What information are you using to justify your conclusion that no gods exist?
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
-->
@Fallaneze
My response to that entire argument is this question.
What does positive evidence for a thing that doesn't exist look like?
Also, I sent you a link in my initial statement that leads to a debate where my 1st round statement is my argument for no gods and you didn't address it.
Here it is again. Round 1 Statement is my argument for no gods.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If I claimed there was a penny in your left pocket and you turn your left pocket inside out, with no penny, then I now have positive evidence for the non-existence of a penny in that pocket.
You claimed that metaphysical stuff wasn't a part of reality and that's disproved by being able to make true predictions using math.
-->
@Fallaneze
Math is an abstract. It's not metaphysical nor is it any kind of physical.
Sure, so in my analogy, the universe is the pocket and god is the penny and I turned it inside out and it's not there.
Did you even read my evidence? I linked it to you twice. You asked me for evidence and then didn't even acknowledge it when I gave it to you.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Two paragraphs to reference for further discussion
"1. Metaphysical.
Metaphysical, in essence, means beyond physical or that which cannot be reached by the physical. In order for anything to fall into this category, it would have to be undetectable in our reality. It then logically follows that such things also cannot affect our world. That means from a human perspective, something metaphysical is functionally identical as not existing. Human knowledge is for human use. Our knowledge is not meant to quantify the metaphysical. Our world is separate from the metaphysical"
I disagree that something metaphysical is undetectable in reality. Meaning is detectable yet not physical. Meaning carries information which affects how we interact with the world and therefore affects our world. Something metaphysical is not functionally identical to not existing. So does consciousness not exist, including your own? Metaphysical things like math, logic, moral truths, information, consciousness etc. are all a part of reality.
5. Deist Gods.
The first deadbeat dad. This one just made us and headed for the hills. This god would have to metaphysical and therefore is a contradiction that cannot occur in reality since a metaphysical being cannot create us. One could argue that this god shift from physical to metaphysical, but there is not evidence to support such a claim and it would still be functionally identical to nonexistence."
You haven't shown that the metaphysical can't affect the physical. Mental causation, for instance, posits that our intentions drive our actions. Our intentions are not physical and therefore this is an interaction between physical and metaphysical.
-->
@Fallaneze
So the term meta physical means beyond physical. That means that if something can detect it. It's physical, not metaphysical.
Meaning is not a thing but rather a subjective value that people place on things.
If by meaning, you mean interactions, interactions are not things but rather relative states of affairs.
We don't detect abstracts, but rather we see relative states of affairs and we define them with abstracts.
Abstracts are human inventions.
Math works so well because humans played around with different types of math and kept the best one.
The Greeks had a 12 point decimal system which was a different math with different rules and different results and it was replaced by a 10 point decimal system because the previous version was suboptimal.
I could invent a 7 point decimal system if I wanted right now and it would have completely different rules than the 10 point. If abstracts exist, doesn't that mean I just willed it into existence? No. It means I invented a concept.
If math is real, then unicorns are real because they're abstracts. So is Zeus, and Allah, and Santa Claus.
Abstracts are not things.
Our intentions are physical because they're driven by our chemical bodies, the feelings that we get from them are abstracts. Which don't exist unless you're also willing to admit that unicorns and Zeus and Donald Trump exist.
What you're talking about isn't metaphysical. It's what's known as a priori in philosophy.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Well we either do or don't detect meaning by law of excluded middle. If nobody detected meaning then languages wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be having this conversation if nobody detected meaning. So meaning is detectable.
Math was discovered, not invented. Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently. The Higgs particle was discovered by pure math alone and then empirically verified decades later. Base 10 math just means that the placeholder values restart after adding 1 more to 9. It's the same mathematical architecture, just different ways of conveying it.
.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry, I missed your comment before.
Well I believe in the philosophy that existence is primarily proven by identity. So to disprove it is to show that the identity cannot be accounted for in the model and therefore doesn't fit. Basically there is no room for it.
This is not the same as "I don't see it therefore doesn't exist"
It's more like "I've looked in every possible spot and it's not there"
It's not an unprecedented, I forget which philosopher first posed it. I'll have to look into that.
-->
@Fallaneze
We detect meaning because we invented it and now we know what it looks like. It doesn't make it physical or existent. Someone pointed at a rock and called it a rock and people watched that person do it and then they all agreed on it. Therefore it was invented. You can say it's detectable, but that doesn't mean anything. For something to exist physically, it has to take up space in reality. Meaning doesn't take up space.
No. Math was invented and then we discovered things about it. We said "this many rocks is 1 rock and this many rocks is 2 rocks. etc."
You're wrong about math being the same structure with different expressions.
If I use a 7 point decimal system, things like the pythagorian therum wouldn't work properly.
I could just use place holders and say that one more than 6 is 10. No my math fits even less.
It's all inventions. Furthermore, none of this disproves my initial claims. If you can't show physical existence of abstracts where they take up space, then you're just making a claim without supporting your BoP on that claim. Since you claim is suppose to be a defeater for my claim, the lack of BoP means it can't debunk my claim.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Previously you said that if something can detect it, it's physical. Now you're saying meaning is detectable, but not physical.
-->
@Fallaneze
You're not using detected in the same way I am. You're saying you seen this physical thing called "meaning" and detected it. I'm saying we detect physical things and then prescribe them meaning a priori. What I'm detecting is for example:
Object A is in position x and Object B is in position y.
Object A moves to position z and I can only see this by comparing to the position of Object B.
Everything I just detected was physical objects and then I'm watching them move, the movement does not exist, it is an event. Events don't exist. they're an arbitrary title that we place on a states of affairs.
I ask you, if abstracts are real, then aren't unicorns and Zeus real as well?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Some abstracts are real, not all.
Just because intentions are housed in a physical body doesn't make intentions physical for the same reason that ideas housed in a physical body don't make them physical.
-->
@Fallaneze
To your first comment.
Okay, well how do you separate a real abstract from a fake one?
What's your standard for separating them?
Can you give me an example of each and why it meets your prescribed standard?
To your second comment.
I agree, but this argument supports me, not you. I'm saying those things are abstracts and don't exist. You're the one saying they do.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Sure, 2 + 2 = 99 isn't real because it's inconsistent with reality but 2 + 2 = 4 is real because it is.
The standard is consistency with reality.
Just because something is abstract doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-->
@Fallaneze
I could just make a system of math where 2 + 2 = 99 is true. I just say that 2 = 44.5 and then it's true. So is it real now? Have you ever heard of the rule following paradox? It disproves what you're saying about math, or any abstract that's a rule, value, moral code, etc. You should check it out.
So what makes an abstract consistent with reality?
Well that could be true if you define exist in a certain way, but philosophically speaking, the thing you're defining doesn't take up space in reality, so by my definition, it's not physical. That's the most I can say while still respecting any definition you give.
I would just say it's correct under your definition and that I can adjust my proof for your worldview and it will still work. All you're really doing is moving the categories around. So I can just calibrate my argument to your categories. So go ahead and define the way you see reality for me. I'll temporarily assume your worldview and argue from there.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You aren't actually changing the rules of math though, you're just changing the language around.
No I've never heard of the rule following paradox.
In my view, consciousness is fundamental. The empirical world doesn't exist like it appears to. It's just a construct of information-processing. The real world is represented by the things that can't change, like the laws of logic, math, and moral truths.
-->
@Fallaneze
Well technically it's not math. As the rule following paradox would say, it's Rmath. The point of the paradox is that somebody could have infinitely arbitrary rules about common things that you would never know about, because the rule could be so specific that there is never a case where the rule comes up and therefore, we can not assume that everybody maths the same way.
Also there's a real world example of this. There are people who use left to right before using PEMDAS and never know it's wrong because a lot of times it produces the same answer, so I just gave you a real world example of somebody using alternative math.
Seriously, you should check out that paradox. Even if you disagree with me. It's a good read.
Now to assume your worldview.
In my view, consciousness is fundamental. The empirical world doesn't exist like it appears to. It's just a construct of information-processing. The real world is represented by the things that can't change, like the laws of logic, math, and moral truths.
Could you elaborate on what a fundamental consciousness implies. I know what you're saying when you say it. But I just want to see what you think about consciousness. in general, Are you saying it's the starting point of everything you perceive?
I agree with what you say about the empirical world assuming we're drawing the same conclusions from that statement.
I probably agree with construct assuming you don't mean physical construct. For me, it's an abstraction that is precisely congruent to a slice of reality that it sensed during a given state of affairs.
I agree the real world can't be changed, unless you count motion as change, but I don't think that's what you're trying to say so you can verify that for me.
Now this last part is where I disagree with you. Know I agree these a "things" that can't be changed. But I consider them "abstracts" that can't be changed. There's two kinds of abstracts. Descriptive and prescriptive. When you separated those abstracts earlier, you did it in a smart way. You separated what's called type 2 existences from type 3 and 4 existences. The thing is that all four of those types are different words. type 1 and types 2-4 are unequivocal sets and type 2 is a subset of type 3 and both of them are subsets of type 4. When I say existence I say type 1.
Now if I just assume the truth of this for an internal critique. I don't see too much problem with it as long as you're not treating the abstracts like they're physical things. However, is there a god in this worldview? If not, then what does your worldview posit as a creator. Or do you remain agnostic?
-->
@Fallaneze
That's at best indirect evidence of consciousness.
You mean like the movement of planets is indirect evidence of gravity?
If the statement "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true" is incorrect, then it is not true that "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true."
I do not accept them as true I accept them as a convenience.
Thousands of gods still either exist or don't.
If you don't believe me when I say that you have offered a false dichotomy let's count the possibilities together.
Option one is that no gods exist. Option two is that all gods exist. Options 3-10,000 only one of the many proposed gods exist. So like 10,000 options which is more than two.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This is not possible unless you somehiw are able to observe the universe somewhat better than professional cosmologists using the mist powerful telescopes in the world. I accept that we have no reason to believe I reject the idea that you or anyone has looked in every possible spot.I've looked in every possible spot and it's not there"
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not going to say you're wrong per se. Rather I'm going to make a practical argument.
We know so much about the universe that anything outside of it that anything that escaped it had to surpass the speed of light. Furthermore, things are so far away, they don't affect me directly. At some point, I have to dust off my hands and say "this is all of the knowledge that affects me and functionally speaking, anything that is so far that it can't reach me affects me the same as if It never existed.
Picture two people. Each one on the exact opposite side of a planet. Let's say this planet is so big that the two people can never meet in their life time. Let's say they don't have any form of transportation and can't make it in their lifetime for whatever reason. These two people will never meet and will probably never have a direct effect on each other except maybe a butterfly effect. So from their perspective, it's the same as if they never existed to each other and living their lives under that assumption doesn't hurt them and saves them time from wondering about that which they can never reach.
Furthermore, If the entire observable universe is empty of proof, then I feel quite justified to go 100% and 99.99% would probably be fully justifiable. It makes more sense to assume that everything you've never seen doesn't exist until it reveals itself.
-->
@Fallaneze
There is only one possibility and that is gods don't exist men claim that gods exist.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Math is an abstract. It's not metaphysical nor is it any kind of physical.
Math is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo your assessment is and incorrect error of judgment.
There exists four primary kinds of metaphysical;
1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of SPACE, God, Universe, Space, Time, Concepts, Toyotas,
-------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation-------------------------
2} eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that embraces/surrounds the following,
3} occupied space gravity ( ), ultra-micro ergo metaphysical-3, positive shaped ( ) geodesic Space,
4} occupied space dark energy )(, ultra-micro ergo metaphyscial-4, negative shaped )( geodesic Space.
There exists no other than these four, that I'm aware of. And of course there exist none less than this distinct set of four.
-->
@Fallaneze
Gravity ( ) and dark energy )( are connected to our Observed Time reality { phyiscal/energy associated with sine-wave /\/\/\/ } we just have not quantised or quantified the connection yet and we may never be able to, contray to Lee Smolins predictions we will have quantified gravity geometrically by 2015 or so.Metaphysical, in essence, means beyond physical or that which cannot be reached by the physical.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts aka abstract thoughts are not occupied space things, do not have mass, do not have color, spin { yaw-pitch-roll } charge, toreue etc.Abstracts are not things.
They are abstract thing so again we get back to basic Cosmic Trinity, of which none have ever invalidated or added too via any rational, logical common sense.
Cosmic Trinity
0} " U "niverse / " G " od = The Cosmic Outline/List/Hierarchy is most wholistic set;
1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Space, Time, Concepts, Toyotas,
-------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation-------------------------
2} eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that embraces/surrounds the following,
3} spirit-2, eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe/God aka Uni-V-erse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied space is first subset trinity
...2a} physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets etc,
...since there may be a third item in addition to fermions, bosons ergo 2a may be its own trinity subset,
....3a} gravity ( ), ultra-micro ergo metaphysical-3, positive shaped ( ) geodesic Space,
....4a} dark energy )(, ultra-micro ergo metaphyscial-4, negative shaped )( geodesic Space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPACE(>*<) i (>*<)SPACE is the short texticonic expression of all of the above, as the minimal, primary, fundamental set of Universe/God.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
We know so much about the universe that anything outside of it that anything that escaped it had to surpass the speed of light.
It is true, that, we cannot get outside of our finite,occupied space and eternally existeent, Universe//God aka Uni-V-erse.
Furthermore, things are so far away, they don't affect me directly. .
There exist no limits to effects of gravity or EMangetic charge between any two occupied spaces masses.
We have the ability to be omni-considerate of all that is known and make rational, logical common sense extrapolated speculations outward and forward from what is known.
For many years humans were not aware of the micro or quantum world, so, just because humans are not aware --quantised or quantified an occupied space--- does not mean it does not exist or effect humans.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Ues it does but that is still just an assumption.It makes more sense to assume that everything you've never seen doesn't exist until it reveals itself.
-->
@disgusted
As always { eternally } it depends on how we define God, " G "od, god etc.There is only one possibility and that is gods don't exist men claim that gods exist.Religion is a tool box for everyday life-mechanics and has amoral integrity set.
To date I'm the only person here at DArt or DDO, that, has given a clear, concise, accurate, rationally logical common sense definition of God or " G "od ergo Universe//Uni-V-erse in any of the availble forum topic threads and my definitions stem from what humans observe scientifically.
Often times the ego is threaten by rational, logical common sense truths, when those truths counter what one states or believes.
One way to avoid the most refined truth is to ignore it, talk past or around it, get stuck in loops there never go arrive at any conclusions i.e. theyh never resolve themselves. Some philosopher types and most relgious types have these issues.
--Religion is a tool box for everyday life-mechanics and has an associated moral integrity set.
--Philosophy is bubble { chewing } gum for the mind to ponder, and mayappear to be chaotic random, disorderly mess, at times.
--Scientific methodology puts in order the facts of our experiences.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Just because someone is able to do their math wrong or doesn't know that they're doing their math wrong doesn't mean that there isn't still a correct answer.
A fundamental consciousness would mean that a prime, eternal consciousness exists. That I believe is God. Yes, consciousness is the starting point for everything we perceive and I believe that the fundamental consciousness created the universe.
Motion doesn't count as change since that's purely an observer-relative phenomenon.
Abstracts are not physical things in my worldview. In my worldview, even "the physical" is a mental construct.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you can write me an equation that would accurately measure consciousness throughout the cosmos then you might make it analogous to gravity. Until then, I see no observable (independently verifiable perceivable) evidence of consciousness.
Accepting something as a matter of convenience is irrelevant to whether it's true or not true. By law of excluded middle, it's one or the other.
Tell me what other options there are aside from existing or not existing.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you can write me an equation that would accurately measure consciousness throughout the cosmos then you might make it analogous to gravity. Until then, I see no observable (independently verifiable perceivable) evidence of consciousness.Accepting something as a matter of convenience is irrelevant to whether it's true or not true. By law of excluded middle, it's one or the other.Tell me what other options there are aside from existing or not existing.
I do not recall claiming to know that conciousness is more than an illusion. Honestly your the one tgat believes he's necessarily concious do you have any independently verifiable evidence or are you willing to concede that conciousness may not be real?