Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It would be wonderful if you had actually given those definitions, but you rather wrote a mock-up of a second-order predicate argument. Say no less than exactly what you mean; it is difficult to read your mind.
I want you to consider how people begin thinking incorrectly. It is how people process data.
Computational psychology: information v data.
Data is raw numbers facts and figures where as information becomes contextualized and a story gets told after data has been processed.
If you make any errors in the processing department, butterfly effects occur in your thinking (not just your reasoning).
It’s best to give people raw data rather than telling them a story. This way, there’s only your own processing of data to be blamed for any inconsistencies or inaccuracies.
That seems to contradict what you said previously:
Nyar, you intentionally left out the part for the cause of all causes, et al aka God.
God is caused. The cause being all else in existence. The telos.
Right, because piling on additional contradictory statements will never resolve a contradiction. You should modify one of the statements I quoted above, to escape this obvious contradiction. Or you could double down on the crazy. I hope for the former, but I'd bet on the latter. Good luck.
Or... you could just complete the thought and include what was already presented.
And before you get twisted in contradictions:
Law of noncontradiction states that a contradiction is a contradiction if and only if the contradiction in question occurs at the same time and in the same sense.
When you put proper thinking together, these issues won’t occur, I promise.
Are you suggesting that these rules/statements/conclusions you have posted are time dependent? Now that would be cool, but weird!
Nyar,
Here, let me explain using G:
G= { E | E ∉ E}
Then:
G ∈ E ⇔ G ∉ E
Layman’s:
“G is existence and G is not existence” is not a contradiction.
There is a condition of necessity: “it is if and only if it is not”.
God is existence if and only if God is not existence (at the same time) in the sense G is the source of all that exists in existence and is thus a part of existence. But the distinction is the uniqueness qualification that being the source is the only source. So having this property makes G unlike all else in existence, dinstiguishing itself from all else in existence. It is in this sense that G is not existence, and is existent in existence being the necessary existence for all other things in existence.
You should include that at the top of your document; so people know exactly how far you have gone off the reservation.
Nyar,
“G is existence and not existence”
Please understand the nature of Russel’s Paradox. This will help.
"Please understand the nature of Russel’s Paradox. This will help."
If you think it helps evidence a deity then you'll have to explain how Russel missed this. Again though I'm curious why you've decided to break the news you can evidence a deity to a load of atheists in an internet chatroom? This sounds dubious to me. You have heard of the Templeton foundation right? I believe they have offered a substantial prize that you would almost certainly win if your claim had any validity.
"The Templeton Prize is an annual award granted to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works"."
It was established in 1972.
http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html
At least this makes a little more sense. But either you don't know how to use the notation, or you're using a nonstandard notation and haven't bothered to explain how it works. For example, the correct reading of
is ``G is the set of all [sets] that do not contain themselves.'' In context, I guess this reads as ``God is the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.'' Fine. However, when you write,
it reads, ``G is an element of E if and only if G is not an element of E.'' That proposition has the form `P = ¬P,' which is considered invalid in classical Aristotelian logic. In a fuzzy logic, it would imply that the truth value of P is 0.5. I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't given a contradiction, in which case you used a fuzzy logic or a paraconsistent logic. If you used a fuzzy logic, then the statement that `God is an element of E' is only half true. Moreover, you never said what E is supposed to be. In your first statement, E was merely a placeholder variable used to express any one member of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, but in the second statement, E still refers only to any one member of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. You failed to make clear whether E refers to a particular member (which member?) of the set of all sets that contain themselves, or whether E rather refers to the whole set of all sets that contain themselves. If you used a paraconsistent logic (which is reasonable since we're bridging on Russell's paradox, assuming that you're only writing about well-formed sets) the you ought to explain the nature of your paraconsistent logic clearly. What are its inference rules? Clearly, you mean to reject the law of excluded middle, and it seems that you want to reject the law of noncontradiction--these are valid, sound moves in some contexts. But you also ought to explain why you chose to reject the law of excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction.
Understandably, the rest of your comment makes no sense and should be broken up into several pieces, each which should be explained at length, and in plain English or standard mathematical notation. If you can't manage that, then at least state your definitions.
@calhais
I'm guessing E is the set of all things that exist.
---------------------------------------
Perhaps leading to:
(god is an element/member of the set of things that exist) if and only if (god is NOT an element/member of the set of things that exist)
---------------------------------------
Perhaps:
(god exists) if and only if (god does not exist)
---------------------------------------
Which is pretty much what he said later I think; and what I objected too.
