether you actually get any benefits from believing in God as opposed to not believing in him. If God is good, he certainly would care much less about whether people believed in him or not, than he would care about people believing that acting good will in the end bring them more greatness than acting evil will do. Then, God differs little from a panteistic being, or a description of a phenomenon. And since God will always deterministically choose what is most good, praying will not affect his will - it would be heresy to say so. So we can probably conclude that the prayer's function is more of meditation and gaining of strength to solve problems alone, than to actually indulge the God.

The other question of interest regards whether God can be killed or not, i.e. if the current state of things - that the most cruel forms of evilness and hypocrisy tend to in the end be punished - could ever be disrupted so that some form of pure evilness would win in the end. I don't think so, but I do think that evilness is fully capable of eliminating and extincting all good from the planet, at the cost of destroying itself. And that good can't extinct evil completely, but good must learn to live with it, and strive to limit its power, rather than striving for extincting it. Here, the religion seems to agree that God can die through Armageddon, and as a result, also here it matters little whether God exists or not, but there are some religious interpretations that state that God can never die - but all of these also state clearly that it's necessary to fight for what is good and no just passively expect God to do all the work. In fact, if humans are degraded to such laziness that they can't defend good values such as peace, justice, freedom and equality, they are problably the ones that stand on the side of the warriors of evil on the battlefield of Armageddon, and then if God would truly deterministically do what is most good, he would make sure they are struck down and are defeated in the end. So even here, religion agrees with rationality - that good values must be worked hard for and defended, and that good can indeed be defeated if people support evilness or not actively fight for defending values such as justice and peace.

Thus the only people that really worry me are thus people who are neither rationalists, nor people who have truly read and understood their religious texts.

The one thing that can be said for religion is that, regardless of whether it's fact or fiction, it generally teaches people to act well and treat others fairly.

As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Actually, jumping into this thread late, i'd be inclined to agree that he has a point there.

The same way that each religion dismisses the others is the same way atheists dismiss them all.

---

Hello,

The issue is not the dismissing of another idea, but the rationale behind any such rejection. The rhetorical posture that divides the Muslim from the Trinitarian Christian from the devotee of the Gods of Olympus is not the same as the base separation between theism and atheism. As was pointed out previously: an atheism that asserts a universal knowledge claim about a negative particular is a logical absurdity. This is not the case with theistic assertions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Why to people even bother to say "God doesn't exist" or "God exists"? If God exists, the following is true:
1. God will act deterministically...

---

Hello,

Asserting God exists and that God will act are not the same. The creative God of the Judeo-Christian Tradition certainly acts, but not all theistics systems have such a requirement.

Quote:

---

3. the God concept doesn't need to be included in the scientific models because by Occam's razor there's no use to mix in more variables and factors than are needed to get a simple description of the world, a description that is simple enough to allow us to make calculations for predictions, dimensioning of technological products, and other things that scientific models (and less formal models such as those used in ethics, philosophy etc) are used for.

---

The question of God is not a scientific category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “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.”

---

The quote demonstrates neither an understanding of the topic or any sophistication of thought. In short, it is a vacuous comment. Hopefully, Roberts was a more careful historian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Asserting God exists and that God will act are not the same. The creative God of the Judeo-Christian Tradition certainly acts, but not all theistics systems have such a requirement.

---

If God doesn't act he's certainly not anything else than a panteistic labelling of one or many phenomenons, in which case all my comments still apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The question of God is not a scientific category.

---

The question of whether God exists or not can be translated into questions of the form "is there any difference between a scenario where God exists and one where he doesn't?" for all scenarios where the believer thinks it matters whether God exists or not. There's no interest in knowing if something called "asdasfsdg" exists if you don't know what it is, or if something called "dfsgsdhstwerwofgfjlas" exists 1,000 billion lightyears away from here and "dfsgsdhstwerwofgfjlas" has no measurable effect whatsoever on your life or on the decisions you make. To quote Confucius: "why do you want to serve the souls, when you can't serve the humans? Why do you want to understand death, when you don't understand life? Why understand the stars when you can't understand earth?"

Whether a God exists or not has seldom any practical relevance to any activity in normal life. The only things that have relevance in religion are the other questions, such as what ethics system to follow. Some religious people use the claim that God exists as an argument to impose their own ethics systems on other human beings, while the choice of ethics system is highly unrelated to the question of the existence of God, and is only related to what the consequences are of choosing a particular ethics system. There's no reason to accept an ethics system that brings self-destruction and injustice argumented for by statements such as "God exists and he gave us this system to follow, and those who won't follow it will end up in hell after they die. Yes you will suffer like **** in life if you follow our system and the system will promote great injustice more often than justice and freedom, but no suffering is comparable to that coming after your death if you didn't follow our rules - nobody comes back from the dead so you can't really take the risk because perhaps there is a life after death after all, or... *sadistic laughter*?"

A better measure of an ethics system is it's consequences in this life, unless someone can give me proof of the existence of an afterlife. There are more things to prove before anyone can claim the ethics system suggested by the Bible should be followed:
1. that the Bible is the words of someone who doesn't makes mistake and has infinite wisdoms of which ethics system would be best for humans to follow to create a good world that triumphs over evilness
2. that some texts of the Bible were at all intended as a book of laws and rules, and not as a chronicle
3. show which parts are law, and which aren't. Is it the case that this God's infinite wisdom can be summarized in as brief comments as "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal", or do you need to read the surrounding text to be able to understand what was really meant?
4. did the author of the Bible, assuming no. 1 is true, write in riddles or in clear text? Did he intend for us to follow the rules by the word, or follow the principles? Which principles then - the explicitly stated principles, the principles deduced from the examples (such as Job, Jonah etc.), or principles on an even higher level, such as "strive for good intentions, rather than specific actions", which could make it a teaching of anything from rule ethics to consequence ethics
5. that the Bible hasn't changed meaning when being copied and translated
6. that the Bible hasn't changed meaning by the language changing so things are interpreted differently even if the copying was errorfree
7. but if people by experience see people who don't follow these ethics rules generally ending up with better lives than they do, the existence of an afterlife with hell and heaven must also be proven before there's any reason to accept these ethics without further reasoning. Proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife is not related to proving the existence or nonexistence of God, because there are religions that don't believe in an afterlife, and religions that do believe in an afterlife.

So again, it is extremely irrelevant whether God exists or not, and it's really another question that the answer is sought to. The only reason why someone would argue that God exists is to use the existence of God as an argument that all other parts of the religion would be true, which is a logical fallacy. As in claiming that "God exists, therefore no. 1 to no. 7 above are true, and therefore I must follow the words of the Bible".

It's important to remember that every statement the religion makes must be proven separately, and no unjustified deducations may be made, unless you assume a certain set of premises to be true, but then you should always be aware of which premises you have assumed to be true, because your deductions are not guaranteed to be true unless those premises are true. In the example above, you need not one premise, but 7 premises, to be able to justify that the Christian ethics would be superior to other ethics. The question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the question about being for or against the Christian ethics. God exists does not imply afterlife exists, God exists does not imply you will burn in **** if you don't do as the bible says, etc. etc.

Similarly, the only reason why someone would argue that God doesn't exist is to be able to dismiss all ideas related to the religion without having to provide real arguments for his ideas. Saying that Christian ethics should be dismissed because it comes from people who believe a God exists, even though the reasoning lying behind Christian ethics provide some very interesting insights into ethics, sociology, psychology and society philosophy and politics, and many who advocate the removal of Christian ethics usually have nothing to replace it with other than pure egoism and brutality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

The issue is not the dismissing of another idea, but the rationale behind any such rejection. The rhetorical posture that divides the Muslim from the Trinitarian Christian from the devotee of the Gods of Olympus is not the same as the base separation between theism and atheism. As was pointed out previously: an atheism that asserts a universal knowledge claim about a negative particular is a logical absurdity. This is not the case with theistic assertions.

---

You are referring to Atheism, the quote refers to Atheists. Atheists dismiss all religions in the same way that Christians dismiss Buddhism etc. This is much more applicable than irrelevant theoretical discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

If God doesn't act he's certainly not anything else than a panteistic labelling of one or many phenomenons, in which case all my comments still apply.

---

This is not correct. It doesn't follow that a non-acting God is thereby pantheistic.

Quote:

---

The question of whether God exists or not can be translated into questions of the form "is there any difference between a scenario where God exists and one where he doesn't?"...has no measurable effect whatsoever on your life or on the decisions you make.

---

The question of God can be given a pragmatic taint, but such is hardly required. At best it is one avenue to the question.

Quote:

---

Whether a God exists or not has seldom any practical relevance to any activity in normal life.

---

Given the impact theology has had and does have on individual devotees the above is incorrect.

Quote:

---

So again, it is extremely irrelevant whether God exists or not, and it's really another question that the answer is sought to. The only reason why someone would argue that God exists is to use the existence of God as an argument that all other parts of the religion would be true...

---

This thread alone stands as a counter to the above charge. I have given a proof for God, but offered nothing by way of sect specific truth claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You are referring to Atheism, the quote refers to Atheists. Atheists dismiss all religions in the same way that Christians dismiss Buddhism etc. This is much more applicable than irrelevant theoretical discussion.

---

Alas, the silly Roberts quote revolves around why one dismisses a thing, not the dismissal itself. Assuming a rational context, the why therefore becomes a theoretical question. The reason a Muslim rejects a Trinitarian conception of God is not the same as why an atheist rejects the base notion God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Alas, the silly Roberts quote revolves around why one dismisses a thing, not the dismissal itself. Assuming a rational context, the why therefore becomes a theoretical question. The reason a Muslim rejects a Trinitarian conception of God is not the same as why an atheist rejects the base notion God.

---

It's a theoretical question but not irrelevant. The base notion of god is what is irrelevant. Atheists reject religions in the same way religious people do, and that's what's important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This thread alone stands as a counter to the above charge. I have given a proof for God, but offered nothing by way of sect specific truth claims.

---

A proof of God? Wow, then you must be a unique theological genius, because nobody has succeeded in it before without redefining the meaning of God so that he becomes something very different from what he initially was. Can you please repeat this proof of yours?

Also, my comment doesn't apply to all believer, but I have met many believers who automatically assume that certain things must be right because of their assumption that God exists. For example people saying that global warming shouldn't be stopped, because God will save us when we're destroying ourselves. Or that people should be stoned to death. Or that heathens should be killed. Etc. etc. If you want to be a responsible follower of your religion it's necessary to denounce that - to clearly hold the point of view that such things don't follow from your assumption that God exists, because they don't. And that also anything deduced from the statement "God exists" to be true requires that God exists to be guaranteed to be true.

And finally out curiosity - what if your motive for wanting to prove God's existence? What statements do you think follow from the statement "God exists", if we hypothetically assume it to be true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's a theoretical question but not irrelevant. The base notion of god is what is irrelevant. Atheists reject religions in the same way religious people do, and that's what's important.

---

Kojiro,

Either you do not understand or you are being argumentative. If the discussion is atheism then the base notion of God is not irrelevant as that is the topic by which and through which atheism has meaning.

I don't understand the second sentence: are you saying religious people reject themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Kojiro,

Either you do not understand or you are being argumentative. If the discussion is atheism then the base notion of God is not irrelevant as that is the topic by which and through which atheism has meaning.

---

Irrelevant to life in general.

Quote:

---

I don't understand the second sentence: are you saying religious people reject themselves?

---

Christians reject islam for reason A, muslims reject christianity for reason B, Atheists reject both for reasons A and B. Their reason for rejecting the religions is used by religious people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

A proof of God? Wow, then you must be a unique theological genius, because nobody has succeeded in it before without redefining the meaning of God so that he becomes something very different from what he initially was. Can you please repeat this proof of yours?

---

The above statement has a number of qualifiers that are suspect.

You've not read the thread it appears.
Read posts: 114 (both the quotes and the replies for context), 115, 120.

Quote:

---

Also, my comment doesn't apply to all believer, but I have met many believers who automatically assume that certain things must be right because of their assumption that God exists.

---

I see. This moves beyond my focus or the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Irrelevant to life in general.

---

I don't understand the above except as more argumentativeness. The base notion of God is relevant when discussing atheism as atheism is meaningful only within that larger context.

Quote:

---

Christians reject islam for reason A, muslims reject christianity for reason B, Atheists reject both for reasons A and B. Their reason for rejecting the religions is used by religious people.

---

Alas no. A Christian must reject Islam because Islam does not recognize Jesus as the Christ by whom and through whom salvation is derived. A Muslim must reject Trinitarian Christianity as it deifies Jesus and thus compromises the singularity and uniqueness of God. These are not reasons an atheist rejects the claims of Christianity or Islam. Roberts view was flawed.

If someone thought God was irrelevant, the term atheist certainly wouldn't apply to them would it? An atheist believes God does not exist, not that He doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The base argument comes from Plato, though Aristotle's formulation is more well known.

---

good to know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You do not understand. It is not a question of version, but the focal point of the argument. The reductio is simply a consequence of a single line of inquiry. If one posits a contingent X and then is asked for the source of that X then either the source is another contingent X or something non-contingent. A causality rubric of simple contingency: as in X, X-1, X-2, X-3 etc. begs the question as there is no point within the sequence that does not already posit the very thing in question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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 infinite 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.

---

here are several criticisms of this argument I got from a group of debating philosophers of various types:
quotes -

The logical failure occurs in number 4. It is not necessary that a being be caused by a being.

It is, on the other hand, necessary that some being was not caused by another being.


The "cause" of a contingent being can be a long chain of evolutionary steps leading back to abiogenesis from chemical evolution, leading all the way back to the big bang, which didn't need a being, necessary or otherwise, to cause it.

1) God is a necessary being and exists in all logically possible worlds.

2) God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent

3) Therefore , suppose a omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists in all possible worlds

4) Many logically possible worlds contain large amounts of suffering with no redeeming features.

5) Therefore these logically possible worlds do not contain a being who would alleviate pointless suffering

6) Therefore there are logically possible worlds that do not contain an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being.

7) But this contradicts 3, showing that there is no necessary omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being

the argument falls apart at 4. There is no logical following that one must posit a "being" as the cause of another contingent being.

There is no being that designed the Grand Canyon, but the Grand Canyon is a result of the gradual eroding of the earth by running water and small collisions of solid matter being carried by the water as a result of gravitational forces and such.

The Grand Canyon, which could very well be considered a contingent being (dependent upon which definition of being you choose to accept--some prefer to only attribute being to a mind, others to something merely existant, but that's an entirely different can of worms), is a contingent object that is the result of an arbitrary process.

A contingent being can also be the result of an arbitrary process. In the case of life on earth, the overwhelming evidence points toward that process being evolution.

Because everything we see in the Universe looks like it is contingent. None of it exists necesarily. Bertrand Russell offered a defence against this which pointed out that properties of parts don't always apply to wholes. Bricks are made of brick and whole brick walls are also made of bricks. However, just because sodium and chlorine are harmful to humans, it does not follow that sodium chloride is harmful to humans. Russell applied this to the property of contingency. Just because all the individual things in the universe are contingent, he claimed, it does not follow that the whole universe taken together is contingent

It stops at the second statement:
2- Contingent beings have a cause
Why?, you should ask. The only reason to assume a cause is to assume a god first. That renders the argument useless.

It is a human sentiment to expect a reason behind things.
The flaw is that when something might exist it might as equally well not exist. If you attach a cause to one outcome, you must attach a cause to the other. If therefore, as in the original 'proof', you base the existence of a god on the fact that something has a cause there would always be a god, no matter what outcome.

The problem with this argument is that you are making this leap that there is something, when there could be nothing, and therefore there must be some kind of "non-contigent being" to make something. And it really falls apart right there, its simply special pleading for the existence of a non-contigent being. Either things can just exist, or they can't. If they can, than the universe can. If they can't, the non-contingent being can't. Its pretty basic.

Furthermore, the "contingency" of the universe itself is far from certain. It could be that for reasons we do not currently understand, the universe as we know it must exist, or that some universes must exist, and this particular one just happens to. Or, it could be that the universe contains the seeds of its own creation. You don't know and neither do I. I am hypothesizing, but since you are too, there is no reason to prefer your brand of B.S. to mine, and no reason to accept your conclusions.
- endquotes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, it is not a straw man, it is the correct understanding of the issue. Atheism and theism in logical terms are knowledge claims. The words themselves indicate as much. Moreover, an improbability schema is a simple skepticism. I previously explained how atheism can be divided into strong and weak forms. The weak form qualifies itself as a belief of the subject. A knowledge claim that is simply self-reflective can be dismissed as irrelevant. The problem with the multi-point breakdown you put forward (aside from the fundamentalist label which is typically a negative label applied to the religious zealot) is the focus is the individual's penchant as opposed to the logic of the knowledge claim as such. Belief, regardless the passion, is still self-reflective and does not speak to the larger universe.

---

the extent to which the term Atheism is a knowledge claim of saying that 'there is no God' or whatever is entirely dependant on the knowledge claim of Theist arguments and disagreeing with them.

Atheism does not make a knowledge claim that there are no gods by any definition. Atheism makes the claim that the Gods as defined by Theism do not exist.

it is because of Theist arguments for gods that are often highly absurd, irrational, illogical, and unscientific that Atheism makes the claim that surely they do not exist as the Theists claim they do.

it also depends on the definition of God in the context of Theism, if one were to cut away at the idea of what a God is down to something such as a 'non-contingent being' with no other defining qualities, then that changes the definition of Theism for which Atheism argues against. The burden of proof in the debate between Theism and Atheism is put upon the Theists because they make the knowledge claim and the Atheists disagree with the theist argument. Atheism does not make a knowledge claim until after Theism makes one. As Theist arguments are often unscientific, the Atheist argument has many reasons to speak up and disagree.

Atheism does not make an original knowledge claim, it disagrees with the unscientific (or worse) knowledge claims of Theism. The burden of proof is on the Theists. There is no burden of proof on Atheists until after Theism has defined exactly what the definition of a God/Deity is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, it is not. The simple proof I gave is valid. It is not an absurdity. It was because of presumptive comments like this I gave the proof originally.

---

as much as I disagree with the argument, I have to admit that it is a useful argument for Theism... with enough jargon to make it appear like a rational or scientific argument. unfortunately it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think the measuring rod of conviction you put forward has any value when it comes to epistemology. I said I'm a theist. The reasons are many. I gave one simple proof that stands independent of probability.

---

this spectrum of belief (for lack of a better term) is entirely valid in defining the extent to which an individual is in their Theist or Atheist mindset.
You seem to be criticizing it in order to define Atheism according to your own prejudices.
I would like to hear more reasons as to why this spectrum is a poor construct... here it is again:
quote -:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very High probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know weather God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong Atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
:- endquote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Perhaps not, but it is loyal to your thread's focus. The problems a theism faces are different.

---

true, the burden of proof is on Theism for a start...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes.

---

What are your criticisms of De Facto Atheism then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This comment: "but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already." doesn't relate to the proof either. Using evidentiary language for logic is to commit a category mistake. To charge a foregone conclusion is erroneous as the premises are all clearly laid out with no concluding assumption implied or indicated.

---

repeating this quote:

It stops at the second statement:
2- Contingent beings have a cause
Why?, you should ask. The only reason to assume a cause is to assume a god first. That renders the argument useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The first cause would be God. It is considered first by definition (both of necessary being and godhood). The difference between a first cause simplicitur and a creative/designing god is the activity of the being in question. This is again distinct from any attending worship.

---

which god exactly?

and what exactly makes this god/being/entity non-contingent if everything else is contingent?

does this god have a physical existence or manipulate physical reality?

does this god have sentience? is it a living thing? did it have a 'choice' in causing everything (directly or indirectly)?

I hope you answer these questions Pindar - after all, you made the knowledge claim and posed the contingency argument...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The issue is not the dismissing of another idea, but the rationale behind any such rejection. The rhetorical posture that divides the Muslim from the Trinitarian Christian from the devotee of the Gods of Olympus is not the same as the base separation between theism and atheism. As was pointed out previously: an atheism that asserts a universal knowledge claim about a negative particular is a logical absurdity. This is not the case with theistic assertions.

---

Atheism does not make a universal knowledge claim about a negative. It argues against the Theist knowledge claims that have next to nothing in the way of scientific evidence required to make such a knowledge claim in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The question of God is not a scientific category.

---

it most certainly is a scientific category.
You yourself are putting 'God' as a first cause/non-contingent position in the development of a supposedly contingent universe. by that model the scientific category of this God would be one of undeniable importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

here are several criticisms of this argument I got from a group of debating philosophers of various types...

---

Claudius, you do have a penchant for rather long posts. You also have a penchant for citing others. I commented on this before. Regarding the multi-colored criticisms: tell me which you think is compelling and I'll respond. I don't feel a need to reply to random long citations that I'm not sure the poster actually understands nor do I appreciate a shotgun approach to topics.

Quote:

---

the extent to which the term Atheism is a knowledge claim of saying that 'there is no God' or whatever is entirely dependant on the knowledge claim of Theist arguments and disagreeing with them.

---

No, atheism is not a parasitic position. It can be understood on its own terms independent of any actual theism or theist.

Quote:

---

as much as I disagree with the argument, I have to admit that it is a useful argument for Theism... with enough jargon to make it appear like a rational or scientific argument. unfortunately it is not.

---

There is no jargon in the proof. The terms are quite standard for metaphysical discourse. The proof is rational as it operates off of reason (in this case deduction) and is valid.

Quote:

---

this spectrum of belief (for lack of a better term) is entirely valid in defining the extent to which an individual is in their Theist or Atheist mindset.
You seem to be criticizing it in order to define Atheism according to your own prejudices.
I would like to hear more reasons as to why this spectrum is a poor construct...

---

The problem is the list is basically a breakdown of a subject's conviction. As such, the focus is on the subject rather than the knowledge claim. If one only wishes to know how confident a given fellow is this may be useful, but such is a psychological question, not a philosophical one. Atheism and theism respectively are epistemological stances. Personal conviction is not relevant to the claims as such.

Quote:

---

true, the burden of proof is on Theism for a start...

---

Any knowledge claim has a burden of proof. Atheism is a knowledge claim. Agnosticism is not.

Quote:

---

What are your criticisms of De Facto Atheism then?

---

It cannot ground moral judgments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

This comment: "but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already." doesn't relate to the proof either. Using evidentiary language for logic is to commit a category mistake. To charge a foregone conclusion is erroneous as the premises are all clearly laid out with no concluding assumption implied or indicated.

Quote:

---

repeating this quote:

It stops at the second statement:
2- Contingent beings have a cause
Why?, you should ask. The only reason to assume a cause is to assume a god first. That renders the argument useless.

---

---

Causality is not unique to theism. Causality is central to science for example. If you challenge the idea that contingent beings have a cause then the only option is to assume things come into being ex nihilo. This is a problematic stance and it would place you outside the bounds of the rational tradition and science.

Quote:

---

which god exactly? does this god have a physical existence or manipulate physical reality? does this god have sentience? is it a living thing? did it have a 'choice' in causing everything (directly or indirectly)?

---

These are sect specific issues and thus separate from the base question of existence.

Quote:

---

and what exactly makes this god/being/entity non-contingent if everything else is contingent?

---

God is non-contingent by definition.

Quote:

---

Atheism does not make a universal knowledge claim about a negative.

---

Yes, it does. To assert: "there is no God" is to do just that.

Quote:

---

it most certainly is a scientific category.
You yourself are putting 'God' as a first cause/non-contingent position in the development of a supposedly contingent universe. by that model the scientific category of this God would be one of undeniable importance.

---

No, Science deals with physical phenomena and the physical universe. If you wish to argue God is in the physical universe then you would be correct. This is not the standard view of God however.