Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I took one look at it and .... nope.

A trap of sophistry into which I will not be drawn.

My position: God cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand proof,period.

[Gambit]

Right, maybe I'm missing something here but the answers are: It seems not - It seems so - I can't say. To me, those answers are leading. For instance, "It seems not", is not "No, it cannot/isn't". "It seems so", is not, "Yes it is". And "I can't say", is, "It's possible, but I don't know either way". There aren't enough responses and room to elaborate for the survey to draw truly logical conclusions. Am I just having a brain fart here?

Clive, I tried to find the video but couldn't. Anyway, off to bed, I'll read your responses tomorrow.

EDIT: Even if most atheists arrived at the answer that yes, an Necessary being exists, all that proves is that they're responding to questions in a particular way because they can't know the answers. As Padraic pointed out, that simply points to a lack of evidence. All the exercise shows is that people can explore a path of "what ifs", however, still dismiss a thing due to lack of verifiable evidence.

[Cyberman]

---

I would like to know a little about this survey. For example, is it an actual survey or one of those logical convolution tests akin to the FB ones I mentioned? The reason I ask is that genuine surveys usually give information about their purpose, who is gathering the data etc. I see no such here, which is one of the alarm bells that initially triggered my automatic Ackbar.

---

Here's one of the culprits.

Ah - a Necessary Nonentity.

Courtesy of Rasmussen's CV: “From a Necessary Being to God,” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion (2009). Oh yes, definitely no bias here.

[CliveStaples]

Whoever wrote this survey needs to do a little research into leading questions.

What do you mean? These questions aren't 'leading' in the sense that they indicate a preferred response; they are 'leading' in the sense that they have a basic "yes/no/I don't know" response format. Most surveys don't ask open-ended questions, because the answers are much harder to quantify.

---

A trap of sophistry into which I will not be drawn.

My position: God cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand proof,period.

...so you'll ignore logical proof?

---

Right, maybe I'm missing something here but the answers are: It seems not - It seems so - I can't say. To me, those answers are leading. For instance, "It seems not", is not "No, it cannot/isn't". "It seems so", is not, "Yes it is". And "I can't say", is, "It's possible, but I don't know either way". There aren't enough responses and room to elaborate for the survey to draw truly logical conclusions. Am I just having a brain fart here?

I don't want to be insulting, but I think you are. In this context, "I can't say" means "I do not grant that this is true, nor do I grant that this is false". "It seems so" doesn't mean "I think it absolutely must be true", but something more like, "Yeah, that seems reasonable."

EDIT: Even if most atheists arrived at the answer that yes, an Necessary being exists, all that proves is that they're responding to questions in a particular way because they can't know the answers. As Padraic pointed out, that simply points to a lack of evidence. All the exercise shows is that people can explore a path of "what ifs", however, still dismiss a thing due to lack of verifiable evidence.

This seems to ignore the implication of their beliefs; if the implication of "I don't know" to A, B, and C, and "Yeah, it seems so" to X, Y, and Z, is that "A necessary being exists", you can't just say, "But I said I didn't know A, B, and C, so you can't conclude that a necessary being exists!" You're ignoring what a proof is.

---

Ah - a Necessary Nonentity.

Courtesy of Rasmussen's CV: “From a Necessary Being to God,” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion (2009). Oh yes, definitely no bias here.

Bias? The only arguments that are offered are based purely on logic. Where's the bias?

[Cyberman]

The bias to which I was referring concerned the connection between Rasmussen's 'survey' and his published article - in fact, he couldn't have been more obvious if he'd put up a sign saying "Today a Necessary Being; Tomorrow a God!!!" - but since you want me to hold your hand:

You open by asking (generally though obviously not exclusively) atheists "Do your beliefs imply a Necessary Being exists?" Rasmussen's article clearly delineates the direction the phrase Necessary Being is intended to flow. Atheists by definition have no belief in the existence of god or gods and certainly not God. Thus your question can be amended to "Do your beliefs imply that an entity that can be defined in such a way as to open the door for God to be defined into existence, as per Rasmussen's article?" Knowingly or not, intentionally or not, you are engaging in definitional sleight of hand. I don't play those games.

[CliveStaples]

The bias to which I was referring concerned the connection between Rasmussen's 'survey' and his published article - in fact, he couldn't have been more obvious if he'd put up a sign saying "Today a Necessary Being; Tomorrow a God!!!" - but since you want me to hold your hand:

You open by asking (generally though obviously not exclusively) atheists "Do your beliefs imply a Necessary Being exists?" Rasmussen's article clearly delineates the direction the phrase Necessary Being is intended to flow. Atheists by definition have no belief in the existence of god or gods and certainly not God. Thus your question can be amended to "Do your beliefs imply that an entity that can be defined in such a way as to open the door for God to be defined into existence, as per Rasmussen's article?" Knowingly or not, intentionally or not, you are engaging in definitional sleight of hand. I don't play those games.

The definition of Necessary Being is given. What further arguments Rasmussen has regarding Necessary Beings, I don't know; I haven't looked at them. Have you? Have you analyzed their validity and soundness?

But I'm not playing definitional 'sleight of hand'. Whether your beliefs entail the existence of a Necessary Being is a matter of logic, not "sleight of hand".

I'm not sure on what you think the deception is. Do you think that this survey will say that your beliefs (or a subset of them) entail the existence of a Necessary Being when, in fact, your beliefs (or any subset of them) do not?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

...so you'll ignore logical proof?

Ignore? Of course not. A logical inference implies truth, but does not necessarily establish truth. Such inferences need to be pursued in the search for supporting evidence.

You claim to have studied logic.In that case you should be acutely aware logic guarantees truth if and only if the premise can be proved to be true. In daily life, and in matters metaphysical 'proof' 'means 'empirical evidence' to me.

That an assertion such as the existence of God cannot be proved [or disproved] is not my problem. All that it means is that I am unable to believe. At best, I am able to speak of likelihood.Based on the lack of any credible evidence,the best I am able to say is the existence of god is unlikely. (on Dawkins' scale of 7, a 6.9 against)


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PS everything now loading properly.

[CliveStaples]

Unless supported by credible evidence, of course.

You claim to have studies logic.In that case you should be acutely aware logic guarantees truth if and only if the premise can be proved to be true. In daily life, and in matters metaphysical 'proof' 'means 'empirical evidence' to me.

That an assertion such as the existence of God cannot be proved [or disproved] is not my problem. All that means is that I am unable to believe. At best, I am able to speak of likelihood.Based on the lack of any credible evidence,the best I am able to say is the existence of god is unlikely. (on Dawkins' scale of 7, a 6.9 against)


0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PS everything now loading properly.

Do you need "empirical evidence" to believe the quadratic formula?

[Jackalope]

Do you need "empirical evidence" to believe the quadratic formula?

Are you aware of why it's foolish to conflate logical argument and mathematical proof?

[Cyberman]

Rasmussen makes it quite clear what he means by Essential Being, whether by definition or logical gymnastics makes no difference.

I've played this survey, several times. I can make it come out each of the three ways merely by picking options at random. None of this maps onto anything tangible and I'm not interested in logic for logic's sake. I do enjoy logical problem solving for fun, however, the difference being I know for a fact I'm not expected to pretend they're referring to anything real.

And for the final time, I have no beliefs regarding gods and related detritus. Necessary Beings are a wasted concept on me.