Religious proofs are nonsensical

[Jan Ardena]

What assumptions are you asking about?

The OP.

You conclude that, any axioms used for religious proofs would surely beg the question. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

If you are asking about axioms used for religious proofs, I am not sure what good examples would be. What axioms would you suggest for proving that the Christian god exists?

The term "Christian god" is not God.
It is only comprehended, if you are aware of the Christian religion.
The real question should be...

What axioms would you suggest for proving that God exists?

Then we have to define what God is, because the term "God, God" is a generic term.

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A trueaxiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.

I suppose you would start with an axiom like the following: Some god exists.

That's like adding to, a baffling case of trying to figure out who stole the jewels, the statement that some theives exists.

An atheist would not accept your basic axiom that some god exists.

Neither would a theist.

Religious beliefs are based on faith, not logical analysis.

Define religious beliefs?

Let's replace "religious beliefs" with "secular humanist beliefs".

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. ... Many secular humanistsderive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality

How do the essential component of belief, and/or faith differ?

If you do not accept the above statement, provide me a proof of the existence of some god that would be acceptable to an atheist.

The very reason an atheist is an atheist, is because God is not acceptable.
It's like a white supremecist asking a person who just sees the human being, as a human being, despite the varying shades, features and culture, to provide him with proof that black people should be accepted as equally human as themselves. There is nothing that the neutral person can say, regardless of whether or not he is speaking the truth. Or reason-based points, using good logic.
IOW, we are not without presupposition.
The question is how do we arrive at these suppositions.

Jan.

 

[Musika]

Yes.

So in what way would you tentatively tender the notion of not feeling hungry?
In other words, how do you dismantle a self evident claim to which you are the seer?

 

[spidergoat]

Does referencing an atheist website for a definition of faith strike you as a reasonsble act?

Yes.

 

[Musika]

Yes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

 

[spidergoat]

Now you are being dishonest about how the word faith is used in a religious context.

 

[Baldeee]

So in what way would you tentatively tender the notion of not feeling hungry?
In other words, how do you dismantle a self evident claim to which you are the seer?

One can accept the notion that one does not feel hungry without believing it as being the absolute truth.
Sensations and feelings (or lack of) need not be taken as infallible.
There may be a degree of confidence in them, but nothing need be believed without accepting also some possibility of being incorrect.
Hence tentative trust, as defined previously.

 

[Baldeee]

The very reason an atheist is an atheist, is because God is not acceptable.

God is acceptable as a possibility for most atheists, there is just no reason for the atheist to believe it to be true.
It's like a white supremecist asking a person who just sees the human being, as a human being, despite the varying shades, features and culture, to provide him with proof that black people should be accepted as equally human as themselves. There is nothing that the neutral person can say, regardless of whether or not he is speaking the truth. Or reason-based points, using good logic.
IOW, we are not without presupposition.
The question is how do we arrive at these suppositions.[/QUOTE]Analogising atheists as white supremacists now, Jan.
Rather pathetic of you, and insulting.
But no longer unsurprising.

Further, if you are also suggesting that the theist has come along with reason-based points, using good logic... I think we're all waiting for that one from you.
Reason-based points, yes, you've provided plenty, but using "good logic"... please, I think we both know your capabilities on that front.

The best offering (not from you, though) has been the KCA, I think, but there's been threads on that before.
Do you have anything else?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If an atheist proposes that there is no God, that is not the default position.

If an atheist proposes that there is no God, how is that not the default position?

An atheist may assert that there is no evidence for God, which is another way of saying "there is no God" as far as I'm aware. He/she may assert that there is no good reason to believe in God/gods.
This could mean that because you are not aware of any God/gods, they have no reason to believe. No matter which way you look at it, their position is based on the idea that there is no God.

Stating "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet" is an expression of my reality regarding the existence of unicorns on this planet. I state that because as far as I am aware, there are no unicorns on this planet.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Stating "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet" is an expression of my reality regarding the existence of unicorns on this planet. I state that because as far as I am aware, there are no unicorns on this planet.

