RE: Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?
December 19, 2016 at 7:33 am
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2016 at 7:38 am by Ignorant.)
(December 19, 2016 at 6:58 am)robvalue Wrote: So you've just married existence with God, by definition. [1] So all you're really saying is that if something exists, something exists. [2] If nothing exists, nothing exists. That's a tautology, and you've added nothing to it by assuming God to be necessary and interchangable with existence. [3]
To be useful, it needs to be falsifiable in a way we can somehow test. [4] I can't run a test to see if stuff exists. Obviously, it does, if I'm even here to run the test. So it can't be falsified. [5]
1) Right. That is what we say. God is existence, itself. God is his own existence, etc.
2) No, I am saying that if something exists, then existence itself must exist. If nothing exists, then existence itself doesn't exist.
3) God's necessity isn't an assumption. The reality of "necessary being" is a conclusion drawn from the datum of existence. You can disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't mean my conclusion is an assumption. The existence of being-itself is a conclusion drawn from the things we directly observe to exist. Being-itself, on the same logic that leads to that conclusion, is false only if nothing at all exists. It doesn't seem that controversial.
4) I dunno. The mere logical consistency seems to be enough. If I say that all cars have doors, that proposition is falsifiable in principle simply by the concept of a car that doesn't have doors. In principle, if you observed a car that did not have doors, you will have succeeded in demonstrating the proposition false. There is a difference in falsifiability (the principle abstract concept upon which a proposition is proved false) and the demonstration of falsity (the concrete evidence of the principle abstract concept which contradicts the proposition).
5) It could be falsified in principle if nothing existed. It can't be falsified (in fact) because of the obvious fact that some things evidently exist. It is the easiest possible experiment.
(December 19, 2016 at 6:52 am)Jesster Wrote: I am the creator goddess, and that is also falsifiable. [1]
If nothing exists, then I am false (since I am a necessary being). [2]
Logic at its finest!
1) How so? How is the proposition: "I am the creator goddess" falsifiable? Even if some thing exist, that has nothing to do with your claim to BE the creator goddess.
2) IF you are in fact the creator goddess, then that is true.
