atheism is irrational

two things that are truly "independent" are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way

the apophatic phaneron

missing info

(before you can claim that "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho" either DOES (or) DOES NOT "exist", you must rigorously define "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho")

Athias 450 :

[j] What is your preferred description of "the real world"?

[k] I'm not adamant; I'm certain that numbers exist. But if I'm to engage you on this point, I must first understand the distinction, ontologically, that you are creating between the abstract and a physical object, which I presume you consider "part of the real world."

[e] There's no burden of proof.[80] You made a request as to my attribution. I've submitted to you that it's in one of our previous discussions (maybe even before you joined this site.) If and when I find it, I take no issue presenting it to you.

And once again, I'm not accountable for that which "seems" to you. ("Seem" is not an argument.) If zedvictor4 wishes to clarify or rebut my characterization of his position, I take no issue retracting my statement.

Amoranemix 453 :

[j] I haven't thought about it, but I don't think I have one.

[k] Both can be part of the real world or not.

[80] Yes, there is, but if zedvictor4 is fine with being accused of having the rationale that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent, then so am I.

Athias 454 :

[j] Then what description of the "real world" do you believe applies to this discussion--your preference notwithstanding?

[k] Explain.

[80] My being correct in my characterization of zedvictor's position is of no consequence. I'm relaying knowledge I've acquired from my experience discussing the subject with zedvictor. If zedvictor happens to point this out as an error, then I take no issue, once again, retracting my statement. But that doesn't mean I have a burden. Because, once again, I'm not obligated to validate or invalidate your impression.

Athias 445 :

In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]

Amoranemix 453 :

[79] Because I am lazy.

You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?

Athias 445 :

Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]

Amoranemix 459 :

[a] If were to state that it still doesn't make “nothing” an argument, I too would be committing a straw man fallacy.

I disagree. In most debates there are other things of importance than whether “seem” is an argument.

[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

BTW, nothing is no evidence.

[c'] No.

[d*] OK.

[discourse continued further]

Athias 460 :

[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]

Amoranemix 449 :

Ask Christians.

www.compellingtruth.org/is-God-a-person.html

Athias 450 :

Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

Athias 460 :

Then why did you submit it?

Amoranemix 459 :

[continuation of discourse]

[e] Proper debating is done based on common ground, i.e. what debating sides agree upon. Initially, I am entitled to assume that you believe popular things like the earth being round, the laws of logic, speak standard English, and have a sense of love and justice similar to my own. In the mean time you have provided evidence that you have a peculiar worldview.

Observing events involving sentient life-forms, do you see any deviation from perfect love or perfect justice ?[a]

[g*] You are mistaken. Double_R introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. I merely claimed God seems inconsistent.

[81] What part of my support have you failed to understand ?

Athias 460 :

[e] Peculiar? How do you mean?

[a] Define "perfect love." Define "perfect justice."

[g*] Double_R is irrelevant. I was making reference strictly to our back-and-forth. Let's transmute that "seem" into an actual argument. On what basis would God "be" inconsistent? What measures are you applying?

[81] All of it. You have yet to inform it.

Athias 450 :

What is your preferred description of nonexistence?

Amoranemix 459 :

I haven't thought about it and I don't think I have one.[*]

Nonexistence : not real, not part of the universe. For some X that is nonexistent, the statement 'X exists' is false.[']

Athias 460 :

[*] Then what objections do you bear to the one I provided earlier? Your preference notwithstanding which definition of exist to you believe applies in matters of ontology?

['] So that begs the question: are thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination not part of the universe? If not, why?

Athias 450 :

The conclusion does follow from the premises.[82] The only contention you can possibly levy is whether the premises have been substantiated. And I did provide substantiation for my premises.

Amoranemix 459 :

[82] Claiming so, does not make it so.

Athias 460 :

I'm not merely claiming.[104] I take no issue attempting to indulge your satisfaction as long as your parameters are made clear. Hence, my attempt to have you make clear the description of existence you believe applies to this debate.

[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.

[96] You hide it well.

[97] So are you.

[98] Are you looking for a way out ?

[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[100] The concept of straw man eludes you.

You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.

What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?

[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.

Athias 421 :

“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.

- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.

- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.

- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

[b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.

[b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.

[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.

[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead.

Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency?

[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.

I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?

[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.

You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.

Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.

Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?

Athias 450 :

Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.

They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?

[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?

[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.

My own measure.

[81] What does that mean, informing support ?

I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.

[*] You can find in post 449 the objection I have born to the definition you have provided earlier. I don't bear any objections. Get on with it.

I don't believe of any particular definition of exist that it applies in matters of ontology.

P1 requires demonstration.

Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual." (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist. If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist. And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known. Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."

P1 demonstrated.

['] Some thoughts, concepts and products of imagination are part of the universe. Others aren't.

[104] Whatever else you have done is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises. If doing so requires another definition for existence, then stop stalling and provide one

So then can we describe "the external"--really, a postulate of the external--as real or existent since rationalization can neither detect nor interact with it?

How does aphophatic phaneron control for one's mind?

(You and I both know that this discussion can go one way or another depending on which definitions apply. Thus, my hounding up until recently.)

we can only describe it as "extant" to the degree that it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY

in other words, NOUMENON

the apophatic phaneron = one's mind

my impression is that you are generally making an ontological argument for the "existence" of "god(s)"

this is a relatively easy position to defend

as long as you avoid commitment to a SPECIFIC god and or gods

Not really. Because my ontological argument doesn't focus on particular descriptions,

What are some examples of logically necessary "extant" realities or objects in reality?

Please explain.

which proves my point

the "self" is one of the most obvious examples

the "not-self" is another

ap·o·phat·ic | \ ˌa-pə-ˈfa-tik  \

Definition of apophatic

: of or relating to apophasis (see APOPHASIS sense 2) : involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have

The phaneron (Greek φανερός [phaneros] "visible, manifest"[1][2]) is the subject matter of phenomenology, or of what Charles Sanders Peirce later called phaneroscopy.[3] The term, which was introduced in 1905, is similar to the concept of the "phenomenon" in the way it meant "whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way".[4]

It's not that it proves your point; easy =/= not entertaining one's opponent's measures.

can we render distinction without independence?

That's not what I meant to request. I'm aware of aphophasis and phaneron. How does your qualification of phaneron as aphophatic create an equalivalence to one's mind?

(iff) interlocutors cannot (explicitly) agree on definitions (then) they are not having a conversation

yes, your eye is not your nose

what's the utility in a god that neither detects nor interacts with reality?

the ONLY way a god can interact with humans

is

(iff)

those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD

think of a sponge

throw that sponge into a river

that flows into the ocean

how much information remains in that sponge

when it is old and crumbles to dust

A good argument for Atheism:

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” -Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking

Very uplifting. That's a good argument?

Yes, it shows that if there was a God, he was an incompetent drunk before he died.

the ONLY way a god can interact with humans

is

(iff)

those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD

Please explain.

yes, your eye is not your nose

The distinctions of which are determined by their primary functions, not their connection, correct? And those functions are independent of the other, yes? Though, I suppose one could argue olfaction can modulate visual perception.

" I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.“ —  Albert Einstein

Amoranemix 459 :

[76'] Indeed, but more importantly, you are not honouring your burden of proof.

[76''] It is my argument in the sense that I explicated it, not in the sense that I stand by it or rely on it to substantiate my position. Since no one is willing or able to support a key premise of the argument, it does not qualify as evidence for its conclusion, which is that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist. I disbelieve the conclusion anyway.[a]

[83] No. Requesting something does not always require a base. That request does not.