There is a difference between "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet" and "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet".
The former is stating a position with regard only what one is aware of, the latter a position regarding the entire whole.
Compare "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet... but we have only explored a small fraction of it thus far", and "I don't believe unicorns exist on the planet".
It might be that one says "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet... and because we have explored the vast majority of it I don't believe unicorns exist on the planet".
But again, not the difference between the two parts, of being aware or not, and the issue of belief.

To equivocate the two is fallacious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God is acceptable as a possibility for most atheists, there is just no reason for the atheist to believe it to be true.

What makes an atheist think, God could be possible?

Analogising atheists as white supremacists now, Jan.
Rather pathetic of you, and insulting.
But no longer unsurprising.

Analogising? Yes.
But there is no reason to equate atheists with being white supremacists.

Further, if you are also suggesting that the theist has come along with reason-based points, using good logic... I think we're all waiting for that one from you.
Reason-based points, yes, you've provided plenty, but using "good logic"... please, I think we both know your capabilities on that front.

I think I have made some good points in the past. That you don't agree is neither here nor there. But there are good apologists who have made use of logic and reason to show God, over and above the opposition claim, there is no God.
I've yet to hear anything convincing that justifies the atheist position. They seem to continuously argue against a strawman.

The best offering (not from you, though) has been the KCA, I think, but there's been threads on that before.
Do you have anything else?

You are deluded, if you think atheists have covered that argument.
An obvious champion of this argument, Bill Craig, has not even come close to being defeated. His opponents only seem to muster strawman.

I'm beginning to think there are no atheists who can honestly win a debate, with an intellectualy equal opponent.

Comedy, and mockery do not count as persuasive arguments.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is a difference between "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet" and "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet".
The former is stating a position with regard only what one is aware of, the latter a position regarding the entire whole.

Firstly, they weren't put in that order.
Secondly, one is a reason for the other.
Thirdly, no one is in possession of the entire whole.

Compare "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet... but we have only explored a smallfraction of it thus far", and "I don'tbelieve unicorns exist on the planet".

Why compare?

It might be that one says "As far as I am aware there are no unicorns on this planet... and because we have explored the vast majority of it I don't believe unicorns exist on the planet".

Stating "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet" is an expression of my reality regarding the existence of unicorns on this planet. I state thatbecause as far as I am aware, there are no unicorns on this planet.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it, only that it is a famous example of that understanding of the term in use.

Understood

 

[Baldeee]

What makes an atheist think, God could be possible?

Lack of evidence that it is not.

Analogising? Yes.
But there is no reason to equate atheists with being white supremacists.

So you think it okay to analogise in insulting terms, as long as you don't actually equate?
Seriously?

I think I have made some good points in the past. That you don't agree is neither here nor there.

Oh, I'm sure there have been a few good arguments a lot the way, much like one might find desirable coffeebeans amid a pile of birdcrap that surrounds it.
Oh, sorry, its just an analogy.

But there are good apologists who have made use of logic and reason to show God, over and above the opposition claim, there is no God.

I'm sure you think there have been.
But, as said, we‘re still waiting for that from you.

I've yet to hear anything convincing that justifies the atheist position.

Because you only think there is the strong atheist position.
And because you have the a priori belief that God exists.

They seem to continuously argue against a strawman.

Oh, the irony.
I'm sure most atheists here will happily discuss any coherent definition of God that the theist puts forth.

You are deluded, if you think atheists have covered that argument.

And you're deluded if you think the earth is flat.
See, like you I can also come up with statements that suggest you are deluded yet has no bearing on what was said.

An obvious champion of this argument, Bill Craig, has not even come close to being defeated. His opponents only seem to muster strawman.

Unless you wish to raise that here as a counter to the OP, I suggest it is discussed in the many threads on the matter.

I'm beginning to think there are no atheists who can honestly win a debate, with an intellectualy equal opponent.

There you go again with this being a matter of trying to win a debate, rather than these threads bein about discussion of differing views.
But given your history of dishonest tactics, I'm not sure you'd even recognise an honest debate anymore.

Comedy, and mockery do not count as persuasive arguments.

As you amply demonstrate each time you post.

 

[Baldeee]

Firstly, they weren't put in that order.

So what?

Secondly, one is a reason for the other.

Well, it might be.
It might also be a reason to simply not have any belief on the matter with regard the whole.
Your usual approach, however, is to equate them, though, to argue that because one is not aware that they therefore believe in the absence.

Thirdly, no one is in possession of the entire whole.

They can be.
It depends upon what the whole is.
If I say the there is no fly in a matchbox and show you half of the matchbox, you are not in possession of the entire whole.
However, as you will agree, it is quite possible to be.
The said, when it is not possible to be in possession of the whole, proving a negative becomes a fallacious request, and those making the claim need to stump up.
What were you doing

Why compare?

Because you don't fully appreciate the difference and thus you draw inaccurate conclusions when the matter arises.

Stating "I don't believe unicorns exist on this planet" is an expression of my reality regarding the existence of unicorns on this planet. I state thatbecause as far as I am aware, there are no unicorns on this planet.

Yet your view is just one when you are not aware of the existence of unicorns on this planet.
Another view held might be that they do not have a belief with regard the existence of unicorns on this planet, as already explained.
Whether you do it deliberately or not, and given the frequency you do it despite being corrected might suggest it is deliberate, you only see the one possibility and omit consideration of the other.

 

[Musika]

Now you are being dishonest about how the word faith is used in a religious context.

Pointing out the weakness of your citing an atheist website to establish religious context is honesty, not dishonesty.

 

[Musika]

One can accept the notion that one does not feel hungry without believing it as being the absolute truth.

Sensations and feelings (or lack of) need not be taken as infallible.
There may be a degree of confidence in them, but nothing need be believed without accepting also some possibility of being incorrect.
Hence tentative trust, as defined previously.

We may be able to mentally contextualize the feeling of not being hungry in so many ways, however that will not stop us from not feeling hungry I am talking about your experience of the feeling, rather than your ability to contextualize it as a mental exercise.

If you do not feel hungry, what can be introduced to make you discard that experience as a reality, and no longer experience it (and thus establish a completely tentative foundation for your world view)? For a truth to be tentative, there must be tools to dismantle it.

To put it in more general philosophical terms, how do you dismantle a self evident claim to which you are the seer?

 

[Baldeee]

We may be able to mentally contextualize the feeling of not being hungry in so many ways, however that will not stop us from not feeling hungry I am talking about your experience of the feeling, rather than your ability to contextualize it as a mental exercise.

If you do not feel hungry, what can be introduced to make you discard that experience as a reality, and no longer experience it (and thus establish a completely tentative foundation for your world view)? For a truth to be tentative, there must be tools to dismantle it.

To put it in more general philosophical terms, how do you dismantle a self evident claim to which you are the seer?

Why should one discard the experience as a reality?
As said, one merely has to be pragmatic in one's approach, with degrees of confidence, but all of which are open to being wrong.
One can thus accept the experience as reality... until it is shown to be wrong.
Hence tentative.

 

[Dinosaur]

The Thread title states that proofs are nonsensical. I suppose I should have said: Proofs or disproofs.

I further stated the following

A logical proof is based on axioms assumed to be true.

Any axioms used for religious proofs would surely beg the question.

I think that many here do not have any understanding of the term proof. Let me explain some basic notions about the concept.

A proof is based on some axioms assumed to be true.

Starting with such axioms, some notions about logic are used to arrive at a conclusion which must be true if the axioms are true.​

In my original Post I stated

A logical proof is based on axioms assumed to be true.

Any axioms used for religious proofs would surely beg the question.

The above semantics do not exclude the notion of disproving religion. I am sorry I did not phrase my opinion better in order to avoid remarks like the following by Musika which is quite valid

any axiom used to disprove religion can surely beg the question.

I agree with Musika’s Post.

This Thread has deteriorated into side issues. The basic issue is the following.

What axioms are reasonable as the basis for a proof of the validity or non-validity of religious beliefs?

I claim that such axioms would beg the question.

If you disagree, provide some axioms you would accept as the basis for a proof or disproof & provide cogent arguments that the axioms do not beg the question.

 

[Musika]

Why should one discard the experience as a reality?

Because its possible to approach reality by being thoroughly tentative (apparently).

As said, one merely has to be pragmatic in one's approach, with degrees of confidence, but all of which are open to being wrong.
One can thus accept the experience as reality... until it is shown to be wrong.
Hence tentative.

I am not talking about you not feeling hungry and a doctor coming along to explain that you have a problem with your liver which affects your metabolism or something. I am not talking about you not feeling hungry and being supplied some other information so that you somehow or rather continue with this persistent experience of the (apparent) reality of not feeling hungry. I am talking about dismantling your actual experience of not feeling hungry as a reality, stripping it down to its tentative essence. To what degree can you doubt that you are not feeling hungry at all?

Your direct experience ( after all, that is the medium of a seers scope for their self evident truths) of not feeling hungry. What space is there for doubt to manifest?

For instance, to borrow an example from fiction, in the matrix, the main character was blithely existing in a world of superficial sensations. Upon taking the red pill he was delivered to a perspective where he could see that it was all a simulation (even though in that metareality- or the reality from which he sees what is really going on - also had its constituent issues of sensations, so in one sense the problem is not solved, but merely regresses .... although there is one interesting part where they are eating chicken flavoured mush, and wonder if this is what chicken actually tastes like, since none of them have the experience of eating a real chicken).

However, the point is not to discuss plot details of the matrix, but to point how tentative world views are revealed as such through an aperture .... kind of like a third dimension is required to observe the completeness of two dimensions, and so forth. We doubt from a particular position, and in turn, can focus that doubt on that position.

Breaking down a tentative position requires another position. Is that position also necessarily tentative, as a world view that subsists purely in the tentative would require?

In the way of introducing self evident truths as perceived by the seer, I am just cutting to the car chase (or a scene at least closer to the car chase).

So, in light of all this, how do you propose to introduce doubt to self evident truths of a seer?

 

[Musika]

.

What axioms are reasonable as the basis for a proof of the validity or non-validity of religious beliefs?

I claim that such axioms would beg the question.

If you disagree, provide some axioms you would accept as the basis for a proof or disproof & provide cogent arguments that the axioms do not beg the question.

I guess there is a problem in thinking there is a negotiable distance between an axiom and "arriving at a truth". An axiom delivers a truth, in the sense that you can't ( or aren't allowed to ) break it down further. Axioms don't require proof, but rather give the means to find or look for proof or meaning. Problems arise when you throw several axioms together, particularly when one starts joining epistemological axioms to ontological claims.

For instance citing the axiom of causality ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_Causality ) as a hallmark for rendering proof for God even though it has obvious limitations ( it offers a modicum of results for medicine and insurance investigations, but it doesn't work well for art history .... just try and trace cause and effect to write an artist's biography solely on the effect of their paintings).

Or citing sabda ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabda ) - or testimony of past or present reliable experts .... "revealed scripture" as opposed to plain old "scripture" is a popular one- as the means to approach the subject, despite the obvious problems of historiography, recognizing who is an authourity, misuse of authority etc.
(Works well for writing artist biographies, but it can be the case of a few rotten apples spoiling the cart).

So when you mix all these axioms together, what is the result?

Is there necessarily a dichotomy ("we have a clear winner and loser")? A map for an epistemological hierarchy ("here is a better way to know as close to everything as you can ever get or want. No need for anything else.")? Or even an ontological one ("this proves all other so called realities are false").

(In case you didn't get it, the parentheses represents extreme fanatic interpretations available to all creeds)