Thanks
Dan Prescher
for its origin, existence, and moderation, for making this such a useful
place to get some thinking done. I just visited the unmoderated version, and
that place is a broiling nuthatch.
Pats on the back and big thanks all around.
[Thank you very much for your kind words - Moderator]
--
Dan Prescher
Roughwriters
spamnot...@roughwriters.com
Remove the obvious
SkyEyes
"Dan Prescher" <pres...@roughwriters.com> wrote:
> Just a note to thank everyone on this newsgroup, and everyone
responsible
> for its origin, existence, and moderation, for making this such a
useful
> place to get some thinking done. I just visited the unmoderated
version, and
> that place is a broiling nuthatch.
>
> Pats on the back and big thanks all around.
>
> [Thank you very much for your kind words - Moderator]
Aw, hey, alt.atheism is a great place for mud-wrestling with Fundies!
<Grin>
Seriously, yes, it is a brawl; but folks who maybe aren't ready for
this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
and come out as atheists. We get to some of the lurkers, and that's a
big accomplishment.
Besides, the EAC meetings are a gas. <G>
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
Carne Seca Division/EAC Equine Transportation Command
In the Prefecture of Baja Arizona
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jason
wrote:
>Just a note to thank everyone on this newsgroup, and everyone responsible
>for its origin, existence, and moderation, for making this such a useful
>place to get some thinking done. I just visited the unmoderated version, and
>that place is a broiling nuthatch.
I agree Dan. While sometimes we all get under each other's collar,
it's nothing compared to wading through the flame wars on groups such
as talk.origins or alt.atheism or alt.christianity.
I usually feel welcome and feel that my posts are looked forward to
(if only to rip them apart). Let's all share this moment with a big
group hug...
Jason
I believe in order that I may understand.
I understand in order that I may believe.
Dave F
I agree - I really enjoy this newsgroup - but it's something of a mystery to me.
I'm curious about who moderates this newsgroup, where they are, and so on. I
wonder if our moderator would care to expose these secrets - or if perhaps it's
better if it remains a great mystery.
In any case - whoever you are, wherever you are - my thanks as well. In my
opinion, you do a great job of being fair to all sides, and keeping the posts
civil and on-topic, while allowing enough freedom that we (or I, at least) don't
feel stifled.
[Thank you very much. Your moderator is Clark Adams (cadams at
infidels.org). I have been the moderator for about five years now (time
flies :). The group was founded by mathew, who still keeps the
FAQ. Brett Lemoine, founder of the Internet Infidels, was the second
moderator. I took over moderation in 1995. I am the Public Relations
Director for the Internet Infidels. I live in Gulfport, Mississippi, USA,
but am moving to Las Vegas in two weeks. Anyone know of any
Freethought/Atheist/Humanist groups in Sin City? -Moderator]
Best Regards to All
Dave
Dan Prescher wrote:
> Just a note to thank everyone on this newsgroup, and everyone responsible
> for its origin, existence, and moderation, for making this such a useful
> place to get some thinking done. I just visited the unmoderated version, and
> that place is a broiling nuthatch.
>
> Pats on the back and big thanks all around.
>
> [Thank you very much for your kind words - Moderator]
>
Netcom jimhumph
SkyEyes wrote
> Seriously, yes, it is a brawl; but folks who maybe aren't ready for
> this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
> aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
> and come out as atheists.
>
Er... which 'logic' was that?
jh
JeffMo
You've been around here long enough, jh, that I think it would be best
if we took that question as an insincere attempt to "start from
scratch" on a topic where you have strongly-held opinions, but on
which you have been unable to present compelling arguments to those
who disagree. You've had the "logic" presented to you, and you are
certainly under no obligation to agree with it, but to pretend that
you haven't heard it is disingenuous at best.
JeffMo
"Religion is said not to work if you don't first believe.
Airplanes do not have that limitation." -- JeffMo
Paul Murray
news:8r75mm$asp$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> > aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
> > and come out as atheists.
> >
> Er... which 'logic' was that?
There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God, so it's reasonable
not to hold a God-belief until such reason is forthcoming.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Repent! Quit your job! Slack off!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
Contrarius
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8r75mm$asp$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
>
> > Seriously, yes, it is a brawl; but folks who maybe aren't ready for
> > this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
> > and come out as atheists.
> >
> Er... which 'logic' was that?
What's your point, humph? Or is your capacity for discourse limited to
potshots?
--
Contrarius
contr...@hotmail.com
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo wrote:
"Netcom jimhumph
SkyEyes wrote
> >
> >> Seriously, yes, it is a brawl; but folks who maybe aren't ready for
> >> this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
> >> aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
> >> and come out as atheists.
> >>
> >Er... which 'logic' was that?
>
> if we took that question as an insincere attempt to "start from
> scratch" on a topic where you have strongly-held opinions, but on
> which you have been unable to present compelling arguments to those
> who disagree.
>
in the sense that there are arguments which *prove* that
religion is true. Neither are there such for atheism-
it seems to me that 'Skyeyes' is suggesting that there
are. If that is so, let her ( or you ) present these
arguments.
>You've had the "logic" presented to you,
>
I think not. Please state these 'logical arguments' if you
disagree. Anything less is empty hot air on your
part so far as I am concerned.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Paul Murray wrote
>A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
> > > and come out as atheists.
> > >
> > Er... which 'logic' was that?
>
> There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God,
>so it's reasonable not to hold a God-belief until such
> reason is forthcoming.
>
If this is an example of the 'logic' to which Skyeyes
was referring, I am afraid it is quite inadequate.You are
simply begging the whole question. The premise
"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"
is IMO false, or at least is greatly open to question.
So much for atheist logic.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Contrarius
> > > Seriously, yes, it is a brawl; but folks who maybe aren't ready for
> > > this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
> > > aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
> > > and come out as atheists.
> > >
> > Er... which 'logic' was that?
>
> What's your point, humph? Or is your capacity for discourse limited to
> potshots?
>
My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
which you consider is compelling.
jh
Christopher Latta
>The premise
>"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"
Great, I eagerly await your evidence and analysis that
there is, in fact, sufficient good reason to believe in a god.
In fact, the whole of Christendom awaits the coming of
the new prophet!
Christopher Latta http://www.ozemail.com.au/~clatta
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice,
but in practice there is a great deal of difference.
Mark Elkington
Dave F wrote in message <39D6A53B...@erols.com>...
>Hi Dan:
>
>I agree - I really enjoy this newsgroup - but it's something of a mystery
to me.
>
>I'm curious about who moderates this newsgroup, where they are, and so on.
I
>wonder if our moderator would care to expose these secrets - or if perhaps
it's
>better if it remains a great mystery.
>
>In any case - whoever you are, wherever you are - my thanks as well. In my
>opinion, you do a great job of being fair to all sides, and keeping the
posts
>civil and on-topic, while allowing enough freedom that we (or I, at least)
don't
>feel stifled.
>
>[Thank you very much. Your moderator is Clark Adams (cadams at
>infidels.org).
Damn, with all that mystery I had come to believe it was God--there goes my
next line of argument...
Seriously, I've enjoyed posting here as a mainstream Christian. Thanks for
the effort in helping to create a village in the ng jungle. I think we all
value that, even the dimwitted, narrow-minded, truculent, unbelieving
heretics who post here.
Sorry, just testing the filter :-)
Regards & group hug!
Mark Elkington
David Wynne-Griffiths
The message <8rdb7f$1fl$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>
from "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> contains these words:
> My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
> been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
> which you consider is compelling.
Equally there have been no compelling arguments presented for
believing in a god. Perhaps you would like to indulge us. It would
make a change from your negative comments on the contributions of
others for you to express your beliefs and cite the arguments in
support of them.
--
~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~
JeffMo
>> >> this newsgroup's level of discourse go there to have their questions
>> >> aired. A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
>> >> and come out as atheists.
>> >>
>> >Er... which 'logic' was that?
>>
>> if we took that question as an insincere attempt to "start from
>> scratch" on a topic where you have strongly-held opinions, but on
>> which you have been unable to present compelling arguments to those
>> who disagree.
>>
>I don't believe that there are compelling arguments for religion
>in the sense that there are arguments which *prove* that
>religion is true.
Of course not. "Religion" generally is too broad to be adjudged
"true" or "false" in toto. That term can (and certainly does) include
mutually contradictory claims.
> Neither are there such for atheism-
>it seems to me that 'Skyeyes' is suggesting that there
>are. If that is so, let her ( or you ) present these
>arguments.
I don't think that she is suggesting that there are proofs of the
non-existence of any possible god, if that's what you mean.
>>You've had the "logic" presented to you,
>>
>I think not.
Unsurprising.
>Please state these 'logical arguments' if you
>disagree. Anything less is empty hot air on your
>part so far as I am concerned.
We understand that you hold an irrational attitude in this regard, but
I am not prompted to recount the entire history of everything with
which you've been presented over months and months of posts, simply
because you choose to post "I think not" and ask to be told again.
JeffMo
>
>Paul Murray wrote
>
>>A number of them have gotten the courage (or seen the logic)
>> > > and come out as atheists.
>> > >
>> > Er... which 'logic' was that?
>>
>> There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God,
>>so it's reasonable not to hold a God-belief until such
>> reason is forthcoming.
>>
>If this is an example of the 'logic' to which Skyeyes
>was referring, I am afraid it is quite inadequate.You are
>simply begging the whole question. The premise
>"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"
>is IMO false, or at least is greatly open to question.
>So much for atheist logic.
You should be saying, "So much for theist logic." You can write "IMO
false" or say it is "greatly open to question" all you like, but the
burden is on those who say that there IS sufficient good reason to
believe in fairy-beings or whatever. The default position is that no
such "good reason" has been presented. No evidence for the normal
theistic claims has ever presented that would meet the standards that
we use in OTHER important and life-influencing areas of human
endeavor, such as scientific research or court actions.
SkyEyes
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
<Snippage>
> JeffMo wrote:
> > You've been around here long enough, jh, that I think it would be
best
> > if we took that question as an insincere attempt to "start from
> > scratch" on a topic where you have strongly-held opinions, but on
> > which you have been unable to present compelling arguments to those
> > who disagree.
> >
> I don't believe that there are compelling arguments for religion
> in the sense that there are arguments which *prove* that
> religion is true. Neither are there such for atheism-
> it seems to me that 'Skyeyes' is suggesting that there
> are. If that is so, let her ( or you ) present these
> arguments.
I (and many other atheists) uphold the position that atheism is the
default condition of the human mind prior to indoctrination efforts
that attempt to induce god-belief. So far, nobody has managed to
present solid evidence or a logical argument sufficient to induce god
belief in me; therefore, I'm an atheist - and that's the logic. Until
and unless you can present some evidence and/or logical reason to
believe that some god exists, I hold no belief in any god. See how
that works, jh?
As to compelling arguments for the truth of religion, they are
dependent entirely upon the logical reason(s) to believe that the god
the religion belongs to actually exists.
The point of my comment about alt.atheism and the travails we endure
there is that many humanist/agnostic lurkers have never had it pointed
out to them that "atheism" isn't an "-ism" in the normal sense
wherewith we use that suffix. It isn't a formal doctrine to which one
must adhere, it's merely a *lack* of belief in gods due to *lack* of
evidence that gods exist. I do not find it logical/rational to believe
in something for which there is no concrete evidence nor logical
argument in support.
> >You've had the "logic" presented to you,
> >
> I think not. Please state these 'logical arguments' if you
> disagree. Anything less is empty hot air on your
> part so far as I am concerned.
James, dear, we're *all* familiar with the way you avoid grappling with
concepts by attempting to ensnare us with definitions and word games.
We're onto you, kiddo; better shoot straight or get a new gig.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
Dan Prescher
>
> Contrarius
> >
> > What's your point, humph? Or is your capacity for discourse limited to
> > potshots?
> >
> been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
> which you consider is compelling.
>
Your argument in response must have nothing to do with scientific evidence,
Contrarius, since jh has stated clearly that "Its correct that there is no
scientific evidence for God's existence. Nor is there any scientific
evidence that atheism is true. Religious explanations are metaphysical not
scientific."
Thanks to his apriori assumptions, he simply denies that there can be such a
thing as scientific evidence when the subject is god, so respond
accordingly.
Netcom jimhumph
Christopher Latta
> >The premise
> >"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"
> >is IMO false
>
> Great, I eagerly await your evidence and analysis that
> there is, in fact, sufficient good reason to believe in a god.
> In fact, the whole of Christendom awaits the coming of
> the new prophet!
>
No, *you* ( or rather the previous poster) asserted that
"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"-
this was one of the premises of the argument. * You* have
the burden of proof.
jh
MJ
>> Netcom jimhumph wrote:
>> My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
>> been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the
>> argument which you consider is compelling.
> David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> Equally there have been no compelling arguments presented
> for believing in a god. Perhaps you would like to indulge us.
> It would make a change from your negative comments on the
> contributions of others for you to express your beliefs and
> cite the arguments in support of them.
Netcom jimhumph will not state his beliefs. I think the
reason is because he is an atheist himself. He likes to argue
the other side and he enjoys the intellectual battle. This
is just my opinion and I may be wrong so I will ask him directly:
Netcom jimhumph,
Are you an atheist?
Are you a theist?
If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the deity
you believe in?
MJ
Steven Carr
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Murray wrote
>> There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God,
>>so it's reasonable not to hold a God-belief until such
>> reason is forthcoming.
>If this is an example of the 'logic' to which Skyeyes
>was referring, I am afraid it is quite inadequate.You are
>simply begging the whole question. The premise
>"There is not sufficent good reason to believe in a God"
>is IMO false, or at least is greatly open to question.
>So much for atheist logic.
Why is the statement 'there is not sufficient good reason to believe
in a god' open to question? What is a god?
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo wrote:
> You should be saying, "So much for theist logic." You can write "IMO
> false" or say it is "greatly open to question" all you like, but the
> burden is on those who say that there IS sufficient good reason to
> believe in fairy-beings or whatever.
>
A predictable response- and one which is entirely irrelevant.
Paul Murray presented the argument: "There is not sufficent
good reason to believe in a God, so it's reasonable not to
hold a God-belief until such reason is forthcoming".
I pointed out that the argument is unsound- it rests
on a false premise. Of course if you or Paul
Murray disagree you will need to show that the
pemise "There is not sufficent good reason to believe
in a God" is true. You have the burden of proof, as
you are the one presenting the argument.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo wrote
> >Please state these 'logical arguments' if you
> >disagree. Anything less is empty hot air on your
> >part so far as I am concerned.
>
> We understand that you hold an irrational attitude in this regard, but
> I am not prompted to recount the entire history of everything with
> which you've been presented over months and months of posts, simply
> because you choose to post "I think not" and ask to be told again.
>
Translation: I, Jeffmo, have no actual 'logical arguments' that I am
confident would stand up to interrogation.
jh
Michael A. McAngus
[snip]
> My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
> been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
> which you consider is compelling.
> jh
I don't presume to answer for Contrarius; but, for me
the compelling argument for atheism is the lack of
compelling evidence or argument in support of the god
hypothesis.
Now, if your response to the above (assuming you do
respond) holds true to what I have seen from you over
the past month or so, you will say something like
'lack of compelling evidence or argument doesn't mean
there is none.' If this is the line of argument that
you will follow, let me nip it in the bud by
requesting that you actually supply such compelling
evidence or argument, rather than simply issuing
challenge after challenge.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
There is considerably more proof that Elvis has been
abducted by space aliens than there is proof that
Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
- Rohan Oberoi
Michael A. McAngus
Netcom jimhumph
Steven Carr wrote:
>
> Why is the statement 'there is not sufficient good
>reason to believe in a god' open to question?
>
Its an unevidenced assertion. And of course what
constitutes a 'good reason' is open to debate.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
MJ wrote:
> >> Netcom jimhumph wrote:
> >> My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
> >> been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the
> >> argument which you consider is compelling.
>
> > David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> > Equally there have been no compelling arguments presented
> > for believing in a god. Perhaps you would like to indulge us.
> > It would make a change from your negative comments on the
> > contributions of others for you to express your beliefs and
> > cite the arguments in support of them.
>
> Netcom jimhumph will not state his beliefs. I think the
> reason is because he is an atheist himself. He likes to argue
> the other side and he enjoys the intellectual battle. This
> is just my opinion and I may be wrong so I will ask him directly:
> Are you an atheist?
>
No of course I am not an atheist. I generally enjoy the intellectual
battle, but that becomes wearysome after a while ,since
I have inflicted so many comprehensive defeats on the atheist
side ;)
> If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the deity
> you believe in?
>
I accept the 3 omni's (properly defined).
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Michael A. McAngus wrote:
> > My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
> > been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
> > which you consider is compelling.
> >
>
> I don't presume to answer for Contrarius; but, for me
> the compelling argument for atheism is the lack of
> compelling evidence or argument in support of the god
> hypothesis.
>
I'm afraid that is *not* a compelling argument for atheism,
rather it is a piece of fallacious reasoning-specifically an
argument from ignorance. And I do not claim
'proofs' or compelling evidence for religion- I
claim merely that religious belief is highly
plausible.
jh
JeffMo
Translation: I, jimhumph, fail to recognize that JeffMo has already
presented such arguments, which did stand up to interrogation.
Any idiot can play the "tell me again, you didn't impress me the last
time" game, jh. If the shoe fits, go ahead and play it by yourself.
I'm not so easily amused.
JeffMo
>JeffMo wrote:
>
>> You should be saying, "So much for theist logic." You can write "IMO
>> false" or say it is "greatly open to question" all you like, but the
>> burden is on those who say that there IS sufficient good reason to
>> believe in fairy-beings or whatever.
>>
>A predictable response- and one which is entirely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to the issue which is central (IMO), by any means.
Religionists generally have abused the power gained by controlling how
we label what we see around us.
Millennia of saying "this is so" doesn't make it so.
>Paul Murray presented the argument: "There is not sufficent
>good reason to believe in a God, so it's reasonable not to
>hold a God-belief until such reason is forthcoming".
>I pointed out that the argument is unsound- it rests
>on a false premise.
No, you didn't. You simply claimed it was false, with no
justification.
> Of course if you or Paul
>Murray disagree you will need to show that the
>pemise "There is not sufficent good reason to believe
> in a God" is true. You have the burden of proof, as
>you are the one presenting the argument.
I am?
I guess I will have to pause here a moment and ask for a clarification
of the exact meaning of that premise.
Does it mean something like:
1. There is not sufficient good reason for Paul Murray to believe in a
God.
2. There is not sufficient good reason for someone other than Paul
Murray to believe in a God.
3. There is not sufficient good reason for anyone at all to believe in
a God.
or possibly:
4. There is not sufficient good reason to admit God as an element of a
more or less consensual working model of objective reality.
I took it to mean option 1 above, and I was willing to take his word
for it, just like I'm willing to take your word (if you choose to
offer it) that there is sufficient good reason for you TO believe in a
God. Of course, your belief doesn't carry over to me, without
sufficient good reason.
I think it is clear that there is sufficient good reason for some
people to believe in a God, even though one does not exist,
objectively. Some believers talk about how people would go around
killing, raping, and maiming, without God-belief. Though this looks
like a projection defense mechanism to me, that would constitute
sufficient good reason for ME to want THEM to believe in God.
JeffMo
I'm rather fond of asking for a definition of another term in that
question. You might remember it -- it was the one you were largely
unable operationally to define, several months back.
JeffMo
p.s. It starts with a "g".
JeffMo
>MJ wrote:
>> If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the deity
>> you believe in?
>>
>I accept the 3 omni's (properly defined).
Are you still speechless on the state of existence of this
thingumabob?
JeffMo
David Wynne-Griffiths
The message <8s07aq$g8j$2...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
from "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> contains these words:
> No of course I am not an atheist. I generally enjoy the intellectual
> battle, but that becomes wearysome after a while ,since
> I have inflicted so many comprehensive defeats on the atheist
> side ;)
You have never been able to do anything other than pick holes in the
arguments of others. You have never presented an argument in support
of your own beliefs, probably because you know the ease with which
your argument would be subjected to the same treatment.
Paul Murray
> > If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the deity
> > you believe in?
> >
> I accept the 3 omni's (properly defined).
If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think before
he thinks it?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Repent! Quit your job! Slack off!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
Christopher Latta
>
>Christopher Latta
>
>> >The premise
You have previously stated that "Its correct that there
is no scientific evidence for God's existence." This lack of
evidence seems to me to lead to there being insufficient
good reason to believe in a god or gods.
However, you opined that the premise that there is not
sufficient good reason to believe in a God is false, so I
thought you may have something to back that statement
up. An "unevidenced assertion" I have heard such statements
called before.
Now, you might have personal experiences or hallucinations
that you choose to interpret religiously, but these are not
transferable and so do not lead to a general sufficient good
reason to believe to in a god, although they may suffice for
you on a personal level.
Dan Prescher
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s21vl$310$3...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
David Wynne-Griffiths
The message <8s21vl$310$3...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>
from "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> contains these words:
> And I do not claim
> 'proofs' or compelling evidence for religion- I
> claim merely that religious belief is highly
> plausible.
And there we have it! Jim cannot produce any argument to support his
beliefs or to persuade us that they have any valid basis. He just
thinks religious belief is highly plausible. I wonder if he thinks
that all forms of religious belief are equally plausible?
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo wrote
> >
> >> You should be saying, "So much for theist logic." You can write "IMO
> >> false" or say it is "greatly open to question" all you like, but the
> >> burden is on those who say that there IS sufficient good reason to
> >> believe in fairy-beings or whatever.
> >>
> >A predictable response- and one which is entirely irrelevant.
>
> It's not irrelevant to the issue which is central (IMO), by any means.
> Religionists generally have abused the power gained by controlling how
> we label what we see around us.
>
[..]
> >Paul Murray presented the argument: "There is not sufficent
> >good reason to believe in a God, so it's reasonable not to
> >hold a God-belief until such reason is forthcoming".
> >I pointed out that the argument is unsound- it rests
> >on a false premise.
>
> I think it is clear that there is sufficient good reason for some
> people to believe in a God, even though one does not exist,
> objectively.
>
Evidence for this last claim-"one does not exist, objectively"?
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Christopher Latta <cla...@colateral.com.au> wrote in message
news:Z47F5.25775$O7.4...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> You have previously stated that "Its correct that there
> is no scientific evidence for God's existence." This lack of
> evidence seems to me to lead to there being insufficient
> good reason to believe in a god or gods.
>
follow logically that if there is no scientific evidence for something,
there is not good reason to believe that it is true.
> However, you opined that the premise that there is not
> sufficient good reason to believe in a God is false, so I
> thought you may have something to back that statement
> up.
>
As I explained the proponent of the claim has the burden
not me. The claim is a silly one, since "good reason"
could mean so many different things- the claim is
poorly worded.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
David Wynne-Griffiths wrote :
>
> The message <8s07aq$g8j$2...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
> > battle, but that becomes wearysome after a while ,since
> > I have inflicted so many comprehensive defeats on the atheist
> > side ;)
>
> You have never been able to do anything other than pick holes in the
> arguments of others.
>
>You have never presented an argument in support
> of your own beliefs, probably because you know the ease with which
> your argument would be subjected to the same treatment.
>
Not true. I have often presented arguments in support of
religious belief, and these have survived attempts to refute them.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo
> Translation: I, jimhumph, fail to recognize that JeffMo has already
> presented such arguments, which did stand up to interrogation.
You have not- I challenge you to cite even one.
> Any idiot can play the "tell me again, you didn't impress me the last
> time" game, jh.
>
You should know , as you have played it often enough yourself.
I repeat my challenge to present your best argument.
jh
MJ
>> If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the
>> deity you believe in?
> I accept the 3 omni's (properly defined).
Please define them.
David Wynne-Griffiths
The message <8s3o88$a5m$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>
from "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> contains these words:
> Not true. I have often presented arguments in support of
> religious belief, and these have survived attempts to refute them.
That must have been before I started to take this newsgroup. I have
yet to see any argument in favour of religious belief which stands up
so perhaps you would like to indulge me and other recent
correspondents to this newsgroup.
JeffMo
>JeffMo
>
>> Translation: I, jimhumph, fail to recognize that JeffMo has already
>> presented such arguments, which did stand up to interrogation.
>
>You have not- I challenge you to cite even one.
"If the shoe fits, go ahead and play it by yourself."
>> Any idiot can play the "tell me again, you didn't impress me the last
>> time" game, jh.
>>
>You should know , as you have played it often enough yourself.
ROFL!
>I repeat my challenge to present your best argument.
Of course you do! You couldn't do otherwise!
When you do it, it's supposedly acceptable: "Did you expect me to
provide a summary of all of the arguments against Martin?"
But when I decline to review MONTHS of posts in which you focus on
irrelevancy and duck difficult questions, somehow I never presented
any good arguments...
Nice try, jh. I'm still not impressed.
Michael A. McAngus
>> > My point is that no compelling arguments for atheism have
>> > been presented on this forum. If you disagree cite the argument
>> > which you consider is compelling.
>> >
>>
>> I don't presume to answer for Contrarius; but, for me
>> the compelling argument for atheism is the lack of
>> compelling evidence or argument in support of the god
>> hypothesis.
>>
>I'm afraid that is *not* a compelling argument for atheism,
>rather it is a piece of fallacious reasoning-specifically an
>argument from ignorance.
Hmmm. I thought the argument from ignorance was the
proposition that lack of argument/evidence AGAINST a
claim meant the claim was true.
It's the difference between "You have presented no
convincing arguments/evidence that gods don't exist,
so I believe they do exist," and "You have presented
no convincing arguments/evidence that gods do exist,
so I don't believe they exist."
Superficially they appear the same, but I think you
should be able to discern the difference.
> And I do not claim
>'proofs' or compelling evidence for religion- I
>claim merely that religious belief is highly
>plausible.
An unsupported assertion. And of course whether or
not a proposition is 'plausible' is open to debate.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to
Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
- Ambrose Bierce
Michael A. McAngus
Netcom jimhumph
David Wynne-Griffiths wrote
> > And I do not claim
> > 'proofs' or compelling evidence for religion- I
> > claim merely that religious belief is highly
> > plausible.
>
> beliefs or to persuade us that they have any valid basis.
>
is true- not that I could not support my beliefs or provide
valid arguments ( as opposed to those that are demonstrably
sound). For your part you cannot prove that religion
is false either.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Paul Murray wrote
> > > If you are a theist can you list any attributes of the deity
> > > you believe in?
> > >
> > I accept the 3 omni's (properly defined).
>
before
> he thinks it?
>
possible to know. As it is not logically possible to
know ( with certainty) what one will think in the future before one
thinks it, the answer is no.
jh
JeffMo
>Omnipotence is defined as knowing everything that it is logically
>possible to know.
ITYM "omniscience."
JeffMo
Prefer substance over surface.
JeffMo
>For your part you cannot prove that religion
>is false either.
Religion is something that is neither true or false. Many *claims*
associated with religious belief are false, of course.
David Wynne-Griffiths
The message <8sbria$o83$3...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>
from "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> contains these words:
> Fallcious reasoning. I said that I could not *prove* that religion
> is true- not that I could not support my beliefs or provide
> valid arguments ( as opposed to those that are demonstrably
> sound). For your part you cannot prove that religion
> is false either.
If you think that there are valid arguments to support your belief in
a deity, why are you so shy about presenting them to us?
Shaad Mohiuddin Ahmad
Netcom jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Omnipotence is defined as knowing everything that it is logically
>possible to know. As it is not logically possible to
>know ( with certainty) what one will think in the future before one
>thinks it, the answer is no.
I suspect the term you meant to use was omniscient, wasn't it?
The primary OED definition for omniscient is "Knowing all things,
all-knowing, infinite in knowledge." No caveats about what it is
logically possible to know (your claims notwithstanding) are mentioned.
As such, it seems a tad self-serving on your part to include a
caveat that you coined as part of the definition.
FWIW, the primary OED definition of omnipotent is "Almighty,
infinite in power."
Regards.
sh...@leland.stanford.edu - Shaad -
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/
the deviant biologist
"People who claim they don't let little things bother them have never
slept in a room with a single mosquito."
-- Anonymous
Netcom jimhumph
Michael A. McAngus wrote:
> >> I don't presume to answer for Contrarius; but, for me
> >> the compelling argument for atheism is the lack of
> >> compelling evidence or argument in support of the god
> >> hypothesis.
> >>
> >I'm afraid that is *not* a compelling argument for atheism,
> >rather it is a piece of fallacious reasoning-specifically an
> >argument from ignorance.
>
> Hmmm. I thought the argument from ignorance was the
> proposition that lack of argument/evidence AGAINST a
> claim meant the claim was true.
>
Not necessarily. An AFI might be of the type
"There is no evidence against my position , so
it is correct" OR "There is no evidence available
for p therefore p is false" [other possibilities
too]. In the example above the reasoning
is fallacious since the argument runs:
"...the compelling argument for atheism is the
lack of compelling evidence or argument
in support of the god hypothesis"- plainly
the (purported) lack of evidence for theism
does not establish a compelling argument
for atheism ( ie establish that atheism is true).
jh
Paul Filseth
> Paul Murray wrote
> > If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think
> > before he thinks it?
>
> possible to know. As it is not logically possible to know ( with
> certainty) what one will think in the future before one thinks it,
> the answer is no.
Why isn't that logically possible? Suppose He knows on October
21 that it will rain in Seattle on October 22. If He's omniscient,
then whatever happened, He thinks happened. So on October 23 He'll
think it rained on October 22. If on October 21 He knows He'll still
be omniscient on October 23, then He knows that on October 23 He'll
think it rained on October 22. But on October 21 He doesn't think
it rained on October 22, because it hasn't yet. So if He can know
ordinary things about the future with certainty, like when and where
it will rain, then He can also know what he'll think in the future,
before He thinks it. (Or is it logically impossible for God to know
He's still going to be omniscient in two days?)
--
Paul Filseth To email, delete the x.
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Netcom jimhumph
Shaad Mohiuddin Ahmad <sh...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:8sogps$m...@epic23.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <8sbrid$o83$7...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>,
> Netcom jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >possible to know. As it is not logically possible to
> >know ( with certainty) what one will think in the future before one
> >thinks it, the answer is no.
>
>
> The primary OED definition for omniscient is "Knowing all things,
> all-knowing, infinite in knowledge."
>
Yes thats the lexical definition. Note however it
does not state that omniscience involves "knowing
things which it is logically impossible to know".
> No caveats about what it is
> logically possible to know (your claims notwithstanding) are mentioned.
> As such, it seems a tad self-serving on your part to include a
> caveat that you coined as part of the definition.
>
Not at all. I am merely presenting a precising definition-
in science and philosophy we very often have to provide definitions
which are more exact than those which appear in
general dictionaries.
jh
Michael A. McAngus
>
> Michael A. McAngus wrote:
>
> > >> I don't presume to answer for Contrarius; but, for me
> > >> the compelling argument for atheism is the lack of
> > >> compelling evidence or argument in support of the god
> > >> hypothesis.
> > >>
> > >I'm afraid that is *not* a compelling argument for atheism,
> > >rather it is a piece of fallacious reasoning-specifically an
> > >argument from ignorance.
> >
> > Hmmm. I thought the argument from ignorance was the
> > proposition that lack of argument/evidence AGAINST a
> > claim meant the claim was true.
> >
> Not necessarily. An AFI might be of the type
> "There is no evidence against my position , so
> it is correct" OR "There is no evidence available
> for p therefore p is false" [other possibilities
> too].
You seem to have snipped my examples. One of them pretty
well sums up my position:
"You have presented no convincing arguments/evidence that
gods do exist, so I don't believe they exist."
And guess what, I will continue to not believe in gods
until such time (if any) that I encounter a reason to
believe.
To date, I have seen nothing from you or anyone else
that constitutes compelling evidence or argument in
support of the god hypothesis.
> In the example above the reasoning
> is fallacious since the argument runs:
> "...the compelling argument for atheism is the
> lack of compelling evidence or argument
> in support of the god hypothesis"
You snipped out "For me". I don't presume to claim
that lack of evidence is compelling for others. To
be honest, I usually can't figure out how others
think.
> - plainly
> the (purported) lack of evidence for theism
> does not establish a compelling argument
> for atheism ( ie establish that atheism is true).
This unsupported assertion is not plain at all.
I don't assert that lack of belief in a proposition
establishes that lack of belief is "true" (whatever
it means for a lack of belief to be true). I simply
report, truthfully, that I don't believe.
I don't believe many things without evidence. For
example, I don't believe that you have any arguments
or evidence in support of the god hypothesis.
Of course, my beliefs are subject to change in the
light of new evidence.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
Parenthood is too important a responsibility to
force on anyone.
- Sarah Weddington
Netcom jimhumph
Michael A. McAngus wrote
> You seem to have snipped my examples. One of them pretty
> well sums up my position:
> "You have presented no convincing arguments/evidence that
> gods do exist, so I don't believe they exist."
Thats not an argument for the non-existence of God,
its just a statement of your personal belief.
[..]
> I don't believe many things without evidence. For
> example, I don't believe that you have any arguments
> or evidence in support of the god hypothesis.
>
But neither you not the other atheists here are
willing to furnish a definition of 'evidence'. I
define evidence as that which provides the
ground for a belief or theory- according to
this definition there is evidence ( although
its status is controversial) for Chrisitianity.
If are unwilling to accept my definition , you
must provide one of your own- simply repeating
the assertion "there is no evidence " won't do.
jh
phobos
Netcom jimhumph wrote:
> Yes thats the lexical definition. Note however it
> does not state that omniscience involves "knowing
> things which it is logically impossible to know".
The set of real numbers is infinite in extent. However, it does not include
(among other things) the square root of -1. It is possible for an infinitely
large set (such as the set of things a hypothetical deity knows) to exclude
some entities (things that deity does not know). But this is rather
contradicted by the earlier statements 'Knowing all things, all knowing'...
these imply that the set of the knowledge of an omniscient being is
equivalent to the universal set. However, there may be items of knowledge
that are undefined, similarly to 1/0 or tan 90. These items are nonexistent
and hence do not belong in a set that is defined to contain everything.
Similarly with the square circle problem of omnipotence: the square circle is
undefined, meaningless, so it is not an entity in the universal set of things
that might be done. Thus it is not necessary that it belong in the set of
possible actions of an omnipotence.
I'm not sure how well set theory is applicable to theology, but it's an
interesting line of thought.
Netcom jimhumph
phobos wrote:
jimhumph wrote:
> Similarly with the square circle problem of omnipotence: the square circle
is
> undefined, meaningless, so it is not an entity in the universal set of
things
> that might be done. Thus it is not necessary that it belong in the set of
> possible actions of an omnipotence.
>
Yes, I agree- this is similar what I said earlier
jh
JeffMo
>Michael A. McAngus wrote
>
>> You seem to have snipped my examples. One of them pretty
>> well sums up my position:
>> "You have presented no convincing arguments/evidence that
>> gods do exist, so I don't believe they exist."
>
>Thats not an argument for the non-existence of God,
>its just a statement of your personal belief.
So why do the personal beliefs of theists count as "reasons" to
consider theism rational?
Just to be clear, would you also count the personal beliefs of
atheists as reasons to consider atheism rational?
esvb
> "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Paul Murray wrote
> > > If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think
> > > before he thinks it?
> >
> > possible to know. As it is not logically possible to know ( with
> > certainty) what one will think in the future before one thinks it,
> > the answer is no.
Omniscience, (jim has already pointed out that he mistakenly used the word
omnipotence), means 'all knowledge.' The phrase "logically possible to
know," clouds the issue, because it seemingly expands the range of knowledge
beyond what simply is. To be omniscient means to know everything; thus it
is the collection of every single scrap of knowledge. Omniscience precludes
thinking.
What is the result for a being who is truly omniscient (i.e. god)?
S/he(it)? is absolutely incapable of thought.
At the minimum we know that god cannot think because 'thinking' is a human
concept concerning the activity that occurs when an individual constructs
images, meanings and ideas from the source material that is provided through
sensory data transmitted to the brain and it is always accompanied by a
movement of neurotransmitters in the biochemical reactions that occur in
synaptic clefts. In other words, god cannot think, because god does not
have senses, neurons, chemicals, synaptic clefts, etc.
But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one did
not know before, which of course would defeat the meaning of the word
omniscience. Thinking always involves the juxtaposition of data in ways
that the data has not been so arranged before. To think means to mentally
shape an object, situation, idea, within a particular context. While we
might think about one thing more than once, our very awareness of having
previously thought about it is what brings about the newness of the thought.
Our thoughts are continually building upon one another, always becoming
something new, something different, millions of discoveries in a sequential
line of biochemical configurations. This is the one fact that makes being
human so exciting for me personally.
God, if omniscient, can have none of this, because there can never be
anything new for god. God cannot discover, think, learn, grow... a rather
tedious, monotonous, horrible existence if one asks me.
To repeat myself: Omniscience precludes thinking.
eric
Automort
>So why do the personal beliefs of theists count as "reasons" to
>consider theism rational?
>
>Just to be clear, would you also count the personal beliefs of
>atheists as reasons to consider atheism rational?
Often I find the personal beliefs of theists grounds for considering atheism
rational.
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo
> So why do the personal beliefs of theists count as "reasons" to
> consider theism rational?
>
I have made no such claim.
JH
James J. Lippard
esvb <es...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> Omniscience, (jim has already pointed out that he mistakenly used the word
> omnipotence), means 'all knowledge.' The phrase "logically possible to
> know," clouds the issue, because it seemingly expands the range of knowledge
> beyond what simply is. To be omniscient means to know everything; thus it
> is the collection of every single scrap of knowledge. Omniscience precludes
> thinking.
>
> What is the result for a being who is truly omniscient (i.e. god)?
> S/he(it)? is absolutely incapable of thought.
>
> At the minimum we know that god cannot think because 'thinking' is a human
> concept concerning the activity that occurs when an individual constructs
> images, meanings and ideas from the source material that is provided through
> sensory data transmitted to the brain and it is always accompanied by a
> movement of neurotransmitters in the biochemical reactions that occur in
> synaptic clefts. In other words, god cannot think, because god does not
> have senses, neurons, chemicals, synaptic clefts, etc.
>
> But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
> matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one did
I disagree. Thinking can be a matter of directing attention.
So long as there are distinctions to be made between long-term memory
and current focus of attention, this problem doesn't arise. Now, it
might be argued that omnipresence/omniscience requires that all
knowledge is the direct subject of attention at all times, in which
case
your argument goes through.
Derrick Boucher
> ...snipped for brevity
> What is the result for a being who is truly omniscient (i.e. god)?
> S/he(it)? is absolutely incapable of thought.
>
> At the minimum we know that god cannot think because 'thinking' is a human
> concept concerning the activity that occurs when an individual constructs
> .........
> But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
> matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one did
> not know before, which of course would defeat the meaning of the word
> .........
> God, if omniscient, can have none of this, because there can never be
> anything new for god. God cannot discover, think, learn, grow... a rather
> tedious, monotonous, horrible existence if one asks me.
>
> To repeat myself: Omniscience precludes thinking.
>
> eric
Well done, Eric. We must be careful, as you were, to use think to mean "as
humans think," lest jh or another theist try to own the word and claim
that God thinks in his own mysterious ways.
Another reason God can't think is that if God is outside time, it
precludes thinking which is a temporal process. (Whether God is outside
time is a matter of debate even among those that know God best;
theologians. This was made abundantly clear to me last summer at a Science
and Religion conference at Oxford.)
Anyway, this leads to a bigger question: In what sense can God be a
person? He has no human failings or limitations, cannot be harmed or
depressed (or can he?) cannot think.
I think, as did Spinoza and Einstein, that the notion of a personal god is
something extraordinarily silly. How could one have a personal
relationship with a non-person?
The less God seems a person and more a nebulous concept like "good" or
"justice" the less likely I would be to call his existence in any way
concrete. Less still would be my inclination to worship such an abstract
concept.
OK, Jason, I'm sure you've got a take on this. Let's have it!
De r r i c k . .. _ __ _______ __o
Bo u c h e r . .. _ __ _____ _-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Paul Murray
> But neither you not the other atheists here are
> willing to furnish a definition of 'evidence'. I
> define evidence as that which provides the
> ground for a belief or theory- according to
> this definition there is evidence ( although
> its status is controversial) for Chrisitianity.
> If are unwilling to accept my definition , you
> must provide one of your own- simply repeating
> the assertion "there is no evidence " won't do.
By evidence, I mean things you can handle, see, smell and hear. If someone
tells me that the electric charge on an electron is whatever, I wont be
satisfied until they explain to me that they saw charged oil droplets of a
known weight floating in equilibrium in an electric field. I want jesus to
appear before me. I want ether to put my finger in the wound, or for someone
whose testimony is credible to tell me that they did. "I felt it in my
heart" is just not good enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Repent! Quit your job! Slack off!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
Netcom jimhumph
Derrick Boucher wrote :
> Another reason God can't think is that if God is outside time, it
> precludes thinking which is a temporal process.
> (Whether God is outside
> time is a matter of debate even among those that know God best;
> theologians.
>
Indeed- Aquinas, Austine and Boethius understood God
as existing 'outside time', but many theologians prefer to
think of his existing eternally ( in the sense that
he existed at each moment of past time, exists now, and
will exist at each moment of future time). Your claim obviously
would not work if one accepts the latter
If one takes
the former view that God exists *outside time*, I do not see how
one can infer that God is 'precluded from thinking' since we
simply do not know what it is to be
'outside time', nor what it might be like to 'exist'
in such a state. There is no way that we could scientifically
test the claim that thinking is impossible 'outside time'.
To stipulate that thinking *necessarily* involves time, would be
to produce an argument that was true by definition.
> Anyway, this leads to a bigger question: In what sense can God be a
> person? He has no human failings or limitations, cannot be harmed or
> depressed (or can he?) cannot think.
>
Swinburne suuggests that God is a personal being- that is in some
sense a person: "by person I mean an individual with powers
(to act intentionally) , purposes and beliefs".
jh
Mark Folsom
In another thread, you (jimhumph) wrote:
"My argument is, rather, that if one accepts the
principle that it is rational to believe that a report is
true unless there is good reason to believe otherwise[
and one should] , then it is rational to believe that
many religious reports are true, and hence that theism
is true."
So, apparently it is not rational to believe that theism is true based on
personal beliefs of theists, unless they report such beliefs, in which case
it is rational to believe that theism is true---based on the reports but not
the belief. Got it ;-)
That's deep, man.
Mark Folsom
Melinda Barno
"James J. Lippard" <lippard...@discord.org> wrote
> I disagree. Thinking can be a matter of directing attention.
But even then your mind is assessing data in new ways. I think it is
literally impossible to have any thought without new avenues of synaptic
passageways being established in your mind. Thinking is always creative
because it is your brain taking all of the sensory data and constructing it
into mental images. To pick up a leaf and look at it, not only means to
take the sense data from your fingetips, but also from your eyes and
possibly even your nose and construct a similar image in your mind, and also
to draw from memories of botony, and experiences of childhood playing in
leaves, and perhaps even a few happy lingering memories of just having
kissed your wife, or husband or child which give the leaf a new depth of hue
and beauty.... all of these divergent electronic stands come together to
create something new and amazing in your mind... a momentary thought.
Thinking always contains newness, even if we are thinking about old boring
things.
eric
Jason
wrote:
>Well done, Eric. We must be careful, as you were, to use think to mean "as
>humans think," lest jh or another theist try to own the word and claim
>that God thinks in his own mysterious ways.
I don't think you can defeat this argument just by declaring it out of
bounds. I would agree that God does not think "as humans think". He
is clearly superior to us.
A worm cannot comprehend the thoughts of a fish who cannot comprehend
the thoughts of a dog...of a man...of God. Just as it is impossible
to describe a system with definitions contained within a subset
system, it would be impossible for our mind to comprehend completely a
mind greater than ourselves. In that way I have to defer to
"mystery". All I can say is "think" is probably a pale shadow of the
actual process.
>OK, Jason, I'm sure you've got a take on this. Let's have it!
If I could totally understand God...would I want to worship him?
Jason
What good would it do me to be able to explain
the meaning of Christianity if it had no deeper
significance for me and my life; what good would
it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked,
not caring whether I recognized her or not, and
producing in me a shudder of fear rather than
trusting devotion?
- Soren Kierkegaard
Lara Haehle
postings...
IMHO, lack of evidence supporting theism, or god, leaves one with few
choices:
1) continue to believe in god anyway
2) do not believe in god
The true argument is in the evidence. Theists find evidence to support
their beliefs. Atheists choose not to believe the evidence because it
disagrees with theirs. People believe what they want to believe.
Xandaira
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8st231$ajh$3...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> Not necessarily. An AFI might be of the type
> "There is no evidence against my position , so
> it is correct" OR "There is no evidence available
> for p therefore p is false" [other possibilities
> too]. In the example above the reasoning
> is fallacious since the argument runs:
> "...the compelling argument for atheism is the
> lack of compelling evidence or argument
> in support of the god hypothesis"- plainly
Paul Murray
news:POmK5.1120$R4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
> matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one
did
> not know before, which of course would defeat the meaning of the word
> omniscience. Thinking always involves the juxtaposition of data in ways
> that the data has not been so arranged before. To think means to mentally
> shape an object, situation, idea, within a particular context.
You have expressed better than I have ever been able to do.
Paul Murray
news:281020001035267692%lippard...@discord.org...
> > But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
> > matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one
did
>
> I disagree. Thinking can be a matter of directing attention.
How can God have "attention"? Does God ever go "Jeez - I missed that, my
mind was elsewhere"? Paying attention to a thing means temprarily damping or
blocking out other stimuli, something that an omniscient being never does.
4nogod
>At the minimum we know that god cannot think because 'thinking' is a human
>concept concerning the activity that occurs when an individual constructs
>images, meanings and ideas from the source material that is provided through
>sensory data transmitted to the brain and it is always accompanied by a
>movement of neurotransmitters in the biochemical reactions that occur in
>synaptic clefts. In other words, god cannot think, because god does not
>have senses, neurons, chemicals, synaptic clefts, etc.
I like this. It reminds me of some satires I've read that show how god could
not be tri-omni, but I don't recall ever reading one that picked on god's
inability to think. Is this a paraphrase of something you found or your own
creation?
An argument certain lesser beings might make against it is that god is also all
powerful. Being all powerful provides god the ability to create additional
brain space, thus allowing god to create new thoughts. Except that if god is
omniscient, god already knows these thoughts. Thus, creating additional brain
space for god is like adding another disk drive. It can backup existing data
and programs there, but cannot create new ones--at least not on his own since
that would entail creating new thoughts. He can, however, acquire new games
from one of us mere mortals. At a price. :)
--
(c) 2000 4nogod 4no...@usa.net, all rights reserved.
I don't think; therefore, I'm god. This explains the high percentage of
religious professional athletes. They simply wish to attain oneness with a
complete lack of thought.
.
JeffMo
I think we have a problem here. I distinctly remember you saying that
millions of reports of religious experiences should count as evidence
in favor of theism. In a gracious gesture, you admitted that this
"evidence" might be controversial, to say the least, but you did seem
to count this among the "reasons" which might prompt one to be
believer of some sort.
1. Didn't you say this?
2. Isn't it a personal belief of (some) theists that some collection
of their cognitive events during some span of time constituted a
"religious experience" or an "experience of God?"
James J. Lippard
<pmu...@nospam.bigpond.com> wrote:
> "James J. Lippard" <lippard...@discord.org> wrote in message
> news:281020001035267692%lippard...@discord.org...
>
> > > But in a more obvious way, god cannot think because thinking is always a
> > > matter of discovery, and discovery means finding something new that one
> did
> >
> > I disagree. Thinking can be a matter of directing attention.
>
> How can God have "attention"? Does God ever go "Jeez - I missed that, my
> mind was elsewhere"? Paying attention to a thing means temprarily damping or
> blocking out other stimuli, something that an omniscient being never does.
I don't see anything inherently contradictory in saying that a
nearly-omniscient being has some knowledge that is stored in long-term
memory and not active. (I say nearly-omniscient to avoid possible
logical problems with omniscience.)
Attending to everything at a given time (or range of times) doesn't
entail attending to all thoughts and memories at all times.
Christopher Latta
>Anyway, this leads to a bigger question: In what sense can God be a
>person? He has no human failings or limitations, cannot be harmed or
>depressed (or can he?) cannot think.
Not being able to be depressed would mean that God was not
omniscient, because there would be something in the universe
that God did not know about - that is, the feeling of depression.
So, extrapolating this to its logical conclusion, I think we can
safely say that God has experienced all forms of depression,
including depression to the point of suicide, and thus we can
say that due to God's omniscience, God no longer exists,
having experienced extreme depression and thus having
committed suicide.
Christopher Latta http://www.ozemail.com.au/~clatta
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice,
but in practice there is a great deal of difference.
Netcom jimhumph
JeffMo wrote
> >> So why do the personal beliefs of theists count as "reasons" to
> >> consider theism rational?
> >>
> >I have made no such claim.
>
> I think we have a problem here. I distinctly remember you saying that
> millions of reports of religious experiences should count as evidence
> in favor of theism.
>
This is a subset of personal beliefs of theists, and I didn't
say that just any religious report should count as evidence.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Mark Folsom writes:
> So, apparently it is not rational to believe that theism is true based on
> personal beliefs of theists, unless they report such beliefs, in which
case
> it is rational to believe that theism is true---based on the reports but
not
> the belief. Got it ;-)
>
No you haven't - thats not what I said. I said that it was rational
to believe that a report of a religious experiences
is true in the absence of background
information to the contrary. I didn''t say that
one should accept just any religious report as evidence.
jh
John Secker
writes
>
>If I could totally understand God...would I want to worship him?
>
--
John Secker
esvb
"Jason" <drfr...@NOJUNKhome.com> wrote in message
news:39fcf534.6817725@news...
> A worm cannot comprehend the thoughts of a fish who cannot comprehend
> the thoughts of a dog...of a man...of God. Just as it is impossible
> to describe a system with definitions contained within a subset
> system, it would be impossible for our mind to comprehend completely a
> mind greater than ourselves. In that way I have to defer to
> "mystery". All I can say is "think" is probably a pale shadow of the
The original point does not address the matter of a human understanding the
thoughts of god, but rather whether or not it is logically correct to claim
that god can think. What you have delineated is a linearly ascendent list
in which god is merely one being among many (albeit at the top of the list)
who possesses a mind; which means that god differs not in quality but rather
in quantity, (by that I mean to say that you are claiming that we cannot
understand god's mind - a matter of degree between two different minds; you
are not arguing whether or not god has a mind).
The problem with a linear list is that according to traditional monotheistic
thought, god does not simply occupy the top position in a group of like
beings (in this case, beings who possess minds). Instead, god exists
outside the system, i.e., is not bound by the physical rules of the system
and instead enjoys the status of exhibiting several attributes that are
actually antithetical to the conditions of the aforementioned beings who
exist within the constraints of the system, (such as omniscience,
omnipotence, etc.). It is exactly at this point that I interject that it is
impossible for god to think. Omniscience precludes thinking.
Thinking means to create something new within the mind of a being, and god
cannot have anything new there, since god already has all knowledge. If one
counters that god has thought every thought possible this does nothing to
solve the problem since god is atemporal and this means that, according to
our sense of time, at any given moment god is simultaneously thinking every
thought possible, which is really just a case of substituting the word
"thinking" for "knowledge" and destroys the sense of thinking as a
constructive process of arranging sensory data.
