Question for atheists. . .

[Paulomycin]

I don't mind one bit. I like being abrasive, but I feel bad if I'm abrasive with polite people. So when I argue with abrasive people, it let's me have a bit of guilt-free-fun.

Besides that, arguments from people who are abrasive and lack the humility to acknowledge mistakes aren't persuasive. Let him do his thing, lol.

I'm gonna try to dial it down for my part. And I'll happily acknowledge my mistakes if you'd only show your work. Hand-waving "all the rape parts in the Bible" isn't really keeping a consistent set of citations here.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. We were talking about a particular proof by Gödel and a paper showing that a computer system had verified its validity. What goalposts did I move? What "forced incredulous doubt" are you talking about?

The computer system did not verify the validity of the proof itself. The computer system is using the proof because it works. I'm saying that, "it must be true because it works," in the exact same rhetorical sense that atheists say, "Science, it works b*tches!"

You're free to disagree with it, but it'll cost ya.

 

[Paulomycin]

Why? The majority of atheist are not studied in philosophy.

Not my fault. Maybe it's something they should look into.

I studied the philosophy of science at uni for a semester but that was about it.

Great stuff. I'm an epistemological anarchist myself. Learning about the failure of the Vienna Circle made me giddy with joy.

What makes you think randoms on a subset of the net will have information that cannot be accessed by you from the entirety of the net?

Maybe they read a book by some respected internet atheist or YouTuber that's a real slam-dunk on theism. Maybe there is some atheist genius in antiquity that we didn't know about until just recently.

I like to stay up-to-date as much as I possibly can.

 

[PloverWing]

The computer system did not verify the validity of the proof itself. The computer system is using the proof because it works. I'm saying that, "it must be true because it works," in the exact same rhetorical sense that atheists say, "Science, it works b*tches!"

You're free to disagree with it, but it'll cost ya.

From the paper:

In our ongoing computer-assisted study of Gödel’s proof we have obtained the following results:

– The basic modal logic K is sufficient for proving T1, C and T2.
– Modal logic S5 is not needed for proving T3; the logic KB is sufficient.
– Without the first conjunct φ(x) in D2 the set of axioms and definitions would be inconsistent.
– For proving theorem T1, only the left to right direction of axiom A1 is needed. However, the backward direction of A1 is required for proving T2.

This work attests the maturity of contemporary interactive and automated deduction tools for classical higher-order logic and demonstrates the elegance and practical relevance of the embeddings-based approach. Most importantly, our work opens new perspectives for a computer-assisted theoretical philosophy. The critical discussion of the underlying concepts, definitions and axioms remains a human responsibility, but the computer can assist in building and checking rigorously correct logical arguments.

(In the paper, the axioms are numbered A1, A2, ...; definitions are D1, D2...; theorems are T1, T2.... The paper gives their formalizations of the axioms, definitions, and theorems, but I didn't want to quote the whole paper here.)

The authors are saying that they've verified the validity of the proof from the axioms and definitions, not that they've used the theorem to accomplish other tasks. Note especially the last sentence in the quoted passage above: "The critical discussion of the underlying concepts, definitions and axioms remains a human responsibility, but the computer can assist in building and checking rigorously correct logical arguments."

 

[Larniavc]

Maybe they read a book by some respected internet atheist or YouTuber that's a real slam-dunk on theism.

Ah, I see. The university of Youtube.

Bye then.

 

[Paulomycin]

I never said I hated axioms, I feel they're quite useful, I like them. I simply accept their limitations.

They're only limited when you're being inconsistent.

But I'll call it a draw if you accept the "particularly useful" as pragmatic.

Not a problem at all. Pragmatism isn't the only philosophy in town.

Non-sequitur. Infinite regress has to do with causality, not tautologies.

Law of causality is a tautology. You can only choose between infinite regress or tautology. That's what the Münchhausen-Trilemma is all about. When all is said and done, one's own forced skepticism is always forced to come to one of these cul-de-sacs.

Fortunately, tautological axioms are the safest, because "circularity" is essentially an appeal to logic. So what happens when you've arrived at an absolute truth? Doubt that? You can't, because you'd become a misologist, an absurdist, or insane. When you're standing at the edge of the cliff of logic that's holding you up, don't jump off.

And worthless. It doesn't tell you anything. A law is a law. Okay, what's a law? It's a law. I heard you the first time, what is it? A law is a law. *facepalm*

Yes. "A = A" Even Ayn Rand understood that.

Demanding proof of things is irrational... K. But I didn't ask for proof of the law of identity, I accept it just fine for pragmatic reasons.

You don't even have to "punt" to pragmatism. Just realize that if you value logic, then you must learn to accept that there are some (not a lot, but a handful) of absolute truths. Not "God," but absolute truth. And it is these same absolutes that "stack" towards proof of The Almighty.

No, you need to prove that anything with a beginning is a contingent thing. That's your claim.

I don't have to prove A = A. You're trying to jump off that cliff. I can't let you do that.

Just trying to trim some of the worthless fat from these posts. A lot of it isn't worth responding to, but I don't want to be rude and outright ignore you or make you think I didn't notice it.

No problem. They'll come up again in the future anyway, whether I want them to or not. That's how it is with absolute truth.

"Had a beginning" and "began to exist" aren't the same thing. Hawking went to his grave insisting on his singularity model which describes an eternal thing becoming the universe in the Big Bang.

1. You're missing direct quotes. Please show your work.

2. He has no evidence to support the singularity is eternal. It's nothing more than forced materialsim. Science has limits. One of those limits is finite nature/matter. If you start arguing outside of this, then you're appealing to supernature, even if you don't claim to believe in the supernatural, theoretical physicists still do it all the same whenever they try to field questions about, "What happened before the universe began?" The truth is, they don't know, because that's where their field of study necessarily ends.

Oooh, close. Now can you cite an actual, technical, philosophical source?

You've probably found actual philosophical publications by now listing things like the axiom of identity and non-contradiction and (curiously) the "law" of causality is missing for some reason! Gasp!

^ Appeal to ignorance: Just because it's not included on a secular "top 10 list," doesn't mean it has been proven to not exist.

There's no material cause with creation ex nihilo.

How is this statement not a contradiction? The creator would be "God" in creation ex nihilo.

Wait a minute. . .are you gonna start quoting that fraud Lawrence Krauss?

Non sequitur. I say, "No, I'm not talking about X" you say, "Then X is true".

You initially rejected history as evidence of miracles. We only have to prove one miracle. Really.

No, they present evidence too.

But not in that particular order. The process begins by forcing doubt upon the current dominant paradigm that Earth is an oblate spheroid. They can only present their "evidence" after assuming a round earth is false. It's essentially built on those negative claims.

I'm equivocating objective logic with inductive vs. deductive logic???? What are you even talking about anymore?

Do you even know the difference?

Someone else is doing all the work. That's what laziness is.

If atheists were right, they wouldn't have to do all the work themselves. They could simply cite the Professor that destroyed "X, Y, or Z" argument for God and published a paper on it.

I don't assume your motive, I know your motive.

Okay then, guess!

I actually haven't Gish Galloped. I haven't presented multiple arguments at once.

So you're admitting that none of your denials in this thread constitute real arguments to the contrary. I'm very happy with that.

I say you can simply because I don't see any reason why not. Not a great reason, no. You've already claimed you can't, so the burden isn't entirely on me.

I understand that it's a really quite difficult to provide evidence or proof for the positive claim of an "eternally contingent thing." It was in-fact so contradictory, I thought that I was reading a lyric from They Might Be Giants.

Post an argument and I will refute it.

OP isn't looking for Moral Orel's refutation. Maybe next time, buddy.

Now, if there was a God, then He, having omnipotence and all, would have the ability to cause dogs and cats to literally rain from the sky. We can agree to that, yes?

He would, but I'm not running on induction here (possibilities). I'm running on deduction (absolutes).

As an atheist, I don't believe in such a being, so I don't believe it's actually possible for this logically possible thing to occur.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

In other words, you can't make any conclusions from an indeterminate.

Period.

As a theist, you believe in such a being, so you do believe it's actually possible for this logically possible thing to occur. That all makes sense, right?

No. It's like saying, "If there was a Moral Orel, then he would have the ability to agree with absolutely all of my posts on CF. I don't see Moral Orel agreeing with absolutely everything I say, therefore, Moral Orel doesn't exist, and I must be conversing with an impostor."

 

[Paulomycin]

Ah, I see. The university of Youtube.

Bye then.

Real professors and scientists post on YouTube too, you know. I have no media prejudices here.

 

[Paulomycin]

The authors are saying that they've verified the validity of the proof from the axioms and definitions, not that they've used the theorem to accomplish other tasks. Note especially the last sentence in the quoted passage above: "The critical discussion of the underlying concepts, definitions and axioms remains a human responsibility, but the computer can assist in building and checking rigorously correct logical arguments."

The "other tasks" are stated earlier within the same quote:

While computers can now calculate, play games, translate, plan, learn and classify data much better than we humans do, tasks involving philosophical and theological inquiries have remained mostly un-touched by our technological progress up to now. Due to the abstract and sophisticated types of reasoning they require, they can be considered a challenging frontier for automated reasoning. We accepted this challenge and decided to tackle, with automated reasoning techniques, a philosophical problem that is almost 1000 years old: the ontological argument for God’s existence, firstly proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury and greatly improved by Descartes, Leibniz, Godel, and many others throughout the centuries. So far, there was no AI system capable of dealing with such complex problems. We created a prototypical infrastructure extending widely used systems such as LEO-II, Satallax, and Nitpick (and Isabelle and Coq) to allow them to cope with modalities; and using the extended systems we were able to automatically reconstruct and verify Godel’s argument, as well as discover new facts and confirm controversial claims about it. This is a landmark result, with media repercussion in a global scale, and yet it is only a glimpse of what can be achieved by combining computer science, philosophy and theology. Our work, in this sense, offers new perspectives for a computational theoretical philosophy. The critical discussion of the underlying concepts, definitions and axioms remains a human responsibility, but the computer can assist in building and checking rigorously correct logical arguments.

As a human being I freely admit that modal logic is a real chore for me. Automating modal logic would in-itself constitute a real breakthrough in AI, which of course, isn't at all what Gödel intended.

 

[Gene2memE]

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

From the same Hawking lecture:

​

"So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.​

...​

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.'"​

 

[Paulomycin]

From the same Hawking lecture:

​

"So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.​

"Because we can't have that! Because that's just, you know, bad, and we don't like it. Science somehow must necessarily govern all reality, even in categories where it clearly doesn't. Therefore, the only option is for the proverbial snake to eat its own tail."

"Imaginary time" = really unnecessary and overly-complicated mathematical contortions only to come to the conclusion that reality itself is indeterminate and therefore why are we even bothering with scientific inquiry in the first place?

"One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

— Also-also Stephen Hawking

It doesn't have to be as complicated as, "real time which has undergone a Wick rotation so that its coordinates are multiplied by the Imaginary unit." If everything is going to ultimately fall to math anyway, then Occam's Razor suggests MUH is the simpler solution.

Math is both real in a radical platonic sense, as well as a rational form of supernaturalism >> Law of Causality is real >> spacetime is causal from rationalism and physics (they're fundamentally fused and not separate).

In any case, the explanation has to be rational. Non-rational solutions are unacceptable, even when a scientist is floating it. Just because quantum mechanics is indeterminate, doesn't mean reality cannot be determined and that we should throw up our hands in the air. . .or tolerate being told to do so.

Maybe we should abandon a few philosophical dogmas that have been dogging us. Get rid if the useless weight. Maybe the non-science of epistemological naturalism creates more problems than solutions. Which it in fact does.

But as secularists, we prefer to clutch onto it like some stuffed toy; hoping it will actually protect us from the demon haunted world.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

In which case, we would no longer be discussing science. Science either ends at physics or math. Sometimes it's hard to tell. But I'll usually defer to math, because I think Tegmark is going in the right direction for a change.

Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.

^ Big "if" here. Moreover, it's not only highly controversial, but also a blatant contradiction. It's essentially saying that the beginning of the universe is no beginning. That will fool only some of the people some of the time.

What if the no boundary condition is just one group's collective yearning to return to a falsified Steady State paradigm, or something like it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Law of causality is a tautology. You can only choose between infinite regress or tautology. That's what the Münchhausen-Trilemma is all about. When all is said and done, one's own forced skepticism is always forced to come to one of these cul-de-sacs.

I can only choose between two things in a trilemma? Thank you for citing Munchausen though. Now I know you've picked "self-evident" and acknowledge that it isn't certain. What I've been saying all along.

Fortunately, tautological axioms are the safest, because "circularity" is essentially an appeal to logic. So what happens when you've arrived at an absolute truth? Doubt that? You can't, because you'd become a misologist, an absurdist, or insane. When you're standing at the edge of the cliff of logic that's holding you up, don't jump off.

You'll have to establish that an absolute truth exists. Thanks to the trilemma you cited, you can't.

Yes. "A = A" Even Ayn Rand understood that.

I do understand that. Of course, neither of us knows what A is though, and that's why tautologies are worthless.

You don't even have to "punt" to pragmatism. Just realize that if you value logic, then you must learn to accept that there are some (not a lot, but a handful) of absolute truths. Not "God," but absolute truth. And it is these same absolutes that "stack" towards proof of The Almighty.

You do have to go with pragmatism because there's no way to prove an absolute truth.

I don't have to prove A = A.

You don't think you have to prove anything despite your claims.

1. You're missing direct quotes. Please show your work.

gene2meme is handling it nicely.

2. He has no evidence to support the singularity is eternal. It's nothing more than forced materialsim. Science has limits. One of those limits is finite nature/matter. If you start arguing outside of this, then you're appealing to supernature, even if you don't claim to believe in the supernatural, theoretical physicists still do it all the same whenever they try to field questions about, "What happened before the universe began?" The truth is, they don't know, because that's where their field of study necessarily ends.

Doesn't matter. I don't have to ascribe to his personal model and I don't. All I have to do is acknowledge that the models various scientists have put forth are plausible to refute any argument for God's existence that involves the origins of the universe.

^ Appeal to ignorance: Just because it's not included on a secular "top 10 list," doesn't mean it has been proven to not exist.

Ha! Called it! You Christian Apologists just made it up, like I said a few pages back. You can't find it anywhere else because it is not an axiom of logic. It's something you all cooked up that you think you can conflate with the axiom of identity.

How is this statement not a contradiction? The creator would be "God" in creation ex nihilo.

God would be the efficient cause. There is no material cause necessarily in creation ex nihilo. Do you even know what the four causes are since you cited them?

But not in that particular order. The process begins by forcing doubt upon the current dominant paradigm that Earth is an oblate spheroid. They can only present their "evidence" after assuming a round earth is false. It's essentially built on those negative claims.

In whatever order they like. The only distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim is semantics. See, the process for theists begins by forcing doubt upon the idea that the Earth came about as a result of entirely natural processes. See how that works?

Do you even know the difference?

I don't know what you're talking about, you aren't making sense! I'm equivocating between objective logic and inductive vs deductive logic?? What does that mean?

If atheists were right, they wouldn't have to do all the work themselves. They could simply cite the Professor that destroyed "X, Y, or Z" argument for God and published a paper on it.

Yeah, I like doing the work myself because I'm not intellectually lazy.

Okay then, guess!

I don't have to guess, I know, and I already called you on it.

So you're admitting that none of your denials in this thread constitute real arguments to the contrary. I'm very happy with that.

I don't believe that you actually believe this response follows from what I said. It doesn't and it's clear that it doesn't.

I understand that it's a really quite difficult to provide evidence or proof for the positive claim of an "eternally contingent thing." It was in-fact so contradictory, I thought that I was reading a lyric from They Might Be Giants.

Right, so you've got no proof, I've got no proof, and we'll just leave it as "unknown".

OP isn't looking for Moral Orel's refutation. Maybe next time, buddy.

I know. I know what you're trying to do, and I already stated as much. I'm telling you what I'll contribute if you ever actually contribute anything yourself as the OP.

He would

Good, we agree.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

In other words, you can't make any conclusions from an indeterminate.

Period.

I'm not making a knowledge claim, so this is all bunk.

No.

So you don't believe that God is omnipotent?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm gonna try to dial it down for my part. And I'll happily acknowledge my mistakes if you'd only show your work. Hand-waving "all the rape parts in the Bible" isn't really keeping a consistent set of citations here.

