Man I dig science! It is what basically allows all of us to rant and rave right now on the internet via a smart phone or laptop! How cool is that?
Oh, by the way... I am not actually 100 percent sure that god does not exist. All that I can say is that there is a mountain of evidence that does not support his existence and there is no evidence to support his existence. Cheers.
Debating the existence (or non-existence) of something for which there is not one particle of verifiable evidence is fun...for a while. But eventually, it's as time-wasting as wearing out the knees saying the rosary or any other chant over and over and over.
I'm in the midst of re-reading The Grass Crown, a novel in a series about the fall of the Roman Republic. I think it's pertinent to what's going on in the USA right now, so...see y'all later!
The only way to knowledge is by the formation and integration of concepts with the use of noncontradiction and causal law. That is it. If you think that there is another way, then that makes you a mystic, my friend.
The scientific method itself is dependent on causal law and noncontradiction. I'd rather not keep reading from you that science cannot prove things that, if possible, would make science impossible.
Whether something is true or not is as it compares to reality. We can test the truth of real representations, but not imaginary contradictory ones.
And your analogy is not valid. Using your hands and a shovel are two very reasonable ways to dig a whole. Knowledge can only be come by through the noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence. Tack on as many senses as you like, or take a few away, it will still be the same. Identity is inextricably linked to existence and therefore so is causality and noncontradiction. These concepts are fundamental to science. Science is nothing more than the rigorous application of reason and logic in a manner to be standardized so it may be shared, repeated and peer reviewed. Science uses reason and logic; it is incompatible with reason and logic to ask one to use science to evaluate something that, if existed, would falsify the process of verification. The existence of god would negate and invalidate existence itself, identity, reason, logic, noncontradiction, causality and, yes, science. It's just not possible for the impossible to be. That's how come we call that shit impossible.
Would you agree that the statement "Belief is what you properly do when there isn't enough information yet." is the same as saying "Belief is what you properly do when there isn't enough evidence yet."
If you agree, then we are on the same page, if you do not agree, then I purpose that we are at a point where we just have to agree to disagree.
Belief (whether valid or not) is of the religious realm. What makes a belief valid is evidence. Next week, you will have evidence that you are still alive or not. It becomes valid next week, but it does not follow that it is valid now, because without evidence you cannot know whether something is valid or not. If I believe that there are tooth fairies in contrast to believing that you or I will be alive next week, the difference is only in the possibility of it becoming true at any given moment. One is not any more valid than the other, since we rely on previous evidences to apply reason to it, and applying reason, does not prove that something is true.
I know that 2+2=4 as close to certain as I can be. I believe that 2+2=4 with certainty, because belief requires no evidence. Anything not requiring evidence is in the realm of belief or disbelief, and that I contend is a religious endeavour.
No, next week it will be knowledge. This week it is a valid belief. It would be an invalid belief if I were to say that next week I will bench press 600 pounds or be omniscient. We have plenty of evidence that god is impossible. It is called reason and logic. The jury has been out for a very long time on this and mystics and skeptics alike are blind to it.
So you have a religious belief that 2+2=4. Brilliant. You really aren't paying attention. 'I belief that I left my hat in my car, but I am not sure' is not at all religious. It is a valid belief. Now, invalid belief, or belief in the absence of evidence or in the presence of contradictory evidence, would be that god, or something only able to be defined irrationally, in a contradictory way, exists or can possibly exist. Once a concept integrates into a knowledge base without contradiction, it is no longer a belief, but knowledge.
You say that you cannot have identity without evidence of identity. True. And since evidence, which depends on an unbroken causal chain and an existent characteristic in this world, of god is literally impossible, since by causal law a thing cannot be both a stone and a leaf, it can never have real identity or exist. Saying that omniscience can exist is the same as saying that it is possible that a rock can be a leaf. And when presented with this, you will say, "Prove a rock cannot also a leaf! Well since you cannot prove that a rock cannot be a leaf, I will uphold the possibility of total nonsense in my brain". I think I am repeatedly proving it to you and you are refusing to accept reason. It is like I am holding up two groups of two things and calling it four and you are saying, "prove it". We do not require anymore proof than the obvious nature of identity and existence. I have, in fact, used evidence of a chair's identity to form the concept (the first thousand chairs I saw were real and had real borders and the concept integrates without any contradiction what-so-ever). There is evidence of causal law all around us. You are saying that I cannot prove that the impossible cannot happen. I don't need to. You do not need scientific proof that the impossible cannot happen. It's impossible!! I know, for certain, that if something exists, it has a particular concrete identity that it is not contradictory to identity and existence. The process of proof, itself depends on causal law and noncontradiction, as does science, and if omniscience or magic could possibly exist, even possibly, it would invalidate science. You Cane, cannot even be certain when you have proof. This really is useless. You are permanently lost, I'm afraid.
I follow you now. God cannot have identity, because the existence of god contradicts existence itself (what it means to exist). God does not make sense therefore he cannot exist. Am I right in what I have said so far?
Hi Michael, The reply button has run out so I have to write a response here.
What do you mean you don't have a philosophical mind set?
If we look at the 4 branches of philosphy:
1. Metaphysics: I never really question what I personally perceive to be real.
2. Epistemology: I never really question myself about knowledge. I speak fluent Japanese and my Chinese is ok, but I never put into question my ability to know these languages. The more I study the better able I am at communicating with Japanese and Chinese in that those languages. That's it.
3. Ethics: No such thing exists.
4. Logic: Sure, I believe in logic. I guess my interpretation of logic is what, in my mind, binds everybody here at Atheist Nexus together, along with atheism.
It seems to me that you are are opining on the subject of epistemology when you say that atheism is a non-scientific provable fact, which I happen to agree with.
Yep. For me, the level proof I require to prove the omnipresent-God's non-existence is the fact that I can not see him everywhere and or anywhere I go. And that is good enough for me. Others may require a little more proof than that, and that's fine, I'd be more than happy to expand the level of proof needed to prove his non-existence.
I think philosophy gets a bad rap because so many people hold to principles arbitrarily (not in accordance with reality). I think philosophy is a critical study of thought, which very few people do with intellectual honesty, instead of a hodgepodge of mystical and skeptical derangements.
I'm not critical of philosophy, although it may seem so. I've always liked the questions philosophers have put to me, to make me think a little more. But the philosophical questions put to me, in the real world, are usually the most interesting of questions philosophy has to offer. Those questions have also been simplified, for the lay person to understand. And they have always been fun questions. But the abstract nature of in-depth philosophy is something I'm not really interested in. Sorry.
I think basing everything you think on what you deem to exist in the real world is an ideal foundation for a proper philosophical mind.
Thanks. Maybe as I get older and read a little more, my interest in philosophy will grow.