Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

If there is anything in philosophy that has broad agreement, it is that mathematical objects are classified as abstract. By abstract it is meant that they are non-spatial and non-causal (these two are the most agreed upon criteria). I think you may be misunderstanding the definition.



Timelessness and dimensionlessness are not concepts that involve logical contradiction. A universe with no mathematical constructs is; because you have at least '1' universe.



They are inductive premises. Its not really the same thing. Also you got the logic out of order. It is the fact that numbers are non-contingent on the universe and their non-spatial nature that allows the argument to contend that they exist in this way.

Due respect to your scholarship, but I have little but contempt for most of philosophy - the deeper it is, the worse the intellectual masturbation. The only exception I have seen is ethics.
That said, I have no problem with the idea that the concept of one, the model, is abstract. However, it represents a real-world phenomenon and exists only because of that real-world phenomenon.

No. Before the big bang, there was nothing. There was no space, no time, no dimensions, no universe. There was not even 'zero.'


Of course it's different when you do it.

That it does, the representation that you have put forward does not account for the problem. The issue being the numerical concepts 'do' have ontological implications. You seem to appreciate this point. You also seem to understand that numerical concepts are described well, in abstract, by consciousness. The problem is how they exist. There are three main schools of thought on the subject. The 'realist' school, essentially holds that they exist out there in some uncaused but non-causal way. 'Nominalists' deny that these things need to exist in any way, though they leave themselves open to the charge that they have not actually solved the problem. The grab bag for all the other theories is 'idealism'. You seem to be endorsing realism, which is the same school that I am inclined towards.




Well I am inclined to think otherwise. The law of non-contradiction, probably one of the most recognizable abstract objects certainly still would have existed. I tend to think zero functions along much the same lines; there is after all, zero universes. The nominalist objection holds that this is just a description of nothing but that a description is not something. The realist points out, that the laws of logic would still apply and holds that this certainly is something.



Begging the question is not always a logical fallacy. When using inductive reasoning, one does often beg the question, since it functions often as a test of a concepts logical coherence.

First of all, you are asking people to prove a negative. This is not possible.
You might as well ask for proof that cats cannot fly. You can do all kinds of tests to show that cats shouldn't be able to fly, drop assorted cats in experiments to observe them etc and despite all the considerable evidence, someone can say "cats only fly when no-one can see" and you cannot prove that they cannot fly.

when you have a matter that is based on belief only, it becomes even more ridiculous. It's not possible to prove that any god exists, nor that one doesnt't exist.

The opposite of religion is not atheism; atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. Any group of people living anywhere that do not have a belief system or worship figure are atheists.
Anti-religion generally comes in as a reaction to religous people trying to impose religous views where they are not wanted.

I'm agnostic/atheistic. I'm inclined not to believe in any god, but if there is, I don't think it would want any of the baggage that (any) religion seems to currently come encumbered with.

Actually, it is.


Then cats cannot fly. If they fly only when no-one can see, and a cat can always see itself, then no cat can ever fly.

But, then again, you have the law of the excluded middle. Flight is most certainly possible for anyone/anything dependent upon what sense you mean those things can fly. A human being CAN fly given that devices exist that give human beings lift and thrust. But left alone, with no assistance, no natural flight mechanism exists for cats other than their ability to jump. They can take flight for short distances, but it is hardly what birds and airplanes are capable of.


Agreed.


True, but this really has nothing to do with the immediately preceding statement. Christianity is not "belief only" and never has been. The first Christians witnessed certain things that they felt gave them cause for belief. Christianity as it is now depends on whether one believes the testimony of those witnesses. Without something concrete, present-day Christians have nothing to base faith on. It is a misconception that faith as applied by Christian believers necessarily excludes evidence.


Sure. Some people feel atheism itself is a kind of religion.


I don't think of atheists as more/less inherently evil as anyone else. I think that in the same way Christian extremists are the most vocal among us and give us all a bad reputation, the most vocal of anti-theists give atheists a bad name.


I think yours is an honest response.

The way I look at Christianity as it applies in my own life is that it's not really much of a religion to me. Properly understood, more Christians would agree if they stop to think about it. I call it a religion because it's a good label and, for the way most people think of what "being religious" means, I think the label fits. But beneath the surface, what almost every religion has in common, even Islam, is that they all involve seeking some way on the part of the seeker to reunite with God. It's man-reaching-up. If the Islamic model of who/what God is holds, this is ultimately an impossible task. God is "up there" and doesn't really care about us one way or the other, but if we are somehow "good enough" we may hope to reach the throne of God.

In general, pagan/polytheistic religions follow the same pattern but with a twist: They believe that somehow the gods can be manipulated into serving human demands. The Greek system is basically this at its core, but they also figured out that the gods don't really seem to care all that much about us and we are merely pawns in their games. Come between two gods, and you MUST obey the gods, and you risk offending one by serving the other. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ancient Greek religion, while serving useful societal functions, is ultimately a hopeless faith.

The Christian model, by contrast, accepts human frailty and hopelessness and asks God to condescend to us, which He can do, rather than us reaching up. Salvation or approval is an act of God acting of His own will, rather than bending to human will or demanding that we meet some impossible standard--that elusive "good enough." So, by that reason, Christianity is not a religion in the same sense others are. I think that if that is the understanding one has of what it means to be a Christian, there is no "religious baggage."

I don't get religions wich claim there is a god who is all powerfull, all knowing and created the whole universe and then would deal with religion in some strange illogical complex mannner wich as of now really hasn't solved anything. You would expect such a god would go about it in the most amazing genius way ever xD But no, most religions have theirs coming up with all kinds of vague, ineffecient schemes that wouldn't be needed at all if he was that all knowing and all powerfull. And why does such an almighty god anyway need workship of the creatures he created.

Not according to Cicero. During his journeys around the Mediterranean, he spent a while among the Greek civilization. He commented on the pageants they produced on what the afterlife might be like, and he was cheered by their notions of it. I refer you to Cicero, by Anthony Everitt.

Frankly, I don't think that you would like Christianity if it were observed in strict accordance with the Bible. Also, it's not what you likely think it is. Your best recourse is probably to continue as you have been.

lol

OK...what do you think it means to observe Christianity in strict accordance with the Bible? Bear in mind the first Christian missionaries displayed cultural sensitivity. The church in Jerusalem concurred with their treatment of the gentiles.

You should read the Bible itself and find out for yourself. If you were to read the Bible thoroughly and thoughtfully, you would be satisfying one of the primary values that I feel compel me to atheism, but it is the observation of those values that I hold dear; atheism is just a somewhat inconsequential side-effect, and those unaffected by it are plentiful.

Oh, Christianity is a veritable chameleon! The types and flavors of Christianity are quite multifarious. There is such a rich variety in Christianity worldwide that its early advocates clearly adapted their teachings to whatever culture they found themselves in. It's part of why the religion has been so successful. However, this has resulted in the religion becoming rather diluted. I dare say that Christianity would be cold and barren if we were to subtract from it the colorful traditions and fables that diverse cultures have attributed to it.

Anyway, if you are doing everything that you need to do in order to be a good Christian, odds are high that you are doing most of what you would need to do in order to become an excellent atheist if you were ever so inclined. The care and consideration on which good scholarship is built breeds a compassionate heart and honorable disposition, so the most proper answer for me to give you is, "read every page, and read them again and again until you understand with absolute and resonant clarity what they mean."

You aren't answering the question. What do you think it means to observe Christianity in strict accordance with the Bible? This is an important question to answer since a number of denominations have come (and gone) based upon their interpretation of what "strict accordance with the Bible" means. I actually HAVE read and studied the Bible in its entirety. In general, how one chooses to follow Christ is a personal decision--or rather each individual maintains a unique spiritual task. The first Christian missionaries were respectful of those they witnessed to, and the truth they attempted to convey in terms various cultures could understand was really quite simple. So "strict" Christianity ends up not really being all that strict. But, of course, what "strict" is exactly could be a subjective matter of opinion.

It seems there is some excessive mysticism regarding abstract objects from some members here.

Consider the question:
Q1) Does the king of USA live in the White House?
Since the question presupposes the existence of king of USA while there is none, it must be considered as a pointless, or loaded question.

Next consider
Q2) If the universe does not exist, can one checkmate his opponent's lone king with a queen in a game of chess?
There are actually two ways to interpret Q2. First, if the universe doesn't exist, there will be nobody inventing the game of chess. Therefore Q2 is pointless, or loaded as the case of Q1.

Alternatively, we can interpret Q2 in a counter-factual manner. We pretend the game of chess still works as we know it. Then we can meaningfully answer Q2. However, that we can answer Q2 in this manner does not imply the game of chess exists in some mystical space that exists independent of our universe's existence.
Looking from an other angle, we can consider Q2 counter-factually and regard the existence of the universe irrelevant because there is NO game of chess. 'Game of chess' refers to NOTHING. We just pretend there is such thing as game of chess, king, queen, checkmate, etc. to begin with.

Also note that in our first interpretation of Q2, we actually counter-factually pretend English exist, or there is no 'Q2'.

Conclusion: Think the game of chess as an abstract, and mush of mysticism about those is absurd.

All the kings of America live in the Outhouse. That is a true statement.

ruveyn

True. On the other hand,
There exists something called the king of USA who lives in the White House'
is false. So
'The king of USA live in the White House'
is ambiguous.

None of your counterfactuals work.My argument relates to the explanation of abstract objects, it is not a case for the existence of abstract objects. I never claimed it was... so your example is flawed. I am not trying to convince you that abstract objects exist, that is a conclusion that must be reached through other means. That is why, I have repeatedly stated that this is far from a closed issue.

From page 30.


The key to a case like mine, is to make the price for denying its truth as high as possible; such as denying realism and embracing nominalism; a position that does not account for the ontological signification of abstract objects.

In the case of Q2. There is no reason to think that a game of chess is an abstract object. Abstract objects are necessarily existing, in that sense they could not fail to exist.

The default for supernatural claims is "false until proven true". Why?

Because else we would not be able to live as we would have to dragon-breath proof our houses. Make sure to fill them with garlic as protection from vampires. Wear amulets that protect us from unicorn poop falling from the sky and we would even have to look for honest politicians before starting elections.

Life is not practical when you assume magical things are true until proven false.

Yes, I did. I gave you the most thorough answer that I could without opening an unwanted and inappropriate discussion on particulars. Quite frankly, I am not inclined to pursue such a discussion unless you are willing to confine yourself to analyzing one passage, chapter and book at a time. Acts would be as good a place to start as any if you were inclined to go that route, but I would rather not engage you on the subject if you want to know the honest truth. You probably wouldn't like the way I approach the subject, anyway.

Alright. Now you should find all of the places in the Gospels where Jesus references and interprets parts of the law. For each instance, construct a defense for two positions: "This interpretation seems to be correct," and "Here is another way to interpret it." When you're done with that, we can discuss some of them, perhaps.

In fact, my present subject of interest is what various religious groups were active in what is now southern Turkey in the time of Paul the Apostle. I have been having difficulty finding good information on the probable distribution of the Tengriist faith during this time period, and quite frankly I have not had very much time to pursue it. Time permitting, would you be interested in pursuing this subject with me sometime?