(January 20, 2012 at 11:59 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(January 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm)a moment Wrote: This also supports the argument that atheism cannot be based on scientific foundations; it is rather based on philosophical ones.

I can't see any reason to base atheism on anything whatsoever. I don't need to make any case in order to reject God. Lots of things are claimed by lots of people, but I'm not required to believe any of it unless I can show they are mistaken. I merely don't adopt belief in any claim for which no case can be made which convinces me. I reject your God along with the rest because I find all the evidence I've been subjected to unconvincing. I have no problem with your believing in your god if you do. Perhaps you've been convinced. But I haven't.

(January 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm)a moment Wrote: What you said means you didn’t base your choice of atheism on scientific basis but on logical ones, in my argument I proved that atheism can’t be based on science, and so far no one refuted that.

Perhaps you did. But since atheism requires no argument, what of it? I'll go you one better and concede that science also cannot be used to support a belief in God .. nor prove that God does not exist. Science just isn't really about gods since, so far, no one has been able to detect or measure one. As has already been said, absence of evidence certainly is not evidence of absence. So I have nothing to say against you believing what you will. I don't think you're foolish. I just assume the axiom of God's existence goes so deep in you that it isn't in play for you. That's okay. You've got this one life. If that makes the most sense to you, go for it.

(January 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm)a moment Wrote: Logically, there is a creator for every created, nothing creates itself, which makes belief in god more reasonable than atheism. This is simple logic.

Yes there is a creator for everything that has been created .. watches, automobiles and so on. But it doesn't follow that nothing creates itself. All that follows from the first sentence would be "nothing that has been created creates itself. If you look at how once an egg has been fertilized, indeed the animal does assemble itself according to the plans contained in its DNA. This is nothing short of miraculous when you think about it. Perhaps wondrous is the better word because it clearly happens all by itself. The parent doesn't do it. No one has witnessed God reach into every fertilized egg and assemble the animal. No the materials within the egg are literally assembled by themselves. Can you tell that I am in awe of this fact? If someone told me that an army of Tinkerbells sent by God went around assembling each each creature by magic I would be a good deal less impressed.

(January 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm)a moment Wrote: .. on what logic did you base your disbelief in the possibility of god‘s existence?

Not sure what the person you asked thought, but I don't think god's existence is impossible. I, like lots of people on this site, am agnostic on that question. If you hear anything new and impressive please keep us posted. I just haven' been impressed by anything I've heard so far. I try to keep an open mind.

Fixed. Close quote tag.

[quote='KichigaiNeko' pid='230328' dateline='1327118571']
Why thank you kind lady. I went back and fixed it too. I used an open quote in place of an close quote. I wondered why I couldn't see my post.

(January 21, 2012 at 12:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Why thank you kind lady. I went back and fixed it too. I used an open quote in place of an close quote. I wondered why I couldn't see my post.

I wanted to see what you said and I can only do that IF I reply...I always get caught on the Closure quote tags too... gets quite annoying

(January 19, 2012 at 2:23 am)Perhaps Wrote: As has been stated many times, atheism is simply a statement of disbelief, but I will appreciate the fact that most atheists do support their disbelief with the use of tools such as science and logic.

To believe in something, in regards to ontological existence, without evidence is illogical, but it does not determine the epistemological value of the belief. The term, Modus ponens, comes to mind when I think about things such as this. The term translates from Latin to mean "the way that affirms by affirming" and is integral in the use of logic (the process of applying reason). All logic is based on knowledge which, of course, is subjective and very specifically temporal. An example of Modus ponens is as follows:

Wiki Wrote:If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, John will go to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

This aspect of logic is used to both explain the existence of God, and to disprove the existence of God by means of evidence of absence. Most individuals understand that this is a leap of logic which is perpetually without ground, and thus they revert to evidence or science.

As was stated earlier, science is the study of all that exists. Genakus gave a very impressive discussion related to the material existence of objects, as well as their ontological existence via material objects. To say that science could not understand or verify the existence of something which exists - even if it is non-physical in nature - is to create a secondary definition of science. We can scientifically verify the ontological existence of things which exist in a non-material world (ie. thoughts, emotions, etc.), but where science runs into a wall is when it predicts things which have not been experienced.

