Questions for Atheist/Agnostics
- Thread starter okinrus
- Start date
does a tree that falls in the woods, and no ones there, make a sound.
1, as long as theres been, the existences of sentient beings.
2, part 1.. how would we know, we know the universe is very old. but to say that something has always existed is not known at present.
2, part 2.. nonexistence is itself nonexistence, therefore can not exist.
the ontological argument does not work.
1, as long as theres been, the existences of sentient beings.
2, part 1.. how would we know, we know the universe is very old. but to say that something has always existed is not known at present.
2, part 2.. nonexistence is itself nonexistence, therefore can not exist.
the ontological argument does not work.
True, preacher. The consequences of assuming something illogical are, in a matter of speaking, too troubling for our minds to bare. For as soon as something illogic exists, anything can proved, and our logical framework is worthless, thought itself is worthless. An atheist would be unable to trust in possibility of illogic, which would mean even his contention is in doubt. Yet if illogic does not exist in the material world, then surely it exists in the mind. We really have no logical reason for believing in the existence of logic, but for the inductive notion of our apparently logical world.
But this is not so different from a theist who defends his own existence after death. Both theist and atheist would like to perserve the ideals of logic, of thought, and of life. The theist extends these ideals to the realm of the next life, whle the atheist does not. The question to the atheist is why? Of course, we need not answer why the preservation of life and logic are necessary; they are intutive notions, rarely rejected, side insanity.
But this is not so different from a theist who defends his own existence after death. Both theist and atheist would like to perserve the ideals of logic, of thought, and of life. The theist extends these ideals to the realm of the next life, whle the atheist does not. The question to the atheist is why? Of course, we need not answer why the preservation of life and logic are necessary; they are intutive notions, rarely rejected, side insanity.
the preacher, what you said about nonexistence not existing is interesting. I'm sure that any theist would say that the nonexistence of something exists within the knowledge of God. Fortunately for God, mankind can only bring up a finite number of these questions that do not exist(for man's mind is finite and any infinite set that man knows is defined inductively). God would still have to know the infinite things that do not exist.
An atheist, however, would have a difficult time explaining how something could not exist yet know that it does not exist. Their knowledge of this implies that they have complete knowledge of the universe.
Again, this is rrejecting inductive evidence to the contrary. In math, people do stuff like say something is S and that which is not in set S is in a set R. The belief that nonexistence means that something simply does not exist could very well break our intuitive mathematical notion of the world. Rather, existence maybe precisely defined so that everything that does not exist can be placed in a set, just as everything that exists. We humans do this grouping because we group the things that do not exist inside our brain. We have absolutely no basis for the nonexistence of something to simply not exist. We simply were not wired to believe this, and to say otherwise is to distrust the way man was created. Not entirely unexpected if one does not believe in divine providence.
An atheist, however, would have a difficult time explaining how something could not exist yet know that it does not exist. Their knowledge of this implies that they have complete knowledge of the universe.
Again, this is rrejecting inductive evidence to the contrary. In math, people do stuff like say something is S and that which is not in set S is in a set R. The belief that nonexistence means that something simply does not exist could very well break our intuitive mathematical notion of the world. Rather, existence maybe precisely defined so that everything that does not exist can be placed in a set, just as everything that exists. We humans do this grouping because we group the things that do not exist inside our brain. We have absolutely no basis for the nonexistence of something to simply not exist. We simply were not wired to believe this, and to say otherwise is to distrust the way man was created. Not entirely unexpected if one does not believe in divine providence.
Last edited:
where in your opening thread and in my reply did I or you mention {quote=okinrus]The consequences of assuming something illogical are, in a matter of speaking, too troubling for our minds[/quote] what are you talking about impossible scenarios something like a square circle, it would not exist, and there is no way it will ever be so, an atheist does not even think illogically.
overwise he'd still, be believing in a god/gods.
yes it proberly exist in the mind of a believer.
this is the most stupid statement of all,
if it's not there, it's simply is not there.
overwise he'd still, be believing in a god/gods.
yes it proberly exist in the mind of a believer.
this is the most stupid statement of all,
what do you think reasoning is if it's not logical thought.okinrus said:
why, the atheist does not have to prove that something does not exist as it is quite obviously not there, but a theist should find it far far easier to prove something exist, but he cant, the onus, is and will always be for the religious to prove there fantasysokinrus said:
maybe for you, but for the vast majoity of the world, I dont think have any problem, with that,especially me.okinrus said:
if it's not there, it's simply is not there.
Q: Has Logic always existed?
A: Only since mankind started actively aligning it's thinking to the way that
reality works (I would guess that this about the point where the concept of
logic was defined).
Q: everywhere?
A: I don't think the question make sense in the context of my answer.
Q: Has there been something that always exists, irrespective of form?
A: I don't know.
Q: Does nonexistence exist?
A: Good question... but I don't know. I always wondered if the concept
of non-existence is basically man-made and doesn't really apply to
reality.
A: Only since mankind started actively aligning it's thinking to the way that
reality works (I would guess that this about the point where the concept of
logic was defined).
Q: everywhere?
A: I don't think the question make sense in the context of my answer.
Q: Has there been something that always exists, irrespective of form?
A: I don't know.
Q: Does nonexistence exist?
A: Good question... but I don't know. I always wondered if the concept
of non-existence is basically man-made and doesn't really apply to
reality.
I'm with Crunchy Cat. Logic is an artificial human concept that we use to try to predict/figure out how the world works. It’s little more than a modeling and analysis tool.
As to non-existence existing…if something doesn’t exist, it is in a state of non-existence. Since there are things that don’t exist, nonexistence seems to exist. If nonexistence couldn’t exist, then wouldn’t anything and everything have to exist?
As to non-existence existing…if something doesn’t exist, it is in a state of non-existence. Since there are things that don’t exist, nonexistence seems to exist. If nonexistence couldn’t exist, then wouldn’t anything and everything have to exist?
Logic is usually seen as a tool with which our minds operate, for the purpose of orientation in the environment, and this for the purpose of survival.
It is strange to say that "logic is inherent to the Universe", or that "logic exists everywhere". We just like to see things with the tool of logic, this much is sure.
This is hard to say.
Sometimes, nonexistence is understood as a mere philosophical construct, used in some arguments. But this is all nonexistence is: a construct, as such, nonexistence does not exist.
I take you mean that an atheist would be unable to trust in the possibility of *incosistency* of the Universe.
To think that the Universe is inconsistent -- that would be insanity. What may be inconsistent, and often is, is someone's thinking about the Universe, but not the Universe itself, at least it doesn't seem to be inconsistent.
Sure.
I think the answer is blatantly simple, and has little to do with logic. We should ask at this point, why does atheism exist? I'm afraid that the reasons for that lie in the history of religion and the way religion was, and still is practised by many religionists -- "If you don't believe what I do, I'll kill you." Such a stance easily provokes a distaste for anything religious.
Yes, dreadful, huh? Some atheists lack consistency and humility.
To prove that there is no God, one would first have to have a definition of God -- and vice versa!
That there are apples I know because I have a definition of what an "apple" is, and I know what that definition of "apple" applies to because there are apples.
It is a two-way inductive reasoning: the theory you've made enables you to see the evidence this very theory is based on. In other words, insight.
Before you make that theory, you don't see that evidence (that is, you don't see certain phenomena as evidence for something), and as long as you don't see that evidence, you can't make that theory.
That is, you make a bold hypothesis, and test it, and if it turns out to be true, you have insight. But once it comes to matters of the Universe, this bold little method seems somehow ... too simple, to dismal. I wonder why.
Okinrus,
Logic has existed for as long as there has been intelligence that can use it.
Wherever there is intelligence.
Yes. This is a necessary truth. If there had been a time when nothing existed then there would not have been anything to begin anything else and we could not be here.
This is semantic nonsense and a foolish question.
Logic has existed for as long as there has been intelligence that can use it.
Wherever there is intelligence.
Yes. This is a necessary truth. If there had been a time when nothing existed then there would not have been anything to begin anything else and we could not be here.
This is semantic nonsense and a foolish question.
What is weird is that in macro physics (everyday stuff that we experience) there is logical and predictable results and cause and effect that does not seem to change. But in the world of quantum physics uncertainty seems to be the rule of thumb. Many strange and illogical observations have been made (like the einstein-podolsky-rosen effect). How can the universe be both logical and illogical at the same time?
I specifically asked atheists and agnostics because it is their belief(or nonbelief) that I'm attempting to show is extraordinary. Not that I will show it to be more extraordinary than Christianity but the same, in terms of belief and assumption. This claim hinges on the presumption that we have no mental facilities for knowing what truly is nonexistent. For even when we think we know something is nonexistent, we are really grouping things we believe don't exist in the imaginary bin. Whether we are capable of knowing truly whether something is nonexistent might be either true or false. But if we are capable, then it's certainly an extraordinary capability.
Well as far as the first two questions they cant really be answered. Any possible answer is only speculation. As for the third questions it is rather contradictive to ask such a question. If non-existance exists then it is not non-existant. Non-existance does not exist but i do believe it is what it is, ....non-existant. The idea of nothing (non-existance) is what makes us realise what existance is.
I believe for someone to know what something is they have to also have to know of the opposte.
I believe for someone to know what something is they have to also have to know of the opposte.
Not always, but most likely somewhere in the universe it has for a very long time.
Logic is part of intelligence, it has existed anywhere that reasonable intelligence can be found.
I dont know, and it cannot be known, but i believe so as if something didnt always exist in some form we probably wouldnt be here.
In what way? It would be nice if you could elaborate.(i see an obvious semantical problem, are you trying to catch us out?)
Last edited:
Maybe the question:
"can something exist only by it's effect and not it's substance?"
For example it could be argued that gravity exists only as an effect, that light exists only by it's effect......As yet no one has seen or even understood the nature of lights existence other than to claim it some sort of electromagnetic wave or particle and yet not be able to define what magneticm is, an effect but not substance.
It could be argued that gravity is the effect of non-existence. that non-existence in an existing reality is in fact an incredible inverse force.
A singularity of "nothing" thus creating and effecting everything....by default
"can something exist only by it's effect and not it's substance?"
For example it could be argued that gravity exists only as an effect, that light exists only by it's effect......As yet no one has seen or even understood the nature of lights existence other than to claim it some sort of electromagnetic wave or particle and yet not be able to define what magneticm is, an effect but not substance.
It could be argued that gravity is the effect of non-existence. that non-existence in an existing reality is in fact an incredible inverse force.
A singularity of "nothing" thus creating and effecting everything....by default
No atheist (or at least not many, anyway) would claim to have 100% irrefutable proof that god does not exist. Rather, an atheist would say that they don’t believe that god exists because the evidence for his existence is insufficient or lacking completely. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't really see where you're going with this.okinrus said:
Nasor said:
What is being descibed here is the difference between 'Weak Atheism' and
'Strong Atheism' (at least this is how it was described to me a while back).
Quantum physics isn’t illogical. If it were illogical then there wouldn’t be any point in trying to study it scientifically, or model it with mathematics. Indeed, many aspects of quantum physics were derived mathematically (that is to say, using logic) before they were tested and verified experimentally.mario said:
Quantum physics is just very counter-intuitive, because matter on that very small scale doesn’t behave in ways that we’re used to dealing with in the every-day world that we perceive.
Last edited: