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. — 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?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'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.Atheism means not believing in a creator of reality without a feasible alternate explanation. — 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.)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
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, — 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. — EricH
2+2 = 4 seems true in any possible world — Andrew4Handel
This is an axiom in math — god must be atheist
"Seems" is a poor phrasing. It doesn't just "seem", it "is".If it "seems", then it's an empirical observation. — 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...therefore it is immovable in that system — god must be atheist
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
Have you/we/anyone seen all possible worlds? — 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.But in case it is, then 1+1<2 is true. — 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 circle comprises more than 360 degrees. So 90+90 <180. — god must be atheist
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.It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. — Banno
So it is NOT universally true. Does that not mean that 1+1 <> 2?Rather, 1+1=2, but that arithmetic is not suitable for such a universe. — Banno
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...) — Banno
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
Well, if you are happy to introduce contradictions into your thinking, best leave you to it. — Banno
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? — Agent Smith
Contradictions can only occur in how things are said, not in how things are. — Banno
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. — 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. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.