First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Atheism is wrong, Theism is also wrong
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

I don't understand how an epistemology that doesn't at minimum acknowledge the validity of logic works.


I apologize, I did write my previous post at 2 in the morning and may not have been thinking completely coherently. Let me see if I can do a better job now.

1. Either we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
2. If we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, the we must have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
3. We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
4. Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.


1. P or ~P
2. P => Q
3. ~Q
4. Therefore, ~P


Do we agree on this point?
6301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


KonyTheKing wrote:


excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Does this mean because I can't prove God doesn't exist that I have to believe in God? I don't really understand the point of this post.



It means if you can't prove God doesn't exist then you have to acknowledge the possibility, however improbable, of his existence.


Well obviously, Atheism doesn't mean that you can 100% disprove God exists I'm not sure where you got this information?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

KonyTheKing wrote:

Well obviously, Atheism doesn't mean that you can 100% disprove God exists I'm not sure where you got this information?


Sure enough there are many forms of atheism, some religions are even atheistic. However in this thread I'm strictly talking about the faction of atheism that believes there is a 0% chance of God's existence.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

evilotakuneko wrote:

Faith is an unfounded assertion held without reason and defended against all reason.

I do not have faith. I do not require faith to not believe in $deity. I do not require faith to say $deity does not exist. I can prove it.

Nor do I require faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that my car will start in the morning, or that I will remain bound to the earth by gravity. I have good reasons to believe these, overwhelming evidence that the status quo will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. I don't know these things absolutely, it's true, but that does not mean faith is required.

Faith is only required by confidence men in robes and collars asking for money.


Tell me then, what overwhelming evidence do you have that you are not a brain in a vat, and that all the things you experience is just data fed directly to your brain? Protip, you don't.

Hence, faith.



MarkyD73 wrote:

It means if you can't prove God doesn't exist then you have to acknowledge the possibility, however improbable, of his existence.

So should I consider the possibility that Zeus, Shiva or Odin exist?


Yes, you should probably also consider them all having a dance party with the flying spaghetti monster. Don't tell anyone though, they might think you're crazy.
18602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
Apatheism is right.
65552 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Baka Zone
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
I believe in rainbows wholeheartedly. Are you telling me my whole life was a lie?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

EatsRainbows wrote:

I believe in rainbows wholeheartedly. Are you telling me my whole life was a lie?


Could be a lie, or could be not a lie. However one has a much higher probability than the other.
65552 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Baka Zone
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:

Could be a lie, or could be not a lie. However one has a much higher probability than the other.


You're taking me so seriously.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

EatsRainbows wrote:

You're taking me so seriously.


I'm really not but I can see where you would get that impression. Wait no, let me rephrase that.

I could be or I could not be, however one has a much higher probability than the other.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

I don't understand how an epistemology that doesn't at minimum acknowledge the validity of logic works.


I apologize, I did write my previous post at 2 in the morning and may not have been thinking completely coherently. Let me see if I can do a better job now.

1. Either we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
2. If we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, the we must have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
3. We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.
4. Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.


1. P or ~P
2. P => Q
3. ~Q
4. Therefore, ~P


Do we agree on this point?


Thank you for laying this out properly, in a basic structural form that does assume logical argument still holds. As I mentioned, if we throw out logic entirely then I'd have no idea how to proceed.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your three starting premises (to different degrees), so I of course disagree with your conclusion. But at least I do agree that *IF* I were to accept the premises, I'd accept your conclusion. So again, at least now the structure of your argument is in a form that I can understand.

On premise 1... I believe that if we want to talk about 'the validity of the idea of god' either now, or in the future, you still have to explain coherently what you mean by 'the idea of god'. As your definition of omnipotence showed, I'm not sure that such an idea is coherent. On that I'd argue that 'the validity of the idea of god' ceases to become relevant since the 'idea of god' itself isn't understood, regardless of its associated 'truth' or 'validity' value.

P or !P is usually a good starting place, but the sentence "Either quamalirel imoal rastamui or or not quamalirel imoal rastamui" doesn't make a lot of sense to me." Again, if I don't know what the sentence is supposed to mean, "P or !P" when P isn't defined makes any further discussion irrelevant.

2) If we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, the we must have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.

This seems a pointless statement of a tautology. Your argument was identical without it.

1) P or !P
2) !P
3) Therefore, !P.

1) "Either we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."
2) "We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."
3) "Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."

It's a premise that doesn't yield anything to the structure of your argument. So I'll now address your 3'rd premise as "premise 2", ignoring the tautology.

So, premise 2 seems impossible to justify as well unless you explain what you mean by the "idea of god". Maybe we CAN 'determine the validity of the idea of god', because if god is defined as logically contradictory, then like "there is no highest integer" you could say "there is no god". Accepting from the outset that 'we can't determine the validity' is once again meaningless if the 'idea of god' is left vague. If the idea is inherently contradictory, we HAVE determined that the 'idea' is not valid.

Unless, of course, you abandon the same logic that allows you to reach your conclusion.

"Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."

Given you asserted this as a premise, then yes it logically follows if you accept the premise. I just don't know how to evaluate the premise if you leave the premise P ill-defined.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:
Thank you for laying this out properly, in a basic structural form that does assume logical argument still holds. As I mentioned, if we throw out logic entirely then I'd have no idea how to proceed.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your three starting premises (to different degrees), so I of course disagree with your conclusion. But at least I do agree that *IF* I were to accept the premises, I'd accept your conclusion. So again, at least now the structure of your argument is in a form that I can understand.

On premise 1... I believe that if we want to talk about 'the validity of the idea of god' either now, or in the future, you still have to explain coherently what you mean by 'the idea of god'. As your definition of omnipotence showed, I'm not sure that such an idea is coherent. On that I'd argue that 'the validity of the idea of god' ceases to become relevant since the 'idea of god' itself isn't understood, regardless of its associated 'truth' or 'validity' value.

P or !P is usually a good starting place, but the sentence "Either quamalirel imoal rastamui or or not quamalirel imoal rastamui" doesn't make a lot of sense to me." Again, if I don't know what the sentence is supposed to mean, "P or !P" when P isn't defined makes any further discussion irrelevant.

2) If we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, the we must have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now.

This seems a pointless statement of a tautology. Your argument was identical without it.

1) P or !P
2) !P
3) Therefore, !P.

1) "Either we can accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."
2) "We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."
3) "Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."

It's a premise that doesn't yield anything to the structure of your argument. So I'll now address your 3'rd premise as "premise 2", ignoring the tautology.

So, premise 2 seems impossible to justify as well unless you explain what you mean by the "idea of god". Maybe we CAN 'determine the validity of the idea of god', because if god is defined as logically contradictory, then like "there is no highest integer" you could say "there is no god". Accepting from the outset that 'we can't determine the validity' is once again meaningless if the 'idea of god' is left vague. If the idea is inherently contradictory, we HAVE determined that the 'idea' is not valid.

Unless, of course, you abandon the same logic that allows you to reach your conclusion.

"Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the idea of God now."

Given you asserted this as a premise, then yes it logically follows if you accept the premise. I just don't know how to evaluate the premise if you leave the premise P ill-defined.


There is actually a reason why I had a premise two, but discussion regarding it would derail the current argument. So I will just use the form you provided and change a few things to hopefully meet your standards.

1) "Either we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
2) "We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
3) "Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."

The truth value of premise one is irrelevant in this particular argument, as the only purpose it serves is to show two separate possibilities. You can refute it as much as you can refute P or ~P. Even if the words have no meaning, there are still only two possibilities; P, or not P. If you can think of a third possibility then I will accept your refusal of premise one. Then I will add it to premise one and we can play a game of reduction.

Premise two is where the real dichotomy arises. It makes logical sense to me that one of the requirements to reliably validify something is that something must be well defined. By being ill-defined, there is inherently no reliable way to determine its validity. I would say that the truth of premise two is self-evident. Please note that although I did not seek to define the idea of God, I set an accurate time-frame and defined the nature of the idea of God; It is ill-defined. If you seek to refute premise two, please tell me how it is possible to accurately determine the validity of an ill-defined idea.

If you cannot refute P1 and P2, the conclusion naturally follows.

PS: You know I think this is actually really funny. We're both essentially saying there is no way to know if God exists. You're saying it's because he's ill-defined so you can't plug him into one of your logical equations. I'm saying it's because we currently don't know enough. Think about it, we're basically both saying we currently don't know enough. However since the discussion is about God and not some bland thing that nobody cares about, we're still arguing about it even though we are both basically saying the same thing with different words. Don't stop though, this is fun. Go on, tell me how the current version of my argument is faulty.

PSS: the postscript is a sidebar, if you wish to address it then address it in the postscript of your reply.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:
There is actually a reason why I had a premise two, but discussion regarding it would derail the current argument. So I will just use the form you provided and change a few things to hopefully meet your standards.

1) "Either we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now, or we cannot accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
2) "We do not have a reliable way to accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
3) "Therefore, we cannot accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."

The truth value of premise one is irrelevant in this particular argument, as the only purpose it serves is to show two separate possibilities. You can refute it as much as you can refute P or ~P. Even if the words have no meaning, there are still only two possibilities; P, or not P. If you can think of a third possibility then I will accept your refusal of premise one. Then I will add it to premise one and we can play a game of reduction.


"separate two possibilities", see that's where it fails. I've yet to see how "P" is a possibility if it's not defined. I don't accept the argument that "any premise not defined is still a premise". I'm willing to accept the logical truth of P or !P being a perfectly acceptable starting premise, but to say 'the premise is possible' is a very strong declaration. If the premise is logically contradictory, then it is not 'possible'.

Consider P=Q&!Q.

That is, we define P as having a contradiction.

P || !P is false if both P and !P are false. But if !P then !P is true, so P||!P=T. If P is true then P || !P is true. That makes it seem like P || !P always evaluates as true. But what happens if we replace it with our contradiction?

Q&!Q || Q&!Q. Well since Q and !Q is a contradiction (If Q then !!Q, so Q &!Q is false), it evaluates as false, Q and !Q is false, and Q and !Q is false, so the entire statement is false.

Basically, if your premise is contradictory, then your "P or !P" actually IS false. For the or statement to be valid, you really must make sure your premise isn't contradictory.


Premise two is where the real dichotomy arises. It makes logical sense to me that one of the requirements to reliably validify something is that something must be well defined. By being ill-defined, there is inherently no reliable way to determine its validity.


Ceding a concept as ill defined also seems to be ceding any use for the word. How can one have 'faith' or 'believe' in something that is ill defined? What do we mean to say if we don't define our words?

I know that people use the word 'god'. I know people use the word 'coffee'. If I'd never heard the word I could ask someone "what is coffee" and they'd tell me "a beverage made from roasted beans with water filtered through their grinds".

If I didn't know any of those words I could be taught them as well, just as we learn any language as toddlers. I've just never heard a definition for the word 'god' that has been anything but contradictory and thus impossible. A concept that is contradictory is logically impossible, and thus I say it doesn't exist because again, contradictions are used to show things do not exist.

I know people *can* believe in contradictory things at once. Cognitive dissonance is literally that. But if 'god' is another word for cognitive dissonance then it really doesn't have the connotation theists believe it to have.

You might argue 'well maybe there will come a coherent definition of god that we can begin to question the truth value of' but I see little reason to believe this to be true, and any definition from any theist I've encountered has been basically wrong from the outset because of things like inherent contradictions in 'omnipotence'.

It seems a common refrain that 'god must be beyond logic' but that appears to be admitting 'god can be contradictory' which is another way of saying 'god is impossible'.


I would say that the truth of premise two is self-evident. Please note that although I did not seek to define the idea of God, I set an accurate time-frame and defined the nature of the idea of God; It is ill-defined. If you seek to refute premise two, please tell me how it is possible to accurately determine the validity of an ill-defined idea.


By asking the question of 'validity' in the first place, you're assuming the idea is well defined. You're right it's not possible to 'determine the validity of an ill-defined idea' because if an 'ill-defined idea' happens to have a contradiction, then it is wrong, but if it doesn't, it is a possibility. Given it hasn't been defined, we can't begin to ask "is it valid or not".

The thing is, questions of 'does god exist' seldom include what is meant by 'god'. Saying "you can't prove it one way or another" misses the point of WHY you can't, because the person talking about 'god' hasn't defined what they mean. If they define what they mean by the idea of 'god', you actually CAN go about trying to 'determine the validity'.

People are free to have their own definitions, and any definition I've ever come across has simply been wrong by logical contradictions, or tautologies that render the word a synonym to "reality" and somewhat useless by my lexicon.

I don't play the 'god might exist' game because those who say 'god might exist' tend to use the word 'god' in a way that 'no, god, as you describe to me, cannot exist'.


If you cannot refute P1 and P2, the conclusion naturally follows.


Well P1 is trivially easy to refute the necessary truth of.

P || !P.
P=Q&!Q
Q&!Q||Q&!Q
Therefore !(P||!P)

Basically, if "we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now" contains a contradiction, the premise is false.

So now we need to really hone in on what we mean by 'defined' or 'ill-defined'.

For convenience, in context of the discussion, if something is 'defined' it is 'a concept agreed upon by the participants in the logical argument'.

That is, we both have a shared understanding of what the word referred to means, in the same way we both understand what "fire truck" represents. We share a similar definition in our vocabulary. "Ill-defined" is then an arbitrary concept, whose meaning can be made to be anything without agreement". They could, then, contain contradictions.

For this, you'd challenge "But ill-defined concepts aren't necessarily contradictions, so saying P=Q&!Q is false, what's the contradiction"?

The problem is that by containing contradictions, and the lack of definition to distinguish between them, any ill-defined concept with a contradiction is literally equivalent to an ill-defined concept without a contradiction, they are by definition indistinguishable until you define your ill-defined concept. The more vague, the less distinguishable the concept.

"Castamuri plutam solpa resta". That conveys the same information as "imura pimmare omakpolas rambuka", or any other iteration or any other collection of random syllables or letters.

However the sentence "My house is on fire, call the fire department" is not equivalent to "Help, I'm having a heart attack".

If a word isn't defined, I'm free to define it with a contradiction. It's thus simply false. If it isn't being used to communicate an idea, if it's a random collection of syllables, I don't bother considering it 'true or false' but if someone asserts that such a thing exists then it mandates that they have a definition to begin talking about 'existence' in the first place.

"Plutash refers to something that is both made entirely of atoms and doesn't contain a single atom".

Now it's more defined than a random collection of syllables, but still vague, with its 'something'. Yet it also contains within it a contradiction, and so, is false, "plutash" really doesn't refer to ANYTHING because it is impossible to exist, as it is logically contradictory.

If we want to communicate, we have to offer definitions. If we want to talk about existence, or 'validity', the discussion must FIRST centre around the premises and definitions of our words.

We can prove "god" doesn't exist, we can "prove" god does exist. At least, if you're willing to accept some pragmatic standard as 'proof' of existence, say "prove bats exist". "I define god to be another word for human, we've proven humans exist, thus god exists".

If a person's definition of 'god' however is 'fish' then do we call that person a 'theist'? Is that really what people are referring to when they say 'I believe in god'?

