What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
Topic's author
#61
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If you require "testable evidence" but can't define what the term means other than giving an example of something that meets the criteria then you need to first work out your epistemic framework.
#62
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I said it depends on what is being tested. A measurable physical effect is what I am looking for. In the case of a god claim one which is somehow distinguishable from simple physical causation

Topic's author
#63
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We accept that some things are true without them having a measurable physical effect. How do you account for those exclusions?

#64
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you referring to definitional truths? No married bachelor etc?
Topic's author
#65
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The fundamental laws of logic, math, moral truths, information to name a few 
#66
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Moral "truth" is subjective. The others are simply systems of thought not actual physical things. That means they are just ways of interacting with or referring to physical things not the things themselves. You cannot point to the number two though you can point to two people or two apples. 
Topic's author
#67
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
In your opinion moral truths are subjective but even if they were, I don't see how moral truth statements have measurable physical effects. 

So you're fine with accepting systems of thought, like logic and math even though they have no measurable physical effects?


#68
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't see how moral truth statements have measurable physical effects. 

They effect the behavior of individuals because they consist exclusively of brain states.that is a purely physical effect and a cause we have no reason to believe is more than physical.

So you're fine with accepting systems of thought, like logic and math even though they have no measurable physical effects?
They are not measurable physical effects they are a tool we have invented to help us measure physical effects. Math is just an invented language used to refer to abstract concepts so that these concepts can be applied to actual physical things and the way things interact with one another. Logic is just a way of evaluating physical evidence and when used without accompanying physical evidence it can and often does lead to false conclusions.
#69
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@disgusted
There is absolutely no evidence that the claim "gods exist" has any veracity at all.
Depending on we define God.  Universe/God are synonyms.

Ex 

He stated that he recited this prayer{?} every night for many years and revisioning of it over the years

..."EVER RETHINKING THE LORD’S PRAYER

July 12, 1979

To be satisfactory to science
all definitions
must be stated
in terms of experience................................................."

Many use the word 'divine' in association with God.

Di = greek for 2 { two }, spanish dos, french du...duet, duo, dual etc

Vine = a : a plant whose stem requires support and which climbs by tendrils or twining or creeps along the ground also : the stem of such a plant
...........b : any of various sprawling herbaceous plants (such as a tomato or potato) that lack specialized adaptations for climbing

2 vines may refer to the most complex entities of Universe we know to exist and both have the extraordiary abiliity to access metaphysical-1, mind/lintellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Toyotas, Triangeles, Unicorns, Concepts, Space, Time etc..

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts have are not space they are concepts of space ergo they have no mass, no wieght, no spin, not torques no charge, no color etc...

Metaphysical-2 is macro-infinite non-occupied space and falls under identiy " G "od/ " U "niverse and not Universe { occupied SPACE }

Male{ Xy } icon = *Y* externalized testes ---2ndary symbolism--

Female { Xx } icon = \**/ internalized ovaries ---2ndary symbolism--

Place Y inside triangle \/ and we get a birds-eye-view of the minimal 3D structure of Universe, the3-fold tetra{4}hedron \Y/.  The largest of these that humans know of were first photographed in 70]s by VIkling{?} spacecraft fly-over Mars.

The are 1 mile high and we know that because of the legnth of the shadow the cast.

Tetrahedron has three sets of two chords/edges + + + that are perpendiculuar{ at 90 degrees } to each other.


at optimum male and female operate { think } at 90 degrees to each other, but of coursed they can operate congruently on same plane.

When on the approximate same plane spinning in same direction all is well, but when on same plane and opposite spins they is most chances of smashing into each other.

Female = both positive shaped gravity{ attraction } and negative shaped dark energy{ repulsion } and are the managers of Observed Time

Male = Observed Time as sine-wave patterning /\/\/ or as ^v^v, and is resultant --birthed from-- inversions from geodesic gravity and geodesic dark energy or so I have speculated for some years now.

Metaphysical-1 God is what humans do when the concieve of divine entity --ex theirself--  outside our eternally existent finite, occupied Space Universe, that looks back in upon the finite Universe as if they were a God holding the whole wide Universe, in their hand.

There is even a song, "got the whole wide Universe in his hands"? I think it was a folk song.





Topic's author
#70
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You could say that God has the same "measurable physical effect" by looking at the brain states of believers. 

Topic's author
#71
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, so if you adhere to mathematical and logical truths then you've conceded that not everything that you accept to be true has a measurable physical effect.
#72
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't know what you mean by that. Mathematical concepts are definitionally true. 2+2=4 could be identical to A+A=B but it might also not be. Math is just a way of describing the physical universe. We made it up.
#73
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You could say that God has the same "measurable physical effect" by looking at the brain states of believers. 
That is a measurement of the physical effect of the belief in god(s) not the measurable effect of any actual god(s).
Topic's author
#74
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We made up the mathematical symbols but not the structure. Isaac Newton and Leibniz independently discovered calculus. We were able to predict the Higgs particle,  also empirically verified decades later, using pure math alone. Math was discovered, not invented.

You need a way to account for how the fundamental laws of logic are true when they have no "physical measurable effects." Otherwise, you're special pleading to have this standard necessarily apply to the question of God's existence but not math or logic.

There are things we accept to be true that don't apply. 


#75
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The way the universe behaves was discovered. Mathematical language can just be used to describe it. Math has no meaning unless it is used in reference to am actual physical force or object.
#76
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Similarly logic is just a way of evaluating evidence it is not the evidence itself with our evidence to accompany it it is virtually useless.

#77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Is/are god*s) an abstract concept that has no meaning unless it is associated with some actual physical force or object or evidence or is/are god(s) actual physical object(s)/force(s)?
Topic's author
#78
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The universe does not describe math though, math describes the universe. We can imagine a universe with different laws of physics. We cannot imagine a universe with different laws of math where 0 =1, for example. Math is not meaningless without referring to a physical force or object. Applied math must first be theoretically sound. 
Topic's author
#79
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Logic truths like "A = A" are self-validating. Pure geometry is a branch of mathematics and is used to build a theoretical framework before an applied framework.

If "God" had no conceptual meaning it would be impossible for us to be here having a discussion about it.
#80
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
A=A Is tautologically true but A is still an abstract concept. Would youbsaybthat the god(s) you propose qualify as only concepts or as existent force(s)/thing(s)
Topic's author
#81
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you account for something that's tautologically true if it has no measurable physical effects? 

God is defined as a prime, eternal consciousness. God's existence would'nt be physically measured just like logic and math aren't 

#82
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
A tautology is a definitional truth. It is tautologically true that there are no married bachelors because a bachelor is defined as an unmarried human male.

A and A have the same meaning in an equation but A must still equal something. Such as the speed an object is moving or the mass of an object or the energy required to accomplish a given task.

If god(s) cannot be physically measured I am uncertain how we could expect sufficient proof of the existence of any god(s). Logic and math are merely human invention used to evaluate, measure and describe the universe they are not the objects/forces being evaluated. The objects/forces are the things being evaluated/measured/described.
Topic's author
#83
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. It doesn't need to refer to anything in particular. 

A tautological truth is just something that's logically true but physically unaccounted for. Do you have sufficient proof of logic? I'm concerned with whether it's more rational to believe God exists rather than not, not whether there's sufficient proof either way.
#84
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What do you mean by proof of Logic? Proof that humans use Logic? Do I really need to prove that?

#85
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
It is not more rational to believe in god(s) in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Topic's author
#86
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The laws of logic are true regardless of whether we use logic or not. We recognize the laws of logic. They're abstract, invariant, and universal.  So how do you account for these truths since they don't have physical measurable effects?

"Sufficient evidence" is subjective but the threshold for when a belief is more rational than not is when there's more information indicating it's true than false.



#87
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm concerned with whether it's more rational to believe God exists rather than not,
What do you mean by 'more rational'?   I'm finding it hard to imagine something that is 'a little bit rational'!
 

#88
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The "laws" of logic are simply a method of evaluating evidence. The measurable effect is that we can often use it to reach true conclusions (provided it is accompanied by evidence). Logic would seem to be useful in evaluating our local physical (observable) universe. We have no way of knowing if the laws of physics (and therefore logic) hold true before after or outside the universe if indeed these designations even have meaning in that context.

As for sufficient evidence I at least would consider physical measurable evidence a bare minimum and you have already admitted that this is not possible with your conception of god(s). (Post 81)
Topic's author
#89
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Well either God exists or God does not exist. One of those two options is more rational to believe than the other.
Topic's author
#90
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Logic can be useful towards that end but it's not as if logic is a useful fiction. The law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle would be true regardless if anyone was around or not. The laws of logic do not derive from physics since a world in which the laws of physics are different is conceivable but a world with different fundamental laws of logic is not. There is not sufficient evidence of logic or math based on your criteria for "sufficient evidence."