What I mean by rigorous logic is reasoning without any fallacies.

@Hello Human

The problem is professional philosophers invented and defined these fallacies and academic logic.

The answer is found outside academic philosophy.

problems with the notion of a necessary being — Banno

(necessary and possible are terms in modal logic, like the possible worlds formulation thereof)

The bare necessities:

Is R³ (or Q³, doesn't matter) self-consistent? Sure. It's a mathematical thing, so, in a sense, it shares a category with (modal) logic.

Anyway, so, R³ is a possible world, a boring, barren, inert, lifeless world. No minds here, nothing worthy of worship, nothing resembling any deities or what-have-you. For G to be necessary, G would have to hold up or be present in R³, all possible worlds actually. It follows, then, that any such G can't be a mind, isn't worthy of worship, is rather inert and lifeless, which does not seem like any gods/God preached by the theists out there.

Assuming that the theists would like their gods/God to show up, defining/asserting gods/God as necessary is a bad move. (Not that wishing makes it so anyway.)

Arguments for the existence of god — Banno

Epic fail at the onset.

People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds of some philosophical arguments. Instead, they were born and raised to believe in God, and everything else follows from there.

Only the relatively few philosophers who profess to believe in God do so on the grounds of some philosophical arguments. However, these philosopher-theists do not believe in the same God as the religious theists do; philosopher-theists believe in a God of their own making, on their own terms -- they believe in the God of philosophers. For all practical intents and purposes, philosopher-theists should not be counted as proper theists; because from the regular monotheistic perspective, they are still atheists.

But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical. — Banno

Duh. Of course. You must bear in mind that theists typically believe that atheists are stupid and that they should be convinced by the proselytizing arguments put forward by the theists. (Imagine yourself being patronizingly patted on the top of your head everytime a proselytizing theist puts forward an argument in favor of God. Of course, that same theist did not arrive at his belief in God by considering the arguments he wants you to consider!)

And -- "in praise of atheism"?? Are you preaching to the choir? Are you arguing that atheism is evolutionarily advantageous, more conducive to survival and happiness? You'd need to show that the poor God believers are kept poor by their God belief.

This is the etymology of agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" ,and can be seen here . — skyblack

I think it interesting that something that sounds like not committing to a belief either way, in this case, entails believing quite a bit, say about epistemology and, even, the facets/abilities a God must have and/or could not have. IOW what seems cautious to me at first glance is actually make a rather hard to demonstrate claim with great certainty. How does one know what a God would be capable of proving?

From Salman Rushdie:

If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.
The Enchantress of Florence

Like i said in that post, not interested in the god game. You will have to find someone else.

What more really needs to be said ...
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
— Stephen Roberts?
In other words: Hitchens' Razor. — 180 Proof

Yes, the final relevant word for me too. The rest is largely head-meets-wall masochism.

However, they do not all have the same beliefs, so there isn't really any justification as to why their opinions would be more reliable. — Hello Human

Therefore it is good, healthy, and beneficial to play in traffic. QED.

The problem is professional philosophers invented and defined these fallacies and academic logic.

The answer is found outside academic philosophy. — Protagoras

You mean the answer is fallacious? Yes, that seems likely.

@Kenosha Kid
You think truth is the province of philosophy and or science?

How cute!

I've always found it interesting that, even if the traditional "proofs" of the existence of God had any validity, they don't serve to prove the existence of a personal, peculiarly Christian God, although they're regularly touted by Christians and have been for centuries. The same would apply in the case of other personal Gods if the "proofs" are used to "prove" them. Even if they're true, there's still a long way to go to get from them to Jesus or any other personal deity.

People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds grounds of some philosophical arguments. Instead, they were born and raised to believe in God, and everything else follows from there. — baker

Right. So indoctrination works. (y) And, taken as a methodology, indoctrination doesn't differentiate the target faiths, any will do, and it works just the same. Whether Jesus is divine, or whether Sathya Sai Baba was a Shiva avatar, doesn't matter as far as indoctrination is concerned, it'll work just fine either way. Directed indoctrination, therefore, isn't a reliable means to discover the truth of the matter. (n) But I think this should be fairly clear.

It seems like you are interested, but just for the occasional single move.

The move is to neutralize all moves. A discussion is reserved for the serious and the sincere.

Even more neutralizing is to not make any moves. This also avoids moves that might be insults or might not be, like your last. Which then avoids being incorrect, also.

Even more neutralizing is to not make any moves. This also avoids moves that might be insults or might not be, like your last. Which then avoids being incorrect, also. — Bylaw

You are talking big for a new account. I don't recall asking you for advice. Don't be insulting by giving it.

May i add ,"sock".

What I mean by rigorous logic is reasoning without any fallacies. — Hello Human

Sounds good.

Up for consideration is the following simple logic, It's a basic observation, doesn't get more basic than this, that you do not have true ownership over yourself, your body, or 'life', Now use logic and relinquish the fallacious sense of ownership. And by extension the sense of ownership over everything else you think you "own".. Have the atheists and the theists use their logic (simple, not even rigorous), if you can. At the end of the day all your "love for wisdom" comes down to how well you can translate it in your living, doesn't it? Unless, the idea is simply to....well...the circus.

