Did you ever hear of the "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" logical fallacy? Do you agree that is a fallacy? Here's the information what is about in case you never heard of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Did you ever hear of the "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" logical fallacy? Do you agree that is a fallacy? Here's the information what is about in case you never heard of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Argumentum ad ignorantiam? What kind of goshdarn foreign lingo mumbo jumbo is that boy? I ain't hold with it, and you best speak American here cos this is an American website y'hear me?
Goshdarn commies and their "habeas corpus" and "mens rea", I don't want to know what foul perversions you get up to!
Also were you expecting a serious response in the Thema Devia?
I provided the link about the information that explains what is about
Obviously it's a fallacy, I don't understand what the argument against that would even be
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Well, atheism (contrasted to agnosticism) has that kind of basis. Obviously one cannot prove there isn't a deity or something worth to be termed a deity, and clearly the research is lacking.
No kind of research could ever prove the existence of God. But yes, those who reject the existence of God simply because they don't see evidence for His existence are committing a logical error. However, those who think that God exists because there is no evidence proving the contrary are committing the same error. In short, intellectually, we are still very much stuck in the 19th century. The only difference is that we have become more philosophically inept. Many actually think they have surpassed the likes of Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, or Hegel. Today's theoreticians are imbeciles by comparison.
Actually I can prove you god very easily in one sentence: "Hey! It's me!"
And not trolly it also takes very little: What's the definition of god? There isn't much of one that I'm aware of. Not in the bible and Torah, where god actually goes out of his way to tell you that you can't conceptualise him and should not make an image of him, and probably not in the Quran either.
The only definitions you have, is that he's omnipresent, omnipotent, and eternal.
There's lots of things you can define that way, depending on your scope or area of interest. You can define nature as your god, or, in my case, simply physics, and see math as the language of god.
"God doesn't exist" is really as asinine a statement as "[FILL IN BLANK] doesn't exist." It is easy to disprove.
The problem actually stems more from the associations people have with god, which are vague notions and vary hugely. And what people have a problem with, tends to a certain degree be that anthropomorphic concept. Which you can actually pretty much exclude as possibilities on the basis of Ockham's razor, since they are highly unlikely.
The more relevant question to each person in my opinion should be, what he wants to see his life as. As some nihilist thing that goes nowhere and doesn't matter? Well yeah, then atheism is for you.
If you want to see yourself as a part of something greater, like the cells in your body are part of something greater (basically you're a conglomerate of billions of cells, most of which go as far as to commit suicide for greater good - and many of those that go rogue and refuse to do so, are what we call cancer cells). That greater doesn't even have to be ambitious. It's then up to you to build up your worldview and conceptualise god the way you want it. Like O.G. Kierkegaard wants you to.
^It is two different things, whether a being arguably worthy of being termed a deity (by humans) exists (it could be something like a lesser god, eg the Demiourge or gnostic lower-gods and a trillion other things, not having to be actually omniscient at all, just incomparably more significant on a cosmic scale than a human/humanity), and what the term "god" ties to in the mental world of a human (obviously with differences, highly likely crucial ones, from human to human).
The latter, though, is by definition a human issue, cause it has to do with either thought or unconscious realms of the mind (likely both). The former is a question about something external, and philosophically nothing such actually gets an answer beyond the confines of anthropomorphism, thus remains unknown in that sense even if we have phenomena to deal with (as in physics and laws of physics, which have manifest phenomena but still are inevitably picked up anthropomorphically).
@Diamat: the stupidest non-philosopher (a non-philosopher by his own proud admission as well) was Descartes. That being didn't know the first thing about philosophy. Very telling that my somewhat prestigious (british) university with its supposedly somewhat decent philosophy-literature department had its first year foundational philo course be centered on Descartes
The point of Descartes "stupidity" was that he rejected the entire premise of philosophy at the time and thought you couldn't prove anything was real beyond your own self (Hence Cogito Ergo Sum) Descartes referred to himself as not being a philosopher to separate himself and his works from the "canon" of other philosophical works that he disagreed with at the time. His deconstruction and evaluation of the building blocks of philosophy are very important and are a great start to a philosophy class (if you're not starting with the classics). That's like complaining that you're learning about Freud in psychology.
Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, and only those who are ignorant of both definitions claim a difference. Atheism is one of the two sides of Agnosticism; the first being theistic agnosticism, or the belief that it's impossible to prove that a god exists but you take the stance that he does; and atheistic agnosticism, or the belief that it's impossible to prove the existence of god and you take the stance that he doesn't.Well, atheism (contrasted to agnosticism) has that kind of basis. Obviously one cannot prove there isn't a deity or something worth to be termed a deity, and clearly the research is lacking.
The "research" as you call it is lacking because it is literally impossible to conduct scientific research on something as ridiculous and abstract as a god. How the hell do you even propose that "research" be conducted on that? Have 100 scientists sit alone in a dark room and pray to a different god every day? The concept of a creator god or any kind of deity is laughably archaic and has no evidence whatsoever to support it other than peoples prior biases built up over thousands of years of superstition and lack of knowledge.
Okay, well then disprove it? Prove to me the existence of god then if it's such an asinine statement. Obviously, you can't which shows that it's clearly not as asinine as you think. I have no problem saying "Pixies don't exist" or "Unicorns don't exist" or any other number of fictional rhetorical devices or characters. God is no different than some Grim Brother's character or Santa Claus. No, I guess I can't really disprove that an eternal, corpulent, Scandinavian man who should have died of diabetes or cardiac arrest in his 20's delivers presents to billions of people around the globe simultaneously using a combination of magic, love and flying reindeer. But then again, the entire notion of such a thing is so ridiculous that you wouldn't seriously expect anyone to need to disprove it. The concept of a deity is the same except that it's been in our collective cultural consciousness ever since we asked a question we didn't know the answer to and some said "Well I guess god did it then, didn't he? You can't prove he didn't"."God doesn't exist" is really as asinine a statement as "[FILL IN BLANK] doesn't exist." It is easy to disprove.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
You are all wrong. Also, WTF, guys?
Last edited by mishkin; October 06, 2019 at 10:58 AM.
Akar, do you believe certain laws of physics (not the human conceptualisations like Newton's or quantum) exist, are omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal? Congratulations, I just proved god to you.
The only caveat would be multiverse theory. Which is intrinsically unproveable and can be discarded because of Ockham's razor. And even then you could probably come up with a god concept.
This sentence and the previous one are two entirely opposite ones, and you're obviously emotional now. Try to breathe in and think it through. Your demand for me to prove his existence is the exact definition of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Disproving the sentence that he doesn't exist is simple to achieve because, again: You need to know what you're talking about before saying something doesn't exist.
If you want to know what I really find asinine about atheism, it really is statements like these:First of all, YOUR concept of a creator might be archaic. Yes. A million or a billion people might have that same notion. But people have different belief systems and just because they use the same label for it doesn't make it the same.
Secondly, you really have to ignore HARD how human minds work. We deal easier with stuff that we can relate to. So we try to conceptualise knowledge that way.
This guy lived around the same time as Pythagoras did. A long time before e.g. Jesus. He just looked at what his contemporaries were doing, and said: Look, this is stupid.Originally Posted by Xenophanes of Kolophon
When you look at the history of religion, you'll see that most civilisations started out with polytheistic religions, with a high number of them. E.g. in the Ilias the "god density" is particularly high, with every river more or less having one. In more classic times, the numbers got reduced significantly, and efforts were made to synchronise the Roman, Greek and Egyptian pantheons.
Speaking of the Egyptians: They too had with Echnaton that monotheistic moment. But Amon too often got a very similar role.
The later in the civilisation stages we are, the fewer gods you get. Simply because people start to see connections. First you see every tree and river as its own thing, later you understand that all water essentially shares the same properties. Monotheism is the logical conclusion to that, as pointed out by Xenophon.
By the way: This here:
Is also untrue for the same reason. You are defining atheism and agnosticism one way. But just because you do so does not make it universal. Not every atheist is an atheistic agnosticist. By far the most atheists I meet, connect atheism with the willingness to make a definite, though negative answer.
Now please pay attention to the fact that I'm not pushing my own beliefsystem. Simply because I'm a bit too lazy to have one from A to Z.
I do/did the deconstructing part, but on the construction part I'm kinda lazy. I believe in physics, I know that humans both as individuals and as societies aren't as rational as they like to think they are, I see that religions are a universal constant, I know how paradigms etc. work, and that's good enough for me.
I barely can agree with anything in your post :/
On the other hand I welcome Cookiegod's post, and am happy with the mention of Xenophanes He is said to have been the teacher of Parmenides, thus starting the eleatic school, ending with Melissos and his notion of the "void". Other notable in that tetrad is, of course, Zeno the Eleatic.
I have presented many seminars on the presocratics and am fond of the so-called (later term, obviously, from the early roman era) "Italian" school of (ancient Greek) philosophy, ie eleatics, Pythagoras, platonism and Heraklitos.
you're wrong, i'm right, sorry losers
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
I'm tired of you pushing your radical lack-of-belief-system belief system down my throat. It's disgusting and I wont stand for it.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Just wanted to add that no law of physics is omnipotent. Gravity is cool and all that, but it can't cook me a dinner. I also believe that physic laws lack many traits usually attributed to the deities of deism and human religions , especially those associated with consciousness, like omniscience, benevolence/malevolence/indifference and etc. As for the logical fallacy of atheism, I suspect that the vast majority simply considers the possibility of god's existent statistically so negligible, that it's simply more practical to describe oneself as an atheist, instead of the superficially more accurate definition of agnostic leaning decisively towards atheism. Otherwise we're all also agnostic, in what concerns the possibility of vandalism committed regularly in Cornwall by blue, socially undesirable pixies.
Good sir, it seems you have me confused with your mother.
You didn't get my point then.
I said specifically not the laws we conceptualise them as. The intrinsic laws of physics themselves. And you can call it a set of laws, but far more likely they're all interconnected and the consequence of one another. Hence omnipresence and omnipotence.
Ok, but that's where you get my point. Anthropomorphic interpretations of a god are very, very likely wrong. On the other hand 1) bible and torah go out of their way to explicitly tell you not to do that (important in so far as that it tells you something about intent, where this belief system comes from <-> which is abstraction), and 2) anthropomorphism is basic human nature and thus everywhere. Is the sea a harsh mistress? Well not literally. Is it necessary to call your ship a lady? Not really. Are seamen stupid? No, just gay from all the semen in their bumbum.