Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[Tiberius]

Well, the problem is that reasoning depends on assumptions concerning how numbers work and those assumptions may or may not actually apply in the real world.

So, for example, if you take 1 quart of water and add it to one quart of alcohol (ethanol), you will NOT get 2 quarts of the mixture. The simple 1+1=2 does not apply in this case.

That is also clearly not adding two things that are equal.

Nothing is undeniable. it is *always* possible you misinterpreted, or that you overlooked some logical possibility, or that some assumptions don't actually hold in the real world, or even that you are a brain in a vat and all is an illusion.

True, but do you live your life under the assumption that you are a brain in a vat? I don't think so. If the evidence overwhelmingly points towards a particular conclusion, then we should follow it.

That said, i agree that the *quality* of the evidence for deities is a lot lower than the quality of the evidence for, say, dark matter. One big issue is even defining what it means to be a 'deity' in some objective way.

Glad we agree there.

 

[Tiberius]

So it's true, you do believe that no one actually believes in God.

The quintessential atheist.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I believe that there are people who believe there is a God, I believe there are people who are so utterly convinced of it that they bet their lives on it. Sadly, there have been cases where people have been executed for not denying their faith. They knew they would die if they didn't denounce their faith, and they were so convinced of their faith that they were willing to sacrifice their lives.

I do not doubt they were utterly and totally convinced. What I am saying is that the evidence that these people had was insufficient for them to have reached that level of certainty. However, that did not stop them from reaching their position, because Humans tend to be irrational at times.

There are people who are as certain of their god's existence as I am certain that I am sitting in a chair right now. However, the evidence for their God is far weaker than the evidence for me sitting in a chair, so their belief is far less justified. But like I said, humans are often irrational.

 

[Willamena]

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I believe that there are people who believe there is a God, I believe there are people who are so utterly convinced of it that they bet their lives on it. Sadly, there have been cases where people have been executed for not denying their faith. They knew they would die if they didn't denounce their faith, and they were so convinced of their faith that they were willing to sacrifice their lives.

I do not doubt they were utterly and totally convinced. What I am saying is that the evidence that these people had was insufficient for them to have reached that level of certainty. However, that did not stop them from reaching their position, because Humans tend to be irrational at times.

There are people who are as certain of their god's existence as I am certain that I am sitting in a chair right now. However, the evidence for their God is far weaker than the evidence for me sitting in a chair, so their belief is far less justified. But like I said, humans are often irrational.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just in mine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What does that mean in real terms? Where is God in external reality?

Because if God doesn't have objective existence then God exists only as a concept ─ and there'll be at least as many different concepts around that word as there are brains holding that concept.

If I think I've found a real god, what real test will confirm to me that it's God?
That equates God with physics. Why not just say 'Physics'?

God is what underlies physics; he is the source of physics; he is the author of the laws of the universe.

He is more than a concept, and can be perceived/sensed. Perhaps not by all, and perhaps not all the time. But nonetheless.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course, in the other thread, you were arguing that God is the thing that commanded you to circumcize your children as part of a covenant you made with him.

I don't see a whole lot of correspondence between that and the God you describe here, that has no hint of intelligence, communication ability, or the capacity to enter into agreements.

I'm a Jew, and I believe in the God of the People of Israel as taught in the Torah.

But can the finite fathom the infinite? We all perceive God in part. I accept that others are going to perceive certain aspects of God in error because they are only getting part of the story. It doesn't mean they don't perceive God. I refer you to the story of the Blind men and the elephant. So I draw a pretty big circle for those who believe in God.

Hope that helps you understand.

 

[Polymath257]

That is also clearly not adding two things that are equal.

Equal in what way? The equal volumes do not add up.

One problem is that *no* two different things are ever exactly equal. So it becomes a matter of observation and testing to determine when the formal mathematics applies to reality.

True, but do you live your life under the assumption that you are a brain in a vat? I don't think so.

Only when drinking with philosophers.

If the evidence overwhelmingly points towards a particular conclusion, then we should follow it.

Glad we agree there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm a Jew, and I believe in the God of the People of Israel as taught in the Torah.

But can the finite fathom the infinite? We all perceive God in part. I accept that others are going to perceive certain aspects of God in error because they are only getting part of the story. It doesn't mean they don't perceive God. I refer you to the story of the Blind men and the elephant. So I draw a pretty big circle for those who believe in God.

Hope that helps you understand.

Not at all.

 

[Augustus]

Well, you either misquoted, or did not.
Which is it?

It wasn't me she was addressing, it was the OP. Fortunately, I believe she put me on ignore a long time ago.

Nothing there even faintly resembling
your fantasy-atheist of post 205.

You seem to have got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

To clarify:

1. The word atheism is polysemic thus has multiple definitions in common usage
2. For various reasons, different people prefer different definitions, but none of them are the One True Meaning.
3. Some atheists seem to operate under the assumption that their subjective preference for one of these definitions is actually an objective fact, and that people using any of the other common usages are 'wrong', or 'misquoting' and are also mendacious for doing so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. The word atheism is polysemic thus has multiple definitions in common usage
2. For various reasons, different people prefer different definitions, but none of them are the One True Meaning.
3. Some atheists seem to operate under the assumption that their subjective preference for one of these definitions is actually an objective fact, and that people using any of the other common usages are 'wrong', or 'misquoting' and are also mendacious for doing so.

That's a misrepresentation.

Interesting thing about polysemic words: all of the established definitions are valid. When it comes to the word atheism, we have two sides:

- one that uses a definition that recognizes anyone who meets any modern sense of the word "atheist" as an atheist.

- one who rejects certain established definitions to leave out large swaths of what "atheist" means.

When someone says that anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist, their definition also includes those atheists who explicitly reject belief in gods.

OTOH, people who insist on using only the "rejection" definition are the ones ignoring the polysemic nature of the word.

 

[lukethethird]

I do not consider that a mess. If I really believe in God sacrifices are part of the deal. I cannot be selfish and live only for myself, but if I did I would be a hypocrite because that is not what my religion teaches.

You need a religion to tell you not to be selfish, why, what's the matter with you?

 

[blü 2]

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Your statement was:

It can be proven that 1+1=2 in such a way that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion.
​

Your phrasing suggests that the formal system of mathematics always applies; but it doesn't always apply. There are real situations, such as the 1.5 pint water container, where 1+1≠2.

And are you assuming that I'd just miss the half pint of water that is spilling all over the place?

As I said before, you can only require the extra half pint to be taken into account if formal maths apply. Out there in the real world, the fact is that you've poured 1 pint and 1 pint and ended up with 1.5 pints and not 2.

 

[Augustus]

Interesting thing about polysemic words: all of the established definitions are valid.

Excellent, so we must agree that someone who clarifies they are using a word according to an established definition is not 'wrong'.

OTOH, people who insist on using only the "rejection" definition are the ones ignoring the polysemic nature of the word.

Only if they also state that other definitions are objectively 'wrong'.

People can use whichever definition floats their boat, they are not obliged to use all definitions at all times. The OP clarified how he wanted to use the term.

 

[Trailblazer]

You need a religion to tell you not to be selfish, why, what's the matter with you?

I did not say I need a religion in order not to be selfish.
I said my religion teaches me not to be selfish.

One can be selfish if they have nobody to answer to but themselves but one cannot be selfish if they believe in God unless they are a hypocrite. That was my point.

 

[Tiberius]

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just in mine.

Well, when you said, "So it's true, you do believe that no one actually believes in God," it sure sounded like you were putting words in my mouth.

 

[Tiberius]

Equal in what way? The equal volumes do not add up.

I know. Please read what I wrote again. "That is also clearly not adding two things that are equal."

One problem is that *no* two different things are ever exactly equal. So it becomes a matter of observation and testing to determine when the formal mathematics applies to reality.

Technically, you are correct.

Technically, if I go to kiss a beautiful woman, my lips get closer and closer to hers, but never actually touch.

But I get close enough for all intents and purposes.

 

[Tiberius]

Your statement was:

It can be proven that 1+1=2 in such a way that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion.
​

Your phrasing suggests that the formal system of mathematics always applies; but it doesn't always apply. There are real situations, such as the 1.5 pint water container, where 1+1≠2.

And as I said, if you have 1 pint in the 1.5 pint container, and then add another pint, the second half of that second pint just spills over the side - you aren't actually adding it.

As I said before, you can only require the extra half pint to be taken into account if formal maths apply. Out there in the real world, the fact is that you've poured 1 pint and 1 pint and ended up with 1.5 pints and not 2.

I'm not talking about how much was poured, I'm talking about how much was added to the container. Once the container is full, no more can be added. So any more that I pour is not being added, it's being wasted. So I am not putting in one pint, and then adding another pint. I am putting in one pint, then adding another half pint, and then wasting the rest of the second pint.

 

[Tiberius]

The two above definitions are so similar that the terms are basically interchangeable. This is why I used the word "belief" with the concept of atheism.

I don't see them as being very similar at all.

 

[blü 2]

I'm not talking about how much was poured, I'm talking about how much was added to the container.

1+1=1.5.

Using real world addition, not formal arithmetic ─ as I said.

 

[blü 2]

God is what underlies physics; he is the source of physics; he is the author of the laws of the universe.

If that's intended as an accurate statement about reality, on the basis of what evidence acceptable to physics do you make it?

He is more than a concept, and can be perceived/sensed. Perhaps not by all, and perhaps not all the time. But nonetheless.

Sensed, by the senses? Then [he]'s detectable, and you'll be able to give a satisfactory demonstration of [his] objective existence. (Though if that were the case I suspect I'd have heard of it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Or conjured by the brain, perhaps in the course of an induced brain state such as meditation? In which case no evidence of [his] existence in objective reality is available, and nothing distinguishes [him] from something imagined, that has no real counterpart.

Please correct my statements if they're unfair, so that the actual position is clear.

 

[PureX]

If that's intended as an accurate statement about reality, on the basis of what evidence acceptable to physics do you make it?
Sensed, by the senses? Then [he]'s detectable, and you'll be able to give a satisfactory demonstration of [his] objective existence. (Though if that were the case I suspect I'd have heard of it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

We need no "evidence" to define the meaning of a term. "God", in this case, is a word that refers to the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. The fact that we humans conceptualize such a source, and wish to communicate that concept to others, justifies the existence of the term.

Or conjured by the brain, perhaps in the course of an induced brain state such as meditation? In which case no evidence of [his] existence in objective reality is available, and nothing distinguishes [him] from something imagined, that has no real counterpart.

Please correct my statements if they're unfair, so that the actual position is clear.

The truth is 'what is'. Reality is what we think 'is', is. Reality is all we have of the truth, and it's ultimately imaginary: it's conceptual. A lot of humans fail to recognize this, however, and so believe that their imagined conception of reality is 'what is' ... is the truth. And believing this gives them comfort, and supports their egos when they would otherwise have to face the profound ignorance and vulnerability of their human condition.

That's just how it is, with us.