Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Some religions claim to believe in the same god but with different interpretations of it, some believe in very different gods. But each of them has mutually exclusive claims about their respective gods. They cannot all be right but they can all be wrong

This again goes back to the issue of God being independent of religion. If God exists, and for the sake of the discussion I will try not to make any presumptions [in my statements], then it is quite possible that there will be wide and varied interpretations of God across different cultures and different periods of history. It is also logical to assume that as these interpretations, as they are passed on second hand, will take on a different form and mutate somewhat, to the extent that they will be somewhat divorced from the original concept/thing/being. One need only have experience of a chinese whisper to understand this.

Therefore, arguing against various interpretations of God, is not an argument against God, but rather against those specific interpretations. By all means challenge the accuracy and validity of certain religious claims, but don't commit the logical fallacy of assuming that disproving religious claims means disproving the existence of God.

To try and put that in more real world terms. As can often be the case, there may be several witnesses to an event, and quite often the accounts of witnesses can be very varied, with many inaccuracies, even some contradictions. However, the fact that the various accounts differ, and even contradict, has no bearing on whether or not the event actually occured, or indeed the true details of the account.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh no we don't. I know that, for example, gravity makes things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. I don't have to know anything about the boiling point of water to know that law. You do not have to know every single law of nature to know some of them.

Ok, but the example given above doesn't correspond to the point made. You are 100% correct to say, that one does not need to know all the laws of nature to know some. That wasn't the issue however.

The issue is, that in order to categorically say that something is "outside the laws of nature", then all the laws of nature must be known. For example, if a person knows only the law of gravity and the boiling point of water are the only laws that are known, then that person is not in a position to say that electromagnetism is outside the laws of nature.

To put it another way. A person might know four people from a group of twenty, so it is true to say that that person can know people from the group.

However, the person is not in a position to say that someone outside of those four [they know] is definitively outside the group of twenty, as there are sixteen other members that they do not know. This holds true for any number of known members of, up to nineteen.

Of course, any phenomenon that occurs, must be attributable to some law of nature, as nothing can occur that is outside the laws of nature. However, something can occur for which we have not yet developed a consistent theory or rationalisation - as was the case with Gravity.


It is a bit of a tricky one, because there are a number of perspecitves from which it can be interpreted.

Firstly, if we take the example of Gravity. The effects of Gravity would have been observable, prior to the development of Newton's Theory. Therefore, the effects of gravity would have been a totally, naturally occuring phenomenon, and quite clearly attributable to some law of nature. The issue would have been that the law of nature was not known, or at least it's workings. This, as mentioned, would have meant that, the effects of what was later to be known as Gravity, were, at the time, attributable to a force that was beyond scientific understanding, and therefore, by [current] defintion, would have been both natural and supernatural at the same time. That is by definition now, not subjective interpretation of the word.

To consider another perspective, that may go some way to clarifying the point, lets say that there is a person, who has never in their life seen a kettle, or indeed boiling water, and someone tries to explain this "phenomenon" to them. The person who has never seen boiling water before, cannot say [and be correct] that boiling water is outside the laws of nature, as they quite clearly would not know what all the laws of nature are - nor apparently would they know the laws of nature that are known by others.

We can extrapolate from this, the more sophisticated example of the best scientists in the world. If one scientist observes a phenomenon in the laboratory and reports it to the wider scientific community, they cannot say that it is beyond the laws of nature, as they do not know what all the laws of nature are. They can of course investigate it, and make whatever judgement they will, but the same scenario can repeatedly present itself.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want to use the word supernatural to mean "something that has not yet been explained" with no further connotations you can do that but you should be aware that no one you're talking to uses the word in that way, their word for such things is simply "unexplained" and the word supernatural carries connotations far beyond simply being unexplained. All that's going to happen is a lot of frustrating arguments because you're using the word to mean different things and things that meet your definition of supernatural do not meet theirs and never will. You should always at the very least explain at the start what your definition of the word is to prevent confusion, and of course watch people tell you that unexplained =/=supernatural

You touch on a very valid point there, that pertains not only to the interpretation of the word supernatural but extends far beyond into every discussion, including the existence of God.

The problem is, that when two people discuss something with each other, they will usually interpret the words and concepts, used by the other person in an exceedingly subjective manner, usually according to their own subjective interpretation of those words and concepts. For example, when two people discuss the existence of God, both will usually have their own interpretations of what God actually is, and interpret the other persons statements accordingly. Ultimately they will end up arguing against their own interpretation, as opposed to the other persons interpretation/understanding. This of course is confounded when people try to clarify their statements, and those further statements are interpreted based on subjective interpretations of the subsequent words/concepts.

The use of the word "supernatural" as referring to something beyond scientific understanding, is simply using the word in the way it has been defined, as opposed to an erroneus interpretation of the word.

With regard to the above, using the word supernatural as "something that has not yet been explained", and as "unexplained", they are the very same thing. Where the issue arises, I believe is with the interpretation of the word supernatural as being something which is beyond the laws of nature, or unexplainable by the laws of science. Of course if this interpretation is being used, then it is done so erroneously and does not relate to the word supernatural.

It is of course perfectly normal for a word to be misunderstood.

Btw, if you want to say that we cannot say that something has broken the laws of nature until we know all the laws of nature, then nothing will ever meet the definition the people you are talking to use for the word supernatural

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This line of conversation started with you finding it annoying how people dismiss personal experience and all you've done is go on about the problems with personal experience and claim that science suffers from them.

The central issue is not the problems with personal experience, as I acknowledge that personal experience cannot be accepted as evidence, when presenting a theory to a wider audience. However, personal experience is the only means that is open to sentient beings for acquiring knowledge. This is the nature of existence and is unavoidable, regardless of the attempts to formalise the rules through which that experience is interpreted or indeed experienced -as is the case with scientific experiments.

It may be tempting to point to the fact that a person can acquire knowledge without direct experience, however this is of course incorrect. A person may indeed be able to learn all the facts about something, to the extent that they know every fact there is to know about an issue/procedure/thing/etc. This is of course, a certain kind of knowledge, it is the knowledge of facts about something, which of course can only be acquired through the personal experience of learning.

Again with reference to the example of sexual intercourse. A person may know all the facts possible with regard to sex, from every scientific fact to every position in the kama sutra, and this of course is a type of knowledge, again the knowledge of information about something. It does not constitute full and accurate knowledge about sex however. This can only be acquired through direct experience of the act itself.

And as was mentioned before, the experience of the act istelf is entirely more meaningful than all the facts and information about the act. Indeed it provides the platform for more meaningful understanding and insight, and interpretation of that information. In actual fact, the only way in which that information can actually be verified, is through direct personal experience.


Now, it may be an assumption that the scientific method of enquiry, somehow manages to sidestep the very nature of existence, but this is entirely mistaken. The scientific method of enquiry relies very much on the personal experience of those scientists that carry out experiments, it relies on their observations of experiments and their interpretation of results. The verification of these results relies on the subsequent personal experiences of those scientists that test their claims. This of course is carried out within a very standardised framework, that allows for close reproduction and interpretation. The fact remains however, that it is entirely reliant on the personal experiences of a wide number of people and the consensus they reach.

If a person were to read a body of scientific work, and accept that it is true, without actually carrying out an experiment, they do so based on faith. This of course is not to be confused with "blind faith", which is actually belief.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it's becoming quite clear that you don't understand how science operates. If it operated the way you think it does it would not work. At all. But the fact that I'm writing this on a mobile phone and am going to stick it on the internet to be read worldwide in seconds shows that it works extremely well. The evidence to support the scientific method is all around you and you should look up a bit more about how science works before you continue to criticise it for something it is not guilty of

I do have a general understanding of the scientific method, but this is carried out within the wider framework of human existence - this fact is unavoidable. Therefore, the scientific method is subject to all the issues that pertain to human existence, which is entirely based on personal experience.

The above point, with regard to the use of science as the platform for this discussion, is a futher annoying argument that often seems to arise. Personally, I have no problem with science, as it is an inanimate concept that is merely the manifestation of the human mind. Indeed I find that the application of science is quite wide, varied and overwhelmingly useful, it does however suffer from the same limitations as any manifestation of the human mind, in the fact that it is, by definition, entirely subjective.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said at the start, personal experience is the least reliable source of information and instead of arguing with that you have tried to argue that all of science is just personal experience but it's not. It's just not. Nothing in science goes unquestioned. This is actually covered quite well in the video I linked you to, you are critical of atheists for their scepticism but you are fiercely sceptical of science, a field that emphasises scepticism. Ironically, you are sceptical of scepticism

In one sense you are completely correct in saying that, as a source of information, it is the least reliable source of information, in that if one is looking for information about something, then accepting someone elses personal experience as info, can be highly unreliable.

However, with regard to knowledge of something, as opposed to information about something, personal experience is the only source of knowledge available. One cannot know something, unless one experiences it. One cannot know a fact, without the experience of reading the fact, being told the fact, or some other form of experience.

One can know all the facts about climbing Mt.Everest, however, this does not mean that someone knows what it is to climb Mt.Everest.


While accepting someone elses' say so, as a source of information, is not very reliable, it must be remembered that information can only arise from personal experience. In order for information to exist about something, someone must first experience it, and then write their own rationalisation of the experience. This is just as true for scientific information as anything else. Scientific information, may have the benefit of being repeatedly tested and questioned, but again, it must be remembered that for each verification of a claim, a personal experience is required.

Again, this is an entirely inescapable reality of human existence, regardless of how much questioning is conducted.



So, to try and tie this into the whole God thing. Don't just accept anyone's personal experience or interpretation, test the hypothesis for yourself. This, as with any subject requires a certain level of inquiry/research, and the application of common sense.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now, it may be an assumption that the scientific method of enquiry, somehow manages to sidestep the very nature of existence, but this is entirely mistaken. The scientific method of enquiry relies very much on the personal experience of those scientists that carry out experiments, it relies on their observations of experiments and their interpretation of results. The verification of these results relies on the subsequent personal experiences of those scientists that test their claims. This of course is carried out within a very standardised framework, that allows for close reproduction and interpretation. The fact remains however, that it is entirely reliant on the personal experiences of a wide number of people and the consensus they reach.

mangaroosh, there really is no need to write such massively long replies, as in this case it has made me not bother to read the whole thing so I'll just respond to this part. If you actually believe the above then you're a fool if you ever step foot onto a plane, drive a car, undergo surgery or do anything where that involves taking any kind of risk based on the assumption that the science behind the risk you're taking is sound. In fact if I believed like that I'd go to live in a cave away from all man made endeavours for fear that the whole thing might explode at any second

mangaroosh wrote: »

I wasn't familiar with the concept of "the veil of perception", but it sounds like pretty much what I am getting at.

I accept that science does, as much as is possible, to rule out personal experience and not to get stuck behind the veil of perception, however, it may serve to entrench it further, in the sense that consensus is sought, which may effectively lead to the accepting of a particular "veil of perception", as opposed to the complete removal of it.

Well, you're getting into tricky philosophical waters there, since you are effectively questioning the entire concept of "objective" knowledge. The further down that road you go, the further away from "reality" you get (and into the domain of the pure thought).

So, do you believe that there is such a thing as objective knowledge (i.e. facts, scientific laws, etc)? Because if you do, then one of the characteristics of it is going to be consensus among observers. So how do you distinguish between objective reality (which will involve a consensus among individual observers) and a "subjective consensus" (which will involve a consensus among individual observers)? Answering this question satisfactorily is one of the important foundations of the scientific method and where testability, prediction, falsifiability and peer review come in. A scientific theory isn't accepted simply because a bunch of scientists agreed about something over a morning coffee!

Perhaps Steven J Gould's definition of a "fact" is useful here:

"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

So is the law of gravity, which states that bodies with mass attract each other, no longer something that we "know", but simply something that every individual subjectively interprets?

Something which is pertinent to this issue, and indeed "the veil of perception", is the nature of knowledge, and in particular tacit knowledge, which is knowldge that is understood without being stated, or expressed. Tacit knowledge, like that experienced among sports teams (and in other areas), does not lend itself easily to rationalisation, in that it can't be expressed easily or written down.

It may be useful to use another analogy to try and explain this.

Let's just say that you climb Mt.Everest. Upon your return, you can impart information to me about your experience. You may perhaps be the single best "explainer" in the world and explain your experience in such vivid detail that means I can imagine what it must have been like to climb Mt.Everest.

However, I still will not know, what it was like to climb Mt.Everest. There is a part of your experience, that tacit knowledge, that can only be acquired through direct experience, which you cannot possibly transfer to me, regardless of the sophisticated means of simulation open to us.

This is knowledge that is only available through direct experience, and resides in a part of the mind, or in such a format, as cannot be experessed rationally, or scientifically.

This type of knowledge, would, I would postulate, exist outside "the veil of perception".

