The first of these (the 'corollary' - which isn't a corollary at all, by the way) doesn't constitute a sophisticated or successful argument for the existence of a god or gods, let alone for the existence of a specific god of a specific monotheistic religion. It's basically in ad ignorantiam territory.
The second is not an argument for the existence of a god or gods, let alone for the existence of a specific god of a specific monotheistic religion. It's part of Descartes' epistemological project, taking radical scepticism as a starting point. Descartes doesn't set out a case for the existence of an evil demon tricking him, but merely says you can't ever rule it out.
Scepticism and entropy are not foundations for solid arguments for the existence of a deity.
Please forgive my lack of rigor in the previous comment. But my intent was to establish a empirical case for Agnosticism. Philosophers are not accustomed to the mathematical treatment of measured phenomenon, and prefer air tight cerebral logic. Anyway, since you are easily a MENSA level user, I offer this in the spirit of provoking thought.
The premise here is that increasing entropy is a form of randomness itself. It permeates all of nature. Not only that, but it is quantifiable and known. Statistics has Gaussian distributions, et all that describe random outcomes. Should any sample of random data fail to fit these known distributions, it is easily detectable with a Chi Square test. (I use higher level mathematics for my career).
Many people feel that the evolution of life, extraordinary personal experiences, human endeavors, even the creation of the universe itself is so unlikely that intervention of a Deity must have been involved. To the contrary, if we test the randomness of these outcomes, there has been nothing that has ever happened exceeding expected probability in the long run. For this reason, Chi Square Distributions are known in Scientific and Engineering circles as lie detector tests.
Did a Deity create the universe and leave? Well, he certainly left, or is an irrelevant disinterested observer. Maybe he never existed in the first place.
For those who don't know what MissileExpert is saying:
One: God can't exist because energy in a close system is naturally going to run out, or achieve a state of equilibrium under some extreme circumstances. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the natural flow of energy in one direction.
Who says a god is a closed system?
Two: entropy is quantifiable and known. And also completely random.
This is a total contradiction. If it was random it could not be known.
Three: Chi Square Distributions. This is hard to simplify but basically it is a complex version of Occam's razor. (yes, I know it's not. But I'm trying to boil it down so everyone can understand it.) It is used to fit variables into a hypothetical model. It is referred to as a hypothetical test, not a lie detector.
Well, if it’s a case for agnosticism you want, we can simply bastardize Descartes. Radical scepticism is a good foundation for agnosticism, given that (etymologically) it refers to ‘not knowing’. We don’t need to make a specifically empirical case for ignorance.
The OP requested a philosophical argument for the non-existence of God rather than a scientific one, which is why I went down the route of pointing out that the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god are all shaky. You countered with ‘I beg to differ’, and yet you don’t seem to be differing; you’re not arguing a case for the existence of a god, nor providing an example of an argument for the existence of a god that isn’t shaky. Instead you’re moving towards arguing a similar case but from a scientific perspective (which, interesting as it is, isn’t what the OP asked for).
Yes, I am a bit of a loose canon. The IIN community seems to favor well argued controversy at a bit of expense to focused consideration. Status quo participants sometimes note that these posts are a bantering version of Sunday public affairs with a dash of Beavis and Butthead providing therapeutic immaturity.
Please stay on-board. You bring out the best in people.
You two are so busy patting yourselves on the back for your brilliance that you don't even bother to respond to the only argument put forth here; mine.
I bet you can't even tell me the type of argument I'm making, albeit tongue in cheek, or which philosopher to credit it to.
Which of your statements do you want us to consider? The one about humans' incapacity to understand omniscience, which isn't an argument for or against the existence of a god or gods? The claim that a negative can't be proven, which is not strictly true (as I'm sure our mathematically inclined friend here will be able to explain more accurately and concisely than I can)? Or the various ad hominems to which you've resorted?
Best philosophical arguments against god
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The first of these (the 'corollary' - which isn't a corollary at all, by the way) doesn't constitute a sophisticated or successful argument for the existence of a god or gods, let alone for the existence of a specific god of a specific monotheistic religion. It's basically in ad ignorantiam territory.
The second is not an argument for the existence of a god or gods, let alone for the existence of a specific god of a specific monotheistic religion. It's part of Descartes' epistemological project, taking radical scepticism as a starting point. Descartes doesn't set out a case for the existence of an evil demon tricking him, but merely says you can't ever rule it out.
Scepticism and entropy are not foundations for solid arguments for the existence of a deity.
--
Hateful1
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
MissileExpert
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thank you.
Please forgive my lack of rigor in the previous comment. But my intent was to establish a empirical case for Agnosticism. Philosophers are not accustomed to the mathematical treatment of measured phenomenon, and prefer air tight cerebral logic. Anyway, since you are easily a MENSA level user, I offer this in the spirit of provoking thought.
The premise here is that increasing entropy is a form of randomness itself. It permeates all of nature. Not only that, but it is quantifiable and known. Statistics has Gaussian distributions, et all that describe random outcomes. Should any sample of random data fail to fit these known distributions, it is easily detectable with a Chi Square test. (I use higher level mathematics for my career).
Many people feel that the evolution of life, extraordinary personal experiences, human endeavors, even the creation of the universe itself is so unlikely that intervention of a Deity must have been involved. To the contrary, if we test the randomness of these outcomes, there has been nothing that has ever happened exceeding expected probability in the long run. For this reason, Chi Square Distributions are known in Scientific and Engineering circles as lie detector tests.
Did a Deity create the universe and leave? Well, he certainly left, or is an irrelevant disinterested observer. Maybe he never existed in the first place.
Your go.
--
Hateful1
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
For those who don't know what MissileExpert is saying:
One: God can't exist because energy in a close system is naturally going to run out, or achieve a state of equilibrium under some extreme circumstances. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the natural flow of energy in one direction.
Who says a god is a closed system?
Two: entropy is quantifiable and known. And also completely random.
This is a total contradiction. If it was random it could not be known.
Three: Chi Square Distributions. This is hard to simplify but basically it is a complex version of Occam's razor. (yes, I know it's not. But I'm trying to boil it down so everyone can understand it.) It is used to fit variables into a hypothetical model. It is referred to as a hypothetical test, not a lie detector.
--
MissileExpert
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, thank you. Sort of a hypothetical test that if given that God exists, he must be faking his own non-existence.
Well, if it’s a case for agnosticism you want, we can simply bastardize Descartes. Radical scepticism is a good foundation for agnosticism, given that (etymologically) it refers to ‘not knowing’. We don’t need to make a specifically empirical case for ignorance.
The OP requested a philosophical argument for the non-existence of God rather than a scientific one, which is why I went down the route of pointing out that the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god are all shaky. You countered with ‘I beg to differ’, and yet you don’t seem to be differing; you’re not arguing a case for the existence of a god, nor providing an example of an argument for the existence of a god that isn’t shaky. Instead you’re moving towards arguing a similar case but from a scientific perspective (which, interesting as it is, isn’t what the OP asked for).
--
MissileExpert
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I am a bit of a loose canon. The IIN community seems to favor well argued controversy at a bit of expense to focused consideration. Status quo participants sometimes note that these posts are a bantering version of Sunday public affairs with a dash of Beavis and Butthead providing therapeutic immaturity.
Please stay on-board. You bring out the best in people.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'll probably be shadow-banned soon enough. And not for the first time.
--
Kevinevan
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You two are so busy patting yourselves on the back for your brilliance that you don't even bother to respond to the only argument put forth here; mine.
I bet you can't even tell me the type of argument I'm making, albeit tongue in cheek, or which philosopher to credit it to.
Fucking MENSA, what a joke.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Which of your statements do you want us to consider? The one about humans' incapacity to understand omniscience, which isn't an argument for or against the existence of a god or gods? The claim that a negative can't be proven, which is not strictly true (as I'm sure our mathematically inclined friend here will be able to explain more accurately and concisely than I can)? Or the various ad hominems to which you've resorted?