-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Christianity
- Thread starter Jools
- Start date
"All that is."Djevv said:
I think this is where this thinking breaks down. On a meta level Nothing is not simpler than Everything, it is merely its opposite, or complimentary. That is the way the Eastern Philosophers think about the world. Ying and Yan etc. We recognise 'things' by what they are not.Djevv said:
In logic is represented by the Law of identity A=A; or A=not(-A)
Nothing gives rise to Everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac
But it's not completely mistaken. While I do acknowledge that others may feel they have free will.Djevv said:
I don't feel like I have completely free will. So Im right about both. :hihi
See, if you want to completely dismiss reasoning as way to get to the bottom of things, then we may as well just stop the conversation. Or just have 'faith'.
*smile* that.
antman said:
What the argument does is is work from a widely accepted definition of God - one that has been around much longer than the argument - God as mind, unembodied, with all perfections human beings dream of; omniscience, omnipotence, all-wisdom, moral perfection. When you apply that concept to existence - a perfect being must be unlimited, dependent on none for his existence - so you get necessary existence. So to say someone just made up this definition out of thin air is nonsense. They just thought about it logically.
I'm not Catholic, but even I think that is a little unfair.KnightersRevenge said:
Numbers and mathematical concepts (like 2+2 = 4) are not physical. What are they?
Why believe something there is no empirical evidence for (no God)? Seems contrary to your stated worldview. When someone states that they are an atheist there is the implication that they believe there is no God. Thats a claim! Strange that you can't see it. Agnostics have no BOP IMO.
Lets put this in another context. Is scepticism of Climate Change something that makes no claim too? Has no BOP?
Well I have produced while on this thread many, many different lines of evidences about God. Not something empirical but evidence nevertheless. If you stack that up against what has been produced for the 'odd' case, it is a lay down misere.
evo said:
Not really helpful. Physical or non-physical.
I think we are talking along different lines - I am talking about the fact that the physical universe even if eternal still requires explanation because it is contingent - dependent on some cause for its existence. You are talking about Eastern mystic ideas. Can you put what you are saying into an argument because I am not getting it.
evo said:
I would never deny that we are predisposed to certain choices by things beyond our control. But hard determinism? I don't think so. We can certainly choose, if we can't I don't see how we reason because we can't choose our thoughts.
I'm not denying reason, it's just if you can't trust your conscious experience in one area it throws doubt on ALL your conscious experience. You fundamentally have to have faith in that otherwise, you have nothing. To me it is a sensible way to live life - you must trust what your senses and faculties tell you.
evo said:
Having watched that it is clearer what you mean. You must draw a distinction between a thing and what it is not for it to be identifiable. This leads us to discover the law of identity. But what a thing isn't isn't nothing, it is another thing.
But I don't think that answers my question. There should be absolute non-existence and non-being. Whence existence? Whence things?
[EDIT]
Just playing your game. I upped the stakes a little but it is the same game. You listed a set of positions you say are common to atheists you know. So what? I haven't said whether or not they apply to me, and I have stated they are immaterial to my atheism. Which is JUST ONE THING. I like brunettes, does that change my atheism? I read crime fiction, any change there? I think Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher was probably the worst case of miss-casting in Hollywood history. The point is these things are not related. Ditto your list.
I don't have a good answer for you. The lack of category is not a category in itself though. When I am thinking about them my brain does the work, it is physical and you can measure the energy changes. I can think about a tree, but that doesn't conjure up an actual tree, I am not sure how all of this activity which definitely takes place in the physical universe can be somehow claimed to have components which do not. It is my physical brain doing the work and it is of this universe, so why should the product of that work not be?
What "stated worldview"? Again with the philosophical pigeon-holeing. You don't like being branded as untruthful but it has been repeated constantly that unless otherwise stated atheism is NOT the claim that there is no god. Your unwillingness to be honest about this hurts your credibility. Stop making knowingly false claims about atheism and I will stop calling you out on it.
That depends entirely on how it is stated. If I were to say "Climate change is an elaborate hoax", that is definitely a claim and would require evidence,. Get back to my jar of jelly beans it is a better analogy.
You have produced conjecture and appeals to non-empirical evidence that you would like to be weighted as though it were empirical evidence, no dice. For your lay down misere to beat my pair of twos you'd have to show your cards (or count the beans to go to my analogy that you have avoided responding to). Up to now you want me to "believe" you're packing pocket aces and you think your confidence is enough to take the pot. I'm going all in, standing up and leaning back. Show me those aces DJ. I suspect you're sitting on a seven-deuce..
Djevv said:
Just playing your game. I upped the stakes a little but it is the same game. You listed a set of positions you say are common to atheists you know. So what? I haven't said whether or not they apply to me, and I have stated they are immaterial to my atheism. Which is JUST ONE THING. I like brunettes, does that change my atheism? I read crime fiction, any change there? I think Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher was probably the worst case of miss-casting in Hollywood history. The point is these things are not related. Ditto your list.
I don't have a good answer for you. The lack of category is not a category in itself though. When I am thinking about them my brain does the work, it is physical and you can measure the energy changes. I can think about a tree, but that doesn't conjure up an actual tree, I am not sure how all of this activity which definitely takes place in the physical universe can be somehow claimed to have components which do not. It is my physical brain doing the work and it is of this universe, so why should the product of that work not be?
What "stated worldview"? Again with the philosophical pigeon-holeing. You don't like being branded as untruthful but it has been repeated constantly that unless otherwise stated atheism is NOT the claim that there is no god. Your unwillingness to be honest about this hurts your credibility. Stop making knowingly false claims about atheism and I will stop calling you out on it.
That depends entirely on how it is stated. If I were to say "Climate change is an elaborate hoax", that is definitely a claim and would require evidence,. Get back to my jar of jelly beans it is a better analogy.
You have produced conjecture and appeals to non-empirical evidence that you would like to be weighted as though it were empirical evidence, no dice. For your lay down misere to beat my pair of twos you'd have to show your cards (or count the beans to go to my analogy that you have avoided responding to). Up to now you want me to "believe" you're packing pocket aces and you think your confidence is enough to take the pot. I'm going all in, standing up and leaning back. Show me those aces DJ. I suspect you're sitting on a seven-deuce..
^^
The last bit doesn't do as an analogy for my position, but the metaphor was fun. A better analogy would be: DJ is holding two card he claims are aces. I am not holding any cards and I am standing arms folded saying, "I don't believe you, prove it". That's it in a nutshell.
Not sure why this so hard to grasp for believers, I suspect it isn't really. I suspect the fact that they have bought (sometimes literally) into the dogma means that admitting the reasonableness of atheism is just a bridge too far. The dispute has been the same and all these pages have done little to change it. The position of belief in god, any god, is one of faith. It is not supported by evidence. That's it really. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the faithful. I just don't understand the need to try to shoehorn faith into places it can't or shouldn't go. Believe, in the privacy of your home, or temple or inside your mind, whatever makes you feel good. My only proviso would be, don't impose your belief on me through government or society (school chaplains, abortion, blasphemy, marriage, charitable tax status, etc.)
The last bit doesn't do as an analogy for my position, but the metaphor was fun. A better analogy would be: DJ is holding two card he claims are aces. I am not holding any cards and I am standing arms folded saying, "I don't believe you, prove it". That's it in a nutshell.
Not sure why this so hard to grasp for believers, I suspect it isn't really. I suspect the fact that they have bought (sometimes literally) into the dogma means that admitting the reasonableness of atheism is just a bridge too far. The dispute has been the same and all these pages have done little to change it. The position of belief in god, any god, is one of faith. It is not supported by evidence. That's it really. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the faithful. I just don't understand the need to try to shoehorn faith into places it can't or shouldn't go. Believe, in the privacy of your home, or temple or inside your mind, whatever makes you feel good. My only proviso would be, don't impose your belief on me through government or society (school chaplains, abortion, blasphemy, marriage, charitable tax status, etc.)
I've put up evidence repeated, only to have it hand-waved away rather than faced. I have seen no counter evidence. Hence it seems to me theism is the more rational worldview. It seems to me Christians don't avoid the BOP we shoulder it as required. If you think the evidence provided is insufficient at least give reasons! If you are going to say only empirical evidence is allowed at least be consistent and throw out of your worldview everything not empirically based! You won't be left with much....
On the definition of atheism traditionally it is 'The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists' http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/. The more modern definition 'lack of belief' really is agnosticism and seems specifically an attempt to avoid any burden of proof (which to me is plain dishonest). If you don't like that you might simply need to realise there is a definition of atheism which is common but you don't agree with. It's not dishonest of me to bring it up - or its implications. And while people continue to label themselves in that way I will continue to ask them to support their claim - like I support mine.
On the definition of atheism traditionally it is 'The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists' http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/. The more modern definition 'lack of belief' really is agnosticism and seems specifically an attempt to avoid any burden of proof (which to me is plain dishonest). If you don't like that you might simply need to realise there is a definition of atheism which is common but you don't agree with. It's not dishonest of me to bring it up - or its implications. And while people continue to label themselves in that way I will continue to ask them to support their claim - like I support mine.
I did give mathematical proof a few pages ago!KnightersRevenge said:
Is atheism reasonable? Howso? It seems to me to be ill defined.
Define evidence
We are a democracy KR. You vote for what you agree with and I'll do the same. Like it or not Religion is part of the marketplace of ideas.
Djevv said:
So let's examine the logic here - again.
Humans can imagine a perfect being. One quality of such an imagined being is dependency on nothing/no-one, by definition - ie the being has "necessary existence". Therefore the logic is impeccable and the being must exist.
You are not a stupid man Djevv - can you not see the circularity in this logic?
And then you claim that these axioms - combined with modal logic - are a "mathematical proof".
Djevv said:
Djevvy - "I have no empirical evidence but I can put forth a great number of spurious arguments, none of which are conclusive to anyone's satisfaction, but by the sheer weight of my numerous unsatisfactory arguments, I win".
The empiricist retorts - "yeah that's really great and all but you still have provided me with absolutely no empirical evidence of this fabulous supreme being".
Empiricism wins again.
Djevv said:
No you didn't. You provided a proof of a Mac's ability to assess Godel's modal logic. That is not, in any way, a proof that your god is either extant or that belief in him/it is reasonable.
I have defined it, using the accepted definition, in its simplest terms, multiple times, SOMETIMES CAPITALISED. Your attempts to claim it is something else or now "ill defined" are just dishonest.
No. I have defined atheism multiple and you pretend not to understand, why should I start down this path again?
We are a secular democracy DJ. No room for god in government.
Separation of Powers.
Every heard of it Djevv?
It's the fundamantal principal behind our Constitution and our Democracy.
Every heard of it Djevv?
It's the fundamantal principal behind our Constitution and our Democracy.
Djevv said:
Still trying to get me to provide proof of the lack of proof for your god? You can see how silly that is, right? Yes, some atheists are "anti-theist", they take the position that "there is no god". I have repeatedly explained that I am not one of those. There are many definitions of "Christian" but it would pretty pointless for me to keep trying to bait you with arguments about why mormonism is wrong if you are not a mormon. You can see that that is what you are doing, right? I am not taking a position "to avoid any burden of proof". No, I choose the default position, the honest and reasonable position that it is better not believe something without evidence. That is not dishonest. It is human nature. Children learn the concept of being "tricked" very early. They demand "empirical evidence" when they suspect trickery. Religious belief over-rides this natural and self-preservative system through dogma and indoctrination.
Your "support" consists of a maze of rhetorical or circular philosophical rabbit warrens and no empirical evidence whatsoever. Coming up with definitions of god is an interesting exercise but it is entirely arbitrary. You could give him/it any properties you choose. That is because he is your creation, not the other way around. But either way a belief based on no evidence is faith. And that is not, to me, reasonable.
