I start with commenting on an theo-ontological challenge, laying out my Theory of Anthropogenic Theology (which hasn’t originated with me, though the name might have, and this particular synthesis has).
In a discussion of a comment professing the Islamic faith, under the same post, I gave my theory of the evidence upon which religious belief is typically based.
To yet another attempt to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to an Ontological Argument, under the above post, I pointed out that this depends upon a Uniformitarian assumption, denied one interim conclusion, and identified Special Pleading. I also demonstrate the use of Modus Tollens to prove the non-existence of any god.
I also shared my Theory of Anthropogenic Theology in another post to which my friend Arsalan invited me.
Adding through the day…
Visits: 121
Lets debate Bolan !!! Lets talk about the proof that points out that God Does not exist !!
I welcome debate, both for the opportunity to learn, and to share my understanding. I relish being proven that I am wrong, because I have a high regard for reality. Though I play games, and enjoy reading fiction, I wish to deal with reality in all other aspects of my life. However, I am very critical, asking “what may be wrong with this?”, though not only to rebuttals, but also to my own thoughts, especially those I let out. 😉
So, since you did not quote the proof from the FB thread linked in my post, for not only your benefit, if you did not read it, but also for that of any other readers, I’ll lay it out here.
Modus Tollens holds that if a conditional is true, and the consequent is false, then the condition is also false. In other words, if a premise “If A, then B” is given as true, and “B is not true” is given as a second premise, then A must not be true.
For an example, if it is true that “if it rains, then the street is wet”, and the street is not wet, then it is not raining, or has not rained (recently enough). The condition, e.g. “it rains”, must be the cause of the consequent, e.g. “the street is wet”.
So, now to apply Modus Tollens (M.T.) to the question:
1. If there is a god, then there is evidence of a god.
2. There is no evidence of a god.
3. [1,2,M.T.] Therefore, there is no god.
While this is valid in form, and deductive, in that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, it is weak, because the premises may be attacked, rebutted.
However, every rebuttal I imagine is fraught with problems, so I nonetheless have confidence in this proof, and believe there is no god. On the other hand, since there may be some effective counter-argument or direct refutation I haven’t seen or yet imagined, I do not consider myself to know there is no god.
I could propose rebuttals, attempted refutations, but I’ll leave that exercise to you, dear reader.
First of all before we get into the “proof of God existence” through what we Muslim called “برهان الصديقين” or simply “Mu’tazilla Mihna”. What makes you think that by Appealing to these “Argumentative Fallacies” and Demonstrating the Basic logic arguments are suffice for you to claim that God does not exist. Since you acknowledge that your own thought vulnerable to an error. How certain are you that the way of thinking that you’re accustomed particularly regarding your perception of reality is not flawed? In order to be certain with your perception of reality that means you to explain the reasoning why it is consistent and will lead to the truth? not the essence of truth ?
Thank you for your challenges.
> First of all before we get into the “proof of God existence”…
Ehm, I thought the topic was proof of the non-existence of a [external, objectively real] god.
> through what we Muslim called “برهان الصديقين” or simply “Mu’tazilla Mihna”.
First, I wonder why [transliterating the best I can, so far] “burhan assadayQayn” [am I close?] is more simply put as “Mu’tazilla Mihna”. (?) Perhaps the former is more vague, more abstract, has more meanings? Both have, it seems to me, six syllables.
But, and more importantly, I reject that I must follow Muslim rules of Logic, argumentation, or interpretation, other than in translation.
> What makes you think that by Appealing to these “Argumentative Fallacies” and Demonstrating the Basic logic arguments are suffice for you to claim that God does not exist.
Sometimes, I overstate my case, and claim that god does not exist, but as a working premise, usually, in arguing, for example, against somebody trying to impose their views of “what God wants”. But, in this, even though using a proof, I am not really claiming that a god does not exist. However, I am supporting my belief that a god does not exist.
I think the difference is that I am not expecting you, or anyone else, to adopt my belief, but, rather, I expect you to see that it is reasonable to hold my belief.
So, I’ll recast your challenge to that. Deductive logic is that in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, my proof is sufficient for me to believe that a god does not exist. If I knew for certain that those premises are true, then I would also claim that a god doesn’t exist, and expect you to accept my proof.
So, the question moves to whether the premises are true. I have seen objections to both of these, and the weakest were against the second, usually for lack of understanding what evidence is. Strictly, evidence is the effect of one cause, and one cause only. That can be broadened and loosened to include sets of causes, with various probabilities, but that is a matter of Advanced Logic, particularly Bayesian Inference.
The objections to the first usually are in the nature of definitions of “god”. Only a deist concept of “god” can escape my proof, however, because only in a variation of that definition can the possibility of evidence be excluded. Every other kind of definition of the divine entails some evidence.
> Since you acknowledge that your own thought vulnerable to an error.
I’m unsure as to whether you meant this sentence fragment to apply to what precedes, or what follows. Either way, I am puzzled as to why some humility on my part puts my reasoning into question. It is for me to use my vulnerability to error in my critical thinking, not for you. It is for you to consider the proof, to consider the premises, and accept, reject, or refute them, or give a counter-argument. The state of my mind is my business, not yours, in this context. If you do, you commit the Ad Hominem fallacy.
> How certain are you that the way of thinking that you’re accustomed particularly regarding your perception of reality is not flawed?
I know, by principle, that my perception of reality is flawed. That most often comes in misinterpreting the behavior and communications of others, I think. That is why I must be vigilant in the practice of critical thinking. Do you share this humility? Or have you the arrogance to assume that everything you think and feel and conclude are all perfectly right?
> In order to be certain with your perception of reality that means you to explain the reasoning why it is consistent and will lead to the truth? not the essence of truth ?
Yes, I must explain it, but, really, only to myself. And it is prudent to check my perception with others. However, I have no responsibility, no obligation, to justify my perceptions to anyone else. However, you are welcome to challenge me about what I express of my perceptions.
What is your proof that God does not exist Bolan? show me the Quantitative Reasoning and the Empirical Evidence for it
Afidus, -or do you prefer I address you by your last names(s), with an honorific?- you show presumption as to the nature of my proof, that it has quantitative reasoning and/or empirical evidence, or that such a proof must have either or both of these. Obviously, a proof of non-existence of something has no empirical evidence; that is the crux of the proof. Similarly, the only quantity involved with something that does not have existence outside of the imaginers of the concept is zero. But, there is empirical experience of the lack of empirical evidence, and the quantity of such experience is innumerable.
I might anticipate an object rising, that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, but this is fallacious. In Introduction to Logic, one learns, or ought to, the logical rule called Modus Tollens, that falsifies this supposed principle. I will outline this in reply to your second, less fallacious (or presumptuous) comment. 🙂