U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2011, 08:17 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,746,778 times
Reputation: 1333

Advertisements

Are we going to start talking in philosophical fundamentals?
1. I think
2. I exist
3. I am agnostic

4. A valid thing doesn't contradict itself.
5. Induction is awesome, but its not definative.
6. Deduction is the most definative.
7. Science is better than Philosophy
8. Because absolute deduction can't be done, except by an all-knowing being.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2011, 08:38 AM
 
39,207 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
I'm not because I have no expertise in philosophy. I am an ordinary bod of average intelligence who has simply had to try to master the parameters of a rational argument regarding the god - debate. I have little interest in complicated syllogisms designed, as Aristophanes put it 'to make the worse cause appear the better'.

I will stick with the body of comprehensible evidence and the validation of it and rule of thumb logic with regards to invalid arguments and I'll leave the obscurities to others. My intention is to make things plain and understandable, not to try to confuse everything as much as possible.

To assist with understanding deductive and inductive reasoning:

"Deductive reasoning - Definition

Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. The conclusion also must be based only on the evidence previously provided; it cannot contain new information about the subject matter. Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle.


Deductive is a descriptor for one type of logical reasoning. In logic, there are two broad methods of reaching a conclusion. The alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning.

Induction (philosophy) - Definition.....

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is very likely to be true, but not certain, given the premises. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:


The ice is cold.

A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue
."

Obviously what can be proved true is preferable to what is more probably true. The thing to bear in mind is that, where you have a sliding scale of probables, one must also have a sliding scale of reliance on that probability. The more the probability seems doubtful the more doubt one should have. That means the more 'agnostic' one should be and as I have said so often, what one does not know, one should not believe.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 08:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,282,541 times
Reputation: 4279
The main premise of the argument is simple:

Anyone can make a claim that something exists. The likelihood of such a thing actually existing could range from the absolutely absurd (celestial teapot) to something more "logical" but thus far unproven (aliens, for example).

But, why should people and society in general get stuck with having to find the answers as to whether or not these things exist? Why must the burden of proof shift not to the person making the claim of existence but the claim of non-existence? Simply put, this just isn't fair nor is it logical to expect that people should have to find evidence for atrocious claims.

The only separation that Russell eventually makes between the teapot and God is that God has been accepted within society for so long. Even so, this does not make reality true as the majority belief does not necessitate the right belief, e.g., - Almost 100% of the population believed the Earth was flat until the 15-16th century. In other words, until the claimants of these things can provide some sort of verifiable and testable evidence, why should they be accepted as factual or truthful?

The Christians of today insist there is evidence for their God. This "evidence" often consists of Biblical text somehow interpreted and loosely translated into something that somehow relates to some remote modern-day situation. It is then somehow turned into "factual" from there. Short of that, there are outright lies about how reality works, a complete lack of scientific empiricism, and flawed assumptions of human nature thrown into the mix to "prove" this deity. Summarily, when the beliefs of modern-day Christianity are boiled down, they really and truly do become nothing more than a puddle of stinking garbage no more truthful than celestial teapots, Santa Claus, and unicorns. Just because it is important to someone does not necessarily mean that it's worthwhile to anyone else. Hell, a rotten peanut butter and jelly sandwich might be useful to a homeless guy, but I'm not going to eat it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 12:17 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default The situation is basically yes from Christians, no from atheists; but atheists are not producing a manual on evidence.

1. Well, thanks to all who have sent messages to this thread.

--------------------

2. As I said earlier, Christians say that they have proofs and also evidence that God exists.

3. Of course I am talking about God as maker of everything except Himself, in our universe where we live and are part and parcel of and also God is part and parcel of, immanent to the universe and also transcendent to the universe.

4. And I also said that atheists insist that Christians do not have proofs and not evidence either, proving that God exists.

5. That is the status of the dispute, and we have no judge to tell us who is right and who is wrong.

-------------------

6. I have been asking atheists for a working synopsis for what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and what the mechanics by which evidence operates to lead to the existence of an object in reality, which object is disputed as to its existence in reality, specifically God.


7. Sad to say and I not say it again, there is no workable manual on evidence produced by an atheist for use by everyone who are into the demand that things should be grounded on evidence before human beings will accept them to be existing.

-----------------------

8. So what we have here is a situation where one group Christians say that they have proven God exists, and another group atheists say that no, Christians have not proven God exists.

9. It boils down to yes from Christians and no from atheists, and it will be yes no, yes no, yes no, yes no, and on and on and on.

----------------------

10. For my own part I am asking atheists since they are the ones who insist that Christians don't have evidence, to produce a workable manual on evidence that will be used by all people who are required to produce evidence to substantiate their claim on the existence of something, some entity like for example, God.

------------------

11. What about if both Christians (and I am one) and atheists should agree on a panel of judges at least composed of three members who will vote which group is correct and which group is wrong by majority vote of the three judges, or even five judges also by majority vote.


------------------


12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,892 posts, read 31,793,503 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?
You are just repeating the questions that you refused to accept the answers for on your locked threads on the R&P forum...Are you a bot?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 12:58 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default You are not getting me correctly, I am saying that it is a yes no, yes no, yes no, situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?

You are just repeating the questions that you refused to accept the answers for on your locked threads on the R&P forum...Are you a bot?


You want Christians to accept your contention that there is no proofs, no evidence for God. but Christians want you to accept their contention that they have proofs and evidence for God.


You are not getting me correctly, I am saying that it is a yes no, yes no, yes no, situation.


And that we both groups don't have judges we will accept to determine for us who is correct and who is not correct.

Now, I am asking you if you know of a manual produced by atheists on evidence which people can use.

Do you?



-------------------


What about both you atheists and we Christians for being both humans, we get a list together of things we agree on, and then very probably we can get further on to come to the acceptance of God which is our contention or we can come nearer to your contention that we have no proofs, no evidence.

What about that, work together on a list of things we both groups agree on for being both human beings?



But you will insist again, "You just don't get it, there is no God, period."

Well, I will also say to you, "You just don't get it, there is God, period."


See? that is basically a yes no situation.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:10 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,923,003 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
1. Well, thanks to all who have sent messages to this thread.

6. I have been asking atheists for a working synopsis for what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and what the mechanics by which evidence operates to lead to the existence of an object in reality, which object is disputed as to its existence in reality, specifically God.

10. For my own part I am asking atheists since they are the ones who insist that Christians don't have evidence, to produce a workable manual on evidence that will be used by all people who are required to produce evidence to substantiate their claim on the existence of something, some entity like for example, God.

11. What about if both Christians (and I am one) and atheists should agree on a panel of judges at least composed of three members who will vote which group is correct and which group is wrong by majority vote of the three judges, or even five judges also by majority vote.


------------------


12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?




Ryrge
Evidence doesn't work that way at all. It doesn't matter who believes something is correct. Human judges cannot tell you that the evidence is correct or incorrect. You must *THINK* for yourself.

Note that if you want a proof of God, then you need a mathematical one, imo
You cannot make god an axiom and use that to prove s/he exists.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,892 posts, read 31,793,503 times
Reputation: 12635
Are you willfully refusing to understand me? I did NOT say there is no god...I said the the existence of god can NOT be proven....That is what Russell's analogy demonstrates...

Clearly you are trying to convince me that god exists...In that you will fail, and if you continue your bone headed method of what you call discussion you will end up with yet another locked thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:28 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default Do you know of any mathematical proof against God or for God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge

1. Well, thanks to all who have sent messages to this thread.

6. I have been asking atheists for a working synopsis for what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and what the mechanics by which evidence operates to lead to the existence of an object in reality, which object is disputed as to its existence in reality, specifically God.

10. For my own part I am asking atheists since they are the ones who insist that Christians don't have evidence, to produce a workable manual on evidence that will be used by all people who are required to produce evidence to substantiate their claim on the existence of something, some entity like for example, God.

11. What about if both Christians (and I am one) and atheists should agree on a panel of judges at least composed of three members who will vote which group is correct and which group is wrong by majority vote of the three judges, or even five judges also by majority vote.


------------------


12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?


Evidence doesn't work that way at all. It doesn't matter who believes something is correct. Human judges cannot tell you that the evidence is correct or incorrect. You must *THINK* for yourself.

Note that if you want a proof of God, then you need a mathematical one, imo
You cannot make god an axiom and use that to prove s/he exists.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you know of any author who has produced a mathematical proof against God or for God?

--------------

You know that evidence does work for judges in handling cases in court.

But you don't want judges to handle the question of God or no God, because you cannot trust them or you cannot trust their expertise.

How then can you trust your own expertise if you cannot trust the expertise of say people who are more learned and experienced in the matter of arriving at the fact and the truth in a conflict?

You will say that the question of God or no God is not similar to the questions litigated in courts.

That is correct, wherefore human beings all say that each must be certain in the light of logic and facts, and of course evidence when it comes to God.

And that is precisely what Christians are saying since the beginning that they have logic and facts and evidence to have arrived at certainty that God exists.

So also atheists that God does not exist.

And both groups feel psychologically so certain.

That is why it is a yes no, yes no, yes no situation.

------------------

Now, if you as an atheist and all atheists will just agree to work with
christians to come to things which both groups will take to be factual and true, then we can be better grounded between us, and that is a good or better platform than how we are now going about in the present dispute.

And also please, dear atheists fellow humans, produce that manual for evidence, what it is, what is its target, and what the mechanism how it operates.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:39 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default Okay, I get you correctly, that God's existence cannot be proven, may I add, by you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Are you willfully refusing to understand me? I did NOT say there is no god...I said the the existence of god can NOT be proven....That is what Russell's analogy demonstrates...

Clearly you are trying to convince me that god exists...In that you will fail, and if you continue your bone headed method of what you call discussion you will end up with yet another locked thread.

Okay, I get you correctly, that God's existence cannot be proven, may I add, by you?



Dear Sanspeur, I will not go into matters not allowed in public messages.



So, let it pass your last remark above.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top