The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
Whoever is doing the proselytizing has the burden of proof.
It's the person making the positive claim who has the burden of proof. What you're doing is called the shifting of the burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy.

I'm not proselytizing. I'm acknowledging that religious claims haven't met their burden of proof, and I've posted a few explanations on how epistemology works. That's it.

If you wish to argue that religious claims have met their burden of proof, you need to demonstrate this. If you are not arguing that religious claims have met their burden of proof, then you and I are in agreement.
 

september796

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
246
Trophies
0
XP
828
Country
Cote d'Ivoire
It's possible to demonstrate that some specific definitions of "god" don't exist, but that's not what I'm talking about. Even if a god claim has not been disproven and is unfalsifiable, that isn't a reasonable justification for believing the claim. You can't demonstrate that forest pixies definitely don't exist, but that doesn't mean we should believe in them.

I'm not explicitly asking for physical evidence; any evidence that demonstrates the truthfulness of a claim is good enough. When I talk about science, I'm talking about the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the formal sciences. The formal sciences include logic and mathematics. Unfortunately for theists, no evidence has been presented that supports the claim that a god exists, physical or otherwise.

There is a philosophical possibility that a god exists, just like there's the philosophical possibility that forest pixies exist. I'm not refuting that. However, that doesn't mean we have any reason to think a god actually exists, and it doesn't mean we've demonstrated that there's an actual physical possibility that a god exists. There's a difference between the two. We don't actually know if a god's existence is possible, and it hasn't been demonstrated that a god is actually possible.
Well that philosophical demonstration that a god may exist and the impossibility to prove the opposite IS a reason to think a god may actually exist, just not a sound evidence. That alone is rational and that's the point. I'm not talking about the lore, doctrine nor eveything else -aka religions- that's build around god, this is just about his existance. Although I'm sure not a single religious person believe in god because of this rational basis; as I said, that is more of a spiritual matter and faith is there.
But now I'm intrigued on how could we demonstrate that pixies -specifically pixies- may exist...
The approach on demonstrating the possibility for a pixy to exist and God (defined as the creator of everything there is) should be different. These two can't be compared. A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being. To this day they're still discovering new living beings anyway. Who knows if anytime soon they discover some weird animal with never seen before characteristics deep down the ocean or wherever. God is a different story and it can be demonstrated logically with the argument of first cause among a few others.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
Well that philosophical demonstration that a god may exist and the impossibility to prove the opposite IS a reason to think a god may actually exist, just not a sound evidence.
No, and there are two issues to unpack here.

First, there is a difference between something being philosophically possible and something being actually physically possible. It is philosophically possible that a ham sandwich will spontaneously appear in front of my face within the next few seconds, but that doesn't mean it's actually physically possible. If I flip this coin, it could land on tails. That's something that has been demonstrated to be actually physically possible.

Second, just because a claim is unfalsifiable is not justification for thinking it may actually be true, let alone justification for thinking it is actually true. In order to believe a claim is true, there needs to be evidence for the truthfulness of that claim. In order to believe a claim is physically possible, there must also be evidence for the physical possibility of the truthfulness of the claim. I can't disprove fire-breathing dragons, but that doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons exist, and it doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons are actually physically possible. I can't disprove a god's existence, but it has yet to be demonstrated that a god actually exists, and it has yet to be demonstrated it is even physically possible that a god exists.

That alone is rational and that's the point.
Belief in a god is irrational since there is no evidence for a god's existence. Shifting the burden of proof doesn't change that.

I'm not talking about the lore, doctrine nor eveything else -aka religions- that's build around god, this is just about his existance.
The basic theistic claim that a god exists has not met its burden of proof, like any other more specific religious claim.

Although I'm sure not a single religious person believe in god because of this rational basis; as I said, that is more of a spiritual matter and faith is there.
Faith is the excuse one gives when they don't actually have any good reason or evidence for their beliefs. If a person actually had good reasons or evidence for the belief, they wouldn't say "faith." They would just provide the evidence.

But now I'm intrigued on how could we demonstrate that pixies -specifically pixies- may exist...
There has been no demonstrate that pixies exist or are even physically possible. My point was the unfalsifiability of pixies doesn't change that.

The approach on demonstrating the possibility for a pixy to exist and God (defined as the creator of everything there is) should be different.
It isn't different, and it shouldn't be different. You don't get to make exceptions for some claims but not others. If you care if your beliefs are true, you require good reason and evidence for those claims. Period.

These two can't be compared.
Yes they can. They are perfectly analogous. Neither has met its burden of proof, both are unfalsifiable, and neither has been demonstrated to be even physically possible.

A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being.
That is irrelevant to whether or not the claims are comparable. Neither has met its burden of proof, both are unfalsifiable, and neither has been demonstrated to be even physically possible.

A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being. To this day they're still discovering new living beings anyway. Who knows if anytime soon they discover some weird animal with never seen before characteristics deep down the ocean or wherever.
It sounds like you're saying that if we take God and pixies, the pixies are more like things that we already know exist, making them less absurd than the God claim. In other words, we know "imperfect" living beings exist, but it hasn't been demonstrated that "perfect" beings exist or that it's even physically possible for perfect beings to exist.

I agree. Depending on our definition of "pixies," there's more evidence for the physical possibility that they could exist vs. a god.

God is a different story and it can be demonstrated logically with the argument of first cause among a few others.
It has not been "demonstrated logically" that a god exists, and it has not been demonstrated logically that it is even physically possible for a god to exist. The "first-cause" argument is unsound, and depending on the argument, it isn't even valid. Most first-cause arguments argue that there was a first cause to the universe, but a.) There's no part of the argument that says a god has to be the first cause, b.) The argument fails at demonstrating that there has to be a first cause, and c.) The arguments that claim God has to be the first cause fail at demonstrating this.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,185
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,525
Country
Japan
It's the person making the positive claim who has the burden of proof. What you're doing is called the shifting of the burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy.

I'm not proselytizing. I'm acknowledging that religious claims haven't met their burden of proof, and I've posted a few explanations on how epistemology works. That's it.

If you wish to argue that religious claims have met their burden of proof, you need to demonstrate this. If you are not arguing that religious claims have met their burden of proof, then you and I are in agreement.
You claim to know what religions are, what they claim, and that they are illogical. I haven't presented any "religious claims", you are doing that. My addition to the thread is that people don't need religion to be crappy, while others use it as an excuse. Thanks for supporting my point.
 

nWo

The Game Master
Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
729
Trophies
0
Website
www.facebook.com
XP
1,945
Country
Mexico
Well, that certainly sounds kinda weird, but you must look back on your life, experiences and believe in what you think is the right choice. I'm catholic and, as a child / teenager had some serious doubts, but after living some life changing things and looking around, researching and just living every day with a peaceful mind, I came to terms to the existence of God. (There are so many things so wonderful to just think they where made out of nothing) Also, catholicism says basically that God is a very jealous supreme being, he destroys and curses who He sees fit, and, us human beings? we are trash and take decisions that have consequences. Still we got the choice to be better or to just let shit drown you. When you see things this way, it makes a bit more sense.

Not starting a debate about what to believe and what not; just telling, be a fair person, live and let die, love the ones close to you, but more than anything, be happy and have peace on your soul. And don't forget to do the things you love, without doing harm to others.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
You claim to know what religions are, what they claim, and that they are illogical.
My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to present evidence.

I haven't presented any "religious claims"
I never said you did. I said if you want to, or if you are going to, you need to provide evidence.

you are doing that [presenting religious claims]
I haven't made a single positive claim, let alone a religious one.

My addition to the thread is that people don't need religion to be crappy, while others use it as an excuse.
You've also suggested that religious beliefs are reasonable. They aren't.

People don't need religion to be crappy, but a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of religion.

Well, that certainly sounds kinda weird, but you must look back on your life, experiences and believe in what you think is the right choice. I'm catholic and, as a child / teenager have some serious doubts, but after living some life changing things and looking around, researching and just living every day with a peaceful mind, I came to terms to the existence of God. (There are so many things so wonderful to just think they where made out of nothing) Also, catholicism says basically that God is a very jealous supreme being, he destroys and curses who He sees fit, and, us human beings? we are trash and take decisions that have consequences. Still we got the choice to be better or to just let shit drown you. When you see things this way, it makes a bit more sense.

Not starting a debate about what to believe and what not; just telling, be a fair person, live and let die, love the ones close to you, but more than anything, be happy and have peace on your soul. And don't forget to do the things you love, without doing harm to others.
If the topic is about how JW is illogical, then it should be acknowledged that theism broadly is illogical.

Whether or not you find something wonderful is irrelevant to whether or not you have good reason to believe a religious claim is true.

