atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 618
#331
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe
It is reasonable to ask. That however is seldom the subject of discussion.

but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.
Also reasonable. I would only add "or what..."

Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.
Claiming that a question can be answered is not the same as answering a question.
#332
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Perception does not necessarily prove existence.
Yes it does. Your presumption that reality is distinct from one's perception cannot be substantiated. We've had a similar discussion. I know you maintain that there's a metaphysically objective (physical) reality (or plane of existence) in which we all acquire and process data from the environment while subjecting it to the bias of our brains' limitations. The issue with this is that it's a posit with no logical foundation. You are just assuming this to be the case. In order for you to substantiate that existence is distinct from one's perception of it, you would first have to control for your observation of this metaphysically objective existence independent of your capacity to perceive. That means no logic, no math or science, no words, no thinking, no mind at all. How does one do that? (I don't actually expect you to answer this because this suggests a reductio ad absurdum.) Anything outside the grasp of your mind is a logical incoherence. Because it is your mind which rationalizes everything. This is the reason metaphysical objectivity is absurd, a logical incoherence. You can neither think about nor rationalize that about which you can't think or rationalize. It's an epistemic irrelevance.

God is perceived.....Therefore God must exist....Is a leap of faith, and not a rational or logically consistent argument.
No it isn't a leap of faith. It is the logical extension of substantiated premises. If you wish to challenge any of these premises, then do so and substantiate your contention. I welcome it.

In this instance perception results in imagination.......So  "therefore God must exist" is not rational and does not logically follow.
Okay, let's try this:

P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.
P2: Numbers are perceived.
P3: Therefore, numbers must exist.

Athias then claims, using zedvictor's rationale (imagined = irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent) that numbers are imagined. (Reason: numbers bear no physical properties; they're maintained via the mind as abstracts; they're functionally no different from the "imagined.")

So then it would follow:

P1: That which results from imagination is not rational and does not logically follow.
P2: Numbers are imaginary. (Refer to the reason above.)
C1: Therefore, numbers aren't rational and do not logically follow.

P3: Mathematics is based on numbers.
P4: Numbers are irrational (Refer to C1.)
C2: Therefore, Mathematics is based on the irrational.

P5: Proofs must be rational.
P6: All physical laws must be mathematically proven.
P7: Mathematics is based on the irrational. (Refer to C2.)
C3: Mathematical proof therefore is irrational or There's no such thing as mathematical "proof."
C4: Therefore Physical Laws must be irrational or There are no Physical Laws.

I'm not negating your arguments to merely contradict you, zedvictor. I'm negating them because they're absurd. Your arguments are based on materialistic dogma, not logically sound premises with conclusions which rationally extend them. This is the reason I state that my argument is logically consistent, and your argument is not. Because in order to sustain your argument, you would have to undermine the very measures by which you are creating your distinctions. Your contradicting my arguments using your materialistic measures rather than the ones I've defined and substantiated neither demonstrates a "leap of faith" or "irrationality." You don't simply get away with stating "well, I believe the imagined is  irrational, and therefore your argument is irrational." You want to challenge my argument? Challenge my premises. Substantiate your contention. And provide a counterfactual or counterargument of your own that is consistent not with my measures but with your own.


#333
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
"Everything that can be perceived must exist".

But a GOD has never been perceived per se.

A God has been constructed internally, and continues to be constructed internally.

Now, if we regard definition to the letter, then concepts are perceptions.

But it does not follow that GODS must exist, other than as an internal construct.

You're playing the semantics game in order to validate the absurdity of your belief in something that cannot actually be proven to exist externally.

It's an age old theistic trick.

So there is a logic to your trick, borne out of necessity.


But on the other hand:

1. Because Athias thinks that there is a GOD.

2. Therefore, there must actually be a GOD.

Is not consistently logical.


And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.

Borne out of externally derived perception, we can create an internally representative system whereby we can distinguish, record  and label objectives separately.


So, we can also derive an internal construct, whereby we refer to everything as being resultant of a GOD.

But it still does not logically follow, that a GOD must actually exist externally.

Otherwise it also logically follows, that any imaginary entity that has ever been or ever will be internally constructed.

Must simply,  by virtue of Athias's system of logic, therefore actually exist.


And of course none of this would actually matter, if it weren't for the overbearing social realities of perpetuated theism.
#334
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
"Everything that can be perceived must exist".

But a GOD has never been perceived per se.

A God has been constructed internally, and continues to be constructed internally.

Now, if we regard definition to the letter, then concepts are perceptions.

But it does not follow that GODS must exist, other than as an internal construct.
Once again, you're moving the goalposts by suggesting modifications I did not make. My argument has never applied nor is it subject to that metric (i.e. "internal" or "external.") The conclusion rendered is simply "Therefore, God must exist." And unwittingly, you've conceded to this conclusion even if you've subjected it to your modification--the portion of your comment which I've emboldened. Your presumption of the "external" is no less subject to the irrationality of objectivity because once again, and you have not answered this--nor do I expect you to: how does one control for observations of the "external" independent of one's "internal"?


You're playing the semantics game in order to validate the absurdity of your belief in something that cannot actually be proven to exist externally.

It's an age old theistic trick.

So there is a logic to your trick, borne out of necessity.
No, it's not a "semantics" game. Yes, as a matter of form, I will make sure to make certain definitions clear. With that said, it is the logic and the consistency with which it is sustained that matters most. It appears only as a "trick" to those for whom logic is nothing more than a novelty to be invoked at whim by one who misunderstands it.

But on the other hand:

1. Because Athias thinks that there is a GOD.

2. Therefore, there must actually be a GOD.

Is not consistently logical.
There are a few premises missing, so of course more would be needed. Then again, I haven't argued this.

And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.
No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to tee for sure, but it's still abstract.

Borne out of externally derived perception
Externally derived perception is an absurdity.

we can create an internally representative system whereby we can distinguish, record  and label objectives separately.
YOU ARE ASSUMING THIS (I remember telling you as much before.) How do I know? Because you have not controlled for that which is independent of this "internally representative system." And controlling for it is logically incoherent.

And this is one of the breads and butters of my argument: how does one observe that which is independent of one's capacity to observe? How does one observe the "actual" representation of that which must necessarily be independent of one's representation? And no, consensus does not remedy this. Consensus is necessarily not "objective."

So, we can also derive an internal construct, whereby we refer to everything as being resultant of a GOD.

But it still does not logically follow, that a GOD must actually exist externally.

Otherwise it also logically follows, that any imaginary entity that has ever been or ever will be internally constructed.

Must simply,  by virtue of Athias's system of logic, therefore actually exist.
Once again, you are attempting to subject my argument to measures I did not apply. Modifications such as "internal" and "external" are irrelevant.

#335
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
@sadolite
@n8nrgmi
Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :
You also continue to claim that this is repeatable, seeming to have no idea what the word means.
EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :
Perhaps you aren't getting it, this isn't a science experiment where we have access to materials that are used under examination.[64] With NDE's, we have access to thousands and thousands of the same nature of events that can be scrutinized and learned from. The same event has been repeated over and over in every culture of the world. NDE's can't be repeated as an experiment of course, the circumstances are deadly....however the event has been repeated again and again. It has happened over and over.....that is what he means by repeatable.[65]
[64] You may rest assured that rational people are well aware there is big shortage of science in the evidence for an afterlife. It is theists you should be worried about.
What does that mean, “repeating an event” ?
[65] N8rgmi expressed himself poorly.

Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :
and could never scrutinize their story in any way.
EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :
Why not?[66] we have access to countless testimonies of the very same event under question that can be considered and investigated. What we don't want to do unnecessarily of course, is base our arguments entirely on speculations and sweep them under the rug as hallucinations. That would be stupid.[67] So, what we have is a large data base of evidence, which clearly correlates with the proposition of a soul and an afterlife. Let me repeat that.....we have a claim and evidence that supports the claim.
[66] How do you propose we scrutinize these thousands and thousands of events ?
[67] On the other hand, what some of us want to do is to conclude that an afterlife exists. That that is stupid is insufficient to prevent them from trying.

Envisage 127 :
If that is the best evidence you have for the existence of God then atheism is perfectly rational.
EtrnlVw 134 :
Lol, it's an alarming piece of evidence that suggests and supports that the soul exists (independent of the physical body) as reported by Theistic propositions.[68] It's simply a reality for you to consider that the claim of a soul and an afterlife has evidence. You can disregard it of course, which you will but just know sweeping evidence under the rug is a bad idea. It's not rational to accept speculation when you decide what is delusional based on your own worldview and ideas. That will limit your own potential for truth.
There are many ways in which to conclude God exists, at the very least God's existence is likely.[69] NDE's are simply one piece of the puzzle, there are many pieces however.
[68] Why is that piece of evidence alarming ?
[69] You were unable to support your hypothesis.

n8nrgmi 142 to Double_R :
you do a lot of merely asserting stuff.
At least, so you baldly assert.

Double_R 141  :
There’s nothing circular about my position. Brain chemicals are observed and then correlated to the point of  predictability  when it comes to the impacts we observe in the abilities and behavior of human beings. This is all logic 101 on how to establish a causal relationship.
n8nrgmi 142 :
i'm not saying that you're claims have absolutely no basis to them, but they are circular. you say brain chemicals explain all experience that are known to science, therefore you claim that brain chemicals must explain NDEs. when we ask you what do NDEs indicate, you claim they indicate brain chemicals. it's blatantly circular, but you merely assert it isn't.
Except that skeptics don't conclude the existence of brain chemicals from NDE's. Otherwise that would be circular. Skeptics know brain chemicals exist, so they constitute a simple hypothesis as an explanation for NDEs. The existence of an afterlife on the other hand, has yet to be demonstrated (like the irrationality of atheism).

n8nrgmi 142 :
philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist.[70] even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on the evidence.[71] that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife.
[70] Perhaps so, but that does not make it rational to believe an afterlife exists and doesn't indicate that atheism is irrational.
[71] How is the evidence supposed to prove that an afterlife is objectively possible ?

n8nrgmi 148 to Double_R :
u just keep ignoring all the evidence. the only way for you to be right, is for the evidence to be fabricated. i've shown evidence that blind people see in NDEs and ive shown that out of body experiences are highly accurate in what they report. it's more than just a really big number where sometimes people get it right.. it's a really big number where when measured, people almost always get it right.[72] all the other lines of evidence are at least consistent with people visiting an afterlife, but really it's more than just consistent given it's not plausible for the alternatives to be true.[73] for example, it shouldn't be the case that people only hallucinate family and dead people... if all it is is a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent.[74] you fail your own test. the alternative hypothesis/explanation isn't shown the be best. why do you keep ignoring this stuff? i'd think you'd at least engage my specific evidence but you avoid it like a disease.

also, you keep harping on validiity and repeatability but you just dont like the 'degree' by which NDEs are shown to be valid or repeatable. anyone can measure all the evidence i've shown, and reach the same conclusion... plus many people consistently experience this, another aspect showing repeatability. just because you can't go to a lab and do all this stuff, doesn't mean it's absolutely not repeatable. at the very least it's circumstantial evidence, but you irratinoally would call circumstantial evidence not evidence just because it doesn't fit your agenda.[75] [ . . . ]
[72] How so ? If you cherry pick the people who get it right, then it is not surprising that they get it right.
[73] Have you examined all the alternative explanations ?
Moreover, a candidate explanation would not qualify as a candidate if it is inconsistent with with the phenomenon it is supposed to explain. So your explanation being consistent adds very little credence to it.
[74] One could argue the opposite. Hallucinations build on stuff that is already in one's brain, like family and friends. An afterlife should be full of strangers.
[75] It is rather anecdotal than circumstantial evidence. It is certainly not extraordinary evidence.

EtrnlVw 151 :
People don't understand the significance of NDE's in that they are very distinctly reporting an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE. This is distinctly outside the parameters of a brain, and the physical body. This isn't some mental disorder or hallucination of a malfunctioning brain which takes place within those confines folks...these are conscious experiences of people specifically leaving their body,[76] they watch themselves literally leave their bodies behind! meaning they are able to travel freely away from their body. Under normal conditions (confined to a brain that is) our conscious parameters never leave the observation point of our earthly body...our consciousness is always present where our physical body is.