In my opinon, the quandary is that it is literally impossible to discuss a
being (even the word "being" is incorrect usage) who matches none of the
experiential categories by which we conceptualize our existence. I am
reminded of a statement by the theologian Paul Tillich who said something
like: "It is just as atheistic to claim that god exists as it is to say he
doesn't." During the process of admitting our inability to comprehend such
a "being" there comes a point when all god-talk becomes utterly meaningless.
We have a similar situation in the example in which two people argue if
there is a gardner tending a collection of plants, and they both observe
over an extended period of time the life cycle of the plants in which there
is no apparent gardner, and the one who believes in such ends by claiming:
"There is a gardner, which just couldn't see her." We can claim that there
is a god, but when our every effort to define this god is frustrated by the
eventualities of our physical existence we arrive at the state when our
claim is as empty as the person proclaiming the gardner. "There is a god,
we just cannot see (understand, comprehend, define, represent, objectify,
scrutinize, etc.) him."
I am an atheist NOT because I am certain there is no god, rather, I am an
atheist because I can devise no system by which to rationally form a belief
in a god. I can certainly imagine a type of being more intelligent than
myself and my species. I can even freely admit that there might be a
species in the universe of whose thoughts would render me to be like the
proverbial worm struggling to comprehend the thoughts of human. But, I
cannot conceive a "being" who exists outside the parameters of my experience
(i.e. the physical constraints of the universe), simply because by being
outside my system I have no framework by which to structure belief.
eric
esvb
"4nogod" <con...@georgewbush.com> wrote >
> Is this a paraphrase of something you found or your own
> creation?
While it is true that I have not read about anyone positing the idea that
"god cannot think", I am always reluctant to claim that a particular concept
is my personal creation. It seems that so many of our ideas are built upon
the incremental discoveries of others, and I am never quite sure how much of
what I think is original with me, and how much is borrowed.
Nevertheless, I do know that these particular ideas about god arose during
the time when I was struggling to understand my belief in god and also what
I understand about humanity, (specifically what constitutes the human mind,
thinking, the essence of our person, etc.).
Many theists accuse atheists of possessing the desire to declaim god so that
they might live as they wish; but this ignores the fact that a sizeable
number of atheists are of a mind that it wouldn't be particularly horrible
to believe in a god, they simply just cannot believe in god. I don't think
we freely choose our beliefs, rather, I think that we believe that which we
find believeable.
I was raised a christian, and progressively through the years, taking god as
a serious subject, strained to devise a theological belief structure that
could be reconciled with my experience as a human being. One of the last
stops on my journey was into apophatic theology (also known as negative
theology), which posits that all we can really do is negate beliefs about
god (i.e., god is not this, god is not that, etc.). There came a time when
I realized that any god talk is nonsense. It is simply impossible for me to
construct a rational belief in a being who does not exist within the
framework of my existence. And this position, in my estimation, equals
atheism.
eric
Derrick Boucher
> Derrick Boucher wrote :
>
> > Another reason God can't think is that if God is outside time, it
> > precludes thinking which is a temporal process.
> > (Whether God is outside
> > time is a matter of debate even among those that know God best;
> > theologians.
> >
> Indeed- Aquinas, Austine and Boethius understood God
> as existing 'outside time', but many theologians prefer to
> think of his existing eternally ( in the sense that
> he existed at each moment of past time, exists now, and
> will exist at each moment of future time). Your claim obviously
> would not work if one accepts the latter
Agreed, though it will warm your heart to know that I also have problems
with the idea of an eternal personal God. (see below)
>
> If one takes
> the former view that God exists *outside time*, I do not see how
> one can infer that God is 'precluded from thinking' since we
> simply do not know what it is to be
> 'outside time', nor what it might be like to 'exist'
> in such a state. There is no way that we could scientifically
> test the claim that thinking is impossible 'outside time'.
> To stipulate that thinking *necessarily* involves time, would be
> to produce an argument that was true by definition.
>
Of course my argument worked by definition. That IS the point. Any
definition of "think" involves time. Therefore, an atemporal God cannot
"think" to the satisfaction of any of these definitions.
Perhaps I should rephrase the point. The concept of "think" is utterly
meaningless in the context of an atemporal God.
And, by the way, there is no way we can scientifically test anything about
this God thingy, is there?
> > Anyway, this leads to a bigger question: In what sense can God be a
> > person? He has no human failings or limitations, cannot be harmed or
> > depressed (or can he?) cannot think.
> >
> Swinburne suuggests that God is a personal being- that is in some
> sense a person: "by person I mean an individual with powers
> (to act intentionally) , purposes and beliefs".
>
> jh
>
An eternal God could, I guess, have intentions and purposes; plans not yet
realized. But these would be very different from human intentions, as
these don't always guarantee the outcome of actions.
Is this personal God omniscient? If so, the the concept of belief
is meaningless. Belief? He KNOWS it all already.
I have a few suggestions for Swinburne!
Mark Folsom
>
> Mark Folsom writes:
>
> > So, apparently it is not rational to believe that theism is true based
on
> > personal beliefs of theists, unless they report such beliefs, in which
> case
> > it is rational to believe that theism is true---based on the reports but
> not
> > the belief. Got it ;-)
> >
> No you haven't - thats not what I said.
I quoted what you said. Why did you snip it? Why did you not show that you
snipped it?
> I said that it was rational
> to believe that a report of a religious experiences
> is true in the absence of background
> information to the contrary.
Cool. Name some specific reports of religious experiences that can support
belief in theism and for which there is no background information to the
contrary.
> I didn''t say that
> one should accept just any religious report as evidence.
You also didn't say how one should discriminate between religious reports
that disagree.
Mark Folsom
Simon Odell
> principle that it is rational to believe that a report is
> true unless there is good reason to believe otherwise[
> and one should] , then it is rational to believe that
> many religious reports are true, and hence that theism
> is true."
>
> So, apparently it is not rational to believe that theism is true based on
> personal beliefs of theists, unless they report such beliefs, in which
case
> it is rational to believe that theism is true---based on the reports but
not
> the belief. Got it ;-)
>
> That's deep, man.
>
> Mark Folsom
Your forgetting one thing and that is almost every single person that calls
themselfs an
athiest has logical reasons why the idea of a deity is patently absurd. If I
reported a pink
elephant to you and you beleived me without question that makes you a fool.
I think that even if God does exist then on a daily basis He is making the
atheists look
smart and the theists look like credulous fools. Worship that ? no thanks.
John Secker
<cla...@colateral.com.au> writes
>So, extrapolating this to its logical conclusion, I think we can
>safely say that God has experienced all forms of depression,
>including depression to the point of suicide, and thus we can
>say that due to God's omniscience, God no longer exists,
>having experienced extreme depression and thus having
>committed suicide.
>
and die. However it was not permanent, which is where your argument
falls down.
--
John Secker
Jason
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Probably not. Why do you want to have something to worship?
It fills a need in my life and is reflective of what I consider to be
the Truth.
Jason
rather to conform to the posting rules of this group...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:24:56 GMT, "esvb" <es...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> What you have delineated is a linearly ascendent list
>in which god is merely one being among many (albeit at the top of the list)
>who possesses a mind; which means that god differs not in quality but rather
>in quantity, (by that I mean to say that you are claiming that we cannot
>understand god's mind - a matter of degree between two different minds; you
>are not arguing whether or not god has a mind).
Incorrect. My list does not imply a direct linearity. It is perhaps
some fundamental difference between the subjects that prevents the
understanding. (Physical ones from the worm to the dog, dualist ones
from the dog to God) I am implying that there are unbreachable gaps
between the players. A supersmart dog would still not fully
comprehend a human. There would be something lacking which could
never be gained.
>Thinking means to create something new within the mind of a being, and god
>cannot have anything new there, since god already has all knowledge.
Again, this is semantics. I am prepared to accept this yet grant god
some uncomprehensible activity of which "thinking" is the closest
analogy we have. I, thus, call it "thinking" in an allegorical mode
only.
> But, I
>cannot conceive a "being" who exists outside the parameters of my experience
>(i.e. the physical constraints of the universe), simply because by being
>outside my system I have no framework by which to structure belief.
There are two levels of truth. One level depends on our logic,
language and semantics. Another level is Truth beyond what we can
comprehend. God may not be able to truly exist on the first level
because we cannot comprehend him, but this does not preclude the
second.
A perfect analogy would be quantum mechanics. In 1965, Richard
Feynman, one of the greatest practitioners of quantum mechanics,
wrote, "There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men
understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was
such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did
because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper.
But after people read the paper a lot of people understond the theory
of relativity in one way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the
other hand I think I can safely say that NOBODY UNDERSTANDS QUANTUM
MECHANICS." (emphasis mine) Neils Bohr has also remarked that if you
do not get dizzy when you think about quantum mechanics, you do not
really understand it.
There is nothing in our macroscopic life that prepares us for what
quantum mechanics reveals. The two systems are totally separate. God
is no different. Unless you reject QM because nobody really
understands it, you cannot reject God on the same grounds.
Jason
"What terrifies us is not the explosive force
of the atomic bomb, but the power
of the wickedness of the human heart."
-Albert Einstein
Tom Beasley
Tom: Boy, you're good. You sidestep the issue and then qualify your previous
BS. No wonder people are a little frustrated with you.
John Secker
writes
>Incorrect. My list does not imply a direct linearity. It is perhaps
>some fundamental difference between the subjects that prevents the
>understanding. (Physical ones from the worm to the dog, dualist ones
>from the dog to God) I am implying that there are unbreachable gaps
>between the players. A supersmart dog would still not fully
>comprehend a human. There would be something lacking which could
>never be gained.
>
thinking? Or is it simply that you cannot imagine anything other than a
human feeling the way you do when you think?
--
John Secker
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfr...@NOJUNKhome.com (Jason) wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:16:06 +0000, John Secker
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why do you want to have something to worship?
In article <3a00ba17.173985778@news>,
drfr...@NOJUNKhome.com (Jason) wrote:
> It fills a need in my life and is reflective
> of what I consider to be the Truth.
That is an interesting statement. Both the
capitalization of truth, and the way it follows
the need in your life, might cause one to wonder
if this Truth is more a reflection of your life,
needs, and social structures, than a simple
truth, uncapitalized, that stands naked.
> .. "what good would it do me if truth stood
> before me, cold and naked, not caring whether
> I recognized her or not, and producing in me a
> shudder of fear rather than trusting devotion?"
> - Soren Kierkegaard
Simple truth is like that. Kierkegaard responded
witha leap of faith, creating a Truth. Be careful
not to confuse the two.
Russell
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Derrick Boucher
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:24:56 GMT, "esvb" <es...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> >Thinking means to create something new within the mind of a being, and god
> >cannot have anything new there, since god already has all knowledge.
>
> Again, this is semantics. I am prepared to accept this yet grant god
> some uncomprehensible activity of which "thinking" is the closest
> analogy we have. I, thus, call it "thinking" in an allegorical mode
> only.
>
OK, Jason. Then I accept the existence of God. As an allegory, that is.
Derrick Boucher
> There are two levels of truth. One level depends on our logic,
> language and semantics. Another level is Truth beyond what we can
> comprehend. God may not be able to truly exist on the first level
> because we cannot comprehend him, but this does not preclude the
> second.
Your proof for the assertion of this two-level truth is forthcoming, I
hope. Can't wait to see it!
>
> A perfect analogy would be quantum mechanics. In 1965, Richard
> Feynman, one of the greatest practitioners of quantum mechanics,
> .....
snipped for brevity; Feynman says "nobody understands QM"
>
> There is nothing in our macroscopic life that prepares us for what
> quantum mechanics reveals. The two systems are totally separate. God
> is no different. Unless you reject QM because nobody really
> understands it, you cannot reject God on the same grounds.
>
> Jason
I beg to differ, Jason. God and QM ARE different. Although the details
of each are abstract and beyond our immediate everyday experiences, the
latter provides predictions which can be tested scientifically whereas the
former does not.
Nobody in physics accepts or rejects QM because it does or does not allow
itself to be understood (e.g. what IS a quark, really?). It is accepted
because it works.
Jason
wrote:
>Of course my argument worked by definition. That IS the point. Any
>definition of "think" involves time. Therefore, an atemporal God cannot
>"think" to the satisfaction of any of these definitions.
Just a nitpick here. This may be over-"scientificating" God, but
something existing outside OUR time does not necessarily need to be
A-temporal. String theory postulates that it is entirely possible to
have more than one dimension of time. In fact, some of the "hidden"
dimensions in our own universe may be "time" dimensions.
One could imagine a time dimesion which encompasses our own. In this
manner a being existing in such a dimension would seem a-temporal to
us, but quite temporal to someone in that being's dimension.
As I said, this may be pulling too much science into a topic which
does not necessarily need it, but it's a neat thought anyway.
Jason
What good would it do me to be able to explain
the meaning of Christianity if it had no deeper
significance for me and my life; what good would
Netcom jimhumph
Derrick Boucher wrote:
> > If one takes
> > the former view that God exists *outside time*, I do not see how
> > one can infer that God is 'precluded from thinking' since we
> > simply do not know what it is to be
> > 'outside time', nor what it might be like to 'exist'
> > in such a state. There is no way that we could scientifically
> > test the claim that thinking is impossible 'outside time'.
> > To stipulate that thinking *necessarily* involves time, would be
> > to produce an argument that was true by definition.
> >
> Of course my argument worked by definition. That IS the point. Any
> definition of "think" involves time. Therefore, an atemporal God cannot
> "think" to the satisfaction of any of these definitions.
>
Then the argument seems to me to be unsound: the theist can
reply that the argument that God is 'precluded from thinking'
rests on the dubious assumption that thinking cannot
take place 'outside time' [ a notion which we are unable
to even comprehend].
[..]
> Is this personal God omniscient? If so, the the concept of belief
> is meaningless. Belief? He KNOWS it all already.
>
Please state your proof explicitly.
jh
Netcom jimhumph
Simon Odell wrote
> Your forgetting one thing and that is almost every single person that
calls
> themselfs an athiest has logical reasons why the idea of a deity is
>patently absurd.
>
> If I reported a pink
> elephant to you and you beleived me without question that makes you a
fool.
>
The evidential situation with regard to pink elephants is entirely
different. Can you cite anyone who has reported experiencing
a pink elephant?
jh
Paul Filseth
> Michael A. McAngus wrote
> > I don't believe that you have any arguments or evidence in support
> > of the god hypothesis.
>
> But neither you not the other atheists here are
> willing to furnish a definition of 'evidence'.
"Unfortunately you seem to suppose that if one repeats an
unsupported assertion often enough it will suddenly acquire the
status of a valid argument as if by magic." :-)
I supplied a definition of evidence last year. (One considerably
better than yours, IMHO.) In the face of your repeated claims that no
atheist had supplied a definition, I reminded you that I had done so
until you took notice and quibbled with it. I revised my definition
to address your quibbles, and you dismissed it as incoherent without
explanation and replied no more in that thread.* Now I find that
you are repeating your tired false claim that the atheists here won't
define evidence. Why do you behave this way? I define evidence as:
"F is evidence for G" means "Observing F would make it rational
to increase one's estimate of the probability of G."
If you still find that incoherent, let's use the Bayesian notation
you offered us a few months ago. "F is evidence for G" means:
P(G/F.k) > P(G/k)
> I define evidence as that which provides the ground for a belief
> or theory- according to this definition there is evidence
> (although its status is controversial) for Christianity.
And you defined "ground" as "basis". According to your
definition, "My cow is sick" qualifies as evidence for "My
neighbor is a witch."
* The relevant post is on Deja News at:
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=554680892&CONTEXT=
--
Paul Filseth To email, delete the x.
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Jason
wrote:
>Your proof for the assertion of this two-level truth is forthcoming, I
>hope. Can't wait to see it!
Imagine all facts one knows as being in set A. Imagine all facts one
does not know as being in set B. Imagine all facts as being set C.
Set A is a subset of set C. It is completely contained by it.
Set B is a subset of set C. It is completely contained by it.
There is no item in set C that does not belong to A or B.
There is a difference between the truth of items in set A and the
truth of items in set B. Both are true. However, the first can be
supported by experience, the second cannot. One is not "more True"
than the other.
There may be items which do not belong in set A for ANYBODY. They
still remain in set C and therefore are still Truth even though nobody
can use experience to support it.
>I beg to differ, Jason. God and QM ARE different. Although the details
>of each are abstract and beyond our immediate everyday experiences, the
>latter provides predictions which can be tested scientifically whereas the
>former does not.
You are switching lines of thought here. I wasn't talking about
making scientific predictions. I never claimed God is scientific.
(The only distinction you are making above.) I merely claimed that we
may not possess the physical ability to completely understand God. I
also claimed that we may not possess the physical ability to
completely understand QM. If you want to deny one on these grounds,
you must deny the other. If you want to qualify your statement and
deny God on different grounds (scientific predictability), then that
is another argument.
jesse l nowells
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jason wrote:
> >Probably not. Why do you want to have something to worship?
> It fills a need in my life and is reflective of what I consider to be
> the Truth.
Since there is a multitude of possible facts, how can one possible fact be
reflective of all possible facts? There is something *false* in your
approach here. What makes worship so desirable when any certitude is built
on such shaky ground?