Well experiencing something is a form of knowledge, i.e. it is a subset in the domain of knowledge (a "type" of knowledge). But I can still have plenty of knowledge about a number of facts about Mt Everest that won't change if I climb it (e.g. it's height, it's geographical location, the amount of oxygen in the air at the top). Or do you think these things are only subjective interpretations? Will I be able to breathe the air at the top easily if I interpret it differently to other people?

Morbert wrote: »

Regarding a few of the points made by mangaroosh about subjectivity in science:

Science's main weapons against the "veil of perception" are its rigour and its self-antagonism. The observed energy eigenvalues of some molecular device, for example, are strictly quantifiable, and different theories and models will compete to predict such observable phenomena. These are objective quantities, as they do not depend on the observer. Such quantities are, of course, tentative, and no scientist would say a scientific theory or fact is necessarily true, but we can still say it describes phenomena objectively and reliably. An alien race that experienced light and heat in an entirely different manner to us would still be able to work with our scientific theories of electromagnetism and statistical mechanics.

That is not to say that science is entirely objective. Subjectivity will always creep in where humans are involved. But it is the antagonism in science that helps scrub away this objectivity, so that reliable theories emerge from the often heated debates.

Again, I fully accept the above, but must ask what definition of the understanding of the word "subjective".

Just to be clear also, that this is not a semantical argument, as the actual meaning of the word is not in question, rather the potential subjective [pun unintentional] understanding of the word.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If science was actaually as you describe it we'd still be living in caves

I believe my cave has central heating

*dies from the cold*

mangaroosh wrote: »

The only way in which anyone can know anything, is by direct personal experience.

That statement is far too vague.

Do you mean:
"The only way anyone can known anything with 100% certainty, is by direct unaltered personal and empiricial experience?

If that kind of experience seems impossible to you, well, that's because it is.

Jakkass wrote: »

mangaroosh: Many men have made your argument concerning experience in the past from the secular philosopher David Hume to Immanuel Kant or John Locke. One cannot know anything without experience. I'd agree with this, and this would make me an empiricist. One has to have experience to reason upon. In the Christian case we have the experiences of men, our own experiences, and other peoples experiences to reason upon. Then we also have other means of connecting our beliefs to reality through reason only after empiricism.

Although intrigued at Descartes idea that we can know things before we experience them, I don't think it's very reasonable ultimately. It's built rather heavily on Plato's theory of forms and doesn't really work.

Empiricism vs Reason alone has been an argument hard fought out for in philosophy, and it seems it is still being fought to a certain extent.

Apologies, although familiar with the aforementioned, I am unfamiliar with the arguements. For that reason I prefer to discuss people's own statements, as opposed to their understanding of other concepts.


Just with regard to the idea of Empiricism vs Reason, I would ask, what is the method by which reason is verified, as in, when reason is used to arrive at a conclusion, how is that conclusion then verified, to assess whether or not it is true?

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement is far too vague.

Do you mean:
"The only way anyone can known anything with 100% certainty, is by direct unaltered personal and empiricial experience?

If that kind of experience seems impossible to you, well, that's because it is.

Indeed that sounds like a good way of stating it, although, what exactly is meant by unaltered needs to be questioned.

Whether or not it is possible, could hinge on whether or not an unaltered experience is possible. Of course this would have wider ramifications, which of course the field of science would not be able to escape.

Jakkass wrote: »

The only way that people can reason is based on what they have experienced. They can think about what they have experienced, but not much more. It's also the way science works to an extent.

Generally what would happen scientifically is that people base hypotheses on what they have experienced elsewhere, then when investigating the claim they wish to discover, they check to see if it is also true in experience.

Indeed, I would largely agree with you, and you are getting at the crux of the issue, here.

People can indeed reason based on experience, however, it is the point at which they attempt to rationalise their experience that is subjective, even when they rationalise it to themselves.

Just to clarify however, the point at which an experience is rationalised, does not make the experience itself subjective, rather it is the rationalisation of that experience that becomes subjective.

Indeed, experience can be very hard to rationalise, and a rational explanation can never capture the true nature of something that exists i.e. "a thing". What it does is act as a signpost to that "thing", so that if a person has a similar experience, then verbal communication is possible about that experience. That is the nature of words also.

As you mentioned above, generally in science, people base a hypothesis on what they have experienced. It is of course the hypothesis that is subjective, as it is their own rationalisation of that experience, usually in accordance with strict guidlelines, measurements, etc.

It is the subjective part, or the hypothesis, that is then verified for accuracy. This is done by following the methodology of an experiment, which is designed to ensure that the person, who is attempting to verify the subjective hypothesis, can have, pretty much, the exact same experience as the person who proposed the hypothesis.



The other side of the coin also, is that a person can reason and use logic, based on certain assumptions, so that conclusions may be deduced. Indeed, mathematical modelling follows this methodology. The only manner in which those assumptions can be verified, is through experience, often in the form of observation.

The fundamental flaw with this approach however, is that predictions can be made based on flawed assumptions, and if there is evidence that verifies a prediction, it can be erroneosly interpreted as verifying the assumption.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ok, we will have to flesh out a number of points here, as there are a number of issues in there.

Firstly with regard to direct personal experience being flawed. In what way is it? Is it because of the concept that we cannot know anything 100%, that we could all be someone's dream or living in the matrix?

It's flawed because we're experiencing the world with eys and ears that evolved through a blind an unintelligent process and the signals from these eyes and ears are processed by a lump of organic matter that evolved through the same blind unintelligent process. There is nothing divine in how we think, we're just slightly smarter apes. It is not only possible but extremely easy for you to have an experience that appears as real as the ground under your feet but happens entirely inside your mind. Our brains are also filled with biases that make us misinterpret events around us. That's why it's so important to use empirical data hen trying to determine if a hypothesis is correct

mangaroosh wrote: »

If indeed we are just someone's dream, then that would more than likely make them God. If indeed we are your dream, then you would probably qualify as that omniscient, omnipresent being.

Anything can happen in a dream, there are no laws of physics inside someone's imagination. There is no requirement on someone to be a god in order to dream something

mangaroosh wrote: »

Based on your own reasoning below, and the law of probability, these could probably both be ruled out as improbable, as there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support either hypothesis.

And there isn't sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of an omnipotent god either, it's just people using their flawed brains to decide that there must be one.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, when you say, one cannot truly know something "from direct personal experience alone", what is meant, is there another condition that is required for knowledge?

There is no condition for knowledge. We cannot truly know anything

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, with regard to the assumption of rationality, do you mean that there is an assumption that humans are rational or that the universe is rational?

[EDIT] On both cases either one or the other is correct - either it is correct to assume rationality, or it is not, and if we work on the basis of evidence, then it would seem that it is correct to assume it.

Of course, if it isn't true, then asking for a rational explanation for the existence of God is a non-runner.[/EDIT]

MY point is that rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, I would question the notion of an "absence of true knowledge", and further question the ability of scientific enquiry to deliver knowledge if nothing can be truly known.

Also, with regard to probability, this is the prediction of an outcome based on "knowledge", or rather a percentage of the overall knowledge. If there is no true knowledge then probability goes out the window.

Eh, no it doesn't. Probability doesn't even apply to "true knowledge". Something that is truly known has a probability of exactly 100%. Probability only becomes relevant in the absence of true knowledge.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In the context of true knowledge, if nothing can ever be truly known, then there is no evidence, because if each individual piece of evidence cannot be truly kown, then it cannot be taken as evidence, unless it is accepted on the basis of consensus, which is not sufficient for determining reality, and therefore the existence/non-existence of a being.

It's a dilemma isn't it? You want to be able to assert true knowledge but human beings simply aren't capable of it. All we can do is try as hard as we can to support our hypotheses with as much evidence as possible and the evidence itself cannot be truly known either. The only certainty in this world is uncertainty

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's flawed because we're experiencing the world with eys and ears that evolved through a blind an unintelligent process and the signals from these eyes and ears are processed by a lump of organic matter that evolved through the same blind unintelligent process. There is nothing divine in how we think, we're just slightly smarter apes.

OK, it is probably stating the obvious, but there are more than just two senses, there are indeed more than just the five senses, through which we interpret reality. Indeed it is the combination of all the 20+ senses that accumulate to make our experience of reality.

You do touch on a central issue, and that is the issue of thinking. It is thinking and the attempt to rationalise an experience using concepts and words (which are simply thoughts), that is subjective and that is indeed flawed.

