Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
January 18
Image Size
115 KB
Resolution
698×1210
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
461 (1 today)
Favourites
23 (who?)
Comments
32
Downloads
2
×
Logic by Atamolos Logic by Atamolos
A lesson in unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014
Easy; does belief in the flying spaghetti monster lead to an internally consistent worldview that corresponds to reality and can justify transcend universals, such as the laws of logic? Of course not, therefore it isn't true.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Actually, if you've ever read the Gospel of the FSM, you'll find it to be just as consistent as the Bible. Of course, thats because it was meant as satire to mock the Bible. And in any sense, belief in a god only corresponds to reality insofar as that there's no reason a god can't exist. There is no detectable indication of the existance of any sort of supernatural being. And you're remark in "justifying the laws of logic" is just silly. Logic doesn't need to be justified, its just our rationalization of self-proving postulates, there's no god needed.

The reason the FSM is not true has nothing to do with consistency or logic. The reason it'snit true is because it makes untestible positive claims that, like every other religion, cannkt be tested, and therefore cannotbe proven to exist.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014
Justifying the laws of logic is silly?

Are you going on faith?
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh please, don't play the "atheists have faith too" card.

What that means is that logic is self-evident and self-determinating. There is no need for a supernatural presence to justify their existence. Plus, logic is simply the result of quantifying perceptible observation, and thus wouldn't even exist if we did not. We invented logic to create rules for our own observation, and without observation, they simply would not have any cause to exist. They're a product of our own minds superimposing our own reasoning on reality, not the whims of a divine force.
Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014
I hope you do not mind my comments on your page, for I find the discussion very interesting. Also, I greatly appreciate when art encourages philosophical reflection.

My question isn't a "card" for knowledge requires faith, plan and simple.

This is my problem with atheism, it loves to make dogmatic assertions that it cannot justify, and then complains when other philosophies do the same. If an atheist can just assert something as true and beyond inquiry, then it cannot complain about any religion doing the same.

Logic, or any universal, cannot be merely limited to our own mind, less it lose its law like property. Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains? If that is the case then it is merely arbitrary and destroys inquiry. Do we not have to believe (note the word) that such laws apply to the time when humanity didn't even exist?

The reason I am not an atheist is that atheism cannot explain anything and is self contradictory.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist

Not at all!  I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression!  I am enjoying this little discussion and feel free to comment on any and all of my work here.  ;)

My labeling of your approach as a "card' is simply because of the frequency I see it used, and slight frustration at having debunked it a dozen times over, but I suppose I'll word it again.

Knowledge does not require faith.  Claims of absolute knowledge are indeed taken on faith, but simple knowledge of facts is based on simply testability and demonstrability.  "Can I show/test/demonstrate this to be true?"  If so, then it is accepted as knowledge, if not then it is not accepted until such a time as it can be.

Dogmatic claims?
---Dogmatic:  adj. inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true

I have never known an atheist to claim to have absolute knowledge on anything, could you elaborate on your meaning here please?  But on to your next claim:

Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains?

Actually, yes they are.  While it is true that non-contradiction is a property of reality, just as it is also true that nature is uniform, the laws explaining them are simply a consequence of superimposing our own perception and reasoning on what we observe.  Would nature be uniform and objects non-contradictory without our perception?  Yes they would, but logic would not.

And finally, you claim that “atheism doesn’t explain anything”.  And you are absolutely correct.  Atheism explains nothing, because atheism isn’t an explanation.  It’s not designed to explain anything because it isn’t a religion.  Atheism is the simple disbelief in theistic claims or in the existence of any version of a god or gods.

But you claim it’s also self contradictory?  How so?  Atheism makes no claims to contradict each other, so perhaps you could explain exactly what claims you think are contradictory.

Reply
:iconovid2345:
Ovid2345 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014
Thank you, and no apologizes are necessary. I tremendously enjoy chatting about these things, but I have learned to be careful. Some very intelligent people do not enjoy debate and it is easy to read in the wrong intentions or emotions into text communications.

I disagree with almost all of which you wrote, though I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Eventually I would love to chat about the transcendant nature of beauty, which is one of the reasons I joined DA, however, let me focus on one particular issue first, less our conversation become too chaotic. If you wish to change the primary focus, please feel free to do so. Also, I have noticed that definitions are critical in this type of conversation. 

I would contend that knowledge requires faith.

Faith is to intellectually believe, ascent and willfully trust in something or someone. Thus I know who my girlfriend is, I agree (or ascent) to the fact she is my girlfriend and I willfully trust that she will be faithful to me.

Therefore, how do I "know" the chemical formula for water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Have I very seen an H2O molecule? I have tested an H2O molecule? Have I tested all the H2O molecules that exist? Of course not. I have to believe that scientists know what they are talking about and have faith in what I have read is true. Let alone trust that my intellect and senses are valid.

Faith and knowledge are not opposites, but are fundamentally tied together.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Perhaps I should clarify something here.  There are two separate definitions of "faith".

---Faith (1):  allegiance to duty or a person, fidelity to one's promises, sincerity of intentions, loyalty
---Faith (2):  firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Your "faith" in your girlfriend refers to the former definition, while faith in a divine being refers to the latter.  Moreover, "trust" and "faith" are not the same thing, but I will refer you to Merriam-Webster to confirm that.  www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…

The reason you "know" the chemical formula of water is H2O is because water is, by definition, H2O.  If it is not H2O, then it is not water.  This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of definition.

"Have I tested an H2O molecule?"
---Actually yes, you have.  You test trillions of them every day, even if you aren't aware of it.  Just about every bodily system you have relies heavily on the intake of water.  Your existence is a testament to the properties H2O molecules that we have observed, and operate through on a daily basis.  I am no expert on the subject (my skills lend to evolutionary biology), so I will direct you to this informative web page on the subject.  www.chemspider.com/Chemical-St…

And finally, your use of "believe [...] faith [...] trust" is a bit misleading.  You're blurring the definitions of words together.  Faith in the religious sense is not contingent on evidence, whereas trust in the capability of your own senses is based on evidence, as is belief in validity of modern science.  You can observe and test your own senses, and observe the published results of scientific experiments, no faith necessary.

Faith does not need evidence to exist, while our knowledge of the universe is based upon evidence, by necessity.  As I have said, any claim to absolute knowledge is indeed grounded in faith, but our understanding of reality has no need for it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconfuzzyelf:
Fuzzyelf Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2014
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. So yes, this is an excellent answer to a silly request.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
All to often though, religious adherents will reply, "But that's not fair, those are fake, and God is real!"
Reply
Add a Comment: