Question for atheists. . .

[Paulomycin]

And only the first one applies to logic.

lol. Because you said so?

Right, there is no deductive reason to justify axioms, so we accept them for pragmatic reasons.

The deductive reason is tautological. Not pragmatic. And even if you're going to appeal to the purely pragmatic, then that's your implicit admission that it already works.

Prove it.

Oh, wow. So you're heaping doubt on anything contingent now.

I'm not whining, I'm correcting you.

Don't forget: Only objective corrections count.

You just keep asserting that premise 2 of the Kalam is proven, but you don't prove it.

I was never arguing from premise 2 of the Kalam, nor did I even cite it. I never even budged from premise 1! If you doubt that the universe began to exist, then you're just arguing with Big Bang Theory and trying to force another version of Steady State theory after it's already been falsified! Why would you do that?

But only that source calls it a "law". It ain't part of the axioms of logic.

^ Moving the goalposts. My source broke it down rather well. It's a law of logic that you cannot consistently doubt. To avoid appearing the hypocrite, you must assert that your next meal literally came from nowhere, and magically appeared right there on your plate.

I make claims without writing out a full justification every time, sure. We all do. You want to challenge a claim just say so.

So I can disregard you speaking on your own authority alone, thanks.

Yep, definitely some question begging going on.

With no specifics. So why worry?

No, because the reasoning for the evidence is fallacious. Example: "There's a lot of historical stuff in the Bible that is confirmed, therefore the miraculous stuff in the Bible is proven too". Non sequitur.

So you're saying you hate historical evidence? You were too vague to begin with. Is this about Habermas' Minimal Facts argument?

I'm thinking the same thing about you and your theism, so there's that.

Nope. It's our positive claim, remember? Flat earthers rely on negative claims. Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Surprised I had to remind you of that.

I can justify it.

Not for every single human being universally, no.

 

[Paulomycin]

Which one of the Classical arguments against the existence of God do you think is the worst?

I'm honestly not aware of any objective arguments against the existence of God. That's why I made the OP. So many skeptics assume that skepticism is the ends, rather than the means of finding truth. Thus, they naturally conclude, "I can still force incredulous doubt upon this, therefore the argument must be wrong."

 

[Paulomycin]

Present one and I'll do it.

I'm looking for people who've actually read books.

Equivocating objective logic with what?

No. The fallacy of equivocation. You're exploiting the ambiguity of a word with multiple definitions for advantage.

Now you aren't guessing or joking. Fallacious on a few levels.

But how would you know that?

I think requiring other folks to do your arguing for you is being intellectually lazy.

That's not what I'm asking for.

 

[Paulomycin]

I put it in quotes because it isn't fallacious when I'm right.

It is if it's founded on a named fallacy.

You don't understand what a Gish Gallop is. You assert a bunch of arguments and then concede one by one knowing that no one will finish going through all of them with you out of sheer frustration and boredom.

That is not only not a gish-gallop (because gish-gallop doesn't necessarily concede anything), but it's also a motive fallacy on your part.

Also a double-standard, because you people do it all the time. Then you repeat yourselves as if you were never refuted to begin with.

And you can't concede something you didn't assert, so you're still contradicting yourself. You just don't want to admit you lost that point.

I didn't assert it. I recognized someone else brought up premise #1 of the Kalam and then I conceded it.

Cry me a river. There's a lot of problems with your religion, sorry the folks that haven't bought into it don't trip all over themselves trying to explain it away.

But you're trying to keep up appearances to that effect all the same.

 

[Paulomycin]

Does anyone receive 'special revelation' nowadays? If so, how would we know? If we cannot know, then I again ask --- (unanswered from my last exchange):

There is no continued special revelation until the apocalypse. The canon is closed. If every Christian believed in continued special revelation, we'd all be atheist-bait.

Is it possible the authors wrote such Text, about needing faith, to assure that it remains perfectly unfalsifiable?

The (brief) history on this singular definition of "faith" is that most religious leaders were fooled by what was known as Lessing's Ditch: The argument that both Hume and Kant created an ugly, wide, and un-crossable "ditch" between the natural and supernatural. Because the assumption was that Empiricism was infallible. This then was the general basis for settled non-belief in god(s). Especially following Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." <-- Probably not his words, but instead the general popular interpretation of it.

My argument is that there is no need for a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith," because Lessing's Ditch is an illusion. Why? Because even Hume admitted (as well as demonstrated) some very real objective flaws in Empiricism itself. Namely:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy (see: Hume's billiards).
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

^ These facts are irrefutable.

If no infallible empiricism, then >> no "ditch," and therefore >> no "leap of faith."

Faith has always had only one definition prior to the 19th century: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. <-- Meaning it's wholly objective; not subjective.

Faith necessarily requires an object (which then requires evidence). Faith ≠ mysticism. "Faith in faith" is circular reasoning. Thus, fideism itself is more of a naive illusion.

 

[Paulomycin]

Atheists lack belief in the existence of god(s).

"Lack" implies a ratio of belief vs. non-belief.

You will never admit you have at least a smidge of belief in God, therefore you can't use the word "lack." It's a weasel word.

 

[Gene2memE]

"Lack" implies a ratio of belief vs. non-belief.

Nope. It denotes an absence of belief. If I say a cup lacks water, I'm not arguing that it has a ratio of water vs non-water.

You could any number of alternative terms to substitute.

You will never admit you have at least a smidge of belief in God, therefore you can't use the word "lack." It's a weasel word.

Well, if they admitted to a belief in God, then they wouldn't be an atheist....

Lack is not a weasel word here. It's describing an absence of a property.

A theist has the property "some belief in a God or Gods" An atheist does not have this property. They lack this belief.

 

[cvanwey]

"Lack" implies a ratio of belief vs. non-belief.

You will never admit you have at least a smidge of belief in God, therefore you can't use the word "lack." It's a weasel word.

I would beg to differ here... And, you are barking up the wrong tree with me. But here is where I'm at, at the moment... I'm not sure if there exists a creator(s)/other? But I'm fairly confident that the Bible is not from anything other than humans. And I have been raising topics here to test this hypothesis. Thus far, my hypothesis has not yet wavered. But there's always room for change...?

As I told another, not too long ago, even someone like Richard Dawkins has 'some' belief. When asked if he believes in god, he stated he placed his doubt level as being somewhere around (6.9/7). Meaning, his belief strength, that god exists, is at around (.1)

 

[Paulomycin]

I would beg to differ here... And, you are barking up the wrong tree with me. But here is where I'm at, at the moment... I'm not sure if there exists a creator(s)/other?

So you have at least a small amount of belief compared to the larger and more overwhelming ratio of non-belief? Or not?

But I'm fairly confident that the Bible is not from anything other than humans.

Confident assumptions are not necessarily objective assumptions. Or are you just relying on the confident assumption of others in blind faith?

And I have been raising topics here to test this hypothesis. Thus far, my hypothesis has not yet wavered. But there's always room for change...?

Your incredulity won't allow it. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. People can and often do force their subjective wills over and against any and all evidence to the contrary.

As I told another, not too long ago, even someone like Richard Dawkins has 'some' belief. When asked if he believes in god, he stated he placed his doubt level as being somewhere around (6.9/7). Meaning, his belief strength, that god exists, is at around (.1)

Because he doesn't want to lend the appearance of being narrow-minded. Deductive reasoning is not about appealing to inductive probability.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. It denotes an absence of belief.

But not 100%. If total 100% absence of belief, then just say you have no belief. Why be ambiguous with "lack of," unless you simply want to look dodgy?

If I say a cup lacks water, I'm not arguing that it has a ratio of water vs non-water.

You're also not indicating exactly how much water is in the cup.

It's also awkward. You don't tell your landlord you "lack funds" to pay rent. You don't tell the waitress you "lack coffee."

Well, if they admitted to a belief in God, then they wouldn't be an atheist....

EXACTLY!!!

Lack is not a weasel word here. It's describing an absence of a property.

An ambiguous absence at that. So yeah, real weasely.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.
   
   ^ Dodgy.
   
   
   VERB
   1. be without or deficient in.
      
      ^ More dodgy.

A theist has the property "some belief in a God or Gods" An atheist does not have this property. They lack this belief.

Show me a dictionary definition with "some belief" in it. All I see is just "belief."

 

[PloverWing]

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem

The paper referenced in the article is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526.pdf (I followed a chain of links from the article). The paper claims that their automated theorem-proving systems have been able to show the axioms and definitions to be consistent (i.e., they do not contradict one another) and to show that the proof is valid (i.e., that the theorem follows from the axioms). This is noteworthy because of the complexity of the symbolic logic in the proof; the formalization involves modal logic and quantification over predicates. I've only studied automated theorem-proving that uses the first-order predicate calculus, so I think it's cool that the authors have theorem provers that work with these other forms of symbolic logic.

However, none of this shows that the axioms and definitions in the theorem are correct. I'm still trying to figure out, for example, whether I believe axiom A1 ("Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both"). I think turtles are neat, so the property of being a turtle is positive. But I think trees are also neat, and a tree is one kind of non-turtle. So maybe both turtle-ness and non-turtle-ness are positive properties. I have reservations about some of the other axioms and definitions as well.

As for usefulness in CS: The usefulness here (for CS applications) is the ability to prove theorems involving higher-order logic and modal logic. It's not the proven existence of God itself that the authors are trying to apply in CS.

 

[Gene2memE]

What is ambiguous about an absence of belief? I'm genuinely interested. What term would you use instead?


Also, "some belief" here would be short hand for "some kind of belief in the existence of". That way i didn't need to spell out all the different kinds of beliefs about god(s) that theists hold, and all the different kinds of gods that are claimed to exist.

However, I also hold that there are also degrees of certainty for belief. When I was Catholic, I wasn't certain that a God existed, but I accepted the proposition was likely true. So, in this regard I had "some belief", but not an absolute position.

As an atheist, I hold the position that no claim regarding the existence of a God or gods has satisfied my skepticism. I'm not claiming no God or gods exist, or that its impossible for god or Gods to exist**. I'm just not accepting the claims that have been made to me by others. I lack the belief that they have in the existence of a God or gods.

**For certain theistic claims however, I not only not convinced by it, I am convinced of their negation. Other theistic claims - lots of variations of panentheism and panthesism, for instance - I think make God a non-demonstrable claim or produce a non-detectable/non-interventionist entity and are therefore useless.

 

[Paulomycin]

However, none of this shows that the axioms and definitions in the theorem are correct.

You haven't shown that forced incredulous doubt is equally correct.

It works, it's useful, but then here you are moving the goalposts. . .raising the bar on your incredulity.

It's not the proven existence of God itself that the authors are trying to apply in CS.

lol, of course it isn't! Please don't confuse the proof itself with "God" Himself. We can know that a given thing exists without having to know it exhaustively.

 

[Paulomycin]

What is ambiguous about an absence of belief?

^ That statement implies total absence.

While "lack" literally has within its own definition the huge "or" of ambiguity.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

VERB

1. be without or deficient in.

^ So which is it? Pfft, so dodgy. . .

I'm genuinely interested. What term would you use instead?

That's not my problem! This is a real indication of the practical impossibility of being an intellectually consistent atheist.

Also, "some belief" here would be short hand for "some kind of belief in the existence of". That way i didn't need to spell out all the different kinds of beliefs about god(s) that theists hold, and all the different kinds of gods that are claimed to exist.

But you can't simply call it "belief" like the dictionary says, rather than "some belief."

However, I also hold that there are also degrees of certainty for belief. When I was Catholic, I wasn't certain that a God existed, but I accepted the proposition was likely true. So, in this regard I had "some belief", but not an absolute position.

That is absolutely terrible. Didn't they teach you any Thomism? What were they, Jesuits? The law school in my old hometown would actually tell students it was a matter of fideism, rather than proof. And I was shocked at how easily they rolled over so easily like that.

As an atheist, I hold the position that no claim regarding the existence of a God or gods has satisfied my skepticism. I'm not claiming no God or gods exist, or that its impossible for god or Gods to exist**. I'm just not accepting the claims that have been made to me by others. I lack the belief that they have in the existence of a God or gods.

Because you're putting the priority of your will, your skepticism, over and above any evidence. And guess what? You will always win! Forcing your incredulous will on any evidence for pretty much anything (anything, just name it) always guarantees the desired outcome.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with healthy skepticism. I'm saying there's something wrong when skepticism becomes the ends, rather than the means, of finding truth. If skepticism becomes your highest priority, then that's the only information you'll end up with in the end. It's pure confirmation bias, "I am a skeptic because I want to be, but I am still open to evidence that will defeat my skepticism, because ultimately what I want to keep is my skepticism."

 

[Paulomycin]

I think turtles are neat, so the property of being a turtle is positive. But I think trees are also neat, and a tree is one kind of non-turtle. So maybe both turtle-ness and non-turtle-ness are positive properties. I have reservations about some of the other axioms and definitions as well.

I'm pretty sure he's not referring to what one thinks of, or how one values turtles, but rather the property of "turtle-ness" itself. "Turtle-ness" would be positive and the negation of "turtle-ness" would be negative.

Please keep in mind that a criticism of an axiom doesn't necessarily constitute a "slam-dunk" refutation. Nor can we assume that a criticism itself is automatically infallible merely due to the fact that someone managed to get it published. Such criticisms must be held to the exact same standards as the initial demand of proof or evidence of God's existence, which they rarely are.

 

[Gene2memE]

^ That statement implies total absence.

So, you'd be fine with "absence of some form of belief in a God or gods"?

While "lack" literally has within its own definition the huge "or" of ambiguity.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

VERB

1. be without or deficient in.

^ So which is it? Pfft, so dodgy. . .

Shock! Horror! The English language contains words with multiple or ambiguous meanings.

On a Christian apologetics sub-forum, are you really suggesting atheists are defining themselves as not having enough belief in a God or gods?

That's not my problem! This is a real indication of the practical impossibility of being an intellectually consistent atheist.

I asked to advance the conversation in a more concordant manner. If you're unwilling to specify which word or term you'd prefer it's a bit rich taking issue with the language atheists do choose to use.

But you can't simply call it "belief" like the dictionary says, rather than "some belief."

Sure, I could. But, I didn't. Because "some belief" helps to express the vast differences in forms of belief about deities.

That is absolutely terrible. Didn't they teach you any Thomism? What were they, Jesuits? The law school in my old hometown would actually tell students it was a matter of fideism, rather than proof. And I was shocked at how easily they rolled over so easily like that.

Jesuits and Marist Brothers. And yes, I learned about Thomism. I thought then, and I still think, that much of it is irrational nonsense. Souls and spiritual essence, for instance, as well as teleology.

Because you're putting the priority of your will, your skepticism, over and above any evidence. And guess what? You will always win!

Not in the slightest. I can think of dozens of topics and claims I've changed my mind on, even (especially) when applying skepticism to them.

What changed my mind was generally evidence or well reasoned argument.

Forcing your incredulous will on any evidence for pretty much anything (anything, just name it) always guarantees the desired outcome.

As you have zero evidence of what I am or am not doing with my will and standards of evidence to satisfy my skepticism, things will go more smoothly if you don't make unwarranted assumptions about me.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with healthy skepticism. I'm saying there's something wrong when skepticism becomes the ends, rather than the means, of finding truth. If skepticism becomes your highest priority, then that's the only information you'll end up with in the end. It's pure confirmation bias, "I am a skeptic because I want to be, but I am still open to evidence that will defeat my skepticism, because ultimately what I want to keep is my skepticism."

What evidence do you have that I'm doing any of that?

It sure seems like one of us is putting ends before means

 

[Larniavc]

I'm honestly not aware of any objective arguments against the existence of God. That's why I made the OP. So many skeptics assume that skepticism is the ends, rather than the means of finding truth. Thus, they naturally conclude, "I can still force incredulous doubt upon this, therefore the argument must be wrong."

Could that be because you are asking people to prove a negative?

 

[Moral Orel]

Clear proof of God would invalidate the common bible, which over and over states in a variety of ways that God wants us to act on "faith", which is to trust without proof, beforehand, before the outcome.

Since "faith" is to trust without proof (or before proof), then of course a clear and definite proof any skeptic would have to admit would also preclude faith (preempt the possibility, obviate).

Since "faith" is one of the 2 main stated goals of life here on Earth according to the common bible, therefore any clear proof of God before faith, would preclude faith, and that would then show the common bible must be fundamentally and repeatedly in a serious error.

Ergo, if God exists and the bible is correct, then it must be there will never be any clear proof of God before faith for anyone.

Well, there you go. A Christian just trashed all the classical arguments for God. Neat.

 

[Paulomycin]

So, you'd be fine with "absence of some form of belief in a God or gods"?

"absence of some form of belief in. . ." means absolutely no belief at all. I'm okay with that if you are.

Shock! Horror! The English language contains words with multiple or ambiguous meanings.

Equivocation fallacies are bad, m'kay?

On a Christian apologetics sub-forum, are you really suggesting atheists are defining themselves as not having enough belief in a God or gods?

I've seen it happen since 2006. And yeah, I still don't know why they do it, because they never mean exactly that when called out on it. But it is a pattern that I've noticed, yes.

Jesuits and Marist Brothers. And yes, I learned about Thomism. I thought then, and I still think, that much of it is irrational nonsense. Souls and spiritual essence, for instance, as well as teleology.

You could be more specific, as this is something the OP is referring to. If it has been objectively demonstrated as "irrational nonsense," I'd like to see the case for it.

As you have zero evidence of what I am or am not doing with my will and standards of evidence to satisfy my skepticism, things will go more smoothly if you don't make unwarranted assumptions about me.

It's what atheists do. It's why they exist. Sure, you can be all offended, but it's really what they must do to remain an atheist. Personal skepticism must be maintained as the #1 priority. It's equivalent to their dogma. The slightest credulity is truly shameful, or their version of "sin," as it were.

It's nothing personal. I'm not forcing you into that mold.

 

[Paulomycin]

Could that be because you are asking people to prove a negative?

Nope. I'm asking for positive refutations. I'm saying that once burden of proof is met (no matter how poorly), then burden of refutation is taken up by the opposition. I am asking for any and all objectively academic criticisms you're willing to stand with. Or, "positive flaws," or "observable contradictions" if you insist.