Defences for God - The Religious Everywhere WIN THROUGH

[Aetixintro]

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, it is grounded on this:

* The Privacy Argument.
- nothing new from the Atheists.

General, deductive outline:

Privacy holds the best judgment that makes the Bible/God more appealing
Privacy holds the best judgment
The Bible/God is more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: Privacy holds the best argument
G: The Bible/God is more appealing

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins.
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging. With Se7en-movie backing this up as description.

General, deductive outline:

The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive and that as the Bible makes the case for the other life God becomes more appealing
The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
S: The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
G: The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

1 | S
2 | S ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | S 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the argument can hold another logical line in splitting G into two parts, invoking 2 more lines of logical notation, but essentially the argument stays the same.

* Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design.
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
Type of logic for this, NDNID: Quantified Existential (Predicate) Logic
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions

(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.

(3)
1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)
1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God. In a definite sense, therefore, God "as idea" threads through the Possible modality to obtain as necessary.

It is noted that as the NDNID holds its own logics, it acts together with the Priest Stories in securing the bottom line, this makes the Religious side the rock solid fortress for Faith in God, ecumenically.

* The ESP-God Debate.
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves.

General, deductive outline:

If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true, the case for God is more credible.
If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
E: If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | E
2 | E ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | E 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the "if" standing can here be seen as strong or weak alike. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, initially do not bother to hold more than the weak "if" rather than the definitely proven case for ESP/Telepathy. This is at least the recommendation.

* The Descartes' Phantom Feelings.
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion.

General, deductive outline:

As The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science, the case for God is more credible.
The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
D: The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | D
2 | D ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | D 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Van Lommel Studies.
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)

General, deductive outline:

As The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls, the case for God is more credible.
The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
L: The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | L
2 | L ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | L 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

The possible 7th point: There's another one too, with similar structure: if some aspects more prove true, in addition to the above, by the "priest stories" then God further... But this is one is for the moment dicy or more dicy than the telepathy argument...

General, deductive outline:

If The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences then case for God is more credible.
The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

Again, The Priest Stories is subject to a kind of limbo of standing, into how it is supposed to be placed with the rest of the logics above. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, just listen to these stories, of troubles with the corrupt minds and what events have brought us in terms of history. This is at least the recommendation.

Besides, from the above:

1. Stronger Religion Every Day!

The Atheists have failed to provide
* soul and not-soul alike - soul found, at least to some plausibility.
* phantom feelings and not-phantom feelings - phantom feelings found, crucially by (f)MRI, two alike.
* telepathy and not-telepathy - telepathy found by increased awareness and research, at least more credibly too, also by millions' personal experience, just ask them about feelings and "emotional awareness".

Let's not hear them whine about not-(possible-)-God (not-â‹„-G) too because it makes them look awkward.

It is noted that Phantom feelings can be found, also, by voluntary surgery, laying one underarm in the freezer, and confirmed by (f)MRI in a couple of months, perhaps faster without entering the problem of these people who have had a tragic event in their lives and who wish to not be part of research.

2. Religion, Ecumenism and Humanism Together - How They Match.

Ecumenically religious humanism, just in case too much troubles over the details. 3. to yourself.
Ecumenically religious. 2. to yourself.
Then, fx. Christian and Scientologist. 1. to yourself.

That the best version of Humanism belongs equally much to Religious people as the Humanists themselves, insofar as they only supply one type of "life view"/"orientation in life", i.e., not citing any particular religious view, not to say that... the privacy notions...
Ecumenism holds from the encyclopedia:
[( ek -yoo-meh-nishm, i- kyooh -muh-nizuhm)]
"A movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations."

By
L. F. Olsnes-Lea © 2013

Notes:
1. This work is a summary of my NDNID from my web-pages, from my work through the jr. high school, my contributions to the ESP and God debate by mSomatism and general logical work by these other investigations into arguments and defences for God, like the Privacy Argument.
2. Atheism has lost it's foundation mainly because of "6+1" and the other contributions for defending God and Religions by hearts and minds. Because of this, Atheism has also fallen outside academia in at least one sense because it fails anymore to present intelligent/intellectual opposition.
3. The academic contribution always lies inside truth and civilisation insofar as civilisation proves sustainable under honest discussion. After 2000 years, it probably does either way, after working up various important aspects such as the subjects themselves, ethics, law, political science, science in general, mathematics and medicine. Well, well, you can add the rest, engineering, architecture, so on...

References:
1. ESP and God Debate is a debate for unknown length of time, that is, my reference point for it is originating from some Psychology Today article that claims Telepathy to not exist.
2. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings is a project that has been carried through, philosophically, by Richard Swinburne.
3. The Van Lommel Studies has been carried out by Van Lommel of Holland, presumably.
[More information for these references later, in accordance possibly, by CMS.]
4. Ecumenism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ecumenism (accessed: September 20, 2013).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism .
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism .
8. The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins has a film to it, "Se7en", starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, but actually written as a "test" with Lista Ungdomsskole, where they have literally stolen it from me, also with possible trauma to go, either directly or by severe torture threats, even, maybe, checked out by tech-ears/tech-eyes (cochlea-implants, eyes/ears).
9. The references for my own work, starting with NDNID some time ago, but with other ideas and work having the origins from late 80s and possibly the early 90s, "with 3 communication vectors and one mass communication idea and cast by Se7en".

Source: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/201 ... sm-is.html. Author: L. F. Olsnes-Lea

[Furrowed Brow]

p

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, . . . .

Nonsense. Quite literally, non sense. In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

Sir Alfred held the Wykham Chair, Professor of Logic at Oxford from 1959 to his retirement in 1978.

I don't think you need to point to Ayer, Quine was an atheist and did not have a lot of time for metaphysics either. seems strange to want to associated an argument against atheism with an atheist logician.

Want to try that again, in English this time?

Ok duly noted.

BTW, it is not the personal beliefs of the authors that is at issue, it is the arguments themselves.

Ah so you still managed to decipher me. Anyhow Quine was a logician and philosophy who wrote on subjects like meaning, verification, reference, science etc. As far as metaphysics goes Quine preferred naturalism and thought it was science that reveals reality. This runs counter to what I think Aetixintro has in mind when he talks about "private arguments". Quine does not write on religion as far as I know and he does not care much about it as far as you can tell from his work on logic and language. It just seems a strange association to link Quines writings with religion. I suspect Aetrixintro just wanted to make the OP sound well referenced and .....more logical.

The phrase "a logical point of View" is taken from a collection of Quine's essay and is a phrase often associated with him. In fact the first essay in "From A logical Point of View" is On what there is in which Quine argues that poor reasoning leads to faulty ontology. There is a lesson here for the kind of arguments Aetixintro attempts I think. To be honest I have the sense Quine would have trampled all over Aetrixinto's phrasing of his presumptions.

Moreover in the second essay which is "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in arguing against analytical statements Quine points out that when we pick up a dictionary to check the meaning of a word we invoke the lexicographer who is an empirical scientist. Quine's empiricism counts against any argument being private as the words that form the argument are found in dictionaries provided by the lexicographer who defines meanings depending on how he sees folk use words. (Maybe I'm letting a little bit of Wittgenstein creep in there, as he pointed out there is no such thing as a private language. Language is public and therefore the meanings of arguments are public, not private).

Quine also takes on verification and reductionism and prefers a form of holism. In Quine's view science contains many meaningful sentences that are not themselves verifiable, but they retain their meaning because they are interconnected within a web of statements of which some are verifiable. Strictly speaking this is a criticism of the kind of verificationism Ayer lays out in Language, Truth and Logic.

[Danmark]

p

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, . . . .

Nonsense. Quite literally, non sense. In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

Sir Alfred held the Wykham Chair, Professor of Logic at Oxford from 1959 to his retirement in 1978.

I don't think you need to point to Ayer, Quine was an atheist and did not have a lot of time for metaphysics either. seems strange to want to associated an argument against atheism with an atheist logician.

Want to try that again, in English this time?

Ok duly noted.

BTW, it is not the personal beliefs of the authors that is at issue, it is the arguments themselves.

Ah so you still managed to decipher me. Anyhow Quine was a logician and philosophy who wrote on subjects like meaning, verification, reference, science etc. As far as metaphysics goes Quine preferred naturalism and thought it was science that reveals reality. This runs counter to what I think Aetixintro has in mind when he talks about "private arguments". Quine does not write on religion as far as I know and he does not care much about it as far as you can tell from his work on logic and language. It just seems a strange association to link Quines writings with religion. I suspect Aetrixintro just wanted to make the OP sound well referenced and .....more logical.

The phrase "a logical point of View" is taken from a collection of Quine's essay and is a phrase often associated with him. In fact the first essay in "From A logical Point of View" is On what there is in which Quine argues that poor reasoning leads to faulty ontology. There is a lesson here for the kind of arguments Aetixintro attempts I think. To be honest I have the sense Quine would have trampled all over Aetrixinto's phrasing of his presumptions.

Moreover in the second essay which is "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in arguing against analytical statements Quine points out that when we pick up a dictionary to check the meaning of a word we invoke the lexicographer who is an empirical scientist. Quine's empiricism counts against any argument being private as the words that form the argument are found in dictionaries provided by the lexicographer who defines meanings depending on how he sees folk use words. (Maybe I'm letting a little bit of Wittgenstein creep in there, as he pointed out there is no such thing as a private language. Language is public and therefore the meanings of arguments are public, not private).

Quine also takes on verification and reductionism and prefers a form of holism. In Quine's view science contains many meaningful sentences that are not themselves verifiable, but they retain their meaning because they are interconnected within a web of statements of which some are verifiable. Strictly speaking this is a criticism of the kind of verificationism Ayer lays out in Language, Truth and Logic.

Thanks. Glad you have a sense of humor and took my flippant remark in the spirit in which it was intended.

I haven't studied Quine at all, so I appreciate the summary. I was attracted to Ayer many years ago because of the simplicity with which he cut thru the issues related to this discussion. As I recall Wittgenstein was also part of the Vienna circle. Just now I took a look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/
and have decided I'll stick with Ayer's simpler approach.

[Furrowed Brow]

You could read Language, Truth and Logic, or you could take a short cut and look up 'unverifiable.'

You should never assume I ask a question out of ignorance.

Ayer changed his definition of verification between the first edition (1936) and second edition (1946) of Language, Truth and Logic. Why?

Alonzo Church provided a well-known critique of the second edition in the Journal of Symbolic Logic (1949) which is often considered destructive to Ayer's attempts. Why?

If I may interject.

Church would have preferred Ayer used logical notation more for a start. We’ll come back to this point shortly.

The amended definition is due to a criticism made by Berlin which shows that Ayer’s first attempt at defining verifiability left all statements verifiable, and Church sets about showing the new definition fails for similar reasons.

Ayer’s revised definition of a directly verifiable statement (A): is either an observation-statement, or in conjunction with one or more other observation statements it entails one more observation statement not deducible from the premises alone.

Indirectly verifiable: a statement in conjunction with other premises entails a directly verifiable statement (A) not deducible from these other premises alone (these premises cannot be analytical, directly verifiable, or indirectly verifiable)

Churches Critique: Church offers three independent observation statements O1, O2, O2. The statement S is any statement. That fact that it can be any statement is important. Remember that Ayer defines a statement that is an indicative sentence that may or may not be meaningful, i.e. it may or may not be verifiable. From this Church shows that either statement S is verifiable or statement Not-S is verifiable. If he demonstrates this whilst S can be any statement then he takes that to be a result similar to Berlin’s leaving Ayer’s formulation too open leaving any statement verifiable. A result Ayer would certainly want to avoid given he is trying to show some statements AND their negations are not verifiable, and Church if successful will show that every statement whatsoever is meaningful.

Church constructs the disjunction [I’ll call this V]: (Not-O1 and O2) or (O3 and Not-S).

• [1] O1, (Not-O1 and O2) or (O3 and Not-S); then O3 {this means the disjunction [V] meets Ayers directly verifiable criterion}
  [2] Whilst S, O1, (Not-O1 and O2) or (O3 and Not-S); then O2.....{.thus S is indirectly verifiable by Ayer’s criterion}
  [3] Unless....disjunction [V] alone: (Not-O1 and O2) or (O3 and Not-S) entails O2, in which case “O3 and Not-S� entails O2 {and that means not-S is directly verifiable}.

This means Church shows that either S is indirectly verifiable or Not-S is directly verifiable. Thus for statement S it or its negation is verifiable, and this means no statement is literally meaningless.

However Church does note that Ayer is equivocal over the role of formal languages and equivocates over the use of ordinary speech, but this probably looks a tad feeble in light of Church’s analysis as it seems the only option Ayer leaves himself is to retreat away from the kind or formal language Church likes to play with, and retreat into the thicket of ordinary language and maybe a take a turn that leaves him having avoiding reductionism. And I think it is this has something to do with why Church's review is taken to have been destructive of Ayer. Any lurch towards non reductionism also I suspect leads to something like the kind of holism advocated by Quine’s which allows that scientific sentences are part of an interconnected web and therefore cannot all be reduced to individual statements.

On the one hand I think Quine is kinda half right but I do not think the problem presented by Church is so devastating to reductionism. Take the sentence:

[center]“The non- existence cat rests on the metaphysical mat�.[/center]
If we assume this sentence is not verifiable and that is not much of an assumption, and look to see what its negation is, that would be:

[center]Not-(“The non-existent cat rests on the metaphysical mat�). [call this NS] [/center]
If we accept as does Kant and many others that existence is not a predicate then we can’t negate the initial sentence in anything like a convincing way. Church’s result tells us that if we can form the statement S then it or Not-S is verifiable; but can we even logically form this alternative in a sensible way – and I think not. If so Church is presuming we are dealing with a formally well formed language (an artificial language) with which there is not a restriction to just slapping the negation sign before a statement sign. But if in principle some collection of signs can’t be sensibly negated because the original makes no sense (though superficially it looks grammatically fine and reads ok to an ordinary language user who does not ask too many questions), then the original statement cannot be verified and Ayer’s point stands.... I think. But to get that result requires accepting that parts of language and sentences that are at least grammatically well formed per the rules of ordinary language are not logical propositions, and for sentences that are not logical propositions it is illegitimate to treat the negation of a nonsense sentences as if it forms a logically well formed proposition. Simply put: If NS is nonsense then we can’t logically negate it and if it cannot be successfully negated Church’s demonstration of what works for formal language does not apply. Poetry might count as language that is not logically well formed and which strictly speaking is nonsense and then is not a use of language for which the logical tools of an artificial language are well suited. I suggest that nonsense sentences are part of – for wont of a term - an anti Quinean web. These webs have sentences that look meaningful but instead of connection to reality through some statements that can be verified, the anti-web analogue are nonsense sentences like NS that correspond to nonsense. Around a holistic web there is no verifiable sentence to be found. On this view nonsense is sometime difficult to recognise and unpack because it is a holistic web and for the reason it is not reducible. But meaningful and verifiable statements remain reducible and are not holistic. And as these sentences are not nonsense and they are meaningful then they are propositions to which Church's formal analysis applies. And this would explain why all statements are verifiable. Of course we are then forced to abandon Ayer's terminology and what he is calling "statements" Church has simply demonstrated are true/false propositions.

In a nutshell I think Ayer is basically right or least point in the right direction that meaningful statements are verifiable and are reducible, but he just needed to unpack the idea of nonsense a bit more and not let himself get pulled into the idea of trying to give a definition that one hands obeys logic and other tries to formally define nonsense. I don't think that is actually possible.

[keithprosser3]

I think the only reasonable response to the OP is

'Sez you'.

[Danmark]

I think the only reasonable response to the OP is

'Sez you'.

I'm with you Keith.

[Inigo Montoya]

What would be required to prove to you Honda made a vehicle called an Accord?

Or that a rock might sink into a pond?

What proof would I need to show you it's possible for us to fly in a manned vehicle?

Or that a creature exists like the platypus?


This ridiculous wall of text aside, just look at the lengths someone has to go to in order to invent some playground for a god to exist in.

I'd be embarrassed beyond belief to trot that out as evidence of any kind. What does it say about a god that this is what's required to even contemplate the possibility of its existence? How absolutely absurd.

[Aetixintro]

To all repliers

First: thank you!

Second: You can't wade into the metaphysics class and invalidate the whole thing because you, yourself, believe in Vienna Circle and Carnap! This must be clear to you as well!

Thirdly: These are religious people! They are CONVINCED! You need to win them over by appealing to their hearts and minds! To say "science and truth" is to this forum as useless as it is BASE!

To recapitulate the story of metaphysics, one of the 4 original under the scholar subject of Philosophy:
We have the text from Aristotle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle), who dies in 322 BC (aged 62), some 2350 years before now.

And here you are, merely uttering over the powerlist of philosophers, all from St. Anselm to now, "I don't believe in it!"

I reply: I'm not convinced! Indeed, you only present an unfounded claim, whether you use the authority from the name Ayer or not!

Further: So I say "science and truth too", but under Religion and God! Cheers!

----
(Edit:)
The aim of mine by this text in starting this discussion: to say that Atheism is inferior including all it can muster: Russells "Teapot", the 747-Gambit, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Problem of Evil etc. So I clearly make the case PRO-RELIGION, without bothering the repeat all the well-known text from Atheism.

Let me deal with Furrowed Brow first in him asking what "privacy holds the best argument" mean?

Answer: that people believe in something and that this belief passes as intelligent too. This belief is "held the hardest" in one's privacy where one can contemplate the arguments in peace and die by them (there) too!

That some "idiot" conquers the public square at any one point doesn't mean that the discussion is won! So this is the point: people need to be convinced! People have a (universal, unobjectionable) right to believe what they want as long as it complies with rules and regulations of the credible kinds. This is the standard: Furrowed Brow needs to present such powerful argument that people bother to bring it back into their privacies and think it over there and be convinced by it too! Get it, please?

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Aetixintro]

Although a "rambler" now, paradoxically enough with a very coherent "powerlist" of philosophers, here are our additional targets for "removing Atheism from the face of the Earth:

Our premise: to provide superior "science and truth" under Religion than what they can! Premise 2: To try to "destroy" the foundation for Atheism. This 2nd premise has a "narrow" definition so we go after the books for a start:

Berman, David. A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell. London: Croom Helm, 1988.
Hunter, Michael, and David Wootton, eds. Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
Mauthner, Fritz. Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte Im Abendlande. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1920-23.
Schroeder, Winfried. Ursprunge des Atheismus: Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Tubingen: Frommann- Holzboog, 1998.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html.

[Aetixintro]

More to the list, under Premise 2:

Definition of Atheism

On Defining Atheism, see:
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990, appendix.
Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Note that these are NEW. We think they are hiding something.

We walk up the history:
17th Century - First Appearance of Atheism (circa 1650-)
Url: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/hi ... eenth.html.

"Various histories of atheism have claimed a range of French thinkers, ranging from Fontenelle (1657-1757), Saint-Evremond (1610-1703), Freret (1688-1749), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1778), Meslier (1664-1729), La Mettrie (1709-1751), D'Alembert (1717- 1783), Diderot (1713-1784), Rousseau (1712-1778) and Robespierre (1758- 1794) (amongst other luminaries of the French Enlightenment) for the atheist camp."

Minois, Georges. Histoire de L'atheisme. La Fleche: Fayard, 1998. (Any English?)
"The Twentieth Century" presents no names, which is WEAK! We are looking to add a special book from France from the period of 1900 to 1950 AD.

About the "Investigating Atheism" Info-domain:
"Contact Details
Investigating Atheism
Psychology and Religion Research Group
Faculty of Divinity
University of Cambridge
Email: investigatingatheism@divinity.cam.ac.uk "

----
(Edit:) - Why we, the Religious people, are BEST now! -

The real problem that we now present the Atheists with and that has "rocked" their World profoundly, is the fact that their physicalism/realism program has died philosophically and scientifically.

Additionally, the Religious people have gathered new pace by finding themselves friends with "quantum mechanics" by Emotional Awareness/Telepathy and Confirmation of Descartes' Phantom Feelings AND credible, amazing stories of the Priest Stories/the Confirmation of the Soul by the Van Lommel studies (geriatrics/emergency cardiology surgery).

Good? Aren't we happy?