Possible to prove?

[wolpertinger]

mlchance:

Since your opinion cannot be falsified via “our powers of observation,” it isn’t worth arguing about. There’s no point in trying to show good cause against it because no such cause can be shown. Right?

Please stick to answering to the charge of condescension. Where is the justification for your patronizing attitude? Further, you haven’t supported your claim that my opinion is unreasonable. In general, is it unreasonable to be apathetic about matters that evade direct or indirect observation?

To put this in context, I see no evidence whatsoever in the natural world that invites the explanation that god exists. God may or may not exist, but I leave it to those that commit one way or the other to attempt to prove their case.

For that matter, aren’t you protesting too much about something not worth arguing about? I’m sorely disappointed that you neglected to similarly ask “So what brings you here in the first place?”

 

[mlchance]

wolpertinger:

In general, is it unreasonable to be apathetic about matters that evade direct or indirect observation?

Maybe it is. Maybe is isn’t. I await demonstration. So, please, demonstrate. You do have actual reasons for your opinion, don’t you? If so, lay them out in a clear manner that shows the reasonableness of your opinion. You obviously think it is reasonable, whereas I remain unconvinced.

Convince me.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[wolpertinger]

mlchance:

Maybe it is. Maybe is isn’t. I await demonstration. So, please, demonstrate. You do have actual reasons for your opinion, don’t you? If so, lay them out in a clear manner that shows the reasonableness of your opinion. You obviously think it is reasonable, whereas I remain unconvinced.

Convince me.

I have stated my opinion, which you are free to disagree with. However, you went beyond the limits of propriety and called my opinion unreasonable. You may either retract your statement or defend it. I will not allow you shift the burden of proof; it is not up to me to show the reasonableness of my opinion, but squarely up to you to show that it is not.

Until such time as this question is settled to my satisfaction, I see no reason to elaborate on my position.

 

[Origen]

Describing a position as unreasonable is stepping over the line?

I was debating with a fellow in another thread once, where I said Bertrand Russell was over-rated as a philosopher. Which, of course, he is.

You would think I beheaded someone on videotape on Al Jezeera!

The atheist on board immediately squealed that I had taken the low road, etc.

Is anyone else as taken back by this as I am?

Maybe it’s because I am from an academic environment, where one is EXPECTED to claim that some idea is unreasonable, or some person’s contribution to philwosophy is over-rated.

I have a suspicion the problem has its roots in this: that many of us believe there is a right and wrong, truth and error, and we are not afraid to identify either one.

 

[FelixBlue]

wolpertinger:

I have stated my opinion, which you are free to disagree with. However, you went beyond the limits of propriety and called my opinion unreasonable. You may either retract your statement or defend it. I will not allow you shift the burden of proof; it is not up to me to show the reasonableness of my opinion, but squarely up to you to show that it is not.

Until such time as this question is settled to my satisfaction, I see no reason to elaborate on my position.

Fine. I will take up the challenge. Your opinion is not only unreasonbable, but if looked at logically, it can be reduced to absurdity.

For one, I take your opinion to be that of “weak atheism”. This implies a fairly strong agnosticism, where “knowledge” is really only opinion.

Thus, when a person asks you, “Does God exist” you have two options: 1. You can either choose to be silent, or 2. you can say, “It appears to me that there is not God” (which is a statement of knowledge in the form of an opinion).

If you say that “It appears to me that there is no God”, you are stuck in a linguistic trap. Why? Because that statement implies all kinds of things I don’t think you would wish to positively accept:

1. The word “It” implies an objective world that has real existence outside of your subjective awareness.
2. The word “appears” implies that real knowledge is possible of this objective world–even if the knowledge is only a type of real impression.
3. The word “that” points to a relation between the knowledge and the objective world.
4. Meaning: the whole statement implies an objective understanding of meaning. Otherwise, one would be reduced to silence or meaningless gibberish.
5. Cause and effect: linguistically, the “It appears to me” gives rise or cause to “there is no God.”
6. Gradation: by saying “appears” one acknowledges that knowledge can either be more or less perfect.
7. Being: lastly, the sentence implies the idea of being/existence as the opinion could not be stated without first haveing a ground of being.

Now, I say all this to say that a thorough-going agnosticism is simply not a possibility unless one is willing to be reduced to silence (but then, one would have to understand the “willingness to be reduced” and there would be no agnosticism…so, one would have to be thoughtless to be an agnostic…). The very use of language, in its most simple form, demands not only knowledge, in the form of opinions, but certain knowledge (at least of an objective world, real knowledge, a relation or correspondence between the objective world and real knowledge, meaning, cause and effect, gradation, and being).

