Atheists, what would you like to see as proof for God?

[ccav]

Gator:

An absence of evil actions from the church and it’s leaders. To me, there is no clearer indication that all is not what organized religions would want it to be than to have “religious leaders” commit disgusting acts.

1 Samuel 8:4-5 “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ra’mah, and said to him,'Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a King to govern us like all the nations.”

The objections always remain the same. Person ‘X’ did something bad therefore I can not accept concept ‘Y’. This is typically referred to as inductive reasoning (which is illogical reasoning by the way). I’m sorry to see that it plagues you.

 

[Gator]

ccav:

I’m sorry to see that it plagues you.

not nearly as sorry as I am or as you should be, that evil continues to foster, and be protected by the church.

 

[squirt]

ccav:

The objections always remain the same. Person ‘X’ did something bad therefore I can not accept concept ‘Y’. This is typically referred to as inductive reasoning (which is illogical reasoning by the way). I’m sorry to see that it plagues you.

What’s inductive about it?
( … and there’s nothing inherently illogical in inductive reasoning … but I digress).

 

[ccav]

squirt:

What’s inductive about it?
( … and there’s nothing inherently illogical in inductive reasoning … but I digress).

It is inductive because to judge the group based on the actions of a single individual of that group is to arrive at the conclusion inductively.

It is illogical and the best example is racism. Person of ethnic catagory X is a certain way, therefore all of ethnic group X is that same way.

In the same way person X of a particular religion does something wrong, therefore the entire religion is wrong.

 

[squirt]

ccav:

It is inductive because to judge the group based on the actions of a single individual of that group is to arrive at the conclusion inductively.

It is illogical and the best example is racism. Person of ethnic catagory X is a certain way, therefore all of ethnic group X is that same way.

In the same way person X of a particular religion does something wrong, therefore the entire religion is wrong.

OK, we have ‘ampliative inference’. Which makes it inductive. And we have the possibility of an erroneous conclusion.

That doesn’t make inductive reasoning in and of itself illogical.

Inductive reasoning includes:

argument by analogy — used a lot be scholastics who tend to have a logical bent to them

predictive inference — used in a lot of contexts including quality control studies and medical research … not necessarily illogical

inference to causes from signs and symptoms … used a lot in medicine, scholastic philosophy, etc

confirmation of scientific laws and theories …

 

[ccav]

squirt:

OK, we have ‘ampliative inference’. Which makes it inductive. And we have the possibility of an erroneous conclusion.

That doesn’t make inductive reasoning in and of itself illogical.

Inductive reasoning includes:

argument by analogy — used a lot be scholastics who tend to have a logical bent to them

predictive inference — used in a lot of contexts including quality control studies and medical research … not necessarily illogical

inference to causes from signs and symptoms … used a lot in medicine, scholastic philosophy, etc

confirmation of scientific laws and theories …

None of which is designed to produce mathematical certainty, hence the subjection to error.

 

[squirt]

ccav:

None of which is designed to produce mathematical certainty, hence the subjection to error.

Both deductive and inductive logic are subject to erroneous conclusions for a variety of reason. That doesn’t make either of them illogical.

There’s no deductive argument that tells me that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can infer it inductively. I could be wrong. I’m not being illogical should I decide to conclude, on a probabilistic basis, that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[ccav]

squirt:

Both deductive and inductive logic are subject to erroneous conclusions for a variety of reason. That doesn’t make either of them illogical.

There’s no deductive argument that tells me that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can infer it inductively. I could be wrong. I’m not being illogical should I decide to conclude, on a probabilistic basis, that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Inductive reasoning is considered to be acceptable arguementation, but strictly speaking it is not logic. For example, you would not want to write computer code inductively (unless you want the computer to crash alot). Another example, I work in industrial waste treatment (not the organic stuff, but the inorganic stuff-the other stuff way too stinky, Ha Ha). Everyday I calculate what my waste streams will consist of and use mathematical formula to determine proper chemical usage, etc. All things being equal, the math always works. When things are not equal I have to use inductive reasoning (an educated guess). Sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wrong. Now arguable I am right far more often then I am wrong…but the math doesn’t lie and treatment works every time. Same thing when I determine tank volume for my tanks. V = (pi) r-squared x h (I don’t have the little doohickey for squared on my keyboard…Oh no!!!) The volume is always right. The math doesn’t lie no matter what cylinderical tank I measure for.

 

[squirt]

ccav:

Inductive reasoning is considered to be acceptable arguementation, but strictly speaking it is not logic. For example, you would not want to write computer code inductively (unless you want the computer to crash alot). Another example, I work in industrial waste treatment (not the organic stuff, but the inorganic stuff-the other stuff way too stinky, Ha Ha). Everyday I calculate what my waste streams will consist of and use mathematical formula to determine proper chemical usage, etc. All things being equal, the math always works. When things are not equal I have to use inductive reasoning (an educated guess). Sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wrong. Now arguable I am right far more often then I am wrong…but the math doesn’t lie and treatment works every time. Same thing when I determine tank volume for my tanks. V = (pi) r-squared x h (I don’t have the little doohickey for squared on my keyboard…Oh no!!!) The volume is always right. The math doesn’t lie no matter what cylinderical tank I measure for.

But aren’t you generalizing from past experience that the underlying laws behind the proper chemical usage have remained stable from the last time you used them? Isn’t all of the knowledge underlying chemistry inductive in nature?

Anyway, there is a field of ‘logic’ called ‘inductive logic’. There are textbooks on ‘inductive logic.’ There’s even such a thing as ‘inductive logic programming’ . And ‘inductive logic’ has an entry in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

If this doesn’t convince you, we can fight to the death to decide the matter, AJ-san.

 

[Gator]

squirt:

But aren’t you generalizing from past experience that the underlying laws behind the proper chemical usage have remained stable from the last time you used them? Isn’t all of the knowledge underlying chemistry inductive in nature?

Anyway, there is a field of ‘logic’ called ‘inductive logic’. There are textbooks on ‘inductive logic.’ There’s even such a thing as ‘inductive logic programming’ . And ‘inductive logic’ has an entry in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

If this doesn’t convince you, we can fight to the death to decide the matter, AJ-san.

And it still doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem that I cited that has not been addressed properly by the church…that means it could, and most likely will happen again.

You can call it whatever logic you like…I call it a Problem wating to happen…AGAIN!!!

 

[ktm]

This is a long thread, so all I’m going to say is that I never met a person who told me he was an athiest. Therefore, I don’t believe in athiests.

 

[squirt]

Gator:

And it still doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem that I cited that has not been addressed properly by the church…that means it could, and most likely will happen again.

True. This is what is called ‘thread drift.’

And if it is addressed properly as far as you are concerned, you would believe in God?

 

[Gator]

ccav:

It is inductive because to judge the group based on the actions of a single individual of that group is to arrive at the conclusion inductively.

A single individual…you don’t keep up with current events very well…

This problem has manifested itself all over the country time and time again from many different members of the church leadership. You make it sound like it’s a one time isolated incident.

It’s been problematic over the past several decades, and we in fact may never know the far reaching extent of the problem since the church didn’t deal with it appropriately when it first started happening.

 

[Gator]

squirt:

True. This is what is called ‘thread drift.’

And if it is addressed properly as far as you are concerned, you would believe in God?

I’ll restate my original post so there is no confusion:

“An absence of evil actions from the church and it’s leaders. To me, there is no clearer indication that all is not what organized religions would want it to be than to have “religious leaders” commit disgusting acts.”

---

IMHO, the church may have already forfeted it’s ability to prove this to me by it’s coverup, and lack of meaningful action over the past 30 or so years…

 

[ccav]

squirt:

But aren’t you generalizing from past experience that the underlying laws behind the proper chemical usage have remained stable from the last time you used them? Isn’t all of the knowledge underlying chemistry inductive in nature?

Anyway, there is a field of ‘logic’ called ‘inductive logic’. There are textbooks on ‘inductive logic.’ There’s even such a thing as ‘inductive logic programming’ . And ‘inductive logic’ has an entry in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

If this doesn’t convince you, we can fight to the death to decide the matter, AJ-san.

Ya, we can get pretty crazy can’t we? Ha Ha! Well, its my nature I guess. I like a good back and forth! So I’ll call this my last entry and you are welcome to the last word on it my brother. Good talking with you too!!!

I am familiar with those books on inductive logic and programming module. It is also called “fuzzy” logic. On the plus side they do not deal with absolutes (great for the limitations of digital technology), but then that is precisely my point-no absolutes. As for the Cambridge dictionary entry, I do acknowledge that it is there as well as in other places, but it is distinguished from formal logic by virtue of its inability to deal with absolutes.

As for my relying on previous mathematical and chemical formula: I don’t know if you’ve ever taken a calculus class, but in calculus (as well as mathematics that go beyond that) they “how did you get pie r squared?” questions get answered very precisely. Please forgive me for not going on a calculus tangent or I’ll be writting all night, Ha Ha Ha! This also plugs into chemistry because chemistry is dealing with reaction of 3 dimensional geometric structures (they are just really tiny!). The other side of this arguement that you have presented is one called methodic doubt. Its when one says to everything “but how can you really know?” Although methodic doubt can be a great way to push the limits of knowledge and an excellent tool for the pursuit of knowledge, its fundamental basis is that one can not truely know anything. That itself is illogical because in order to hold that position you must acknowledge one truth…that you can not know anything! So the arguement collapses. Augustine dealt with this some in his writtings.

I’ll leave on a spiritual/metaphysical/theological note:

Romans 1: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…”

Have a great day my brother!

 

[squirt]

Gator:

I’ll restate my original post so there is no confusion:

“An absence of evil actions from the church and it’s leaders. To me, there is no clearer indication that all is not what organized religions would want it to be than to have “religious leaders” commit disgusting acts.”

---

IMHO, the church may have already forfeted it’s ability to prove this to me by it’s coverup, and lack of meaningful action over the past 30 or so years…

So, basically you are saying:

If God exists, there would be no corruption/sin in people in leadership positions in the Church.

Such corruption/sin exists.

Therefore God does not exist.

Am I on the right track, here? (I’m not trying to be snide or anything … just trying to see if I understand what you are saying.)

 

[squirt]

ccav:

Have a great day my brother!

Uh … I ain’t a guy. And I work with calculus on a regular basis.

 

[ktm]

squirt:

Uh … I ain’t a guy. And I work with calculus on a regular basis.

Whoa, a chick who knows higher math. You must be some kind of nerd goddess. :bowdown:

 

[squirt]

ktm:

Whoa, a chick who knows higher math. You must be some kind of nerd goddess. :bowdown:

And I challenged AJ to a fight.

 

[Gator]

squirt:

So, basically you are saying:

If God exists, there would be no corruption/sin in people in leadership positions in the Church.

Such corruption/sin exists.

Therefore God does not exist.

Am I on the right track, here? (I’m not trying to be snide or anything … just trying to see if I understand what you are saying.)

Basically yes.

If god existed, he wouldn’t allow his weakest of his flock be abused by the 'keepers of the faith", and he most certainly would not cover-up and protect those who commited the henious acts.

So, he either doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t consider the catholic church to be representative of him.

P.S. Please don’t challenge me to a fight…I’m a wimp.