God?

Tarskian

WTF are you talking about, kid? — 180 Proof

Ha ha ah! You have just made my point!

180 Proof

Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.

Tarskian

Dunning-Kruger is in full effect. — 180 Proof

Dunning-Kruger is about people who think that they know but in fact they don't. Since atheism requires omniscience while faith in God does not, doesn't Dunning-Kruger rather describe atheists and not religious people?

Tom Storm

↪Tarskian

Can you demonstrate that god exists or not? We can demonstrate that math exists and works.

There are alternative religions, just like there are alternative foundations for math. Two billion people agree on Christianity. Two billion on Islam. A similarly large number on Buddhism. There are obscure religions with a small number of followers, just like there are obscure math theories.

Furthermore, religion can be very effective. It can successfully prevent governments from overruling the laws of nature. It can also be effective at motivating individuals and stimulate their survival instinct. It can motivate individuals to maintain faith in life and in the future and keep reproducing from generation to generation. — Tarskian

Nicely put. But unconvincing.

The quesion we are addressing is - is there good reason to belive in god the way there are good reasons to believe in math? We haven't even addressed the matter of which gods.

Whether there are many obscure math theories doesn't cancel the effectiveness of math in general.

Religion being an effective political group is not the same thing as assessing the effectiveness of the god hypothesis. This would seem to be another equivocation. Religion all over the world behaves like a political party - theism being incidental to its machinations.

Tom Storm

Dunning-Kruger is about people who think that they know but in fact they don't. Since atheism requires omniscience while faith in God does not, doesn't Dunning-Kruger rather describe atheists and not religious people? — Tarskian

Omniscience? Straw man, there. As an atheist I put it: I do not belive the proposition that gods exist. I have heard no good reason to accept it and the idea of gods do not assist me to make sense of my experince. This is how many contemporary atheists view the subject. We do not say there is no god, that would be making a positive claim. For many, atheism is about belief not knowledge. But this entire 'gods or not gods' is a really boring debate. Let's not let a little thing like gods come between us. :wink:

Tarskian

The quesion we are addressing is - is there good reason to belive in god the way there are good reasons to believe in math? — Tom Storm

The reasons are similar. The belief in Peano's axioms allows you to use arithmetic theory and maintain consistency in downstream applications. The belief in religion creates a common understanding between billions of people that constitute a political counterweight to prevent governments from overruling the laws of nature. Different tools for different purposes.

Religion all over the world behaves like a political party - theism being incidental to its machinations — Tom Storm

Politics is unavoidable. The government is essentially a monopoly on violence. There needs to be a mechanism to suspend this monopoly when the government abuses it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

The Mandate of Heaven (Chinese: 天命; pinyin: Tiānmìng; Wade–Giles: T'ien1-ming4; lit. 'Heaven's command') is a Chinese political ideology that was used in Ancient China and Imperial China to legitimize the rule of the king or emperor of China.[1] According to this doctrine, Heaven (天, Tian) bestows its mandate[a] on a virtuous ruler. This ruler, the Son of Heaven, was the supreme universal monarch, who ruled Tianxia (天下; "all under heaven", the world).[3] If a ruler was overthrown, this was interpreted as an indication that the ruler was unworthy and had lost the mandate.[4]

The so-called democratic voting circus was advertised as being capable of achieving this but it has now become obvious that it has failed at doing so. We are now effectively in the long run of all the past short-termism.

Tarskian

We do not say there is no god, that would be making a positive claim. — Tom Storm

There are three possibilities concerning the belief in God: true, false, indeterminate. Religion believes it is true. Atheism believes that it is false. Agnosticism is indeterminate.

Atheism is defined as a positive claim. It is agnosticism that refuses to make a claim. While agnosticism makes perfect sense, atheism doesn't.

For many, atheism is about belief not knowledge. — Tom Storm

If we look at the JTB account for knowledge, then knowledge is defined as a particular kind of belief:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

The JTB account holds that knowledge is equivalent to justified true belief; if all three conditions (justification, truth, and belief) are met of a given claim, then we have knowledge of that claim.

There is no knowledge without belief. Furthermore, at the foundationalist core of knowledge you always find necessarily unjustifiable beliefs. Rejecting the foundation of unjustifiable beliefs amounts to rejecting the entire edifice of knowledge. If you can't have faith, you cannot know either.

Tom Storm

There are three possibilities concerning the belief in God: true, false, indeterminate. Religion believes it is true. Atheism believes that it is false. Agnosticism is indeterminate. — Tarskian

From American Atheists website:

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

It's important to understand how people use words.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist - A fairly common category these days. I can't know there is no god. I don't believe there is a god. Atheism is not necessarily a knowledge claim.

Now one might claim we can know there is no Zeus, Ganesh, Zoroaster or Jesus. But we can't know whether or not there is some unspecified theistic entity (whatever that might look like).

There is no knowledge without belief. Furthermore, at the foundationalist core of knowledge you always find necessarily unjustifiable beliefs. Rejecting the foundation of unjustifiable beliefs amounts to rejecting the entire edifice of knowledge. If you can't have faith, you cannot know either. — Tarskian

I'm not a foundationalist.

All this is a distraction. We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. We seem unable to get past this point.

Lionino

Gödel has proved the existence of a Godlike entity from higher-order modal logic. — Tarskian

He hasn't. Read the Reddit article you yourself linked.

Atheism is defined as a positive claim. — Tarskian

It is not. There have been some three threads in the past year about this very topic where this is debunked thoroughly.

180 Proof

↪Tarskian

:lol:

Atheism is ~~defined as~~ a positive claim. — Tarskian

Yes, it can be but that formulation is not popular – though it's formerly my preferred position (while quite reasonable, it's too narrow in scope):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901774

We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. — Tom Storm

:smirk:

Tarskian

I'm not a foundationalist. — Tom Storm

In that case, you will need to reject mathematics as it is staunchly foundationalist, i.e. axiomatic. Since science is not viable without math, you will also need to reject science.

Even animals use some basic arithmetic for reasons of survival. Hence, an anti-foundationalist animal cannot survive.

Again, every living creature needs to have at least some faith in order to survive.

But then again, with the birth rate collapsing, atheist populations are in the long run not surviving. Indeed, why would they? In the end, you still need some faith to believe that it would be meaningful to begin with. There is no compulsion in religion. Therefore, they are indeed at liberty to die out.

As usual, the proof will be in the pudding. Atheism will disappear. Only religion will survive. That is how it has always been. Nothing new there.

Tarskian

Yes, it can be but that formulation is not popular – though it's formerly my preferred position (while quite reasonable, it's too narrow in scope): — 180 Proof

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just language engineering.

It implies that the position could also be indeterminate. However, we already have a term for that position, i.e. agnosticism.

Why would there be a need to create that ambiguous overlap between atheism and agnosticism? It merely mixes up the underlying truth values. A logic sentence is true, false, or indeterminate. Why deviate from standard logic. To what benefit?

Tarskian

He hasn't. Read the Reddit article you yourself linked. — Lionino

You misunderstand what the Wikipedia page on the matter says. Godel has perfectly demonstrated the equiconsistency between his theorem and the axioms that he used. What else does any proof do, if not exactly that?

Tarskian

We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. We seem unable to get past this point. — Tom Storm

You need to compare apples to apples:

- We can demonstrate that math works.
- We can demonstrate that religion works.

That is the fair comparison. Or even:

- We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods.
- We still can't demonstrate that Peano's successor function exists as mentioned in the axioms of arithmetic.

That is another fair comparison.

What you are doing, is comparing apples to oranges.

Tom Storm

In that case, you will need to reject mathematics as it is staunchly foundationalist, i.e. axiomatic. Since science is not viable without math, you will also need to reject science. — Tarskian

Not so. We accept science and math because they work pragmatically, subject to contingent factors like communities of practice, culture and language. Science doesn't uncover reality, it gives us reliable and tentative models which are iterative and replaced when better models come forward. I suspect this process is never complete. Math can be understood in numerous ways including intuitionism, formalism, constructivism, Platonism, empiricism, not to mention postmodern accounts of math.

What you are doing, is comparing apples to oranges. — Tarskian

So your argument is that religion doesn't work and god can't be demonstrated, but we should believe it anyway because it is an orange and ideas like 'demonstration' are apples?

I'm not interested in an undergraduate debate about religion or gods. My point is that math demonstrates its utility, god can't even demonstrate it's existence. Hence faith. I don't think there's much point going on in this way. Take care.

ssu

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

Ok,

Even if I'm late to this discussion and haven't looked it through, here's my five cents:

If the difference between faith and reason isn't obvious to people, I urge people first to go and read their actual field manuals here: if you are Christian, read the Bible, if you are a Muslim, read the Quran or if you are a Jew, read the Torah. Now, do any of these Holy Scriptures insist and demand that in order for to find God you just have "really think it through" or "reason it out"? That you'll find God if you just reason enough and think about it? Or is it about faith, something like "taking Jesus to your heart" as in the Christian manual? Fun fact, the difference between the expressions of taking something into your heart or it being an issue of the heart or using your brain is quite old.

And since part of us are interested in the Abrahamic religions here (that I admit, I barely know), they don't actually like worshipping idols. Now ask yourself, if there would be a "proof" of God, what need there would be for the Bible or the Torah or the Quran? You have this proof! Here's the proof, there's God, and that's it!

So wouldn't the this proof be an Idol?

In my opinion, It sure would be. So those trying to prove God are trying to build Idols.

Tarskian

We accept science and math because they work — Tom Storm

I accept religion, also because it works.

We take a snapshot of a presumably ane society along with its rules and call that our scripture. Now we have a benchmark to compare our own society to, as well as where it is heading. Next, we threaten the government to stop overruling the laws of nature and of a sane society, and make it cave in.

What is there about religion that does not work? In my opinion, the tool is perfectly suitable for purpose.

My point is that math demonstrates its utility — Tom Storm

Religion also demonstrates its utility. The government fears us more than the result of its elections. So, the tool achieves its goal.

You see, when the Taliban unceremoniously deported NATO from Kabul airport, they achieved something that nobody else was able to do. Or do you think that you can do that too?

Tarskian

If the difference between faith and reason isn't obvious to people — ssu

Knowledge is fundamentally foundationalist:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

Beliefs therefore fall into two categories:

- Beliefs that are properly basic, in that they do not depend upon justification of other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief (a "non-doxastic justification").

- Beliefs that derive from one or more basic beliefs, and therefore depend on the basic beliefs for their validity.

Without basic beliefs, reason is not possible.

Therefore, there is no such sharp distinction between reason and faith. Reason allows us to reach derived beliefs. However, their ultimate justification can only be found in properly basic beliefs

Tom Storm

What is there about religion that does not work? — Tarskian

We are talking about god and math. Religion is politics. Forget it. To call religion effective is an equivocation fallacy. It's not the same kind of demonstration of effectiveness as math. Math axioms can be shown to work. Religion cannot demonstrate gods. All it can do is what secular humanists or even communists might do - organize.

Religion also demonstrates its utility. The government fears us more than the result of its elections. So, the tool achieves its goal. — Tarskian

I would call that evidence of religion's disfunction. Biblically literalists, highjacked by corporate power - who are, incidentally, also scorned by vast numbers of members within the same religion are simply fearful of modernity and are retreating into strident accounts of their myths. This disorganized shambles is well understood. Even religious scholar and religious apologist, Karen Armstrong presents this hypothesis.

