Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of God’s Existence Possible?

[142857]

^ You didn't prove or disprove anything. You pointed out some discrepancies in a book.

[hackenslash]

David, is that you?

[142857]

Who's David? The little fella who slew Goliath?

[Spearthrower]

Who's David? The little fella who slew Goliath?

He's referring to a David that claims to have slain Goliath in that post which everyone definitely knows about but which they can't seem to recollect and cannot be found!

Sorry, couldn't resist - it's a jab at David not you!

[Spearthrower]

Example:

Me: I believe that Chuck Norris exists

You: But this book says that Chuck Norris's tears can cure cancer. Since that is obviously not true then Chuck Norris does not exist.

Me: I don't believe that everything that is written about Chuck Norris is literally true, and yet I still believe that Chuck Norris exists.

You: That doesn't make you any less wrong.

Here's a more accurate explanation:

I claim entity X exists and is defined by Y set of attributes.

You show that Y set of attributes cannot exist - are contradictory/illogical - therefore entity X as defined cannot exist.

E.g. the immovable object and the irresistible force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresi..._force_paradox

A cosmic paradox. These qualities cannot coexist.

[Sendraks]

Indeed, as all the things attributed to X entity are demonstrated to not exist or be impossible, the things which get defined X entity get eroded away.

At which point you're left with none of the things that define X entity left intact and the basis as to why anyone would believe in X entity becomes increasingly obtuse.

[THWOTH]

I disagree. If something is a purely figment of the imagination its existence cannot be proved: and neither can it be disproved.

But can we get serious? We natter away at a time when "young earth" creationism is gaining strength in Australia. We live in times when mental illness is being "demonised" in Australia. Just try Googling "mental illness - Christian. Take a good look at the Christian "debate" on abortion.

I'll do a post on this tomorrow. Frankly, I believe we are spending too much time messing about at the edges!

To the barricades!

Ernie

So Ernie, that which can be imagined to exist has the possibility of existence, and that which can be imagined to exist without evidence cannot be said to not exist?

What can this tell us about anything (about any thing)?

[Spearthrower]

Indeed, as all the things attributed to X entity are demonstrated to not exist or be impossible, the things which get defined X entity get eroded away.

At which point you're left with none of the things that define X entity left intact and the basis as to why anyone would believe in X entity becomes increasingly obtuse.

I'd say it's even starker than that. If proposed entity X cannot have the characteristics which define it, then that entity cannot exist. It's not eroded, just disappears in a puff of logic!

[hackenslash]

Yes, but wait until his next encounter with a zebra crossing.

(RIP: Of all the writers of whom I'm fond that have left us - Hitchens (and some of you will recall what I said about him on his passing), Pratchett, Sagan, Feynman, and the list goes on... I still miss Doug the most.)

[Ernie]

Reality isn't massively concerned with your agreement or lack thereof. If an entity has been sufficiently defined and has been imbued with mutually exclusive and/or contradictory attributes, it's a fairly simple matter to disprove its existence with nothing more than a single law of classical logic. The law in question is the Law of Non-contradiction. In the propositional calculus, it can be stated simply thus.

¬(P, ¬P)

There are other formulations, but this one serves. It says, in natural language, not(P and not-P), in other words, the propositions P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time. So, what does this mean for well-defined entities? Let's take a look:

Best place to start is the deadly trilemma:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God"

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, and therefore does not exist.

Omnipotence: We'll avoid the usual clichéd arguments and just deal with an allegedly omnipotent entity that is foiled by iron chariots.

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, and therefore does not exist.

Omnibenevolent: This entity allegedly loves us all so much that he wants to see his son (himself) tortured to death for a sin that the perpetrator thereof had no idea he was committing.

Falls foul of the law of non-contradiction and the does not exist.

Omniscient: Can't count the number of legs on an insect and thinks that bats are birds, and that having your livestock shag next to different coloured sticks produces stripy offspring (we'll set aside the fact that omniscience is self-refuting; any entity described as omniscient does not exist).

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, therefore this entity does not exist.

Creator of all existence: The universe is literally all that exists. The word means 'that which is'. This entity, in order to exist, is contingent upon existence, and is therefore contingent upon the universe, thus cannot be the creator of all existence.

This entity does not exist.

I'd be happy to go into more detail in the above.

There you go, 30,000 gods refuted in one post.

Next mission: World peace!

Whether or not you agree, this is demonstrable and, as I said, trivial, toi anybody who's given the matter a modicum of thought, as opposed to accepting the wibble of others.

It's commonly accepted that you can't prove either a negative nor a non-existence postulate. Unfortunately, it's also wrong, because both operations are fairly straightforward. Indeed, proving the non-existence of imagined entities is something we al;l do on a daily basis, such as when you look out for the car prior to crossing the road.

Your statement is a truism and, like most truisms, isn't actually true. Feel free to disagree. It won't make it any less wrong.

From Ernie.


Dear all. Let it be recorded that this is the point at which I gave up involving myself with AFA. I came back to this after a time out, to see if there had been a correction. There hasn't.


The "proof" offered, I believe, is specious. Allegations of "wibble" are unsubstantiated (the thoughts I expressed were based upon those of Bertrand Russell).


Members may PM me if they know of web sites for non-religious folk that don't go on with this sort of crap. Really, there is far too much afflicting our society than to spend time responding to egoists.


Ernie