Can Atheism Stand On Its Own Two Feet?

[Byblos]

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

If you're looking for an empirical (scientific) proof then you know well there isn't one. And that's not because of a deficiency in the subject but an inherent limitation in science itself (since it is not in the business of proving anything). The most science can do is offer evidence and plausible (or not) theories on our reality. Even then, contemporary cosmology has considerably narrowed the gap in favor of the plausibility of a transcendent cause for our universe.

A metaphysical proof, on the other hand, for the existence of God is what you ought to be looking for and a proof most certainly does exist. That contemporary (read new-age) so-called philosophers have lost touch with it by no means lessens its veracity.

How is it possible to provide metaphysical proof of the existence of God?

Ken

Seriously? The very nature of the question is precisely a metaphysical one. Aquinas' Summa Theologica is such proof; here's a link with a summary (note article 3 in particular): ST Part 1, Q2.

[Jac3510]

There are different kinds of facts, ken: mathematical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological, etc. Different kinds of facts require different kinds of demonstrations.

Let me illustrate.

Provide me a mathematical fact that George Washington was the first POTUS.
Provide me a historical proof that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Provide me a scientific proof that 1+1=2.

I could go on and on. You can't do any of that, because the first issue needs a historical proof, the second needs a scientific, and the third a mathematical.

Just so, the question of God's existence is not a scientific question (although science can suggest that God's existence is a reasonable proposition, which it does). It is a philosophical (and within that field, particularly a metaphysical) one. To fail to recognize that is either to fail to recognize that there are different kinds of facts or else to fail to recognize what kind of fact God's existence is or else to fail to recognize that philosophical facts are philosophically demonstrable. Thus, to insist on a scientific proof for God is either (respectively) to wrongly think that all facts are scientific in nature--which is to misunderstand how we know what we know in general--or to wrongly think that God's existence is a scientific question--which is to misunderstand the nature of God or scientific inquiry or both--or to wrongly think that philosophical facts either don't exist or that they are scientifically demonstrable--which is to self-defeating in itself or else is self-defeating through a commitment to scientism (by definition).

[Kenny]

Even if that is, its irrelevant on this point.
how can your opinion be objective? That is what I have been asking you.

Objective means to not change. If my opinion on an issue is unchanging, I believe that is objective. But if Objective morals are not man made, then I do not believe objective morals exist.

Ken

Ken, objective means, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

How does that translate to, I believe its objective, therefore it is?

You are right! When I spoke of OM, I was using outdated information. About 10 years ago I was discussing the subject with someone else and at that time I looked up the definition in Dictionary.com, and the definition was different than it is now. I assumed it was the same which would have made my argument; but I errored. that is why as I said before, judging from how the term is currently used, I do not believe morality is objective; it is all subjective.

Ken

[Kenny]

Then you'd be wrong, along with your misunderstanding of your irrational wiki source. Objective morality is no more religious or irreligious than subjective morality.

No offense intended, but I really hate wasting my time with someone unacquainted with even "objective" morality.

Take some time out Ken. Do some research by Googling Atheist and objective morality. Maybe start with SecularWeb: http://infidels.org/library/modern/tane ... artin.html (I can't believe I'm recommending this source). But, seriously, you've got a steep learning curve because there's lots of twists and turns you're doing which just show you're not acquainted with the issues. That's fine, but do yourself and your side a favour, and do some research on the topic being discussed here.

I did my research. Wikki says the term origionated from religion; particulary Christianity. Do you have any sources that says the term origionated elsewhere? I usually would prefer not to use Atheist or religious websites because they tend to skew the facts in order to support their agendia. Don't get me wrong, I may use them is I can't find anything else, but if something else is avaliable, I would choose it. Wikki is hardly an atheist or Christian source.

And what is good except that you prefer chocolate and Dr. Mengele preferred strawberry.

"Good" and "bad" has no meaning.

All words have meaning. Good is helping, bad is hurting. BIG difference!

K
PS I noticed you neglected to answer the last question i asked; I was hoping for a response. In case you forgot, the question was:
I am sure you know rape and genocide are immoral, but would you consider this immorality subjective or objective?

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
When I said I know I was using the dictionary definition of "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t

As you can see to “know” simply means to be convinced beyond all shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are correct, and it certainly does not mean you can provide proof. Example; If you ask me I will tell me I “know” my birth name, the date I was born, and who my birth parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof to confirm what I “know”. Now if some new found evidence surfaced that proved that I was adopted by the people I have always known as my birth parents, and that I was born on a different day than I was told, I had a different name at birth and the birth certificate I currently have is a fake; all a part of the conspiracy to keep me in the dark with all of this, I will admit to my previous mistake and incorporate this new found information in to what I will then know. But until such information comes to pass, I will continue to say I know my name, age, and who my parents are. I will not say I believe I know my name, age, and who my parents are even though there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

When I say I know your concept of God doesn’t exist, I mean I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that he does not exist even though I will admit there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

Kenny,
None of that is even relevant to the assertion you made. This is what you asserted:

But God doesn't exist...

You didn't say, "I believe God doesn't exist...", or even, "I know God doesn't exist...".

Kenny,

I think you need to be able to communicate better by actually comprehending what others are saying. I'm done for now, with this thread. You just aren't grasping simple logic, and basic communication.

Since Kurieuo has responded, and it's his thread, maybe you can just try to concentrate on a conversation with him.

When I said "but God doesn't exist" That was a part of a scenerio that I was using to make a specific point! Context my friend; it's all about context.

Ken

[Kenny]

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

If you're looking for an empirical (scientific) proof then you know well there isn't one. And that's not because of a deficiency in the subject but an inherent limitation in science itself (since it is not in the business of proving anything). The most science can do is offer evidence and plausible (or not) theories on our reality. Even then, contemporary cosmology has considerably narrowed the gap in favor of the plausibility of a transcendent cause for our universe.

A metaphysical proof, on the other hand, for the existence of God is what you ought to be looking for and a proof most certainly does exist. That contemporary (read new-age) so-called philosophers have lost touch with it by no means lessens its veracity.

How is it possible to provide metaphysical proof of the existence of God?

Ken

Seriously? The very nature of the question is precisely a metaphysical one. Aquinas' Summa Theologica is such proof; here's a link with a summary (note article 3 in particular): ST Part 1, Q2.

So can you provide metaphysical proof that your God exists?

Ken

[Kenny]

There are different kinds of facts, ken: mathematical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological, etc. Different kinds of facts require different kinds of demonstrations.

Let me illustrate.

Provide me a mathematical fact that George Washington was the first POTUS.
Provide me a historical proof that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Provide me a scientific proof that 1+1=2.

I could go on and on. You can't do any of that, because the first issue needs a historical proof, the second needs a scientific, and the third a mathematical.

Just so, the question of God's existence is not a scientific question (although science can suggest that God's existence is a reasonable proposition, which it does). It is a philosophical (and within that field, particularly a metaphysical) one. To fail to recognize that is either to fail to recognize that there are different kinds of facts or else to fail to recognize what kind of fact God's existence is or else to fail to recognize that philosophical facts are philosophically demonstrable. Thus, to insist on a scientific proof for God is either (respectively) to wrongly think that all facts are scientific in nature--which is to misunderstand how we know what we know in general--or to wrongly think that God's existence is a scientific question--which is to misunderstand the nature of God or scientific inquiry or both--or to wrongly think that philosophical facts either don't exist or that they are scientifically demonstrable--which is to self-defeating in itself or else is self-defeating through a commitment to scientism (by definition).

I didn't specify scientific proof, I just said proof! If you can provide metaphysical proof, i would be happy to see that.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
When I said I know I was using the dictionary definition of "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t

As you can see to “know” simply means to be convinced beyond all shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are correct, and it certainly does not mean you can provide proof. Example; If you ask me I will tell me I “know” my birth name, the date I was born, and who my birth parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof to confirm what I “know”. Now if some new found evidence surfaced that proved that I was adopted by the people I have always known as my birth parents, and that I was born on a different day than I was told, I had a different name at birth and the birth certificate I currently have is a fake; all a part of the conspiracy to keep me in the dark with all of this, I will admit to my previous mistake and incorporate this new found information in to what I will then know. But until such information comes to pass, I will continue to say I know my name, age, and who my parents are. I will not say I believe I know my name, age, and who my parents are even though there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

When I say I know your concept of God doesn’t exist, I mean I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that he does not exist even though I will admit there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

Kenny,
None of that is even relevant to the assertion you made. This is what you asserted:

But God doesn't exist...

You didn't say, "I believe God doesn't exist...", or even, "I know God doesn't exist...".

Kenny,

I think you need to be able to communicate better by actually comprehending what others are saying. I'm done for now, with this thread. You just aren't grasping simple logic, and basic communication.

Since Kurieuo has responded, and it's his thread, maybe you can just try to concentrate on a conversation with him.

When I said "but God doesn't exist" That was a part of a scenerio that I was using to make a specific point! Context my friend; it's all about context.

Ken

Kenny,
Here's the context so you can see.

Kenny wrote:

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

You clearly said God doesn't exist. I haven't taken anything out of context.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
When I said I know I was using the dictionary definition of "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t

As you can see to “know” simply means to be convinced beyond all shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are correct, and it certainly does not mean you can provide proof. Example; If you ask me I will tell me I “know” my birth name, the date I was born, and who my birth parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof to confirm what I “know”. Now if some new found evidence surfaced that proved that I was adopted by the people I have always known as my birth parents, and that I was born on a different day than I was told, I had a different name at birth and the birth certificate I currently have is a fake; all a part of the conspiracy to keep me in the dark with all of this, I will admit to my previous mistake and incorporate this new found information in to what I will then know. But until such information comes to pass, I will continue to say I know my name, age, and who my parents are. I will not say I believe I know my name, age, and who my parents are even though there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

When I say I know your concept of God doesn’t exist, I mean I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that he does not exist even though I will admit there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

Kenny,
None of that is even relevant to the assertion you made. This is what you asserted:

But God doesn't exist...

You didn't say, "I believe God doesn't exist...", or even, "I know God doesn't exist...".

Kenny,

I think you need to be able to communicate better by actually comprehending what others are saying. I'm done for now, with this thread. You just aren't grasping simple logic, and basic communication.

Since Kurieuo has responded, and it's his thread, maybe you can just try to concentrate on a conversation with him.

When I said "but God doesn't exist" That was a part of a scenerio that I was using to make a specific point! Context my friend; it's all about context.

Ken

Kenny,
Here's the context so you can see.

Kenny wrote:

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

You clearly said God doesn't exist. I haven't taken anything out of context.

In the scenerio I was refering to a conversation between Neo and myself. I did not quote Neo or myself word for word in the scenerio, but I did attempt to refer to the points we both were making. Yes I eluded to the fact that I don't believe in God, but in our conversation I did not word anything in our exchange exactly as I did in the scenerio. The scenerio was worded that way to save time.


Ken

[RickD]

Ok Kenny, I understand. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Kurieuo]

Then you'd be wrong, along with your misunderstanding of your irrational wiki source. Objective morality is no more religious or irreligious than subjective morality.

No offense intended, but I really hate wasting my time with someone unacquainted with even "objective" morality.

Take some time out Ken. Do some research by Googling Atheist and objective morality. Maybe start with SecularWeb: http://infidels.org/library/modern/tane ... artin.html (I can't believe I'm recommending this source). But, seriously, you've got a steep learning curve because there's lots of twists and turns you're doing which just show you're not acquainted with the issues. That's fine, but do yourself and your side a favour, and do some research on the topic being discussed here.

