Atheism's Burden of Proof

[ToddNotTodd]

I think they prove my point. That is why I posted them. I think we're probably just having a communication challenge here.

Seems like a “keeping up with usage” challenge to me. No atheist I’ve known in the past twenty years defines those terms the way you do.

BTW, knowledge is not belief.

That’s why I said it was a subset of belief.

 

[Almost there]

Yeah. I was a little bit like that but thankfully I've slowly grown out of it. I still walk around with some absolutist ideas that "I know X" but I want to go beyond that. "arrogant ignorance" is the ability to have absolute conviction in your own intellectual capacity whilst having little or no knowledge about a subject. Its at least anti-social because people simply feel "entitled" to ready-made answers as if many questions were easy to answer. To be at the other end of it feels like you are being abused because it can get so aggressive. It also usually wrong because it typically has little ability to process nuance or subtitles, so it ends up in black-and-white thinking.



Lol. That's how it is isn't it? Even when we aren't completely wrong, everything we think we know can be improved upon.

I mentioned in another thread that back in the 80's I used to debate the tribulation a lot. I was absolutely steadfast in my defense of the Pre-tribulation rapture and believed that anyone that disagreed was simply misguided. But I only believed what my church told me as a new believer. When I actually studied the issue I changed my position and felt foolish.

But this whole idea is summed up in a backhanded compliment I saw someone use once: "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid."

However, in fairness, when I use that phrase I change "stupid" to "ignorant". We are all ignorant of many things. It is only when you are ignorant when you should not be that you can be called "stupid".

 

[Shadow]

I mentioned in another thread that back in the 80's I used to debate the tribulation a lot. I was absolutely steadfast in my defense of the Pre-tribulation rapture and believed that anyone that disagreed was simply misguided. But I only believed what my church told me as a new believer. When I actually studied the issue I changed my position and felt foolish.

But this whole idea is summed up in a backhanded compliment I saw someone use once: "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid."

However, in fairness, when I use that phrase I change "stupid" to "ignorant". We are all ignorant of many things. It is only when you are ignorant when you should not be that you can be called "stupid".

Thankfully, I'm still young and have a license to be stupid. I could use some exciting and reckless risk-taking to make my life more interesting. But I would much prefer that its creative. The destructiveness of the arrogance is what is really worrying and when it becomes self-destructive it makes you absolutely miserable. The perfectionism and obsessiveness shuts you down and your head runs like a broken record. There is so much to learn and explore that it's an obstacle to understanding and spiritual fulfilment or psychological well-being.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Opinions vary. Thanks so much for sharing yours!

And thank you for saving time for me - you manifestly have no clue what you're talking about, so I don't ever need to take seriously anything you say on the subject you're attempting to address.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

anything I say cannot be trusted.

See, I can selectively quote you as well.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, there are people who only believe in the constructive subset of R, which is indeed countable.

I don't know what belief means in mathematics.

However, my example of a logical tautology, (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R), was carefully chosen so that even constructivists would agree on its truth.

I don't know what you are referring to with this.

Well, no, I'm not, actually.

OK, thank you for your honesty. You're not a mathematician then. I'm not either, although I certainly wish I was.

Which of the three statements did you think was false?

• 2 + 2 = 4
• (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R)
  
• The truths of logic didn't suddenly become true when people appeared on the planet (in Penrose's words, “The natural numbers were there before there were human beings, or indeed any other creature here on earth, and they will remain after all life has perished. It has always been true that each natural number is the sum of four squares, and it did not have to wait for Lagrange to conjure this fact into existence.”)

You said,

Evidence can be misinterpreted, but (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R) and 2 + 2 = 4 are unquestionably true.

As I mentioned, I don't know what the first statement is referring to. Treating P, Q, and R as basic variables would make your statement false as the second part would not follow from the first, so I assume you mean something specific with those variables.

But when you say that 2+2=4 is unquestionably true, I take issue.

First, 2+2=1 in Z/3Z.

Second, any mathematician knows that mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. I'd like you to either show me something in mathematics that does not fit into one of these categories, or else explain how you can derive something that is unquestionably true from these three things.

Third, we have another counter example. If mathematics has absolute truths in it, then tell me: do parallel lines cross?

 

[Almost there]

And thank you for saving time for me - you manifestly have no clue what you're talking about, so I don't ever need to take seriously anything you say on the subject you're attempting to address.

Opinions vary. Thanks so much for sharing yours!

 

[Radagast]

"arrogant ignorance" is the ability to have absolute conviction in your own intellectual capacity whilst having little or no knowledge about a subject.

Dunning–Kruger

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I base it on the definitions. I've been arguing against both agnostics and atheists for almost 50 years, and the last 19 on the internet. I studied the actual dictionary definitions of the words as well as their common usage before really getting into it.

i.e. you are projecting.

A dictionary. You mean the things that are privately owned and operated? The things that took decades to get the update on the word "gay"? The things that routinely botch scientific and mathematical definitions, and then refuse to change despite being told by experts that they're wrong?

Let's work through this together.

"Moral" means what? We both have a good idea. Now, do "immoral" and "amoral" mean the same thing? No, they don't, do they? Amoral would refer to something that is neither morally good nor immoral, but lacks morals altogether, right? So the "a-" prefix means "without" and the "theism" root word means "belief in god". So your 50 years of studying this topic have been using an improper understanding.

And your Stalin comment was quite despicable. Good to see you are completely unapologetic and that you think all atheists want to commit mass murder.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Exactly.
In a nut shell, atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics just aren't sure. I used to be an "intellectual agnostic". I wasn't sure, but I thought only dumb, lemming type people believed in a specific, ancient and mythical god.

Then I studied the subject.

Did you study the prefix "a-"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are an agnostic. You can't be an atheist AND an agnostic - at least regarding a single subject. They are mutually exclusive.

Then again, maybe Orwell was right...

Here are a couple of useful definitions, and they are even from the internet:

Definition of agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

One who does not believe in a god does not necessarily believe that a god does not exist.

One who does not believe in a god could also believe the subject is unknowable.

You keep saying you've been studying this for years, and yet you're saying things that are obviously wrong.

 

[Radagast]

I don't know what belief means in mathematics.

Same as any other topic. "I believe P" means that I think that P is true, but I have no actual proof of P which I consider valid (i.e. that P is unproved or unprovable, by my standards, or else that I have taken it as an axiom).

I don't know what you are referring to with this.

Oh, I thought you knew all about countability and R.

As to (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R), it's a logical tautology (the law of \/-elimination). See this table:

OK, thank you for your honesty. You're not a mathematician then.

Oh, I certainly am a mathematician. I'm not making false statements.

But when you say that 2+2=4 is unquestionably true, I take issue.

First, 2+2=1 in Z/3Z.

Well, first, I was using 2+2=4 in its usual sense, to talk about numbers in Z (or R). And second, in Z/3Z, we have 1=4=7..., so 2+2=4 is still true.

Second, any mathematician knows that mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow.

That's the Formalist approach to mathematics. Most professional mathematicians instead tend to be Platonist, endorsing that paragraph from Roger Penrose I quoted. That is, most professional mathematicians believe that truths about numbers are eternal truths. But even Formalists believe that truths about logic are eternal truths (otherwise "conclusions that follow" would have no meaning).

Third, we have another counter example. If mathematics has absolute truths in it, then tell me: do parallel lines cross?

Well, no, not in ordinary geometry, by definition. Now possibly you were talking about the real projective plane (in which case the answer is yes, by definition), or possibly you were asking "given a line and a point not on it, how many distinct lines parallel to the given line can be drawn through the given point?"

If the latter, the answer is: be more specific. For geometry in the Euclidean plane (R^2), it is an eternal truth that there is exactly one. For geometry on the surface of a sphere, it is an eternal truth that there are none.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Same as any other topic. "I believe P" means that I think that P is true, but I have no actual proof of P which I consider valid (i.e. that P is unproved or unprovable, by my standards, or else that I have taken it as an axiom).

That's not how mathematics is done. We don't make wild speculations on open problems. There's a proof or there isn't.

Oh, I thought you knew all about countability and R.

I'm sure there's lots I don't know, but I have a basic understanding of the diagonalization argument and the hierarchies of infinities.

As to (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R), it's a logical tautology (the law of \/-elimination). See this table:

View attachment 216695

Oh, I see now. It looked like you were using the "&" as the "and" operator; it looked like you didn't have the alt code for "·" or else you weren't inclined to type it in. You shouldn't use purely logical symbols and insert a casual, spoken-word "and" like that... it's confusing.

Oh, I certainly am a mathematician.

Hmm. While I definitely appreciate your admiration of mathematics, you and I both ought to reserve that title for those who have earned it.

Teaching mathematics (as a tutor) is how I make my money. But that doesn't make me a mathematician.

I'm not making false statements.

I already pointed out that you did.

Well, first, I was using 2+2=4 in its usual sense, to talk about numbers in Z (or R). And second, in Z/3Z, we have 1=4=7..., so 2+2=4 is still true.

Ah, clever. Nicely done.

That's the Formalist approach to mathematics. Most professional mathematicians instead tend to be Platonist, endorsing that paragraph from Roger Penrose I quoted. That is, most professional mathematicians believe that truths about numbers are eternal truths. But even Formalists believe that truths about logic are eternal truths (otherwise "conclusions that follow" would have no meaning).

Above, you showed you know your stuff. So you should know that we can define whatever we want. We can make any logical system we want.

We can make a hypothetical logical system right now. All we need is some rules:

1) All families consist of a father, a mother, and two children.
2) Every boy has a sister.
3) There are more girls than boys.

Is it, then, an eternal truth that there is at least one family with two girls and no boys?

Well, no, not in ordinary geometry, by definition. Now possibly you were talking about the real projective plane (in which case the answer is yes, by definition), or possibly you were asking "given a line and a point not on it, how many distinct lines parallel to the given line can be drawn through the given point?"

If the latter, the answer is: be more specific. For geometry in the Euclidean plane (R^2), it is an eternal truth that there is exactly one. For geometry on the surface of a sphere, it is an eternal truth that there are none.

I was specific. I used the word "line" which is well defined. And you've proven my point here. Mathematics is nothing more than pushing symbols. You cannot show me anything in the field of mathematics that is not in the category of assumptions, definitions, or the conclusions that follow.

 

[Radagast]

That's not how mathematics is done.

I'm a professional mathematician. I have views on the truths of certain unproved or unprovable statements, axioms especially. So does every other professional mathematician.

I'm sure there's lots I don't know, but I have a basic understanding of the diagonalization argument and the hierarchies of infinities.

I'm sure you do.

But Constructivists consider the diagonalization argument invalid. Indeed, they only accept real numbers for which there is a finite representation, finite description, finite formula, or finite computer program. This gives them a countable set of real numbers. Obviously, you would be struggling to give an example of a specific number they've left out.

Oh, I see now. It looked like you were using the "&" as the "and" operator

I was. It's commonly used that way.

If you were confused by me mixing symbols from the (&, |) pair and the (/\, \/) pair, I apologise.

You shouldn't use purely logical symbols and insert a casual, spoken-word "and" like that

Huh?

Hmm. While I definitely appreciate your admiration of mathematics, you and I both ought to reserve that title for those who have earned it.

As I said, I'm a professional mathematician. I'm also, on this forum, anonymous, so I'm not going to list my publications for you.

Teaching mathematics (as a tutor) is how I make my money. But that doesn't make me a mathematician.

No, it doesn't.

I already pointed out that you did.

And the false statement I allegedly made was...?

I was specific. I used the word "line" which is well defined.

I take it that you are conceding that your question was poorly worded, and that you meant "given a line and a point not on it, how many distinct lines parallel to the given line can be drawn through the given point?"

In that case, which definition of "line" did you mean? I'm aware of several. And in which space do these lines exist? The answer depends on what you're talking about. Do the "lines" exist on the surface of a sphere? In Euclidean space? In something like this?

 

[Silmarien]

Because even if God was real I probably wouldn't submit to a higher power. Proving that there is no god would be a liberation from the fear of punishment by either organised religion in this life or eternal punishment in the next. It would be contrary to my interests to believe that I only have value as God's creation and exist to serve god rather than myself (or perhaps "humanity" in general). In my experience, and it is a very primitive and instinctual sensation than a rational argument, my pursuit of Freedom has more value than God's will, purpose or creation.

I have a couple of questions for you and a recommendation.

1. What do you mean when you say "God"?

2. What value do you have independently of God? If the existence of the universe is entirely accidental, what value does anything have? How can the idea that anything at all truly matters be more than merely illusory?

As for my recommendation: Read Paul Tillich. Immediately. He should be your first theologian, as he'll both provide you with a very robust way of conceiving of God as the Grounds of Being and also, as an existentialist, will have some strong comments to make about freedom and transcendence. It may well be that true freedom consists of snapping the chains of philosophies that teach us that only in asserting our own autonomy and striking out by ourselves can we truly be free.

 

[Tolworth John]

If you are talking about disproving Islam.
Then to demonstrate that Muhammad did not memorize the dictation of an angelic being.

Conversly the inability to do this should make the Christian re examine his/her position on Christianity as without a rational bases for it, it is merely wishfull thinking or at best a faith based belief.

This is not about islam, but about Christianity and atheism.
Christianity rests on historical facts and atheism on the belief that there is no God.

So yes we should look at what and why we believe what we believe.

 

[Shadow]

I have a couple of questions for you and a recommendation. 1. What do you mean when you say "God"?

I don't really have an exact definition. Its a problem that comes up because I'd need to disprove all gods from all religions to be an atheist the way I understand it. But the one unifying feature is a belief that consciousness can exist independently of matter/the brain. God is simply one version of that theme, primarily as a "creator" or first cause.

2. What value do you have independently of God? If the existence of the universe is entirely accidental, what value does anything have? How can the idea that anything at all truly matters be more than merely illusory?

I think there are at least two things that have value. The First is simply pleasure. Pleasure gives meaning and to some extent purpose in something to aspire for. I would say that Pleasure is real and is not an illusion of the mind. The fact I may be a single organism on one planet doesn't mean that pleasure is so insignificant that it has no value. It means that my life is part of a much bigger context and what I feel about the world is simply part of a larger picture.

The second is a sense of "consequence". So, its the sense that my life and my actions have consequences. This is probably more like a "transcendental" sense of self because it means that I can "escape" death to the extent that I have consequences that last beyond my own existence, so I leave something behind. Now, in 1000 years time, no-one will remember me or even know my name, but I am part of a stream of cause and effect that flows through history and that gives me a sense of being connected to everyone and everything else beyond my own immediate sensations. [edit: There is a darker undercurrent in that in order to have more consequence you must necessarily have more power. That on the one hand can mean self-improvement, but there is a danger of seeking the illusion of power as a way to escape the fear of death.]

There is a large background noise of potential nihilism but you learn to block it out because it isn't healthy and as an animal, you need to believe your own survival matters. It doesn't have to be rational, but the combination of being happy and being part of something "larger" than yourself satisfy both your immediate and long-term needs.

As for my recommendation: Read Paul Tillich. Immediately. He should be your first theologian, as he'll both provide you with a very robust way of conceiving of God as the Grounds of Being and also, as an existentialist, will have some strong comments to make about freedom and transcendence. It may well be that true freedom consists of snapping the chains of philosophies that teach us that only in asserting our own autonomy and striking out by ourselves can we truly be free.

I will give it a look. I've saved his wikipedia page for reading.

 

[Shadow]

As for my recommendation: Read Paul Tillich. Immediately. He should be your first theologian, as he'll both provide you with a very robust way of conceiving of God as the Grounds of Being and also, as an existentialist, will have some strong comments to make about freedom and transcendence. It may well be that true freedom consists of snapping the chains of philosophies that teach us that only in asserting our own autonomy and striking out by ourselves can we truly be free.

Sort of an after thought...

The "Courage to be" sounds very similar to some of the works of Erich Fromm (a member of the Frankfurt School and a Freudo-Marxist psychoanalyst). He is probably one of my favourite authors and looks like him too.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, no, I'm not, actually. Which of the three statements did you think was false?

• 2 + 2 = 4
• (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R)
  
• The truths of logic didn't suddenly become true when people appeared on the planet (in Penrose's words, “The natural numbers were there before there were human beings, or indeed any other creature here on earth, and they will remain after all life has perished. It has always been true that each natural number is the sum of four squares, and it did not have to wait for Lagrange to conjure this fact into existence.”)

To be fair, the quote in blue is just one of many opinions on the philosophy of mathematics. Some view them as some sort of platonic ideal, the other as something discovered, and others as a man-made creation very similar to a language.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't really have an exact definition. Its a problem that comes up because I'd need to disprove all gods from all religions to be an atheist the way I understand it.

Christians can't disprove the existence of Zeus. Yet they will affirm that Zeus does not exist. By your definition, they are just as unreasonable as the unreasonable version of atheism you're pushing (if not more unreasonable). Every religion on earth is just as unreasonable. By your definitions - which are wrong - only agnosticism is reasonable.

This all makes me wonder what warped view you probably have of nihilism.