Thus, not only is agnosticism impossible, but so too is this so-called “weak atheism” as an opinion, as it seems to heavily rely upon a strong agnosticism.

It seems to me that “weak atheism” can only be and must be reduced to “strong atheism.”

If that is true (and I welcome arguments to the contrary), then you must answer the question, “Does God exist” without hiding behind the “I’m a weak atheist” excuse. And if you must answer the question, then all the sudden you find yourself proving a negative, which, as you said, would be an impossibility.

Thus, your position is impossible to prove, whereas theism is possible (in theory) to prove.

Lastly, I admit that the linguistic analysis above is cursory. But analyze the sentence yourself and see what it logically demands.

 

[oriel36]

FelixBlue:

This is a topic that came up in another thread. Since it wasn’t exactly addressing what the original thread was about, I thought I’d bring it up here.

The question: is it possible to prove atheism as it would be possible to prove theism?

The argument raised in the other thread was that, no, it is not possible to prove atheism because atheism is a negative…a negation of theism. Thus, the argument went, atheism is irrational and impossible to prove.

In my mind, this seems wrong headed. First, while it is true to say that atheism is a negative, it is only linguistically. It is the linguistic negative of the word theism. Fine. But that doesn’t mean the reality behind the word is a negative. If God does not exist, that simply means that there is in reality no God, which is a positive state of being.

Thus it seems possible to argue rationally that there is no God. But I will leave the argument itself up to the atheists.

I bring this up because I think it is a week argument for the theist to say that one can’t prove atheism b/c one can’t prove a negative, and then let the argument drop at that.

Thoughts?

The great Christian contemplative Dionysius the Areopagite wrote that ultimately our experience of God is beyond all affirmations and negations.It is bewildering that anyone would deny God for that is impossible to do however many choose to make a religion out of the self and never get to experience the great connection between the Infinite and the Definite,the temporal and the Eternal,God and Man that is made possible through Christ.

" neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all."

esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html

Any thoughts ?.

 

[wolpertinger]

Origen:

Describing a position as unreasonable is stepping over the line?

That’s what I said and I will not retract it until the assertion is shown to have at least a modicum of validity.

I was debating with a fellow in another thread once, where I said Bertrand Russell was over-rated as a philosopher. Which, of course, he is.

You would think I beheaded someone on videotape on Al Jezeera!

The atheist on board immediately squealed that I had taken the low road, etc.

Exactly what are you trying to insinuate?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steve Andersen:

Maybe…but that leaves me a little cold
So I choose to believe
But that’s just me, your mileage may vary

Are you familiar with Pascal’s wager?

Mine’s a Cadillac - what’s your’s ?​

That is a difficulty - it is a rather bleak vision. Which could be made into an objection: that it is too bleak to be true. Which presupposes, that man is biassed to be joyful - even, designed for joy. Whence the bias ?

IOW, there is a psychological argument for theism.

I am not mad keen on “choosing to believe” - it sounds too, well, wilful. As if one were ducking reality because it’s nasty. I think that nasty reality trumps pleasant theism, because I believe reality trumps what one would like to believe, however pleasant. Which leads on to questions about the importance of the individual; does the individual matter, in comparison with overall reality ? I believe strongly in personal dignity and freedom - but is this consistent with insisting on facing up to reality ?

BTW - what happens to questions of intelligibility and value ? Is either or both inherent in the universe, or are they read into it ? Can atheism preserve them ? Christian theisms seem quite good at preseerving or spelling out these things - is atheism ?

This question swarms with questions.

About Pascal - that wager leaves me cold, though I may have misunderstood it. I don’t want safety - that is IMO an ignoble motive for belief. Besides, affirming faith in God is not the same as having faith: faith is an existential encounter of the self with a Self Who is Wholly “Other”. Not, primarily, an assertion in the intellect - that, is secondary.

So ISTM that the Wager is not fundamentally the position of a religious man at all. Yet Pascal was profoundly religious. But the Wager is too calculating - it appeals to sheer self-interest; which is at the opposite pole from what the Gospel insists on. Christ did not live by self-interest. ##

 

[wolpertinger]

FelixBlue:

Fine. I will take up the challenge. Your opinion is not only unreasonbable, but if looked at logically, it can be reduced to absurdity.

For one, I take your opinion to be that of “weak atheism”. This implies a fairly strong agnosticism, where “knowledge” is really only opinion.

