Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Electronic Phantom]

@Deathworks: I'm no political scientist, but I thought it was the authority of the state which derived from the people.  The distinction, then, being between 'power' and 'authority.'  And in this light, the insolubility between the religion and the state you mention to psycho jelly doesn't exist.

As for 'seperation of church and state...'   Pfffft.  But that's for a differant thread.

And 'weeding out fraud' is a problem for any organized religion.  The test usually requires a base more solid than the opinion of a human.  The problem ensues when the test strays away from that base, whatever it might be.

@Psycho Jelly: Sure.  You can choose to 'believe' in science or to 'not believe' in science.  There isn't a single rule out there that requires a given human being to be rational about his beliefs.  If there is, I know a LOT of people who are breaking it at this moment.

I would also like to point out for the general consumption that what a person believes or doesn't believe does not gaurantee that they are right.  Or, in other words, belief has no effect on what is.

-(e)EP

[dreiche2]

Proving something exists only requires it to be there. So if, for example, a god-like entity appeared on earth there is evidence of existence. Proving something doesn't exist, for example, a god-like entity not being anywhere, would require perfect knowledge and so is not disprovable.

Actually, no. Perfect knowledge is required to exhaustively disprove something's existence. However, one can still logically disprove it exists with imperfect knowledge. E.g., without turning over the whole of existence, I can safely conclude that a circular square does not exist simply because it can be trivially shown that its definition is inherently logically contradictory.

Hm, I'm no expert on philosophical logic, but I could imagine that this is actually something slightly different. In the original case it's about whether a thing exists or not physically, in your case it's about whether a concept is inherently inconsistent. So you could maybe say that, if you come to the conclusion that a circular square is an inconsistent concept, then the question whether it "exists" or not simply doesn't make sense... (the sentences "a circular square exists" and "a circular square does not exist" are both somehow meaningless).

You could still try to argue that the concept of god is inherently flawed and thus questions about its existence are meaningless, but it might be a different issue than whether god, given a consistent 'definition', exists or not.

[E. Albright]

I think I see where you're coming from with this, but your argument entirely elides the matter at hand by presupposing that 'consistent' definitions must non-controversially exist. The positive atheists' claim is simply that the general definition of deity cannot be 'consistent', but the negative atheist would approach a specific 'consistent' definition of a specific deity and argue that in point of fact that definition is not consistent. E.g., a theist claims that the divine circular square exists (either by handwaving its curved right angles entirely out of consideration, or making a special pleading claim regarding divine curves), and an atheist argues that, no, geometric figures with right angles cannot actual have perimeters uniformly equidistant from their center even if divine.

The sentence "a circular square does not exist" is not even vaguely meaningless in the face of someone asserting that, in fact, "a circular square exists". Reductio ad absurdum in formal logical terms is proof that a conclusion is false because it relies on a premise that leads to a contradiction. One of the premises put forth by a proponent of a deity's existence is by necessity the definition of that deity; it is a perfectly valid tactic on the part of a denier of that deity's existence to demonstrate a contradiction arises from that definition. Indeed, given that exhaustive proof of non-existence is impossible in this case, demonstrating a contradiction must arise from the premises arguing in favor of said deity's existence is the only feasible means to conclude the deity does not exist, assuming the asserter does not make falsifiable claims regarding the deity's interaction with the world (either historically or contemporaneously).

The question as to whether something logically contradictory exists or does not exist must make sense, or logic itself is going to break down. It is the phrase "circular square" that is meaningless, not "a circular square does not exist". The statement "something that cannot exist does not exist" may be banal, but it's hardly meaningless.

[DJ]

Of course, this reasoning runs into a brick wall when the theist side proclaims that God is not bound by logic. This is a common theist approach to resolving the omnipotence paradox (can God create a rock so big not even He can lift it?), and it waves away the logical proof of God's non-existence. You just can't prove anything to a person that doesn't agree with any of your axioms.

[Psyco Jelly]

Assuming a primordial force with something similar to intelligence created the universe, perhaps the laws of physics were create so the universe created itself with minimal intervention?

Assuming everything exists the way it is with no guiding or original force, how can the events before the big bang be explained? (For those of you who would argue there was no time before the big bang, the big bang explains what happened to the matter in our universe rather then where it came from.

Religion isn't in conflict with science as long as it only applies to the metaphysical. And saying that something is not bound by logic is like using the phrase 'before there was time' as most theists do. Arguments can be made on either side, but most of the arguments on either side are BS.

[E. Albright]

Of course, this reasoning runs into a brick wall when the theist side proclaims that God is not bound by logic. This is a common theist approach to resolving the omnipotence paradox (can God create a rock so big not even He can lift it?), and it waves away the logical proof of God's non-existence. You just can't prove anything to a person that doesn't agree with any of your axioms.

I agree, and was trying to allude to this with my invocation of special pleading. Oft as not such a rejection of logic will be phrased more slyly, with allusions of the limitations of the human mind to comprehend the awesome circular squareness of a particular deity; something between an appeal to ignorance and authority.

However, as a pet peeve, I must say that I've always loathed the "rock-too-big" argument, as it strikes me as being made in sterling bad faith. It is exactly the same as a claim that an omnipotent being must be capable of creating a greatest integer. The basic problem is that it asserts that to be omnipotent, one must be able to create things of bounded dimension (for something of unbounded dimension cannot exist, with the universe itself being the only arguable exception*), but that bounded dimension must exceed something unbounded in nature. It seeks to prove that omnipotence is logically contradictory by stipulating that part of the definition of omnipotence must be the ability to create logically contradictory objects (i.e., bounded objects with unbounded properties). It amounts to little better than begging the question (with a dash of equivocation), and is to my eye base sophistry.

*One cannot use the existence of an unbounded universe as an argument that something can be created with boundless dimensions, and also be lifted. If the rock created is boundless in dimension, it fills all existence. Being lifted is having force applied to move something from the place the object occupies to another place it does not. However, if the rock in question is unbounded in size, it occupies all space and the idea of lifting it becomes meaningless.

[E. Albright]

Assuming everything exists the way it is with no guiding or original force, how can the events before the big bang be explained? (For those of you who would argue there was no time before the big bang, the big bang explains what happened to the matter in our universe rather then where it came from.

Special pleading. The universe must have a start but its creator needn't? How does the postulation of the existence of a creator explain the existence of a creator? Why is it fair to allow a creator to exist uncreated, but an uncreated universe must be verbotten? Does not consistency demand that we postulate it's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?

(The point not being that you can't propose an uncreated creator, but rather that you can't propose an uncreated creator while simultaneously denying the very possibility of an uncreated universe. The idea being attacked is the argument for the necessity of deity via First Cause, not the possible existence of such a first cause.)

[Psyco Jelly]

I was speaking from two different perspectives in that post. Your idea is the reason I don't agree with the views of most theists, who try to argue (albeit poorly) that there can be an uncreated creator who existed before the universe was created.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I am happy how interesting the discussion is developing. There are some posts that I find very educating and inspiring, so I hope this discussion can remain as healthy as it is now.

I do not have anything useful to add, but I want to use the occasion to support E. Albright's rejection of the omnipotence vs. rock argument. While I have not put together as thorough a theoretical rejection of the argument, I always felt that it was not really useful/meaningful.

Ah, and even though no reply is needed, I do want to thank Toady One for taking the time to clarify that OT issue.

Deathworks

[Grek]

Circular squares are posible, if you have a three or more diminsional space with one or more linear axi and two or more circular axi and we define "straight" as "having a curvature equal to 0". It's a perfectly coherent concept that just happens not to occur in our observable universe.


As for the greatest integer and "rock-to-big" arguement, it states "An omnipotent being who cannot act in a manner which is not explainable by logic is not omnipotent." That's just a tuatology that proves nothing unless you also assume "Things which are not explainable by our logic cannot exist".

This sort of thing is why empiricism exists and any claims about omnipotence should be derived empirically or not at all.