MOHO

Bart Ehrman

Recommended Posts

I was 15 years old when I became an atheist. My mother asked me to study religions, but to her dismay I studied all world religions and after about a year of study I came to a eureka moment. You know what, I said to myself, all religions are nothing but BS.  My mother found out that I was an atheist, but I never let her know that her prodding for me to study religion was the reason I realized it was all BS.  So if religion was 100% BS then science must be correct, I thought. So by the age of 15 I also had gone through most of the major ideas and fields of science and also came to Eureka conclusions. The theory of evolution, for instance, I concluded was as solid as compressed lead. Maybe some of its hypothesis could be wrong, but its primary tenet, natural selection was a certainty IMO. Chemistry was a perspective of reality but based upon good theory. Modern physics, also IMO, was all f***ed up, and totally wrong in almost every way, theory, and hypothesis. Classical physics, on the other hand, has a great foundation.  So at that time I became a confirmed atheist, and a contrarian theorist in physics and cosmology, and continued this through my college studies and my adult life. This was about 60 years ago.

 

"Do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?"

 

Luckily I never had to go through the religious struggles that most here had to endure.

 

The bet: My immortal soul against a six pack of beer that there is no god, the creator of the Universe, the Earth, mankind, and the other life on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
On ‎07‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:44 PM, pantheory said:

"Do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?"

 

Luckily I never had to go through the religious struggles that most here had to endure.

 

The bet: My immortal soul against a six pack of beer that there is no god, the creator of the Universe, the Earth, mankind, and the other life on Earth.

 

Ok, that's nice, but you didn't answer my question.

 

Do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?

 

You either don't know or you do know. You cannot not know and know at the same time and you cannot be neither.

 

So do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Dr.Richard Carrier's answer when asked if he could prove God doesn't exist. He replied, "No, I cannot prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove the God you worship is man made." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Ok, that's nice, but you didn't answer my question.

 

Do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?

 

You either don't know or you do know. You cannot not know and know at the same time and you cannot be neither.

 

So do you know there is no god or do you not know if there is no god?

 

I am  almost certain logically that there is no such thing as god, as I logically can be almost certain there is no Santa Claus. "....or do you not know if there is no god?"   I believe I know to a high degree of certainty (again, my life against a six pack) that there is no such thing as a god the creator, or a god(s) that intervenes in the affairs of mankind or the Earth, as believed by almost all modern religions. In the same way no one can know for certain that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, but you could place your bets that none will be discovered in your lifetime. For these reasons the wordings of each of your two choices contain a logical fallacy. I will explain the fallacy of logic formally to you if you would like me to, LogicalFalacy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I am  almost certain logically that there is no such thing as god, as I logically can be almost certain there is no Santa Claus. "....or do you not know if there is no god?"   I believe I know to a high degree of certainty (again, my life against a six pack) that there is no such thing as a god the creator, or a god(s) that intervenes in the affairs of mankind or the Earth, as believed by almost all modern religions. In the same way no one can know for certain that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, but you could place your bets that none will be discovered in your lifetime. For these reasons the wordings of each of your two choices contain a logical fallacy. I will explain the fallacy of logic formally to you if you would like me to, LogicalFalacy :)

I have a fallacy you might think I've commited but it would require that I am incorrect in that you either know or don't know something. If there are other logical choices I would have commited a false dichotomy fallacy. 

 

But I'm interested in what you have to say... It's all a learning opportunity. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I have a fallacy you might think I've committed but it would require that I am incorrect in that you either know or don't know something. If there are other logical choices I would have committed a false dichotomy fallacy. 

 

But I'm interested in what you have to say... It's all a learning opportunity. :)

 

OK, here is what I have to say. :)

 

These are the two choices you have given. (1) Do you know there is no god, and (2)  do you not know if there is no god?

 

In the first choice "do you know there is no god?" one cannot have knowledge one way or the other about something that is invisible and does not exist in fact. The logical fallacy is called a statement having an implied false premise. We all can realize that upon describing a certain kind of god in detail, either that kind of god exists or it doesn't in reality. But something invisible cannot necessarily be proved one way or the other, so one cannot have certain knowledge one way or the other. Therefore the false premise is that: "it can be known that god exists or that he doesn't exist" This is a false implied premise of the question. If one said, yes, I know, he could be proven wrong. If one said, no I don't know, then you are an agnostic by definition, not an atheist, since an agnostic says "I do not know." On the other hand if one would choose choice #2, do you not know if there is no god? you again would be saying that you do not know, also defining yourself as an agnostic. The false premise again is "" that it can be known that god exists or that he doesn't exist." In reality it cannot be known, even though In this case the person answering the questions, namely me, is a confirmed atheist.

 

Atheist defined:  a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods: one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.  (not a person who knows (for certain) there is no god(s), since there is no such person).

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

 

The logical fallacy is called "Arguments from false premises." In this case the false premise is implied.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises

 

Regardless of how one might answer these questions, valid logic might be presented that the person is an agnostic rather than an atheist, regardless of which answer he gives.

 

Your questions could be corrected by asking: (1) Do you believe that god exists, or that he doesn't exist?  or (2) are you unsure whether god exists or not? -- or similar wordings. Answering no to the fist question above, one is an atheist. Answering yes to the second question, one is an agnostic.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

OK, here is what I have to say. :)

 

These are the two choices you have given. (1) Do you know there is no god, and (2)  do you not know if there is no god?

 

In the first choice "do you know there is no god?" one cannot have knowledge one way or the other about something that is invisible and does not exist in fact. The logical fallacy is called a statement having an implied false premise. We all can realize that upon describing a certain kind of god in detail, either that kind of god exists or it doesn't in reality. But something invisible cannot necessarily be proved one way or the other, so one cannot have certain knowledge one way or the other.

 

Therefore the false premise is that: "it can be known that god exists or that he doesn't exist" This is a false implied premise of the question. If one said, yes, I know, he could be proven wrong. If one said, no I don't know, then you are an agnostic by definition, not an atheist, since an agnostic says "I do not know." On the other hand if one would choose choice #2, do you not know if there is no god? you again would be saying that you do not know, also defining yourself as an agnostic. The false premise again is "" that it can be known that god exists or that he doesn't exist." In reality it cannot be known, even though In this case the person answering the questions, namely me, is a confirmed atheist.

 

Yes, but doesn't this still come down to you either you don't know X, or you do know X? If X cannot be known then you by default don't know. I mean you could choose that you do know, but you would have just adopted a massive burden of proof which you'd have trouble meeting.

 

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Atheist defined:  a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods: one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.  (not a person who knows (for certain) there is no god(s), since there is no such person).

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

 

The logical fallacy is called "Arguments from false premises." In this case the false premise is implied.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises

 

Regardless of how one might answer these questions, valid logic might be presented that the person is an agnostic rather than an atheist, regardless of which answer he gives.

 

Your questions could be corrected by asking: (1) Do you believe that god exists, or that he doesn't exist?  or (2) are you unsure whether god exists or not? -- or similar wordings. Answering no to the fist question above, one is an atheist. Answering yes to the second question, one is an agnostic.

 

But haven't we just come back to, and I put the question around the other way because its common language, but 2) Yes = Agnostic, meaning dealing with knowledge or the lack thereof, and 1) No = atheist.

 

If I asked you your questions you are likely to answer the same as me yes?

 

And regarding the fallacy, I understand this in the terms of a logical argument, but not sure it applies in my question? I'll have to think more about what you are saying.

 

The fallacy you pointed out is the reason I reject the KCA. I think premise 1 is flawed, and also suffers from a composition fallacy. That for another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, but doesn't this still come down to you either you don't know X, or you do know X? If X cannot be known then you by default don't know. I mean you could choose that you do know, but you would have just adopted a massive burden of proof which you'd have trouble meeting.

 

 

But haven't we just come back to, and I put the question around the other way because its common language, but 2) Yes = Agnostic, meaning dealing with knowledge or the lack thereof, and 1) No = atheist.

 

If I asked you your questions you are likely to answer the same as me yes?

 

And regarding the fallacy, I understand this in the terms of a logical argument, but not sure it applies in my question? I'll have to think more about what you are saying.

 

The fallacy you pointed out is the reason I reject the KCA. I think premise 1 is flawed, and also suffers from a composition fallacy. That for another topic.

 

yes, it seems to me that one cannot ask, do you know this or that, if an answer either way is either unknowable, or an answer would convey the wrong intended meaning  -- such as knowledge that there is no God of any kind. Of course some say that they know for sure that there is a God by their statement that "he has made his presence known to me." OK, I say. One cannot argue with that statement. But how could one prove the contrary statement with certainty, that  you know that God does not exist? One could not know that a god of some kind does not exist anywhere in the universe. But you might be able to provide strong evidence to support the assertion that the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

And yes, I expect our answers would be the same to these questions if you also believe that there is no God and call yourself an atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now