Are you suggesting that I cannot be 100% sure that I am not in Miami? Anytime anyone invokes the phoneme or graphic of god, I assert that there is zero chance whatever they are talking about doesn't exist or else is something else in reality that exists that we likely have a name for already. One can call a chair god and my assertion won't apply. But, that doesn't count, if one cannot define or describe it objectively with a noncontradictory essential characteristic, it doesn't exist. Also, god already has a necessary contradictory essential characteristic of being supernatural, imo. 'Yeah, but you don't know what I mean when I say god', someone might say. And I say, 'unless you can give me a quality, then it cannot properly be considered as existent'. And a metaphor describing god as something else and more complex in reality, doesn't work either. Any way you skin it, it is not possible for a god to exist, as a god, or anything else (unless we are going to throw the language out the window, then cars are trees and nostalgia and not).
Why is there no obverse figure of speech for "devil's advocate"?
"Are you suggesting that I cannot be 100% sure that I am not in Miami?"
….IF ...that's it's REAL name.
"Anytime anyone invokes the phoneme or graphic of god, I assert that there is zero chance whatever they are talking about doesn't exist …"
Show me the math.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Yeah, Miami is real. The law of identity is proof enough. We don't need to do any more experiments.There is a zero chance that something that exists violates the law of contradiction.
"There is a zero chance that something that exists violates the law of contradiction."
Some one should tell that to Roger Penrose, David Susskind, and all those other counter-intuitive particle physicists and quantum theorists, …bunch' time-wasters! Thick as a planck, aren't they?
You should be able to express it mathematically, Bayes' Theorem for example, would put some of those literal pantheists in their place! Probably be a Nobel in it for you as well.
So, …where's the math to prove this "zero chance".
Your claim, …ball's in your court, burden of proof lies with you, …do share the proof with us please, pretty please?
I'm not impressed. Yes, your beloved 'scientists' are out of their league. Their underlying philosophical foundations make them draw the wrong implcations of their science. They think they can use their science to comment on epistemology. They are wrong. Their science does not refute what itself depends on. The uncertainty principle demonstrates the limit of our perception, not that things can, not just appear to us limited humans, but actually be random. A proper understanding of the epistemological foundations of cognition and science is the proof. Science isn't needed. Nor do you need a mathematical equation to show that without a concrete noncontradictory identity that impacts the causal chain, a thing cannot be. That is the proof. It is so simple and close to the basics that proof really isn't a great word for it, but people who think theism and atheism are subjects of scientific inquiry keep asking for proof. It's almost self-evident. Causality is universal. http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/someone-tell-stephen-haw...
"Causality is universal"
That's what I keep hearing from theists...
It is a necessary corollary of the law of identity. Things do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure, position and momentum and things are only what they are made of. This is a self-evident axiom that is the foundation of proof. The concept of proof would not exist without it. You asking me to prove anything implies its validity. After knowing about epistemology and what we have learned scientifically, I have zero reason to doubt the validity of that which serves as a foundation of all thought and reason, but I have seen many other weak philosophical systems develop from the denial of this. Causality is necessary to compare one thing to another in order to find whether something is true or false as it compares to some aspect of reality.
"It is a necessary corollary of the law of identity."
Take, ...Myron Schmecklestein for instance?
The dogmatic adherence to applying (or misapplying) bronze-age axioms as disproof of anything that has yet to be fully understood is laughable. Like the cartoon above… Or the insistence that something can't come from nothing..
"people who think theism and atheism are subjects of scientific inquiry keep asking for proof."
Science doesn't address any theistic concepts that have anything to do with supernaturalism, …in it's literal sense, but this proof?
A ≡ A (A if-and-only-if A,) only works if you can define all possible A's. You haven't done that yet, …at all, and you'll never be able to, unless you're omniscient, …too many singularities.
Yet you invoke it as a universal disproof.
I can see where it does apply though, you can call bullshit a "meadow muffin", …it's still bullshit though, isn't it?
Dogma, laughable, cartoon, identity is invalid because knowledge is limited and has singularities and calling something doesn't make it that. Brilliant. Really.
There is no dogma in my argument. I recognize no authority or book or tradition as a standard. I recognize the foundations of knowledge and nature of concept formation. I use reason to compare and contrast ideas and compare them to reality as my standard. The tools I use to do this cannot be used to invalidate the tools I use to do this.
It's not nothing, if something comes from it.
You do not need infinite knowledge to have contextually valid objective knowledge.
You have no argument. You are a skeptic claiming with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible. Your argument fails at the outset. Mine is without contradiction.
Excellent thread, What if god existed as the conscience that flowed across all real material that makes up the some of the infinite reality, much like the electrical impulses that storm across the dendrites in our brain that give us the illusory sense of self. 1) would that conscience see us or be aware of us? 2) could we be aware of its existence? This being, that illusive god outside our space and time, which some scientists allude to so as to shuffle out of the debate, I think could not be aware unless life was just a process of thought. After all our conscience exists outside our physical being like winds blowing across wheat-fields our minds react to the thoughts more than like wheat act to control the wind. Yet in this interplay we add to and process knowledge, or are processed by knowledge unfolding to its logical conclusion. This deity is just another projection.
You don't feel that there are no gods, you think it.
And your unicorn in the backyard scenario is an invalid conter-factual. Impossible things cannot manifest. I do not need to leave any doubt, just in case one walks by. It can't.
There can be no evidence of something that is itself impossible. It being impossible is enough to conclude with certainty that it does not exist.
Gnosticism doesn't preclude evidence. Evidence of reality and epistemology precedes proper gnosticism.
The thing that puzzles me, you and I and a whole lot of other people think there is no god because we do not have adequate evidence to convince us otherwise.
What about the bright, intelligent, mature, scholarly, adult, scientists who believe god exists?
According to a study conducted in 1998, seven % of "Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)." What is it about the seven % who do believe? How does one account for those?
This was not a random study; I don't have a more up to date one.
Dr Francis Collins (Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) gave this explanation of why and how he became a "believer". He is not alone. Why? What is it that leads a scientific mind to his conclusion? Is he a "Whacko"?
I think god does not exist because I do not have evidence that convinces me otherwise. Reasonable, well-trained scientific people think god does exist, even though a very small number of them do. My reason for pushing back against religion is because of the aggressive political stance taken by those who believe in creation and armageddon and want to impose those on our culture and want to put laws into place based on religious beliefs, not on what is reasonable, affirmative, healthy, life-affirming, and responsible.