The God Delusion

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Induction and deduction can't prove anything without an axiom.

Are you sure?

If you are sure.. then Zhavric is right because you are right and what you just said is a knowable!

If you aren't sure.. then Zhavric is right because you are wrong and thus.. obviously, is right!

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 First of all, I didn't say that God was unknowable. God exists or he doesn't. That is knowable.

The question is if God exists. :]

I SAID..
it is the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

You then said IT... >IT< is never knowable. In context.. >IT< is what you are replying to. :]

Are you changing your mind now?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Am I acting on faith if I say that 1+1=3 is false?

Oh, I don't personally like abusing that word. Like I said, you're acting on faith just as much as anyone else, really. Are you sure you want to reply with something so irrelevant? Remember, tman, I said JUST AS MUCH.. in context to agnostics and their beliefs. Why the hell are you bringing something like this up? Are you saying that the question that EVERYONE else is talking about is that simple? That empirical? That obvious? I sure hope not. If not, please don't be so vague.

My answer is simple. Honest omniscience is impossible. Whether you want to call simple mathematics an act of faith or not is up to you. So, your point?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Yes there is.

How am I supposed to reply to that?

I guess I can reply with YOUR own reply..

Zhavric said logic can prove things.

You disagree.. saying "Induction and deduction can't prove anything without an axiom."

I don't know what you want ME to say when you don't present an argument.. but feel free to reply to your own words. :]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Knowing for sure that God does or does not exist would eliminate the need for anyone to ever believe he does or doesn't without proof.

Now you're changing around your words. You said "If proof existed, regardless which answer it point to, there would be no need for faith." You never said "If everyone knew for certain."

Once again, either you yourself are confused with context or you're trying to be sneaky. :]

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Are you changing your mind now?

What I meant was the logical tautology "God exists or he doesn't" is knowable.

I didn't mean that existence of God is knowable.

Honest omniscience is impossible.

Of course.

My point was that omniscience is not required to know for a fact that 1+1 does not equal 3.

Likewise, knowing that the question "does God exist" can never have an answer doesn't require omniscience.

logic can prove things.

Saying "Induction and deduction can't prove anything without an axiom." does not contradict the above quote.

You said "If proof existed, regardless which answer it point to, there would be no need for faith." You never said "If everyone knew for certain."

"If proof existed" = "If everyone knew for certain"

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What I meant was the logical tautology "God exists or he doesn't" is knowable. I didn't mean that existence of God is knowable.

Alright. But didn't you yourself say such things are based on axioms?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Of course. My point was that omniscience is not required to know for a fact that 1+1 does not equal 3.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Likewise, knowing that the question "does God exist" can never have an answer doesn't require omniscience.

Actually, it does. If omniscience is impossible, nothing is knowable.

I should explain.

There's a gap between what you accept is true AKA what you know.. and what is real AKA the truth.

We use a few things to gather from what is real, or what is the truth, into what we accept is true, or what we know. Namely our sense of perception and logic.

Ok, cool. So what's the dealio?

We are using a tool to gather our knowns. It's safe to say that IF what-we-gather's validity depends on the validity of our tools, then we must make sure our tools are true. But wait a second.. all we have are our tools. How do we use logic to validate logic? We can't.. that's impossible. Because the validation of logic is defendant on the validity of logic in the first place. I know it's near impossible to imagine that our sense of perception needs validation (and I don't mean that hallucinations are a problem) but distinguishing that there are three apples on a table instead of one is entirely defendant on your perception. Perhaps there are 15,000 apples on the table, and you see 15,000, but what you store in your "knowns" is simply 3. What you're storing, may not be what you're seeing. Thus, perception could be flawed.

All of these are could be's. Could be this.. could be that.

But if perception and logic are not fool-proof.. then how can we know anything for certain? (HONESTLY know anything for certain.. it's easy to be confident in what you know) That's why I summed it up with "omniscience is impossible." Because being omniscient requires that you know that all you have are tools which may or may not work.. and if you're God.. or w/e.. then you must also know that if there are things you don't know of, then you don't know of them. God could have created everything he knows. He may know everything he created. But there may be things God is incapable of detecting (suck your definitions all you want ppls.. if we assume God is real, we're allowed to think outside definitions).

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 "If proof existed" = "If everyone knew for certain"

Not at all. You're skipping the part where people have to believe it in the first place. :] Just because proof exists, doesn't mean everyone automatically knows about it and accepts it as true. Let's assume math is a proof (which you know I don't agree with) then insane people who cannot compute the logic on numbers would crumple your fallacy above.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer didn't you yourself say such things are based on axioms?

I said induction and deduction require axioms.

the validation of logic is dependent on the validity of logic in the first place.

We define logic as valid. IE, axioms.

You're skipping the part where people have to believe it in the first place.

Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean they don't know it for certain.

Lots of people go into denial about lots of things.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Alive I'm wondering, how many self-proclaimed atheists have you met who have claimed that it is possible to disprove the existance of god? Does Dawkins himself ever make that claim?

No, Dawkins does not pretend to prove God does not exist, neither does he feel the need to disprove the existence of unicorns, elves, or hobbits. Dawkins simple believes that there is not any objective scientific evidence for the existence of God, therefore he believes there is no reason to believe in God.

What is the obsession of internet debators (and I guess real life debators too) over the topics of "proof" (or knowledge) vs. "faith"?

Is the motivation an obsession? Is this stereotype warrented? What is your reason for being here? Ie it an obsession?

It has been shown many times that "proof" is impossible, as a concept. So of course it is not possible to "prove" "atheism", or "disprove" the existance of god. So what? Who disagrees?

First, you have to propose a cohesive argument, than I will tell you whether I agree or not. I do not agre with Dawkins, but he presents a more cohesive, rational and logical argument than most theists.

I think most activist atheists are at least partially conscious of the fact that they are not just promoting "the truth" but rather a certain worldview. Perhaps it should be called the scientific worldview or the rationalist worldview or the evidence-based worldview. In this worldview, something is not believed unless there is evidence for it, and what qualifies as evidence is defined by the worldview itself.

Partially conscious of what "truth"?

Objective evidence is not defined by any worldview. It is simply the evidence that may be reatedly observed regardless of the observers worldview.

How do you judge between the evidence-based worldview and other worldviews if none of them can be proven or disproven?

Being proven or diproven is not the question in the testing of scientific theories based on inductive scientific method is whether it can be falsified.

Well, I haven't read Dawkins, but I've read enough discussions of him that I think I know his basic argument--religious-based worldviews are harmful to people. He is making a moral argument against religion, not merely a proof-based argument.

You need to read Dawkins before you say He is making . . ., because if you read Dawkins and understood scientific methods that Dawkins uses, you would realize that Dawkins is not proposong a proof of an argument for or against God.

One way to judge between worldviews is to examine what they have brought to the world and compare. Choose the one whose results you like best.

Yes, first you need to examine and understand the arguments and science. At present you admit to having not read Dawkins and you have showed a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of proof and falsification in the inductive, and the deductive methods used by Dawkins and science.

Religion=religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement Science=technology to improve life, predictions that work a whole lot better than prophecy, rationalism.

Given the above, I would prefer the rational logical choice provided by Dawkins, if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, which provides the unity and harmony between the world of science and logic and faith in God.

Of course, the problem with this method is that you can't judge results of worldviews without using the worldview you already have. One might also put the results like this: Religion=peace, joy, morality Science=disturbing theories, disrupting tech change, nihlism.

Very disturbing worldview you present. Do you propose an Inquisition to resolve these disruptive evil influinces. You will go to bed and wake up with out your TV, computer or electric lights.

Still, it's as good a method as any. It is not possible for any two groups of people to actually argue against each other unless they can find a common ground of belief to argue on. "Proof" is obviously not this common ground, since the evidence-based worldview admits that proof is impossible and the religious worldviews don't say "proof" as necessary. Morality is the common ground. Most people have certain common beliefs of how the world "should" look, how people "should" act, what people "should" believe. Dawkins and the pope agree, murder is wrong, making other people happy is usually good, war is bad (unless justified by a greater wrong.) That's where theists and atheists fight--over which ideology best matches the common morality. Not proof.

Proof is not the issue. Fitting common morality is not the issue, morality exists in all cultures of the world regardless of religious belief, some good and some bad as in the Bible and pagan Rome and fortunately evolved over time to an improved standard today. Science works with inductive objective logic and reasoning to investigate and understand the natural world 'as it is.'

