Why are you atheist?

[Ecofarm]

That the sun will rise is DEDUCTIVE reasoning, not inductive.

It's freaking astro-physics. Go tell the physics department to stop basing their knowledge on inductive reasoning, see what they say.

 

[lovett]

But since it's impossible to use induction to ponder the existence of an unobservable God, we can only resort to logic.

True. And God cannot be justified with logic. However it is also impossible to use induction to prove the validity of induction. And we have agreed that it is impossible to use logic to justify induction. Yet we believe the latter whilst disbelieving the former. For atheistic arguments to be consistent they must enunciate why.

That the sun will rise is DEDUCTIVE reasoning, not inductive.

That's what you said before. I offered a refutation. Just repeating something doesn't make you anymore right Ecofarm...

 

[Lone Wolf]

And we have agreed that it is impossible to use logic to justify induction. Yet we believe the latter whilst disbelieving the former.

We don't believe the latter - we consider it logically unsound and erroneous, with some limited application in today's world (since a word in which induction can't be applied in any way is logically impossibe).

 

[lovett]

We don't believe the latter - we consider it logically unsound and erroneous, with some limited application in today's world (since a word in which induction can't be applied in any way is logically impossibe).

On the contrary, we almost always do believe the latter!

That's why Warpus is willing to bet me $5000 that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's why we trust scientific theories (in response to an earlier point, science does use logic. However this logic is based off inducted premises. Without induction we could not do science) and why I am absolutely sure that when I look down I will see my feet.

Almost all our knowledge is of an inductive character. I don't see how one can say we apply it in 'some limited' way. Nor is this a particularly powerful defense; we have no logical justification to apply it at all.

 

[Lone Wolf]

On the contrary, we almost always do believe the latter!

There's quite a large number of inductive statements about the world which we don't believe in. Every day, I pass by a grey house, yet I am not completely sure that it will be the next day because it was there the previous day.

in response to an earlier point, science does use logic. However this logic is based off inducted premises.

There're no "inductive" premises in maths. Sure, there are some unprovable axioms, but there's nothing stopping you from making another set of axioms as long as they are logically consistent (see non-euclid geometry).

 

[Ecofarm]

There's quite a large number of inductive statements about the world which we don't believe in. Every day, I pass by a grey house, yet I am not completely sure that it will be the next day because it was there the previous day.

Yes, but if physics proved that the house will be created everyday and will be there - barring a massive solar catastrophy - then it would not be so difficult to believe.

I really do not get how physics has nothing to do with believing the sun will rise. I don't just believe it because I've seen the sun rise. I believe it because PHYSICS explains it clearly. The argument that such a belief is inductive is like assuming we still think it is pulled by a chariot of a god. It's not pulled by a chariot of a god who might not feel like it tomorrow. It's not random. It is physics.

I can PROVE, through complicated math, that sunrise absolutely will continue until the sun's radius exceeds the orbit of the earth or the earth itself is otherwise obliterated. There is no guessing, no assumptions, no presumptions... just hard math proving it beyond a doubt.


One can compare believing in god to believing the sun rises as a result of a god's chariot. But don't compare believing in god to believing in physics. That's ridiculous.


Physics is an extraordinary claim?! If that's true, then social science means NOTHING.

 

[warpus]

True. And God cannot be justified with logic..

Depends on what you define God to be, methinks. If you define him to lie outside of the scope of logic, then sure, you won't be able to use logic to justify him.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I thank God for making me smart enough to not believe in fairy tales. yay!

 

[pesgores]

No proof of existence of any god. That's what makes me an atheist. Logic. Evidence. Genetics.

 

[lovett]

There's quite a large number of inductive statements about the world which we don't believe in. Every day, I pass by a grey house, yet I am not completely sure that it will be the next day because it was there the previous day.

There is also an extraordinary number of inductive statements we do believe. Arguable, everything we count as knowledge rests on induction (I'll justify this further in a bit, although it is actually tangential). We certainly agree that induction can lead to knowledge. The issue is that if induction is unjustified none of these statements are justified. We believe unjustified statements whilst rejecting theism for that exact thing. There's an inconsistency here we must resolve.

There're no "inductive" premises in maths. Sure, there are some unprovable axioms, but there's nothing stopping you from making another set of axioms as long as they are logically consistent (see non-euclid geometry).

True. But we don't deduce scientific conclusions from mathematical axioms. We deduce them from empirical conclusions which we have come to through induction. Without induction scientific endeavour would be impossible.

I can PROVE, through complicated math, that sunrise absolutely will continue until the sun's radius exceeds the orbit of the earth or the earth itself is otherwise obliterated. There is no guessing, no assumptions, no presumptions... just hard math proving it beyond a doubt.


One can compare believing in god to believing the sun rises as a result of a god's chariot. But don't compare believing in god to believing in physics. That's ridiculous.

You can prove this without relying on any empirical observations? That's an odd claim. It's tantamount to saying that we could deduce the entire nature of the world from our mathematical axioms. Of course this is completely antithetical to how science works; science is predicated on the idea that we have to go out into the world and look at stuff before we can draw conclusions. Scientific knowledge is not based on deduction it is based on induction. It's based on assuming that the universe won't change after we've finished our empirical observation.

Depends on what you define God to be, methinks. If you define him to lie outside of the scope of logic, then sure, you won't be able to use logic to justify him.

 

[Lone Wolf]

We believe unjustified statements whilst rejecting theism for that exact thing. There's an inconsistency here we must resolve.

We believe some unjustified statements because they are necessary for our survival - you can say that belief in nutritionary qualities of food is an inductive reasoning - food is nutrinitionary because it had been always so - but without that belief we won't live long.

 

[lovett]

We believe some unjustified statements because they are necessary for our survival - you can say that belief in nutritionary qualities of food is an inductive reasoning - food is nutrinitionary because it had been always so - but without that belief we won't live long.

Isn't that itself an inductive statement?

We know food/nutrition through generally inductive processes. We are repeatedly told so and what we're told tends to be right. We observe people without nutrition not doing so well and assume the same will happen to us. These certainly sound like inductive starting points.

 

[warpus]

hey lovett, you quoted me 3 posts above, but didn't respond

 

[Lillefix]

hey lovett, you quoted me 3 posts above, but didn't respond

I think it means he likes you...

 

[lovett]

I meant to say this:

-------------

Depends on what you define God to be, methinks. If you define him to lie outside of the scope of logic, then sure, you won't be able to use logic to justify him.

Given that you're an atheist I'm rather surprised that you object to the statement 'God cannot be justified through logic'

Really, I don't see how one could possibly justify any reasonably common definition of God through logic. If God is an empirical issue then it would be like trying to prove that I must have a blue marker on my desk through logic. If God is non-empirical - lies outside the universe - then you couldn't justify him through logic because our experience of logic is limited strictly to the universe.

--------------------

Or, ya know, try and draw you into an adventurous but illicit rendezvous. Lillefix is surprisingly is surprisingly insightful.

 

[warpus]

IGiven that you're an atheist I'm rather surprised that you object to the statement 'God cannot be justified through logic'

I object to people coming up with convenient definitions of God. "He's sooooo special that you'd never be able to see him! He lies outside of science! Not even Bill Nye could see him!"

Really, I don't see how one could possibly justify any reasonably common definition of God through logic. If God is an empirical issue then it would be like trying to prove that I must have a blue marker on my desk through logic.

Which would be possible - you could prove it via cam. What's the issue here?

 

[lovett]

I object to people coming up with convenient definitions of God. "He's sooooo special that you'd never be able to see him! He lies outside of science! Not even Bill Nye could see him!"

I don't think it's a particularly special definition.

If God created the universe it stands to reason that he is not part of the universe. Logic, science and so all operate within the universe. Thus they have nothing to do with God.

Nevertheless this does offer us some rather fruitful atheistic avenues.

Which would be possible - you could prove it via cam. What's the issue here?

Elaborate?

What I'm trying to say is that empirical propositions aren't assessed by logic. They're assessed by empiricism. We can infer from inductive conclusions but we first need said conclusions. Otherwise we wouldn't really bother with sciences.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it's a particularly special definition.

If God created the universe it stands to reason that he is not part of the universe. Logic, science and so all operate within the universe. Thus they have nothing to do with God.

That's an assumption, and a big one at that. Most people who believe in God claim that he/she interacts with our Universe in some way shape or form.

Elaborate?

What I'm trying to say is that empirical propositions aren't assessed by logic. They're assessed by empiricism. We can infer from inductive conclusions but we first need said conclusions. Otherwise we wouldn't really bother with sciences.

Not sure what point either of us are making here

 

[Lone Wolf]

BTW, the problem of induction, apparently, is considered to be a philosophy of science problem by quite many people.

Still, I don't think that induction is comparable to God because the former must be logically true at least to a certain degree, while the existense God is a more of a yes/no question.

 

[lovett]

That's an assumption, and a big one at that. Most people who believe in God claim that he/she interacts with our Universe in some way shape or form.

Yeah, but most people who believe in God think that the argument from design makes sense. I think a personal God or one who interacts in the universe in any normal way (This includes Christian, Muslim, Judaic Gods etc) is probably indefensible in that the idea is largely incoherent or contradicts other beliefs. Thus we don't need to get into the issue of why we need justification for God because the idea shows itself to be absurd. We should note that one still needs to enlist falsification et al in good atheistic arguments;something that is very rarely done.

Nevertheless a vast number of people believe in God in a deistic sense. I.e A God divorced from the universe. In this case atheists should very much consider issues of justification, what kind of concept God is and why we believe loads of things without justification. This is almost never done.

Not sure what point either of us are making here

I'm trying to say the empirical propositions I.e. 'The Gravitational constant=6.67*12^-11 N/KG' and 'There's a blue marker on my desk' can't be discovered through logic. Thus even if we think of 'God' as something we can assess empirically it is perfectly valid to say 'God cannot be justified through logic'.

BTW, the problem of induction, apparently, is considered to be a philosophy of science problem by quite many people.

Still, I don't think that induction is comparable to God because the former must be logically true at least to a certain degree, while the existense God is a more of a yes/no question.

It's a philosophy of science question. It's also an epistemological question by definition; it concerns knowledge formation.

I don't see why induction must be true. That's rather what the entire problem is about.