Question for atheists. . .

[Paulomycin]

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

I'll have to disagree with Halbhh here. Looks like naive fideism to me. You only need faith (trust) for salvation. The Bible never says you need faith (trust or belief without evidence) simply to know God exists.

 

[Paulomycin]

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

Clear proof of God in nature (outside of scripture) would validate Paul's claim in Romans 1:18-20.

 

[Moral Orel]

lol. Because you said so?

Because logic, like science, has strict specific definitions. Words aren't used colloquially.

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.

Tautological is circular and therefore not a good reason. And I've said all along that it seems to work, that's why we accept them, not because there is a good reason they're true.

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

No, I'm doubting you can establish that as a contingent thing.

Don't forget: Only objective corrections count.

Nothing of value here...

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?

So you don't even know what the Big Bang Theory is... Golly. Don't know what you want me to say about this part then.

^ 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.

It's a law in Buddhism, not a "law of logic" which doesn't exist.

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

Too scared to challenge this one, got it.

With no specifics. So why worry?

Nothing of value here...

So you're saying you hate historical evidence?

Nope.

You were too vague to begin with. Is this about Habermas' Minimal Facts argument?

Nope.

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.

Um, "The world is flat" is a positive claim.

Not for every single human being universally, no.

Yep, I can. Let's see if you can agree to some very basic principles or if you're going to fight me every step of the way just to be a contrarian. Would you agree that there's a difference between something being logically possible and actually possible? For instance, it's logically possible that it could rain literal cats and dogs tomorrow. There's no logical contradiction with animals falling from the sky. But it isn't actually possible because that isn't how weather works, is it? Can we agree to that distinction?

 

[Moral Orel]

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

I know what you're looking for, I already called you on it in post 34.

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

Yeah, and you said I'm equivocating objective logic. There needs to be two things for equivocation to occur. You mentioned objective logic, what's the other thing?

But how would you know that?

Because I can read your mind! OOOooooOOOOoooOOOOoooOOoooh!

That's not what I'm asking for.

Yes it is. You're asking for specific references to other people's arguments against the arguments that you mentioned which are also other people's arguments.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

It isn't fallacious to tell you what your motive is when I'm right about what your motive is.

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.

The freedom to concede with confidence is why you Gish Gallop. You Gish Gallopped as soon as you presented multiple arguments. And again, since I'm accurately describing your motives, it isn't fallacious.

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.

What do you mean "you people"?! Just kidding, I'm white, it's fine.

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

You can't concede something you didn't disagree with! If we both agree the sky is blue, I don't "concede" that fact to you. Only if I assert that it's green with pink polka dots, then you tell me it's blue, can I concede.

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

I'm trying to keep up the appearance that I'm defending your religion? Your comebacks could use some work, buddy.

 

[Larniavc]

Thus, they naturally conclude, "I can still force incredulous doubt upon this, therefore the argument must be wrong."

Or more accurately "I can still force doubt upon this, therefore the argument remains unsupported"

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Nah, you want to prove a negative.

It’s always nice when a new guy comes barrelling into the forum with a ‘smoking gun’ for why your particular god is real.

But really? “You can’t prove my god does not exist” is weak.

Really weak.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

There's nothing wrong with proving a negative. You can't disprove God's existence because as a concept He's too nebulous.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

It's what theists do. It's why they exist. Sure, you can be all offended, but it's really what they must do to remain a theist. Personal naivety must be maintained as the #1 priority. It's equivalent to their dogma. The slightest incredulity is truly shameful, or "sin," as it were.

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

 

[Moral Orel]

Clear proof of God in nature (outside of scripture) would validate Paul's claim in Romans 1:18-20.

Aww, shucks! There's no clear proof of God in nature, so Paul was wrong. What else was he wrong about?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nah, you want to prove a negative.

Motive fallacy noted.

It’s always nice when a new guy comes barrelling into the forum with a ‘smoking gun’ for why your particular god is real.

It's "guns," plural.

But really? “You can’t prove my god does not exist” is weak.

^ Strawman noted. I'm asking for the most popular objective refutations of the classical logic proofs in theism. It really has nothing to do with you personally. I'm asking for authors and philosophers who are not you.

 

[Paulomycin]

Or more accurately "I can still force doubt upon this, therefore the argument remains unsupported"

^ Also my point. Thanks.

 

[Paulomycin]

Because logic, like science, has strict specific definitions. Words aren't used colloquially.

Did you scroll down a bit?

Quote: In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful. “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect” is an example of an axiom.

I'm going with "self-evident." That's what a tautology is. And subjectively hating on them will never make them any less factual.

Tautological is circular and therefore not a good reason.

(a.) Because you say so, and (b.) because you obviously think infinite regress is the better option.

A true tautology is true in every possible interpretation. It's a final foundation of reasoning itself where you cannot rationally go any further. In the example I gave earlier, if you demand proof of law of identity, then you're being inconsistent with both logic as well as your own existence. In a word, you're being irrational.

No, I'm doubting you can establish that as a contingent thing.

It's essentially your contradictory claim that (paraphrasing), ". . .there is at least 1 contingent thing that never had a beginning." <-- I don't have to prove a negative.

Nothing of value here...

Not an objective dismissal. So it doesn't bother me.

So you don't even know what the Big Bang Theory is... Golly. Don't know what you want me to say about this part then.

I could quote someone who does:

"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

It's a law in Buddhism, not a "law of logic" which doesn't exist.

Yes it is. You can stop stalling now. I'm honestly surprised that you hate reason so much as to deny the existence of entire laws of logic.

Too scared to challenge this one, got it.

Credentials-shmredentials. The work earns the PhD. So show your work.

Nothing of value here...

Because you had no specifics.

Nope.

Nope.

Then Gary Habermas collated historical facts taken from secular (non-believing) scholarship that proves the Resurrection.

Um, "The world is flat" is a positive claim.

That's not the way they argue though. They feel they must first deconstruct prior belief in a round earth. Which, of course, is a negative claim.

Yep, I can. Let's see if you can agree to some very basic principles or if you're going to fight me every step of the way just to be a contrarian.

No, I fight you every step of the way because you're an atheist. Any sign of backing down is seen as a "gotcha." I've already seen it here numerous times. I'm not allowed to ignore any petty detail. Okay, so I won't.

Would you agree that there's a difference between something being logically possible and actually possible?

Yes. But only inductively. Inductive reason is the logic of possibility. Deduction isn't. Only deduction leads to absolute certainty. You must agree that there is a (huge) difference between inductive logic and deductive logic. I usually favor the latter over the former. Usually. There's only one case where I appeal to induction.

Yeah, and you said I'm equivocating objective logic. There needs to be two things for equivocation to occur. You mentioned objective logic, what's the other thing?

Inductive vs. deductive logic. See above. Induction suffers from what is known in classical logic as "The Problem of Induction." It's unsolvable and renders inductive logic always subject to doubt.

Because I can read your mind! OOOooooOOOOoooOOOOoooOOoooh!

But no named fallacies. Good to know. Man, I wish you could read my mind. It'd make things a lot easier.

Yes it is. You're asking for specific references to other people's arguments against the arguments that you mentioned which are also other people's arguments.

Correct! Problem?

It isn't fallacious to tell you what your motive is when I'm right about what your motive is.

Appeal to motive is the actual name of a logical fallacy. You assume my motive is actually worse than it really is.

The freedom to concede with confidence is why you Gish Gallop. You Gish Gallopped as soon as you presented multiple arguments.

- But it's okay when you do it? lol.
- Technically speaking, you insisted that we continue to quibble about the 1st premise of Kalam, so in all honesty, you didn't accept my concession, and you're claiming that you can have a beginning that is not contingent. <-- Which is your burden of proof, BTW.

I'm trying to keep up the appearance that I'm defending your religion? Your comebacks could use some work, buddy.

You are, as you said, tripping all over yourself trying to explain it.

Listen, do you want to call it a wash and start over? You haven't contributed to the OP at all. How about it? Or would you rather continue the petty nit-picks?

It's what theists do. It's why they exist.

Which ones? Reminder: I'm not a fideist.

Aww, shucks! There's no clear proof of God in nature, so Paul was wrong.

Because you magically said so?

 

[Larniavc]

I'm asking for authors and philosophers who are not you.

Then use Google.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then use Google.

Google only goes so far. I was hoping atheists would be more informed.

 

[PloverWing]

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.

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?

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.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying in post #22. I thought you were saying that Gödel had proven the existence of God, and that computer scientists used that proven theorem in their work.

If you're only saying that Gödel's proof has been shown to be valid by automated theorem-proving systems, but you're not claiming that it constitutes a sound proof of God's existence from agreed-upon axioms, then we have no quarrel.

 

[Freodin]

The law of causality is not "everything requires a cause," but rather, "Every effect requires an antecedent cause."

Every thing in the universe is an effect.

"God" is never defined as a contingent effect (being a Prime Mover).

Ta-daaa!

But neither is the universe itself. So?

See... that is where this "proof" fails. It defines its premise as the solution to its own problem.

 

[Moral Orel]

Did you scroll down a bit?

Quote: In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful. “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect” is an example of an axiom.

I'm going with "self-evident." That's what a tautology is. And subjectively hating on them will never make them any less factual.

I never said I hated axioms, I feel they're quite useful, I like them. I simply accept their limitations. But I'll call it a draw if you accept the "particularly useful" as pragmatic.

(a.) Because you say so, and (b.) because you obviously think infinite regress is the better option.

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

A true tautology is true in every possible interpretation.

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*

It's a final foundation of reasoning itself where you cannot rationally go any further. In the example I gave earlier, if you demand proof of law of identity, then you're being inconsistent with both logic as well as your own existence. In a word, you're being irrational.

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.

It's essentially your contradictory claim that (paraphrasing), ". . .there is at least 1 contingent thing that never had a beginning." <-- I don't have to prove a negative.

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

Not an objective dismissal. So it doesn't bother me.

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.

I could quote someone who does:

"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

"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.

Yes it is. You can stop stalling now. I'm honestly surprised that you hate reason so much as to deny the existence of entire laws of logic.

Oooh, close. Now can you cite an actual, technical, philosophical source? I can tell you've been looking, though. See? 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!

Credentials-shmredentials. The work earns the PhD. So show your work.

There's no material cause with creation ex nihilo.

Then Gary Habermas collated historical facts taken from secular (non-believing) scholarship that proves the Resurrection.

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

That's not the way they argue though. They feel they must first deconstruct prior belief in a round earth. Which, of course, is a negative claim.

No, they present evidence too.

Inductive vs. deductive logic. See above. Induction suffers from what is known in classical logic as "The Problem of Induction." It's unsolvable and renders inductive logic always subject to doubt.

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

Correct! Problem?

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

Appeal to motive is the actual name of a logical fallacy. You assume my motive is actually worse than it really is.

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

- But it's okay when you do it? lol.

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

- Technically speaking, you insisted that we continue to quibble about the 1st premise of Kalam, so in all honesty, you didn't accept my concession, and you're claiming that you can have a beginning that is not contingent. <-- Which is your burden of proof, BTW.

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.

You are, as you said, tripping all over yourself trying to explain it.

Listen, do you want to call it a wash and start over? You haven't contributed to the OP at all. How about it? Or would you rather continue the petty nit-picks?

Post an argument and I will refute it.

Yes. But only inductively. Inductive reason is the logic of possibility. Deduction isn't. Only deduction leads to absolute certainty. You must agree that there is a (huge) difference between inductive logic and deductive logic. I usually favor the latter over the former. Usually. There's only one case where I appeal to induction.

I agree! And that is a point I would have liked to make as well, so kudos! That will be important later.

So I can believe things are logically possible without believing they're actually possible. Sticking to my analogy, I don't know for certain that dogs and cats can't actually rain from the sky because I don't know that there isn't some thing that can cause such a thing.

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?

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. 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?

 

[Larniavc]

Google only goes so far. I was hoping atheists would be more informed.

Why? The majority of atheist are not studied in philosophy. I studied the philosophy of science at uni for a semester but that was about it.

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?

 

[Paulomycin]

But neither is the universe itself.

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.

"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