I haven't done that. I asked you to show me laws, you refused to show me anything because you can't.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm gonna try to dial it down for my part. And I'll happily acknowledge my mistakes if you'd only show your work. Hand-waving "all the rape parts in the Bible" isn't really keeping a consistent set of citations here.

Woah, I just noticed that thread got deleted. What the hizzy? I've seen threads get locked before, but never seen one vanish. Us dirty atheists must have been on to something, eh? Hey @cvanwey did you get a warning about your thread?

 

[Freodin]

The universe is an effect. After Big Bang falsified Steady State, theoretical physicists have been furiously trying to re-introduce Steady State in some other form. Such as infinite causal loops, and other forms of silly infinite regress. If "Turtles All The Way Down" applies to theists (which it does) it should go double for theoretical physics.

The universe is an effect... of what? What even is "the universe" that you are talking about here?

Consider: "universe" literally means "all". If there is some "cause" of which "the universe" is an effect... then it would also be "the universe". Or part of it. Which means the universe is self-caused. Or uncaused.

That the state of the universe as we observe it now had a "beginning" doesn't mean that the universe in total has.

But then: you are trying to define your claims into existence. You categorically state "The universe is an effect" and "God is not an effect". But you have no means to verify either of these statements.

Sorry, but your argument fails.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't mind one bit. I like being abrasive, but I feel bad if I'm abrasive with polite people. So when I argue with abrasive people, it let's me have a bit of guilt-free-fun.

Besides that, arguments from people who are abrasive and lack the humility to acknowledge mistakes aren't persuasive. Let him do his thing, lol.

Fair enough! But if he is actually rude to you me or anyone else and does break the rules, I shall report him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough! But if he is actually rude to you me or anyone else and does break the rules, I shall report him.

Just for the record, I still don't report anyone for infractions............even though it seems some folks report me for this or that triviality.

My motto is "Retort, don't Report!!!"

It's kind of a "freedom of speech" thing with me. It must be that SJW Marxist activism "shtuff" they pumped me full of during my Master's ... ....

So, when threads go missing, don't be pointing fingers at me!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Just for the record, I still don't report anyone for infractions............even though it seems some folks report me for this or that triviality.

My motto is "Retort, don't Report!!!"

It's kind of a "freedom of speech" thing with me. It must be that SJW Marxist activism "shtuff" they pumped me full of during my Master's ... ....

So, when threads go missing, don't be pointing fingers at me!

I don't agree with what you say exactly, Philo, but I recognise it as a valid point of view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't agree with what you say exactly, Philo, but I recognise it as a valid point of view.

I know you don't agree. And that probably is due to the additional fact that even though they pumped me with a high dose of Marxism (and the usual run-about version of Ultra-Liberalism) in graduate school, at the time, I had already been innoculated against it all with even higher doses of Philosophy and of the Biblical Prophetic Tradition ...

So, I'm not surpised if only a few people agree with me on much of anything really. That's ok. I realize our not being able to see eye to eye is a part of the human existential condition. It is what it is.

The Bible also is what it is, and people will just have to deal with it. Unfortunately, some people don't want to, and some of those people who don't want to are atheists ... and some of them are Christians.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just for the record, I still don't report anyone for infractions............even though it seems some folks report me for this or that triviality.

My motto is "Retort, don't Report!!!"

Ditto.

It's kind of a "freedom of speech" thing with me. It must be that SJW Marxist activism "shtuff" they pumped me full of during my Master's ... ....

For me, I don't like letting people off the hook, and that's what reporting does. All of their offensive posts get deleted and they don't look like such a bad guy anymore. A few years back someone was outright trying to pick a fight with me. We went back and forth for about 20 posts before he gave up. The next day he had edited all of his posts to say "." and explained that he had gotten drunk and regretted it. I could have reported, it was way over the line, and if I had then the whole exchange would have been deleted by the mods, but I didn't so his nonsense lives on to this day contained in quote blocks within my responses.

So, when threads go missing, don't be pointing fingers at me!

Have you ever seen a thread actually get outright deleted before? That's a new one for me.

 

[Paulomycin]

I haven't done that. I asked you to show me laws, you refused to show me anything because you can't.

The laws are already there, you're eisegetically misinterpreting them as license to rape.