Atheism and rationality

[Juice]

One would be enough - but you can't produce one. You can't even link to one. You can only produce names.

Take it easy, Roy. I looked at your post count (over 5,000) and the date you joined Tweb (the year 2003). I assumed after that many posts and length of time on this forum you were at the very least aware of the basic premises of those arguments and didn’t need me to spell them out for you. And actually your following comments show my assumption was justified as you demonstrate at least an awareness of typical objections to those arguments.

If you can produce a valid argument for God, produce one. If you can't, admit it.

Kalam Cosmological Argumen (KCA)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The KCA’s is valid. Although you are right it doesn’t mention God specifically in any premise it is a lead in argument. From here we argue to the best explanation of the universe.

The Argument from Design (a version of Paley’s) is also valid.

The Teleological Argument (a.k.a. Argument from Design).

I’ll throw in the The Argrument from Morality for good measure.

I’ll give my own version of a Historical Argument for God in a simplified version (actually the apostle Paul first argued along these lines in 1 Corinthians 15).

1. If Jesus returned from the dead, then God exists.
2. Jesus retuned from the dead
3. Therefore, God exists

You will no doubt dispute the premises or find some objection to the arguments themselves. This would not necessarily invalidate the arguments or require us to necessarily abandon them or even withhold assent. Some arguments are simply more cogent than others, some are demonstrably true/false. But I don't see where you can dispute the validity of these arguments.

But the question here is not necessarily one of which position is true or false per se, but one of whether or not one can be justified in saying they have arrived at one’s position rationality. Can it really be said of atheists they have arrived at their position rationally if all they can seem to muster up against the weight of theistic arguments is either (a) an attack on theistic arguments and/or (b) withholding assent to theistic arguments? Especially when one considers that some of these arguments have convinced the likes of Antony Flew?

Only that the claims made by theists for the properties of their proposed gods are contradictory, often absurd, not backed up by any evidence, and the so-called logical arguments for their gods have holes large anough to fly a space shuttle through. Although it is likely that something must have kicked off the universe, there is no reason to believe any of the various gods various religions have proposed have anything to do with it.

Which is why I don’t believe you can say you have arrived at your position rationally. Rather than repeat myself I’ll refer you to my post here for an explanation as to why I believe that is the case.

[Juice]

That might be a reason to consider the possibility that there is a valid argument for God, but it's ridiculous to assume the existence of these arguments because someone was convinced.

Antony Flew wasn’t merely just another “someone.” He was a prominent philosopher arguing for God’s non-existence before he became convinced by some theistic arguments. At any rate, I’ve given valid arguments for God in my last post to Roy. I’ll copy what I wrote to Roy for the sake of time as you guys are basically asking the same thing.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

We then argue to the best explanation of the universe.

The Argument from Design (a version of Paley’s).

The Teleological Argument (a.k.a. Argument from Design).

The The Argrument from Morality.

My own version of the historical argument in a simplified version (well actually the apostle Paul first argued along these lines in 1 Corinthians 15).

1. If Jesus returned from the dead, then God exists.
2. Jesus retuned from the dead
3. Therefore, God exists

The above arguments are valid.

That is the atheist position, with God substituted for fairies.

The difference is you conceded there are no valid arguments for fairies. In other words there is nothing tipping the scale in favour of the existence of fairies at this point. On the other hand, clearly there are valid arguments for God tipping the scale for theism.

I'm assuming your valid argument is "There is no valid argument for the existence of fairies, therefore I don't believe in fairies."

I have no argument for the non-existence of fairies at this point. I haven’t given it much consideration to be honest as you’ve conceded there are no valid arguments for fairies. If you were to start piling up the valid arguments for fairies some of which were cogent enough to convince some staunch non-believers in fairies (similar in caliber to that of Antony Flew) that fairies exist there would come a tipping point where I must, if I wish to claim I have arrived my position of non-belief in fairies rationally, build valid arguments for the non existence of fairies to tip the scales back in my favour.

There is not a single valid argument for God. Not scientifically, not historically, not philosophically, and arguments from personal experience are unreliable and should be discounted out of hand. Please present one of the many valid arguments you claim create a tipping point.

Patently false as the above shows. There are valid arguments for God some scientifically based, some philosophically based, and some historically based. Some of these arguments, such Design, have been strong enough to convince the likes of Antony Flew to move from atheism to theism. You may not accept arguments from personal experience but they are nonetheless arguments that tip the scale in favour of theism. The atheist cannot simply hand wave these arguments as you have done if he wishes to claim he has arrived at his position rationally.

The scale is now tipped in favour of theism. The atheist can try to remove some of the arguments in favour of theism from the scale by disputing them. With some the atheist may even succeed. However, some arguments once removed can be refined so they can be place back on the scale so to speak. Sometimes new evidence emerges where an argument that may have once been discounted and removed can now be placed back on the scale with added weight. Entirely new arguments (or variations of old arguments) may emerge so although one argument may be removed another may be added keeping the scale in favour of theism weighted. In short, it is now not enough for the atheist to merely withhold assent to the weight of theism or merely sit back and snipe theistic arguments if he wishes to claim he has arrived at his position rationally. The atheist must build valid arguments in favour of his position to balance out the scale, so to speak, and rightly claim he has arrived at his position rationally.

[bertatberts]

Sorry will post tomorrow, two much text and one small error, but to tired to look right now sorry.
.

[ZackMartin]

Kalam Cosmological Argumen (KCA)

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe had a cause



The KCA’s is valid. Although you are right it doesn’t mention God specifically in any premise it is a lead in argument. From here we argue to the best explanation of the universe.

Of course the argument is valid, but is it sound? I don't think the first premise has sufficient evidence to support it. Obviously, as a matter of our everyday experience, it is true. But one has to be hesitant in generalising from experience gained in one particular domain (the macroscopic objects of everyday life) and applying that to a very different domain (the universe as a whole).

Zack

[Psychic Missile]

Antony Flew wasn’t merely just another “someone.” He was a prominent philosopher arguing for God’s non-existence before he became convinced by some theistic arguments.

That makes as much sense as me assuming that all theistic arguments are invalid because they haven't convinced Daniel Dennett.[quote]

At any rate, I’ve given valid arguments for God in my last post to Roy. I’ll copy what I wrote to Roy for the sake of time as you guys are basically asking the same thing.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

We then argue to the best explanation of the universe.

The Argument from Design (a version of Paley’s).

The Teleological Argument (a.k.a. Argument from Design).

The The Argrument from Morality.

My own version of the historical argument in a simplified version (well actually the apostle Paul first argued along these lines in 1 Corinthians 15).

1. If Jesus returned from the dead, then God exists.
2. Jesus retuned from the dead
3. Therefore, God exists

The above arguments are valid.

The Kalaam Cosmological argument fails because premise 2 is an assumption and the cause doesn't necessarily have to be a being of any sort, let alone one we would call a god.

The Argument from Design fails because premise 2 is an assumption (and demonstrably false). The Teleological Argument fails for the same reason.

The Argument from Morality fails because it makes an assumption as well as to the origins of morality (that are also demonstrably false).

Jesus returning from the dead is at best unknowable for certain, at worst without evidence at all.

The failure in all of these arguments is found in assumptions made by the arguer. It's not uncommon for human beings to favor what they want to be true over what really is true. It is very arrogant for these people to create this personal reality and mistake is for real reality, because in doing so they declare themselves gods.

The difference is you conceded there are no valid arguments for fairies. In other words there is nothing tipping the scale in favour of the existence of fairies at this point. On the other hand, clearly there are valid arguments for God tipping the scale for theism.

I could construct faulty arguments like you have and the situation would be much more similar.

[OU812]

It's not uncommon for human beings to favor what they want to be true over what really is true.

You can say that again.....

It is very arrogant for these people to create this personal reality and mistake is for real reality, because in doing so they declare themselves gods.

Right....and atheists have never, ever, ever, ever, done this.

I could construct faulty arguments like you have and the situation would be much more similar.

Funny...I can say the same thing in regards to atheists/atheism.

[Tassman]

Your record player is stuck again, Tassman, and you are repeating yourself. My request was absolutely reasonable as I was testing the veracity of your premise: Even an argument which has faultless logic will result in a incorrect conclusion if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified

The premise itself is a self refuting proposition as it cannot pass the standard it imposes on all premises for them to be established as true - that is, they must be experimentally verified. But you can’t seem to experimentally verify that premise. Thus, according to your own premise, your premise will lead to an incorrect conclusion. So why would we believe it? You really need to take some time and understand what it means to be self refuting.

You abbreviated my argument plus removed it from its context. The full argument was:

An atheist is “withholding intellectual assent to the conclusion god exists” because such a conclusion as "god exists" cannot be rationally arrived at. This is because even an argument which has faultless logic will result in an incorrect conclusion if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified. And this is the case with a supernatural entity like a deity”.

A “premise” is merely a proposition in a deductive argument which is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn. The premise you have assumed is the existence of a deity. But it is self evident that a conclusion re its existence will not be true (although it may be logical) if the accuracy of the initial premise from which a conclusion is deduced cannot be verified.

Apparently you still don’t know what makes an argument valid. If you are referring to “soundness” then it would depend on what you mean by “no means”?

By the terms of your particular argument it needs to be valid and sound; it is neither. And you have not answered the question. Why would you expect atheists to give “intellectual assent” to your conclusion of god’s existence when you have no means of establishing an accurate premise of your “reasoned” argument in the first place?

Do you mean that the only “means” of establishing a premise is by verifying it by experimentation? Because as we’ve seen above, that reasoning is self defeating.

Given that you are demanding “intellectual consent from atheists” to your conclusion the answer is yes.

[bertatberts]

That's like saying, if you ask 1000 15 year olds if they believe Santa Claus exists and 2 say yes, the plausibility is low, but if I step next door to a kindergarten class and 95 out of 100 say yes, now the plausibility of Santa Claus's existence is at least straightforward.
Do you see the absurdity in that?
Remove the supernatural and the supernatural being vanishes in a puff of logic.

I don't see how your comment has any relation to what I said. I said God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.. My argument is not an argument from majority or an argument from authority, so I'm not sure how your reference to differing numbers of 15 year olds and kindergartners is even remotely relevant.

The point is to the older person Santa isn't needed, but to the others he is. You believe god/gods are needed. You haven't made your case, you are merely special pleading.

Because you're calling on a supernatural entity, without any evidence of its existence whatsoever, where none is needed. And I make no such claim.
"Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens Hence special pleading.

Define "special pleading". Here is one definition: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.. Is that the definition you are using, or a different one? If that is the definition you are using, how is that what I am doing?

That’s not how I would put it I.E. Special pleading - using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.

What principle am I applying to others but refusing to apply to myself?

You're claiming god/gods are needed, but are disregarding that there may not be any, and as such aren't needed. By bringing a god into the mix you are special pleading.
"Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens, god/gods may be the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", but that is providing they exist, in the first place isn't it.
It's like answering a question with an unknown, it gets us nowhere, and is unjustified.

I disagree with the principle that all claims require evidence to be believed. Consider the claim "1+1=2".

WOW! It isn't a claim, it's a fact, it can be verified, Try again.

I think you are committing a common fallacy among atheists (but not unique to them) - the "name a fallacy" fallacy. That is when you respond to your opponent's argument with the brief statement "That's the X fallacy!", and you (1) don't provide or refer to a specific definition of the fallacy (since many of these fallacies will be defined somewhat differently in different sources); (2) don't provide any argument that your opponent's statements actually match that definition; (3) don't provide any argument that the fallacy, by that definition, actually is fallacious.

It is easier to write down what the fallacy is than to keep having to educate your opponent every time he makes a fallacious error. It takes too much time, if the opponent can't see that they have made a fallacious statement, then, explaining it to them isn't going to work either you would just be wasting your time, as I just have explaining you are special pleading, above. If you don't get it then there is no reason for us to debate, because it would be like talking to a brick wall and expecting it to respond with Pythagoras theorem.

Obvious you're too blinked to see, so I won't push it, I just let you carry on in your ignorance. You people are extremely hard work sometimes.

The reply of one incapable of actually engaging with their opponent's argument.

If you had made one I would have engaged you, However all you've done is regurgitate that it isn't a contradiction whereas it clearly is. Which is circular and boring.

It is information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research. Which can also be quantified and tested by a 3rd party.
The evidence cannot be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

So you define "objective proof". How do you know that your definition is the right one? Maybe your definition is too narrow? Maybe there are other forms of objective proof, which you refuse to acknowledge? At the very least, I'd say your definition is rather vague and unclear. Please give me an objective proof of the correctness of your definition of "objective proof".

Wow! Are you serious, unbelievable? Objective proof is something that is demonstrable/verifiable and can be demonstrated to anybody else, if it cannot then it is subjective. Your ideas of objective proof no doubt constitute dreams, feelings, visions all things that can be easily manipulated and easily explained.

Pointless waste of effort.

Rather than respond to my points, you respond with this. Is that because you don't have a response to my points? Could it be that my argument is correct but you are unwilling to admit that?

No, it was just a pointless waste of effort on your part and said nothing, thus it does not require a response.

Again pointless waste of effort. There are no rational standards to an imaginary entity.

You are guilty of circular argumentation. You assume your conclusion (God does not exist) in your premise. You insist that belief in God is against the standards of rationality, but you refuse to consider the possibility of God's existence while determining what those standards are.

Then the floors is yours, define your god/gods show me why you consider it rational to believe in your god/gods without any evidence. Oh and before you start don't forget to explain which god it is you're defining and why you don't think the 33,003,700 other gods aren't, worthy of your devotion.

The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be a base (either in substance or in thought) for any assertion, else it must be denied. Assertions, without evidence, cannot be accepted as true. This is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back said, things up is the essence of critical thought. Without critical thought, logic and science fly out the window. Critical thought is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject it is to turn ones back on thinking and embrace the Lunacy.
"If a devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion in the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of "THINKING". The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit to destroying the mind." - Ayn Rand

Where is the evidence that the "rules of science and logic" which you cite are indeed correct?

The scientific standards have been refined over centuries they are the single most reliable way of understanding the universe, nothing has ever come close to the reliability of science, faith is simply making something up that makes you feel good and then claiming it to be true.

Where is the evidence that my memory is reliable?

Your memory isn't reliable, how do you know that the experiences you have had that make you believe in god every happened or happened the way you think they did?

Not all beliefs require evidence. There are some things which it is perfectly rational to believe, and indeed irrational to disbelieve, and yet no evidence for them is available, indeed none is required.

Like what. And please don't go back to your claim for "justified true belief" without reasonable and necessarily plausibility for believing it is true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

Remember the Münchhausen trilemma - every search for rational justification can only end in one of three ways - things believed without evidence, infinite regress, or circular argumentation. We have no choice but to believe some things without evidence. The only question is, which things?

That explains a lot you're a Solipsist.
Am I a figment of your imagination or are you a figment of mine?
Münchhausen trilemma causes an infinite regression fallacy a begging the question fallacy and abrogation ad hoc, that is it’s trilemma, it makes the unjustified justified which is just plain foolish.

When you require an answer to the kind of statement, such has "Prove a god/gods doesn't exist" you have a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.

I don't think I have any fundamental misunderstanding of those topics; if anything, I think you do.

Do you believe god/gods exist?
I claim that the great Bumba created the universe; he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The universe is the proof of his existence, life is proof of his existence, and I have faith that he exists. I know in my heart because it was shown to me in a dream, that he says we shouldn't eat spaghetti and meatballs because it's gluttony, we should pray to him every forth Monday, laying spread-eagled on your back in a star shape. Now by all means prove Bumba doesn't exist?
Positing the supernatural without evidence of the supernatural is like explaining gravity by saying it is a non-corporeal fairy holding my feet to the ground.
A persons beliefs should always have demonstrable reasoning behind them, otherwise you may as well be making it up and no one would or could know the difference.
If your argument relies on fallacies then you are no philosopher, a philosophical argument must be constructed on sound reasoning and evidence not fallacious arguments that render it null and void.

Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. However, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think god/gods exist” and Person B says “I don’t think god/gods exist,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a god/gods. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement.
The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that god/gods exists, he does not specify the nature of god/gods that is, is god/gods small, large, blue, green? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that god/gods do not exist, if “god/gods” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of except for the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what the heck I’m talking about.”

Here is a very minimal definition of "God": "A being which exists external to this universe, and which created it". So your claim that theists don't offer any definition of "God" is false; I just gave one.

Do you have any evidence that something can exist outside the universe or do you just like the idea?
By claiming a god exists outside the universe you are essentially saying it doesn't exist, existence is universe dependant, up until such time that it is demonstrated to be false.

Of course, many definitions will add extra properties, but I think that is the bare minimum to capture what most theists mean by "God". (The definition doesn't work for pantheists, but it might work for panentheists.) Common extra properties include omniscience (knowing everything it is logically possible to know), omnipotence (having the maximal possible power, the power to do anything it is logically possible to do), omnibenevolence (being perfectly good), everlastingness (existence within time, without beginning or end) or eternity (existence outside of time altogether), personality (being a mind/person, as opposed to an impersonal thing). Not every theist agrees with all of these, but most would agree with most of them. And then individual theistic religions add more religiously specific claims as well, such as the Christian claim that God is triune and became incarnate as a human being, or the Islamic claim that God has sent a succession of prophets of whom Muhammad is the last.

And do all religions, agree with those definitions? Do all 33 million plus gods comprise of the above definitions? And why is yours more worthy?

You ask, "When a person asserts that god/gods exists, he does not specify the nature of god/gods that is, is god/gods small, large, blue, green?". Well, as I've mentioned, most theists will provide a list of properties they believe God has, like those listed in the previous paragraph. Different theists give different lists, but there is a common element. But your suggestions of properties, "small", "large", "blue", "green", are mistaken. Theists generally agree that God is not a physical object, and hence lacks physical properties such as colour or size or location. Asking whether God is blue or green, is as nonsensical as asking whether the number 17 is blue or green. Asking where God is located is as nonsensical as asking where the number 17 is located. Is the number 17 in this galaxy, or in another one? Some "theists" believe that "God" is actually a physical being - e.g. Mormons say God has a body of flesh and bones, Raelians say that God is actually an alien from another planet - but most theists, myself included, would consider this so far from "God" as we understand it to be actually talking about a completely different thing yet calling it by the same name.

So these theists contradict your claim that theists generally agree that God is not a physical object. You see all theists put their SPAG (self-personification as god)on it, they all think differently when it comes to god/gods.

This actually raises a good point about definition - two theists don't have to completely agree on the properties of God to still be talking about the same being.

Are you sure?

two people can have completely different ideas about a person called Fred, even totally wrong ideas about this Fred, and yet still be talking about the same Fred. On the other hand, some properties are essential; if you deny them you are not talking about the same person any more. Two people can disagree about almost everything about Fred, and still be talking about the same person; but if one of them then decides that Fred is actually a flowerpot, then they aren't talking about the same Fred any more. Same with God - theists can disagree about whether God is everlasting (beginningless and endless existence within time) or eternal (existence outside of time), but still be talking about the same being; but if someone said "God is a fish, he is living in the pond in my garden", then they aren't talking about the same thing any more. LDS and Raelians are maybe an example of that. And of course, people will disagree upon exactly which properties are essential to the definition, and which aren't - but that's not unique to God,

Of course they can, they can choose as many attributes as their minds can conjure.

people have disagreements about the definitions of things in many other fields of endeavour also. The important thing, is not that we prove our definition is right and the others wrong (often an impossible and pointless task), but simply that everyone in the discussion makes clear what definition they use.

And when does that happen with the theist. Christianity’s denominations are as different from each other as chalk is from cheese, and have different paths to salvation. There are after all 38.000 Christian denominations, and thousands upon thousands of other theist sects, religions, and cults etc etc…. All with a very different agenda.

Logical statements have to follow certain rules and restrictions. For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested. The existence of god/gods is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical.

OK, so is the statement "For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect" falsifiable? I can't see any way to falsify it. But if it is not falsifiable, then by its own terms, it isn't logical. So why should we accept it?

That statement isn’t claiming logicality, so doesn’t invoke logic.
I’ll try to make it clearer “when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable”. Not all statements are logical, “A rabbit’s foot is good luck.” Isn’t a logical statement, as it wasn’t lucky for the rabbit.
Only statements which claim logicality, I.E. Correct and valid reasoning, need to be falsifiable.

Your position is self-defeating.

How so? Ánd this coming from someone whose beliefs are indistinguishable from belief in gnomes/fairies/dragons/unicorns.

Sorry! But how do you justify faith/belief. Faith is belief that is not based on proof. Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. So how do you justify faith, to be knowledge. Knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.

Faith/belief and Knowledge are mutually exclusive.
Is that what you really believe and have faith in?

No it is what I know, so no need for faith. Faith is a failing of the theist.
Science and logic deal with objective proof, whereas faith only appeals to the subjective, and therefore is no different than believing in Santa Claus.

[ZackMartin]

An atheist is “withholding intellectual assent to the conclusion god exists” because such a conclusion as "god exists" cannot be rationally arrived at. This is because even an argument which has faultless logic will result in an incorrect conclusion if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified. And this is the case with a supernatural entity like a deity”.

A “premise” is merely a proposition in a deductive argument which is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn. The premise you have assumed is the existence of a deity. But it is self evident that a conclusion re its existence will not be true (although it may be logical) if the accuracy of the initial premise from which a conclusion is deduced cannot be verified.

By what means can we rationally arrive at conclusions? In order to conclusively conclude that belief in God cannot be rationally justified, don't you have to first conclusively answer the question "What constitutes rational justification?" Don't you have to determine what the correct criteria of rationality are, before you can apply those criteria in judging beliefs as rational or irrational? And yet, does everyone agree on what those criteria are? Or do people have rational disagreements? And if they disagree, how do we determine who is right? Is that question even answerable?

One might start by proposing a list of rational ways of forming beliefs: deduction, induction, abduction, sense experience, self-evidence, memory. So that's at least six - could there be more? Suppose I was to propose more - such as some form of moral sense, or some version of faith? Can you prove me wrong? Can I prove myself right? Who even has the burden of proof in such questions?

How can you conclusively conclude whether a belief is rational or irrational, until you have first concluded conclusively what does and does not constitute rationality?

Zack

[bertatberts]

For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Possibly you are confusing 'logical' with 'scientific', as substituting 'scientific' in the above yields ideas promoted by Karl Popper.

I had to make that statement clearer to Zack. So here it is again. "That statement isn’t claiming logicality, so doesn’t invoke logic.
I’ll try to make it clearer “when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable”. Not all statements are logical, “A rabbit’s foot is good luck.” Isn’t a logical statement, as it wasn’t lucky for the rabbit." Does that help?

A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Nonsense. Let's take two simple logical statements to illustrate this: if bertatberts is a man then bertatberts is a man; and: if bertatberts is a woman then bertatberts is a woman. Both are true, their the truth is quite unaffected by any empirical test you might commission, and neither can be verified or falsified by chromosome analysis.

To you it doesn't seem falsifiable. However, we know one logical statement must be false, thus it is falsifiable, as both can't be true. And yes they can be verified or falsified by chromosomal analysis, unless of course I’m a figment of your imagination, in which case why are you arguing with yourself.

You do know what a self-referentially incoherent statement is, right?

Yes. Yet it only appears in Christian apologetics, it is a Christian made fallacy it does not appear on any other list bar a religious one. So as such is not relevant.

[ZackMartin]

That's like saying, if you ask 1000 15 year olds if they believe Santa Claus exists and 2 say yes, the plausibility is low, but if I step next door to a kindergarten class and 95 out of 100 say yes, now the plausibility of Santa Claus's existence is at least straightforward.
Do you see the absurdity in that?
Remove the supernatural and the supernatural being vanishes in a puff of logic.

I don't see how your comment has any relation to what I said. I said God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.. My argument is not an argument from majority or an argument from authority, so I'm not sure how your reference to differing numbers of 15 year olds and kindergartners is even remotely relevant.

The point is to the older person Santa isn't needed, but to the others he is. You believe god/gods are needed. You haven't made your case, you are merely special pleading.

I still don't see your point. Belief in "Santa Claus" cannot be compared to belief in God for a number of reasons. First of all, all mentally competent adults who are acquainted with the concept "Santa Claus" agree that he is imaginary and non-existent. Whereas, mentally competent adults who are acquainted with the concept of "God" disagree about whether he is real or not. Secondly, your comparison suggests that theists are somehow intellectually or emotionally immature compared to atheists, a claim I reject, and a claim for which you have no evidence. I also think you have misunderstood my talk of God being "needed". To me, once certain beliefs have been adopted, God is then necessary in order to build those beliefs into a coherent worldview. I'm not sure children really "need" to believe in Santa Claus, and even if they do, we are talking about different senses of the word "need" here - my sense of "need" is being needed for a particular purpose I've specified; your sense of "needed" is being needed in some unclear, but likely largely emotional, sense.

Define "special pleading". Here is one definition: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.. Is that the definition you are using, or a different one? If that is the definition you are using, how is that what I am doing?

That’s not how I would put it I.E. Special pleading - using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.

Well, if we followed your definition literally, then everyone who disagrees with you would be guilty of special pleading. Imagine someone arguing for their own position, and then disagreeing with the arguments you put forward against it - that's special pleading, of course - except you do the same thing, does that mean you are guilty of special pleading too?

I make an effort to respond to all coherent arguments levied against my position. That said, I can't respond to everything at once; and sometimes I may not understand the argument someone is making, or recognise it as an argument - but in that case, it might be helpful if my interlocutor tried to argue more coherently.

What principle am I applying to others but refusing to apply to myself?

You're claiming god/gods are needed, but are disregarding that there may not be any, and as such aren't needed. By bringing a god into the mix you are special pleading.
"Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens, god/gods may be the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", but that is providing they exist, in the first place isn't it.
It's like answering a question with an unknown, it gets us nowhere, and is unjustified.

I notice again you are eliding my "God is needed for X" into a much vaguer and more general "God is needed", and then trying to argue against the later, when that is not what I said.

I disagree with the principle that all claims require evidence to be believed. Consider the claim "1+1=2".

WOW! It isn't a claim, it's a fact, it can be verified, Try again.

Well, let's look at some dictionaries. That site gives various definitions of "claim". One particular one, which I think is quite relevant to our discussion, is "an assertion of something as true, real, or factual" (Collins English Dictionary, noun sense 6). Now, I assert that "1+1=2" is true, so by that definition, "1+1=2" is a claim. Can it be verified? It doesn't have to be. One isn't rationally required to verify that "1+1=2" before believing it; one is permitted to believe this claim without any evidence for it being presented. I don't believe my belief that "1+1=2" is based on evidence. What evidence did I consider before forming this belief? I don't believe I considered any evidence before forming this belief.

It is easier to write down what the fallacy is than to keep having to educate your opponent every time he makes a fallacious error.

It is easier to just tell your opponent that they are wrong than it is to keep having to give arguments for your own position and to keep having to refute their arguments for theirs. Easier maybe, but it does not a debate or a discussion make. If you can't be bothered to point out where in your opponent's argument the (alleged) error lies, then you can't be bothered to debate with them, and then maybe you shouldn't be debating - maybe you should go do something else instead?

It takes too much time, if the opponent can't see that they have made a fallacious statement, then, explaining it to them isn't going to work either you would just be wasting your time, as I just have explaining you are special pleading, above. If you don't get it then there is no reason for us to debate, because it would be like talking to a brick wall and expecting it to respond with Pythagoras theorem.

Interesting that you have such a low opinion of the intellectual abilities of those who disagree with you, that you would compare them to a brick wall. If that is what you think of me, why do you bother continuing to respond?

Maybe if others fail to accept your point, it is because your point is in fact wrong, or maybe even if right, is not clearly expressed. Ever considered one of those two possibilities?

Obvious you're too blinked to see, so I won't push it, I just let you carry on in your ignorance. You people are extremely hard work sometimes.

The reply of one incapable of actually engaging with their opponent's argument.

If you had made one I would have engaged you, However all you've done is regurgitate that it isn't a contradiction whereas it clearly is. Which is circular and boring.

So far, all you have done is asserted that my position is contradictory; you haven't offered a clear and detailed explanation of how or why it is contradictory. I tried to give a detailed defence of my position as non-contradictory, which you just refused to engage with. Just because something seems clear to you, doesn't make it true.

It is information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research. Which can also be quantified and tested by a 3rd party. The evidence cannot be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

So you define "objective proof". How do you know that your definition is the right one? Maybe your definition is too narrow? Maybe there are other forms of objective proof, which you refuse to acknowledge? At the very least, I'd say your definition is rather vague and unclear. Please give me an objective proof of the correctness of your definition of "objective proof".

Wow! Are you serious, unbelievable?

So, your response to someone disagreeing with you, and asking you to provide evidence for your claims, is to refuse to take them seriously, and insist that your own position is so "obvious" that no evidence is needed? That is not rational thought; if you can play that game, so can anyone else.

Objective proof is something that is demonstrable/verifiable and can be demonstrated to anybody else, if it cannot then it is subjective.

An extremely vague definition. Demonstrated or verified how? You have not so far present a complete and coherent idea of what constitutes "objective proof", let alone any justification that your ideas are correct, as opposed to the possible alternatives.

Your ideas of objective proof no doubt constitute dreams, feelings, visions all things that can be easily manipulated and easily explained.

That's a strawman - where have I said that dreams constitute objective proof of anything? I have never said that. And this talk of visions? I have never claimed to have visions myself; while I am aware that some others claim to have them, I have never asserted that mere claims of visions, by themselves, are evidence of anything.

I do think feelings can constitute objective proof, but only when they are universal among all human beings, or near universal. Nearly everyone agrees that certain deeds are immoral (such as those of serial killers or mass murderers), and if you asked the average person how they know that such acts are wrong, they quite likely would point to their feelings. But I think such feelings meet the criteria of something that "can be demonstrated to anybody else" (to quote your own words), since these feelings are common to nearly everyone. (A small minority of humanity may lack these feelings, but that is no more evidence that they are non-objective, than the fact that some people are blind is evidence that sight is non-objective. And I note that even those who do the worst deeds imaginable often retain some awareness of how what they are doing is wrong - if you look at Anders Breivik's testimony in his trial in the last few days, you will find that even while he still insists he did the right thing, he admits that he found it hard to kill all those people, which is evidence that somewhere inside him he retains some awareness that what he did was wrong.)

Again pointless waste of effort. There are no rational standards to an imaginary entity.

You are guilty of circular argumentation. You assume your conclusion (God does not exist) in your premise. You insist that belief in God is against the standards of rationality, but you refuse to consider the possibility of God's existence while determining what those standards are.

Then the floors is yours, define your god/gods

Here's a definition of "God": "a being which exists external to this universe and created it". Of course, I believe a lot more about God than that, but that will do as a bare minimum of a definition. This definition should work for most varieties of theism.

Whereas you seem to believe that if two people have even the slightest disagreement about the nature of God, they must be talking about two different entities, I don't. Two people can disagree about the properties of a thing, and still be talking about the same thing. I think only a small number of properties are likely to be essential. Beyond being distinct from the universe (which I don't take to exclude panentheism, where the universe is part of God, but I do take to exclude pantheism, where the universe is the whole of God), and the creator of the universe, the only other properties that I'm convinced are essential are that God is fundamentally good (which compatible with, but weaker than, the claim that God is perfectly good), that God is uncreated and immortal (which could involve existence outside of time, or beginningless and endless existence within time), and that God is not subject to the control or domination of any other being (which compatible with, but weaker than, the claim that God is all-powerful). So that's my essential definition.

Oh and before you start don't forget to explain which god it is you're defining and why you don't think the 33,003,700 other gods aren't, worthy of your devotion.

You are assuming exclusive monotheism, whereas I tend towards inclusive monotheism. An exclusive monotheist sees 33 million gods as 33,333,332 false god and 1 true God. An inclusive monotheist sees 33 million gods as 33 million different names for God, or as 33 million different concepts of God - some of which are more accurate than others, but all of which are about the same being.

My definition of "God" is broad enough that it would include very many, but not all, concepts of God which exist. Even if we consider those conceptions of God which my definition excludes, I don't think there are anywhere near 33 million such distinct concepts.

show me why you consider it rational to believe in your god/gods without any evidence.

As I've argued, I believe that belief on the basis of faith can be rational, in the appropriate circumstances, and my belief in God is based on faith.

I'm not sure I agree necessarily that I believe "without any evidence" - it all comes down to how you define "evidence". According to the Bible, faith is a form of evidence - "[F]aith is... the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). I think if we study the etymology of the word "evidence", the idea that faith is evidence makes more sense than it does at first.

Where is the evidence that the "rules of science and logic" which you cite are indeed correct?

The scientific standards have been refined over centuries they are the single most reliable way of understanding the universe,

The standards of the physical sciences have proven successful in a particular domain; but is it proper to assume they work just as well in radically different domains? Does that not run the risk of overgeneralisation? The physical sciences have been developed to understand this physical universe; they are not applicable by definition to things claimed to exist outside of it. You seem to be advocating scientism.

nothing has ever come close to the reliability of science,

Mathematics possesses a reliability of which natural science can only dream.

faith is simply making something up that makes you feel good and then claiming it to be true.

Maybe by your definition, but not by mine. I believe I have already given my three-part definition of faith elsewhere in this thread.

Where is the evidence that my memory is reliable?

Your memory isn't reliable,

I think you misunderstood the question. Of course every agrees that memory can be incorrect sometimes. The question is, how do you know that it is not incorrect all of the time, or almost all of the time? You surely believe it is more reliable than that, but what evidence do you have for that belief? I think you will find that all the arguments you could possibly make that memory is generally reliable end up being circular.

how do you know that the experiences you have had that make you believe in god every happened or happened the way you think they did?

What experiences? While I have had religious experiences, moments of mystical feeling, I have never claimed that they, all by themselves, are sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God. Given that, whether I reliably remember those experiences or not is rather irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Not all beliefs require evidence. There are some things which it is perfectly rational to believe, and indeed irrational to disbelieve, and yet no evidence for them is available, indeed none is required.

Like what.

Here are some examples - "1+1=2". "A is A". "If A is true, then A is true." "All entities are entities." Would you like some more?

A proof by contradiction. "All beliefs require evidence". That is itself a belief, it is a meta-belief (a belief about beliefs). So let us ask, what is the evidence for that belief? There does not seem to be any; no one can provide any. So, by its own terms, we should not believe it. So a pragmatic contradiction ensues. Hence, "All beliefs require evidence" is false. So that's a non-constructive proof that "Not all beliefs require evidence" - it proves that some beliefs not requiring evidence exist, without identifying what any of them are. I was about to suggest that "Not all beliefs require evidence" is a belief without evidence, but now I realise it is not - the proof by pragmatic contradiction I just presented is deductive evidence for its truth.

And please don't go back to your claim for "justified true belief" without reasonable and necessarily plausibility for believing it is true.

If you don't agree with the definition of "knowledge" as "justified true belief", please state which other definition of "knowledge" you would prefer.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

But how to determine which claims are "extraordinary" and which claims are merely "ordinary"? Especially, how to determine that in an objective fashion? I'm not sure this proposal can be operationalised in a non-arbitrary manner.

Remember the Münchhausen trilemma - every search for rational justification can only end in one of three ways - things believed without evidence, infinite regress, or circular argumentation. We have no choice but to believe some things without evidence. The only question is, which things?

That explains a lot you're a Solipsist.

What? How is believing in the Münchhausen trilemma make one a solipsist? It does not follow. And I'm not a solipsist - I believe in the existence of other minds.

Am I a figment of your imagination or are you a figment of mine?

I don't believe either. I believe that we are both real existent minds.

Münchhausen trilemma causes an infinite regression fallacy a begging the question fallacy and abrogation ad hoc, that is it’s trilemma, it makes the unjustified justified which is just plain foolish.

I can't understand this sentence. Please clarify.

When you require an answer to the kind of statement, such has "Prove a god/gods doesn't exist" you have a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.

I don't think I have any fundamental misunderstanding of those topics; if anything, I think you do.

Do you believe god/gods exist?
I claim that the great Bumba created the universe; he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The universe is the proof of his existence, life is proof of his existence, and I have faith that he exists. I know in my heart because it was shown to me in a dream, that he says we shouldn't eat spaghetti and meatballs because it's gluttony, we should pray to him every forth Monday, laying spread-eagled on your back in a star shape.[/quote] Based on what you've described to me, I believe that "Bumba" is God. While your concept of "Bumba" is not identical to my concept of "God", it agrees enough in the essential elements (creating the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) to be two different concepts of the same thing, as opposed to two different concepts of different things. So my conclusion is, Bumba exists, and indeed, "Bumba" is just another name for God. Now, I do think you have some mistaken ideas about "God"/"Bumba" - I don't agree with you that "we shouldn't eat spaghetti and meatballs because it's gluttony, we should pray to him every forth Monday, laying spread-eagled on your back in a star shape"; but I don't think that disagreement is so fundamental that we can't be talking about the same thing.

Positing the supernatural without evidence of the supernatural is like explaining gravity by saying it is a non-corporeal fairy holding my feet to the ground.

Is it? You can make all the strange metaphors you want, you haven't provided any evidence that this is an accurate one.

Here is a very minimal definition of "God": "A being which exists external to this universe, and which created it". So your claim that theists don't offer any definition of "God" is false; I just gave one.

Do you have any evidence that something can exist outside the universe or do you just like the idea?

Do you have any evidence that something can't exist outside the universe or do you just dislike the idea?

By claiming a god exists outside the universe you are essentially saying it doesn't exist, existence is universe dependant, up until such time that it is demonstrated to be false.

I don't agree with you that "existence is universe-dependent". I think that it is possible for things to exist outside of this physical universe, including other physical universes, God, the souls of the departed, mathematical objects, and various other things. You are asserting that "existence is universe-dependent", but you haven't produced any evidence for that claim. Why should we assume that "existence is universe dependant [sic], up until such time that it is demonstrated to be false" - why not assume the opposite instead?

Of course, many definitions will add extra properties, but I think that is the bare minimum to capture what most theists mean by "God". (The definition doesn't work for pantheists, but it might work for panentheists.) Common extra properties include omniscience (knowing everything it is logically possible to know), omnipotence (having the maximal possible power, the power to do anything it is logically possible to do), omnibenevolence (being perfectly good), everlastingness (existence within time, without beginning or end) or eternity (existence outside of time altogether), personality (being a mind/person, as opposed to an impersonal thing). Not every theist agrees with all of these, but most would agree with most of them. And then individual theistic religions add more religiously specific claims as well, such as the Christian claim that God is triune and became incarnate as a human being, or the Islamic claim that God has sent a succession of prophets of whom Muhammad is the last.

And do all religions, agree with those definitions?

Let's just take omniscience as one example - in layperson's terms, "God knows everything". Most religions that have a concept of "God" agree this is true. The vast majority of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Baha'is, etc., all agree with "God knows everything". Now, some religions lack any concept of an ultimate God - such as Buddhism, Jainism, many forms of Neopaganism, etc., so of course those religions don't share that belief. But of those religions which believe in an ultimate deity, the vast majority would agree that this ultimate deity is omniscient.

Do all 33 million plus gods comprise of the above definitions?

Since you haven't described any of these "33 million plus gods" with any specificity, I can't comment on them. Some of them are probably just different conceptions of "God" - possibly mistaken, but one can be mistaken about a thing while still referring to it. Some of the other things called "gods", like some polytheistic conceptions of "god", don't fall under my definition of "God" at all, and I would suggest that "God" and "god" are sometimes two quite different things.

And why is yours more worthy?

Could you be more specific in your question? To talk for example of omniscience, why do I think an omniscient conception of God is more worthwhile than a non-omniscient one? Well, going back to my reasons for God - to ensure that good triumphs in the end, and to ensure that all evil somehow serves the greater good - I think in order for God to serve those purposes, he would require a quite immense knowledge, certainly knowledge of everything in the universe and beyond that could possibly of moral relevance. I suppose, that knowledge, however immense, might still be strictly less than absolute. But let me suggest, that "All knowledge" is a simpler idea than "Sufficient knowledge to serve those purposes", and that all else being equal, we ought to prefer the simpler idea (Occam's razor).

Some "theists" believe that "God" is actually a physical being - e.g. Mormons say God has a body of flesh and bones, Raelians say that God is actually an alien from another planet - but most theists, myself included, would consider this so far from "God" as we understand it to be actually talking about a completely different thing yet calling it by the same name.

So these theists contradict your claim that theists generally agree that God is not a physical object.

I'm not sure they are necessarily contradicting my claim at all. I think their notion of "God" is so far apart from my own, that we are not talking about the same thing, even if we use the same word. Two seemingly contradictory claims, can turn out to be not contradictory at all, if we discover the same word is meant differently in each claim. So, I'm not sure they contradict my claim at all.

You see all theists put their SPAG (self-personification as god)on it, they all think differently when it comes to god/gods.

Huh? As I've mentioned, there is a great degree of agreement across different religions (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, Zoroastrian and others) as to some of the basic properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, uncreatedness, etc.) Sure, all these religions add their own unique doctrines, not shared by the others, but just because they have differences, it does not follow that they have no similarities.

This actually raises a good point about definition - two theists don't have to completely agree on the properties of God to still be talking about the same being.

Are you sure?

. Yes. Two people don't have to completely agree on the properties of Barack Obama to still be talking about the same person. One person believes he was born in Haiwaii; another believes he was born in Kenya and isn't really President; but they are still talking about the same person.

people have disagreements about the definitions of things in many other fields of endeavour also. The important thing, is not that we prove our definition is right and the others wrong (often an impossible and pointless task), but simply that everyone in the discussion makes clear what definition they use.

And when does that happen with the theist. Christianity’s denominations are as different from each other as chalk is from cheese, and have different paths to salvation. There are after all 38.000 Christian denominations

But you could come up with a definition of God which most Christian denominations would agree with. For example, almost all of those 38,000 Christian denominations would agree with this minimal definition of God - "a being which exists outside the universe and created it" - they'd surely all agree that this definition is missing many important elements, but they would not deny that it is true of God. And then many of the added elements, like omniscient, omnipotence, uncreatedness, immortality, omnibenevolence, personality, etc., they would nearly all agree on too. You might find some groups at the fringes who disagreed, but the vast majority would. And pointing to "different paths to salvation" (e.g. salvation by faith alone vs. salvation by faith and works) isn't relevant, because that is not a disagreement about the definition of God - there is much more to Christian theology than just how to define "God", and not all theological disputes are about that word's definition.

and thousands upon thousands of other theist sects, religions, and cults etc etc…. All with a very different agenda.

As I've mentioned, many of those religions share common ideas, including common ideas about God. There are more commonalities between different religions than you seem willing to acknowledge.

Logical statements have to follow certain rules and restrictions. For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested. The existence of god/gods is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical.

OK, so is the statement "For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect" falsifiable? I can't see any way to falsify it. But if it is not falsifiable, then by its own terms, it isn't logical. So why should we accept it?

That statement isn’t claiming logicality, so doesn’t invoke logic.
I’ll try to make it clearer “when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable”. Not all statements are logical, “A rabbit’s foot is good luck.” Isn’t a logical statement, as it wasn’t lucky for the rabbit.
Only statements which claim logicality, I.E. Correct and valid reasoning, need to be falsifiable.

Your notion of "logicality" isn't very clear. So,“when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable” isn't a "logical statement", but "God exists" is? Why? You have provided no clear definition of "logicality". It seems like a get out of jail free card.

Your position is self-defeating.

How so?

I already explained that - if we applied your criteria to itself, it would tell us to reject itself - that is what is called being self-defeating. Now, you've since amended your criteria in an attempt to exclude it from being self-applied, but you've done so by introducing this notion of "logical statement" which is ill-defined.

Zack

[ZackMartin]

For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Possibly you are confusing 'logical' with 'scientific', as substituting 'scientific' in the above yields ideas promoted by Karl Popper.

I had to make that statement clearer to Zack. So here it is again. "That statement isn’t claiming logicality, so doesn’t invoke logic.
I’ll try to make it clearer “when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable”. Not all statements are logical, “A rabbit’s foot is good luck.” Isn’t a logical statement, as it wasn’t lucky for the rabbit." Does that help?

Your concept of "logicality" is incoherent as described. Please provide a clear definition of it.

A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Nonsense. Let's take two simple logical statements to illustrate this: if bertatberts is a man then bertatberts is a man; and: if bertatberts is a woman then bertatberts is a woman. Both are true, their the truth is quite unaffected by any empirical test you might commission, and neither can be verified or falsified by chromosome analysis.

To you it doesn't seem falsifiable. However, we know one logical statement must be false, thus it is falsifiable, as both can't be true. And yes they can be verified or falsified by chromosomal analysis, unless of course I’m a figment of your imagination, in which case why are you arguing with yourself.

You seem to misunderstand. "if A, then A" is always true, regardless of whether A itself is true or false. So the truth or falsehood of A is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of "if A, then A".

You do know what a self-referentially incoherent statement is, right?

Yes. Yet it only appears in Christian apologetics, it is a Christian made fallacy it does not appear on any other list bar a religious one. So as such is not relevant.

Funny you should say that. I remember one of my first year philosophy lecturers at university (who was an atheist) using the concept in his lectures. He was arguing that the relativist position "There is no objective truth" is self-defeating, because if "There is no objective truth" is true, then the claim itself lacks objective truth, and if it lacks objective truth, we have no reason to prefer it to the alternative of denying it. So I can assure you, that while Christians (or other theists) and atheists may sometimes disagree about the application of the concept, there is nothing specifically Christian about the concept of a self-referentially incoherent statement.

Zack

[David Hayward]

I had to make that statement clearer to Zack. So here it is again. "That statement isn’t claiming logicality, so doesn’t invoke logic.

Clear as mud, I'm afraid.

I’ll try to make it clearer “when a logical statement is made, it has to be falsifiable”.

Evidently we are talking past each other. I too will try to be clearer: logical statements are not necessarily existential statements.

Not all statements are logical, “A rabbit’s foot is good luck.” Isn’t a logical statement, as it wasn’t lucky for the rabbit." Does that help?

You are at least partly tongue-in-cheek here, but I will address it anyway. “A rabbit’s foot is good luck” has the form A implies B (foot implies good luck), so it is a simple logical statement.

To you it doesn't seem falsifiable. However, we know one logical statement must be false, thus it is falsifiable, as both can't be true. And yes they can be verified or falsified by chromosomal analysis, unless of course I’m a figment of your imagination, in which case why are you arguing with yourself.

Both of my example statements are true, irrespective of what gender you actually are. They illustrate why your claim that logical statements must be falsifiable is plain wrong.

There's a lot of confusion about logic, and about what counts as logical, so I'll caution you by quoting someone on the now defunct IIDB forum in 2005 -- his post continued to humourously attack the Law of Excluded Middle:

http://www.iidb.org.vbb/showthread.php?p=2649768#post2649768

“Formal logic is a specialist tool which very few have sufficient knowledge of or the practical skills to use effectively – I do not claim such for myself. Many have or profess to have the knowledge of how to manipulate the symbols, but mapping to these symbols from the complexities and complications of life or of objective reality is no trivial task; so other than the simplest syllogism-like logic, used to nibble at the edges of problems, most people are thrown back upon their everyday skills of assessment, experience, and judgement.

Were logic readily understandable and easier to use many of the threads in this and other forums would be rather shorter; but they are not.

Formal logic is a tool, a specialist mathematical tool, used for specific purposes at need of those purposes. I recommend you only try to use logic where logic is an appropriate tool, and you bear in mind that much as a screwdriver is a good tool for turning screws but ineffective at turning nuts, so should you recognise that the use of logic to turn the nuts you will inevitably encounter in forums is likely to be unproductive.”

© source where applicable

David

[Teluog]

No it is what I know, so no need for faith. Faith is a failing of the theist.
Science and logic deal with objective proof, whereas faith only appeals to the subjective, and therefore is no different than believing in Santa Claus.

Do you believe and have faith in everything you just said?

[Tassman]

By what means can we rationally arrive at conclusions? In order to conclusively conclude that belief in God cannot be rationally justified, don't you have to first conclusively answer the question "What constitutes rational justification?" Don't you have to determine what the correct criteria of rationality are, before you can apply those criteria in judging beliefs as rational or irrational? And yet, does everyone agree on what those criteria are? Or do people have rational disagreements? And if they disagree, how do we determine who is right? Is that question even answerable?

We “rationally arrive at conclusions” by our powers of reasoning based on observation - and deductions and inferences based on those observations.

As for hypothesized divine entities, why add them to the equation at all? There is no credible evidence to support such a notion apart from pre-scientific religious beliefs and these are notable for their diversity – which does not inspire confidence in their various proclaimed “truths”.

One might start by proposing a list of rational ways of forming beliefs: deduction, induction, abduction, sense experience, self-evidence, memory. So that's at least six - could there be more? Suppose I was to propose more - such as some form of moral sense, or some version of faith? Can you prove me wrong? Can I prove myself right? Who even has the burden of proof in such questions?

The person making the assertion has the burden of proof, i.e. you. Especially as the “moral sense” to which you are referring can be explained by natural means i.e. Natural Selection. And more likely than not, ALL phenomena presently labeled ‘supernatural’ will be explained in similar fashion in due course.

How can you conclusively conclude whether a belief is rational or irrational, until you have first concluded conclusively what does and does not constitute rationality?

One must consider that ALL things are hypothetically possible even if they are highly improbable. But, in practical terms “conclusions” are most successfully arrived at via the scientific methodology which has proven to be the most productive means of obtaining knowledge in human history.