You took that rather literally. I was pointing out the absurdity of your explanation of your goals, given your actions.. It's not talking big to do that. But I can see your strong interest in avoiding god games and in serious discussion. Of course you may add 'sock' but you'd be incorrect. I don't know who you think I am (also) but I am only posting in this forum and this thread as bylaw. You make a lot of assumptions. I think the tangent has gone far enough for me. Good luck with your goal of avoiding games.

Better luck next time.

, yeah, the apologist gap.

Two categories of deities:

• Stories: Here gods/God are various narrated characters, found in all kinds of (diverse, mutually inconsistent, lush, sumptuous) religious texts and such. Elaborate. Divine intervention. Adherents go by rituals, commands/rules, impositions, fate designations, they have public aspects (and advertising), etc.
• Definitions: Here gods/God are defined by apologists (or theologians), and definitions may vary. Idealized abstractions, or otherwise vague and nebulous. Some are results of apologetic arguments. They usually don't differentiate, say, theism and deism, and some are more panpsychist or Spinozist (or whatever) than others.

The former cannot be derived from the latter - the apologist gap.

The former is by far the most common in terms of professed faiths - people worship in temples, churches, mosques, synagogues, by altars, etc - preachers indoctrinate and proselytize. This category is also politically active, and so warrants some attention due to that alone.

The latter may be more philosophical if you will.

While looking around, I've come across a few people that lean towards straight atheism on the former category, the story characters, and lean towards agnosticism (or indifference) regarding unassuming deism and such. Unassuming deism is sort of in a category with simulation hypotheses, The Matrix, brain in a vat thought experiments, or whatever. Anyway, this then introduces an ambiguity: persons with two different attitudes, depending on what we're talking about. If this isn't pointed out where applicable, then confuzzlement follows, perhaps mobile goalposts.

Right. So indoctrination works. (y) And, taken as a methodology, indoctrination doesn't differentiate the target faiths, any will do, and it works just the same. — jorndoe

It's not simply indoctrination.
Like I said elsewhere:

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.

The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097 — https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097

:up: Yes, I prefer Rushdie's version.

, is it worthwhile mentioning that people do jump ship? Be it between faiths or to/from nontheism?
What you mention exemplifies doxastic involuntarism because, well, someone else (parents) chose for them. (I'll just call it directed indoctrination, though it shares something with enculturation.)
Anyway, formation (and revision) of beliefs aren't trivial matters I guess, but surely incorrigibility isn't a virtue.

In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view. — Banno

I'd like to take this opportunity to put my position to alleviate some of my discomfort. I am a quasi-theist, I believe for philosophical reasons, but I want to distance myself from many of the other theists on this forum and in the wider world generally. Spiritually, I'm an atheist if you will. If I had to choose to spend the rest of my life stuck in a pub, I'd generally rather spend it with atheists. I agree with most of the arguments against theism, and think nearly all the arguments for it are bollocks, at least without very heavy modification. Typically (and I generalise - apologies to those civilised theists) my political and moral views tend to align with humanists, ecologists, liberals, and lefties. On this forum the people I argue with the most are those whose metaphysics and philosophy of mind I disagree with, and these also tend to be the people whose moral and political views I agree with. Banno for example, 180, street, jorndoe, all the people I find most annoying philosophically (and editorially actually). In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.

Except there are many theists who think they worship the same God as other theists. From there they can have all sorts of nuances. But we have a better way of worshipping. Or we have interpreted the word of that deity better. Many abrahamists believe that they have a shared god across religions, and in Hinduism this can also be the case in relation to other religions and other seemingly distinct sect within Hinduism. The two families of a bigamist may each think, when finding out the existence of the other family and meeting them, that they understand what the bigamist is really like, his personality and proclivities, better than the other family. But they can acknowledge it's just one guy.

I don't know what the 'can' means in Hitchen's razor means.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Of course it can, in the sense one has the ability. Is it a moral can? an epistemological one?

If someone runs into a supermarket and says he needs help getting a kid out from under a car and has no photos of this kid, I can certainly dismiss the assertion that there is a kid stuck under a car. It might be better to say I have no compelling evidence for the belief. But I think it's a potentially messy razor. Because dismissing something interpersonally is one thing, but I think it can be easily conflated with doing it in general. IOW if person A tells me there is a God, I can dismiss any sense Person A has that I should now believe there is a God. But I dont think it makes sense to then dismiss the truth of that assertion. Assertions without evidence are not compelling (at all). This shorter razor leaves out what becomes a neo-claim that the assetion is necessarily false or dismissible in and of itself.

If I could just point out something to all you enlightened heroes.

The greatest argument for atheism is penicillin, not some dubious bullshit about razors.

Whatever keeps people from feeling lost in grief so that they turn to the opium of religion for comfort, that's your argument.

The more you look out at the world and see people becoming educated and fulfilled, the more your atheism is winning.

If you see the opposite, that people are disenfranchised and losing hope, losing their health insurance and job security

you

are

losing.

but surely incorrigibility isn't a virtue. — jorndoe

Sure it can be, esp. when framed as self-confidence and constancy.