You say that you cannot have identity without evidence of identity. True. And since evidence, which depends on an unbroken causal chain and an existent characteristic in this world, of god is literally impossible, since by causal law a thing cannot be both a stone and a leaf, it can never have real identity or exist. Saying that omniscience can exist is the same as saying that it is possible that a rock can be a leaf. And when presented with this, you will say, "Prove a rock cannot also a leaf! Well since you cannot prove that a rock cannot be a leaf, I will uphold the possibility of total nonsense in my brain". I think I am repeatedly proving it to you and you are refusing to accept reason. It is like I am holding up two groups of two things and calling it four and you are saying, "prove it". We do not require anymore proof than the obvious nature of identity and existence. I have, in fact, used evidence of a chair's identity to form the concept (the first thousand chairs I saw were real and had real borders and the concept integrates without any contradiction what-so-ever). There is evidence of causal law all around us. You are saying that I cannot prove that the impossible cannot happen. I don't need to. You do not need scientific proof that the impossible cannot happen. It's impossible!! I know, for certain, that if something exists, it has a particular concrete identity that it is not contradictory to identity and existence. The process of proof, itself depends on causal law and noncontradiction, as does science, and if omniscience or magic could possibly exist, even possibly, it would invalidate science. You Cane, cannot even be certain when you have proof. This really is useless. You are permanently lost, I'm afraid.
I follow you now. God cannot have identity, because the existence of god contradicts existence itself (what it means to exist). God does not make sense therefore he cannot exist. Am I right in what I have said so far?
Hi Michael, The reply button has run out so I have to write a response here.
What do you mean you don't have a philosophical mind set?
If we look at the 4 branches of philosphy:
1. Metaphysics: I never really question what I personally perceive to be real.
2. Epistemology: I never really question myself about knowledge. I speak fluent Japanese and my Chinese is ok, but I never put into question my ability to know these languages. The more I study the better able I am at communicating with Japanese and Chinese in that those languages. That's it.
3. Ethics: No such thing exists.
4. Logic: Sure, I believe in logic. I guess my interpretation of logic is what, in my mind, binds everybody here at Atheist Nexus together, along with atheism.
It seems to me that you are are opining on the subject of epistemology when you say that atheism is a non-scientific provable fact, which I happen to agree with.
Yep. For me, the level proof I require to prove the omnipresent-God's non-existence is the fact that I can not see him everywhere and or anywhere I go. And that is good enough for me. Others may require a little more proof than that, and that's fine, I'd be more than happy to expand the level of proof needed to prove his non-existence.
I think philosophy gets a bad rap because so many people hold to principles arbitrarily (not in accordance with reality). I think philosophy is a critical study of thought, which very few people do with intellectual honesty, instead of a hodgepodge of mystical and skeptical derangements.
I'm not critical of philosophy, although it may seem so. I've always liked the questions philosophers have put to me, to make me think a little more. But the philosophical questions put to me, in the real world, are usually the most interesting of questions philosophy has to offer. Those questions have also been simplified, for the lay person to understand. And they have always been fun questions. But the abstract nature of in-depth philosophy is something I'm not really interested in. Sorry.
I think basing everything you think on what you deem to exist in the real world is an ideal foundation for a proper philosophical mind.
Thanks. Maybe as I get older and read a little more, my interest in philosophy will grow.
What is the matter with you? It is not up to science, whether or not there is god. And unlike god, extraterrestrials are possible. That's why you can believe they exist without being irrational, like you are being when you suggest that there is a .01% chance, or was it .0001%, that the impossible can happen. Valid beliefs are not at all religious. You are not very critical of your own thoughts. You seem to be irrationally attached to the idea that you cannot prove a negative, but that ridiculous statement is not relevant to whether or not invisible pink unicorns can actually be. Being certain that certainty is impossible is such a clear violation of logic and reason. It has been shown to you in several different ways by myself and others on this thread and you simply ignore reason. You just wrote something about being honest, but you do not have an objective standard to refer to, except your fancy. You just arbitrarily pick principles to back your statements. Philosophy has a proper structure, epistemology and metaphysics have a standard, it is called reality, and contradiction cannot exist within it. You obviously don't care about that. You tell Leveni that you agree with him that atheism is not a scientific endeavor and then on the very same post state that without science to prove a negative, you cannot know for sure. You might as well be defending the existence of macroscopic subatomic particle or a gaseous ice cube or a ubiquitously distributed singular distinct location.
Hi Cane, how are things?
. I contend you are wrong and I am right. Enjoy!!!
Although this comment which is directed at Michael disheartens me, I shall endeavour to continue.
I suggest that you can never say that there is no extraterrestrials during the time there is the question of whether there are extraterrestrials.
I don't understand what you mean here. Could you please give me another example, a really simple one, or clarify this one, thanks.
I hate philosophy
You sure are a funny/unusual guy, Cane. All of your posts are along the lines of 'not being able to know knowledge' I thought you understood what epistemology was all about.
Yes, Caine, you're a very clever boy. Lucky for us there's one person able to see the truth where everybody else has failed. Now off you go and play with someone who'll appreciate you.
Michael, give it up. You can only talk sense to a sensible person and clearly that's not the case here. Well done for making such a stirling effort, though, I'd have reverted to ridicule long ago.
This is becoming so like a long running battle on LInkedin between a few sensible scientifically trained athiests who have attempted to patiently explain, among other things, why the KJV is unlikely to be the breathed word of god and an accurate account of the history of the world, or why Lee Strobel my not be reliable in his claims for scientific proof of intelligent design or why evolution is as close to proven as it's possible to be. It always ends up with the ignorant calling those with more knowledge egotistical and quickly progressing to accuse them of being bullies because they won't let patently ridiculous statements pass. I'm surprised to see some signs of that here, or at least I should be.
I guess there's a point beyond which anyone without the proper knowledge and training can't understand, shame it's so hard for us to accept that. It's become clear to me as more time passes that someone who wishes to believe something will do so in spite of any and all evidence they are given to the contrary. They always do much the same thing, they redefine words to have a meaning which suits them and as soon as they find they're unable to argue sensibly they put themselves in the position of victim, cry foul and fall back on the I'm right, you're wrong yah boo sucks defence. Not much you can do about that I'm afraid, except let it go.
clivephoto said; "They always do much the same thing, they redefine words to have a meaning which suits them and as soon as they find they're unable to argue sensibly they put themselves in the position of victim, cry foul and fall back on the I'm right, you're wrong yah boo sucks defence. Not much you can do about that I'm afraid, except let it go."
I am guilty of losing patience and crying foul, and I fell back on "I am right and you are wrong". I say that knowledge requires evidence and belief does not require evidence. Michael has been trying to educate me in epistemology. He contends that he can gain knowledge using the rules of logic and epistemology (without evidence). I say that anything not supported by evidence is not knowledge, but belief. I am not making a judgement on the validity of the belief, but only saying that it is in fact only belief, not knowledge.
Belief and knowing are two different things. To know, you need evidence. To believe, you do NOT need evidence. Following rules of logic does not prove anything, it just means that you have reasoned a conclusion that ends up being a belief not knowledge.
According to Leveni, I do not know what knowledge is. Maybe that's where I need correction?