Doubting your disbelief?

[The Great Hairy One]

I have to agree with dglas and D'rok here, and I probably should have said it myself earlier, but as they say, a logical argument can, in of itself, be logically consistent and truthful, but prove absolutely nothing.

It all comes down to Dustin posting some of his new arguments.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Gertrude]

Being-conscious existence.

Good enough.

Originator-to give rise to.

Meaningless definition.

Rule-the exercise of authority or control.

Like the laws of physics?

Did God make something out of nothing? I don't know. Maybe there was already something in existence that God made something out of. Maybe God "willed" it into existence. If we're talking about the one who makes the laws of the universe, the laws of conservation of mass can't apply to such an entity.

Conservation of mass/energy has nothing to do with this. Either way, nothingness is a concept that has no meaning outside of our everyday use of the word: there is a book, there is no book. To stretch a concept that inherently depends on existence to the origin of all existence is not justified imho. In this sense, it is not meaningful to talk about 'creation' since the word itself implies going from nothing to something (nothing not being a valid concept without existence). And if there already was something, then it is no longer creation. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the existence of god. We have to admit that god indeed is something. Hence the existence of god already implies that creation has happened. The whole series of thoughts is completely absurd!

 

[Gertrude]

If God made the laws of conservation of mass then he can break them. Conservation of mass says that in a closed system the amount of mass will remain the same. This means that we can't create mass from nothing. I see no reason why God can't break such a rule.

Sure he can break these rules. But you are still into physics. Can you address the more philosophical point that I made abour nothingness and creation?

So science can't produce facts?

Of course not! Science predicts facts and allows us to make great use of these facts. But this has not much to do with Truth with a capital 'T'.

There is pretty much nothing that you truly claim to be true? How about your own existence.

Right. You nailed the one thing that I don't doubt.

You lack belief in a God because your sense and rationality is flawed? How can you be sure your lacking belief is justified?

Exactly. I am sure that any belief in something not well defined is bound to be wrong. The very definition of belief is belief in something. If that something is ill defined, the belief is meaningless. But lets be clear. It is not meaningless to the believer (as evidenced by the religious). It is meaningless in a purely philosophical sense.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Has anyone here distinctly doubted their atheistic or agnostic beliefs after having become an atheist or agnostic? I was wondering if anyone here has ever come to a period when they doubted their disbelief in the existence of God for one reason or another. People are always changing and it's rare for a person to hold a single belief their entire lives so I am wondering if anyone here has come upon let's say an argument supporting theism that made them stop and think that maybe their disbelief was faulty.

I'm having an extraordinary hard time thinking of what could have made this universe out of absolutely nothing. I dont give a crap about religious texts, mohammed, jesus, etc, just cannot accept how there was absolutely nothing before something, not even time. But then I believe it may be something beyond the limitations of the human mind to comprehend.

EDIT: that will teach me not to read the entire thread.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

EDIT: that will teach me not to read the entire thread.

Naughty! Bad Walrus! No cookie for you!



Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Gertrude]

Premise: If a God existed, there would be evidence only explainable through a God-hypothesis.
Premise: There is no evidence only explainable through a God-Hypothese.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no evidence for the existance of God.

If evidence was found, my conclusion would be changed.

Can you admit that something you have no evidence of can exist? That is not saying that it does exist, only that it can exist. Do you have such blind faith into the human machine to go as far as saying that what is not perceived by us does not exist?

 

[nescafe]

Either way, nothingness is a concept that has no meaning outside of our everyday use of the word: there is a book, there is no book. To stretch a concept that inherently depends on existence to the origin of all existence is not justified imho. In this sense, it is not meaningful to talk about 'creation' since the word itself implies going from nothing to something (nothing not being a valid concept without existence). And if there already was something, then it is no longer creation. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the existence of god. We have to admit that god indeed is something. Hence the existence of god already implies that creation has happened. The whole series of thoughts is completely absurd!

Interesting line of reasoning there.
I imagine that a line of BS about "uncaused causes" or an inane comparison involving infinite sets of measure zero is forthcoming. (from the OP, that is).

 

[Gertrude]

Interesting line of reasoning there.
I imagine that a line of BS about "uncaused causes" or an inane comparison involving infinite sets of measure zero is forthcoming.

Not quite sure what you mean there. If I say it's meaningless, then it's meaningless and I move on to something else.

EDIT: Saw your edit. I didn't say anything.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes. Roughly, the difference between theory and practice. Knowledge of the technology is the theory, the lessons learned actually trying to implement that knowledge is the practice.

Have you ever built a computer?

Right now? No, I cannot. Give me some negative mass or a rapidly spinning ring singularity and I will see what i can do. It may take a few decades, though.

Make it yourself. You need to develop the technology to develop the technology.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Impossible to know. If God caused the big bang, it has no effect on the nature of the universe.

But you said you could explain everything naturally.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Apologies, I should have said "If we are to show that God exists".

Obviously.

An event which breaks all known natural laws, and always breaks known natural laws in the future.

How would this prove a "God" and not just be an example of some random event that breaks known natural laws?

Because it is the only way to know anything about the universe.

How's that?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, that's not right.

You start with the premise, proceed through the argument, and arrive at a conclusion. Having established that conclusion, you can use it as the premise to a new argument.

The argument itself is not evidence. Unless you can establish the premise to the satisfaction of your audience, no argument is worth so much as a stale peanut.

Logically valid arguments aren't just evidence, they are "Proof" of a contention. For instance my previous argument PROVED I was petting a mammal.

 

[nescafe]

Have you ever built a computer?

Out of component parts? Yes, several times.
From raw materials? No, never.

Make it yourself. You need to develop the technology to develop the technology.

Indeed. That is part of the process, no? In the case of wormholes, though, we do not even know if all of the raw materials exist to make them, so asking me how to build one is a bit premature.

However, not having built one does not prevent me from understanding how one could (or would) work.

Either way, we have wandered far afield from the OP.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Logically valid arguments aren't just evidence, they are "Proof" of a contention. For instance my previous argument PROVED I was petting a mammal.

Unless you provide a time stamped photograph or video to coincide with your post, you did no such thing.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[PixyMisa]

Logically valid arguments aren't just evidence, they are "Proof" of a contention. For instance my previous argument PROVED I was petting a mammal.

Arguments aren't evidence at all. Given a true premise and a valid argument, you reach a conclusion which is also true. You can use that conclusion as evidence by making it the premise for another argument, but the argument itself is not evidence of anything.

And if the premise is false, or the argument is invalid, then any conclusion you might reach is worthless.

The premise is evidence. The conclusion is evidence. The argument is just an argument.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why not? That's the christian god's forte. It's what he/she/it does every second of the day, according to the majority of christians.

Probably. However you need to realize that I'm not endorsing any specific God right now.

It's expected. It's magic.

Why is it expected?

As I have been saying, the existence of magic does not prove that a god creature of some sort exists, it's just a prerequisite.

I'm asking for proof though. Not prerequisites. And as I said before, Perhaps God is currently the only being able to use "magic" and it can't exist otherwise.

Once magic exists, and works, well then, it's easy to prove a god-being of some sort exists. Use one of the following:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyGreater.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm
any of those require the direct intercession of a deity.

All of these things are in game things that wouldn't correspond to our world. How can we verify "Commune" for example? Maybe they're contacting some "deity" opposed to "God"? As far is a "miracle" goes, How can one verify if they miracle is being performed by "God" or not?

Use one of these:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm
and go and talk with the deity directly.

Why must it absolutely be "God" who does these things and not some powerful 'deity' who has powers simply to do such things? This wouldn't necessarily prove God either.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Meaningless definition.

Why?

Like the laws of physics?

Sure.

Conservation of mass/energy has nothing to do with this. Either way, nothingness is a concept that has no meaning outside of our everyday use of the word: there is a book, there is no book. To stretch a concept that inherently depends on existence to the origin of all existence is not justified imho. In this sense, it is not meaningful to talk about 'creation' since the word itself implies going from nothing to something (nothing not being a valid concept without existence). And if there already was something, then it is no longer creation. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the existence of god. We have to admit that god indeed is something. Hence the existence of god already implies that creation has happened. The whole series of thoughts is completely absurd!

I really fail to see any logical problems with God creating something from nothing. If he made the laws that define "Something" and "Nothing" I see no reason why he can't manipulate them.

Furthermore, Perhaps "God" has always existed or perhaps he was created by a previous God who has since died out.

Sure he can break these rules. But you are still into physics. Can you address the more philosophical point that I made abour nothingness and creation?

I don't know exactly what you mean so I can't really address it.

Of course not! Science predicts facts and allows us to make great use of these facts. But this has not much to do with Truth with a capital 'T'.

So Evolution isn't a 'fact'? Heliocentricity isn't a fact?

Right. You nailed the one thing that I don't doubt.

That's the only thing you don't doubt? Let's say you're just a "thinking being" and just that? Nothing else exists as far as you know outside of your own experiences. Now please tell me the origin of your experiences. Do they come from outside of your consciousness or inside of it? If your experiences come from inside of your head then what caused them to occur? Obviously they occur unconsciously since we can't actually choose what we see. If I see a hammer I can't will myself into actually seeing a Hamburger. It's still a hammer no matter how hard I try to convince myself otherwise. Since this is the case, Where do your experiences come from? Inside or outside of your own consciousness? If inside then again, what's the cause of your chain of experiences?

Exactly. I am sure that any belief in something not well defined is bound to be wrong. The very definition of belief is belief in something. If that something is ill defined, the belief is meaningless. But lets be clear. It is not meaningless to the believer (as evidenced by the religious). It is meaningless in a purely philosophical sense.

The definition of "Belief" is '[SIZE=-1]any cognitive content held as true'. This means that if I have cognition that something is factual then that would be a belief. If I have cognition that something is not factual then that's a belief as well since I have cognition that it's true that it's not factual. The definition of "belief" is not meaningless.


[/SIZE]

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Unless you provide a time stamped photograph or video to coincide with your post, you did no such thing.

Cheers,
TGHO

No. The premise was that I was petting a Dog which may or may not have been true but was an assumed premise for arguments sake. IF I were petting a Dog I would have been petting a mammal and that's what was proven.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Arguments aren't evidence at all. Given a true premise and a valid argument, you reach a conclusion which is also true. You can use that conclusion as evidence by making it the premise for another argument, but the argument itself is not evidence of anything.

And if the premise is false, or the argument is invalid, then any conclusion you might reach is worthless.

The premise is evidence. The conclusion is evidence. The argument is just an argument.

You've got it mixed up. If the premise is false the argument isn't necessarily invalid. Here's an example.


Premise 1--All rabbits are birds.

Premise 2--I am holding a Rabbit.

Conclusion--I am holding a bird.

Logically valid argument. However the 1 premises is totally false.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Well I'm convinced. Praise Zeus!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well I'm convinced. Praise Zeus!

Evangelical or specifically a Pentecostal.