You described humans as trash, but the jealous Catholic God you described is the one who sounds like trash.
 

nWo

The Game Master
Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
729
Trophies
0
Website
www.facebook.com
XP
1,945
Country
Mexico
Well, no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions.

My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.
 

SG854

Meow!!!
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,689
Trophies
1
XP
6,530
Country
Fiji
Well, no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions.

My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.
The sooner we de-convert people the better
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
Well, no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions.
On a personal level, I don't care what anybody's religious beliefs are. I am rightfully acknowledging that anyone with religious beliefs who criticizes a religion like JW for being illogical is hypocritical.

I'm not knocking on people's doors and asking, "Have you given up God yet?" I'm responding appropriately in this thread in a way that is on topic and polite. Would I rather people have up silly superstitions and fantasy beliefs? Yes, the world would be a better place if humans embraced reason and skepticism. However, I wouldn't force that conversation on anyone, and I wouldn't forcibly end religion either. People need to embrace skeptical thought and logic on their own. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't true, and it doesn't mean what I'm saying here is at all inappropriate.

The primary reason JW is "illogical" is because it has failed to meet its burden of proof, and the same goes for all other religious and theistic claims. If you want to argue otherwise, you will need to provide evidence. If you can't or don't want to discuss this, nobody asked you to.

My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.
Your message was a little more loaded than that. You suggested Catholicism is reasonable, but it isn't.
 

nWo

The Game Master
Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
729
Trophies
0
Website
www.facebook.com
XP
1,945
Country
Mexico
My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to present evidence.


I never said you did. I said if you want to, or if you are going to, you need to provide evidence.


I haven't made a single positive claim, let alone a religious one.


You've also suggested that religious beliefs are reasonable. They aren't.

People don't need religion to be crappy, but a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of religion.


If the topic is about how JW is illogical, then it should be acknowledged that theism broadly is illogical.

Whether or not you find something wonderful is irrelevant to whether or not you have good reason to believe a religious claim is true.

You described humans as trash, but the jealous Catholic God you described is the one who sounds like trash.

On a personal level, I don't care what anybody's religious beliefs are. I am rightfully acknowledging that anyone with religious beliefs who criticizes a religion like JW for being illogical is hypocritical.

I'm not knocking on people's doors and asking, "Have you given up God yet?" I'm responding appropriately in this thread in a way that is on topic and polite. Would I rather people have up silly superstitions and fantasy beliefs? Yes, the world would be a better place if humans embraced reason and skepticism. However, I wouldn't force that conversation on anyone, and I wouldn't forcibly end religion either. People need to embrace skeptical thought and logic on their own. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't true, and it doesn't mean what I'm saying here is at all inappropriate.

The primary reason JW is "illogical" is because it has failed to meet its burden of proof, and the same goes for all other religious and theistic claims. If you want to argue otherwise, you will need to provide evidence. If you can't or don't want to discuss this, nobody asked you to.


Your message was a little more loaded than that. You suggested Catholicism is reasonable, but it isn't.
HOLY damn, dude, you sound itchy AF. Cool down a bit.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tabzer

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,185
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,525
Country
Japan
My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct.

Even if the claim was specifically about the JWs, contextually, you don't matter. The burden of proof is only of the interest of social contract. They would go separate ways from you once you made it clear that you aren't interested. Do you talk to them? I can't represent JW, so it's your loss to try to talk to me about them.

You've also suggested that religious beliefs are reasonable. They aren't.

I don't know if they are reasonable or what qualifies as a "religious belief". People have unique reasons for believing what they believe in which we are not able to fully evaluate. Words mean different things to different people, so to pretend that the language is static across the board is a clear error on your behalf. I don't think things happen for irrational reasons.

People don't need religion to be crappy, but a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of religion.

I don't think that's true. I suppose it could be true. But it's probably just as true to say that a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of their ignorance of god.

lt doesn't seem like you are saying anything meaningful there.

Making claims about religions are religious claims. You might not like your baggage, but everyone else can see it. Pretending it's not there isn't doing anyone any favors.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
Even if the claim was specifically about the JWs, contextually, you don't matter. The burden of proof is only of the interest of social contract. They would go separate ways from you once you made it clear that you aren't interested. Do you talk to them? I can't represent JW, so it's your loss to try to talk to me about them.



I don't know if they are reasonable or what qualifies as a "religious belief". People have unique reasons for believing what they believe in which we are not able to fully evaluate. Words mean different things to different people, so to pretend that the language is static across the board is a clear error on your behalf. I don't think things happen for irrational reasons.



I don't think that's true. I suppose it could be true. But it's probably just as true to say that a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of their ignorance of god.

lt doesn't seem like you are saying anything meaningful there.

Making claims about religions are religious claims. You might not like your baggage, but everyone else can see it. Pretending it's not there isn't doing anyone any favors.
My point about the burden of proof was not specific to JW. That was kind of my whole point.

Religious beliefs are irrational by definition, since people who accept religious claims as true do not have any sound reason or evidence for their beliefs. Religious claims have not met their burden of proof. It's the same for why belief in forest pixies is irrational.

If you want to argue that religious beliefs are rational, in that they are supported by sound reason and evidence, then you need to provide that evidence. I'm not particularly interested in attempts to redefine religious beliefs back into rationality. If what you say can be equally applied to pixie beliefs, then it probably isn't a substantive response.

I would argue the semantic dance you're doing is the kind of post that isn't really saying anything meaningful here.

HOLY damn, dude, you sound itchy AF. Cool down a bit.
My posts have been calm, on topic, and to the point, so I'm not sure how they could be described as "itchy" by any reasonable means. I'm not the one who got riled because I didn't like what someone was saying about religion.

I rightfully made the point that if we are going to call JW illogical, then we must also not forget to call the rest of the major religions illogical. Saying we should get along, etc. is good but irrelevant. As I already said, you also posted a lot more baggage than that.

When you decide to respond to my last post with something substantive, do be sure to respond to it directly or tag me.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

september796

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
246
Trophies
0
XP
828
Country
Cote d'Ivoire
First, there is a difference between something being philosophically possible and something being actually physically possible.
The physical possibility does not apply. If God exists he can't be physical, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect -following the logical reasoning-. So that doesn't make sense.

It is philosophically possible that a ham sandwich will spontaneously appear in front of my face within the next few seconds, but that doesn't mean it's actually physically possible. If I flip this coin, it could land on tails. That's something that has been demonstrated to be actually physically possible.
Because a coin is material. That's probability though, it's not the same philosophical argument. Although I think there are some mathematical arguments about creation that I'm not familiar with.

I can't disprove fire-breathing dragons, but that doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons exist, and it doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons are actually physically possible. I can't disprove a god's existence, but it has yet to be demonstrated that a god actually exists, and it has yet to be demonstrated it is even physically possible that a god exists.
I agree with the dragon thing and the same should apply to everything that happens physically in this world. What I said is that at least we can demonstrate the possibility of God's existance through simple logic. With our humble science we'll never find the absolute truth.

Faith is the excuse one gives when they don't actually have any good reason or evidence for their beliefs. If a person actually had good reasons or evidence for the belief, they wouldn't say "faith." They would just provide the evidence.
It's certainly not an excuse. It's more like hope. I don't know who came up with the concept first nor where it comes from but the biblie says it's conviction to believe on what can't be seen or something like that. So that only applies for spiritual beings and things related to them if you will.

There has been no demonstrate that pixies exist or are even physically possible. My point was the unfalsifiability of pixies doesn't change that.
I said "may", and you said that it's philosophically demonstrable -not the negation-. I'd like to read about that, honestly, because I suspect it's not the same argument.

It sounds like you're saying that if we take God and pixies, the pixies are more like things that we already know exist, making them less absurd than the God claim. In other words, we know "imperfect" living beings exist, but it hasn't been demonstrated that "perfect" beings exist or that it's even physically possible for perfect beings to exist.
Since we know what imperfect is we can easily imagine all sorts of creatures, but I don't know how could we demonstrate logically their existence. And sure, we're not able to know the perfect since our own intellectuality is anything but perfect. Perfect and material don't mix.

It has not been "demonstrated logically" that a god exists, and it has not been demonstrated logically that it is even physically possible for a god to exist. The "first-cause" argument is unsound, and depending on the argument, it isn't even valid. Most first-cause arguments argue that there was a first cause to the universe, but a.) There's no part of the argument that says a god has to be the first cause, b.) The argument fails at demonstrating that there has to be a first cause, and c.) The arguments that claim God has to be the first cause fail at demonstrating this.
At this point, it sounds like you portrait God simply as a physical being with super powers. Anyway, the first cause argument is a logical demonstration of a possibility of god's existance, a) it doesn't mention God but the characteristics are of what we call God. b) It has to, otherwise it becomes a circular logic fallacy. c) Same as a.
 

Dr_Faustus

Resident Robot Hoarder
Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
481
Trophies
0
Age
32
Location
The Best State on The Best Coast
XP
588
Country
United States
The rejection of a claim is not the acceptance of another claim, and the rejection of a claim does not have a burden of proof.

If you flip a coin and hide the result from me, I'm going to reject the claim that the coin is heads. That doesn't mean I accept the claim that it's tails; I also reject the claim that it's tails.

Religious claims are unsupported by evidence, which is what it means for something to be unsound, illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or whatever colloquial word you want to use. Whether or not a claim is supported by evidence is objective, not subjective. Atheism, on the other hand, is merely the rejection of a claim because it has not met its burden of proof. If you run into an atheist who says "Not only do I reject the claim that a god exists, but I also actively believe that a god does not exist," then that atheist would have a burden of proof.

We believe claims when there's evidence to support those claims. If there's a claim that has neither been supported by evidence nor disproven, that doesn't mean it's rational to believe the claim is true. Whether or not a claim has been disproven is not justification for belief in the claim. If the criteria for belief is it just hasn't been disproven, then you would have to believe me when I made the claim that malevolent forest pixies exist, since they haven't been disproven. You would have to believe me when I say the coin landed on heads despite not looking at it, since it hasn't been disproven. If you care if your beliefs are true, you require evidence for those beliefs. That's it.

Agnosticism is a separate issue from atheism. The former deals with knowledge, and the latter deals with belief. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. If someone believed in a god, and they claim to know it, they're a gnostic theist. If someone believed in a god, but didn't know for sure, that's an agnostic theist. If someone doesn't believe in a god but claims to know it, that's a gnostic atheist. If someone doesn't believe in a god but doesn't know for sure, that's an agnostic atheist. If you ask someone if they believe in a god, and they say they're an agnostic, that doesn't actually answer the question that's being asked. One either accepts the claim is true or they don't. There is no third option.

A rejection of a claim is still accepting of another claim all the same. If you want to reject all things that is more on the end of Nihilism than Atheism. When you cannot prove your belief with any larger matter of fact than any other religion it does not make you or your claims, rejections of claims or whatever you want to twist your words into a matter of fact any more so than others. You are still in the bandwagon of religious mindset of a following principal that you hold your beliefs to. Its not a matter of fact if it cannot be proven one way or another. Its a double edged sword masked as logic no matter how you hold it and want to point it at others. Its not an argument of burden of proof, its an argument from ignorance.

Also I know of the levels of Agnosticism, but usually when I present myself as an Agnostic theist it brings nothing but confusion to a conversation. Also to better expand on that explanation its a concept of having a belief in the possibility of God but not having the knowledge or the claim to back up with a matter of fact that a God exists. Basically believing in the possibility of a creator without the means to know for sure if one exists and accepting the fact that it may be unknowable. Its still far more embracing of a concept because at the end of the day its something that may truly be unknowable to anyone, so with that its better to put the effort into making the world a better place for everyone than trying to answer questions that have no factual answers and only hinge on structures of belief and claims or absence of claims.


If you said there was am invisible elephant in the room and I said you had no evidence of that, then we'd both be arguing and only one of us would be correct.
Sure, go with that kind of grasping of straws of argument again. Except when the room can be the size of all known and unknown space and the elephant can be any size to the unobservable eye. When such concepts such as black holes are barely scratched upon, when we have only dipped our toes in the concept of quantum science and when we have not even gotten a human on another planet yet, but go on and claim to already have all the answers in our universe and how it works because that is somehow any different than how the basis of religious concepts are any different than your perception.

Just let it go, when you drop your ego of belief/claims and just embrace the fact that the truth is unknowable to you, you live a better life focusing on better things. Claiming to know for a fact based squarely on claims or absence of claims is just ego stroking, something that seems common among atheists and very religious types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nWo

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,750
Trophies
2
XP
17,479
Country
United States
The physical possibility does not apply. If God exists he can't be physical, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect -following the logical reasoning-. So that doesn't make sense.
When we are talking about something being physically possible, we are saying it's actually possible. It doesn't matter if the god claim is one about something that is immaterial. Making that claim doesn't mean you have somehow demonstrated the actual possibility that it exists. I can't disprove an immaterial pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean we have any reason to think it exists, and it doesn't mean we have any reason to think it's actually possible.

