Which one weights higher?

[Bahman]

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. Which one does it weight higher in your opinion?

Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.

Or, (A) weights less than (B). This means (B) is wrong.

Or (A) weights higher than (B). I don’t think so.

 

[davidv]

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. Which one does it weight higher in your opinion?

Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.

Or, (A) weights less than (B). This means (B) is wrong.

Or (A) weights higher than (B). I don’t think so.

Since A is false it has no weight at all. How does this imply B is wrong?

By the way, what do you mean by proof? Does logical deduction = proof? If so, St. Thomas’s Five Ways are proofs.

 

[Bahman]

Since A is false it has no weight at all. How does this imply B is wrong?

By the way, what do you mean by proof? Does logical deduction = proof? If so, St. Thomas’s Five Ways are proofs.

If (A) is false then (A) has less weight than (B), hence you cannot prove the existence of God.

 

[davidv]

If (A) is false then (A) has less weight than (B), hence you cannot prove the existence of God.

Prove it. A does not imply B.
Please address my prior question about what you mean when you say “proof”.

 

[Bahman]

Prove it.

What should I prove?

A does not imply B.

I didn’t say so.

Please address my prior question about what you mean when you say “proof”.

Proof is a logical statement based on set of premises and axioms.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. Which one does it weight higher in your opinion?

Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.

Or, (A) weights less than (B). This means (B) is wrong.

Or (A) weights higher than (B). I don’t think so.

Like all your other propositions this one is going no where.

A and B are both false. ’ A’ is false because there are many proofs for the existene of God. ’ B ’ is false becuase we cannot prove that God does not exist.

Next strange idea?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Like all your other propositions this one is going no where.

A and B are both false. ’ A’ is false because there are many proofs for the existene of God. ’ B ’ is false becuase we cannot prove that God does not exist.

Next strange idea?

Linus2nd

So lets forget about making any argument at all because the trueness of existence of a deduction method for proving whatever has the same weight as the existence of a proof.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

The way you use the word “weigh” is very vague in my opinion.

As far as I am aware, you cannot prove that something does not exist. Therefore, B has no “weight.”

“Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.”

I don’t understand any of that. Epistemology is not about “knowledge’s moral Justice” (what does that even mean?). Epistemology is the study of knowledge and is not limited to moral justice. That aside, I don’t quite understand the relevance of moral justice has no relevance to proofs (or lack thereof) of God’s existence.

I don’t think we’re stuck in a deadlock between A and B. Why can’t we deduce the existence of God? You seem to be holding two things that nearly go hand in hand. Have you considered whether there are other possible options?

So lets forget about making any argument at all because the trueness of existence of a deduction method for proving whatever has the same weight as the existence of a proof.

I don’t mean to sound rude, I’m just being honest to further the discussion - but what you’re saying is not making sense. From what you have posted, it seems you’re just stringing philosophical words together and it’s not helping us to get to anywhere

 

[Bahman]

The way you use the word “weigh” is very vague in my opinion.

So you believe that we have no sense of judgment where a problem is simple or not? By weight I mean it sounds more reasonable or acceptable, hence a argument which is more appealing has less weight, meaning that it is simpler.

As far as I am aware, you cannot prove that something does not exist. Therefore, B has no “weight.”

I am not aware of that proof.

If B has no weight, then A has no weight either because it is simpler.

Moreover, if A is true then B has to be false. But B cannot be true unless A is false which is problematic since A has less weight.

I don’t understand any of that. Epistemology is not about “knowledge’s moral Justice” (what does that even mean?). Epistemology is the study of knowledge and is not limited to moral justice. That aside, I don’t quite understand the relevance of moral justice has no relevance to proofs (or lack thereof) of God’s existence.

What I mean is that epistemology cannot be about trueness or falsehood of proof since there exist not a systematic method to measure trueness of an argument.

I don’t think we’re stuck in a deadlock between A and B. Why can’t we deduce the existence of God? You seem to be holding two things that nearly go hand in hand. Have you considered whether there are other possible options?

What other options?

I don’t mean to sound rude, I’m just being honest to further the discussion - but what you’re saying is not making sense.

I meant that A and B cannot have the exact same weight because then proof of existence of God is as simple as the proof that we cannot deduce the existence of God which is problematic since assuming that A is true then B has to be false but they have the same weight meaning that B has to be as appealing as A which is problematic. We are going to have the same problem if A is false.

 

[davidv]

What should I prove?

The claim you made in post #3.

I didn’t say so.

So it is. Your illogic has even me confused.

Proof is a logical statement based on set of premises and axioms.

What if the premises are shown to be false?

 

[davidv]

So lets forget about making any argument at all because the trueness of existence of a deduction method for proving whatever has the same weight as the existence of a proof.

If you want to forget about arguments you just dispensed with the deductive method.

Does this mean that your OP is not using the deductive method?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So lets forget about making any argument at all because the trueness of existence of a deduction method for proving whatever has the same weight as the existence of a proof.

There is nothing wrong with the deductive method. But you have to start with the reality of the real world which is right in front of your nose, and of your ability to know it. You have argued that that is not possible, so how can you argure anything?

Now if you are willing to accept the fact that a real world exists outside of the mind and that we can know it then there is a basis for making deductions. Otherwise, there is no point in talking about anything, let alone deductions.

And finally, you can’t just make a list of statements, unproven assumptions, and then ask some one to choose on the basis that your assumptions are true. So far, in your two years here, you have done nothing but make unproven assumptions, then make a list of them and ask people to choose. That is absurd.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Lets back to serious thing.

The claim you made in post #3.

That is the correct statement: If (A) is false and (A) has less weight than (B), which means that (A) is more appealing to us, then (B) has to be false too, hence you cannot prove the existence of God again.

So it is. Your illogic has even me confused.

Sorry for not being clear and clean.

What if the premises are shown to be false?

The previous premises was wrong and the new one is correct. Please accept my apology.

 

[Bahman]

If you want to forget about arguments you just dispensed with the deductive method.

Does this mean that your OP is not using the deductive method?

I think that this method is different from deductive method as it provides a criteria for examining what can be proven or not. It does depend very much on our sense judgment about knowing which premises is more appealing to us, in the sense that it is closer to truth.

 

[Bahman]

There is nothing wrong with the deductive method. But you have to start with the reality of the real world which is right in front of your nose, and of your ability to know it. You have argued that that is not possible, so how can you argure anything?

Now if you are willing to accept the fact that a real world exists outside of the mind and that we can know it then there is a basis for making deductions. Otherwise, there is no point in talking about anything, let alone deductions.

And finally, you can’t just make a list of statements, unproven assumptions, and then ask some one to choose on the basis that your assumptions are true. So far, in your two years here, you have done nothing but make unproven assumptions, then make a list of them and ask people to choose. That is absurd.

Linus2nd

Huh. :bounce: