M
Matariel
Guest
Huh? That seems hokey to me. Where do you presume to get this contradictory information.
The atheists are clearly in the minority.
- Status
The atheists are clearly in the minority.
B
bobzills
Guest
I disagree.
It is possible to prove some negative assertions, for example that 1+1 does not equal 3.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
But you cannot prove the “nonexistence” of something/someone logically.
Formal logic precludes proving a null set.
This is different than proving a negative proposition.
Formal logic precludes proving a null set.
This is different than proving a negative proposition.
B
bobzills
Guest
The claim was:
I say that this claim is false.
The proposition that 1+1 does not equal 3 is a negative assertion and it is easily proven to be true.,
And I think that it is wrong to say that formal logic precludes proving a null set. For example, it is easy to see that the set of all X with X not equal to X is the null set… Another example of where you can prove a null set is take the set of all real numbers X which satisfy X*X + 1 = 0.
There are many examples where you can easily prove the null set.
M
Matthias123
Guest
If you are going to make assertions such as this you must provide a reference to back up what you have said.
I challenge you to prove this. I find it very had to believe you can considering the information I posted from the CIA World Fact Book is compiled from the census records of all the nations of the world.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
The problem we are having here involves an ambiguity. Nonexistence of God is not the same as 0 God, as nonexistence in the statement “you cannot disprove the existence of GOd” is implied.
It is a principle of formal logic that one cannot prove that…
fairies do not exist… and
martians do not exist… and
God does not exist.
Your mathematical equations are working with the numerical value zero. Zero does exist. Since the time that the Indians “discovered” is has revolutionized mathematics.
Nonexistence (the state of not being real under any condition, time or place) is quite different, by definition that the numerical quantity zero.
It is a principle of formal logic that one cannot prove that…
fairies do not exist… and
martians do not exist… and
God does not exist.
Your mathematical equations are working with the numerical value zero. Zero does exist. Since the time that the Indians “discovered” is has revolutionized mathematics.
Nonexistence (the state of not being real under any condition, time or place) is quite different, by definition that the numerical quantity zero.
B
bobzills
Guest
This is getting overly technical. The argument against the existence of God, as I have seen it given, sometimes involves something like this:
Evil exists and if God were all loving and all powerful, He would not permit it.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
That’s the problem of evil. Peter Kreeft has a fabulous book about this by the way (and a myspace page for inquirers!)
One can deduce that their is no God with this argument although this argument is the most challenging question for a Christian (or member of a few other religions).
Nevertheless, this argument does not really address whether God exists, but rather whether God is all loving and all powerful. An all powerful God who is disinterested in creation is not disproven via this argument.
One can deduce that their is no God with this argument although this argument is the most challenging question for a Christian (or member of a few other religions).
Nevertheless, this argument does not really address whether God exists, but rather whether God is all loving and all powerful. An all powerful God who is disinterested in creation is not disproven via this argument.
B
bobzills
Guest
But as we know it to be from our Catholic teaching, is it not true that God is all loving and all powerful?
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
What do you have in mind here?
But as we know it to be from our Catholic teaching, is it not true that God is all loving and all powerful?
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Not for a given god.
No single god is worshiped by a majority of people. There are more non-Muslims than Muslims. There are more non-Christians than Christians. There are more non-Hindus than Hindus. Etc.
If you pick any god, more people are atheistic with regards to this god than theistic. So no one god is real for a majority of people.
And of course that really doesn’t say anything. More people than not might think King Arthur or ghosts are real. It doesn’t make it so or not so.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
See my previous post.
Also, consider the fact that Christians, for example, don’t worship other gods because Christians don’t think those other gods are real. Strictly speaking then, wouldn’t a Christian consider Hindus atheists? If a Christian actually considers Hindus theists, exactly what god or gods are Hindus worshipping?
I’m just making the point that for any one god, more people are atheist than not. And from any one religious perspective, there are always more non-believers than believers.
To me that is a very revealing observation.
B
bobzills
Guest
:
What I have in mind is that any proof that God does not exist is really an attempt to show that the existence of God would involve a contradiction of some sort:
That’s because Martians and fairies do not involve contradictions. But can we prove that there does not exist a fish which lives on land, which has fur, which has lungs and breathes air, which is warm blooded, and for which its young are born alive? I think we can prove that type of creature does not exist, because it involves a contradiction to say that you have a fish and you have a mammal at the same time. It’s like saying that a round square does not exist.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
Again, IMHO, you are capitalizing on an ambiguity in the word “nonexistence”.
You are referring to a “type” of fish when I am referring to the “fish”.
Moving beyond deduction to scientific inference…
I actually do not think that you can prove that there does not exist a fish which lives on land, which has fur, which has lungs and breathes air, which is warm blooded, and for which its young are born alive.
Not being able to find one does not definitely constitute a proof that one does not exists. It may be scientifically implausible based on our understanding of organisms. Nevertheless, the empirical non-discovery of such a creature does not ipso facto necessitate its nonexistence. Though it is certainly reasonable to argue that no such animal exists.
You are referring to a “type” of fish when I am referring to the “fish”.
Moving beyond deduction to scientific inference…
I actually do not think that you can prove that there does not exist a fish which lives on land, which has fur, which has lungs and breathes air, which is warm blooded, and for which its young are born alive.
Not being able to find one does not definitely constitute a proof that one does not exists. It may be scientifically implausible based on our understanding of organisms. Nevertheless, the empirical non-discovery of such a creature does not ipso facto necessitate its nonexistence. Though it is certainly reasonable to argue that no such animal exists.
B
bobzills
Guest
The point is if if were warm blooded and had lungs and its young were born alive and it had hair or fur, it would be a mammal and not a fish. In other words, we have established a contradiction.
Similarly, there could not exist a rabbit which was cold blooded, did not have lungs, and breathed only in water, and laid eggs, and had gills, and did not have fur, and never came up on land but only swam in water, and who only ate small fish. That’s because such a creature would contradict the definition of what a rabbit is.
Or there could not exist a butterfly which had no wings, was as big as an elephant, was warm blooded, and had large teeth and ate deer and other mammals, and whose young were born alive, etc. That’s because such a creature would contradict the definition of what a butterfly is.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
At the most, this would only prove God is not loving. It does not speak to existence or the lack therof.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
This is entering the world of linguistics now. Sure: a rose by any other name is but a rose. This has more to do with the law of noncontradiction.
Nevertheless, when I refer to nonexistence, again, I mean that something does not have a reality at any time, place, or under any condition.
Mammals and fish both exist, and the categories are only meaningful if they are mutually exclusive.
The point is if if were warm blooded and had lungs and its young were born alive and it had hair or fur, it would be a mammal and not a fish. In other words, we have established a contradiction.
Nevertheless, when I refer to nonexistence, again, I mean that something does not have a reality at any time, place, or under any condition.
Mammals and fish both exist, and the categories are only meaningful if they are mutually exclusive.
The point is if if were warm blooded and had lungs and its young were born alive and it had hair or fur, it would be a mammal and not a fish. In other words, we have established a contradiction.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
God’s love is not “protection from pain/suffering” forced on His creatures.
God’s love is the OFFERED GIFT of truly understanding the consequences of EVERY sin (one’s own and every other person’s) after one’s life on earth.
Once our life on earth is done, we can either hold onto our “earthly disappointments” and reject what we then KNOW with certainty is the truth of all our (and others) sufferings, or accept the truth then revealed.
Why would anyone reject what they KNOW with certainty is the truth? We do it all the time, and as persons “post-earthly-life” we have the same option as a choice that we do “pre-earthly-death”.
The problem is that after (earthly) death any choice we make is irrevocable.
Those in the habit of clinging to “disappointments” (such as seeing all suffering as “proof of God’s abandonment”, or as “proof of God’s nonexistence”) TEND to make the wrong (irrevocable!) choice.
THAT is why it’s a very bad idea to have incorrect definitions of both “God’s love” and “disappointment”.
That “proof” of God’s nonexistence is actually nothing more than a child’s wish that Papa won’t “inflict” that pain called “school” on him tomorrow.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
Okie dokie.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You’ve summed up both my thoughts and your’s in a wonderfully pithy, punchy, succinct and a downright “keyboard efficient” way.
Touche!
Of course, that “proof” doesn’t actually prove that (“at most” or otherwise) God is not loving. It merely proves that the “prover” doesn’t know what “God’s love” means.
All atheistic “proofs” (of anything related to God) are ALWAYS based on incorrect meanings of foundational terms.
Once you find the term or terms which are simply wrong, the “proof” becomes simply nonsense.
Then, because the so-called atheist will not agree that the disputed terms could POSSIBLY have any meaning but their chosen ones, the “discussion” turns into an atheistic shout-down fest, which would lead to actual physical violence if it were in a venue where that would be possible.
Agreeing to disagree is not allowed in a so-called atheist’s “ethics”. All basic (axiomatic) disagreements are existentially dangerous (to mankind as a whole, where “mankind” means those “enlightened humans of the atheistic persuasion”) and necessitate “surgical removal” of the offending “non-mankind oriented” person.
…but then, I ramble on again, don’t I?
Not all so-called atheists are “slavers”, are they? Or, is that why I call them “so-called” atheists? Are all people who call themselves atheists really atheists? No. Are all REAL atheists really “slavers”? Yes.- Status