Christianity

[AngryAnt]

I'd deny 1,2 & 3. No God worthy of the term has anything less that necessary existence. The other two surely can't be serious! I doubt they would have fed this one through a computer.

And this is the exact problem with this sort of modal logic - "I can imagine a maximal being, a maximal being is by definition necessary, if a maximal being is necessary then a maximal being by definition exists!" Hallehluyah!

Sorry, that seems a tad circular an argument to me Djevv.

 

[Djevv]

Appreciate all the hard work you are doing in this thread djevvy...

And therein lies the nub. They are your beliefs that will remain unaffected by any argument. Because they are beliefs that lie outside rationality - fair enough.

It is perfectly rational to hold unprovable beliefs. Without them we could be brains in a vat. Without them there are no such thing as mathematics.

 

[evo]

If your senses are not reliable wrt something as basic freewill that applies to your logic as well.

I don't see why reasoning can't supercede what sometihng "seems" like. I know it feels to some people like all our decisions are free, it doesnt mean it is true though. Antman named at least 3 examples of things that potentially can affect decision making that are beyond your control. I could think of more.

 

[Djevv]

And this is the exact problem with this sort of modal logic - "I can imagine a maximal being, a maximal being is by definition necessary, if a maximal being is necessary then a maximal being by definition exists!" Hallehluyah!

Sorry, that seems a tad circular an argument to me Djevv.

So you have an argument that such a being is impossible?

 

[Djevv]

I don't see why reasoning can't supercede what sometihng "seems" like. I know it feels to some people like all our decisions are free, it doesnt mean it is true though. Antman named at least 3 examples of things that potentially can affect decision making that are beyond your control. I could think of more.

It only seems like you are reasoning, you really aren't.

 

[evo]

Everything physical - the universe. Do you believe in non-physical realities? I do but those are NOT part of the physical universe that began.

I see. So when you say everything, you don't literally mean everything.

I do.


I believe the 'everything' has always existed, it just changes form.

 

[evo]

It only seems like you are reasoning, you really aren't.

My reasoning should be easy to refute then. Who gave rise to your genes or your enviroment? It wasnt you, right?

 

[AngryAnt]

Without them there are no such thing as mathematics.

Why then do mathematicians seek for mathematical proofs?

 

[AngryAnt]

So you have an argument that such a being is impossible?

I see where you are going.

"If a maximal being is not impossible, then a maximal being is possible. In an infinite number of possible worlds, there must exist a maximal being. If a maximal being exists in one world, by definition a maximal being exists in all worlds."

Hey, this modal logic is great!

But sadly it "proves" nothing, except of course humanity's infinite capacity for making stuff up.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

None of those positions are empirically based so how can you hold them and remain true to yourself.

Why do I need to? I didn't raise any of these, you did.

The basis of the empirical sciences IS philosophy. Also please demonstrate how all knowledge comes from science? Do you, for instance, believe in History, or can we know nothing about it?

Feel free to quote me on saying "all" knowledge? I said empiricism is how physical beings understand their physical universe. Could I be a brain in a vat? Sure? But then how does that help? On history, no I don't "believe" in anything. Some things have been "proved" and I accept that those things very likely happened. Some things have been suggested by various amounts of evidence and I accept them to varying degrees.

We are both honestly disagreeing. I honestly believe atheism has all the characteristics of religion.

Then you are, not atypically, choosing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. The choice is the give-away. Atheism is well defined and it does not conform to the characterisation you put on it. If you persist then I am justified in questioning your integrity on this specific claim.

You denied the existence of God. That's a claim. Claims attract the burden of proof. Off you go....

Nope. I said I reject the theist claim:

Atheism is one thing only. The rejection of the claim that gods exist, that's it. Anything you might like to tack on is your own doing but it is wrong.

This is not a claim that gods don't exist, it is the rejection of the claim that they do. You are claiming "X". I am rejecting "X". I am not claiming "NOT X". I don't have any burden of proof. And I know you know this since you are clearly better versed in philosophy than I, hence I can assume, reasonably, that your position is knowingly disingenuous. To illustrate - perhaps this is unnecessary but if you insist on being obtuse what choice do I have? - Let's say I produce a jar or jelly beans. You claim that their are an even number of beans in the jar. If I reject your claim, does that mean that I claim that their are an odd number of beans? No of course not. I can reject your claim without being lumbered with a burden of proof. It is your claim to prove.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

We keep discussing this god as though there is a sufficient definition. Who gets to decide what defines god?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

you seem to be suggesting that science trumps all, so what's the diff?

I guess it comes to what one values in life. Personally I don't think understanding quantum physics or the maths involved in black holes is the be all, end all. I'd rather try to understand reality. Each to their own.

I agree, we must each decide what matters most to us. I value truth. But then I need to be able to evaluate it. I choose empiricism. Does that mean I need to independently evaluate everything, i.e. do I need to evaluate quantum physics? I don't think so. I can live with the idea that others have evaluated it and that it works. If it didn't this computer wouldn't be working right now. Nor this internet, etc. There is evidence that it works. Is this "faith"? I don't think so. If I didn't believe it worked, it wouldn't cease to work, it works regardless. Does this mean I think science trumps all? When we are talking about the physical universe (is there another one?), yes. I am a physical being, my brain is physical, my thoughts are harder to define. Does that mean they are independent of the rules that govern the physical universe? I don't see why. The more we learn, the more the processes of the brain are understood in physical and chemical terms. Eventually, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years from now I believe that neuroscience will advance to the stage where we understand all of the physical and chemical processes that create the model of reality our brain constructs for us. I'm not sure what that means for the future of humanity, let alone philosophy.

 

[Ian4]

God, or the multiverse. It had a beginning so it can't be. Also we can imagine it with different properties.

We don't actually know this. The big bang is thought of as an explosion, but the best current explanation is that it is an expansion. An expansion out of what is unknown.

steven hawking argues that there can't be a creator because there was no such thing as time and space before the big bang. no time and space = nothingness before the big bang, hence no creator.

but in saying that, the conditions of a black hole are exactly the same as the conditions before the big bang (a singularity with no space and time)... so who's to say that our universe wasn't created by an explosion in a black whole from a difference universe? this of course lends weight to the multiverse.

Evidence for no beginning? There is plenty of evidence for a beginning. Moreover I would say that even if the universe IS eternal then it is still contingent (changeable) and thus still requires an explanation of it's existence.

there is evidence yes, and its generally accepted in the scientific world that the big bang is what created the universe, but it hasn't been 100% proven as fact. the problem is that our observable universe can only be seen as far back as 13.8 billion years.

We are both honestly disagreeing. I honestly believe atheism has all the characteristics of religion.

only a 'believer' would say that.

 

[Djevv]

I don't see why reasoning can't supercede what sometihng "seems" like. I know it feels to some people like all our decisions are free, it doesnt mean it is true though. Antman named at least 3 examples of things that potentially can affect decision making that are beyond your control. I could think of more.

The same faculty that is doing the reasoning is also sensing the choosing, namely your brain. If it is completely mistaken about the one then how can it be trusted about the other?

 

[Djevv]

I see. So when you say everything, you don't literally mean everything.

I do.


I believe the 'everything' has always existed, it just changes form.

You'll have to explain what you mean by everything.

 

[Djevv]

I see where you are going.

"If a maximal being is not impossible, then a maximal being is possible. In an infinite number of possible worlds, there must exist a maximal being. If a maximal being exists in one world, by definition a maximal being exists in all worlds."

Hey, this modal logic is great!

But sadly it "proves" nothing, except of course humanity's infinite capacity for making stuff up.

So no?

 

[Djevv]

A better question is why would you expect there to be nothing?

It's far simpler and requires no explanation.

 

[Djevv]

Why do I need to? I didn't raise any of these, you did.

You don't hold any non-empirically based beliefs like the ones I referenced? Are you sure?

Feel free to quote me on saying "all" knowledge? I said empiricism is how physical beings understand their physical universe. Could I be a brain in a vat? Sure? But then how does that help? On history, no I don't "believe" in anything. Some things have been "proved" and I accept that those things very likely happened. Some things have been suggested by various amounts of evidence and I accept them to varying degrees.

