Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[CliveStaples]

Actually I don't 'deny' god's existence, I simply don't believe he exists. I lack belief in god. Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

Do you act as though there's no God? If so, then under Pragmatism you do deny the existence of God.

It in no way demonstrates the existence of a god.

Now that's interesting. Care to explain?

Well if things can be explained without the need for a god and in which case would be more credible then that's that. A god isn't required to answer why or how. Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence. A does not prove B without first proving A.

Simples.

Almost none of that made sense.

"Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence"? So you can't even hypothetically consider what 'adding God into the equation' does until you've proved that God, in fact, exists?

"A does not prove B without first proving A." This makes zero sense to me. Do you mean that you need to know both "A is true" and "A implies B" in order to know "B is true"--that is, "A implies B" doesn't prove B unless you prove that A also holds?

[Ace Otana]

Do you act as though there's no God? If so, then under Pragmatism you do deny the existence of God.

How do you deny something you generally don't believe exists? I'm not denying anything. I've rejected the claim that a god exists, that's it. Of course I'm going to live as if there is no god, I've been living that way from as far back as I can remember.

Now that's interesting. Care to explain?

Well you tell me, how does a universe that had a beginning proves the existence of a god?

"Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence"? So you can't even hypothetically consider what 'adding God into the equation' does until you've proved that God, in fact, exists?

Did I say you can't be hypothetical of the idea of a god? No. However before it can be used to explain anything, you do need to establish that said being actually exists and then to go on to demonstrate that this being did in fact create the universe.

"A does not prove B without first proving A." This makes zero sense to me.

I'll make it easier for you. Let's say I asserted that pixies created the universe, it's essentially a non-answer. I haven't demonstrated that pixies even exist yet, let alone demonstrated that they were responsible for the universe. So just like god, you must first demonstrate that this god actually exists before you can use it to suggest or support the claim that he/it created the universe. A does not prove B without first proving A. Or X does not prove Y if you have not demonstrated X to begin with.

If you will, a house without a foundation.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Actually I don't 'deny' god's existence, I simply don't believe he exists. I lack belief in god. Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

Do you act as though there's no God? If so, then under Pragmatism you do deny the existence of God.

Lovely bit of semantic prestidigitation there. Has anyone here claimed to subscribe to your straw man of Pragmatism?

I just love asswipe armchair philosophers.

It in no way demonstrates the existence of a god.

Now that's interesting. Care to explain?

Pretty self-explanatory. Except for willfully ignorant retards.

Well if things can be explained without the need for a god and in which case would be more credible then that's that. A god isn't required to answer why or how. Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence. A does not prove B without first proving A.

Simples.

Almost none of that made sense.

To you, anyway -- but that is the product of your own willful ignorance.
[quoye]
"Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence"? So you can't even hypothetically consider what 'adding God into the equation' does until you've proved that God, in fact, exists?[/quote]

Correct.

[quite]"A does not prove B without first proving A." This makes zero sense to me. [/quote]

Fallacious appeal to personpersonal incredulity. You simply refuse to accept reality.

Do you mean that you need to know both "A is true" and "A implies B" in order to know "B is true"--that is, "A implies B" doesn't prove B unless you prove that A also holds?

It means d that if you cannot demonstrate that A is true, your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff here. No surprise that it is foreign to you.

[Skepsis]

Actually I don't 'deny' god's existence, I simply don't believe he exists. I lack belief in god. Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

Do you act as though there's no God? If so, then under Pragmatism you do deny the existence of God.

Under pragmatism you deny the existene of my pet dragon (that will eat your brain in 5 years and you can only stop it by posting 3 times a day, "Skepsis is a total bossmonster badass unmatched by any").

But I'm sure you wouldn't deny my precious dragon, now would you? and certainly you won't "deny" his existence? After all, he speaks to me. I know he will eat... whatever brains you have.

[CliveStaples]

How do you deny something you generally don't believe exists? I'm not denying anything. I've rejected the claim that a god exists, that's it. Of course I'm going to live as if there is no god, I've been living that way from as far back as I can remember.

I feel like you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I didn't say that you're denying anything. I said that under Pragmatism, which is something like "Action is belief", you functionally deny the existence of God.

Let's put it another way. Suppose there was a pill that would kill you if a god exists, but makes you live for as long as you wish if no gods exist. Would you take it?

Well you tell me, how does a universe that had a beginning proves the existence of a god?

Uh, burden of proof. You're the one who made the claim. Support or retract.

Did I say you can't be hypothetical of the idea of a god? No. However before it can be used to explain anything, you do need to establish that said being actually exists and then to go on to demonstrate that this being did in fact create the universe.

Okay, I think it was just a miscommunication about what "adding God to the equation" amounts to. I don't really care about prolonging that semantic argument.

It seems like you're failing to account for certain circumstances. What if the only available explanations all include God's existence? What if most of the available explanations include God's existence? What if the most likely explanation includes God's existence?

You'd just totally ignore all of those explanations until it was separately and independently established that God exists?

I'll make it easier for you. Let's say I asserted that pixies created the universe, it's essentially a non-answer. I haven't demonstrated that pixies even exist yet, let alone demonstrated that they were responsible for the universe. So just like god, you must first demonstrate that this god actually exists before you can use it to suggest or support the claim that he/it created the universe. A does not prove B without first proving A. Or X does not prove Y if you have not demonstrated X to begin with.

If you will, a house without a foundation.

You...are really bad at explanations. You literally repeated your sentence changing A to X and B to Y. Wow.

I think you're saying something like:

"Pixies created the universe" is really "Pixies exist, and created the universe." So any proof that pixies created the universe must prove along the way that pixies exist.


Is that a good characterization of your argument?

[Ace Otana]

I didn't say that you're denying anything. I said that under Pragmatism, which is something like "Action is belief"

Except I LACK belief, I'm not acting on any 'belief'. No denial, No claim made, no belief.

Uh, burden of proof.

Nice try, but you're the one claiming there's a god, and that he created the universe. The burden of proof is on you.

What if the only available explanations all include God's existence? What if most of the available explanations include God's existence? What if the most likely explanation includes God's existence? You'd just totally ignore all of those explanations until it was separately and independently established that God exists?

Yep. The existence of a god or gods must first be established. Otherwise I'll stick to the - don't know, answer. Any fictional character can be used to explain everything as much as your imaginary friend (god).

"Pixies created the universe" is really "Pixies exist, and created the universe." So any proof that pixies created the universe must prove along the way that pixies exist.

How does that make any sense? How can you have proof that pixies created the universe if you have not yet demonstrated that pixies even exist? That's total theistic nonsense.

[CliveStaples]

Except I LACK belief, I'm not acting on any 'belief'. No denial. No claim made, no belief, no denial.

Oh, my good lord. Is this a bit? This has to be a bit. Excellent trolling.


In case you've actually gone full retard, if your actions are no different than they would be if you believed that no gods exist, then functionally you deny that gods exist.

I'm not saying that you affirm the belief "No gods exist". I'm saying that from a Pragmatist, functional point of view, you would be considered to have 'affirmed' (in a different, Pragmatist/functional sense) that belief.

Nice try, but you're the one claiming there's a god, and that he created the universe. The burden of proof is on you.

I didn't claim any of that. Do I need to repost all of my contributions to this thread? Go through line-by-line so you can see that I never claimed that there's a god, or that he created the universe?

You said that a certain proposition "in no way demonstrates the existence of a god". I am asking you to support this claim. Are you unable to do so?

Yep. The existence of a god or gods must first be established. Otherwise I'll stick to the - don't know, answer. Any fictional character can be used to explain everything as much as your imaginary friend (god).

Now you're just ignoring the hypothetical.

Suppose there was an observed phenomena, for which the best explanation was the existence of the Christian God, and the non-existence of all other deities. Wouldn't this tend to show that the Christian God exists?

NB: this is essentially what the proof of the Higgs boson amounts to, at this point. We have a bunch of observations that are best explained by something like the Higgs boson.

How does that make any sense? How can you have proof that pixies created the universe if you have not yet demonstrated that pixies even exist? That's total theistic nonsense.

Uh, what? "Have not yet demonstrated"? Are you that incapable of reading:

So any proof that pixies created the universe must prove along the way that pixies exist.

That is, as you're reading through the proof, before you get to the "Pixies created the universe" conclusion, you will necessarily have to see a (sub-)proof with the conclusion "Pixies exist".

[Epimethean]

Two questions, Clive.

1) Does your reasoning disallow agnosticism due to "functionality?"
2) What is the faith status of those who believe in gods other than yours, or who have never known the concept of "god?"

[CliveStaples]

Lovely bit of semantic prestidigitation there. Has anyone here claimed to subscribe to your straw man of Pragmatism?

I just love asswipe armchair philosophers.

Guilty to 'armchair philosopher'. Probably guilty to 'asswipe' as well.

But in my defense, I wasn't trying to contradict him. I was just bringing up a different take on what it means to affirm or deny a belief; pragmatists look at it more functionally, that beliefs are really just those things that you act on (to my understanding).

Now, maybe I've got Pragmatism all wrong, or maybe I've got it right but Pragmatism is dumb and not worth thinking about. But I think it's an interesting philosophy (one of the only American contributions to the field), and I thought maybe other people would be interested too.

Pretty self-explanatory. Except for willfully ignorant retards.

Well, I'm certainly ignorant as to the proof of his statement. If I knew the proof, and if it were a valid, sound proof, then I'd have good reason to reject things like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

Of course, I don't feel like I have any strongly compelling reasons to accept the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, but it would be nice to get off the fence about it.

Correct.

That's just intellectual incuriousity. Refusing to even consider the existence of God hypothetically (for the purposes of explanations) is only justified if it is known that God doesn't exist with 100% certainty. To my knowledge, no such proof of God's non-existence has been given.

Fallacious appeal to personal incredulity. You simply refuse to accept reality.

Nah, it's more of a semantic quibble about "proof". I can prove "A implies B" without proving that A is actually true; some people might call say that this shows that "A proves B" in the sense that "A, if true, necessitates that B is true".

But he probably said "A proves B" to mean a sound argument that concludes with "B is true".

It means d that if you cannot demonstrate that A is true, your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff here. No surprise that it is foreign to you.

Technically, it would mean it isn't sound. The following argument is valid, even though its first premise is false:

1) If I am in Germany, I am in Texas.
2) I am in Germany.
3) Therefore, I am in Texas.

---

Two questions, Clive.

1) Does your reasoning disallow agnosticism due to "functionality?"
2) What is the faith status of those who believe in gods other than yours, or who have never known the concept of "god?"

1) Well, I don't know that I'd call it "my" reasoning, since I don't think of myself as a Pragmatist. I think an agnostic in my hypothetical pill scenario would refuse to take the pill, or would otherwise bear out his indeterminacy in his actions.

2) Not sure what you mean by "faith status". Do you mean whether I consider them theists, weak atheists, strong atheists, or agnostics? Anyone who acts on a belief that some god exists is functionally a theist. They don't have to think of it as "god"; they don't have to conceive of it in the same way that I do. I'm not sure if there's a sharp delineation there.

[Ace Otana]

Oh, my good lord. Is this a bit? This has to be a bit. Excellent trolling.

Feeling's mutual.

In case you've actually gone full retard,

I already think you're a retard.

if your actions are no different than they would be if you believed that no gods exist, then functionally you deny that gods exist.

Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

I'm not saying that you affirm the belief "No gods exist". I'm saying that from a Pragmatist, functional point of view, you would be considered to have 'affirmed' (in a different, Pragmatist/functional sense) that belief.

So I'm acting on a belief, which I lack and deny the existence of a god that I don't believe exists?

Oookk.........

Whatever floats your boat.

You said that a certain proposition "in no way demonstrates the existence of a god". I am asking you to support this claim. Are you unable to do so?

Alright, I state that it doesn't demonstrate the existence of god seeing as that argument can be applied to anything. Replace 'god' with any fictional character and it'll be as likely a non-explanation as 'god'. Now I'm actually expecting a theist to give reasons as to why and how it demonstrates that a god does exist. Got any?

Suppose there was an observed phenomena, for which the best explanation was the existence of the Christian God, and the non-existence of all other deities. Wouldn't this tend to show that the Christian God exists?

It'll raise questions and eyebrows but it wouldn't prove the existence of god (or your xtian god). I'd still keep to the don't know answer.

Uh, what? "Have not yet demonstrated"? Are you that incapable of reading:


That is, as you're reading through the proof, before you get to the "Pixies created the universe" conclusion, you will necessarily have to see a (sub-)proof with the conclusion "Pixies exist".

It's a standard to first demonstrate that pixies (or in your case 'god') exists before it can be used to explain anything. It's a basic principle.