Science has the ability to verify existence, but that does not mean that it knows everything which exists. To say so, is to commit Modus ponens in the worst case, or express human arrogance in the best case.

To simplify the above: One commits a logical error by using evidence of absence as 'proof' of non-existence. One also commits a logical error by stating that sciences determines the existence of everything. It is illogical to believe in something without evidence, which is why most atheists support their disbelief by the use of logic - stating that they prefer the side with the most evidence (a logical thing to do), but it is illogical for them to state that God does not exist, as they are making an illogical statement and asserting that all existence is known. Agnosticism is the logical standpoint at the end of the day.

Lastly, metaphysics really has nothing to do with the non-material world. It is a branch in philosophy which examines other sub branches such as ontology, necessity/probability, identity, modality, causation, time and space, material objects, and free will/determinism. Metaphysics is the base of physics, which is the study of the physical world. A more appropriate term for the study of the non-material world would probably be dualism with a concentration on the non-material.

Excellent points all. You are quite good at this. I admire how simply you can say what you do without loss of precision.

(January 17, 2012 at 11:26 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(January 17, 2012 at 8:09 am)houseofcantor Wrote:

(January 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm)a moment Wrote: Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position

Fail.

Well, considering the fact that failing to believe in God/god or gods is an unfalsifiable position, it really is unscientific but what of it? Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.

I have used the scientific method to prove Gwyneth Paltrow is god, but nobody has to believe it. Ergo, fail.

It's the eyes that get you isn't it house??

(January 19, 2012 at 2:23 am)Perhaps Wrote: An example of modus ponens is as follows ...[snip example]... This aspect of logic is used to both explain the existence of God, and to disprove the existence of God by means of evidence of absence.

Please provide a modus ponens argument that disproves the existence of God by means of evidence of absence.

(January 19, 2012 at 2:23 am)Perhaps Wrote: We can scientifically verify ...

No, we cannot. Science is not in the verification business. (Consider the problem of confirmation bias.) With regard to the criterion of demarcation, a proposition or hypothesis is a matter of ordinary science to the extent that it is falsifiable in the main and at least in principle. As Kuhn might say, this is the currently accepted paradigm of the scientific community.

Moreover, the existence of some x is a matter of metaphysics, specifically ontology, not a matter of science. And some things exist which are not, and cannot be, a matter of scientific inquiry; for example, the law of noncontradiction, which is normative and a priori knowledge.

(January 22, 2012 at 3:41 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: It's the eyes that get you isn't it house??

Well, over a hundred portraits; staring into her eyes for something like sixteen thousand hours? Yeah, I'm gone. Do not resuscitate.

(January 22, 2012 at 5:33 am)Ryft Wrote: Please provide a modus ponens argument that disproves the existence of God by means of evidence of absence.

If there is no evidence to verify God's existence then God does not exist
There is no evidence to verify God's existence
Therefore God does not exist

(January 22, 2012 at 5:33 am)Ryft Wrote: No, we cannot. Science is not in the verification business. (Consider the problem of confirmation bias.) With regard to the criterion of demarcation, a proposition or hypothesis is a matter of ordinary science to the extent that it is falsifiable in the main and at least in principle. As Kuhn might say, this is the currently accepted paradigm of the scientific community.

Moreover, the existence of some x is a matter of metaphysics, specifically ontology, not a matter of science. And some things exist which are not, and cannot be, a matter of scientific inquiry; for example, the law of noncontradiction, which is normative and a priori knowledge.

Sciences is a posteriori. It verifies contingencies (i.e. existence) as to determine their truth value. A priori knowledge has no truth value past the person who believes them to be either true or false.

I could say that applesauce is mushroom and claim a priori reasoning. That doesn't mean it's true.

To say logic produces truth, or specifically that the law of noncontradiction is true, is simply to state a belief (most likely based on utility).

To make a claim of absolute truth is to assert human arrogance.

(January 23, 2012 at 12:39 am)Perhaps Wrote: A priori knowledge has no truth value past the person who believes them to be either true or false.

Is that true?