atheism is irrational

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,165

12.04.2021 09:05PM

Religious and spiritual experiences are neurologically similar to the euphoria of love and of drug-taking, a team of neuroscientists has concluded.
The team, led by a University of Utah neuroradiologist Jeffrey Anderson, found that in a group of 19 young Mormons, the same reward-based neural systems associated with drug-taking were activated when the individuals were “feeling the spirit”. Specifically, the nucleus accumbens was repeatedly activated, an area of the brain that is key to the circuit of reward and reinforcement.

The research may be the start of an intriguing line of study into religiously-motivated behaviours of all kinds. In an interview with CNN, Anderson pointed out it was first study to show the link with our brain’s reward system, and is a stepping stone to exploring all kinds of religiously-motivated behaviours.

10 days later

Topic's author

#302

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

12.15.2021 05:12PM

-->

@Double_R

you dont like my criteria for whether something is valid or repeatable, i get it. using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria. if you ask someone what happened outside of their body when they were dead, and all witnesses say it was accurate, that's evidence that they had an actual out of body experience. sometimes doctors verify that they were doing things that no patient could have known. when you consistently ask several different people, and they are consistently accurate, that's strong evidence they had out of body experiences actually. we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid. anyone can do these surveys and get the same results, so it's repeatable. i agree that there haven't been any strong examples (there are studies like this, but i question if they are accurate and can be done repeatedly) where under experiement someone reads something on paper that is impossible to have read unless they had out of body visions. but that just means it's not valid or repeatable under your criteria. but ask random people to close their eyes and guess at the things that happen and they will usually be way off. this is objectively evidence. even if it's just anecdotes, it's evidence. haven't you ever heard of anecdotal evidence? by definition, this is all evidence. it's completely irrational and idiotic to say it's not evidence. it's at least circumstantial evidence.

the fact that people die and experience afterlife stories is more than a tautology. if i go to south america and see penguins, that's evidence that there are penguins in south america. if someone dies and says they experienced the afterlife, that's evdience for the afterlife. this is more than a truism. it's going from point A to point B, being dead, having an afterlife experience.

you also confuse probable with possible.

-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability.

-it's possible scientists were mistaken when surveying people for out of body experiences, but given it's been done by so many scientis and anyone can do surveys themselves, it's not probable.

"But more importantly, your incredulity is not an argument. It’s not logic, it’s not reason. It’s just you making shit up and then claiming others are being irrational for not accepting what sounds right to you."

i could say the exact same thing to you.

#303

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,306

12.15.2021 06:25PM

-->

@Tarik

Well your hypothetical doesn’t logically follow because morality and it’s objective nature is predicated on reality not hypotheticals

Clearly, you still do not understand what a hypothetical is or why we use them.

There are two elements to forming a conclusion; premises and logic. That’s it. Everything you believe to be true is a result of some combination of these two things, and in order to present a sound argument *both* of these have to pass muster.

Hypothetical examples are a test of the latter, they have nothing to do with the former. The idea is that you strip the argument of its content in order to analyze its construct. If your argument is constructed in such a way as to be logically invalid, then your argument is invalid. That’s what hypothetical examples allow us to examine.

In this case you are claiming morality is objective so my hypothetical challenges the construct of your argument. Thus, coming back and claiming that the content being different somehow invalidates my hypothetical is absurd and a demonstration of woeful ignorance on how reasoning works.

since facts are subject to proof does that make facts subjective?

Facts are not subject to proof. Belief in a fact by definition is, because proof is literally defined as “that which makes someone believe”.

This is why when we learn more about how reason works we start focusing on logic, the reasonableness of an argument, validity, etc. It’s why public officials have to be more careful with their language and instead of calling someone’s claim BS they have to say things like “there’s no evidence to support that allegation”, or “there’s no basis for that claim”.

So in case you missed it… no, facts are not subjective.

#304

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,165

12.15.2021 06:40PM

-->

@Double_R

Well stated.

#305

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,306

12.15.2021 09:00PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria.

This is the entire point of studying epistemology. It’s not about my standards vs your standards, it’s about which standards get us the most consistently reliable results. What we’ve found is that those standards which follow the most basic principals of logic do just that. And when it comes to implementing those standards into practice to determine the best model for explaining reality we’ve come up with a name for it… science.

we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here cause it sounds like you’re misusing the word validity. Validity is a logical term meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the premises.

So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this.

if i go to south america and see penguins, that's evidence that there are penguins in south america. if someone dies and says they experienced the afterlife, that's evdience for the afterlife.

You can call anything evidence. We’ve been through that already, but this is where ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ comes in.

If I told you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn’t need anything other than my word to be rationally justified in accepting that.

If I told you I ran into Beyoncé at the grocery store, you’d probably not believe me unless I showed you a photo.

If I told you I bought a time machine and traveled back to visit the dinosaurs, I could take you with me and you’d probably still not believe it.

As the claim becomes more extraordinary, you need more before you accept it. That’s basic logic. So telling me you saw penguins in South America is quite extraordinary, but we know there are such thing as penguins and there are ways to explain them being in South America without invoking the super natural. Leaving your body and visiting the next life? That’s a whole different category of extraordinary. The two claims are not comparable.

So at the end of the day if you want to go with your tautological definition of evidence then sure, I prefer a more useful definition.

you also confuse probable with possible.
-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability.

The way we determine probability is by dividing the number of known instances by the total number of opportunities for that result. We don’t have the latter, so this argument has nothing to do with probability.

The way we determine what something should be is through observation, so claiming these hallucinations shouldn’t happen so frequently is completely baseless. Again, we typically use the word hallucination to describe it but we have no practical way of studying what is actually happening to the brain in these instances, so we have no way of concluding anything about what we should expect from them, other than what we have already observed. This whole point you’re making is again, one big argument from incredulity.

i could say the exact same thing to you

You could say anything you want, but your claim would have no merit to anyone who understands epistemology.

#306

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

12.18.2021 03:50AM

-->

@Double_R

Facts are not subject to proof. Belief in a fact by definition is, because proof is literally defined as “that which makes someone believe”.

That latter sentence doesn’t justify the claim that facts aren’t subject to proof, it just makes it more redundant. All you literally did was add an extra variable to the claim I already made.

Topic's author

#307

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

12.19.2021 03:15PM

-->

@Double_R

i pointed out to you that surveys and interviews of out of body experiences show highly accurate evidence of out of body experiences. what do you respond with?

"So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this."

basically, you said 1. a bare assertion that you think it's reasonable to question if they actually are accurate 2. the point that these examples have not been repeated in a lab. 3. you also point out occam's razor

a bare assertion isn't an argument. pointing out that these have not been repeated in a lab is a good point, but it's not enough to counter point the fact that there are so many witnesses corroborating the examples. you didn't elaborate on your occam's razor point but i think that point is just a repeat that you think the simplest solution is that my evidence isn't accurate. everything comes back to you to the point that you think hallucinations are the simplest solution, so you ignore all evidence that shows it's more than that.

basically, you provide a lot of bluster, but very little in the way of actual logic or science. this actually is a great example of someone, you, thinking you have provided competent rebuttal, but in fact have provided nothing of worth. a great example of dunning kruger effect.

i've provided you with lots of evidence. you struggle to provide a coherent counter point. so, my point to you is that 'that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. find some actual evidence to back up your claims before you try responding next time.

#308

Amoranemix

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

Amoranemix

12.20.2021 05:50PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

@n8nrgmi

@Athias

n8nrgmi 92 :
if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. that's why atheism is irrational.

If I understand correctly your argument is the following :

P1 The body of evidence about NDEs is overwhelming.

P2. The body of evidence about NDEs is almost impossible to ignore

C. Therefore atheism is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

n8nrgmi 50 :
there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist
Amoranemix 80 :
Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
EtrnlVw 93 :
Lol, he apologizes....there isn't ANY evidence to be an atheist. There is no evidence that God does not exist so to be an atheist one has to make presumptions.

1. Does atheism require evidence ? Does disbelief in alien abductions require evidence ? Does disbelief in witchcraft require evidence ? Does disbelief in election fraud require evidence ? Does disblief in ancestral spirits require evidence ?

2. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

EtrnlVw 93 to n8nrgmi:
These are people who don't understand how evidence is defined, yet they think they are justified in claiming there is no evidence. We have a proposition, knowledge and a claim about a soul and then we have clear EVIDENCE that supports our claim. All they can do to run from the facts is speculate and pretend they have some superior understanding of evidence lol. We have fulfilled our burden of proof, it's on them to play the speculation game. Don't let them try and sweep you under the rug with all their fluff and misconceptions about evidence. If they want to play dumb just define it for them...

After having their behinds whipped, it helps for theists to pat each other on the back. In secluded areas Christians can tell each other what they want hear to charge up and face those dreadful atheists again, who keep showing the irrationality of theism. It would be very difficult to hang on to those beliefs without that.

EtrnlVw 93 to n8nrgmi:
Evidence-
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
be or show evidence of.
an outward sign : INDICATION
something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
one who bears witness
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
a mark or sign that makes evident; indication:
your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief
Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something"

This thread should be about atheism being irrational and yet atheism and irrational are words you chose not to define.

Christians are rational in their irrationality.

n8nrgmi 95 to EtrnlVw :
the one dude said he considers it evidence if it's more likely than not true. that's not how evidence works in the legal system. the key word the legal system asks is whether something is 'probative'. does it make something more likely to be true or not? if only evidence that was more likely to be true was allowed, only cases that are usually winners would be tried. if something is 25 percent likely to be true, it's good evidence.[52] even low probability situations are evidence. i want to say there is objectively good evidence for God and the afterlife, but i try to respect others and at least try to get them to understand there's at least evidence to begin with. they can't even pass that hurdle... that there's enough to look at to call it evidence. i think they have issues with respecting truth, and they have issues with black hearts. of course, they also have issues with basic logic, but their personality flaws are what drives it i suspect.[53]

[52] A problem is that 'good' evidence that an afterlife exists is not 'good' evidence that atheism is irrational.

[53] Who are 'they' who cannot pass that hurdle and have issues with basic logic ?

n8nrgmi 95 :
the minimum threshold for what is rational is "god might exist because there is evidence for that proposition".[54] "god might exist in the same way magic fairies might exist" is a rational statement, but it ignores that there is actual evidence for God while there isn't for magic fairies so there are irrational undertones in that statement.[55a] "i dont know if God exists" is rational only if they acknowledge that there's evidence for God even though they find it inadequate. "God deosn't exist" is irrational.[55b] "no evidence exists for God or the afterlife" is the most irrational statement of all

[54] My position is that some god might exist, which seems the most reasonable position (othewise I wouldn't hold it). That believing a god less likely is irrational is however merely a bald assertion of yours. If one is so lenient in attributing irrationality so that beliefs deviating from what is most reasonable are irrational then the maximal theshold for rationality is also that a god might exist, which would make most theists and thus you irrational.

A strong belief in a specific god is irrational unless someone has private evidence.

[55a] What you forget to mention is that God is more extraordinary (i.e. he violates known science more) and that more evidence for God is to be expected, if he exists, than for fairies. But since you want to believe in God and not fairies, it is normal for you to consider only what favours God-belief.

[55b] "God does exist" is even more irrational.

[55c] You are mistaken. “No evidence exists for the earth” is even more irrational.

n8nrgmi 105 :
i dont think i can spell it out any clearer. there's only two fair conclusions that can be drawn here 1. god and the afterlife probably exist 2. atheists lack critical thinking

Your spelling skills are acceptable. It is your demonstration skills that are lacking.

n8nrgmi 110 :
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/can-science-explain-near-death-experiences?utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=IwAR2dVholWQ0z8W42aCs6GwHniJa6aSSAJHr0XIPiIUUxVH7X9-iGEJZMXy4

that link has a good description of NDEs. it tries to give skeptics too much credit though,[56] but i guess the article is just trying to be fair. there are two examples of out of body experiences describing things out of the body, one was from the AWARE study and another was a personal anecdote from a doctor. (there are enough of these anecdotes to show a theme, though, it's repeatable and highly accurate,[57] and there's no way to explain how these people know what happens out of their body when they are dead)

again, if it's commonplace for people to die and tell us they experienced the afterlife, the simplest solution is that that's what happened.[58] if it was just a single person or maybe a few, we could say it's probably a hallucination. but that it's so widespread, philosphically it's just stupid to say people are consistently dying and hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories.[59] even if a person doesn't think actual afterlife stories are being told as the simplest solution to what's happening, you'd have to ignore all the evidence, too, from 'evidence of the afterlife' to continue thinking hallucinations explain it all.[60] everything studied here is repeatable... it's basic science.

It is interesting that the only scientific experiment mentioned in the article, the AWARE project, was unable to confirm any out of body experience.

[56] How so ? Because it is fair ?

[57] What evidence can you present to support those claims ?

[58] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[59] Scientifically it is just stupid to say people's souls travel to an afterlife after they die.

[60] What evidence is that ?

Since for some reason you are unwilling (or are you unable?) to support your claim that atheism is irrational, I'll bring up some counter-evidence to your afterlife claim. Some children remember a previous life, supporting reincarnation. How do you reconcile that with an afterlife ?

Fighter pilots are in their training exposed to strong g-forces, which draws oxygen away from the brain, and they often report NDE type experiences.

Athias 117 :
The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

The claim that needs to be supported is “Atheism is irrational.” But since no one is willing or able to deliver, we will have to settle with a weaker claim. Why is “God does not exist” an irrational statement ?

Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :
Do you have any thoughts on the points that I made
EtrnlVw 133
Because there is no reason for him to discard his premise for one you have made up. Doesn't matter if he addresses your speculations or not, other than to simply appease you. His argument is fine,[61] it is no less valid then your speculations. If his argument fails, he could then consider your speculations as a valid rebuttal. If you want to face the reality that NDE's are what they are, you won't need to speculate so as of yet, he has the stronger hand.[62] In other words, he doesn't have to speculate anything, the evidence IS what it suggests.

[61] What argument is that ?

Why are you comparing Double_R's speculations to n8rgmi's argument i.s.o. comparing n8rgmi's speculations to Double_R's argument ? Bias, perhaps ?

[62] How is that supposed to follow ?

EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :
It's also insulting to otherwise intelligent people to disregard their understanding of what it is like to have clear conscious experiences as compared to a disorder. Everyone knows what it is like to be alive and have normal conscious experiences as it's a fact of what we are, when someone leaves the physical body they know what they are experiencing, they know they are not having an altered conscious experience or some type of a malfunction. To suggest they are, is simply more speculation. So again, he is justified in simply dismissing speculations as stupid albeit it is his opinion.[63] In other words there is no sufficient reasoning for him to abandon his opinion.

When people are being abducted by aliens and being experimented on they also know what they are experiencing. They know they are not having an altered conscious experience or some type of a malfunction. To suggest they are, is simply more speculation. Would it therefore be irrational to disbelieve aliens are abducting people ?

[63] He is displaying bias by only dismissing the explanations he dislikes. Bias is a form of irrationality.

#309

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,306

12.21.2021 03:18PM

-->

@Tarik

That latter sentence doesn’t justify the claim that facts aren’t subject to proof, it just makes it more redundant. All you literally did was add an extra variable to the claim I already made.

Do you understand the difference between a fact, and the acceptance of a proposition as a fact?

#310

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,397

12.21.2021 03:20PM

-->

@Double_R

Do you understand the difference between a fact, and the acceptance of a proposition as a fact?

Yes why?

#311

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,306

12.21.2021 03:35PM

basically, you said 1. a bare assertion that you think it's reasonable to question if they actually are accurate…

find some actual evidence to back up your claims before you try responding next time

A bare assertion is a statement of fact without evidence. What I think is reasonable is not a statement of fact, so your point here makes absolutely no sense. Nor does your retort that I need to provide evidence.

This isn’t how logic works.

Again, you are the one making claims, so you are the one with the burden of providing evidence. I have no such burden until I make an empirical claim, which I haven’t or at least not one that you have challenged.

My objections to your position are on philosophical grounds, so in order to have a conversation about them you need to have an understanding of basic philosophy. These comments demonstrate the exact opposite. Dunning Kruger? I suggest you look in the mirror.

pointing out that these have not been repeated in a lab is a good point, but it's not enough to counter point the fact that there are so many witnesses corroborating the examples.

Yes it is, because of *none* of these examples have been repeated in a lab then *none* of these examples have been scrutinized as to rule out alternative possibilities to explain them. That’s the most basic element of evidence, but I’ve explained this already and you will continue to claim that anything being evidence is perfectly fine.

you didn't elaborate on your occam's razor point but i think that point is just a repeat that you think the simplest solution is that my evidence isn't accurate. everything comes back to you to the point that you think hallucinations are the simplest solution,

Yes, this is the point in the conversation where we start talking about what simplicity is and why it matters, but you continue to avoid it because you seem to be allergic to epistemology.

basically, you provide a lot of bluster, but very little in the way of actual logic or science.

Again, these are your claims so you’re the one who needs to bring the science which you don’t even pretend to do, at least not on the terms of actual science.

And logic? I find the most fascinating thing about you to be your insistence on focusing on logic while avoiding all conversation about any of its principals.

#312

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,165

12.21.2021 03:42PM

-->

@Amoranemix

Extremely well stated. This Universe simulation is just an intelligence test to see who will go to the next level.

Congratulations, you will be going to the next level, as will Elon Musk.

Topic's author

#313

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

12.21.2021 04:02PM

first just a suggestion. you must put a lot of effort into annotating all the quotes and such. it just makes it hard to follow cause whoever reads it has to line up your point with the quoted point. it takes too much effort to follow, it's harder on you and the reader than it needs to be.

i do acknowledge that the afterlife is a different subject than atheism, given one can believe in the afterlife and still not be a theist. i guess it's worth noting to anyone paying attention, that i amended my originial thesis...i dont think atheism is irrational, i think a better word is 'unreasonable'. there's enough plausibility to be an atheist even if it's not reasonable.

here are two reasons atheism is unreasonable: 1. inexplicable healings occur to theists who pray, but we have no such evidence for atheists, they are all explicable. 2. the overwhelming majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it doesn't happen that theists become atheists. the atheists who dont convert didn't get any special knowledge about the subject, so we can't base anything on what they think. the only ones who get special knowledge, become theists. almost never the other way around.

i say that's why atheism is unreasonable. i suppose it's plausible, given maybe we just dont have evidence of inexplicable healings occurring to atheists, and it's plausible to argue that NDEs are subjective so maybe the information people receive about God isn't truth it's just like a dream. this all goes against the weight of the evidence, so it's still enough to say atheism is unreasonable.

atheists and people who think NDEs are just hallucinations do need evidence. i've presented an overwhelming amount of evidence, so that means the skeptics have a rebuttable presumption against their views. they have to provide evidence if they want to debunk my evidence. they cant just sit on their hands with no evidence and pretend that their burden of proof is sufficicient. that's not how logic or science or evidence works.

from what i've seen of your posting, i think you acknowledge that there is evidence for the afterlife. my strongest conviction is that to say there's no evidence for the aferlife is one of the stupidest things a person can say if theyve seen all the evidence. so your position isn't so bad. you also say that God might exist, so that's not so bad either.

"Since for some reason you are unwilling (or are you unable?) to support your claim that atheism is irrational, I'll bring up some counter-evidence to your afterlife claim. Some children remember a previous life, supporting reincarnation. How do you reconcile that with an afterlife ?"

it is common for people to believe in reincarnation if they have NDEs. i dont dispute that. reincarnation and an afterlife are both likely based on the evidence. why dont you look at your own evidence though... if there's kids who reemember past lives, maybe there is more to this life than just us being flesh robots that die and there's nothing greater to it. you have to ignore the evidence that you yourself brought up to pretend this life is all there is.

"Fighter pilots are in their training exposed to strong g-forces, which draws oxygen away from the brain, and they often report NDE type experiences."

they might experience somehting similar to and NDE but they're not experiencings all the themes of NDEs and they're not experiencing elaborate afterlife stories.

Topic's author

#314

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

12.21.2021 04:02PM

-->

@Amoranemix

................. see last post

#315

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,165

12.21.2021 04:31PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

1. inexplicable healings occur to theists who pray, but we have no such evidence for atheists,

Put a fork in it, my friend, You’re done. You’ve got THOUSANDS of years of claims, and not a shred of evidence or proof. In the real world, that amounts to “Someone made some shit up a long time ago, and you’re all so gullible that even now you still buy into it.” Let it end.

Topic's author

#316

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

12.21.2021 05:38PM

-->

@Amoranemix

also you asked once, so most of my evidence is based on two books, 'evidence of the afterlife' and 'God and the afterlife' both by the author Dr. Jeffrey Long. it's also worth lookin into books by neurosurgeon Dr Alexander and cardio pulmonary surgeon Dr Parnia. Parnia also is the author of the AWARE studies.

#317

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

12.21.2021 07:29PM

-->

@Amoranemix

Athias 117 :
The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.
The claim that needs to be supported is “Atheism is irrational.” But since no one is willing or able to deliver, we will have to settle with a weaker claim. Why is “God does not exist” an irrational statement ?

"God does not exist" is an irrational claim because it presumes the perception of or information on the nonexistent. Since perception requires perceptible data, it necessarily follows that nonexistence cannot be perceived since it's devoid of any and all data. That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist. Any information the nonexistent can provide on itself is not there because "its self" is not there. The fact that one is capable of identifying "God" and much less place him as the subject in a claim already defeats and undermines the purpose of "proving his nonexistence."

Everything is perceptible (and therefore exists)

Nothing is not perceptible (and therefore doesn't exist.)

God falls within the realm of Everything. God has a name; God has a form and being; God can be identified; God is perceptible; therefore God exists. If you want this in a syllogistic form then it would go as such:

P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.

P2: God is perceived.

C: Therefore God must exist.

Should one's belief rests entirely with the irrational claim that "God does not exist," then I suppose one could characterize said belief as "irrational."

#318

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,344

12.22.2021 07:39AM

-->

@Athias

P1. Everything that can be perceived must exist.

P2. GODS are imagined but never perceived.

P3. Therefore GODS are not actually perceived and are currently not known to exist.

One could compile similar sets of statements all day long.

Result...Temporary satisfaction.

End result....Nope.

Keep going Mr A.

#319

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

12.22.2021 01:14PM

-->

@zedvictor4

P1. Everything that can be perceived must exist.

P2. GODS are imagined but never perceived.

P3. Therefore GODS are not actually perceived and are currently not known to exist.

Even if for the sake of argument we were to indulge that Gods are "imagined," that does not mean that imagination lies outside of perception. Quite the opposite actually given that imagination is conceptions via thought. And thoughts lie within the realm of perception. In fact, they are necessary for perception. If we were to indulge this absurd second premise of yours, then nothing exists (an irrational claim which I've already explained.) Any forms, ideas, concepts, you conceive (or imagine) in order rationalize data accumulation (which is nothing more than a concept functionally identical to one's imagination) through vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, and somatosensation, would be nonexistent. And it would therefore beg the explanation on how the existent (rational) can function with, much less depend on the nonexistent (irrational.) But you will not answer this. Because in the years I've argued this subject, not one single individual has been capable of discerning/filtering the data they accumulate using controls which render it independent of the bias of one's mind--or as I prefer to put it: "imagination."

One could compile similar sets of statements all day long.

I'm sure you could. The exception is that the one I've provided is logically sound. Your revision is a pseudo-metaphysical contradiction.

Keep going Mr A.

You know my name, Ditko. Use it.

#320

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,344

12.23.2021 06:32AM

-->

@Athias

God is perceived.

Is a blatant metaphysical misrepresentation.

The only logic in presenting a blatant misrepresentation in place of a fact, is to deceive.

P1. Physical GODS are not perceived.

P2. A metaphysical image or thought of a GOD could be perceived.

P3. But a GOD is not actually known to exist.

There's never any "must exist" about it.

Otherwise, anything and everything must exist.

P1. I have just quickly perceived....(As in a metaphysical thought).

P2. A trillion intergalactic octopi.

P3. Therefore a Trillion intergalactic octopi must exist.

Simple.

Bunkum is therefore real.

Therefore.........

Words is easy Athias.

#321

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

12.23.2021 07:09AM

-->

@zedvictor4

God is perceived.
Is a blatant metaphysical misrepresentation.

It isn't a "metaphysical" anything. It's an epistemic inevitability; a logical consequence.

The only logic in presenting a blatant misrepresentation in place of a fact, is to deceive.

Do inform on how you bear the capacity to observe something you claim as nonexistent as my intent.

P1. Physical GODS are not perceived.

Don't modify my statements. I never qualified God with any particular adjective. I will not be held responsible for your non sequitur.

P2. A metaphysical image or thought of a GOD could be perceived.

P3. But a GOD is not actually known to exist.

You still have not addressed the dilemma of your contradiction. How do you control for that which is independent of what you think?

Everything you know to exist is necessarily everything you think exists. Your second premise neither results in nor informs your third premise.

There's never any "must exist" about it.

Of course, there is. The "must exist" is a logical necessity which results from the substantiation of the previous two premises. That is a how a syllogism works.

Otherwise, anything and everything must exist.

Exactly! Everything and anything must exist. Only nothing does not exist (the logical inverse of the aforementioned statement.) Because everything and anything must be perceptible to be everything and/or anything. Nothing is nothing (tautological.) Nonexistence is nonexistence (also tautological.) And therefore, it provides no empirical information whatsoever to inform any such statement that "X does not exist." Your pseudo-metaphysical conclusion, "A God is not known to exist" presumes you know the unknown--a logical absurdity.

P1. I have just quickly perceived....(As in a metaphysical thought).

This is irrational. How does one conceive a "metaphysical" thought?

P2. A trillion intergalactic octopi.

P3. Therefore a Trillion intergalactic octopi must exist.

Fix your first premise and I'll indulge your conclusions.

Words [are] easy Athias.

Not quite. Materialistic dogma is easier.

#322

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,344

12.23.2021 07:14AM

-->

@Athias

Dogma is easy.

One is one's own authority.

Athias says so Athias must be correct.

Zed says so Zed must be correct.

#323

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

12.23.2021 02:23PM

-->

@zedvictor4

One is one's own authority.

True.

Athias says so Athias must be correct.

Zed says so Zed must be correct.

Also true. But it behooves me to point out that since the subject focuses on "rationality," that just one of our statements is logically consistent. Not only is the claim "God does not exist" irrational, but also it uses metrics which are fundamentally based on that which you'd claim is "nonexistent."

#324

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,344

12.24.2021 05:18AM

-->

@Athias

One's rationale is subject to one's own dogma.

Which would include ones own interpretation of existence.

Hence why we continue these inconclusive discussions.

7 days later

#325

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

01.01.2022 12:11AM

-->

@zedvictor4

One's rationale is subject to one's own dogma.

It can be.

Which would include ones own interpretation of existence.

It would be if I were simply offering my own interpretations:

1a : to have real being whether material or spiritual

Hence why we continue these inconclusive discussions.

It isn't that our discussions are inconclusive. I don't need you to share my position to validate my position. I have these discussions with you not to convince you, but to demonstrate the logical consistency of my position, and the logical inconsistency of yours. All I can do is frame my argument as consistently as possible. If you acknowledge some, if any, value in logically consistent arguments, then great. If not, then you must accept the responsibility of maintaining a logically inconsistent argument. I don't take issue with some atheists stating "God does not exist" or that "I don't believe in any Gods." I take issue with some atheists stating that "God does not exist" is a rational or logically consistent argument.

#326

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,165

01.01.2022 02:04AM

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.

#327

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

01.01.2022 04:04AM

Rationality has nothing to do with right or wrong. You can have rational reasons to believe false things and irrational reasons that happen to land you believing the correct conclusion

#328

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

01.01.2022 04:06AM

-->

@FLRW

then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to

That doesn't sound like something Stephen hawking would say, since his theories don't assume anything has to even have a beginning. Including the universe.

#329

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

01.01.2022 04:08AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I believe God exists but he is a genocidal maniac unfit for worship. He supports cruel and unusual punishment (something that liberals oppose) and he supports censorship (something that conservatives oppose).

God's ethics are none of your business. If he tells you to cut off your right arm, you do it. He is your master.

#330

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,344