100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Reflex]

Here's analogy: Quantum mechanics is the transition between essence and existence, between analogue and digital, between unity and diversity. But if an atheist assents to this -- and there is no logical or scientific reason why they shouldn't -- they will have let "the divine foot" in the door.

Funny how no quantum physicists have noticed this (whatever it is supposed to mean).

Where do you think I got the idea from?

[davidm]

Here's analogy: Quantum mechanics is the transition between essence and existence, between analogue and digital, between unity and diversity. But if an atheist assents to this -- and there is no logical or scientific reason why they shouldn't -- they will have let "the divine foot" in the door.

Funny how no quantum physicists have noticed this (whatever it is supposed to mean).

Where do you think I got the idea from?

Where?

[surreptitious57]

If you cannot find such an entity then it is pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity
in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes the presence of it in the ( case of the Supreme Being ) is sufficient to establish
the necessity of Gods real existence as well

Is it sufficient to establish the existence of something by hypothetical means
Do you not think empirical evidence is actually a much more reliable method

[Philosophy Explorer]

If you cannot find such an entity then it is pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity
in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes the presence of it in the ( case of the Supreme Being ) is sufficient to establish
the necessity of Gods real existence as well

Is it sufficient to establish the existence of something by hypothetical means
Do you not think empirical evidence is actually a much more reliable method

You may see red and I may see green. Individually that may be empirical, but we're still seeing different.

PhilX

[davidm]

The bit about atheists (actually scientists) "not a letting a divine foot in the door" actually comes from the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin. I wonder if this is who Reflex is referring to? If it is, Lewontin is not a quantum physicist, and moreover I think his remark betokened a more nuanced discussion on the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism.

[surreptitious57]

If you cannot find such an entity then it is pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity
in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes the presence of it in the ( case of the Supreme Being ) is sufficient to establish
the necessity of Gods real existence as well

Is it sufficient to establish the existence of something by hypothetical means
Do you not think empirical evidence is actually a much more reliable method

You may see red and I may see green. Individually that may be empirical but we re still seeing different colours

But Mr Can is suggesting that empiricism is not actually necessary to know that God exists and that simple logic will suffice
But logic applies to abstract systems like mathematics not to physical reality so he is using the wrong methodology entirely
He knows that he cannot use empiricism because there is no actual evidence for God hence why he has to use logic instead

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is it sufficient to establish the existence of something by hypothetical means
Do you not think empirical evidence is actually a much more reliable method

You may see red and I may see green. Individually that may be empirical but we re still seeing different colours

But Mr Can is suggesting that empiricism is not actually necessary to know that God exists and that simple logic will suffice
But logic applies to abstract systems like mathematics not to physical reality so he is using the wrong methodology entirely
He knows that he cannot use empiricism because there is no actual evidence for God hence why he has to use logic instead

That's a different story. Philosophy is the search for truth. Since we're arriving at different perspectives even though we individually see things from our own POV, then empirical truths, at that level, aren't strong enough to be absolute truth.

PhilX

[Reflex]

The bit about atheists (actually scientists) "not a letting a divine foot in the door" actually comes from the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin. I wonder if this is who Reflex is referring to? If it is, Lewontin is not a quantum physicist, and moreover I think his remark betokened a more nuanced discussion on the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism.

Yes and no. "The divine foot" does indeed come from Richard Lewontin in a review he wrote for Carl Sagan's last book, but the idea of quantum mechanics being the transition between essence and existence comes from physics (don't ask me from what particular physicist the idea comes from because I'ver read so many).

Note: I get a kick out of those who demand empirical evidence for God.

[surreptitious57]

Philosophy is the search for truth. Since we re arriving at different perspectives even though we individually
see things from our own POV then empirical truths at that level are not strong enough to be absolute truth

Empirical truth cannot by definition be absolute because science is inductive. Only deductive
disciplines like mathematics deal in absolute truth : one plus one equals two is absolutely true

[Philosophy Explorer]

Philosophy is the search for truth. Since we re arriving at different perspectives even though we individually
see things from our own POV then empirical truths at that level are not strong enough to be absolute truth

Empirical truth cannot by definition be absolute because science is inductive. Only deductive
disciplines like mathematics deal in absolute truth : one plus one equals two is absolutely true

Deductive reasoning isn't absolute either. Since you brought up math, we have Euclidean geometry, Riemanian geometry and Lobachevskian geometry to apply to space. None of the three are any more valid than the other. So what's your explanation of space?

PhilX

[Londoner]

Me: I do not understand what this riddle has to do with the subject.

Simple.

You said you saw no value in establishing conceptual coherence.

I said it was crucial, because that which is not conceptually coherent is also not something that can exist.

You said you thought that maybe it could.

I asked what your example would be.

You offered "black holes," which are not conceptually incoherent, even if a lot of empirical stuff about them remains unknown...

I think you are mixing up discussions. I have never mentioned "black holes".

My position is that a concept might or might not be coherent. In the case of your 'Supreme Being' I cannot tell which, because you won't explain it.

But even if it is coherent, it is still just a concept. Nobody doubts that Jehovah or unicorns or anything else can be a concept.

As to whether the Supreme Being is supposed to exist in additional sense to a concept, you always forget to say.

If you cannot find such an entity, then it's pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes, the presence of it in the (case of the Supreme Being) is sufficient to establish the necessity of God's real existence as well. So it all matters.

Yes, if your concept of Supreme Being is coherent it will be coherent. It would then be a 'coherent concept'.

NOW - is 'real existence' something additional to 'exist as a concept'?

If so, then (a) what is additional? And (b) What is this Ontological Argument that you believe establishes this?

So many posts in support of the OA, but you never get round to explaining what the OA is or what you think it proves!

[surreptitious57]

So what is your explanation of space

Space is at the classical level composed of three dimensions but there may be another seven at the quantum level
Space may also be what time is expanding into. Or it may not actually exist and be an illusion created by our mind
Just as time may not also exist either. But I think space and time do exist though because my mind perceives them

[Philosophy Explorer]

So what is your explanation of space

Space is at the classical level composed of three dimensions but there may be another seven at the quantum level
Space may also be what time is expanding into. Or it may not actually exist and be an illusion created by our mind
Just as time may not also exist either. But I think space and time do exist though because my mind perceives them

Here's another question. Does math have a (single) foundation? Before you try to tackle that question, you should check out this article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundat ... athematics

For me the answer is no. So without a foundation, there can be no absolute truth within math (see what the article says about logicism).

Now how can time expand into space since that implies there are parts of space where time doesn't exist? If space is an illusion, than it must have a real model for it to be an illusion off of, otherwise how would illusionary space come into being? Space and time may exist, proving it is the challenge.

PhilX

[surreptitious57]

how can time expand into space since that implies there are parts of space where time doesnt exist? If space is an illusion
then it must have a real model for it to be an illusion off of otherwise how would illusionary space come into being? Space
and time may exist proving it is the challenge

I am simply referencing what others say. I do not necessarily agree with all ideas about space and time. But lack of consensus is what makes this interesting for me. The creation of space caused by the expansion of the universe also creates time because space and time are inter connected
So the further away an object is in space the further away it is also in time. As I said I do not think space or time are illusions but some here like Dontaskme do. I have also read The End Of Time by Julian Barbour who thinks it doesnt exist just space. Quite a hard book to understand and so will have to reread it. Einstein revolutionised our understanding of time with Special Relativity. Before him time was thought to be absolute and unchanging. But it may be more stranger than even SR suggests so I think it best to keep an open mind even if it is not actually any more strange

[surreptitious57]

So many posts in support of the OA but you never get round to explaining what the OA is or what you think it proves

Mr Can thinks it proves the existence of God but it does no such thing. As you and I have explained to him just because
something is logically coherent does not mean it actually exists. The former does not indicate the latter. That is a non
sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy which renders his argument invalid. So he needs to come up with a better one