Proof

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Luckily, there is another way to show the irrationality of Hitchens' axiom. Consider logical absolutes (for example, the law of identity: something is what it is and isn't what it is not). Logical absolutes are always true, anywhere and at any time. Without logical absolutes we cannot think or argue rationally; yet, neither can logical absolute ...[text shortened]... refore—i.e., whatever is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof—is fallacious.

Well I wouldn't have supposed that he was aiming that axiom at other axioms; but then we could of course reasonably restrict it to the set of cases where that which is asserted without proof isn't actually an axiom; and no - God exists is not an axiom (it might be to you, having faith and all; but to the rest of us its just a claim, a claim that has been poorly substantiated) ;]

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I wouldn't have supposed that he was aiming that axiom at other axioms; but then we could of course reasonably restrict it to the set of cases where that which is asserted without proof isn't actually an axiom; and no - God exists is not an axiom (it might be to you, having faith and all; but to the rest of us its just a claim, a claim that has been poorly substantiated) ;]

How rational is it to dismiss God's existence without proof?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How rational is it to dismiss God's existence without proof?

How is it rational to dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? and before you dismiss that comparison, you should be aware that I'm not the only atheist who holds these two entities to have the same degree of credibility.

It is very rational; as far as I can ascertain, "God" is an invention of man; there is zero valid support for the proposition it exists, and countlessly many competing gods (plural or singular) of which the majority are mutually exclusive. Your "God" is one of many others, and there is no rational reason as to why we should give it any higher degree of precedence; as such, parsimony dictates we should reject *all* such proposals until compelling evidence comes to light.

Originally posted by Agerg
How is it rational to dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? and before you dismiss that comparison, you should be aware that I'm not the only atheist who holds these two entities to have the same degree of credibility.

It is very rational; as far as I can ascertain, "God" is an invention of man; there is zero valid support for the proposition it exists, an ...[text shortened]... Parsimony dictates we should reject such proposals until compelling evidence comes to light.

How is it rational to dismiss the tooth fairy without proof?

Hitchens' axiom still doesn't apply. Do you really dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? Or is there some defeater for your belief in the tooth fairy? For instance, your knowledge that the tooth fairy was invented by your parents based on reliable testimony, etc. Even in this instance it isn't rational to dismiss without proof. Why, then, is it rational to dismiss God without proof?

"God" is an invention of man...

If you are claiming that God is an invention of man in order to dismiss God's existence, you are committing the genetic fallacy, i.e., dismissing a belief based on how that belief came to be held. After all, it may be that God's existence was progressively discovered, or, perhaps, even revealed.

there is zero valid support for the proposition it exists...

On the contrary, there are valid arguments for God's existence (with corroborating scientific evidence to boot).

...and countlessly many competing gods (plural or singular) of which the majority are mutually exclusive. Parsimony dictates we should reject such proposals until compelling evidence comes to light.

Well, I'm a theist, so when I talk about God I'm referring to the transcendent, personal creator of the universe, conceptually shared by monotheistic religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

It doesn't seem very rational to reject God simply because polytheism exists. Even if we consider that the major monotheistic religions of the world are theologically incompatible, how is that reason enough to reject God's existence? It is possible, after all, that one of them is correct.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]How is it rational to dismiss the tooth fairy without proof?

Hitchens' axiom still doesn't apply. Do you really dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? Or is there some defeater for your belief in the tooth fairy? For instance, your knowledge that the tooth fairy was invented by your parents based on reliable testimony, etc. Even in this ins to reject God's existence? It is possible, after all, that one of them is correct.[/b]

Hitchens' axiom still doesn't apply. Do you really dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? Or is there some defeater for your belief in the tooth fairy? For instance, your knowledge that the tooth fairy was invented by your parents based on reliable testimony, etc. Even in this instance it isn't rational to dismiss without proof. Why, then, is it rational to dismiss God without proof?
I have an unbiased approach to all doctrines of magic, supernaturalism, fairy tales, camp stories and so on...My mindset is not wired to accept them. That means I don't believe in ghosts, gods, unicorns, tea-leaves reading, horoscopes, little green men, psychic powers, Santa Clause, etc...
If my hand suddenly turns into a technicolour dancing banjo and I find myself soaring through the air, casting a ten mile shadow from a height of only 10 meters dodging floating tea cups and marshmallow lollipops, then if this event is well corroborated (i.e. witnessed not just by myself - filmed perhaps) I'll rethink my stance - this sort of evidence would be compelling.

If you are claiming that God is an invention of man in order to dismiss God's existence, you are committing the genetic fallacy, i.e., dismissing a belief based on how that belief came to be held. After all, it may be that God's existence was progressively discovered, or, perhaps, even revealed.
Incorrect. That it is an invention of man is not "the" reason I put forward for my dismissal of it. Merely an account of its origin.

