Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Turtwig

omg a kitty wrote: »

Hang on, this may have been asked before but,
why is this in the Christianity Forum??
Surely Atheism is not believing in any Gods, and not just Jesus and well...Christian God

Atheism is hip and cool. So too are the Christian Mods.:cool:
(Anyone who questions otherwise is not.)

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

"Shallow" again??? Not just simply "wrong"?

I'll accept wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

I have already show you how mathematics itself is inconsistent or incomplete as a system. A mathematical proof shows that!

Okay let's look at it from the other direction. If you can show me how science can't study why people behave the way do, similarly why societies can't be studied that way, then I'll change my views. In other words where is the line drawn? What is it about the mind that means it can't be studied to show why you are religious for example?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

He never claimed that. I may have and I'm paying the price now. However it seems philosophers of all types are turning to schools of thought incompatible with theism.

72.8% atheism
14.6% theism
12.5% other

See the actual primary stats
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
and how in message 559 above I point out this 72.8 per cent is "cherry picked "

59% compatibilism (usually a rejection of contra-causal free will)
12.2% no free will
13.7% libertarianism
14.9% other

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

56.3% moral realism
27.7% moral anti-realism
15.8% other

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true.


Ill skip the rest the point was shown that Denmark and a host of other countries are not atheist and your academic snobbery in picking a subset of PhDs or particular faculties as having large numbers of atheists is akin to rehashing the "Mars Effect" and claiming astrology works.

Philosophers "of certain types" not of "all types" in "certain academic institutions" not "all universities" also have a tendency to be correlated in belief very similar to the also high level of atheist undergraduate and postgraduate population. that in now wyay says all philosophers all academics or all society his tending to atheism. A small per centage of people are atheists. Of course you may want them to be a "master race" over non atheists but your personal belief in state atheism isn't really a strong argument.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'll accept wrong.

thank you. your magnanimity precedes you.

Okay let's look at it from the other direction. If you can show me how science can't study why people behave the way do,

I don't claim it cant. That was called behavioral psychology last time I looked. By the way like predicting dice throws it is "holist" and not "reductionist" . we can predict how populations might behave but not individuals. a similar problem arises for photons in quantum physics. Young's slits for example.

similarly why societies can't be studied that way, then I'll change my views.

Societies can. It was called sociology last time I looked.

In other words where is the line drawn? What is it about the mind that means it can't be studied to show why you are religious for example?

Maybe it can and maybe God does not exist. The point is science can't show either to be true and the attempt to reduce the mind as you suggest is therefore based on a belief rather than a proof.

ISAW

omg a kitty wrote: »

Hang on, this may have been asked before but,
why is this in the Christianity Forum??

more "angels on the heads of a pin" arguments.
Read the part of the thread title in (brackets) and see if that helps.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

See the actual primary stats
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
and how in message 559 above I point out this 72.8 per cent is "cherry picked "

Well according to you the whole thing is cherry picked.

ISAW wrote: »

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

I for one don't really agree with compatibilism but what's important is that it is(usually) a rejection of contra causal free will which I am in line with.

ISAW wrote: »

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true.

What do you think aside from quoting?

ISAW wrote: »

Ill skip the rest the point was shown that Denmark and a host of other countries are not atheist and your academic snobbery in picking a subset of PhDs or particular faculties as having large numbers of atheists is akin to rehashing the "Mars Effect" and claiming astrology works.

Academic snobbery? I didn't do the survey, it was by philosophers for philosophers, people who actually are "philosophers" by profession.

ISAW wrote: »

Philosophers "of certain types" not of "all types" in "certain academic institutions" not "all universities" also have a tendency to be correlated in belief very similar to the also high level of atheist undergraduate and postgraduate population.

Are you saying they were cherry picking?

ISAW wrote: »

that in now wyay says all philosophers all academics or all society his tending to atheism. A small per centage of people are atheists. Of course you may want them to be a "master race" over non atheists but your personal belief in state atheism isn't really a strong argument.

I have a personal belief the world would be better off with true beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

thank you. your magnanimity precedes you.



I don't claim it cant. That was called behavioral psychology last time I looked. By the way like predicting dice throws it is "holist" and not "reductionist" . we can predict how populations might behave but not individuals. a similar problem arises for photons in quantum physics. Young's slits for example.



Societies can. It was called sociology last time I looked.



Maybe it can and maybe God does not exist. The point is science can't show either to be true and the attempt to reduce the mind as you suggest is therefore based on a belief rather than a proof.

Oh please I never said anything about God being proved disproved by science. I'm asking you for the bizillionth time can the mind(who I am) by studied? Yes or no?

Morbert

ISAW wrote:

I have already show you how mathematics itself is inconsistent or incomplete as a system.

I would need to see the context of the point you were making, but as an off-topic remark: mathematical systems can be both complete and consistent. (I.e. Non-euclidean geometry). Incompleteness theorems only apply to systems capable of simulating natural numbers.

Wicknight wrote: »

And you have removed God knowing of the events in the universe because it depends on us to determine them. So in this version God knows nothing about the non-existent events in the universe.

This was my ultimate point a few pages ago. God's knowledge cannot be based on a requirement that the things he knows about actually exist or happens. God and his knowledge transcend the existence of all lesser things.

We are not using a temporal time line so I cant say God knows everything about everything before everything exists, so the easiest way to show this point in an atemporal context is to say that God knows everything about everything even if everything doesn't exist. Either way God's knowledge is not dependent on anything.

Again if you remove us from existences, say we never exist at all, then because this knowledge is dependent on us God loses the knowledge of what we would do if we did exist. This breaks omniscience.

We are in partial agreement here. In April of last year, I made the following post

Morbert wrote:

This topic [free will vs. omniscience] has been raised before and it is generally concluded that it does not interfere with free will IF omniscience excludes counterfactuals.

Ironically, it is the rejection of molinism that resolves the issue.

Where we probably disagree is I don't believe counterfactuals, knowledge of what would have happened, are meaningful if a will is free, as it implies a mechanism or process that can be interpreted as some behavioural pattern. So it's not that God knows all, except counterfactuals. It's that "counterfactual" doesn't have any meaning when talking about free agents.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well according to you the whole thing is cherry picked.

Where did i say that?
i pointed outhte largest cohort of atheists was cherry picked from the sample. Other PhD 's and metaphilosophy respondents and postgrads scored lower in atheism. funny how it just happens the one you highlight is the highest level of atheism of forty or fifty possible groups you could have picked?

I for one don't really agree with compatibilism but what's important is that it is(usually) a rejection of contra causal free will which I am in line with.

You are in line with the rejection or with the free will?
I have already stated how it considers freewill is compatable with omniscience.

Academic snobbery? I didn't do the survey, it was by philosophers for philosophers, people who actually are "philosophers" by profession.

Nope it covered undergraduates and non faculty as well it seems e.g. non philosophy PhD s. But the idea is that philosopher or academic professionals are somehow better than others is the snobbery.

Are you saying they were cherry picking?

I already indicated what i consider cherry picked. Can you show me any cohort from the survey showing higher degrees of atheism and ill admit they were not.

I have a personal belief the world would be better off with true beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

You happen to know the truth? Or you just fundamentally believe you do?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I would need to see the context of the point you were making, but as an off-topic remark: mathematical systems can be both complete and consistent. (I.e. Non-euclidean geometry). Incompleteness theorems only apply to systems capable of simulating natural numbers.

The contest was I think the use of logic (by Cerebral) to disprove God etc. and the idea that science is sufficient for society and everything can be broken down by science and explained away. But you are now cherry picking. The whole of mathematics as a consistent system isn't! (consistent). If you are picking parts of it you are not dealing with the complete system.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

We are in partial agreement here. In April of last year, I made the following post

Ah yes, ok. Your objection make more sense now. My understanding of omniscience is that God knows all, what will happen and what won't happen. I think there is a passage in the Bible saying as much, but I can't remember it.

Anyway, wasn't Phil supposed to be demonstrating why God is more likely than M-theory. What happened to that?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

then why did YOU bring it up?

I stated

Which links P" society moving on" to the suggestion that
Q " most philosophers are atheist"

If society has moved on because Q dose it not suggest that the change in society and atheism are linked?

You said philosophy moved on. Hence the "Yes most philosophers are atheists".

Philosophy has moved on from theism. It moved on from "middle age" logic problems not be over coming them as you seemed to suggest, but by rejecting the premise entirely. If God is considered a nonsense concept and doesn't exist then logical problems about his existences are some what irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

And why is that?

Probably because it is a very poor explanation that has all the signs of being something ancient man simply made up because they didn't really understand what was actually happening.

ISAW wrote: »

Because "God did it " in itself does not offer objective claims falsifiable by objectively agreed empirical evidence?
i.e. because it is subjective?

That is probably part of it. And illogical. And nonsensical.

ISAW wrote: »

Chinese Russian atheistic regimes regimes killed hundreds of millions. atheism central to their philosophy. Pol pot ...Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia1.html

That is enforced atheism for you!

Wow. And this is bad? We aren't supposed to butcher millions of people. Man I'm so glad you Christians are around to tell us this, I was just about to go of and start a revolutionary movement to execute all people in Cork. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

You replied "yes [i.e. yes it has moved on]. Most philosophers are atheist." see above.

To a statement about philosophy moving on. To which you made a comment about the goodness of society. That my friend is a tangent.

ISAW wrote: »

Moved on from " how many angles on the head of a pin" type arguments. Not moved on to a "BETTER WORLD BECAUSE MOST PHILOSOPHERS ARE ATHEISTS."

Moved on from the some what illogical and nonsensical concept that is the Christian God.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

The contest was I think the use of logic (by Cerebral) to disprove God etc. and the idea that science is sufficient for society and everything can be broken down by science and explained away. But you are now cherry picking. The whole of mathematics as a consistent system isn't! (consistent). If you are picking parts of it you are not dealing with the complete system.

The whole of mathematics isn't a system of mathematics. That would be like claiming all of religion is a religion. Completeness doesn't refer to a system with every conceivable axiom. Such a system would be immediately recognised as inconsistent. Instead,completeness refers to a system that can prove the truth or falsehood of every statement it can formulate.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The whole of mathematics isn't a system of mathematics. That would be like claiming all of religion is a religion. Completeness doesn't refer to a system with every conceivable axiom. Such a system would be immediately recognised as inconsistent. Instead,completeness refers to a system that can prove the truth or falsehood of every statement it can formulate.

a consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction

A theory is called COMPLETE, on the other hand, if of any two contradictry sentences formulated exclusively in terms of the theory under consideration (and the theories preceding it) at least one sentence can be proved in this theory. Of a sentence which has the property that its negation can be proved in a given theory, it is usually said that it can be DISPROVED in that theory . . . a theory is complete . . . if every sentence formualted in the terms of this theory can be proved or disproved in it", Tarski (1946 )Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences,135.

Either every sentence in mathematics can't be proved or if it can there is an inconsistency.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

a consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction

A theory is called COMPLETE, on the other hand, if of any two contradictry sentences formulated exclusively in terms of the theory under consideration (and the theories preceding it) at least one sentence can be proved in this theory. Of a sentence which has the property that its negation can be proved in a given theory, it is usually said that it can be DISPROVED in that theory . . . a theory is complete . . . if every sentence formualted in the terms of this theory can be proved or disproved in it", Tarski (1946 )Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences,135.

Either every sentence in mathematics can't be proved or if it can there is an inconsistency.

Again, by this standard religion is inconsistent.

lmaopml

God or Mathematics..lol...:pac: Daddy or Chips....

Therein lies the very relationship and true expression of how 'free' our will is - it's all tied up in the definition of what 'will' is and whether it is caused and whether it is 'coerced' and by what, and how free are we to move freely? Chemicals, and patterns? Do 'I' make or resist making the choice or am I coerced in some way..hmmm

The idea that any kind of true defineable knowledge can exist about freewill and it's 'reality' it's existence or no, ignores the fact that that knowledge is the modelling of reality by a brain that has only evolved to create such models and knowledge - so to imply that knowledge is only garnered one way or the other is in the realms of a physical phantasmagoria

Everybody loses.

Except me cause I'm greedy, I like my math and religion :P but I'm giving my freewill a daily exercise in the hopes that it will grow more muscles.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Again, by this standard religion is inconsistent.

Religion is about reason but has faith as well.

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

God or Mathematics..lol...:pac: Daddy or Chips....

Therein lies the very relationship and true expression of how 'free' our will is - it's all tied up in the definition of what 'will' is and whether it is caused and whether it is 'coerced' and by what, and how free are we to move freely? Chemicals, and patterns? Do 'I' make or resist making the choice or am I coerced in some way..hmmm

The idea that any kind of true defineable knowledge can exist about freewill and it's 'reality' it's existence or no, ignores the fact that that knowledge is the modelling of reality by a brain that has only evolved to create such models and knowledge - so to imply that knowledge is only garnered one way or the other is in the realms of a physical phantasmagoria

Everybody loses.

Except me cause I'm greedy, I like my math and religion :P but I'm giving my freewill a daily exercise in the hopes that it will grow more muscles.

Just think of your mind as a computer.

lmaopml

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Just think of your mind as a computer.

A fellow computer tells me, the sum of what 'I' am is a computer.

Should I believe this Computer's perception of itself firstly, and it's knowledge of all reality, considering it's only another computer? ...
....under the same influences and wiring....hmmnnn...coerced as it is by all the chemical mechanisms that make us reactionary junkies of sorts - living in a clouded dream, working out reality as best we can...

I wonder if it's running on the best processor......? or will there be another upgrade in the future..Is it possible to get an add on, or is the add on already present and that's what makes the 'person' as a whole not quite so sure of his computerhood? These are relevant questions...:pac:

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

A fellow computer tells me, the sum of what 'I' am is a computer.

Yes exactly, but for good reason.

lmaopml wrote: »

Should I believe this Computer's perception of itself firstly, and it's knowledge of all reality, considering it's only another computer? ...

You say it like it's a bad thing, why?

lmaopml wrote: »

....under the same influences and wiring....hmmnnn...coerced as it is by all the chemical mechanisms that make us reactionary junkies of sorts - living in a clouded dream, working out reality as best we can...

Now you're getting the picture. Acceptance is the first step.

lmaopml wrote: »

I wonder if it's running on the best processor......?

Nope the brain is a kludge, when you drink coffee in the morning to "wakeup" you're attempting to over-clock it(in a sense).

lmaopml wrote: »

or will there be another upgrade in the future..Is it possible to get an add on,

Inevitably yes barring catastrophe.

lmaopml wrote: »

or is the add on already present and that's what makes the 'person' as a whole not quite so sure of his computerhood? These are relevant questions...:pac:

Any add on should make you more aware of your computerhood or else it's a useless add on

lmaopml

Would I be expressing some free will and identity if I refuse to accept the justification and basis of your coercion as fully acceptable? It seems my freewill resides in this 'choice', makes me fully human with human spirit...

Like is resistance futile?

Is the 'reality' you are portraying only perceived through your own chemical mechanisms and therefor just your very own version? Do you need an upgrade?

Is there any point in asking questions about what makes a 'person' a 'person'?

From one Computer to another..lol..:)

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

Would I be expressing some free will and identity if I refuse to accept the justification and basis of your coercion as fully acceptable? It seems my freewill resides in this 'choice', makes me fully human with human spirit...

Yes but not contra causal free will. My coercion? Please clarify. You are fully human which implies you have a brain which is a computer and you have a spirit which is made up of little robots.

"Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." - Daniel Dennett.

lmaopml wrote: »

Like is resistance futile?

One is what one is, regardless of what one would like to be. Resistance to that is a very human cognitive bias.

lmaopml wrote: »

Is the 'reality' you are portraying only perceived through your own chemical mechanisms and therefor just your very own version? Do you need an upgrade?

Reality for me can only be perceived through my brain(same for you), but it's consistent with many other brains observations and my experiments on what they say, so that it's really a none issue.

lmaopml wrote: »

Is there any point in asking questions about what makes a 'person' a 'person'?

From one Computer to another..lol..:)

Ya but to expect some a mystic answer on what makes a person a person is doomed to disappointment.

To bring the argument down a different route.

What are peoples' thoughts on revelation and prophesy in relation to free will? If you manage to define a consistent system of God, omniscience and free will (which Morbert appears to have done) then how do the aforementioned factor into it?

Are revelation and prophesy violations of the free will God has supposedly given?

I myself can't seem to reconcile either with free will.

If an individual foretells an event that is to happen in the future, how can the interim between the prophesy and the event occuring not be defined (or predestined, whatever word you'd like to use)?

Likewise, wouldn't a direct communication between God and a human be inconsistent in the system that has been defined over the past few pages?

lmaopml

This is fun, it's like speaking with a Borg Cerebral Cortex

Who is Dennet and what software is he running? What chemicals are his addiction? What's his childhood trauma? Will people remember him in Oh 500 years?

I prefer the guy who said these things, he's more honest in approach and balanced....

A person starts to live when he can live outside himself


The important thing, is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existing

Now, I'm going to use my free will to move my ass and actually get some work done. Live long and prosper.

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

This is fun, it's like speaking with a Borg Cerebral Cortex

Offensive to say the least.

lmaopml wrote: »

Who is Dennet and what software is he running? What chemicals are his addiction? What's his childhood trauma? Will people remember him in Oh 500 years?

He's a leading philosopher and cognitive scientist.

lmaopml wrote: »

Now, I'm going to use my free will to move my ass and actually get some work done. Live long and prosper.

I hate Star Trek!

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

He's a leading philosopher and cognitive scientist.

He's also a committed atheist who wants atheists to be known as (I kid you not!) Brights.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

He's also a committed atheist who wants atheists to be known as (I kid you not!) Brights.

Sigh! I guess he's not perfect then. Still great at what he does though.

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

I prefer the guy who said these things, he's more honest in approach and balanced....

A person starts to live when he can live outside himself


The important thing, is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existing

Describes Dennett's behaviour quite well and seeing as Einstein said those things Dennett would probably agree.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

He's also a committed atheist who wants atheists to be known as (I kid you not!) Brights.

that is some what inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

that is some what inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

Ah yes I remember now the brights and the supers. The latter being a very accurate description.