A rational mind wouldn't believe in God

[Norseman]

A rational mind wouldn't believe in a God which is both omnimax and unconstrained. Why? Well, I inadvertently produced this substantiation whilst endeavoring on all-together different proposition, and my efforts resulted in this:

Supernatural is defined by: "That which does not exist in nature nor subject to explanation according to natural laws."

Natural is defined by: "That which exists in nature and is subject to explanation according to natural laws."

The following is a dichotomy for identifying the difference between "supernatural" and "natural".

Q: Is the object of study defined and subject to natural laws (such as gravity, or inertia)?

A1: No. Then it is defined as natural.
A2. Yes. Then it is defined as supernatural.

If you study the supernatural thing, and prove it exists, then it is by definition not supernatural, because it is bound by laws that allow proof.

Therefore, that which is supernatural is unprovable.

That to which proof cannot apply is unfalsifiable.

Therefore, anything which is supernatural is unfalsifiable.

Anything which cannot be proven true, may be either true or false, although it is impossible to tell which.

That which cannot be proven true is not fit to be held as true (the concept of innocent until proven guilty).

God is supernatural (proof does not apply to Him), therefore, God is not fit to be held as true.

Noting the above, God may still be true or false, but without proof God cannot be accepted as true by a rationally consistent mind.

Ergo atheism.

 

[Nihilist Comedian]

You speak of a posteriori proof, although- you are incorrect none-the-less. God is both natural and supernatural by definition of the creation simply being an extension of the creation.

That which cannot be proven true is not fit to be held as true (the concept of innocent until proven guilty).

This can be said without the proof, though it is false anyway. You are placing the burden of proof on the theists, without recognising that your own proof fell short of the mark. Don't be so lazy as to get the poor theists to prove their argument whilst you sit in the corner without having to say a word. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Norseman]

You speak of a posteriori proof, although- you are incorrect none-the-less. God is both natural and supernatural by definition of the creation simply being an extension of the creation.

Ah, but here you see you are wrong, unless I am mistaken as to what you refer to.

If God is one of God's own creations, God must first exist before he can cause himself to exsit. If God is the only thing which can cause God to exist, then nothing could have caused God, therefore God could not exist.

If however something else caused God, then it would in fact be God, because it has created the creator which created the universe.

Or, if you subscribe to the philosophy of God as a programmer, being extradimensional and thus able to exist in His own timeline before our timeline even existed, then alll you have done is shifted the God into a different timescale, which means you still haven't answered the question of the origin of God, and hence you fall into one of these three scenarios, again. If it is this one, then again, God can not create himself before he existed.

This can be said without the proof, though it is false anyway. You are placing the burden of proof on the theists, without recognising that your own proof fell short of the mark. Don't be so lazy as to get the poor theists to prove their argument whilst you sit in the corner without having to say a word. It doesn't work like that.

But you see it does. Am I required to prove leperchans don't exist to be justified in not believing in them? Am I required to prove Loki doesn't exist to be justified in not believing in him? Why is the Christian god different? Because you (not you personally) believe in him?

As the old saying goes, "When you understand why you discredit all the other gods you will understand why I discredit yours."

 

[Nihilist Comedian]

If God is one of God's own creations, God must first exist before he can cause himself to exsit. If God is the only thing which can cause God to exist, then nothing could have caused God, therefore God could not exist.

If however something else caused God, then it would in fact be God, because it has created the creator which created the universe.

This follows for an entity such as yourself, but for an infinite deity, it does not. God has always been and will always be, without a cause and without an effect. We have always existed, just not as we exist today. It's a matter of modes.

But you see it does. Am I required to prove leperchans don't exist to be justified in not believing in them? Am I required to prove Loki doesn't exist to be justified in not believing in him? Why is the Christian god different? Because you (not you personally) believe in him?

As the old saying goes, "When you understand why you discredit all the other gods you will understand why I discredit yours."

You are required to justify any claim be proving it. If you wish not to justify your claim, then that's fine. I shall refer you to forums.philosophyforums.com/t8107

 

[transientlife]

But does Christianity - or any other religion, basically - really rely that much on rationality?

 

[Magisterium]

A rational mind wouldn't believe in a God which is both omnimax and unconstrained. Why? Well, I inadvertently produced this substantiation whilst endeavoring on all-together different proposition, and my efforts resulted in this:

Supernatural is defined by: "That which does not exist in nature nor subject to explanation according to natural laws."

Natural is defined by: "That which exists in nature and is subject to explanation according to natural laws."

The following is a dichotomy for identifying the difference between "supernatural" and "natural".

Q: Is the object of study defined and subject to natural laws (such as gravity, or inertia)?

A1: No. Then it is defined as natural.
A2. Yes. Then it is defined as supernatural.

If you study the supernatural thing, and prove it exists, then it is by definition not supernatural, because it is bound by laws that allow proof.

Therefore, that which is supernatural is unprovable.

That to which proof cannot apply is unfalsifiable.

Therefore, anything which is supernatural is unfalsifiable.

Anything which cannot be proven true, may be either true or false, although it is impossible to tell which.

That which cannot be proven true is not fit to be held as true (the concept of innocent until proven guilty).

God is supernatural (proof does not apply to Him), therefore, God is not fit to be held as true.

Noting the above, God may still be true or false, but without proof God cannot be accepted as true by a rationally consistent mind.

Ergo atheism.

Interesting deductions. However, simply looking up the words and understanding their etymologies might have saved you a great deal of fruitless effort.

First of all, the prefix Super- (from latin) means over and above or higher in quantity, quality, or degree. effectively "more than". (IE super human). The term nature (in this context) simply refers to all that is temporal and physically tangible.

Next, you throw around this obscure idea you call "proof". Empirically speaking, there is no "proof". Our senses are inherently unreliable. The greatest of minds have been keenly aware of this fact and even began in some cases to doubt their own existence! However silly that may sound, seeing cannot logically be believing when seeing is so often unreliable.

The fact is, for all that you think you know, the "truth" is, you simply believe all that you hold as knowledge to be true!

Therefore, all that is, by your definition is supernatural because you cannot "prove" that anything exists.

The fact is, the idea of "proof" is nothing more than coercive evidence. There are tangible coersive evidences of the empirical and intangible coercive evidences of the spiritual and intellectual. Both are respectively valid and mutually complimentary.

 

[Nihilist Comedian]

Magisterium, don't forgot Wittgenstein. Here's a question for you personally; can you know anything to be true a priori or a posteriori, or is extreme skepticism the way? Ever read Quine?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Hi Norseman,
You raise some interesting points, but I feel the argument is a little flawed, lets see if I can explain why.

A rational mind wouldn't believe in a God which is both omnimax and unconstrained. Why? Well, I inadvertently produced this substantiation whilst endeavouring on all-together different proposition, and my efforts resulted in this:

Supernatural is defined by: "That which does not exist in nature nor subject to explanation according to natural laws."

Here is your first mistake. "That which can not be subject to explanation according to natural laws" Is defined in empiricist epistemologies asMetephysical rather than Supernatural. The two are very different and the difference is very important. By your definition "Culture" would be "supernatural", by the correct definition "Culture" is a Metaphysical concept, I think you will agree that makes a lot more sense.

Therefore, that which is supernatural is improvable.

That to which proof cannot apply is unfalsifiable.

Therefore, anything which is supernatural is unfalsifiable.

Anything which cannot be proven true, may be either true or false, although it is impossible to tell which...

...and is therefore a Metaphysical statement, yes that is a well-established premise, has been for 200 years or more.

That which cannot be proven true is not fit to be held as true (the concept of innocent until proven guilty).

And here is your second mistake. In making this statement you are not only repeating the old positivist axiom that "Metaphysical statements have no meaning" but you are also falling into the trap of believing science produces proof, rather than evidence. The two terms are often used interchangeably but doing so is misusing the term "proof". I thought you might avoid this trap because of your earlier use of the term "falsification". Falsificationism is the technique that modern science uses and it is not intended to prove anything, it is intended to disprove. If a theory survives repeated attempts to falsify it, then it may be held as true, although it has not been proven.

Since your entire argument rests on the notion that anything that can not be proven is not worth believing we can situate your argument squarely in the positivist approach, which has been in decline since the early 20th century and which is at direct conflict with the Falsificationist methods preferred today.

Now, various methodological and epistemological positions place metaphysical statements in different lights, but only positivism labels them as meaningless. Popper himself stated that “no statement is ever meaningless” and recognised that a metaphysical statement was simply one which could not be empirically tested. However, like Lakatos, and many others before and since he pointed out that all human knowledge has metaphysical concepts embedded within them at some point. Even scientific approaches can not entirely escape the metaphysical because they have at their core a belief in the capacity of human reason to construct true and accurate knowledge. This in itself is a metaphysical statement, and recognising this was one of the death knells for positivism. By recognising this fact we quickly come to realise that positivism violates its own rules, and is thus placed in crisis.

God is supernatural (proof does not apply to Him)

Metaphysical not supernatural.

therefore, God is not fit to be held as true.

According to positivist approaches. Of course other approaches to knowledge construction and science would point out that being metaphysical does not mean it is not fit to be believed, only that we can not currently subject it to falsificationist tests (something which a positivist wouldn’t what to do anyway since positivist approaches demand the use of verificationism and not falsificationism and therefore violate the modern scientific methodology by elevating evidence to the status of proof, and in so doing manage to violate their own rules as well).

Noting the above, God may still be true or false, but without proof God cannot be accepted as true by a ...

Positivist thinker.

Ergo all you have proven is that by using the outmoded approach of positivism, which is in conflict with the falsificationist methodologies of today and which is by its own rules condemned, a good positivist should be an agnostic (not an atheist). Well, since they tended to be, that at least stands up to scrutiny.

However your stated aim was to show us why rational minds can not be anything but atheists, and I feel your argument has fallen short of the mark by misusing the term proof, by confusing supernatural and metaphysical an by tying itself to the positivist approach.

None the less it was a well-constructed and well thought out argument, just a flawed one.

Ghost

 

[Lyle]

Norseman - i haven't read through this entire thread.. But you seemed to have made a simple mistake in who God is (he same mistake millions have made)... I could give you the anwsers, but i'll refrain and tell you to search through the Bible yourself and read who God is...

 

[sunshinejennii]

(ive not read the entire thread because im about to be kicked off the compuet BUT.....)

Actually its proven to be easier and more rational to believe in God. It's harder to disprove him/her/it than to prove the existence of God. Many psychologists say faith is important for maintaining a healthy mental balance!

 

[Philosoft]

This follows for an entity such as yourself, but for an infinite deity, it does not. God has always been and will always be, without a cause and without an effect. We have always existed, just not as we exist today. It's a matter of modes.

This contains an awful lot of ambiguity to be taken as a serious defeater for the aforementioned premise. What is an "infinite deity"? How does it entail that God is an "extension of creation"? Why do you think this defeats the original argument as a posteriori?

 

[- DRA -]

A rational mind wouldn't believe in a God which is both omnimax and unconstrained. Why? Well, I inadvertently produced this substantiation whilst endeavoring on all-together different proposition, and my efforts resulted in this:

Supernatural is defined by: "That which does not exist in nature nor subject to explanation according to natural laws."

Natural is defined by: "That which exists in nature and is subject to explanation according to natural laws."

The following is a dichotomy for identifying the difference between "supernatural" and "natural".

Q: Is the object of study defined and subject to natural laws (such as gravity, or inertia)?

A1: No. Then it is defined as natural.
A2. Yes. Then it is defined as supernatural.

If you study the supernatural thing, and prove it exists, then it is by definition not supernatural, because it is bound by laws that allow proof.

Therefore, that which is supernatural is unprovable.

That to which proof cannot apply is unfalsifiable.

Therefore, anything which is supernatural is unfalsifiable.

Anything which cannot be proven true, may be either true or false, although it is impossible to tell which.

That which cannot be proven true is not fit to be held as true (the concept of innocent until proven guilty).

God is supernatural (proof does not apply to Him), therefore, God is not fit to be held as true.

Noting the above, God may still be true or false, but without proof God cannot be accepted as true by a rationally consistent mind.

Ergo atheism.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork,
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge,
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

"Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the heart of this people has grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their heart and turn,
So that I should heal them" Matthew 13:14b-15

 

[nimble]

anything beyond the realm of reality is by definition unreal, just thought i would clue everyone in.

 

[- DRA -]

As the old saying goes, "When you understand why you discredit all the other gods you will understand why I discredit yours."

Isaiah 44:9-20 tells me why I should discredit other gods. This passage and its context contrasts what God has done with what other gods can't do. The passage also asks a relevant question, "Should I fall down before a block of wood?" (verse 19) Whether it's falling down before a wooden carving based upon what someone's imagination leads them to carve, or the level of wisdom you have obtained that you think puts you in a position to challenge God, the answer is the same - - NO THANKS.

 

[wayfaring man]

Some interesting reading in this thread .

The evidence that God exists is everywhere , ( as DRA quoted above ) ;

But , that we of few days and comparitively feeble minds , find it extremely difficult to fully comprehend an Eternal , Omniscient , Omnipotent , Omnipresent , Entity ... This should not shock us into unbelief , ( as if " believing " were reserved for the easy to understand ! )

Why not , simply , and sincerely ask God , if indeed You exist , to reveal the Truth about Yourself , while reading and studying the testimonies of Jesus Christ ?!

Who is recorded as saying - " All things are delivered unto me of my Father : and no man knows the Son , but the Father ; neither knows any man the Father , save the Son , and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him . " <-----> Matthew 11:27

If enlightenment follows , then follow the Source of Enlightenment : but if darkness lingers ... try another approach .

wm

 

[audramray]

Thinking we came from nothing is irrational thinking and totally unscientific.

 

[Norseman]

This follows for an entity such as yourself, but for an infinite deity, it does not. God has always been and will always be, without a cause and without an effect. We have always existed, just not as we exist today. It's a matter of modes.

If God can be without a cause why can't the same apply to the universe? Occams razor comes to mind.

You are required to justify any claim be proving it. If you wish not to justify your claim, then that's fine. I shall refer you to forums.philosophyforums.com/t8107

That first sentence made no sense, I think you skipped a word or two. As I said though, am I being irrational for not believing in leperchauns, or can I validly say that leperchauns do not exist? Ergo, why should I say God exists without any more evidence than I have for leperchauns?

 

[Norseman]

But does Christianity - or any other religion, basically - really rely that much on rationality?

An excellent point. Most religions are not based on rationality, hence atheists who were previously theists of one form or another often call members of such religions irrational. It follows that if you believe one thing without evidence why not another? Hence arbitrary and uneducated decisions. Hence the frequent atheistic aleination of theists.

Interesting deductions. However, simply looking up the words and understanding their etymologies might have saved you a great deal of fruitless effort.

In what way? I'll to you this much, it wasn't a lot of effort considering I created it entirely by accident.

First of all, the prefix Super- (from latin) means over and above or higher in quantity, quality, or degree. effectively "more than". (IE super human). The term nature (in this context) simply refers to all that is temporal and physically tangible.

As I pointed out, in my definition, anything supernatural is above the laws of nature and does not exist in a natural form because it is supernatural.

Next, you throw around this obscure idea you call "proof". Empirically speaking, there is no "proof". Our senses are inherently unreliable. The greatest of minds have been keenly aware of this fact and even began in some cases to doubt their own existence! However silly that may sound, seeing cannot logically be believing when seeing is so often unreliable.

We take for proof that which is tangible, and consistent. For example I know my computer exists because I can reach out and touch it. I know my computer is as real as anything else because my hand won't just go right through it. I can tell it exists on multiple senses, I can see, feel, hear, smell, and taste my computer, though I can't say it tastes good. These are natural evidences.

The fact is, for all that you think you know, the "truth" is, you simply believe all that you hold as knowledge to be true!

Indeed. We cannot know for sure that we aren't simply computer programs, or brains in a jar. However, whether or not this is the case, if it doesn't affect us then it doesn't matter. Much as the non-existence of the flying green 'filangios' is irrelevant. We take what is most relevant, such as our local environment, and respond accordingly.

Therefore, all that is, by your definition is supernatural because you cannot "prove" that anything exists.

Yes, I can. I can prove to anyone who will look that I hold an apple in my hand if I say I hold an apple in my hand. If I say I have a Queen of Spades in my hand, and show you the card, is it not practical evidence of the validity of my statement?