[Kamehameha34]

We've proven in other threads that if faith is defined as belief without evidence it is agnostics who rely the most heavily on faith: atheists have science & reason. Theists have tradition and so-called holy texts. What exactly do agnostics have? The unwavering fundamentalist faith that god is "possible".

Saying something doesn't make it true.

You've demonstrated an ignorance of the meaning of faith, and agnosticism.

It's pretty much possible to have faith, and be an agnostic. This is because the only evidence necessitated by the claim "I don't know" is evidence that is readily available to the agnostic - the lack of knowledge they possess about divine existence.

I don't know why you have a bone to pick with agnosticism, but these inaccuracies you keep posting sound rather ridiculous.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Ah, the know-nothing stance. This has been dispelled so many times by so many volconvo.com members I'm surprised anyone is still using it.

If, by "dispelled", you mean "called ridiculous by Zhavric", then sure.

We can know things using logic and what we already know. We know that claiming "god created the universe" is on par with claiming "the wright brothers used a Boeing 747 to create their first powered glider". Both hypothesis require incredibly sophisticated things and give absolutely zero explanation for how they came to be. We know that sophisticated things don't just pop into existence and we know "always existed" is a tremendous cop out. Dawkins points out that design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation.

It's funny that almost all atheists think that theism equates to a rejection of the multiverse theory.

[Jack]

It's funny that almost all atheists think that theism equates to a rejection of the multiverse theory.

Well, this atheist has never even wondered about that. Where in the theist belief system does the hypothesis of multiple universes fit? There's certainly nothing in the Bible about them, nor the Koran. I've never heard a sermon or read a Christian treatise on the subject.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Isherwood Well, this atheist has never even wondered about that. Where in the theist belief system does the hypothesis of multiple universes fit? There's certainly nothing in the Bible about them, nor the Koran. I've never heard a sermon or read a Christian treatise on the subject.

It exists as a real possibility in the Baha'i Revelation, which you seem to think is invisible.

[Jack]

which you seem to think is invisible.

Eh? I'm aware of Baha'i, but not familiar with it. If it allows for belief in multi-universes, fine. But I stand by my qualified statement.
Moreover, I'm not even sure why Kam felt the need to introduce that concept. I was providing a reply, not endorsing the relevance of the original comment.

[Alive]

shunydragon,

Let me be clear here, I am not arguing on one side or the other of the atheist-theist debate. I am almost completely ambivalent about which side wins the conflict or who is "correct".

Is the motivation an obsession [about issues of proof and faith]? Is this stereotype warrented? What is your reason for being here? Ie it an obsession?

I participate in a whole bunch of internet debate/discussion forums and the concepts of faith vs. proof come up very regularly. I do think modern American culture is pretty intersted in the topic, at least on a superficial level. Perhaps zealous is a better word than obsessed. I find that there are certain topics people love to debate and when people bring a new perspective that does not say anything about those topics specifically that perspective gets ignored. There's not an argument Dawkins uses that I haven't already seen on my internet travails, for example; I think that's why his book is so popular. We like our debate position options set in stone. To an extent, at least.

Partially conscious of what "truth"? Objective evidence is not defined by any worldview. It is simply the evidence that may be reatedly observed regardless of the observers worldview.

Hmm? I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

"Evidence" doesn't become "evidence" until it is used to support a theory. There is objective information out there, but people interpret this information in very different ways. Atheist activists support a specific method of interpretation that they claim everyone should use--what I call their worldview. I'm just saying that there is no way to prove that everyone should use the activist atheist interpretation, it is one worldview among many.

Me: How do you judge between the evidence-based worldview and other worldviews if none of them can be proven or disproven?
You: Being proven or diproven is not the question in the testing of scientific theories based on inductive scientific method is whether it can be falsified.

Again, I'm not sure what your response has to do with my point.

Me: I haven't read Dawkins, but I've read enough discussions of him that I think I know his basic argument--religious-based worldviews are harmful to people. He is making a moral argument against religion, not merely a proof-based argument.
You: if you read Dawkins and understood scientific methods that Dawkins uses, you would realize that Dawkins is not proposong a proof of an argument for or against God.

Hmm, I never said Dawkins is proposing a proof of an argument for or against God. In fact, I said exactly the opposite--the general atheist activist is in no way motivated by proof or disproof of god.

This is just what I was talking about earlier, in terms of obsession with certain debate topics. I make a new point that very few people are talking about anywhere and people put into my mouth things I didn't say because they want me to be talking about the things everyone else is talking about, because they are obsessed with those topics.

I don't really expect to be understood, but, meh.

[loser]

Am I acting on faith if I say that 1+1=3 is false? Quote: There is no such thing as proof. Yes there is. Quote: I presume people would have faith in the contrary regardless of being presented the proof. You can hope that 1+1 does not equal 2 if you want. It doesn't make it true.

Here's a proof for you:

If a=b
Then a²=ab (Multiply both sides by a)
a²+a²=a²+ab (Add a² to both sides)
2a²=a²+ab (Simplify)
2a²-2ab=a²+ab-2ab (Subtract 2ab from both sides)
2a²-2ab=a²-ab (Simplify)
2(a²-ab)=1(a²-ab) (Factor)
Therefore 2=1 (Reduce)

Now if 2=1
Then 1+1=2+1
And 2+1=3
Therefore 1+1=3

There you go. A mathematical PROOF that 1+1=3.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: loser a²=ab ... 2(a²-ab)=1(a²-ab) Therefore 2=1

False.

2*0 = 1*0 because 0 is equal to 0.


Using your logic, I could put any 2 numbers I wanted in for X and Y in the equation X*0 = Y*0 and it would be true because 0 = 0.


You can't divide zero out.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood Well, this atheist has never even wondered about that. Where in the theist belief system does the hypothesis of multiple universes fit? There's certainly nothing in the Bible about them, nor the Koran. I've never heard a sermon or read a Christian treatise on the subject.

Ish, you're forgetting Kame has demonstrated many traits of the fundamentalist agnostic. He has in the past and continues to assume the only definable characteristic of god is god's lack of definable characteristics... which in turn allows him to insert god into any unknown and twist god out of any logical syllogism. As I stated before, it is a stance that is taken on utter blind faith as it's well understood the ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing.

If we look behind the flimsy excuse of "I don't know" we find a mad-on desire to keep "god exists" as a possible answer on the multiple choice quiz of life.

Dawkins dismisses agnostics seeing them as little more than ill-informed atheists or theists who don't care to make a stand on the issue of god. Regardless, agnosticism is truly the faith-based stance as there is nothing even remotely resembling evidence for anything they assert.

[Zhavric]

Tman, I can't help but notice you glossed over Lull's commentary on this gem:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Induction and deduction can't prove anything without an axiom.

Where is your axiom here?

[pandaz xx]

The God Delusion is an amazing book.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Zhavric Where is your axiom here?

It is an axoim.

[Derach]

Quote by: loser Here's a proof for you: If a=b Then a²=ab (Multiply both sides by a) a²+a²=a²+ab (Add a² to both sides) 2a²=a²+ab (Simplify) 2a²-2ab=a²+ab-2ab (Subtract 2ab from both sides) 2a²-2ab=a²-ab (Simplify) 2(a²-ab)=1(a²-ab) (Factor) Therefore 2=1 (Reduce) Now if 2=1 Then 1+1=2+1 And 2+1=3 Therefore 1+1=3 There you go. A mathematical PROOF that 1+1=3.

My 6th grader noticed when plugging in the #'s that in line 6, when you plug in the #'s, equation winds up being false (don't know if that's where the error started or not) ... My kid says to me


"2(1squared - 1x1) doesn't equal 1(1squared - 1x1) ... so I don't know if the guy forgot to carry a # somewhere or divided by zero, or something, but I would get it wrong in math if I wrote that equation."

lol

[Mozart1220]

The scientific method asks that those who make a claim that anything exists or is true must accept the burden to provide proof or at least testable evidence of that claim. It is not the responsibility of sceptics to prove "non existance" which would be impossible anyway.

Now for my part, I don't care wgat people believe, and I support their right to believe it, but I do NOT support any attempt to pass legislation or any other attempt to "force" people to live a certain way based on an unprovable concept.

In otherwords, I support and defend your right to worship waxed fruit, but please don't try to make the rest of us live as if we do.

And allowing Gay marraige forces NO ONE to do anything, except to live and let live.