God of the Gaps

[Frank Apisa]

The existence of anything supernatural is essentially unfalsifiable. By definition or deliberate construction, the claim is designed to be immune to evidence.

It's like my saying "You are in The Matrix." You cannot prove or disprove that hypothesis, because I can say that if it is true, then every scrap of information you have about the world is generated by The Matrix. You do not have access to anything outside The Matrix, and if you claimed you had any such information, I could easily say it is false, or just generated by The Matrix.

Or, like saying that JFK was killed by the Freemasons, and claiming that any and all evidence (including the Zapruder Film) was fabricated and planted by the Masons to redirect attention elsewhere, and any evidence that points to the Masons is an elaborate plot to obfuscate the real plot. How can you prove such conspiracy theories false? You can't, but that doesn't make it true.

It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove every unfalsifiable assertion. It's the job of the one making the assertion to provide evidence that it's true, and subject said claim to scrutiny and analysis.

Right.

The "skeptic" thinks it is alright to suggest that one wild guess out of many...is the one that cannot be correct.

The "skeptics", Visbek, often are the ones with the most "faith" in these discussions.

 

[Mach]

The "REALITY" may be something that makes the notion of a "creation" and "gods" seem like child's play. It may be something so different from anything we humans can even imagine...that accepting the POSSIBILITY of creation of this thing we humans call "the universe" is mundane."Faith" is what are exhibiting in that post above by suggesting something that may be very, very complex...is so simple and easy to see and understand.

So Reality might in fact be Not-Reality. What a cunning plan.

 

[Frank Apisa]

So Reality might in fact be Not-Reality. What a cunning plan.

Whatever the REALITY IS...that is what it IS.

If you want to think that humans (the presently dominant species on this dust speck we call Earth) can KNOW what it actually IS...you certainly are free to think that.

I find the notion amusing...and a bit absurd, but I can respect that you think otherwise.

 

[Visbek]

Right.

The "skeptic" thinks it is alright to suggest that one wild guess out of many...is the one that cannot be correct.

Spare us the scare quotes.

No one involved in this process is making wild guesses. Not religious individuals, not skeptics.

Skepticism applies equally to any view. The difference is that, for the most part, scientific and empirical explanations deliberately incorporate skeptical inquiry into their methods and goals.

The "skeptics", Visbek, often are the ones with the most "faith" in these discussions.

Or not.

As I have argued previously, empiricists do ultimately have to hold a certain degree of faith in their methods and underlying epistemic positions (causality, validity of induction). At some point,

However, there is a substantial difference between believing that causality is valid, and believing that the world was created in 7 days by a white dude with a big flowing beard.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Spare us the scare quotes.

No one involved in this process is making wild guesses. Not religious individuals, not skeptics.

C'mon. Both religious individuals and skeptics...when speaking of whether or not there are gods...ARE MAKING WILD, BLIND GUESSES.

Skepticism applies equally to any view. The difference is that, for the most part, scientific and empirical explanations deliberately incorporate skeptical inquiry into their methods and goals.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....the "skeptics" want to suppose science, logic and reason are on their side.

There is absolutely NO WAY to get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"...using science, logic, or reason. And there is no way to get to "there is a god" or "it is more likely there is a god" using those things either.

All one can do is to make wild guesses...and pretty them up with lipstick words.

Or not.

As I have argued previously, empiricists do ultimately have to hold a certain degree of faith in their methods and underlying epistemic positions (causality, validity of induction). At some point,

However, there is a substantial difference between believing that causality is valid, and believing that the world was created in 7 days by a white dude with a big flowing beard.

Question, if I may: I said above that there is absolutely NO WAY to get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...using science, logic, or reason.

You should agree...with no quibbling or hedging at all.

THE QUESTION:

Do you agree?

 

[Visbek]

C'mon. Both religious individuals and skeptics...when speaking of whether or not there are gods...ARE MAKING WILD, BLIND GUESSES.

No, they really are not.

Religious individuals hold beliefs largely based on what they were taught by their parents, or perhaps some event during their life which leads them to a particular belief.

Materialists largely base their beliefs on scientific and empirical methods. "Guesswork" may be involved when developing a hypothesis or designing and experiment, but is not very useful when testing or verifying that hypothesis.

"Wild guesses" did not convince people to believe in Buddhism, or submit to Allah, or verify the theory of Special Relativity, or the thousands of biopsies run every day, or design the computer upon which you type your words.

There is absolutely NO WAY to get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"...using science, logic, or reason.

Of course there is. Don't be silly.

The logic part is easy: Many contemporary religious beliefs are inherently illogical and inconsistent. For example, omnipotence is an inconsistent concept, as often encapsulated with the old saw "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?" If the answer is yes, then He cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to lift the rock; if the answer is no, then he cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to create the rock.

