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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Question has already been answered by Hume (and it's in the Salmon article):

Psychological habit.

---

Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit. Why then do scientists test their ideas and put themselves in harms way to do so, but philosophers get off lightly by not doing so on a cop out of 'psychological habit. You have to see that is a weak argument to support a theory. Philo profs 'We don't test it out of habit'... no they don't test it because to do so would earn them a Darwin award because they are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Even so, it is recognized that it is not rational...

Oh, just to tell you, Feyerabend used to see a healer instead of go to the hospital. He advocated teaching voodoo among other things. He used to jump out of a window after giving his lecture (1st story). Very eccentric man...

---

Ohhh a 1 story building, why not a 10th? That really is the crux, why don't they. It has to be more then a psychological habit that every other discipline out their can get over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

There no evidence to say that the game won't change. That's the point. The skeptical argument is not proposing an alternative, it is questioning our assumption.

---

There is no evidence to say that the game has ever or will ever change. And I still don't see any of them seriously running around testing their ideas. Every other discipline has great thinkers that will actually put themselves on the line in proving what they do. To avoid testing something based on habit has to be one of the largest cop outs I have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit. Why then do scientists test their ideas and put themselves in harms way to do so, but philosophers get off lightly by not doing so on a cop out of 'psychological habit. You have to see that is a weak argument to support a theory. Philo profs 'We don't test it out of habit'... no they don't test it because to do so would earn them a Darwin award because they are wrong.

---

What on earth are you talking about?

We naturally reason in the way that is being called into question. Humans think this way...

It is the way we think. The question is, is it a valid way of thinking?

From the Britannica short:

"It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs about the future on the basis of induction; he denied only that we could know with certainty that these beliefs are true. Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance."

You seem intent on making philosophers to be hypocrites.

OK, philosophers are hypocrites. :rolleyes:

Now, does this refute the problem of induction one bit? No... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Ohhh a 1 story building, why not a 10th? That really is the crux, why don't they. It has to be more then a psychological habit that every other discipline out their can get over.

---

:rolleyes:

I remind you that Feyerabend did not write a book criticizing scientific reasoning by way of the problem of induction.

His focus was different.

You can't accuse him of being a hypocrite in that sense... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

There is no evidence to say that the game has ever or will ever change. And I still don't see any of them seriously running around testing their ideas. Every other discipline has great thinkers that will actually put themselves on the line in proving what they do. To avoid testing something based on habit has to be one of the largest cop outs I have seen.

---

Exactly, there is no evidence either way. What is rational to do is be a skeptic.

You may go ahead and try to paint philosophy/philosophers in as bad a light as you want, and I'm not going to try to defend them because I really don't care.

I just want to point out that you still haven't been able to offer any argument against the problem of induction... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit.

---

Hi Papewaio,

I thought I would weigh in a second time on your discussion with Roink. I don't think this hypocrisy avenue gets you anywhere. The reason is because it fails to address the nature of the issue. The crux of the problem with induction does not revolve around the belief(s) or the confidence (however great) of any person about a thing, but the justification of the knowledge claim itself. Let me try and illustrate the point Roink has been explaining a little differently. If one releases an apple from their hand they may expect it to fall downwards. This would no doubt be based on the fact it has always done so. Their neighbors may confirm this same experience. However, the phenomena of the apple dropping contains no necessity. There is nothing that says apples when released from a hand must always fall down. Why is necessity important? Necessity is the Grail from which real knowledge is based upon according to the Rational Tradition. What marked the Ancient Greeks as different from everybody else was they developed a intellectual rubric that was distinct from base expectation from experience and/or religious appeal and yet also allowed conclusions that could not not be, meaning: the conclusion was not 99.9999%, but 100%. This rubric is logic. Under a logical schema necessity is everything. Without necessity any conclusion falls back under the standard of doxa (opinion) and thus could be theoretically wrong. Induction, which is the rational touchstone of Modern Science, lacks this necessity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewao

For instance if there is no link between what has happened in the past and future, why don't we see them testing it by playing Russian roulette with automatic pistols, parachuting without the parachute, embracing crystal healing in equal abundance to chemotherapy etc etc

---

Yet another point (in the line of several) that shows that your contentions really are meaningless:

Philosophers who argue that we have no rational reason to believe that scientific laws and theories will work in the future are using the problem of induction for their contention.

It is not as if they are saying that the laws of nature will be different in the future.

They are merely pointing out that we have no justification to believe that they will remain the same (as the present justification is based on induction, yadda yadda yadda...).

It is a skeptical position.

Compare the situation with this:

There are the people who believe in the existence of an external world.

There are the people (solipsists) who believe that the external world does not exist .

There are the people (skeptics) who believe that we have no justification to believe in an external world.

With this in mind, there is no reason for them to jump off cliffs.

They simply hold that we have no reason to believe gravity will work in the future, not that gravity won't work in the future...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Papewaio,

I thought I would weigh in a second time on your discussion with Roink. I don't think this hypocrisy avenue gets you anywhere. The reason is because it fails to address the nature of the issue. The crux of the problem with induction does not revolve around the belief(s) or the confidence (however great) of any person about a thing, but the justification of the knowledge claim itself. Let me try and illustrate the point Roink has been explaining a little differently. If one releases an apple from their hand they may expect it to fall downwards. This would no doubt be based on the fact it has always done so. Their neighbors may confirm this same experience. However, the phenomena of the apple dropping contains no necessity. There is nothing that says apples when released from a hand must always fall down. Why is necessity important? Necessity is the Grail from which real knowledge is based upon according to the Rational Tradition. What marked the Ancient Greeks as different from everybody else was they developed a intellectual rubric that was distinct from base expectation from experience and/or religious appeal and yet also allowed conclusions that could not not be, meaning: the conclusion was not 99.9999%, but 100%. This rubric is logic. Under a logical schema necessity is everything. Without necessity any conclusion falls back under the standard of doxa (opinion) and thus could be theoretically wrong. Induction, which is the rational touchstone of Modern Science, lacks this necessity.

---

So let me get this right.

Science states that it cannot be 100% correct.
Science states that its models are all open to change.
Therefore science is all opinion based/irrational.

====

Can the Uncertainty Principle work in a Rational Tradition?

====

Is it possible to use more the one tradition to approach an issue, or does one have to go all ultra-orthodox?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

It is not as if they are saying that the laws of nature will be different in the future.

They are merely pointing out that we have no justification to believe that they will remain the same (as the present justification is based on induction, yadda yadda yadda...)

---

For the following two scenarios:

A) If you knew that the laws of nature where going to be uniform and never change, what system of knowledge would you use?

B) If you knew that the laws of nature where going to change, what system of knowledge would you use to determine that it had changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So let me get this right.

Science states that it cannot be 100% correct.
Science states that its models are all open to change.
Therefore science is all opinion based/irrational.

---

If science is taken as a mechanism for knowledge (the scientific conclusion X constitutes knowledge) then such is problematic as the logical schema of science (induction) is an inference mechanism which can never be definitive or ground necessity.

Quote:

---

Can the Uncertainty Principle work in a Rational Tradition?

---

The Uncertainty Principle is a product of the Rational Tradition. I don't know what you mean by work. If work means useful, then that depends on the goal.

Quote:

---

Is it possible to use more the one tradition to approach an issue, or does one have to go all ultra-orthodox?

---

Yes, its possible. Of course, different traditions will reveal different answers and may not be able to agree on what the issue is. For example, a rationalist and a Zen abbot assume mutually exclusive positions. This would effect any knowledge claim, how it was obtained as well as the object of knowledge itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If science is taken as a mechanism for knowledge (the scientific conclusion X constitutes knowledge) then such is problematic as the logical schema of science (induction) is an inference mechanism which can never be definitive or ground necessity.

The Uncertainty Principle is a product of the Rational Tradition. I don't know what you mean by work. If work means useful, then that depends on the goal.

---

Does knowledge have to be conclusive? Can't we operate under the idea that the model is the best current fit and accept that it is not absolute?

The problem stated with science is that because of induction it cannot make valid claims about the future because the nature of the universe may change.
Don't all knowledge claims fail in the future if the nature of the universe may change?

And aren't some methods of finding knowledge even weaker as the knowledge claims may fail without the universe having to change its physical laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Because a perfect being (God) is a necessary being. This was explained.

---

I asked you to show that a necessary being is a perfect being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Does knowledge have to be conclusive? Can't we operate under the idea that the model is the best current fit and accept that it is not absolute?

---

To claim to know a thing is to draw a conclusion. The pragmatic question above has a certain appeal. Of course, to even opt for that route is to cede the ground on any scientific knowledge claims. This means science is no longer about uncovering what is true, but what is the best fit (in your words). The use of fit is suggestive as it indicates a form, a pattern or preconception (as indicated by the methodology itself) and this demonstrates part of the problem. A pragmatic approach has science abandoning the field of knowledge (as the true is beyond reach) and is now about 'fitness'. This standard is myopic and begs the question as it presupposes one already knows the proper pattern. Science as haberdashery is unsound.

Quote:

---

The problem stated with science is that because of induction it cannot make valid claims about the future because the nature of the universe may change.
Don't all knowledge claims fail in the future if the nature of the universe may change?

---

The problem with induction is not just that it cannot guarantee any conclusion vis-a-vis the future, but also that any conclusion can never be exhaustive. It is a self limiting mechanic: the true always remains outside of reach. It is precisely because of these deep seated theoretical problems that Popper argued that science can never derive truth and put forward his falsification standard as a replacement. Of course, even this was savaged by Feyerabend who Roink has already referenced.

Not all knowledge claims suffer from or are weak regarding any unrolling future. A simple example would be Hegel's epistemology. It is a difference between deductive and inductive logics. This does not mean deductive systems do not have their own problems, but those problems are not the same as what science faces.

Quote:

---

And aren't some methods of finding knowledge even weaker as the knowledge claims may fail without the universe having to change its physical laws.

---

Not all methodologies are equal. I think that is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I asked you to show that a necessary being is a perfect being.

---

Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

To claim to know a thing is to draw a conclusion. The pragmatic question above has a certain appeal. Of course, to even opt for that route is to cede the ground on any scientific knowledge claims. This means science is no longer about uncovering what is true, but what is the best fit (in your words). The use of fit is suggestive as it indicates a form, a pattern or preconception (as indicated by the methodology itself) and this demonstrates part of the problem. A pragmatic approach has science abandoning the field of knowledge (as the true is beyond reach) and is now about 'fitness'. This standard is myopic and begs the question as it presupposes one already knows the proper pattern. Science as haberdashery is unsound.

---

The assumption is that the universe has absolute answers to find. Nor do I buy the idea that you have to know something with 100% certainty, that you can't know something with a lesser confidence. This seems to play into an understanding of our world that doesn't exist, and hasn't for some time.

As I mentioned the Uncertainty Principle, this seems to indicate that we can't know everything about quantum objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The problem with induction is not just that it cannot guarantee any conclusion vis-a-vis the future, but also that any conclusion can never be exhaustive. It is a self limiting mechanic: the true always remains outside of reach. It is precisely because of these deep seated theoretical problems that Popper argued that science can never derive truth and put forward his falsification standard as a replacement. Of course, even this was savaged by Feyerabend who Roink has already referenced.

---

Or it takes into account a fuzzy non-absolute universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not all knowledge claims suffer from or are weak regarding any unrolling future. A simple example would be Hegel's epistemology. It is a difference between deductive and inductive logics. This does not mean deductive systems do not have their own problems, but those problems are not the same as what science faces.

---

Can deductive knowledge tell us anything about what we already don't know?
And is it immune to a universe in which its laws change?

I don't see that deductive has anything above inductive... change the rules of the universe and some people might be immortal and pigs may fly. Logic cannot predict this so it is under the same problems of future guessing as induction is in a universe with changing laws.

In all honesty I don't think any knowledge system we have is anything other then based on past facts that would be utterly useless if the schema that upheld them changed.

I thought this thread had died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The assumption is that the universe has absolute answers to find.

---

Of course, the rationalist believes there is such a thing as truth, it is knowable via reason and applies to what is.

Quote:

---

Nor do I buy the idea that you have to know something with 100% certainty...

---

Then you need not concern yourself with the rigors of logic.

Quote:

---

(T)hat you can't know something with a lesser confidence.

---

Knowledge lacking confidence? That is an interesting notion.

Quote:

---

Or it takes into account a fuzzy non-absolute universe.

---

Is 'it' above induction? Induction is part and parcel of logic. As such, it is by definition absolutist: it is a construct with universally applicable rules.

Quote:

---

Can deductive knowledge tell us anything about what we already don't know?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

And is it immune to a universe in which its laws change?

---

The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?

Quote:

---

I don't see that deductive has anything above inductive... change the rules of the universe and some people might be immortal and pigs may fly. Logic cannot predict this so it is under the same problems of future guessing as induction is in a universe with changing laws.

---

The above doesn't understand its subject matter. Logic isn't content specific. It is formal.

Quote:

---

In all honesty I don't think any knowledge system we have is anything other then based on past facts that would be utterly useless if the schema that upheld them changed.

---

Maybe, a rationalist holds that the schema whereby a fact can be construed as a fact is reason, not whimsy

Quote:

---

Of course, the rationalist believes there is such a thing as truth, it is knowable via reason and applies to what is.

---

All ideas should be reviewed. Axioms more so then others.

Quote:

---

Then you need not concern yourself with the rigors of logic.

---

A whetstone may not be the best instrument to cut the cheese. But the knife still needs it to sharpen.

Quote:

---

Knowledge lacking confidence? That is an interesting notion.

---

Not all juries have to be unanimous. I'm not saying no confidence, I'm talking uncertainty (not the principle, error bars). More like treating knowledge as a horse race and that we have odds on which is most likely to win the next race. And just like horse racing, sometimes there is a dubious undercurrent due to human influence that is tainting the presented odds.

Quote:

---

The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?

---

Rules, laws, character being non-uniform. Not physical laws as expressed by science (which is just a title for a theory anyway)... but the actual mechanics of the universe.

Quote:

---

Is 'it' above induction? Induction is part and parcel of logic. As such, it is by definition absolutist: it is a construct with universally applicable rules.

---

The issue that was brought up about induction cannot predict the future if the universes laws (rules, schema, uniformity) etc changes.

Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?

Surely if the data that logic is based on is no longer valid if the data changes.

All Animals Fly.
Pigs are Animals.
Therefore Pigs Fly.

Untrue in our (current) Universe, because the very first step is false. Change the rules of the Universe and suddenly all animals can fly, therefore pigs can fly. Logic cannot predict if or when such a change will occur. Therefore at least some of its outcomes are similarly mired in the past as induction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.

---

Why don't you just make existence part of god's definition too :laugh4:

This is really silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?

---

Deductive inferences are non-ampliative.
Inductive inferences are ampliative.

Also, the problem of induction does not merely state that science will not be 100% correct. There is a good reason that Salmon points out that scientific predictions of the future are just as good as crystal ball gazing... Holding scientific predictions to be more likely to be correct than crystal ball predictions is irrational, unless you can show me a reason to the contrary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

All ideas should be reviewed. Axioms more so then others.

---

Certainly, this does not relate to my post.

Quote:

---

A whetstone may not be the best instrument to cut the cheese. But the knife still needs it to sharpen.

---

What does this mean? Are you wanting to argue induction doesn't suffer from the limitations so far explained? Are you wanting to argue that science, which is dependant on such a schema, isn't therefore similarly limited?

Quote:

---

Not all juries have to be unanimous. I'm not saying no confidence, I'm talking uncertainty (not the principle, error bars). More like treating knowledge as a horse race and that we have odds on which is most likely to win the next race. And just like horse racing, sometimes there is a dubious undercurrent due to human influence that is tainting the presented odds.

---

Uncertainty is not knowledge, by definition.

If you follow the horse race analogy (with its admitted possible tainting by human influence) the problem is there is no conclusion: the race never ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?

Quote:

---

Rules, laws, character being non-uniform. Not physical laws as expressed by science (which is just a title for a theory anyway)... but the actual mechanics of the universe.

---

---

The reference to law is not simply a title. Law is not synonymous with theory. Laws exist within theories. Both are constructs. As far as the actual mechanics of the universe, or what is reality, is a question with many different answers.

Quote:

---

The issue that was brought up about induction cannot predict the future if the universes laws (rules, schema, uniformity) etc changes.

Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?

---

See Roink's reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Why don't you just make existence part of god's definition too :laugh4:

This is really silly.

---

---

Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.

---

Just butting in but: There are very few of us who think, and even fewer that understand.

I said that but I am sure it has been said before…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Just butting in but: There are very few of us who think, and even fewer that understand.

---

That's a grim thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.

---

There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being. Do you believe in foo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being. Do you believe in foo?

---

What one names a thing is not the issue. A label whether foo, god, the absolute etc. isn't relevant. What is relevant is the abiding concept. When discussing a thing that is perfect: the maximal expression of reality then certain conclusions follow.

What one believes isn't relevant. Recall, this tangent on God followed the explanation of the logical problems of atheism and your presumptuous statement that then all strong statements about God were illogical. This was a flawed view and has been demonstrated as such. Your dogmatic penchant to resist even when unable to refute speaks to your person, but is not my concern. I am only concerned with the logic.

foo is by definition evil as well. So, not the same as your god. Do you see the problem now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Certainly, this does not relate to my post.

---

It relates to reviewing the underpinnings of any knowledge system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

What does this mean? Are you wanting to argue induction doesn't suffer from the limitations so far explained? Are you wanting to argue that science, which is dependant on such a schema, isn't therefore similarly limited?

---

Quite the opposite, science has many limitations including but not limited to the inability to deal with metaphysics. Being limited is not an issue, making sure you use it within its limits is the path to wisdom. Science for me is a tool, it's use is based on a few assumptions... for instance that the laws of physics are the same throughout this Universe, which to me automatically means they are in doubt outside of this Universe. However as my physical self is stuck here, I'm happy using the cheese knife (science) to eat cheese. I do see the utility in sharpening the knife with a whetstone (logic)... but I also realise that the whetstone isn't better at cutting the cheese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Uncertainty is not knowledge, by definition.

If you follow the horse race analogy (with its admitted possible tainting by human influence) the problem is there is no conclusion: the race never ends.

---

No, each test of a hypothesis is a horse race. Every cup that falls, every apple etc is one of these tests. What science predicts has uncertainties attached to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The reference to law is not simply a title. Law is not synonymous with theory. Laws exist within theories. Both are constructs. As far as the actual mechanics of the universe, or what is reality, is a question with many different answers.

---

Again I wasn't talking about the Laws of science, I was talking about the universes laws...I referred to it not science in my first post... and I elaborated on it in the second. The idea that if the laws/ways of the universe change induction will fall apart... pretty obvious. When it does, science will not be able to use the old predictions, heck the universe may become unable to support life. I do hazard a guess that science being the best model so far, that it will be the quickest to realise that the fundamentals of the universe have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

See Roink's reply.

---

Yes, Sir!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Deductive inferences are non-ampliative.
Inductive inferences are ampliative.

---

So. Deductive will still not work if the data sets change (changed universe).

Therefore any logical claims may not work if the universes fundamental nature changes.

X can do M, is true.
Y is a part of Set X.
Therefore Y can do M.

Universe changes, Induction Fails. Sets attributes change.

X can do M, is no longer true.
Y is a part of Set X.
Therefore Y can no longer do M.

So doesn't logic suffer in a changing universe in that its past inferences will no longer hold true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

foo is by definition evil as well. So, not the same as your god. Do you see the problem now?

---

I do not own any god. The possessive pronoun is confused.

More to the point, typing a series of letters doesn't make a concept. Asserting a necessary evil being is problematic.

You shouldn't pretend you have a point, which the tale end question above indicates, when it is clear you do not understand the basic issue. The issue is a logical point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

It relates to reviewing the underpinnings of any knowledge system.

---

The underpinnings of rationality is logic. That truth is amenable to rationality is an assumption. An assumption is the theoretical zero point. One either accepts or rejects it. Those on opposite sides of the rational assumption cannot dialogue as they have no point of contact.

Quote:

---

Quite the opposite, science has many limitations including but not limited to the inability to deal with metaphysics. Being limited is not an issue, making sure you use it within its limits is the path to wisdom. Science for me is a tool, it's use is based on a few assumptions... for instance that the laws of physics are the same throughout this Universe, which to me automatically means they are in doubt outside of this Universe. However as my physical self is stuck here, I'm happy using the cheese knife (science) to eat cheese. I do see the utility in sharpening the knife with a whetstone (logic)... but I also realise that the whetstone isn't better at cutting the cheese.

---

The above creates a false dichotomy. Science is a rational enterprise. It is dependant on logic. It cannot be separated from logic.

Quote:

---

No, each test of a hypothesis is a horse race. Every cup that falls, every apple etc is one of these tests. What science predicts has uncertainties attached to it.

---

What has uncertainty isn't knowledge. If you admit science has uncertainty attached then you are ipso facto admitting science and its conclusions are separate from knowledge.

Quote:

---

Again I wasn't talking about the Laws of science, I was talking about the universes laws...I referred to it not science in my first post... and I elaborated on it in the second. The idea that if the laws/ways of the universe change induction will fall apart... pretty obvious. When it does, science will not be able to use the old predictions, heck the universe may become unable to support life. I do hazard a guess that science being the best model so far, that it will be the quickest to realise that the fundamentals of the universe have changed.

---

The universe doesn't have laws. Laws are theoretical constructs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The universe doesn't have laws. Laws are theoretical constructs.

---

I said how the universe works, its rules, laws whatever you wish to name them, and I said it wasn't the theoretical constructs of science I was talking about. I did not think you would be so rude by behaving in such an uncharitable manner. Then you focus on that and even after multiple posts by myself clarifying my position you keep ignoring what I meant.

In the end of the day if the Universe changes then Induction fails. So does logic. Logic deals with sets, the universe changes then so does those sets. Neither Induction or Logic are immune to being able to make any statements about the future if the universe changes as they are based on past knowledge.

Deductive reasoning has no special ability to avoid having its conclusions debased by a changing universe.

What would be interesting is a system that could
a) Predict a change happening.
b) Say what the change would be.

Papewaio, I'm thinking that you are confusing several things.

Like I've said: Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative. There is no information in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I do not own any god. The possessive pronoun is confused.

More to the point, typing a series of letters doesn't make a concept. Asserting a necessary evil being is problematic.

You shouldn't pretend you have a point, which the tale end question above indicates, when it is clear you do not understand the basic issue. The issue is a logical point.

---

Asserting evil is problematic, but asserting perfection is not? How arbitrary. It doesn't have to be evil, it can be anything you like.

I do indeed have a point. You have said necessary being implies god because that is part of it's definition. But you base this on the definition of god which is man made. If I create my own definition of god, and make part of it's definition the necessary being, you can't claim your definition of god is any more true and following it would be merely a matter of preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Papewaio, I'm thinking that you are confusing several things.

Like I've said: Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative. There is no information in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises.

---

But, if the universe changes so do the premises...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

What has uncertainty isn't knowledge. If you admit science has uncertainty attached then you are ipso facto admitting science and its conclusions are separate from knowledge.

---

Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Socrates is therefore Mortal.

How certain are you that man is mortal?

Until everyone is 'measured' you cannot be absolutely sure that man is mortal. You have an uncertainty in the measurement.

Not only that, as the observer is also a Man and part of the set. He can never be sure until he is dead, and once he is dead he cannot finish the measurement, so he can never be certain in this life about Man being Mortal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I said how the universe works, its rules, laws whatever you wish to name them, and I said it wasn't the theoretical constructs of science I was talking about. I did not think you would be so rude by behaving in such an uncharitable manner. Then you focus on that and even after multiple posts by myself clarifying my position you keep ignoring what I meant.

---

I'm not trying to be rude. I simply don't think the distinction you want to make is possible. There is no way to discuss the 'universe' without appealing to a theoria. There is a contrived element that is part and parcel to the process.

Quote:

---

In the end of the day if the Universe changes then Induction fails. So does logic. Logic deals with sets, the universe changes then so does those sets.

---

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is formal. It does not depend on any outside mechanic. Whether the universe is X or Y, or does P or Q has no impact on logic proper. Let me see if I can explain a little before you charge me with being rude again. Logic as a formal system can be about its business without any outside reference, for example:

A then B
Not B
Therefore not A

Now a rationalist may take this formal system and attempt to apply it to the world. Science is an example of such an application. In science's case, the applicative logic is induction. This means going from little to big. The problem is this mechanic is inherently self limiting such that a definitive stance is impossible. It doesn't follow however that because induction is thus and so that deduction is similarly thus and so. Neither does it follow that any state of the world X has any impact of the formality and function of logic. Do you see?