Yeah, that would still be reasonable under a paraconsistent, modal, or fuzzy logic, though he indicated that despite using the appropriate language, his argument is not modal. ``(god exists) if and only if (god does not exist)'' isn't really a problem if he can make it clear what good it does to define God this way.
EI: Law of noncontradiction states that a contradiction is a contradiction if and only if the contradiction in question occurs at the same time and in the same sense.
There is no "Law" of contradiction. A contradiction can also be referred to as an oxymoron.
rmfr
1. Existential wrote `law of noncontradiction,' which is correct.
2. The statements in your quote of Existential are right but are worded inaccurately. It is an assumption of the context of the statement of the law of noncontradiction that contradiction has a `sense,' and this, as a matter of fact, is nearly never stated explicitly within the law of contradiction itself.
"I am neither a theist (non-atheist) or atheist."
Wrong, you can't not believe, and not...not believe, that's asinine.
----------------------------------------
"In laymen terms, an atheist holds the belief " " suggesting “they lack a belief in God”. This is inaccurate. "
Wrong...https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist
Oxford English Dictionary
Atheist
Noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
For your sake I hope you are trolling.
I appreciate your attempt, but I have already accounted for your projected error.
Modern day atheists think semantics are in control of their neuropsychology. Words do not determine reality.
Your apperception holds a belief of God. It is from this disbelief that you then disbelieve. Modern atheism has detached themselves from God entirely (while only existing by being defined on the condition of God to begin with lmao).
Disbelief is also affective and not intellectual to begin with.
Disbelief involves the cingulate cortex of the limbic system. It is an occurrence from the basic emotion of surprise.
Your brain never lacks a belief once an idea is introduced meaning, once introduced to an idea of God, your brain configured the information of your apperceptive filter and then makes a judgement call— to believe or not to believe.
This is proven science.
Also, I even stated I have no belief. This doesn’t concern belief unless of course you are considering all knowledge is dependent on the egocentric and categorical predicament, dissolving all knowledge.
How do you define "God"?
Another of his comments suggests that God is the set of all well-formed sets that do not contain themselves.
Yet you want us to accept your words as determining reality.
Yep. You are actually an Absolutist Apologist. I bet William Lane Craig is your hero.
rmfr
In Craig's defense (how did I get to a point where I feel the need to defend Craig?), he typically don't contradict himself in the same sentence!
@Everybody
Whoa!... Whoa-whoa-whoa!!!... Hold on a sec.....*shaking head vigorously with eyes closed*....*feet wide apart*.....*holding arms out to maintain balance*...... *opening eyes*....*swaying back and forth unsteadily*..... Holy shit.... What the hell's going on?...*looking around confusedly*..... Daaaaaamn..... Trippy..... *wiggling fingers in front of face*.... Ya know, I have never done acid before, but after reading a few posts in this thread, I imagine the experience would be much like this....*flicking away imaginary floating furry kittens from in front of my face*..... Ha-ha-ha! Cooooooool..... Thanks, Exi..Ecksti...Lilexalsten...Aw, fuck it... Thanks, E I dude....*stepping back suddenly after looking down*.... Hey, man, where'd all these purple raccoons come from?....
I do not believe in Santa Clause, even though I once did.
If this god is Omnipotent, can it create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it?
That's a trivial flaw with the term, which could be defined to avoid pointless quarreling having the general form, `can an omnipotent being stop itself from doing something?'
How can you not have a belief, but believe in a God?
I'm an atheist, I believe in zero gods.
I think Breezy's image escaped from a mirror....
You okay “old man shouts...”?
@ Existential whatever
Much much better than you, it seems.
I'm with Tin Man here, except I have a medication that allows me to stay calm and focussed in the face of servings of woo, accompanied by a large side order of word salad and semi coherent logical dressing.
You are so completely wrong. When I was first introduced to God by the Sunday Sermon of Original Sin, my first thought was "Can these people actually be that stupid?" And that was when I was only 5yr 10m old. Me mom even taught me how to read using the bible and even then my thoughts were literally, "This is nothing but bullshit!" My thoughts may not have been those exact words, but those words summed it up best. And that was at 3yr old.