If the word isn't defined it's silly to discuss 'belief' in it. Any description of 'god' ever put forth to me still, has been wrong well before I even need to go looking for 'evidence' or 'proof' since it's easy to prove wrong by contradiction.

I find it hard to call myself an agnostic. What am I 'agnostic' to? I'm certainly not a person who 'believes in god', thus 'a-theist', because I have no useful definition of the word 'god' and can't believe in something that has always been described to me as contradictory.

Maybe you can get me to cede "you're agnostic towards the possibility of a coherent definition of the word god being provided that you can believe in". Yeah, if the word 'god' comes to refer to be a synonym for salmon, it'd be a definition I can certainly believe in.

I don't think theists on mass worship salmon... but it'd be pretty funny if they did.


PS: You know I think this is actually really funny. We're both essentially saying there is no way to know if God exists. You're saying it's because he's ill-defined so you can't plug him into one of your logical equations.


I'm going further than that. I'm stating that it is the responsibility of people talking about if "god exists" to define what they mean by that word, and CERTAINLY should be the responsibility of theists to describe whatever the hell they mean by it. If words aren't defined and shared then communication isn't happening.


I'm saying it's because we currently don't know enough.


I'm saying it's because people lack the introspection to think about what they really mean, and are happy to refuse to admit the cognitive dissonance associated with the concept of 'god.'


Think about it, we're basically both saying we currently don't know enough.


We know enough to state that any description of god provided is wrong. "Omnipotence" takes care of that well. Further I'd go so far to say that the concept that the word 'god' refers to HAS to be impossible, and thus, not exist.

Any god that theists tend to believe in has the potential to do logically contradictory things. You said so yourself when you tried to define 'god'. That 'god as a necessary being' I cited explains how god is defined to 'must' exist, but that itself leads to contradictions. If god is defined to HAVE to exist, you get into a whole host of contradictions, but yet no definition of god that I think theists use can be void of these types of contradictions to still be god. After all god must do the impossible to really be god.

Which on logical grounds *is impossible*. If I accept logical contradictions from the start, I am throwing out the rules of logic entirely.

As I stated before, I don't know how an epistemology without logic actually works.

If the argument is 'god, defined to be any mammal, exists", you find no challenge from me, except I think you'll find it challenging to get that definition to catch on.


However since the discussion is about God and not some bland thing that nobody cares about, we're still arguing about it even though we are both basically saying the same thing with different words. Don't stop though, this is fun. Go on, tell me how the current version of my argument is faulty.

PSS: the postscript is a sidebar, if you wish to address it then address it in the postscript of your reply.



The postscript isn't really a sidebar though, since it addresses how use of the word 'god' does seem to refer to something that is impossible to exist.

If your argument is "god might really refer to pigs" then even still I'd disagree, since you seem to state syllables have intrinsic meaning but they don't, they have agreed upon meaning. "If the word god comes to commonly refer to pigs" then I will believe that the word "god" is strongly defined enough to refer to something I can believe in.

That's a very different definition from that presented by any theist and I hardly find it useful saying "I am agnostic towards definition changes of the word god to commonly refer to pigs".

"You can't prove god doesn't or doesn't exist" skips the real issue; "yes I can, if you just tell me what you mean by the word 'god'."

It's a cheap ploy to say "well we can't define god yet" because if they don't have a definition, what in the hell are they believing in? I think theists do have a definition, it's just inherently contradictory and they keep wanting to gloss over that aspect.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:
Well P1 is trivially easy to refute the necessary truth of.

P || !P.
P=Q&!Q
Q&!Q||Q&!Q
Therefore !(P||!P)

Basically, if "we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now" contains a contradiction, the premise is false.

So now we need to really hone in on what we mean by 'defined' or 'ill-defined'.

For convenience, in context of the discussion, if something is 'defined' it is 'a concept agreed upon by the participants in the logical argument'.

That is, we both have a shared understanding of what the word referred to means, in the same way we both understand what "fire truck" represents. We share a similar definition in our vocabulary. "Ill-defined" is then an arbitrary concept, whose meaning can be made to be anything without agreement". They could, then, contain contradictions.


No.
P = "we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
Q = "God is a contradiction."

This is how you're currently trying to refute P1, but you're not addressing P, you're address a part of P which is a Fallacy of division. As you have structured it, P != Q. So your form of P = Q & ~Q will never happen.

An ill-defined idea doesn't make it necessarily BOTH contradictory and non-contradictory. An ill-defined idea is contradictory OR non-contradictory. The correct form would be P & (Q v ~Q). That's not really saying much is it?

Try again.



For this, you'd challenge "But ill-defined concepts aren't necessarily contradictions, so saying P=Q&!Q is false, what's the contradiction"?

The problem is that by containing contradictions, and the lack of definition to distinguish between them, any ill-defined concept with a contradiction is literally equivalent to an ill-defined concept without a contradiction, they are by definition indistinguishable until you define your ill-defined concept. The more vague, the less distinguishable the concept.


Yes but P isn't an ill-defined concept. P is a statement regarding what we can currently do with an ill-defined concept. Its truth value has no reliance on what that ill-defined concept actually is. I could just as well say "We can do X or we cannot do X." You don't need to know what X is to tell me the form is correct, and that's all you can really say about it. Until I go ahead and define X = Q & ~Q, there is nothing more to be said.

I'm choosing to not define God yet, I'm leaving it ill-define for now just like I'm leaving X undefined. If you say "well I can't accept or refute a premise with parts of it undefined." Then how do you to accept any form of logical deduction? I can literally define any P or Q or X or whatever as A & ~A and refute it; or accept it. Basically at that point I can do whatever I want with it. Oh wait, this is a thing, it's called the principle of explosion. Now you're the one refusing to accept logic.



"Castamuri plutam solpa resta". That conveys the same information as "imura pimmare omakpolas rambuka", or any other iteration or any other collection of random syllables or letters.

However the sentence "My house is on fire, call the fire department" is not equivalent to "Help, I'm having a heart attack".

If a word isn't defined, I'm free to define it with a contradiction. It's thus simply false. If it isn't being used to communicate an idea, if it's a random collection of syllables, I don't bother considering it 'true or false' but if someone asserts that such a thing exists then it mandates that they have a definition to begin talking about 'existence' in the first place.

"Plutash refers to something that is both made entirely of atoms and doesn't contain a single atom".

Now it's more defined than a random collection of syllables, but still vague, with its 'something'. Yet it also contains within it a contradiction, and so, is false, "plutash" really doesn't refer to ANYTHING because it is impossible to exist, as it is logically contradictory.

If we want to communicate, we have to offer definitions. If we want to talk about existence, or 'validity', the discussion must FIRST centre around the premises and definitions of our words.

We can prove "god" doesn't exist, we can "prove" god does exist. At least, if you're willing to accept some pragmatic standard as 'proof' of existence, say "prove bats exist". "I define god to be another word for human, we've proven humans exist, thus god exists".

If a person's definition of 'god' however is 'fish' then do we call that person a 'theist'? Is that really what people are referring to when they say 'I believe in god'?

If the word isn't defined it's silly to discuss 'belief' in it. Any description of 'god' ever put forth to me still, has been wrong well before I even need to go looking for 'evidence' or 'proof' since it's easy to prove wrong by contradiction.

I find it hard to call myself an agnostic. What am I 'agnostic' to? I'm certainly not a person who 'believes in god', thus 'a-theist', because I have no useful definition of the word 'god' and can't believe in something that has always been described to me as contradictory.

Maybe you can get me to cede "you're agnostic towards the possibility of a coherent definition of the word god being provided that you can believe in". Yeah, if the word 'god' comes to refer to be a synonym for salmon, it'd be a definition I can certainly believe in.

I don't think theists on mass worship salmon... but it'd be pretty funny if they did.

I'm going further than that. I'm stating that it is the responsibility of people talking about if "god exists" to define what they mean by that word, and CERTAINLY should be the responsibility of theists to describe whatever the hell they mean by it. If words aren't defined and shared then communication isn't happening.


You're missing the point. I'm not saying whether God exists or not. I'm positing two possibilities about what we can do with an ill-defined idea. Either we can validate it right now or we cant. Can you validate an ill-defined idea right now? Any excuse for why you can't, is still, "you can't".



"You can't prove god doesn't or doesn't exist" skips the real issue; "yes I can, if you just tell me what you mean by the word 'god'."

It's a cheap ploy to say "well we can't define god yet" because if they don't have a definition, what in the hell are they believing in? I think theists do have a definition, it's just inherently contradictory and they keep wanting to gloss over that aspect.


God is not currently the focus of my argument, an ill-defined idea is. I have not yet tried, in the current argument, to affirm or deny the existence of God. So far I have only done a logical deduction on what we can do with an ill-defined idea.

I don't care right now what theists have for their definition of God. The only thing I care about right now is whether we can or cannot validify an ill-defined idea. Don't drag anything else into the discussion, deal with that first. Hopefully underlining, italicizing and bolding that word will help draw attention to it.

13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

excalion wrote:


evilotakuneko wrote:

Faith is an unfounded assertion held without reason and defended against all reason.

I do not have faith. I do not require faith to not believe in $deity. I do not require faith to say $deity does not exist. I can prove it.

Nor do I require faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that my car will start in the morning, or that I will remain bound to the earth by gravity. I have good reasons to believe these, overwhelming evidence that the status quo will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. I don't know these things absolutely, it's true, but that does not mean faith is required.

Faith is only required by confidence men in robes and collars asking for money.


Tell me then, what overwhelming evidence do you have that you are not a brain in a vat, and that all the things you experience is just data fed directly to your brain? Protip, you don't.

Hence, faith.

.


Irrelevant. As Popeye would say, I yam what I yam and that's all I yam. Even if what I am and all around me is a lie cooked up by the matrix, that lie is the only thing relevant to this world. I can still learn to a reasonable degree of certainty the rules and attributes of said world.

In other words, so what?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

evilotakuneko wrote:


excalion wrote:


evilotakuneko wrote:

Faith is an unfounded assertion held without reason and defended against all reason.

I do not have faith. I do not require faith to not believe in $deity. I do not require faith to say $deity does not exist. I can prove it.

Nor do I require faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that my car will start in the morning, or that I will remain bound to the earth by gravity. I have good reasons to believe these, overwhelming evidence that the status quo will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. I don't know these things absolutely, it's true, but that does not mean faith is required.

Faith is only required by confidence men in robes and collars asking for money.


Tell me then, what overwhelming evidence do you have that you are not a brain in a vat, and that all the things you experience is just data fed directly to your brain? Protip, you don't.

Hence, faith.

.


Irrelevant. As Popeye would say, I yam what I yam and that's all I yam. Even if what I am and all around me is a lie cooked up by the matrix, that lie is the only thing relevant to this world. I can still learn to a reasonable degree of certainty the rules and attributes of said world.

In other words, so what?


If you accept that you only understand the rules within this world and that another world may exist beyond, you cannot hope to conclude about the nature of the world beyond nor conclude that the world beyond has the same rules as within this world. Anything may exist in the world beyond, including a god.

If you believe that the world you know now is the only world, you have no definitive proof and must rely on faith. The degree of faith relied upon depends on how strongly you believe that the current knowable world is the only world.

Just because you announce something as irrelevant doesn't magically make it so. Just as you may claim that anything existing in the world beyond has nothing to do with you, but it doesn't magically make them not exist. Also, you can't be sure that it has nothing to do with you because you can't draw any conclusions about the world beyond without knowing anything about it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.