Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on January 22, 2025, 11:06:25 AM
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
-
Please can we keep this thread a sarcasm= and leprechaun-free zone.
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
certainly would say religion doesn’t have to be failed science.
What do you mean Steve when you say capacity and need?
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth. Discuss.
I can see the notion that humanity has a religious capacity, obviously, I could even go so far as to see the possibility of a tendency towards religious thinking, but I don't see any justification for the suggestion that we have a 'need'.
As such, whether we should or should not recommend religion is dependent upon its outcomes - there have been historical periods when it's been beneficial in that situation, but certainly in the modern era I don't see anything it offers that we can't get elsewhere without the associated baggage.
O.
-
SteveH,
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
People have a religious capacity certainly, but the “need” part is too narrowly defined by “religious” I think. People have a “need” or at least a strong tendency toward stories that seem to be explanatory or useful regardless of whether or not the objects of those stories really exist – “better a conspiracy theory than no theory at all” as someone once said – and so, say, Aesop’s fables are still useful even though there never was a hare and a tortoise in a race.
The problems tend to come though when the religious treat the objects of their various stories as if they are real, and so insist that their various truths, rules and strictures must apply to the rest of us too.
How did I do re not mentioning leprechau… oh, darn it!
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
Religions are obviously of cultural origin and differ region to region. But all religions attempt to satisfy a spiritual need in humans. They are just different paths to the same goal......just as different cuisines across the world attempt to satisfy the same need of hunger.
What this spiritual need is, is a different discussion.
-
Sriram,
Religions are obviously of cultural origin and differ region to region. But all religions attempt to satisfy a spiritual need in humans. They are just different paths to the same goal......just as different cuisines across the world attempt to satisfy the same need of hunger.
What this spiritual need is, is a different discussion.
"Spiritual" is overreaching. "Explanatory" need is sufficient. If you want to argue for "spiritual" you need first to define it and then to demonstrate it.
-
Sriram,
"Spiritual" is overreaching. "Explanatory" need is sufficient. If you want to argue for "spiritual" you need first to define it and then to demonstrate it.
I'd agree with that.
I think religions typically meet a variety of needs, specifically:
Societal - giving individuals a feel that they belong to something (and often that those 'others' over there aren't part of your clan). So keeps your clan together and prevents your people wandering off to the next-door clan (see below).
Cultural (links to above) - customs and practices which embed a cultural memory - very valuable in early times when this would be the prime means of generation to generation knowledge dissemination.
Control - religions have been used throughout history as a means to control the population - effectively 'do this', 'don't do that' - with threat of sanction, either direct or claimed indirect after death. Also (linked to Societal above) - that you are either part of us (the religion) or you aren't and if you aren't you may be ostracised.
Inquisitiveness - a means to explain things in nature which were (or are) unknown in terms of mechanism etc. Leads to the god of the gaps concept.
Power and corruption - allows certain elites to maintain a position of dominance over the general populace - clergy who must be respected, monarchs annointed by god etc. Links to the expectation that people need to donate to the religion (which even if claimed as helping the poor is an incredibly inefficient way of doing it as resource for the poor is all that is left after the buildings are built and maintained, the gold and treasures are procured, the clergy are paid etc etc).
-
Religions are obviously of cultural origin and differ region to region. But all religions attempt to satisfy a spiritual need in humans.
Do they? Or is 'spiritual' just a mystic term invented to justify continuing with (particular?) religious practices as time has made it apparent that they are increasingly not helpful or based on anything?
They are just different paths to the same goal......just as different cuisines across the world attempt to satisfy the same need of hunger.
They do appear to satisfy similar cultural functions - whether that's a necessary function, and whether religion is the best and/or only option needs investigating.
What this spiritual need is, is a different discussion.
I think you'd need to establish that 'spiritual' meant anything, first, and then demonstrate that there is a 'need' related to it at all, before we bothered looking at what such a need might be.
O.
-
Sriram,
"Spiritual" is overreaching. "Explanatory" need is sufficient. If you want to argue for "spiritual" you need first to define it and then to demonstrate it.
If there is an explanatory need then you yourself must be prone to it and so by your own argument be also prone to unreal explanations.
If not, how is it you are immune?
If you are however not immune to your own theory, then scientism seems to describe your apparent preferred 'explanatory story.
-
Vlad,
If there is an explanatory need then you yourself must be prone to it and so by your own argument be also prone to unreal explanations.
If not, how is it you are immune?
If you are however not immune to your own theory, then scientism seems to describe your apparent preferred 'explanatory story.
Did any of that make sense in your head when you typed it?
I’m only “immune” to it to the extent that the explanations I accept are supported by reasoning I cannot falsify, whereas those I do not accept are not. It’s a simple enough concept to grasp I’d have thought, even for the hard of thinking.
-
Vlad,
Did any of that make sense in your head when you typed it?
I’m only “immune” to it to the extent that the explanations I accept are supported by reasoning I cannot falsify, whereas those I do not accept are not. It’s a simple enough concept to grasp I’d have thought, even for the hard of thinking.
Gibberish.
-
Vlad,
Gibberish.
Which words are confusing you?
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
Certainly some do but, since religion has been fairly ubiquitous across time and cultures, it may be the case religion has been inculcated to the extent that for some, if not many, it is now a given that they feel they have a capacity/need for religion: it's their default. However, in recent times, in some places, this ubiquity is perhaps fading.
I have no capacity or need for religion personally, and since it lacks any verifiable objective truth I can't see that it's worth bothering with.
-
Vlad,
Which words are confusing you?
No words. It's just your incredible claim that you are immune from scientism after spending the best part of two decades demonstrating it.
I think what you mean is science is enough to satisfy and that there is no need for anything else.You stand as perfect in the truth that science is all and what it is that is lacking in others is science and anything else is an unreal story.
Religiously speaking you are sufficiently enlighten save perhaps for more scientific facts.
There is of course a word for all this. Scientism.
Of course given your keenness to suspend the principal of sufficient reason as and when it suits it kind of renders the piety of your appeal to reason rather hollow.
-
Certainly some do but, since religion has been fairly ubiquitous across time and cultures, it may be the case religion has been inculcated to the extent that for some, if not many, it is now a given that they feel they have a capacity/need for religion: it's their default. However, in recent times, in some places, this ubiquity is perhaps fading.
I have no capacity or need for religion personally, and since it lacks any verifiable objective truth I can't see that it's worth bothering with.
says the guy who has been on a religiousethics forum for a couple of decades?
-
I'd agree with that.
I think religions typically meet a variety of needs, specifically:
Societal - giving individuals a feel that they belong to something (and often that those 'others' over there aren't part of your clan). So keeps your clan together and prevents your people wandering off to the next-door clan (see below).
Cultural (links to above) - customs and practices which embed a cultural memory - very valuable in early times when this would be the prime means of generation to generation knowledge dissemination.
Control - religions have been used throughout history as a means to control the population - effectively 'do this', 'don't do that' - with threat of sanction, either direct or claimed indirect after death. Also (linked to Societal above) - that you are either part of us (the religion) or you aren't and if you aren't you may be ostracised.
Inquisitiveness - a means to explain things in nature which were (or are) unknown in terms of mechanism etc. Leads to the god of the gaps concept.
Power and corruption - allows certain elites to maintain a position of dominance over the general populace - clergy who must be respected, monarchs annointed by god etc. Links to the expectation that people need to donate to the religion (which even if claimed as helping the poor is an incredibly inefficient way of doing it as resource for the poor is all that is left after the buildings are built and maintained, the gold and treasures are procured, the clergy are paid etc etc).
Nothing here that couldn't apply to humanism or a materialism.
-
Do they? Or is 'spiritual' just a mystic term invented to justify continuing with (particular?) religious practices as time has made it apparent that they are increasingly not helpful or based on anything?
What do you mean by mystic and just mystic. Might it be an idea to have the dictionary definition of spiritual?
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
Which one?
-
Vlad,
No words. It's just your incredible claim that you are immune from scientism after spending the best part of two decades demonstrating it.
First, what I actually said was that I’m only “immune” to the extent that I cannot falsify the reasoning for the things I do believe.
Second, your charge of scientism is pretty much the mother of all the straw men you attempt (admittedly from an extremely crowded field) given that I’ve never said anything that would suggest that I subscribe to it, and moreover given that I’ve endlessly rebutted the charge only for you to run away each time I’ve done it.
Are you still hanging around playgrounds in your spare time by the way? After all, if you insist on making up shit about me I see no reason for it not to be a two-way street.
I think what you mean is science is enough to satisfy and that there is no need for anything else.
Then – as so often – you think wrongly. What I actually mean is what I actually say - namely that science (and the reasoning that supports it) is the only verifiable means I know of test truth claims about the nature of the universe. If ever you manage to find another method to do that to test the various religious claims you make, by all means tell us what it is.
You stand as perfect in the truth that science is all and what it is that is lacking in others is science and anything else is an unreal story.
More lying isn’t helping you here. I have no idea whether or not your religious “stories” are true but – and here’s the point – nor have you. Your reliance on fallacious reasoning and unqualified assertions tells me that I have no reason to accept them, but if ever you manage to produce something more robust than that for justification I’ll examine your reasoning on its merits. I won’t be holding my breath though.
Religiously speaking you are sufficiently enlighten save perhaps for more scientific facts.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a coherent sentence in there somewhere trying to escape your mangled prose?
There is of course a word for all this. Scientism.
Find yourself someone who actually argues for it then if you can and have it out with him. You seem to have forgotten by the way that the last time you tried to make your case by citing Wiki re scientism it blew up in your face because it didn’t mean what you thought it meant at all.
Of course given your keenness to suspend the principal of sufficient reason as and when it suits it kind of renders the piety of your appeal to reason rather hollow.
I don’t “suspend” it, I explain to you why it’s bollocks – albeit that the explanation always fall on deaf ears.
By all mean though if you fancy swapping your persistent lying , straw men, false reasoning and unsupported assertions for actual sound arguments then – finally – try sharing them here.
Good luck with it.
-
Which one?
Which one immediately appeals and why. Which one repels and why.
It seems to me that spirituality refers to that which is greater than us, that which is our inner dimension and it’s development or ecstasy, that feeling of stepping outside of ourself
These are the places to start I would have thought.
-
Which one immediately appeals and why. Which one repels and why.
It seems to me that spirituality refers to that which is greater than us, that which is our inner dimension and it’s development or ecstasy, that feeling of stepping outside of ourself
These are the places to start I would have thought.
I think you're confused, my question was in reply to Steve's OP and was about which religion. Nothing to do with spirituality.
-
What do you mean by mystic and just mystic. Might it be an idea to have the dictionary definition of spiritual?
This is the core of that issue - 'spiritual' is given credence as a concept, but is reliant entirely on other unsubstantiable concepts for any sort of meaning. It doesn't appear to exist in any demonstrable way - it's 'pertaining to the human spirit or soul', but souls aren't demonstrably a thing, let alone having any qualities or properties that we can derive anything from. Spiritual, therefore, becomes meaningless in that it can be interpreted pretty much however someone chooses to look at it. It's inherently meaningless, and just becomes a justification for people to waft around to justify their other inclinations - good or bad.
O.
-
This is the core of that issue - 'spiritual' is given credence as a concept, but is reliant entirely on other unsubstantiable concepts for any sort of meaning. It doesn't appear to exist in any demonstrable way - it's 'pertaining to the human spirit or soul', but souls aren't demonstrably a thing, let alone having any qualities or properties that we can derive anything from. Spiritual, therefore, becomes meaningless in that it can be interpreted pretty much however someone chooses to look at it. It's inherently meaningless, and just becomes a justification for people to waft around to justify their other inclinations - good or bad.
O.
I'm not sure what inherently meaningless means? I get that 'spiritual' is a bit all things to all people but it's surely a genuine attempt to convey something about the human experience, and as such I'm not sure that it can inherently lack meaning.
-
God and the supernatural have no objective existence
The trouble with this statement is that the "supernatural" is an incoherent class of phenomena. As soon as a supernatural phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist to the satisfaction of the sceptics, it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural.
-
Vlad,
First, what I actually said was that I’m only “immune” to the extent that I cannot falsify the reasoning for the things I do believe.
Second, your charge of scientism is pretty much the mother of all the straw men you attempt (admittedly from an extremely crowded field) given that I’ve never said anything that would suggest that I subscribe to it, and moreover given that I’ve endlessly rebutted the charge only for you to run away each time I’ve done it.
Are you still hanging around playgrounds in your spare time by the way? After all, if you insist on making up shit about me I see no reason for it not to be a two-way street.
Then – as so often – you think wrongly. What I actually mean is what I actually say - namely that science (and the reasoning that supports it) is the only verifiable means I know of test truth claims about the nature of the universe. If ever you manage to find another method to do that to test the various religious claims you make, by all means tell us what it is.
More lying isn’t helping you here. I have no idea whether or not your religious “stories” are true but – and here’s the point – nor have you. Your reliance on fallacious reasoning and unqualified assertions tells me that I have no reason to accept them, but if ever you manage to produce something more robust than that for justification I’ll examine your reasoning on its merits. I won’t be holding my breath though.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a coherent sentence in there somewhere trying to escape your mangled prose?
Find yourself someone who actually argues for it then if you can and have it out with him. You seem to have forgotten by the way that the last time you tried to make your case by citing Wiki re scientism it blew up in your face because it didn’t mean what you thought it meant at all.
I don’t “suspend” it, I explain to you why it’s bollocks – albeit that the explanation always fall on deaf ears.
By all mean though if you fancy swapping your persistent lying , straw men, false reasoning and unsupported assertions for actual sound arguments then – finally – try sharing them here.
Good luck with it.
Blimey, and all this before I come to the bit where I actually disagree with your suggestion that religion is best described as explanatory stories that science has proved wrong and that we can dismiss spirituality.
Spirituality is about the inner experience, and how to grow and develop it. It’s about the bit you know intimately but the rest can’t see or adequately measure, it’s about quality and quality.
It’s that which allows Cox to enjoy the wonder of the universe, sagan’s Sense of cosmos,Dawkin’s waxing lyrical about all the people that never existed.
You might think PSR is bollocks but that doesn’t stop you depending on it to argue it’s bollocks.
As I said religion isn’t just failed science.
-
The trouble with this statement is that the "supernatural" is an incoherent class of phenomena. As soon as a supernatural phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist to the satisfaction of the sceptics, it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural.
I think the term supernatural sprung forth from those insisting they were naturalists. I suppose I’m saying they are themselves responsible for any problems they have with a word they invented.
-
Nothing here that couldn't apply to humanism or a materialism.
Well we were discussing religion, so your comment isn't really relevant.
However, to answer your point - yes and no.
Some of the elements I mentioned would apply to humanism and/or materialism, others not. An example of one that potentially would is Control and Humanism, given that the latter is effectively an ethical framework. Were there to be a embedded humanist society it is reasonably to think that adherence to humanist principles might be used as control - in other words that that society may expect adherence to humanist principles. However there is a difference with religion - while it is plausible that a humanist society may place 'in the here and now' sanctions on those that do not adhere to humanist principles, I cannot see how humanism can be used to control in the manner that religion often does - effectively 'behave as we dictate or you will be damned for eternity after you die'.
Others - well I don't see how they apply given that, for example, I don't think that people actually define themselves as 'materialist' in the manner that they do for religion, or even humanism. So I don't really see how materialism can be used for most of the elements I mention. True materialism provides tools to create stuff, but that is really a tool and just as valuable for building a religious building as a shopping mall.
-
Well we were discussing religion, so your comment isn't really relevant.
However, to answer your point - yes and no.
Some of the elements I mentioned would apply to humanism and/or materialism, others not. An example of one that potentially would is Control and Humanism, given that the latter is effectively an ethical framework. Were there to be a embedded humanist society it is reasonably to think that adherence to humanist principles might be used as control - in other words that that society may expect adherence to humanist principles. However there is a difference with religion - while it is plausible that a humanist society may place 'in the here and now' sanctions on those that do not adhere to humanist principles, I cannot see how humanism can be used to control in the manner that religion often does - effectively 'behave as we dictate or you will be damned for eternity after you die'.
Others - well I don't see how they apply given that, for example, I don't think that people actually define themselves as 'materialist' in the manner that they do for religion, or even humanism. So I don't really see how materialism can be used for most of the elements I mention. True materialism provides tools to create stuff, but that is really a tool and just as valuable for building a religious building as a shopping mall.
Put simply a humanism wishing to exert control can threaten what Humanist UK, I believe, refer to as, “The one life we have”, a threat that has had great success worldwide in recent times.
-
Vlad,
Blimey, and all this before I come to the bit where I actually disagree with your suggestion that religion is best described as explanatory stories that science has proved wrong and that we can dismiss spirituality.
You seem to have forgotten to apologise for telling me I subscribe to scientism. Never apologise, never explain – just move on to the next suite of lies eh?
Oh, and speaking of your lies - I haven’t suggested of course that science has “proved wrong” the stories of religions. Only when religions make scientific claims and science has provided more robust explanations has it demonstrated (not "proved") that.
Oh, and yes you can “dismiss spirituality” until anyone comes up with an agreed meaning for that term, for the same reason that you would “dismiss” uho87*&%^0.
Spirituality is about the inner experience, and how to grow and develop it. It’s about the bit you know intimately but the rest can’t see or adequately measure, it’s about quality and quality.
No, “spirituality” is typically freighted with all sorts of woo characteristics. If you’re trying to say instead that it’s just being reflective and self-aware sometimes, then say that.
It’s that which allows Cox to enjoy the wonder of the universe, sagan’s Sense of cosmos,Dawkin’s waxing lyrical about all the people that never existed.
You don’t suppose it’s just because they are (or were) intelligent and curious people then? Why stick the “all things to all men” woo of “spiritual” onto that? What does it add?
You might think PSR is bollocks but that doesn’t stop you depending on it to argue it’s bollocks.
Naturally you’ll be along so to justify that unqualified claim – perhaps with, you know, some reasons?
Maybe you could start with defining what you mean by the term?
As I said religion isn’t just failed science.
No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too.
-
Vlad,
You seem to have forgotten to apologise for telling me I subscribe to scientism. Never apologise, never explain – just move on to the next suite of lies eh?
Oh, and speaking of your lies - I haven’t suggested of course that science has “proved wrong” the stories of religions. Only when religions make scientific claims and science has provided more robust explanations has it demonstrated (not "proved") that.
Oh, and yes you can “dismiss spirituality” until anyone comes up with an agreed meaning for that term, for the same reason that you would “dismiss” uho87*&%^0.
No, “spirituality” is typically freighted with all sorts of woo characteristics. If you’re trying to say instead that it’s just being reflective and self-aware sometimes, then say that.
You don’t suppose it’s just because they are (or were) intelligent and curious people then? Why stick the “all things to all men” woo of “spiritual” onto that? What does it add?
Naturally you’ll be along so to justify that unqualified claim – perhaps with, you know, some reasons?
Maybe you could start with defining what you mean by the term?
No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too.
Occams razor tells us that ultimate reasons or reason are the order of the day.
Reason has been given as to why there should be an ultimate entity. There literally is nothing to stop it existing except perhaps itself. Your rejection of the PSR is rejection of reasons which don't suit your weltbilt IMHO.
One last thing, I'm curious to know what you did with your antitheism prior to Dawkins and the Internet. What forums did it manifest itself in?
-
Bluehillside said
No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too.
Medicine is science. What philosophy are you thinking about.
Your statement just looks like an"Religion equals everything which is bad and wrong" statement.
-
Vlad,
Occams razor tells us that ultimate reasons or reason are the order of the day.
No it doesn’t. Occam’s razor actually tells us that the explanation with fewer assumptions is generally to be preferred to the explanation with more assumptions.
You do realise that you can actually look this stuff up to avoid falling flat on your face here don’t you?
Reason has been given as to why there should be an ultimate entity.
But it’s a false reason because more logically robust reasoning falsifies it.
There literally is nothing to stop it existing except perhaps itself.
There literally is nothing to stop leprechauns existing either. So what though?
Your rejection of the PSR is rejection of reasons which don't suit your weltbilt IMHO.
No, it’s a rejection of reasons that are demonstrably various fallacies – perhaps if you stopped running away from this problem every time it’s explained to you you’d reduce the likelihood of continually embarrassing yourself here?
One last thing, I'm curious to know what you did with your antitheism prior to Dawkins and the Internet. What forums did it manifest itself in?
I didn’t need to do anything with it because religion didn’t impact much on my life.
So about your apology for accusing me of scientism…? And while you're about it how about addressing the problems you gave yourself with your claims about "spirituality" that you've just ignored?
Something? Anything?
-
...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.
I would be inclined to divide 'religion' into two aspects one being the 'mystical' element which invites the individual to transcend the mental and physical aspects of existence and discover an inner unity (oneness) by a variety of techniques, the other being organised religion which over time has used those techniques to indoctrinate and create 'flock think' as a means of control much like politics, marketing and internet influencers.
Example quotations from the 'mystical' side might be:-
William Law [17th C. Christian Mystic] This pearl of eternity is the Temple of God within you, the consecrated place of divine worship, where alone you can worship God in spirit and in truth.
Richard of Saint Victor [12th C Scot. Philosopher] If you wish to search out the deep things of God search out the depths of your own spirit.
Swami Ramdas [d 1963 Hindu Bhakta] The path to the source of your and the world’s Being is not without. You have to go within yourself.
Swami Sivananda [d 1963 Hindu authority on meditation] The mind like a thief is always lying in wait.
Huang Po [9th C Ch. Zen Buddhist Master] Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it. Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road.
Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic] Forgetfulness of Self is remembrance of God.
Jesus (L18/17) Whosoever shall not receive the Divine State as a little child will not be able to enter therein.
Jesus (L17/20) - The Divine State cannot be observed with the eyes neither can it be pointed to because it is within you.
Sri Ramakrishna [19th C Hindu saint] So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination.
-
Vlad,
Medicine is science.
Not when religions have attempted it is isn’t – asserting that the plague was caused by “sinful” behaviour for example.
What philosophy are you thinking about.
Try the knots religions often tie themselves in to explain away the problem of “evil” when there’s (supposedly) a benign god for starters.
Your statement just looks like an"Religion equals everything which is bad and wrong" statement.
No it doesn’t. It actually looks like a “when religions step into areas that are empirically falsifiable, more robust fields of human endeavour typically show it to be wrong”.
-
Put simply a humanism wishing to exert control can threaten what Humanist UK, I believe, refer to as, “The one life we have”,
True, and I've not denied it. But this is hardly equivalent to indoctrinating people into believing that unless they live in a particular way, determined by a powerful religious elite that they will be subject to eternal damnation after death. Nor that if they live as others dictate that they will be rewarded with eternal paradise after death.
This threat in a purported afterlife has been used to get people to accept living miserable, impoverished, denigrating lives on the promise of paradise once they die. And of course over history those teaching people to accept their terrible lives are usually those completely buffered from those lives, living elite lives of plenty and of power.
Now it is rather hard to get people to accept an appalling life in this world on the promise of better in the next life if you also teach that this life is all we have.
a threat that has had great success worldwide in recent times.
Really - examples please of countries (or other jurisdictions) that have formally espoused a humanist approach and forced that on their populace whether they wished it or not. I can think of many, many theocracies over history that have imposed theocratic dogmas on their people, I'm really struggling to think of an equivalent 'Humanist' jurisdiction. But I'm sure you'll help me out Vlad!!
-
True, and I've not denied it. But this is hardly equivalent to indoctrinating people into believing that unless they live in a particular way, determined by a powerful religious elite that they will be subject to eternal damnation after death. Nor that if they live as others dictate that they will be rewarded with eternal paradise after death.
This threat in a purported afterlife has been used to get people to accept living miserable, impoverished, denigrating lives on the promise of paradise once they die. And of course over history those teaching people to accept their terrible lives are usually those completely buffered from those lives, living elite lives of plenty and of power.
Now it is rather hard to get people to accept an appalling life in this world on the promise of better in the next life if you also teach that this life is all we have.
Really - examples please of countries (or other jurisdictions) that have formally espoused a humanist approach and forced that on their populace whether they wished it or not. I can think of many, many theocracies over history that have imposed theocratic dogmas on their people, I'm really struggling to think of an equivalent 'Humanist' jurisdiction. But I'm sure you'll help me out Vlad!!
The threat of an afterlife no more adequately describes religion than “Explanatory stories”, in fact the latter Dawksplanation is better Imho.
I think we have to sort out the difference between a threat to conform in this life and a warning of what happens if the inner dimension receives zero or negative nourishment. In spiritual terms we are talking about the death, the final death or second death or regress of the soul in religions with reincarnation. It is interesting that Humanism slogans that we are good without God The benign interpretation is that we are inately good, though some Humanists think they are better and improvement is through, you’ve guessed it, becoming atheist, being more scientific etc, knowing more facts, in short renouncing religion. In some countries not renouncing religion has led to threats rather than warnings.
Religion has also talked of final release from tyranny, indeed Marx chide it for it’s optimistic message which he likened to an opiate.
Ideally then religion can cause people to live as if there is a higher power for good. For the humanist it’s the vagaries of law and zeitgeist which is what they must commit body and mind to.
-
I'm not sure what inherently meaningless means?
It's not based on anything, it's referring to something that not only doesn't exist, but is so vaguely defined and liberally interpreted that you can't rule out anything.
I get that 'spiritual' is a bit all things to all people but it's surely a genuine attempt to convey something about the human experience, and as such I'm not sure that it can inherently lack meaning.
It means what any one person wants it to mean, and if the definition is that fluid it's useless.
O.
-
The trouble with this statement is that the "supernatural" is an incoherent class of phenomena. As soon as a supernatural phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist to the satisfaction of the sceptics, it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural.
Good point. However, you could say the same bout God. I think, though, that God is intrinsically undemonstrable.
-
I think the term supernatural sprung forth from those insisting they were naturalists. I suppose I’m saying they are themselves responsible for any problems they have with a word they invented.
I don't care where ir sprung from. Supernatural phenomena divide into two classes:
1. phenomena that are imaginary
2. Phenomena that we haven't figured out how to observe in a repeatable objective way.
The latter class is really of natural phenomena temporarily labelled incorrectly.
-
SteveH,
Good point. However, you could say the same bout God. I think, though, that God is intrinsically undemonstrable.
If you think that something is "undemonstrable", why think it exists at all?
-
SteveH,
If you think that something is "undemonstrable", why think it exists at all?
I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.
-
I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.
That would mean you would have a method of measuring the probability of a god claim,. Do you have one?
-
SteveH,
I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.
NS has got there before me, but how would you propose to determine the balance of probabilities absent a method to demonstrate a god's likely existence or not?
-
If a god does exist then by definition I would have objective existence. Hard solipsism means that I don't think I can claim anything outside me exists objectively, and given that my self perception is based on the idea that that there is an external world, then it's not clear that I can be sure of my own existence in the way that I perceive. As I've said before O think the cogito overstated it i cannot say that zi think therefore I am but there would certainly appear to be thinking.
-
I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.
If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent. A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.
If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being
-
If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent. A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.
If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being
Thar's just assertion
-
Vlad,
If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent.
Every claim of an objective truth is contingent on observation. How else would you know that it’s there?
A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.
Non sequitur. Why not?
If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being
Anyone can “conceive” of such a thing. Your problem is to find an argument that isn’t crap to take you from conceiving of something to demonstrating it.
-
Vlad,
Every claim of an objective truth is contingent on observation. How else would you know that it’s there? How are you defining observation here.
Anyone can “conceive” of such a thing. Your problem is to find an argument that isn’t crap to take you from conceiving of something to demonstrating it.
I’m afraid, although you seem to think you are the arbiter of a good argument and good reason, the fact is there is no intellectual oversight of this forum.
We have to look therefore to other arbitration and I frequently look to Sean M. Carroll the atheist cosmologist. When he says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason we can take it that it hasn’t been disproved yet and that your assertion that “It’s bollocks” is probably untrustworthy.
So no Hillside. I think many of the things you call crap arguments, the things you think you have buried are
alive and kicking
-
When [Sean M. Carroll] says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason...
[citation missing]
-
A necessary entity...
...is something you have yet to define in anything remotely like a logically self-consistent way.
-
Vlad,
How are you defining observation here.
The same way that any good dictionary does.
I’m afraid, although you seem to think you are the arbiter of a good argument and good reason, the fact is there is no intellectual oversight of this forum.
No I don’t, and we don’t need “intellectual oversight of this forum” for that. Fortunately instead fallacies are codified so you don’t have to take my word for it every time you collapse into one (or several) of them – you can just look them up. It’s rare for you to attempt an argument (actually I could end that sentence right there, but ok…) without the effort precisely mirroring these fallacies. That you always ignore, run away from, compound with further fallacies, lie about etc the problem when it’s explained to you doesn’t change that.
We have to look therefore to other arbitration…
No “we” don’t - see above.
…and I frequently look to Sean M. Carroll the atheist cosmologist. When he says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason we can take it that it hasn’t been disproved yet and that your assertion that “It’s bollocks” is probably untrustworthy.
Given your long history of misrepresentation here presumably you’ll be providing a citation for that so we can see what he actually did say rather than just take your word for it?
So no Hillside. I think many of the things you call crap arguments, the things you think you have buried are
alive and kicking
And fallacious. That’s your problem.
-
Vlad,
The same way that any good dictionary does.
No I don’t, and we don’t need “intellectual oversight of this forum” for that. Fortunately instead fallacies are codified so you don’t have to take my word for it every time you collapse into one (or several) of them – you can just look them up. It’s rare for you to attempt an argument (actually I could end that sentence right there, but ok…) without the effort precisely mirroring these fallacies. That you always ignore, run away from, compound with further fallacies, lie about etc the problem when it’s explained to you doesn’t change that.
No “we” don’t - see above.
Given your long history of misrepresentation here presumably you’ll be providing a citation for that so we can see what he actually did say rather than just take your word for it?
And fallacious. That’s your problem.
Finding that the various debates you have been involved with are not as cut and dried as you have us believe when we look beyond this forum makes the case for the forum having insufficient intellectual overview.
Regarding the PSR I think i’ve Said it’s not so much that you suspend the PSR but where and at what point in the argument you do it.
Regarding Carroll’s mission to debunk the PSR, I think it was you who referenced the particular paper I’m trying to find the link but in the meantime, Carroll’s PSR journey can be found on his website.
-
Regarding Carroll’s mission to debunk the PSR, I think it was you who referenced the particular paper I’m trying to find the link but in the meantime, Carroll’s PSR journey can be found on his website.
If you mean this: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.02231), then you have, in your inimitable style, totally misunderstood. Carroll questions the PSR (as do others), but the idea that he is "devoting effort" or on some sort of "mission" to "debunk" it is comical.
It's neither a physical law nor something that has been logically deduced, so how would one even go about "debunking" it? It is an idea based on everyday experiences that has been arbitrarily elevated, in some people's minds (mainly theists, as the paper points out), to an unquestionable universal truth.
And I'm still waiting for you to properly explain a 'necessary entity' and how it can possibly meet the PSR....
-
If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent.
If there is an objective reality then the things that exist do so whether we can observe them or not.
A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.
That's a failure of logic on your part. You haven't shown that being observable makes something contingent.
-
If there is an objective reality then the things that exist do so whether we can observe them or not.
That's a failure of logic on your part. You haven't shown that being observable makes something contingent.
Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.
So there you go. Do with that what you will.
-
Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.
So there you go. Do with that what you will.
There is no necessity that something being observed will always change as a result, so this is nonsense from the start, but the main problem remains that a 'necessary entity' is pure gibberish unless you can explain it in a logically consistent way.
You're still just making shit up about it as you go along.
-
Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.
So there you go. Do with that what you will.
So if Jesus was God by your logic, then he cannot be a necessary entity. So your assertions hete if correct would mean your religion is wrong.
-
So if Jesus was God by your logic, then he cannot be a necessary entity. So your assertions hete if correct would mean your religion is wrong.
But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.
You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.
If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.
https://www.gotquestions.org/fully-God-fully-man.html
-
But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.
You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.
If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.
Doesn't matter if Jesus was gid which you start, and loved he was observed. Therefore God was observed. It's just the logic of your position.
-
Doesn't matter if Jesus was gid which you start, and loved he was observed. Therefore God was observed. It's just the logic of your position.
No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects. Therefore we are talking of physical, scientific observation of Jesus physicality.
Science cannot measure God and anything physically observed is subject to quantum physics and cannot be the necessary being.
-
No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects.
(https://images.assetsdelivery.com/compings_v2/designtools/designtools2012/designtools201202062.jpg)
-
No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects. Therefore we are talking of physical, scientific observation of Jesus physicality.
Science cannot measure God and anything physically observed is subject to quantum physics and cannot be the necessary being.
No we're talking about logic here.
You believe Jesus is God.
You believe Jesus was observed
You believe your god cannot be observed.
Therefore your logic is faulty.
-
But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.
You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.
If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.
https://www.gotquestions.org/fully-God-fully-man.html
God was also observed through a lot of the OT too, beginning with chapter 2. Certain conditions about not observing his 'face' (whatever that means).
What entity was being manifest here? Presumably not the non-contingent entity, by your logic. God had not yet become incarnate in Jesus, so what then?
-
No we're talking about logic here.
You believe Jesus is God.
You believe Jesus was observed
You believe your god cannot be observed.
Therefore your logic is faulty.
No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man but nobody empirically saw God because God is the Necessary entity and one explanation why the necessary entity is not empirically seen is Quantum physics.
My logic is sound.
I may be wrong....if quantum physics is wrong.
-
God was also observed through a lot of the OT too, beginning with chapter 2. Certain conditions about not observing his 'face' (whatever that means).
What entity was being manifest here? Presumably not the non-contingent entity, by your logic. God had not yet become incarnate in Jesus, so what then?
However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.
Why did you not mention that?
Of course Knowledge without empirical detection doesn't sit well with empiricists.
-
(https://images.assetsdelivery.com/compings_v2/designtools/designtools2012/designtools201202062.jpg)
Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.
-
However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.
Perhaps worth mentioning that if Jesus, during his earthly life, was fully God, then God can't be omnipotent nor omniscient.
-
Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.
As opposed to randomly puking words you appear to have little understanding of.
-
No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man but nobody empirically saw God because God is the Necessary entity and one explanation why the necessary entity is not empirically seen is Quantum physics.
My logic is sound.
I may be wrong....if quantum physics is wrong.
Stop posting this embarrassing shite, it makes your religion look like ignorant ramblings. You have no logic, no understanding of quantum physics. You have a set of random assertions which manage to both contradictory, and circular, which is almost admirably inept.
-
Perhaps worth mentioning that if Jesus, during his earthly life, was fully God, then God can't be omnipotent nor omniscient.
How so?
-
Stop posting this embarrassing shite, it makes your religion look like ignorant ramblings. You have no logic, no understanding of quantum physics. You have a set of random assertions which manage to both contradictory, and circular, which is almost admirably inept.
Yes, I've admitted I could be wrong. I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.
Jesus is like totality, fully physically contingent, and God.
-
Yes, I've admitted I could be wrong. I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.
Jesus is like totality, fully physically contingent, and God.
You haven't used any science. You've posted a random assertion and attached the word quantum to it to try and give it some sheen of science. It's desperate stuff.
The circularity is in using assertions such as necessary entity which you haven't justified to then back up what it is to be a necessary entity by another assertion. You've had this pointed out multiple times when you posted this juvenile pish before. That you keep doing it, and ignoring thar just makes your religion look like lying humbug.
-
You haven't used any science. You've posted a random assertion and attached the word quantum to it to try and give it some sheen of science. It's desperate stuff.
The circularity is in using assertions such as necessary entity which you haven't justified to then back up what it is to be a necessary entity by another assertion. You've had this pointed out multiple times when you posted this juvenile pish before. That you keep doing it, and ignoring thar just makes your religion look like lying humbug.
I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.
-
I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.
You mentioned some scientific concepts randomly. It makes you look like an idiot that wants to make their religion look stupid.
-
Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.
I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.
I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.
Looks to me (as somebody who's studied quantum mechanics) like you're just talking bollocks and throwing some science words in pretty randomly. But do feel free to provide the step by step you offered.
-
I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.
NS did say you hadn't used science rather than mentioned it.
-
However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.
Why did you not mention that?
Of course Knowledge without empirical detection doesn't sit well with empiricists.
Marcionite, are you? I invite you to read the end of Luke's gospel, re the episode on the road to Emmaus.
My point is not that any of this is true, but from your point of view, you can't just cite one isolated text, ignoring all that has gone before which indicates a different interpretation. And then go on to somehow attempt correlate that particular version of theology with your take on quantum physics.
-
Looks to me (as somebody who's studied quantum mechanics) like you're just talking bollocks and throwing some science words in pretty randomly. But do feel free to provide the step by step you offered.
You should know then in quantum physics as in other physics the observer affects quantum events. I thought that was common knowledge.
Since necessary entities are not contingent they are not subject to any observer effects.
I found this on Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
-
You mentioned some scientific concepts randomly. It makes you look like an idiot that wants to make their religion look stupid.
If I did it is amazing that I mentioned concepts related to the observer effect in quantum physics.
If something is dependent on something else then it’s not a good candidate for necessary entity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
-
If I did it is amazing that I mentioned concepts related to the observer effect in quantum physics.
If something is dependent on something else then it’s not a good candidate for necessary entity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
All the attributes of the necessary entity, you've just made up. This is retro fitting and is neither science nor logic. Please stop embarrassing yourself, your religion.
-
You should know then in quantum physics as in other physics the observer affects quantum events. I thought that was common knowledge.
Since necessary entities are not contingent they are not subject to any observer effects.
I found this on Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
Links that end in brackets don't work on this forum unless you use the [url]...[/url] tags.
The very first line of your linked page says: "Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon." [my emphasis] Interpretations are not the theory and this is something different from the uncertainty principle and whatever you think "schrodinger effects" are. So you were just posting bullshit.
And you still haven't provided a logically consistent explanation of how anything can be a 'necessary entity', you just keep on making up different characteristics it must or can't have as you go.
-
Links that end in brackets don't work on this forum unless you use the [url]...[/url] tags.
The very first line of your linked page says: "Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon." [my emphasis] Interpretations are not the theory and this is something different from the uncertainty principle and whatever you think "schrodinger effects" are. So you were just posting bullshit.
And you still haven't provided a logically consistent explanation of how anything can be a 'necessary entity', you just keep on making up different characteristics it must or can't have as you go.
I perfectly understand about ideas in quantum science being just punts as to what is really going on and I am just having a punt to suggest that all contingent things we know and will know of are observable and therefore could be changed by their observation. Something that wouldn't affect a non contingent entity.
Although most of what you offer is imo eclipsed by angry bluster and goal post shifting what comes through from you is everything has an external reason.
We can be certain of two things though, existence and non existence. We know that non existence has no effect on anything so if something exists it exists for itself. And there we have an explanation for why there is something that exists and can only fail to exist because of itself. I have conceded that existence is brute but yours and mine won't be in a few years time because we won't exist.
So then we end up with a final entity which nothing external can prevent.
If you want an infinite argument about what constitutes brute by all means continue to fuck about around with that.
-
All the attributes of the necessary entity, you've just made up. This is retro fitting and is neither science nor logic. Please stop embarrassing yourself, your religion.
Why should that bother you?
Contingency and necessity has been part of the intellectual stock of the church for centuries. There are scientists who believe that quantum events are affected by observation, indeed
Atheist pin up boy Lawrence Krauss wrote a paper on observation of the universe collapsing the wave function of the universe.
I freely admit that the notion of contingent things being observable and therefore changed by that observation might be bollocks but wanting it to be original bollocks exclusive to me is just fantasy on your part.
-
The phenomenon of nature, the universe, is, it can be contended, itself supernatural
Since it has been variously proposed that
1: The universe just is.
2. The universe was created.
3. The universe is infinite.
4. The universe popped out of nothing.
-
...I am just having a punt to suggest that all contingent things we know and will know of are observable and therefore could be changed by their observation. Something that wouldn't affect a non contingent entity.
How do you know? As I keep pointing out, and you keep on ignoring, you have no sensible, consistent model of a 'necessary entity', so everything you claim about it appears to be you just making shit up.
Although most of what you offer is imo eclipsed by angry bluster and goal post shifting what comes through from you is everything has an external reason.
I called out your sciency word salad. Perhaps you shouldn't post terms you clearly don't understand? No idea where you got the idea that I'm angry. More amused TBH.
We can be certain of two things though, existence and non existence. We know that non existence has no effect on anything so if something exists it exists for itself. And there we have an explanation for why there is something that exists and can only fail to exist because of itself. I have conceded that existence is brute but yours and mine won't be in a few years time because we won't exist.
So then we end up with a final entity which nothing external can prevent.
If you want an infinite argument about what constitutes brute by all means continue to fuck about around with that.
No idea what this means. Have you finally given up on a necessary entity?
-
The phenomenon of nature, the universe, is, it can be contended, itself supernatural
Since it has been variously proposed that
1: The universe just is.
2. The universe was created.
3. The universe is infinite.
4. The universe popped out of nothing.
:-\ What!? How does any of that (ignoring the ambiguity of 4 for the moment) make something 'supernatural'?
-
No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man
So what basis do you have for calling him God? If you observed a man, call him what he was: a man.
-
However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.
So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?
-
How do you know? As I keep pointing out, and you keep on ignoring, you have no sensible, consistent model of a 'necessary entity', so everything you claim about it appears to be you just making shit up.
I called out your sciency word salad. Perhaps you shouldn't post terms you clearly don't understand? No idea where you got the idea that I'm angry. More amused TBH.
No idea what this means.
I've always thought with you that the penny has to drop Have you finally given up on a necessary entity?
Only if there's a better word for non contingent.
It's necessary for contingency and there's no external reason for it not to be whereas contingent things have externa reasons for not being.
Can the necessary entity cease to be? It would have to will it's own non existence for it's own internal reasons
-
So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?
We exclude all empirical sightings of Jesus because Many blind people did not see him and someone could therefore have put on a Jesus voice.
On the other hand there is evidence and current belief that there was man called Jesus.
Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability. These were not Christians(how could they be) but some became Christians subsequently
-
We exclude all empirical sightings of Jesus because Many blind people did not see him and someone could therefore have put on a Jesus voice.
You said no-one could see God, not jut blind people.
On the other hand there is evidence and current belief that there was man called Jesus.
Actually, there were many people called Jesus (or rather, the Aramaic name that becomes "Jesus" in Latin - it was quite common). That said, I agree that there was a man who founded the religion of Christianity and the stories we have in the New Testament are about him rather than some fictional character (even though the stories themselves include major elements of fiction).
Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability.
What is that ability? How can we be sure it exists and that the people who detected God were not lying or mistaken?
If God cannot be detected empirically, you can't say it exists because you can't be sure the people who detected it are not lying or mistaken.
-
I've always thought with you that the penny has to drop
You could try using English and logic while avoiding using terns you don't understand>>>
Only if there's a better word for non contingent.
Err... 'non-contingent', 'brute fact'. Or we could just admit we don't know.
It's necessary for contingency and there's no external reason for it not to be whereas contingent things have externa reasons for not being.
Can the necessary entity cease to be? It would have to will it's own non existence for it's own internal reasons
The problem is that you keep on just making up arbitrary shit about it, like this. You still haven't provided a sensible and coherent model of a 'necessary entity', so you have no basis on which to say that it has a will or that it couldn't otherwise cease to be. You also seem to have forgotten again that (space-)time is a part of the physical universe, so 'ceasing to be' would be something that could only happen within the physical universe.
-
You said no-one could see God, not jut blind people.
Actually, there were many people called Jesus (or rather, the Aramaic name that becomes "Jesus" in Latin - it was quite common). That said, I agree that there was a man who founded the religion of Christianity and the stories we have in the New Testament are about him rather than some fictional character (even though the stories themselves include major elements of fiction).
What is that ability? How can we be sure it exists and that the people who detected God were not lying or mistaken?
If God cannot be detected empirically, you can't say it exists because you can't be sure the people who detected it are not lying or mistaken.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
A non empiricist though is not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist.
I will be undeservedly charitable to you, Anyone who says they have detected God non empirically could be lying, or mistaken or correct.
Conversely those who say they haven’t detected God might be lying or mistaken or incapable.
-
You could try using English and logic while avoiding using terns you don't understand>>>
Err... 'non-contingent', 'brute fact'. Or we could just admit we don't know.
The problem is that you keep on just making up arbitrary shit about it, like this. You still haven't provided a sensible and coherent model of a 'necessary entity', so you have no basis on which to say that it has a will or that it couldn't otherwise cease to be. You also seem to have forgotten again that (space-)time is a part of the physical universe, so 'ceasing to be' would be something that could only happen within the physical universe.
If the physical universe is in parts it is a composite and cannot be the ultimate reason for being.
-
If the physical universe is in parts it is a composite and cannot be the ultimate reason for being.
Logic-free assertion. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: you need a proper logical description of a 'necessary entity', otherwise everything you say about it can be dismissed as meaningless shit you've just made up.
-
Logic-free assertion. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: you need a proper logical description of a 'necessary entity', otherwise everything you say about it can be dismissed as meaningless shit you've just made up.
A composite is parts which are together so there has to be a reason why they are together and why they have to be together. There is also the question of why parts and not a single entity.
-
A composite is parts which are together so there has to be a reason why they are together and why they have to be together. There is also the question of why parts and not a single entity.
More baseless wittering. The parts could 'just be'. Without a proper logical model of necessity, nothing you say about it can be justified.
-
Spoken like a true empiricist.
A non empiricist though is not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist.
I'm not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist. I'm bound to the idea that, unless things can be detected we can't know that they exist.
I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist, I'm claiming that your assertion that God does existed is unfounded and nobody has to believe you.
-
I'm not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist. I'm bound to the idea that, unless things can be detected we can't know that they exist.
I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist, I'm claiming that your assertion that God does existed is unfounded and nobody has to believe you.
Fair enough! But how to detect phenomena that is not directly detectable by our senses or our instruments?
Subjective experiences are one way. That is where spiritual experiences come in.
-
Fair enough! But how to detect phenomena that is not directly detectable by our senses or our instruments?
Don't you know?
Well, of course, first you have to detect the phenomenon indirectly, otherwise howe would we know there is something there to be detected? Then we have to speculate about the nature of the phenomenon and how it might be directly detected. Then we build the machine to do the detecting. If it works: excellent. If it doesn't work, back to the drawing board, but at least we can eliminate one possibility of the nature of the phenomenon.
This is how it's been done since at least the Age of Enlightenment. We've become remarkably good at it.
Subjective experiences are one way. That is where spiritual experiences come in.
Nobody denies that people have spiritual experience. It's just that the people who claim they are anything other than psychological phenomena never come up with ways of showing that they might be right.
-
Don't you know?
Well, of course, first you have to detect the phenomenon indirectly, otherwise howe would we know there is something there to be detected? Then we have to speculate about the nature of the phenomenon and how it might be directly detected. Then we build the machine to do the detecting. If it works: excellent. If it doesn't work, back to the drawing board, but at least we can eliminate one possibility of the nature of the phenomenon.
This is how it's been done since at least the Age of Enlightenment. We've become remarkably good at it.
Nobody denies that people have spiritual experience. It's just that the people who claim they are anything other than psychological phenomena never come up with ways of showing that they might be right.
How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments?
The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.
-
The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Proof that certain techniques and methods produce certain subjective experiences, nothing more. There is no evidence of any 'detection' going on just because of similar experiences.
-
That is all that is possible given the situation...I guess. People who follow the methods have the experiences and others don't, that is it! No objective 'proof' is possible nor necessary.
-
Sriram,
That is all that is possible given the situation...I guess. People who follow the methods have the experiences and others don't, that is it! No objective 'proof' is possible nor necessary.
These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.
And that’s your problem.
-
Sriram,
These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.
And that’s your problem.
-
Sriram,
These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.
And that’s your problem.
Is this your own work?
-
Sriram,
These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.
And that’s your problem.
People don't experience Roman gods or the Christian God. People just have spiritual experiences which they interpret according to their cultural teachings.
The experiences are common...which is the point I am making. Interpretations and images could be different....similar to NDE's.
-
Sriram,
People don't experience Roman gods or the Christian God. People just have spiritual experiences which they interpret according to their cultural teachings.
Yes to having no grounds to justify the claims of actually experiencing gods etc, but “spiritual experiences” is overreaching. You have all our work ahead of you to get from “feeling emotionally overwhelmed from time-to-time” or similar to “spiritual experience”. You might want to start with a definition of “spiritual”.
The experiences are common...
Feeling emotionally overwhelmed one day might be a “common” experience, but that’s all.
…which is the point I am making. Interpretations and images could be different
“Interpretations and images” are culturally determined, which is the point I was making. That’s why previously undiscovered Amazonian tribespeople don't report “encounters” with Jesus, and Christians don't report encounters with Amazonian tree spirits.
....similar to NDE's.
NDAs are bollocks for the reasons that have been explained to you many times here already. A near death experience tells you no more about actual death than sex tells you about actual child birth. They're qualitatively different categories of being.
-
So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?
Seems like he's not answering that, Jeremy. One text from the NT outdoes anything in the OT, including Isaiah's vision in chapter 6*, apparently. As I said, he seems to be an absolute Marcionite. He of course can be what the fuck he likes, but I'd like to see some consistency in his thinking.
*Just to remind you, Vlad, here is the relevant scripture:
In the year that King Uzziah died, I SAW the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”
-
Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability. These were not Christians(how could they be) but some became Christians subsequently
You have decided, on your understanding of god which you wish to foist on us, that this god cannot be detected by the ordinary senses, despite all the assertions in the OT, that people did indeed see 'him'. This is just playing with words. At the Transfiguration, was Jesus empirically detected, or was he by this time only half spiritual, but with just enough of the material to allow him to be seen? And when he appeared to Mary Magdalen, was he still in a halfway house situation? This sounds like a reductio ad absurdum summary, by it does highlight the ultimate absurdity of your own initial speculations, which are only based on a faith position from the first - and the contradictions in that are only too apparent, as many here have pointed out.
-
You have decided, on your understanding of god which you wish to foist on us,
No, I'm just saying what my understanding of God is.
As an agnostic atheist, In any discussion with a theist I would often jump to the time honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against God himself. Have you considered that possibility?
The Bible is repleat with references to God's empirical invisibility.
The trouble of course is fallaciously equating empirical susceptibility with actual existence/ reality. Fallacious because of the circularity of the argument "Only things which can be empirically detected exist because they are the only things which can be empirically detected". There is the added problem that that is itself a concept and not a thing which can be empirically detected.
-
Vlad,
No, I'm just saying what my understanding of God is.
“Beliefs about”, not “understanding of”. The latter implies an epistemic certainty that you've yet to justify.
As an agnostic atheist, In any discussion with a theist I would often jump to the time honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against God himself. Have you considered that possibility?
As an agnostic a-leprechaunist, in any discussion with a leprechaunist I would often jump to the time-honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against leprechauns themselves. Have you considered that possibility?
What would be the point of “considering a possibility” when there’s nothing to suggest it might be any more than that?
The Bible is repleat with references to God's empirical invisibility.
It’s “replete”, and the Harry Potter books are replete with characters flying around on broomsticks too. So?
The trouble of course is fallaciously equating empirical susceptibility with actual existence/ reality.
Straw man. Do you know of anyone who actually does that?
Fallacious because of the circularity of the argument "Only things which can be empirically detected exist because they are the only things which can be empirically detected". There is the added problem that that is itself a concept and not a thing which can be empirically detected.
Which is not an argument anyone either you or I know of actually makes, so why bother with the straw man?
Oh, and the actual fallacy here is your shifting of the burden of proof. If you want to claim that something exists, then it’s your job to justify your claim. Complaining that the supposed object isn’t amenable to empirical detection and that that’s a problem for empiricism is either idiotic or dishonest, or both.
-
Vlad,
“Beliefs about”, not “understanding of”. The latter implies an epistemic certainty that you've yet to justify. But cannot there be epistemic certainty AND the justification of epistemic certainty?
As an agnostic a-leprechaunist,
As an agnostic a - leprechaunist any claim that anybody is ramming anything "Leprechaun" down your throat sounds complete shite. Moreover, since you are the chief mentioner of Leprechauns around here, it's just another instance of your talent for projection. Some call that a gift, others, a character flaw.
-
Vlad,
But cannot there be epistemic certainty AND the justification of epistemic certainty?
Yes, but you’ve never yet been able to provide any of the latter. That’s your problem.
As an agnostic a - leprechaunist any claim that anybody is ramming anything "Leprechaun" down your throat sounds complete shite.
You never have grasped how analogies work have you. It’s not for lack of explaining it to you though is it. Ah well.
Moreover, since you are the chief mentioner of Leprechauns around here, it's just another instance of your talent for projection. Some call that a gift, others, a character flaw.
No, it’s a “talent” for explaining to you that your attempts at reasoning are “shite” when they apply equally to leprechauns.
Oh, and I see you’ve just run away from my explaining your efforts at a straw man and the shifting of the burden of proof fallacies. ‘twas ever thus I guess.
-
How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments?
If you can't detect a phenomenon, you can't possibly know if it exists.
The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.
No. The experience is only proof that you had an experience. It doesn't mean it was caused by something outside of your own mind. You need an objective test to do that.
-
How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments?
If something can't be detected, in what way is it a phenomenon? It's at best a rumour...
O.
-
If you can't detect a phenomenon, you can't possibly know if it exists. No. The experience is only proof that you had an experience. It doesn't mean it was caused by something outside of your own mind. You need an objective test to do that.
But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.
-
Vlad,
But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.
Utter bollocks. It’s only “rooted” the reasoning that, if you think empiricism isn’t up to the job of validating your claim of an objective truth (gods, leprechauns, whatever) then it’s your job to find another method that is. Repeatedly straw manning empiricism instead isn’t helping you here.
-
Vlad,
Utter bollocks. It’s only “rooted” the reasoning that, if you think empiricism isn’t up to the job of validating your claim of an objective truth (gods, leprechauns, whatever) then it’s your job to find another method that is. Repeatedly straw manning empiricism instead isn’t helping you here.
Stop turdpolishing.
Empiricism is based on a circular argument and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself. Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.
Is experience, opinion?.......Don't think so.
-
But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.
No it isn't. It's a statement of fact. You may not like it, but it is trivially true.
-
Stop turdpolishing.
Empiricism is based on a circular argument and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself. Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.
Is experience, opinion?.......Don't think so.
OK. You tell us how you can know something is real without being able to detect it.
-
Vlad,
Stop turdpolishing.
Falsifying your lousy reasoning isn’t “turdpolishing”.
Empiricism is based on a circular argument…
No it isn’t. Your straw man version of it may be, but empiricism itself isn’t.
…and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself.
Yes it has. Try jumping out of a window to test my claim that you’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards against your claim that an angel will float you gently to the ground if you don’t believe me. That’s empiricism.
Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.
Stop evading. If you think there’s a god and you give this god the characteristic of being beyond the scope of empiricism to detect, that’s not a problem for empiricism. It’s a problem for your claim and, until and unless you can come up with another method to distinguish your claim from just guessing, then guessing is all you have. Try to remember this.
-
OK. You tell us how you can know something is real without being able to detect it.
With your innate God detector of course.
Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.
-
Vlad,
With your innate God detector of course.
Oh of course - “innate God detector” eh? Riiiiggghhhttt… (backs away slowly, making sure to remove any sharp objects along the way etc).
So that would differ from my innate leprechaun detector how exactly?
Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.
Of course we do though know how the sense of smell works…
… so how does this “innate God detector” thingy of your work then? Does it work only for one or for several gods? Which ones and why? Does it show up in MRI scans? How would you know even if you could demonstrate such a thing when it is and isn’t accurate? What if I think I've "detected" leprechauns too?
Do tell!
-
Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.
Isn't relying on your senses the very empiricism that's circular reasoning?
O.
-
Vlad,
Oh of course - “innate God detector” eh? Riiiiggghhhttt… (backs away slowly, making sure to remove any sharp objects along the way etc).
Steady old chap.
So that would differ from my innate leprechaun detector how exactly?
Your innate leprechaun detector is your eyes, ears, nose, skin and tongue...of course you wouldn’t use your tongue, probably, but a leprechaun obsessive? Who knows?
Of course we do though know how the sense of smell works
Yes but dogs don’t and they can smell better than we can.
… so how does this “innate God detector” thingy of your work then?
I don’t know but then we are still speculating on awareness of qualia and why the red we see is inadequately described in terms of knowledge by it’s wavelength, for instance. In other words knowing how experience works is not the same as the experience
In terms of detecting one or many, have you heard of a condition called dipoplia?
-
Isn't relying on your senses the very empiricism that's circular reasoning?
O.
Empiricism is relying on instrumentation whether natural or artificial for the detection of energy transfers.
-
With your innate God detector of course.
Clearly you're just making shit up again. If there were such a sense, then we wouldn't have people all over the world 'detecting' entirely different gods or other supernatural beings.
-
Empiricism is based on a circular argument
Please explain.
-
Please explain.⁵
The "circular argument for empiricism" refers to the criticism that the very idea of validating empirical evidence as the sole source of knowledge relies on a circular reasoning, where you must already accept the validity of sensory experience to establish the criteria for judging what counts as valid sensory experience, essentially using experience to justify the very notion of experience as reliable.
Explanation:
The core concept:
Empiricism states that all knowledge originates from sensory experiences, meaning our understanding of the world is based on what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell.
The circularity:
To argue for empiricism, one would need to use reasoning based on sensory data, but to trust that sensory data is reliable, you must already accept the premise that experience is the primary source of knowledge, creating a circular logic.
-
In that case, surely any epistemological position is circular. You have to start with a basic, untestable assumption with all of them
-
Vlad,
Your innate leprechaun detector is your eyes, ears, nose, skin and tongue...of course you wouldn’t use your tongue, probably, but a leprechaun obsessive? Who knows?
And that’s different from your supposed innate god detector how exactly? Try to remember here that if you want to assert into existence a non-material god able to make himself visible and invisible at will, I can do the same for leprechauns.
Yes but dogs don’t and they can smell better than we can.
Relevance?
I don’t know but then we are still speculating on awareness of qualia and why the red we see is inadequately described in terms of knowledge by it’s wavelength, for instance. In other words knowing how experience works is not the same as the experience
So certain phenomena have yet to be fully explained, therefore you can make up new phenomena entirely that have no evidence for their existence at all? Hmmm…
In terms of detecting one or many, have you heard of a condition called dipoplia?
I suggest you confine yourself for now to demonstrating that this supposed “innate god detector” exists at all given the total absence of evidence for it so far.
Good luck with that though.
-
Vlad,
The "circular argument for empiricism" refers to the criticism that the very idea of validating empirical evidence as the sole source of knowledge relies on a circular reasoning, where you must already accept the validity of sensory experience to establish the criteria for judging what counts as valid sensory experience, essentially using experience to justify the very notion of experience as reliable.
Explanation:
The core concept:
Empiricism states that all knowledge originates from sensory experiences, meaning our understanding of the world is based on what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell.
The circularity:
To argue for empiricism, one would need to use reasoning based on sensory data, but to trust that sensory data is reliable, you must already accept the premise that experience is the primary source of knowledge, creating a circular logic.
This car crash reasoning of calling empiricism “circular” only works if you straw man it. Empiricism limits itself to being “true” only insofar as its axioms are true, and nothing more. It makes no claims to absolute truths, which is why incidentally its crowning achievement of science describes its most robust explanations as "theories" and not "proofs".
Try to remember this too, especially as you've been schooled on it so many times already.
-
Is the God detector an organ translating information or data on energy transfers, No. I can see how one might want to add it to the stock of empiricism as a temporary win. Does empiricism cover the spiritual? Who knows? What is different here is that it
Is God who is being detected and I'm not sure the empiricist would want that.
I could talk of Maths detectors or morality detectors telling us right from wrong.
-
Empiricism is relying on instrumentation whether natural or artificial for the detection of energy transfers.
Empiricism is relying on sensory experience - we augment it with instrumentation to make phenomena that aren't intrinsically observable somehow observable, but it's the sensory experience that makes something empirical, not how big your meter is.
Wiktionary - Empiricism (philosophy) A doctrine which holds that the only or, at least, the most reliable source of human knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the physical senses. (Often contrasted with rationalism.) [from 18th c.]
A pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation. [from 19th c.]
O.
-
With your innate God detector of course.
WTF is an "innate God detector"? My innate bullshit detector is pinging loudly.
Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.
It's weird though, how, when I've recently had a bacon sandwich, everybody who walks into the kitchen can tell, even though I've cleared up the plate and the frying pan.
-
WTF is an "innate God detector"? My innate bullshit detector
That which detects that the matter of God is close to or at hand, stimulating an engage or evacuate response, theism or antitheism. Drawing close or dodging. In terms of Bullshit detector, have you calibrated it to eliminate the high background level I notice in your posts? It's weird though, how, when I've recently had a bacon sandwich, everybody who walks into the kitchen can tell, even though I've cleared up the plate and the frying pan.
You need to get out more.
-
That which detects that the matter of God is close to or at hand...
Any why should anybody take your claim that this is actually something real at all seriously?
While we can clearly detect that (endless different, and often contradictory) versions of God exist as ideas in people's minds (and when they come up in conversation and hence produce a response), but detecting an actual God. You need extraordinary evidence or reasoning for that claim, of which you have provided not the first hint.
-
That which detects that the matter of God is close to or at hand, stimulating an engage or evacuate response, theism or antitheism. Drawing close or dodging. In terms of Bullshit detector, have you calibrated it to eliminate the high background level I notice in your posts?
A swing and a miss from Vlad.
Honestly, you are full of it.
You need to get out more.
Says the man who is convinced his version of the Sky Fairy is true.
-
That which detects that the matter of God is close to or at hand ....
Which is?
-
In that case, surely any epistemological position is circular. You have to start with a basic, untestable assumption with all of them
That sums it up. Start with the presumption that there is a God and you've had incontrovertible experience of IT, then you end up with - Vlad.
-
With your innate God detector of course.
I was absolutely convinced I had one (but gave the 'whatever' the benefit of the doubt that I might not quite know how to use it). Now I'm pretty convinced 'innate God detectors' have all the flaws of a tool from Poundland.
So, returning to Isaiah chapter 6, that was Isaiah's innate God detector acting at full tilt, whilst there was nothing empirically detectable, and those around the prophet (had there been any) would have seen nothing?
Other explanations are available.
Innate God detectors would have trouble with the following, since it involves quite a few people at once:
Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel.
Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Now there is a well-attested explanation for that: it is called a collective hallucination.
Or the wild imaginings of a biblical scribe.
-
Vlad,
Is the God detector an organ translating information or data on energy transfers, No.
Or is it just something you’ve made up with not a shred of supporting evidence to support the claim so as to retro-fit its supposed results with your a priori assumption “god”?
Hmmm… I can see how one might want to add it to the stock of empiricism as a temporary win.
Why would anyone want to do that as, so far, it’s just white noise?
Does empiricism cover the spiritual?
Does anything given the absence of even a coherent definition for the term, let alone any evidence that it exists at all? Does empiricism cover uy)*^&kjg? Who knows?
Who knows? What is different here is that it
Is God who is being detected and I'm not sure the empiricist would want that.
Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. So there’s an “innate god detector” that detects, well, god (or gods maybe?), and you know that’s true because “What is different here is that it Is God who is being detected”.
Does anything strike you as being just a teensy-weensy bit circular about that?
Something?
Anything?
I could talk of Maths detectors or morality detectors telling us right from wrong.
You doubtless could, and if you did it would be as much utter bollocks as your bizarre claim of a (previously undiscovered) “innate god detector”.
Oh, and no reply to your falling apart when you claimed empiricism to be circular then I see? Fair enough – I guess there was no coming back from that disaster after all.
-
Vlad,
Or is it just something you’ve made up with not a shred of supporting evidence to support the claim so as to retro-fit its supposed results with your a priori assumption “god”?
Why would anyone want to do that as, so far, it’s just white noise?
Does anything given the absence of even a coherent definition for the term, let alone any evidence that it exists at all? Does empiricism cover uy)*^&kjg? Who knows?
Been a while since you tried the begging the question fallacy. So there’s an “innate god detector” that detects, well, god (or gods maybe?), and you know that’s true because “What is different here is that it Is God who is being detected”.
Does anything strike you as being just a teensy-weensy bit circular about that?
Something?
Anything?
You doubtless could, and if you did it would be as much utter bollocks as your bizarre claim of a (previously undiscovered) “innate god detector”.
Oh, and no reply to your falling apart when you claimed empiricism to be circular then I see? Fair enough – I guess there was no coming back from that disaster after all.
I think people are aware of not only my observation of interest and attraction of and to God talk, namely people feel the warmth of "God things" but also the vehemence and lengths gone to reject God when at too close a proximity e.g. opting out of sufficient reason when the necessary entity is mentioned.
That goes for gate keeping behaviour as demonstrated by some keeping their flock safely in the pen.
-
Vlad,
I think people are aware of not only my observation of interest and attraction of and to God talk, namely people feel the warmth of "God things" but also the vehemence and lengths gone to reject God when at too close a proximity e.g. opting out of sufficient reason when the necessary entity is mentioned.
That goes for gate keeping behaviour as demonstrated by some keeping their flock safely in the pen.
What is this gibberish even supposed to mean?
You made various errors in reasoning. Those errors were identified and explained to you (again). You've just ignored the problem this gives you in favour of incoherent irrelevance. Why not instead try at least to deal with, say, your mistake about the nature of empiricism?
-
Vlad,
What is this gibberish even supposed to mean?
You made various errors in reasoning. Those errors were identified and explained to you (again). You've just ignored the problem this gives you in favour of incoherent irrelevance. Why not instead try at least to deal with, say, your mistake about the nature of empiricism?
As I've told you before, when one looks beyond this forum, it's "Death of God" narrative has been greatly exagerrated.
Fallacy of composition indeed.
-
Vlad,
As I've told you before, when one looks beyond this forum, it's "Death of God" narrative has been greatly exagerrated.
More incoherent avoidance. So about your empiricism screw up... (again)?
Fallacy of composition indeed.
One of several fallacies on which you routinely rely.
-
As I've told you before, when one looks beyond this forum, it's "Death of God" narrative has been greatly exagerrated.
Fallacy of composition indeed.
Would you like Marjorie Taylor Greene as one of your stormtroopers?
-
As I've told you before, when one looks beyond this forum, it's "Death of God" narrative has been greatly exagerrated.
Which is not even argumentum ad populum. More like argumentum ad incertos sensus animarum diversarum (argument from vague sensations of various 'spiritualities')
-
I think people are aware of not only my observation of interest and attraction of and to God talk, namely people feel the warmth of "God things" but also the vehemence and lengths gone to reject God when at too close a proximity e.g. opting out of sufficient reason when the necessary entity is mentioned.
That goes for gate keeping behaviour as demonstrated by some keeping their flock safely in the pen.
I'll have a go at unpicking this (more fool me). I suppose you are saying that you note many people are interested in discussing God because they have some inborn ability to sense God (according to you), but once they feel that such discussion actually foments this sense of God's presence, people are impelled to vehemently repress those feelings by adopting defensive arguments to escape the consequences of adopting a religious belief (I detect the influence of Freud and his ideas about repressing the contents of the unconscious here). Now as regards "opting out of sufficient reason" as an example (according to you) of this duplicitous evasion, I must say this is utter bollocks. I believe you mentioned Russell earlier, particularly in the context of his famed encounter with Copleston, when asked to trace back the sequence of "sufficient reasons", simply stated "The universe just IS, and there's and end of it". Now do you honestly think Russell spent his whole philosophical life in an attitude of theological evasion? I suggest he had far better things to do, both in mathematics, philosophy and in his heroic campaign for world peace, than waffling on about the unprovable claims of the existence of the "Necessary Entity".
-
We're back on familiar ground, of course, and Steve's original topic has been left floundering.
Maybe there wasn't much more to be said on it. I think the Don Cupitt way of reviving Christianity has little chance of ultimate success, since for a start it would involve stretching the words in which Christian faith is formulated to such an extent that they would cease to have any meaning. People 'do' religion, it is true, but how to rescue meaningful religious symbols from the archaic language of the Book of Common Prayer, for instance, is surely a non-starter.
The trouble is, other attempts at 'atheistic religion' such as Compte's? during the era of the French Revolution haven't had much success either.
-
I'll have a go at unpicking this (more fool me). I suppose you are saying that you note many people are interested in discussing God because they have some inborn ability to sense God (according to you), but once they feel that such discussion actually foments this sense of God's presence, people are impelled to vehemently repress those feelings by adopting defensive arguments to escape the consequences of adopting a religious belief (I detect the influence of Freud and his ideas about repressing the contents of the unconscious here).
With the exception that I may have used the word subconscious instead of unconscious, I think it’s a fair assessment. But it is no wild punt since there are those who attest to a realisation that that is their experience. Indeed there are those who consciously repress it and have attested to it. What are we to make of people like Krauss and Nagel who have admitted to not wanting there to be a God?Now as regards "opting out of sufficient reason" as an example (according to you) of this duplicitous evasion, I must say this is utter bollocks.
Well that’s a positive assertion and I look forward to your justification I ^^believe you mentioned Russell earlier, particularly in the context of his famed encounter with Copleston, when asked to trace back the sequence of "sufficient reasons", simply stated "The universe just IS, and there's and end of it". Now do you honestly think Russell spent his whole philosophical life in an attitude of theological evasion? I suggest he had far better things to do, both in mathematics, philosophy and in his heroic campaign for world peace, than waffling on about the unprovable claims of the existence of the "Necessary Entity".
I didn’t realise Russell could have declared the universe “Brute fact so shut up” because he had other fish to fry.” I think you are waxing a bit too hagiographic there Pants.
-
With the exception that I may have used the word subconscious instead of unconscious, I think it’s a fair assessment. But it is no wild punt since there are those who attest to a realisation that that is their experience. Indeed there are those who consciously repress it and have attested to it. What are we to make of people like Krauss and Nagel who have admitted to not wanting there to be a God? ..........
Would that be the Lawrence Krauss who wrote
"The apparent logical necessity of First Cause is a real issue for any universe that has a beginning. Therefore, on the basis of logic alone, one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature." ?
From 'A Universe From Nothing'
-
Would that be the Lawrence Krauss who wrote
"The apparent logical necessity of First Cause is a real issue for any universe that has a beginning. Therefore, on the basis of logic alone, one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature." ?
From 'A Universe From Nothing'
He may well have said that but what has it to do with not wanting a God?
-
He may well have said that but what has it to do with not wanting a God?
Hardly sounds like a bloke who was an avid practitioner of your favourite deepity "God-dodging"
-
Hardly sounds like a bloke who was an avid practitioner of your favourite deepity "God-dodging"
Goddodging is just a term meaning God avoidance.
Since God crops up in many fields and desire is a field then not wanting is at very least a desire to repress something. Unless you are suggesting that not wanting is "The lack of want" and not an emotional rejection of.
Deism of course is God at his most remote or God, but safely out of the way.
-
Goddodging is just a term meaning God avoidance.
How do you avoid something that isn't there?
Since God crops up in many fields, and desire is a field, then not wanting is at very least a desire to repress something.
That God crops up in many fields is evidence of religious people in those fields, not necessarily of any relevance of gods to those fields.
Desire could be considered a field, yes.
Not wanting does not amount to 'repression' - lack of desire is something in and of itself, it's not an active attempt to suppress anything.
Unless you are suggesting that not wanting is "The lack of want" and not an emotional rejection of.
Bingo.
Deism of course is God at his most remote or God, but safely out of the way.
It's a view of gods that attempts to reconcile the world we see with what we'd expect to see if gods were real.
O.
-
How do you avoid something that isn't there?
Positive assertion. I'm sure you know then what your duties and responsibilities are hereforth. .
-
Positive assertion. I'm sure you know then what your duties and responsibilities are hereforth.
My behaviour isn't dependent upon reality, it's dependent upon my understanding of reality - whether or not gods are real, if I don't believe they are there's no rationale for asserting that my actions are an attempt to avoid them. That might be interpreted to be the effect, but it makes no sense to allege it's the intention or the motivation.
Regards,
Steve
-
My behaviour isn't dependent upon reality, it's dependent upon my understanding of reality - whether or not gods are real, if I don't believe they are there's no rationale for asserting that my actions are an attempt to avoid them. That might be interpreted to be the effect, but it makes no sense to allege it's the intention or the motivation.
Regards,
Steve
I think that when Krauss and Nagel state that they don't want God, I don't think they are themselves proposing that there is a rationale for them not wanting God. They are in a way not unlike those who wouldn't worship God even if one were proved to them.
Since it appears you do think there is a rationale why not unpack what we know about that and what we do know is that those reasons are not actually atheist.
E.g. Evil God, Cosmic spoilsport God to name but two.
-
I think that when Krauss and Nagel state that they don't want God, I don't think they are themselves proposing that there is a rationale for them not wanting God. They are in a way not unlike those who wouldn't worship God even if one were proved to them.
Since it appears you do think there is a rationale why not unpack what we know about that and what we do know is that those reasons are not actually atheist.
E.g. Evil God, Cosmic spoilsport God to name but two.
Can you give us a quote from Krauss at least so that we can see what they actually said on these matters, rather than relying on your interpretation?
I'm not averse to reading, but until today, Krauss was not within my purview (that's a lovely word; I'm sure Trump would claim to have invented it)
-
Can you give us a quote from Krauss at least so that we can see what they actually said on these matters, rather than relying on your interpretation?
I'm not averse to reading, but until today, Krauss was not within my purview (that's a lovely word; I'm sure Trump would claim to have invented it)
Unbelievable podcast 58.01 Apparently Krauss was on talking about his avowed ANTITHEISM "I don't want to be judged by God, that's the bottom line."
-
Vlad,
Goddodging is just a term meaning God avoidance.
Actually gods (it would apply to any claim of any god) and it’s incoherent in any case. People given no sound reason to think there is/are gods aren’t thereby “dodging” the god/s they’ve been given no sound reason to think exist in the first place.
Are you leprechaun dodging?
Why not?
Since God crops up in many fields and desire is a field then not wanting is at very least a desire to repress something. Unless you are suggesting that not wanting is "The lack of want" and not an emotional rejection of.
No, it’s just a rejection of wrong arguments - just as you also presumably reject wrong arguments attempted to justify other propositions (eg leprechauns).
Deism of course is God at his most remote or God, but safely out of the way.
Pretty much – though it’s more like “I think there is a god (or gods) but beyond that there’s nothing I can say about that god”. If the “necessary entity” argument wasn’t holed below the waterline by its various other fallacies, at best deism is where it would lead to because it tells you nothing at all about which god/gods/super advanced aliens/whatever was the supposed necessary cause.
Oh, and can I assume that you intend to keep running away from your most recent (but often repeated) screw up about the characteristics of empiricism?
-
I think that when Krauss and Nagel state that they don't want God, I don't think they are themselves proposing that there is a rationale for them not wanting God.
But you think lots of things that aren't based on what people have said directly to you - why don't you cite particular pieces by Krauss or Nagel so we can see what it is that you're actually trying to parse?
They are in a way not unlike those who wouldn't worship God even if one were proved to them.
That's a different argument, but still not 'god-dodging' (by definition).
Since it appears you do think there is a rationale why not unpack what we know about that and what we do know is that those reasons are not actually atheist.
I don't know if there's a rationale, you've given us nothing to work with, I've just pointed out that asserting atheism is god-dodging is definitionally nonsense. The burden of proof, no matter how many times you try to pass the buck on it, remains with you as the person making the claim. I can dismiss the case for god that you aren't making purely on the basis that you haven't made it.
O.
-
But you think lots of things that aren't based on what people have said directly to you - why don't you cite particular pieces by Krauss or Nagel so we can see what it is that you're actually trying to parse?
That's a different argument, but still not 'god-dodging' (by definition).
I don't know if there's a rationale, you've given us nothing to work with, I've just pointed out that asserting atheism is god-dodging is definitionally nonsense. The burden of proof, no matter how many times you try to pass the buck on it, remains with you as the person making the claim. I can dismiss the case for god that you aren't making purely on the basis that you haven't made it.
O.
I’m not equating God dodging with atheism, since religious people could and do indulge in it as well.
If anyone says, as you have “ How can you dodge something that doesn’t exist” you land yourself with a burden of proof.
Krauss stated that he does not want to be judged by God. That’s his bottom line apparently. Unbelievable podcast 58.01...
Since a craze has sprung up in wanting citations, I shall attempt to find the Nagel reference.
-
Here’s the Nagel reference
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-mean
-
If anyone says, as you have “ How can you dodge something that doesn’t exist” you land yourself with a burden of proof.
Nope - wrong way around Vlad - as ever.
The concept of 'dodging' something is predicated on the notion that the thing you are dodging exists. Therefore the burden rests with those arguing for the 'dodging' activity to prove the thing they claim others are dodging actually exists.
If I do not believe something exists there is no burden of proof on me to prove the thing I don't believe exists actually does not exist. Still less is there some kind of burden on me to prove that I am not dodging something that I so not think exists - clearly that is logical nonsense as I cannot be engaging in dodging something if I do not think that think actually exists.
-
I’m not equating God dodging with atheism, since religious people could and do indulge in it as well.
It's a feature of your contributions, but if I've mistaken it this time I apologise.
If anyone says, as you have “ How can you dodge something that doesn’t exist” you land yourself with a burden of proof.
And, as I explained, no you don't. Or, at least, I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, just that I don't believe it does. You don't dodge things that aren't there, you make no conscious efforts to get out of the way of non-existent things. It's not 'dodging'. It might, coincidentally, result in avoiding something you believe is there, but you can't attribute a conscious decision to avoid something.
O.
-
Nope - wrong way around Vlad - as ever.
The concept of 'dodging' something is predicated on the notion that the thing you are dodging exists. Therefore the burden rests with those arguing for the 'dodging' activity to prove the thing they claim others are dodging actually exists.
If I do not believe something exists there is no burden of proof on me to prove the thing I don't believe exists actually does not exist. Still less is there some kind of burden on me to prove that I am not dodging something that I so not think exists - clearly that is logical nonsense as I cannot be engaging in dodging something if I do not think that think actually exists.
You seem to be saying if I don’t believe something exists it can’t affect me.
This isn’t what Underpants and myself are discussing which is about not fully realising what you are doing. Being unconscious that you are doing it. It’s also about behaviour and attitudes having no real rationale...see the Nagel quote.
There are two standout God dodging behaviours, one is the suspension of sufficient reason when the argument from contingency gets near to a final entity beyond which further entities are unnecessary and saying that an entity not dependent on a universe it creates, as postulated in simulated universe has nothing in common with the same suggestion in religion, a flagrant dodging of what’s in front of you if ever there was one.y
-
Vlad,
There are two standout God dodging behaviours, one is the suspension of sufficient reason when the argument from contingency gets near to a final entity beyond which further entities are unnecessary and saying that an entity not dependent on a universe it creates, as postulated in simulated universe has nothing in common with the same suggestion in religion, a flagrant dodging of what’s in front of you if ever there was one.y
Did any of this gibberish make sense in your head when you typed it?
The argument from contingency is a shit argument for the reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring. Your repeated assertion of it doesn’t make it any less of a shit argument. Try to understand this.
-
With the exception that I may have used the word subconscious instead of unconscious, I think it’s a fair assessment. But it is no wild punt since there are those who attest to a realisation that that is their experience. Indeed there are those who consciously repress it and have attested to it. What are we to make of people like Krauss and Nagel who have admitted to not wanting there to be a God? Well that’s a positive assertion and I look forward to your justification I didn’t realise Russell could have declared the universe “Brute fact so shut up” because he had other fish to fry.” I think you are waxing a bit too hagiographic there Pants.
Someone can not want there to be a god based on the descriptions of that god. It doesn't mean they have sensed the presence of god in the first place but just that they are aware of the concept.
-
Someone can not want there to be a god based on the descriptions of that god. It doesn't mean they have sensed the presence of god in the first place but just that they are aware of the concept.
True it doesn't necessarily mean they have sensed God but then those objections to God won't actually be atheist or actual arguments for atheism, Antitheism maybe but not atheism.
-
True it doesn't necessarily mean they have sensed God but then those objections to God won't actually be atheist or actual arguments for atheism, Antitheism maybe but not atheism.
They will. They are not convinced that God or gods exist. Fits perfectly with never having sensed God.
-
Vlad,
…but then those objections to God won't actually be atheist or actual arguments for atheism…
The only arguments atheism requires are falsifications of the various arguments theists attempt to justify their claims of gods.
The only arguments a-leprechaunism requires are the falsifications of the various arguments leprechaunists attempt to justify their claims of leprechauns.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
-
They will. They are not convinced that God or gods exist. Fits perfectly with never having sensed God.
They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation? Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him. Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist? Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God. He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him. He feels God is judging him perhaps
But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.
And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.
-
Vlad,
The only arguments atheism requires are falsifications of the various arguments theists attempt to justify their claims of gods.
The only arguments a-leprechaunism requires are the falsifications of the various arguments leprechaunists attempt to justify their claims of leprechauns.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
But that isn't the issue. We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,
We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.
-
But that isn't the issue. We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,
We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.
To want or not want something, or desire or not desire it (nice bit of tautology by the way), implies that whatever this 'something' is it can be meaningfully established so that it can indeed be acquired or can be rejected.
If not, then it may as well not exist, and there is nothing of substance to be bothered about or take seriously in the first place.
-
They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation? Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him. Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist? Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God. He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him. He feels God is judging him perhaps
But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.
And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.
I don't know as I'm not him but I know of atheists who say that the God described in the bible is not one they would want to exist - someone who judges, threatens eternal fire, is willing to wipe out civilisations, supports slavery etc etc.
No idea how the observation that the subconscious makes decisions before we are aware of them in our conscious mind leads to the idea of evading God.
-
They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation?
They haven't sensed any gods, not just yours - as to why they don't want God, that probably is, specifically, your god. That's because it's depicted as misogynist, homophobic, jealous, genocidal, aggressive, abusive drama queen. It's predicated on an abusive relationship - I can't guarantee to speak for Krauss or Nagel, but I suspect that whilst they don't believe in any gods, when they say they don't want a god the god they don't want is the one advocated by the vocally hateful in their community.
Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him.
I'd object if I thought that god was going to get to judge me, too - but one of the reasons I'm an atheist is because that depiction of god is so nonsensical as to be not worthy of being considered a god.
Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist?
You'd have to ask him, but amongst the possibilities: religion is problematic; religious people are problematic; Christianity, particularly the vocal, aggressive, nationalist American version, are problematic to him.
Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God.
Because that god is a psychopath. Because that god accepts slavery, but decries homosexuality. Because that god decries murder, but kills off the entirety of humanity. Because that god's entire nature is predicated on the notion of vicarious guilt and blood sacrifice.
He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him.
He doesn't want that god because anyone that does want that god has issues.
He feels God is judging him perhaps
He feels that god doesn't deserve to sit in judgement on anyone.
But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.
It's possible. It's also possible to think that you want god, when what you really want is the feeling of belonging to a community like a religious congregation.
And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.
That still doesn't work. Even if you want a god, if you don't believe in it you aren't going to try to evade it.
O.
-
...
I'd object if I thought that god was going to get to judge me, too - but one of the reasons I'm an atheist is because that depiction of god is so nonsensical as to be not worthy of being considered a god.
You'd have to ask him, but amongst the possibilities: religion is problematic; religious people are problematic;
...
O.
Thanks for explaining to me that my much missed dear sainted mother was 'problematic'. What a smug attitude to have.
-
To want or not want something, or desire or not desire it.
I didn’t say “not desire it”. That allows room for a “ merely the lack of desire” dodge/defence.
I said “desire not to have it”.
I suppose you can be a theist and still desire not to have God.
-
I don't know as I'm not him but I know of atheists who say that the God described in the bible is not one they would want to exist - someone who judges, threatens eternal fire, is willing to wipe out civilisations, supports slavery etc etc.
But they are not actually atheist arguments. They are bad god arguments, or i’m More moral than god arguments, or god is a cosmic spoilsport arguments in short alienation or of God is like this I don’t want him arguments.
No idea how the observation that the subconscious makes decisions before we are aware of them in our conscious mind leads to the idea of evading God.
What I am saying is the consciousness is quite often the last to know.
In my Fair Lady Professor Higgins rants about his student Eliza when he suddenly realises he has already fallen for her.
-
Thanks for explaining to me that my much missed dear sainted mother was 'problematic'. What a smug attitude to have.
I'm suggesting those are possible reasons for Krauss and Nagel to hold those positions - I'm not advocating for them myself.
Certainly, I'm of the opinion that there are problematic religious people, who are problematic because of their religious views, but I wouldn't classify all religious people as problematic (and I'd suggest that probably few if any others do, either).
O.
-
What I am saying is the consciousness is quite often the last to know.
In my Fair Lady Professor Higgins rants about his student Eliza when he suddenly realises he has already fallen for her.
But why would you see this in one direction only - in other words atheists coming to realise they actually do believe in god.
Nope - it most certainly cuts both ways Vlad. I know, because my journey was exactly the opposite.
I (and you Vlad, I guess) were brought up within a world where the default orthodoxy was that god existed. And so as a child and into early adulthood my assumption was the same - my conscious told me that god must exist because it was presumed/assumed by society that god existed. Actually I occasionally pushed myself into activities that tried to cement that 'orthodoxy', specifically church youth groups and other activities that were close to (but not fully) active worship.
But then I came to recognise that I try as I might to 'pretend' to believe that god existed, when I let my inner thoughts through it was clear that I did not believe in god and had never really believed in god. Which is why I describe my 'conversion' (not that it was that) as coming to recognise that I was atheist, not as becoming atheist (because I always was although for a while I tried not to let myself accept this).
So while you bang on about 'god dodging' (which is predicated on a presumption that god exists) I was most definitely 'atheism dodging' for a time in my life - and unlike god there is no doubt that atheism actually exists.
-
Vlad,
But that isn't the issue.
It’s one of the issues you raised but if you want to talk about something else now that’s up to you.
We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,
For myself, I would not want it to be the case that the genocidal, petulant, vindictive, bigoted, capricious, psychopathic god portrayed in the OT is real. Why would anyone?
Incidentally, a nice line from a recent Philomena Cunk episode: “God's unforgiving nature means his believers try to stay in his good books through a form of organised grovelling called worship”.
We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.
You might be, but remember that desiring or not deserting something tells you nothing about whether it’s true.
PS I’m assuming as you keep ignoring the falsification that you now accept that empiricism doesn’t have the characteristics you claimed it to have. Fair enough.
PPS Note too by the way that theoretically it’s possible to be a theist antitheist – ie, to think the arguments for god(s) are sound, but also to prefer god(s) not to be real, to think that religious belief does more harm than good etc.
-
I didn’t say “not desire it”. That allows room for a “ merely the lack of desire” dodge/defence.
I said “desire not to have it”.
In your #176 you said "We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have." Now I certainly 'desire' to have another Fender guitar but I do not 'desire' to have a Gibson guitar - and both are freely available to me (assuming I have the required dosh).
However, this 'God' you speak doesn't seem to be available to me at all, so the 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' situation you mentioned doesn't even arise.
-
Hi Gordon,
In your #176 you said "We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have." Now I certainly 'desire' to have another Fender guitar but I do not 'desire' to have a Gibson guitar - and both are freely available to me (assuming I have the required dosh).
However, this 'God' you speak doesn't seem to be available to me at all, so the 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' situation you mentioned doesn't even arise.
Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.
-
Hi Gordon,
Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.
Perhaps I've not been clear: to get as far as Vlad's 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' there must surely be some 'object' under consideration, hence my example of guitars that; a) are available, and b) I know something about their characteristics and attributes in order to come to a 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' position.
As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).
-
As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).
Can you say why? After all we can place a meaning on Leprechauns and Tooth fairies.
In other words, can you show that your categorisation is anything more than getting a laugh from the gallery?
-
Can you say why? After all we can place a meaning on Leprechauns and Tooth fairies.
In other words, can you show that your categorisation is anything more than getting a laugh from the gallery?
As far as I can see they are all fictional characters that are portrayed as having magical properties: they can certainly be portrayed as such, and Gandalf is another example: but as far as I can see though there are no grounds to take any of them seriously, but of course I doubt that many do is the cases of Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and Gandalf - that some take 'God' seriously is a puzzler to me.
-
Vlad,
Incidentally, a nice line from a recent Philomena Cunk episode: “God's unforgiving nature means his believers try to stay in his good books through a form of organised grovelling called worship”.
Apparently the person who performs as Cunk couldn't perform one night because " She felt a little funny.
Her manager told her to "get on stage, quick, before it wore off"
-
Perhaps I've not been clear: to get as far as Vlad's 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' there must surely be some 'object' under consideration, hence my example of guitars that; a) are available, and b) I know something about their characteristics and attributes in order to come to a 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' position.
As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).
I suspect that part of the problem is that the origin of the word 'God' is believed to be Proto-Indo-European .......'ghut' which meant "that which is invoked". It is pretty vague and perhaps allows a human being to invoke what satisfies particular desires leading to many gods e.g. god of power, god of love, god of good fortune etc, etc. Then of course there is the need to placate such gods when things go wrong and fear is the driving force. The 'many gods' eventually is replaced by One God with many attributes.
-
I suspect that part of the problem is that the origin of the word 'God' is believed to be Proto-Indo-European .......'ghut' which meant "that which is invoked". It is pretty vague and perhaps allows a human being to invoke what satisfies particular desires leading to many gods e.g. god of power, god of love, god of good fortune etc, etc. Then of course there is the need to placate such gods when things go wrong and fear is the driving force. The 'many gods' eventually is replaced by One God with many attributes.
But as Vlad might say, was this merely the evolution of an idea - or the developing of insight into what was really there from the very first? (Well, of course we know that Vlad believes that this 'something' was there from the very first, and not only was it there as a Unity, but it also had the attributes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Surprising, that.)
-
Hi Gordon,
Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.
Hi blue,
It took me a long time to realise that all the arguments for god(s) are crap, but I can certainly see that if there were the possibility of an all-loving, all-forgiving Father G, that would be really lovely. I see absolutely nothing now, either in life itself, experience or intellectual argument, that inclines me to think this is actually true.
-
Hi Dicky,
It took me a long time to realise that all the arguments for god(s) are crap,…
All that we know of, but yes. One disappointment here for me is that of the theists who try to argue their position AB scatters logical fallacies like confetti, and Vlad just ignores the falsifications he’s given and repeats the same wrongheaded or dishonest reasoning over and over again. It’d be great to have someone with actual arguments to deploy – long ago there was briefly a Father Patrick who was a catholic priest I think, but sadly he dropped out quite quickly.
…but I can certainly see that if there were the possibility of an all-loving, all-forgiving Father G, that would be really lovely.
I’m not so sure about that. Christopher Hitchens used to compare the totalitarianism of Kim Jong Un with a god who’s aware of and polices your every thought, awake and asleep and then judges you for them. The difference though was that you could escape the former (“at least you can fucking die”) whereas the latter has you for all eternity. Allegedly.
I see absolutely nothing now, either in life itself, experience or intellectual argument, that inclines me to think this is actually true.
Me neither.
-
Hi Dicky,
I’m not so sure about that. Christopher Hitchens used to compare the totalitarianism of Kim Jong Un with a god who’s aware of and polices your every thought, awake and asleep and then judges you for them. The difference though was that you could escape the former (“at least you can fucking die”) whereas the latter has you for all eternity. Allegedly.
Nietzsche reported a conversation about God between a mother and her little daughter:
"Is the loving Father everywhere?"
"Yes, darling."
"Well, I think it quite improper."
-
But they are not actually atheist arguments. They are bad god arguments, or i’m More moral than god arguments, or god is a cosmic spoilsport arguments in short alienation or of God is like this I don’t want him arguments.
They aren't atheist arguments, no (in that they don't explain why people don't believe in God or gods). But you asked 'why do they not want God?' and that is what I was posting about. They are also points of argument against some of the things Christians say about their God (all loving etc). They are arguments for why people don't that God or gods exist.
-
But as Vlad might say, was this merely the evolution of an idea - or the developing of insight into what was really there from the very first? (Well, of course we know that Vlad believes that this 'something' was there from the very first, and not only was it there as a Unity, but it also had the attributes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Surprising, that.)
I suspect that part of the problem is the language used to communicate 'inner' experiences and ideas. It is usually the language of 'mythos' e.g. analogy, parable, fable rather than logic. When presented to a largely illiterate society of the past it possibly took on humanly recognised attributes. Add to this the change into other languages over time and the lack of certainty that the translators gave an identical representation of what was being conveyed.
-
I think people are aware of not only my observation of interest and attraction of and to God talk, namely people feel the warmth of "God things" but also the vehemence and lengths gone to reject God when at too close a proximity e.g. opting out of sufficient reason when the necessary entity is mentioned.
That goes for gate keeping behaviour as demonstrated by some keeping their flock safely in the pen.
You have excelled yourself - this is even more pretentiously gobbledegookian than usual.
-
They may never have sensed God.......
SO not god-dodging then?
-
SO not god-dodging then?
I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God, and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel) and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic. There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".
Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?
-
I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God, and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel) and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic. There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".
Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?
You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?
Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.
-
You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?
Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.
For context
https://www.papertrell.com/apps/preview/The-Handy-Philosophy-Answer-Book/Handy%20Answer%20book/What-did-St-Augustine-mean-when-he-said-Please-God-make-me-g/001137013/content/SC/52caff5682fad14abfa5c2e0_Default.html
-
You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?
Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.
I shall resist the temptation to be smart and say "Spot the no true atheist" argument.
I'm sure nobody prays to God, if they can help it. Just like nobody fears God will judge them(Krauss) or nobody actively and for reasons they can't explain fear God (Nagel), if they can help it
I think it was the English cleric and evangelist David Watson who, prior to his christianity and theism prayed 'experimentally' which I guess was his freedom as an agnostic.
-
I shall resist the temptation to be smart and say "Spot the no true atheist" argument.
I'm sure nobody prays to God, if they can help it. Just like nobody fears God will judge them(Krauss) or nobody actively and for reasons they can't explain fear God (Nagel).
I think it was the English cleric and evangelist David Watson who, prior to his christianity and theism prayed 'experimentally' which I guess was his freedom as an agnostic.
How can someone pray to something they don't believe exists? The dictionary definition of prayer is 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.' Unless you are using the word prayer differently.
I doubt God would be fooled by someone praying who didn't actually have a belief in him 'just in case'.
-
Vlad,
I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God,…
And I think I've said there may be those who are not “conscious” of having sensed leprechauns either. So what though?
…and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel)
Fallacy of reification. If you want to assert a god engaged in pressuring, then you need to demonstrate this supposed god’s existence a priori.
…and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic.
No you haven’t. You may have met people who believed there to be one or more gods and avoided the implications of that, but you have no argument to suggest that the belief was well founded.
There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".
Or a muslim. Or a leprechaunist. So?
Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?
How do you know that you haven’t sensed leprechauns? Do you know what a sense of leprechauns is?
You might want to trouble yourself with establishing your premise “God” before worrying about whether people have “sensed” this conjecture. You know - the claim you attempt to justify with crap arguments, and then run away from when their crapness is explained to you so you can repeat the same crap arguments later on, presumably in the hope that no-one notices.
-
How can someone pray to something they don't believe exists? The dictionary definition of prayer is 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.' Unless you are using the word prayer differently.
I doubt God would be fooled by someone praying who didn't actually have a belief in him 'just in case'.
An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.
I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response.
-
Vlad,
An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.
That's not what "agnostic" means.
I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response.
No you don't. They may have "dodged" what they believed to be a "response," but that's all.
-
An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.
I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response.
You can't, in my opinion, genuinely send a message to something you don't believe in.
-
Vlad,
That's not what "agnostic" means.
OK, then I may not be talking about people who don't know there is a God and think they cannot know and that the same goes for everybody. A commitment to which might prevent speculative attempts to communicate with God....But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.
No you don't. They may have "dodged" what they believed to be a "response," but that's all.
That sounds like a positive assertion, Hillside... You know what you have to do.
-
You can't, in my opinion, genuinely send a message to something you don't believe in.
Not sure that's so, unless you have a commitment to that disbelief.
Take SETI as an example, You may not know if there is extra terrestrial life, you may not even believe it, but that doesn't have to prevent you from being the one sending the message out.
I can see that someone committed to ignorance on the matter might refuse to.
I might add that there are those who say we should not be sending messages into space because we might not like the response.
The parallels with making or not making an attempt to communication with God are obvious IMHO.
-
As far as I can see they are all fictional characters
I think you'd have to evidence to yourself that someone invented God rather than God being real and subsequently makes appearances in fictional works that are portrayed as having magical properties: they can certainly be portrayed as such, and Gandalf is another example: but as far as I can see though there are no grounds to take any of them seriously, but of course I doubt that many do is the cases of Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and Gandalf - that some take 'God' seriously is a puzzler to me.
Magical? I do not think Fairies and Leprechauns don't exist primarily because they do magic but because beings matching their physical description have not been verified when being physical they should be.
It seems to me a universe popping out of nothing fits the term magic as does cosmic perpetual motion, infinite universes (evidence!?)and yet these are calmly suggested.
-
But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.
You make it sound like going fishing.
You may know that there are such things as fish, and you speculatively go fishing in a particular river in the hope of catching some, and even though you may not catch any on that occasion your knowledge that there are indeed such things as fish in rivers remains secure. You know for sure that there is intelligent (in some but not all cases) life on this wee planet, so casting some bait in the hope of a bite from elsewhere in the universe may be equally speculative, but this speculation is grounded by the knowledge there there is life on at least one planet - so worth a cast, even if nothing bites.
However, 'God' is not an item of knowledge in the same way that there are fish is an item of knowledge: some may say that 'God' is unknowable, and others may say that the claim is a meaningless fantasy, and in either of these cases taking the trouble of sending a message in the hope that something bites seems pointless - a bit like going fishing on a water-free concrete roof. If, however, some do believe that 'God' is an item of knowledge, and that it reacted to their bait and they caught something, then they should be able to offer the fish they've caught for inspection, but they never do!
PS I have never been fishing in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. But I do seem to recall that 'fishing' does loom large in some Christian anecdotes, so I thought I'd dip a toe in the water.
-
You make it sound like going fishing.
You may know that there are such things as fish, and you speculatively go fishing in a particular river in the hope of catching some, and even though you may not catch any on that occasion your knowledge that there are indeed such things as fish in rivers remains secure. You know for sure that there is intelligent (in some but not all cases) life on this wee planet, so casting some bait in the hope of a bite from elsewhere in the universe may be equally speculative, but this speculation is grounded by the knowledge there there is life on at least one planet - so worth a cast, even if nothing bites.
However, 'God' is not an item of knowledge in the same way that there are fish is an item of knowledge: some may say that 'God' is unknowable, and others may say that the claim is a meaningless fantasy, and in either of these cases taking the trouble of sending a message in the hope that something bites seems pointless - a bit like going fishing on a water-free concrete roof. If, however, some do believe that 'God' is an item of knowledge, and that it reacted to their bait and they caught something, then they should be able to offer the fish they've caught for inspection, but they never do!
PS I have never been fishing in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. But I do seem to recall that 'fishing' does loom large in some Christian anecdotes, so I thought I'd dip a toe in the water.
SETI is of course an analogy and yet you are right to remind us that the search for something we are generally agnostic about has to be seen in the round.
There are people who don’t think enough resources are given to it and there are those who think oto much is invested. And then there are those who say all right we will indulge this but we will only go at it half heartedly. And these attitudes prevail in the search for God.
It also reminds me that not seeking probably increases the chance of not finding, that we carry on or give up, that it may be, if we are looking for something like an intelligence they can choose if, when and who they reveal themselves to.
-
Professor Davey wrote
But why would you see this in one direction only - in other words atheists coming to realise they actually do believe in god.
Who saying I do? I think people do go from belief to unbelief but it’s worth considering when and why that happens. As I understand it, for an agnostic atheist there is never a time when they don’t believe that God is possible. How being utterly convicted that there is no God, I don’t know how that works
\
Nope - it most certainly cuts both ways Vlad. I know, because my journey was exactly the opposite.
I (and you Vlad, I guess) were brought up within a world where the default orthodoxy was that god existed. And so as a child and into early adulthood my assumption was the same - my conscious told me that god must exist because it was presumed/assumed by society that god existed. Actually I occasionally pushed myself into activities that tried to cement that 'orthodoxy', specifically church youth groups and other activities that were close to (but not fully) active worship.
Could it not be said then that you were letting society do your believing? I’m not sure when I was a child I had such a structured sociology and accompanying vocabulary. It certainly never struck me on the way back from the sweet shop that “The default orthodoxy of the world was that God existed”. I rocked up at Sunday school until I gave that up at a very early age except for the Christmas party and the day trips to Wicksteed amusement park. I can recall being fascinated by concepts like immortal, invisible, light inaccessible but sadly, trying to retroactively inject spiritual significance, I’m confronted with having been a young fan of Doctor Who where such concepts were staple.
But then I came to recognise that I try as I might to 'pretend' to believe that god existed, when I let my inner thoughts through it was clear that I did not believe in god and had never really believed in god. Which is why I describe my 'conversion' (not that it was that) as coming to recognise that I was atheist, not as becoming atheist (because I always was although for a while I tried not to let myself accept this).
I’m not sure I reached your heights of, what am I to call it? False belief, but then I cannot say I disbelieved it either. I was probably in the “there is probably something greater” camp.So while you bang on about 'god dodging' (which is predicated on a presumption that god exists) I was most definitely 'atheism dodging' for a time in my life - and unlike god there is no doubt that atheism actually exists.
Now wait a minute, God dodging was a behaviour I had observed as a child in being told never to speak about politics and religion and the removal and tidying up of the articles of religion left by a zealous uncle, and of course the families I knew who avoided church on a Sunday and every other day of the year.
As for atheism dodging, iI thought atheism was merely the lack of belief rather than an actual thing.
-
SETI is of course an analogy and yet you are right to remind us that the search for something we are generally agnostic about has to be seen in the round.
There are people who don’t think enough resources are given to it and there are those who think oto much is invested. And then there are those who say all right we will indulge this but we will only go at it half heartedly. And these attitudes prevail in the search for God.
It also reminds me that not seeking probably increases the chance of not finding, that we carry on or give up, that it may be, if we are looking for something like an intelligence they can choose if, when and who they reveal themselves to.
None of which deals with the idea that we 'kniw' life exists but not 'god(s)'.
-
None of which deals with the idea that we 'kniw' life exists but not 'god(s)'.
So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?
-
So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?
And? We kno intelligence exists as in life. God is not a similar claim, especially given your other claim that God is not observable. As usual your position is riddled with inconsistencies and bad thinking.
-
And? We kno intelligence exists as in life. God is not a similar claim, especially given your other claim that God is not observable. As usual your position is riddled with inconsistencies and bad thinking.
I'm not trying to stretch the metaphor/analogy as far as you are. I just said that the approaches and attitudes in a matter of agnosticism in something are similar e.g. There are some who seek, and some who don't want to make the effort and those who don't make the effort because they are frightened of getting a response.
Knowing there is life and intelligence here apparently doesn't in itself answer the question of whether it is elsewhere does it?
-
I'm not trying to stretch the metaphor/analogy as far as you are. I just said that the approaches and attitudes in a matter of agnosticism in something are similar e.g. There are some who seek, and some who don't want to make the effort and those who don't make the effort because they are frightened of getting a response.
Knowing there is life and intelligence here apparently doesn't in itself answer the question of whether it is elsewhere does it?
But that' s a huge difference with a claim that something exists which is not shown to exist, and which you say is not observable. Your approach on this is based on the begging the question of God's existence.
-
So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?
Actually an equivalent comparison would be that we have evidence that one god exists, so why not try to seek evidence that more gods exist. Unfortunately, as we have no evidence that any god exists, your comparison with SETI is dead in the water.
Or, another way of putting it is that the essential prerequisite is to provide evidence that at least one god exists and, so far, that has failed miserably. Whereas SETI is based on the uncontroversial evidence that life exists here and therefore it is at least possible that life exists elsewhere.
-
Actually an equivalent comparison would be that we have evidence that one god exists, so why not try to seek evidence that more gods exist. Unfortunately, as we have no evidence that any god exists, your comparison with SETI is dead in the water.
Or, another way of putting it is that the essential prerequisite is to provide evidence that at least one god exists and, so far, that has failed miserably. Whereas SETI is based on the uncontroversial evidence that life exists here and therefore it is at least possible that life exists elsewhere.
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.
It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?
Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic,including....
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out, committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.
-
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.
Nope - the 'aim' just to gather and present evidence, and from that pose provisional explanations that maybe revised should other evidence come to light. Theism is irrelevant, since it ain't naturalistic as things stand.
It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?
There is none, to date.
Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out, committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.
Then your analogy is fundamentally flawed since 'extant life' and 'supernatural agency' are clearly different things, and where the latter has no supporting evidence. As such there is nothing to 'fear'.
-
Nope - the 'aim' just to gather and present evidence, and from that pose provisional explanations that maybe revised should other evidence come to light. Theism is relevant, since it ain't naturalistic as things stand.
There is none, to date.
Then your analogy is fundamentally flawed since 'extant life' and 'supernatural agency' are clearly different things, and where the latter has no supporting evidence. As such there is nothing to 'fear'.
My analogy is about the pathway open to the agnostic.
-
My analogy is about the pathway open to the agnostic.
To clarify - I've amended my post since I meant to say 'theism is irrelevant'.
How can there be a pathway towards nothing that can be shown to be a valid destination?
-
To clarify - I've amended my post since I meant to say 'theism is irrelevant'.
How can there be a pathway towards nothing that can be shown to be a valid destination?
It depends what you mean by valid destination. I have to check because I recall you previously declared God impossible and therefore no agnosticism for you.
Of other agnostics here they are of the "cannot know" whether God exists" variet so they effectively are in the same boat as you, as are those who "don't know" and think that nobody else does. In other words they have a prior commitment to atheism.
But that doesn't rule out that someone might not know but be open to finding out.
-
It depends what you mean by valid destination. I have to check because I recall you previously declared God impossible and therefore no agnosticism for you.
Nope: don't think I ever said that. What I have said is that in the absence of convincing evidence 'God' isn't a serious proposition as things stand. However unlikely, I have to concede that if convincing evidence is ever presented I'd have to revise my view. Meantime though, I can treat Christianity as being just codified nonsense.
Of other agnostics here they are of the "cannot know" whether God exists" variet so they effectively are in the same boat as you, as are those who "don't know" and think that nobody else does. In other words they have a prior commitment to atheism.
I'd say that most atheists are agnostic.
But that doesn't rule out that someone might not know but be open to finding out.
To find something you have to have to at least have an idea that what you are looking for is amenable to being searched for.
-
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else ...
Not sure if this is idiocy, lying or lying idiocy. Yet again you look like you are a WUM taking the piss out of people with religion
-
Not sure if this is idiocy, lying or lying idiocy. Yet again you look like you are a number taking the puss out of people with religion
I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?
I don’t deny that SETI is looking for something out there for something that’s down here, so what? That can only be a metaphor for an issue that definitionally has no out there and down here and I don’t understand your stretching the metaphor.
If you realised that naturalistic methodology and methodological empiricism do not yield their philosophical counterparts as I recall you once used to you would realise why people can feel and discuss the spiritual and make analogy with things they know in the material world.
-
I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?
In spite of the time of year, Vlad, be careful with all that straw: I've never said I favoured philosophical naturalism, but then you already know that.
-
I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?
I don’t deny that SETI is looking for something out there for something that’s down here, so what? That can only be a metaphor for an issue that definitionally has no out there and down here and I don’t understand your stretching the metaphor.
If you realised that naturalistic methodology and methodological empiricism do not yield their philosophical counterparts as I recall you once used to you would realise why people can feel and discuss the spiritual and make analogy with things they know in the material world.
It is not the 'aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything ' else . You've had that explained multiple times so you are either being an idiot or lying about it. All you are doing is making it loo like someone with a religion is either an idiot or a liar.
-
Vlad,
OK, then I may not be talking about people who don't know there is a God and think they cannot know and that the same goes for everybody. A commitment to which might prevent speculative attempts to communicate with God....But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.
Still wrong. An agnostic simply finds the notion of god(s) to be unknowable, axiomatically so. Thus if, say, an agnostic followed a set of religious instructions about praying, absent any method to test the veracity of a supposed response they still wouldn’t have a basis to accept the claim “god”.
That sounds like a positive assertion, Hillside... You know what you have to do.
And still you don’t understand how the burden of proof works, despite it being explained to you countless times. Really though? It was you who said “I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response”. It’s your job therefore to establish that they were in fact admitting to “dodging” an actual response, and not just a belief that they’d had a response.
You know therefore what you have to do.
-
Vlad,
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.
That’s not he “aim” of naturalism and empiricism at all. The aim of naturalism and empiricism it to provide logically coherent, evidence-based explanations for the way observable phenomena work.
-
In spite of the time of year, Vlad, be careful with all that straw: I've never said I favoured philosophical naturalism, but then you already know that.
From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.
-
It is not the 'aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything ' else . You've had that explained multiple times so you are either being an idiot or lying about it. All you are doing is making it loo like someone with a religion is either an idiot or a liar.
How else do philosophical naturalists and philosophical empiricist demonstrate the rectitude of their position?
-
From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.
I can't be held responsible for the limitations of some of my 'audience'.
-
Vlad,
Still wrong. An agnostic simply finds the notion of god(s) to be unknowable, axiomatically so. Thus if, say, an agnostic followed a set of religious instructions about praying, absent any method to test the veracity of a supposed response they still wouldn’t have a basis to accept the claim “god”.
And still you don’t understand how the burden of proof works, despite it being explained to you countless times. Really though? It was you who said “I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response”. It’s your job therefore to establish that they were in fact admitting to “dodging” an actual response, and not just a belief that they’d had a response.
You know therefore what you have to do.
I have to disagree. When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong. Of course that is what agnosticism. Is as you now tell us.
I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise by anyone or can be known.
But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.
For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?
If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.
However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search
To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism, agnosticism.
Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel
-
I can't be held responsible for the limitations of some of my 'audience'.
The 'gallery' will be most amused, Gordon.
-
I have to disagree. When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong. Of course that is what agnosticism. Is as you now tell us.
I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise by anyone or can be known.
But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.
For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?
If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.
However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search
To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism, agnosticism.
Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel
You are again begging the question and assuming hod exists.
-
From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.
Sad liar lies, again, and puts themselves in the position of being objective, and uses a ad populum. Quite a lot of shivery in that post.
-
How else do philosophical naturalists and philosophical empiricist demonstrate the rectitude of their position?
That anyone might try and demonstrate the correctness of a position does not mean the aim of their position is to demonstrate that, as that would be circular. It also presupposes that positions have aims which you haven't demonstrated. You've also as so often used the term empiricism and naturalism in a post without the qualification of philosophical and then inserted it, which again could be idiocy, or lying. Your thinking is mushy, your writing messy.
-
You arecagain begging thecquestiin and assuming hod exists.
To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.
-
To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.
Indeed but so might any number of thing, and since you have said your god is not observable, there is no method for searching. And I'll reiterate that your post contained a begging of the wuestion, similar to the many times before, and when it's pointed out you continue to repeat the error. Why is that? Lying? Or are you too stupid to understand?
-
To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.
Not really: an agnostic who takes the view that 'God' is a claim about which there is inadequate knowledge to come to any reasonable conclusion (the 'unknowable' bit) says nothing about the existence or non-existence of said 'God'.
You seem to have the unerring ability to confuse yourself without any help from the rest of us.
-
Not really: an agnostic who takes the view that 'God' is a claim about which there is inadequate knowledge to come to any reasonable conclusion (the 'unknowable' bit) says nothing about the existence or non-existence of said 'God'.
Are you using a Bollocks loom?
-
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.
Complete rubbish. Naturalism and empiricism are not concerned particularly with theism at all. Empiricism is simply an important method of ascertaining facts about the natural world by observation. The idea that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself is certainly not within the remit of empiricism which simply goes where the evidence leads.
It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?
We don't know, that is exactly what SETI, along with many other approaches, is trying to find out.
Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic,including....
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out, committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.
Then it's a rubbish analogy on your part for the reasons I've already given. Furthermore a person who is agnostic wouldn't fit very well with the SETI analogy because an agnostic person would not be inclined to seek empirical evidence as they would regard the idea of God to be unknowable anyway.
My opinion is that you seem to be following your own distorted agenda which has little relation to the real thing. Mind you, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
-
The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence
No it isn't.
-
But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.
For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?
Because there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for.
If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.
Bertrand Russell would like you to pour the tea for him and the Invisible Pink Unicorn to drink while you demonstrate that.
However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search:
To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism, agnosticism.
Fine, suggest a better methodology. Everyone is aware of the fact that these philosophies (with the possible exception of agnosticism) has limitations, but what you keep doing is throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Or, rather, presuming that the baby is God because the bathwater is murky.
Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel
People who don't believe in a god can't fear it. They might suggest that if it were real, and as depicted, they would fear it.
O.
-
Vlad,
I have to disagree.
With a definition? Well, you can disagree all you like with standard definitions to create your own reality, but so what?
When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong.
Yes. That’s not what agnosticism is. Again: it’s the position that such a thing is inherently unknowable. There are plenty of online dictionaries available if you want to look it up
Of course that is what agnosticism.
Of course it isn’t. See above.
Is as you now tell us.
?
I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise by anyone or can be known.
Glad you got there eventually.
But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.
Yes. Because they’d have no means to know whether a god had answered or something else had happened. You can say the same about leprechauns of course, but again - so what?
For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?
Because theists who claim there to be god(s) offer no means of verifying the results.
If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.
Anything might exist, and it’s impossible to find if there’s no verifiable means of finding it. This holds true for gods and leprechauns alike.
However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search
To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism, agnosticism.
Then, as so often, your view is wrong. “Philosophies of naturalism, empiricism…” etc have nothing to say about truth claims that position themselves outside the purview of naturalism, empiricism etc. Your problem though is that nor do such claims offer any other method of verification that’s epistemologically distinguishable from subjective opinions and guesswork.
Perhaps if for once you tried not just assuming your a priori assumption “God” to be true – ie the begging the question fallacy – you wouldn’t keep going to obviously wrong?
-
Because there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
-
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
Stop being silly: you really are quite dense it seems, if after all this time you still can't grasp that when it comes to a definition of 'God' the burden of proof falls on you 'God' enthusiast guys. To point out that there is no logically coherent definition of 'God' is not a positive assertion: it is a critique of the failure of you guys to provide a definition that stands scrutiny.
You know what you must do now - which is produce a logically coherent definition of 'God', and then the rest of us can check if it out.
-
Stop being silly: you really are quite dense it seems, if after all this time you still can't grasp that when it comes to a definition of 'God' the burden of proof falls on you 'God' enthusiast guys. To point out that there is no logically coherent definition of 'God' is not a positive assertion: it is a critique of the failure of you guys to provide a definition that stands scrutiny.
A
You know what you must do now - which is produce a logically coherent definition of 'God', and then the rest of us can check if it out.
The bollocks loom is out again I see.
First of all he made a positive assertion and so has the burden.
Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?
Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.
The trouble is when scrutinised on your so called scrutiny, it seems that it was a past, uncitable event.
I believe the most recent effort was “The universe just is”.
You seem to be arguing that no argument has been provided and that this argument is incoherent.
So to help you I will put some arguments in front of you and it should be easy for you to show where the fallacy lies.
Moral argument
Kalamaz Cosmological Argument
Argument from contingency
I would also invite you to state why the following definitively rule God out
Fallacy of composition
Ontological argument
Teleological argument
As I say going on what you say. You should easily be able to demonstrate this or make citations.
-
Do your own homework, Vlad: there is a wealth of material on fallacies and rebuttals of certain arguments you can study, including any number of posts made in this wee message board.
It isn't my job to correct your naivety, especially since you have already been the recipient of so much corrective advice for so long.
-
Do your own homework, Vlad: there is a wealth of material on fallacies and rebuttals of certain arguments you can study, including any number of posts made in this wee message board.
It isn't my job to correct your naivety, especially since you have already been the recipient of so much corrective advice for so long.
So no immediate progress on backing your claim of showing incoherence.
-
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
Ask for a coherent definition. I've done that, I'm still waiting. Crack on, though, crack on.
O.
-
So no immediate progress on backing your claim of showing incoherence.
I refer the honourable gentleman to content of his own posts.
'God' is your claim: not mine, and therefore the coherence, or lack of it, of a definition of 'God' is a matter for you and not me.
-
...the honourable gentleman
That’s progress of sorts I suppose.
-
Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?
Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.
How do you search for a prime mover or first cause...what methods do you use that will identify that something is the first mover and prime cause? As opposed to you thinking about the concept and putting ideas about what you need onto it as wishful thinking?
If there is no method to identify the first mover and prime cause, why would other people bother trying to search for it when they don't feel a need to look for or find a first mover or prime cause?
-
How do you search for a prime mover or first cause...what methods do you use that will identify that something is the first mover and prime cause? As opposed to you thinking about the concept and putting ideas about what you need onto it as wishful thinking?
If there is no method to identify the first mover and prime cause, why would other people bother trying to search for it when they don't feel a need to look for or find a first mover or prime cause?
You can have theism without first mover and first cause, if somehow you remove the idea of a first anything, there remains the idea of the fundemental. The argument from contingency need not mention time then.
I believe it was Nearly Sane who said the religious do not in general place their faith chiefly in intellectual arguments and I agree.
But look at it this way, what are the implications for God if there were a prime mover or first Cause and it wasn’t God?
Does abandoning argument and conceding ground which others merely assume they command equate to “better faith” though? No, I don’t believe it does.
-
Ask for a coherent definition. I've done that, I'm still waiting. Crack on, though, crack on.
O.
The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.
-
aBecause there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
It's a negative assertion! You obviously understand the burden of proof about as well as you d the difference between "its" and "it's", something else you've been corrected over many times but keep getting wrong.
-
Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
It's a negative assertion! You obviously understand the burden of proof about as well as you d the difference between "its" and "it's", something else you've been corrected over many times but keep getting wrong.
Keep up, the assertion is that all definitions for God are incoherent.
-
Keep up, the assertion is that all definitions for God are incoherent.
So the burden of prof is on you to provide a logically coherent definition.
-
You can have theism without first mover and first cause, if somehow you remove the idea of a first anything, there remains the idea of the fundemental. The argument from contingency need not mention time then.
I believe it was Nearly Sane who said the religious do not in general place their faith chiefly in intellectual arguments and I agree.
I would agree with you - my faith isn't based on intellectual arguments. I also don't worry about it as humans are a mix of intellect and emotion and in many of my closest relationships I have made far better decisions that worked out well for me and the other person when I let my emotion lead over my intellect.
I think many people have no emotional or intellectual need for exploring a "fundamental".
But look at it this way, what are the implications for God if there were a prime mover or first Cause and it wasn’t God?
Depends on your definitions of "God" and "prime mover" and "first cause". On this thread about the supernatural, how would we even identify a non-natural "prime mover" or "first cause". I think I know what you mean by the concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" or "fundamental" of a natural world. With the supernatural anything is possible. We are part of the natural world, made up of emotion and intellect, and we do not have a way of investigating supernatural concepts - other than thinking about them. I don't have a need to go any further than thinking about it.
Does abandoning argument and conceding ground which others merely assume they command equate to “better faith” though? No, I don’t believe it does.
I agree with you that there is a point to discussion - I enjoy coming on here - the more we discuss and explore the concepts intellectually - the combination of thinking about this stuff and also connecting emotionally to the concepts by practising my faith, the happier and grounded I feel.
In terms of arguments, you seem to be arguing that there is a possibility and others have agreed that anything is possible. Without a method to investigate the possibility, not sure intellectual arguments can progress any further?
-
The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.
Doesn't work, Vlad: the 'thing' you mention here in this premise is just code for 'God', reads as the same as your implied conclusion of 'therefore God'.
So you're begging the question here (a fallacy).
-
If Walt had a dramatic epiphany, and realised he was wrong about something with a sharp intake of breath, would he become Vlad the Inhaler?
-
Doesn't work, Vlad: the 'thing' you mention here in this premise is just code for 'God', reads as the same as your implied conclusion of 'therefore God'.
So you're begging the question here (a fallacy).
”Therefore God” isn’t actually in the formulation. In the argument from contingency, just a necessary entity is arrived at. Aquinas then says “and this we call God” not “therefore God”.
If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.
All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.
-
”Therefore God” isn’t actually in the formulation. In the argument from contingency, just a necessary entity is arrived at. Aquinas then says “and this we call God” not “therefore God”.
It's implied - what I think you're, in effect, saying is "'God' is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on - therefore 'God'", which is circular.
If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.
But I don't agree with that.
All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.
No I don't: the 'necessary entity' thing is your schtick: not mine.
-
If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.
Not sure what you mean by logically coherent? Do you mean it's a possibility?
There is also the possibility that there is not a singular thing - because there is the possibility of multiple uncaused things appearing at the same time.
All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.
Do you agree that theism is compatible with multiple uncaused things?
-
The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.
You've still failed to demonstrate there is such a thing.
O.
-
I think many people have no emotional or intellectual need for exploring a "fundamental".
Sounds like you think that is the superior condition Depends on your definitions of "God" and "prime mover" and "first cause". On this thread about the supernatural, how would we even identify a non-natural "prime mover" or "first cause". I think I know what you mean by the concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" or "fundamental" of a natural world. With the supernatural anything is possible. We are part of the natural world, made up of emotion and intellect, and we do not have a way of investigating supernatural concepts - other than thinking about them. I don't have a need to go any further than thinking about it.
I think the question is what is the definition of natural? Can then, something which is the prime mover or first cause, fit in with the definition of natural since they are, by definition unique.
-
You've still failed to demonstrate there is such a thing.
O.
Depends what you mean by demonstrate.
-
Not sure what you mean by logically coherent?
The term logical incoherence was introduced earlier on and not by me so I’m unsure why an explanation is encumbant on me. Logical coherence is a chain in which there are no false statements and/ or explanatory gaps and/ or irrelevant
So an infinite chain of events is coherent but doesn’t arguably answer the question why something and not nothing for example.
That contingency is satisfied by having a necessary entity which is not itself contingent satisfies the issue of contingency in a way that leaving it unsatisfied does not.
-
It's implied - what I think you're, in effect, saying is "'God' is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on - therefore 'God'", which is circular.
No, it isn't circular, it is merely providing a definition for "God", so perhaps a tautology.
Unfortunately, this definition has a number of problems amongst which are:
- how do we know there is a necessary thing on which all contingent things are dependent? It could be turtles all the way down.
- there is no evidence that this god is related in any way to the gods of any particular religion
- it tells us nothing about the nature of God, which means it doesn't really answer any of the questions we have about the origin of the Universe.
-
It's implied - what I think you're, in effect, saying is "'God' is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on - therefore 'God'", which is circular.
No, What I am saying is “The necessary entity is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on”.
-
No, it isn't circular, it is merely providing a definition for "God", so perhaps a tautology.
Unfortunately, this definition has a number of problems amongst which are:
- how do we know there is a necessary thing on which all contingent things are dependent? It could be turtles all the way down.
- there is no evidence that this god is related in any way to the gods of any particular religion
- it tells us nothing about the nature of God, which means it doesn't really answer any of the questions we have about the origin of the Universe.
It’s actually “Turdholes, not “Turtles” “Kicking the can” all the way “down the road”.
-
- there is no evidence that this god is related in any way to the gods of any particular religion
Because being the reason for all things is part of their beliefs.
- it tells us nothing about the nature of God, which means it doesn't really answer any of the questions we have about the origin of the Universe.
Except why it exists rather than doesn’t exist.
-
Except why it exists rather than doesn’t exist.
Well no, because of the first bullet point. But even if it does exist, we still can't answer the important questions. We don't know anything about it.
-
Sounds like you think that is the superior condition
What made you assume that? I don't even know how to judge what is the "superior condition" - what makes a condition superior? Is the "superior condition" what works for the individual or is it what works for society even if it doesn't work for the individual? Is there a superior condition?
I think the question is what is the definition of natural?
Do you mean as opposed to man-made or do you mean part of the natural as opposed to supernatural world? Can then, something which is the prime mover or first cause, fit in with the definition of natural since they are, by definition unique.
Do you mean if the "thing" or "things" that caused the universe to come into existence cannot be detected by science or any other method humans can conceive - can we describe those "things" as even existing in the natural world? Or do they only exist as a concept?
-
Vlad,
The bollocks loom is out again I see.
First of all he made a positive assertion and so has the burden.
Asking you for a coherent definition of what you mean by “God” isn’t a positive assertion.
Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?
Arguably not, but there are certainly sufficient ones. That’s all you’re being asked for.
Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.
You’re writing your god’s CV, not telling us what you think this god is.
The trouble is when scrutinised on your so called scrutiny, it seems that it was a past, uncitable event.
I believe the most recent effort was “The universe just is”.
That’s as much as can be said given the current state of knowledge, yes. Your insertion of a god that's also “just is” just relocates the question, but you know this already given the multiple times it’s been explained to you.
You seem to be arguing that no argument has been provided and that this argument is incoherent.
No, he’s saying that no sound arguments have been provided. Given your relentless reliance on logical fallacies this shouldn’t be a surprise to you.
So to help you I will put some arguments in front of you and it should be easy for you to show where the fallacy lies.
Moral argument
Kalamaz Cosmological Argument
Argument from contingency
All three have been falsified countless times already, only for you to run away from the explanations when they’re given to you. What then would be the point of repeating the exercise?
I would also invite you to state why the following definitively rule God out
Fallacy of composition
Ontological argument
Teleological argument
No-one has said that they do. What has been explained to you though is that they’re shit arguments for god. This burden of proof thing really has got you confused still hasn’t it.
As I say going on what you say. You should easily be able to demonstrate this or make citations.
For what – your straw man, or the falsifications that have been given to you so many times already?
-
Do you mean as opposed to man-made or do you mean part of the natural as opposed to supernatural world? The latter
Do you mean if the "thing" or "things" that caused the universe to come into existence cannot be detected by science or any other method humans can conceive - can we describe those "things" as even existing in the natural world? Or do they only exist as a concept?
As the philosopher Maxwell Bygraves would say “ I want to tell you a story”. When as a young shaver I disembarked on this forum, me cap set at a jaunty angle and me meagre possessions wrapped up in a spotted hanky, I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing. So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all. infinities are done to death, Methodological naturalism cannot, I move pin them down, so they also go into the realm of the supernatural. So now all cosmological solutions seem to be beyond the remit of the natural.
But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.
-
Vlad,
As the philosopher Maxwell Bygraves would say “ I want to tell you a story”. When as a young shaver I disembarked on this forum, me cap set at a jaunty angle and me meagre possessions wrapped up in a spotted hanky, I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing. So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all. infinities are done to death, Methodological naturalism cannot, I move pin them down, so they also go into the realm of the supernatural. So now all cosmological solutions seem to be beyond the remit of the natural.
But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.
Absolute dog's breakfast of reasoning there. If I had any reason to think you'd actually try at least to address honestly the falsifications if I gave them to you again I'd do it but, given your behaviour here, what would be the point?
-
Vlad,
Absolute dog's breakfast of reasoning there. If I had any reason to think you'd actually try at least to address honestly the falsifications if I gave them to you again I'd do it but, given your behaviour here, what would be the point?
All you need Do is to cite them giving the reference Hillside.......Inability to explain nicely turdpolished though.
To be charitable to you maybe this is a bit like when there’s a crime and nobody has phoned the police because they think someone else has.
You think someone else has debunked these ideas so no one has.
-
Vlad,
All you need Do is to cite them giving the reference Hillside.......Inability to explain nicely turdpolished though.
To be charitable to you maybe this is a bit like when there’s a crime and nobody has phoned the police because they think someone else has.
You think someone else has debunked these ideas so no one has.
Your attempts at reasoning are all false. They're all false for the reasons that have been explained to you over and over and over again, only for you to run away from the explanations, straw man them, distract from them etc. Tell you what: you pick whichever you think is the strongest argument you have and I'll dismantle it for you on condition you agree to address the falsification honestly when it's given to you.
Deal?
-
I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing.
Are you referring to this? https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html
So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all.
What do you mean by "it cannot be natural"? From my link - "There are lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," Krauss said.
How does anyone decide that a concept is supernatural and not natural?
But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.
You're suggesting a single uncaused cause per Occam’s razor?
-
Are you referring to this? https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.htmlWhat do you mean by "it cannot be natural"? From my link - "There are lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," Krauss said.
How does anyone decide that a concept is supernatural and not natural?
You're suggesting a single uncaused cause per Occam’s razor?
That's a good question, my own guideline is, is it amenable to methodological naturalism or is it outside it.
Yes I suppose I am suggesting a single final entity as per the razor.
-
Vlad,
That's a good question, my own guideline is, is it amenable to methodological naturalism or is it outside it.
Yes I suppose I am suggesting a single final entity as per the razor.
Occam's razor gives you the opposite conclusion to "a single final entity". Try to work out for yourself why that's the case.
-
Vlad,
Occam's razor gives you the opposite conclusion to "a single final entity". Try to work out for yourself why that's the case.
The temptation to treat the universe as a single entity is certainly beguiling, and an obvious trap for you Hillside.
-
Vlad,
The temptation to treat the universe as a single entity is certainly beguiling, and an obvious trap for you Hillside.
No it isn't, and you're still screwing up Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power (ie,“the universe is its own explanation” vs “the universe-creator is its own explanation”), one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions.
The hypothesis “universe creator” requires more assumptions (ie, the supposed creator itself) than the hypothesis that’s just “the universe”. QED
-
Vlad,
No it isn't, and you're still screwing up Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power (ie,“the universe is its own explanation” vs “the universe-creator is its own explanation”), one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions.
The hypothesis “universe creator” requires more assumptions (ie, the supposed creator itself) than the hypothesis that’s just “the universe”. QED
Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.
Have another go. First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.
Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.
Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication
-
Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.
But that's exactly your argument for why God exists.
Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.
Yes and the difference between "the Universe just exists" and "the Universe exists because God and God just exists" is that the latter adds one entity with no further explanatory power. Hence we should prefer the former.
-
Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists.... It exists.
If reality is infinite, what would you be looking for as a 'reason' or cause?
First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.
Is it? Or is the universe a thing, which manifests other things as a facet of its nature? Aren't you the one who's usually so vocally opposed to the 'absurdity of reductionism'?
Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.
So I have an infinite universe, why is a cosmic wizard necessary?
Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication
The argument from contingency just asks you switch your implicit faith from the existence of a god to accepting that the nature of a god is to be non-contingent - it's still an argument from faith.
O.
-
But that's exactly your argument for why God exists.
Yes and the difference between "the Universe just exists" and "the Universe exists because God and God just exists" is that the latter adds one entity with no further explanatory power. Hence we should prefer the former.
Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity. It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.
I suspect you are thinking maths where 2-1 somehow becomes 1 whereas in physical reality there would be still be three entities.
-
Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity. It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.
But isn't your god also supposed to be formed of different parts too Vlad - so will also fall foul of your very own 'several entities' challenge.
Notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement that there must be some single 'necessary entity' (see my networks and non-unilinear time arguments on previous thread), your challenge fails to overcome Occam as addition another step that the universe is dependent on adds unnecessary complexity unless you can argue (which you have failed to do) that it is 'necessary'.
-
Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity.
Doesn't matter how many entities there are in the Universe, your hypothesis adds God to them without adding any further explanatory power.
It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.
I suspect you are thinking maths where 2-1 somehow becomes 1 whereas in physical reality there would be still be three entities.
As a person who wants us to believe 3 = 1, I think you are in a glass house, so you need to put down the stones.
-
But isn't your god also supposed to be formed of different parts too Vlad - so will also fall foul of your very own 'several entities' challenge.
Notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement that there must be some single 'necessary entity' (see my networks and non-unilinear time arguments on previous thread), your challenge fails to overcome Occam as addition another step that the universe is dependent on adds unnecessary complexity unless you can argue (which you have failed to do) that it is 'necessary'.
No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.
I don’t think the term parts has been part and parcel of theological language. In any case, that is no counter argument to a single final entity according to the razor.
Again, you are treating the universe as a single entity. It is a collection of entities which seem to be contingent unless of course you find a necessary component. Your networks and non linear time failed to rule out things being responsible for their own creation as far as I could tell which is almost but not quite a statement of necessity but doesn’t account for periods of non existence.
-
Vlad,
Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.
Two balls ups there:
1. No-one proposes “just is” as a hypothesis for why (or how) the universe exists. It’s just the statement that that’s all that can be said about it given the current state of knowledge.
2. “Just is” is also your position about your (supposed) god remember?
Have another go.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunning-kruger-effect
First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.
No I’m not, and it’s irrelevant in any case. “The universe just is” requires only the universe. “God just is” requires “God” + the universe. That’s why Occam’s razor undoes you.
Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.
But you have no argument to indicate that your faith belief “God” isn’t beyond what’s necessary for the Universe’s existence remember?
Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication
And the fallacy of composition tells you that you cannot just assume that the universe is contingent on something else.
Epic fail there Vlad, even by your dismal standards.
By the way, I offered to dismantle any argument for your god of your choosing on condition you agreed finally to respond honestly to the falsification I give you. I notice that you haven’t taken up the offer – presumably because the prospect of responding honestly to anything is too daunting for you?
-
No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.
What about the 'father, son and holy ghost' assertion? After all, according to the rumours, one of them was distinctly physical.
I don’t think the term parts has been part and parcel of theological language.
Perhaps you are taking 'theological language' a tad too seriously.
In any case, that is no counter argument to a single final entity according to the razor.
You clearly don't understand the 'razor', or fallacies in general.
Again, you are treating the universe as a single entity. It is a collection of entities which seem to be contingent unless of course you find a necessary component. Your networks and non linear time failed to rule out things being responsible for their own creation as far as I could tell which is almost but not quite a statement of necessity but doesn’t account for periods of non existence.
Until you can actually demonstrate, and explain, why and how this necessary creator/agent is it's own cause (as in 'it just is), then all you are doing is thrashing about 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Have you considered that the question of 'why' the universe exists is unknowable, as things stand, and that even presuming there is a 'why' may well be an invalid stance.
-
No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.
Unevidenced assertion.
This is your problem Vlad - you state, as objective fact, things which are unevidenced assertions and therefore no more than your subjective opinion. And then try to shoe-horn your subjective opinion into a broader logic argument. That doesn't work - if you want to claim that 'God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence', then the onus is on you to provide the evidence for that claim or, surprise surprise, the rest of us will simply ignore it.
-
Unevidenced assertion.
Ah but, Prof, Tertullian first formulated the idea, which was elaborated and finalised at the Council of Nicea* . Therefore it must be true.
btw, Tertullian was later considered a heretic.
*I do of course mean the reconciliation of the idea that God is 'composed' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet has no 'parts'
-
Ah but, Prof, Tertullian first formulated the idea, which was elaborated and finalised at the Council of Nicea* . Therefore it must be true.
btw, Tertullian was later considered a heretic.
*I do of course mean the reconciliation of the idea that God is 'composed' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet has no 'parts'
Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.
-
Prof,
Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.
I think Dicky was being sarcastic.
-
If reality is infinite, what would you be looking for as a 'reason' or cause?
I am told there are different infinities Outrider, so the question would then be, why this infinity rather than that infinity.
If the universe is infinite? why is it that it’s components occupy time and space finitely?
Now if you suggest that something persists infinitely, you would be making the same argument as me but it cannot be a finite thing obviously
You could I suppose put energy as a candidate. The problem here though is if the universe is infinite then it would be possible at one particular time for the universe to be in a state where all energy is potential energy and that in effect would be the equivalent of non existence since there would be no possibility of energy transfer.
[/quote]
-
Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?
-
Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.
Surely a literary bloke like you understands sarcasm?
-
SteveH,
Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?
Quite. One of the several failings of the cosmological argument is that it need not lead to the Christian god, to any god, to just one "creator" of any sort, to something other than super advanced aliens, to... etc etc.
Sadly as Vlad seems to be uninterested in establishing first even that universe cannot be its own explanation though, this is all second order, angels on the head of a pin stuff in any case.
-
Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?
If it were unconscious why would it create anything?
Ditto purposeless.
We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.
If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?
I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.
-
Vlad,
If it were unconscious why would it create anything?
Why wouldn’t it? Unconscious things create stuff all the time - think of the bodily functions that carry on regardless when we’re asleep.
Ditto purposeless.
No. A supposed creator might not care at all what it creates.
We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.
Gibberish.
If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?
He wasn’t. He was just asking how you’d eliminate them in order to arrive at your choice of god.
I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.
No, the burden remains with you to justify the various assertions you make and then blithely reify into facts. I suggest you start with justifying your assertion that the universe cannot be its own cause.
-
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Identifying_the_first_cause
-
Prof,
I think Dicky was being sarcastic.
I know, but I don't think Vlad really gets sarcasm and he is in thrall to the notion of appeal to tradition, so he could easily construe DU's comment as giving credence to his unevidenced assertions. So best to nip that one in the bud by my reply to DU.
-
Surely a literary bloke like you understands sarcasm?
See my reply to BHS.
I may very well be attuned enough to pick up a sarcastic remark ... but I have no confidence that Vlad would do so. So best not to allow him to misconstrue sarcasm as support.
-
See my reply to BHS.
I may very well be attuned enough to pick up a sarcastic remark ... but I have no confidence that Vlad would do so. So best not to allow him to misconstrue sarcasm as support.
Then it would, had that be your aim, beem easy enough to add 'I know you are being sarcastic but...'
-
Then it would, had that be your aim, beem easy enough to add 'I know you are being sarcastic but...'
Or an exclamation mark - sure. But I didn't - so what!
-
Or an exclamation mark - sure. But I didn't - so what!
Well you could have saved anyone mistaking your meaning.
-
If it were unconscious why would it create anything?
Ditto purposeless.
We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.
If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?
I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.
You really cannot get beyond your anthropocentricness can you.
You seem unable to even comprehend that 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' etc etc are largely features of higher neurological processes rather than fundamental physics which may have driving mechanisms (e.g. energetics) but have no 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' in the manner you seem obsessed that everything must have.
As I've also said many times, you also don't seem to be able to see beyond the notion that time is constant and unilinear - in other words that from a fundamental perspective before/after, recent/long ago etc are are objective, rather than being a subjective perception of time from a particular observational standpoint. So we might (as humans) perceive that time runs in one direction only at a constant rate, but that doesn't mean that it actually does.
-
Well you could have saved anyone mistaking your meaning.
True - which is why I have clarified my meaning when people seem to have misconstrued it. DU is hardly an unknown entity as a poster, and nor am I. So I think it would be pretty unlikely to anyone who has been around as long as we both have to think that DU would actually be supporting Vlad's comments by reference to Tertullian.
-
Tertullian was later considered a heretic.
No,he wasn't. His association with Montanism may be why he was never canonised, but neither was he condemned as a heretic. From that fount of all wisdom and knowledge, Wikipedia:
-
True - which is why I have clarified my meaning when people seem to have misconstrued it. DU is hardly an unknown entity as a poster, and nor am I. So I think it would be pretty unlikely to anyone who has been around as long as we both have to think that DU would actually be supporting Vlad's comments by reference to Tertullian.
So it was all DU and Bhs's fault for misconstruing you then
-
So it was all DU and Bhs's fault for misconstuing you then
Nope - people misconstrue other posters posts all the time. But if that has happened the best thing to do is to clarify what you actually meant.
Not really sure what the purpose of this exchange is NS. DU said something, I said something which appears to have been misconstrued (my bad, should have added and exclamation mark). I clarified what I meant. That should be an end to it.
-
Nope - people misconstrue other posters posts all the time. But if that has happened the best thing to do is to clarify what you actually meant.
Not really sure what the purpose of this exchange is NS. DU said something, I said something which appears to have been misconstrued (my bad, should have added and exclamation mark). I clarified what I meant. That should be an end to it.
Yes, oh great monitor of what 'should' happen.
-
Yes, oh great monitor of what 'should' happen.
Yawn - why exactly is this important to you NS?
-
It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.
-
It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.
My turn to apologize for misreading. I actually thought the person who didn't notice my sarcasm was you! Senility.
-
It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.
Exactly the reason for my original post. I've made sarcastic posts in the past which Vlad has then thrown back at me on the basis that I actually meant what I said rather than being sarcastic.
-
My turn to apologize for misreading. I actually thought the person who didn't notice my sarcasm was you! Senility.
Thanks - so lovely when we are all playing so nicely together ;)
-
No,he wasn't. His association with Montanism may be why he was never canonised, but neither was he condemned as a heretic. From that fount of all wisdom and knowledge, Wikipedia:
Seems a bit unstable in his beliefs to be the chap who is credited with giving the first formulation of the Trinity, though (however much it may be argued to be scriptural).
I think neither of us need to perform the juggling act of trying to reconcile "the necessary entity" with a threefold something or other. Fortunately.
-
You really cannot get beyond your anthropocentricness can you.
, It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so. You seem unable to even comprehend that 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' etc etc are largely features of higher neurological processes rather than fundamental physics which may have driving mechanisms (e.g. energetics) but have no 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' in the manner you seem obsessed that everything must have.
God is not proposed as something physical, but rather that which creates physics and the laws of physics.
As I've also said many times, you also don't seem to be able to see beyond the notion that time is constant and unilinear - in other words that from a fundamental perspective before/after, recent/long ago etc are are objective, rather than being a subjective perception of time from a particular observational standpoint. So we might (as humans) perceive that time runs in one direction only at a constant rate, but that doesn't mean that it actually does.
No, time could be variable and contain hair pin bends, or be a surface rather than a line or whatever but we are still left with two modes of being, that which is dependent on something else for it's existence and that which is not.
Will, intent, consciousness etc are all analogues of what is going on with the necessary entity,
Whereas you see something unconscious as not having the neurological chops. I see it as something which cannot have agency and were the necessary being be unconscious nothing would occur since nothing would be there to compel it.
So while consciousness might be a bad analogy unconsciousness definitely is as piss poor as it gets.
-
Vlad,
It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so.
Only to ask how you would eliminate these possibilities, not to propose them as hypotheses. And yes, it is anthropomorphism because you’re modelling your (supposed) god in your image.
God is not proposed as something physical, but rather that which creates physics and the laws of physics.
But even if you had an argument that wasn’t for shit to justify your assertion “god”, do you not think a god capable of creating a universe would itself have to be highly complex?
No, time could be variable and contain hair pin bends, or be a surface rather than a line or whatever but we are still left with two modes of being, that which is dependent on something else for it's existence and that which is not.
Maybe, but you still have no argument to indicate the universe must be the former of the two. Try to remember this.
Will, intent, consciousness etc are all analogues of what is going on with the necessary entity,
So you assert. You do love just making shit up and treating it as a fact to suit your purposes don’t you.
Whereas you see something unconscious as not having the neurological chops. I see it as something which cannot have agency and were the necessary being be unconscious nothing would occur since nothing would be there to compel it.
Do you not think you have “agency” to keep breathing when you’re asleep?
So while consciousness might be a bad analogy unconsciousness definitely is as piss poor as it gets.
Non sequitur and – again – an unconscious creator hasn’t been proposed. You were just asked how you would eliminate the possibility so as to arrive at the god of your choice like a game Cluedo. It would help if you stopped lying about this.
Also by the way after you just crashed and burned re Occam’s razor, do you not think a period of quiet reflection about now would be fitting?
-
I am told there are different infinities Outrider, so the question would then be, why this infinity rather than that infinity.
That there are infinities of different scale doesn't mean that there are different options for which infinity this one is - why presume that's the case? You've still not explained how a 'cause' or 'reason' for such a thing makes sense.
If the universe is infinite, why is it that it’s components occupy time and space finitely?
Do they? Matter is just another form of energy, and so far as we can tell energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply changed from one form to another. Our prospects for a heat death of the universe are for an infinitely dispersed arrangement of that energy.
Now if you suggest that something persists infinitely, you would be making the same argument as me but it cannot be a finite thing obviously
I'm reasonably confident we're rarely making the same argument - I'd be more confident if I had a clue what your argument was from one moment to the next.
You could I suppose put energy as a candidate. The problem here though is if the universe is infinite then it would be possible at one particular time for the universe to be in a state where all energy is potential energy and that in effect would be the equivalent of non existence since there would be no possibility of energy transfer.
Why would it? All you'd need is for various potential energies to interact. Or one of them to spontaneously undergo variation. Or any one of a potentially infinite number of other things to happen to destablise that equilibrium.
O.
-
, It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so.
I said anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic - they are not the same thing, albeit somewhat related.
Anthropomorphic is when you ascribe human-like characteristics to something that isn't human (as is achingly obvious when one looks at the claimed attributes of the Christian god).
Anthropocentric is when someone is unable to see beyond the confined of how humans thinks, interact (the things which are important to humans) to explain stuff. These things may be entirely irrelevant outside of the narrow confines of a single species on one of billions of planets in the universe, that has been around for the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. So anthropocentric thinking cannot get beyond the notion of 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' - as these are highly relevant to the human experience, but may have no ... err ... meaning in cosmic terms.
Bottom line - is it a requirement for the universe to exist that humans (and human-like attributes) also exist. I think not - we (and our human-like attributes) could just as easily not exist and the universe would still exist (as if has done for almost its entire duration) - that being the case why are human-experience attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' relevant to understanding the universe. I'd argue that they are entirely irrelevant to understanding the universe.
-
No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.
You have literally denied the divinity of Christ.
Well done.
-
You have literally denied the divinity of Christ.
Well done.
He means God the father, not the son or the trinity.
-
He means God the father, not the son or the trinity.
But Jesus is claimed to be God. If Vlad is correct that God cannot have limbs, Jesus cannot be God.
-
.
-
That there are infinities of different scale doesn't mean that there are different options for which infinity this one is - why presume that's the case? You've still not explained how a 'cause' or 'reason' for such a thing makes sense.
Not sure this is right. Even assuming it IS an infinity is it an infinity with a beginning?, is it an infinity without a beginning. I don’t have a problem with an infinity, neither does the argument from contingency but infinity has problems one of which I’ve covered. If there are 2 possible types of infinite universe, one with a beginning and one without we are faced with the question, why it’s one and not the other?Secondly what is it that is infinite, If it’s energy you are suggesting, it is hence subject to the laws of thermodynamics, in which case it should have reached heat death an infinite length of time ago. What you are suggesting then is a perpetual motion machine.
Do they? Matter is just another form of energy, and so far as we can tell energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply changed from one form to another. Our prospects for a heat death of the universe are for an infinitely dispersed arrangement of that energy.
OK , so you agree that the universe can’t be a perpetual motion machine. So at the start of it, why did it start rather than not start?
I'm reasonably confident we're rarely making the same argument - I'd be more confident if I had a clue what your argument was from one moment to the next.
I accept no responsibility for any intellectual impairment on the part of readers Why would it? All you'd need is for various potential energies to interact.
If all energies were potential, a possibility in an infinity, then they are merely, as the name suggests, potential rather than actual so how could they interact? Or one of them to spontaneously undergo variation
If everything is merely potential then what is actual and can actualise? In fact it seems exactly like non existence.
It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.
-
I said anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic - they are not the same thing, albeit somewhat related.
Anthropomorphic is when you ascribe human-like characteristics to something that isn't human (as is achingly obvious when one looks at the claimed attributes of the Christian god).
Anthropocentric is when someone is unable to see beyond the confined of how humans thinks, interact (the things which are important to humans) to explain stuff. These things may be entirely irrelevant outside of the narrow confines of a single species on one of billions of planets in the universe, that has been around for the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. So anthropocentric thinking cannot get beyond the notion of 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' - as these are highly relevant to the human experience, but may have no ... err ... meaning in cosmic terms.
Bottom line - is it a requirement for the universe to exist that humans (and human-like attributes) also exist. I think not - we (and our human-like attributes) could just as easily not exist and the universe would still exist (as if has done for almost its entire duration) - that being the case why are human-experience attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' relevant to understanding the universe. I'd argue that they are entirely irrelevant to understanding the universe.
So I am to understand that I am unable to talk in the fashion of Zarquon of Threbes from Altair 4 or sing with the wisdom of 12864 from the Barking spider nebula?
-
Vlad,
It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.
Potentially eternal things wouldn't need to "come from" anything, and your entire post could be written with "God" substituted for "the universe". When will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?
-
Vlad,
Potentially eternal things wouldn't need to "come from" anything,
So far, so good and your entire post could be written with "God" substituted for "the universe".
Oh dear you are treating several entities as a single entity again. How are you going to reconcile contingency with eternity?
-
Vlad,
So far, so good
Then why lie about what Outy actually said (ie, you're favourite "popped out of nothing" straw man)?
Oh dear you are treating several entities as a single entity again. How are you going to reconcile contingency with eternity?
I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.
Oh, and as you just ignored it. Again: when will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?
-
So I am to understand that I am unable to talk in the fashion of Zarquon of Threbes from Altair 4 or sing with the wisdom of 12864 from the Barking spider nebula?
I've no idea.
But what you seemingly fail to be able to do is to consider the universe from a perspective other than a narrow human-centric one, in which human attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' have to play some role. That's why you come across as anthropocentric - to you, everything seems to revolve around attributes that humans find important, but, of course, why should any of these attributes have any relevance for understanding the universe?
-
Vlad,
Then why lie about what Outy actually said (ie, you're favourite "popped out of nothing" straw man)?
I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.
Oh, and as you just ignored it. Again: when will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?
”Outy” unfortunately mentioned spontaneous change in a potential energy. Since potential is not actual, he is suggesting getting something from nothing.
You are still treating the universe as a single eternal entity. It isn’t. And if it was it has changed, giving rise not only to the “why this and not nothing” question but “why does it change, what is changing it?”
If the universe had no beginning it would have reached heat death an infinite time ago. It looks like it might be an infinity with a beginning and a future heat death then and there is an argument about things beginning that we are all familiar with.
Then of course there is the issue of you actually producing something physical which is eternal and can be verified as such.
-
I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.
And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.
-
Vlad,
”Outy” unfortunately mentioned spontaneous change in a potential energy. Since potential is not actual, he is suggesting getting something from nothing.
Try to focus here. When someone posits an infinite universe they’re not thereby proposing that this universe also “popped out” of anything. Such a universe would need no contingency on something else. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Can we at least agree that you’ll stop lying about this now?
You are still treating the universe as a single eternal entity. It isn’t. And if it was it has changed, giving rise not only to the “why this and not nothing” question but “why does it change, what is changing it?”
What the fuck is wrong with you? The universe is a “single entity” - the single entity is called the universe. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. My car is a single entity – that single entity is called a car. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. If you want to conjure up a god that’s a single entity, and then assert it also not to have constituent parts than you have all your work ahead of you to explain how such a thing could have created an entire universe. Or indeed anything at all.
And no - “it’s magic innit” doesn’t come close.
If the universe had no beginning it would have reached heat death an infinite time ago. It looks like it might be an infinity with a beginning and a future heat death then and there is an argument about things beginning that we are all familiar with.
Or an endless process of recycling, or etc etc. The point here is that you STILL HAVE NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF.
Why not at least ty to tackle that problem before you continue with your endless bait and switch tactics?
Then of course there is the issue of you actually producing something physical which is eternal and can be verified as such.
No there isn’t. The universe being necessarily contingent on something else is YOUR claim remember so it’s YOUR job to justify it. Just shifting the burden of proof (again) is dishonest.
Can you do that or not? Finally, just put up or shut up.
-
Vlad,
And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.
Yes, you have relied on the fallacy of composition frequently before now. It’s still a fallacy though.
-
And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.
I don't think "depend" is the right word to use in that context. "composed of" is better.
It's interesting though. Here is Vlad, a single entity, composed of organs and tissues and cells and molecules. It's almost as if a single entity being multiple entities at the same time is not contradictory.
Fancy that: your "Universe is multiple entities" argument is as much bolloacks as all of your other arguments.
-
Not sure this is right. Even assuming it IS an infinity is it an infinity with a beginning?
Given that it's being suggested as a possible explanation for why there doesn't need to be an uncaused cause, implicitly the idea we're considering is a reality which goes back infinitely, yes.
I don’t have a problem with an infinity, neither does the argument from contingency
It does - if something doesn't start, doesn't begin, how can it be said to be dependent on something else. If it's not dependent on something else, how is it contingent upon anything?
...but infinity has problems one of which I’ve covered.
Not that I've noticed, you haven't.
If there are 2 possible types of infinite universe, one with a beginning and one without we are faced with the question, why it’s one and not the other?
What makes you think 'why' has any meaning? It simply is. It is what everything else happens in, there is no 'why' to it. In order for there to be a 'why' there would have to have been something else occuring for this to be the result of, and implicit in the model is that that's not the case.
Secondly what is it that is infinite, If it’s energy you are suggesting, it is hence subject to the laws of thermodynamics, in which case it should have reached heat death an infinite length of time ago.
Thermodynamics is a property of this universe, we have no idea if it's a facet of the broader reality outside of our universe. Even if it is, our universe could be one of the 'eddies' of energy coalescing and condensing and the spreading over time that is part of that process.
What you are suggesting then is a perpetual motion machine. OK , so you agree that the universe can’t be a perpetual motion machine.
I'm positing that energy is, only the form changes.
So at the start of it, why did it start rather than not start?
What 'start'? There is no 'start', it goes back forever.
I accept no responsibility for any intellectual impairment on the part of readers If all energies were potential, a possibility in an infinity, then they are merely, as the name suggests, potential rather than actual so how could they interact?
'Potential' energy is still energy, it's not disappeared, it's just not in a form that we can actively use at that moment. Matter is potential energy.
If everything is merely potential then what is actual and can actualise?
You are conflating the use of the word potential in the phrase 'potential energy' with 'potential' in a philosophical sense - they are not synonyms.
It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.
It doesn't. I don't have a problem with that notion, but that's not what I'm suggesting here.
O.
-
I don't think "depend" is the right word to use in that context. "composed of" is better.
It's interesting though. Here is Vlad, a single entity, composed of organs and tissues and cells and molecules. It's almost as if a single entity being multiple entities at the same time is not contradictory.
Fancy that: your "Universe is multiple entities" argument is as much bolloacks as all of your other arguments.
I think you answered your own question. It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity. When you come up with something in the universe which is eternal and necessary, then We can sit up and take notice.
Depend is the correct word. That chap in Japan that took the highest dose of radiation broke down to the molecular level. He doesn't exist as a single entity anymore.
-
I think you answered your own question. It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity.
You are positing a 'God' which is made up of three parts as the alternative so you can already accept that something can be a 'necessary entity' whilst still having component parts.
Depend is the correct word. That chap in Japan that took the highest dose of radiation broke down to the molecular level. He doesn't exist as a single entity anymore.
But while he was there each of those 'parts' - each individual atom - was replaced multiple times over his lifetime, and he was still him, so his existence isn't a facet of those atoms. He is not the sum of his parts - when he dies, those parts are still there (briefly) but he is not.
O.
-
Vlad,
Try to focus here. When someone posits an infinite universe they’re not thereby proposing that this universe also “popped out” of anything. Such a universe would need no contingency on something else. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Feel free to demonstrate that it isn't there by dint of something else, in other words demonstrate that it isn't contingent. After all if it was infinite it should have suffered heat death an infinitely long time ago and after all do we have any evidence of any physical thing that isn't contingent?
The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.
-
I think you answered your own question.
What question? There was no question in the post you quoted.
It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity.
Does not follow. Especially if you want your fathersonandholyghost composite god to be considered "necessary".
-
The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.
And in this case it is a perfectly reasonable argument - not that I am positing that it is true.
As I keep pointing out networks typically comprise elements which are all contingent on each other, with no element which is not contingent.
It is you that keeps on banging on about the need for 'the necessary entity' without actually demonstrating that a (let alone the) necessary entity is actually ... err ... needed. Yet more baseless hand-waving on your part. Sure we all understand that 'the necessary entity' fits with you prejudged view that god exists, but that doesn't mean it is true and your provided not one iota of evidence to support your claimed need for 'the necessary entity'.
-
Vlad,
Feel free to demonstrate that it isn't there by dint of something else, in other words demonstrate that it isn't contingent. After all if it was infinite it should have suffered heat death an infinitely long time ago and after all do we have any evidence of any physical thing that isn't contingent?
The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.
Why do I need to demonstrate anything? In response to YOUR “necessary” entity assertion, I’m merely explaining that if the universe was infinite there’d be no necessity for another entity (let alone one you then special plead out of needing a cause of its own to exist).
I’ve explained to you how the burden of proof fallacy works countless times before now, yet still you return to it over and over again. With very little expectation that you’ll ever grasp it, here’s Wiki again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
-
Vlad,
What the fuck is wrong with you? The universe is a “single entity” - the single entity is called the universe. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. My car is a single entity – that single entity is called a car.
Well that's two single entities at least, or is it still one entity?.
I would have said the parts were also entities since they can have an independent existence.
Any reason for not addressing parts as entities.
-
Vlad,
Yes, you have relied on the fallacy of composition frequently before now. It’s still a fallacy though.
The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.
-
The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.
In that case there can be no necessary entity except a mathematically perfect dimensionless point. Anything else can be divided up and therefore claimed to be dependent on its individual components.
-
Vlad,
The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.
Why are you persisting with this gibberish, and why are you still running away from justifying the “necessary” part of your assertion about a cause? An infinite universe that's its own explanation could also have developed any number of discrete parts over the millennia. So what?
Yet again: it’s YOUR claim that the universe must be contingent on a cause other than itself (which you then special plead into not needing a cause of its own). It’s YOUR job there to justify YOUR assertion. The moment you collapse into the fallacy of composition – ie, “the universe has lots of bits that are contingent on other bits, therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” – which is all you have so far, you abandon even the pretence of a justification.
Without more fucking around with more “but the universe is made of parts” irrelevance, why not finally try at least to answer this basic question?
If the fallacy of composition isn’t all you have, what’s stopping you?
-
The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.
According to the Christian 'Trinity' notion, your 'God' is a composite. After all one bit went a-wandering, on its own, around the middle-east some time ago - or so the story goes.
Therefore, by your own account, this 'God' cannot be a necessity.
-
According to the Christian 'Trinity' notion, your 'God' is a composite. After all one bit went a-wandering, on its own, around the middle-east some time ago - or so the story goes.
Therefore, by your own account, this 'God' cannot be a necessity.
No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being.
As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me. It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.
So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.
-
Vlad,
Why are you persisting with this gibberish, and why are you still running away from justifying the “necessary” part of your assertion about a cause? An infinite universe that's its own explanation could also have developed any number of discrete parts over the millennia. So what?
Yet again: it’s YOUR claim that the universe must be contingent on a cause other than itself (which you then special plead into not needing a cause of its own). It’s YOUR job there to justify YOUR assertion. The moment you collapse into the fallacy of composition – ie, “the universe has lots of bits that are contingent on other bits, therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” – which is all you have so far, you abandon even the pretence of a justification.
Without more fucking around with more “but the universe is made of parts” irrelevance, why not finally try at least to answer this basic question?
If the fallacy of composition isn’t all you have, what’s stopping you?
Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.
No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.
This “parts are irrelevant to a claim that some one is making the fallacy of composition”is your fallacy.
That’s what a composite is, Hillside, parts
-
Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.
No - the person making the fallacy is treating it as a composite, the person making the accusation may or may not be.
No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.
Or, perhaps, the things you are treating as components are manifestations or aspects or side-effects or by-products, and without the universe there wouldn't be those things.
O.
-
No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being.
As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me. It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.
So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.
So the story goes - but have you checked?
-
No - the person making the fallacy is treating it as a composite, the person making the accusation may or may not be.What are the reasons then, to suspect that the person making the accusation doesn't consider the universe a composite?
Or, perhaps, the things you are treating as components are manifestations or aspects or side-effects or by-products, and without the universe there wouldn't be those things.
O.
Again , we don't know whether you do or not.
If they are manifestations what are they manifesting themselves to? Similarly side effects in what context, and by products existing to the side of what?
It seems to me that the statement "The universe just is, and that's all there is to it is a meaningless slogan because there is apparently more to it with it's side effects, manifestations and by products.
-
Vlad,
Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.
No, you are. You’re the one asserting that because the universe is made of lots of parts that are caused by other parts, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something other than itself.
That’s your fallacy of composition mistake, and no amount of irrelevant gibberish about a “composite” universe and an “indivisible” god (part of which nonetheless also you tell us wandered around for a bit in human form) changes that.
No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.
How do you know that the universe hasn’t devolved into composite parts over time?
This “parts are irrelevant to a claim that some one is making the fallacy of composition”is your fallacy.
That’s what a composite is, Hillside, parts
No, it’s yours. If not, what is your non-fallacy of composition reasoning for asserting it to be impossible for the universe to be its own explanation?
-
No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being. As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me.
So Jesus is a component of God ('I am in the father') AND God is a component of Jesus... that's like a fallacy of composition squared, it's a logical contradiction.
It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.
I've never seen a bible verse mention cells, hardly surprising given the coin was termed by Hooke in the 1600's after the invention of the compound microscope. Coopting science to try and retrospectively validate the Bible is fundamentally dishonest.
So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.
Only if we accept at face value the inherently self-contradictory nonsense that is Christian Theology and choose to suspend rational thinking where God is concerned. If we can suspend logic for gods, why not just abandon it generally? A system is only valid if you apply it consistently - if you want to try reason, reason has to apply universally.
O.
-
Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.
No composite can be the necessary being
You haven't adequately shown that to be true.
and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.
There would be no things in the Universe without the Universe. That's a circular dependent, so the only option is that the Universe is not contingent. You must agree that any relationship "A is contingent on B and B is contingent on A" is a logical fallacy, therefore the Universe cannot be contingent.
-
Vlad,
No, you are. You’re the one asserting that because the universe is made of lots of parts that are caused by other parts, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something other than itself.
It only exists because it has parts and is thus dependent on it’s existence because of those parts. Do you agree with that?
So since we only have a universe of parts we need to know what it is those contingent parts are contingent on. Do you agree with that?
No for the fallacy claim, which says that the whole need not have the property of the parts.
You think I’m saying that because the parts are contingent, the whole is contingent.
I’m not. I’m saying the whole is contingent in it’s own right...because without it’s parts it wouldn’t exist.
-
There would be no things in the Universe without the Universe.
There would be no cells without the body?
-
So Jesus is a component of God ('I am in the father') AND God is a component of Jesus... that's like a fallacy of composition squared, it's a logical contradiction.
No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.
-
No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.
How do you know this beyond mere assertion?
-
How do you know this beyond mere assertion?
I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.
-
I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.
Anecdotes with no real provenance: so there are obvious risks attached in taking these anecdotal reports seriously.
Fairly thin gruel there, Vlad.
-
No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.
You're saying God is part of Jesus AND Jesus is part of God. By your own presumption of 'there are parts to the universe, therefore the universe is composed of those parts', both God and Jesus are composites. I'm assuming nothing, I'm applying your logic to your words.
O.
-
Vlad,
I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.
And there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis too.
So a book is true because the book says it's true...
Having abandoned the string of logically false arguments you depended on, you've now collapsed into a blind faith claim instead. I hear the Harry Potter books have wizards flying around on broomsticks, so gravity can be suspended with the right spells too right?
-
Anecdotes with no real provenance: so there are obvious risks attached in taking these anecdotal reports seriously.
Fairly thin gruel there, Vlad.
If you believe there was a Jesus, you need grounds on which to say he didn't say this, then there is the matter of if it's true or not. I think you have a reason for believing why you don't believe it's true. Will you divulge your reason? I'm not holding my breath.
-
You're saying God is part of Jesus AND Jesus is part of God. By your own presumption of 'there are parts to the universe, therefore the universe is composed of those parts', both God and Jesus are composites. I'm assuming nothing, I'm applying your logic to your words.
O.
No I am not saying God has parts you are.
I grant you, parts can be complicated
The number 3 has one part ......3
But it also has 2 parts.......2 and 1
It also has 3 parts 1 plus 1 plus 1.
See......Different thinking required.
-
Vlad,
And there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis too.
So a book is true because the book says it's true...
I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.
Why shouldn't I trust books?
-
No I am not saying God has parts you are.
You said (a quote, as I understand it) - Jesus said I am in the father and the father is in me. He is a part of god the father, and god the father is a part of him.
I grant you, parts can be complicated
Not if you hold to a fairly simple logic, it's when you start trying to justify logically untenable and mystically self-contradictory hierarchies that it falls apart.
The number 3 has one part ......3
But it also has 2 parts.......2 and 1
It also has 3 parts 1 plus 1 plus 1.
Except that none of them are 'parts' when it's inconvenient - like when someone points out that sounds a lot like a polytheistic approach, when suddenly there are no 'parts', there's just one whole, except when it's not.
See......Different thinking required.
Not different thinking, the suspension of thinking. Special pleading for this example to defy a logic that everything else has to hold to because magic/spiritual/god/woo... delete as applicable.
O.
-
I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.
In your #368 you said "No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t." That does read like assertion on your part, but then the whole Trinity notion is itself assertion.
Why shouldn't I trust books?
You can, to an extent, trust books provided that a) you've excluded the risks of lies and/or mistakes, and b) you aren't misunderstanding what you read or are misrepresenting the contents. I'd say, with the exception of perhaps some people and places, the NT is indistinguishable from fiction: so not worthy of trust, but perhaps worthy of sceptical curiosity.
-
If, and I do mean if, books are anything in the great scheme of things why the bible is one of the oldest books and has no limits on the KJV regarding copyrights and is still read by millions today?
Objective? By the many definitions of 'objective' surely God and the supernatural does have many definitions.
God hasn't gone away. Millions still go to church and worship God. Christ still spoken about.
It doesn't make sense does it?
-
You said (a quote, as I understand it) - Jesus said I am in the father and the father is in me. He is a part of god the father, and god the father is a part of him.
Not if you hold to a fairly simple logic, it's when you start trying to justify logically untenable and mystically self-contradictory hierarchies that it falls apart.
Except that none of them are 'parts' when it's inconvenient - like when someone points out that sounds a lot like a polytheistic approach, when suddenly there are no 'parts', there's just one whole, except when it's not.
Not different thinking, the suspension of thinking. Special pleading for this example to defy a logic that everything else has to hold to because magic/spiritual/god/woo... delete as applicable.
O.
I'm just trying to point out that mathematical reality works differently from physical reality.
The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved. Unlike your apparent conception of being in.
You I take it are both a son and a father and yet exist as one, so when I look at you, in one sense I am looking at both the father and the son.
That's an analogy not a homology, by the way.
-
If, and I do mean if, books are anything in the great scheme of things why the bible is one of the oldest books and has no limits on the KJV regarding copyrights and is still read by millions today?
Objective? By the many definitions of 'objective' surely God and the supernatural does have many definitions.
God hasn't gone away. Millions still go to church and worship God. Christ still spoken about.
It doesn't make sense does it?
If you mean Christianity, then I agree: Christianity makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Vlad,
I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.
It is.
Why shouldn't I trust books?
Because books can say anything. If we’re to trust some of them but not others then there have to be sound reasons for doing so. “Because the book says so” isn’t a sound reason - it’s just an expression of blind faith.
-
In your #368 you said "No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t." That does read like assertion on your part, but then the whole Trinity notion is itself assertion.
The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position
-
The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position
You could argue the same for, say, the Ontological argument - but whether you call it theology or philosophy, it's still fallacious nonsense. I don't think that I am Scottish really all that relevant.
-
Vlad,
The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position
Only if you think one shape that's also a square, a circle and a triangle is also a "philosophical concept".
Any news on how you plan to escape the fallacy of composition re "the universe consists of lots of bits caused by other bits, therefore the universe itself must also be caused by something else"?
-
Vlad
Any news on how you plan to escape the fallacy of composition re "the universe consists of lots of bits caused by other bits, therefore the universe itself must also be caused by something else"?
Any chance of you spotting the difference between that
and The universe consists of bits and is therefore contingent on those bits?
-
Vlad,
Any chance of you spotting the difference between that
and The universe consists of bits and is therefore contingent on those bits?
That's not your assertion though. Your assertion is that, because the universe consists of lots of contingent parts, thus the universe as a whole must be contingent on something other than itself.
That's you fallacy of composition. Do you intend to continue to rely on it, or do you have an argument to escape it?
-
I'm just trying to point out that mathematical reality works differently from physical reality.
No, it doesn't. In set theory, if A is a subset of B (I am in the Father) then B can't also be a subset of A (the father is in me). Mathematically it's still nonsense.
The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved.
And there's the special pleading. This is 'Spirit', and therefore logic need not apply... either it's a rule, or it's not. If you're going to suspend the rules arbitrarily to make your case, your case is as watertight as paper colander in a shredder.
Unlike your apparent conception of being in.
If you want to try to redefine 'in' to further compound the bullshit, fire away, fallacy topping to the special pleading cupcake.
You I take it are both a son and a father and yet exist as one, so when I look at you, in one sense I am looking at both the father and the son.
You appear to be conflating definite and indefinite articles, there - are you suggesting that Jesus is, or is in, 'a' father, or 'the father'? One of those is heresy, one of them is logically incoherent.
That's an analogy not a homology, by the way.
I was under the impression this was accepted Christian doctrine, but if you want to try to handwave it away now with 'but I didn't really MEAN that'... then why are you contributing it to a discussion where we're trying to establish some sort of meaning?
O.
-
Vlad,
That's not your assertion though.
It is I've just asserted it.
So being a composite in it's own right, We have to ask why it's got this number of components and not that number as well as why it's got these components and not another, why this physics and not another physics, why not all energy only some of it. In other words, what are all these things contingent on? Or to sum up, what is it inor about the universe that is not contingent?
-
No, it doesn't. In set theory, if A is a subset of B (I am in the Father) then B can't also be a subset of A (the father is in me). Mathematically it's still nonsense.
And there's the special pleading. This is 'Spirit', and therefore logic need not apply... either it's a rule, or it's not. If you're going to suspend the rules arbitrarily to make your case, your case is as watertight as paper colander in a shredder.
If you want to try to redefine 'in' to further compound the bullshit, fire away, fallacy topping to the special pleading cupcake.
You appear to be conflating definite and indefinite articles, there - are you suggesting that Jesus is, or is in, 'a' father, or 'the father'? One of those is heresy, one of them is logically incoherent.
I was under the impression this was accepted Christian doctrine, but if you want to try to handwave it away now with 'but I didn't really MEAN that'... then why are you contributing it to a discussion where we're trying to establish some sort of meaning?
O.
Is 3 one entity or 3? Or 2, since 2 plus 1 equals 3?
-
Vlad,
It is I've just asserted it.
So being a composite in it's own right, We have to ask why it's got this number of components and not that number as well as why it's got these components and not another, why this physics and not another physics, why not all energy only some of it. In other words, what are all these things contingent on? Or to sum up, what is it inor about the universe that is not contingent?
No we haven’t. All we have to ask is why you think the fact that the universe has contingent parts means the universe itself must be contingent on something else. That’s your fallacy of composition. Deal with it or not, but your endless distractions and prevarications don’t change the fact of it.
-
Is 3 one entity or 3? Or 2, since 2 plus 1 equals 3?
I've no idea, the story changes every time it's told. Are there three of them, or one of them? Is one of them part of another or vice versa? Or are they both part of something else?
Or are you going to try and claim all of the above on a spiritual exemption from logic and set theory, but then clamp hard on the absolute necessity of irrefutable knowledge for any other possibility?
O.
-
I've no idea,
I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one. Since the members of the trinity have no separate existence. God is not spatial. So at the end of the day, the term 'being in' can only be analogous.
I'm not sure your statements on set theory also conclude the matter. In as much as some of the Father can be in son and visa versa, in an indivisible all of the Father is in the son and all of the son is in the father and therefore they are one.but that can only be analogous. So whether all that can be extended to physical parts which have their own independent existence I'm not sure.
-
There would be no cells without the body?
Correct. Your brain cells, for example, require the body to supply them with nutrients and oxygen. If that supply is cut off, they will all die within about a minute.
-
No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.
No. You are the one who keeps banging on about the Trinity.
Notwithstanding that Jesus was "fully human" and thus a composite of cells. Not only is God a composite but so is one of its components.
-
Vlad,
I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one.
Aside from your blind faith about that, why?
-
I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely
John10:30
What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.
So the father has at least one hand. That makes him a composite entity too.
and
John 14:11.
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.
This is complete nonsense. How can two things be inside each other? Furthermore, if one thing is inside the other thing, the outer thing is a composite entity.
Then there's the problem of Jesus going to something that is inside of him - or, if outside of him, going to something when he is already there.
Vlad, how an you read this and think it is anything except a pile of dingos' kidneys?
-
I'm just trying to point out that mathematical reality works differently from physical reality.
God is just a mathematical abstraction. Got it.
The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved. Unlike your apparent conception of being in.
Jesus said he was inside God. That implies a spatial aspect.
-
I've no idea, the story changes every time it's told. Are there three of them, or one of them? Is one of them part of another or vice versa? Or are they both part of something else?
Or are you going to try and claim all of the above on a spiritual exemption from logic and set theory, but then clamp hard on the absolute necessity of irrefutable knowledge for any other possibility?
O.
The Trinity is probably an analogy to try to describe the relationship of the divine and the human. The Hebrew 'neshama' and Greek 'psyche' (soul) means breath and the Hebrew 'ruwach' and Latin 'spiritus' means air. The divine father perhaps represents the total source of the air, the son represents the air within the human form and the Holy Spirit represents the totality of the air itself. A similar analogy might be God the Ocean, God the Wave and God the Water.
-
No. You are the one who keeps banging on about the Trinity.
Notwithstanding that Jesus was "fully human" and thus a composite of cells. Not only is God a composite but so is one of its components.
Can one be three? Yes, there are lots of analogies, 3 in 1 oil, water, ice, steam, father, son and clarinet player who canall be the same person. A Venn diagram can even show how you can get three in one.
Your confusion is down to thinking spatially. Jesus can be both human and God. Not a physical composite and no independent existence in God.
I suppose you have your commitment to physicalism to think about.
-
Your confusion is down to thinking specially.
|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.
Jesus can be both human and God.
Ah, a composite.
Not a physical composite
Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.
and no independent existence in God.
Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.
-
|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.
Ah, a composite.
Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.
Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.
Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.
There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.
I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.
-
Vlad,
Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.
There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.
I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.
You're right that it's not logically wrong. Your problem though is that it's not even logically wrong.
There's nothing there that's amenable to logical analysis - it's all white noise: "spirit"; "ground of being" etc. The problem with just inventing this mindless clap trap though is that I can just as well invent my own bollocks word salad too so as to justify my belief in leprechauns.
If ever you feel like arguing something logic apt that doesn't collapse immediately into one or several fallacies though, by all means give it a go.
-
Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.
There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.
I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.
At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant who would much prefer it if his bizarre beliefs could somehow be viewed as being evidenced and rational, even though your attempts at that all fail - so you end up nonsensically thrashing about, but getting nowhere: 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' right enough.
Why can't you just be satisfied with a 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that?
-
Hi Gordon,
At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant who would much prefer it if his bizarre beliefs could somehow be viewed as being evidenced and rational, even though your attempts at that all fail - so you end up nonsensically thrashing about, but getting nowhere: 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' right enough.
Why can't you just be satisfied with a 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that?
Long ago and far away I suggested to Vlad that he’d be on much safer ground by confining himself to, “look, I can’t justify any of this with argument or sound reasoning but “god” is my personal faith belief nonetheless and that’s the beginning and end of it”. That comes at a price though – namely that subjective opinion is all he has, and he doesn’t like the consequence that his faith belief “God” is therefore epistemologically equivalent to my faith belief “leprechauns” (which is is).
The result is that he’s forever forced to try to justify his subjective beliefs as actually objective facts, but all he has is shit arguments to do the job. That’s why when even he finally sees that the gig’s up his last throw of the dice is “because the Bible says so” as he tried just a few posts ago.
-
At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant.
Well I'm afraid I haven't been impressed by the empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Humism, humanism, New atheism ans scientism on this forum.
-
Vlad,
You're right that it's not logically wrong. Your problem though is that it's not even logically wrong.
There's nothing there that's amenable to logical analysis - it's all white noise: "spirit"; "ground of being" etc. The problem with just inventing this mindless clap trap though is that I can just as well invent my own bollocks word salad too so as to justify my belief in leprechauns.
If ever you feel like arguing something logic apt that doesn't collapse immediately into one or several fallacies though, by all means give it a go.
And it may be, Hillside that you are too long in the Tooth and self impressed to be persuaded other wise so good luck to you.
So I don't continue on here primarily with you in mind.
-
Hi Gordon,
The result is that he’s forever forced to try to justify his subjective beliefs as actually objective facts, but all he has is shit arguments to do the job. That’s why when even he finally sees that the gig’s up his last throw of the dice is “because the Bible says so”
You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.
Also, It goes without saying that the Bible has to chime with a person for them to respond to it, positively or negatively. Have you read it? Then of course if you don't know what the Bible says how do you know what the claims are?
As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour.
-
Vlad,
Well I'm afraid I haven't been impressed by the empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Humism, humanism, New atheism ans scientism on this forum.
Perhaps you might be if you at least found out what these terms actually entail rather than relied on your personal straw men versions of them?
-
Vlad,
And it may be, Hillside that you are too long in the Tooth and self impressed to be persuaded other wise so good luck to you.
No, just find and present here a justifying argument that isn’t shit and I’ll be persuaded otherwise.
So I don't continue on here primarily with you in mind.
Who then – the logically impaired? Six-year-olds? The already gaslit into the hall of mirrors world of bollocksology you so smugly and dishonestly occupy? Who?
-
Vlad,
You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.
But I wasn’t absent when a you asserted frequently that the universe must have a “necessary” creator remember? Shame you’ve just run away every time you’ve been asked to justify that assertion with something other than the fallacy of composition, but there it is nonetheless.
Also, It goes without saying that the Bible has to chime with a person for them to respond to it, positively or negatively. Have you read it?
“Chiming” with and “providing objective evidence for” are not the same thing, notwithstanding your attempt to treat them as if they are. Lots of people find the Harry Potter books “chime” with them too. Does that mean there really are flying broomsticks?
As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour.
Reducing it to just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea doesn’t make it any more reliable as a source of objective fact - which is why your attempt at using it as such as a last refuge a few posts died on its arse before it even got its trousers on.
-
Vlad,
But I wasn’t absent when a you asserted frequently that the universe must have a “necessary” creator remember? Shame you’ve just run away every time you’ve been asked to justify that assertion with something other than the fallacy of composition, but there it is nonetheless.
“Chiming” with and “providing objective evidence for” are not the same thing, notwithstanding your attempt to treat them as if they are. Lots of people find the Harry Potter books “chime” with them too. Does that mean there really are flying broomsticks?
Reducing it to just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea doesn’t make it any more reliable as a source of objective fact - which is why your attempt at using it as such as a last refuge a few posts died on its arse before it even got its trousers on.
I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Fallacy of modernity, the supposed existence of physical infinities, unaccounted contingency, circular hierarchies of being, misuse of fallacy of composition, composite necessary beings, and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case, your ideas on emergence,
Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.
-
I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Fallacy of modernity, the supposed existence of physical infinities, unaccounted contingency, circular hierarchies of being, misuse of fallacy of composition, composite necessary beings, and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case, your ideas on emergence,
Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.
You're ranting, Vlad - not a pretty sight.
Instead of sounding off at what you wrongly imagine others are saying, why not provide a convincing argument, on grounds that are independent of anyone's personal inclinations, regarding why any of us should take Christianity seriously.
-
|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.
Ah, a composite.
Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.
Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.
In terms of the trinity, what does God the son comprise of? That's right God, What does God the father comprise of? That's right God.What does the Holy spirit comprise of ? You've guessed it.
And since none exist independently what is there? That's right, God. Something comprised of a single 'substance' cannot imho
be termed a composite.
In terms of Jesus, there is never any suggestion in the bible that the 'flesh' is the necessary entity.
-
You're ranting, Vlad - not a pretty sight.
Instead of sounding off at what you wrongly imagine others are saying, why not provide a convincing argument, on grounds that are independent of anyone's personal inclinations, regarding why any of us should take Christianity seriously.
Unfortunately your arguments fall into the categories of subjects with problems.
-
just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea.
Interesting notion of yours, care to discuss it and perhaps actually justify it some time?
-
Unfortunately your arguments fall into the categories of subjects with problems.
I'm not making any arguments though - simply pointing out the flaws in arguments made by theists, such as yourself, is not the same as thing as making an argument.
My atheism is based on the rejection of arguments made by theists - but I'm not making any kind of substantive argument in favour of atheism, since I can't see that there is one anyway!
-
I'm not making any arguments though - simply pointing out the flaws in arguments made by theists, such as yourself, is not the same as thing as making an argument.
My atheism is based on the rejection of arguments made by theists - but I'm not making any kind of substantive argument in favour of atheism, since I can't see that there is one anyway!
As far as I recall you’ve declared certain things to be absolutely impossible and you’ve dismissed the Bible because it is an ancient text(fallacy of modernity). And that’s before we get to name calling (allelujah merchant).
-
As far as I recall you’ve declared certain things to be absolutely impossible and you’ve dismissed the Bible because it is an ancient text(fallacy of modernity). And that’s before we get to name calling (allelujah merchant).
I've said that the Bible, and especially the NT, includes anecdotal accounts that lack provenance, and that for these to be taken seriously would require the risks of mistakes and lies to be meaningfully addressed - and as far as I can see, you guys don't want to deal with that issue.
Calling you a hallelujah merchant isn't an insult - it's a descriptive critique based on what you've posted of late.
-
I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one.
Which 'we' is this, Batman? Christian doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it - sometimes there are three entities, sometimes there's one, and when the contradiction gets called out it gets hand-waved away to avoid the realisation that you have a polytheistic religion before we ever get anywhere near Satan (who's not a deity, he's an angel, which is a divine supernatural being like God, but different because obvs.) and the angels (likewise because reasons), and saints (who are totally not demigods, honest).
Since the members of the trinity have no separate existence.
So despite the claims, then, Jesus was entirely God when he was on Earth, knew exactly what was going on, knew he wasn't really properly dying (just taking a rest weekend) and was having a schizophrenic discourse with himself trying to decide what the hell he'd been thinking when he was hanging around (pun intended) on the cross?
God is not spatial. So at the end of the day, the term 'being in' can only be analogous.
Ah. So God doesn't actually exist, so you can claim anything you like?
I'm not sure your statements on set theory also conclude the matter.
If you can make Set A a subset of Set B and also make Set B a subset of Set A let me know, I'll come and watch you collect your Fields Medal.
In as much as some of the Father can be in son and visa versa, in an indivisible all of the Father is in the son and all of the son is in the father and therefore they are one.but that can only be analogous. So whether all that can be extended to physical parts which have their own independent existence I'm not sure.
I see, so 'parts' of this indivisible (because it's 'necessary' and therefore not a composite) thing are within another part of the indivisible single thing that has no components? You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify an obvious contradiction. It makes no sense, no matter how you try to parse it, it's riddled with mutually exclusive claims which only persist because there's nothing there to actually test or examine to see if one or the other is correct.
O.
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism,
With the exception if physicalism (that no-one here subscribes to), there is no such circularity. I’ve schooled you on this many times before now without rebuttal so I can only conclude that you’re just lying about it now.
Fallacy of modernity,…
And your example of me doing that would be what? Oh wait, you don’t have one do you.
… the supposed existence of physical infinities,…
Not a claim I’ve made. You failure to grasp the burden of proof is letting you down again here.
…unaccounted contingency,…
Nope, no idea…
… circular hierarchies of being,…
Don’t forget the Hexagons of Lightning while you’re in full gibberish mode…
… misuse of fallacy of composition,…
There is no misuse - so far at least, it’s all you have to justify your “necessary being” assertion.
…composite necessary beings,…
You’ve yet to explain why a universe that consists of components must also therefore be caused by something other than itself - you know, one of the various problems you always run away from.
…and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case,…
They have been, many times - only for you to ignore, lie about or straw man the rebuttals when they’re given to you. I even offered to do it again recently provided in exchange you agreed (finally) to engage honestly when I did it, but you ran away from that offer too remember?
…your ideas on emergence,…
They’re not my ideas, and you’ve always got the principles of emergence arse-backwards when you’ve blundered into that area too.
Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.
Except there is no such acceptance.
So, now you’ve spat the dummy with your standard rosta of lies, evasions, straw men etc did you have anything to say about why in your opinion the universe must be caused by something other than itself?
Something?
Anything?
No?...
...Thought not.
-
Vlad,
Interesting notion of yours, care to discuss it and perhaps actually justify it some time?
You might think grovelling self-abasement and the abandonment of personal responsibility to an imaginary sky fairy reflects well on you, but I don’t.
-
Not moving the goalpost Jeremy
Yes you are. You were talking about composites before, now you are talking about physical composites.
because I have said before that God is spirit
So what? That doesn't mean God is not a composite entity.
I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Neither have I, at least, not solely.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.
Jesus isn't God. Fine. That still leaves the Father and the Holy Spirit as entities within God.
I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.
You'd disagree that black and white are different if it went against your religion. What you agree and disagree with is of no importance in determining if some argument is sound or not.
-
You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.
What is all this contingency prime mover nonsense for then?
-
Vlad,
You might think grovelling self-abasement and the abandonment of personal responsibility to an imaginary sky fairy reflects well on you, but I don’t.
My, it looks as though you are itching to get something off your chest.
You don’t strike me as a grovelling self abaser. Do you feel you have to do that to get right with God?Some react like that at repentance and some don’t. Do you feel compelled toward doing that? No one would spot that in the comfort of your own home.
You do ask IME for apology quite a bit when your rather performative atheism is pushed back on.
Why do you insist on that? Don’t you think that’s some kind of need on your part?
Abandonment of personal responsibility? No one can do that. You might make a kind of atheists wager that if nobody finds out the only one who knows of your personal responsibility is you.
A Christian, of course doesn’t believe that and is aware of his personal responsibility in a very real way, not just intellectually.
How does your sense of personal responsibility chime with your views on argument from consequences? You don’t want to avoid personal responsibility, just the consequences?
-
Vlad,
My, it looks as though you are itching to get something off your chest.
You don’t strike me as a grovelling self abaser. Do you feel you have to do that to get right with God?Some react like that at repentance and some don’t. Do you feel compelled toward doing that? No one would spot that in the comfort of your own home.
You do ask IME for apology quite a bit when your rather performative atheism is pushed back on.
Why do you insist on that? Don’t you think that’s some kind of need on your part?
Abandonment of personal responsibility? No one can do that. You might make a kind of atheists wager that if nobody finds out the only one who knows of your personal responsibility is you.
A Christian, of course doesn’t believe that and is aware of his personal responsibility in a very real way, not just intellectually.
How does your sense of personal responsibility chime with your views on argument from consequences? You don’t want to avoid personal responsibility, just the consequences?
Presumably this half-witted gibberish means something to you? In any case, you were the one who said “As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour”, presumably approvingly.
No, we’re not “all sinners”, and some of us have enough self-respect not to feel the craven need for “a saviour” so we can offload onto someone else responsibility for our own behaviour. You on the other hand...
-
Vlad,
You’ve yet to explain why a universe that consists of components
There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.
That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.
Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite. Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?
You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."
These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.
-
Vlad,
There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.
I don’t "want" it to be - it is.
That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.
Utter bollocks. A cricket match is a “thing” - that thing is called "a cricket match". It’s also something else - ie, lots of spectators and some players participating or watching the sport of cricket.
If one spectator stands up moreover, he gets a better view. If all the spectators stand up on the other hand, no-one gets a better view. Thus you cannot assume that a property or characteristic of part of a larger entity must also be a property or characteristic of the larger entity itself.
This is your fallacy of composition mistake – you just assume that the fact of contingent parts of the universe means that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else.
No matter how many times you’re asked to justify this assertion though, instead you just prevaricate, distract or run away.
Why?
Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite. Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?
Irrelevant. You’re the one claiming that the universe must be contingent on something ele remember. So it’s your job to justify your claim.
You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."
Oh dear. Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions about the universe – of course there are. Unfortunately though our current state of knowledge means we cannot answer them, so “the universe just is” merely tells us where the limit of our knowledge lies. It’s not intended to be a hypotheses - just an accurate description of the current state of play.
These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.
Lying isn’t helping you here. Can YOU justify YOUR claim “the universe consists of contingent part, therefore the universe is also contingent” without falling into the fallacy of composition or can’t you?
I think we all know the answer to that now don’t we…
-
Vlad,
I don’t "want" it to be - it is.
Utter bollocks. A cricket match is a “thing” - that thing is called "a cricket match". It’s also something else - ie, lots of spectators and some players participating or watching the sport of cricket.
If one spectator stands up moreover, he gets a better view. If all the spectators stand up on the other hand, no-one gets a better view. Thus you cannot assume that a property or characteristic of part of a larger entity must also be a property or characteristic of the larger entity itself.
This is your fallacy of composition mistake – you just assume that the fact of contingent parts of the universe means that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else.
No matter how many times you’re asked to justify this assertion though, instead you just prevaricate, distract or run away.
Why?
Irrelevant. You’re the one claiming that the universe must be contingent on something ele remember. So it’s your job to justify your claim.
Oh dear. Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions about the universe – of course there are. Unfortunately though our current state of knowledge means we cannot answer them, so “the universe just is” merely tells us where the limit of our knowledge lies. It’s not intended to be a hypotheses - just an accurate description of the current state of play.
Lying isn’t helping you here. Can YOU justify YOUR claim “the universe consists of contingent part, therefore the universe is also contingent” without falling into the fallacy of composition or can’t you?
I think we all know the answer to that now don’t we…
Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.
Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.
By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.
-
Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.
Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.
By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.
It's its
-
It's its
He's been told that dozens of times, but always gets it wrong. ::)
-
It's its
You're right, and it's your right to say so.
-
Vlad,
Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.
It’s not “contingent on its components” at all. It happens to have the components it has, and would look different if it had different components. That does not though imply that the universe as a whole must therefore be contingent of something other than itself, which is your fallacy of composition mistake.
Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.
It would help if you stopped lying about this. Lots of things can be defined as their whole, as their sub-structures, as their sub-sub-structures etc. A car for example can be described as “a car”. It can also be described as “an assembly of engine, gearbox, clutch, brakes” etc. It can also be described as “an assembly of springs, nuts, bolts, wiring” etc. You might think this to be “magical thinking”, bit you’d struggle to find a car mechanic who agrees with you. Or indeed to find anyone capable of basic reasoning who agrees with you.
By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.
Wrong again. I can reason that a game of cricket is contingent on other causes, but my reasoning does NOT depend on the observation that a spectator gets a better view if he stands up.
This is your repeated fallacy of composition screw up. You draw an inference from the universe being made of contingent parts to the universe itself necessarily being contingent on something other than itself. In response you endlessly deflect with “but the universe is contingent on its parts” as if that in some way had anything at all to say to your reasoning that the universe must also therefore be contingent on something other than itself.
So, and yet again: do you have any argument at all to justify your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself that isn’t the fallacy of composition?
Something?
Anything?
No?...
…thought not. Ah well. Game over then.
-
NS,
It's its
Vlad has poor literacy skills, but I tend to think it's a bit gittish to correct him provided I can discern what I think he's trying to say. The problem comes though when his thoughts are so jumbled that he collapses into alphabet soup, so there's no telling what thoughts he even thinks he's expressing. I have suggested he try reviewing his efforts before hitting "post", but to little or no avail.
-
Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.
Bugger. My irony meter just overloaded again.
You need to get some self awareness Mr Threeisone.
-
There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.
That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.
Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite. Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?
You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."
These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.
Speaking of 'unvisited questions'....
Which 'we' is this, Batman? Christian doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it - sometimes there are three entities, sometimes there's one, and when the contradiction gets called out it gets hand-waved away to avoid the realisation that you have a polytheistic religion before we ever get anywhere near Satan (who's not a deity, he's an angel, which is a divine supernatural being like God, but different because obvs.) and the angels (likewise because reasons), and saints (who are totally not demigods, honest).
So despite the claims, then, Jesus was entirely God when he was on Earth, knew exactly what was going on, knew he wasn't really properly dying (just taking a rest weekend) and was having a schizophrenic discourse with himself trying to decide what the hell he'd been thinking when he was hanging around (pun intended) on the cross?
Ah. So God doesn't actually exist, so you can claim anything you like?
If you can make Set A a subset of Set B and also make Set B a subset of Set A let me know, I'll come and watch you collect your Fields Medal.
I see, so 'parts' of this indivisible (because it's 'necessary' and therefore not a composite) thing are within another part of the indivisible single thing that has no components? You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify an obvious contradiction. It makes no sense, no matter how you try to parse it, it's riddled with mutually exclusive claims which only persist because there's nothing there to actually test or examine to see if one or the other is correct.
O.
-
If you mean Christianity, then I agree: Christianity makes no sense whatsoever.
So why has the bible lasted all this time. Why have men through history clung to the faith in God it promotes?
Sorry Gordon, I honestly cannot see any truth in your point.
-
Sassy,
So why has the bible lasted all this time. Why have men through history clung to the faith in God it promotes?
Sorry Gordon, I honestly cannot see any truth in your point.
This is why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
-
Sassy,
This is why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?
A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it. That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.
Was it a red herring to catch me out some way? Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.
Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/
-
Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?
No, that isn't what is being done there.
-
Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?
A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it. That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.
Was it a red herring to catch me out some way? Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.
Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/
No, I think the point is that there been many holy books of many religions. Christianity and the Bible is just one of the few to still be with us.
-
Sassy,
Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?
You’re missing the point – lots of things survive when others have fallen by the wayside. It’s a mistake in reasoning though to think that because the Bible is one of them so it must be divinely written or inspired. There are many possible reasons for the survival of the Bible (as there are for other “holy” texts that have also survived) that have nothing to do with a supposedly divine involvement.
A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it. That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.
Irrelevant, and a blind faith assertion to boot.
Was it a red herring to catch me out some way?
No, it was just an explanation of your reasoning error. It still is.
Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.
No it isn’t. If you want to argue for that, then you need to demonstrate God’s existence first. I may as well say, “Having answers is about taking into account what we know about leprechauns and the world. The answers are in the Book of Leprechaunology could be a true saying for a lot of things”. You don't know anything about "God" because you can't demonstrate this supposed god's existence to begin with.
Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/
Another blind faith claim.
-
Vlad,
It’s not “contingent on its components” at all. It happens to have the components it has, and would look different if it had different components. That does not though imply that the universe as a whole must therefore be contingent of something other than itself, which is your fallacy of composition mistake.
Without it’s components, there is no universe....unless you are suggesting the universe is MORE than the sum of its components.
Also, unless you are specially pleading, in your logic, any ensemble might be the necessary entity
It would help if you stopped lying about this. Lots of things can be defined as their whole, as their sub-structures, as their sub-sub-structures etc. A car for example can be described as “a car”. It can also be described as “an assembly of engine, gearbox, clutch, brakes” etc. It can also be described as “an assembly of springs, nuts, bolts, wiring” etc. You might think this to be “magical thinking”, bit you’d struggle to find a car mechanic who agrees with you. Or indeed to find anyone capable of basic reasoning who agrees with you.
A car is contingent on it’s parts so I don’t understand why you are flying it again. Is it stubbornness, or some kind of incapacity or gaslighting I wonder?
-
Bugger. My irony meter just overloaded again.
You need to get some self awareness Mr Threeisone.
Let’s start with the universe and see whether that several quadrillionisone is a better prospect than God being three in one.
First of all the entities in the universe can exist separately from another since precursor entities, may not exist anymore.
In the case of the trinity, none of ‘members’ have independent existence.
There are lots of analogies...God being actually three totally independently existing Father, Son and Holy Spirit being the poorest to the point of error.
Again although I dispute the necessity of the universe, I can ask and do ask you once again Jeremy, what is it about the totality of existence which is necessary and not contingent?
-
Sassy,
This is why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Survivorship bias is studying survivors rather than failures. You haven’t as far as I can see discussed any reason why other religions have failed.
-
... the sum of its components...
By George, he's got it! ...it’s parts...
Damn.
-
By George, he's got it!Damn.
Ha ha, that one was for you Steve.
-
Vlad,
Without it’s components, there is no universe....unless you are suggesting the universe is MORE than the sum of its components.
Also, unless you are specially pleading, in your logic, any ensemble might be the necessary entity
A car is contingent on it’s parts so I don’t understand why you are flying it again. Is it stubbornness, or some kind of incapacity or gaslighting I wonder?
I dealt with this idiocy back in Reply 433, so I don’t know why you’ve just repeated it.
Yet again: you rely on the universe consisting of contingent parts (which may or may not be true by the way) to justify your assertion that the universe itself must therefore be contingent on something other than itself. And that’s called the fallacy of composition.
Do you or do you not have an argument other than the fallacy of composition to justify your assertion that the universe necessarily is contingent on something other than itself?
Put up or shut up.
-
Vlad,
Survivorship bias is studying survivors rather than failures. You haven’t as far as I can see discussed any reason why other religions have failed.
Why should I? Sassy asserted that her faith’s success meant the Bible must be divinely written or inspired. That’s called the survivorship fallacy. QED
If it helps you, no faiths have failed (and therefore someone else of limited reasoning ability could also conclude that their various gods are real) right up until the moment that they do fail, get replaced etc. Can you see the problem now?
-
Let’s start with the universe and see whether that several quadrillionisone is a better prospect than God being three in one.
You have massively underestimated the number of objects in the Universe - even assuming it is finite.
But don't forget, it is only you who has a problem with seeing an entity both as a single thing and a composite of its parts.
First of all the entities in the universe can exist separately from another since precursor entities, may not exist anymore.
I'm not sure that that is the case. Can you provide any evidence?
In the case of the trinity, none of ‘members’ have independent existence.
So? Can humans have independent existence? If so, then Jesus could too.
There are lots of analogies...
Argument by analogy is a fallacy.
God being actually three totally independently existing Father, Son and Holy Spirit being the poorest to the point of error.
That's a straw man. Nobody has argued that the three parts of God are independent.
Again although I dispute the necessity of the universe, I can ask and do ask you once again Jeremy, what is it about the totality of existence which is necessary and not contingent?
It could be the totality of existence.
That said, I don't accept your simplistic view of the Universe based on contingency that you read about in a pop-philosophy book and don't really understand.