The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:30 pm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.


:whistle:
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:39 pm

I won't speak for Event, but some strong atheists argue that God cannot exist because "God" has not been properly defined, and when he is, his definition contains logical contradictions making him an impossible being, or is simply tautological, as most pantheistic definitions are.

I am not a strong atheist but there is some merit to that approach.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:44 pm

I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby greeney2 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:54 pm

The idea of a strong or weak atheist, and saying the diffence is a weak atheist can not even define what logical proof of existance would be, is therefore not qualified to eliminate any other concepts. You can't have it both ways and coping out on this simple question is obvious. If you can not define what is acceptable or logical, you can not refute or reject either, any other concepts.

The weak atheist following, all use the same buzz words, jargon, and mimic what comes from people you define as Strong atheists, yet none of the weak atheists have conveyed any logical proof for non-existance, generated by what you call strong Atheists. Therefore there is no such thing as a strong or weak atheists, and by your definition of "Not being able to define proof", you are all weak by your definition.

Apparantly with no definition of what proof would be, logically you are all weak atheists by definition, including people like Dawkins. By refuting and rejecting, are only search approval between your other non-believers. Without being able to even define what is or is not proof, there can be no logic in the atheist following, and therefore athism is not based on logic at all. The myth of being superior critcal thinkers is your imagination. Logic is based on meeting certian defined criteria, so if you can not even define any criteria to proove God exists, there can be no logical basis for refuting or rejecting God does exist.

It is also not very logical, to be a follower of a belief, in which Dawkins, you regard as the Strongest, can not even express a standard of proof.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:00 pm

Your post is, as usual, a confused mess I'm afraid.

You still don't understand what a logical proof is. There is nothing to respond to without just repeating what I've said in my other responses to you.

Can anyone else make head or tail of greeney's post? I tried, I read it twice in fact, but it just seems a really confused mess to me.

Honest question to you greeney. How much have you had to drink tonight?
Last edited by humphreys on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:04 pm

khanster wrote:I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.


Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality?

It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:32 pm

humphreys wrote:
Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?


The truth of God's existence as defined, is a necessary truth, that is to say it is true similarly to the way 1+1 = 2, is true. God is all inclusive, so if God exists in some possible world then God exists in all possible worlds.




humphreys wrote:It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?



It is possible for Santa Claus to exist in some possible world but Santa Claus does not need to exist in all possible worlds. The existence of Santa Claus is contingent, not necessary.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:39 pm

khanster wrote:It is possible for Santa Claus to exist in some possible world but Santa Claus does not need to exist in all possible worlds. The existence of Santa Claus is contingent, not necessary.


God is only necessary if he exists. If he isn't real, then he is not a necessary being, he is a non-existent being.

You can't just say something has to exist because you've defined him as necessary.

God is all inclusive, so if God exists in some possible world then God exists in all possible worlds.


There are so many logical issues with this.

If I'm unberstanding correctly, what does it mean to exist in all worlds? How can the same being logically occupy two worlds? Or do you mean something different by this statement?

This sounds more like a tautological statement, as to exist in all worlds God would have to be everything, which is a bit like when the pantheist says "God is the Universe". A God that is everything cannot create anything.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:46 pm

humphreys wrote:
God is only necessary if he exists. If he isn't real, then he is not a necessary being, he is a non-existent being.

You can't just say something has to exist because you've defined him as necessary.



Necessary versus contingent existence...

User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:47 pm

Continuing on from my statement that God is only necessary if he exists, I see Kant has talked about the very criticism, and is, in my opinion, absolutely spot on.

Here is what he had to say:

"Immanuel Kant put forward an influential objection to the ontological argument in his Critique of Pure Reason.[47] The critique was primarily and explicitly directed at Descartes, but also attacked Leibniz. Kant's refutation consists of several separate but interrelated arguments, shaped by his central distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. In an analytic judgment, the predicate expresses something that is already contained within a concept and is therefore a tautology; in a synthetic judgment, the predicate, or claim, links the concept to something outside it that is not already logically implied by it. New knowledge consists of synthetic judgments.[48]
Kant questioned the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considered examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejected the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argued that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argued, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus, he argued that, if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality.[49] Second, he argued that contradictions arise only when the subject and predicate are maintained and, therefore, a judgement of non-existence cannot be a contradiction, as it denies the predicate.[47]
Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]
Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument."
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests