Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

The Bible is no doubt very jarring literature, very controversial. I am all for peace and love, like that presented in the Bible, but certain sections (Timothy 2:11 and 2:12) make me raise an eyebrow a bit.

 

EDIT: also, great Socrates quote.

Philosophers try to make these on purpose to help people achieve the truth, and that's what philosophy is all about, to get to your own truth for the questions which can't be answered by science or can be better answered in philosophy

[danielsangeo]

Like what kind of questions that can't be answered by science?

[Bjossi]

(yet)

[danielsangeo]

I would use the word "haven't", not "can't".

[RoMaNo]

I spent about 30 minutes reading all posts after mine. As I read I thought of many things to say, but I read so many things that now I don't know what to say XD

 

However, I still remember what I wanted to say about beliefs. I say that science is a belief because its link with truth is not different with the link between truth and faith.

 

We can't know the truth since we are limited by our senses and our mind. So, we invent models to understand and predict reality (which is really complex), but that models are just 'belief systems'.

 

Religion is a model which has its own laws, founded in several axioms and helps us to feel well, to don't feel alone, to make sense to life, etc. In the other hand, science is founded on its own axioms (1=1, 1+1=2, 0+X=X, etc.) and allows us to make predictions about physical world like Newton's law. No one is going to explain you why 0+X=X for any X in the same way that no one is going to explain how christ came to life again after being killed.

 

It's true that using Newton's law you can predict with high accuracy many things, but it can't predict where is an electron within an atom, as religion can't predict the movement of the planets.

 

In conclusion, models are not absolute, but they are still very useful and we are free to select in which believe. You can decide to believe in God and Science at the same time but with their limitations in mind.

[danielsangeo]

0+X=X because you are taking value "X" and you aren't adding anything (0) to it. It does not change the value of X.

[Axeldeath]

Just a thought... If God exists, and you don't believe, something bad WILL happen after you die. If God doesn't exist, and you do believe, nothing will happen after you die.

 

[/facepalm] Pascals' Wager.... Officially the most idiotic and unresearched arguement you can make in the Religion vs. Atheism topic, I think there might even be an internet rule that states if you use Pascal's Wager you lose the arguewment by default.

[ProHypster]

Like what kind of questions that can't be answered by science?

Millions:

 

Mind vs Body Problem

 

What is God?

 

What are Normative ethics?

 

What is the relationship between language and reality?

 

What does it mean to "mean" something?

 

The most famous ones though are:

 

How should one live?

 

What is reality?

 

I could go on....

 

A famous philosophical statement that was made much earlier than the same scientific statement and explained the world a bit was when aristotle stated that there must be an atom, the smallest possible particle that is indivisible through rational thinking. 2000 years later science finally found discovered the atom.

[Doom Shepherd]

That's not the jerk part, the jerk part that time was the inapropriate placing of " "

 

Honestly, I don't see where you're going with that. What was inappropriate about it? Putting a LOL smiley after a statement is generally taken to indicate that the preceding statement was humorous, made in jest, or at least tongue-in-cheek. It's supposed to point out to the oversensitive and thin-skinned that it isn't to be taken entirely seriously. It's basic netiquette.

 

Can I ask you something? Do you like your job, DoomShepherd?

 

I love it. Love it to death, best job I've ever had. The perfect balance of money, job security, and responsibility (or lack thereof.)

 

Although if I were rich, I'd go back to my old job in a public library. Because it would be SO nice to be able to interact with the same idiots I used to be faced with every day, and NOT have my livelihood dependent upon whether I treated them with respect, or with the scorn they deserved.

 

Then I would feel better about treating the many decent people with actual respect, rather than the false smile that working with the public forces us to put on all the time.

[Doom Shepherd]

Just a thought... If God exists, and you don't believe, something bad WILL happen after you die.

 

Not necessarily so.

 

The real God may not give a crap whether or not you believe in It.

 

Or it may believe that doing good works and being a decent human being is better than -plain ol' belief. Especially given the large number of believers who really are absolute jackasses (Like Fred Phelps.)

 

Actually the Muslim God is the same as the Jew and Christian God. There was even an unnamed God back in the Roman Empire days that was that God as well.

Yes, but they're not worshipped in the same way.

 

The other fatal flaw in Pascal's wager is that most religions don't believe it's enough to JUST believe. You have to believe certain things and act in certain ways, and every sect of every religion believes if you don't do it THEIR way, you're still screwed. Muslims and Christians may believe in the same God, but each still believes that the followers of the other religion are worshipping incorrectly and ultimately doomed.

 

That's why I don;t believe in any of these relligions. I believe that if God exists, there are three options:

 

1. It's indifferent, so it doesn't matter what I believe, or IF I believe.

2. It's just and good, so it doesn't matter what anyone believes, because those who are just and good see being just and good as more important, so the just and good are safe regardless of belief. (Except maybe I'm NOT just and good... but in that case I'll abide by the decision of the court.)

3. It's NOT just and good (hostile), in which case we're ALL screwed, and I'm joining the Opposition.

[danielsangeo]

Like what kind of questions that can't be answered by science?

Millions:

 

Mind vs Body Problem

 

What is God?

 

What are Normative ethics?

 

What is the relationship between language and reality?

 

What does it mean to "mean" something?

 

The most famous ones though are:

 

How should one live?

 

What is reality?

 

I could go on....

 

I don't know why these questions cannot ever be answered by science.

 

A famous philosophical statement that was made much earlier than the same scientific statement and explained the world a bit was when aristotle stated that there must be an atom, the smallest possible particle that is indivisible through rational thinking. 2000 years later science finally found discovered the atom.

 

And the found that the atom is not the smallest possible particle. But "smallest possible particle" is pretty self-evident. Each thing is made up of smaller things, so it's only self-evident that those smaller things are made up of even smaller things...and so on.

 

There are things that religion cannot and will never answer...like What is God? or What made God? or What was before God?

[The Hamburglar]

another thing is that I've always found the Ten Commandments come off as rather arrogant on god's part. Most of the commandments are that you should only obey god and his words, and what might as well be in small print there's "Oh, and don't murder."

 

I don't murder because it's the nice thing to do, not because I need a book to tell me so. We have free will and common sense and should realize that if we murder, there will be consequences outside of a man in the sky who does nothing.

[ProHypster]

A famous philosophical statement that was made much earlier than the same scientific statement and explained the world a bit was when aristotle stated that there must be an atom, the smallest possible particle that is indivisible through rational thinking. 2000 years later science finally found discovered the atom.

 

And the found that the atom is not the smallest possible particle. But "smallest possible particle" is pretty self-evident. Each thing is made up of smaller things, so it's only self-evident that those smaller things are made up of even smaller things...and so on.

 

Sorry, but that is just not true. There is a smallest possible particle that is undivisible, it's not called the atom though, they didn't name it so because it's undivisible, they named it in honour of Aristotle's theory.

 

The rest you CAN answer scientifically....in another two thousand to a billion years.

Of course What is reality might be a little easy for science to answer but

first calm down there and answer the Baby steps scientific questions like:

 

1. The Goldbach conjecture.

 

2. The Riemann hypothesis.

 

3. The conjecture that there exists a Hadamard matrix for every positive multiple of 4.

 

4. The twin prime conjecture (i.e., the conjecture that there are an infinite number of twin primes).

 

5. Determination of whether NP-problems are actually P-problems.

 

6. The Collatz problem.

 

7. Proof that the 196-algorithm does not terminate when applied to the number 196.

 

8. Proof that 10 is a solitary number.

 

9. Finding a formula for the probability that two elements chosen at random generate the symmetric group S_n.

 

10. Solving the happy end problem for arbitrary n.

 

11. Finding an Euler brick whose space diagonal is also an integer.

 

12. Proving which numbers can be represented as a sum of three or four (positive or negative) cubic numbers.

 

13. Lehmer's Mahler measure problem and Lehmer's totient problem on the existence of composite numbers n such that phi(n)|(n-1), where phi(n) is the totient function.

 

14. Determining if the Euler-Mascheroni constant is irrational.

 

15. Deriving an analytic form for the square site percolation threshold.

 

16. Determining if any odd perfect numbers exist.

 

All of these remain unanswered. But surely we can skip algebra (The easiest subject of science) and debate the beginning of the earth

[danielsangeo]

News flash: Just because something hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it will never be. You said so yourself.

 

As for deities, I see no evidence whatsoever for them.

 

As for smallest particles, we have evidence that atoms are made up of smaller particles, which are made up of smaller particles, which are, evidently, made up of smaller particles. None of this is getting us anywhere closer to evidence for deities, though.

 

As for the beginning of the Earth, here's a math equation: (gravity + dust) * time = planet.

[Axeldeath]

We need to have a debate's/science section in free-for-all ( did ThatSmartGuy suggest that? Can't remember...), I really enjoy these debates we have but it's annoying to have to sift through pages of stuff like the random thread to find the good debates.

[ProHypster]

News flash: Just because something hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it will never be. You said so yourself.

 

As for deities, I see no evidence whatsoever for them.

 

As for smallest particles, we have evidence that atoms are made up of smaller particles, which are made up of smaller particles, which are, evidently, made up of smaller particles. None of this is getting us anywhere closer to evidence for deities, though.

 

As for the beginning of the Earth, here's a math equation: (gravity + dust) * time = planet.

 

Quote where you are contradicting my own quote, of course science will ultimately prove something but it is not good to assume something is proven when it's not.

 

And you are right, this has nothing to do with the debate, just adding info. And I'm still pretty sure the smallest possible particle will be indivisible as Aristotle said.

 

So go on with the actual debate.

 

I will post something soon.

[danielsangeo]

I believe that this conjectural "smallest possible particle" being "indivisible" is just plain common sense and probably was such in Aristotle's time. They, like us, however, don't know what this conjectural "particle" is. For example, go way back to Aristotle. You have a building. The building is made of bricks (smaller "particles"). The bricks are made of crushed rocks (smaller particles). If this is all the information that they had at the time, then they have evidence that things (buildings) are made of smaller things (bricks) which are, in turn, made from even smaller things (crushed rocks).

 

It's not rocket surgery.

[ProHypster]

I believe that this conjectural "smallest possible particle" being "indivisible" is just plain common sense and probably was such in Aristotle's time. They, like us, however, don't know what this conjectural "particle" is. For example, go way back to Aristotle. You have a building. The building is made of bricks (smaller "particles"). The bricks are made of crushed rocks (smaller particles). If this is all the information that they had at the time, then they have evidence that things (buildings) are made of smaller things (bricks) which are, in turn, made from even smaller things (crushed rocks).

 

It's not rocket surgery.

Seriously, I'm lost to what you are trying to prove here,

philosophical statements generally never explain what something is but more try to propose something rational and logical on impossible subjects to answer at the current time with the tools like the "What is God" problem of course.

Philosophical statements should never try to answer something that is already proven by science.

 

Then science takes this to a test a lot later.

 

EDIT: You seriously don't understand aristotle's times, there was no proof of anything at that time and people believed in the earth being flat, seas going forever....

 

So this wasn't common sense but really a (probably) correct genius rational proposal.

[ProHypster]

Here is the most rational philosophical site I've found on the subject of monotheism, polytheism and atheism

 

See for youself which theory you understand the best and what you learn of it.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/

Complex logical arguments like this included:

 

John Duns Scotus offers several proofs of God's unicity in his Ordinatio. Scotus's fourth proof is based on the theistic intuition that God is the complete or total cause of everything else. His argument is roughly this:

 

Necessarily, if anything is a god, its creative volition is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of every other concrete object.

 

Suppose, then, that

 

Contingent beings exist and there are two gods.

 

It follows that

 

Each is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 1 and 2.)

 

Therefore,

 

The first is a sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 3.)

 

Hence,

 

The second is not a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 4.)

 

Again,

 

The first is a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 3.)

 

So

 

The second is not a sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 6.)

 

Therefore,

 

The second is neither a necessary nor a sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 5 and 7.)

 

A similar argument will show that

 

The first is neither a necessary nor a sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings.

 

It follows that

 

Neither god is either a necessary or a sufficient condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 8 and 9.)

 

Hence,

 

If contingent beings existed and there were two gods, each would be a necessary and sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings and neither would be a necessary and sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 2 through 10.)

 

But since

 

The consequent of 11 is impossible,

 

Its antecedent is impossible. (From 11 and 12. If p entails q, and q is impossible, then p is impossible.)

 

Thus,

 

It is impossible that contingent beings exist and there are two gods. (From 13.)

 

Therefore,

 

If contingent beings exist, there cannot be two gods. (From 14.) (Scotus, 87)

[danielsangeo]

Wait a second. The people in Aristotle's time didn't know that buildings were made from bricks?!

 

As for philosophy, what's wrong with the concept of "I don't know"?