Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist. » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.
Science vs God.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900

Posted 01/12/08 - 04:23 AM:	#51
gesler0811 wrote: Duly noted. Thanks, I'll be more careful of how I choose my words in the future. Tell me, though please, I always thought gravitation was considered a law. Science was never my best subject... No, laws are only part of formal science not natural science. Gravitation is a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity. Gravitation isn't its own theory either. It was once explained with Newton's theory of gravitation (which still works just fine, and is not wrong), but now is a part of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Because relativity explains everything Newton's theory explained, and more, relativity replaced it. Your confusion about gravity likely comes from seeing gravity expressed as a law in mathematical abstractions. Formal science uses mathematical abstractions of theories of the natural universe and deems them laws of physics. However, these laws are only laws in a mathematical abstaction. They are nonetheless based on current natural theories of physics, mainly Einsteinian physics, among others. These mathematical abstractions however tell us nothing knew about the universe, they simply come up with mathematical models and frameworks to expand on our understanding of what we already know by coming up with hypothetical or possibily occurences given that the laws and principles they are based on are true. For instance, we know that time is relative to motion, and that an object cannot exceed the speed of light (unless in distorted space, but then light will still move faster in this distorted space than the object, they will both simply be moving faster than light travels in normal space) or that time will move much slower for someone moving near the speed of light than it will for us. We know these things by mathematical abstraction of current natural theories of physics. We have never observed or tested any of the above scenerios. They are accurate if the current theories of physics are accurate (and no one made a mistake). Laws and proofs in formal science are only laws and proofs given the underlining assumption that the current theories of physics are true. The thing is, formal science doesn't work to justify whether it's assumptions about the natural world are correct. That is natural science's job. Therefore, natural science isn't allowed to make such assumptions, because there is no system set up to justify them for natural science. Proof and laws in a mathematical sense are useless in the real world. They are merely tautological. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 01/13/08 - 09:16 AM. Reason: a few minor issues
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900

Posted 01/12/08 - 04:47 AM:	#52
gesler0811 wrote: It's like you're not even willing to consider the possibility. Oh I've considered it, I and continue to consider the possibility to the extent that I consider the possibility that fairies exist. It is possibly, only highly improbably. gesler0811 wrote: I can gladly say I have considered both sides. What both sides? There are countless positions of and subject, countless religions. Generally not two people even mean the same think when they say god. There are far more than two sides, if you have only considered two, then you have a lot of work left. gesler0811 wrote: Up until just a few years ago I considered myself an atheist. As there are only extremely poor reasons to be a theist, there are also extremely poor reaosns to be an atheist, (given your scientific illiteracy) I assume your reasons for being an atheist were no better than your current reasons for being a theist. gesler0811 wrote: Every argument you havre made so far hinges on a preconception that God does not exist. Every action I take rests on that preconception, I am willing to bet you don't worry about the possibility that fairies exist. Or better yet, I doubt you would give a second thought to sitting down if I were to tell you that every time you take a seat it kills someone for some reason. It isn't up to me to disprove positive assertions, it is up to those that would assert their ideas to prove them. No one lives their life worried about if every sinlg idea they hear might be right. We need good reasons to believe that it could be right. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dissmissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/12/08 - 05:12 AM:	#53
Wosret wrote: As there are only extremely poor reasons to be a theist, there are also extremely poor reaosns to be an atheist, (given your scientific illiteracy) I assume your reasons for being an atheist were no better than your current reasons for being a theist. What reasons do you think people have for being a theist? I can't see any benefits of it.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 889

Posted 01/12/08 - 05:56 AM:	#54
JGMU wrote: "Wosret" wrote: What of those that do not perport god to be physical or conceptual, but something entirely different, There isn't anything entirely different, That's the sort of thing that might need to be justified. JGMU, you had said, "I think the perfect demonstration of why god doesn't exist is the fact that it's existence isn't physical, that means god only exists while people believe in it." This strikes me as a non sequitur and a false dichotomy. For this to logically follow I think you'd have to refute the commonly held assertion that there is a third possible category (that e.g. souls fall into). I think it'll be difficult to justify the assertion that such a third category is impossible.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/12/08 - 07:28 AM:	#55
Tisthammerw wrote: That's the sort of thing that might need to be justified. JGMU, you had said, "I think the perfect demonstration of why god doesn't exist is the fact that it's existence isn't physical, that means god only exists while people believe in it." This strikes me as a non sequitur and a false dichotomy. For this to logically follow I think you'd have to refute the commonly held assertion that there is a third possible category (that e.g. souls fall into). I think it'll be difficult to justify the assertion that such a third category is impossible. That's a load of rubbish. a god can never be physical or it wouldn't be a god and that doesn't mean that there's a third category. There is only physical and conceptual and there is very little difference between them.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 889

Posted 01/12/08 - 08:00 AM:	#56
JGMU wrote: That's a load of rubbish. a god can never be physical or it wouldn't be a god and that doesn't mean that there's a third category. There is only physical and conceptual and there is very little difference between them. That's something that you're going to have to justify if you don't want "I think the perfect demonstration of why god doesn't exist is the fact that it's existence isn't physical, that means god only exists while people believe in it" to be a non sequitur. Dualism for instance is a common belief. It'll take than mere supposition to justify the position that there can only be the physical and the conceptual; a third category being impossible. What is your justification for a third category being impossible?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

JGMU
TUFMTIO

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 256

Posted 01/12/08 - 08:52 AM:	#57
Tisthammerw wrote: That's something that you're going to have to justify if you don't want "I think the perfect demonstration of why god doesn't exist is the fact that it's existence isn't physical, that means god only exists while people believe in it" to be a non sequitur. Dualism for instance is a common belief. It'll take than mere supposition to justify the position that there can only be the physical and the conceptual; a third category being impossible. What is your justification for a third category being impossible? What's your justification for a third category being possible and what is this third category anyway?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 889

Posted 01/12/08 - 10:20 AM:	#58
Wosret wrote: Duly noted. Thanks, I'll be more careful of how I choose my words in the future. Tell me, though please, I always thought gravitation was considered a law. Science was never my best subject... No laws are only part of formal science not natural science. Gravitation is a theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity This is one of those things that kind of depend on what semantics you are using. Physical laws are also called phenomenalogical theories (they describe phenomena, rather than explain them). The universe (for whatever reason) operates in consistent mathematical patterns, so laws are typically mathematical formulas that describe what the data are. It is still a "theory" in the broader sense of the term, though it is not a "theory" in the narrow sense of the term (i.e. something that explains the data rather than merely describing it). Physical laws are not tautologies however. It is possible for us to be wrong about how the universe operates, e.g. Newtonian mechanics gave way to Einstein's relativity.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 889

Posted 01/12/08 - 10:46 AM:	#59
JGMU wrote: What's your justification for a third category being possible and what is this third category anyway? The third category is something fundamentally different from matter; the nonphysical realm with entities capable of possessing minds and causing effects (e.g. the soul) without being determined by prior causes. What justification is there for this third category? The existence of free will, moral responsibility, and rationality. All three imply materialism (the belief that the physical, material world is all there is) is false. I'll start with rationality. There are at least two logically possible ways a person could arrive at a belief. One way is through reasons a person freely chooses. Another is that mindless atoms moving in certain ways cause a person believe something. The former constitutes a rational basis, the other does not. If materialism is true, the perception that we arrive at beliefs via rational thinking is an illusion; it is instead mindless chemical reactions that determine what we believe. As British biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true....And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Materialism not only undermines rationality, it also undermines itself.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900

Posted 01/12/08 - 10:50 AM:	#60
Tisthammerw wrote: Physical laws are not tautologies however. It is possible for us to be wrong about how the universe operates, e.g. Newtonian mechanics gave way to Einstein's relativity. Both mathematical laws and proofs are tautological, they depend on how the terms are defined. They work by taking the assumption that the laws are accurate and true, and then going from there to create abstractions and formulas that can be proven given the way the rules of mathematics and logic work and the assumptions that the laws are true and accurate. They give us no new information about the world, and depend on already existing and well defined terms and parameters. They are tautological, all mathematical abstractions are. As for what you say before this, that merely stems from your desire for the laws of physics to exist independently of people creating them. This is a whole other issue all together, I disagree that they are anything other than human made, and have had extremely lengthy conversations about this already, and do not feel like having another (especially with you). So lets just agree to disagree there. It is irrevelent to what I was explaining either way.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.