This is where the concept/act of "not thinking, just being" comes in, the idea of experiencing something with "no mind". This is how one can have a reliable experience of reality. This is in part what many of the practices of religion are supposed to help us attain. The notion of prayer is not a prayer to some external entity on a cloud, but rather as a form of "positive" re-inforcement, that is to affect our thinking, which will in turn affect our actions and therefore our experiences. Meditation is designed specifically for the purpose of cultivating this experience of "no mind".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is not only possible but extremely easy for you to have an experience that appears as real as the ground under your feet but happens entirely inside your mind. Our brains are also filled with biases that make us misinterpret events around us. That's why it's so important to use empirical data hen trying to determine if a hypothesis is correct

It is also equally possible to have a real experience. Again, you touch on a very important issue, the idea of interpretation. Indeed it is the point at which we attempt to interpret our experienc that it becomes detached from reality, not the experience but rather the interpretation. This is the part that is not reliable and indeed, you are right,is why empirical data - data based on observation or experience - is required.

The same goes for claims with regard to God, of which there are many, and indeed some cross over into certain fields that can also be used to verify claims, about those things, for example verifying the accuracy of the account of Genesis. This can, perhaps, be verified or rejected based on certain scientific evidence. That in itself is one claim pertaining to God, that could perhaps be rejected. Of course there are others, for which empirical data is also required, and which can only be gained by following certain procedures, fully and completely. The issue, of course, is having the faith in those who are telling us what procedures to follow. Often it can be difficult to have this faith, as those telling us what to do, do not always embody the teachings, this is why it is important to seek out a reliable and experienced practicioner, with a strong and verifiable reputation in the particular field, and one who embodies what is being taught.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anything can happen in a dream, there are no laws of physics inside someone's imagination. There is no requirement on someone to be a god in order to dream something

If this is a dream, then the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, capable of suspending the apparent laws of physics, what is referred to within this dream state as God, is that being who is dreaming, who created what we perceive as the universe. If this is a dream, then it would be possible for water to be turned into wine, for a child to be born without sexual conception, for a man to be crucified, die and rise from the dead three days later, etc. and the practice of science has nothing to do with reality.

If of course this is not a dream, then it is possible to truly know something and personal experience is the only means in which this knowledge can be achieved.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And there isn't sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of an omnipotent god either, it's just people using their flawed brains to decide that there must be one.

If this is a dream, the the omnipotent being that is referred to as god is the dreamer of this dream.

Alternatively it depends on one's acceptance of logic and rational thinking, one's belief in evolution, "the big bang" and their use as explanatory cranes - to paraphrase Richard Dawkins.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no condition for knowledge. We cannot truly know anything

Knowledge is by its very nature "know-able"

Sam Vimes wrote: »

MY point is that rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality

Can this be further clarified? What is meant by "rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality".

Although, it is not necessarily in dispute, it can be stated that either rationality exists, or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, then asking for a rational explanation of God is, as said, a non-runner. It can be stated, God exists because seventeen.

If rationality does exist, then rational and logical discussion can ensue.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh, no it doesn't. Probability doesn't even apply to "true knowledge". Something that is truly known has a probability of exactly 100%. Probability only becomes relevant in the absence of true knowledge.

Indeed, you are fully correct, probability does not really apply to "true knowledge" for the reason given above.

Probability is the prediction of a possible number of outcomes, but is based on "true knowledge", and indeed is a very logical and rational concept. In order to predict the probability of a certain outcome, one must first know certain things, for example, the probability of predicting the what colour ball will be drawn from a sack, where only one ball is drawn, is not possible without "true knowledge" of a number of conditions. If one does not know how many balls of varying colours are in a sack, then assigning a degree of probability is impossible.

Probability is a degree of ignorance, or perhaps a degree of knowledge. If one knows every single factor influencing a particular outcome, then probability is increased to 100%. The degree or probability is affected then based on the number of influencing factors known. If nothing is known, the probability is non-existent.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a dilemma isn't it? You want to be able to assert true knowledge but human beings simply aren't capable of it. All we can do is try as hard as we can to support our hypotheses with as much evidence as possible and the evidence itself cannot be truly known either. The only certainty in this world is uncertainty

If this is a dream, and nothing can be known, then, again, the omnipotent, omniscient being who can suspend the laws of physics, that is referred to in this dream state, as God, is the dreamer.

If this isn't a dream, then true knowledge is possible.

diverdriver wrote: »

I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist. Simple as that. The most frustrating argument of them all.

So you're an atheist then...