Empiricism is useful for understanding the physical universe, but what of things that are not part of the physical universe? Would we legitimately expect physical, measurable evidence of them? As for history it is non-empirical so how can you say that historical facts are even known, let alone proven?

Then you are, not atypically, choosing to ignore the evidence to the contrary. The choice is the give-away. Atheism is well defined and it does not conform to the characterisation you put on it. If you persist then I am justified in questioning your integrity on this specific claim.

What evidence?

Nope. I said I reject the theist claim:

This is not a claim that gods don't exist, it is the rejection of the claim that they do. You are claiming "X". I am rejecting "X". I am not claiming "NOT X". I don't have any burden of proof.

Well there is either a God or there isn't so a rejection of my claim that God exists is a claim of NOT God. I guess you could claim I don't know if there is a God because of a lack of empirical evidence, but that too is a claim you would have to support. You would have to, for instance why only empirical evidence is admissible.

And I know you know this since you are clearly better versed in philosophy than I, hence I can assume, reasonably, that your position is knowingly disingenuous. To illustrate - perhaps this is unnecessary but if you insist on being obtuse what choice do I have? - Let's say I produce a jar or jelly beans. You claim that their are an even number of beans in the jar. If I reject your claim, does that mean that I claim that their are an odd number of beans? No of course not. I can reject your claim without being lumbered with a burden of proof. It is your claim to prove.

Tell me more about this scenario. Why would I make a claim about a jar of jellybeans? Moreover, why would you reject my claim? Anyway with burden of proof claims you have wandered into the domain of philosophy (again). Is there empirical evidence that I have the said BOP .

 

[AngryAnt]

So no?

Here's another I just made up.

1. I am pretty great at doing stuff.
2. But as my mother said, even though you are great at doing stuff, there is always someone greater at doing stuff than you.
3. So therefore is always someone greater at stuff than anyone you could mention who is great at doing stuff.
4. Djevvy says that the maximal being is greater at stuff than anyone else.
5. But following axiom 2, there is a being who is greater at stuff than even the maximal being is great at stuff!

(this one could also be consider appeal to parental authority)

A priori logic is a bunch of hooey and you know it Djevv.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You don't hold any non-empirically based beliefs like the ones I referenced? Are you sure?

I'm not playing this game with you DJ, they were your ideas not mine. I could just as easily say "all the peadophiles I know are Catholics" does that make child rape a characteristic of catholicism?

Empiricism is useful for understanding the physical universe, but what of things that are not part of the physical universe? Would we legitimately expect physical, measurable evidence of them? As for history it is non-empirical so how can you say that historical facts are even known, let alone proven?

I would need an example of something that is not part of the physical universe. I can't think of anything. History is not a monolithic thing. There are artifacts, written accounts that can be interrogated with reference to other accounts and artifacts to build up actual evidence. You can test certain accounts in history empirically. Anything you can't I have little confidence in.

What evidence?

Fair play DJ you got me there. Why do you reject the definition of Atheism I have given consistently, the accepted definition and the one that I maintain applies to me?

Well there is either a God or there isn't so a rejection of my claim that God exists is a claim of NOT God. I guess you could claim I don't know if there is a God because of a lack of empirical evidence, but that too is a claim you would have to support. You would have to, for instance why only empirical evidence is admissible.

Why this childishness? No I don't have to provide evidence of the lack of evidence for your god, is that even possible? Check your logic. My rejection of your claim is not a counter-claim and you know it.

Tell me more about this scenario. Why would I make a claim about a jar of jellybeans? Moreover, why would you reject my claim? Anyway with burden of proof claims you have wandered into the domain of philosophy (again). Is there empirical evidence that I have the said BOP .

Philosophy tries to categorise everything. I don't know enough to tell you what category I fit into but I hate feeling boxed in and I am sure I will hold views that belong in opposing categories. Either way the number beans in the jar is your god. Your claim that you "know" the number of beans is even, is your claim to know god exists. My rejection is my atheism. The number beans must be either even or odd. That is; god must exist or not. We can resolve this; count the beans. That is; examine the empirical evidence. You can't produce the beans, DJ.