If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It should be obvious but I know you can’t do any better.
You just conceded the circularity in your argument, and in the process, you somehow denied your own reason and attributed it to your imaginary god.
It’s sort of telling that to try and save your failed argument you feel you need to renounce your own reason, and you’ll willfully do that but still fail to save it
FMM,
Yes I’m familiar with the problem of other minds. But here’s the thing….
If God really did fashion one particular species ‘in his image’ then doesn’t it seem odd there’s no way to reliably demonstrate this?
If there’s no way of telling who might possess a mind; if there’s no discernible difference between those who are ‘made in the image of God‘ and those who aren’t – then what relevance does it have?
God made a point of making humans in his image – but it turns out it makes no difference to anyone or anything.
In the end all arguments are circular.
There are virtuous circles, they look like this
X is X
or
X is not (not X).
There is nothing wrong with arguments like that. In fact they are the only arguments who’s validity is immediately evident.
peace
There is a way to reliably demonstrate this
wait for it
revelation.
Just because there is no empirical test to tell if something has a mind it does not follow that we can’t tell if something has a mind.
We know that someone has a mind or not when that information is revealed to us.
I’m sure you have had that experience when dealing with chatbots
Peace
Quoted for stupidity
It’s a great thing that you’ve finally come to terms with the circularity of your world view after so much resistance, FFM.
Now maybe some day you’ll also realize that those things are useless and that your entire life is a lie.
Assertion is not ‘reliable demonstration’.
Ive never resisted any such thing.
My circle begins and ends with God. The only thing capable of supporting rational thought.
On the other hand your circle begins and ends with an error prone fallible finite you alone in the dark universe of your mind.
That is not a position I would want to be in
peace
revelation is not assertion it is—– revelation.
If I reveal to you that I will be logging off soon this morning it is not merely an assertion. It is me imparting information to you whether it is a reliable demonstration depends on whether it’s true
peace
Judaism has Moses and the prophets, and a lot of Rabbi’s offering their opinions.
We’re waiting to hear how it is that Patrick knows, infallibly or otherwise, that his wife is not an alien. I look forward to the tests he devises.
A little role play now and then can spice things up.
No, let’s stick with the bit of progress we’ve made. It seems to make you uncomfortable, so that’s a good sign.
The issue is this claim that you have made repeatedly:
Here’s my response to that:
I deny it because you are an admittedly fallible human being with no way of distinguishing between actual revelation and belief that you have had an actual revelation.
If I understand you correctly, you claim that the only source of knowledge is revelation from your god. Combined with your recognition that you are fallible, that means your views can be categorized in two ways:
1) Actual revelations from your god
2) Beliefs that you mistakenly think are revelations from your god
For some reason you want to idiosyncratically call the first “knowledge”. Let’s leave that aside for the moment.
The problem is that you have no way of distinguishing between the two. Because you limit yourself solely to revelation, you have no mechanism for determining which beliefs you hold are actually revelations from your god and which you have mistaken for revelation.
Because of your nature as a fallible human being there is no way that even an omnipotent god could reveal something to you such that you can be sure that it falls into the category you call “knowledge”. Unless you have another mechanism for determining the probability that a particular belief is an actual revelation, you have no non-circular basis to claim that it is. “I believe my revelation is real because of revelation.” is not a compelling argument.
Now, let’s apply that to the specific case you mention:
If we apply your assumptions that the only source of knowledge is revelation from your god then no, it cannot do that reliably for the reasons I just repeated.
We can know the truth of that statement based on application of mathematical rules, without any need for gods. If all we have is revelation, though, there is no way to verify it because of the inherent circularity of your epistemology.
Reading what you write. It’s a risk one takes here.
And that’s where your revelations fail. There is no way to justify any of your purported revelations except by . . . more revelation. It is logically possible, by your own admission, that every single thing you think is a real revelation from your god is actually a mistaken belief. You have no other way of justifying your beliefs, so they do not constitute knowledge.
Indeed. Religion has been such a force for peace and unity historically.
LoL. But do you think aliens would be good at role playing or bad at role playing?
Can you use role playing as a means to distinguish between and alien and a non-alien? You can role play, therefore you are not an alien?
Remember, the demand you put to fifth was that there must be some way to distinguish. If my analogy doesn’t hold I’d like to know why not.
Good to see you’re finally able to admit this.
It’s syntactically correct and semantically meaningful, but it’s a tautology. It’s trivially true.
The circularity in your position is a bit harder to discern, but it appears to be this. Either:
1. One must already have received a revelation from God in order to determine whether or not one has received a revelation from God.
or
2. Revelations are self-authenticating — to have a revelation at all is to know that the revelation is a true revelation.
I do not find the very idea of “self-authenticating” episodes to be coherent, for the reason that Sellars developed in the Myth of the Given. And it is only if one is first in the grip of the Myth of the Mind Apart (as Jay Rosenberg calls it) that one would need anything to be Given at all, whether the rationalist Given (clear and distinct idea, the light of reason) or the empiricist Given (sensations, impressions).
My debate with fithmonarchyman is about his knowledge-exclusiely-through-revelation claims. Those have to stand or fall on their own. While I have my personal views on epistemology, they are not currently under discussion.
If logic did not exist, we would invent it. Although it is lost in history, that’s almost certainly how logic arose.
Bingo.
The ‘self-authenticating’ nature of the Bible is a big part of the presuppositional apologetic (and other strains, too). I own an unnecessarily long tome by Greg Bahnsen explicating Cornelius van Til’s work and inside there’s a section about self-authentication. I would have copied it down but it’s not in the index and a brief flick through was fruitless.
Needless to say it’s every bit as self-serving as it sounds. It’s also incredibly easy to debunk.
So Patrick’s claim boils down to this:
Fallible beings can never justify their beliefs because they are fallible. Therefore knowledge is impossible.
But he could be wrong. And he can’t justify that claim, so he cant’ claim to know it.
Perhaps it is actually skeptical disbelief that is incoherent. Or maybe the incoherence only arises when you try to have the best of both worlds.
If logic did not exist there would be no reason to invent it. If truth did not exist there would be no reason to invent it. Atheism is anti-reason.
Right, it seems one can unite the world and God without Jesus.
That would follow only if one started with the Myth of the Mind Apart as the starting-point for epistemology (as Descartes did, among others). But that starting-point is optional and there are very good reasons for not starting there.
I do not understand this claim that “logic exists”. Likewise for “truth exists” or that “reason exists.”
If the sense of those assertions is simply that to remind us of some primitive convictions as (non-exhaustive list):
(1) Some of our utterances are claims;
(2) Some of our claims are true;
(3) All of our claims are subject to norms of semantic and epistemic appraisal;
(4) Norms of semantic and epistemic appraisal involve reasoning;
(5) Among the norms of epistemic appraisal are the principles of formal logic;
(6) A claim is justified or warranted if it conforms to the norms of epistemic appraisal, and not otherwise.
then of course I have no objection. I would happily consider acceptance of (1)-(6) as part of the very minimum characterization of what it is to be a rational being at all.
But it seems to me that the point of insisting that “logic exists,” “reason exists,” “truth exists”, is to insist on Something More than (1)-(6). And I do not know what this ‘Something More’ is supposed to be.
At the same time, I quite agree that norms of epistemic appraisal cannot be the result of agreement, convention, or invention. The reason for this is one would already need to be committed to some family of semantic and epistemic norms in order for any agreement, convention, or invention to be a reasonable one to adopt.
(I believe Quine makes this point, though I’m borrowing this version from Brandom’s use of David Lewis as to why practices cannot be the result of convention.)
Judaism, like Christianity and Islam, is a religion of revelation: God acts in the world (at a specific moment in space and time) to reveal His intentions, purposes, and expectations. In Christianity, the revelation is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ — that is, the revelation is a person. In Judaism and Islam, the revelation is a text — Torah for the Jews and the Qu’ran for Muslims.
The role of Moses was — according to Torah — to produce a physical copy of the divinely authored text by writing it down. The role of Muhammad is more complicated because there are two further mediations: the archangel Gabriel recited the Qu’ran to Muhammad, and then Muhammad recited it to his scribe. (That’s why it’s called the Qu’ran, which is Arabic for ‘Recitation’.)
Judaism and Islam solve the problem of how to bridge the immanent and the transcendent by invoking a text that is revealed to a community, which is then subject to various and contesting interpretations, whereas Christianity solves the problem of how to bridge the immanent and the transcendent by invoking a person whose sayings and doings are then subjected to various and contesting interpretations.
Is that an argument against intuitionism as a philosophy of mathematics?
</humor>
So you attempt to counter my contention that knowledge is possible through revelation by arguing that knowledge is impossible all together.
And you think this is a valid argument because your epistemology is not under discussion right now.
