Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > General Chit Chat About Atheism

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 1st October 2017, 07:28 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,164
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Ernie said View Post
Quote:
hackenslash said View Post
Reality isn't massively concerned with your agreement or lack thereof. If an entity has been sufficiently defined and has been imbued with mutually exclusive and/or contradictory attributes, it's a fairly simple matter to disprove its existence with nothing more than a single law of classical logic. The law in question is the Law of Non-contradiction. In the propositional calculus, it can be stated simply thus.

¨(P, ¨P)

There are other formulations, but this one serves. It says, in natural language, not(P and not-P), in other words, the propositions P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time. So, what does this mean for well-defined entities? Let's take a look:

Best place to start is the deadly trilemma:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God"

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, and therefore does not exist.

Omnipotence: We'll avoid the usual clichťd arguments and just deal with an allegedly omnipotent entity that is foiled by iron chariots.

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, and therefore does not exist.

Omnibenevolent: This entity allegedly loves us all so much that he wants to see his son (himself) tortured to death for a sin that the perpetrator thereof had no idea he was committing.

Falls foul of the law of non-contradiction and the does not exist.

Omniscient: Can't count the number of legs on an insect and thinks that bats are birds, and that having your livestock shag next to different coloured sticks produces stripy offspring (we'll set aside the fact that omniscience is self-refuting; any entity described as omniscient does not exist).

This entity falls foul of the law of non-contradiction, therefore this entity does not exist.

Creator of all existence: The universe is literally all that exists. The word means 'that which is'. This entity, in order to exist, is contingent upon existence, and is therefore contingent upon the universe, thus cannot be the creator of all existence.

This entity does not exist.

I'd be happy to go into more detail in the above.

There you go, 30,000 gods refuted in one post.

Next mission: World peace!

Whether or not you agree, this is demonstrable and, as I said, trivial, toi anybody who's given the matter a modicum of thought, as opposed to accepting the wibble of others.

It's commonly accepted that you can't prove either a negative nor a non-existence postulate. Unfortunately, it's also wrong, because both operations are fairly straightforward. Indeed, proving the non-existence of imagined entities is something we al;l do on a daily basis, such as when you look out for the car prior to crossing the road.

Your statement is a truism and, like most truisms, isn't actually true. Feel free to disagree. It won't make it any less wrong.

From Ernie.


Dear all. Let it be recorded that this is the point at which I gave up involving myself with AFA. I came back to this after a time out, to see if there had been a correction. There hasn't.


The "proof" offered, I believe, is specious. Allegations of "wibble" are unsubstantiated (the thoughts I expressed were based upon those of Bertrand Russell).


Members may PM me if they know of web sites for non-religious folk that don't go on with this sort of crap. Really, there is far too much afflicting our society than to spend time responding to egoists.


Ernie
Dear Ernie,

Why the fuck should there have been a correction? What you posted was demonstrably and trivially incorrect, and shown to be so by a stereotypically drunken Irish musician. I mean, the chucker of pointy sticks kinda rephrased it in his own laconic fashion, so the muso doesn't get all the credit, but there really isn't anything to correct.

Or if there is, as you assert, then perhaps rather than taking your balls and going home, you could spend the intellectual effort to actually refute the counters given and bolster your initial arguments. Because quite frankly, an invitation to a place wherein the intellectually vapid puffballs you're throwing a snit about are coddled and nurtured is about as appealing as an invitation to Sunday School. I'll be very surprised if you get many takers.

Oh, and the claim that your arguments were based on the thoughts of Bertrand Russell? I'll (likely mis-)quote Will Hunting: "Do you have some thoughts of your own on that matter?" Creationists routinely claim to base anti-evolution arguments on Darwin's words. Doesn't work for them, not working for you.

To get back to the original meat of the thread: the claim that we cannot know whether or not God exists depends entirely upon how one goes about defining "God". The history of Judeo-Christian-Muslim apologetics largely consists of attempts to redefine the fucker in such a way as to avoid a given set or subset of demonstrations that it cannot fucking exist. Most modern "sophisticated" apologists will specifically go out of their way to say that we cannot define God, or know anything about him, as a blatant dodge, and then they'll immediately go on to tell you just exactly what he is and why you should do what they say you should do.

Whichever primitive fuck wrote down Leviticus, for example, would have likely killed any modern moderate Christian with every fucking rock he could get his hands on. The idea that YHVH is an unknowable, undefinable Prime Mover or any such thing would have been unforgivable heresy. Read the fucking Scriptures. Those primitive fucks knew exactly who and what their God was, and exactly who he wanted fucked and dead. And given that the ineffable cunt was serially-remade over generations spanning about five hundred years, it's not really any surprise that there is no one definitive version that everyone can agree on. Christ, Batman's only been around for a tiny fraction of that, and there are loads of incompatible versions of him.

But we can very easily demonstrate that neither Batman nor YHVH exist, in any sense greater than as a group of concepts, or what Dawkins terms memes. I'm not an academic, nor do I play one on tv, but ten years or so ago I coined the term memeplex, which is just a fancy term that no-one has adopted to signify a collection of notions. "God" is a term that refers to thousands of mutative memeplexes, but the one thing that can be said about the vast bulk of them is that they can be shown to be nonexistent on a practical level.

The argument that we can't prove that God doesn't exist is intellectually vacuous, and simply hands a solipsistic acknowledgement of the nature of existence to those claiming divine fiat an undeserved rhetorical victory. When someone tells me that I cannot demonstrate that God doesn't exist, my first requirement is that they fucking well define "God". The only get-out they have is to define the cunt as undefinable, at which point I piss on their shoes in towering disgust, and offer them a pumpkin to fit in their arseholes.

I harbour a very public loathing for philosophy, but what most people who've been in the audience for any significant period know is this: my loathing is for philosophical misconduct, which is what happens when someone purports to have a love of knowledge and ideas, but doesn't know how to do it, and Dunning-Krugers their way through it all.

So, got a rebuttal for us? Or is it just a flounce?
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
Thank hackenslash, DanDare thanked this post
  #32  
Old 2nd October 2017, 06:49 AM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,529
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Ernie said View Post
From Ernie.
From hack.

Quote:
Dear all. Let it be recorded that this is the point at which I gave up involving myself with AFA. I came back to this after a time out, to see if there had been a correction. There hasn't.
Dear Ernie. Let it be recorded that this is the point at which I advise you that, if you think there should be a correction, it's incumbent upon you to offer it. Several attempts at correction were offered but all, ultimately, failed, because it's pretty unassailable.

Quote:
The "proof" offered, I believe, is specious.
While I believe that your belief and two shits will purchase for you exactly two shits.

Quote:
Allegations of "wibble" are unsubstantiated (the thoughts I expressed were based upon those of Bertrand Russell).
Ah, the argumentum ad verecundiam. I wonder how that's going to work out for you. Perhaps you could tell us what he actually said so that we can assess it for ourselves. Wait, you don't think we'll accept it simply because Bertrand Russell said it, do you?

Quote:
Members may PM me if they know of web sites for non-religious folk that don't go on with this sort of crap. Really, there is far too much afflicting our society than to spend time responding to egoists.
I'm told the Cbeebies forum is pretty non-combative.

Seriously, if you think there's something wrong with my argument, feel free to point it out. I'm always overjoyed when I learn something, and we most often do that when we discover we were wrong about something. Seriously. Bring it on.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
  #33  
Old 2nd October 2017, 09:30 AM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 802
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Ernie said View Post
It is not possible to either prove or disprove either the existence, or non existence, of figments of imagination.

Ernie
sounds like begging the question to me. if something is a 'figment of imagination' it is, by definition, and assuming the common use of the term, non existent.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #34  
Old 2nd October 2017, 09:50 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Dog v2.0 is my co-pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,277
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
Quote:
Ernie said View Post
It is not possible to either prove or disprove either the existence, or non existence, of figments of imagination.

Ernie
sounds like begging the question to me. if something is a 'figment of imagination' it is, by definition, and assuming the common use of the term, non existent.
Possibly some crossover with the notion of disproving a negative?
__________________

If the sleep of reason produces monsters, what does the sleep of unreason produce? - Guillermo Cabrera Infante

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 2nd October 2017, 01:01 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,819
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
Possibly some crossover with the notion of disproving a negative?


I think it falls more into the category, "in an infinite universe all things are possible, therefore whatever we imagine must be real somewhere." It's a specious argument of course, It ignores the possibility/probability equation, but I think that's what he is saying.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 2nd October 2017, 01:54 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Dog v2.0 is my co-pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,277
Default Re: Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of Godís Existence Possible?

Quote:
stevebrooks said View Post
Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
Possibly some crossover with the notion of disproving a negative?


I think it falls more into the category, "in an infinite universe all things are possible, therefore whatever we imagine must be real somewhere." It's a specious argument of course, It ignores the possibility/probability equation, but I think that's what he is saying.
Our pal with the well-endowed angels and the infinitely-improbable galactic empire uses that argument, and it has changed the colour of his day.
__________________

If the sleep of reason produces monsters, what does the sleep of unreason produce? - Guillermo Cabrera Infante

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.