Ojuice5001

And, why don't you want people to leave Christianity and go for a non-Abrahamic religion instead of atheism? Because you're atheists? I mean, I know theists (including myself) often think like that, but I thought atheists were above that kind of missionary mentality.

Amie

Hi doodad

Why would someone want to "attack" God? What would be accomplished by deconverting Christians?
What do you mean by "keeping God out"?

I was going to ask hinduwoman about that third one on keeping God out...
good questions

Jobar

In quantum mechanics, the product of the uncertainty of the measurement of a particle's position times the uncertainty of the measurement of that particle's momentum is a constant. That's called the uncertainty principle.

If we know precisely where a particle is- if the positional uncertainty equals zero- then the momentum uncertainty is infinite.

If we know precisely the momentum (mass X velocity, which is closely related to energy), we can know nothing about the position. It can be quite literally anywhere in the universe.

Does anyone else see the relationship between the quantum uncertainty principle and our discussion here?

Might it be that the uncertainty of knowledge, times the significance of that knowledge, equals a constant- so that if we know something with utter precision or certainty, we can say nothing about its significance; and if we know precisely how significant a fact is, we cannot know its certainty at all?

I am trying to picture a graph of this; there's a hyperbola involved...

Crito

Then why do you say, "Knowing for a fact that human beings have a distinguished history of believing in ridiculous things, how can you take any of their ridiculous claims seriously?" To be sure, our ancestors made some observations which were later rejected, which we now consider ridiculous. But from this it does not immediately follow that all their seemingly simple-minded ideas are ridiculous.

What hidden knowledge do you possess that confirms your use of "ridiculous"?

Exactly what does "I exist" mean?

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Crito

Simple?

Assume I'm a child who's unaware of the metaphysical. How are you going to persuade me, the kid without beliefs, that "nothing can possibly exist outside the laws of science"? You averred it, so you should have no problem corroborating it. Right?

Jayhawker Soule

Not in the least.

In fact, to say that we don't know if there is, or is not, God(s) is, by implication, to say that we don't know if nature does or does not operate in a manner amenable to generalization. For agnosticism, the counterposition is not between knowing {A} "utter precision or certainty" versus knowing {B} "with utter precision or certainty", but between presuming the principles of science or the whims of deity.

Hawkingfan

I just feel that saying god is impossible to know is saying he doesn’t exist because if he was impossible to know, he would be outside the laws of science; but nothing can exist outside the laws of science. If the agnostic thinks so, he has to show how.

The idea of god is called “scholastic philosophy” (a term older than Newton). It is based on religion NOT observation. Any claims of observation it has were made to fit theories, not the other way around as it should be. No one has ever proved god from scientific abstraction (observations, experiments and math). God plays no role whatsoever in any form of scientific inductive reasoning (probabilities and inferences) and he plays no role whatsoever in scientific deductive reasoning (conclusions and tested discoveries). God plays no role whatsoever in any scientific axiom. He cannot be proved by The Scientific Method.
But most importantly: If god has ANY degree of ORDER or any RELATIONSHIP whatsoever with our universe, then he can be described using mathematics. It is therefore possible to know if god exists in our universe. Calculus is the best tool we have at coming close to quantifying and gauging that whose existence is difficult to conceive otherwise (for example, infinity). Even though it has difficulty dealing solely with infinite numbers, it can use them to put limits on a quantity being gauged. Any mathematician will tell you that. Calculus can clarify/define relationships between things such as INSTANTANEOUS speed and area. It is also possible to know if god exists because of the Fundamental Quantities of Science (physics term). God possesses none of them. No time (seconds), no mass (kilograms), no length (meters), no temperature (Kelvin), no electric charge (coulomb). He has no location, no speed, no past, no present, no future, no heat, no energy(joule) (no heat or energy=no thermodynamics), no magnetism, no sound, no light, no mechanics, no laws, no forces, no work (force over distance), no conservation. He is not a closed or open system.

NOTHING IN THIS WORLD DEFINES REALITY BETTER THAN SCIENCE. NOTHING!!
Everything in this universe is some form of energy! Yet, god is not evident. All matter (mass or energy) in this universe gives off electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths including visible light; and we can detect it!
Therefore, the agnostic must tell me where he thinks god is—inside the universal laws of science (reality), or outside.
If god is inside, he must be proved by abstraction (math and observation techniques which I have shown are fully capable of detecting ANYTHING in our universe).
If god is outside and is therefore impossible to know, he is saying he doesn’t exist because nothing can exist outside the realm of science. If we gave him the benefit of the doubt and said he could, then our universe would suffer no consequences whatsoever of his existence. His existence would be meaningless. If the agnostic says it’s impossible to know if god exists AND he could exist (it could only be outside science), he must show this in any case where such an irrational conclusion could be made.

diana

Selsaral,

I have found The Big Picture argument most convincing, myself. The trouble with using it to explain the problems of any one religion to an adherent to that religion is that it requires you somehow rip their blinders off so they see The Big Picture. You have to teach them world history, essentially.

Kharakov wrote:
And athiest.

This seems circular to me, Koy.

P1: Fictional creatures do not factually exist.
P2: God/leprauchans/etc are fictional.
C: God/leprauchans/etc don't actually exist.

(Or something like that. My argument mapping sucks, but y'all get the point.)

This is why I questioned how a tautology gets us anywhere.

P1 applies to creatures we've never experienced, and have, as a result, labeled "fictional." To call something fictional only says we have not ever seen it. We thus default to the assumption that it does not exist until further evidence presents itself. The fact that I call something fictional doesn't make it not exist, as you pointed out--it merely reflects my lack of experience of that thing.

To then turn the equasion around and say something doesn't exist because we have labeled it "fictional" is fallacious. At best, we can conclude that we call something fictional because we haven't seen evidence of its existence.

When we argue with Xns who claim that someone had to create all this and that someone must be their God, we call them on the leap from A Creator --&gt; JHWH.

You appear to have just done the same thing in reverse. We're discussing supreme beings in general. Do all theologies admit lack of evidence and require faith?

d

Jayhawker Soule

On the contrary, I would think that the statement "God(s) could exist" is equivalent to the statement "It could be true that we should have no expectations about the universe whatsover - at any point in space or time, God(s) willing, we could find ourselves Through the Looking Glass."

Koyaanisqatsi

Crito

Oh man, do I hate this stupid non-argument almost as much as I hate it when the most basic element of logic (the burden of proof) is denied through the deliberate misapplication of ancillary logical components!

If you don't know what the burden of proof requirement is and when it is properly applied, then never invoke the terms of modal logic (or any other, for that matter) ever again!

To whit...

Had you actually bothered to read your own source on what this fallacy entails, you would have saved all of us a lot of trouble (emphasis mine):

THE ONLY POSITIVE CLAIM THAT HAS NEVER MET ITS OWN BURDEN OF PROOF IS THAT THE BIBLE IS A WORK OF NON-FICTION.

If you make a a truth claim (an assertion of truth), then YOU ARE THE ONE THAT MUST SUPPORT THAT CLAIM AND MEET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.

Period. Stop. Halt. Verboten. Versteh!

The authors of the various stories collected in the Bible are making assertions of truth, while describing a physically impossible being with attributes that necessarily contradict what is commonly called "natural law" ("miracles;" creating the entire universe by will alone; arresting the Earth's orbit by will alone; resurrecting the dead; flooding the earth; creating humans out of dirt and the rib of that dirt; impregnating women without semen; creating the entire universe and all that is within it in six days in the wrong natural order; creating donkeys, snakes and burning burshes that speak; throwing "Hades" and "death" into a burning lake of fire, which is the "second death;" etc., etc., etc.).

UNTIL THOSE ASSERTIONS CAN BE ADEQUATELY SUBSTANTIATED, THEY REMAIN NOTHING MORE THAN ASSERTIONS OF TRUTH.

That is what the burden of proof means; the assertion of truth must then be supported with evidence or it remains nothing more than an assertion; aka, in literary parlance, which is what we're ultimately discussing here, a fictional literary device known as mythology.

Conversely, for me to assert that the description above adequately establishes that literary device is a simple burden of proof, since I have the entire library of world literature as comparative examples.

Does it prove it to a certainty? No. Why not? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.

We're discussing a collection of stories from thousands of years ago that depict talking snakes and people that can raise themselves from the dead. Such stories require little to no certainty about them, unless you are the one claiming that they factually occurred exactly in the manner depicted.

If you wrote a story in which you claimed that you walked to the moon and back to speak to the moon mice and you swore up and down in your story that what you were writing about was the absolute truth, I would need pass no burden of certainty at all to conclude from reading your story that you are a nut job and that your story is fictional to a 99.999999999% degree of certainty.

Could I be absolutely certain? No. Who cares? I don't have to be absolutely certain to make an educated assessment of your story.

YOU, on the other hand, would have a trmendous burden of proof to demonstrate to me that your story is, in fact, the truth and the events you described (walking to the moon; meeting the moon mice who speak English; etc.) factually occurred.

If you do not understand that or see that we are correct in this matter and that you are incorrect in your counter, then you have a demonstrably perverted understanding of the terms you continue to employ.

A theism. Without the belief in a god or gods.

Theism. The belief in a god or gods.

Who has the burden of proof? The only one of those two that makes any kind of positive claim!

If you believe in a god or gods and you turn to me and state, "God lives and is real and will judge you," then you are the one making a positive claim!

I tell you what, though. Since you seem to keep hiding behind an irrelevant standard of absolute certainty that does not and never will apply, I'll prove it to you now to an absolute certainty.

Who has the burden of proof in the above declarative? If you say that I do, you are correct. If you say that you do (to prove it does not exist) then you are incorrect.

It's that f*cking simple.

And don't try to weasel out of this by trying to turn it around and say the postive claim would come from you stating "#)*@JO@LK@J does not exist," as if it were you who were first making a claim of any kind.

The one who first makes the claim (i.e., the initial truth claim) is the one with the burden of proof.

In this instance--as you well know--the initiator of the truth claim is the authors of the Bible and those who read their words and believe what they wrote on faith (another point I made previously, btw, that you have not responded to); aka, the theist.

The theist is the initiator of the truth claim and therefore (note the proper use of logical terminology here) is the only one with the burden of proof.

If you do not understand how and why that is an incorrect obersvation to apply in this matter, then you do not understand anything about the use and purpose of modal logic.

There is no evidence that establishes to any degree whatsoever the factual claims (the assertions of truth) found in the Bible. NONE.

As you well know, an assertion of truth does not constitute evidence of truth.

And that, of course, is the point.

The authors of the various books of the Bible all claim that a character they've all written about (and largely described differently from book to book, BTW) factually exists; i.e., is not just a figment of their imaginations.

That is a positive claim that inherently carries with it a burden of proof.

Further, these same various authors' descriptions of this character are identical in form and function to just about every other fictional character ever written by mankind in what we call "mythology;" many hundreds of examples of which can be found on this website that conclusively demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty (répétez: to a reasonable degree of certainty) the fantastical, fictional, mythological makeup of said character.

In other words, and for old time's sake, every burden of proof has been met except for the theists.

A work of fiction remains a work of fiction until it can be demonstrated to be a work of non-fiction, regardless of the auhtor's claim that it is not a work of fiction.

Got it? This is not an argument from ignorance, so for f*ck's sake, get your terminology right.

But, more importantly, it does not follow that a god does exist, which is, of course, the whole point of all of this.

WE don't have to prove a thing. ONLY THE THEIST must meet their burden of proof because they are the only ones making the initial positive claim, whose burden of proof has yet to be met.

Pointing out that a work of fiction that claims (in fantastical imagery and mythological terminology, form and literary function) to be a work of non-fiction is not a positive claim requiring a burden of proof (beyond the minimal burden I met earlier in this post; i.e., how the fictional form has been demonstrated).

So there you go.

I have met the minimal burden of proof necessary to call a spade a spade. If you would like to now call it a rake, then you'd better damn well provide some compelling evidence to support your positive claim, yes?

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>