On the contrary, there are valid arguments for God's existence (with corroborating scientific evidence to boot).
and of this evidence, what can you present that does not need so called faith? (You may regard that as a rhetorical question). None of the arguments put forward for your god or any other has any shred of validity about them. (though one of my favourites is the hero of mathematics, Euler, advancing the noton that (a+b^n)/n=x. Ergo God exists - though just for the lol factor)

Well, I'm a theist, so when I talk about God I'm referring to the transcendent, personal creator of the universe, conceptually shared by monotheistic religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
Well I'm an atheist (who is agreeing with what another atheist says on this matter (so for the purposes of *this* discussion, my viewpoint is relevant)), and I have no bias towards one *particular* god or type of god. I look at as many as are and have been presented to me thus far and evaluate them based upon their substantiation - so far they've all scored equally.

It doesn't seem very rational to reject God simply because polytheism exists. Even if we consider that the major monotheistic religions of the world are theologically incompatible, how is that reason enough to reject God's existence? It is possible, after all, that one of them is correct.
Incorrect. That polytheism exists is not "the" reason I put forward for my dismissal of it. Merely an explanation for why I do not offer your `notion' of god any special treatment.

Originally posted by Agerg
Hitchens' axiom still doesn't apply. Do you really dismiss the tooth fairy without proof? Or is there some defeater for your belief in the tooth fairy? For instance, your knowledge that the tooth fairy was invented by your parents based on reliable testimony, etc. Even in this instance it isn't rational to dismiss without proof. Why, then, is it ration xplanation for why I do not offer your `notion' of god any special treatment.

I have an unbiased approach to all doctrines of magic, supernaturalism, fairy tales, camp stories and so on...My mindset is not wired to accept them. That means I don't believe in ghosts, gods, unicorns, tea-leaves reading, horoscopes, little green men, psychic powers, Santa Clause, etc...

Why not? The reason I ask is, obviously there are specific reasons for not accepting any of the things you've listed—they aren't dismissed without proof. Again, Hitchens' axiom fails to apply.

That it is an invention of man is not "the" reason I put forward for my dismissal of it.

Even so, it is not a given that God is an invention of man.

and of this evidence, what can you present that does not need so called faith?

We can start with the Kalam cosmological argument, if you're interested.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I have an unbiased approach to all doctrines of magic, supernaturalism, fairy tales, camp stories and so on...My mindset is not wired to accept them. That means I don't believe in ghosts, gods, unicorns, tea-leaves reading, horoscopes, little green men, psychic powers, Santa Clause, etc...

Why not? The reason I ask is, obviously there are spe ed faith?[/b]

We can start with the Kalam cosmological argument, if you're interested.[/b]

Hitchens axiom does apply, indeed it could be argued that it is an evolutionary safeguard that one's mind should be suspicious towards that which is out of the ordinary, and one should strive for tangible and expedient explantions for how things are as opposed to appealing to ones dreams. A facility for spotting deception, is an attribute that would be favoured in most environments; a facility for gullibility only survives now because of the artificial protection afforded by society in general. Magic, miracles, and so on have not been documented occuring (discounting 2000 year old accounts of primitive man in the Bible, or other holy books) - there is no way to check that the testimony of witnesses is valid, none of it is consistent with the standard laws of physics, no rational counter explanation has been advanced for how such things can happen. In short I am simply supposed to believe it just does - by magic!

As for Kalam's cosmological argument - the appeal to a first cause, I have seen that many times. It rests upon the theist's decree that "God" is an exception to the rule - this is not valid, neither I nor any other atheist is committed to accepting that decree. I've also seen Anselm's argument, and probably a host of others whos formal names escape me at present. I remain to be impressed.

Originally posted by Agerg
Hitchens axiom does apply, indeed it could be argued that it is an evolutionary safeguard that one's mind should be suspicious towards that which is out of the ordinary, and one should strive for tangible and expedient explantions for how things are as opposed to appealing to ones dreams. A facility for spotting deception, is an attribute that would be favoure ...[text shortened]... obably a host of others whos formal names escape me at present. I remain to be impressed.

It looks like you have put in much study in your quest to become
an atheist. I wish you would now put in a lot of study of the Holy
Bible so you might at least understand why those with strong
Christian beliefs remain true to their faith even under torture.

Originally posted by Agerg
Hitchens axiom does apply, indeed it could be argued that it is an evolutionary safeguard that one's mind should be suspicious towards that which is out of the ordinary, and one should strive for tangible and expedient explantions for how things are as opposed to appealing to ones dreams. A facility for spotting deception, is an attribute that would be favoure ...[text shortened]... obably a host of others whos formal names escape me at present. I remain to be impressed.

As for Kalam's cosmological argument - the appeal to a first cause, I have seen that many times. It rests upon the theist's decree that "God" is an exception to the rule - this is not valid...

That is not the kalam argument. Tomorrow, when I have more time, I will introduce you to the non-strawman kalam argument.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]As for Kalam's cosmological argument - the appeal to a first cause, I have seen that many times. It rests upon the theist's decree that "God" is an exception to the rule - this is not valid...

That is not the kalam argument. Tomorrow, when I have more time, I will introduce you to the non-strawman kalam argument.[/b]

Very well,Reveal Hidden Contentwe'll see if it really is a new one to me. Though you should be at least aware that the search for a formal, `logical' proof of the existence of God is as futile as the search for a proof of the same God's non-existence.Reveal Hidden ContentIt cannot be done either way; moreover one can substitute *your god* for any number of replacement entities I dream up on the spot that are incompatible with yours - It remains to be shown that the force of such arguments, referencing these new entities, would be diminished.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Or is there some defeater for your belief in the tooth fairy? For instance, your knowledge that the tooth fairy was invented by your parents based on reliable testimony, etc.
...
If you are claiming that God is an invention of man in order to dismiss God's existence, you are committing the genetic fallacy, i.e., dismissing a belief based on how that belief came to be held.

I must be misunderstanding you here, but you appear to have dismissed the tooth fairy using one argument, then claimed the same argument is not valid for your own God. What did I miss?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
We can start with the Kalam cosmological argument, if you're interested.

Let us suppose for a moment that this argument is valid, or at least that you find it valid.
Did you know of this argument when you first believed in God or was it something you found out later?
If you did not know of this argument, would you readily dismiss the concept of God?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've told you time isn't a problem with me either, I honestly do not know how
long its been here. I think there are walls or restrictions in biology as I have
pointed out to you, you are the one that seems to think if you go back in time
far enough those all disappear I guess. That for me is something not seen in
the here and now so it would be new, som ...[text shortened]... e, at one point in time there were no ancestors there was just
the first of each kind.
Kelly

I know you think there are 'walls and restrictions' in biology, but what exatly are they? I'll elaborate on this in a tick.

you are the one that seems to think if you go back in time far enough those all disappear I guess

No guessing, that's what me and 99% of the scientific community think.

Now back to these biological restrictions. Answer me this if you will -

You've stated you think penguins evolved from birds that can fly. But on the other hand you have stated that all marine living mammals didn't evolve from land based ancestors. So the question is, why can a bird evolve for life in the sea yet a mammal can't? Explain to me what 'walls and restrictions' are in place in mammals to stop them from adapting to marine life.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know you think there are 'walls and restrictions' in biology, but what [b]exatly are they? I'll elaborate on this in a tick.

you are the one that seems to think if you go back in time far enough those all disappear I guess

No guessing, that's what me and 99% of the scientific community think.

Now back to these biological restrictio ...[text shortened]... ls and restrictions' are in place in mammals to stop them from adapting to marine life.[/b]

If you and the super majority in the scientific community think that, I guess
it is a fact not a theory, not a belief in your mind. You are a true believer I
guess there is no debating you on that topic.

Are you sure I said that peguins evolved from birds that can fly?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, your analogy doesn't fit. It is not inevitable that someone win the Powerball six times in a row, nor does the fact that something improbable will happen mean that the specific improbable thing you choose is the one that will happen.

It is however inevitable that someone will win the Powerball at least once, so winning the powerball is not a good argument for claiming it was rigged.

====================================
No, your analogy doesn't fit. It is not inevitable that someone win the Powerball six times in a row, nor does the fact that something improbable will happen mean that the specific improbable thing you choose is the one that will happen.

It is however inevitable that someone will win the Powerball at least once, so winning the powerball is not a good argument for claiming it was rigged.
=============================================

The analogy fits. Making the win more than once only encreases the improbability of the event. I understand your argument to be basically, that the more fantastically improbable an event is, that occured, well, the less we should be surprised.

It was inevitable that some fantastically improbable outcome had to insue, if not this one, the other one, or the other one.

So winning Powerball once ? Well, someone had to win it - if not me someone else. No big deal.

Same goes if the event is MORE improbable - the same person wins it six times. It was inevitable that some unbelievable outcome insue. I see nothing in your argument that insists that I have to stop at ONE win of Powerball. As long as the event is very improbable, it qualifies for your analogy.

The argument can be turned right around then on Atheism. If an Intelligent living Mind is so unlikely, we should not be surprised. It had to be one fantastically improbable cause or another or another. It is inevitable.

You shoot yourself in the foot.