• Lionino
    2.1k
    Religion does not destroy anybody's freedom. Religion just reminds you of the fact that some forms of freedom are fake. If you do not want to keep the laws of God, then don't. Religion merely reminds you of the fact that it will backfire, if not later in this life, then in a later life.Tarskian

    Is that why after I completely debunked your claim about birth rates one page ago you disappeared from the thread only to come back to repeat the same clownish nonsense that was already disproved — much in the same way that several of your claims throughout the site have been shown to be factually false or nonsensical?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism".
    — Pantagruel
    Non sequitur.
    180 Proof

    It's a non sequitur to argue within the stated parameters of the question? That is a very strange conception of logic indeed. Which IS precisely to the heart of the stated parameters of the question.

    But again, as to your idiosyncratic characterization of theism (as a complete tangent), the burden of proof is, of course, on you to establish that your framework is valid. I challenge you to provide an authoritative source corresponding with your views. In addition to which, I did provide the counter-examples you demanded (to which you once again failed to respond).

    Whatever might be the specific details of any and all theistic religions are incidental to the salient fact, which is the possibility of the existence of the deity at the core of theisms. And THAT most certainly is what is in question, per the OP. The Aztecs, Egyptians, and Greeks all incorporated sun-worship in their pantheon, with vast differences in detail. But there is no question that they were all talking about the same sun.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    No, atheism is not illogical. The proposition "no deities exist" is not a contradiction.Michael

    Doing the same action repeatedly expecting a different result is not a contradiction either, but it is illogical. The logic of human actions is not entirely compassed by formal symbolic logic. But if I had to put it in propositional form I would say:
    1. The universe is full of things that are beyond human comprehension.
    2. Some of those things might be deities.
    3. Therefore the proposition that no deities exist is illogical.
  • Michael
    14.8k


    Then what specifically do you mean by "illogical" if not "contradictory"?

    Do you just mean that the proposition "no deities exist" is insufficiently justified?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Do you just mean that the proposition "no deities exist" is insufficiently justified?Michael

    You could state it thus. This is the problem with symbolic logic, the elevation of form over content. Existence is not purely logical. Certainly quantum physics is not, as many quantum phenomena transcend traditional logic.

    So, yes, it is not "logically substantiated" to arrive at the conclusion that "no deities exist." Whereas, based on the experiences I have had of a kind of overarching meaningfulness, I have at least some kind of empirical basis for intuiting the operation of "occult" (literally, hidden or concealed) connections between events that could be consistent with something like the existence and operation of a transcendent entity.
  • Michael
    14.8k


    Are these propositions insufficiently justified?

    P1. Zeus does not exist
    P2. Odin does not exist
    P3. Shiva does not exist
    P4. None of the Greek, Norse, or Hindu deities exist
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    P1. Zeus does not exist
    P2. Odin does not exist
    P3. Shiva does not exist
    P4. None of the Greek, Norse, or Hindu deities exist
    Michael

    Is the "Sun" of the geocentric cosmology the same as the "Sun" of the Heliocentric cosmology?

    If you say no, then possibly Odin does not exist. If you say yes, than any and all references to any and all transcendent beings are logically flexible in the same way.
  • Michael
    14.8k


    I'm asking what you think. Is it "illogical" for to believe that the Greek, Norse, and Hindu pantheons are a fiction?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I'm asking you why a narrative that is from the limited human-centric perspective cannot both be inaccurate but also refer to something that in fact exists. Assuming which, yes, the claim that Zeus does not exist (qua "any possible deity") is not logical, that is, is not warranted.

    As I maintained early on, the "story of god" has as much right to evolve as does the "story of the atom". Only a fool would deny quantum theory by refuting Democritus.
  • Michael
    14.8k
    I'm asking you why a narrative that is from the limited human-centric perspective cannot both be inaccurate but also refer to something that in fact exists. Assuming which, yes, the claim that Zeus does not exist (qua "any possible deity") is not logical, that is, is not warranted.Pantagruel

    This is so vague and ambiguous as to be meaningless, i.e. illogical.

    I would say that it is reasonable to believe that Zeus does not exist, that Odin does not exist, that Shiva does not exist, that Allah does not exist, that Yahweh does not exist, and that a supernatural intelligent creator deity does not exist.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I would say that it is reasonable to believe that Zeus does not exist, that Odin does not exist, that Shiva does not exist, that Allah does not exist, that Yahweh does not exist, and that a supernatural intelligent creator deity does not exist.Michael

    And I already provided the example by way of analogy with the theory of the atom. We have no problem seeing Democritus' theory as a "precursor" to a more cogent theory that evolves in light of the progress of civilization. What possible reason could there be for not allowing for the same possibility with respect to theories about "transcendental entities"?
  • Michael
    14.8k
    What possible reason could there be for not allowing for the same possibility with respect to theories about "transcendental entities"?Pantagruel

    Anything that isn't a contradiction is possible. It doesn't then follow that it is not reasonable to believe that some possibilities are true and some are false.

    It is possible that deities exist, but they don't.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Anything that isn't a contradiction is possible. It doesn't then follow that it is not reasonable to believe that some possibilities are true and some are false.Michael

    Yes, that is precisely my point. As I said, my experiences on earth have included events indicative of meaningful connections that transcend current scientific explanations. It is a very well-known fact that cognitive predispositions can dramatically affect not only how events are experienced, but whether they are even observed at all. If your experience doesn't support the inference, then it doesn't. Is it because you have a pre-existing bias that is preventing recognition?

    I'm currently reading some classical Scepticism. It is a powerful presentation of the benefits of the rationale of "suspending judgement". I highly recommend.
  • Tarskian
    301
    Is that why after I completely debunked your claim about birth rates one page ago you disappeared from the thread only to come back to repeat the same clownish nonsense that was already disproved — much in the same way that several of your claims throughout the site have been shown to be factually false or nonsensical?Lionino

    I avoid responding to you because your comments are replete with ad hominems.

    As I have already asked you in a previous remark, why don't you talk with someone else instead? Why don't you discuss with someone who actually wants to speak with you? I don't. I really don't see the need to converse with someone like you.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I would further call attention to the fact that the earliest conceptions of "god" were of animistic spirits of particular natural phenomena (whose causes were not understood). Suggesting that the idea of god is really, in its most general form, about whatever is "occult" (i.e. hidden) at the time. Since science continuously redefines the boundaries of the occult, it is only reasonable that the idea of "god" should likewise evolve.

    Additionally, the whole foray down the tangent of theism is misdirected. Most major religions include a core "monastic tradition" whose emphasis is decidedly on the individual experience of the divine, not on the narrative details of scriptures. Arguably, monks, and not priests, are the keepers of the faith. Priests are just the popularizers.
  • Lionino
    2.1k
    why don't you talk with someone else instead?Tarskian

    I will do you one better, why don't you
    solve the following equation:

    Lionino
  • Fire Ologist
    493
    (A) I believe there are objective truths.

    (B) I believe moral naturalism consists of objective truths
    180 Proof

    Great! Interesting. Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality?

    Would you call your morality utilitarian? It’s built in part based on pleasure and pain and the habits we can build around these indicators?

    I believe that any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective (i.e. arbitrary, relativist, emotive, dogmatic, superstitious, etc), therefore not objective.180 Proof

    Is it necessary logically that “any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective”? Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” doesn’t mean “any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective” and needs to be thrown out. It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong, no matter how you derive that idea. Or at least it can be.

    Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective, and in part used by you in your argument to develop morality?

    I’m picking up that you look down on superstitious children who say “God” emotively. Thought I’d let you know, I’m a thinking adult.
  • Tarskian
    301
    2x4+4x2+2Lionino

    Replace x² by u and then solve the resulting quadratic polynomial in terms of u.

    This is not interesting. This is not math. This is procedural symbol shuffling without any further insight. It amounts to doing manually what a machine can also do, only much slower.

    So, now my question:

    Where exactly is the general solution for the quartic polynomial implemented in the source code of the Maxima computer algebra system?

    https://github.com/calyau/maxima/blob/master/share/algebra/solver/Solver.mac

    Does the source code explicitly mention the general solutions for quadratic, cubic, and quartic? Where?

    I know from using Maxima that it will still try to solve quintic and higher degree polynomials in terms of radicals. How exactly does it do that?

    An online maxima solver: http://www.dma.ufv.br/maxima/index.php

    Quartic:

    solve([2*x^4+4*x^2+2=0],[x]);
    (%o1) 	[x=−i,x=i]
    
    Quadratic:

    solve([2*u^2+4*u+2=0],[u]);
    (%o1) 	[u=−1]
    
    The discriminant for the quadratic in u turns out to be zero. Would maxima use the same substitution to lower the degree of the polynomial prior to solving it? By the way, the first version of Maxima's source code was written in 1968. Programming the Maxima source code is the real math. Any paper-based fiddling to solve the problem manually, is not.

    Found it. As expected, Maxima does indeed "know" the general solution in terms of radicals for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree polynomials. They are implemented separately in the solvelin, solvequad, solvecubic, and solvequartic functions.

    https://github.com/calyau/maxima/blob/master/src/solve.lisp

    (defun solve1a (exp mult) 
      (let ((*myvar *myvar)
    	(*g nil)) 
        (cond ((atom exp) nil)
              ((not (memalike (setq *myvar (simplify (pdis (list (car exp) 1 1))))
                              *has*var))
               nil)
    	  ((equal (cadr exp) 1) ([b]solvelin[/b] exp))
    	  ((of-form-A*F<X>^N+B exp) (solve-A*F<X>^N+B exp t))
    	  ((equal (cadr exp) 2) ([b]solvequad[/b] exp))
    	  ((not (equal 1 (setq *g (solventhp (cdddr exp) (cadr exp)))))
    	   (solventh exp *g))
    	  ((equal (cadr exp) 3) ([b]solvecubic[/b] exp))
    	  ((equal (cadr exp) 4) ([b]solvequartic[/b] exp))
    	  (t (let ((tt (solve-by-decomposition exp *myvar)))
    	       (setq *failures (append (solution-losses tt) *failures))
    	       (setq *roots    (append (solution-wins tt) *roots)))))))
    
    According to the source code, they wrote the first version of their polynomial logic in 1982.
  • Lionino
    2.1k
    This is not math.Tarskian

    It is 8th grade math you didn't even bother to compute mentally.

    Where exactly is the general solution for the quartic polynomial implemented in the source code of the Maxima computer algebra system?Tarskian

    I don't know neither do I care about some fringe github application you pretend to know about, crank.

    Do you want to run your "atheist countries don't reproduce" drivel again so I can expose you one more time?
  • Tarskian
    301
    I don't know neither do I care about some fringe github application you pretend to know about, crank.Lionino

    Well, I successfully scripted it online to locate the roots of a polynomial. So, what exactly did I pretend?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macsyma

    Macsyma (/ˈmæksɪmə/; "Project MAC's SYmbolic MAnipulator")[1] is one of the oldest general-purpose computer algebra systems still in wide use. It was originally developed from 1968 to 1982 at MIT's Project MAC.

    In 1982, Macsyma was licensed to Symbolics and became a commercial product. In 1992, Symbolics Macsyma was spun off to Macsyma, Inc., which continued to develop Macsyma until 1999. That version is still available for Microsoft's Windows XP operating system.

    The 1982 version of MIT Macsyma remained available to academics and US government agencies, and it is distributed by the US Department of Energy (DOE). That version, DOE Macsyma, was maintained by Bill Schelter. Under the name of Maxima, it was released under the GPL in 1999, and remains under active maintenance.

    I used to have it installed locally, but nowadays, I am less interested in it than I used to be:

    $ sudo apt install maxima
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree... Done
    Reading state information... Done
    The following additional packages will be installed:
    aglfn gnuplot-data gnuplot-x11 liblua5.4-0 libpcre2-32-0 libwxbase3.2-1
    libwxgtk3.2-1 maxima-share tex-common
    Suggested packages:
    gnuplot-doc texmacs maxima-doc xmaxima maxima-emacs wish debhelper
    The following NEW packages will be installed:
    aglfn gnuplot-data gnuplot-x11 liblua5.4-0 libpcre2-32-0 libwxbase3.2-1
    libwxgtk3.2-1 maxima maxima-share tex-common
    0 upgraded, 10 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
    Need to get 23.7 MB of archives.
    After this operation, 112 MB of additional disk space will be used.
    Do you want to continue? [Y/n]Abort.

    I am interested in different things than you are. This is normally not a problem but with you it is.
  • d Luke
    15
    Atheism can be logical or illogical. Logicality seems to depend on the unbeliever’s reasoning. We perhaps all heard of logical and illogical claims from atheists. Some are good, some are bad. But theists and deists could be in the same boat. Christianity, for example, can also be illogical or illogical in its reasoning. Again, here, logicality seems to depend on the believer’s reasoning (if they have correct premises and conclusions).

    It is interesting that Christianity calls the human-God, Jesus, Logos, where we get the word “logic” from. This, in some way, makes Christianity “logical” by default. We could, then, call atheism more anti-logical (a rejection of (a) Logos) than illogical (an absence of sound reasoning). I don’t know if we can call Christians anti-logical in this context.
  • jorndoe
    3.4k
    2x4 + 4x2 + 2
    isn't an equation :D
  • 180 Proof
    14.7k
    Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality?Fire Ologist
    No, of course not. One does not entail the other. Besides, it's more adaptive (or pragmatic) than not, to have a morality (from the Latin word mores meaning 'customs') like developing and using a common language or practicing good diet & hygiene.

    Would you call your morality utilitarian?
    It's a form of negative consequentialism¹ (i.e. my term for it is aretaic disutilitarianism meaning 'virtue-based harm-prevention/reduction').

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_consequentialism [1]

    Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” [ ... ]
    The ancient Hebrews like all other tribal peoples survived, in part, because they had adopted customary prohibitions "not to murder, steal and lie" long before any elder heard a voice telling him/them to do so. 'Core morality' long precedes religion and, in fact (re: anthropology), makes cults & reiigions, as well as trade & politics, possible, and therefore is based on human eusociality (& empathy) constitutive of being a natural species.

    It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong, no matter how you derive that idea.
    'Killing is wrong' (all things being equal) because everyone fears being killed. This core moral idea is, afaik, an objective requirement of every eusocial grouping especially but not limited to humans.

    Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective ...?
    Not exclusively. We are harmed by and suffer from whatever makes our kind (species) of natural being dysfunctional. This harm and suffering, while experienced subjectively, is also objective, which is why the old maxim "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient" is more often than not a true statement.
  • Tom Storm
    8.7k
    That seems to be a very good account of morality.

    I find it interesting how often unsophisticated theists I have met think that if there is no god than everything is permissible (presumably borrowing from Dostoyevsky). I recall Slavoj Žižek making the entirely reasonable riposte that, 'If there is a God, then anything is permitted'. Given the atrocities which take place in theism's name it's clear that all too often the most dangerous and unethical people on earth have been theists.

    Do you think that the development of morality is a significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory? We are stronger in groups and groups are stronger when there is mutual respect, predictability and safety. Any thoughts on this?
  • Fire Ologist
    493
    unsophisticated theistsTom Storm

    Billions of theists for thousands of years, since the time of the Shaman and medicine man - all of them so unsophisticated.

    They probably don’t even know when they are being insulted - need a priest to tell them “unsophisticated is bad.”
  • Tom Storm
    8.7k
    Billions of theists for thousands of years, since the time of the Shaman and medicine man - all of them so unsophisticated.Fire Ologist

    I think that might be an exaggeration and I see why you or others might argue this. I would say that people generally are unsophisticated. Including atheists. The worst atheists are those who argue that because the Bible stories are myths that this disproves god. This does not make any sense and doesn't take into consideration the long history of allegory used to understand spirituality and our relationship to the divine.

    Is unsophisticated bad? It can be, but not always. Sometimes it can be an advantage. I think it depends on where that unsophistication leads you.
  • Fire Ologist
    493
    Is unsophisticated bad?Tom Storm

    We would need an objective judge to settle the issue. Otherwise we can make it bad, or good, or neither, or both. And we could argue it all day.
  • Tom Storm
    8.7k
    I guess I prefer the frame of intersubjective communities of agreement such as @Joshs posits.
  • Fire Ologist
    493
    I prefer the frame of intersubjective communities of agreement such as Joshs posits.Tom Storm

    That’s certainly fine.

    Would you agree that communities do change and change their minds, so the agreements reached can revise and change as well?

    That may be all there is. Rolling with the change.

    It’s getting along in a world where there are no absolutes, no agreements that all communities for all time would make. Again, no absolutes, only temporary agreements subject to revision and just change, may be all there is for us.
  • Tom Storm
    8.7k
    Not sure. I have no theory of truth. But mostly it seems to be contingent and an artefact of human culture and linguistic practice.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.