Religious proofs are nonsensical

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Dinosaur, Mar 24, 2018.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    How do we even know it is true for you?
    Given that a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true just by understanding its meaning, without the need for proof, why do you think that you claiming you do not feel hungry is self-evident when we can not possibly know the truth of it?
    Because you say so?
    You might know the truth of it, but actually you would do so through your emotions, which provide you with the proof of your claim (and no doubt the cause of).
    (As such it is questionable whether even you can claim "I do not feel hungry" self-evident.)

    We certainly won't know the truth of it, unless we subject you to testing, if such testing exists.
    So how can we know whether you are hungry or not just from you saying so, and thus accept that it is self-evident?

    As said, even with what is held by some as the only self-evident claim ("I am conscious") is only self-evident for the one making the claim, not for anyone else.
    You think something needs to be falsifiable, or even actually falsified, for it not to be considered self-evident?
    What a bizarre notion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    No, the "self" doesn't refer to the person claiming/explaining but to what is being explained.
    A self-evident truth, at least epistemologically, is something which is known to be true simply through an understanding of what the words mean.
    So if I say that "these six words form a sentence" then that is self-evidently true, since it needs no proof - just an understanding of what the words mean.

    In more informal use it simply means that which is so obviously true as not to warrant proof or further explanation.
    A classic example of this usage is in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

    It is this usage where the notion of "self" can get confused.
    It is also this usage where what can be "so obviously true" for one person might not be for the next person.

    Certainly my claim that "I do not feel hungry" could not be considered by you to be self-evident, whichever use of the term.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,686
    Ah, you mean faith in those on whose judgement you rely, if you do not have the skills to follow the proof yourself ? Yes, fair point.

    In that sense, we all rely on faith for a great deal of what we accept in our daily intellectual life, I suppose.

    However I should have thought that attempted proofs concerning religious belief are unlikely to be such as to require highly specialised skill set. (Though bogus "proofs" could easily do that, in order to bamboozle the faithful, e.g. the thermodynamic pseudo-argument for Intelligent Design)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    What are the basis for these assumptions?

    Jan.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,921
    You are making a critical fallacy when you equate religious faith with tentative trust in evidence and the evidence finding procedure.
     
  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    From my Post 1
    From Jan Ardena Post 24
    What assumptions are you asking about?

    In plane geometry two of the basic axioms are

    A straight line is the shortest distance between two points

    Only one parallel can be drawn to a line can be drawn through a point not on that line.

    There was a time when Euclid’s plane geometry axioms were considered to be absolutely true.

    Later it was recognized that accepting other axioms could be the basis for geometry on a sphere (or some other surface).​

    If you are asking about axioms used for religious proofs, I am not sure what good examples would be. What axioms would you suggest for proving that the Christian god exists?

    I suppose you would start with an axiom like the following: Some god exists.

    Then with a few other axioms establish a proof of the existence of the Christian god.​

    An atheist would not accept your basic axiom that some god exists.

    Religious beliefs are based on faith, not logical analysis.

    If you do not accept the above statement, provide me a proof of the existence of some god that would be acceptable to an atheist.​
     
  10. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    Religion is about individual, subjective proof. Different criteria.
     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Yes, thats my question.
    If I do in fact not feel hungry, in what "space" would I introduce doubt to that proposal?

    If I do not feel hungry, the self evidence lies in it proving it's self to me. There is something so immediate about my perception of my own state that it becomes absurd to introduce other parties to confirm or deny it.

    The emotions may arise from a false world view or whatever, but the fact remains that my lack of hunger is self evident to me. Despite not feeling hungry, others may successfully encourage me to eat, etc, but at the end of the day, the state of my being is so immediate to me that to doubt it would be to doubt my existence.

    As I mentioned earlier, any prototype for such a test would be engineered on the authority of someone asserting they do not feel hungry. If you are not feeling hungry and a testing machine confirms that you are, what do you believe?

    Obviously it remains self evident to the seer. Whether others accept or do not accept has zero bearing.

    Yes.
    This is why I said at the very beginning ...

