atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 618
#571
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Whatever, the atheist here talk all the time about how they are the superior position. If you want to say less wrong go ahead but it's still better than.  It's so superior that they don't have to join a group for it to mean anything. Please don't come here and act like nobody reads all the post to get posted here.
#572
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
your position is "less-wrong" for you

don't you think that every religion thinks their system is "less-wrong" than the alternatives ?
#573
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I feel that my choice is right for me I don't feel like it's more or less wrong than other people's choices.
#574
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,378
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Do you think Putin has seen this forum? He used to be an atheist but is now a Christian. Does he think atheism is irrational?
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin has told interviewers he wears an Orthodox Church baptismal cross pendant, given to him by his mother. In his annual address to the Federal Assembly in 2014, Putin declared, “Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force . . . in the creation of a Russian nation and Russian state.” He added, “It was thanks to this spiritual unity that our forefathers for the first time and forevermore saw themselves as a united nation.”
#575
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
An internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus.
An internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus that is given reason and meaning by what?

Often incorrectly defined with ritual-speak.
Inconsistent with your adopted standard; not necessarily, "incorrect."

Arguably the best pudding in the World.

Or arguably not.

Depending upon one's internal electrochemical response to the pudding.
So internal electrochemical responses are subject to Qualia?

In my opinion, some puddings are spiritual and some are just nice.
That is your prerogative, I suppose.



#576
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
would you consider "spiritual" = "brain-states"
No.

or do you quantify "spiritual" by some other metric ?
I wouldn't quantify it at all.
#577
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Amoranemix
For clarity, here is the question from post 453 : “How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?”
For clarity, here is what the question is about ('what you said'), from post 440 : “I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis.”
First, you are missing the point, for the issue is not whether you addressed the question, but whether you answered it. You haven't.
Second, I cannot find where in post 440 you addressed the question. Please show where you have done so.
For clarity, this is what you stated:

You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis
And then I responded:

1. No, I didn't.
You then asked:

How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?
And then I responded:

I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.
You state I haven't answered your questions, but I've responded to your questions in this very long time that we've had this exchange. Perhaps if you ceased quoting me out of sequence, you would've been able to find them easier. But here's what I said in context of its application (here's the part that you left out):


I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be.
This creates a distinction between "belief" and "argument." That is the application.

[2.] Please demonstrate that your disagreement with the claim “In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.” is rationally defensible.
I don't have to demonstrate that my disagreement expresses anything other than a contradiction to your claim, "everyone agrees..." I have no intention of contradicting or undermining atheism in the context of "belief." As an "argument" however, well... WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING THESE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS? If you don't know at the very least my argument against the rationality of the argument "God does not exist," then WE HAVE WASTED OUR TIME.

[3.] You are being evasive. How does the meaning of value explain why stating that a belief is based on value is redundant.
Because the two are virtually synonymous.

Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.
No idea what you're talking about, here.

That did not stop you from using the former as an excuse to abstain from doing that latter.
Excuses? I'm not the self-admitted "sloth," here. I establish definitions; I establish arguments; your preference as to the sequence of these submissions are inconsequential.

I did so on your request.
Made no such request. I had asked you if you had objections, and to substantiate them in the event that you did.

[100] If I have inappropriately failed to provide substantion to my questions about your definitions, please point out the pertinent cases.
Your incapacity to substantiate an unnecessary element in the definition I provided for the term exist.

101] Typically confusing or deceptive definitions. For example, calling your dog God and then claiming that God exists.
That is neither deceptive nor confusing; stringent definitions make for better arguments, but here I am just making "excuses."

[4.''] You forgot the magic word.
Forget it.

[78] Right. Let's jump passed the confusion you mangaged to sow.
Yes, I'm the one sowing confusion.

Apparently I read you wrong. You again successfully confused me.
In post 445 you said : “In order to aquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.”
Please demonstrate the last claim.
My demonstration is no longer of any consequence at this point.

[a] So, defining Spino implies conceiving Spino and conceiving Spino provides information about Spino. Yet you claimed that the nonexistent provides no information. Please demonstrate that.
Same as directly above.

[b] It would seem then that I can make you commit a red herring fallacy on demand.
Whatever.

[*] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
It's of no consequence.

[**] Providing information to this argument ≠ honouring your burden of proof.
Most people are lazy. Few people are honest enough to admit it.
Inconsequential.

[a] You missed the point. Adress a question ≠ answer a question
Yes, yes, we already know that my responses do not personally satisfy you.

[b] The claim I have asked you to prove is that everything that is perceptible exists. (I am assuming that Everything = everything.) Since then we have a definition for everything, namely all things that exist. That makes the claim elementary. However, you also claimed that God is perceptible and that the nonexistent cannot be perceived. Please demonstrate those claims.
No longer matters.

[c] Your impoliteness is not contested.
Noted.

[f] I thought you had not answered the question and strictly speaking, I was correct. Then, in post 465, I noticed that an answer could be derived fom it, which I provided in post 465. Now you refuse to acknowledge that that candidate answer is indeed according to you the answer to my question. You refuse to provide clarity.
More characterizations, no substantiation.

[g] I don't state I measure “impossibility” and I don't know what applying abstracts means.
I'm sure you don't.

As this is not going anywhere, I would assume the answer is 'no' for logical impossibility and 'it depends' for physical impossibility. However, since making assumptions about what you believe or stand by tends to be counteproductive, I won't.
[81] You claim that it is false that it is impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior. Therefore it is possible to imagine something that does not exist prior or it is neither possible nor impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior.
Thus we have :
P1. It is impossible to imagine something that does not exist. (from post 454)
P2. Imagining something that does not yet exist does not always cause it to exist.
P3. It is possible or (not possible and not impossible) to imagine something that does not exist prior.

P3 implies (using P2) that it is possible  or  (possible nor impossible) to imagine something that does not exist.
That appears to contradict P1. How do you reconcile these premises ?
We agree. And since it's not going anywhere (the basis of my stating, "my demonstration is no longer of any consequence at this point") you can have yourself a nice day, sir. I will indulge your vacuous responses no further.
#578
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Internal processes are meaning, but if you seek some secondary meaning, then internal processes can provide meaning....So refer to it as spiritual.

Internal processes are qualia, or provide qualia..

And your prerogative too, (if you're a pudding man).....One thinks therefore the pudding is.
#579
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Internal processes are meaning, but if you seek some secondary meaning, then internal processes can provide meaning....So refer to it as spiritual.

Internal processes are qualia, or provide qualia..
Wasn't the purpose of your argument to quantify what you now refer to as qualia as "an internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus"? How do these internal electrochemical responses in and of themselves provide qualia? How are these electrochemical processes in and of themselves qualia? How do said processes in an of themselves provide their own meaning?


#580
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Qualia was your choice of word.....A bit of data output derived of human processes and function.......In the same way that  meaning and spiritual are derived.

Qualia has a very simple definition which aptly exemplifies the process of data acquisition and management.

And for sure, quite an amazing process, but that's just the way things have evolved.

Reading more into it, is no more than the same process though.

In my opinion.

You will have your opinion.....Which in my opinion is also no more  than the same process.


#581
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,378
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” – Carl Sagan
#582
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Qualia was your choice of word.....
Yes, it was. And you would reflect it back in your response suggesting that these internal electrochemical processes were, in fact, qualia. I could understand the suggestion that sensory perception allows us to experience phenomena; I can understand the suggestion that these internal electrochemical processes are behind the experience of emotions. But you said that these processes were, in fact, qualia. I'm only trying to understand what you mean by this.

A bit of data output derived of human processes and function.......In the same way that  meaning and spiritual are derived.
But didn't you characterize the latter as "incorrectly defined with ritual speak"? So I ask again: were you not just trying to quantify?

Qualia has a very simple definition which aptly exemplifies the process of data acquisition and management.
Among other things, yes.

And for sure, quite an amazing process, but that's just the way things have evolved.
Evolved from what?

In my opinion.

You will have your opinion.....Which in my opinion is also no more  than the same process.
I know you're sharing opinion; I know I'm sharing opinion; presumably these opinions are indexed to a standard, the consistency of which we are, for a lack of a better term, "testing" in our exchange here, yes?
#583
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”
That's a nice quote. Were you under the impression that I was suggesting that Science and Spirituality were mutually exclusive?

#584
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Spirituality isn't just an experience that feels good. That is joy or happiness or fulfillment or contentment. Spirituality has the word spirit in it for a reason. 
#585
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
"Testing" if you like.

And Qualia and ritual speak are derived  from internal data management.....And internal data management is a seemingly remarkable, electrochemical process.


Evolved from what?
The same as everything else.......You might feel the need to include a GOD in this process.....And I just see the need for a GOD, as being an inevitable part of this process.

So we acquire, create and transfer data relative to experience.....A. Creates an internal need for a GOD, and also creates an associated database......Z.  Doesn't create an internal need for a GOD, and creates an associated database.....Same electrochemical processing, slightly different conclusions reached. Output will obviously contrast, though neither is irrational in terms of process.....Both are Qualia.

Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.

And spirituality cannot be demonstrated to be more than an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.
#586
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
"Testing" if you like.

And Qualia and ritual speak are derived  from internal data management.....And internal data management is a seemingly remarkable, electrochemical process.


Evolved from what?
The same as everything else.......You might feel the need to include a GOD in this process.....And I just see the need for a GOD, as being an inevitable part of this process.

So we acquire, create and transfer data relative to experience.....A. Creates an internal need for a GOD, and also creates an associated database......Z.  Doesn't create an internal need for a GOD, and creates an associated database.....Same electrochemical processing, slightly different conclusions reached. Output will obviously contrast, though neither is irrational in terms of process.....Both are Qualia.

Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.

And spirituality cannot be demonstrated to be more than an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.
Okay.
#587
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Athias

Athias 469 :
[a'] Bias is not quantifiable, and therefore cannot be "reduced." Whether it's a little biased or heavily biased, bias is still bias.
Going from a heavily biased to a little biased is a reduction. So, if that is possible, then it is possible to reduce bias.

[j] Everything that exists, the universe.
[k] Both abstract and physical objects can exist.
[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.
Athias 514 :
You're late. zedvictor4 and I had already discussed this.
Late is not too late.

Athias 445 :
Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]
[96] You hide it well.
[97] So are you.
[98] Are you looking for a way out ?
Athias 514 :
[96] Hilarious.
[97] Redundant.
[98] Out of this regressive and vacuous dynamic you've captained?[98'] Indeed. But I don't know you, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you have more to contribute.
[97] How so ?
[98'] No. Out of our debate.

Athias 460 :
[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]
Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]
[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[100] The concept of straw man eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.
[101] What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?
[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.
[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.
You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.
Athias 514 :
[99] Have I suggested either?
[100] No, it doesn't.
I'm not arguing against your employment of the term, "seem," because I believe you've claimed "seem" is an argument; I'm arguing against your employment of the term, "seem" in argument—period.
[101] There's a difference between stating, "I think," and "you seem." The former takes responsibility for your private gnosis, the latter does not.
[102] I'll put an end to this nonsense right now:
Athias 421 :
“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

[Amoranemix] I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.
- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.
- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.
- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.
- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.
- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.

Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.
- [b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.
-- [b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.
--- [b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.
---- [b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?
----- Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.
It's here where you either got confused or misinterpreted what was going on.[108] When I stated, "I did present an argument," I was not AT ALL referring to your proposal that I refute your affirmation.[109] In fact, I responded with this:

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead. [#444]
Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency? [#445]
[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.
I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?

I've had enough of this nonsense. Either explain your support, or I'm considering it a dropped point.

[103] No, I didn't. That notion is a product of your own confusion. I extend my demand above.
[99] I don't think you had until now.
[100] I am again going to make another guess about what you mean. You intended to claim that my use of seem in an argument was in appropriate.
1) Express yourself more clearly. “Seem is not an argument.” ≠ “You have used seem inappropriately in an argument.”
I agree that what you intented to say but didn't, was not a straw man fallacy.
2) Looking back to where I first used seem (as 'seemingly') in post 420, the context wherein I used it can be considered an argument. What was inappropriate about my use of seem there ?
[101] You again refuse to clearly explain what you mean. I know there is are differences between “I think” and “You seem”. So what ? That does not show that I have failed to honour my responsibility.
[108] My confusion stems from me discussing under the assumption that you said something relevant. In the mean time I have learned that with you such assumption is rarely warranted.
[109] I had not understood you to make that reference. Strictly speaking your claim “I did present an argument” was a red herring, because that is irrelevant. Hower, I assumed you made a relevant claim. The only relevant type of argument I could think of is one supporting that God is consistent. However, in [103] you deny having claimed to have made such argument. So you committed a red herring fallacy.
You now remind me of your excuses for not giving such argument (which has nothing to do with laziness of course). That is irrelevant. Whether it was your duty to present an argument is a different issue than whether you had presented one. In conclusion, you committed another red herring fallacy.

To recap the issue :
I provided evidence for God's inconsistency in which I used the word “seemingly”. You complained using “seem” is not an argument.
I compared that what you presented as argument for God's consistency, namely nothing.
To that you retorded that you had presented an argument. That was a red herring fallacy, for I was referring to arguments supporting God's consistency, not just any argument.
The rest of the discussion was superfluous, for it was based on the assumption that you had not committed the above fallacy.

Athias 450 :
Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
No.
Athias 460 :
Then why did you submit it?
Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.
Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?[a]
When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.[b] They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.[c]
Athias 514 :
If that's the case, then why did you initially state that your understanding of substantiation excluded providing someone else's opinion:
Athias 450 :
[a] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
No.
[b] Define "real god."
[c] Explain the relevance of this allusion. Do you support the claims of these skeptics? And if so, explain.
“It is not so that my understanding of substantiation is to provide someone else's opinion.” ≠ “My understanding of substantiation excludes providing someone else's opinion.”
[b] A real god = a god that is real, a god that exists more than merely as being believed in. Use a dictionary.
[c] I recommended to find out whether God is a person to read the Bible or ask Christians. The relevance is that I hereby provide an explanation for why I made that recommendation, which is what you asked for.
I don't know what claims you are referring to, but I probably don't support them, which does not mean I disagree with them.

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.
[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?
[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.
I am not aware that inconsistency requires a base.
My own measure.[h]
[81] What does that mean, informing support ?
I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.[i]
Athias 514 :
[e] I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:
[quoting FLRW] Zeus  is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?
[quoting Athias] Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?
Do you object?
[a] I am in no position to "doubt" if I don't know how you've defined "perfect love" and "perfect justice." So once again: define "perfect love"; define "perfect justice."
[g*] Non sequitur. My exchange with Double_R was my exchange with Double_R. My exchange with you is my exchange with you. Double_R is irrelevant to my exchange with you.[110] If you're going to make reference to Double_R's argument, and support it, then it's your responsibility to assume stewardship of that argument.
[h] What measure is that?
[81] Provide information to your support, or Explain your support.
[i] Haha, my lap is bruising from all this laughter. Are you done derailing?
[e] To 'believe in X' can also mean 'to believe that X exists'.
No, I don't object.
[a] Since you do not doubt my claim, there seems to be no need to define perfect love and perfect justice.
[110] You are mistaken. Double_R influenced our exchange through his introduction of God's possible inconsistency and me picking up on that. Double_R is also relevant for the topic on the introduction of that notion (a topic you introduced), because he is the one who did it.
[h] That is the measure I use. What is it you want to know about that measure and why ?
[81] Indeed. I haven't done that, except for specific requests.
[i] No and I prefer not to start.

#588
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Amoranemix
Our exchange on this subject for all intents and purposes has been suspended. Enjoy your day, sir.
#589
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.
have you heard of SPINOZA ?
#590
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes.

Though I am not fully acquainted with his work.

Nonetheless, I always state that the GOD principle represents the "substance" of the Universe.

It's the extended ideas of GOD that I have a problem with.....As in Middle Eastern folk tales and the like.


So what should I look for in Spinoza?
#591
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So what should I look for in Spinoza?
an air-tight proof of the existence of god
#592
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
In that context, what would a god be?

Are we talking the one that sets fire to shrubbery in order to gain peoples attention?

Or are we talking something a tad more fundamental?

Or perhaps even a woman with four arms.


As ever........God principle sound, floaty about blokes and four armed women not so.


What's your particular favourite?

7 days later

#593
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Tarik
@Athias
Amoranemix 540 to Tarik :
I didn't say no one understands morality.
This thread is not about morality. Go argue about that where that is on topic.
Tarik 541 :
You did in the link you referred me to.
Prove it!

[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous,[a] I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case.[b] But apparently, you don't stand by the general case. You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.[c]
[105] Where have I stated that ?
[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.
Possibility is a requirement for existence.[d] 'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'[e]
[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.
[108] No. I never made that argument.
Apparently you don't stand by the argument that I concocted (and you quoted) either, even though P1 is a rephrasal of a claim you made. So, I'll drop it. You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.[f]

[a2] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.
Athias 547 :
[a] No, it wasn't.
[b] And your assumption was correct, but it doesn't apply to the "example case" because you included the premise "X is impossible." My dispute isn't whether I support the claim Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational as long the definitions I provided are being used; my dispute has been with your failure, unwillingness, or incapacity to provide description to the terms "impossible" and "exist."
[c] I do not have to honor the burden of an argument I did not make. The example case while attempting to extrapolate my reasoning is still presented through your argument.
[105] Where have you stated what? If you're referring to my statement you highlighted with "104," then here is where you stated it:
Athias #460 : “[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,”
Amoranemix #444 : “Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.
Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.”
[106] False. I posted Post #445.
[d] Demonstrate this. (Hint: you would have to provide a description to "Possibility.")
[e] Same as directly above.
[107] No, I am not. I'm not arguing that a premise is an argument. I'm implicitly stating that a premise is an essential part of an argument, i.e. when a premise changes, the argument changes. Thus, your changing the premise changes the argument from mine to yours.
[108] Explicitly stating that argument is not required.
[f] I've already done it.
[a2] Yes, it depends on what is meant with impossible. So what do you mean by "impossible?"
[a] Yes, it was and I have illustrated how.
[b] You are mistaken. The general case does apply to the example. The general case (P1) considers any Y. The subject of the example case (God) is a member of that set, regardless of whether God is impossible and what that even means.
There is no failure from my side. Double_R has already given a description of impossible in post 369 and I have in [106] and of exist in post 449. Even if I hadn't done the former, that would not have been a failure, since you have failed to make it clear that you don't stand by P1. You are still ambiguous about it.
[c] The example case is your claim, namely that it is irrational to claim God does not exist. How many books with arguments I have written on that claim is irrelevant.
[105] You are mistaken again. “Skeptics dispute P1.” ≠ “Skeptics will scrutinize P1.”
[106] Sorry, that was my mistake. That had to be post 449 :
“For concrete things, to exist is to be part of the real world.
For abstract things I don't know. You, on the other hand, were adamant that numbers exist.”
You also have provided a description in post 440.
[d, e] According to www.dictionary.com : possible :
1. that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:
a disease with no possible cure.
2. that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary:
It is possible that he has already gone.
possibility :
1. the state or fact of being possible:
the possibility of error.
2. something possible:
He had exhausted every possibility but one.
It follows that things that are not possible or impossible are unable to exist, be true or happen.
[107] Although you still haven’t clearly stated so, you don’t stand by P1. If you had clearly stated so immediately we could have avoided this pointless discussion.
[f] In the mean time I have challenged that attempt.
[a2] Impossible is not possible. See above.
The lax version of impossibility violates the laws of physics.

Athias 469 :
Pardon. What "overlap" is that?
The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.
Athias 547 :
And this was intended to inform Bertrand Russell's statement about wisdom, correct? But you haven't really demonstrated how this applies.
Correct.
Agreed.

[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.
I assume you are referring to your definition from post 445 : “the absence of existence; the negation of being; nothingness; unreality, etc.”. You also provided 4 more definitions in post 440 :
exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.
real: true or actual.
material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?[a]
I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.[b]
[92] So, we have (with capitals) :
Everything: all things that exist
Nothing: all things that do not exist
Hence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.
[93] We are not discussing the use of   'God does not exist' as a presupposition.
[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.
[95] Please demonstrate that. [Athias #469: And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.]
[96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.
[97] Not yet.
Athias 547 :
[91] I'm interested in clarity;[109] I'm just not interested in repeating myself frequently.[110] Quote me in sequence and we can easily resolve this issue.
[a] To exemplify one's being through spiritual aspects, I suppose. As for whether God exists in people's minds, well, everything one experiences exists in one's mind.
[b] Do you "suspect" or is this what you're arguing? I'm very well aware that atheists are maintain a materialist position. Of course, the irony in this is that their materialism is substantiated by the immaterial.
[92] Square Circles by definition are illogical. That however does not speak to their "existence." You would have to demonstrate how logic and existence are necessary bi-conditions.
[93] We're not; we're speaking directly to a claimant with respect to his/her claim, which is necessary for any claim.
[94] What is the difference between "believing" God does not exist, and "knowing" God does not exist?
[95] Because the claim itself necessarily demonstrates knowledge; claims do not create themselves; claims reflect what the claimant knows or presumes to know or what is to be known (presumably by everyone.)
[96] It follows from what I stated in "[95.]"
[97] I have. Whether it has satisfied your metrics, only you know.
[109] You hide it well.
[110] That would explain why you have repeated that “seem” is not an argument.
Fortunately you are not lazy. Otherwise I would have had to dig up those definitions myself.
What do you mean with “quoting in sequence” ?
[a] Does one need to exist physically to exemplify one’s being through spiritual aspects ? If so, then spiritual existence implies physical existence.
[b] Like I said, I suspect it. It is unlikely that no claims denying God’s existence are referring to physical existence.
[92] Are you saying that whether something is illogical is unrelated to its likeliness of existence ?
[93] I am not directly speaking to a claimant of “God does not exist.”
[94] Knowing is believing with certainty. Knowing is believing, but believing is not knowing.
[95] First, it could be belief, i.s.o. knowledge. Second, it is not clear what “it is presuming that nonexistence can be known” means. You appear to be defending that it is presuming that it can be known that something does not exist. Not really. The claim is not presuming anything. However, it is a requirement for having the belief/knowledge presumed by the claim.
[96] I was referring to your last sentence : “"If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived." Please demonstrate that.
claming it follows from something else you said ≠ demonstrating it.
I may understand the (seemingly fallacious) reasoning behind your argumentation, but explaining such has been unproductive in the past.
[97] No, you have not. Whether your attempt has satisfied your metrics, only you know.

Polytheist-Witch 553 to Conservallectual :
The thing that really bugs atheist more than anything is service. If what they're doing doesn't somehow benefit them they want no part of it. Since religion is about service especially service to something they can't see or feel without any actual reward for them they're not interested.[111] And they believe whatever they think is right is moral whether it is or not.[112] I don't believe there's any sort of line you can cross that makes something bad even though we all know there are certainly things that happened to people that are bad and they've been done to people with the intent of being bad.
[111] I agree there is no reward for serving God. Christians nonetheless believe there is a reward for serving God and that is why they try to do it.
[112] I am sure you want them to believe that. Alas, that is wishful thinking.

#594
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Amoranemix
Prove it!
You proved it when you sent me that link, I literally copied and pasted that quote from you. When you deny easily proven stuff like this that’s when you know your being unreasonable.
#595
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
What's your particular favourite?
(IFF) GOD = EXISTS (THEN) EXISTS = GOD

in other words, iff god is everywhere and created everything, then everything is part of god
#596
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
(IFF) GOD = EXISTS (THEN) EXISTS = GOD

God = finite set of occupied space Universe, ergo what observe a---and may quantise--   and what we calculate to exist, tho not yet quantised, yet if it does exist then falls under the catagory of occupied space,

God { italics } --and it is most inclusive word or expressing the following concepts---  = finite set of occupied space  Universe,
and the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces the finite occupied space above,

and the Meta-space concepts ergo the italics to identify with them specifiically.

This above is the trinity aka cosmic trinary set. Non-occupied, occupied and Meta-space { concepts }. None will ever have every find a more comprehensive set, in this basic generalized catagorization of all that exists. A small few have tried and failed.  It is hard to refine truths that approach being absolute truths, expressed so simply.

.............................space( *time ) i  (time* )space..........................................

Positive shaped geodesics ----forward in space create a spiral trajectory---

Negative shaped geodesics ---forward in space create a spiral trajectory--

Invaginated{ /\/\/\/ }  as observed time also moves forward as occupied and space creates a spiral trajectory---

These three primary phases of occupied space,  see invaginated tori--- exists as one invaginating tori, yet they may never exists in isolation from at least a minimal set of two tori as mesons { very short lived  strong force{ two quarks } between heavy{ hadrons } particles like protons and neutrons.

And of course there will be resultant orbitings and torquing/twisting along the way.  A torque wrench is how much tension the nut on the spiral is being created.
Chubby Checkers song And Do the Twist,  is, or was, .the most common human rendition of torquing in dance.

If you not in twist mood then try this moonlight sonata from person who blows them away at Kennedy Center. LINK be sure to go to about 3:40 if want the start of peak of it

Soul = complex biological dance of spirits{ alcohol, atomic elements, radiational charges, etc } and if you dont believe me, then tune-in to this funnylooking bunch of fiddlers and guitar players.  They blow me away and I hope you get their message from the soul.  The Kempsters doing  Orange Blossom Special, without the Orange-Bad-Man { thank god :--) } https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCAFfX_va_I
#597
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep...I suppose that's loosely my understanding of the GOD principle too.


Nothing as specific as Man type thing that sets fire to bushes.
#598
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Yep...I think that we loosely agree too.
#599
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep...I think that we loosely agree too.

That is the point of the spirit music frequencies. To get us loose, to shake out the Gravitationl tension demons as radiational energy.  Bucky FUller like to clog and this following is clogging on steroids aka ranting and raving cowboy punkers doing the Orange Blossm Special

9 days later

#600
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings. 

Can I ask what you mean by this? I mean I've known people who are atheist survive what were diagnosed as terminal illness. I know of an atheist who was pulled off a stool to the floor fractions of a second before a bullet lodged into the wall behind where he'd been sitting. Remarkable, but to my knowledge nothing that requires the supernatural.

the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study.   it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence. 

So you dismiss the incredible increase in brain activity as a reason people would have experiences while dying? I believe the increase in brain activity is documented? Similarities are suggested to be based on cultural experience, but I'm more interested than convinced either way.

there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation. 
To argue 'there's no good hypothesis' is begging the question. I personally see an unknown rather than evidence for a creator, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why a creator is necessary.

it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way. 

This reads as pure opinion. Got anything to back it up?

there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession. 
I'm not sure at all on this so I'd be interested on more information of this evidence. Though again, if the only reason it supports your argument is there's  currently no alternative, then it may very well be begging the question.

the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
Can you show the universe is a design?