As for morality, why do we need reasons before we do good? — Banno

We need to know we are doing good and we don't and possibly can't. If I judged people based on my own moral intuitions it would condemn a lot of human activities which is one reason we need to resolve moral disputes.

:up:

We need to know we are doing good and we don't and possibly can't. If I judged people based on my own moral intuitions it would condemn a lot of human activities which is one reason we need to resolve moral disputes. — Andrew4Handel

Do no harm. You're half way there. The golden rule will take you most of the rest of the way. And reasonable arguments might help to reach a final decision on any dispute. If not, then so be it. No-one says there's a right answer to every question.

I think the burden of proof is on the atheist because something exists rather than nothing and I believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation. — Andrew4Handel

I believe the opposite is true. As I have already said a couple of times in here, the burden of evidence lies on the one who claims that something exists, is this or that way, has happened etc. For a simple rason: how can someone who does not believe in the existence of something prove that it doesn't exist?
You tell me that there's a huge bird sitting at the top of a building. I can't see any bird. How can I prove that there isn't any? It is for you to prove it, e.g. by taking a photo with your phone. (I could also take a photo myself that will show no bird, but then you could tell me ... "It just flew away!" And so on.)

Now, as far as the existence of God is concerned, well, as I said, this is based on a personal belief. As with angels. ghosts, visions, oracles and so on. They are real for some and unreal for others. Only that no evidence can be given about ther existence or occurrence.

Atheism means not believing in a creator of reality without a feasible alternate explanation. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure if I got that right. Do you mean that an atheist does not have or can give an alternate explanation other than that a creator exists? If so, an explanation that such a creator exists must have been already given by the theist, which is what? Anyway, explanations is not the point here since thay can be millions of them based on unfounded assumptions. The point here is evidence.

That is where atheism teams up with evolution and the big bang to claim there is no longer any role for God in reality which I view as faulty and more of a faith position. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, one might say that. But an atheist might not believe in th Big Bang either. (In fact, there are a lot of people in the area of science today who reject this theory.)

I am an "atheist", in the sense that I don't have ot believe in a "God", esp. the Judeo-Christian one. I don't exclude though the existence of some Supreme Being or Power. But I have never felt its presence or can even justify it, i.e. have any evidence or explain or argue about its existence. So I don't really care. It just doesn't make any difference for me. I guess, this actually makes me an "agnostic" ... (I avoid putting labels on myself or others, hence the quotation marks, meaning "so-called".)

@Andrew4Handel :chin:

But what counts as evidence for God?
— Andrew4Handel

You tell me your definition of "God" and I will derive from that definition "what counts as evidence for your God". — 180 Proof

Why do you believe, Andrew, that nature doesn't ground a definition of morality like mine that has no need of 'supernatural support'? — 180 Proof

Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, kinda like saying "$#&£!!??" The attributes don't stick (re Epicurean riddle: not all-good, not all-powerful, not all-knowing) i.e. God is an impossible object, like a married bachelor! :cool:

Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, — Agent Smith

What you have described sounds to me more like ignosticism.

Per the wikipedia entry, there is an open debate whether ignosticism is a type of atheism or if it is a separate category unto itself.

What you have described sounds to me more like ignosticism.

Per the wikipedia entry, there is an open debate whether ignosticism is a type of atheism or if it is a separate category unto itself. — EricH

Indeed, my description matches that of ignosticism. If so, atheism as a lack of belief must mean atheists don't believe in God which is just another way of saying god doesn't exist.

Negation, or denial, of 'an absolute' is a contradiction; so insofar as 'G is absolute', to negate (i.e. deny) G is a contradiction; however, negation (i.e. denial) of 'absolute G' is possible, or not a contradiction, therefore, 'absolute G' is not absolute (i.e. is a fiction). QED, no? :smirk:

G = subject of theism (or deism)

2+2 = 4 seems true in any possible world — Andrew4Handel

I've always had trouble with that. If it "seems", then it's an empirical observation. Have you/we/anyone seen all possible worlds?

This is an axiom in math, therefore it is immovable in that system. But math is a logical structure, built on axioms, and if you remove or change any of the axioms, then the superstructure changes, yet, the axioms are always accepted as true. Thus, 2+2=3 is a different axiom, and it does not fit in our accepted math, but if you remove 2+2=4, and substitute it with 2+2=3, and leave every other existing axiom intact, then it won't produce an inner self-contradiction; it will produce a different superstructure of math concepts.

:up:

This is an axiom in math — god must be atheist

Not a axiom, but a theorem.

If it "seems", then it's an empirical observation. — god must be atheist

"Seems" is a poor phrasing. It doesn't just "seem", it "is".

therefore it is immovable in that system — god must be atheist

Immovable? It's true. And the funny thing is that it's not just true on paper or during mental calculation, but in the world. So if you have two grapes and another grape...

if you remove 2+2=4, and substitute it with 2+2=3, and leave every other existing axiom intact, then it won't produce an inner self-contradiction; — god must be atheist

Yeah, it will. One of the principles of arithmetic is that you can substitute one string for another to which it is equal. So 2+2+2=6 in the old system, but now since 2+2=3, we can substitute to get 2+3=6; but elsewhere we have 2+3=5, and hence 5=6. These inconsistencies will cascade through the whole system. The consistency of arithmetic dissolves.

A better way to think of arithmetic is not as the result of empirical considerations, but as a way of parsing them. If you come across a situation where 1+1=1, you are counting the wrong thing.

Consider two raindrops running down a window pane, meeting and becoming one.

I chose not to reply to 's post. it was going to become quite difficult. He started to mix intentional acts with physical acts by saying that his choices were causal, an area that is fraught with issues. He also made a shift on his position on idealism, from the world being a perception to it being a construction. Too many compounded errors to sort out.

:up:

, , :chin:

:clap: :up:

I heard that in QM the smaller a volume of space, the larger its stored energy. Regardless of what's contained in that space. I am not sure if this is a fact of QM.

But in case it is, then 1+1<2 is true.

Because if you add two given volumes of space, then their energies combined will be less than the sum of energy stored in either.

Again, this needs verification.
---------------------------
Another way of looking at this, is the Non-Euclidian geometry. The circle comprises more than 360 degrees. So 90+90 <180.

These are two theorems (if they stand) that gives a proof that 2+2 may equal 3 can be part of a math system that is still compatible with reality and with its own inner structure.

Disclaimer: I understand neither QM nor the non-Euclidian geometry.

Thanks.

Have you/we/anyone seen all possible worlds? — god must be atheist

This bit, too. A logically possible world is stipulated, rather than discovered. So when one wonders, for example, what would have happened if Zelenskyy had not gone in to politics, one is stipulating a possible world, and one can make further stipulations and consider the logical consequences. Logically possible worlds are different to the worlds in, say, multiple-universe quantum considerations.

So given the previous point, that 2+1=3 in every possible world, then a world in which 2+1=4 is an impossible world...

But in case it is, then 1+1<2 is true. — god must be atheist

Rather, 1+1=2, but that arithmetic is not suitable for such a universe. It's like the much simpler raindrop example.

The circle comprises more than 360 degrees. So 90+90 <180. — god must be atheist

Arithmetic still functions in spherical geometry. It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. The addition is done in the same way in alternate geometries.

The three angles of a triangle inscribed on a saddle add to less than 180º.

It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. — Banno

Aha. No-one mentioned in my studies that EG is on curved space. Then it's not a triangle, is it. A triangle strictly exists in two-dimensional space. A curved space ALTHOUGH a SURFACE, is three-dimensional, nevertheless.

Rather, 1+1=2, but that arithmetic is not suitable for such a universe. — Banno

So it is NOT universally true. Does that not mean that 1+1 <> 2?

So it is NOT universally true. — god must be atheist

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have said that equation was not suitable. That is, in our universe multiple volumes are summed using a simple addition, but I suppose that in some other universe the volume might need a more complex equation. But in no universe is it not the case that 2+2=4. (Well, except for impossible universes...)

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have said that equation was not suitable. That is, in our universe multiple volumes are summed using a simple addition, but I suppose that in some other universe the volume might need a more complex equation. But in no universe is it not the case that 2+2=4. (Well, except for impossible universes...) — Banno

I don't think I misunderstood you. I think I did not understand you.

And I believe the QM example I bought up applies to this, OUR, existing universe. (Verification needed.) So if the equations don't stand up in a universe, then it does not stand up in our universe, either. You said multiple volumes are summed using a simple addition, and you said multiple volumes are summed with a different, more complex equation. The funny part is that in OUR universe, it is summed up both ways.

Much like Schroedinger's cat: both alive AND dead. Both simple and necessarily not simple.

Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, kinda like saying "$#&£!!??" The attributes don't stick (re Epicurean riddle: not all-good, not all-powerful, not all-knowing) i.e. God is an impossible object, like a married bachelor! — Agent Smith

Not really. Everyone has a concept of god. Much like everyone has a concept of Santa Claus. Some believe she exists, some believe she doesn't exist.

It's not that attributes don't stick in an atheist's world view. They stick, in his world view, too, very much. The atheist just does not believe that the unit actually exists.

Well, if you are happy to introduce contradictions into your thinking, best leave you to it.

Well, if you are happy to introduce contradictions into your thinking, best leave you to it. — Banno

Is it to my thinking? Or are they contradictions very much applicable to reality as we observe it?

Contradictions can only occur in how things are said, not in how things are.

Not really. Everyone has a concept of god. Much like everyone has a concept of Santa Claus. Some believe she exists, some believe she doesn't exist.

It's not that attributes don't stick in an atheist's world view. They stick, in his world view, too, very much. The atheist just does not believe that the unit actually exists. — god must be atheist

So what's the difference between lack of belief in god and the belief that god does not exist?

So what's the difference between lack of belief in god and the belief that god does not exist? — Agent Smith

I don't understand why you asked this question, but I'll answer it to the best of my knowledge.

Lack of belief in god leaves perhaps, but not necessarily, other things as presence of belief, but of all things a person can believe god is not one of them.

The belief that god does not exist presents a world view which the person makes it his own, including that he believes there is no god.

Contradictions can only occur in how things are said, not in how things are. — Banno

That is true. Therefore 2+2=3 is not how things are, and 2+2=4 is not how things are, since both describe reality (as per parts of the foregoing discussion, in which it was shown that a simple summation is sufficient in one instance, and insufficient in another instance of the same conceptually measured quantity.)

This bring in the question whether 2+2=4 is a concept, only an abstraction, or is it reality.

If it's reality, then reality is contradicting itself.

If it's not reality, then its contradiction is valid, since 2+2 only exists as thought, not as reality, and contradictions are known to exist in thought, or in its reflection, in speech.

and 2+2=4 is not how things are, — god must be atheist

Again, if you find 2+2 is not 4, you are saying it wrong.

Again, if you find 2+2 is not 4, you are saying it wrong. — Banno

Did we not agree that 2+2 is not 4? You said it needed some different equations, but the upshot was that 2+2<>4, and we also agreed that a 30 degree angle plus a 60 degree angle plus a 90 degree angle do not equal 180 degrees.

It's all up there in previously said things.

If you say that the differences can be explained by different ASPECTS, then that ALMOST sticks, but the mathematical expression, without doubt is that (90+60+30) degrees is not equal to 180 degrees, which means, schwartz auf weiss, that 90+60+30 is not equal to 180.

Whether it is due to a special case, or circumstencial differences, the end result is pure math, and it states something that can't be directly derived from the axioms, instead, it realigns the entire math superstructure built on arithmetic additions or summations.

Did we not agree that 2+2 is not 4? You said it needed some different equations, but the upshot was that 2+2<>4, and we also agreed that a 30 degree angle plus a 60 degree angle plus a 90 degree angle do not equal 180 degrees. — god must be atheist

Certainly not.