There is no God

[mikew262]

Alois:

Wow, you really don’t know anything about this, do you? If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for it. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic to show a reason for not believing it when there is no evidence for it.

Doubtful. You show such ignorance towards the subject of atheism that it outweighs your own assertions that you were one.



Refute my arguments and back up your own then. You sure haven’t done a good job thus far…

You as an atheist are in the vast minority. Your views are flying in the face of the vast majority of people that do believe in God. You shoulder the burden of proof that God doesn’t exist. Its as simple as that. Good Luck.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

just that abiogenesis is astonomically unlikely, at least given our current state of scientific understanding. and that the enormous unlikelihood of it is a real theoretical difficulty for any biological model of which it is a part.

s’all.

I guess there’s no point in talking about abiogenesis, then - this is a thread debating the relative merits of atheism and Catholic theism.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

yes: the causal principle seems self-evident to me.

And it does not seem self-evident to me.

sure. but that’s just an image with a title - it doesn’t entail the possibility of the picture. it’s the pictorial analog of saying that, since i can write the sentence “sam drew a square circle”, it must be possible for sam to draw a square circle.

You’ve yet to give reasons why this sort of world is logically impossible.

Or would you argue that there must be some cause of these ping pong balls, and that we just haven’t found it yet?

yes.

I guess, then, no sort of evidence could possibly count as evidence against the causal principle. And if that’s true, there can be no evidence for it, either. It has to be some a priori principle. And you’ve yet to provide reasons why we should think it is.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

EnterTheBowser:

… why exactly can’t I imagine a world where ping-pong balls pop into existence for no particular reason? …

EnterTheBowser:

… My point was that resorting to supernatural explanations every time science is faced with a new brute fact or brute law is not a good tactic, because it imagines new entities and does not eliminate the brute thing that seemed to require explanation. …

I couldn’t help but notice that you answered your own question.

Imagining something “popping into existence for no particular reason” is “resorting to supernatural explanations”…

I don’t quite see how I’m resorting to a supernatural explanation… moreover I did not answer my own question. One had to to with the logical possibility of a thing. The other had to do with what sort of theory we should accept, based on parsimony. Parsimony says nothing about what is logically impossible; it only deals with the relative reasonableness of theories.

But I would say that those ping pong balls you imagined popping into existence actually came from your own imagination, based on the already-existing concept of ping-pong balls. That is why it is easy to imagine. You were the cause, and the concept was the substance.

…

I’m not quite sure what that last bit was about. Rhetoric is a wonderful art, but just a clear presentation of arguments can sometimes be better.

 

[Alois]

mikew262:

You as an atheist are in the vast minority. Your views are flying in the face of the vast majority of people that do believe in God. You shoulder the burden of proof that God doesn’t exist. Its as simple as that. Good Luck.

Someone doesn’t know about Argumentum ad populum.

It doesn’t matter how many people claim to believe something, they still must prove it before it is true.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

That is not the issue. The issue is whether it is “logical to believe in a God”.

A monotheistic God, which is a God as decribed in the scriptures. Judaism spawned the first monotheistic God, and their beliefs are shown in the scripture, as well as the Christian’s, and as well as the Islamic’s. (their issues in the Bible come from the NT)

It exceeds it, but is not contradictory to it.

A diamond excedes coal, but is not contradictory to it. More on this next.

In post #735 I have given the beginnings of an investigation into existence and what it must be. We should focus on this and go from there.

Actually, post 735 is a perfect example of what I claim you are doing with the diamond and coal.

No, but I gave those in a different context of foreshadowing what has been discovered, and not for it to serve as the proof.

Then you will need to prove them before I consider the God you are classifying as existence to be rational and logical.

It is true that I have been saying it all along. I now say, to make it explicit, that the “perfect somethingness” in the 4-step demonstration (post #735) should be called “God”.

No, it should not. You have shown existence in that post, and still not a God.

I used the set of Integers as an analogy or simile to show that if it is ok to accept an infinite set as the source of numbers, then it is also logical to accept an infinite set of concepts. And I went further to say it should be logical to accept an infinite God as a source of everything. It is simply logical. It was a sort of answer to your question.

You made the claim that the number system was the “source” of all numbers in it, and that therefore, existence is the “source” or “Creator” of all that is contains. I have shown this to be false, as a number system is made up of all the object contained within it, it is not a source of the numbers.

But you reject the conclusion because of a technical discrepancy in the way I understood an “INS”. You likewise demur on the allegation that I am trying to sell you a lump of coal as a diamond.

And this discrepancy was in the base of your logic. You then went on to ignore this while building on top of your broken base of logic. Like I’ve said, a number system does not create the numbers within it, it is made up of the infinite amount of numbers in it. You stated that the number system was the “source”, that is false.

In fact, I am only showing that it is logical to “believe in a God”. I am not saying the INS is God, nor did I say that since an INS exists that God must exist. I said it would be logical to believe it. And that is the whole point of the discussion with you. You yourself said you didn’t care if “a God” exists or not. You only care to debate whether it is logical to believe.

You have not shown it to be logical yet.

It is in fact the essence of existence that we must be concerned with first, for that is something we have direct experience with. After we deal with that, we can deal with the other attributes of “a God” that is consequential. But why the need to show “other traits” in order to establish the logic of believing in “a God”?

The “essence” of existence is a product of your mind. What do you mean by essence? How is it a product of existence? Is there an essence of cowboys?

I don’t think you know this for sure.

Yes, just as I can know there aren’t any square circles. Things that are supernatural are beyond logic. If we observe something that is supernatural and logical, it then becomes natural. If we observe something supernatural and illogical, it still remains supernatural and illogical.

It is an admission that I cannot show you the “naturally unknowable” aspects. I already have been saying that I can demonstrate that it is “logical to believe there is a God”, which is all you care about. We can know that much by our natural reason. But I cannot demonstrate to you that which may only be known supernaturally.

I feel like I’m trying to talk to you at a concert. You have only shown existence, you have yet to show a God.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

The reason I say this is because it establishes something more than what is typically called “existence”. It establishes that a “perfect somethingness” always existed, and thus must be the “essence” of existence. So if anything “exists”, it is as a result of this “perfect somethingness”, but is not a part of it inherently.

This is an assumption, and an untrue one if we look at the true nature of existence. Existence defined is everything. Everything that exists is existence. Existence is not “perfect somethingness”, this is a concept that you yourself have invented in order to put your source of everything above the definition of existence, but it is just as much a leap as claiming that God is real.

What you have classified as perfect somethingness is existence. There is no giant pool that existence pulls its possibilities out of, existence contains all such possibilities. Over and over I have said this, but it’s as if you don’t hear me. Existence contains all that exists, it is the product of everything. There is no “perfect somethingness”, that is a concept you invented.

It is precisely the manifested “existences” that we know do not inhere in the “perfect somethingness”, and thus only participate in it.

:banghead:

This is an example of you building on top of faulty foundations. Maybe you just didn’t read the post in which I showed this to be false, I hope so.

This participation must logically be in such a manner that it takes its form from the “perfect somethingness” without being inherently part of that perfect somethingness, for something perfect cannot be improved or degraded.

Wrong. It is a form of existence. There isn’t a perfect somethingness, and you can’t possibly claim to understand even the conception of a perfect somethingness, which is infinite and yet someone bounded in your own mind as an object from which things are derived.

And since there is nothing besides this perfect somethingness, a manifested “existence” must be nothing in itself. This is all logical. So you see there must be the “existence” of the p.s. and the “existence” of the manifestations.

Perfect somethingness, aka existence, is everything. It’s existence. P.S. is not something beyond existence. If you want to make the claim that is is something beyond existence, you need to support it by showing it as seperate from existence. You remind of an ID advocate in the way you simply change the wording but imply exactly the same thing. (God) You logic is unfounded in this matter.

So we must distinguish between two modes of “existing”. One is the essence of existence, the other is the creation thereof. One is intrinsic, the other extrinsic.

There you go again, throwing out the concept of an “essence” without defining it, or showing to even be a logical idea. What is essence?

I would give this “perfect somethingness” the name “God”. It particular, it is the naturally knowable God. That is, knowable in the sense that we know whether it exists. For we cannot know it intrinsically, but only extrinsically. Similarly, we can know whether the center of the earth exists, but not precisely what is there.

Just as I thought you would… Oh, and you building upon cracked logic? Yep, you did it again. One thing I’d advise for you for future debating: wait to see the reaction and responses of others to your ideas before you build off of them, it keeps things much cleaner.

–

The rest of your post continues inline with this, making more brash claims from a broken and unfounded base. I once again advise you to restrain from doing so.

Not sufficiently. But I hope the above elaboration clarifies it much.

Not really, because you go on to avoid the root of the matter while making extraordinary claims about “perfect somethingness”.

 

[Alois]

mikew262:

You as an atheist are in the vast minority. Your views are flying in the face of the vast majority of people that do believe in God. You shoulder the burden of proof that God doesn’t exist. Its as simple as that. Good Luck.

Here’s the correct link for the fallacy mentioned above…

A large number of people supporting something does not prove it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

Supralogic is a made up word and concept on your part.

I used the expression “supra-rational.”

Supra=beyond Rational=reason

Not at all. The expression is so legitimate as I defined it that it is found in any good dictionary weighing more than five pounds.

Look it up.

It is now so painfully clear that you are not the scholar you think you are.

Learn to use the dictionary before you make wild accusations of this sort.

And the repeated innuendo on your part that I am a liar are probably not doing you any good with respect to the reputation you are building for yourself. Your assumption that an atheist cannot become a Christian has been disproven by the conversions of many atheists to Christianity.

C.S. Lewis, for example. Read what he has to say about his atheism and his own conversion to Christianity.

As I read your recent posts, you seem to take the incredible position that an atheist must be locked into atheism and could not possibly become a Christian if he is truly an atheist.

Is that correct?.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Supralogic is not, in fact, in the dictionary…

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supralogic

Neither is “supra logic,” nor “supra-logic.” The nearest word is “serologic,” but I get the feeling you weren’t talking about the study of blood serum…

Suprarational is also not in the dictionary; the nearest word is “supranational,” but you probably weren’t talking about national boundaries either.

And let’s try to keep this discussion civil (coughAloiscough)

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

Not at all. The expression is so legitimate as I defined it that it is found in any good dictionary.

Look it up.

It is now so painfully clear that you are not the scholar you think you are.

Learn to use the dictionary before you make wild accusations of this sort.

Look…
it…
up?

I’m not…
finding…
anything!

Wikiopedia turned up no results, and even GOOGLE only turned up pages in foreign languages. The concept of supralogic is contained within illogic, if that’s what you mean. Problem for you is, that’s exactly what I said in the post you replied to…

edit

Suprarational yields the same results from dictionaries.

And the repeated innuendo on your part that I am a liar are probably not doing you any good with respect to the reputation you are building for yourself.

Innuendo? I’m flat out stating that you were:

a.) Never an atheist, or
b.) Such an ignorant one that you never actually understood the standpoint of atheism.

Your assumption that an atheist cannot become a Christian has been disproven by the conversions of many atheists to Christianity.

When did I ever say atheists couldn’t become Christians? I said that I doubt you were ever an atheist because you show such ignorance to the actual positions of athiests. You don’t know the difference between a weak and strong atheist, how could I conclude differently? I’m not trying to insult you, this is simply an observation of your statements.

C.S. Lewis, for example. Read what he has to say about his atheism and his own conversion to Christianity.

You’re telling an atheist to read Lewis? Been there, done that, and actually love many of his books. They prove nothing much, however.

As I read your recent posts, you seem to take the incredible position that an atheist must be locked into atheism and could not possibly become a Christian if he is truly an atheist.

Is that correct?.

Not at all. I think you need to read my posts over a bit more if that’s what you’re getting out of them.

–

And let’s try to keep this discussion civil (coughAloiscough)

Meh, I’m trying to civilly state that I doubt his claims of atheism. Unfortunantly, there really is no civil way to state that, so I decided to be blunt. Not trying to harass anyone, but I’m not going to go around the bush when it’s easier to go right through it.

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

Supralogic is not, in fact, in the dictionary…

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supralogic

Neither is “supra logic,” nor “supra-logic.” The nearest word is “serologic,” but I get the feeling you weren’t talking about the study of blood serum…

Suprarational is also not in the dictionary; the nearest word is “supranational,” but you probably weren’t talking about national boundaries either.

And let’s try to keep this discussion civil (coughAloiscough)

“Supra” is a prefix—do you understand that? If you type in “supra-logic” (with or without the hyphen) in a search engine, you will find many uses (as with “supra-rational”). If you’re not finding it in a dictionary, it’s because not every use of a prefix is generally listed.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

We seem to agree here, except that the term “existence” is a stumblingblock. I have now p(name removed by moderator)ointed the issue and will distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic existence.

P(name removed by moderator)ointed? Hardly, you made an extraordinary claim of a “perfect somethingness” that gives its traits to existence. This is no different than claiming a God. Show how the logicality of existence leads to the assumption of a perfect somethingness that is its own being, and not a product of everything else.

Ok, here is where we diverge. As I have shown (previous post #791), one must distinguish between intrinsic existence, which is truly “somethingness”, and extrinsic existence, such as the manifested universe. One exists of itself, for it existed from eternity by itself. The other only exists insofar as it is in something else, as an image is in a painting.

Maybe you haven’t read any of my last 20 posts, I’ll hope so for now. I have already shown your analogies to be incorrect, and your proposition based on those analogies to be, therefore, incorrect as well. Please read and respond to those posts before continuing with this logic.

And what about the gaps in string theory that don’t have mathematical support yet? Isn’t that where they would tend to say “something comes from nothing”, rather than “God did it somehow”?

No, because the theory itself is still supported by mathmatics. Unlike the notion of God, which is supported by nothing. Placing God in the gaps of the mathmatics is playing that same game.

In fact, anything that exists extrinsically can reasonably be said to come from the intrinsic existence somehow. That we call such existence “God” should not be ridiculed, but respected. (Nevermind the cases where people make excuses for their laziness to study natural causes by saying “God did it”).

You have not proven this basis. Refer to previous posts.

So until a better understanding is gained, then yes, “God did it”. And even after the better understanding is gained, “God” still did it. Because anything that exists, exists from the intrinsic existence one way or another.

You have not proven this basis. Refer to previous posts.

Are you talking about the 4-point demonstration?

Yes.

 

[Sherlock]

Here’s the correct link for the fallacy mentioned above…

A large number of people supporting something does not prove it.

You’re missing his point. He’s not stating the numbers as a proof, he’s simply stating that the burden of proof lies with the minority position.

 

[Alois]

“Supra” is a prefix—do you understand that? If you type in “supra-logic” (with or without the hyphen) in a search engine, you will find many uses (as with “supra-rational”). If you’re not finding it in a dictionary, it’s because not every use of a prefix is generally listed.

He claimed it to be in any “good” dictionary, it is not even the best. It doesn’t even have a blip-article on Wikipedia. Everything coming from Google on it is contained in written papers with only one showing a sign of professionalism, there isn’t any definement of “supra-rational”.

I’d rather not play semantics on it however. I’ll accept it as a term as long as the definement of it stays consistent.

 

[Alois]

Sherlock:

You’re missing his point. He’s not stating the numbers as a proof, he’s simply stating that the burden of proof lies with the minority position.

The burden of proof lies on the ones making an extraordinary claim, not on the minority. In this case, he was using the majority as a claim that a belief in God has already been proven logical. That is the fallacy.

From Wikopedia:

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this”. Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person’s responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other beliefs about thermodynamics.

A classic example comes from Criswell’s final speech at the end of Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space: “My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn’t happen?”. Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.

 

[Sherlock]

Alois:

Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person’s responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

.[/indent]

Atheism is making the “bold claim”, thus it is the responsibility of the atheist to prove it.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

Atheism is making the “bold claim”, thus it is the responsibility of the atheist to prove it.

Which claim is bolder:
That I assassinated the President, or that I didn’t?
That I assassinated the President with the help of Elvis, or that I didn’t?
That I assassinated the President with the help of Elvis, who was reincarnated by the power of Pomson the elephant, who’s been living on Ganymede for the past billion years, and has just recently come back to Earth to have some fun - or that I didn’t?
That there exists some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-just entity, who created the universe, who has taken a particular interest in a few scraps of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen growing on the edge of a miniscule hunk of rock orbiting a lukewarm sun in an immense void, and who sent his son to this planet to redeem these scraps from their sins - by dying - and who will take those who follow his orders up into a wonderful everlasting paradise upon death, and who condemns those who do not follow his orders to everlasting torment, and who actively intervenes in the daily affairs of said scraps, who exists everywhere, who exists outside of time and space, and so forth - or that this thing does not exist?

This God sounds like a pretty darn extraordinary hypothesis on the face of it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

Supralogic is not, in fact, in the dictionary…

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supralogic

Neither is “supra logic,” nor “supra-logic.” The nearest word is “serologic,” but I get the feeling you weren’t talking about the study of blood serum…

Suprarational is also not in the dictionary; the nearest word is “supranational,” but you probably weren’t talking about national boundaries either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not persist in using the word “supra-logic” when you know I was defining the word “supra-rational.”

See the Random House Dictionary of the English Language
Second Edition, page 1913. "Supra-rational" is in the third column between “*suprapotest” *and "suprarenal."

I always taught my students never to rely solely on cypberspace sources, which in many cases are notoriously suspect and/or inadequate.

The complete definition in this dictionary is:

not understandable by reason alone; beyond rational comprehension

If you deny the dictionary exists, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you deny God exists, that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. What it most likely means is that you don’t want either the dictionary **or **God to exist.

Now be scholars and go look it up. Or don’t be scholars and persist in your ignorance and name-calling.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

Which claim is bolder?

It doesn’t matter which claim is bolder. Any bold and certain claim that pretends to be based upon logic must be proven.

The atheist must establish that God does not exist with proof of the same type that he demands from the theist or he is playing foul. Where is the empirical proof that God does not exist?

The theist does not have to offer the same proof because he believes that God is a supra-rational Being. Being the Creator of human reason, he is beyond it, and therefore reason alone cannot prove or disprove His existence according to the empirical method.

God is not a dinosaur, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or any other caricature of himself that atheists wish to offer when they say they can no more believe in God than they can believe in any of these other fictions.