You see, when the Taliban unceremoniously deported NATO from Kabul airport, they achieved something that nobody else was able to do. Or do you think that you can do that too? — Tarskian

You make me laugh. We know that people can be galvanized by deception and undemonstrated beliefs. A crowd that believes something is just a crowd that believes something. Truth is a separate matter. Or do you think the supposed truths held by Marxists, Hare Krishna, Scientologists are all 'really' true because each of these groups has been effective in significant ways?

Tarskian

Math axioms can be shown to work. — Tom Storm

No, they can't. There is no justification for axioms. If an axiom can be justified, it is not a legitimate axiom.

Religion cannot demonstrate gods. — Tom Storm

Math cannot demonstrate its axioms either.

I would call that evidence of religion's disfunction. — Tom Storm

No, it is its stated goal. The goal of religion is not what you would want it to be. That is wishful thinking.

Or do you think the supposed truths held by Marxists — Tom Storm

Marxism has collapsed. Some religions are unsustainable. Nobody urges you to choose one of those.

We know that people can be galvanized by deception and undemonstrated beliefs. — Tom Storm

Undemonstrated beliefs are the foundation of all knowledge. That is exactly what Aristotle pointed out in Posterior Analytics. If nothing is assumed then nothing can be concluded. Furthermore, the ability to galvanize is exceptionally meritorious. Motivating people is not easy. It is no small feat if you manage to do it. It is also the biggest failure of any manager, if he cannot galvanize his people. Humanity is a social species, which means that leadership is a pressing requirement. If you can galvanize other people, then you can achieve greater things. If you are critical about that, you simply do not understand how human organizations work.

Janus

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just language engineering. — Tarskian

If your opinion is that there is no valid distinction between lack of belief and active disbelief, then your opinion is based on insufficient thought.

An atheistic can quite coherently say they see no reason to believe in a god, and yet that they cannot rule it out. They are a-theistic in an analogous sense in which someone may be a-sexual—in the latter case they have no sexual disposition and in the former case they have no theistic disposition.

Agnosticism is different —it is about knowing not believing—an agnostic says we cannot know God, which means we cannot know whether God exists, whereas a gnostic says we can know God.

That said most agnostics today probably don't believe in God, simply because they don't know. But in the original sense of the word, one could be an agnostic theist, and in fact most sensible theists are agnostic, in the sense that they acknowledge that one cannot know whether there is a god, and they acknowledge that it is a matter of faith, not knowledge.

Tarskian

An atheistic can quite coherently say they see no reason to believe in a god, and yet that they cannot rule it out. — Janus

In terms of logic, we have: yes, no, maybe. The view you describe is a maybe. In my opinion, that is perfectly fine.

jorndoe

↪Tarskian

, belief that may be provisional or tentative, presumably.

180 Proof

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just ... — Tarskian

I.e. you can't tell the difference between ~b(G) and b(~G)? :pray:

It implies that the position could also be indeterminate.

This is only so for someone who (analogously) cannot differentiate 'nonassent from dissent' or 'remaining silent from spoken denial' or 'indifference from rejection'.

Why would there be a need to create that ambiguous overlap between atheism and agnosticism?

Right, there's no "need" for the muddle confusing you, Tarskian. Consider –

Given that (theistic) agnosticism denotes 'the truth-value of theism (claim that at least one providential/creator deity** exists) is unknown (or unknowable)':

(A) if theism is antirealist-noncognitive (i.e. belief in a deity** that does not entail truth-claims), then (theistic) agnosticism is incoherent ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether noncognitive theism is true or false'. :roll:

(B) however, if theism is realist-cognitive°° (i.e. belief in a deity** that entails truth-claims), and using the natural world to search for truth-makers, I/we can show that theism is not true

↪180 Proof

°° and therefore, (theistic) agnosticism is unwarranted ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether cognitive theism is true or false.' :yawn:

In terms of logic, we have: yes, no, maybe. — Tarskian

More precisely +1, 0, -1 (true, unknown, not true).

Tarskian

the difference between ~b(G) and b(~G) — 180 Proof

It depends on b() whether they are different or the same. It is a similar situation as whether a ⊕b is equal to b ⊕ a. It depends on the properties of ⊕.

In this case, they are clearly the same. The expression:

not belief("God exists")

is equivalent to

belief("God does not exist")

. There is no difference.

True, False, Not-True — 180 Proof

Ok, Heyting logic does indeed work like that, with (true,false,not-true) truth values, while the Kleene, Priest, and Łukasiewicz logics stick to (true,false,uinknown). After having spent decades fiddling with SQL and years fiddling with javascript, I subconsciously tend to revert to (true,false,null). I wonder if Heyting logic is even implemented anywhere? Is there a programming language that uses it?

Fire Ologist

Proof only exists in mathematics, which is never about the physical universe. Therefore, it is impossible to prove anything "concrete". That is not how proof works. — Tarskian

100 %.

We don’t prove existence. We prove relations among the existing things we posit, or assume, or hypothesize, or believe, or know. You don’t prove the existence of a premise; you need a premise first to prove something in conclusion. Or you aren’t doing proof.

We might be able to prove a god wouldn’t struggle, or a god wouldn’t need sleep, but we can’t prove that struggle-free, always awake god exists.

Tarskian

We don’t prove existence ... We might be able to prove a god wouldn’t struggle, or a god wouldn’t need sleep, but we can’t prove that struggle-free, always awake god exists. — Fire Ologist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God.

The proof[8][10] uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

Gödel's proof is considered mathematically unobjectionable. That is why the only mathematical criticism is that it merely proves equiconsistency between the theorem and its axioms:

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms.

Furthermore, we can certainly prove existence or non-existence.

Existence. Kakutani's fixed-point theorem proves the existence of a fixed point. So does Brouwer's fixed-point theorem.

Non-existence. Abel-Ruffini theorem proves the non-existence of a solution in radicals for quintic polynomials or higher degrees. Fermat's Last Theorem proves the non-existence of particular three-tuples of natural numbers.

180 Proof

↪Tarskian

What do you mean by the term "existence"?

Tarskian

What do you mean by the term "existence"? — 180 Proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification

Existential quantification

In predicate logic, an existential quantification is a type of quantifier, a logical constant which is interpreted as "there exists", "there is at least one", or "for some". It is usually denoted by the logical operator symbol ∃, which, when used together with a predicate variable, is called an existential quantifier ("∃x" or "∃(x)" or "(∃x)").

Tom Storm

Or do you think the supposed truths held by Marxists
— Tom Storm

Marxism has collapsed. Some religions are unsustainable. Nobody urges you to choose one of those. — Tarskian

That's irrelevant. The point is that Marxism has had way more power than the Taliban. The point is that this -

the Taliban unceremoniously deported NATO from Kabul airport, they achieved something that nobody else was able to do. Or do you think that you can do that too? — Tarskian

- might have been done by any number of fanatics (Castro, Hitler, Putin, whoever). And why ask me if I can do this? I am not an organisation. Nor do I belong to any organisation. Strange.

No, they can't. There is no justification for axioms. If an axiom can be justified, it is not a legitimate axiom.

Religion cannot demonstrate gods.
— Tom Storm

Math cannot demonstrate its axioms either. — Tarskian

The effectiveness of math can be demonstrated through its consistency and predictability. Religions by contrast are a mess of contradictory and conflicting beliefs, with no agreed upon goals or values - even within the single religion. It is unpredictable and inconsistent. To say religion is 'effective' in the way you are doing is to say that an atomic bomb is a good way to keep your lawn short.

But what about religion? You can't even demonstrate that religion (whichever one you pick) has anything to do with a gods. Even if a god or ten exist, there is no way of demonstrating which religion is true and reflects the will of that god.

God?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions