God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Dicky Underpants]

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".

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Dicky Underpants]

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"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you avoid something that isn't there?

Positive assertion. I'm sure you know then what your duties and responsibilities are hereforth. .

[Outrider]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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."

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here’s the Nagel reference

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-mean

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Maeght]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.