I did my research. Wikki says the term origionated from religion; particulary Christianity. Do you have any sources that says the term origionated elsewhere? I usually would prefer not to use Atheist or religious websites because they tend to skew the facts in order to support their agendia. Don't get me wrong, I may use them is I can't find anything else, but if something else is avaliable, I would choose it. Wikki is hardly an atheist or Christian source.

Go on, quote the exact reference.

And what is good except that you prefer chocolate and Dr. Mengele preferred strawberry.

"Good" and "bad" has no meaning.

All words have meaning. Good is helping, bad is hurting. BIG difference!

Dentists are both good and bad then, eh?

PS I noticed you neglected to answer the last question i asked; I was hoping for a response. In case you forgot, the question was:
I am sure you know rape and genocide are immoral, but would you consider this immorality subjective or objective?

Neglected? No. I did not neglect it but rather purposefully chose not to answer.

You asked a very loaded question that assumed certain premises I disagree with, and as such it is logically fallacious.

Ask some more simple and fair questions and I might respond, but I'm not going to continue playing your foolish games.

Cheers.

___________________

“What do people mean when they say, 'I am not afraid of God because I know He is good'? Have they never even been to a dentist?” ― CS Lewis, A Grief Observed

[Byblos]

Seriously? The very nature of the question is precisely a metaphysical one. Aquinas' Summa Theologica is such proof; here's a link with a summary (note article 3 in particular): ST Part 1, Q2.

So can you provide metaphysical proof that your God exists?

Evidently you didn't even bother reading the link. Take care my friend, I have zero time to waste.

[Kenny]

Go on, quote the exact reference.

Yes! It says: "Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity."

Dentists are both good and bad then, eh?

Just because something is painful doesn't make it bad.

Neglected? No. I did not neglect it but rather purposefully chose not to answer.

You asked a very loaded question that assumed certain premises I disagree with, and as such it is logically fallacious.

Ask some more simple and fair questions and I might respond, but I'm not going to continue playing your foolish games.

How is the question loaded, or unfair? And what premis do you disagree with?

Ken

[Kenny]

Seriously? The very nature of the question is precisely a metaphysical one. Aquinas' Summa Theologica is such proof; here's a link with a summary (note article 3 in particular): ST Part 1, Q2.

So can you provide metaphysical proof that your God exists?

Evidently you didn't even bother reading the link. Take care my friend, I have zero time to waste.

I read over it; I just didnt see where my question was answered.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Go on, quote the exact reference.

Yes! It says: "Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity."

Despite rationalwiki being a primitive close-minded source, and certainly it'd love to colour anything it likes against Christianity...

THAT, does not say the term "objective morality" is religious.

Dentists are both good and bad then, eh?

Just because something is painful doesn't make it bad.

I agree. Perhaps you need to revise your definition then, eh?

Although it really doesn't matter. Because all you're doing is offering up a subjective ontology. Again, you call chocolate "good", while another might call it "bad" and prefer strawberry.

Some people think it good to inflict pain onto others, especially if they don't belong to their social group.

Others are psychopathic. Once they "realise" these feelings of morality evolved -- well now let's shake them off and use other's sense of them to our advantage as much as it profits us.

Any reason you offer to try and call something really "good" or really "bad" becomes mute.

Neglected? No. I did not neglect it but rather purposefully chose not to answer.

You asked a very loaded question that assumed certain premises I disagree with, and as such it is logically fallacious.

Ask some more simple and fair questions and I might respond, but I'm not going to continue playing your foolish games.

How is the question loaded, or unfair? And what premis do you disagree with?

You wrote: "Do you believe Genocide and rape is objectively immoral? If so, how do you justify the atrocities of Moses against the Midinites? Or do you?"

Try take some stabs at working out where the loaded assumptions are. My time is spent.