Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > General Chit Chat About Atheism

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 8th April 2016, 09:48 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,273
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

^ You didn't prove or disprove anything. You pointed out some discrepancies in a book.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 8th April 2016, 09:51 PM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,595
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

David, is that you?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 8th April 2016, 10:01 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,273
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Who's David? The little fella who slew Goliath?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 8th April 2016, 10:31 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
142857 said View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 8th April 2016, 10:33 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
142857 said View Post
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.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 8th April 2016 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 8th April 2016, 10:45 PM
Sendraks's Avatar
Sendraks Sendraks is offline
Buffoon
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 532
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

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.
__________________
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - which is true. Because if it did, it would stop" - Dara O'Briain
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 9th April 2016, 02:08 AM
THWOTH's Avatar
THWOTH THWOTH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Cotswolds, UK
Posts: 688
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Ernie said View Post
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)?
__________________
...never eat your own nose...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 9th April 2016, 07:52 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Sendraks said View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 9th April 2016, 08:03 AM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,595
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

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.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Like Spearthrower, DanDare liked this post
  #30  
Old 1st October 2017, 06:08 PM
Ernie's Avatar
Ernie Ernie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 147
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
hackenslash said View Post
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 clichťd 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
__________________
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - from Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.