    So to take the topic outside of a religious context (which is often helpful to focus on the philosophical content at hand), take the claim "I do not feel hungry." There is no test one can perform, external of the individual making the claim, to disprove (or prove) it. In fact, if we were to try to make a test to determine if someone felt hungry, we would be relying on their testimony as a framework for establishing relevant data points.

    You are the one who introduced the notion of bringing everyone else to validate the self evident claim of one's hunger. That seems like a request for falsification. I've spent the last couple posts trying to explain how ridiculous that is.
     
  12. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc etc.

    Tentative trust = reasonable faith.
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Yes

    Putting aside the problems of proving an axiom for the moment, why would the skillset not be specialized?

    While anarchism is never a real option, wherever there is authority, there is the misuse of authority. In that regard religion does not have a monopoly.

    I spelled out earlier the problems of tracing necessary relationships of cause and effect to God, either for or against.

    www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-proofs-are-nonsensical.160683/#post-3510825
     
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Because it is not epistemologically self-evident, it has doubt to others as soon as it claimed.
    Something that is epistemologically self-evident doesn't need others to confirm or deny it; it is its own evidence of being true through merely understanding the terms.
    If you are simply talking about being "so obvious as to not warrant proof or further explanation" then yes, not being hungry would be self-evident to you.
    But the status of your hunger is not self-evident to the rest of us.
    Not epistemologically speaking it is not.
    Only in the sense of being "so obvious..." etc.
    Epistemologically speaking the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e. absence of physical sensations or emotions of feeling hungry) is evidence of the absence of hunger.
    But the words "I am not hungry" are not in and of themselves a self-evident claim.
    I'm sure you have confidence in your own body.
    It no doubt has worked well enough for you thus far.
    If I can understand the principles of what is being assessed, I would likely believe that while I feel I am not hungry my body is actually telling me that I am, and that somewhere the signal is being suppressed.
    That's the point, though: being self-evident to the seer is irrelevant to how others see it.
    Then I'm glad we agree on that.
    Yet it raises the question of why you then said: "If I make the claim 'I do not feel hungry', how is that not true for everyone? What test can a 2nd party perform to invalidate that truth, and thus prove it isn't true for everybody?" as if every claim you make that you also claim is self-evident for you should be accepted as being self-evidently true to everyone else.
    Where did I do that?
    You were the one who introduced it: "If I make the claim 'I do not feel hungry', how is that not true for everyone? What test can a 2nd party perform to invalidate that truth, and thus prove it isn't true for everybody?"
    Your posts have been implying that without falsification your claim, that is self-evident to you, should simply be accepted by everyone as being self-evidently true.
    I repeat: what a bizarre notion.
     
  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Seriously?
    You think most people with "reasonable faith" are open to their worldviews being shown to be wrong?
    That is what tentative trust allows, for example.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Are you trying to say staunch atheists don't have tentative trust, or something else?
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Precisely. We may doubt many things or take in other information contrary to how we feel, but we have recourse to a state where it is absurd to introduce doubt.

    Correct.
    It is irrelevant.
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If you are saying world views require more than tentative trust, I am saying you have not magically delivered yourself to the higher ground.
    To discuss atheism as devoid of a world view is just as absurd as discussing atheism divorced from philosophy, culture and history.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,362
    I'm loosing confidence in his brain

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Fixed that for you.
     
    Jan Ardena likes this.
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    You now seem to be responding to your own posts??

    I would say staunch atheism requires somewhat more than just tentative trust.
    They would likely be unopen to the possibility of being wrong, just as (in my experience) most people professing belief in God can not truly contemplate that belief being wrong.
    This is not just a matter of "tentative trust".

    The tentative trust one places in evidence and interpretation thereof is open to being wrong.

    Thus the difference, and my surprise at you equating them.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,362
    Atheist don't believe in god - due to lack of evidence

    Want to prove atheist incorrect?

    Provide evidence. This atheist would check the evidence. If it held up I would admit I was wrong and convert to a follower of the god who had been proven to exist

    Can't speak for other atheist but here is a convert just for the taking - show me the evidence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,921
    Nope.
     

Share This Page