The fact is, the idea of "proof" is nothing more than coercive evidence. There are tangible coersive evidences of the empirical and intangible coercive evidences of the spiritual and intellectual. Both are respectively valid and mutually complimentary.

Indeed. Proof is merely what one would accept as true. There are universal notions of what can be accepted as true, based on what we are provided. That doesn't mean that the notions are correct, but it is a guideline of what can be accepted as true by any mentally healthy person.

Would you prefer I titled it "A mentally healthy and rational mind wouldn't believe in God"?

 

[Magisterium]

An excellent point. Most religions are not based on rationality, hence atheists who were previously theists of one form or another often call members of such religions irrational. It follows that if you believe one thing without evidence why not another? Hence arbitrary and uneducated decisions. Hence the frequent atheistic aleination of theists.

[/font]

In what way? I'll to you this much, it wasn't a lot of effort considering I created it entirely by accident.



As I pointed out, in my definition, anything supernatural is above the laws of nature and does not exist in a natural form because it is supernatural.



We take for proof that which is tangible, and consistent. For example I know my computer exists because I can reach out and touch it. I know my computer is as real as anything else because my hand won't just go right through it. I can tell it exists on multiple senses, I can see, feel, hear, smell, and taste my computer, though I can't say it tastes good. These are natural evidences.



Indeed. We cannot know for sure that we aren't simply computer programs, or brains in a jar. However, whether or not this is the case, if it doesn't affect us then it doesn't matter. Much as the non-existence of the flying green 'filangios' is irrelevant. We take what is most relevant, such as our local environment, and respond accordingly.



Yes, I can. I can prove to anyone who will look that I hold an apple in my hand if I say I hold an apple in my hand. If I say I have a Queen of Spades in my hand, and show you the card, is it not practical evidence of the validity of my statement?


Indeed. Proof is merely what one would accept as true. There are universal notions of what can be accepted as true, based on what we are provided. That doesn't mean that the notions are correct, but it is a guideline of what can be accepted as true by any mentally healthy person.

Would you prefer I titled it "A mentally healthy and rational mind wouldn't believe in God"?

Actually, you missed my points completely. The idea that "universal notions" are acceptable criterion for discerning reality is preposterous. I'm not sure how studied in philosophy you are, but this is pretty elementary stuff.

The idea that empirical evidence (relating to the 5 senses) is sufficient for an objective discernment of truth is a flawed premise. This is because human senses are fallible. Our eyes see things move that don't move, we smell things which are not present, we hear things thich are not there. Tastes are almost completely subjective (IE something may taste bitter to one and sour to another). The senses are our primary means of gathering data about the world around us, but they are inherently unreliable. Therefore, you presenting something in "tangible" form is logically no more proof than simply stating it verbally. Both methods rely upon a mental assent by the person listening (or viewing) in order to be believed.

So as I said before, seeing cannot logically be believing. As for changing the title to something about a "mentally healthy" or "rational", both of these are changes do little to help the illogial nature of the notion you posit.

However, if you perhaps stated that "An Empirical mind wouldn't believe in God" you'd be right on target. In fact, you'd be stating one of the basic precepts of most religions!

 

[MQTA]

And where 2 or more are gathered in His name, He will be there?

He must be ALL OVER CF then. Maybe He is the one doing the typing when I let my fingers just fly on the keys. Then I proofread it afterwards.

He's everywhere. You can run, but you can't hide.

Some interesting reading in this thread .

The evidence that God exists is everywhere , ( as DRA quoted above ) ;

But , that we of few days and comparitively feeble minds , find it extremely difficult to fully comprehend an Eternal , Omniscient , Omnipotent , Omnipresent , Entity ... This should not shock us into unbelief , ( as if " believing " were reserved for the easy to understand ! )

Why not , simply , and sincerely ask God , if indeed You exist , to reveal the Truth about Yourself , while reading and studying the testimonies of Jesus Christ ?!

Who is recorded as saying - " All things are delivered unto me of my Father : and no man knows the Son , but the Father ; neither knows any man the Father , save the Son , and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him . " <-----> Matthew 11:27

If enlightenment follows , then follow the Source of Enlightenment : but if darkness lingers ... try another approach .

wm