If the apologist then claims that their deity is omnipotent anyway, but merely "beyond logic," by definition that means that the deity is illogical. You can do so anyway, but you can't claim that said belief is genuinely logical or rational.

A less powerful deity does not have this issue, but... in that case, you're basically saying that the deity is in fact subject to the laws of logic (and who came up with those?), or jeopardizing related claims such as omniscience, benevolence, status as creator, and so forth.

There are some historical arguments, usually (but not exclusively) devised by Christian apologists, that purport to offer logical proofs of the existence a deity. Most of these were developed at times when heresy would result in the death of whoever made such an argument; none hold up to any serious scrutiny.


From an informal perspective, religion doesn't stand a chance. Almost every religion was developed in times and places when humanity had limited information, little understanding of the scientific method, little interest in empirical methods or proofs. As such, many religions are myths, upon which some intelligent people later added more sophisticated concepts (see Augustine's ideas on theodicy, something Jesus never addressed).


The science part is easier. By definition, anything supernatural is a violation of the laws of physics. E.g. if you claim that you have an immortal soul, that is going to violate all sorts of conservation laws, because your brain is made up of neurons -- and what's causing that neuron to fire? If it's a soul, then it must be receiving and sending information to your brain's neurons in a way that cannot possibly be detected by any scientific equipment whatsoever, and that is physically possible.

Omniscience is also incompatible with the Uncertainty Principle. Most creation myths, at least if taken literally, clash with evolution. A St Christopher medal won't prevent a truck from hitting your car. The list goes on.

Is it a "wild guess" to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it unscientific to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it irrational to believe in the laws of thermodynamics?


The complication is that the existence of gods and the supernatural is an unfalsifiable belief. Today, defenders of those beliefs are deliberately constructing their positions so that their claims cannot be disproven using empirical evidence, even though those forces are allegedly acting on physical things like neurons and neurotransmitters. In turn, though, this means they cannot prove that their unfalsifiable belief is any more accurate than anyone else's.

The question there is the burden of proof -- who's got it? A classic response to those who assert an unfalsifiable belief is Russell's Teapot. He posits that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Am I obligated to prove it is not there?

Nope. If you want to claim it is there, it is up to you to prove it. It is fallacious to claim that something is true solely because it has been proven false.

Logically, rationally, scientifically, there is very little reason for anyone today to posit the existence of a big white dude with a flowing beard, waving a magic wand, and summoning the universe into existence.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, they really are not.

Yeah, Visbek...they truly are.

Religious individuals hold beliefs largely based on what they were taught by their parents, or perhaps some event during their life which leads them to a particular belief.

Okay.

Materialists largely base their beliefs on scientific and empirical methods. "Guesswork" may be involved when developing a hypothesis or designing and experiment, but is not very useful when testing or verifying that hypothesis.

"Materialists" are as into wild guessing as religionists.

Of course there is. Don't be silly.

You are the one being silly...but I am willing to read silly stuff.

The logic part is easy: Many contemporary religious beliefs are inherently illogical and inconsistent. For example, omnipotence is an inconsistent concept, as often encapsulated with the old saw "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?" If the answer is yes, then He cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to lift the rock; if the answer is no, then he cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to create the rock.

If the apologist then claims that their deity is omnipotent anyway, but merely "beyond logic," by definition that means that the deity is illogical. You can do so anyway, but you can't claim that said belief is genuinely logical or rational.

(shortened to get response posted)
Omniscience is also incompatible with the Uncertainty Principle. Most creation myths, at least if taken literally, clash with evolution. A St Christopher medal won't prevent a truck from hitting your car. The list goes on.

Is it a "wild guess" to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it unscientific to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it irrational to believe in the laws of thermodynamics?


The complication is that the existence of gods and the supernatural is an unfalsifiable belief. Today, defenders of those beliefs are deliberately constructing their positions so that their claims cannot be disproven using empirical evidence, even though those forces are allegedly acting on physical things like neurons and neurotransmitters. In turn, though, this means they cannot prove that their unfalsifiable belief is any more accurate than anyone else's.

The question there is the burden of proof -- who's got it? A classic response to those who assert an unfalsifiable belief is Russell's Teapot. He posits that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Am I obligated to prove it is not there?

Nope. If you want to claim it is there, it is up to you to prove it. It is fallacious to claim that something is true solely because it has been proven false.

Logically, rationally, scientifically, there is very little reason for anyone today to posit the existence of a big white dude with a flowing beard, waving a magic wand, and summoning the universe into existence.

I said that you cannot get to "there are no gods" using logic, reason, or science.

Nothing in that essay above comes close to doing that.

If you want to give it a shot, I'm willing to read what you write. But if you think what you have written so far uses logic to arrive at "there are no gods"...you simply do not understand logic.

I also said that you cannot get to "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are using logic, reason, or science."

Nothing in that essay above comes close to doing that.


Give it a shot...you will discover that I am correct.

 

[zyzygy]

No, they really are not.

Religious individuals hold beliefs largely based on what they were taught by their parents, or perhaps some event during their life which leads them to a particular belief.

Materialists largely base their beliefs on scientific and empirical methods. "Guesswork" may be involved when developing a hypothesis or designing and experiment, but is not very useful when testing or verifying that hypothesis.

"Wild guesses" did not convince people to believe in Buddhism, or submit to Allah, or verify the theory of Special Relativity, or the thousands of biopsies run every day, or design the computer upon which you type your words.



Of course there is. Don't be silly.

The logic part is easy: Many contemporary religious beliefs are inherently illogical and inconsistent. For example, omnipotence is an inconsistent concept, as often encapsulated with the old saw "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?" If the answer is yes, then He cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to lift the rock; if the answer is no, then he cannot be omnipotent, because he is unable to create the rock.

If the apologist then claims that their deity is omnipotent anyway, but merely "beyond logic," by definition that means that the deity is illogical. You can do so anyway, but you can't claim that said belief is genuinely logical or rational.

A less powerful deity does not have this issue, but... in that case, you're basically saying that the deity is in fact subject to the laws of logic (and who came up with those?), or jeopardizing related claims such as omniscience, benevolence, status as creator, and so forth.

There are some historical arguments, usually (but not exclusively) devised by Christian apologists, that purport to offer logical proofs of the existence a deity. Most of these were developed at times when heresy would result in the death of whoever made such an argument; none hold up to any serious scrutiny.


From an informal perspective, religion doesn't stand a chance. Almost every religion was developed in times and places when humanity had limited information, little understanding of the scientific method, little interest in empirical methods or proofs. As such, many religions are myths, upon which some intelligent people later added more sophisticated concepts (see Augustine's ideas on theodicy, something Jesus never addressed).


The science part is easier. By definition, anything supernatural is a violation of the laws of physics. E.g. if you claim that you have an immortal soul, that is going to violate all sorts of conservation laws, because your brain is made up of neurons -- and what's causing that neuron to fire? If it's a soul, then it must be receiving and sending information to your brain's neurons in a way that cannot possibly be detected by any scientific equipment whatsoever, and that is physically possible.

Omniscience is also incompatible with the Uncertainty Principle. Most creation myths, at least if taken literally, clash with evolution. A St Christopher medal won't prevent a truck from hitting your car. The list goes on.

Is it a "wild guess" to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it unscientific to look at the geological and DNA evidence, and conclude that the story of Noah is false?

Is it irrational to believe in the laws of thermodynamics?


The complication is that the existence of gods and the supernatural is an unfalsifiable belief. Today, defenders of those beliefs are deliberately constructing their positions so that their claims cannot be disproven using empirical evidence, even though those forces are allegedly acting on physical things like neurons and neurotransmitters. In turn, though, this means they cannot prove that their unfalsifiable belief is any more accurate than anyone else's.

The question there is the burden of proof -- who's got it? A classic response to those who assert an unfalsifiable belief is Russell's Teapot. He posits that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Am I obligated to prove it is not there?

Nope. If you want to claim it is there, it is up to you to prove it. It is fallacious to claim that something is true solely because it has been proven false.

Logically, rationally, scientifically, there is very little reason for anyone today to posit the existence of a big white dude with a flowing beard, waving a magic wand, and summoning the universe into existence.

Very well put but a tad too complicated for Frank's black or white logic.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Very well put but a tad too complicated for Frank's black or white logic.

Yeah, I guess you prefer shade of gray "logic."

That might help you pretend that you can logically get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

Where are the logicians when ya need 'em?

 

[Mach]

Whatever the REALITY IS...that is what it IS. If you want to think that humans (the presently dominant species on this dust speck we call Earth) can KNOW what it actually IS...you certainly are free to think that.

Everything we KNOW about reality, originates with evidence/observation (and we rely on self evident axioms like...existence is, as you note). The end.

The concept of "beyond what we know of reality" has no real meaning, it's no different than talking about a god sitting there using a magic wand. It has the same predictive power (none), the same evidence (none), the same consistency with known science (none). It's absurd.

Outside your knowledge (aka not knowledge)
outside of reality (aka not real)

These are just contradictions you absolutely refuse to accept as they relate to your claim. If you can make a claim without extending it beyond what we can evidence/observe, you will be fine. Go beyond that, and it's 100% imaginary...you can label it divine or supernatural, spirits or mysticism, or skepticism, or nothing, or anything...because its all imaginary. That's how fiction works, they write about *anything* because its made up concepts.

 

[Mach]

That might help you pretend that you can logically get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

Depending on the definition of god(s), you can. You have been shown this.
If a god is defined and reduced to being "supernatural" (outside of reality), that's false since its a contradiction. You don't examine all of the universe and conclude "no evidence of it so it must not exist!"
This is logic...the term itself is a contradiction...for which evidence is by definition impossible, because its imaginary.

