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

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 18th March 2016, 02:33 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,511
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

I did try to read the article. But my eyes glazed over after a couple of paras.

I am out of practice for reading scholarly philosophy articles (by a couple of decades)

I will try again.

My view is, again, pretty much what Dan Dare said. Antony Flew, for example, is a philosopher who attempted to prove the non-existence of god from the same sorts of word-games as theists do. No wonder his atheism was vulnerable to (weak) purely logical attack.
__________________
If you need to wonder what would drive somebody to instruct lawyers, you may already be close to trouble.
- the Hircine Reverend
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 7th April 2016, 06:52 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?

It is not possible to either prove or disprove either the existence, or non existence, of figments of imagination.

Ernie
__________________
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - from Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 7th April 2016, 07:23 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: 1,587
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Not actually true. It depends entirely on whether and how well it's been defined. The preposterous entity in the hokey blurble, for example, is trivial to disprove.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 7th April 2016, 08:17 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?

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
__________________
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - from Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 7th April 2016, 08:45 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?

Correction - the Google search should be mental illness christianity demons.

Sorry - I have had a very big day!

Ernie
__________________
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - from Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 7th April 2016, 09:54 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: 1,587
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.
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.
__________________


Last edited by hackenslash; 7th April 2016 at 09:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Like yowie liked this post
Dislike Ernie disliked this post
  #17  
Old 7th April 2016, 11:36 PM
Sendraks's Avatar
Sendraks Sendraks is offline
Buffoon
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 519
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

The existence of God provides no answers. As I've said elsewhere, God has zero explanatory power and establishing that a God exists still leaves all the questions relating to God unanswered.
__________________
"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
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #18  
Old 8th April 2016, 09:22 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,227
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.
That is just a takedown of someone who insists on a literal interpretation of the bible. "There are inconsistencies therefore God doesn't exist" is irrelevant to the majority of Christians who are not literalists. In fact only 40% of Americans are young Earth creationists, meaning that the majority of Christians already do not insist that the Bible is literally true in every sense, and yet they believe in Jesus anyway.

Doesn't really justify your snarky attitude towards Ernie though. Not even relevant to what he posted in fact.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 8th April 2016, 09:27 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,227
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 8th April 2016, 09:38 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: 1,587
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
142857 said View Post
That is just a takedown of someone who insists on a literal interpretation of the bible. "There are inconsistencies therefore God doesn't exist" is irrelevant to the majority of Christians who are not literalists. In fact only 40% of Americans are young Earth creationists, meaning that the majority of Christians already do not insist that the Bible is literally true in every sense, and yet they believe in Jesus anyway.
That's a really quite spectacular missing of the point. Impressive, in fact.

The point is that this is a conception of an imaginary entity, and I disproved its existence, something that Ernie said wasn't possible. Whether there are christians who don't agree with that conception is entirely irrelevant and, indeed, even if there are zero christians whose conception of deity correlates to what I posted, it still constitutes a falsification of the assertion that you can't disprove the existence of imaginary entities.

Quote:
Doesn't really justify your snarky attitude towards Ernie though.
When somebody happens along for whom your opinion of my tone has some value, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it. In any event, I displayed no attitude toward Ernie, only toward what he said.

Quote:
Not even relevant to what he posted in fact.
Except insofar as it categorically falsified his assertion, you mean?
__________________

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 08:47 PM.


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.