The only appropriate response to this sort of “destroy the village in order to save it” tactic is to ask “how do you know?”
peace
I would argue that the Jewish prophets are foreshadows of the incarnation and the Quran is a counterfeit of the incarnation.
neither would be possible with out the incarnation.
This is half correct
Christianity bridges the gap with Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit to insure his sayings and doings are not subjected to various and contesting interpretations.
peace
I would love to explore this with you.
Please don’t be offended by this question. It is necessary to establish a grounds for the discussion.
How do you know that starting-point is optional and there are very good reasons for not starting there?
This is very important please don’t brush it off. Think about your answer
peace
ask yourself this
Is it true that I do not understand this claim that “truth exists”.
that might help you to get it.
peace
Try to explain why you do not understand this claim that “logic [and reason] exist”.
Without using logic and reason.
That might help you to get it
peace
Scripture is indeed ‘self-authenticating’ but only for the regenerate. When the unregenerate encounter scripture it does not have that authentication. It’s like reading other peoples mail.
When it comes to general revelation I can only say that God can reveal stuff in such a way so that you can know it.
How he does that is really up to him and depends on the situation and his goals.
peace
Again: I certainly have no problems with the idea that claims are true (or false). I am happy with the idea that we can ascribe truth and falsity to assertions.
But when you say “truth exists” I worry that you want to say much more than just reminding us that some assertions are true and others are false. And I do not know what this ‘much more’ is.
For one thing, it is not entirely clear to me whether we need a theory of truth that is not just a deflationary theory, according to which the predicate phrase “is true” is just a re-authorization of the claim to which it is attached. An example:
Jose: “There’s no way that Trump can win in the US election.”
Enrique: “That’s true.”
What Enrique has done, in saying “that’s true,” is just endorse the assertion being made by Jose. “It’s true that Trump can’t win the election” means the same as “Trump can’t win the election” — only endorsed or re-authorized.
On a deflationary theory of truth, “it is true that I don’t understand what ‘truth exists’ means” says the same thing as “I don’t understand what ‘truth exists’ means”.
If you want to say that truth is not a semantic notion, or that truth is Something More than just re-authorizing or endorsing an assertion, then I want to know what that Something More is.
Likewise with “logic exists” or “reason exists”.
It’s been claimed here that once one admits that reason, logic, and/or truth exist (and of course these are different concepts, though related), one has already implicitly admitted that God exists.
This makes no sense to me.
Hewing as closely as possible to the classical theistic conception of God, God may be defined as the necessary being (not contingent), absolutely transcendent (not immanent), absolutely powerful, knowing, and good, and by Whose power and love all of creation (the totality of contingent beings) is upheld in existence from moment to moment.
Now, on my understanding of “truth exists,” we are saying only that some assertions are true. To say that “reason exists” is to say that we are rational beings subject to epistemic and semantic constraints on what we may assert and do. And to say that “logic exists” is to say that among our semantic constraints are inferential relations between assertions which can be expressed as principles of logic.
In the absence of some account of what the Something More is and why we need it, the claim that
the existence of reason/logic/truth is (or entails) the existence of God
turns out to be the claim that
the set of epistemic and semantic constraints on the assertions and actions of rational beings is (or entails) the necessary and absolutely transcendent being.
and I do not understand what that means or why someone should think it is true. (I suspect it is gibberish.)
It’s my practice to employ the “don’t worry, be happy” principle whenever possible.
Why not examine what it is about my statement that truth exists that makes you worried and uneasy.
Is it possible that you are afraid that at some point Truth might make some demands of you?
peace
God is truth and logic and reason so admitting that truth and logic and reason exist is admitting explicitly that God exists.
Regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you
peace
No.
Other people can make demands of me. Truth is (as I understand it) a property of sentences. Properties of sentences are not persons. They belong to different logical categories. Truth can no more make a demand of me than the number 7 can order a pizza.
If you want to offer an account of truth as Something More than a property of sentences — more specifically, as a predicate-phrase for indicating re-authorization or endorsement — then please feel free to do so.
In the absence of such an account, I reserve my skepticism that “truth exists” means anything at all.
Theists are on to something here IMO: very much like truth, god only “exists” in our minds.
It’s so pathetic that you think your lame question begging amounts to some sophisticated world view. Theism has hit rock bottom with you
But, as I indicated already, it’s just gibberish to say that “God is truth and logic and reason”.
I’m willing to define God as the necessary being (not contingent), absolutely transcendent (not immanent), absolutely powerful, knowing, and good, and by Whose power and love all of creation (the totality of contingent beings) is upheld in existence from moment to moment.
Let’s leave that aside, for what we are discussing now is not God, but rather the nature of logic, reason, and truth.
You want to say that these are all equivalent to God, and I do not think so.
The reason why I do not think so is that I understand logic, reason, and truth in terms of the semantic and epistemic constraints of our assertions and actions.
To say that p is true is just to say that anyone is entitled to assert p. To say that p is a reasonable thing to say (or to do) is to say anyone who in a situation relevantly similar to that of the person considering the assertion or action would assert or do p. To say that there is a logical relationship between p and q is to say that if one is committed to p, then one is permitted to assert q.
In short: the concepts of truth, reason, and logic are used to make explicit certain features of our cognitive activity, as beings who both represent the world and are part of it.
You seem to want to ascribe some other status to these concepts. I do not know what that status is or why it should be ascribed.
You simply have not provided any account of truth, reason, and logic. Until you do, there is no reason for me to believe that a correct understanding of these concepts has anything at all to do with God.
So then: leaving God aside, what is your account of truth, reason, and logic?
Are you reading this Patrick?
Some guy once wrote:
No humans no truth? Do cells perform error correction only when we say they do, or do they have their own sentences? Even so, there must be some standard according to which sentences are true or not true, do you agree?
Could you briefly explain what you mean when you propose that truth is a property of sentences and perhaps give an example and an analogy to help me understand?
What are some other properties of sentences?
Which philosopher first proposed this idea of truth as a property of sentences?
No demands, just asking. Thank you.
Perhaps man is made in the image of God. 😉
Aren’t you buying into that whole line when you ascribe such things to mankind and not the other animals? We’ll make an Aristotelian out of you yet, heh.
Apart from whether this is true or not, it’s a great point for discussion. Maybe I’ll start an OP!
Thanks KN. I don’t have to run to UD at the end of the day, I can just run to this thread and talk to you. 😉
That pretty much sums it up. You don’t want to call {truth,reason,logic} God for some reason. That does not in anyway surprise me.
In fact that is just what how God told me you would be.
quote:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:21)
end quote:
There really is no reason for me to expect you want to ascribe divinity to God.
On the contrary I expect you to resist that immensely.
However not wanting to call God God is not the same thing as denying that God exists.
peace
FMM if YOU want to call truth, logic and reason and whatever all else “God.” (Truth, logic and reason aren’t even identical with each other, but this is what YOU want, so never mind.) Then I believe in what you are calling–in that post– “God.” But you think “God” has a ton of characteristics that truth, logic and reason not only don’t have, but couldn’t have in any possible world. So there are other problems with your view besides whether anybody but you here believes in ‘God.’ Big ones.
Your view is actually inconsistent with all three of truth, logic and reason.
I know you do. That is all I’ve been saying
Here is where we disagree. However it does not surprise me that this is your position. I have additional revelation that you don’t have.
I am curious to hear your argument about the logical limits you see for God.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Nothing special. Like everything else, it would have to be consistent, not incoherent. What you’re talking about is a big mess of total incoherency. Even the three (truth, logic, and reason) can’t be identical with each other on my conceptions of THEM. And you’ve got a bunch of other crap you want to sew in there too.
It’s a matzo-ball and marshmallow soup, with radio waves and the history of tiddly-winks on the side.
Oh, and Prof. X, Thor and Tinkerbell: they’re all in there too.
Do try to pay attention, dear. My argument is that fallible beings cannot justify their beliefs in fifthmonarchyman’s epistemology. He provides no means other than revelation for determining truth, so it’s revelation all the way down.
Other epistemologies do not suffer from that flaw.
What exactly do you mean by truth existing? I’ve asked fifthmonarchyman several times but he is strangely coy.
No, I counter it by pointing out that knowledge (justified true belief) is not possible when you claim revelation as the only source.
I know because it’s clear that your knowledge-exlusively-through-revelation epistemology cannot provide justification for any of it’s claims. It’s completely self-referential.
That does appear to be one of the only things you can say. You certainly can’t support that claim with a logical argument.
That’s not all you mean when you use the word “god”, though. You have repeatedly stated that you mean the Christian god. Using a word one way and dragging additional baggage along implicitly is a form of equivocation. It is both logically fallacious and disingenuous.