Athias 460 :

[76'] I have no particular burden here--at least with respect to this particular portion of our discussion. You're attempting to extrapolate my reasoning and extend it using a different argument. This argument however operates on the affirmation of descriptions of both "impossible" and "exist" you believe applies but have yet to delineate--much less, explain how the two relate. Instead you're attempting to have me refute descriptions which are presumably accepted (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,[105] but you have yet to submit your metrics because that would necessitate making the aforementioned descriptions which you hold applicable clear.

So for simplicity's sake, I'll ask these questions: what description of "impossible" do you believe applies to our discussion? What description of "exist" or "existence" do you believe applies to our discussion? How do the two relate--i.e. possibility and existence?[106]

[76''] It is your argument in the sense that it's your premise;[107] you however presume I should assimilate it based on how you intend to extend my reasoning. Because the argument isn't really whether I am arguing this :

A. X is impossible.

P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.

It's:

Assuming Athias maintains the same descriptions of "impossible" and "exist" as I do, if Athias maintains his premise and extends it to its logical conclusion, then said conclusion would be inconsistent with the assumed identical descriptions of "impossible" and "exist."

And that's your argument, not mine.[108]

[a] I don't doubt that you do; but how am I to understand the extent or nature of this disbelief if you're holding your descriptions hostage?

Tarik 451 :

[a] Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim [quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik] :

“Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.”[84]

I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?[85]

[b'] Exactly, so what was your point?

Amoranemix 459 :

[a] You forgot to answer my question. I will answer yours though. You asserted God is objective. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.

[85] The problem with objective morality (and objective in general), is that it is vague. I have explained that in www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/

In post 223 Double_R made that distinction : he argues God's morality is subjective because it is chosen by God and anyone using it. You can disagree (with that defintion of objective), but didn't. You merely baldly asserted that God is objective. The object or entity God may be objective (assuming it exists), but that is not relevant, as anyone is objective that way. What is relevant is whether God's morality, opinion or choices are objective and if they are, whether only his morality, opinion or choices are.

Sadolite claimed atheistic morality is subjective. However, no one has presented a case supporting that the reasons why that is so don't also apply to Christian morality, i.e. that Christian morality is the exception.[*]

If choosing an objective moral standard (using some definition) is enough to have objective morality, then there can be plenty of different objective moralities, unless one relies on a contrived special pleading definition that only makes one's favourite morality objective.

[b'] See above.

Tarik 463 :

[a] [no response]

[84] That was your quote I quoted, you even admitted so when you said

“quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik “

[*] [no response]

Amoranemix on debate.org :

The objectivity/subjectivity of something can refer to two things : to a term or to a concept.

Tarik 463 :

You asserted this. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

Amoranemix 459 to Tarik :

[86] No. It is not my duty to give all I have got.

[87] Assuming you are not referring to me in particular, but to people in general (i.e. “one” i.s.o. “you” and “your”), then that is indeed something that tends to confuse Christians. They sometimes make claims without knowing what they are talking about. That makes it difficult for them to back up their claims.

[88] The point you tried to make was irrelevant. It was about the preparatory work required for doing things I didn't do. The point you made was your ignorance on the concept of burden of proof.

[89] You are mistaken. Presenting a hypothetical does not require one to demonstrate its coherence.

[90] For clarity (the skeptic's friend), again, I am assuming the hypothetical is from Double_R in post 260 : “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.” Where did you explicitely say why you took issue with it ?

Tarik 463 :

[no response]

Amoranemix on different forum :

Unlike for a circle, people don't understand what morality is, which causes them to confuse the subjectivity of the term with the subjectivity of the co

Tarik 463 :

For arguments sake let’s say your right that no one understands morality, then under that pretense how do you even know it exists in the first place?

Amoranemix 465 :

What gap are you referring to ?

Athias 469 :

Pardon. What "overlap" is that?

Athias 454 :

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.

P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.

C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?

Amoranemix 465 :

P1 requires demonstration.

Athias 469 :

Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual."[91] (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist.[92] If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" [93] is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist.[94] And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.[95] Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."[96]

P1 demonstrated.[97]