-Removed-By incoherent we do not mean a God that utters incoherent nonsense, but rather a god whose definition is incoherent. I think it is self evident that an entity whose definition is incoherent cannot exist.
Ask yourself this: can an invisible unicorn be pink? Can something both invisible and pink exist?
-Removed-OK, the 'we' part hasn't been answered and cannot be answered as there will always be someone out there who can't be convinced of anything, so the question itself is at fault.
As for the 'I' bit of it, I did answer, twice.
And besides, just because you feel an absolute conviction about something, doesn't mean others will share your absolutism.
I agree. See my correction above.
I think questioning someone's level education just because they don't agree with is a little cheap and below your normal standards.
I was not 'questioning someone's level education' or at least certainly not intending it that way.
The question is whether or not the existence of a god can be ruled out on the grounds of it being logically impossible. Remember that what I mean by logical impossibility was clarified above as including a contradiction between what you know about the universe and the definition of said god. So clearly, how much you know about the universe does have a direct bearing on whether or not you will find such a contradiction. That fact that I see such a contradiction and you don't suggests I know something about the universe that you do not. So yes, I am suggesting your knowledge of the universe is different from mine and I am suggesting it because we have come to different conclusions. I am not however intending it in a 'cheap' or insulting way. You may well have a higher educational qualification than I do but not in a science discipline - keeping in mind also that both of us probably have acquired much of our education in a non formal setting. All I am saying is that if you knew what I did in the science subjects you would almost certainly not believe in a theistic God.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that scientists whom are also theists, are theists because they don't know as much as you about the natural world?
All I am saying is that if you knew what I did in the science subjects you would almost certainly not believe in a theistic God.
-Removed-There are at least two different senses of the term certainty. One is psychological certainty, relating to one's degree of sureness in the truth of some proposition. The other is epistemic certainty, relating to the degree to which one's grounds for belief, or one's evidence, are truth-indicating for the proposition. Ideally, these two will track each other well, such as when one's degree of confidence is properly apportioned to the strength or lack thereof of one's evidence. However, the two are different in principle and do not have to align.
For there to be "absolute certainty" that God does (doesn't) exist, in an epistemic sense, the evidence would need to be of an unusual nature, basically ruling out even mere epistemic possibilities of falsity of that proposition. One relevant candidate for this would be -- as others have already pointed out in this thread -- if the definition of 'God' is logically inconsistent. Then, since the existence of such a thing would violate basic laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction, we could appropriately be more or less maximally sure that such a thing does not exist. (But not even cases like these are noncontentious when it comes to the subject of epistemic certainty. )
Obviously, in most cases under debate, epistemic certainty is not to be found, and thus having an attitude of "absolute certainty" is likewise not warranted. But, of course, that still allows that one could appropriately be very or even overwhelmingly sure. Best we can do is try to apportion our confidence level to whatever our evidence dictates.
Originally posted by C HessEither that, or they live with the cognitive dissonance.
Are you saying that scientists whom are also theists, are theists because they don't know as much as you about the natural world?
This reminds me of a story my father used to tell. He visited a remote school in Zambia in the 1960s. He asked one of the boys there whether he thought the world was round (spherical). The boy said he knew perfectly well that in school they learnt that the earth was a sphere, and would quite happily write that on an exam paper, but he was personally convinced that if he walked to far in one direction, he would fall off the edge.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeFalse dichotomy! An ad hominem attack may be perfectly true. Having said that, since you haven't make any argument, it wasn't an ad hominem attack.
That said, i'm absolutely certain you're a pilchard.
(Does that qualify as an ad hominem attack, or is it merely a statement of absolute truth?)
Originally posted by twhiteheadA false dichotomy sounds rather like a transgender operation.
False dichotomy! An ad hominem attack may be perfectly true. Having said that, since you haven't make any argument, it wasn't an ad hominem attack.
(Don't worry I'll ask my mate googlefudge later for a definition).
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by twhiteheadCognitive dissonance sounds about right to me. No offense intended of course. I've noticed you're quite knowledgeable.
Either that, or they live with the cognitive dissonance.
This reminds me of a story my father used to tell. He visited a remote school in Zambia in the 1960s. He asked one of the boys there whether he thought the world was round (spherical). The boy said he knew perfectly well that in school they learnt that the earth was a sphere, and would quite happ ...[text shortened]... was personally convinced that if he walked to far in one direction, he would fall off the edge.
Wait! What's that? I think I just had a thought. Yes, uhm, you don't suppose them theists might think we're the ones suffering from cd, do you? 😕