Because a coin is material. That's probability though, it's not the same philosophical argument. Although I think there are some mathematical arguments about creation that I'm not familiar with.
It is not a philosophical argument. That was my point: There is a difference between something being philosophically possible (since you can't be 100% certain of just about anything, many things are unfalsifiable, and there's no good solution to hard solipsism) and something being demonstrated to be actually possible. Pixies, God, and a tails coin flip are all philosophically possible. I can't disprove them, and for all I know, the reality I'm aware of isn't even the true reality. However, only the tail coin flip has been demonstrated to be actually possible.

I agree with the dragon thing and the same should apply to everything that happens physically in this world. What I said is that at least we can demonstrate the possibility of God's existance through simple logic. With our humble science we'll never find the absolute truth.
No, our standards for having reason and evidence to think something exists or that it's actually possible something exists applies to everything. There is nothing that demonstrates the actual existence of God, let alone the actual possibility that a god exists. All you have with God is that we philosophically can't be 100% sure of just about anything's lack of existence, whether it's God or pixies. It doesn't matter that the God claim often includes things like "immaterial" or "beyond our universe" or "beyond our understanding." They're irrelevant points. I could say immaterial pixies, and that doesn't mean I've demonstrated their existence, and it doesn't mean we have any reason to think they're actually possible.

I never said science is an avenue to absolute truth. It can only tell us what's likely true, and it's limited by the evidence we have. As far as I'm aware, no one has successfully presented an avenue to absolute truth. The three sciences, broadly, are the best and only tools we have.

It's certainly not an excuse. It's more like hope. I don't know who came up with the concept first nor where it comes from but the biblie says it's conviction to believe on what can't be seen or something like that. So that only applies for spiritual beings and things related to them if you will.
Faith certainly is an excuse people give when they don't have good reason or evidence. Otherwise, they'd just present the evidence instead of giving up and waving the white flag of surrender (faith). If you're using a definition of faith that means hope, then that's irrelevant. We know that whether or not we hope something is true is irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true. Hope is not an avenue to truth.

If you're using the definition of faith that just means belief, then it's wholly irrelevant to the conversation, because that would just be saying someone believed because they believe. It isn't a justification for the belief in that context; it is the belief.

I said "may", and you said that it's philosophically demonstrable -not the negation-. I'd like to read about that, honestly, because I suspect it's not the same argument.
We don't know that a god could actually exist. No mote demonstration of this has been presented than has been presented for the possibility of pixies existing.

If you want to argue god is philosophically possible in the same way it's philosophically possible we're all living in the Matrix right now, sure. I agree with that, but it isn't particularly useful, it doesn't mean we have any reason to think a god is actually possible, and it doesn't mean belief in a god is reasonable.

Since we know what imperfect is we can easily imagine all sorts of creatures, but I don't know how could we demonstrate logically their existence. And sure, we're not able to know the perfect since our own intellectuality is anything but perfect. Perfect and material don't mix.
I don't know for sure what it means for something to be described as "perfect," there has been no demonstration that anything perfect exists, and there has been no demonstration that perfection (depending on how it is defined) is actually even possible. Claiming something exists and tacking on the "perfect" adjective doesn't exclude it from having a burden of proof with regard to its existence or its actual possibility of existing.

At this point, it sounds like you portrait God simply as a physical being with super powers. Anyway, the first cause argument is a logical demonstration of a possibility of god's existance, a) it doesn't mention God but the characteristics are of what we call God. b) It has to, otherwise it becomes a circular logic fallacy. c) Same as a.
I have never once imagined a physical being with superpowers when talking about gods, and it's your failure in understanding my points that has led you to this strawman. Hopefully this post clarifies things for you.

On principle, I generally don't like to present arguments and then argue against them. I'm doing all the work, and it might not even be the argument you're referencing (which makes it a double waste of my time). So, if you want to talk about the first cause argument more than what's in this post and my last one, you're going to need to present it.

There is no first cause argument I'm aware of that demonstrates a god's existence or the actual possibility that a god exists. A first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, the need for a first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, and even if we assume the universe has a first cause, there's no reason to think it's a god. All first cause arguments are unsound, and many of them are also invalid. "Everything has a chase" is a common first premise, but that hasn't been demonstrated, and it would also mean god has a cause (lol). "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" tries to fix that obvious blunder by religious zealots, but it still hasn't been demonstrated to be true and should be rejected. Even if we pretend that this premise is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the first cause has to be a god or even god-like; there are lots of other possibilities.

A rejection of a claim is still accepting of another claim all the same. If you want to reject all things that is more on the end of Nihilism than Atheism. When you cannot prove your belief with any larger matter of fact than any other religion it does not make you or your claims, rejections of claims or whatever you want to twist your words into a matter of fact any more so than others. You are still in the bandwagon of religious mindset of a following principal that you hold your beliefs to. Its not a matter of fact if it cannot be proven one way or another. Its a double edged sword masked as logic no matter how you hold it and want to point it at others. Its not an argument of burden of proof, its an argument from ignorance.

Also I know of the levels of Agnosticism, but usually when I present myself as an Agnostic theist it brings nothing but confusion to a conversation. Also to better expand on that explanation its a concept of having a belief in the possibility of God but not having the knowledge or the claim to back up with a matter of fact that a God exists. Basically believing in the possibility of a creator without the means to know for sure if one exists and accepting the fact that it may be unknowable. Its still far more embracing of a concept because at the end of the day its something that may truly be unknowable to anyone, so with that its better to put the effort into making the world a better place for everyone than trying to answer questions that have no factual answers and only hinge on structures of belief and claims or absence of claims.



Sure, go with that kind of grasping of straws of argument again. Except when the room can be the size of all known and unknown space and the elephant can be any size to the unobservable eye. When such concepts such as black holes are barely scratched upon, when we have only dipped our toes in the concept of quantum science and when we have not even gotten a human on another planet yet, but go on and claim to already have all the answers in our universe and how it works because that is somehow any different than how the basis of religious concepts are any different than your perception.

Just let it go, when you drop your ego of belief/claims and just embrace the fact that the truth is unknowable to you, you live a better life focusing on better things. Claiming to know for a fact based squarely on claims or absence of claims is just ego stroking, something that seems common among atheists and very religious types.

No, rejecting a claim is not accepting another. If you flip a coin but don't show me or tell me the result, I reject the claim that the coin landed heads, but it doesn't mean I accept that it's tails. This is basic epistemology, and you're objectively wrong in what you're saying. I suggest you do some more reading on the topic.

I don't like talking about gnosticism/agnosticism either since they aren't what the topic of conversation is about. It's about whether or not the god claim has met its burden of proof. It hasn't, so it is unreasonable to believe a god exists. If you care if your beliefs are true, you cannot accept a claim is true if it's unreasonable.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,185
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,525
Country
Japan
Religious beliefs are irrational by definition, since people who accept religious claims as true do not have any sound reason or evidence for their beliefs. Religious claims have not met their burden of proof. It's the same

First, you've said that you don't care why people believe what they believe. The why is the rationality. If you reject the rationality, then that's on you.

Second, "religious beliefs" is broadly interpreted and can mean anything. It can be applied to your pursuits.

I would argue the semantic dance you're doing is the kind of post that isn't really saying anything meaningful here.
Semantics are usually the difference between people, religions, cultures, and what the data implies in scientific research. If you are bored of semantics, you can just keep repeating your dull mantras.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,660
Trophies
1
XP
4,414
Country
United Kingdom
Sure, go with that kind of grasping of straws of argument again. Except when the room can be the size of all known and unknown space and the elephant can be any size to the unobservable eye.
Where is your evidence of elephants that are any size? Where is your evidence that the room is the size of all known and unknown space.

You seem well versed with clutching at straws.

What if your god doesn't exist and the reality we can all experience is all there is?

Just let it go, when you drop your ego of belief/claims and just embrace the fact that the truth is unknowable to you, you live a better life focusing on better things. Claiming to know for a fact based squarely on claims or absence of claims is just ego stroking, something that seems common among atheists and very religious types.
The truth is unknowable to you. Yet you seem to think you know the truth. Ego stroking for sure.

Anyone who believes in a religion is more arrogant than any atheist. Atheists look at all religions and dismiss them all, because none of them meet the threshold for proof. While someone who believes in a religion will arbitrarily, usually based on geography and their parents, choose to believe that one religion is true and all the other religions are not true.

Why don't you worship all the greek gods, all the hindu gods etc?

You would do better to accept that you can't know and therefore following a religion is a waste of time and effort. There are more fulfilling role playing games out there that you can immerse yourself in.
 
Last edited by smf,
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius
General chit-chat
Help Users
    AsPika2219 @ AsPika2219: desmume version 0.9.13 was released...