Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[EGarrett]

Puerile:

Main Entry: pu·er·ile
Pronunciation: 'pyu(-&)r-&l, -"I(-&)l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Latin; French puéril, from Latin puerilis, from puer boy, child; akin to Sanskrit putra son, child and perhaps to Greek pais boy, child -- more at FEW
1 : JUVENILE
2 : CHILDISH, SILLY <puerile remarks>
- pu·er·ile·ly /-&(l)-lE, -"I(-&)l-lE/ adverb
- pu·er·il·i·ty /"pyu(-&)r-'i-l&-tE/ noun

I finished with you a long time ago. You never had a come back to the very first things I said to you. This is just you being bitter at having nothing else to say.

 

[The Atheist]

I finished with you a long time ago. You never had a come back to the very first things I said to you. This is just you being bitter at having nothing else to say.

Puerile and stupid.

I'm just playing the dictionary game with you.

Bitter? For goodness' sake, grow up, boy.

 

[EGarrett]

Actually, stupid would be making a post filled with nothing but fallacious, ignorant garbage, like your original "contribution." Then responding like a 10-year-old when someone points it out.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Could we get back to the topic at hand, folks?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

 

[Piggy]

When you build magic land where God exists, you always end up also making a guest house for 1 + 1 = 3 <snip> and green being taller than yesterday <snip>.

**blatantly steals this language for other discussions**

 

[Piggy]

The scientific method is more than just the application of reason. I can use reason without actually doing science (e.g. when I am doing mathematics or philosophy I am not doing science but I am being rational). Doing science is a subset of rational human behaviour.

I think this is why a rational refutation of the God hypothesis is a necessary part of the public discussion.

When high-profile scientists make the point that science can't disprove every possible theory of God -- and it's good that they do -- it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the notion that God can't be disproven at all.

When the entire issue is looked at rationally, however, in 2007, it becomes clear that the claim "God is real" can't have truth value.

 

[Piggy]

Typical: a scarfie who doesn't understand the rules.

Here's how it goes:

You may use sceintific principles to remove evidence of god - the virgin birth & the ressurrection - but then switch to logic and philosophy to disprove god itself. <snip>

Well, I'd leave out philosophy, but otherwise, yeah, that's pretty much true.

Science is one set of tools in the rational toolbox. The largest set, I'd say. There's math, too, and logic, and less well understood functions like sudden insights into the broad significance of combinations of various data and models (creative problem solving).

There's no reason to draw a Hazzard County line at the edge of science where we're somehow forced to stop the car, toss our hats down, and shout "Dang them Duke boys!"

 

[Lonewulf]

Doesn't mathematics have the same process as science, though? Or a very similar one?

 

[Piggy]

Doesn't mathematics have the same process as science, though? Or a very similar one?

I dunno. I'm a language guy.

But obviously, math is essential to science. And logic underlies both. And creative problem-solving is vital to progress in both. Some tools in the belt are multi-purpose.

 

[Taffer]

You think those are the only two options, science and making things up? What about logic?

I've nothing against scientific principles at all. My problem is your claim to always use only scientific principles. If someone comes at you with a claim that is self contradictory, for example, you don't need science to tell them they are wrong. Simple logic tells you that what they say cannot be true if it leads to a contradiction (surely you don't dispute this?)

No, I do not.

What you certainly don't want to do in these cases is to say that because their claim cannot be made sense of therefore science cannot evaluate it therefore we cannot say if it is true or not. This is what you seem to be doing with repect to claims about the existence of God. You are ignoring the possibility that we can dismiss the theists claims on purely logical grounds.

No, I'm not. I said in many cases you cannot dismiss their claim through logic. This is because of standard religious backpeddling I have come across. If their definition is illogical, I will call them on it quite happily.

I just did. Let me run it by you again.

1) If your definition of "God" is meaningless then your statement "God exists" is meaningless. Some agnostics claim that this means we must conclude that if we cannot come up with any meaningful definitions of God then God's existence is unknowable. However...

2) ... the statement "it is true that God exists" is FALSE.

Let's break down statement (2). "God exists" is meaningless, from (1). It is neither true nor false. So the claim that "God exists is a true statement" is false. This is the same as "it is true that God exists", which is therefore also false.

The point of this is to show that having a definition of God that is meaningless is tantamount to saying there is no god.

As I said a couple of times already, the statement is not meaningless (it is not internally illogical, for example), but knowledge gained from such a statement is.

As Piggy would say, either what exists? We need to define what God is before we can even ask the question. This isn't epistemology, I'm not asking what can we know about God, I'm asking what do we mean by the word "God".

I'm guessing your objection is something like this: even if everyone has meaningless definitions for God it doesn't mean that God doesn't actually exist, after all. The question of his existence is seperate from the question of how we define or think about him.

But, the problem is, this "God" that could actually exist does not correspond to anyone's definition of what God is (he can't do given our assumption that all these definitions are meaningless and thus cannot refer to anything). So we are not justified in calling him God at all. All we can say is that there could be something that we don't know about that exists and that doesn't correspond to anyone's God definition. No doubt there are many such things. But we wouldn't call any of them God if we discovered them.

*sigh*

If you think that all religious people always define God in such a way which as this, then you have not met nearly enough religous people.

I've no idea what you mean by this.

Any knowledge gained based on the statement "God exists" is meaningless, because you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.

Based on this you are:


What you described is a form of agnosticism. Agnostic non-believers sometimes use the label weak atheism and sometimes agnostic atheism. Strong atheism is non-agnostic atheism i.e. a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

No. As I said, how I have learned the terms (in my philosophy classes), agnosticism deals with the ability to know something.

Please, don't try to argue this with me, I know very well what my view is. I am a weak atheist (I do not have a belief in God), and a strong agnostic (it is impossible to know if God exists [based on some defintions of God]).

I'm assuming that God, by definition, is supernatural. If you are convinced that the supernatural logically cannot exist then you are a strong atheist. That is assuming you accept that God is supernatural, by definition.

This is pretty obvious. If there is no supernatural then there can be no supernatural beings. If you think it is correct to say that there is no supernatural then you must think it correct to say there is no God.

No, because often the definition of God does not fit the definition of supernatural. Specficially when the disclaimer "can affect the universe" is added.

And yes, I am a strong skeptic about the supernatural, based on some definitions of "supernatural".

Which means that science can say nothing about it. Good job we are not limited to science .

I only value knowledge gained through science.

Logic, mathematics and philosophy are not science and neither are they "outside the universe".

No. In fact, you have it confused. Science is a philosophy. An epistemic philosophy. So is mathematics, and it uses the same basic principles as science. So is logic, etc. All these use the same basic scientific principles.

Four-sided triangles don't exist. No need to search for evidence, we can see that they don't exist just by reflecting on the meaning of the word triangle.

Surely you are not going to claim analytic a priori knowledge as useful knowledge about the universe.

Empirical statements cannot be proven to be 100% true. Purely analytic* statements can. You don't doubt that 1 + 1 = 2.

Analytic knowledge is not useful knowledge about the universe.

 

[BillyJoe]

Your position is wrong. Show me a deist who agrees with this.

As I explained, deists believe that their deistic creator created himself (or has always existed, or exists out of time or other theological guff). He's not meant to be just another evolved, naturalistic being, not even one in another universe or dimension.

The deistic creator is meant to answer the question "where did the universe come from". Your version doesn't do this satisfactorily - we still have to ask where did the alien creator and his universe come from.

A deist might accept that our universe could have been created by the kind of being you suggest. But they would then claim that the real deist God is the being that created the universe in which this being resides.

Yes, obvious, now that you put it that way. Thanks. But why didn't someone jump to that a little earlier? Could have saved me a lot of time blabbering on.

 

[chriswl]

Yes, they are.

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Don't contradict me again without some back-up to your point.

Logic and reasoning are not forms of evidence. To say they are just makes no sense.

Logic and reason are what we use to interpret and process the evidence, they are not themselves evidence.

Do you think its possible that we might one day discover that the rules of logic that we use are wrong? Do you think 1 + 1 might turn out not to be equal to 2? Are you open to this possibility in the same way you are open to new evidence?

 

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any way to explain how 1+1 might someday not equal 2? I'm not not talking about changing the definitions (I.E., "1+1 in base 9!" or somesuch like that), I'm talking about the actual concept of one apple, with one other apple, not equalling 2 apples? Does anyone have any sort of suggestion as to how that is physically possible? Please explain in detail.

 

[BillyJoe]

Quantum physics is not nonsense.

I meant that quantum physics makes no sense. There is no logical, rational way of interpreting quantum physics. All the efforts so far make no sense. Consider the Copenhagen interpretation or its offshoot, the Everett interpretation. There's the collapse of the wave function, non-locality and backwards in time causation. None of these interpretations make sense.

Interestingly, in the Copenhagen interpretation, the infinite regress that results from the requirement of a conscious observer to collapse of the wave function, leads to the requirement of a conscious observer outside the universe to collapse the wave function of the universe. Provided god does not consist of quantum particles, the infinite regress stops there.

 

[BillyJoe]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any way to explain how 1+1 might someday not equal 2? I'm not not talking about changing the definitions (I.E., "1+1 in base 9!" or somesuch like that), I'm talking about the actual concept of one apple, with one other apple, not equalling 2 apples? Does anyone have any sort of suggestion as to how that is physically possible? Please explain in detail.

I don't know about addition but apparently, in the mathematical equations of quantum physics, a*b does not equal b*a.

 

[Taffer]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any way to explain how 1+1 might someday not equal 2? I'm not not talking about changing the definitions (I.E., "1+1 in base 9!" or somesuch like that), I'm talking about the actual concept of one apple, with one other apple, not equalling 2 apples? Does anyone have any sort of suggestion as to how that is physically possible? Please explain in detail.

Other quantum effects include things like two particles being in the same place at the same time, or a single particle being in two places at the same time. We'd call that impossible too, wouldn't we?

 

[BillyJoe]

And a particle borrowing energy from quantum probability to penetrate an impenetrable barrier.
With all this nonsense proven to be going on, who can possibly disprove god.

 

[chriswl]

No, I'm not. I said in many cases you cannot dismiss their claim through logic. This is because of standard religious backpeddling I have come across. If their definition is illogical, I will call them on it quite happily.

If they backpedal then they have just backpedalled to a new position, which we can evaluate. We must not allow them to equivocate between different positions, depending on the argument they are trying to counter. There is a difference between believing something that is generally undisprovable and simply arguing in a slippery way.

As I said a couple of times already, the statement is not meaningless (it is not internally illogical, for example), but knowledge gained from such a statement is.

I've still no clue what you mean by this. But anyway, I'm talking about cases where the definitions of God are meaningless. Where they don't amount to a coherent definition at all.

Any knowledge gained based on the statement "God exists" is meaningless, because you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.

Has this got anything to do with what I was talking about? And anyway, you are assuming your conclusion.

Please, don't try to argue this with me, I know very well what my view is. I am a weak atheist (I do not have a belief in God), and a strong agnostic (it is impossible to know if God exists [based on some defintions of God]).

????

You said "I am not an agnostic". Now you say you are a "strong agnostic". Strong agnosticism is a form of agnosticism, right?

No, because often the definition of God does not fit the definition of supernatural. Specficially when the disclaimer "can affect the universe" is added.

But wouldn't you agree that God is always at least partially supernatural, that is a purely naturalistic being (e.g. very advanced alien) would not qualify as a god? In this case, if the supernatural cannot exist then God cannot exist.

And yes, I am a strong skeptic about the supernatural, based on some definitions of "supernatural".

Ah, well I was assuming that you were more than just skeptical because you talked about your attempt to logically prove the impossibility of the supernatural.

I only value knowledge gained through science.

I also value the power of reason to refute confused, unscientific arguments. When presented with muddled arguments in favour of the supernatural we don't have to throw our hands up and say "that's not science, I can't answer it". We can attempt to unmuddle their thinking.

No. In fact, you have it confused. Science is a philosophy. An epistemic philosophy. So is mathematics, and it uses the same basic principles as science. So is logic, etc. All these use the same basic scientific principles.

You tell me I'm confused and then come up with this? Science is not a philosophy, it is a methodology for finding out the truth about the empirical world. Mathematics and logic aren't. They do not investigate what exists in the empirical world.

Mathematics does not obviously share any common philosophy with natural science, although natural science, of course, uses mathematics. And mathematics uses logic. But that doesn't make logic a "scientific principle".

Surely you are not going to claim analytic a priori knowledge as useful knowledge about the universe.

Analytic knowledge is not useful knowledge about the universe.

I know. I was just answering your rather stunning assertion that "I never claim 100% certainty in anything". This is exactly why your claim to "apply science principles to everything" makes no sense. Some questions have to be answered purely through logic. Not science.

 

[chriswl]

I don't know about addition but apparently, in the mathematical equations of quantum physics, a*b does not equal b*a.

I don't think that violates a fundamental law of logic. Multiplication is not always commutative (e.g. matrices) and there are solid logical reasons for this.

Other quantum effects include things like two particles being in the same place at the same time, or a single particle being in two places at the same time. We'd call that impossible too, wouldn't we?

Well, on the face of it it violates the law of non-contradiction ("one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time" - Aristotle).

But it doesn't really. QM just gives us probabilities of finding a particle at one place or another. It doesn't tell us we should ever observe a particle in one place and at the same time somehow not observe a particle in that place.

 

[Taffer]

If they backpedal then they have just backpedalled to a new position, which we can evaluate. We must not allow them to equivocate between different positions, depending on the argument they are trying to counter. There is a difference between believing something that is generally undisprovable and simply arguing in a slippery way.

Of course. I have seen definitions which are "undisprovable".

I've still no clue what you mean by this. But anyway, I'm talking about cases where the definitions of God are meaningless. Where they don't amount to a coherent definition at all.

Then they are meaningless. I never said all definitions are not disprovable, did I?

Has this got anything to do with what I was talking about? And anyway, you are assuming your conclusion.

No, I'm not. But whatever. I'm pretty quickly loosing interest in this debate, mate. I just came to give my personal philosophy, not convince anyone else I'm right.

????

You said "I am not an agnostic". Now you say you are a "strong agnostic". Strong agnosticism is a form of agnosticism, right?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I am not only agnostic. Agnosticism deals with the ability to know. Theism deals with the personal belief. I have no belief in the existance of God, because I do not think it is possible to know if (by some definitions) God exists.

But wouldn't you agree that God is always at least partially supernatural, that is a purely naturalistic being (e.g. very advanced alien) would not qualify as a god? In this case, if the supernatural cannot exist then God cannot exist.

No, I wouldn't agree. Sorry, but I do not speak for all believers. Some definitions I have heard (I would have to dig through my memory to reproduce them verbatim) are not supernatural. Often because they define God as not being supernatural.

And "god" is just a word. My foot can qualify as a god if we define it to be so.

Ah, well I was assuming that you were more than just skeptical because you talked about your attempt to logically prove the impossibility of the supernatural.

Yes, but "atheist" is not the right word to use. By some definitions of "supernatural", and given my basic axioms, I can logically disprove the existance of anything "supernatural". But there are assumptions there. I do not speak for all believers.

I also value the power of reason to refute confused, unscientific arguments. When presented with muddled arguments in favour of the supernatural we don't have to throw our hands up and say "that's not science, I can't answer it". We can attempt to unmuddle their thinking.

I never said you had to. I said, and I paraphrase, "some definitions of God are unfalsifiable through science". Some definitions are disprovable through logic. I never said it they weren't. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing about, really.

You tell me I'm confused and then come up with this? Science is not a philosophy, it is a methodology for finding out the truth about the empirical world. Mathematics and logic aren't. They do not investigate what exists in the empirical world.

Right. Ok. Have you ever taken a 'philosophy of science' paper? I suspect not, otherwise you wouldn't claim this. Part of science is a methodology. This methodology is based in philosophy.

Mathematics does not obviously share any common philosophy with natural science, although natural science, of course, uses mathematics. And mathematics uses logic. But that doesn't make logic a "scientific principle".

No, you have it reversed. I said that scienctific principles were based in logic.

I know. I was just answering your rather stunning assertion that "I never claim 100% certainty in anything". This is exactly why your claim to "apply science principles to everything" makes no sense. Some questions have to be answered purely through logic. Not science.

Sorry, again I wasn't clear. "I never claim 100% in any synthetic, a posteriori knowledge". I should have also added "no analytic, a priori knowledge increases our understanding of the universe".