Quote:

---

What would be interesting is a system that could
a) Predict a change happening.
b) Say what the change would be.

---

The above notion is neither remarkable or rare. Hegelian epistemology does just this. The same can be said for a wide variety of religious traditions.

Quote:

---

Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Socrates is therefore Mortal.

How certain are you that man is mortal?

Until everyone is 'measured' you cannot be absolutely sure that man is mortal. You have an uncertainty in the measurement.

---

Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument. The same would be the case if one were to say:

Martians love disco
Bob is a Martian
Therefore Bob loves disco.

The argument doesn't turn on questioning all Martians on their musical tastes. You are confusing content with form. A deductive argument is exhaustive. There is nothing outside its premises and conclusion. This is not the case with induction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Asserting evil is problematic, but asserting perfection is not? How arbitrary. It doesn't have to be evil, it can be anything you like. I do indeed have a point. You have said necessary being implies god because that is part of it's definition. But you base this on the definition of god which is man made. If I create my own definition of god, and make part of it's definition the necessary being, you can't claim your definition of god is any more true and following it would be merely a matter of preference.

---

You are confused. The notion of god, as distilled through reason, is not subject specific. Rather, the concept must have certain properties in order to be coherent. There is nothing arbitrary to it. The logic of perfection has stood at the core of the Rational Tradition for over two and half millennia. If this bothers you or isn't convenient is not my concern.

So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.

---

What? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.

---

This doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to my post above. Oppositionism is never a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to my post above. Oppositionism is never a good thing.

---

Your post didn't respond directly to the scenario I put forward...what am I supposed to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Your post didn't respond directly to the scenario I put forward...what am I supposed to say?

---

My reply responded directly to the thrust of your post. Expressed another way: your 'scenario' is absurd. One cannot simply say a tea table is god or god is evil or god is a "it can be anything you like". Concepts have meaning. Under a rational rubric (which is what we are dealing with here) the notion of god is constrained by the meaning of perfection. This is not arbitrary or simply an appeal to tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.

---

For an individual that is a student - and claims knowledge of logic - your attempt here is rather amusing considering the illogical nature of the stance.

But its been really interesting reading the exchange between Pape and Pinder. Very enlightening and informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

But, if the universe changes so do the premises...

---

...but that doesn't change anything...
Deductive inferences remain non-ampliative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My reply responded directly to the thrust of your post. Expressed another way: your 'scenario' is absurd. One cannot simply say a tea table is god or god is evil or god is a "it can be anything you like". Concepts have meaning. Under a rational rubric (which is what we are dealing with here) the notion of god is constrained by the meaning of perfection. This is not arbitrary or simply an appeal to tradition.

---

It is not a problem if you disagree with an individual scenario. It is presumptuous to say that a necessary being has to be perfect. They are in no way tied together. An imperfect being could just have easily created the universe. You disagree with my foo example for the exact reason I disagree with your example. That was the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It is not a problem if you disagree with an individual scenario. It is presumptuous to say that a necessary being has to be perfect. They are in no way tied together. An imperfect being could just have easily created the universe. You disagree with my foo example for the exact reason I disagree with your example. That was the point.

---

Most of the above is incoherent, worse it is uninteresting. It is not presumptuous to identify god as perfect. It is definitional. It is not presumptuous to identify god with necessary being. It is definitional. The wherefore of the definition has been explained more than once. One shouldn't ape a vernacular if the meaning isn't understood. A presumption is a rush to judgment as was the case with your statement: all strong statements about god are illogical. Your foo fetish failed because it was incoherent. The rational conception of god is not similarly confused. Now, if you disagree then present a rational conception of god that is imperfect or god that is contingent. Recall, something contingent would be ontically dependent and thereby caused. Now if you cannot do this then we can dispense with any silly parallel between your foo fetish and the rational conception of god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But its been really interesting reading the exchange between Pape and Pinder. Very enlightening and informative.

---

If you have any questions from the discussion pipe up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If you have any questions from the discussion pipe up.

---

How does the positivist scientific view reconcile itself with an absolute exclusion of a supreme being when by its own admission the laws of physics break down prior to creation of the universe and, depending on the nature of its end, after its finale? I keep hearing these positivists take the stand of the impossible god. While they may not have the evidence they desire to include a god in their TOE, they neither have the evidence to exclude and be a postivist but in the same breath they accept the anthropic principle past evidence.

On the other hand I once heard a positivist string theorist state that God could be music resonating in dimensional hyperspace.

I'm back after the last month or two of working on my history Thesis, I will contribute to the debate once I've read what I've missed out on over the last few weeks... :book: :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Most of the above is incoherent, worse it is uninteresting. It is not presumptuous to identify god as perfect. It is definitional. It is not presumptuous to identify god with necessary being. It is definitional. The wherefore of the definition has been explained more than once. One shouldn't ape a vernacular if the meaning isn't understood. A presumption is a rush to judgment as was the case with your statement: all strong statements about god are illogical. Your foo fetish failed because it was incoherent. The rational conception of god is not similarly confused. Now, if you disagree then present a rational conception of god that is imperfect or god that is contingent. Recall, something contingent would be ontically dependent and thereby caused. Now if you cannot do this then we can dispense with any silly parallel between your foo fetish and the rational conception of god.

---

I've already said this: foo is exactly the same as god with just one small imperfection.

A first mover is not required to be anything more than a first mover. Your claim that only a perfect being can be the first mover is unsupported. You've said a perfect being must be the first mover, but you haven't shown that a perfect being must exist.

since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.



here is something interresting I read today:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is a FAQ for anyone that wants to know the basics of atheism.

you can also download the entire movie in high quality(144 mb) from http://digitalfreethought.com/
here:
http://www.digitalfreethought.com/vi...atheism101.wmv

here is the complete text spoken in the video:

Q. What exactly IS an atheist?
A. An atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god or gods.

However, if you look up "Atheist" in certain dictionaries, you might encounter phrases like "one who denies the existence of God" (implying that we are in denial of reality), "infidel", "non-believer", "immoral", "evil". Good examples of this can be found in the older versions of Webster's Dictionary. Webster was a Christian and obviously had an axe to grind against atheists.

Q. Don't you atheists worship SATAN?
A. No we don't. We don't believe in any gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, witches, miracles, or just about anything supernatural.. Why would we worship something that we don't believe exists?
Back to top

Q. Why don't you believe in God??
Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor or Green People on Venus? Same reason. There's no evidence.

There is no evidence; and before you say "What do you mean? You're evidence of God".. I'll have to point out the logical fallacy that you would be using: Presupposition

You pre-suppose the existence of a God, assign Him the power to create me, then say "How can you say there is no God, you're standing right there!"... Then I would say "See that car there? I made that car from toothpicks.. How can you doubt it.. There it is!" I have presupposed my ability to make cars out of toothpicks before I made the argument.

Also, there is actually reason to believe that a Christian God of your description (All Loving, All Knowing, All powerful) doesn't exist in this universe. If He did, why would He allow innocent children to get cancer? Why would He send hurricanes and earthquakes kill so many people? Why would He allow people to fly planes into our skyscrapers and kill thousands of His "children"? And on and on and on.

Actually, siting the Riddle of Epicuris":
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Therefore the All Knowing, All powerful, All loving God of your description is logically impossible.

If he allows children to get cancer, and allows tsunamis and hurricanes to kill thousands. If he allows bad men to rape women. If he even allows evil to exist in the world, then:
1) he can't be all loving
or 2) he can't know about it
or 3) he's not powerful enough to stop it.
You can have 2 out of three, but not all three

When looking at the world through the eyes of a rationalist/atheist, the world makes perfect sense. Some people, good and bad, will die in natural disasters. Little children will get cancer as a certain percentage of the population. There's no malice, and no "mysterious plan".

Also, if you will re-read your bible (you're planning to anyway, right?) with critical mind, you'll notice that the God of the Bible actually is:
- Extremely Violent and Cruel
- Jealous
- Murderous
- Impetuous
- Peevish
- Possessive
- Threatening
- Irrational
- Misogynistic
- Irresponsible

ALL of these are human traits! And every Christian apologist that I've ever heard, constantly says that "God is so far above humans, that we could never understand his motives.".. Well, reading the bible, you're supposed to understand his motives! That's where the supposed lessons come from!

Not only that, but in the Bible, God directly ordered 2,017,956 People Killed.
Not counting 65 entire cities.
Not counting those that died from the His various Plagues.
And not counting the entire population of the world in the Flood.

Heck, the only people Satan killed was Job's kids, and that was only after God told him he could. And he's constantly surprised by the actions of Humans. How can he be all knowing, be surprised by anything we do, and get angry (a human emotion) when we're simply "following the plan" that he laid down in the first place!

What this boils down to is that God was really created by men, and the bible authored by men, not the other way around. Also, do the actions of your God make sense to you? Or does he really seem to act like a spoiled 8 year old?

Q. Well then, prove that God does not exist.
A. It's not up to us. Carl Sagan once wrote: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Believers are making the extraordinary claim that you know how the universe was created, that the universe was created by your personal God, that that God still exists, and is personally involved in every part of our lives. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. You. We simply say we do not believe it.

Also, one could argue that it is hardly necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.
Back to top

Q. How can you say that there is no GOD? I personally feel his "power" in church!
A. Well, I don't know exactly what you felt, but from the atheist standpoint we'd say you've experienced a mass induced psychosis. It is quite a commonly accepted psychological phenomenon. People in large groups can become emotionally charged rather easily. (Do some research on the psychology of lynchings, witch hunts, etc.)
Back to top

Q. But EVERYONE believes in God, why don't you?
A. Well, actually everybody doesn't believe in God. About 15% of Americans (that's 30 Million people as of the 2000 census) say they don't believe in a god. There are about twice as many Atheists in America as Jews. Also, most people around the world believe in different gods. Yours in only one of 1,000+ deities that people believe in.

Also, there are whole "religions" without a Supreme Being: Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, etc. And many, whole countries without pervasive religions: China, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries.
Back to top

Q. You should believe, millions of believers can't be wrong!
A. Sure they can. How many people believe in Astrology, Numerology, Psychics, and magic? People are easily duped, and especially so in large numbers. Also, your "believers" can't even agree on what they DO believe. The sectarian violence taking place in IRAQ is between devout Moslems. They all follow Mohammed, and Allah, but disagree on the details. Disagree so strongly, that they are willing to kill each other.

J. H. Johnson writes: "[Some] 433,000,000 Muslims believe that the Koran was brought by an angel from heaven; 335,000,000 Hindus believe one of their gods, Siva, has six arms; 153,000,000 Buddhists believe they will be reincarnated; 904,000,000 Christians believe a god made the world in six days, Joshua stopped the sun by yelling at it, and Jesus was born of a virgin and nullified natural laws to perform miracles. "

Why should we believe any of these fantastic tales, brought to us from 2-3000 years ago by ignorant, superstitious people?

Q. Why don't you just have faith?
A. Uh Yeah. Faith is nothing more that voluntary gullibility.

"Faith is what your preacher says you must have so that you'll believe all the other stuff he wants to tell you." - Unknown

"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." - Arthur C Clarke, science fiction writer (1917- )

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

If you insist that "everyone has faith in something", then I'll admit that my faith lies in the human ability to deal with the real world using human reason and compassion. I have faith that we are not born as flawed sinners; we are born whole, with brains capable of dealing with life's challenges unassisted by mythology and supernatural belief systems.

Dr. Charlie Web writes in his article "Think For Yourself":

"Faith" is nothing more than thought control. Blind faith is legalized slavery. Faith tells us never to question the evidence for truth. But should we care about the truth? Absolutely! Because if we don't know what reality is, how can we ever expect to know how to deal with reality?

To find the truth we simply need to think for ourselves and examine the evidence. Evidence is everything.

All the world's evidence tells us that whoever wrote the Bible and whoever wrote the Koran knew absolutely nothing about geography, geology, astronomy, biology, or evolution. They thought their world was flat! They shared the profound ignorance of their time, and yet we are told to have "faith" that these primitive people knew more than we do. Only blind faith could swallow such a yarn. " Ask yourself, honestly, what basis do you have for believing that the Bible is the true word of a God?

Also, if faith is all that is necessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, doesn't that make all of the other religions true too? They also require "faith".

Q. Why don't you believe in God anyway? If He's not real you haven't lost anything. But if He is real, you get to go to heaven..

You are basically talking about Pascal's wager. There are several reasons this doesn't work for us. The main answering points are:
1. Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it. We are convinced that He is simply not there.

2. Which God? And how do you know which God to believe in? What if you're wrong?

3. If God really exists, He is not stupid. He would know that I'd just be trying to get a free ride into Heaven by just saying we believe.

4. You couldn't just "believe in God", you would also have to believe in the whole religious package. In Christianity that would mean also believing in angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, saints, sin, resurrection, prophets, miracles, cherubim, etc. etc. etc.

5. AND If there is no God, you have lost something by worshipping Him. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing various devotional rituals, attending church, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavors and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your "Good News".*

Also, Believing when you actually don't, you would have lost a great deal of self-respect by being intellectually dishonest with yourself for your whole life.
(These answers were drawn from Adrian Barnett's site. Go there for more information.)

* Speaking of Good News... In order for a Christian to spread the "Good News", he must first spread the Bad News: That all people are born sinners, bound for Hell. Christians conveniently forget that part.

Q. If you don't believe in God, then what is the point of living?
Why does living need to have a "point" at all? Do the "lilies of the field" need to have a point to live?

If you must have a "point", then decide on your own meaning of life. We believe that it's much better do determine our own purpose, than to have some church do it for you based on their agenda!
Back to top

Q. Doesn't being an Atheist "cheapen" life?
A. Actually religion cheapens life. Being an Atheist makes life more precious. Since there is no after-life, you must come to terms with the fact that this is the ONLY life you'll get. If an atheist throws himself in front of a bus in order to save a child, that action is much more meaningful than if a Christian did the same thing. The Christian thinks they'll just go to heaven and live there!

Look at the 9/11/2001 massacre in New York and Washington D.C. Those religious (Muslim) people thought that their actions would hasten and ensure their entry into eternal bliss, but what they actually did was throw away the only life they had in an act of "faith".
Back to top

Q. Well what DO you believe?
A. We DO believe in Human Dignity! We're NOT born "dirty sinners". We are born as earth's most intelligent and adaptive creatures. We have the ability to overcome adversity without help from mysticism, superstition and "invisible friends".

- We believe in treating our fellow man as we would like to be treated; which is a Humanist Idea, thousands of years older than Christianity.
- We believe that Humans are fully capable of deciding our own "purpose" in life.
- We believe that the "comfort" that religion theoretically offers is more than off-set by the amount of pain, death and suffering it has caused throughout history.
- And we believe that religion has hindered the advancement of human knowledge more than any other single cause, and is still doing so today.

There are several versions of the Atheist 10 Commandments on the internet these days, here is one set, drawn from http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/t...mandments.html
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thee art told.
2. Thou SHALT constantly seek knowledge and truth.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thy have to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support ye who follow these commandments.

And I believe in a future that allows humans to be free of the blinders superstition and religion. Free to use their minds to question the universe around them unafraid of the wrath of an invisible, omni-present Judge. (Or His even more present, and judgemental, human representatives.)

But mostly I believe that the world actually HAS a future. Unlike the Christian who envisions a very short future indeed; where the "King of Creation" is coming next week, or next year, to loose horrible demons and monsters and plagues and disease upon the world, before totally destroying it. (See Revelations)

Q. How can you not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
A. Well, rationally considered, it is a pretty outlandish claim. Nobody in the history of the world has ever done it. And outside of the bible, there is no mention of Jesus' resurrection anywhere in the historical documents. NOR is there a mention of any of the other "resurrections" that took place on the same day: According to Matthew chapter 27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." You would think that someone outside of the Bible would have written about that.

Carrying this a bit further, let’s look at the logic of Jesus’s death.
1) God is angry at us for disobeying Him in the Garden of Eden, and condemns us all.
2) He sends His son to die on earth to appease himself.
3) Then He forgives only those who believe in His son, the rest are still condemned.

Or as Julia Sweeney puts it:
"Why would a God create people so imperfect? And then blame them for his own imperfections? Then send his own son to be murdered by those imperfect people, to make up for how imperfect those people were? And how imperfect they were inevitably going to be? I mean, what a crazy idea."

Why didn't He just forgive us outright? Why did he condemn His son to all that suffering and torment at the hands of the people he's planning to forgive just so He wouldn't send us all to hell!? And if your Catholic, it gets even stranger! God and Jesus are the same person.. So in essence, He sent Himself to be tortured and crucified to appease Himself!

Look at it another way.
1) God's mad at us for eating the apple.
2) God sends His son to earth to be killed by us (He had to know it was going to happen!).
3) We kill Him.
4) God's not mad at us any more.

Does that make any sense?

Again... Why not just forgive us? What kind of father would have his son tortured and killed, when he had the power to prevent it?

Q. Don't you believe in an immortal soul?
A. No. Your personality is basically an organic and chemical structure and resides mostly in the frontal lobes of your brain. Many studies have been done to show that the application of certain chemicals and/or surgery can change the way your personality behaves. A simple surgical procedure known as a lobotomy, for example, will erase your personality altogether. How can a soul (i.e. your personality) exist when it has no physical brain to reside in?
Back to top

Q. Don't you wish that you could go to Heaven?
A. Sure.. We'd love to believe that Heaven was real and that we could live forever. But there has never been anyone who has ever come back and said it was there. There is no evidence whatsoever of life continuing after death. (The Bible doesn't count, since it was written by very superstitious people who believed that demons cause illness, the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth, etc., etc.)

Also, if Heaven is to be total happiness, forever, then how can you be totally happy if you know that one or more of your loved one's are in Hell? (Or if anyone is in Hell?) And if God removes your memories of those loved ones so that you can be happy, is He not altering the thing that is "You". If He alters you very much, you cease to be the "You" that you were.

Also, are babies still babies in Heaven forever? Do retarded people become smart? How smart? If Jesus says that riches are to be frowned upon, why are the streets made of Gold, and the Heavenly Gates Pearl? Every religion/sect has a different "Heaven", how do we know which is the correct heaven? Indeed, how do we know ANYTHING about heaven? Even the bible is extremely sketchy in this respect.

Doesn’t it make more sense that the ancient church would just make up Heaven and Hell to keep it’s followers in line? After all, Hell is the ultimate threat and Heaven the ultimate Bribe.

Anyway, according to the Bible, the prospects of you going to Heaven are pretty slim too:
Revelation 7:4 says that only 144,000 people will be going to heaven, and those will be "of the children of Israel."
Revelation 14:3-4 says that "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."

So unless your a Jewish man, and a Virgin, sorry.

Back to top

Q. But you must be forgiven for your sins!
A. What if I told you that there is no such thing as a sin?

"Sin" is a concept that is sold to you by your religion. Would you buy a bandage from a person who comes up to you and cuts you in order to sell you a bandage?

Paraphrasing Dan Barker in his excellent book: "Losing Faith in Faith": "Religion tries to sell you a cure for a problem of it's own making."
Back to top

Q. What do you do if you feel that you've really wronged another person or done something bad? You can't go to Jesus for forgiveness.
A. That's right we can't, so we either have to get forgiveness from the person we've wronged or live with it. If you think about it, it makes us think a lot harder about doing something before we do it. The religious person can just go on and do it, knowing that he can easily be forgiven by his church, Jesus, etc. He doesn't even have to ask forgiveness from the person he's wronged.

Did you know that Hitler was a Christian (a Catholic)? And since he probably asked for forgiveness in his last hours, he should be in heaven right now. Right? And Anne Frank's only "sin" was that she was Jewish. So to Christians, she should be in hell now, along with Albert Schweitzer (a non-believer). Right?

Back to top

Q. Well then, where do you think the universe came from?
A. I don't know. Nobody does. Not even your preacher. Besides, saying that "God did it" really explains nothing. You're in essence saying that an unseen, unknowable being created it in a way that we could never understand. You might as well say it was "magic", or fairies!

Also, when you say "God created the universe." it begs the question "Who/what created God?" and then "Who/what created that entity?"

Here's the problem... People do have questions about the universe: Where did it come from? Where did WE come from? Do we have a purpose?

These questions are very basic human questions, and it would be wonderful if the answers were easy to come by, and easy to understand. However, they are anything BUT basic or easy to answer. To arrive at any kind of respectable/defendable answer you would have to study Anthropology, Biology, Physics and/or Philosophy just to begin with! We have long since passed the point where the layman can do more than can scratch the surface of all of these diverse fields. The answers are very hard to arrive at. But religion makes it easy! Just study one book and get some help from your preacher! "God created the Universe.", "We're here because he put us here." "Our purpose is to serve Him (and the church)".

These answers are easy, but 1) they're really not answers because we don't know how He did it, or where He came from, or what His purpose was for putting us here. 2) When we follow religion, we are not following the SAME religion. And it's very divisive. It causes elitism, intolerance, and war. These are paths we can no longer afford to take. Humanity is too interlinked, and the world is too small (and nuclear weapons too abundant) for us to continue down this path.

The difference between Scientific and Religious answers is the way they go about getting these answers.

David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it this way: "The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism [...] is incompatible with higher education," Professor Key said. "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you're searching for truths."

Science looks at the universe and tries to figure it out, working from the data to the answer. Religion works backwards. It teaches us that it's answers are "Revelations from God" (or at least "inspired by God"), and tries to find data in the universe that supports them; ignoring or denying evidence that contradicts it. Therein lies the problem.

In the past, Religion has denied that the world is round, that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that illness can be caused by microscopic organisms.

Religion currently is denying Evolution. This at a time when every major accredited institution of higher-education in the world accepts it.

Galileo Galilei was imprisoned, and Giordano Bruno killed, for espousing their scientific discoveries during a time when religion contridicted their findings.

By the way.. the Catholic Church is after a kinder image now I guess. On it's web-site: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. They say it wasn't Millions of heretics they killed, but only 3,000 to 5,000. Of course this does not even touch on the number of people who where maimed and tortured, and/or dispossessed of their lands/properties during the 350 years that it endured. (1481-1834). (www.reference.com)

So what do you do? Take some time and learn about the world around you! I, personally, enjoy the study of these different fields. The internet has put all of the sciences at our finger-tips. You would be surprised has how accessible, and understandable, the information is nowadays, if you will only take the time to ASK the questions, and use your brain. "Learning is lifelong." and fun! Just open your mind and start!

Q. Don't you believe God created man in the Garden of Eden?
A. No. Anthropology, Paleontology, Biology and Genetic Research all point to evolution being the correct theory for the arrival of man on earth. They also point to the fact that man originated in Africa, and then traveled to Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.
(For more information about Evolution and the science behind it, visit Mark I. Vuletic's pages)

The ONLY proponent of Creationism is religion. And different religions have different creation stories. You figure it out. And it doesn’t make any sense!

Let's go into this a little farther using the Judeo/Christianity creation story as an example: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or they will die. (Genesis 2:17)

1. They eat from it and they do not die. Doesn't that mean that God lied?
2. How can they know what "to die" even means? Nothing has ever died anywhere in their experience.
3. How do they even know what "wrong" is, if it takes eating from the Tree of Knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong!?
4. If God knows everything that will ever happen, then when he made the Garden of Eden, and placed the Tree of Knowledge in the very center of it, and told them not to eat from it, and allowed Satan there to tempt them; He knew at that time that they would! (Remember they were not sinners yet, and like children.) Yet he acted surprised, he acted angry, and punished them and all of their descendents for the rest of time. It sounds to any reasonable ear like he was just laying a trap for humanity.
5. Also, God knows everything! He must have known that all this was going to happen. Why did he even go through the exercise of creating Man anyway, if he knew it was going to fail?

Q. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?
A. We didn't come from Monkeys. Monkeys and Humans came from a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. A few Million years ago there were actually 4 or 5 distinct humanoid variations sharing the planet. Heck, the Neanderthals were still around only 30,000 years ago!


Why don't you try studying a little Anthropology if you really want to learn more about it? Do you really think the people 2000 to 5000 years ago knew more about human origins that we do now?
Back to top

Q. But surely you must concede that there are some things that science can't explain.
A. Of course. It has always been that way, and probably always will be. But just because we don't know something, doesn't mean some supernatural intelligent being is responsible. Carl Sagan called this human tendency to attribute to God that which we do not know as putting "God in the gaps". Atheists are quite content to say that they simply don't know yet and rely on the scientific method to find the answers.
Back to top

Q. How can you trust Science since it's always changing what it says?
A. That is simply the way that science works. You conduct tests on nature and gather results. Then you re-test the results with updated knowledge and techniques that improve over time. Sometimes we do get it wrong, but we're the first to admit it when it happens and continue on with our investigations. The Church also follows scientific findings, but with about a 100-500 year lag! In the meantime, they persecute the scientific community as heretics.

Also, the Scientific Method (which is responsible for modern medicine, space flight, and just about every modern convenience you take for granted today) would come to a grinding halt if scientists today started saying, "Oh, God did it", and stopped searching for further answers. This actually was the thought process dominant for 1000 years of scientific stagnation and religious oppression called the Dark and Middle Ages.

And don't forget that the Church changes too. The Catholic Church just recently did away with "Limbo", which it created hundreds of years ago to explain where babies went when they died.
Back to top

Q. Christian morals are founded on the Bible! How can you say you're a moral person and not believe in the Bible?
A. First of all human morals pre-date the bible by thousands of years, they weren't invented with the Ten Commandments. It has always been against human values to be dishonest, to kill or harm your fellow man or steal his possessions. All societies, ancient and modern, have been founded on these principals, they had to be, else they would not have long endured.

Also, even strong Catholics and Christians cannot agree among themselves on issues like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, women's rights, etc. Not too long ago the Bible was used to justify slavery and deny women's rights. It's still being used to justify killing doctors who work in women's health clinics.

Tom Paine, in his "The Age of Reason", wrote one of the most scathing attacks on the Bible to date. To quote one passage: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

Isaac Asimov, says in the Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly."

Even Hellen Keller felt that the bible was extremely cruel and inhumane:


Q. Well SURELY you believe that America was founded on Christianity?
A. When religious leaders portray the American Founding Fathers as universally Christian, they are being downright dishonest. There were some Christians to be sure but many, perhaps most of the Founding Fathers, were Deists. They believed that God may have created the Universe, but he either died or went away after that.

For example:
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myths." He was also a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

Benjamin Franklin wrote in his "Poor Richards Almanac" that "Lighthouses ware more helpful than churches" and "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

James Madison said, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Even George Washington was a luke-warm supporter of religion at best, putting his support behind human reason and education: "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

Also, the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the words "under god". The congress voted to include that in 1954 during the McCarthy era. The purpose was to distinguish the U.S. from the "godless communists", and in doing so, clearly violated the constitutionally established separation of church and state. McCarthy was later revealed as a zealous opportunist, liar, and fraud. One must ask: Why is his legacy still recited daily in our nation's schools?

Q. What have you got against religion?
A. Well, to begin with, it's divisive. It splits all of humanity in to warring factions.

Religious beliefs were the cause of and/or the justification for:
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Crusades
- The Divine Rights of Kings
- Witch Trials in Europe and America
- The perpetuation of Slavery
- The Dehumanization of other religion's believers (and non-believers)
- The Subjugation of Women
- The Refusal of some parents to give medical treatment to their children, relying instead on payers and faith-healers
- The decades of violence between Jews and Moslems in the Middle East
- The decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
- Capital Crimes against Women's Health Centers
- The 9-11 tragedy (a true faith-based act) and the subsequent War on Terror
- The Suppression of Science, and indeed the suppression of reason itself. *
- ("Thinking" is frowned upon even from the beginning.. The "Original sin" itself comes from Man eating from the "Tree of Knowledge".)

The list goes on and on.. for more information, visit http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html and The Root Causes of Religious Atrocities

-Religion teaches us that the earth is put here for our disposal. We can use it up, or trash it, and it's Ok. Besides, Jesus in coming back shortly to put an end to it anyway, right?.
- Religion teaches us that we are all born tainted with sin; impure and dirty. We must spend our entire lives trying to "make up for" the sins of the first humans.
- When religious leaders answer all of our questions for us, we lose our own natural curiosity. It atrophies, and we are left acting as automatons, going through our routine activities like robots.
- Religion stymies the wonder of Nature. It's not nature that is wonderful when we give the Great Father all the credit for creating it in all it's wonder. Further, religion teaches us that certain areas of Nature are off-limits. For example:
- Stem-cell research, which has great potential for reducing human suffering and disease, has been defunded by the Federal Government.
- The Creation of the Universe. No less a personage than the Pope has told us that we should not study the Big Bang, because it should be left in the domain of God
- Evolution: The study of the descent of man, would be outlawed if we gave the religious-right half a chance. Every year sees new law suits being introduced in an attempt to get the teaching of evolution banned from our schools.

Also, it redirects hundreds of billions dollars and man-hours away from more productive pursuits. Religion is directly responsible for the bilking of billions of dollars from the old and infirm.Religion teaches that morality is rigid and unchanging, rather than subject to changing circumstances.

It's "supernatural" foundation keeps millions, if not billions, of people in educational and cultural stagnation. If societies believe that they can find the answers to all of life's questions in their holy books, why study anything else?

People pray rather that seek legitimate medical attention for illnesses for themselves and their children. Christian Science "Practitioners", are actually paid by insurance companies to pray for the recovery of the sick and infirm under their care, as opposed to actually giving them even minimal medical treatment.

Most religions tell you that your life on earth is infinitesimally small compared to that which awaits you in heaven. So why even bother trying to do anything but praise God while here on earth?

It's can't be conducive to good mental heath to have an All-Powerful "Judge of Right and Wrong" watching your every move and reading your every thought, ready to cast you into Hell forever for the slightest infraction. You could easily see where this could lead directly to paranoia. Indeed, does this not define paranoia?

In War, religion teaches us that there is no reason to try to quickly end it. After all, God is on our side, and all the fallen soldiers are going to heaven anyway since they are fighting in a Holy cause.

And finally, if we accept Religion's version of human history, we are denying our own true history, the actual human story. Homo Sapiens have endured for a 150,000 years, not 6,000. We have survived global catastrophes (ex: The Toba Caldera Eruption, the Yellowstone Eruption, and an Ice Age), and have battled the Neanderthal for human supremacy of the planet. We have fought the mighty Mammoth, the Mastodon, and the Saber-Tooth tiger. And, in spite of this, and in spite of being constantly plagued by superstition and religion, we have managed to develop Reason and the Scientific Method to a finely honed tool for examining, and explaining, the universe around us.


Back to top

Q. So why did you write these pages?
A. There a really three reasons:

1) To give the atheist perspective. Many religious leaders are engaged in constant misinformation campaigns aimed at painting atheists as immoral, dissolute, god-haters (if not outright Satan worshippers). Most religious leaders know that it's a lie, but say it anyway. How many times have I heard Christians confide that it is OK to tell a lie as long as it brings more people to Christ. (We're talking about breaking a commandment here! But it's apparently OK as long as the end justifies the means.)

2) As a resource for people to are just beginning to doubt the veracity of their religion. I only wish there had been such a resource when I was beginning to question the church. The journey from faith to reason could have been a much quicker, less painful, one for me.

3) To get people to think just a little bit. Many people just go day-to-day believing that whatever their religious leader tells them, that whatever happens is just "God's Will" and that there is no other way to think about the world and the universe. THINK! The universe is just as gorgeous, just as wondrous! And without an all-powerful, judgmental God watching your every move and monitoring your every thought, I would say that it is even more so. :)

Haha, that's a long list. If we were going to debate his proof it has trouble with the claims that everything has a cause and with it's assumption that the universe came into being at some point. But I don't think that's a very interesting discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.



here is something interresting I read today:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is a FAQ for anyone that wants to know the basics of atheism.

you can also download the entire movie in high quality(144 mb) from http://digitalfreethought.com/
here:
http://www.digitalfreethought.com/vi...atheism101.wmv

here is the complete text spoken in the video:

Q. What exactly IS an atheist?
A. An atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god or gods.

However, if you look up "Atheist" in certain dictionaries, you might encounter phrases like "one who denies the existence of God" (implying that we are in denial of reality), "infidel", "non-believer", "immoral", "evil". Good examples of this can be found in the older versions of Webster's Dictionary. Webster was a Christian and obviously had an axe to grind against atheists.

Q. Don't you atheists worship SATAN?
A. No we don't. We don't believe in any gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, witches, miracles, or just about anything supernatural.. Why would we worship something that we don't believe exists?
Back to top

Q. Why don't you believe in God??
Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor or Green People on Venus? Same reason. There's no evidence.

There is no evidence; and before you say "What do you mean? You're evidence of God".. I'll have to point out the logical fallacy that you would be using: Presupposition

You pre-suppose the existence of a God, assign Him the power to create me, then say "How can you say there is no God, you're standing right there!"... Then I would say "See that car there? I made that car from toothpicks.. How can you doubt it.. There it is!" I have presupposed my ability to make cars out of toothpicks before I made the argument.

Also, there is actually reason to believe that a Christian God of your description (All Loving, All Knowing, All powerful) doesn't exist in this universe. If He did, why would He allow innocent children to get cancer? Why would He send hurricanes and earthquakes kill so many people? Why would He allow people to fly planes into our skyscrapers and kill thousands of His "children"? And on and on and on.

Actually, siting the Riddle of Epicuris":
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Therefore the All Knowing, All powerful, All loving God of your description is logically impossible.

If he allows children to get cancer, and allows tsunamis and hurricanes to kill thousands. If he allows bad men to rape women. If he even allows evil to exist in the world, then:
1) he can't be all loving
or 2) he can't know about it
or 3) he's not powerful enough to stop it.
You can have 2 out of three, but not all three

When looking at the world through the eyes of a rationalist/atheist, the world makes perfect sense. Some people, good and bad, will die in natural disasters. Little children will get cancer as a certain percentage of the population. There's no malice, and no "mysterious plan".

Also, if you will re-read your bible (you're planning to anyway, right?) with critical mind, you'll notice that the God of the Bible actually is:
- Extremely Violent and Cruel
- Jealous
- Murderous
- Impetuous
- Peevish
- Possessive
- Threatening
- Irrational
- Misogynistic
- Irresponsible

ALL of these are human traits! And every Christian apologist that I've ever heard, constantly says that "God is so far above humans, that we could never understand his motives.".. Well, reading the bible, you're supposed to understand his motives! That's where the supposed lessons come from!

Not only that, but in the Bible, God directly ordered 2,017,956 People Killed.
Not counting 65 entire cities.
Not counting those that died from the His various Plagues.
And not counting the entire population of the world in the Flood.

Heck, the only people Satan killed was Job's kids, and that was only after God told him he could. And he's constantly surprised by the actions of Humans. How can he be all knowing, be surprised by anything we do, and get angry (a human emotion) when we're simply "following the plan" that he laid down in the first place!

What this boils down to is that God was really created by men, and the bible authored by men, not the other way around. Also, do the actions of your God make sense to you? Or does he really seem to act like a spoiled 8 year old?

Q. Well then, prove that God does not exist.
A. It's not up to us. Carl Sagan once wrote: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Believers are making the extraordinary claim that you know how the universe was created, that the universe was created by your personal God, that that God still exists, and is personally involved in every part of our lives. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. You. We simply say we do not believe it.

Also, one could argue that it is hardly necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.
Back to top

Q. How can you say that there is no GOD? I personally feel his "power" in church!
A. Well, I don't know exactly what you felt, but from the atheist standpoint we'd say you've experienced a mass induced psychosis. It is quite a commonly accepted psychological phenomenon. People in large groups can become emotionally charged rather easily. (Do some research on the psychology of lynchings, witch hunts, etc.)
Back to top

Q. But EVERYONE believes in God, why don't you?
A. Well, actually everybody doesn't believe in God. About 15% of Americans (that's 30 Million people as of the 2000 census) say they don't believe in a god. There are about twice as many Atheists in America as Jews. Also, most people around the world believe in different gods. Yours in only one of 1,000+ deities that people believe in.

Also, there are whole "religions" without a Supreme Being: Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, etc. And many, whole countries without pervasive religions: China, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries.
Back to top

Q. You should believe, millions of believers can't be wrong!
A. Sure they can. How many people believe in Astrology, Numerology, Psychics, and magic? People are easily duped, and especially so in large numbers. Also, your "believers" can't even agree on what they DO believe. The sectarian violence taking place in IRAQ is between devout Moslems. They all follow Mohammed, and Allah, but disagree on the details. Disagree so strongly, that they are willing to kill each other.

J. H. Johnson writes: "[Some] 433,000,000 Muslims believe that the Koran was brought by an angel from heaven; 335,000,000 Hindus believe one of their gods, Siva, has six arms; 153,000,000 Buddhists believe they will be reincarnated; 904,000,000 Christians believe a god made the world in six days, Joshua stopped the sun by yelling at it, and Jesus was born of a virgin and nullified natural laws to perform miracles. "

Why should we believe any of these fantastic tales, brought to us from 2-3000 years ago by ignorant, superstitious people?

Q. Why don't you just have faith?
A. Uh Yeah. Faith is nothing more that voluntary gullibility.

"Faith is what your preacher says you must have so that you'll believe all the other stuff he wants to tell you." - Unknown

"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." - Arthur C Clarke, science fiction writer (1917- )

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

If you insist that "everyone has faith in something", then I'll admit that my faith lies in the human ability to deal with the real world using human reason and compassion. I have faith that we are not born as flawed sinners; we are born whole, with brains capable of dealing with life's challenges unassisted by mythology and supernatural belief systems.

Dr. Charlie Web writes in his article "Think For Yourself":

"Faith" is nothing more than thought control. Blind faith is legalized slavery. Faith tells us never to question the evidence for truth. But should we care about the truth? Absolutely! Because if we don't know what reality is, how can we ever expect to know how to deal with reality?

To find the truth we simply need to think for ourselves and examine the evidence. Evidence is everything.

All the world's evidence tells us that whoever wrote the Bible and whoever wrote the Koran knew absolutely nothing about geography, geology, astronomy, biology, or evolution. They thought their world was flat! They shared the profound ignorance of their time, and yet we are told to have "faith" that these primitive people knew more than we do. Only blind faith could swallow such a yarn. " Ask yourself, honestly, what basis do you have for believing that the Bible is the true word of a God?

Also, if faith is all that is necessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, doesn't that make all of the other religions true too? They also require "faith".

Q. Why don't you believe in God anyway? If He's not real you haven't lost anything. But if He is real, you get to go to heaven..

You are basically talking about Pascal's wager. There are several reasons this doesn't work for us. The main answering points are:
1. Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it. We are convinced that He is simply not there.

2. Which God? And how do you know which God to believe in? What if you're wrong?

3. If God really exists, He is not stupid. He would know that I'd just be trying to get a free ride into Heaven by just saying we believe.

4. You couldn't just "believe in God", you would also have to believe in the whole religious package. In Christianity that would mean also believing in angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, saints, sin, resurrection, prophets, miracles, cherubim, etc. etc. etc.

5. AND If there is no God, you have lost something by worshipping Him. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing various devotional rituals, attending church, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavors and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your "Good News".*

Also, Believing when you actually don't, you would have lost a great deal of self-respect by being intellectually dishonest with yourself for your whole life.
(These answers were drawn from Adrian Barnett's site. Go there for more information.)

* Speaking of Good News... In order for a Christian to spread the "Good News", he must first spread the Bad News: That all people are born sinners, bound for Hell. Christians conveniently forget that part.

Q. If you don't believe in God, then what is the point of living?
Why does living need to have a "point" at all? Do the "lilies of the field" need to have a point to live?

If you must have a "point", then decide on your own meaning of life. We believe that it's much better do determine our own purpose, than to have some church do it for you based on their agenda!
Back to top

Q. Doesn't being an Atheist "cheapen" life?
A. Actually religion cheapens life. Being an Atheist makes life more precious. Since there is no after-life, you must come to terms with the fact that this is the ONLY life you'll get. If an atheist throws himself in front of a bus in order to save a child, that action is much more meaningful than if a Christian did the same thing. The Christian thinks they'll just go to heaven and live there!

Look at the 9/11/2001 massacre in New York and Washington D.C. Those religious (Muslim) people thought that their actions would hasten and ensure their entry into eternal bliss, but what they actually did was throw away the only life they had in an act of "faith".
Back to top

Q. Well what DO you believe?
A. We DO believe in Human Dignity! We're NOT born "dirty sinners". We are born as earth's most intelligent and adaptive creatures. We have the ability to overcome adversity without help from mysticism, superstition and "invisible friends".

- We believe in treating our fellow man as we would like to be treated; which is a Humanist Idea, thousands of years older than Christianity.
- We believe that Humans are fully capable of deciding our own "purpose" in life.
- We believe that the "comfort" that religion theoretically offers is more than off-set by the amount of pain, death and suffering it has caused throughout history.
- And we believe that religion has hindered the advancement of human knowledge more than any other single cause, and is still doing so today.

There are several versions of the Atheist 10 Commandments on the internet these days, here is one set, drawn from http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/t...mandments.html
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thee art told.
2. Thou SHALT constantly seek knowledge and truth.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thy have to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support ye who follow these commandments.

And I believe in a future that allows humans to be free of the blinders superstition and religion. Free to use their minds to question the universe around them unafraid of the wrath of an invisible, omni-present Judge. (Or His even more present, and judgemental, human representatives.)

But mostly I believe that the world actually HAS a future. Unlike the Christian who envisions a very short future indeed; where the "King of Creation" is coming next week, or next year, to loose horrible demons and monsters and plagues and disease upon the world, before totally destroying it. (See Revelations)

Q. How can you not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
A. Well, rationally considered, it is a pretty outlandish claim. Nobody in the history of the world has ever done it. And outside of the bible, there is no mention of Jesus' resurrection anywhere in the historical documents. NOR is there a mention of any of the other "resurrections" that took place on the same day: According to Matthew chapter 27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." You would think that someone outside of the Bible would have written about that.

Carrying this a bit further, let’s look at the logic of Jesus’s death.
1) God is angry at us for disobeying Him in the Garden of Eden, and condemns us all.
2) He sends His son to die on earth to appease himself.
3) Then He forgives only those who believe in His son, the rest are still condemned.

Or as Julia Sweeney puts it:
"Why would a God create people so imperfect? And then blame them for his own imperfections? Then send his own son to be murdered by those imperfect people, to make up for how imperfect those people were? And how imperfect they were inevitably going to be? I mean, what a crazy idea."

Why didn't He just forgive us outright? Why did he condemn His son to all that suffering and torment at the hands of the people he's planning to forgive just so He wouldn't send us all to hell!? And if your Catholic, it gets even stranger! God and Jesus are the same person.. So in essence, He sent Himself to be tortured and crucified to appease Himself!

Look at it another way.
1) God's mad at us for eating the apple.
2) God sends His son to earth to be killed by us (He had to know it was going to happen!).
3) We kill Him.
4) God's not mad at us any more.

Does that make any sense?

Again... Why not just forgive us? What kind of father would have his son tortured and killed, when he had the power to prevent it?

Q. Don't you believe in an immortal soul?
A. No. Your personality is basically an organic and chemical structure and resides mostly in the frontal lobes of your brain. Many studies have been done to show that the application of certain chemicals and/or surgery can change the way your personality behaves. A simple surgical procedure known as a lobotomy, for example, will erase your personality altogether. How can a soul (i.e. your personality) exist when it has no physical brain to reside in?
Back to top

Q. Don't you wish that you could go to Heaven?
A. Sure.. We'd love to believe that Heaven was real and that we could live forever. But there has never been anyone who has ever come back and said it was there. There is no evidence whatsoever of life continuing after death. (The Bible doesn't count, since it was written by very superstitious people who believed that demons cause illness, the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth, etc., etc.)

Also, if Heaven is to be total happiness, forever, then how can you be totally happy if you know that one or more of your loved one's are in Hell? (Or if anyone is in Hell?) And if God removes your memories of those loved ones so that you can be happy, is He not altering the thing that is "You". If He alters you very much, you cease to be the "You" that you were.

Also, are babies still babies in Heaven forever? Do retarded people become smart? How smart? If Jesus says that riches are to be frowned upon, why are the streets made of Gold, and the Heavenly Gates Pearl? Every religion/sect has a different "Heaven", how do we know which is the correct heaven? Indeed, how do we know ANYTHING about heaven? Even the bible is extremely sketchy in this respect.

Doesn’t it make more sense that the ancient church would just make up Heaven and Hell to keep it’s followers in line? After all, Hell is the ultimate threat and Heaven the ultimate Bribe.

Anyway, according to the Bible, the prospects of you going to Heaven are pretty slim too:
Revelation 7:4 says that only 144,000 people will be going to heaven, and those will be "of the children of Israel."
Revelation 14:3-4 says that "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."

So unless your a Jewish man, and a Virgin, sorry.

Back to top

Q. But you must be forgiven for your sins!
A. What if I told you that there is no such thing as a sin?

"Sin" is a concept that is sold to you by your religion. Would you buy a bandage from a person who comes up to you and cuts you in order to sell you a bandage?

Paraphrasing Dan Barker in his excellent book: "Losing Faith in Faith": "Religion tries to sell you a cure for a problem of it's own making."
Back to top

Q. What do you do if you feel that you've really wronged another person or done something bad? You can't go to Jesus for forgiveness.
A. That's right we can't, so we either have to get forgiveness from the person we've wronged or live with it. If you think about it, it makes us think a lot harder about doing something before we do it. The religious person can just go on and do it, knowing that he can easily be forgiven by his church, Jesus, etc. He doesn't even have to ask forgiveness from the person he's wronged.

Did you know that Hitler was a Christian (a Catholic)? And since he probably asked for forgiveness in his last hours, he should be in heaven right now. Right? And Anne Frank's only "sin" was that she was Jewish. So to Christians, she should be in hell now, along with Albert Schweitzer (a non-believer). Right?

Back to top

Q. Well then, where do you think the universe came from?
A. I don't know. Nobody does. Not even your preacher. Besides, saying that "God did it" really explains nothing. You're in essence saying that an unseen, unknowable being created it in a way that we could never understand. You might as well say it was "magic", or fairies!

Also, when you say "God created the universe." it begs the question "Who/what created God?" and then "Who/what created that entity?"

Here's the problem... People do have questions about the universe: Where did it come from? Where did WE come from? Do we have a purpose?

These questions are very basic human questions, and it would be wonderful if the answers were easy to come by, and easy to understand. However, they are anything BUT basic or easy to answer. To arrive at any kind of respectable/defendable answer you would have to study Anthropology, Biology, Physics and/or Philosophy just to begin with! We have long since passed the point where the layman can do more than can scratch the surface of all of these diverse fields. The answers are very hard to arrive at. But religion makes it easy! Just study one book and get some help from your preacher! "God created the Universe.", "We're here because he put us here." "Our purpose is to serve Him (and the church)".

These answers are easy, but 1) they're really not answers because we don't know how He did it, or where He came from, or what His purpose was for putting us here. 2) When we follow religion, we are not following the SAME religion. And it's very divisive. It causes elitism, intolerance, and war. These are paths we can no longer afford to take. Humanity is too interlinked, and the world is too small (and nuclear weapons too abundant) for us to continue down this path.

The difference between Scientific and Religious answers is the way they go about getting these answers.

David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it this way: "The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism [...] is incompatible with higher education," Professor Key said. "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you're searching for truths."

Science looks at the universe and tries to figure it out, working from the data to the answer. Religion works backwards. It teaches us that it's answers are "Revelations from God" (or at least "inspired by God"), and tries to find data in the universe that supports them; ignoring or denying evidence that contradicts it. Therein lies the problem.

In the past, Religion has denied that the world is round, that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that illness can be caused by microscopic organisms.

Religion currently is denying Evolution. This at a time when every major accredited institution of higher-education in the world accepts it.

Galileo Galilei was imprisoned, and Giordano Bruno killed, for espousing their scientific discoveries during a time when religion contridicted their findings.

By the way.. the Catholic Church is after a kinder image now I guess. On it's web-site: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. They say it wasn't Millions of heretics they killed, but only 3,000 to 5,000. Of course this does not even touch on the number of people who where maimed and tortured, and/or dispossessed of their lands/properties during the 350 years that it endured. (1481-1834). (www.reference.com)

So what do you do? Take some time and learn about the world around you! I, personally, enjoy the study of these different fields. The internet has put all of the sciences at our finger-tips. You would be surprised has how accessible, and understandable, the information is nowadays, if you will only take the time to ASK the questions, and use your brain. "Learning is lifelong." and fun! Just open your mind and start!

Q. Don't you believe God created man in the Garden of Eden?
A. No. Anthropology, Paleontology, Biology and Genetic Research all point to evolution being the correct theory for the arrival of man on earth. They also point to the fact that man originated in Africa, and then traveled to Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.
(For more information about Evolution and the science behind it, visit Mark I. Vuletic's pages)

The ONLY proponent of Creationism is religion. And different religions have different creation stories. You figure it out. And it doesn’t make any sense!

Let's go into this a little farther using the Judeo/Christianity creation story as an example: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or they will die. (Genesis 2:17)

1. They eat from it and they do not die. Doesn't that mean that God lied?
2. How can they know what "to die" even means? Nothing has ever died anywhere in their experience.
3. How do they even know what "wrong" is, if it takes eating from the Tree of Knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong!?
4. If God knows everything that will ever happen, then when he made the Garden of Eden, and placed the Tree of Knowledge in the very center of it, and told them not to eat from it, and allowed Satan there to tempt them; He knew at that time that they would! (Remember they were not sinners yet, and like children.) Yet he acted surprised, he acted angry, and punished them and all of their descendents for the rest of time. It sounds to any reasonable ear like he was just laying a trap for humanity.
5. Also, God knows everything! He must have known that all this was going to happen. Why did he even go through the exercise of creating Man anyway, if he knew it was going to fail?

Q. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?
A. We didn't come from Monkeys. Monkeys and Humans came from a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. A few Million years ago there were actually 4 or 5 distinct humanoid variations sharing the planet. Heck, the Neanderthals were still around only 30,000 years ago!


Why don't you try studying a little Anthropology if you really want to learn more about it? Do you really think the people 2000 to 5000 years ago knew more about human origins that we do now?
Back to top

Q. But surely you must concede that there are some things that science can't explain.
A. Of course. It has always been that way, and probably always will be. But just because we don't know something, doesn't mean some supernatural intelligent being is responsible. Carl Sagan called this human tendency to attribute to God that which we do not know as putting "God in the gaps". Atheists are quite content to say that they simply don't know yet and rely on the scientific method to find the answers.
Back to top

Q. How can you trust Science since it's always changing what it says?
A. That is simply the way that science works. You conduct tests on nature and gather results. Then you re-test the results with updated knowledge and techniques that improve over time. Sometimes we do get it wrong, but we're the first to admit it when it happens and continue on with our investigations. The Church also follows scientific findings, but with about a 100-500 year lag! In the meantime, they persecute the scientific community as heretics.

Also, the Scientific Method (which is responsible for modern medicine, space flight, and just about every modern convenience you take for granted today) would come to a grinding halt if scientists today started saying, "Oh, God did it", and stopped searching for further answers. This actually was the thought process dominant for 1000 years of scientific stagnation and religious oppression called the Dark and Middle Ages.

And don't forget that the Church changes too. The Catholic Church just recently did away with "Limbo", which it created hundreds of years ago to explain where babies went when they died.
Back to top

Q. Christian morals are founded on the Bible! How can you say you're a moral person and not believe in the Bible?
A. First of all human morals pre-date the bible by thousands of years, they weren't invented with the Ten Commandments. It has always been against human values to be dishonest, to kill or harm your fellow man or steal his possessions. All societies, ancient and modern, have been founded on these principals, they had to be, else they would not have long endured.

Also, even strong Catholics and Christians cannot agree among themselves on issues like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, women's rights, etc. Not too long ago the Bible was used to justify slavery and deny women's rights. It's still being used to justify killing doctors who work in women's health clinics.

Tom Paine, in his "The Age of Reason", wrote one of the most scathing attacks on the Bible to date. To quote one passage: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

Isaac Asimov, says in the Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly."

Even Hellen Keller felt that the bible was extremely cruel and inhumane:


Q. Well SURELY you believe that America was founded on Christianity?
A. When religious leaders portray the American Founding Fathers as universally Christian, they are being downright dishonest. There were some Christians to be sure but many, perhaps most of the Founding Fathers, were Deists. They believed that God may have created the Universe, but he either died or went away after that.

For example:
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myths." He was also a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

Benjamin Franklin wrote in his "Poor Richards Almanac" that "Lighthouses ware more helpful than churches" and "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

James Madison said, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Even George Washington was a luke-warm supporter of religion at best, putting his support behind human reason and education: "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

Also, the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the words "under god". The congress voted to include that in 1954 during the McCarthy era. The purpose was to distinguish the U.S. from the "godless communists", and in doing so, clearly violated the constitutionally established separation of church and state. McCarthy was later revealed as a zealous opportunist, liar, and fraud. One must ask: Why is his legacy still recited daily in our nation's schools?

Q. What have you got against religion?
A. Well, to begin with, it's divisive. It splits all of humanity in to warring factions.

Religious beliefs were the cause of and/or the justification for:
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Crusades
- The Divine Rights of Kings
- Witch Trials in Europe and America
- The perpetuation of Slavery
- The Dehumanization of other religion's believers (and non-believers)
- The Subjugation of Women
- The Refusal of some parents to give medical treatment to their children, relying instead on payers and faith-healers
- The decades of violence between Jews and Moslems in the Middle East
- The decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
- Capital Crimes against Women's Health Centers
- The 9-11 tragedy (a true faith-based act) and the subsequent War on Terror
- The Suppression of Science, and indeed the suppression of reason itself. *
- ("Thinking" is frowned upon even from the beginning.. The "Original sin" itself comes from Man eating from the "Tree of Knowledge".)

The list goes on and on.. for more information, visit http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html and The Root Causes of Religious Atrocities

-Religion teaches us that the earth is put here for our disposal. We can use it up, or trash it, and it's Ok. Besides, Jesus in coming back shortly to put an end to it anyway, right?.
- Religion teaches us that we are all born tainted with sin; impure and dirty. We must spend our entire lives trying to "make up for" the sins of the first humans.
- When religious leaders answer all of our questions for us, we lose our own natural curiosity. It atrophies, and we are left acting as automatons, going through our routine activities like robots.
- Religion stymies the wonder of Nature. It's not nature that is wonderful when we give the Great Father all the credit for creating it in all it's wonder. Further, religion teaches us that certain areas of Nature are off-limits. For example:
- Stem-cell research, which has great potential for reducing human suffering and disease, has been defunded by the Federal Government.
- The Creation of the Universe. No less a personage than the Pope has told us that we should not study the Big Bang, because it should be left in the domain of God
- Evolution: The study of the descent of man, would be outlawed if we gave the religious-right half a chance. Every year sees new law suits being introduced in an attempt to get the teaching of evolution banned from our schools.

Also, it redirects hundreds of billions dollars and man-hours away from more productive pursuits. Religion is directly responsible for the bilking of billions of dollars from the old and infirm.Religion teaches that morality is rigid and unchanging, rather than subject to changing circumstances.

It's "supernatural" foundation keeps millions, if not billions, of people in educational and cultural stagnation. If societies believe that they can find the answers to all of life's questions in their holy books, why study anything else?

People pray rather that seek legitimate medical attention for illnesses for themselves and their children. Christian Science "Practitioners", are actually paid by insurance companies to pray for the recovery of the sick and infirm under their care, as opposed to actually giving them even minimal medical treatment.

Most religions tell you that your life on earth is infinitesimally small compared to that which awaits you in heaven. So why even bother trying to do anything but praise God while here on earth?

It's can't be conducive to good mental heath to have an All-Powerful "Judge of Right and Wrong" watching your every move and reading your every thought, ready to cast you into Hell forever for the slightest infraction. You could easily see where this could lead directly to paranoia. Indeed, does this not define paranoia?

In War, religion teaches us that there is no reason to try to quickly end it. After all, God is on our side, and all the fallen soldiers are going to heaven anyway since they are fighting in a Holy cause.

And finally, if we accept Religion's version of human history, we are denying our own true history, the actual human story. Homo Sapiens have endured for a 150,000 years, not 6,000. We have survived global catastrophes (ex: The Toba Caldera Eruption, the Yellowstone Eruption, and an Ice Age), and have battled the Neanderthal for human supremacy of the planet. We have fought the mighty Mammoth, the Mastodon, and the Saber-Tooth tiger. And, in spite of this, and in spite of being constantly plagued by superstition and religion, we have managed to develop Reason and the Scientific Method to a finely honed tool for examining, and explaining, the universe around us.


Back to top

Q. So why did you write these pages?
A. There a really three reasons:

1) To give the atheist perspective. Many religious leaders are engaged in constant misinformation campaigns aimed at painting atheists as immoral, dissolute, god-haters (if not outright Satan worshippers). Most religious leaders know that it's a lie, but say it anyway. How many times have I heard Christians confide that it is OK to tell a lie as long as it brings more people to Christ. (We're talking about breaking a commandment here! But it's apparently OK as long as the end justifies the means.)

2) As a resource for people to are just beginning to doubt the veracity of their religion. I only wish there had been such a resource when I was beginning to question the church. The journey from faith to reason could have been a much quicker, less painful, one for me.

3) To get people to think just a little bit. Many people just go day-to-day believing that whatever their religious leader tells them, that whatever happens is just "God's Will" and that there is no other way to think about the world and the universe. THINK! The universe is just as gorgeous, just as wondrous! And without an all-powerful, judgmental God watching your every move and monitoring your every thought, I would say that it is even more so. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

How does the positivist scientific view reconcile itself with an absolute exclusion of a supreme being when by its own admission the laws of physics break down prior to creation of the universe and, depending on the nature of its end, after its finale? I keep hearing these positivists take the stand of the impossible god. While they may not have the evidence they desire to include a god in their TOE, they neither have the evidence to exclude and be a postivist but in the same breath they accept the anthropic principle past evidence.

On the other hand I once heard a positivist string theorist state that God could be music resonating in dimensional hyperspace.

---

Hi ShadeHonestus,

A positivist stance cannot reconcile the exclusion. The impotence regarding metaphysical questions is one reason a TOE from such a perspective is impossible. One of the unfortunate by products of when natural philosophy became science (aside from the increased bracketing within science so that scientists become less and less exposed to other disciplines) is that scientists became unfamiliar with the larger Intellectual Tradition from which they sprang and no longer studied logic. This has led to an almost stupefying level of ignorance and theoretical sloppiness amongst far too many. Earlier in the thread there was a post that quoted from a Richard Dawkins. It serves as a perfect illustration of the point. While Dawkins seems more than accomplished in his field, when attempting to discuss philosophical fair, his stance was akin to a first year philosophy undergraduate: really quite amazing stuff and rather sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I've already said this: foo is exactly the same as god with just one small imperfection.

---

Actually, you said your foo was evil you also said it could be anything. The former is incompatible with the idea of god and incoherent. The latter simply incoherent. This is why the foo fetish fails.

Quote:

---

A first mover is not required to be anything more than a first mover. Your claim that only a perfect being can be the first mover is unsupported. You've said a perfect being must be the first mover, but you haven't shown that a perfect being must exist.

---

My proof doesn't speak of a first mover. I haven't referenced a first mover. You are confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Haha, that's a long list. If we were going to debate his proof it has trouble with the claims that everything has a cause and with it's assumption that the universe came into being at some point. But I don't think that's a very interesting discussion.

---

I assume I'm the pronoun above. My proof doesn't claim everything has a cause, neither does it reference the universe. You are confused, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.

---

Hello Claudius the God,

I remember you. Your the fellow that likes to cite things and has a penchant for quite long posts. Your thread has gone through three basic shifts that I see. The first was atheism where its logical problems were brought to the fore. Once a few self described atheists were unable to cope with these problems the next phase began which was a proof for god. None have been able to show the simple proof provided was invalid (again more frustrated self described atheists). The third phase is a discussion of the epistemic merits of science.

Note: you shouldn't use scare quotes around proof unless you can actually demonstrate there is a flaw: otherwise you simply appear cheeky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, you said your foo was evil you also said it could be anything. The former is incompatible with the idea of god and incoherent. The latter simply incoherent. This is why the foo fetish fails.

---

Yes..it is incompatible with the idea of god. :dizzy2: Why did you only focus on whether I'd said it already or not? There is no reason for the necessary being to be perfect. Tell me why you think it must.

btw, foo is not an object.

Quote:

---

My proof doesn't speak of a first mover. I haven't referenced a first mover. You are confused.

I assume I'm the pronoun above. My proof doesn't claim everything has a cause, neither does it reference the universe. You are confused, again.

---

hmm I was thinking of the other cosmological arguments. But in any case, it is not necessary for their to be a being that started it all, infinity is not a problem. But I find the other discussion more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yes..it is incompatible with the idea of god.

---

Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.

Quote:

---

There is no reason for the necessary being to be perfect. Tell me why you think it must.

---

Alas, god is the only object that qualifies as necessary being. Thus, to demonstrate necessary being is to demonstrate god.

Quote:

---

btw, foo is not an object.

---

According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.

Quote:

---

hmm I was thinking of the other cosmological arguments. But in any case, it is not necessary for their to be a being that started it all, infinity is not a problem. But I find the other discussion more interesting.

---

More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.

Thank you Pindar for your contribution to my question.

Necessary being is, per definition, something that wasn't created by something else. If science is right that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, then all matter and energy counts as necessary beings. There are also various other suggestions of entities that fulfill the definition of necessary being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.

---

Nouns can apart from being objects also have the grammatical role of subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29

Nouns can apart from denoting objects also denote phenomenons and abstract or non-existing imagined things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun

Thus a noun isn't necessarily an object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.

---

Incompatible but just as viable.

Quote:

---

Alas, god is the only object that qualifies as necessary being. Thus, to demonstrate necessary being is to demonstrate god.

---

Foo qualifies.

Quote:

---

According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.

---

Are women objects?

Quote:

---

More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.

---

Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.

---

It's not Aquinas...

Whoever.

I could swear he said something along those lines though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Thank you Pindar for your contribution to my question.

---

My pleasure. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Necessary being is, per definition, something that wasn't created by something else. If science is right that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, then all matter and energy counts as necessary beings. There are also various other suggestions of entities that fulfill the definition of necessary being.

---

A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed that is right. However, that is not the only, nor vital characteristic of necessary being. The key component is logical in scope: it cannot not be or it could not have failed to be. This means it is inconceivable (logically) for a designated necessary being not to be.

Note: matter/energy is typically seen as a property or characteristic of a thing: not a thing itself.

(I thought you had stated you wouldn't post in this thread again?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Incompatible but just as viable.

---

---

?

Quote:

---

Foo qualifies.

---

Sasaki my good fellow: simply asserting a thing does not make it so. You need to think a little, before you reply. The foo fetish tangent has no value other than to cause me pain for the educational standards of the land.

Quote:

---

Are women objects?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.

Quote:

---

Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.

---

---

Read the comment again, your reply doesn't relate to my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed that is right. However, that is not the only, nor vital characteristic of necessary being. The key component is logical in scope: it cannot not be or it could not have failed to be.

---

A simplified version:
Below in this post I'll let foo denote something that can't be destroyed or created. If the first mover argument is correct, then it follows directly that foo can't not be. If the first mover argument is correct, necessary being and foo are then exactly equivalent concepts, and "can't not be" isn't an additional characteristic, but a characteristic which follows automatically from the other characteristic. Thus matter and energy also qualify as necessary beings.

Only way matter and energy can't qualify as necessary beings would be if the first mover argument is incorrect, because only then can foo and necessary being can be non-equivalent concepts.

==

The more complex version:
Making existence a characteristic of a concept is a good way to confuse oneself, especially when trying to prove the existence or non-existence of something. Generally, a defined concept should not contain the characteristic of existence, unless that is the only characteristic it has in the definition. Examples:
- necessary being - something that exists (= can't not be), that can't be created, and can't be destroyed
- foobar - define foobar as something that is a Leprechaun, is green, is 30 centimeters, and exists

* The way to look upon any concept is to divide every concept X into two sets, one set S denoting non-existing versions of the concept, and one set T denoting existing versions of the concept. If we prove logical existence of X, we know that S isn't an empty set, and once we have asserted that, we let X denote the set S alone, rather than the union of sets S and T. We can make any assertions we want about set T, since those objects don't exist, and it doesn't matter what properties a non-existing object has - these properties are undefined.

* NOTE: one way of avoiding the problem of existence in a definition, is by letting the definition state: "the existing objects of the class of object which have the properties x, y, z... This is the method used in dividing the concept into sets S and T above. Necessary being could very well be defined as "of those things that can't be created and can't be destroyed, those that exist". The problem, is that S may very well then be an empty set for necessary being in that case.

* NOTE2: if the only characteristic necessary being has is that of existence, then the definition is valid, but proving the existence of it would then mean nothing else than the existence of at least one object, which could be anything - atoms, bicycles, Leprechauns, God, gods, pie, foo etc. for all we know. While it is valid to let a concept denote something with the characteristic of existence with existence as its only characteristic, beginners at logic and philosophy often confuse themselves as to what their proofs have actually demonstrated, when they use such concepts.

Second thing to point out is that no concept definitions may contain the characteristic "only one exists", for the same reasons mentioned above. Example:
- car - something with 4 wheels and an engine, and only one exists
Socratic question to think about: If we make this definition to refer to our own car in our garage at home, what happens when we find something else that has 4 wheels and an engine?

* That only one object with certain properties can exist is something which needs to be proven, and it should never be part of a definition. That means that for every concept we have the option of pluralis, and reasoning about several, until we have proven that only one can exist. Again, we get two sets S and T, and we must show that the size of set S must be no larger than 1. But we must also show that S is nonempty, before we can let X denote S. After showing that S is nonempty, we will let the concept X denote the set S, rather than the union of set S and T. We are seldom interested in the properties of the objects contained in set T, since set T can usually be infinitely large.

Applying this above would be done as follows:
- let foo denote something that can't be created nor destroyed
If the first mover argument is correct, then the size of set S must be at least 1, but possibly larger. Now, foo denotes the set S, and we ignore the objects in set T. Then foo is exactly equivalent to the definition of necessary being.

If the first mover argument is incorrect, then the size of set S could be larger than 0, but isn't necessarily so. Since we have no idea yet, foo must still denote the union of S and T, and thus isn't equivalent to necessary being. But this case (the case that the first mover argument would be incorrect) is one which Pindar considers a contradiction. If he is correct in that it is a contradiction, only the previous case, in which foo and necessary being were equivalent concepts, is relevant.

Since foo and necessary being are equivalent in that case, the "can't not be" part follows automatically from not possible to create and not possible to destroy. We thus need only look for items that are indestructible and impossible to create, to fulfill the definition of necessary being. Sasaki Kojiro's foo qualitifes, as does matter and energy.

Now if we would be even more exact, we would apply combinatorial reasoning to the first mover argument, making it more complex. We would divide beings into more than just contingent and necessary beings, depending on how, if at all, their existence can be bounded in positive and negative time. Basically we have the following possible beings that we need to treat as separate cases:
- something that wasn't created, and can't be destroyed
- something that wasn't created, but can be destroyed
- something that was created, but can't be destroyed
- something that was created, and can be destroyed
these are all the possible combinations of bounded/unbounded in negative time and bounded/unbounded in positive time. Depending on our choice of definition of existence, we may also need to consider different cases of "respawning" items, if we think that an object which is created, and is exactly equivalent to some that was previously destroyed, is a single existence and not two separate beings. In any case, a stricter definition of existence is required, to make the reasoning more serious. Among other things to consider in the problem of existence, is for instance whether something that doesn't interact really exists. Or if potential of interaction is a suitable definition. Metaphysical existence is meaningless, since it asserts no property of the existing being, or about how it will interact. Logical existence is interesting, but requires that our assumptions are absolute truths, which we can't guarantee, unless we work from the basis of no assumption at all or get the same result covering all different combinations of assumptions, but then we are also relying on the assumption that the laws of logic are correct, which can't be proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is formal. It does not depend on any outside mechanic. Whether the universe is X or Y, or does P or Q has no impact on logic proper. Let me see if I can explain a little before you charge me with being rude again. Logic as a formal system can be about its business without any outside reference, for example:

A then B
Not B
Therefore not A

---

Which is fine, until it starts applying itself to real world sets. Change the data in those sets and then they conclusions have to be re-examined.

All Animals Can Fly.
Pigs Are Animals.
Pigs therefore can fly.

In this universe that is untrue. Change the universe to one where the first line is true and it is now true. Therefore the conclusions made, change with a changing universe. Logic cannot predict the outcome of its conclusions in a changing universe. It has no more immunity to this then induction. Both work on data sets, change the data in the sets and the original conclusions made change. And these data sets are based on the past. Neither can predict what the data sets will be in the future if the universe and its data sets change.

So logic's conclusions are only useful on the past data. Change the data and the conclusions change.

====

Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument.

---

Incorrect, you only have certainty if you know that every man is mortal. Until all members of the set are measured you have an uncertainty attached with the statement. Basic statistics of sample vs entire populations, and logic is not immune to it.

Man is Mortal. You do not know with 100% certainty if that is true. Until you measure every Man you are operating within a sample population.

So any Logic conclusion that is only using a sample of the entire population will only have an error attached to it, it will not be known with 100% certainty.

he's just using "valid" to mean that IF the premise is true, the conclusion cannot be false. Valid does not necessarily = true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Note: matter/energy is typically seen as a property or characteristic of a thing: not a thing itself.

---

This is completely wrong though. Almost all of our science uses reductionism. Reductionism would say, for example, that the human is a collection of organs. Organs are a collection of tissue. Tissue is a collection of cells. Cells are a collection of molecules. I've skipped steps here, but you can see that a molecule is certainly as much of a thing itself as a human. Surely this is how we "typically" see things today. Matter and energy perhaps WERE seen as exclusively a property or characteristic of a thing before that philosophical notion gave way to another type of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

?

---

My point was that foo was incompatible...which is why god shouldn't be assumed.

Quote:

---

Sasaki my good fellow: simply asserting a thing does not make it so. You need to think a little, before you reply. The foo fetish tangent has no value other than to cause me pain for the educational standards of the land.

---

You haven't done more than asserted.

Quote:

---

Yes.

---

:bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Whoever.

I could swear he said something along those lines though.

---

What I meant was that Aquinas is not the only one who holds this view. It starts with Aristotle (as far as we can discern), and many philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians hold this view.

As David Hilbert (renowned mathematician) put it:

Quote:

---

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

---

I don't think the view is naive at all...

err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?

---

Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).

With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...

Infinite complete set or Infinite set of options?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).

With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...

---

You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?

---

The general consensus is that the universe is finite, with a finite beginning, and depending on the nature of the end (a great crunch or a whimper[cold burn out]), a finite end.

Quote:

---

err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?

---

What is the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).

With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...

---

My imagination is infinite and so is the human intellect. The ability to construct concepts and tie ideas together to complex ideas is infinite. (illustrated by numbers)

At least nature created that, but I know you're looking for a physical infinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?

---

Um, what is asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

My imagination is infinite and so is the human intellect. The ability to construct concepts and tie ideas together to complex ideas is infinite. (illustrated by numbers)

At least nature created that, but I know you're looking for a physical infinity.

---

Well yeah, I guess that is an example, but like you predicted, that's not what I was looking for. Hilbert doesn't deny that we can have an infinite in our ideas:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Hilbert

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).

With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...

---

There's something wrong in the question I think. You have to specify, are you looking for infinite physical things or not?

If so, the universe has edges supposedly, so there is not enough room for there to exist anything "infinite". The only "infinite", your term here, in nature could be the dimensions of space. Not the universe, but "space" in the most literal sense.

If not then, if I were to do something as simple as toss a coin, the number of different vectors of force I could apply are infinite. I'm not a fan of this type of thought, but there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

There's something wrong in the question I think. You have to specify, are you looking for infinite physical things or not?

If so, the universe has edges supposedly, so there is not enough room for there to exist anything "infinite". The only "infinite", your term here, in nature could be the dimensions of space. Not the universe, but "space" in the most literal sense.

If not then, if I were to do something as simple as toss a coin, the number of different vectors of force I could apply are infinite. I'm not a fan of this type of thought, but there you have it.

---

I don't think there is anything wrong with my question. I clearly meant "actual infinite" which is a basic term in logic when dealing with the issue.

Again, potential infinites can and do exist (we can understand the idea of an infinite, it is employed in mathematics), while actual infinites cannot exist without contradiction.

Uh ok, then see the "if so" paragraph.