rpgcodex > the threads can be improved by adding more replies

Humbaba

"lel u dumb"

Scruffy

Yup. You literally wrote that the fact that something is written in a book is reason enough to believe it. That's pretty fucking dumb.

Humbaba

That's the whole basis of religion, like believing that 1+1=2 is the basis of math. Any conversation on the topic is a non-starter if we can't accept those ground rules.

Scruffy

Nope. You don't BELIEVE that 1+1=2, you prove it. There's literally a whole book about it, Principia Mathematica by Russel.

Humbaba

Principia Mathematica is an attempt and not definite proof of anything. Either way, there still are certain axioms that need to be accepted before you can engage with the matter at hand.

Scruffy

It does, in fact, prove it within that logical system. It does contain paradoxes, so stuff like ZFC was developed, but the basis is still Russell's theory.

Humbaba

That's not the point. Just as scholars attempt to prove things logically in the realm of mathematics, scholars have attempted to for example logically prove the existence of an omnipotent god. These respective attempts are self-contained and thus plausible, as long as certain axioms are observed.

Scruffy

You can't "logically prove" the existence of a divinity. You either have evidence for it or not. Russell wasn't trying to prove the existence of 1 and 2, your attempt at a comparison falls tragically flat.

Humbaba

Yes you can. Scholars of all religions have put forward in themselves logical inquiries as to why a single supreme being exists. You're rejecting the premise, that's what I was getting at in the beginning. A constructivist may entirely reject the objectivity of math, since there is no reality beyond one's own perception anyway. Neither religion nor math are empirical, which is why both rely on axioms.

Scruffy

I'm not rejecting any premise if the premise is sustainable. But carefully worded phrases are not evidence. Evidence is evidence.

Humbaba

And that is your way of rejecting the premise alongside any relevant axioms, as an atheist would. That was my whole point.

Scruffy

I have no idea what this premise would be, I cannot reject it if I don't know what it is.

Humbaba

That there is a god.

Scruffy

So your premise is the thing you are trying to demonstrate. 2 for 2 the two dumbest things I've ever read are in this thread.

Humbaba

No, the original point was about you not believing that the exodus happened, after which I made the point that it did happen based on the premise that there is a god, who told us that the exodus happened. Then we had this talk about premises and axioms and blablabla and now we're here. It was never about proving god's existence.

Scruffy

Yeah, you don't understand logical consequence.

Here you go

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/

"If magic is real, then pigs can fly". Sure, if you like that kind of "argument", knock yourself out.

Me, I prefer arguments in which the premise is an actual premise, and not made up nonsense.

Humbaba

Rejecting the premise on your own personal standards on what you deem nonsense and what isn't. QED discussing religion with atheists is impossible. That's all I was getting at. Glad we had this conversation.

Stavrophore

How do i stop getting notifications from this conversation?

Scruffy

I am afraid your country's educational system failed you, and I cannot do anything about that. If I say "there is no evidence that X happened", and your answer is "it says so in a book": 1) You don't understand what evidence is 2) You don't understand logical consequence 3) You don't understand logic itself.

Scruffy

@Stavrophone

You can't. I guess that's what happens when you post on my profile!