Again you are competely wrong. I used Critical Thinking, Rational Thought, Analytical Thought, Logical Reasoning, and Deductive Reasoning to deduce that I cannot believe in a Sky Faerie and Magic Zombie Virgin. So, yes, I do lack a belief in any god(s). No evidence = no existence. And if it cannot be verified or falsified, it is not hard empirical evidence.
No creator is needed since the universe has always existed. Here is very short essay I wrote to William Lane Craig about what I hypothesize as an Eternal Universe. No, WLC never wrote me back.
Something From Nothing
========================================
Is it not hilarious that the Absolutists use the argument of the Big Bang Theory to insinuate that us atheists believe that “something” came from “nothing?” I have yet to hear any atheist agree this is what they believe the Big Bang Theory insinuates. Herein, I am going to throw some new ideas out there. They are written as “tongue-in-cheek” humor. But, they may also make you go, “Hmmm...”
The myth told by the Absolutists is definitely a description about the “something from nothing” hypothesis. Just ask them. They will tell you that the universe came about from their God creating it. However, where did their God come from? Nothing? If your God has always existed, then how come you find it so difficult to accept our argument that the “universe” has always existed?
In Einstein’s theories, which have been proven to be fact numerous times, there are two ways in which Time slows down. Relativistic velocities, or horrendously powerful gravitational sources. For those who do not know, relativistic velocities are those velocities which approach the speed of light: 299,792,458 meters per second. Or, 1,079,252,848.8 kilometers per hour. Or, 983,571,056.429 509 835 feet per second. Or, 670,616,629.383 756 705 miles per hour. Take your pick. Me, I prefer the first one.
It has also been proven within Einstein’s theories that light can be warped by powerful gravitational sources. Just go to hubblesite.org and do a search on “gravity lensing,” or “gravitational lensing.” As far as I am concerned, Hubble has returned some of the most awesomely beautiful images I have ever seen.
Back to the story. The horrendously powerful gravity sources would be what are referred to as “black holes.” There have been some who wanted to change this term to MECO: Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object. I don’t think it ever caught on though. Black holes have gravity so powerful, even light cannot escape, but Hawking Radiation can. Thus, if the gravity is that powerful, then the black hole is also considered to have infinite density.
Now here is my hypothesis. I am probably the only person on Earth who has this hypothesis.
Now take ALL the matter that is in the universe right now and collapse it down to a single point of singularity. Throw in ALL those black holes, hell, throw in ALL the dark matter also. With all that condensed into a single point of singularity, you have the greatest infinite density ever conceived. This density also means you have the greatest infinite gravity ever conceived. Which also means you have the greatest mass ever conceived.
Focusing on just the gravity, since it is literally absolute infinite, that means Time is infinitely slowed. Thus, while that single point of singularity existed, Time was infinite. Thus, the universe is infinitely old. The universe has always existed.
I no longer have the mathematical skills to prove this with physics equations. Thus, this is basically a fantastical thought hypothesis.
It is when in that state of singularity, the universe, as far as knowledge is capable, was in a State of Unquantification. It cannot be quantified with our current understanding. However, there are top professionals still working on it.
Right now, we are in the State of Expansion. There has been another hypothesis put forward called the “Big Crunch.” Most here probably already knows what that means. Simply put it is the state when the universe can no longer expand and begins the State of Compression. Or, Deflation, if you prefer. It has also been hypothesized that this Big Bang – Expansion – Compression – Big Crunch cycle may have been occurring for so long, we could never hope of comprehending how old the universe truly is.
Thus, with this simplified hypothesis, there is no need for any deity. The universe has always existed.
================================================================================
The rest of yur essay is just NO! No other word for it.
Even your god cannot survive Epicurean Logic:
And Sam Harris also did a wonderful paraphrase of Epicurean Logic nicely when talking about the Japan earthquake and tsunami:
My choice? He does not exist. Never has, never shall.
And to answer the questions you posed, even after reading your contingencies...
Can God exist? NO!
Is God impossible? YES!
Is it probable God is impossible? YES!
Is God suffciently reasoned to exist? NO!
Is there a distinction between all of existence and the source of existence? NO!
Can the source/cause of existence have a source? Perhaps. We have top scientists working on it...
Can the creator have a creator? NO! There was no creator.
What must this source contain since we know we exist in this existence as it exists? It just is.
And where is this hard emipircal evidence? No evidence = no existence.
rmfr
P.S. — Now to backtrack and read the other responses.
Pages