Christianity

[KnightersRevenge]

I've been around, I just don't post much on the Footy threads. Been enjoying the Tiger's winning for a change! In fact that is why I came here - I just got side tracked here .

I don't agree that the argument only has a valid logical form - I believe they showed it was sound (edit). I might be wrong but I seriously doubt that a scientific paper would have been published demonstrating the argument simply has a valid logical form. That is the easy part and has been established as long as there has been an OA.

How good is winning? ;D

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't agree that the argument only has a valid logical form - I believe they showed it was sound (edit). I might be wrong but I seriously doubt that a scientific paper would have been published demonstrating the argument simply has a valid logical form. That is the easy part and has been established as long as there has been an OA.

On a par with your usual levels of scholarship Djevv unfortunately.

Here's the page on github where the open source project automated theorum proving guys work sits. They make it really clear that they are doing this as an intellectual exercise and that proving the theorum does not prove God because it assumes the axioms are accepted. And they make it clear their work DOES NOT challenge or attempt to prove the axioms.

From their FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

** What do these proofs prove exactly? **

In formal logic, every proof is a rigorous derivation of a theorem from a set of assumed axioms, using strict and mathematically well- defined inference rules. In any theory (independently of whether it is about physical objects, such as atoms or planets, or about metaphysical notions, such as gods), the axioms are always assumed without proof. Therefore, they are open for critical debate (including empirical considerations). What formal logic and the automated reasoning systems based on it guarantee is that if you accept the axioms and the inference rules, then you can safely accept the proven theorems. Nothing else.

https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod

So go and sit in the naughty corner, you have been caught out.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

...
No, if you claim they don't exist it is up to you to prove it. Its anyone who makes a claim. It's not that hard to prove a negative. Show a contradiction in its nature (ie a square circle) or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence (ie there is NO planet between Mars and Jupiter).

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Ahh..and we are back to burden shifting and strawmanning. The position espoused by most atheists in this discussion is explicitly not a claim. We have explained this constantly but you contine to attack the strawman of "there is no god" when the position has been repeatedly stated as "I do not accept that there is sufficient evidence to prove there is a god". These are not equivalent a perfect dichotomy and you know this.

Your analogy is flawed. To use your analogy to actually delinate the true positions between yourself and those opposed would look likes this:

DJ: There is a planet between Mars and Jupiter. (i.e. There is a god)

Atheists: We do not accept your bald assertion. We require empirical evidence. (i.e. There is insufficient evidence to accept a claim that a god exists)

DJ's strawman atheist: There is no planet between Mars and Jupiter. (i.e. There is no god)

The atheists here, for the most part, state: the case for god is not proven. This is not in any way equivalent to the claim: there is no god. Seeing as this as been constantly pointed out your insistance on going back to this, surely, dry well can only be disingeuous?

 

[Djevv]

On a par with your usual levels of scholarship Djevv unfortunately.

Here's the page on github where the open source project automated theorum proving guys work sits. They make it really clear that they are doing this as an intellectual exercise and that proving the theorum does not prove God because it assumes the axioms are accepted. And they make it clear their work DOES NOT challenge or attempt to prove the axioms.

From their FAQ

https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod

So go and sit in the naughty corner, you have been caught out.

Well this level of understanding is up to your usual standard, unfortunately. How do you prove an axiom? ;D

 

[Djevv]

Ahh..and we are back to burden shifting and strawmanning. The position espoused by most atheists in this discussion is explicitly not a claim. We have explained this constantly but you contine to attack the strawman of "there is no god" when the position has been repeatedly stated as "I do not accept that there is sufficient evidence to prove there is a god". These are not equivalent a perfect dichotomy and you know this.

Your analogy is flawed. To use your analogy to actually delinate the true positions between yourself and those opposed would look likes this:

DJ: There is a planet between Mars and Jupiter. (i.e. There is a god)

Atheists: We do not accept your bald assertion. We require empirical evidence. (i.e. There is insufficient evidence to accept a claim that a god exists)

DJ's strawman atheist: There is no planet between Mars and Jupiter. (i.e. There is no god)

The atheists here, for the most part, state: the case for god is not proven. This is not in any way equivalent to the claim: there is no god. Seeing as this as been constantly pointed out your insistance on going back to this, surely, dry well can only be disingeuous?

Yeah we have had this boring discussion before and I know you are desperate to prove your point. I'm just tired of arguing with someone who holds a self-refuting worldview. You can't prove empiricism with empiricism so your critiques of my methodology are worthless.

Anyway you have got the wrong end of the stick in this discussion. I wasn't talking about any particular type of claim, but that any claim positive or negative attracts the burden of proof. I think you'll find I am right about that as my link demonstrates.

 

[tigertim]

Sorry, I'm not as entrenched here so forgive me but how can the onus of proving something that doesnt exist be on the atheist rather than the religious person proving that something that does exist actually exists? Isnt this why, in the legal system, the burden of proof is for the prosecution to prove guilt (ie something did occur) rather than the defendant to prove innocence ( ie something didn't occur)?

So, for eg DJ, how would you prove to me that pink tailed unicorns ( or anything you beleive doesnt exist) don't exist? Cheers.

 

[Djevv]

Sorry, I'm not as entrenched here so forgive me but how can the onus of proving something that doesnt exist be on the atheist rather than the religious person proving that something that does exist actually exists? Isnt this why, in the legal system, the burden of proof is for the prosecution to prove guilt (ie something did occur) rather than the defendant to prove innocence ( ie something didn't occur)?

So, for eg DJ, how would you prove to me that pink tailed unicorns ( or anything you beleive doesnt exist) don't exist? Cheers.

All this is answered in the thread - I gave a link about the BOP in philosophical discussions. I answered you ages ago re unicorns. I can't be bothered going through it AGAIN. In the legal system innocence is assumed (although in some countries this is NOT the case) so it is therefore on the prosecution.

There is no reason in principle an atheist (according to the most usual definition - someone who believes there is no God) cannot prove his contention.

if you claim they don't exist it is up to you to prove it. Its anyone who makes a claim. It's not that hard to prove a negative. Show a contradiction in its nature (ie a square circle) or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence (ie there is NO planet between Mars and Jupiter).

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

[tigertim]

All this is answered in the thread - I gave a link about the BOP in philosophical discussions. I answered you ages ago re unicorns. I can't be bothered going through it AGAIN. In the legal system innocence is assumed (although in some countries this is NOT the case) so it is therefore on the prosecution.

There is no reason in principle an atheist (according to the most usual definition - someone who believes there is no God) cannot prove his contention.

Actually you didnt answer me ages ago, you fobbed me off,

So if you aren't being a smart arse and you believe in purple tooth fairies then you should be giving the argument not me. This argument doesn't concern purple tooth fairies.

but dont worry, you've answered my question in a round about way. cheers.

 

[Azza]

There is no reason in principle an atheist (according to the most usual definition - someone who believes there is no God) cannot prove his contention.

So you should be able to disprove the existence of all the other gods people believe in.

 

[Djevv]

Actually you didnt answer me ages ago, you fobbed me off,

but dont worry, you've answered my question in a round about way. cheers.

OK I thought I had but I didn't. The answer is here:

if you claim they don't exist it is up to you to prove it. Its anyone who makes a claim. It's not that hard to prove a negative. Show a contradiction in its nature (ie a square circle) or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence (ie there is NO planet between Mars and Jupiter).

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

I have bolded the bit concerning your unicorns.

 

[tigertim]

OK I thought I had but I didn't. The answer is here:

I have bolded the bit concerning your unicorns.

Ok, cheers. But just to humour me ( and I know you don't feel like it) how would you prove to me that there are no unicorns, fairies etc? I know you feel that giving me the quote " or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence" is sufficient but I'm still unclear.

I'm just curious, what would you say to me? "Tim, here's why fairies don't exist.....".

 

[Djevv]

So you should be able to disprove the existence of all the other gods people believe in.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, that automatically means that you don't believe in the other Gods. Either they are non-existent or demonic. Ultimately I think you have to go with what you believe is most logical and reasonable in terms of the evidence.

 

[Djevv]

Ok, cheers. But just to humour me ( and I know you don't feel like it) how would you prove to me that there are no unicorns, fairies etc? I know you feel that giving me the quote " or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence" is sufficient but I'm still unclear.

I'm just curious, what would you say to me? "Tim, here's why fairies don't exist.....".

Unicorns - the lack of evidence is sufficient for me to be a confident aunicornist. I would expect evidence (like one at the local zoo) and there is none.
Fairies - agnostic. They seem like a folk myth to me but who knows? I would have little confidence in their likely existence but I can't prove otherwise.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Yeah we have had this boring discussion before and I know you are desperate to prove your point. I'm just tired of arguing with someone who holds a self-refuting worldview. You can't prove empiricism with empiricism so your critiques of my methodology are worthless.

I am not "deperate" to do anything DJ. I am simply unwilling to allow you to make unjustified claims. You can link to all the philosophical mumbo jumbo you want, what we know about the universe we only know with confidence because of empirical evidence. Your claims about a god manifest in the universe so the only reason to accept them would be if they can be examined in the same way. Seeing as I have never stated that I have a "worldview" of any particualr type and that we know that atheism isn't a worldview I wonder which philosophical box you have put me in?

Anyway you have got the wrong end of the stick in this discussion. I wasn't talking about any particular type of claim, but that any claim positive or negative attracts the burden of proof. I think you'll find I am right about that as my link demonstrates.

You way well be right, except I'm not making a claim. I know where the stick is and which end I've got, but you seem confused. The theist is making the claim "There is a god" and is thus lumbered with the BoP. You go one step further and say "I am justified in making the claim that there is a god" but "I reject your claim" is still not a claim. It is not equivalent to the claim, "there is no god" and as such has no BoP. This is where the confusion is and I believe it is deliberate. You constantly conflate my questioning of your claim with the counter-claim in order to attempt to shift the BoP, it is indeed tiring and fallcious.

 

[Djevv]

I am not "deperate" to do anything DJ. I am simply unwilling to allow you to make unjustified claims. You can link to all the philosophical mumbo jumbo you want, what we know about the universe we only know with confidence because of empirical evidence. Your claims about a god manifest in the universe so the only reason to accept them would be if they can be examined in the same way. Seeing as I have never stated that I have a "worldview" of any particualr type and that we know that atheism isn't a worldview I wonder which philosophical box you have put me in?

You way well be right, except I'm not making a claim. I know where the stick is and which end I've got, but you seem confused. The theist is making the claim "There is a god" and is thus lumbered with the BoP. You go one step further and say "I am justified in making the claim that there is a god" but "I reject your claim" is still not a claim. It is not equivalent to the claim, "there is no god" and as such has no BoP. This is where the confusion is and I believe it is deliberate. You constantly conflate my questioning of your claim with the counter-claim in order to attempt to shift the BoP, it is indeed tiring and fallcious.

Hmm OK. How about we just agree to disagree and move on. Seems like a good time what with the Tigers winning and all.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hmm OK. How about we just agree to disagree and move on. Seems like a good time what with the Tigers winning and all.

Happy to DJ. I loves me some winning. I am curious as to what you see as my worldview, but if you are sick of this merry-go-round I understand. I hope I didn't get too personal, that was never my intention but in the heat of battle I may have let myself down.

Go Tiges!

 

[AngryAnt]

Well this level of understanding is up to your usual standard, unfortunately. How do you prove an axiom? ;D

Some axioms follow from previous proofs - like Pythagoras theorum follows from principles of Cartesian geometry. Sometimes of course we just accept them for the argument's sake - exactly as the German researchers did. Another obtuse smokescreen Djevy?

So finally though we both agree that the "scientists prove validity of Godel's proof with a macbook" only proves the internal logic is valid, and the axioms are themselves challengeable. Halleluhyah!

Even though your position has flip-flopped all throughout this discussion - some examples.

[quote author=Djevv]If the axioms are sound, so is the proof. Thats what they found. It is really no different to Pythagoras.[/quote]

[quote author=Djevv]You need to actually read what I wrote before you reply to me. Yes of course you are correct here it all comes down to the believability of the axioms. I have never denied this. But they are there for all to see. Which do you deny? Otherwise it is a proof.[/quote]

[quote author=Djevv]
A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.[/quote]

And this is of course what the authors themselves stated explicitly about their works. They never set out to "prove God" and all your waffle about "I provided a mathematical proof of God" and "it was published in a scientific journal so it must be fully legit including all assumptions and axioms and proves God big-time".

Can't wait for your flippant one line response that doesn't engage with the argument though :hihi

 

[Djevv]

Some axioms follow from previous proofs - like Pythagoras theorum follows from principles of Cartesian geometry. Sometimes of course we just accept them for the argument's sake - exactly as the German researchers did. Another obtuse smokescreen Djevy?

So finally though we both agree that the "scientists prove validity of Godel's proof with a macbook" only proves the internal logic is valid, and the axioms are themselves challengeable. Halleluhyah!

Even though your position has flip-flopped all throughout this discussion - some examples.


And this is of course what the authors themselves stated explicitly about their works. They never set out to "prove God" and all your waffle about "I provided a mathematical proof of God" and "it was published in a scientific journal so it must be fully legit including all assumptions and axioms and proves God big-time".

Can't wait for your flippant one line response that doesn't engage with the argument though :hihi

I wasn't being flippant. I note that you did not admit your error in stating that in order for a mathematical proof to be sound you must prove the axioms. All mathematics depends ultimately on unprovable (but intuitively obvious) axioms and this one is no different. You still have not come up with a good reason to doubt any of them.

I can't see an issue with anything I wrote in those quotes. I don't believe my position has 'flip-flopped' - they all make exactly the same point. I don't know how I can write things more clearly.

 

[AngryAnt]

I wasn't being flippant. I note that you did not admit your error in stating that in order for a mathematical proof to be sound you must prove the axioms. All mathematics depends ultimately on unprovable (but intuitively obvious) axioms and this one is no different. You still have not come up with a good reason to doubt any of them.

I can't see an issue with anything I wrote in those quotes. I don't believe my position has 'flip-flopped' - they all make exactly the same point. I don't know how I can write things more clearly.

Now you misquote me - I always said a proof could be logically sound (and not sure where you got mathematically from, modal logic is not mathematics) but the premises/axioms could be complete bunkum. On the other hand, you've waffled that it was in a scientific journal and so therefore it carries weight - but again we both agree that if the premises are faulty, the proof means nothing.

You choose to accept the premises uncritically and in fact compare them to the axioms used by Pythagoras. You and I both know that that is an absurd position, but hey, we've been over that more than once, you are correct. Lets not rehash that again.

You still have not addressed the fact the German researchers state explicitly that their study does not prove God and they never intended it to.

 

[tigertime2]

still going I see ;D