Thus, when a person asks you, “Does God exist” you have two options: 1. You can either choose to be silent, or 2. you can say, “It appears to me that there is not God” (which is a statement of knowledge in the form of an opinion).

Please allow me to point out the fundamental flaw of your argument. You perform a linguistic analysis on words I have neither spoken myself (as far as I recall) nor were designed to meet such an analysis.

A straw man, in other words.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oriel36:

The great Christian contemplative Dionysius the Areopagite wrote that ultimately our experience of God is beyond all affirmations and negations.It is bewildering that anyone would deny God for that is impossible to do however many choose to make a religion out of the self and never get to experience the great connection between the Infinite and the Definite,the temporal and the Eternal,God and Man that is made possible through Christ.

" neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all."

esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html

Any thoughts ?.

Many ​

If God could be caught in the net of human words, He would not be God, but an idol constructed by the intellect.

So all affirmations, & even all denials, are inexact and insufficient to describe God.

Language is a human artefact - God is not a human artefact. Yet we are obliged, perforce, to use the former in speaking of the latter. Which is like expecting a toddler to deliver a lecture on quantum dynamics.

Human language is radically incapable of speaking of what is beyond human language to speak of - so we have to use models; which are also inadequate. The Fathers knew this well, as did the Schoolmen. The orthodox have not yet forgotten it - but it has been badly obscured in Latin theology, I think

The problem is, that Christian theism is a revelation, and a mystery; it is always both, equally. And God eludes human words and concepts.

Yet there is a sort of contradiction in revealing a mystery - so Christian theology has to operate between two poles, as an electric arc does (as in “The Thing From Outer Space”, near the end). And theology is as unsteady as an electric arc, because it is a human science, however grace-filled its practitioners. ##

 

[oriel36]

## Many

Yet there is a sort of contradiction in revealing a mystery - so Christian theology has to operate between two poles, as an electric arc does (as in “The Thing From Outer Space”, near the end). And theology is as unsteady as an electric arc, because it is a human science, however grace-filled its practitioners. ##

Wonderful comment !.

Btw, Pascal recognised a balance between the limits of human reason and the intuitive faculty of man insofar as the mathematical/logical mind which operates on definitions,axioms and principles does not feel comfortable with matters requiring intuition and matters of Faith.

From experience with the empirical tradition,scientists tend to read Pascal’s ‘Intuition’ as guesswork whereas the religious would recognise that it is from the depths of intuition that creative works emerge such as Beethoven’s work , Copernicus’s or indeed any benefactor to mankind.His wager makes more sense as an appeal to the mathematical mind which hesitates in matters which are grasped instinctively rather than just logically.

---

Blaise Pascal.

The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."

---

leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html

 

[mlchance]

wolpertinger:

However, you went beyond the limits of propriety and called my opinion unreasonable.

In addition to demonstrating that falsification by “our powers of observation” is a reasonable criterion for determining what is worth arguing about, please demonstrate that calling an opinion unreasonable goes “beyond the limits of propriety.”

Or this going to be yet another case where an atheist gets to make claims without having to actually justify them?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[wolpertinger]

mlchance:

In addition to demonstrating that falsification by “our powers of observation” is a reasonable criterion for determining what is worth arguing about, please demonstrate that calling an opinion unreasonable goes “beyond the limits of propriety.”

Or this going to be yet another case where an atheist gets to make claims without having to actually justify them?

Here is the original statement:

As far as I’m concerned, if a claim isn’t open to falsification within our powers of observation, I will not waste time arguing for or against.

This is a statement of fact, based on a personal opinion about what is and what isn’t a good use of my time, the implication being that I have better or more important uses for it. I didn’t make a general claim, therefore I have nothing to prove. You replied:

Ah, well, if it’s just an opinion, it’s easily dismissed, especially since it cannot be demonstrated to be reasonable.

You don’t hurt my feelings if you dismiss my opinion, but you have made an unqualified claim that this opinion is unreasonable. If you wish to retroactively qualify your claim and rephrase it as an opinion, we can simply agree to disagree. If not, the burden of proof is on you. Don’t ask me to tell you why you’re wrong, tell me why you’re right.

I consider it in bad taste to call somebody else’s opinion unreasonable without offering a supporting explanation. There is nothing else to demonstrate, I am stating an expression of my personal ethics. If your own ethical standards are lower, so be it.

Finally, since you refuse to give a substantive answer to what I called condescension, I am left to conclude that this is yet another case where a theist gets to make claims without having to actually justify them.

Do you want to keep playing the game of “did not, did too” or do you want to engage in an honest discussion? I will not reply to any more of the former, so if you want the last word you will have the opportunity.

 

[mlchance]

wolpertinger:

Don’t ask me to tell you why you’re wrong, tell me why you’re right.

I’m asking you to tell me why you’re right. You are right, aren’t you? I mean, you are the one with higher ethical standards.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[wolpertinger]

A few loose ends…

FelixBlue:

Fine. I will take up the challenge. Your opinion is not only unreasonbable, but if looked at logically, it can be reduced to absurdity.

For one, I take your opinion to be that of “weak atheism”. This implies a fairly strong agnosticism, where “knowledge” is really only opinion.

Why didn’t you ask what my fully considered position is, instead of guessing?

It is futile to discuss the question of god’s existence without first defining ‘god’. An immediate problem is that we are unlikely to arrive at a mutually agreeable definition of god that is compatible with the Abrahamic god.

Deferring the definition of what a god is, I am strongly agnostic towards its existence. Indeed, I cannot establish as incontrovertible truth that anything exists externally and independently from my mind - and neither can you. On what basis could you claim that I cannot possibly be anything but a figment of your imagination? Prove that negative…

It doesn’t cause me any metaphysical pain to provisionally accept that there is a world out there and while I have a certain confidence about the accuracy of my observations of it, ‘truth’ ultimately eludes me. Even if I were to believe that god exists, I would remain an agnostic theist, because my belief could be based on inaccurate information. Belief doesn’t establish truth, truth doesn’t establish belief.

With that in mind, I am a weak atheist in the sense that nothing of what believe to observe about ‘reality’ requires god as an explanation, always acknowledging that nothing contradicts it, either. I opt for parsimony and declare god-belief as not justified until further notice.

On top of all of that, I am apathetic to god’s existence. Since I am unaware of verifiable consequences of god existing or not, the answer to the question is not important to me.

Thus, when a person asks me, “Does God exist” I have several options:

1. “What is god?”
2. “I am indifferent to the answer.”
3. “I have no reason to believe it. Do you?”
4. “I hold that the answer is principally unknowable, because ultimately none of us has an epistemology that supports such knowledge.”

Thus, your position is impossible to prove, whereas theism is possible (in theory) to prove.

The only thing I have to justify is why I consider the answer to god’s existence being principally unknowable. As far as I’m concerned, this directly follows from being unable to distinguish with certainty whether I live in a Matrix of sorts or not. Having said that, I do not, in fact, have to prove anything at all unless I wish to convert somebody else to my point of view.

You can disagree with me, agree to disagree, but I will not change my position unless you have tangible proof positive that a god compatible to your definition exists. Please note that even if I present an invalid or unsound argument, it doesn’t follow that the conclusion is necessarily wrong.

 

[jeffreedy789]

wolpertinger posted: ‘Exactly what are you trying to insinuate?’

methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Monarchy]

mlchance:

I’m asking you to tell me why you’re right. You are right, aren’t you? I mean, you are the one with higher ethical standards.

– Mark L. Chance.

The Poster who stated that wolpertinger’s opinion was unreasonable made a positive statement, and therefore, by the rules of logic, he should be the one to prove his assertion is true.

 

[FelixBlue]

Wolpertinger:

I apologize for guessing. As a principle, I usually do not like to put words or positions or arguments into other’s mouths. The problem is, thus far, at least on this thread, you have been fairly elusive about what your position exactly is. Even so, now that you have stated your position, that you are a strong agnostic (if the term can be coined) and a “weak atheist”, I thing my guess was pretty well justified.

But that’s not the point. I’m more interested in having an accurate conversation.

It seems as though my generalized statement corresponds to something you might say. Isn’t the most honest and consistent way for an agnostic to speak something like, “It appears that…” or “It seems that…” or “I opine that…” To speak with any definite knowledge would be an immediate contradiction of a thorough-going agnosticism. So, when I said that the agnostic would reply, “It appears that there is no God” that would be about as honest and consistent as the agnostic could get. Not a claim, but a supposition.

That said, I agree with you that it is very, very difficult to conclusively prove that anything exists outside of our minds. Just because we want or believe it to be so doesn’t make it so. But as I’ve thought about it, I have come to the conclusion that the linguistic analysis is the only way out of this dilemma. And I don’t intend this to be a straw man. I believe I have demonstrated that one statement (“It appears to me that…whatever”) to logically require the list of things I mentioned below (including the existence of a gulf between subjective and objective reality). It appears, then, that one can do one of a few things: 1. One can throw out logic, 2. One can thrown out linguistic meaning, or 3. One can accept the linguistic analysis (or the meaning of the language) and realize that the language itself does point to certain realities.

If you take number one or two, how is it that you expect an honest discussion (as I believe you were asking of someone earlier)? How can you use words like “propriety” or care about the meaning of “unreasonable” if you are willing to throw out the very idea of meaning. How can you claim logic, as you implicitly do, if you are unwilling to be logical yourself?

That said, you may see a fourth option to what you can do with that basic agnostic sentence. If so, let me know. But please, no more, “I don’t have to prove anything” or “I don’t want to waste my time” excuses."

As I asked at the end of my last post, I ask again here: what do you make of the linguistic analysis. If you believe it is a straw man, fine, but at least be gentlemanly enough to give reasons as to why.

 

[FelixBlue]

Continued…

As for the definition of God, you are right. We should start with a definition of what God is. How is this: God is that without which nothing else could exist. In defining God in such a way, he remains rather without content. He is not the God of Abraham or Allah or Brahman or Gaia or any other particular deity.

By the way, I would argue that that one agnostic statement proves the existence of God:

1. It appears that…whatever.
2. The above statement involves the idea of being, because what is really being said is, “It is that it appears that…whatever.”
3. The above kind of being is contingent in that it is in relation to me.
4. Contingent being, in order to be, requires necessary being, otherwise it would never itself be.
5. Necessary being is that without which nothing else could exist/be.
6. Thus, God exists (as defined above).

Now that God exists (at least in this elementary form), it seems you should no longer be “indifferent” to God’s existence (as he is the necessary being behind your contingent being). Further, it seems as though we do have a sufficient epistemology (unless you are willing to chunk logic and the idea of meaning). Lastly, I have given you reason to believe…one among many others that could be marshalled.

But Wolpertinger, I know I haven’t convinced you. Don’t worry, I’m not foolish enough to think that.

Do me a favor, though, give me evidence for why you think we may live in a matrix kind of situation. I have given you evidence why I think we do not (linguistic evidence). Further, explain to me why, if we are in a matrix, a dream, some really clever software, why do you worry about your time so much? What is important to do and not to do? Who cares if it isn’t real? Lastly, if we are in a matrix, and admitting the fact that we suffer considerably in this matrix, why shouldn’t one be courageous and take a step toward freeing oneself (as Camus suggests in his essay on The Myth of Sisyphus) by committing suicide? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really suggesting that…but, really?)

In the end, it does seem the burden of proof is on you. My language, my senses, logic, other people (if they are real), pain, etc. tell me that there is a world outside my brain. What real proof do you have?

 

[FelixBlue]

As for the definition of God, you are right. We should start with a definition of what God is. How is this: God is that without which nothing else could exist. In defining God in such a way, he remains rather without content. He is not the God of Abraham or Allah or Brahman or Gaia or any other particular deity.

By the way, I would argue that that one agnostic statement proves the existence of God:

1. It appears that…whatever.
2. The above statement involves the idea of being, because what is really being said is, “It is that it appears that…whatever.”
3. The above kind of being is contingent in that it is in relation to me.
4. Contingent being, in order to be, requires necessary being, otherwise it would never itself be.
5. Necessary being is that without which nothing else could exist/be.
6. Thus, God exists (as defined above).

Now that God exists (at least in this elementary form), it seems you should no longer be “indifferent” to God’s existence (as he is the necessary being behind your contingent being). Further, it seems as though we do have a sufficient epistemology (unless you are willing to chunk logic and the idea of meaning). Lastly, I have given you reason to believe…one among many others that could be marshalled.

But Wolpertinger, I know I haven’t convinced you. Don’t worry, I’m not foolish enough to think that.

Do me a favor, though, give me evidence for why you think we may live in a matrix kind of situation. I have given you evidence why I think we do not (linguistic evidence). Further, explain to me why, if we are in a matrix, a dream, some really clever software, why do you worry about your time so much? What is important to do and not to do? Who cares if it isn’t real? Lastly, if we are in a matrix, and admitting the fact that we suffer considerably in this matrix, why shouldn’t one be courageous and take a step toward freeing oneself (as Camus suggests in his essay on The Myth of Sisyphus) by committing suicide? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really suggesting that…but, really?)

In the end, it does seem the burden of proof is on you. My language, my senses, logic, other people (if they are real), pain, etc. tell me that there is a world outside my brain. What real proof do you have?