'flat earth' nor 'no flat earth' — Banno

Yes, agnostic on this and all else, thus only probability estimates remain, which may be higher for non invisibles.

I agree that religions are nonsense designed by the dumb to control the dumber. And it is a crying shame that the defence of God has largely fallen to such idiots, for they typically do the job so badly that others can be forgiven for thinking the case for her existence is as stupid as those who make it.

But in fact God does exist. And I can prove it to all who undertake to reason ruthlessly.

For instance, would you acknowledge that there are prescriptions of reason? Would you acknowledge that this argument form is valid:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore P and Q

And that the validity of this argument consists of no more or less than a prescription of reason to believe 3 if 1 and 2 are true?

Isn't that just not having the courage to make a choice, in the face of the evidence?

For instance, would you acknowledge that there are prescriptions of reason? Would you acknowledge that this argument form is valid:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore P and Q

And that the validity of this argument consists of no more or less than a prescription of reason to believe 3 if 1 and 2 are true? — Bartricks

It requires a system of 14 axioms, i.e. 14 unexplained beliefs, to make propositional logic possible in the first place. Without such system of unexplained beliefs, there simply is no logic. Any attempt at further justifying these 14 unexplained beliefs must be deemed ridiculous, pointless, and utmost ineffective. The construction logic of logic itself, i.e. the metalogic, simply materializes out of the blue. Since atheists reject the very principle of unexplained belief, they also reject logic. Hence, atheists are not logical.

There is nothing more stupid than attacking a system merely because it ultimately rests on unexplained beliefs, given the fact that all systems are like that, including logic itself.

Since atheists reject the very principle of unexplained belief, they also reject logic. Hence, atheists are not logical.

There is nothing more stupid than attacking a system merely because it ultimately rests on unexplained beliefs, given the fact that all systems are like that, including logic itself. — alcontali

Atheists (any I know about) don't reject the very principle of unexplained belief. Atheists don't believe in God. It's as simple as that. You don't believe in God (some of them) too I take it. No one is rejecting all beliefs, simply the ones which they do not find useful, compelling, coherent, or appealing in any way.

It is evident that since neither 'God' nor 'no God' can be shown for thee sure satisfaction of all, the positions of both atheism and theism are indefensible — PoeticUniverse

Truth ain't a democracy.

Since atheists reject the very principle of unexplained belief, — alcontali

Say what?

"There is nothing more stupid than attacking a system merely because it ultimately rests on unexplained beliefs, given the fact that all systems are like that, including logic itself. "


Indeed! I too, don't understand that rationale. I mean, there is plenty in the world that is unexplainable...including our own conscious existence. There does seem to be some commonalities though:

Fundamentalism: condemnatory extreme
Atheism (positive): condemnatory extreme

Since we're talking about 'deficiencies', it's certainly ok to critique things. In the alternative, I would think Agnosticism would be more of an 'intellectual' pursuit than positive Atheism and/or extreme Fundamentalism.

In other words, if all one is doing is attacking the Ontological argument, that's really not too smart.

What do the Atheist's think about Taoism?

Indeed! I too, don't understand that rationale. I mean, there is plenty in the world that is unexplainable...including our own conscious existence. — 3017amen

Agreed, and the worst is that they think that they are going to use logic for that, which is a system of which we cannot possibly explain the reason for its basic rules. The axioms of logic just appear out of the fricking blue.

The same problem occurs in standard arithmetic, where we simply assume the 9 unexplained, speculative, unjustifiable and highly arbitrary axiomatic rules of Dedekind-Peano. They just happen to land out of nowhere!

We assume so many things, and we simply cannot explain why we do that. Seriously, these people adopt that rationale only because they don't know what they are talking about. It is sheer ignorance!

"We assume so many things, and we simply cannot explain why we do that. "


My thoughts exactly. And I was already thinking about mathematics and abstract concepts. Nobody knows why they are so effective in cosmology and science, yet we just assume...………what?

My thoughts exactly. And I was already thinking about mathematics and abstract concepts. Nobody knows why they are so effective in cosmology and science, yet we just assume...………what? — 3017amen

Plato already complained about that. So, he wrote that allegory of the cave. There may be a good reason why we only see Platonic-cave shadows. It may even be necessary to maintain our sanity:

If, however, we were to miraculously escape our bondage, we would find a world that we could not understand—the sun is incomprehensible for someone who has never seen it. In other words, we would encounter another "realm", a place incomprehensible because, theoretically, it is the source of a higher reality than the one we have always known; it is the realm of pure Form, pure fact.

Mathematics has highly-Platonic ontological elements but the link with our reality is not particularly understood. That is one reason why we avoid using it directly in reference to the real, physical world. Dealing with that, is the job of downstream users of mathematics, such as science (undoubtedly the flagship user of mathematics). Of course, these downstream users will ultimately not be able to avoid the problem either.

You're trying to logic your way out of logic. It's not going to work.

You're trying to logic your way out of logic. It's not going to work. — Artemis

Well no. It is possible to talk about logic as an abstract system. You can certainly look at what happens when you change the axioms of logic. That is in fact what the Hilbert calculi do.

Of course, at that point you will end up with the same problem as in Gödel's work, i.e. the fact that you must carefully distinguish between the rules of the system being studied versus the rules of the system with which you study it (the meta-system); which is incredibly tricky:

Metamathematics is the study of mathematics itself using mathematical methods. This study produces metatheories, which are mathematical theories about other mathematical theories. Emphasis on metamathematics (and perhaps the creation of the term itself) owes itself to David Hilbert's attempt to secure the foundations of mathematics in the early part of the 20th century. Metamathematics provides "a rigorous mathematical technique for investigating a great variety of foundation problems for mathematics and logic" (Kleene 1952, p. 59). An important feature of metamathematics is its emphasis on differentiating between reasoning from inside a system and from outside a system.

So, it can be done, and it has been done extensively, but it is indeed full of gotchas.

Arguing against logic using logic will inevitably lead to the equivalent of saying "this sentence is a lie."

Arguing against logic using logic will inevitably lead to the equivalent of saying "this sentence is a lie."


Artemis! Are you saying that there is unresolved paradox in the world?

Why would you say such a thing?

Just a quirk of the abstract and constructed nature of language. You can say a lot of paradoxical things, and none of them actually exist, because paradoxes cannot exist. Like pink, invisible unicorns.

How do you know pink unicorns don't exist in some other world?

Ok, using your logic, which statement do you believe is true:

1. All events must have a cause
2. This statement is a lie

They don't exist, because they would be paradoxical.

1. Is true. And before you get all "Critique of Pure Reason" on me, the limits of our perception/understanding as to how far back time and events go is a reason for further scientific inquiry, not for tossing logic out the window. Occam's Razor and all.

Artemis, have you read alcontali's Philosophy of Mathematics link? What do you think?

Wow, that's progress! So 1. You're saying is true. Can you tell me why you are wondering that?

Lol on the Kantian joke :)

I think whether you're talking about logic or metalogic, you're still forced to employ logic.

I'm not opposed to finding flaws in parts of the system. But some basics are irrefutable. A is A, and A is not not-A, etc.

Of course, those flaws would only be found with logic, the flaw would be shown to be not-logic, and the solution or fix would again be logic.

Atheism primarily uses philosophical rationalism to justify their belief. — 3017amen

This is false. In my case, at least. I use rational thinking to prove TENETS, particular tenets, and the teaching of the Scriptures to prove they are wrong. I point at self-contradictions.

But a god belief I can't disprove. Nor can any theist prove a god existence.That is a futile task.

Now if you talk about the Bible, and the Christian god, it and his descriptions are so full of holes and self-contradictions that in my opinion only a fool (not an idiot, but a fool) would believe in the existence of a god Christianity describes.

Aside from that, I state that religions need to make scientific findings that are undeniable by even the most fundamental believers, compatible with the scriptures. The solution? Dumbing down the science teaching in the world's technologically most advanced nation, because it happens to be the largest body of most concentrated Christian believers. THIS IS ONE MORE REASON I FIGHT AGAINST RELIGIONISM.

A priori proofs only exist in atheist thinking when the atheist points at bible self-contradictions. In a way, the bible says "X is X and not X", and the astute atheist only has to have a superficial reading and he can point these a priori falsehoods out.

Easy does it.

Or there could be a metaphysical logic ( only concept that makes sense there) that exists in the form of a novel formula.

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no?

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no? — 3017amen

No.

Or there could be a metaphysical logic — 3017amen

It would still have to be logical.

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no? — 3017amen

No.

Jinx! :wink:

I just discoved this thread. Should grow into big and juicy. The thread. This is the most fundamental disagreement on any philosophy board I've seen. All other arguments are footnotes to why Atheism is wrong, or why religionism is stupid.

A prori proofs only exist in atheist thinking when the atheist points at bible self-contradictions. In a way, the bible says "X is X and not X", and the astute atheist only has to have a superficial reading and he can point these a priori falsehoods out.



You're using rationalism to disprove EOG no?

And self reference unresolved paradox exist yes?

You're using rationalism to disprove EOG no?

And self reference unresolved paradox exist yes? — 3017amen

A-ah. No speaking in tongues around here, please.

Paradox is singular. Therefore your verb should have the form "exists".

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no?
— 3017amen

No.


Really, please explain consciousness then LOL

We're waiting????