Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
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
:iconspacer176:
Spacer176 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Student Digital Artist
This is the problem I have when people bash science. It's a negative attitude to think that science is about disproving the truth of fantastical ideas. Its about estimates, rationality and above all considering all possibilities before coming to a conclusion. I'm not arguing against this, I'm supporting it quite passionately.

My take on this whole "is God real or not" argument is that its possible that if he was real, we most likely do not have the tools to find him. He could be in a state of existence that current technology couldn't possibly find him like flying a starship in interstellar space or having a secret home in the intergalactic void.

My example: Galileo proved to us that the Earth orbits around the Sun but only had the know-how and the technology to identify that Jupiter had only four moons. Thanks to modern methods we know there are over 60 moons orbiting this gas giant.

And yeah, Galileio probably would have gotten laughed at if he ever said there were more because he had no evidence to prove such a thought. Sound familiar?
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Denial of science especially annoys me, and I live in America where 80% of the country is Christian, and half of those are Biblical literalists (I.e. creationists) who think that the Bible is the greatest 'scientific' and 'historical' text of all time.  The creationists seem to think they know better than most of the world's scientists, simply because the Bible is older.  And some of the theories they've coined are batshit crazy.

I don't deny the possibility of a god, but I don't believe in a benevolent god, "for if he is willing and able, then whence cometh evil".  So I am very confident that human ideas about god(s) are almost certainly untrue, but the existence of a higher order of consciousness is not impossible, in my opinion.

My problem is when Christians assume that scientific theory is the same as just a regular theory.  The theories of evolution, gravity, relativity, etc have all be thoroughly tested, the results observed, and proven, so when so many people refuse to believe the evidence, preferring to worship a Bronze Age text whose existence stems from little more than the innate human fear of death, that's when I get annoyed.
Reply
:iconspacer176:
Spacer176 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Student Digital Artist
We live in an age where science is more integrated and more of a foundation on our lives than ever....and it's jaw-dropping how many people have no clue how the procedure works. And many rather choose not to bother - sticking to a text that is both confusing and often contradictory to itself.

Somehow they think this ONE text is completely infallible compared to the literally limitless number of historical volumes and published texts and volumes both before and after it. And in another part of the world you have others who think their one true text is the only infallible word. No point telling people if they willingly shut their ears to outside influence I guess.

Also it baffles me how much hate god-mode sues in modern fiction get when the very textbook example is still loved and supported by millions even when principles about it are so blatantly contradictory to itself...double standard anyone?
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Many Christians never read the Bible, instead listening to people's interpretations of it, thus Church.  I have a saying on the topic:

"Few Christians read the Bible.  That's why they're Christians.  And reading the Bible is what made me an atheist."

I think that's largely due to the general discouragement towards critical thinking in American society.  Helped in full by the educational system's wholehearted focus on standardized tests, rather than critical thinking itself.

The ignorance towards the double standard, (for example in the Biblical 'prophetic' book of Jeremiah, God explains that he does not hold grudges, and then later in that same book explains how vengeful he is) is probably due to them having never read the Bible, instead listening to preachers, etc explain how all the horrible/contradictory things in the Bible are either 'metaphorical' or 'out of context'.
Reply
:iconspacer176:
Spacer176 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Student Digital Artist
So all these Christians who celebrate and idolise a text they've never read are essentially kicking 300 years of rationalism in the head.

I do agree with you, I've come to learn that standardised tests are at their best an estimation, not something that is to be relied upon without question. I received an F in A-level physics and chemistry, does that mean I know jack about those subjects? Definitely not. When I took a more assessment and coursework-based science course for the next two years I excelled at those subjects.

it is funny how a being that is "incapable of evil" can undergo phases like periods of wrath or vengeance, both of which are considered evils by the very doctrine it is the symbolic figure to.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think their disregard for evidence, no matter the quantity, is the result of their desperation to believe that there's life after death. And I don't blame them, it's wired into our brains to have such hopes. I sometimes hope for an afterlife, but I don't let it warp my judgement of reality.

They're willing to turn a blind eye to any recorded atrocities all out of that hope for continued life.
Reply
:icondarkriderdlmc:
DarkRiderDLMC Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist and my 4 yo niece will kick your azz :D
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
XD 
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Neither personal god is anymore flawed a belief than the other because they're both based on faith and not logic. That's why I'm a pantheist.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's the point.  The purpose is to point out that there's no more evidence in favor of either of these gods, and the flying spaghetti monster is a very recent creation of theists.  Comparing these two illustrates that they are both equally unrealistic, as they are unfalisifiable hypotheses.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I know
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ah, I see.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yup
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 698 × 1210




Details

Submitted on
January 18, 2014
Image Size
115 KB
Resolution
698×1210
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
596
Favourites
25 (who?)
Comments
32
Downloads
2
×