IIzO wrote:
Given that we have an ifinite of possibly true premises....its a waste of time to try to justify non belief

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:
Given that we have an ifinite of possibly true premises....its a waste of time to try to justify non belief

Given that we (most of us here on this forum) live in democratic societies wherein what is believed affects the nature of the political agenda, it is fundamentally necessary to justify non-belief if one is not to become a slave to the beliefs of others.

IIzO wrote:

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:
Given that we have an ifinite of possibly true premises....its a waste of time to try to justify non belief

Given that we (most of us here on this forum) live in democratic societies wherein what is believed affects the nature of the political agenda, it is fundamentally necessary to justify non-belief if one is not to become a slave to the beliefs of others.

maybe that's what evidences are for ?

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:
Given that we have an ifinite of possibly true premises....its a waste of time to try to justify non belief

Given that we (most of us here on this forum) live in democratic societies wherein what is believed affects the nature of the political agenda, it is fundamentally necessary to justify non-belief if one is not to become a slave to the beliefs of others.

maybe that's what evidences are for ?

You cannot, without logic, convince anyone that they should base their beliefs on evidence. If you're honest, you will admit that it was logic, not evidence, that convinced you to take that position in relation to your own beliefs.

IIzO wrote:

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:

Jef wrote:

IIzO wrote:
Given that we have an ifinite of possibly true premises....its a waste of time to try to justify non belief

Given that we (most of us here on this forum) live in democratic societies wherein what is believed affects the nature of the political agenda, it is fundamentally necessary to justify non-belief if one is not to become a slave to the beliefs of others.

maybe that's what evidences are for ?

You cannot, without logic, convince anyone that they should base their beliefs on evidence. If you're honest, you will admit that it was logic, not evidence, that convinced you to take that position in relation to your own beliefs.

And you cannot ,without evidences , convince anyone that logic based beliefs are true.
this is becoming strange.

And you cannot ,without evidences , convince anyone that logic based beliefs are true.

Luis Dias wrote:Okay, I'll cue this to the mods and see if they can split the thread, so you two can work it out that epistemological shit in your own beds .

BTW, IIzo is wrong, you're using naive empiricism. You should listen (or read) more closely to what Jef is saying. There is no empiricism without logic, there is no logic without empiricism. They are intertwined. a priori with a posteriori.

And you cannot ,without evidences , convince anyone that logic based beliefs are true.

They are true, if the statement is about logical entities. This is basic stuff.

Jef wrote:

klazmon wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:I don't believe in The Incredible Hulk either, so in your view, Mitch, I would also need to justify that and everything else I don't believe in, right? Utter nonsense, and a colossal waste of time.

+1

You don't believe in the Incredible Hulk as opposed to what, given then context of this thread? 'Why is there something rather than nothing' isn't a statement of belief, it is a question. Moreover, it's not a 'silly' question, no matter whether you're a theist or an atheist. Rather it is something that would be particularly interesting to know.

Jef wrote:You don't believe in the Incredible Hulk as opposed to what, given then context of this thread? 'Why is there something rather than nothing' isn't a statement of belief, it is a question. Moreover, it's not a 'silly' question, no matter whether you're a theist or an atheist. Rather it is something that would be particularly interesting to know.

Jef wrote:Now it might be the case that your response to that question is 'I don't know' (a presumption on my part). While that may be the only response you are able to give at this time, it is not in any sense an answer to the question, nor does it qualify as information which is useful to those interested in discovering an answer. I don't know about you, but personally I don't like not having answers to sensible and interesting questions. Nor do I necessarily hold that it is my role in life to patiently wait while other people work out all the answers before I can have anything to say on a matter, and thankfully there are other people you believe as I do or else there would never be any answers! We are all perfectly capable of thinking about what we believe about the universe around us for ourselves; we don't need to be handfed all of our answers by an intellectual elite. While it is likely that other peoples' answers will be better than our own, in which case we should use them, that's no reason to take so passive a role. So, for me, the OP is right that this is a question that we (and not just atheists, but all of us, since it is equally applicable to all of us) should be addressing, and the refusal to address it is a refusal to think for yourself.

Thommo wrote:The danger is that in any formal system of sufficient complexity, logic alone tells us there are questions which necessarily cannot be answered. For such a question the only appropriate answer is and always will be "I don't know". We can't take that answer off the table just because we don't like it.

MitchLeBlanc wrote:It seems that many atheists are content with taking a wholly negative approach to their atheism. That is, they wait for theistic arguments and attempt to find problems with it to justify their own position.

paarsurrey wrote:

MitchLeBlanc wrote:It seems that many atheists are content with taking a wholly negative approach to their atheism. That is, they wait for theistic arguments and attempt to find problems with it to justify their own position.

Hi friend "MitchLeBlanc"

Thanks for pointing out to the wholly negative approach of the Atheists towards life. They cannot , as you have rightly pointed out ,justify their view point.

Thanks

RichardPrins wrote:Likely a reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s).

Luis Dias wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:Likely a reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s).

Incompleteness is not "impossibleness" of "answers".

Luis Dias wrote:Godel found a problem in our logic. Is our logic defensible to the point of divinity, so that we can state unequivocally that no one will be able to find a "particular" answer, forever?

Luis Dias wrote:I think the questions are unrelated, and off topic.

MitchLeBlanc wrote:It seems that many atheists are content with taking a wholly negative approach to their atheism. That is, they wait for theistic arguments and attempt to find problems with it to justify their own position. Whether or not this is proper action, it seems quite puzzling that most atheists wouldn't simply charge right out of the gate presenting arguments of their own. One of my favorites is one which does not show that God does not exist, but that if God does exist, he could not have created the Universe (this generally leads to the refutation of monotheistic religions anyhow).

I had first thought to parse through two of these publicly available papers and condense the material, but I expect this post to be met with a lot of "LOLPHILOSOPHYWUT" so I'd rather avoid wasting my time and simply link to the papers as they are.

There are two main papers (or one if you have the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, simply read Smith's paper therein):

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_wit ... _point.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... aused.html

For those who prefer to watch videos instead of reading:

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-prof ... Smith-/984

Now, even if this argument fails (I don't presently think it does) it is an example of the TYPE of thinking atheists should be doing to rationally justify their position. Unfortunately the consensus seems to be that atheists need not do anything to establish their case, I think that any academic worth his or her salt can tell you this is simply wrong.

The papers are authored by Quentin Smith, a Philosopher of Religion, Philosopher of Science, Philosopher of Physics and upon my last communication with him, someone moving towards becoming a theoretical physicist. The hard physics can only get us so far, but with the coupling of philosophy (much to the dismay of many members, I'm sure) we can arrive at a strong argument against the existence of God.

The moral of the story, I hope, is that we don't need to misrepresent William Lane Craig's arguments (for example), we don't need to establish cases based on erroneous understanding. You can meet the theistic arguments with arguments of your own, instead of being a passive do-nothing atheist.

Enjoy! (Questions welcome)

Thommo wrote:Actually, it is. There is a question in every consistent logic of sufficient descriptive power which cannot be answered. So unless you plan to address the questions of the universe without logic then this is a very real possibility.

We can't just take the answer "I don't know" off the table because we don't like it.

Luis Dias wrote:Godel found a problem in our logic. Is our logic defensible to the point of divinity, so that we can state unequivocally that no one will be able to find a "particular" answer, forever?

Yes, there are problems which we can state unequivocally that no one will ever find an answer to. That's exactly the point.

Certainly heading that way, but nonetheless the fact that we have no hope of ever describing certain systems of sufficient complexity in a way that allows all questions to be answered is relevant to a logical analysis of the universe as a whole, which is precisely what is being discussed if one tries to use philosophy (i.e. logic and some interpretation) to the origins of the universe.

The best hope for such a solution would be that the universe is not "sufficiently complex" to require such a description, but unless one can eliminate the possibility then the prospect that "I don't know" is in fact the best possible answer remains and can't be dismissed just because some people have decided by fiat that "explanatory hypotheses" automatically elevate a theory to an epistemically preferable position.

Luis Dias wrote:

Thommo wrote:Actually, it is. There is a question in every consistent logic of sufficient descriptive power which cannot be answered. So unless you plan to address the questions of the universe without logic then this is a very real possibility.

Hmm. But you are still reasoning under the assumption that we will never create a logical system that won't have Godel's problem. Mind, I'm not saying silly things here such as stating that such a system exists (or will exist), I'm asking how do you know that it will never exist?

Luis Dias wrote:

We can't just take the answer "I don't know" off the table because we don't like it.

Not my intent. At all. My point was precisely the opposite. If we "don't know", how can we claim that we will "never" do?

Luis Dias wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:Godel found a problem in our logic. Is our logic defensible to the point of divinity, so that we can state unequivocally that no one will be able to find a "particular" answer, forever?

Yes, there are problems which we can state unequivocally that no one will ever find an answer to. That's exactly the point.

Well you can state whatever you want. Doesn't make it true, however.

Luis Dias wrote:

Certainly heading that way, but nonetheless the fact that we have no hope of ever describing certain systems of sufficient complexity in a way that allows all questions to be answered is relevant to a logical analysis of the universe as a whole, which is precisely what is being discussed if one tries to use philosophy (i.e. logic and some interpretation) to the origins of the universe.

We may not discover "all" the answers, but we may well discover a good explanation for the existence of this universe. I still haven't read any satisfactory justification for this to be "impossible". This faulty reasoning reminds me of the Higgs boson theory that stated that the future prevented us of finding out the Higgs Boson.

Luis Dias wrote:

The best hope for such a solution would be that the universe is not "sufficiently complex" to require such a description, but unless one can eliminate the possibility then the prospect that "I don't know" is in fact the best possible answer remains and can't be dismissed just because some people have decided by fiat that "explanatory hypotheses" automatically elevate a theory to an epistemically preferable position.

How do you judge, what is your criteria of stating a priori which is the "best" possible answer? What do you mean by "best"? I understand your latter point, and I also prefer people shutting up than stating nonsensical things, and that's why I'm also challenging your apparent nonsensical demand for some kinds of answers being "impossible" to find out.

Thommo wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:

Thommo wrote:Actually, it is. There is a question in every consistent logic of sufficient descriptive power which cannot be answered. So unless you plan to address the questions of the universe without logic then this is a very real possibility.

Hmm. But you are still reasoning under the assumption that we will never create a logical system that won't have Godel's problem. Mind, I'm not saying silly things here such as stating that such a system exists (or will exist), I'm asking how do you know that it will never exist?

Because any such system would have to contain an isomorphic embedding of the standard logical system we use (or sacrifice such things as consistency). Thus it still proves the theorem.

Because it’s proven. I suppose you can doubt it, in the same way you might doubt that 1+1=2 in standard arithmetic.

Personally I won’t waste my time doubting either of those facts though.

Absolutely correct, stating it doesn’t make it true, the proof does. The proof is too long and technical to present here, but I can probably track down one on the net (there’s quite possibly a link from the page that got linked earlier in fact) if you think it would help.

My reasoning isn’t faulty, if you think otherwise, you need to show where it’s faulty rather than just assert it.

On the topic of the answer for the existence of the universe, yes we may discover a good explanation. I hold out hopes we will, but no matter what our hopes or expectations we cannot shut out the possibility that we may not.

This isn’t a suggestion not to try, it’s a suggestion not to dismiss options we simply don’t like - which is exactly what one is doing when one asserts that a position involving an “explanatory hypothesis” is a priori preferable to one that doesn’t, independently of evidence to support that “explanatory hypothesis”.

How do you judge, what is your criteria of stating a priori which is the "best" possible answer? What do you mean by "best"? I understand your latter point, and I also prefer people shutting up than stating nonsensical things, and that's why I'm also challenging your apparent nonsensical demand for some kinds of answers being "impossible" to find out.

I am not stating what kinds of answers are impossible to find out. I am not stating that the existence of the universe is such a problem. I am stating that it might be such a problem (something I personally find unlikely, but I can’t actually justify why I find it unlikely, so I’ll retract it if challenged), and justifying why we have to consider such problems. If we can’t rule out that possibility then we can’t claim that it’s a priori epistemically inferior, which was specifically one of the claims in the first of the linked essays.