2+2=5: A Case for Agnostic-Atheism

Now, originally I was going to try to "write" this argument out. But it was essentially based on a conversation that followed after a remark I left on a facebook status :P.

The status said: "We have just enough religion to make us hate; but not enough to make us love"

To which I replied: "If even alittle bit of religion is enough to make us hate, then alittle bit more isnt going to help :P"

The following debate between me and a muslim colleague is the result of that facebook reply :P. And while i would try to "write out my argument" I was rather impressed by my friends "rebuttles" so I will simply copy/paste it and leave and attachment as well. It's a long read but I think you guys will enjoy it. And, as always, I'm looking forward to hearing some of your rebuttles. (lol, and yes, this debate happened over facebook so its easier to read if you download the attachment.) FYI this argument has nothing to do with islam, its strictly philosophy and logic.

Amanee: The person with the facebook status I originally replied too
Mustafa: Amanee's friend who saw my reply and chose to debate
Gurinder: Me

A Case for Agnostic-Atheism
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html

Mustafa Abousaleh
Look who is talking!!
Amanee, I can name two people who are professional experts and fully certified in the industry of making Mustafa's blood boil. You are the first on the list, and the other is one of my guy friends. LOL

Gurinder: you seem to have got some skills at driving her crazy. Keep it up bro. And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent manner so we can bring you to Islam
Gurinder Singh
Mustafa: I would gladly put my argument fourth :P But is a facebook status the best outlet for my argument? Im not sure. Is there any other way I can post my argument?
Mustafa Abousaleh
you can post it on this thread?
Or, if you are interested, we can start a fan group bro. From experience, the discussion will grow preeeeettttyyyy big
Gurinder Singh
The problem I have with starting a debate on this thread is the fact that im essentially hi-jacking amanee's status. :P Secondly, all three arguments would take up alot of room and require more room to respond to. Starting a fan group would be ok with me, has it been done before tho?
Mustafa Abousaleh
no no bro, the idea is to be short and concise. Don't give me paragraphs upon paragraphs. Just simple statements. Imagine it is TWITTER.
Gurinder Singh
Twitter is a horrible format for debate :P. Having said that, I'll see what I can do. Condensing logic is pretty hard to do cuz every step is a result of the previous step and a part of the next step. Moreover, I'd like to present all three arguments at the same time as opposed to one by one. But, ill see what I can do, ill get back to you tomorrow after my midterm :P
Perhaps I should take Amanee up on her offer and present the three arguments at a Islam Awareness Week? If you attend those events it would be so much easier to discuss in person I think. (I'm in no rush as you can see :P).
Mustafa Abousaleh
Yeah, twitter might be a bit unnatural, but it is a good idea to say exactly what we mean and only what we need to say bro.
yeah dude, i was at the IAW, not everyday though.
And i don't suggest you present all three arguments together, because that is not TWITTER at all. One at a time, u can even take half at a time.
Gurinder Singh
All right, in lieu of the three arguments I originally wanted to present (to provide proof for my position). I'll simply tell you why it is that I hold this position.

But it's important that you understand my position first :P. I'm not religious (despite the appearance :P its a facade). I'm not Atheiest (in the full sense of the word). And I'm not Agnostic.

(There's a difference between the terms "Agnostic/Gnostic" and "Atheist/Theist" in that they are non comparable—the first two deal with assertions about knowledge [either I don't know or I know] and the second two deal with assertions about belief [either I don't believe or I believe] so one cannot classify "Agnosticism" as a Belief System like Theism or Atheism).

I'm an Agnostic-Atheist. What that means is that I don't know if God exists in general (Agnostic) but I refute the possibility of an "Abrahamic God" (Atheism) while acknowledging the possibility of a "God" that holds drastically different properties (But in order to understand my view of God, I would have to explain it to you using the three arguments, we'll bypass that step for now).

For some comparison between me and you. I'm assuming you are a Gnostic-Theist in that you can say "I know that Allah exists." If you are a Agnostic-Theist please feel free to correct me. My problem with Gnostic Atheism/Theism is that they both become dogmatic. They assert absolute truths about the nature of God when in reality you cannot be absolutely sure—you can only believe/assume you are sure.

So that's my position first of all: Agnostic-Atheism. Now I'll talk about why I refute the possibility of an Abrahamic God.

(BTW, you dont really have to respond to this post, this is not vital to my argument that I'm about to make in "Twitter Style." I only provided this as background :P because I wouldn't wanna be labeled as simply an Atheist or Agnostic).
Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to.

I cannot believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. In my opinion, God (if he exists) cannot do the illogical. You might say "God is above logic" or "God created logic" but that would be euphemistic—your essentially saying "God is illogical." Simply put, anything that cannot be described logically is Illogical.

If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math and certain Scientific assertions can be considered "absolutely true"). And I
see no problem with that. However, such a God would be in direct violation of the characteristics that Islam attributes to God.

Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist.

Inorder to believe he did exist, one would have to admit that their belief is either illogical or God is constrained to logic—neither of which sits well with Islam.

Mustafa Abousaleh
Fantastic arguments. Definitely not Twitter style
Anything else you want to say?
Gurinder Singh
Yuhhh I mean... if it was twitter style. All i could really say is. "You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5, I do not." But thats no fun lol. Ummmm... nothing else to say :P feel free to respond.
Mustafa Abousaleh
Alright. Thanks for giving me the floor.

From what I have read from your two posts, you certainly don't know what YOU believe in. So allow me to dig a little deeper to define your belief system.

Do you believe in a higher entity that is of greater capabilities than us? Call that entity a God, or Supreme Power or Ultimate Source...
Gurinder Singh
I believe that if there is a higher being. He is bound to the rules of logic, math and science.
Mustafa Abousaleh
Alright, so you still don't believe in a higher being? I see that because you said "if"?
Gurinder Singh
Well I explained that i'm an agnotic-atheist. Im open to the idea of God... just not the idea as represented in the bible, quran etc because I think that the Abarahamic God defies logic. I can certainly believe in a God that obeys the laws of logic, math and science. That did not create us directly. That does not sustain heaven or hell (my first argument would have dealt with this). That cannot do the illogical (my second argument has to do with this). And that hasnt given us a "moral system" that is absolutly true (my third argument would have dealt with this). But if my God has all those characteristics, then its as good as not having a God. I guess what im saying is, I can believe in God but not the God you believe in and the God i would believe in is ultimately pointless. If the God I can believe in is pointless, then its just as good as not believing in him.
Just as a side note :P i think a pointless god would be a beutiful thing. But thats just a personal perspective :P

Mustafa Abousaleh
Good answer.

So, allow me to start here.
You have said the you are open to the idea of a God that is bound by math, science and logic.

My hold on this argument is that Math, Science and Logic can be unbounding factors in the first place.

For example: who would have ever imagined that we have 11 dimensions in our universe? so far at least.
When humanity started, did we really know 11 dimensions?

Allow me to note also that the theory started with 11 dimensions, then moved to 10 dimension, which became the fashion, resulting in 5 different equations. After a short while, these five equations were proven to combine in the 11th dimension.

Suppose we want to define God by Math, Science and Logic, OUR math, science and logic. Would God be expanding and shrinking? would God be changing every time we discover a new dimension or equation?

To what extend can we define God by OUR math, science and logic?

Or wait, maybe OUR math, science and logic is only limited, and it is NOT all the math, science and logic that we are subjected to.

Another example:
with quantum mechanics, we know that an electron particle can exist in two places at once. This discovery is what we have so far too. We didn't know this before, but now we have the proof such as the double-slit experiment.

So, to what extend our math, science and logic can define God?

The floor is yours.
Gurinder Singh
To reiterate, this is what I said earlier:

"If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math AND CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS can be considered "absolutely true")."

I do not think "all" scientific assertions are absolutely true. That's why I made a point of saying "some." I realize that you can use Quantum Mechanics to justify almost anything you want. Its been used to justify praying to bottles of water in order to make the water stronger (In the documentary: What the bleep do we know) and its been used to justify the existence of God. But quantum mechanics is a theory—and any theory is refutable (it is a necessary pre-req for a theory to have to be refutable). So for example, while I believe in the theory of evolution, I do not include "evolution" as a "scientific assertion" that is "absolutley true"—therefore, i do not use evolution to forward my disbelief in the abrahamic god. Similarily, I dont think any man of science would say Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity or String Theory are "absolutly true." When I said "some scientific assertions" What I had in mind were the "laws of physics" for example: The conservation of energy.

Now, if your going to define God as something similar to Quantum Mechanics. I have no problem with that because your acknowledging that God can be refutable. God is a theory. That position is "Agnostic-Theism" your acknowledging you could be wrong. And my problem is with Gnostic—Theism, the idea that you know your not wrong. And if you believe god is irrefutable then your comparing him to math, logic and SOME scientific assertions.
Mustafa Abousaleh
If you notice how my discussion went, I used "OUR" to enable the fact that our Math, Science and Logic are incomplete.

My idea was to ask you: if our math, science and logic is incomplete, how can we define someone who is higher than us with incomplete standards?

If we were to do that, we are only assuming a changing being according to our knowledge. Note, that that more we know, the more we realize we don't know.

The result of this argument is that if we were to define a higher entity, a higher being, God, then we can't bind him by math, science and logic, because if we do, we are not reaching to the Ultimate Source, the Creator, even if that Creator (for now let's assume your belief) didn't create us directly.

Do you agree?

Gurinder Singh
I should have dealt with this in my earlier post. I dont think there is a such thing as "OUR" logic, math and science. Simply put, "our" logic, math and science are as true here as they are across the universe (therefore, "our" logic, math and science are "universal" and "omnipresent" like god should be).

If your saying God is "higher" or "above" our logic, I dealt with that position earlier. I said that saying "god is above logic" is like admitting "god is illogical." Saying god is "above" logic is a euphemism for saying God is illogical. Again, anything that isnt logical... is illogical... (thats a logical argument btw :P) ... there is no third category of semi-logical.

And like I said before. The only way u can continue to believe in god is if you believe God is illogical (or if u prefer, you can believe god is above logic, math and science; like i said, it means the same thing) or if God is bound by logic.
Mustafa Abousaleh
You are giving me only one option of beliving in illogical god. How can you only define that as the "only" other option?

For example: If you make a computer and program it, you are practically its designer. The computer is governed by the logic you designed it with. Are you bound by the computer's logic?

If God designed us with a certain logic, he is the Creator of this logic, why do we bind him by that logic? Is it fair to do that?

I know what your next argument will be, but I want to hear if you are convinced yet so far.
Gurinder Singh
"God created logic" is the same as saying "God is above logic" and like i said before, that too falls into the same euphemism for "God is illogical"

BTW, im giving you two options, not one. Admittedly, neither of which you probably like. But logically speaking, they are the only two conclusions you can draw.
BTW, computers happen to be great at Logic and Math :P better then us. But their logic and math is the same as ours, there just faster. I think your analogy supports me... not you? So I would say, both me and the computer are bound by the same logic. I did not "create" its logic. I gave it my logic. And I imagine that god would have gave us his logic if your metaphor was equivelent.
Mustafa Abousaleh
Wait, what do you study?
I am an electrical engineer and I work with computers all the time, program them, build them and destroy them.

If computers have the same logic as us, then they would have taken over the world.

Also, why do scientists and researchers continue to try to build the "human robot" if computers have our logic?

I am picking on this point because it is important and that's what many people get stuck on.

If we look at the point from two different perspectives:

1. Computer perspective = human perspective: to the computer, the world is limited by how it operates and thinks. Everything it thinks of and creates is limited by the way the designer made it. For example, the computer will not come up with rules that are not previously programmed in it. To the computer, the designer himself is limited, because the computer can't go out of its ways and compute how the designer thinks. Statistically speaking, the logic of the computer is a subset of the designer's logic

2. Designer Perspective: to the designer, the computer is only one machine which he was able to facilitate its logical operations and give it enough to do a certain job. From the designers perspective, the machine's logic is limited. The designer is the higher entity, the source of this logic, but not all of the logic.
Makes sense?

Gurinder Singh
I'm a Cognitive Systems major so this is also my area of expertise. I see the point your trying to make, but perhaps your missing out on the philosophical implications of the points I'm trying to make. So this time ill explain them in greater detail.

Your saying there are two areas. One area is filled with "computer logic" and the other area encompassing that area is filled with both "computer logic" and the "human logic" that we have yet to program in the computer (perhaps we'll never be able to program the computer in such a way so as to completely have human logic). Does this mean—human logic is above computer logic? No, and here's why.

There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.

The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." Lets call this area "godly logic" that is unknown to us and we may never know it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Now if a human deduces 4 from 2+2. There is no way that a God can contradict that human and deduce 5 from 2+2. BUT WAIT! That's exactly what the abrahamic god can do?

Therefore the Abrahamic god is still Illogical by contradiction. The only other possibility is that human's are illogical and that 5 is actually the sum of 2+2.

One other point... while I was thinking of metaphors this came to my head. Incase your wondering if the phrase "God is above logic" is equivalent to the phrase "God is illogical." Lets change the subject... lets say... "President Bush acted as if he was above the law" I would say that phrase is indeed equivalent with the phrase "President bush acted unlawfully." Its odd how being "above the law" sounds bad but being "above logic" sounds good? Just something I noticed :P
Furthermore, the phrase "President bush is above the laws" implies that President bush created the laws (or atleast his own laws that contradict the laws for everyone else).
However, I will concede that at the very least you have shown that with your computer analogy, if God exists (and if he created us) then it is possible that our logic is incomplete. But even with incomplete logic—logic is still universal, and it is the same for us as it would be for him OR for a "future version of ourselves" that has access to that logic. For example, 2000 years ago we did not have access to the complicated math equations we have access to today. This doesnt mean that the math in question was "above us"—it was simply out of our reach. Even then, the future math was unable to contradict the math at the time: 2+2=4 regardless of whether the derivative of 4x=4 (a mathamatical truth that they did not have access too at the time). So with my above post, i sought to account for the hypothetical "lack of complete logic." And wat I showed was: you cannot contradict the "base" logic (known truths), even if you go higher up... from computer to human, or human to god. Contradicting the "base" logic (2+2=4) would be illogical. Consequently, if god's unknown logic happened to contain 2+2=5 then it wouldn't "complete" logic—it would entirely destroy logic.

With my relation to the President Bush anaologies, i sought to show you how your belief of god being "Above Logic" and god being the "Creator of logic" is consistant with my conclusion of God being "illogical." And quite frankly, your religion demands that position from you. As much as you dont wanna say "god is illogical" you have already said it (albeit, you said it by saying the other two forms but thas why i added the bush analogy—to show you that they are identicle ways of saying the same concept).

Anyways, I'm assuming you've gone to sleep or are studying for midterms like me :P. We'll pick up were we left off tomorrow?


END


He didnt leave any replies after that last message. Maybe you guy can pick up were he left off.

This is a re-hashing of the same argument you now refuse to engage me in. So let me make this rebutal of these two points as clear as I can for you.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

You said:

'There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.'

I have already showed this to be false, and the methoed I used was to show that it is a question of better knowledge. In maths this is a correct asumption to make(and assumjption because you say this yet do not show it to be logicaly true). However the question may also be posed as a non mathimatical riddle, which the computer will give a maths answer to due to the programing of it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347


'The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." '

Would it also be true of God, how so? Can you provided us evidance to show this assumption to be correct?

Logicaly speaking once an anolgy is made it needs to be 'like for like' for it to work. To procliam that if this is true for humans and their creation computers, then it must also be true for God and Gods creation humans, is not like for like and is also total assumption unless you can show us how.

Show me why if it is true for A then it is also true for B?

In logical terms I'm sure you'll know that what we have here from you is a premise. I say that this premise is false and call upon you to show me why it is not.

Caspian,

have you ever been in love? in my opinion, falling in love is 1+1=a gazillion...its all encompassing...its beyond logic but by no means is it pointless... if it was logical, then it could be decoded, it wouldn't be magical or pure or beautiful. Its a hue, its a vision, its felt. and God has to be felt to be believed. unfortunately, there is no formula to set up a situation where a person is guaranteed to fall in love, just like there is no formula to make someone believe, it just kinda happens.

Navdeep ji,

I would dearly love to agree with you here, but in all good conciousness I find I cannot.

Love has been shown already to exist due to verious chemical compounds within the brain which have already been 'decoded' and higlighted. we know for sure which compounds make the brain feel the emotion of love.

Nor is it beyond logic, we can surly all see the beinfits that being in a loving relationship has for the society of the human animal?
That is to say there are elvolutionary reasons why we have developed such a thing as love.

Sorry to intervene in an interesting discussion about love in the last two posts. I have a need to return to the initial post that claims the title of the thread.

Let's take a look at the thread title. Is anyone else bothered as I am by the way in which language is used. Not the first time BTW on this forum and others that terms like atheism and agnosticism are re-invented by participants in the discussion. Reinvented until they migrate completely away from a normal range of meanings or definitions found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Without a minimal degree of commonly shared meaning I am left asking how a discussion is supposed to make sense? Are people OK with a free-wheeling approach toward language? Or am I doing violence to individual creativity when I ask this question?:

I'm partly with you Narayonjot ji, and partly not.

I'm thinking (and it is a rather new thought to me hence still thinking about it) that all of us can only understand subjectivly about the words we use. There are of course dictionary defintions for words which we used adhere to but our experiances shape our understanding of, well of everything really, including language.

In debate I think it perfectly aceptable to re-define the words you use(not to far) as long as these new definitions are agreed on by all who take part. The main reason for doing this as far as I can see is to limit verbosity. There are many complex ideas that arise in a typical forum debate and the more complex the intial idea, then more complex are the ideas need to be discussed and agreed upon before any kind of concensus is reached. So if we can all agree on perhaps one or two words that express these expanded ideas it makes it easyer for all involved.

The point though is prior discussion and agreement on definitions.

Lee ji

In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

My correction. The phrase should be agnostic-atheism as if agnostic can be a condition, qualifier, characteristic of atheism. This makes no more sense than "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxymorons.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

And,

If agreed up definitions are out of alignment with what most of the established meanings in literature on the subjects of agnosticism and atheism contend -- then how do we avoid looking like naifs or fools in the eyes of informed readers?

Caspian,

Using logic to personally refute the existence of a socially constructed enigma such as god (abrahamic or otherwise) is all well and good….it’s mostly a matter of taste. But are you at all interested in using logic to reach illogical conclusions...have you ever tried that? And how would that affect your arguments above, on fuzy words like god, logic, and religion?

Not only is god illogical but any reductionist will tell you that logic itself reaches (approaches) illogical conclusions many times over…None of the physical sciences reconcile/accept logical absolutes in any outcome or viable observation...everything is agnostic by default.

Irrational numbers (like square root 2, sqrt{2}) exist yet are beyond definitive knowledge and comprehension and are considered reductio ad absurdum. Where { sqrt(2)= 1/cos (pie/4)=1/sin(pie/4)}… (other irrationals include e, sqrt(61), and Pi,etc.)

Let us suppose that 2+2=4, sure, but logically one could argue 2+2 also= NO SOLUTION ....ad infinitum/ e /root 2 or/ pi or any other variation of a non rational number according to a mathematical anomaly known as proof of infinite descent. In Fact, any rational number can be written as the sum of two irrational numbers in an infinite number of ways.

If two numbers sum to a rational number then either both numbers are rational or both numbers are irrational. (The proof of this by contradiction is trivial.) Thus, given a rational number, r, then for ANY irrational number, i, the irrational pair (i, r-i) sum to r. So, the statement can actually be strengthened to say that there are an infinite number of ways of writing a rational number as the sum of two irrational numbers.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Rational is an evaluation of the effort to attain the belief and logical is an evaluation of the belief itself. A true rationalist would argue that both are based upon sentiment.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347
The existence of paradoxes within logic are not uncommon. I will give you a simple one…Zeno's Paradox of motion...i posted it on this website not to long ago...you can look it up.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/leisur...mpossible.html (Motion Impossible)


We can even discuss quantum mechanics at length. How deep is your background in the study of quantum mechanics? Judging from what you have posted above I think you should dwell more on that.
In the physical world you run into the heisenberg uncertainty principle…the irrationality of the most fundamental observation in science…MEASUREMENT…which cannot be be deduced to any level of certainty.

I am not saying that logic is useless, it is very important tool for the reliabilist (probabilist) but it does have loopholes and traps that cannot be rectified.

cheers

Lee Ji,
with all the information we have about decoding love, then we should be able to logically formulate a situation where a person is 100% GUARANTEED to fall in love? is that possible? ive read some stuff by helen fisher, and pretty much what she came up with when it comes to compatibilities of personality is that BOTH opposites and alikes attract....logical? not completely. somewhat. not really. dunno if i make sense or im just talking gibberish... i think in the same sense, there is no formula to make one beleive in god...everybody kinda gets there on their own way?

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

First and foremost, for you to join Abrahamical religions with Sikhi is illogical- using your own words. This shows that either you do not know what Sikhi is or you have no idea what 3 Semitic religions are?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

So, which one is it? I need to know before we can move further in our interaction under this sphere of thoughts.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Thanks

Tejwant Singh