For other ambiguous definitions of gods, the answer is that no answer has meaning until the definition is NOT ambiguous. This is different than "we don't know if there are gods". It's instead "the term gods is undefined".

 

[Frank Apisa]

Everything we KNOW about reality, originates with evidence/observation (and we rely on self evident axioms like...existence is, as you note). The end.

If you want to think that humans (the presently dominant species on this dust speck we call Earth) can KNOW what it actually IS...you certainly are free to think that.

If I want to laugh at you for it...I am certainly free to do that.

The concept of "beyond what we know of reality" has no real meaning, it's no different than talking about a god sitting there using a magic wand. It has the same predictive power (none), the same evidence (none), the same consistency with known science (none). It's absurd.

Outside your knowledge (aka not knowledge)
outside of reality (aka not real)

These are just contradictions you absolutely refuse to accept as they relate to your claim. If you can make a claim without extending it beyond what we can evidence/observe, you will be fine. Go beyond that, and it's 100% imaginary...you can label it divine or supernatural, spirits or mysticism, or skepticism, or nothing, or anything...because its all imaginary. That's how fiction works, they write about *anything* because its made up concepts.

Blah, blah, blah.

You want to pretend what you are writing is a product of reason, logic, and science. But it is as far from being a product of those things as is the most any religion now in existence.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Depending on the definition of god(s), you can. You have been shown this.
If a god is defined and reduced to being "supernatural" (outside of reality), that's false since its a contradiction. You don't examine all of the universe and conclude "no evidence of it so it must not exist!"
This is logic...the term itself is a contradiction...for which evidence is by definition impossible, because its imaginary.

For other ambiguous definitions of gods, the answer is that no answer has meaning until the definition is NOT ambiguous. This is different than "we don't know if there are gods". It's instead "the term gods is undefined".

If you want to try to define your way into acceptance of this religion you are creating, Mach...good luck with it.

I've got too well developed a sense of humor to take your nonsense very seriously.

 

[Visbek]

"Materialists" are as into wild guessing as religionists.

Merely saying "NO!" is not an argument.

I said that you cannot get to "there are no gods" using logic, reason, or science.

Nothing in that essay above comes close to doing that.

Yet again: Merely saying "NO!" is not an argument.

1) I pointed out how many contemporary theologies are inherently illogical
2) I touched on the fundamental irrationality of religion, notably its unfalsifiable nature
3) I pointed out how any claims about the supernatural are incompatible with science

I could have gone into far more detail, if it were not for character limits. Given that you haven't bothered to engage my post on even a basic level, I see no point in expanding any further.

If you want to give it a shot, I'm willing to read what you write. But if you think what you have written so far uses logic to arrive at "there are no gods"...you simply do not understand logic.

lol

OK then, Master of Logic. Please explain the following concepts, without looking them up.

• Bivalence
• Paraconsistency
• Necessity and contingency
• Truth tables
• The principle of explosion
• The primary existential quantifiers and operants used in contemporary symbolic logic
• The differences between propositional and predicate logics
• The modal status of rigid designators
• Explain how the modal status of rigid designators refutes Russell and Whitehead's theories of reference
• Provide an example of a statement that fits Priest's Inclosure Schema
• Bonus question! What is the origin of the following statements?

P
~P
P v ~P
~(P v ~P)

• Bonus question#2! This ought to be easy for a logician such as yourself. What is the name of the following paradox?

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

Give it a shot, kid.

 

[Visbek]

If you want to think that humans (the presently dominant species on this dust speck we call Earth) can KNOW what it actually IS...you certainly are free to think that.

If I cannot "know what actually is," then how can I cross the street without getting run over by a truck?

Obviously, I must be getting something right about the world.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Merely saying "NO!" is not an argument.



Yet again: Merely saying "NO!" is not an argument.

1) I pointed out how many contemporary theologies are inherently illogical
2) I touched on the fundamental irrationality of religion, notably its unfalsifiable nature
3) I pointed out how any claims about the supernatural are incompatible with science

I could have gone into far more detail, if it were not for character limits. Given that you haven't bothered to engage my post on even a basic level, I see no point in expanding any further.



lol

OK then, Master of Logic. Please explain the following concepts, without looking them up.

• Bivalence
• Paraconsistency
• Necessity and contingency
• Truth tables
• The principle of explosion
• The primary existential quantifiers and operants used in contemporary symbolic logic
• The differences between propositional and predicate logics
• The modal status of rigid designators
• Explain how the modal status of rigid designators refutes Russell and Whitehead's theories of reference
• Provide an example of a statement that fits Priest's Inclosure Schema
• Bonus question! What is the origin of the following statements?

P
~P
P v ~P
~(P v ~P)

• Bonus question#2! This ought to be easy for a logician such as yourself. What is the name of the following paradox?

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

Give it a shot, kid.

You cannot get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using reason, logic, or science.

If YOU could...you would do it.

And, Visbek...you simply have not done it.

But you are fun to talk to...although you are a bit taken with yourself.

 

[Visbek]

You cannot get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using reason, logic, or science.

If YOU could...you would do it.

I did do it. You just didn't bother to address it, let alone read it.

And I'm still waiting for you to display even a rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts of logic. I am not holding my breath on that one.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I did do it. You just didn't bother to address it, let alone read it.

You did not do it! Not even close.

The proposition is: There are no gods.

I defy you to show how you can arrive at that from logic.

Give us the syllogism...and let us assess it.

So far, you've given a list...no item of which actually goes to the issue of there being no gods.

And I'm still waiting for you to display even a rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts of logic. I am not holding my breath on that one.

Really!

I'm gonna be 80 in a few months...and my formal education ended 55 years ago.

I suspect some day some kid will write some of the things you have written here...to you...

...and I suspect your reaction will not be what you expect me to suggest right now.

I suspect you think I would suggest that you will read what the kid writes...and say, "What a jerk this guy is."

More than likely...that will not be what you will think. My GUESS is you will think, "What a jerk I must have been when I was younger."

And you'll be correct.

Anyway...give a try to actually arriving at "there are no gods" using logic.

C'mon.

 

[Visbek]

You did not do it! Not even close.

The proposition is: There are no gods.

I defy you to show how you can arrive at that from logic.

*sigh*

Based on logic, reason and science:

1) The burden of proof is not on the materialist, it is on the theist. (Russell's Teapot / fallacy from ignorance)

To wit: Prove to me that you are not in The Matrix. Strictly speaking, you can't. Does that mean we have to treat this as a serious possibility? Is it rational to believe that Agents exist, and that international terrorists are just trying to "free your mind"?

This is really the only thing an agnostic can cling to. As a result, I don't view agnosticism as tenable in the long run, unless you're just going to say "I don't care."

2) Most alleged logical proofs that claim to establish the existence of said being fail. E.g. Ontological argument was shut down by Kant; Cosmological argument is special pleading, etc.

3) Many concepts utilized by theists are inconsistent, therefore illogical (e.g. omnipotence; a benevolent deity that created evil; souls have causal effects but don't have causal effects).

4) Many theistic options are unfalsifiable. That does not mean they are true. It means, logically, that thei claims can be neither disproven nor proven via empirical means.

5) There is no question that supernatural explanations are incompatible with a great deal of science. E.g. souls that have any causal effect whatsoever violate conservation laws; evolution obviously conflicts with the idea of a conscious entity designing animals, etc.

6) Supernatural explanations are superfluous. We don't need to believe in a deity to explain earthquakes or cancer. The mystery of the existence of the universe is not solved by claiming it was brought into existence by a deity, because we now have to ask "where did the deity come from?" We will never find out why ice is slippery via prayer.

There ya go. Either you actually address the issues this time, or we're done.

Give us the syllogism...and let us assess it.

lol

Here's your Logic 101 class for today.

A syllogism is merely a type of logical argument, it certainly is not the end-all and be-all of logic. All it does is construct a deduction based on premises. It does not tell you anything about the veracity of the premises. To wit:

Ralph is a nudibranch
All nudibranches are blue
∴ Ralph is blue

The syllogism is sound, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is true. Premise #2 is incorrect, but nothing in the structure of a syllogism can possibly test the veracity of premise #2.

Putting an argument into syllogistic form does not prove it is true, or make it "more logical."

So far, you've given a list...no item of which actually goes to the issue of there being no gods.

I'm trying to get you to admit that you don't understand the basic concepts of logic.

There really should not be any shame in that -- e.g. I barely understand how combustion engines work. The thing is, I don't go around telling auto mechanics that they don't understand combustion engines.

I'm gonna be 80 in a few months...and my formal education ended 55 years ago.

That's great, but... Either you have the mental acuity to engage in these kinds of discussions, or you don't. I presume you do, so I'm treating you like anyone else.

Is that a mistake on my part?

 

[Frank Apisa]

*sigh*

Based on logic, reason and science:

1) The burden of proof is not on the materialist, it is on the theist. (Russell's Teapot / fallacy from ignorance)

To wit: Prove to me that you are not in The Matrix. Strictly speaking, you can't. Does that mean we have to treat this as a serious possibility? Is it rational to believe that Agents exist, and that international terrorists are just trying to "free your mind"?

This is really the only thing an agnostic can cling to. As a result, I don't view agnosticism as tenable in the long run, unless you're just going to say "I don't care."

2) Most alleged logical proofs that claim to establish the existence of said being fail. E.g. Ontological argument was shut down by Kant; Cosmological argument is special pleading, etc.

