Jump to content
Science Forums

Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!


theatheismwars
 Share

Recommended Posts

Again, I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not sure it follows form your premise.

 

Maybe CraigD, an expert with logic and proofs :), could jump in here.

 

 

Where's Buffy (another expert with logic and proofs) when you need her? :phones:

 

It sounded like a good idea to describe weak and strong atheism in predicate logic :hyper: but I'm rusty on the basics :eek_big:

 

I have: let [math]b[/math] be a belief and [math]g[/math] be a god, and [math]A(x,y)[/math] be the predicate "[math]x[/math] affirms [math]y[/math]"

 

weak atheist:

 

[math]\forall g \lnot \exists b | A(b,g)[/math]

 

("for all gods there doesn't exist a belief that affirms god"

or, "there is not a belief that affirms any god")

 

strong atheist (here is where I'm having trouble):

 

[math]\exists b \lnot \exists g | A(b,g)[/math]

 

("There exists a belief such that the belief affirms there does not exist god"

or, "there is a belief that affirms not god")

 

I'm not sure if that is right. If it is right, then we could show either that there is no real logical distinction between strong and weak atheism or that there is a logical distinction by proving (or disproving):

 

[math]\forall g \lnot \exists b | A(b,g) \leftrightarrow \exists b \lnot \exists g | A(b,g)[/math]

 

Basically, "there is not a belief that affirms any god if and only if there is a belief that affirms not god"

 

:shrug:

 

Here's a page with negation rules and other predicate logic stuff: An Elementary Introduction to Logic and Set Theory: Predicate Logic

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounded like a good idea to describe weak and strong atheism in predicate logic :hyper: but I'm rusty on the basics :eek_big:

 

I have: let [math]b[/math] be a belief and [math]g[/math] be a god, and [math]A(x,y)[/math] be the predicate "[math]x[/math] affirms [math]y[/math]" ...

 

How about this------

 

weak atheist:

 

[math]\forall g \lnot \exists b | A(b,g)[/math]

 

("for all gods there doesn't exist a belief that affirms god"

or, "there is not a belief that affirms any god")

 

strong atheist:

 

[math]\forall g \exists b | A(b, \lnot g)[/math]

 

("for all gods, there exists a belief such that the belief affirms there does not exist god"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this------

 

<...>

strong atheist:

 

[math]\forall g \exists b | A(b, \lnot g)[/math]

 

("for all gods, there exists a belief such that the belief affirms there does not exist god"

 

I like it. I had considered doing that, but I wasn't sure from my inexperience what meaning it would have exactly to put the not sign in the predicate there.

 

So, can I assume that this:

 

[math]\forall g \lnot \exists b | A(b,g) \leftrightarrow \forall g \exists b | A(b, \lnot g)[/math]

 

would be not exactly true? (ie a weak atheist is not exactly a strong atheist) I know that this would be true:

 

[math]\forall g \lnot \exists b | A(b,g) \leftrightarrow \forall g \forall b | \lnot A(b, g)[/math]

 

But, I'm not sure with the not sign in the predicate what is supposed to happen.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is far too serious, considering the joke of an OP.

 

So I will replace the joke previously posted here with a more sober text.

 

It would be a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal. By definition, a state of divinity is very different from the patterns of behavior observed in the environment, or what is deduced from experience. We might be willing to state that God = 0 and get away with it for a brief moment in time. Or we could say that God = Λ, a ubiquitously obvious blunder, because Λ (Einstein's term) can be described in physical terms.

 

 

Oh well, oh my...

 

 

 

CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am an American and I was raided in a home and we were supposedly Christians of some type. I find the labeling of people who do not practice a form of worship as Atheists. It is not my occupation? However, when cornered about the fact that I think that any Religion that believes that it is the absolute truth and that their version is uniquely the word of God, I will say that I fall in the Atheist camp. But (and I recently heard this), I like to think of myself as a Possibilitist. I believe in science, and with that, what I have learned about how the brain shows activity in regions of believer's brains opposed to non-believers. I see judeo-Christian's as, for the most part as very ignorant about their own beliefs but believe I must follow their beliefs to be saved. It can get very annoying when they look at me as if I were from Mars as I do not see things their way. There is not much that I can bring to this discussion that is unique, as most of the arguments against the possibility of knowing the absolute truth are impossible to prove. However, I do find some of the basic values a good way to live your life. I am a searcher of what the truth is and if someone here knows it, fill me in.lol. Anecdotal proof is not proof by the way, as most of you here on a site like this know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to say raised, not raided, sorry, should have proofread. But I am tired, and I wanted to get my opinion in and ask that very disturbed fanatic to please refrain from espousing your truth as all truths, there may be many. It all very well may be illusion anyway, which would make your truth true, at least to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Belief in God has a valid use because in aiming to surpass the potentiality of God one undoubtedly expands thair own thinking in the pursuit of imagining what that might conceptually require and you probably wouldnt think of any of that without the fact that a god concept had been in place. Same goes with Christ really I mean can he be surpassed as the saviour. I would say that yes there is plenty of scope for that but what you may also find that is in the pursuit of surpassing Christ you understand what some of the difficulties must have been for him at that time because they are the same difficulties many of us have now in our present times. That is that some people are negative to the whole idea of pursuing even the formation of ideals as a guide to the future course of their own thinking. When you go to an extreme length that is beyond their imagining they cant believe how it could be true because its beyond their own mindscale and for some reason some people are negative to others around them being guided to particular awarenesses like its changing their world on them or adjusting the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...