What drives exJWs to atheism? (page 11)

proplog2

Logic is a way of sorting through information. When you get a lot of information some of it conflicts and this is where logic comes into play. In the case of proving God's existence the biggest problem is weighing the evidence. This would not be a problem if the alleged "most powerful, most wise person in the universe" did something like cure a stadium full of down syndrome kids.

ros

proplog2:
It might prove it to you and not prove it to someone else. The Watchtower would probably claim that Satan did it posing as "an angel of light". Fundamentalists have all kinds of testimonies they swear by that have befuddled doctors.

But in the terms you have defined "logic", the absense of "proof" of a thing does not prove the opposite of the thing to be true, nor even necessarily imply it. Regardless of whether its about proving God or anything else.
proplog2, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of God. That's a personal decision. At this point, I'm just discussinig the implications "logic" versus "proof", regardless of whether it is about a supreme power or anything else. I hope you understand that.

proplog2

Ros:

Are you saying that the Most Almighty/All-Smart can't produce evidence that will convince 99.99% of the people that He Is What He Is?

If curing a stadium full of down syndrome kids isn't convincing I am sure he could do a miracle a week for a while till he got everyone believing. Unfortunately, it's just like UFO's. They're everywhere but the White House Rose Garden with cameras rolling.

ros

Are you saying that the Most Almighty/All-Smart can't produce evidence that will convince 99.99% of the people that He Is What He Is?

No. I'm saying I'm not trying to convince you of God. (And evidently neither is He.)

JanH

I've thought of an example that will hopefully demonstrate to you that you do not understand reductio ad absurdum, even for what it can prove. You problem is that you are trying to say that if two of the premises conflict then the initial assertion cannot be true. Wrong. One or more of the premises have to conflict with the initial assertion. Example:
1. Dogs exist.
2. All dogs are brown.
3. Fido is a dog.
4. Fido is black.
======================
Conclusion: Either All dogs are not brown or Fido is not a dog. The a conflict between 2 and 4 do not conclude 1 is false.

It concludes that Fido does not belong to the category of all-brown dogs.

As I have said repeatedly, the premises are tested in a bundle. When you do a reductio ad absurdum type argument, you only conclude that the whole set of premises leads to a contradiction, not that one specific one of them do.

I can't believe you still do not understand such a simple fact. Practically all I've written in this thread reiterates this point. I have a hard time believeing you are too dense to understand it.

Now if a known premise is stated that all dogs have died of rabis, THEN you have a premise that conflicts with the initial assertion and disproves it. There was no such premise in your example of "God exists."

The above is just garbage, Ros.

You simply cannot know whether the "initial assertion" as you call it or the premises are false.

My "God does not exist" argument essentially proved that there can not exist a Creator-God who did not create evil, as long as evil exists. It did not and did not try to prove that an evil (or incompetent) God does not exist.

Wonder how many times I will have to repeat this for you, Ros? Can it really be very hard to understand?

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

Rex B13

My, how utterly classless of you, Farkel.
Does it feel good to use vulgarities here in this forum? Is this part of your new character that is somehow 'better' than your character as a dub?
Real, intelligent, witty people do not need vulgarities to impress anyone, least of all themselves.
Rex

larc

Rex,

I went back and read all of Farkle's posts. He wrote several long ones about the logic of other people's posts. He wrote one very short one that could be considered vulgar, his shit analogy. Why don't you address the 95% of his writing that was rational and logical?

ros

Maybe Farkel should have used the word "dung".

larc

SunChild, Rochelle, Flint-Ann Arbor Women,

I think your thoughts are pretty close to mine. I feel very spiritual. I feel very comfortable in what I value and what I believe. I feel close to my loved ones and honest as to who I am and what I can and can not do. I have a greater sense of peace than I have ever had in my life.

What drives exJWs to atheism?

Share this