Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[Paradoxica]

Well there is, it just depends on whether it is God, or the pastafarian noodle thing that you claimed to believe in.
If it implies such, and then you say no such thing, the question is why?

Because trying to make such an entity fit in the framework of logic results in arbitrary and off the bat conclusions.

The most consistent framework of logic is to assume that the lack of evidence means that questioning the existence of such an entity is a meaningless question, at least until evidence can be verified. Though this does raise some philosophical questions on the problem of induction.

Example: What is the probability the sun will rise tomorrow?

This has been explored along many avenues, and to no avail.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Because trying to make such an entity fit in the framework of logic results in arbitrary and off the bat conclusions.

The most consistent framework of logic is to assume that the lack of evidence means that questioning the existence of such an entity is a meaningless question, at least until evidence can be verified. Though this does raise some philosophical questions on the problem of induction.

Example: What is the probability the sun will rise tomorrow?

This has been explored along many avenues, and to no avail.

Alternatively we can ask at what exact time will the sun rise and how long it will take to rise?

We don't know but we just know that it rises.

Another similar example would be ... WHY is this car beautiful? and what makes something beautiful! There is no way to find out scientifically.

People will give their own reality and opinions but it still doesn't help us get any closer to the answer.

....
A friend of mine linked me this article which I think is relevant to the debate.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/science-and-scripture/the-shortcomings-of-scientism/

“Scientism”… is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today.[4]

Some truths do not need empirical or scientific evidence.

Could that be the same case with god?

 

[Paradoxica]

Some truths do not need empirical or scientific evidence.

Could that be the same case with god?

In that case, it is either a mathematical/logical/philosophical truth, or it is not a truth at all, but merely an assertion.

Of course, the attempt to mathematically "prove" the existence of god contains many subtle logical flaws that are incredibly difficult to tease out, but it's still there.

Mostly semantics and equivocation fallacy.

Besides, I can spend hours trying to convince you why mathematics is intrinsically beautiful, but that doesn't guarantee I convince you so.

Same follows for the existence and nature of a higher power.

 

[nerdasdasd]

In that case, it is either a mathematical/logical/philosophical truth, or it is not a truth at all, but merely an assertion.

Of course, the attempt to mathematically "prove" the existence of god contains many subtle logical flaws that are incredibly difficult to tease out, but it's still there.

Mostly semantics and equivocation fallacy.

Besides, I can spend hours trying to convince you why mathematics is intrinsically beautiful, but that doesn't guarantee I convince you so.

Same follows for the existence and nature of a higher power.

So basically it's a never ending argument with no possible conclusion.

 

[Paradoxica]

So basically it's a never ending argument with no possible conclusion.

until that person dies.

 

[sida1049]

Yes it does imply moral accountability, whether that be to some higher power, or some absolute standard, neither of which you would (I presume) believe exist.

Well there is an absolute, it just depends on whether it is God, or the pastafarian noodle thing that you claimed to believe in. If it implies such, and then you say no such thing, the question is why?

Why do you assume that moral accountability implies some kind of absolute?

Of course, while one can postulate that we innately understand the existence of a higher, absolute being that defines what is morally correct and incorrect, a perhaps more plausible explanation of our visceral understanding of moral accountability would be that it serves as a kind of social function; a byproduct of evolution. Actions which we would perceive undesirable if we were on the receiving end discredit us, thus hindering our ability to integrate socially, which is perhaps one of our most vital necessities in survival.

 

[Paradoxica]

Why do you assume that moral accountability implies some kind of absolute?

Of course, while one can postulate that we innately understand the existence of a higher, absolute being that defines what is morally correct and incorrect, a perhaps more plausible explanation of our visceral understanding of moral accountability would be that it serves as a kind of social function; a byproduct of evolution. Actions which we would perceive undesirable if we were on the receiving end discredit us, thus hindering our ability to integrate socially, which is perhaps one of our most vital necessities in survival.

Of course, this is exactly what evo-psych affirms, because it was a necessary mechanism for the survival of a social species.

However, it also created the cognitive biases that we all share.

And also the spirituality that not many of us have. Mine lies in mathematics, FYI.

 

[sida1049]

Alternatively we can ask at what exact time will the sun rise and how long it will take to rise?

We don't know but we just know that it rises.

To be fair, if you google sunrise times followed by your general location, Google will spit out a pretty damn accurate answer.

Another similar example would be ... WHY is this car beautiful? and what makes something beautiful! There is no way to find out scientifically.

People will give their own reality and opinions but it still doesn't help us get any closer to the answer.

Some truths do not need empirical or scientific evidence.

Could that be the same case with god?

By scientifically, I presume you mean via the scientific method, of producing testable hypotheses followed by valid experimentation. While there is obviously no tangible method of testing our concept of beauty, we can produce scientifically valid postulations as to why something is so compelling that it strikes us as beautiful. One way of understanding beauty is that it is a sense of attraction, inspired by our appreciation or recognition of a sense of power, resourcefulness and relevance. You might find a particular vibrant car as beautiful, because it signifies wealth and status. Paradoxica might find a particular mathematical proof beautiful, because it manifests the resourcefulness and power of logic, and perhaps its applicability. Many of us may find art as strikingly beautiful, because it relevantly reflects something, which allows us to understand a particular situation in greater depth.

And while I agree that postulations do not give us closer to the answer (which really is an inapplicable term, considering 'answer' implies a sense of absolute human understanding), some postulations are more practical than others, and require less of a leap in logic. For example, I'd contend that it's more reasonable that the concept of beauty exists due to its practicality, rather than the creation by some eternal, absolute, intangible being. And while I can't say that I've disproved the concept of a creator being beyond the realms of reality as perceived by humans, I do believe attributing difficult explanations to such hypothesis (even in cases were we have alternative explanations) is a fallacy, along with supposing that it exists because it can't be proved that it doesn't.

 

[sida1049]

Of course, this is exactly what evo-psych affirms, because it was a necessary mechanism for the survival of a social species.

However, it also created the cognitive biases that we all share.

And also the spirituality that not many of us have. Mine lies in mathematics, FYI.

Yeah, I've always thought that it's more probable that religions with undisprovable beings exist (and will likely continue to) because of their functionality, as opposed to the existence of the actual creator being.

 

[dan964]

Because trying to make such an entity fit in the framework of logic results in arbitrary and off the bat conclusions.

The most consistent framework of logic is to assume that the lack of evidence means that questioning the existence of such an entity is a meaningless question, at least until evidence can be verified. Though this does raise some philosophical questions on the problem of induction.

Example: What is the probability the sun will rise tomorrow?

This has been explored along many avenues, and to no avail.

Isn't that an argument from ignorance, essentially a logically fallacy?

That presumes there is indeed of course, a lack of evidence, which there is not unless you define evidence with very narrow goal-posts.
The main question it comes back to is what counts as evidence, and what counts as verifiable. There are very few religious views/viewpoints, that have this kind of verifiable evidence.

Concerning logic, there are many things, that do not fit standard logic but rather some extension of logic, arbitrary things for instance in mathematics such as a googleplexian that is a physical quantity, or infinity, or useful things that are not physical but rather abstract, such as complex numbers.

means that questioning the existence of such an entity is a meaningless question

Not exactly, only if your presumption is true, which it may not be (and it isn't for me). Questioning the existence is needed to establish your position. Agnosticism, for instance, needs to ironically to have knowledge, to claim that God is not knowable.

 

[Paradoxica]

Isn't that an argument from ignorance, essentially a logically fallacy?

That presumes there is indeed of course, a lack of evidence, which there is not unless you define evidence with very narrow goal-posts.
The main question it comes back to is what counts as evidence, and what counts as verifiable. There are very few religious views/viewpoints, that have this kind of verifiable evidence.

Concerning logic, there are many things, that do not fit standard logic but rather some extension of logic, arbitrary things for instance in mathematics such as a googleplexian that is a physical quantity, or infinity, or useful things that are not physical but rather abstract, such as complex numbers.


Not exactly, only if your presumption is true, which it may not be (and it isn't for me). Questioning the existence is needed to establish your position. Agnosticism, for instance, needs to ironically to have knowledge, to claim that God is not knowable.

Concerning Verifiable Evidence: As a naturalist, your definition of evidence is not the same as mine, which makes this a false equivocation.

Logic: I was talking about classical logic, not mathematical logic.

Concerning Existence: Then what position is not knowing or being aware of any of this at all?

 

[dan964]

* Not really, our definition of verifiable or more technically speaking our criterion, is what is different. You limit it for the most part to empirical sciences only, I don't.

* So okay, mathematically logic is a not a good case, as it would be consistent with classical logic. But to make a better case, how is an argument for essentially ignorance, more consistent logically, when in its essence a fallacy?

* The agnostic position typically stems from a heavy "dosage" of religious pluralism. In order to make the claims of the latter, requires an assertion that is absolute in the field of religions, which is very inconsistent and internally illogical, not to mention raises the same issues, that typically and generally motivate one to be a relativist.
A similar procession follows with the former, in order to make the assumption that essentially every view point is wrong in claiming to have knowledge about reality (irrespective of whether theistic or atheistic), it is itself a claim of knowledge, i.e. the agnostic (not always but if consistent would) claim to know that all other viewpoints are wrong to claim they know reality, which faces the same dilemma, that agnosticism tries to avoid, namely raising the question of the existence of a necessary being.

 

[sida1049]

* So okay, mathematically logic is a not a good case, as it would be consistent with classical logic. But to make a better case, how is an argument for essentially ignorance, more consistent logically, when in its essence a fallacy?

I don't think Paradoxica was arguing for ignorance, but that he is simply acknowledging ignorance. The problem with evidence is that if it is reasonably contestable, then it isn't a reliable evidence. As claims of evidence for the existence of an absolute, intangible being is often contestable, it's quite meaningless to further pursue the inquiry without a further objective input. Furthermore, speculating when there is no incontestable evidence does not make one any less ignorant. Ignorance should be acknowledged by theists and atheists.

* The agnostic position typically stems from a heavy "dosage" of religious pluralism. In order to make the claims of the latter, requires an assertion that is absolute in the field of religions, which is very inconsistent and internally illogical, not to mention raises the same issues, that typically and generally motivate one to be a relativist.
A similar procession follows with the former, in order to make the assumption that essentially every view point is wrong in claiming to have knowledge about reality (irrespective of whether theistic or atheistic), it is itself a claim of knowledge, i.e. the agnostic (not always but if consistent would) claim to know that all other viewpoints are wrong to claim they know reality, which faces the same dilemma, that agnosticism tries to avoid, namely raising the question of the existence of a necessary being.

... And following from my previous paragraph, agnostics are the first to admit that they are ignorant. I don't think it's accurate to simplify agnostics as claiming that "every view point is wrong", but rather that every viewpoint is unprovable, and therefore uncertain (including their own). Claiming ignorance isn't the same as claiming knowledge, because unlike most theists and atheists, agnostics claim uncertainty, rather than knowledge or truth. (It's also not reasonable to say that they claim knowledge of uncertainty, because by that framework you'd classify someone saying "I'm not sure" as knowledge.)

 

[dan964]

I don't think Paradoxica was arguing for ignorance, but that he is simply acknowledging ignorance. The problem with evidence is that if it is reasonably contestable, then it isn't a reliable evidence. As claims of evidence for the existence of an absolute, intangible being is often contestable, it's quite meaningless to further pursue the inquiry without a further objective input. Furthermore, speculating when there is no incontestable evidence does not make one any less ignorant. Ignorance should be acknowledged by theists and atheists.

... And following from my previous paragraph, agnostics are the first to admit that they are ignorant. I don't think it's accurate to simplify agnostics as claiming that "every view point is wrong", but rather that every viewpoint is unprovable, and therefore uncertain (including their own). Claiming ignorance isn't the same as claiming knowledge, because unlike most theists and atheists, agnostics claim uncertainty, rather than knowledge or truth. (It's also not reasonable to say that they claim knowledge of uncertainty, because by that framework you'd classify someone saying "I'm not sure" as knowledge.)

Yes, even "reasonably contestable" is a highly subjective term not objective, and ironically is a contestable definition. Everything to some measure has to be contestable, that is the whole point of verifying claims and uncritical thinking for instance.

Claims for evidence from a Christian point of view, always almost start with 4-5 key arguments, 3 of which have been used by myself already, and the other thing is examine the case for the resurrection. Belief in God follows logically once establishing the resurrection, because it is distinctive and unique nature, kind of like a vindication.

Even so, if every view point is unprovable including their own, where is the basis for that kind of statement, it is just as unverifiable, and the statements that typically follow? It is not very coherent. It lends itself to be a meaningless charge. Unless you have graded uncertainty, in saying that certain conclusions are more probably then possibly, but again that comes down to evidence.

So if uncertainty is really what is at play, then fine, but if it isn't, it still there. No only does as you say " meaningless to further pursue the inquiry" but the original charge itself is meaningless, and the charge of uncertainty itself is meaningless. i would the implications of such a being existing as absolute, would be very objective in nature, so considering even these may find some reason to not to find the charge meaningless.

For instance, to ask what the implications of God existing or not existing? Typically the former has more obvious one, but the latter also has implications. Ignorance about this matter, also has its implications depending on the actual reality of whether God exists or not.

The implications of such either can be undesirable, and hence be a possible reason why the claim is contested and rightly so, because the implications are massive, the claim that God exists or doesn't exist need to be weighed. I find the "I don't care" response is intellectually lazy.

Note that "every view point is wrong" was in the sense that any view point is wrong to claim certainty/knows the truth. (And yet you can claim to be certain about uncertainty, I guess an exemption has to be made then). The reason for the statements I made, were more of the relativism that leads to agnosticism. Ignorance does not correlate with certainty, because the opposite of ignorance is knowledge (hence the term agnostic) or truth.

No i don't "I am not sure" classifies as knowledge so on that I agree.

Objective input is also an interesting concept, because ironically different people have different criteria for what is objective. Typically science and logic for most people omake the cut, history occasionally does and doesn't. (Although I would say the changes in science, means that not everything scientific is necessary concrete nor objective).

Science for instance in its scope is limited, because it doesn't aim to comment on the metaphysics or unobservable, that delves more into the realm of logic or philosophy, and is limited in terms of how abstract the concepts get, because the empirical methods of science rely or assume on certain things in the universe, such as order i.e. effects following on from causes.

Obviously most Agnostics do not claim complete uncertainty, and if they do then my original case stands, because to claim complete uncertainty which itself is an uncertain claim, meaning why should I believe you that everything is uncertain? Agnosticism then doesn't become illogical, just incoherent.

====

On an unrelated note:
Why did the composer write this?
One realm of answers is the chemical of his brains produced a sensation (excuse the oversimplification).
The other realm is because he wanted to achieve a particular purpose or convey certain meaning.

This simple and probably incomplete analogy, lends us to think that there are indeed multiple lens at looking at reality, by the different types of responses to the question of "why" in terms of either "how" or purpose/meaning.

 

[dan964]

And I think the contigency argument (the video posted earlier), seems to address the tendency to just accept a lack of explanation or explanation for not good reason, other than because of some degree of uncertainty. This video is a followup

 

[sida1049]

Yes, everything can be contested to a degree. However, we understand that just as some evidence is more valid that others, some treatment of evidence is also more reasonable that others. For example, if someone exclaimed that they've found a footprint of Jesus which proves the resurrection somehow, I'd first start inquiring how they know that it's to be Jesus', and that should classify as a rational, sensible contesting of evidence. An example of an unreasonable contesting of evidence is the way that fundamentalists challenge evolutionists by demanding evidence of a further missing link once a missing link has been found and published.

The basis for an agnostic's view is quite metaphysical; that regarding an abstract, absolute being, then there would be no surefire method of proving or disproving its existence (or in general, to have any knowledge regarding such a being that's beyond our perception and comprehension).

Regarding the contingency argument, why do we have to assume that the cause of the existence of the universe is at the attribution of a being? Furthermore, the term 'explanation' itself is a human construct, as explanations can only be provided in human terms (i.e. terms which we can understand), hence we have a second unnecessary assumption: that there exists an explanation comprehensible by humans. Both assumptions are unnecessary for the universe to exist, and are evidently human constructs; as we conceive that there must be an explanation understood by humans, and that we intuitively project the cause of something great to be the intention of a great sentient being.

The contingency argument also avoids explaining the existence of a creator being, by simply proclaiming its necessity. Necessity alone does not justify something's existence, particularly when it's not necessarily the only possible cause. Once again, the concept of necessity is drawn in human terms in which we can comprehend, hence we may primitively and intuitively assume that something must exist because it's necessary, when it's only the result of our evolved cognitive bias to conjure explanations.

The cosmological argument follows a similar strategy. However it still suffers the same, unnecessarily true assumptions as the contingency argument.

I'd respond in greater detail, but I've got work

 

[dan964]

Yes, everything can be contested to a degree. However, we understand that just as some evidence is more valid that others, some treatment of evidence is also more reasonable that others. For example, if someone exclaimed that they've found a footprint of Jesus which proves the resurrection somehow, I'd first start inquiring how they know that it's to be Jesus', and that should classify as a rational, sensible contesting of evidence. An example of an unreasonable contesting of evidence is the way that fundamentalists challenge evolutionists by demanding evidence of a further missing link once a missing link has been found and published.

The basis for an agnostic's view is quite metaphysical; that regarding an abstract, absolute being, then there would be no surefire method of proving or disproving its existence (or in general, to have any knowledge regarding such a being that's beyond our perception and comprehension).

Regarding the contingency argument, why do we have to assume that the cause of the existence of the universe is at the attribution of a being? Furthermore, the term 'explanation' itself is a human construct, as explanations can only be provided in human terms (i.e. terms which we can understand), hence we have a second unnecessary assumption: that there exists an explanation comprehensible by humans. Both assumptions are unnecessary for the universe to exist, and are evidently human constructs; as we conceive that there must be an explanation understood by humans, and that we intuitively project the cause of something great to be the intention of a great sentient being.

The contingency argument also avoids explaining the existence of a creator being, by simply proclaiming its necessity. Necessity alone does not justify something's existence, particularly when it's not necessarily the only possible cause. Once again, the concept of necessity is drawn in human terms in which we can comprehend, hence we may primitively and intuitively assume that something must exist because it's necessary, when it's only the result of our evolved cognitive bias to conjure explanations.

The cosmological argument follows a similar strategy. However it still suffers the same, unnecessarily true assumptions as the contingency argument.

I'd respond in greater detail, but I've got work

The main thing about the contigency is it is the most probably and certain explanation to say that the necessary something did it, if there is indeed a concrete beginning. Speculation about eternal oscillating universes and the like, are the reason why such claims could be called contested, but not necesssary contested on valid grounds. At least in this explanation, there is some logical grounding, unlike the others, which seems to be fishing for alternatives.

. Lets think about explanation in terms of rationality rather than the human mind to be able to comprehend it, or

Regarding the contingency argument, why do we have to assume that the cause of the existence of the universe is at the attribution of a being? Well what other alternatives do you have that are equally as probable in the minds of that argument?

Furthermore, the term 'explanation' itself is a human construct, as explanations can only be provided in human terms (i.e. terms which we can understand), hence we have a second unnecessary assumption: that there exists an explanation comprehensible by humans. Both assumptions are unnecessary for the universe to exist, and are evidently human constructs; as we conceive that there must be an explanation understood by humans, and that we intuitively project the cause of something great to be the intention of a great sentient being.

It might be work tying in these assumptions to which "point" you disagree with.
The whole assumption that atheists, and scientists operate is on the universe being explanation. The second video, deals with to some degree a lot of the objections better than I can, particular the core of your first objection.

Explanations are contingent on the fact the universe exists and behaves in a certain predictable function, that's the whole logic and reasoning behind science fails, if we presume that there isn't to some degree an explanation, where that is necessary understandable or comprehensible to the fullest level, is irrelevant, but if there is such that can be sufficient enough. There is indeed a graded understanding, some concepts easier to understand (not necessarily easier to prove), than others. This suggests that only a certain degree of understanding is needed to quantify as a valid explanation.

Behind facts and hence knowledge is some reason or cause.
The very undisputed fact that the universe exists, infers, that there must be some cause or reason, or the very least some rational framework underpinning it. So it is more so yes, a more sophisticated version of the first cause argument.

evolved cognitive bias to conjure explanations.

Isn't that an assumption?

===
Everything is defined so we could understand that, that is the point of learning, and almost all fields of study.

The basis for an agnostic's view is quite metaphysical; that regarding an abstract, absolute being, then there would be no surefire method of proving or disproving its existence (or in general, to have any knowledge regarding such a being that's beyond our perception and comprehension).

If that is the case though, there is no basis for agnosticism to presume naturalism as it does. If by abstract, you mean metaphysical then to some degree (which is why a lot of religions describe the interaction between such being and this world - immanence but at the same time hold to transcendence).

Agnosticism falls apart as much, if your earlier statements are true. If for instance the universe is incomprehensible and hence beyond perception of understanding, then there would be no surefire method of proving or disproving its existence, clearly we reject this conclusion, as the universe exists; so why would we not reject the premise?

I tend to think of explanation more so of rational logic and reasoning behind something.

The whole point of terms like contingency and necessity are to describe a very simple thing, why the universe cannot be self-caused.

 

[Paradoxica]

Isn't that an assumption?

Everything is.

 

[dan964]

However, we understand that just as some evidence is more valid that others, some treatment of evidence is also more reasonable that others. For example, if someone exclaimed that they've found a footprint of Jesus which proves the resurrection somehow, I'd first start inquiring how they know that it's to be Jesus', and that should classify as a rational, sensible contesting of evidence. An example of an unreasonable contesting of evidence is the way that fundamentalists challenge evolutionists by demanding evidence of a further missing link once a missing link has been found and published.

What missing links have been found? I am curious.

Well the footprint of Jesus wouldn't prove the resurrection anyway, because we wouldn't know when that would be. Besides I don't think the footprints would have been preserved for that long. (Last time I checked, no major Christian group holds to Jesus still roaming bare feet around the world).

Scientific evidence duly needs and is subjected to scrutiny (its what they did in school). The big thing with evidence, and you might agree, is the interpretation of the data. The interpretation where possible needs to make sense of all the data or at least as much of the data as possible, most of the viable alternatives in the cases of some key things, don't make sense (explain) of all the data.

 

[dan964]

And also this very discussion of evidence and that entails explanations and that

First Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming appears as the law of causality in the understanding.

Second Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing asserts that if a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground or reason, in which case it receives the predicate true. (This is the case you presented in your last reply, regarding contestible evidence)

Third Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Being, the law whereby the parts of space and time determine one another as regards those relations.

Fourth Form: The Principle of Sufficient Reason of Acting; briefly known as the law of motivation. “Any judgment that does not follow its previously existing ground or reason” or any state that cannot be explained away as falling under the three previous headings “must be produced by an act of will which has a motive.” As his proposition in 43 states, “Motivation is causality seen from within.”