3) Many concepts utilized by theists are inconsistent, therefore illogical (e.g. omnipotence; a benevolent deity that created evil; souls have causal effects but don't have causal effects).

4) Many theistic options are unfalsifiable. That does not mean they are true. It means, logically, that thei claims can be neither disproven nor proven via empirical means.

5) There is no question that supernatural explanations are incompatible with a great deal of science. E.g. souls that have any causal effect whatsoever violate conservation laws; evolution obviously conflicts with the idea of a conscious entity designing animals, etc.

6) Supernatural explanations are superfluous. We don't need to believe in a deity to explain earthquakes or cancer. The mystery of the existence of the universe is not solved by claiming it was brought into existence by a deity, because we now have to ask "where did the deity come from?" We will never find out why ice is slippery via prayer.

There ya go. Either you actually address the issues this time, or we're done.

My assertion is that you cannot get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" via reason, logic, or science.

ANY YOU CANNOT.

You, Visbek certainly have not done so...so all this bragging about your abilities with logic are entertaining and humorous...but not informative.

Why don't you simply acknowledge that it cannot be done...and get out of this while you are just a bit behind.

lol

Here's your Logic 101 class for today.

A syllogism is merely a type of logical argument, it certainly is not the end-all and be-all of logic. All it does is construct a deduction based on premises. It does not tell you anything about the veracity of the premises. To wit:

Ralph is a nudibranch
All nudibranches are blue
∴ Ralph is blue

The syllogism is sound, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is true. Premise #2 is incorrect, but nothing in the structure of a syllogism can possibly test the veracity of premise #2.

Putting an argument into syllogistic form does not prove it is true, or make it "more logical."

Okay...then put the argument that there are no gods into any kind of form you want...and have it be logical.

YOU CANNOT...AND NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE.

I'm trying to get you to admit that you don't understand the basic concepts of logic.

I would not have to "admit" something like that. A truly logical person would have suggested he was trying to get me to "acknowledge" that.

Fact is, though, if you are suggesting you have established that there are no gods...LOGICALLY...then chances are I know a bit more about logic than you do.

There really should not be any shame in that -- e.g. I barely understand how combustion engines work. The thing is, I don't go around telling auto mechanics that they don't understand combustion engines.

Like I said!

That's great, but... Either you have the mental acuity to engage in these kinds of discussions, or you don't. I presume you do, so I'm treating you like anyone else.

Is that a mistake on my part?

Not at all.

I am assuming you have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you cannot come to "there are no gods" though logic.

Am I mistaken in that?

 

[ashurbanipal]

There are some historical arguments, usually (but not exclusively) devised by Christian apologists, that purport to offer logical proofs of the existence a deity. Most of these were developed at times when heresy would result in the death of whoever made such an argument; none hold up to any serious scrutiny.

Which arguments don't hold up to serious scrutiny? I think we should distinguish between arguments that don't quite prove their conclusions, and arguments that are simply bad. Cosmological arguments seem to show that something weird exists. Whether that's the Judeo-Christian God or not, well who knows? On the other hand, Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss have a modal cosmological argument in which they tackle the gap problem, and their argument is at least somewhat thought-provoking.

Anyway, I noticed farther down you mention something about cosmological arguments and special pleading, and that Kant demolished the Ontological argument. Surely you're aware there are plenty of replies on the Ontological side, and I don't know of many philosophers who take the "special pleading" criticism seriously. Seems to be an internet thing.

By definition, anything supernatural is a violation of the laws of physics.

That doesn't seem to be the definition of supernatural, unless you think physics is finished. To the extent that there might be something to ammend among the currently accepted laws of physics, the laws of physics are not identical to a perfect description of nature.

Anyway, people who believe in souls typically believe souls are natural.

E.g. if you claim that you have an immortal soul, that is going to violate all sorts of conservation laws, because your brain is made up of neurons -- and what's causing that neuron to fire? If it's a soul, then it must be receiving and sending information to your brain's neurons in a way that cannot possibly be detected by any scientific equipment whatsoever, and that is physically possible.

OK, so three comments:

1. Substance dualism doesn't violate conservation laws, which only apply to closed systems. Show me an experiment which has demonstrated the universe is a closed system.

2. I suppose if I were you I'd dislike the sort of comment I'm about to make, but from my POV, it seems necessary. I'm not going to disclose it, since I'm writing a book on the subject, but there is a well-known phenomenon that was first shown in 1911, and has been confirmed a great many times since then, which involves a slight increase in energy in living tissue, especially neural tissue, over and above the energy derived from the Krebs cycle or other chemical cycles. Seems like a good basis for dualism to me; and frankly, it's a little amazing to me someone hasn't spotted it before. I guess it illustrates the dangers of specialization in academia and the sciences...

3. Did you mean to write "and that is physically impossible"? I ask because what you wrote seems to contradict the other stuff you wrote, but this ammended claim, if that's what you really mean, sounds pretty suspicious to me. For it to be true, it seems you'd have to hold that physics is finished.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The complication is that the existence of gods and the supernatural is an unfalsifiable belief. Today, defenders of those beliefs are deliberately constructing their positions so that their claims cannot be disproven using empirical evidence, even though those forces are allegedly acting on physical things like neurons and neurotransmitters.

Given how hard you clamped down on Frank with your high-fallutin' logic-talk (Just to be clear, I have a pretty good background in formal logics; I'm not sure why paraconsistent logics would be considered "basic concepts of logic"--perhaps that's not what you meant), I'm surprised you feel comfortable with this falsifiability talk. How do you get around Quine? Not that the indeterminism thesis is part of the philosophy of logic per se (or that there aren't replies to Quine, I suppose), but typically people involved in logic know something about it.

The question there is the burden of proof -- who's got it? A classic response to those who assert an unfalsifiable belief is Russell's Teapot. He posits that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Am I obligated to prove it is not there?

A couple comments:

1. This depends on the kind of claim being made. If you assert that there is no such teapot, it seems to me it's your responsibility to show as much. If you say instead merely there's no evidence there is such a teapot, that's fine, but it should be presented in epistemically neutral terms. Someone who has a reason to believe in such a teapot (perhaps they were in a spaceship and they saw one, but didn't take any photos and no one else saw it) is still rational for believing in the teapot, even if, strictly speaking, they cannot convince others.

2. So if you think there is no evidence for the existence of God, it seems the strongest claim you can make (at least on the basis of this point) is just that--there is no evidence. Not that belief in God is absurd, illogical, or anything else of the sort.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Given how hard you clamped down on Frank with your high-fallutin' logic-talk (Just to be clear, I have a pretty good background in formal logics; I'm not sure why paraconsistent logics would be considered "basic concepts of logic"--perhaps that's not what you meant), I'm surprised you feel comfortable with this falsifiability talk. How do you get around Quine? Not that the indeterminism thesis is part of the philosophy of logic per se (or that there aren't replies to Quine, I suppose), but typically people involved in logic know something about it.



A couple comments:

1. This depends on the kind of claim being made. If you assert that there is no such teapot, it seems to me it's your responsibility to show as much. If you say instead merely there's no evidence there is such a teapot, that's fine, but it should be presented in epistemically neutral terms. Someone who has a reason to believe in such a teapot (perhaps they were in a spaceship and they saw one, but didn't take any photos and no one else saw it) is still rational for believing in the teapot, even if, strictly speaking, they cannot convince others.

2. So if you think there is no evidence for the existence of God, it seems the strongest claim you can make (at least on the basis of this point) is just that--there is no evidence. Not that belief in God is absurd, illogical, or anything else of the sort.

As I have mentioned on many occasions, Ash, the only arguments I ever hear coming from people like Visbek are variations on “theists cannot produce a god for inspection” or “there is no need for a god to explain existence.”

I agree with both those things…but they do not show (or bolster) an assertion that there are no gods…or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

Visbek knows this…but he seems to be playing a “gotcha” game…which is failing.

He also dabbles in the “THEY must prove their assertion” nonsense.

Yes…anyone making an assertion does assume the burden of proof for that assertion…but my proposition as proposed requires the assertion from the other side the theistic/atheistic coin. The assertion being assumed in my proposition is “there are no gods” or “it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.”

I have no problem with people making those assertions…just as I have no problem with people asserting “there is a GOD” or “it is more likely that there is a GOD than that here are none.” Faith and “belief” does weird things to humans…but they are free to indulge in their faiths and “beliefs.”

But if a person is going to assert “there are no gods” or “it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are”…THAT PERSON ASSUMES AS GREAT A BURDEN OF PROOF…as any theist does with his/her assertions.

As I said, Visbek knows this…but the game seems to be more important to him than dealing reasonably and logically with my comment.

 

[Visbek]

Which arguments don't hold up to serious scrutiny?

The Cosmological Argument fails, because it's special pleading ("everything needs a cause, except this special thing over here")

Argument From Motion ("first mover") is both special pleading, and clashes with modern science (in which everything is perpetually in motion)

Argument From Efficient Causes: Yet more special pleading, also fails to recognize there may not need to be a first efficient cause at all.

The Argument from Necessity (discussed earlier), yet more special pleading.

The Ontological Argument fails, because existence is not a predicate (per Kant)

Argument From Design: Logically sound but factually incorrect. It is entirely possible for organisms to develop goals and exist without a conscious designer.

What else ya got?

I think we should distinguish between arguments that don't quite prove their conclusions, and arguments that are simply bad.

We could, if they were not the same arguments.

I concur that none of Aquinas' arguments, for example, describe anything about the alleged creator, thus it can't differentiate between Allah and YHWH and Brahma. But if the arguments don't really work in the first place, the point is largely moot.

Surely you're aware there are plenty of replies on the Ontological side, and I don't know of many philosophers who take the "special pleading" criticism seriously. Seems to be an internet thing.

It must be wrong then

It seems obvious that's the main issue with that family of arguments. Others are welcome to engage such arguments further, but it seems superfluous to me -- or counter-productive, since it suggests that the argument is worthy of further consideration.

Of course, if you have a counter to why everything needs a cause except some white dude with a beard who can create a whole universe with the sweep of his hand, I'm all ears.

That doesn't seem to be the definition of supernatural, unless you think physics is finished.

I didn't say that "anything or everything that cannot be explained by physics is supernatural." What I said was that by definition, that which is supernatural violates the laws of physics. E.g. a witch that can fly, without actually using any thrust or lift or expenditure of force or energy to do it, is clearly violating the laws of physics. Yes?

Anyway, people who believe in souls typically believe souls are natural.

They must be right, then.

Oh, wait, they're not. Souls are supernatural. They do not obey the laws of physics. They are not held to be physical in nature. In fact, in most schemas, souls are held to be so radically non-physical that they constitute a completely separate ontological realm, in which the interactions are both affecting physical things (like neurons) yet are completely inscrutable and inexplicable. They are held to be completely intangible -- except when it's convenient to say they are not.

Let's face it. Souls are no different than ghosts, or angels, or succubi, or demons, or the Hand of God. Hence, you don't find a lot of talk of souls by property dualists. Or, in developing scientific experiments that detect the presence of souls.

1. Substance dualism doesn't violate conservation laws, which only apply to closed systems. Show me an experiment which has demonstrated the universe is a closed system.

You mean, show you an experiment which proves that the laws of thermodynamics are true?

Which leading physicists have set up an experiment to demonstrate that physics is not causally closed?

I suppose if I were you I'd dislike the sort of comment I'm about to make, but from my POV, it seems necessary. I'm not going to disclose it, since I'm writing a book on the subject, but there is a well-known phenomenon that was first shown in 1911, and has been confirmed a great many times since then, which involves a slight increase in energy in living tissue, especially neural tissue, over and above the energy derived from the Krebs cycle or other chemical cycles.

Uh huh

Last I heard, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. If you can genuinely prove that neural tissue is creating energy ex nihilo, then there's a Nobel prize in your future. So, good luck with that.

Did you mean to write "and that is physically impossible"?

Yes. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Visbek]

Given how hard you clamped down on Frank with your high-fallutin' logic-talk (Just to be clear, I have a pretty good background in formal logics; I'm not sure why paraconsistent logics would be considered "basic concepts of logic"....

If he had displayed any awareness of anything I was talking about, I'd be fine with him missing some of the points I listed.

But, he didn't. Instead, he asked for a syllogism.

It's obvious he doesn't know anything about logic. Which is fine! It's not a common subject, you don't need to know the axioms of S5 by heart to evaluate an argument. But as I stated: The problem is that he doesn't know jack about logic, yet is accusing me of ignorance on the subject. Hence the trout slap.

I'm surprised you feel comfortable with this falsifiability talk. How do you get around Quine? Not that the indeterminism thesis is part of the philosophy of logic per se (or that there aren't replies to Quine, I suppose), but typically people involved in logic know something about it.

What does Quine's indeterminacy of translation have to do with falsifiability?

Or are you thinking of Duhem and Quine's idea that testing a scientific hypothesis requires a theoretical framework? I don't see that causing an issue for falsifiability.

I do agree that falsifiability is not the utter and absolute boundary of scientific inquiry, but hey... there is a character limit.

1. This depends on the kind of claim being made. If you assert that there is no such teapot, it seems to me it's your responsibility to show as much. If you say instead merely there's no evidence there is such a teapot, that's fine, but it should be presented in epistemically neutral terms....

Sorry, but that sounds like nonsense to me. There is no reason to be neutral about every unfalsifiable claim. I certainly don't have to be neutral when someone claims that the unfalsifiable thing has a causal effect on the world.

Someone who has a reason to believe in such a teapot (perhaps they were in a spaceship and they saw one, but didn't take any photos and no one else saw it) is still rational for believing in the teapot, even if, strictly speaking, they cannot convince others.

Russell's Teapot does not presume there is any evidence -- because if there was, we would then discuss the veracity and accuracy of that evidence. The hypothetical presumes that there is no particular reason to believe that the teapot is there.

2. So if you think there is no evidence for the existence of God, it seems the strongest claim you can make (at least on the basis of this point) is just that--there is no evidence. Not that belief in God is absurd, illogical, or anything else of the sort.

Re-read my post. I certainly did point out ways that theism is illogical, irrational and incompatible with science.