When the soul (which exists independent of the physical body) separates from the human form, the observation point at which you experience everything is distinctly separate from the confines of the brain and body. This is paramount in defining a specific reference to consciousness surviving a physical death, the shutting down of the physical body. Through NDE cases we can specifically show that people observe themselves leave their body, they can literally watch their material body as they continue to experience a parallel world (an afterlife).[77]

This is not a coincidence that religion has provided very precise propositions of both a soul and an afterlife, and here we have evidence that correlates perfectly with both propositions.[78] It IS very significant, claiming and speculating alternative explanations that have no clear and precise answers to what is most certainly a clear and precise (repeatable) event which can be distinctly matched with a Theistic proposition.

Now, had we just had NDE's alone with no awareness of what spirituality has been showing us for as long as humans have walked the earth we would have only a first hand testimony and we'd probably be scratching our heads.[79] But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved.[80] I mean I understand we need to examine and be skeptical to make sure we have all the dots connected but honestly the dots are already clearly connected here.[81]
[76] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
[77] That's great. Please specifially show that.
[78] Stop beating around the bush. Present specific evidence for that correlation, a veryfiable hypothesis and the evidence that confirms the hypothesis.
[79] What has spirituality been showing us ?
[80] No one is suggesting we do that. We are debating what could be the explanation for NDE's (although we should be debating whether atheism is irrational). Speculation, like you are doing, is thus appropriate.
[81] No. They aren't.

Sadolite 195 to Double_R :
Believing something is believing something, not believing something is not believing something. It does not matter what the belief or non belief of that something is. Religious people believe that some beliefs are objective thus creating common ground among those who share that belief regardless if it appears subjective to someone who does not share those beliefs. Atheists share no common ground other than the belief there is no god. Any attempt to create common ground would also be completely hypocritical because atheism by its definition means everything is subjective.[82] An atheist cant tell another person what they are doing is wrong. There is no standard to measure wrong.[83] Religion with all of its faults at least isn't being hypocritical in establishing wrong from right as it has written text thousands of years old saying what is right and wrong. Atheism relies on what ever pop culture decides is wrong or right at any given moment.[84] Right is what ever you think is right regardless of how many people are inured and maimed by what you think is right.[85] You can never really do anything wrong other than tell other people they are wrong because you are always right. All laws in society are subjective, why do you follow them? Fear of persecution? Sounds like religion to me.[86]
[82] How does atheism by definition make everything subjective ? How would subjectivity prevent creating a common ground ?
[83] You are mistaken. I have seen atheists claim someone is doing wrong and there are moral standards.
[84] You are mistaken. Atheism is not does not concern itself with morality.
[85] Maybe, but that is not exclusive to atheism.
[86] You should join a debate about morality so that people can explain it to you.


#336
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You do not apply certain measures, because they can corrupt your personal system of logic.

Introducing modifications to your proposed system, simply shows how your system is flawed.....Missing key data as it were.



Externally derived data, is that which we acquire from the abundance of external data available....Not absurd at all.

We can also create data internally.....Imagination.....This process is also not absurd.

Though suggesting, that which is imagined  must actually be representative  of an external reality, often results in absurdity.



On the other hand:

If mathematics is abstract, then so  must be GOD......Athias derived logic as it were.

And of course, if we choose to extend this logic, we can conclude that all data derived of internal function and process, irrespective of sensory abilities, must also be abstract.

So can we never perceive an external reality?



Therefore......Existence and therefore GOD, and therefore everything is abstract.



Though I do like to think that my sensory capabilities, can capture the essence of an external reality.
#337
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Do you understand the difference between a fact, and the acceptance of a proposition as a fact?
Yes why?
Because if you do you should understand that I didn’t add in an extra variable. The difference matters and is what makes your original statement that facts are not subject to proof incoherent. There are facts about reality that are true regardless of what you think about them, and then there is the concept of proof which deals with what you think about them. Two entirely  different things.
#338
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

If there is not a God.
Your kid gets run over by a drunk.
You die from cancer.


If there is a God.
Your kid gets run over by a drunk.
You die from cancer.




#339
Lunar108
Lunar108's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 188
0
2
3
Lunar108's avatar
Lunar108
0
2
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
healing
placebo, ever heard about it ? 
 you can believe in a rock and it can magically heal you , it can reach up to half the effect of legit meds , and while it have many limitations it can be very useful.
NDEs/NEW AGE ORDER 
it's a mechanism where the brain protect itself , you see , your brain can only process a limited amount of information , with panic , fear and the eminent danger along with too much info your brain stops everything to protect you from going mad .
Demonic Possession
I don't like to discuss this but I'll make an exception this time , Mental Illness , please stop this nonsense about Demonic Possession there's no such thing , you just give any person suffering from demonic possession some antipsychotics or whatever the psychotherapist would describe for that person and they will return to normal in few weeks .

 there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation. 
ok. I don't know what are you trying to convey by mentioning this 
#340
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I don't take issue with some atheists stating "God does not exist" or that "I don't believe in any Gods." I take issue with some atheists stating that "God does not exist" is a rational or logically consistent argument.
What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?
#341
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
You do not apply certain measures, because they can corrupt your personal system of logic.
I don't apply certain measures because said measures are irrelevant as it pertains to the description and use of the term, exist. Systems of logic do not require modifications such as "personal."

Introducing modifications to your proposed system, simply shows how your system is flawed.....Missing key data as it were.
Introducing modifications reflects your dogma, and nothing more. You presume a metaphysically objective "external" existence to which we are all subject, yet you are incapable of rationalizing this while sufficiently controlling it independent of your "internal representation system." You attempt to argue an ontological distinction between the "physical" and the "imaginary," yet you have not sufficiently explained how the two interact, much less how one (Laws of Physics) is fundamentally dependent on the other (Mathematics a.k.a. imaginary concept.) As I've aptly demonstrated before, my reasoning is not flawed; yours is.

Externally derived data, is that which we acquire from the abundance of external data available....Not absurd at all.
Assumed externally derived data which is incapable of being rationalized independent of one's internal representation system. Yes, your proposition is very absurd.

We can also create data internally.....Imagination.....This process is also not absurd.
This is self evident. The qualification, "internally," is irrelevant.

Though suggesting, that which is imagined  must actually be representative  of an external reality, often results in absurdity.
Proposing an "external reality" while bearing the incapacity to sufficiently rationalize an "objective" externality and control its independence from one's "internal" representation is an absolute absurdity. And it is here where you are arguing against straw men. I'm not arguing that God is "external" or "internal." Such modifications are irrelevant. I argue that God merely is. Not only is God perceivable, God is identifiable--a trait necessarily excluded from that which is nonexistent.

On the other hand:

If mathematics is abstract, then so  must be GOD......Athias derived logic as it were.
That's not "my derived logic" at all. "If Mathematics is abstract..."? Mathematics is abstract, zedvictor. If you want to somehow connect the abstractness of Mathematics to your proposition that God must also necessarily be abstract, then you're going to have to do more than just misinterpret my syllogism.

we can conclude that all data derived of internal function and process, irrespective of sensory abilities, must also be abstract.
You're getting warmer, though I would remove "irrespective of sensory abilities."

So can we never perceive an external reality?
The proposition of an "external" reality is absurd, as I've repeated often. Do you think your senses are independent of your mind? How do you perceive that which is independent of your perception as it is "independently represented" (logical absurdity) without subjecting it to your perception's representation?

Therefore......Existence and therefore GOD, and therefore everything is abstract.
Even warmer. But explore whether the term abstract is apropos. If the physical is fundamentally dependent on the abstract, does the distinction really matter?

Though I do like to think that my sensory capabilities, can capture the essence of an external reality.
Once again, do you think that your sensory capabilities function independently of your mind?

#342
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW

If there is not a God.
Your kid gets run over by a drunk.
You die from cancer.


If there is a God.
Your kid gets run over by a drunk.
You die from cancer.
Yeah, let's pretend that's the same thing.

#343
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?
Identify and sufficiently explain the contradiction.

#344
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

Thanks for showing that it doesn't make any difference if there is a God or there isn't a God.
#345
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Because if you do you should understand that I didn’t add in an extra variable.
…Yes you did, the extra variable you added was belief.

The difference matters and is what makes your original statement that facts are not subject to proof incoherent.
I didn’t say they aren’t I said they are.

and then there is the concept of proof which deals with what you think about them.
…Except it’s not. Proof isn’t a concept, in fact it’s exactly what you said about facts

it’s reality that are true regardless of what you think about them
#346
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Mind is that which describes the organic device and it's processes.

So no.


The device being that which is essential to the function of the mass.

And in terms of natural cohesion, is inextricably linked to the mass. (Currently)


Internal and external are simply just easy to recognise terms, that represent the apparent separation  of that which occurs within the mass and that which might occur outside the mass. I don't understand why you find this problematic.


So...A GOD is generated internally....And I conceded that definitively this is perception.

But it does not logically follow that a GOD must exist, other than as an internally contrived possibility.

Otherwise everything that we can possibly contrive must also exist.


So I will contrive a NOT GOD THAT ISN'T..

Therefore a NOT GOD THAT ISN'T must exist.

Or not exist, depending upon how one cares to processes such data.


And we end up with a difference of opinion....Which given the number of possible data sequences that are available, is not unusual.
#347
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Identify and sufficiently explain the contradiction.
That’s not relevant to my question. Imagine one.

You argued that the claim “god does not exist” is inherently illogical. I’m just trying to understand whether you believe that applies to claims of a self contradictory god. It’s a simple yes or no.
#348
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
…Yes you did, the extra variable you added was belief.
Proof: “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth”

It’s not an added variable, it’s embedded in the definition of proof. And not only embedded, it’s literally the thing that separates that which qualifies as proof from that which does not.

I didn’t say they aren’t I said they are.
Sorry I misspoke. But that is not relevant to the point I was making. Again, for something to be proof it must result in belief. So to say that facts are subject to proof is to say that facts are subject to belief. But we all know that is not the case.
#349
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
or to produce belief
Keyword or, so yes it’s still an added variable that’s includes but isn’t limited to belief.

And not only embedded, it’s literally the thing that separates that which qualifies as proof from that which does not.
Not based off the definition you provided it is.

Again, for something to be proof it must result in belief.
I love how you ignore the first half of the definition as if it’s not of utmost importance just to acknowledge the latter half, the definition still stands on the first half alone it doesn’t with the second. The definition also says

in its truth
Meaning what’s being believed is also true, and it says

evidence sufficient
Meaning it doesn’t only take belief for proof but sufficient evidence, so your not gaslighting anyone here.
#350
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Mind is that which describes the organic device and it's processes.

So no.
Can the organic device's state of being be rationalized beyond one's capacity to represent it?

The device being that which is essential to the function of the mass.

And in terms of natural cohesion, is inextricably linked to the mass. (Currently)
So the brain? Is the brain independent of the mind? (I'm not asking if the mind is independent of the brain.) If yes, how do you know?

Internal and external are simply just easy to recognise terms, that represent the apparent separation  of that which occurs within the mass and that which might occur outside the mass.
Apparent separation? How does one rationalize that which occurs outside the mass, as you put it, without first controlling for the influence of that which occurs in the mass? Assuming of course that the brain is independent of the mind.

I don't understand why you find this problematic.
Your conclusions are illogical and unscientific (ironic, huh?) In order to establish the validity/integrity of one's results, one has to sufficient control for variables. You have not done so. In order for an argument to be logically sound, the conclusions must consistent extend the premises on which they based. Your conclusions have not.

Scientific Demand: You propose and objective external existence. Control for this. That is, eliminate the mind ("internal" as you put it) as a variable and establish your results.

Logical Demand: Present, Define, and Establish your premises. Present a counterargument/counterfactual. Make sure that your conclusion extends your premises with logical consistency.


So...A GOD is generated internally....And I conceded that definitively this is perception.

But it does not logically follow that a GOD must exist, other than as an internally contrived possibility.
Strawman argument.

Otherwise everything that we can possibly contrive must also exist.
Yes, anything and everything which can possibly be contrived must necessarily exist. They can't not exist.

So I will contrive a NOT GOD THAT ISN'T..
Given the placement of your negations, a "NOT GOD THAT ISN'T" is a "GOD THAT IS." And thus, you'd be concluding, "Therefore 'A GOD THAT IS' must exist." Perhaps you intended to state, "A God--which isn't really a God---IS NOT." The "NOT'S" in logical statements, zedvector, always negate.

And we end up with a difference of opinion....Which given the number of possible data sequences that are available, is not unusual.
Our difference in opinion is evident. However, that is not my contention. My contention is that my "opinion" is logically sound, and your "opinion" is not.


#351
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
That’s not relevant to my question. Imagine one.
No. You proposed the notion of self-contradiction. If you want one imagined, then you can take the liberty.

You argued that the claim “god does not exist” is inherently illogical. I’m just trying to understand whether you believe that applies to claims of a self contradictory god.
Explain how a God can be self-contradictory. Use examples if you want.

#352
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
My god dude, this is really simple stuff.

I love how you ignore the first half of the definition as if it’s not of utmost importance just to acknowledge the latter half, the definition still stands on the first half alone it doesn’t with the second.
Here’s the entire definition, again:
“evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth”

I didn’t cut off any part of the definition, I highlighted the second part because it was more straightforward.

The first part states “sufficient to establish a thing as true”. Do you know what that’s called when something is sufficient to establish that something is true? That’s called belief. The literal definition of belief is to accept something as true.

Meaning it doesn’t only take belief for proof but sufficient evidence, so your not gaslighting anyone here.
Sufficient: “enough; adequate.”

If the person believes a proposition (aka accept the proposition as true) then the evidence is by definition sufficient as proof.

#353
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Do you know what that’s called when something is sufficient to establish that something is true? That’s called belief. The literal definition of belief is to accept something as true.
Establishment and acceptance are too different things (at least in the context we’re discussing it).

If the person believes a proposition (aka accept the proposition as true) then the evidence is by definition sufficient as proof.
No, because not all beliefs are “SUBJECT TO” evidence. Some believe the earth is flat despite “sufficient evidence” of the contrary.

#354
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
My contention is that my opinion is logically sound, and your opinion is not.


An opinion being what it is typically regarded as.


Though based upon the uncertainty of opinion, it would be better to conclude that neither of our opinions is sound enough, and that two unsound opinions relating to similar data from two separate data sources, have the potential to be both illogical and logical.

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.


#355
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though based upon the uncertainty of opinion, it would be better to conclude that neither of our opinions is sound enough, and that two unsound opinions relating to similar data from two separate data sources, have the potential to be both illogical and logical.
No, it would not be better. I can defend my position; you have not. We're not going to appeal to moderation and provide validity to an inconsistent argument simply because you characterize the arguments as "opinion."

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.
Not really. Logic is a system of well-defined principles. To accept logic is to accept its principles, regardless of one's beer intake.

#356
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
A Zedku for Athias.


In my opinion,

You began with a three line ontology,

Devoid of logical procession,

Or a reasonable outcome.


Blah de blah de blah,

Blah de blah de blah,

Therefore a GOD.


No beer necessary.

Just tea and porridge.


Blah de blah de blah,

Blah de blah de blah,

Therefore not a GOD,

In my opinion.


Opinions may vary.
#357
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
And that's nothing more than a kamikaze in lieu of substantiating a consistent logic.
#358
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Establishment and acceptance are too different things (at least in the context we’re discussing it).
The word “establish” is pointing to the result of a process. Acceptance is the result. There’s no meaningful difference here. If a person believes something, then the evidence was sufficient for them. Why is this so difficult?

…because not all beliefs are “SUBJECT TO” evidence. Some believe the earth is flat despite “sufficient evidence” of the contrary.
Yes, some people are idiots who believe things without any evidential support. That does not change the point here. In those cases “nothing” was sufficient for that person.
#359
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
No. You proposed the notion of self-contradiction. If you want one imagined, then you can take the liberty.
Why does everything with you have to be so difficult?

What I proposed was the scenario where the god proposed was logically contradictory. Note the question below, again…

“What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?”

The word “if” in this sentence denotes that such proposal has already been made, so I’m not asking you to imagine such a scenario, only to imagine that you have already concluded such and am asking what happens from there.

If you want to challenge the premise of my question that such scenario is possible I’d be happy to explain why your challenge is nonsense, but until then please just answer the question.
#360
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
In those cases “nothing” was sufficient for that person.
But aren’t you the one that conflated “evidence sufficient” with belief? So pray tell what’s the evidence sufficient for the belief that the earth is flat? If your answer is there is none then that refutes your argument that evidence sufficient is conflated with belief period.