xeren

Hi. I've been having a discussion with a friend about my beliefs (i'm an atheist and he believes in a higher power but not in any specific god).

He said that you can't prove that a god doesn't exist. I agreed, "no, you can't prove a negative". But you can prove a god like the x-tian god doesn't exist by showing logical fallacies in a god with specific attributes.

I then went on to explain a few of them (which i will not get into because
1. we all know the common ones and
2. i'm not interested in turning this into a debate with x-tians)

He replied to these fallacies in god with "yeah, but what if there's some reason that god is doing these things, some quality of god that we're missing that we don't know about?"

He has basically given up on trying to know anything about philosophy because he believes that nothing can be truly proven or disproven because there can always be something out there that we haven't thought of that disproves/proves the things we think we know.

NOW FOR THE BIG QUESTION:
Can someone(especially BILL) give me an argument(not about god's logical fallacies, but about how we CAN actually know things by using logic) that might snap him out of his philosphical apathy?


NOTE: I'm NOT interested into turning this into a debate about the logical fallacies inherent in god.

thank you

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Xeren,

As a theist I would like to take you up on your debate about the supposed 'logical fallacies of god'!



Just kidding.


More to point:

I think it is entirely possible to convice your friend that we can know things using logic. In fact, there is a fundamental proof that truth can be known.

Notice that the statement 'There are no absolute truths.' is an implicitly self-refuting statement. The statement itself is an absolute truth and thus leads to paradox if the statement were true. Thus the ONLY possible truth value this statement can have is false. So it is true that there are absolute truths.

Moreover, we know this fact (there exist absolute truths)...thus absolute truth can be known.


I think it is important that the only way one can dismiss these ideas is if one dismisses logical thought. However, if one dismisses logical structure then knowledge becomes meaningless. 'It is raining is Seattle.' can be both true AND false. 2 equals 2 but it also does not equal 2.

If your friend dismisses logic as a tool to work with knowledge you should just simply agree to disagree as any resulting conversation would be meaningless.


Hope this helps.


Thoughts and comments...

SOMMS

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

K

SOMMS:

Why can't "there are no absolute truths" be true in that it is consistent with our observed universe without being an absolute truth?

Blu

Satan,

I would like to know what your definition, or the definition you are using, of the word ABSOLUTE in your argument.

The defintion I use in my "Absolute Truth cannot be known" argument is the following (philos):

1) Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being

2) Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

*~*~*~*~

When we are talking about scientific truths, I assume we would not use or refer to the "philos" definitions of "Absolute."

Tom Sawyer

It's hard to argue with theists. No matter how good your logic is, it just keeps running into the whole 'unknowable' thing and while you're talking, they're just lamenting your misguided lack of faith. I'm an atheist who lives in the Bible Belt so I run into this a lot.

Here's an argument I've just started trying out. It probably won't be any more effective than anything else, but give it a shot:

IF there is a strong magnetic field in an area THEN it will have a MEASURABLE effect on any electrical fields in the area

IF evolution happened THEN there will be MEASURABLE similarities in the DNA of closely related species

IF there is a God THEN there will be a MEASURABLE ... ?

Ask him to complete the last sentence.

I had one theist friend who said then there will be me. I gave up on arguing at that point.

Blu

If there is a God, then there will be a MEASURABLE amount of energy, populations of people who believe in a diety, life (existence), Earth, and Universe.

Koyaanisqatsi

I would simply leave the "absolutes" semantics dances alone, since your friend won't buy a logical explanation for a logical explanation.

I would argue knowledge to a "reasonable degree of certainty" and leave absolutes to the mental masturbators ( ).

Arguing absolutes is inherently pointless and, more importantly, unnecessary since nothing in life is guided by any such absolutes. They are abstractions and as such necessarily unattainable, which is why they are little more than linguistic fandangos having nothing to do with the "real" world that we all live within and your theist friend apparently chooses to defualt to as well.

So, speak to him in "real" world terms; i.e., the external world is granted to exist in an objective form that is independent of the human mind.

If he won't grant this, then simply tell him he's therefore arguing for a form of solipsism and bid him a good day, since the second anyone tries to affirm or argue solipsism, they are, by definition, mentally masturbating (and not a circle jerk ).

Once you can get him to discuss matters in "real" world terms (i.e., grant that the body is nothing more than a sensory input device, receiving and interpreting concrete signals from "out there," leaving solipsism completely alone as it deserves) then you'll be able to address the existence or non-existence of a possible deity in the most reasonable terms possible (to a reasonable degree of certainty, contingent upon the granting of external, independent of the human mind, physical existence).

If the two of you don't grant the independent existence of each other from each other (i.e., anti-solipsism) then there simply is no point at all in even engaging in a discussion of any kind, right? So, start from there.

My two sense...

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Oh...you misunderstand.


It can certainly mean this if you want it to, however, the rules of logic must be abandoned to do so.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Blu

SOMMS (or Satan)

Please scroll up and tell me what definition of "Absolute" you are using for your agrument so I may respond accordingly.

Thanks

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Blu,
Certainly...
1-independent of arbitrary standards of measurement
2-being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships

In a sense...objective truth.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS