Some of my thoughts to a friend of mine today please discuss
Andrew
people who insist there is. So I think the term now is Agnostic, I simply
don't know. If I had to answer I would say that I struggle to believe in god
through a Christians or a Catholics eyes because I have believed for a long
time that in the long run organised religion tends to do a lot more harm
than good. I think that being spiritual and living by a set of morals and
helping people where you can is a good thing. But the problem with religion
is it quite often goes the other way and people can end up controlling and
judgmental with the belief that everybody else should live by their
religious ethics and because there is no real idea what those ethics should
be there is a lot of room for abuse of power. That has caused a lot of nasty
chapters in human history (the crusades, the dark ages, hunting of heretics,
Spanish inquisition to name a couple) and although you could argue that this
is all in the past, it could so easily happen again. If you look at old
Osama Bin Laden. Considered a prophet by many Muslims, how much more would
it have taken for him to start the holy war that he wanted.
However the way we as men (and women) worship 'God' or deal out pain and
suffering or 'Gods Justice' in his name does nothing towards the argument
does he exist. It just shows that most people will abuse power when it is
given to them and that most other people are sheep. There is to much
evidence to discount the possibilities of life after death and that we all
do have a spirit that goes on (again I have no fixed stance on the issue but
the evidence is there). However a lot of religious explanations for
justifying this seem too.... human. Be good and you will go to heaven be bad
and you go to hell, this gives us all a nice easy way of one, not fearing
death so much, two offering a means to control the 'sheep', and three
explaining our purpose. If I had to put money on it I would argue that it
sounds far too man made.
So to sum up (because I'm waffling) I believe there could well be a higher
being that watches over us but I very much doubt any religion knows what he
might want of us, if indeed he wants anything. To carry out actions in his
name I would imagine is very arrogant and would argue is wrong. I believe in
the possibility of an after life and hope it is so but will always be a
sceptic on both issues until I see proof, and for that I imagine I must wait
to see for myself.
Unfortunate these beliefs leave me with quite a fear of death because part
of me believes that death is the end and that's a scary concept. However I
do try to live my life as a good person not because I fear god's wrath and
not getting to heaven but because I believe the world would be a great place
if everybody would just help each other a little bit. And I believe we will
all get there one day.
Bob Simmons
"Andrew" <duf...@duffina.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c457ff7$0$8511$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
Many in this country believe in Santa (granted the majority are younger than
ten years old. Would you then be an agnostic about Santa? You should go to
theonion.com, and read the story about the guy and the black church. Right
up your alley.
The only time I thought about death was when I smoked reefer. I don't know
why, but occasionally when I got high, this death "awareness" thing would
rear its' ugly head. I am sure it will return when I am much older without
any chemical assistance, and I will have to deal with it in a rational way.
I try not to be idle, because that is the best simulation of death I can
create. We could bury many dead with a TV in their coffin, and not have the
ability to tell the difference based on their activity level.
thanks
>
>
>
Nick Lilavois
>Many in this country believe in Santa (granted the majority are younger than
>ten years old. Would you then be an agnostic about Santa?
Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
not know about what I do not know about, and there is
nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
empty just because the lights are off.
/*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, Mousepads and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://shop.magentastudios.com/ *|
|* Nick Lilavois | http://www.lilavois.com/nick/ *|
\*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*/
Bob Simmons
"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
news:08tb4u4e0mmf0ubsv...@4ax.com...
modification of) a belief in a deity cannot be refuted as the folly of a
species on an undescript planet as illogical? Then refuting any created
idea of the recently spawned (claim of) self consciousness by said species
on this undescript planet is illogical. Wouldn't you agree? I insist that
we do not know of the origins of the universe - can you dispute this? Or is
there a god that fills this gap? Of course there is! Whether you realize
it or not, the creation of gods (remember that initially there were many
gods in mythology), were for many purposes.
Please don't project any fear of the unknown onto me. If your position is
of actual agnosticism, good for you. From my viewpoint, those that cannot
release their need for skydaddys are no different than those that need to be
good for goodness sakes (for Santa). I also see those that claim to be
agnostic to give a little too much benefit of the doubt and merit to those
that cannot, for whatever reason, cross the bridge from ancient man, and
venture into the real world.
thanks
Nick Lilavois
That sentence was very poorly constructed- I can't tell what
you are asking. If you are asking me if the conclusion that
"the belief in an intangible is illogical" is illogical
itself, then yes, it is. The simple fact that specifics
about deity concepts vary does not negate the possibility
that deities exist.
For example, celebrities have countless made-up stories
about them printed in tabloids. People believe those
stories. Just because the stories are false that doesn't
mean the celebrities don't exist.
>Then refuting any created
>idea of the recently spawned (claim of) self consciousness by said species
>on this undescript planet is illogical. Wouldn't you agree?
Once again, poorly constructed sentence. As I said about
Santa, there are tangibles and intangibles. Let's say a
particular theist claims that God performed a particular
miracle. If you can prove the miracle was not miraculous,
fine. That proves that the theist was wrong, not that the
god concept(s) in general are false.
>I insist that
>we do not know of the origins of the universe - can you dispute this?
That's my point. I'm the one who embraces my ignorance. ;-)
>Or is
>there a god that fills this gap? Of course there is! Whether you realize
>it or not, the creation of gods (remember that initially there were many
>gods in mythology), were for many purposes.
Your statement doesn't make any sense again. The first two
sentences suggest that you believe in a God concept, but we
have already determined you are an atheist. The next
sentence suggests you just saw Xena warrior princess for the
first time. Yes, many people- past and present- believe in a
plurality of Gods.
>Please don't project any fear of the unknown onto me.
Then don't project any "can't release their need for
skydaddys" on me or any other agnostic. Philosophy and
theology are far more complex topics than you seem to
realize.
>If your position is
>of actual agnosticism, good for you. From my viewpoint,...
...here we go...
>those that cannot
>release their need for skydaddys are no different than those that need to be
>good for goodness sakes (for Santa).
And from my viewpoint, those who state an absolute lack of
existence of something they know nothing about are no
different than those who state an absolute existence of
something they no nothing about.
The *only* logical position about something we know nothing
about is that we know nothing about it.
> I also see those that claim to be
>agnostic to give a little too much benefit of the doubt and merit to those
>that cannot, for whatever reason, cross the bridge from ancient man, and
>venture into the real world.
I see those who claim a complete opposition to those ancient
beliefs are just as primitive as those who cling to them. By
claiming opposition one validates the beliefs conceptually
far more than simple rejection. Those atheists who have a
problem with agnosticism are usually young people who
rejected some organized religion of their parents as a means
of rebelling against their parents. They are not so much
"atheists" as they are "anti-theists".
It's like punk rockers expressing their rebellion against
conformity and popular culture. They don't like societal
mores of dressing alike and looking alike, and they express
that by dressing alike and looking alike. They are two sides
of the same coin.
If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
Bob Simmons
Don't wait for the translation, just answer yes or no. I will try this
again; Considering the size of the universe, the concept of a god, or gods
(lets be fair, why have only one) were created on a very small planet, close
to one of billions of stars, in one of billions of galaxies. Add to this
the fact that the concept of deities changes from one individual to another
(this alone is in the billions), and the obvious occurs; Nothing can be
everything to everybody on a planet that means nothing to the rest of the
universe.
I drive a car. It has been known that people die in automobile accidents.
I drive because the odds are in my favor. I use the same rules for odds
when deciding about supernatural events. Big deal, there is a chance of me
dying in a car crash. There is even a smaller chance of gods occuring. If
you need to hold on to the fact that one or more gods are possible, go
ahead. How can you stand driving for fear of death?
>
> For example, celebrities have countless made-up stories
> about them printed in tabloids. People believe those
> stories. Just because the stories are false that doesn't
> mean the celebrities don't exist.
>
>
Darn, I forgot about that argument. I relent, there are gods.
>
>
> >Then refuting any created
> >idea of the recently spawned (claim of) self consciousness by said
species
> >on this undescript planet is illogical. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Once again, poorly constructed sentence. As I said about
> Santa, there are tangibles and intangibles. Let's say a
> particular theist claims that God performed a particular
> miracle. If you can prove the miracle was not miraculous,
> fine. That proves that the theist was wrong, not that the
> god concept(s) in general are false.
>
>
Your argument is that anything is possible. Monkeys flying out of your ass
as you sleep is possible, because I said it.
>
>
> >I insist that
> >we do not know of the origins of the universe - can you dispute this?
>
> That's my point. I'm the one who embraces my ignorance. ;-)
>
>
Just don't squeeze it so tight!
>
>
> >Or is
> >there a god that fills this gap? Of course there is! Whether you
realize
> >it or not, the creation of gods (remember that initially there were many
> >gods in mythology), were for many purposes.
>
> Your statement doesn't make any sense again. The first two
> sentences suggest that you believe in a God concept, but we
> have already determined you are an atheist. The next
> sentence suggests you just saw Xena warrior princess for the
> first time. Yes, many people- past and present- believe in a
> plurality of Gods.
>
Never seen an episode of Xena. Why, in your concept, must there be only one
god?
>
> >Please don't project any fear of the unknown onto me.
>
> Then don't project any "can't release their need for
> skydaddys" on me or any other agnostic. Philosophy and
> theology are far more complex topics than you seem to
> realize.
>
>
Fair enough. But you are asking me to stop something you started. huh?
Regarding philosophy and theology, you must believe I just appeared out of
nowhere, like a god made me or something.
>
>
> >If your position is
> >of actual agnosticism, good for you. From my viewpoint,...
>
> ...here we go...
>
Pardon fuckin' me for adding two cents worth. Oh wait, it was you
generalizing atheists.
>
> >those that cannot
> >release their need for skydaddys are no different than those that need to
be
> >good for goodness sakes (for Santa).
>
> And from my viewpoint, those who state an absolute lack of
> existence of something they know nothing about are no
> different than those who state an absolute existence of
> something they no nothing about.
> The *only* logical position about something we know nothing
> about is that we know nothing about it.
>
Sleeping in the fetal position will help those monkeys come out easier at
night. Also, since you dislike my confusing sentences, I dislike your
misuse of the word "no" when a "know" would do. One more thing to add here;
I know nothing about the beginnings of the universe (before the big bang),
and follow the common accepted scientific understanding. You are asking me
to also believe the science of sheepherders of a few thousand years ago.
Why? Because they may be right? Come on!
>
> > I also see those that claim to be
> >agnostic to give a little too much benefit of the doubt and merit to
those
> >that cannot, for whatever reason, cross the bridge from ancient man, and
> >venture into the real world.
>
> I see those who claim a complete opposition to those ancient
> beliefs are just as primitive as those who cling to them. By
> claiming opposition one validates the beliefs conceptually
> far more than simple rejection. Those atheists who have a
> problem with agnosticism are usually young people who
> rejected some organized religion of their parents as a means
> of rebelling against their parents. They are not so much
> "atheists" as they are "anti-theists".
>
Wow, a specialist in understanding atheists. Your claiming opposition
proves just the opposite of what the opposer opposes is ridiculous. Merely
arguing that was silly. Your denying monkeys flying out of your ass at
night would make it valid if your reply were in upper case rather than
lower, by your definition. BTW, I don't have a problem with agnosticism,
until one comes onto an atheist board and declares that there is the
likelyhood of a god existing. You see, the devil placed me here to test the
belief of these types of people. There is the possibility of a devil, isn't
there? And genies? Gnomes? 600 foot invisible pink unicorns?
> It's like punk rockers expressing their rebellion against
> conformity and popular culture. They don't like societal
> mores of dressing alike and looking alike, and they express
> that by dressing alike and looking alike. They are two sides
> of the same coin.
Your social awareness is impressive.
>
> If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
> and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
> to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
> little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
>
>
What conformity? I stand alone amongst everyone I know personally in my
position on gods. I developed my degree of logic long before coming to a
newsgroup. So what. I don't have to believe in every shittin' story or
idea that is created. I see you as someone straddling a fence. You give
too much credit to a bunch of sheep herders that lived on mountainsides a
few thousand years ago. Your hope is that there is some logic in having
this all encompassing god that created all. Yet there is a flaw in that
logic alone.
thanks
SneakyPete
"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
news:08tb4u4e0mmf0ubsv...@4ax.com...
that you present here.
But it always seems to come back around to defining god.
What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
What kind of objective evidence is there to indicate the
existence of god?
Are the claims of some people concerning the attributes
of god falsifiable?
So how are you dfinig gad that you think he/she/it might
exist?
Personally, I have seen absolutely no objective evidence
to indicate the exisitence of god/s as defined my the religions
that I am aware of.
I have seen mountains of evidence of the deceptive, dishonest,
petty, bigotted vile behavior of people claiming to represent
one god or another.
For Christianity specifically, the bible is so completely vague
ambiguous and contradictory that to hold it up as the one
true written word of god is laughable.
I will say the bible is a valuable socialogical artifact and that
it actually has some very good advice on life if you pick and
choose carefully.
For these reasons and more I see no more reason to entertain
the existence of god than of santa.
OTOH, if you have a new or different description/definition
of god, I'd like to hear it.
Laura
"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
news:08tb4u4e0mmf0ubsv...@4ax.com...
If the room is empty with the lights on then it is empty when the lights are
off.
The description of gods so far offered by believers has either been
(1) Equal to and no different than the mythical gods that we all, believers
and non-believers
agree don't exist. Believers, without exception so far as I know, are
atheistic toward
Thor, Odin, Loki, Zeus, Cybele, Attis, et al. They fail to recognize that
the myth of
their Jesus Christ was primarily coopted from those ancient myths. It would
be
folly to assume that these gods, any of them, were real. We have advanced
beyond
the ancient superstitions.
(2) The there is some kind of intelligence larger than the universe that
created everything.
As Darwin gave us the theory of evolution, the theory of the evolution of
intelligence demonstrates
that intelligence is associated with living things and increases in
complexity with the complexity
of those living things. Intellgience is always, so far as we have seen,
associated with a living
organism with a central nervous system and brain and no example of
intelligence exists outside
of same. Thus to suppose there is an intelligence that sort of hangs in
empty space and time
that is larger and greater than the sum total of everything is totally
illogical.
However, there is another issue ... you claim there is evidence that there
is life after death.
Perhaps, as with your allowing the existence of either of the above gods to
be possible,
your criteria for accepting evidence is set to low. There is not only no
evidence for the gods
stated above, there is evidence that they are the creations of the human
mind and therefore
not real, there is also evidence that the belief in life after death is the
wishful thinking of people
who are afraid of their total obliteration.
No one, except a few strange people who believe in reincarnation, worries
over much about the
oblivion that existed before we were born. Our consciousness, our identities
didn't exist! We come
out of oblivion, therefore it is reasonable and logical that we return to
oblivion. Our consciousness,
our identities, will cease to exist. Further, note the deterioration of the
mind as the physical brain
ages, is sick, is traumatized by accident, our consciousness, our much
valued awareness, our identity
is tied directly to the physical condition and health of our brain.
Excellent suggestive evidence that
when the brain dies, the mind dies with it.
In lieu of any evidence to the contrary it is illogical to allow the
possibility that the gods, as described
above, exist, or that there is life after death. If there is any other form
of god you wish to discuss then
it is your obligation to describe it and provide evidence for it, just as a
blanket statement that there
is evidence for life after death must be defended with real and convincing
evidence.
Your position as an agnostic, self-described as waffling as I recall, is no
more tenable than your
attack on atheists for their recognition that there are no gods.
Andrew
almost always seen as derogorty. I did not intend to make an attack on
anyone. I used to describe myself as an atheist but in the end decised that
to make such a decision was closed minded just the same as saying there is
without accepting the fact there mght not be.
I'm sure for every scientific arguement that "proves" god doesn't exist
there is almost certainly a faith based come back. Darwin/Evolution perhaps
god did it.
I liked your point about as we grow older our minds deteriate. Maybe the
spirit is that which fights that. The spirit/soul of a person remains
constant no matter how the body deteriates. When a persons body crumbles
from Cancer or some such like the spirit is what makes them fight and
perhaps it is this essence that goes on.
Can I just stop here for a second, you seem to think that I am a whole
hearted believer. I am not, I was making the point that in the grand scheme
of things anything is possible so we really don't know. You seem to be very
much against the possibilty of a 'god' to the point you almost find it
offensive. You argue your side very well but I'm sure if you were to forget
those arguments for a second, if you really wanted to I'm sure you would be
able to argue just as convincingly for the opposite team. This is what I
tend to do, see both sides and then accept the fact that we don't know.
Anyway continuing.
I completely agree with you (as I made the point in my first message) much
of the beliefs on the after life, god and religon are very man made. To off
set the idea that death is the end and as I also said for the slightly more
sinister purpose of providing a means of control over a vast number of
people. Altimate fear and hope all in one message, thats pretty powerful
stuff if delivered correctly. But because the belief and use of religon has
been twisted and abused by man over the last few thousand years still does
not mean that the underlying beliefs are wrong.
I very much believe that organised religon has done so much damage over the
centuries that it is in whole a bad idea. but the idea that god exists (I
say god as a way to describe some kind of higher power) or there is an
afterlife is a question I remain firmly open minded about. But just one last
point if god did exist I imagine the very difination of 'him' as a higher
power makes him more than we can understand or perhaps even imagine.
Andy
p.s please don't be nasty or accusing, this is simply a discusion nothing
more.
Andrew
can :-).
Bob Simmons
"Andrew" <duf...@duffina.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c482247$0$8505$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
> First of all why is it as soon as someone places an opinion on a forum it
is
> almost always seen as derogorty. I did not intend to make an attack on
> anyone. I used to describe myself as an atheist but in the end decised
that
> to make such a decision was closed minded just the same as saying there is
> without accepting the fact there mght not be.
>
> I'm sure for every scientific arguement that "proves" god doesn't exist
> there is almost certainly a faith based come back. Darwin/Evolution
perhaps
> god did it.
There is no proof any gods don't exist. What I do see is that people keep
adapting their god to what they understand of science, and then place that
god just past their point of understanding. Many have come to these boards
with this position, and unknowingly ask others to disprove this. I am no
better. When I had a belief, my god merely threw the stars into the
unknown, (I used to use the word "sky"), and proclaimed "let life abound
where it may". I then set about in the above prescribed manor, but instead
continued to question myself. My level of humility allowed me to drop all
pretenses of a god, realizing that this has all been made up in my mind all
along. A good understanding and interest in science doesn't hurt either.
>
> I liked your point about as we grow older our minds deteriate. Maybe the
> spirit is that which fights that. The spirit/soul of a person remains
> constant no matter how the body deteriates. When a persons body crumbles
> from Cancer or some such like the spirit is what makes them fight and
> perhaps it is this essence that goes on.
>
Odd that those claiming belief in afterlife just don't "give up the ghost".
The reason is that through evolution, survival is a primary instinct. Just
as there may be an atheist that asks forgiveness of a god just before dying,
(delerium, connected to being raised with religious beliefs), there are
those who strongly believe they will go to a heaven, yet strive to live.
Often they will use the selfless excuse that they care about others missing
them. I personally will fight a disease, unless it becomes obvious that my
mind has deteriorated to a point that I am losing the person I know (pulling
a Hemingway), or being realistic in knowing a painful death is imminent.
> Can I just stop here for a second, you seem to think that I am a whole
> hearted believer. I am not, I was making the point that in the grand
scheme
> of things anything is possible so we really don't know. You seem to be
very
> much against the possibilty of a 'god' to the point you almost find it
> offensive. You argue your side very well but I'm sure if you were to
forget
> those arguments for a second, if you really wanted to I'm sure you would
be
> able to argue just as convincingly for the opposite team. This is what I
> tend to do, see both sides and then accept the fact that we don't know.
> Anyway continuing.
>
I don't understand what the "grand scheme of things" is. Damned those grand
schemes. There is no grand scheme, except in James Bond movies and Enron.
Regarding arguing an opposite position, why? And where is this team? Could
you argue for blowing up the WTC? In some regards, that is the other
"team". This is all based on religion, us claiming to being closer to a God
than they are to Allah. Those with religious beliefs can sometimes go
overboard. I don't think atheists hate any particular god, but what some
postulate from their god I can hate, because this turns tangeable.
Logically, hating something that doesn't exist is as senseless as having a
belief in something that doesn't exist.
> I completely agree with you (as I made the point in my first message) much
> of the beliefs on the after life, god and religon are very man made. To
off
> set the idea that death is the end and as I also said for the slightly
more
> sinister purpose of providing a means of control over a vast number of
> people. Altimate fear and hope all in one message, thats pretty powerful
> stuff if delivered correctly. But because the belief and use of religon
has
> been twisted and abused by man over the last few thousand years still does
> not mean that the underlying beliefs are wrong.
>
Yes the underlying concept is pure in concept. Or is it? The early gods
were spiteful, sinister, baby killing monsters that made mistakes, blew up
whole cities, drowned whole worlds, killed the children of some to prove a
point, etc. Actually, the concept of gods has changed as the society of
mankind has changed. Look how different Allah is in the US as opposed to
the Middle East. Allah seems much kinder here. More forgiving, not
violent. Therefore, the underlying belief is wrong. The concept of gods
falls on the unlearned, and is then misused as needed, or rationalized.
> I very much believe that organised religon has done so much damage over
the
> centuries that it is in whole a bad idea. but the idea that god exists (I
> say god as a way to describe some kind of higher power) or there is an
> afterlife is a question I remain firmly open minded about. But just one
last
> point if god did exist I imagine the very difination of 'him' as a higher
> power makes him more than we can understand or perhaps even imagine.
>
I also see organised religion as having done a lot of good. Admittedly it
has set back science by five hundred years. It continues to to this day.
Regarding an afterlife, I have this problem (and am assuming you hold
evolution to be true); at what point in evolution did man gain the right to
have an afterlife? Do you have an idea? Self consciousness? What about
babies that die? No self consciousness.
> Andy
>
> p.s please don't be nasty or accusing, this is simply a discusion nothing
> more.
>
This has been the kindest I have ever been.
thanks
>
>
>
Andrew
>There is no proof any gods don't exist. What I do see is that people keep
>adapting their god to what they understand of science, and then place that
>god just past their point of understanding. Many have come to these boards
>with this position, and unknowingly ask others to disprove this. I am no
>better. When I had a belief, my god merely threw the stars into the
>unknown, (I used to use the word "sky"), and proclaimed "let life abound
>where it may". I then set about in the above prescribed manor, but instead
>continued to question myself. My level of humility allowed me to drop all
>pretenses of a god, realizing that this has all been made up in my mind all
>along. A good understanding and interest in science doesn't hurt either.
Yeah I have often struggled with how scientists justify a belief in god when
it seems so un-scientific. When I have asked the question the response is
usually "well that's what faith is". Your comment about how it all started
made me giggle slightly (no offense intended). That's probably how it will
work though, science will continue to present reasons why God doesn't exist.
Follow science back far enough and you come to the big bang. Ah well it must
have been God that did that then and then just sat back and watched :-).
>Just as there may be an atheist that asks forgiveness of a god just before
dying,
Again this is the one of the points made. This belief in the
afterlife/heaven is a great comfort to most people. Death is not the end. I
would imagine if you can believe that. Or at least believe that you believe
that then the prospect of death isn't quiet as scarey. I sometimes wish I
could whole heartedly believe in God and the afterlife. Because I don't
death is very scarey to me.
>Could you argue for blowing up the WTC
If I had to I probably could, I can usually argue both sides of anything to
some degree. I don't have to believe what I'm saying but I can do it. By the
way before I get a bunch of hate mail let me put in that I think the WTC
attack was awful.
>Those with religious beliefs can sometimes go
>overboard. I don't think atheists hate any particular god, but what some
>postulate from their god I can hate, because this turns tangeable.
>Logically, hating something that doesn't exist is as senseless as having a
>belief in something that doesn't exist.
Very true, and the problem with believing in something that isn't tangible
is you leave it open to interpretation (and disagreement) what that (lets
call it god) wants. Perhaps if we could all agree to disagree religon
wouldn't have caused so many ugly spots in history.
>Yes the underlying concept is pure in concept. Or is it? The early gods
>were spiteful, sinister, baby killing monsters that made mistakes, blew up
>whole cities, drowned whole worlds, killed the children of some to prove a
>point, etc.
Very true and not just with the old gods, noah got lucky didn't he. And
babalon and what was that city that had the firey rain and all the rest of
it. Again all of these sound like a bedtime story to scare children into
being good rather than the actions of a being of a higher level of
conciousness. Surely 'God' could come up with a better way to educate
people.
And even if it is true that God is within his rights to strike down those
that are naughty shouldn't we have seen some more evidence of it by now.
There is surely enough pain and suffering in the world to warrant a little
act of god.
Or maybe god really has decided to simply sit back and watch, let the big
boys wipe each other out then maybe the meek will inherit the earth.
>I also see organised religion as having done a lot of good. Admittedly it
>has set back science by five hundred years. It continues to to this day.
Yeah that's brilliant isn't it the church so worried that science would
disprove god, decided that science was wrong. Talk about misuse of power.
But I suppose their fear was understandable. how much power did the church
have a few hundred years ago compared to now. Scarey.
>Regarding an afterlife, I have this problem (and am assuming you hold
>evolution to be true); at what point in evolution did man gain the right
to
>have an afterlife? Do you have an idea? Self consciousness? What about
>babies that die? No self consciousness.
That's a good one. You might say why don't animals have souls but then you
could say ok but how far down the food chain do you get before they don't
have souls, is there a tree heaven?. I think most people use the Self
Consiousness argument don't they. Do babies have a spirit? I wouldn't think
the spirit/soul is something else that grows at pubity so I would say if
such a thing exists then yes. So what does that mean, are there nurseries in
heaven. And to that I would say if the afterlife exists you move on from
what you were in life so the fact that you were a baby maybe doesn't matter,
you are now a conciousness.
If I had to decide I would still go with logic and say. No there is no god
or an afterlife. But I refuse to do that becuase 1 its depressing and 2
there is always the possibility it does. There is still so much we don't
know.
Icarus
> If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
> and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
> to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
> little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
If god is defined as the creator of the universe, then it's an
illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
[of course if you're Pastor Frank then god could just as easily
be defined as a small piece of mouldy cheese, but that's beside
the point...]
Bob Simmons
A poll of top scientists (real scientists) shows that less than 5% believe
in gods. These are typically mathematicians. Seems odd, but I bet these
same guys aren't Vegas gamblers. My final interpretation of a god was one
that did not interfere with daily human operations. Never did. That
quickly cleaned up a lot of illogical facts pointing to this god. I don't
think scientists are out to disprove any gods, but the whole of known
science sure beats the shit out of the idea. I would like to see science
break through the big bang barrier and agree on (with verifiable evidence)
what happened before the big bang before I die. That would not crush those
with a belief in gods, because most would not have the ability to understand
the theory. It would not crush me either, as I don't need this
reinforcement.
>
> >Just as there may be an atheist that asks forgiveness of a god just
before
> dying,
>
> Again this is the one of the points made. This belief in the
> afterlife/heaven is a great comfort to most people. Death is not the end.
I
> would imagine if you can believe that. Or at least believe that you
believe
> that then the prospect of death isn't quiet as scarey. I sometimes wish I
> could whole heartedly believe in God and the afterlife. Because I don't
> death is very scarey to me.
>
> >Could you argue for blowing up the WTC
>
> If I had to I probably could, I can usually argue both sides of anything
to
> some degree. I don't have to believe what I'm saying but I can do it. By
the
> way before I get a bunch of hate mail let me put in that I think the WTC
> attack was awful.
I could argue for it too, and I cheaply used it in this case for effect.
The bigger point is that I don't care to take the other side, as there are
many trying to do this already.
>
> >Those with religious beliefs can sometimes go
> >overboard. I don't think atheists hate any particular god, but what some
> >postulate from their god I can hate, because this turns tangeable.
> >Logically, hating something that doesn't exist is as senseless as having
a
> >belief in something that doesn't exist.
>
> Very true, and the problem with believing in something that isn't tangible
> is you leave it open to interpretation (and disagreement) what that (lets
> call it god) wants. Perhaps if we could all agree to disagree religon
> wouldn't have caused so many ugly spots in history.
Please remember it is more than mere agreeing to disagree. Don't forget the
creation of Isreal. This is a little more than merely disagreeing. This
was taking land from one religious group, and giving it to another. Or
Hollywoods forcefeeding of the holocaust on a Christian society. (Not
anti-semite, so hang it up word searchers).
>
> >Yes the underlying concept is pure in concept. Or is it? The early gods
> >were spiteful, sinister, baby killing monsters that made mistakes, blew
up
> >whole cities, drowned whole worlds, killed the children of some to prove
a
> >point, etc.
>
> Very true and not just with the old gods, noah got lucky didn't he. And
> babalon and what was that city that had the firey rain and all the rest of
> it. Again all of these sound like a bedtime story to scare children into
> being good rather than the actions of a being of a higher level of
> conciousness. Surely 'God' could come up with a better way to educate
> people.
>
> And even if it is true that God is within his rights to strike down those
> that are naughty shouldn't we have seen some more evidence of it by now.
> There is surely enough pain and suffering in the world to warrant a little
> act of god.
>
> Or maybe god really has decided to simply sit back and watch, let the big
> boys wipe each other out then maybe the meek will inherit the earth.
>
That is your interpretation of a god. BTW - for humorous effect, I checked
the local phone book (Milwaukee) a few years back, and found only two Meeks
in the entire book. Man, are they getting a lot of real estate!
> >I also see organised religion as having done a lot of good. Admittedly
it
> >has set back science by five hundred years. It continues to to this day.
>
> Yeah that's brilliant isn't it the church so worried that science would
> disprove god, decided that science was wrong. Talk about misuse of power.
> But I suppose their fear was understandable. how much power did the church
> have a few hundred years ago compared to now. Scarey.
>
To a degree, they still have power over you. They have managed to maintain
a glimmer of doubt in your mind regarding their sales pitch (life after
death). You give them too much merit. Thus my position on atheism; No one
is forcing me to have my ideals, degree or use of logic, or denial of
supernatural or superstitious events or beings. I belong to no organization
for atheism. I also fail to see why it is smarter to give credence to the
possibility of gods, afterlife, and spirits, even considering my own last
interpretation of a god was fairest of the fair, logical (except that
"always existing" problem), and cannot be proven wrong with modern science.
You are considerate to give religion, or the possibility of gods, a chance,
but how much of this is based on your upbringing? If you were raised
without any knowledge of gods or afterlives, and these concepts were
presented to you now, what would you think of these? Lets test this; I
insist a 600 foot pink invisible unicorn is at my side, always ready to
protect me from trouble. I did get in trouble once, but I think on that day
the unicorn was unable to be with me. Otherwise, he has been there for all
of my fortuitous moments. He also started the world, and is with everyone
at the same time. You are not going to believe this, are you. On the other
hand, had I told you this story when you were three or four years old, kept
repeating it, had others reinforce it, would make it tough to forget.
Here is a funny aside. Our mother would tell us to make fresh ice cubes if
there were only three or four left in the tray. We asked her why, and she
said because if you refreeze water, it is poisonous. We kept presenting
arguments, and she always had a good counterargument. After a while, my
brother and I believed this to be true. Granted, we were only about five
and eight. But if you would care to test me on this, I too could convince
you that water is, indeed poisonous if you refreeze it. Best works if you
are between five and eight. Thank goodness the ground filters out all that
poison. I wrote a short story for college years back using this story. In
the story, I held this poison water to be true up until college, my first
paper being on the amazing luck that not more people died from water poison.
Upon the hilarious reading of my paper to the class, and the finding of the
truth, I rush home to confront my mother about why she would do this. As I
enter the house, she tells me put my shoes in the hall closet, as we don't
want any shoeflies. I blindly obey, and we realize why the duping occured
in the first place. I wish I had that story still.
>
> >Regarding an afterlife, I have this problem (and am assuming you hold
> >evolution to be true); at what point in evolution did man gain the right
> to
> >have an afterlife? Do you have an idea? Self consciousness? What about
> >babies that die? No self consciousness.
>
> That's a good one. You might say why don't animals have souls but then you
> could say ok but how far down the food chain do you get before they don't
> have souls, is there a tree heaven?. I think most people use the Self
> Consiousness argument don't they. Do babies have a spirit? I wouldn't
think
> the spirit/soul is something else that grows at pubity so I would say if
> such a thing exists then yes. So what does that mean, are there nurseries
in
> heaven. And to that I would say if the afterlife exists you move on from
> what you were in life so the fact that you were a baby maybe doesn't
matter,
> you are now a conciousness.
I meant to say self awareness. Self conciousness is similar. You use the
term "spirit". The spirit (not talking school spirit here) is that
invisible thing the invisible god gives you so you can go to an invisible
heaven. IOW, not likely from a statistical or real science POV. Your
interpretation of what heaven is merely reinforces the fact that it is
entirely in your mind. Can a blind person see in heaven? Then for what
purpose were they blind on earth? Will I be able to meet Curly from the
Three Stooges? What if he doesn't want to meet me? What form do we have in
your concept of heaven?
>
> If I had to decide I would still go with logic and say. No there is no god
> or an afterlife. But I refuse to do that becuase 1 its depressing and 2
> there is always the possibility it does. There is still so much we don't
> know.
>
I don't find it depressing to not have a god or afterlife. In actuallity,
fooling myself to believe it true is depressing. I would not want to be
deceived of reality. On the otherhand, there are many that prefer this, as
it gives their life some sort of sense for being. Too many believe that
without their religious beliefs, they would run amok. referring back to
delerium at death, many also see themselves travelling out of body, and
moving toward a point of light. I have also thought that perhaps at the end
of life time changes so dramatically (again, due to chemical reaction,
trauma), that the mind perceives itself to be living infinitely (or at least
a very long time in heaven). Reminds me to use that in a story outline.
But like old tube television sets, the power eventually leaves the collector
plates, and the small dot at the center of the screen slowly fades to black.
thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
Laura
and I refuted. I am curious what in my post did you find as "nasty" ... it
was simply a logical argument. As is this post ...
"Andrew" <duf...@duffina.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c482247$0$8505$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
Laura
>
> If I had to decide I would still go with logic and say. No there is no god
> or an afterlife. But I refuse to do that becuase 1 its depressing and 2
> there is always the possibility it does. There is still so much we don't
> know.
idea that
living forever would be a good thing. I think we are taught that concept as
children and it takes a conscious act of awareness to offset and see what it
really means.
I don't believe a rational person would want to live forever once they
really
embrace the concept. That would mean you would outlive the earth, the
stars, and even the universe. When the universe is dead black matter hanging
around in empty space you would still be alive. Billions and billions of
years,
trillions of years, zillions of years. Imagine it! Really imagine it! I have
... and the
thought petrifies me far more than the idea of death being final. (Now if I
could
die and drop in for a week every hundred years or so, I might not mind going
on for a little bit longer. GriN!)
In fact, I have lived a full life at 63 ... probably lived twice or three
times as
much as most people do in that length of time. To be honest, I hurried. I
thought I would miss something. And I have done about everyhting there is to
do, certainly everything I wanted to do. Honestly, while I wouldn't mind
another
ten years, that will be about it. I wouldn't want to live 100 years, let
alone
forever. And if I died today, or tomorrow, I'd not have missed much.
Most of what I do now is simply repeating the experiences of a couple
lifetimes.
Including posting on these lists (once upon a time on BBSes ... which is why
my
arguments are getting pretty good.)
The concept that replaces the desire to live on and on is twofold ...
(1) If we did, somewhere in the process we would be wanting to die forever,
and
(2) If you live this life to the fullest, unfettered by supersition and
bound
only by your own code of honor (hopefully one that will make you friends and
loved ones) then one life is enough. It is fulfilling and meaningful because
it is
yours and you make the meaning and you make it fulfilling.
(3) It is actually all the more fulfilling when you succeed because you know
you
have this limited time span in which to make it happen. It is the
preciousness
of a thing that makes it valuable. If it is plentiful, eternal, it is not
nearly of such
great worth.
Shoot ... 30 million sperm die and only 1 egg out of over half a million
came into
fruition when you were conceived. We are all the winners in the biggest
lottery
of all time ... I find it unbecoming to get overly upset just because all we
get
is one lifetime.
It is all in the attitude ... dump the religious baggage and it is a brand
new world.
Laura
relax. GriN! We all do make typos and mistakes ... it is what is our hearts
and minds that matter.
"Andrew" <duf...@duffina.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c48228d$0$8511$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>
>> If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
>> and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
>> to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
>> little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
>
>If god is defined as the creator of the universe, then it's an
>illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
>couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
Your deduction was based on the premise that the being must
be limited to the same laws of physics as it's creation. All
you understand are our four dimensions- there could be
concepts of existence that are beyond our linear concept of
time as "before" and "after".
It is like a 3D being looking at flatland- it can see all of
flatland at once, something that would be incomprehensible
to a 2D being. The same would be true for something outside
of time- all of the universe would be available to it
simultaneously.
Plus, do not limit the analysis to a modern western god
concept- it could be a plurality of beings, it could be a
being who's intelligence is so beyond what we comprehend it
would be nothing more than a force of nature to us.
>[of course if you're Pastor Frank then god could just as easily
>be defined as a small piece of mouldy cheese, but that's beside
>the point...]
Well yes, Pastor Frank does not fit into a rational
discussion.
Bob Simmons
"Laura" <gall...@c2i2.com> wrote in message
news:u4go7ar...@corp.supernews.com...
This I have thought about. I don't think we are winners of anything. This
would create a presumption that we are bigger than life itself. We are
merely another life on a planet full of life. The fact we can display and
contemplate an awareness of our life is the thing I most appreciate. Of
course, I would have been happy being a squirrel too. No..wait..a flying
squirrel. If I really had my choice, it would be the rat of the seas, the
seagull.
thanks
Nick Lilavois
Except that I make no rationalizations- I'm just being
rational.
>But it always seems to come back around to defining god.
Actually no, it does not- even with an unknown definition it
is still an unknown. I explained that in the earlier post
about Santa. Any tangibles that can be proven false would be
false- but any unknown remains unknown.
Anyone who is claiming that absolutely nothing exists that
they don't know about is the one rationalizing.
>What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
None of them and all of them.
>What kind of objective evidence is there to indicate the
>existence of god?
None whatsoever, and totally irrelevant to the discussion of
an unknown. I'm seeing that I went over your head with this.
>Are the claims of some people concerning the attributes
>of god falsifiable?
Who cares? Irrelevant.
>So how are you dfinig gad that you think he/she/it might
>exist?
Once again, missing the point.
>Personally, I have seen absolutely no objective evidence
>to indicate the exisitence of god/s as defined my the religions
>that I am aware of.
Hey, me too- but that has nothing to do with the discussion.
You are clinging to the black and white mindset that I
specifically wrote about- you are nothing more than the
flip-side of a believer, clinging to your rejection of
archaic notions the same way they cling to the archaic
notions themselves. What you need to do is step OUTSIDE all
of that and just THINK.
>I have seen mountains of evidence of the deceptive, dishonest,
>petty, bigotted vile behavior of people claiming to represent
>one god or another.
Yep. Irrelevant.
>For Christianity specifically, the bible is so completely vague
>ambiguous and contradictory that to hold it up as the one
>true written word of god is laughable.
You got it. All true, and has nothing to do with anything.
>I will say the bible is a valuable socialogical artifact and that
>it actually has some very good advice on life if you pick and
>choose carefully.
You got it- as relevant as the tea in china.
>For these reasons and more I see no more reason to entertain
>the existence of god than of santa.
>OTOH, if you have a new or different description/definition
>of god, I'd like to hear it.
There is part of the problem- your whole concept of God is
this Charlton Heston being who talks through burning bushes-
of course you would think that's silly, but the definitions
of this unknown being are irrelevant to the fact that it is
an unknown, period.
Nick Lilavois
That sentence is a perfect example of the mindset I'm
talking about- first off, you want to reject the analytical
process, and second, you want all answers to be black and
white. This is exactly the same mindset as someone who
blindly believes in an unknown, and is just as bad as when
someone blindly disbelieves in one.
> I will try this
>again; Considering the size of the universe, the concept of a god, or gods
>(lets be fair, why have only one) were created on a very small planet, close
>to one of billions of stars, in one of billions of galaxies. Add to this
>the fact that the concept of deities changes from one individual to another
>(this alone is in the billions), and the obvious occurs; Nothing can be
>everything to everybody on a planet that means nothing to the rest of the
>universe.
Well, I would certainly need to wait for a translation on
that one before it could be answered. Your analysis is based
on a number of flaws
>I drive a car. It has been known that people die in automobile accidents.
>I drive because the odds are in my favor. I use the same rules for odds
>when deciding about supernatural events. Big deal, there is a chance of me
>dying in a car crash.
All of that is completely rational- there may be hope for
you yet.
>There is even a smaller chance of gods occuring. If
>you need to hold on to the fact that one or more gods are possible, go
>ahead.
There, you have lost that rationality. First, you have a
tangible occurrence of driving a car and dying in car
accidents. This is something that can be measured, and can
have percentages calculated. You then extend that to the
existence of Gods, an intangible. This cannot be measured,
cannot have any percentage calculated. You *assign* a
percentage by stating it is lower than car accidents, purely
because of your *blind faith*. You then attempt to shift
that burden of faith- you claim that I am "holding on" to
something that you defined as a "fact". Does that mean you
are rejecting something you define as a fact?
> How can you stand driving for fear of death?
You are projecting your black and white mindset onto me.
When you drive, do you do so with reckless abandon,
completely rejecting the *possibility* that you might die?
Do you wear your seat belts? Do you stay in the lanes? Do
you stop at red lights?
>> For example, celebrities have countless made-up stories
>> about them printed in tabloids. People believe those
>> stories. Just because the stories are false that doesn't
>> mean the celebrities don't exist.
>>
>Darn, I forgot about that argument. I relent, there are gods.
Your black and white mindset is showing again, as is your
fear of the unknown. The simple fact that it cannot be
proven that God concepts *do not* exist does not mean that
they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
simple fact that it cannot be proven that God concepts do
not exist means- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven
that God concepts do not exist. That's it. No other
conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack of
existence is just as illogical as the assertion of
existence.
>> >Then refuting any created
>> >idea of the recently spawned (claim of) self consciousness by said
>species
>> >on this undescript planet is illogical. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> Once again, poorly constructed sentence. As I said about
>> Santa, there are tangibles and intangibles. Let's say a
>> particular theist claims that God performed a particular
>> miracle. If you can prove the miracle was not miraculous,
>> fine. That proves that the theist was wrong, not that the
>> god concept(s) in general are false.
>Your argument is that anything is possible. Monkeys flying out of your ass
>as you sleep is possible, because I said it.
Nope, read what I wrote again. There are tangibles and
intangibles. There are knowns and unknowns. You, and the
faithful, seek to blur the lines between the two. They do so
inorder to make the unknown seem more knowable, and you do
it to assert that anything unknown cannot possibly occur.
>> >Or is
>> >there a god that fills this gap? Of course there is! Whether you
>realize
>> >it or not, the creation of gods (remember that initially there were many
>> >gods in mythology), were for many purposes.
>>
>> Your statement doesn't make any sense again. The first two
>> sentences suggest that you believe in a God concept, but we
>> have already determined you are an atheist. The next
>> sentence suggests you just saw Xena warrior princess for the
>> first time. Yes, many people- past and present- believe in a
>> plurality of Gods.
>>
>Never seen an episode of Xena. Why, in your concept, must there be only one
>god?
You are projecting. I never said any "concept" that in any
way is monotheistic or excludes polytheism. Again, you
demonstrate you are just the flip coin of a believer. You
have a *specific* disbelief in the Christian god concept to
the extent that you think that simply presenting the
possibility of polytheism must be shocking to someone.
Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
false.
>> >Please don't project any fear of the unknown onto me.
>>
>> Then don't project any "can't release their need for
>> skydaddys" on me or any other agnostic. Philosophy and
>> theology are far more complex topics than you seem to
>> realize.
>>
>Fair enough. But you are asking me to stop something you started.
That I started? A person named Andrew was discussing that he
was Agnostic. You then attacked his agnosticism as if it was
a subset of theism and inferior to your atheism. I
demonstrated otherwise.
> huh?
>Regarding philosophy and theology, you must believe I just appeared out of
>nowhere, like a god made me or something.
Or like the evolutionary process is not complete. ;-)
>> And from my viewpoint, those who state an absolute lack of
>> existence of something they know nothing about are no
>> different than those who state an absolute existence of
>> something they no nothing about.
>> The *only* logical position about something we know nothing
>> about is that we know nothing about it.
>>
>Sleeping in the fetal position will help those monkeys come out easier at
>night.
THat's an assertion of your belief.
> Also, since you dislike my confusing sentences, I dislike your
>misuse of the word "no" when a "know" would do.
Excuse me? Elaborate.
> One more thing to add here;
>I know nothing about the beginnings of the universe (before the big bang),
>and follow the common accepted scientific understanding.
As do I, and as does anyone who can make the distinction
between tangibles and intangibles, between known and
unknown. It is those who blur those lines who have problems
with science.
> You are asking me
>to also believe the science of sheepherders of a few thousand years ago.
>Why? Because they may be right? Come on!
Nope- once again, your flipside Christianity is showing.
The *specific* god concept you *specifically* reject is the
one that came from "sheepherders of a few thousand years
ago".
As I stated earlier, if you actually want to "cross the
bridge from ancient man, and venture into the real world"
you will abandon all need to cling to conformity on EITHER
side and just practice a little introspection- and look at
the concept logically.
>> > I also see those that claim to be
>> >agnostic to give a little too much benefit of the doubt and merit to
>those
>> >that cannot, for whatever reason, cross the bridge from ancient man, and
>> >venture into the real world.
>>
>> I see those who claim a complete opposition to those ancient
>> beliefs are just as primitive as those who cling to them. By
>> claiming opposition one validates the beliefs conceptually
>> far more than simple rejection. Those atheists who have a
>> problem with agnosticism are usually young people who
>> rejected some organized religion of their parents as a means
>> of rebelling against their parents. They are not so much
>> "atheists" as they are "anti-theists".
>>
>Wow, a specialist in understanding atheists.
Using your own words: "Pardon fuckin' me for adding two
cents worth. Oh wait, it was you generalizing" agnostics.
> Your claiming opposition
>proves just the opposite of what the opposer opposes is ridiculous. Merely
>arguing that was silly. Your denying monkeys flying out of your ass at
>night would make it valid if your reply were in upper case rather than
>lower, by your definition. BTW, I don't have a problem with agnosticism,
>until one comes onto an atheist board and declares that there is the
>likelyhood of a god existing. You see, the devil placed me here to test the
>belief of these types of people. There is the possibility of a devil, isn't
>there? And genies? Gnomes? 600 foot invisible pink unicorns?
>
>> It's like punk rockers expressing their rebellion against
>> conformity and popular culture. They don't like societal
>> mores of dressing alike and looking alike, and they express
>> that by dressing alike and looking alike. They are two sides
>> of the same coin.
>
>Your social awareness is impressive.
>>
>> If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
>> and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
>> to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
>> little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
>>
>>
>What conformity? I stand alone amongst everyone I know personally in my
>position on gods.
The conformity is that your atheism, as you have
demonstrated in this post, is flipside Christianity. It is
*based* on Christianity, a *rejection* of Christianity, an
"anti-Christianity", rather than being a thought independent
of any preconceived notions.
>I developed my degree of logic long before coming to a
>newsgroup. So what. I don't have to believe in every shittin' story or
>idea that is created.
Good for you. Do you have to disbelieve every story or idea
you come across?
> I see you as someone straddling a fence.
Then you don't see me. You see an imaginary me you are
projecting onto me.
> You give
>too much credit to a bunch of sheep herders that lived on mountainsides a
>few thousand years ago.
Your flipside Christianity is showing. I give no more or
less credit to two thousand year old sheephearders than I do
to five thousand year old philosophers, one thousand year
old asian princes, one hundred year old african chieftains,
one million year old native american shaman or thirty year
old newsgroup posters. You are the one fixated on sheep.
>Your hope is that there is some logic in having
>this all encompassing god that created all. Yet there is a flaw in that
>logic alone.
Good thing I have no such illogical hopes- like the hope
that the gap is a void.
Nick Lilavois
>> Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
>> There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
>> verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
>> photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
>> verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
>> aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
>> get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
>> girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
>> Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
>> through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
>>
>> We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
>> outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
>> is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
>> not know about what I do not know about, and there is
>> nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
>> Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
>> or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
>> On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
>> other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
>> folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
>> unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
>> empty just because the lights are off.
>
>
>If the room is empty with the lights on then it is empty when the lights are
>off.
True, and if the room is full with the lights on the room
does not simply empty because the lights are off.
The point is the lights ARE off. We have *no clue* what is
in the room. To assert anything about the interior
decorating one way or the other is foolish.
>The description of gods so far offered by believers...
Is completely irrelevant to the fact they are unknown.
> has either been
>(1) Equal to and no different than the mythical gods that we all, believers
>and non-believers
>agree don't exist. Believers, without exception so far as I know, are
>atheistic toward
>Thor, Odin, Loki, Zeus, Cybele, Attis, et al. They fail to recognize that
>the myth of
>their Jesus Christ was primarily coopted from those ancient myths. It would
>be
>folly to assume that these gods, any of them, were real. We have advanced
>beyond
>the ancient superstitions.
Correct- believers in a particular mythos tend to be
disbelievers in the other mythos. That's not my point. My
point is any absolute assertion that *ANY* of those mythos
exist or do not exist is illogical. Yes, that means Loki and
Zeus too.
>(2) The there is some kind of intelligence larger than the universe that
>created everything.
That is part of the belief in a creator God concept, as in
Christianity. Not all god concepts are creator gods- some
are sustainers. Some created life in a pre-existing
universe. Some created nothing- simply shaped what was.
Once again, the diversity of god concepts is irrelevant to
the point that asserting that these concepts simply are not
real is illogical.
>As Darwin gave us the theory of evolution, the theory of the evolution of
>intelligence demonstrates
>that intelligence is associated with living things and increases in
>complexity with the complexity
>of those living things. Intellgience is always, so far as we have seen,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>associated with a living
>organism with a central nervous system and brain and no example of
>intelligence exists outside
>of same. Thus to suppose there is an intelligence that sort of hangs in
>empty space and time
>that is larger and greater than the sum total of everything is totally
>illogical.
Your grasp of logic is amazing. You assert that because a
phenomena has only been observed within certain criteria it
CAN ONLY EXIST within those criteria.
So tell me Laura, how many species have been observed with
intelligence? On how many planets? In how many galaxies?
Since we have not observed any intelligence anywhere other
than here, does that mean it is illogical to think it just
might exist somewhere else?
Carl Sagan, perhaps one of the most famous atheists in
recent years, disagreed.
>However, there is another issue ... you claim there is evidence that there
>is life after death.
??????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
Huh? What? Where? And again I say, Huh?
>Perhaps, as with your allowing the existence of either of the above gods to
>be possible,
>your criteria for accepting evidence is set to low.
Who said anything about accepting evidence? What evidence?
What bizarre tangent is this?
> There is not only no
>evidence for the gods
>stated above, there is evidence that they are the creations of the human
>mind and therefore
>not real, there is also evidence that the belief in life after death is the
>wishful thinking of people
>who are afraid of their total obliteration.
>
>No one, except a few strange people who believe in reincarnation,
Only strange people believe in reincarnation? If you lived
on the eastern half of this planet, you would be seen as
strange for NOT believing in it.
I don't think there is anything more for me to say here-
your comments are not based on anything I wrote.
Bob Simmons
Stevenson to the Soviet Premier. My mindset is humor first. If you can't
laugh at yourself, you're missing half the humor.
>
>
> > I will try this
> >again; Considering the size of the universe, the concept of a god, or
gods
> >(lets be fair, why have only one) were created on a very small planet,
close
> >to one of billions of stars, in one of billions of galaxies. Add to this
> >the fact that the concept of deities changes from one individual to
another
> >(this alone is in the billions), and the obvious occurs; Nothing can be
> >everything to everybody on a planet that means nothing to the rest of the
> >universe.
>
> Well, I would certainly need to wait for a translation on
> that one before it could be answered. Your analysis is based
> on a number of flaws
>
>
> >I drive a car. It has been known that people die in automobile
accidents.
> >I drive because the odds are in my favor. I use the same rules for odds
> >when deciding about supernatural events. Big deal, there is a chance of
me
> >dying in a car crash.
>
> All of that is completely rational- there may be hope for
> you yet.
>
>
> >There is even a smaller chance of gods occuring. If
> >you need to hold on to the fact that one or more gods are possible, go
> >ahead.
>
> There, you have lost that rationality. First, you have a
> tangible occurrence of driving a car and dying in car
> accidents. This is something that can be measured, and can
> have percentages calculated. You then extend that to the
> existence of Gods, an intangible. This cannot be measured,
> cannot have any percentage calculated. You *assign* a
> percentage by stating it is lower than car accidents, purely
> because of your *blind faith*. You then attempt to shift
> that burden of faith- you claim that I am "holding on" to
> something that you defined as a "fact". Does that mean you
> are rejecting something you define as a fact?
>
>
possibility open for gods, go ahead. You are boring me with a basic
believer argument, that is to disprove something that cannot be proven.
Your position is to maintain some plausibility to the possibility that gods
exist, and anyone that rejects this is foolish. My position is that you are
straddling a fence, and deny fence sitters have a superior position, or the
correct one. How is this any different than a discussion with a religious
fanatic like Pastor Frank? Also, why are you here? To teach atheists that
they are wrong? To teach them that they should maintain the possibility for
gods? Be real. (I'm not asking you to reply to these questions. I am not
trying to change the subject. But I am done.)
thanks
>
Nick Lilavois
Not much I can say to that- you make assertions you don't
want countered, and you ask questions you don't want
answered. I think that proves my point perfectly.
declan
> I decided a long time ago that me saying there was no God is just as bad as
> people who insist there is. So I think the term now is Agnostic, I simply
> don't know. If I had to answer I would say that I struggle to believe in god
> through a Christians or a Catholics eyes because I have believed for a long
> time that in the long run organised religion tends to do a lot more harm
> than good. I think that being spiritual and living by a set of morals and
> helping people where you can is a good thing.
Andrew, I find your candour refreshing and enlightening. I appreciate
your approach to the idea of God, giving it due respect. Your
appraisal of organised religion was also valuable, but I disagree with
you here and will attempt to present my reasons. First of all, to say
that organised religion does more harm than good is not very true. I
am well aware of the attrocities committed by members of various
religions. The Third Reich, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch
trials, the attacks on the WTC are all frightening and deserve the
reaction they receive. Ignorance, power, and religion are a
disgusting mix. I would say, however, that the number of people who
have lived and died without being a victim of verifiable religious
oppression far outweighs those that have. Organised religion has
convinced masses of people that "being spiritual and living by a set
of morals" is the best thing to do... and the majority of them are not
as bright as you are! You could argue that they were brainwashed into
such behaviour, but my experience has been that very mature people
with full control over their mental faculties have chosen to belong to
religious movements. Abuse of Power exists in any system, it is not
particular to religion (I know that this was not one of your
statements but I find it helpful to point out). You have to concede
that it is OK for a group of spiritual, moral people who wish to
fellowship with one another to form a system of organisation.
Hopefully I am saying all of this as objectively as possible, although
I will admit that I am a Christian. Please point out any flaws in my
logic... that's what people who spend time at discussion boards like
me do anyways!
Sincerely,
Declan
Steve Mading
: "Bob Simmons" <bsim...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
:>Many in this country believe in Santa (granted the majority are younger than
:>ten years old. Would you then be an agnostic about Santa?
: Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
: There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
: verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
: photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
: verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
: aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
: get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
: girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
: Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
: through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
Spiderman exists - provided you use the definition that Spiderman
is a night shift janitor in Madison, Wisconsin whom I've met a
lot because I work odd hours - who doesn't really exhibit any
spider-like abilities at all, but I like to call him "Spiderman"
anyway just for the heck of it.
If you use the game where you get to redefine everything, then
*everything* exists. But at that point language is pointless.
: We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
: outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
: is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
: not know about what I do not know about, and there is
: nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
: Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
: or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
: On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
: other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
: folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
: unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
: empty just because the lights are off.
Think of two sets:
set A - the set of all things that theoretically could exist, but don't
(To be distinguished from the set of all things that cannot
possibly exist and you know this based purely on their
definition alone, like 4-sided triangles)
set B - the set of all things that you don't realize exist, but
in fact they do
When you realize that, to the one doing the thinking, set A and B
are *indistinguishable* from each other, you realize what's wrong
with belittling the atheists.
When you see that set A is infinite in size, you might realize
that evidence in favor of non-existance is not possible, even when
something doesn't exist. When something doesn't exist, it leaves
behind no evidence. Trying to find evidence of something NOT being
there is a fruitful pursuit.
Atheists simply treat the issue of God the same way people normally
treat all other issues of existance without evidence - we don't
believe it until there's some reason to, and we realise that disproof
is unnecessary. There are an infinite number of things that we
don't believe exist, even though we can't prove as such. That's
normal. That's simple sanity. If you start giving everything that
could theoretically exist a sort of 50/50 benefit of the doubt, you
are essentially generating an infinitely large amount of belief in
your head about every little imagined thing - remember that set A
is infinite in size. *Nobody* goes off giving partial benefit of
the doubt to every unevidenced thing and stays sane. The only
difference between atheists and you is that atheists put God in the
*same* category as santa claus, leprechauns, aliens from Vega,
and so on. Sure, we can't *disprove* god - but there are also an
infinite number of other things we can't disprove that we don't give
any benefit of the doubt to whatsoever.
Steve Mading
: Correct- believers in a particular mythos tend to be
: disbelievers in the other mythos. That's not my point. My
: point is any absolute assertion that *ANY* of those mythos
: exist or do not exist is illogical. Yes, that means Loki and
: Zeus too.
You owe me $1000. Don't try to deny it because you can't.
Just pay up. Sure, I may not have any evidence of this in
the form of a bank note or an I.O.U. or a check or a ledger,
but trust me - you do owe me $1000.
I challenge you to deny your debt to me in a way that isn't
similar to how we atheists deny God without any real evidence.
Steve Mading
: "Icarus" <icar...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
:>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
:>
:>> If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
:>> and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
:>> to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
:>> little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
:>
:>If god is defined as the creator of the universe, then it's an
:>illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
:>couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
: Your deduction was based on the premise that the being must
: be limited to the same laws of physics as it's creation. All
: you understand are our four dimensions- there could be
: concepts of existence that are beyond our linear concept of
: time as "before" and "after".
No, actually. Once you open that floodgate, then it is
utter deception to be using the word "exist" at all, and
the whole debate becomes pointless.
Icarus
> >If god is defined as the creator of the universe, then it's an
> >illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
> >couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
>
> Your deduction was based on the premise that the being must
> be limited to the same laws of physics as it's creation. All
> you understand are our four dimensions- there could be
> concepts of existence that are beyond our linear concept of
> time as "before" and "after".
I don't see that it matters *what* concept of existence you imagine
this entity being part of - If it's part of any kind of existence then
it's a product of that existence and can't be the creator of
everything that exists (which is what the standard creator god concept
claims to be).
> It is like a 3D being looking at flatland- it can see all of
> flatland at once
Yep, good analogy... or maybe looking at a film strip, since
presumably if a conscious entity could be in some sense 'outside' our
universe then it would see not only all of space but all of time too.
> Plus, do not limit the analysis to a modern western god
> concept- it could be a plurality of beings, it could be a
> being who's intelligence is so beyond what we comprehend it
> would be nothing more than a force of nature to us.
You can imagine all kinds of ways in which our universe could be only
a small part of everything that exists, but it still seems to me
illogical that an entity could be the origin of everything that
exists. To imagine something of such vast complexity, an intelligent
and conscious entity, existing fully formed with no origin, no simple
beginnings for it to have arisen from, is illogical.
Laura
> >> We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
> >> outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
> >> is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
> >> not know about what I do not know about, and there is
> >> nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
> >> Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
> >> or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
> >> On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
> >> other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
> >> folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
> >> unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
> >> empty just because the lights are off.
This by the way was how con men pulled off their perpetual motion machine
scams, free energy, et al.
Making up an ether, sometimes a caloric, that was intangible but could be
tapped for free energy they convinced the gullible that their machines
worked. Is there an ether, a caloric, or phlogiston (another name for the
intangible caloric)? They are intangibles ... and if they exist they do
nothing
concrete that we can detect in the world, nor do they have any evidence
supporting their existence. I submit that while they could exist and they
are intangible as is your unknown god thing ... it is not logical to think
that
they do exist.
We might as well make up words at random, present them as unknown
intangibles and complain when people don't allow that they might exist.
Would you invest in a machine that I promised you produced free energy
from the kundara, an intangible substance that was unknown until I
discovered
it? Wouldn't you ask for evidence that it exists? Could I get away with
telling
you that it is intangible and can only be demonstrated by the operation of
my machine? Would it not, in fact, be logical for you to contend that
without
evidence that I had made it all up, that it is a fabrication. Further, to
say that it
almost certainly doesn't exist.
The only absolute statements are made by believers ... an atheist, at least
most
of those I know, will give you odds. The possiblity that the mythic gods
actually
exist or ever did exist or ever will exist are exactly equal to the
possibility that I
am one of them and just shucking everyone on this list. The possibility that
there
is an intellgience larger and greater than the universe that created
everything is
substantially lower ... and any other god, defined as unknown and
intangible,
is even less.
It seems you don't want to hear such odds ... you allow for a higher
probability.
Perhaps, an even probability. I don't think you can contend that such a
proposition
is logical and expect anyone else to think so with you.
SneakyPete
Regardless of your implication, I have made no such claim.
>
> >What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
>
> None of them and all of them.
>
That's a marvelously vague and evasive response.
>
> >What kind of objective evidence is there to indicate the
> >existence of god?
>
> None whatsoever, and totally irrelevant to the discussion of
> an unknown. I'm seeing that I went over your head with this.
>
>
> >Are the claims of some people concerning the attributes
> >of god falsifiable?
>
> Who cares? Irrelevant.
>
Yet it is the same argument you made to rationalize your
disbelief in Santa.
>
> >So how are you dfinig gad that you think he/she/it might
> >exist?
>
> Once again, missing the point.
>
Once again, being evasive.
>
> >Personally, I have seen absolutely no objective evidence
> >to indicate the exisitence of god/s as defined my the religions
> >that I am aware of.
>
> Hey, me too- but that has nothing to do with the discussion.
> You are clinging to the black and white mindset that I
> specifically wrote about- you are nothing more than the
> flip-side of a believer, clinging to your rejection of
> archaic notions the same way they cling to the archaic
> notions themselves. What you need to do is step OUTSIDE all
> of that and just THINK.
>
And you appear to be a theist in agnostics clothing, smart
enough to realize that the dogma of religion is nothing more
than the perpetuation of a mythology yet still fearful enough
to engage in theistic wishful thinking .
>
> >I have seen mountains of evidence of the deceptive, dishonest,
> >petty, bigotted vile behavior of people claiming to represent
> >one god or another.
>
> Yep. Irrelevant.
>
>
> >For Christianity specifically, the bible is so completely vague
> >ambiguous and contradictory that to hold it up as the one
> >true written word of god is laughable.
>
> You got it. All true, and has nothing to do with anything.
>
>
> >I will say the bible is a valuable socialogical artifact and that
> >it actually has some very good advice on life if you pick and
> >choose carefully.
>
> You got it- as relevant as the tea in china.
>
>
> >For these reasons and more I see no more reason to entertain
> >the existence of god than of santa.
> >OTOH, if you have a new or different description/definition
> >of god, I'd like to hear it.
>
> There is part of the problem- your whole concept of God is
> this Charlton Heston being who talks through burning bushes-
> of course you would think that's silly, but the definitions
> of this unknown being are irrelevant to the fact that it is
> an unknown, period.
>
I'm afraid it is actually you who is missing the point.
I have no concept of "god" of my own. Don't attribute
the Charlton Heston being who talks through burning
bushes to me, it is nothing more than one of the many
gods that have been postulated.
You expressed several times that you felt my questions
about your rationalizations were irrelevant.
Well, I would submit that you have, through your evasion
and non answers, in fact defined your concept of god.
You have defined god as unknowable.
You have stated that you find all of those things that
have been attributed god both plausible and implausible.
You have implied that god is indefinable.
Yet you hold to the possibility of gods existence rendering
your conceptualization of god as an unknowable
quantity/quality/entity totally irrelevant in relationship to
any known definition of reality.
OK, so god is unknowable and indefinable, so what?
SneakyPete
[snipped for brevity]
>
> Your black and white mindset is showing again, as is your
> fear of the unknown. The simple fact that it cannot be
> proven that God concepts *do not* exist does not mean that
> they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
> simple fact that it cannot be proven that God concepts do
> not exist means- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven
> that God concepts do not exist. That's it. No other
> conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack of
> existence is just as illogical as the assertion of
> existence.
>
And replace the word god in your rationalization.
The simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts *do not* exist
does not mean that they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not exist means
- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not
exist.
That's it. No other conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack
of existence is just as illogical as the assertion of existence.
Now try it again with unicorns or fairies or angels or devils, take
your pick. This is a common rationalization, probably because it
works every time no matter what your personal fantasy might be.
The problem is that in order to accept a concept as a possible
reality, it needs to have some basis in reality.
Which god concept do you know of that has any objective
basis in reality?
You confuse this with being closed minded. That is inaccurate.
I am open to any realistic possibility.
I do not state that gods (or goblins) do not exist.
Only that their probability is so low as to be totally irrelevant
in relation to reality.
Come up with some objective evidence or even some sound
reasoning instead of hand waving and you would be surprised
by how open minded atheists can be.
But to claim the possibility of god based on a definition of god
as being indefinable is irrational hand waving.
SneakyPete
[snipped again for brevity]
>
> Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
> period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
> I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
> be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
> false.
>
You have on several occasions asserted a concept of god
as being unknowable.
I agree that the god concepts cannot logically be asserted
as false.
I can state unequivocally that the god concepts postulated
by any religion that I am aware of is so improbable as to
be rendered irrelevant in relation to known reality.
Laura
"declan" <decla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11ed3cba.02011...@posting.google.com...
There are flaw that one can drive a semi-truck through ...
Here is just one:
You are very wrong ... for the better part of the last 2,000 years women
were
forbidden to speak, teach men, and we were pushed aside. Prior to
chritsianity
we had our places, if we wanted them, in science, education, and even
religion.
I do believe that centuries of oppression by a religion, however much some
women came to believe the bullshit of their oppressors, qualifies for
horrendous
damage to a major segment of the population.
Make no mistkae, prior to christianity, and Paul, women were often religious
leaders, scientists, writers, philosphers, and teachers. Hypatia, a woman
teacher torn apart by christian monks, was just one of those that fell to
the digusting doctrine offered by Paul. Hypatia also invented the
hydrometer.
Christianity, with the help of Constantine and Theodosius, began the
systematic
destruction of the goddess relgions which were led by women. They also
destroyed,
when they discovered them, anything written by a women. The destruction of
the Libraray of Alexandria, and it was only one of many, by christians
eliminated
thousands of writings by women writers.
Fortunately, in arab nations, a few scrolls survived to display the crimes
of the christians.
Without them we might have had to assume no woman ever wrote or researched
anthing of value.
................
Not just women ....
Then there was the hundreds of years wherein the church supported slavery,
even
the bible has rules about it. Such as a if a master beats a slave, the slave
must live
three days after the beating or the master must pay a fine.
..........................
Proclaiming oneself an atheist for most of these centuries was tantamount to
pronouncing
a death sentence on yourself. Disbelief in Jesus Christ was punishable by
confiscation
of your land and property, by imprisonment, torture, and death. What is
wrong
with christians that they don't read their own sordid and evil history?
......................
Today, many christians still oppose scientific progress, creationsim versus
evolution, as just
one example. Condmen people for loving one another ... homosexuals and
multiple marriage.
They take their insane condemnation of abortion to dangerous levels. And
they attempt
to creep back into government so that they can enforce their doctrine. If
they succeed in time
they would bring back their "morality" and enforce it on everyone, including
atheists.
The spiritual teaching of christianity are pure ficiton. They preach
self-serving bull shit that they
use as best they can to enforce their dogma on everyone. There has been no
change.
The founding fathers hoped to separate church and state and make no mistake,
it was to
protect the citizens from the church.
Steve Mading
: When you see that set A is infinite in size, you might realize
: that evidence in favor of non-existance is not possible, even when
: something doesn't exist. When something doesn't exist, it leaves
: behind no evidence. Trying to find evidence of something NOT being
: there is a fruitful pursuit.
Correcting myself here:
Damn - I meant "is NOT a fruitful pursuit."
Nick Lilavois
I guess you have not been following the discussion.
The distinction between tangibility and intangibility was
made clear. Proof is a *good* thing, not a bad thing.
Asserting something one way or the other without proof is a
bad thing.
BTW- I already paid you the $1000, plus interest. You just
forgot about it.
Nick Lilavois
>
>
>> >> We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
>> >> outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
>> >> is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
>> >> not know about what I do not know about, and there is
>> >> nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
>> >> Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
>> >> or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
>> >> On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
>> >> other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
>> >> folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
>> >> unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
>> >> empty just because the lights are off.
>
>This by the way was how con men pulled off their perpetual motion machine
>scams, free energy, et al.
Nope, sorry, that's wrong. Those con men worked on your
principles, not mine- they attempted to fill the gap with
their cons.
>Making up an ether, sometimes a caloric, that was intangible but could be
>tapped for free energy they convinced the gullible that their machines
>worked.
Thus, filling the gap with a made up thing.
Laura, you have no clue what I wrote, do you?
Try reading it again, and post a response based on what I
wrote. At least you are getting closer than your last post
was...
Nick Lilavois
>
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
>[snipped again for brevity]
>>
>> Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
>> period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
>> I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
>> be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
>> false.
>>
>You accept the possibility of god.
Possibility, yes. Any definition(s).
>You have on several occasions asserted a concept of god
>as being unknowable.
No, I have not. Show these assertions please.
I have stated they are unknown, not that they are
unknowable. That is a HUGE distinction.
>I agree that the god concepts cannot logically be asserted
>as false.
Good- that's my whole point.
>I can state unequivocally that the god concepts postulated
>by any religion that I am aware of is so improbable as to
>be rendered irrelevant in relation to known reality.
Then maybe you have not studied many religions.
Try Taoism, for one.
SneakyPete
SneakyPete
> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
> >news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
> >[snipped again for brevity]
> >>
> >> Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
> >> period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
> >> I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
> >> be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
> >> false.
> >>
> >You accept the possibility of god.
>
> Possibility, yes. Any definition(s).
>
the point isn't it? Before you can accept the possibility of
something it must have some kind of objective definition.
*You* are the one who accepts the possibility of the
existence of god. So it is for you to specify which of
the many definitions you are willing to accept.
( A question you ignored once and probably will again)
I, as stated previously, can state unequivocally that the
god concepts postulated by any religion that I am aware
of is so improbable as to be rendered irrelevant in relation
to known reality.
>
> >You have on several occasions asserted a concept of god
> >as being unknowable.
>
> No, I have not. Show these assertions please.
> I have stated they are unknown, not that they are
> unknowable. That is a HUGE distinction.
>
I did show these assertions. You conveniently snipped them.
>
> >I agree that the god concepts cannot logically be asserted
> >as false.
>
> Good- that's my whole point.
>
>
> >I can state unequivocally that the god concepts postulated
> >by any religion that I am aware of is so improbable as to
> >be rendered irrelevant in relation to known reality.
>
> Then maybe you have not studied many religions.
> Try Taoism, for one.
>
First you presume that you philosophical justifications
"go over my head", now you make assumptions as to
what religions I may have studied. If there is a definition
of god based on Taoism that you find to be plausible, then
stop equivocating and present it.
Otherwise you're just another fearful theist with his own
homespun dogma that has no basis in reality.
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:q16m4uouunb4htemu...@4ax.com...
>> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
>> >[snipped again for brevity]
>> >>
>> >> Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
>> >> period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
>> >> I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
>> >> be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
>> >> false.
>> >>
>> >You accept the possibility of god.
>>
>> Possibility, yes. Any definition(s).
>>
>That is (as I previously stated and you deemed irrelevant)
>the point isn't it?
No- it is still irrelevant. The point is that it is an
unknown called X. Assigning any arbitrary value to X is an
irrelevancy- it is still an unknown called X. It is not even
a variable in an equation we can solve for- it is just X.
> Before you can accept the possibility of
>something it must have some kind of objective definition.
Nope- Not a requirement at all for a possibility. The point
its that since it has NO objective definition, so one cannot
*reject* the possibility of it's existence. Accepting the
possibility is the only rational choice.
I am serving Quaglax for dinner. Do you like Quaglax?
You have no clue what Quaglax is, and I have made no effort
to define it. It could be a food- it could even be my guest.
It has NO definition. To state "Yes, I like Quaglax" or "No,
I do not like Quaglax" are both equally illogical responses.
The only logical response is "I have no idea if I like
Quaglax or not- what the hell is Quaglax?"
>*You* are the one who accepts the possibility of the
>existence of god. So it is for you to specify which of
>the many definitions you are willing to accept.
I did so, and you ignored it.
ALL OF THEM. Any and all definitions that are unknown and
unprovable.
>( A question you ignored once and probably will again)
Never ignored- I even answered it in the post you just
responded to.
>I, as stated previously, can state unequivocally that the
>god concepts postulated by any religion that I am aware
>of is so improbable as to be rendered irrelevant in relation
>to known reality.
And I responded, study more religions.
>
>>
>> >You have on several occasions asserted a concept of god
>> >as being unknowable.
>>
>> No, I have not. Show these assertions please.
>> I have stated they are unknown, not that they are
>> unknowable. That is a HUGE distinction.
>>
>I did show these assertions. You conveniently snipped them.
What the hell are you talking about?!? Snipped what?!?
Your previous post was 21 lines long. That's it. No
assertions on my part, none, zip, nada.
>> >I agree that the god concepts cannot logically be asserted
>> >as false.
>>
>> Good- that's my whole point.
>>
>>
>> >I can state unequivocally that the god concepts postulated
>> >by any religion that I am aware of is so improbable as to
>> >be rendered irrelevant in relation to known reality.
>>
>> Then maybe you have not studied many religions.
>> Try Taoism, for one.
>>
>
>First you presume that you philosophical justifications
>"go over my head", now you make assumptions as to
>what religions I may have studied.
Well, from that statement you have provided proof that I
have gone over your head. I said: "Then maybe you have not
studied many religions." Look up the word "maybe". Then look
up the word "assumption".
I have NO CLUE who you are, as you have no clue who I am.
All I know about you is what you post, and all you know
about me is what I post. I made NO assumptions about you,
and never would. I can make conclusions, however.
> If there is a definition
>of god based on Taoism that you find to be plausible, then
>stop equivocating and present it.
Ah... then my guess was correct- you have not studied
Taoism. I am not here as some advocate of Taoism or any
other faith- my point is that there are *countless* concepts
of god out there, and your assertion about those concepts
was very obviously based on your ignorance of them.
>Otherwise you're just another fearful theist with his own
>homespun dogma that has no basis in reality.
HAAAA!!!!!!! Oh, what a silly boy you are.
Yes, my conclusion that this conversation went over your
head was founded. Do you even know what a "theist" is? Or an
"atheist"? Or an "agnostic"?
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>> Your black and white mindset is showing again, as is your
>> fear of the unknown. The simple fact that it cannot be
>> proven that God concepts *do not* exist does not mean that
>> they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
>> simple fact that it cannot be proven that God concepts do
>> not exist means- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven
>> that God concepts do not exist. That's it. No other
>> conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack of
>> existence is just as illogical as the assertion of
>> existence.
>>
>Now take your favorite fictional character (goblins perhaps?)
>And replace the word god in your rationalization.
Geezh... Is there an echo in here?
Follow the thread. We dealt with Santa Claws already, and
why I am not doing a "rationalization". I'm equally agnostic
to all intangibilities, not just *favored* ones.
>The simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts *do not* exist
>does not mean that they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
>simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not exist means
>- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not
>exist.
>That's it. No other conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack
>of existence is just as illogical as the assertion of existence.
Newbie note: when you quote someone else's words, include
the ">" marks in front of them. What you did was just
integrate my words into your own, as if they were yours.
>Now try it again with unicorns or fairies or angels or devils, take
>your pick.
Here is what I said earlier in the thread to address this
very issue, which you obviously did not read:
Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
not know about what I do not know about, and there is
nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
empty just because the lights are off.
>This is a common rationalization, probably because it
>works every time no matter what your personal fantasy might be.
Yes- logic works wonders when used well. Silly though, how
people with little grasp of logic call it a
"rationalization".
>The problem is that in order to accept a concept as a possible
>reality, it needs to have some basis in reality.
Good thing no one was talking about something existing
within your concept of reality. You need to sign up for a
Physics class.
>Which god concept do you know of that has any objective
>basis in reality?
This is way beyond you. We are talking about something that
is unknown, and you are asking me for proof. The POINT is
that there IS NO PROF EITHER WAY, so asserting anything
about it either way is illogical.
>You confuse this with being closed minded. That is inaccurate.
I confuse nothing. You are arguing against Christian
strawman.
>I am open to any realistic possibility.
Good. That's all I'm saying.
>I do not state that gods (or goblins) do not exist.
Once again, my whole point.
>Only that their probability is so low as to be totally irrelevant
>in relation to reality.
There is your blatant lack of reasoning, as explained to you
before. You have absolutely no basis for the determination
of any "probability", period. That's the difference between
me and you- you operate on your blind faith that God(s) and
other metaphysical/mythical concepts have a "low
probability", while I am using pure logic and no faith- I
accept the unknown is an unknown.
>Come up with some objective evidence or even some sound
>reasoning instead of hand waving and you would be surprised
>by how open minded atheists can be.
Objective evidence? None. That's the point that flys over
your head. Sound reasoning? Been there, done that, also made
a wooshing sound.
>But to claim the possibility of god based on a definition of god
>as being indefinable is irrational hand waving.
Yes, that would be silly- that's why I did not do that.
You are still stuck on the difference between "unknown" and
"unknowable", aren't you? One is a current state of affairs,
the other is an absolute assertion. They are completely
different things. I claim the existence of X can neither be
accepted nor rejected since X is undefined, not that X is
defined as indefinable. To assign a probability to X, as you
do, is illogical.
Nick Lilavois
Nope- the point becomes agnosticism. ;-)
And in that particular point there is no reason to abandon
any definition of "existence"- what I am talking about is
completely within the realm of scientific theory of
multiverses. Time and the laws of physics that we understand
are a part of our universe- other universes can "exist" in a
very different way, and some "superset" of multi verse could
"exist" in a way we do not yet understand.
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>
>> >If god is defined as the creator of the universe, then it's an
>> >illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
>> >couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
>>
>> Your deduction was based on the premise that the being must
>> be limited to the same laws of physics as it's creation. All
>> you understand are our four dimensions- there could be
>> concepts of existence that are beyond our linear concept of
>> time as "before" and "after".
>
>I don't see that it matters *what* concept of existence you imagine
>this entity being part of - If it's part of any kind of existence then
>it's a product of that existence and can't be the creator of
>everything that exists (which is what the standard creator god concept
>claims to be).
Who said anything about a "standard creator god concept" or
what those claims might be? Who limited this conversation to
the flaws of any one definition?
>> It is like a 3D being looking at flatland- it can see all of
>> flatland at once
>
>Yep, good analogy... or maybe looking at a film strip, since
>presumably if a conscious entity could be in some sense 'outside' our
>universe then it would see not only all of space but all of time too.
Yep.
>> Plus, do not limit the analysis to a modern western god
>> concept- it could be a plurality of beings, it could be a
>> being who's intelligence is so beyond what we comprehend it
>> would be nothing more than a force of nature to us.
>
>You can imagine all kinds of ways in which our universe could be only
>a small part of everything that exists, but it still seems to me
>illogical that an entity could be the origin of everything that
>exists.
Then it could be a part of everything that exists, not a
point of origin. It could be like the relationship between
the mind and the brain- neither functions without the other.
Or, as I said, it could be a plurality- they could be
"aliens" of a kind completely incomprehensible to us, who
create whole universes. For all intents and purposes, those
"aliens" are Gods to us, just not absolute ones.
> To imagine something of such vast complexity, an intelligent
>and conscious entity, existing fully formed with no origin,
...or no origin that we know of, or that originated at the
origin of the universe, or that had an "origin" and a
"death" within some laws of physics outside of our time
concept...
> no simple
>beginnings for it to have arisen from,
Not that there are no simple beginnings (where do you get
these assertions? Do you just pull them out of your hat?)
just no beginnings *that we know of*.
That is the core difference between atheism and agnosticism-
you seem to think we already have answers for everything,
while I am stating repeatedly that these things are unknown.
> is illogical.
Imagination is NEVER illogical.
Assertions often are.
(And Strawmen always are!)
Nick Lilavois
I never said you did- but you did claim a percentage exists,
and that the percentage was low. Bob Simmons even went so
far as to state that the percentage was lower than dying in
a car crash. I question your stastical abilities.
>
>>
>> >What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
>>
>> None of them and all of them.
>>
>That's a marvelously vague and evasive response.
It's the truth. As I stated in the Santa discussion, there
is a difference between tangibility and intangibility. If
the god concept is dependant on some tangible that can be
proven wrong, then I reject it on those grounds. If there is
no tangibility requirement, it can neither be proven or
disproven.
If a particular God concept is dependant on Mount Olympus,
creation lasting 7 days, or any other thing within the realm
of the known that can be proven false, then it is false.
>> >Are the claims of some people concerning the attributes
>> >of god falsifiable?
>>
>> Who cares? Irrelevant.
>
>Yet it is the same argument you made to rationalize your
>disbelief in Santa.
Nope- read what I wrote again. Not only was there no
rationalization, but there was no statement of disbelief.
If my writing was vague excuse me, but I believe I made that
point clear enough:
>> >> There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
>> >> verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
>> >> photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
>> >> verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
>> >> aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
>> >> get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
>> >> girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
>> >> Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
>> >> through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
>> >So how are you dfinig gad that you think he/she/it might
>> >exist?
>>
>> Once again, missing the point.
>
>Once again, being evasive.
Not at all. Pick a definition, any one. I am equally
agnostic to all, based on the conditions of tangibility and
intangibility as stated earlier.
>> >Personally, I have seen absolutely no objective evidence
>> >to indicate the exisitence of god/s as defined my the religions
>> >that I am aware of.
>>
>> Hey, me too- but that has nothing to do with the discussion.
>> You are clinging to the black and white mindset that I
>> specifically wrote about- you are nothing more than the
>> flip-side of a believer, clinging to your rejection of
>> archaic notions the same way they cling to the archaic
>> notions themselves. What you need to do is step OUTSIDE all
>> of that and just THINK.
>>
>
>And you appear to be a theist in agnostics clothing,
Now that is just plain stupid.
It also shows that you cling to that black and white
mindset- that everyone is either a believer or a
disbeliever. The world is filled with shades of gray- and a
full spectrum of colors.
I'm surprised you acknowledge the existence of "agnostics
clothing"- it implies you believe agnostics exist, yet when
you encounter one, you reject the possibility.
You remind me of a gay guy I used to know who thought there
was no such thing as bisexuals- that everyone who claims to
be bi are just closeted gays or experimental straights. The
truth is that sex- and belief- are more faceted than you
realize.
> smart
>enough to realize that the dogma of religion is nothing more
>than the perpetuation of a mythology yet still fearful enough
>to engage in theistic wishful thinking.
Not a single bit of wishful thinking on my part- you are
projecting your blind faith onto me.
>> >For these reasons and more I see no more reason to entertain
>> >the existence of god than of santa.
>> >OTOH, if you have a new or different description/definition
>> >of god, I'd like to hear it.
>>
>> There is part of the problem- your whole concept of God is
>> this Charlton Heston being who talks through burning bushes-
>> of course you would think that's silly, but the definitions
>> of this unknown being are irrelevant to the fact that it is
>> an unknown, period.
>>
>I'm afraid it is actually you who is missing the point.
Nope- I have it down pat.
>I have no concept of "god" of my own.
Yet you think it is impossible that *I* have no concept of
God either? The only reason I can think of to support that
*you* think *I* must have a specific god definition is that
you have one. If your assertion that you don't have one is
true, then your position about me is even more irrational.
> Don't attribute
>the Charlton Heston being who talks through burning
>bushes to me, it is nothing more than one of the many
>gods that have been postulated.
Fine- than don't attribute theism in agnostic clothing to
me, deal?
>You expressed several times that you felt my questions
>about your rationalizations were irrelevant.
Asking about specific definitions is irrelevant, and calling
simple logical analysis a "rationalization" shows your bias.
>Well, I would submit that you have, through your evasion
>and non answers, in fact defined your concept of god.
HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!
>You have defined god as unknowable.
Not even close. ZOOOOMMMMMM... way over your head. I never
did anything like that. There is a HUGE difference between
the unknown and unknowable, as I stated in another post. One
is a current condition, and the other is a statement of an
absolute. I state NO absolutes.
>You have stated that you find all of those things that
>have been attributed god both plausible and implausible.
Nope- once again, totally wrong. If you don't even
understand my position, I think we are not going to get
anywhere.
Re-read everything I wrote about tangibility and
intangibility.
>You have implied that god is indefinable.
No implications of the sort.
>Yet you hold to the possibility of gods existence rendering
>your conceptualization of god as an unknowable
>quantity/quality/entity totally irrelevant in relationship to
>any known definition of reality.
>
>OK, so god is unknowable and indefinable, so what?
Strawman.
God(s) is/are unknown and undefined, not unknowable and
undefinable. Why is that so hard to grasp? Oh yes- I am
using logic, while you are relying on blind faith.
Interesting Ian
"Bob Simmons" <bsim...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:o8I18.244011$8w3.56...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
>
> Considering the size of the universe, the concept of a god, or gods
> (lets be fair, why have only one) were created on a very small planet,
close
> to one of billions of stars, in one of billions of galaxies.
The concept of a God was not created anywhere else apart from this planet?
How do you know? I would agree that if no other intelligent alien species
has come up with the concept of a God, then that would be a very powerful
argument for atheism. But you need to argue your position here I'm afraid.
Ian
Nick Lilavois
>Nick Lilavois <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>: "Bob Simmons" <bsim...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>:>Many in this country believe in Santa (granted the majority are younger than
>:>ten years old. Would you then be an agnostic about Santa?
>
>: Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
>: There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
>: verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
>: photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
>: verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
>: aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
>: get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
>: girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
>: Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
>: through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
>
>Spiderman exists - provided you use the definition that Spiderman
>is a night shift janitor in Madison, Wisconsin whom I've met a
>lot because I work odd hours - who doesn't really exhibit any
>spider-like abilities at all, but I like to call him "Spiderman"
>anyway just for the heck of it.
Yep. All true. You have the nickname "spiderman" for your
night janitor, and your night janitor exists. Well, I will
assume he exists, for the sake of argument. I used to know a
girl we called "Vampira". She was a goth with long
fingernails, and worked as a hairdresser. Now that share
time is over, did you have a point somewhere?
>If you use the game where you get to redefine everything, then
>*everything* exists. But at that point language is pointless.
Who is talking about redefining anything? Spiderman and
Vampira are trademarked characters and do have specific
definitions, but even then, the definitions change over
time- to appeal to changing markets.
Are you claiming there is one single definition of God that
is universally accepted that I am not aware of? Wow. I had
no idea I was guilty of redefining it. Could you please
enlighten me to that universal definition?
The point is there is NO trademark on God, and NO definition
for me to redefine. The fact you think there is one says
more about your beliefs than it does about mine.
>: We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
>: outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
>: is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
>: not know about what I do not know about, and there is
>: nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
>: Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
>: or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
>: On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
>: other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
>: folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
>: unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
>: empty just because the lights are off.
>
>Think of two sets:
>
>set A - the set of all things that theoretically could exist, but don't
> (To be distinguished from the set of all things that cannot
> possibly exist and you know this based purely on their
> definition alone, like 4-sided triangles)
>set B - the set of all things that you don't realize exist, but
> in fact they do
Logically, I would have a hard time putting stuff in A or B.
I might *believe* things are in A, but I realize that is my
belief, nothing more. I could be proven wrong when they are
placed in set C (stuff we know exists) showing that before
they really were in set B. Also, I might *believe* some
things are in B, but in the event they are disproven, I
would be proven wrong- they would have been in A.
The logical position is to accept that certain things are
unknown- and that we don't know what is in sets A or B, just
what is in set C. To assert otherwise is blind faith.
>When you realize that, to the one doing the thinking, set A and B
>are *indistinguishable* from each other, you realize what's wrong
>with belittling the atheists.
Ahh....
The fact that you not only don't see the HUGE difference
between set A and set B, but think they are
*indistinguishable* is the key. For one to make a CLAIM that
something is in A or B, or claim a *probability* that
something is in A or B, is wrong. If you want to claim a
belief, fine. It seems though, most atheists are
uncomfortable admitting their beliefs.
>When you see that set A is infinite in size, you might realize
>that evidence in favor of non-existance is not possible, even when
>something doesn't exist.
Wrong. Common logical error on usenet. It is NOT impossible
to prove that something does not exist. I can prove that my
mother-in-law does not exist- because I'm not married. I can
prove that the King of America does not exist- by the
documents that established this country. Once again, my
point about tangibility and intangibility. Tangibles- and
assertions about them- can be proven both as true or as
false.
That is a side point though, since the God(s) concepts are
usually intangible- the point is there is no way to assign
percentages.
>When something doesn't exist, it leaves
>behind no evidence. Trying to find evidence of something NOT being
>there is a fruitful pursuit.
Good- then don't assert it.
Asserting something that cannot be proven is illogical.
>Atheists simply treat the issue of God the same way people normally
>treat all other issues of existance without evidence - we don't
>believe it until there's some reason to, and we realise that disproof
>is unnecessary. There are an infinite number of things that we
>don't believe exist, even though we can't prove as such. That's
>normal. That's simple sanity. If you start giving everything that
>could theoretically exist a sort of 50/50 benefit of the doubt, you
>are essentially generating an infinitely large amount of belief in
>your head about every little imagined thing - remember that set A
>is infinite in size.
Why do you confuse possibility with belief? Why do you
assign numbers like "50/50" to unknowns? Why do you think
that "belief" (or more correctly accepting possibilities) is
something that has size and occupies space in one's head?
> *Nobody* goes off giving partial benefit of
>the doubt to every unevidenced thing and stays sane.
Scientists are not sane? Detectives are not sane? Anyone who
does not operate via preconceived notions is not sane?
That's insane.
>The only
>difference between atheists and you is that atheists put God in the
>*same* category as santa claus, leprechauns, aliens from Vega,
>and so on.
Um, no- that's not a difference. I put them in the same
category too. I just don't try assigning a percentage, or
logically justify it. I might have beliefs one way or the
other, but that's it.
> Sure, we can't *disprove* god- but there are also an
>infinite number of other things we can't disprove that we don't give
>any benefit of the doubt to whatsoever.
No benefit of the doubt to whatsoever? Not even aliens from
Vega? Where is Vega anyway- is that a star or a
constellation? Are you *sure* there is no life on the
planets that orbit it/in it/near it? Not even the
*slightest*? No benefit of the doubt to whatsoever?
That's what I am talking about- you provide some logical
discourse, but it all winds up to your statements of belief,
making your logic no different from that of an "open minded
theist"- just your beliefs are different. You are two sides
of the same coin.
I, however, just admit that whatever is unknown is unknown,
period. This fact does not occupy any time or space in my
brain, the awesomeness of it does not drive me to insanity.
It is a simple fact.
Interesting Ian
"SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%hb28.487$za2....@news7.onvoy.net...
Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined
God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink fairys etc etc etc is a patently false
analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.
For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some
particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or
whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with
evidence for "X".
But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical
reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws
of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality
to be in the normal course of events.
Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we
would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal
course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3
criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person
who is asserting the existence of "X" to
a) directly point at "X"
b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions
c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of
"X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that
galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though
there is no evidence for such galaxies).
Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a
differing way from any putative physical existant "X". Many people in
referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within
the world. Thus "God" is not an
additional object existing alongside other objects in the world.
"God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is
incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God"
is not located anywhere then he cannot exist *within* the world. It
would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".
To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately
defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical
interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication
atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.
Ian
Interesting Ian
of God *is* low. I certainly would. Quite frankly I would suggest it's
meaningless to try to ascribe probabilities to such questions. If you think
otherwise show us your mathematical equations demonstrating the low
probability. Hell, you haven't even a clue what God means! LOL
Ian
Interesting Ian
"Icarus" <icar...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a29lhi$s9c$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> "Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>
> > If you actually want to "cross the bridge from ancient man,
> > and venture into the real world" you will abandon all need
> > to cling to conformity on EITHER side and just practice a
> > little introspection- and look at the concept logically.
>
Your definition.
then it's an
> illogical concept, since a conscious and intelligent entity
> couldn't exist before there was a universe for it to evolve in.
Why not? Why should God have to evolve?
Ian
Interesting Ian
"Icarus" <icar...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Well Icarus, if its illogical it should surely be relatively easy for you to
demonstrate this illogicality. It is insufficient to say that it *seems* to
*you* to be illogical. Illogicallity amounts to more than a particular
persons feelings.
Ian
SneakyPete
> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
> >news:q16m4uouunb4htemu...@4ax.com...
> >> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
> >> >[snipped again for brevity]
> >> >>
> >> >> Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
> >> >> period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
> >> >> I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
> >> >> be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
> >> >> false.
> >> >>
> >> >You accept the possibility of god.
> >>
> >> Possibility, yes. Any definition(s).
> >>
> >That is (as I previously stated and you deemed irrelevant)
> >the point isn't it?
>
> No- it is still irrelevant. The point is that it is an
> unknown called X. Assigning any arbitrary value to X is an
> irrelevancy- it is still an unknown called X. It is not even
> a variable in an equation we can solve for- it is just X.
>
you ask the same question it suddenly becomes pertinent.
Give me a minute while I slip my hipwaders on before
I read the rest of your response.
>
>
> > Before you can accept the possibility of
> >something it must have some kind of objective definition.
>
> Nope- Not a requirement at all for a possibility. The point
> its that since it has NO objective definition, so one cannot
> *reject* the possibility of it's existence. Accepting the
> possibility is the only rational choice.
>
from a christian and just as bogus. So you accept that
*something* exists that can't be defined. Big deal.
Except that religions that actually proclaim a belief in
god have some kind of definition for their god, always
subjective and rendered as meaningless as your
non-definition by it's own definition.
You seem to believe that you've come up with some
marvelous way to deal with questions that have no answer.
You haven't. At best it's an ignorant justification, at worst
you are being intellectually dishonest.
> I am serving Quaglax for dinner. Do you like Quaglax?
> You have no clue what Quaglax is, and I have made no effort
> to define it. It could be a food- it could even be my guest.
> It has NO definition. To state "Yes, I like Quaglax" or "No,
> I do not like Quaglax" are both equally illogical responses.
> The only logical response is "I have no idea if I like
> Quaglax or not- what the hell is Quaglax?"
>
Exactly! The only logical response is "what the hell is
that?" The very point I made when I first entered this
thread. The very point you deemed irrelevant and
posed yourself and now repeat a 2nd time. Is your
hypocrisy deliberate? Are you just attempting to bait me?
>
>
> >*You* are the one who accepts the possibility of the
> >existence of god. So it is for you to specify which of
> >the many definitions you are willing to accept.
So are you going to answer you own question or not?
SneakyPete
> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
> >news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
> >[snipped for brevity]
> >>
> >> Your black and white mindset is showing again, as is your
> >> fear of the unknown. The simple fact that it cannot be
> >> proven that God concepts *do not* exist does not mean that
> >> they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
> >> simple fact that it cannot be proven that God concepts do
> >> not exist means- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven
> >> that God concepts do not exist. That's it. No other
> >> conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack of
> >> existence is just as illogical as the assertion of
> >> existence.
> >>
> >Now take your favorite fictional character (goblins perhaps?)
> >And replace the word god in your rationalization.
>
> Geezh... Is there an echo in here?
> Follow the thread. We dealt with Santa Claws already, and
> why I am not doing a "rationalization". I'm equally agnostic
> to all intangibilities, not just *favored* ones.
>
>
> >The simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts *do not*
exist
> >does not mean that they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer.
The
> >simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not exist
means
> >- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not
> >exist.
> >That's it. No other conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of
lack
> >of existence is just as illogical as the assertion of existence.
>
> Newbie note: when you quote someone else's words, include
> the ">" marks in front of them. What you did was just
> integrate my words into your own, as if they were yours.
>
Maybe you should choose them more carefully.
If I had changed it and left the > in, you would have
accurately been able to claim that I misquoted you. See
the difference?
I first poked my head into NG's in 1994.
When do I stop being a newbie?
>
> >Now try it again with unicorns or fairies or angels or devils, take
> >your pick.
>
> Here is what I said earlier in the thread to address this
> very issue, which you obviously did not read:
>
> Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
> There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
> verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
> photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
> verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
> aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
> get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
> girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
> Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
> through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
>
The definitions of god proposed by religions, can either
be easily be falsified or are, like yours, so vague and
ambiguous as to be renered completely meaningless
in relation to reality.
> We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
> outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
Not a statement that I made.
> is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
> not know about what I do not know about, and there is
> nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
You've gone to such great lengths to explain what you don't
know, that it begs the question of what you think you
do know. So, what is it that you think you do know
about god? By answering "nothing" you render the whole
god concept irrelevant to life and reality and your entire
point becomes pointless.
> Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
> or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
Which of course you aren't. What utter bullshit. That's just
as intellectually dishonest and as people who use myths
to alleviate their fear.
> On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
> other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
> folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
> unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
> empty just because the lights are off.
>
Don't be so afraid of fear. It's a natural emotion that
all of us share, and fear of the unknown is probably
the most common fear of all.
Fear can give you the strength you need when you
need it the most.
It is just as illogical to avoid that fear by saying it doesn't
exist as it is to alleviate it with myths.
>
> >This is a common rationalization, probably because it
> >works every time no matter what your personal fantasy might be.
>
> Yes- logic works wonders when used well. Silly though, how
> people with little grasp of logic call it a
> "rationalization".
>
A rose by any other name....
>
>
> >The problem is that in order to accept a concept as a possible
> >reality, it needs to have some basis in reality.
>
> Good thing no one was talking about something existing
> within your concept of reality. You need to sign up for a
> Physics class.
>
I was referring to the shared human concept of reality.
This is where the controversy exists. But I suspect you
knew that and are just being evasive.
>
>
> >Which god concept do you know of that has any objective
> >basis in reality?
>
> This is way beyond you. We are talking about something that
> is unknown, and you are asking me for proof. The POINT is
> that there IS NO PROF EITHER WAY, so asserting anything
> about it either way is illogical.
>
I didn't ask for any proof, simply a little piece of what
you think you *do* know. Instead you go on again
about what you *don't* know. Why are you so proud
of your ignorance?
Sorry I'm way beyond using these kind of justifications
to cover my fears.
>
>
>
> >You confuse this with being closed minded. That is inaccurate.
>
> I confuse nothing. You are arguing against Christian
> strawman.
>
You're a chridtian strawman? I shouda known.
>
> >I am open to any realistic possibility.
>
> Good. That's all I'm saying.
>
>
> >I do not state that gods (or goblins) do not exist.
>
> Once again, my whole point.
>
>
> >Only that their probability is so low as to be totally irrelevant
> >in relation to reality.
>
> There is your blatant lack of reasoning, as explained to you
> before. You have absolutely no basis for the determination
> of any "probability", period.
Actually, yes I do have a basis for that probability. The
total and complete lack of any objective evidence in
support of the claim what so ever. The same basis I use
for any fictional being. That's how you tell the difference
between fantasy and reality.
> That's the difference between
> me and you- you operate on your blind faith
No, I rely on objective reality.
>that God(s) and
> other metaphysical/mythical concepts have a "low
> probability", while I am using pure logic and no faith- I
> accept the unknown is an unknown.
>
But the point you miss, or more accurately, ignore, is
that people *do* claim god is known to exist.
You mistake you arrogance as being logical.
>
> >Come up with some objective evidence or even some sound
> >reasoning instead of hand waving and you would be surprised
> >by how open minded atheists can be.
>
> Objective evidence? None.
And *that* *is* the point.
>That's the point that flys over
> your head. Sound reasoning? Been there, done that, also made
> a wooshing sound.
>
Now your arrogance causes you to mistake reasoning
with evasiveness.
>
> >But to claim the possibility of god based on a definition of god
> >as being indefinable is irrational hand waving.
>
> Yes, that would be silly- that's why I did not do that.
> You are still stuck on the difference between "unknown" and
> "unknowable", aren't you? One is a current state of affairs,
> the other is an absolute assertion. They are completely
> different things. I claim the existence of X can neither be
> accepted nor rejected since X is undefined,
And that is where your "reasoning" falls through. What is
rejected are the definitions that are proposed. just because
you have no definition does not mean that definitions do
not exist. Do you accept or reject all or any of the definitions
of god that you do know about?
>not that X is
> defined as indefinable. To assign a probability to X, as you
> do, is illogical.
>
But X is defined. By many people in many different ways.
By stating that X (god) is unknown is to reject the theism
of those that claim to know. ergo - you are an atheist, you
reject their theism, you just haven't come to grips with that
reality yet. Unless of course you accept that the definitions
proposed by theism are "possible". In which case you are
simply intellectually dishonest.
SneakyPete
[snip]
I snipped this post to illustrate the kind of inconsistency
You have displayed.
ME
> >> >What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
> >>
> >> None of them and all of them.
> >>
ME
> >You have stated that you find all of those things that
> >have been attributed god both plausible and implausible.
>
> Nope- once again, totally wrong. If you don't even
> understand my position, I think we are not going to get
> anywhere.
Theism by definition is belief in the existence of a god or gods.
That belief is based on assumed knowledge of *what* god is.
IOW, a definition.
Atheism by definition is a rejection of that belief based on the
proposed definitions.
Not a rejection of the unknown.
SneakyPete
[snip for brevity]
>
> Are you claiming there is one single definition of God that
> is universally accepted that I am not aware of? Wow. I had
> no idea I was guilty of redefining it. Could you please
> enlighten me to that universal definition?
>
> The point is there is NO trademark on God, and NO definition
> for me to redefine. The fact you think there is one says
> more about your beliefs than it does about mine.
>
definitions for god. Millions of people believe in god
based on these definitions. If you reject those definitions,
and therefore those beliefs, you are an atheist in relation
to those forms of theism.
If you *believe* any of these theisms to be possible, then
you are a theist with a lack of conviction.
[snip]
SneakyPete
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:X2L38.13365$ka7.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Fpb28.488$za2....@news7.onvoy.net...
> >
> > "Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
> > news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
> > [snipped again for brevity]
> > >
> > > Try to understand this- I am not asserting ANY god concept,
> > > period. Why on earth would you think an agnostic would?
> > > I am stating that ANY god concept that cannot be proven to
> > > be true or false cannot logically be asserted as true or
> > > false.
> > >
> > You accept the possibility of god.
> > You have on several occasions asserted a concept of god
> > as being unknowable.
> > I agree that the god concepts cannot logically be asserted
> > as false.
> > I can state unequivocally that the god concepts postulated
> > by any religion that I am aware of is so improbable as to
> > be rendered irrelevant in relation to known reality.
> >
> I suspect that theists would disagree that the probability of the
existence
> of God *is* low. I certainly would. Quite frankly I would suggest it's
> meaningless to try to ascribe probabilities to such questions.
That statement was based on the total lack of objective evidence
in support of the god propositions. If god is unable to affect the
world in any objective fashion, I fail to see it's relevance.
> If you think
> otherwise show us your mathematical equations demonstrating the low
> probability. Hell, you haven't even a clue what God means! LOL
>
> Ian
>
You're right, I haven't a clue what god means to you.
Interesting Ian
Tell me then what would consitute objective evidence for you? In other
words what characteristics must the world/universe exhibit before you
concede there is evidence for a "God"? Or is it the case that atheism is
compatible with all possible states of affairs?
If god is unable to affect the
> world in any objective fashion, I fail to see it's relevance.
For some the whole world is hypothesised to be simple an effect of God. :-D
I think you're thinking of deism, or a "God of the gaps" version of theism.
>
> > If you think
> > otherwise show us your mathematical equations demonstrating the low
> > probability. Hell, you haven't even a clue what God means! LOL
> >
> > Ian
> >
> You're right, I haven't a clue what god means to you.
Well, lets just suppose that at a minimum that God stands for the idea that
there is an all pervading awareness associated with reality as a whole. Ok,
tell me how you have calculated the probability. What exact percentage
chance of God existing are you proposing anyway? 0.1%? 0.000001%?
00000000000000000000000000000001%?
Ian
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:4dou4u8bfi4ec5dub...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
>I snipped this post to illustrate the kind of inconsistency
>You have displayed.
My inconsistency? nope.
Your lack of reading comprehension? Loads.
>ME
>> >> >What aspect of god is it that you actually find plausable?
>> >>
>YOU
>> >> None of them and all of them.
>> >>
>[snip]
Yep. No problem there.
>ME
>> >You have stated that you find all of those things that
>> >have been attributed god both plausible and implausible.
^^^^^^^^^^
Your lack of reading comprehension extends to reading your
own writing.
>YOU
>> Nope- once again, totally wrong. If you don't even
>> understand my position, I think we are not going to get
>> anywhere.
>See the contradiction?
No contradiction at all. You just can't read your own
writing. Do you accept the possibility that Michael Jordan
exists? Do you accept that Michael Jordan can fly- a
characteristic attributed to him?
For Pete's sake, learn how to read. I went over tangibility
vs intangibility over a dozen times so far- where were you?
>Theism by definition is belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Yep.
>That belief is based on assumed knowledge of *what* god is.
>IOW, a definition.
That's true, but different theists, however, have different
definitions. Agnostics don't have to have any- and most do
not.
>Atheism by definition is a rejection of that belief based on the
>proposed definitions.
Now, you are going to get countless people who will disagree
with you there- and most of them are atheists. Would you
like to try again?
>Not a rejection of the unknown.
Have you ever even met an atheist? For that mater, have you
even read your own posts?
Nick Lilavois
>
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:3oqu4us3sgdj6mvhj...@4ax.com...
>[snip for brevity]
>>
>> Are you claiming there is one single definition of God that
>> is universally accepted that I am not aware of? Wow. I had
>> no idea I was guilty of redefining it. Could you please
>> enlighten me to that universal definition?
>>
>> The point is there is NO trademark on God, and NO definition
>> for me to redefine. The fact you think there is one says
>> more about your beliefs than it does about mine.
>>
>That's where you're wrong Nick. There are many
>definitions for god.
*sigh*
Please, learn how to read.
I just said there is no single universal
flavor of ice cream.
You just said I am wrong- that there are many
flavors of ice cream.
You failed reading comprehension on the SATs didn't you?
> Millions of people believe in god
>based on these definitions. If you reject those definitions,
>and therefore those beliefs, you are an atheist in relation
>to those forms of theism.
>If you *believe* any of these theisms to be possible, then
>you are a theist with a lack of conviction.
Then you don't know what a theist is.
A theist is not someone who accepts that some definitions of
God *might* exist, a theist is someone who believes that a
specific definition of god exists, period.
Well, from your posts we have seen you don't know what an
atheist is, what an agnostic is, or what a theist is. Want
to try for any more?
Scott Davidson
>
<snip>
>My experience teaches me that atheists tend to be extremely closed minded.
>Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined
>God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink fairys etc etc etc is a patently false
>analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.
>
>For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some
>particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or
>whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with
>evidence for "X".
>But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical
>reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws
>of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality
>to be in the normal course of events.
>
>Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we
>would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal
>course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3
>criteria should be fulfilled.
Actually, some of these should be fulfilled in many cases even if the proposed construct
is consistent with known physical laws. There is nothing impossible about a purple
cow, but I would like to see one before believing in it.
> We should either demand that the person
>who is asserting the existence of "X" to
>
>a) directly point at "X"
In some cases it might be impossible to directly point at X, and not just when X
is a god. (Christians might say that pointing to Jesus would be pointing at God,
actually.) Uncertainty states that it is impossible to "point at" certain particles,
unless you mean point at in a very peculiar way.
You seem to respond to this point below, but not the others.
>
>b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
>generating successful predictions
Including the impact of X on things that can be pointed to, such as cloud chambers.
For instance, let us take the Biblical god. Let's forget for a moment that Moses was
able to point to him, and instead take the more recent view that this God has no physical
presence, or is all over the universe, or whatever. The Biblical god has had specific
physical impact on the world, according to the Bible. (Causing a flood, and, most importantly,
inspiring the writing of a Holy Book.) Is it too much to ask that we can point to these
effects of god?
To broaden the argument a bit, we can say that any god either has an observable impact on
the world or it does not. An observable impact can include not only miracles, but, perhaps,
inspired and correct prophecy. Of course, to be convincing, this prophecy needs
to be somewhat repeatable and not just lucky guesses. Real honest to goodness
Red Sea partings would be far more convincing.
If a god does impact the world, then his effects can be "pointed to". If not, then
we can argue that the god makes no difference (though the concept of the god might.)
And, even strong atheists don't argue that the concept of god does not exist, so we
would have no argument about that.
So, we see, the physicality of a god is not an issue, just the physicality of the effects
of a god, however they are achieved.
>
>c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of
>"X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that
>galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though
>there is no evidence for such galaxies).
>
Certainly, though inductive logic is a slippery beast indeed. All the "proofs" of
the existence of god are dubious. (Or at least not universally accepted.) I'd say that
proofs of the nonexistence of any god are equally dubious, since they would all impose
a definition of a god as a premise.
>Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a
>differing way from any putative physical existant "X". Many people in
>referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within
>the world. Thus "God" is not an
>additional object existing alongside other objects in the world.
>"God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is
>incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God"
>is not located anywhere then he cannot exist *within* the world. It
>would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".
>To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately
>defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical
>interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication
>atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.
>
True, but this argument does not affect my response to b. Now, if you
wish to believe in a god with no physical presence or effect on the universe
(that we can see today, at least) we might ask why, but we certainly could not
disprove your belief. However, if someone who believes in this sort of god
wishes me to either worship it, or to modify my behavior based on its existence,
then you had better demonstrate to me that this god either wishes to be worshipped
or cares what I do - and by doing so you violate the premise that the god has
no observable effect on the world.
My wife is a weak deist. It makes her feel good. There is no discernable difference
between her behavior and mine.
Scott #1045
>Ian
>
>
>
Steve Mading
If something has no interaction with our universe, and never can,
then it is the same thing as it not existing, as far as we'll
ever know.
Steve Mading
You can define words however you feel like so long as you
don't switch definitions in midstream, or try to apply
what you concluded using one definition to a situation that
uses a different one. If you don't adhere to that, you are
guilty of a false equivocation fallacy. When you try to
convince atheists they shouldn't deny god, but you have to
use a totally different definition for "god" than they do in
order to do so, you are being deliberately deceptive.
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:l1mu4ucergggobf1t...@4ax.com...
>> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4oqg4u4lj2uq6u63n...@4ax.com...
>> >[snipped for brevity]
>> >>
>> >> Your black and white mindset is showing again, as is your
>> >> fear of the unknown. The simple fact that it cannot be
>> >> proven that God concepts *do not* exist does not mean that
>> >> they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer. The
>> >> simple fact that it cannot be proven that God concepts do
>> >> not exist means- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven
>> >> that God concepts do not exist. That's it. No other
>> >> conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of lack of
>> >> existence is just as illogical as the assertion of
>> >> existence.
>> >>
>> >Now take your favorite fictional character (goblins perhaps?)
>> >And replace the word god in your rationalization.
>>
>> Geezh... Is there an echo in here?
>> Follow the thread. We dealt with Santa Claws already, and
>> why I am not doing a "rationalization". I'm equally agnostic
>> to all intangibilities, not just *favored* ones.
>>
>I must have missed that part of the thead.
You also missed the posts you responded to.
>> >The simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts *do not*
>exist
>> >does not mean that they *do* exist. That's the mentality of a believer.
>The
>> >simple fact that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not exist
>means
>> >- drum roll please- that it cannot be proven that goblin concepts do not
>> >exist.
>> >That's it. No other conclusions can be drawn. That the *assertion* of
>lack
>> >of existence is just as illogical as the assertion of existence.
>>
>> Newbie note: when you quote someone else's words, include
>> the ">" marks in front of them. What you did was just
>> integrate my words into your own, as if they were yours.
>>
>Your own words were used against you. Imagine that.
>Maybe you should choose them more carefully.
What are you blathering about? It must be one of your
reading comprehension issues again.
>If I had changed it and left the > in, you would have
>accurately been able to claim that I misquoted you.
Like that stops you from attributing all kinds of nonsense
to me anyway?
>See the difference?
Hmm... I didn't even notice a change. The logic is the same.
I have no problem with it.
BTW, the way to indicate an edit within a quote is to
replace omitted words with ... and enclose the added words
in [square brackets].
>I first poked my head into NG's in 1994.
>When do I stop being a newbie?
When you stop acting like one.
BTW, I've been here since 1985.
>> >Now try it again with unicorns or fairies or angels or devils, take
>> >your pick.
>>
>> Here is what I said earlier in the thread to address this
>> very issue, which you obviously did not read:
>>
>As I stated above.
>
>> Illogical argument that atheists often make to agnostics.
>> There are certain aspects of the Santa belief that can be
>> verified as false- the origin of christmas gifts, satellite
>> photos of the north pole, etc. Anything else that cannot be
>> verified simply cannot be verified. When you eliminate the
>> aspects of the Santa belief that we can verify as false, you
>> get what the newspaper editor wrote in response to a little
>> girl named Virginia- Yes, there is a Santa Claus. Santa
>> Claus is the spirit of generosity and good cheer that exists
>> through the holidays. Doesn't that exist?
>>
>The definitions of god proposed by religions, can either
>be easily be falsified or are, like yours, so vague and
>ambiguous as to be renered completely meaningless
>in relation to reality.
Well, that is wrong on at least two levels:
1.) Show me any definition of God from any religion that can
"easily be falsified".
2.) How many times does someone have to tell you the same
thing before it sinks in? I HAVE NO definition of God that I
am proposing, vague or otherwise. That is your strawman.
>> We are talking about a belief in an intangibility. An
>> outright statement that the intangible thing does not exist
>
>Not a statement that I made.
Good thing I did not attribute it to you.
Too bad you keep pulling things out of God knows where and
attributing them to me.
>
>> is as illogical as the statement that it does exist. I do
>> not know about what I do not know about, and there is
>> nothing wrong with admitting to this lack of knowledge.
>
>You've gone to such great lengths to explain what you don't
>know, that it begs the question of what you think you
>do know.
Begs the question? nope. It wasn't the topic. I know things
on a variety of topics. Quiz me. I'll take Art History for
500 points, please.
> So, what is it that you think you do know
>about god?
*sigh* Answer once again- nothing. Unknown. Assorted
definitions from assorted cultures, some compatible, some
contradictory. Yet, for some reason, atheists are united in
their disbelief in all of them. Sounds like blind faith to
me.
> By answering "nothing" you render the whole
>god concept irrelevant to life and reality and your entire
>point becomes pointless.
Nope. By stating "nothing" that does not mean that god(s)
are nothing- just that I, as one human being, lack knowledge
of it/them. My point remains.
>> Those who feel the need to make absolute statements one way
>> or the other are just people who are afraid of the unknown.
>
>Which of course you aren't.
Yep, I'm not.
> What utter bullshit.
Are you a telepath? How can you claim to know what I fear or
not? Is this Miss Cleo?
>That's just
>as intellectually dishonest and as people who use myths
>to alleviate their fear.
Yes, thinking the unknown is nothing is just as
intellectually dishonest and as people who use myths
to alleviate their fear.
What I am doing is stating the unknown is the unknown,
period. The unknown is nothing to be afraid of- all of those
things we know about are scary enough. No intellectual
dishonesty there.
>> On the one side you have the "god of the gaps", and on the
>> other side you have the "void of the gaps". The reality is
>> folks, it's a gap. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an
>> unknown. Don't fear the unknown. Don't pretend the room is
>> empty just because the lights are off.
>>
>Don't be so afraid of fear. It's a natural emotion that
>all of us share,
????????
Once again, your reading comprehension is zero.
>and fear of the unknown is probably
>the most common fear of all.
Common? Sure. Fear of public speaking is one of the most
common. I do training sessions and occasional lectures and
workshops. No fear of public speaking here.
Fear of walking in dark alleys at night? Yep. Fear of the
unknown? nope. I know what muggers are.
>Fear can give you the strength you need when you
>need it the most.
Thanks Oprah.
>It is just as illogical to avoid that fear by saying it doesn't
>exist as it is to alleviate it with myths.
Thanks Miss Cleo.
>> >This is a common rationalization, probably because it
>> >works every time no matter what your personal fantasy might be.
>>
>> Yes- logic works wonders when used well. Silly though, how
>> people with little grasp of logic call it a
>> "rationalization".
>>
>A rose by any other name....
Yep. You have no clue what a rationalization is.
>> >Which god concept do you know of that has any objective
>> >basis in reality?
>>
>> This is way beyond you. We are talking about something that
>> is unknown, and you are asking me for proof. The POINT is
>> that there IS NO PROF EITHER WAY, so asserting anything
>> about it either way is illogical.
>>
>I didn't ask for any proof, simply a little piece of what
>you think you *do* know.
NOTHING.
> Instead you go on again
>about what you *don't* know.
EVERYTHING.
Now that sounds bad. *sniffle*. I mean I know nothing about
the unknown, being that the unknown is unknown.
>Why are you so proud of your ignorance?
Because most people can't handle the unknown- they have the
need to either make something up to fill it, or to pretend
that it just isn't there. I do neither. I accept that I know
what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. I might
have guesses, beliefs, or other such things, but I remain
clear in my lack of knowledge.
>Sorry I'm way beyond using these kind of justifications
>to cover my fears.
If that were true you would not be claiming the room is
empty just because the lights are off.
>> >You confuse this with being closed minded. That is inaccurate.
>>
>> I confuse nothing. You are arguing against Christian
>> strawman.
>>
>You're a chridtian strawman? I shouda known.
You claim you aren't a newbie, huh?
>>
>> >I am open to any realistic possibility.
>> Good. That's all I'm saying.
>> >I do not state that gods (or goblins) do not exist.
>> Once again, my whole point.
>> >Only that their probability is so low as to be totally irrelevant
>> >in relation to reality.
>> There is your blatant lack of reasoning, as explained to you
>> before. You have absolutely no basis for the determination
>> of any "probability", period.
>
>Actually, yes I do have a basis for that probability.
Oh, do tell- you will be eligible for the Nobel prize for
this. Hey Pope- listen up! Get the Dali Lama on the
extension phone too!
>The
>total and complete lack of any objective evidence in
>support of the claim what so ever. The same basis I use
>for any fictional being. That's how you tell the difference
>between fantasy and reality.
Last time I checked, there is a total and complete lack of
any objective evidence that life exists anywhere but this
planet. So to you, the SETI project should just shut down,
because it's all a bunch of fantasy, right? Somehow, *you*
can distinguish fantasy from reality better than, say, Carl
Sagan, who was both an atheist and a scientist?
Logic lesson for you: Lack of evidence for concept X does
not mean that concept X does not exist, or that any
probability can be assigned to it. We had no idea that the
planets Uranus and Neptune existed until the late 1700's.
No objective evidence whatsoever. Did they just come into
existence when they were discovered? Well, this takes the
observer effect to a whole new level.
What is the probability that Uranus and Neptune exist? 100%.
What was the probability that they existed 300 years ago?
100%. Our ignorance of them is irrelevant.
>> That's the difference between
>> me and you- you operate on your blind faith
>
>No, I rely on objective reality.
Your blind faith causes you to reject as "fantasy" anything
not in your objective reality. As far as you are concerned,
Mongolia does not exist.
>>that God(s) and
>> other metaphysical/mythical concepts have a "low
>> probability", while I am using pure logic and no faith- I
>> accept the unknown is an unknown.
>>
>But the point you miss, or more accurately, ignore, is
>that people *do* claim god is known to exist.
Yes, I tend to ignore irrelevancies. The existence of
theists is irrelevant to the discussion about agnosticism.
Throughout this conversation you ignored that there is a
flavor of tea called Earl Grey, and still another called
Lady Grey. Damn your arrogance in ignoring that fact.
>You mistake you arrogance as being logical.
Once again, zero logic on your part.
Let's say that 300 years ago, someone was wandering around
town claiming that Uranus and Neptune exist, and they are
populated by little green men.
Does his claim in any way change the *reality* that those
planets *do* exist, albeit sans populace?
>>
>> >Come up with some objective evidence or even some sound
>> >reasoning instead of hand waving and you would be surprised
>> >by how open minded atheists can be.
>>
>> Objective evidence? None.
>
>And *that* *is* the point.
No, it is not. The fact that you think that it is the point
is the *real* point. You limit your definition of existence
to your perceptions, and you have blind faith that nothing
exists beyond them.
>>That's the point that flys over
>> your head. Sound reasoning? Been there, done that, also made
>> a wooshing sound.
>>
>Now your arrogance causes you to mistake reasoning
>with evasiveness.
No, your lack of reading comprehension causes you to not
recognize reasoning.
>> >But to claim the possibility of god based on a definition of god
>> >as being indefinable is irrational hand waving.
>>
>> Yes, that would be silly- that's why I did not do that.
>> You are still stuck on the difference between "unknown" and
>> "unknowable", aren't you? One is a current state of affairs,
>> the other is an absolute assertion. They are completely
>> different things. I claim the existence of X can neither be
>> accepted nor rejected since X is undefined,
>
>And that is where your "reasoning" falls through.
Nope- my reasoning is sound.
>What is
>rejected are the definitions that are proposed.
Which ones? When? What have you uses as your measure of the
realities of these proposals? Ah yes- if you can see, hear
or touch them. Since those criteria are not in most
definitions, that gives you a neat little catch-22.
>just because
>you have no definition does not mean that definitions do
>not exist. Do you accept or reject all or any of the definitions
>of god that you do know about?
Neither. Yet somehow, you reject all of them.
OK, some of them I might reject, but I can't think of one
off hand. It would be any definition dependant on
tangibilities. Perhaps idol worship, where divinity is
associated with a physical object, if it claims the object
has any non-standard properties.
> >not that X is
>> defined as indefinable. To assign a probability to X, as you
>> do, is illogical.
>>
>But X is defined. By many people in many different ways.
Thus, it has no one clear definition. You assign a
probability without stating which definition, or stating
what factors determine that probability.
>By stating that X (god) is unknown is to reject the theism
>of those that claim to know.
Nope- it is accepting the theism of *all* of those who claim
to know, yet make contradictory claims.
Another logic lesson for you:
Bob bought a new car. Sally said it was red. If that was
your only info, it would be safe to assume that it is red.
You would still not know it was red, but it would be a safe
bet, knowing Sally.
Later on, you run into Jim and Jennifer, and you all discuss
Bob's new car. Jim said it was blue, and Jennifer said it
was green. You talked to five more people, all of them know
Bob, all of them claimed to have seen Bob's car, and they
all give you different answers.
What color is Bob's new car? Because of all of the
contradictory claims, and since you can't see the car for
yourself, the color of Bob's car remains an unknown to you.
The fact that it is unknown to you does not mean that Bob's
new car does not exist, or that it is transparent. All it
means is that it is unknown to you.
> ergo - you are an atheist, you
>reject their theism, you just haven't come to grips with that
>reality yet.
Gezzh... First you accuse me of being a theist, now you
accuse me of being an atheist.
As I said to you before:
It also shows that you cling to that black and white
mindset- that everyone is either a believer or a
disbeliever. The world is filled with shades of gray- and a
full spectrum of colors.
I'm surprised you acknowledge the existence of "agnostics
clothing"- it implies you believe agnostics exist, yet when
you encounter one, you reject the possibility.
You remind me of a gay guy I used to know who thought there
was no such thing as bisexuals- that everyone who claims to
be bi are just closeted gays or experimental straights. The
truth is that sex- and belief- are more faceted than you
realize.
> Unless of course you accept that the definitions
>proposed by theism are "possible". In which case you are
>simply intellectually dishonest.
No, I am simply intellectual.
Perhaps that's why you don't get it. ;-)
Nick Lilavois
You are delusional. No specific definition of God is
relevant to *my* point about agnosticism. A specific
definition of God would be relevant to atheism, however.
Plus, I don't even remember asking you the question. If I
did, it was not pertinent- it was an aside, based on your
repeatedly asking me.
>Give me a minute while I slip my hipwaders on before
>I read the rest of your response.
If it will improve your reading ability, I'm all for it.
>> > Before you can accept the possibility of
>> >something it must have some kind of objective definition.
>>
>> Nope- Not a requirement at all for a possibility. The point
>> its that since it has NO objective definition, so one cannot
>> *reject* the possibility of it's existence. Accepting the
>> possibility is the only rational choice.
>>
>That is equally as vague a description as I've ever heard
>from a christian and just as bogus.
There's your christian strawman again.
Again I say, learn how to read. The reason you think the
description was vague is because there WAS NO DESCRIPTION.
> So you accept that
>*something* exists that can't be defined. Big deal.
Nope. I accept that it is POSSIBLE that something exists
that can't be defined. These are not hard concepts. Why are
they so difficult for you? Can you accept the same, without
having to assign an artificial percentage as a qualifier?
>Except that religions that actually proclaim a belief in
>god have some kind of definition for their god,
And I am not a member of any of them, thus your "except" is
wrong. I don't know of any agnostic religions- perhaps
Unitarian Universalists.
> always
>subjective and rendered as meaningless as your
>non-definition by it's own definition.
No, not all religions are "subjective" or vague in their god
concepts- the more orthodox or conservative the schism of
the faith, the more concrete their definitions are. There is
nothing vague to those folks.
>You seem to believe that you've come up with some
>marvelous way to deal with questions that have no answer.
No, I know it is not unique- I never claimed it was. There
are lots of logical, rational people out there just like me.
You know, I should make a running tally of all of the false
statements you attribute to me, but it is rather late to
start now, I would be missing out on dozens.
>You haven't. At best it's an ignorant justification, at worst
>you are being intellectually dishonest.
You really have no clue what the phrase "intellectually
dishonest" means, do you?
>> I am serving Quaglax for dinner. Do you like Quaglax?
>> You have no clue what Quaglax is, and I have made no effort
>> to define it. It could be a food- it could even be my guest.
>> It has NO definition. To state "Yes, I like Quaglax" or "No,
>> I do not like Quaglax" are both equally illogical responses.
>> The only logical response is "I have no idea if I like
>> Quaglax or not- what the hell is Quaglax?"
>>
>Exactly! The only logical response is "what the hell is
>that?"
Did you get the first part of the sentence?
"I have no idea if I like Quaglax or not."
That's the key- admitting your ignorance first.
Can you do that, without qualifiers?
> The very point I made when I first entered this
>thread. The very point you deemed irrelevant and
>posed yourself and now repeat a 2nd time. Is your
>hypocrisy deliberate? Are you just attempting to bait me?
No hypocrisy at all, no baiting. I have made myself clear
repeatedly. I am equally agnostic to all definitions that
are not dependant on tangibles that are disproven. If you
want to narrow this conversation to a single God definition,
fine. I will allow you to pick one, and I have a sneaking
suspicion you will pick a mainstream Christian one, since
that is the only one you know.
>> >*You* are the one who accepts the possibility of the
>> >existence of god. So it is for you to specify which of
>> >the many definitions you are willing to accept.
>
>So are you going to answer you own question or not?
Count the ">" marks. That's your question.
No comments from this point down?
Does this mean you understand...
1.) ...that I never ignored your question about a definition
of God- I answered it, that I am equally agnostic to all
definitions, given my repeatedly stated criteria.
2.) ...the difference between something being "unknown" vs
something being "unknowable", and something being
"undefined" vs being "undefinable", and that I never stated
that God(s) are "unknowable" or "undefinable", as you
asserted.
Nick Lilavois
Once again, your logic problem. God just has not affected
the world in any objective fashion *that you know*. You have
then extrapolated your experiences to an absolute, then even
attempted to call it mathematically valid.
>> If you think
>> otherwise show us your mathematical equations demonstrating the low
>> probability. Hell, you haven't even a clue what God means! LOL
>You're right, I haven't a clue what god means to you.
EXACTLY. Perhaps something might be sinking in...
Interesting Ian
"Scott Davidson" <scot...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a2ppmt$pco$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com...
> In article 205...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com, "Interesting Ian"
<interesting...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> <snip>
>
> >My experience teaches me that atheists tend to be extremely closed
minded.
> >Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined
> >God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink fairys etc etc etc is a patently false
> >analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.
> >
> >For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some
> >particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or
> >whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with
> >evidence for "X".
> >But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical
> >reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws
> >of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality
> >to be in the normal course of events.
> >
> >Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we
> >would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal
> >course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3
> >criteria should be fulfilled.
>
> Actually, some of these
Some of what?
should be fulfilled in many cases even if the
proposed construct
> is consistent with known physical laws.
Construct?
There is nothing impossible about
a purple
> cow, but I would like to see one before believing in it.
Huh?? I can't understand how what you say has anything to do with what I
said. You wouldn't expect to see a purple cow in the normal course of
events, and the existence of such a creature would not be consistent with
what we know about nature! :-o
>
> > We should either demand that the person
> >who is asserting the existence of "X" to
> >
> >a) directly point at "X"
>
> In some cases it might be impossible to directly point at X, and not just
when X
> is a god. (Christians might say that pointing to Jesus would be pointing
at God,
> actually.) Uncertainty states that it is impossible to "point at" certain
particles,
> unless you mean point at in a very peculiar way.
That's why I've added point b! ;-)
>
> You seem to respond to this point below, but not the others.
What others?
> >
> >b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
> >generating successful predictions
>
> Including the impact of X on things that can be pointed to, such as cloud
chambers.
> For instance, let us take the Biblical god.
Forget about God. The whole point of my post was to drive home the point
that God is a putative existent which is *not* covered by a, b or c.
Let's forget for a moment that Moses was
> able to point to him, and instead take the more recent view that this God
has no physical
> presence, or is all over the universe, or whatever. The Biblical god has
had specific
> physical impact on the world, according to the Bible. (Causing a flood,
and, most importantly,
> inspiring the writing of a Holy Book.) Is it too much to ask that we can
point to these
> effects of god?
I have no interest in discussing the biblical God. You're talking to the
wrong person.
>
> To broaden the argument a bit, we can say that any god either has an
observable impact on
> the world or it does not.
The distinction between theism and deism?
An observable impact can include not only miracles, but, perhaps,
> inspired and correct prophecy.
Or an observable impact could also include a Universe described by the total
theory of everything (TOE) :-)
Snip stuff about biblical God
>
> If a god does impact the world, then his effects can be "pointed to".
Yes. Well in a sense. For many theists the whole world/Universe is simply
a manifestation of Gods ongoing activity. Thus his effects are
everywhere and everything and one does not need to point :-) You have in
mind here a "God of the gaps" concept of God which I personally agree is a
silly one.
snip consequent irrelevancy
> >
> >c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of
> >"X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that
> >galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though
> >there is no evidence for such galaxies).
> >
> Certainly, though inductive logic is a slippery beast indeed.
We must pre-suppose it though in order to function in our second by second
existence. For example how do I know when I will my arm to move in a
particular way it will do so? We must pre-suppose the correctness of
induction otherwise we would be moribund.
All the "proofs" of
> the existence of god are dubious. (Or at least not universally accepted.)
So are all the proofs of atheism :-)
I'd say that
> proofs of the nonexistence of any god are equally dubious, since they
would all impose
> a definition of a god as a premise.
Hmmmm, but what about trying to prove that our lives and the Universe are
ultimately gratuitous and without ultimate purpose or a teleological
destiny?
>
>
> >Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in
quite a
> >differing way from any putative physical existant "X". Many people in
> >referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting
within
> >the world. Thus "God" is not an
> >additional object existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >"God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is
> >incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God"
> >is not located anywhere then he cannot exist *within* the world. It
> >would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".
> >To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately
> >defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical
> >interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication
> >atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.
> >
> True, but this argument does not affect my response to b.
It's got nothing to do with b, or indeed a or c. Allow me to explain. I
would hold that there are essentially 2 types of existent in the world.
Physical existents which I addressed with my points a, b and c, and
consciousness. I submit that consciousness exists but not that it is a
physical existent. It is not a physical existent because the qualities of
consciousness, hope, fear, love, contemplation, or more basically awareness
are characteristically unlike the terminology used to describe any physical
thing. If the essential definition of "God" is consciousness, then this
consciousness too cannot be described as a physical existent, and hence does
not fall under the criteria of a, b or c.
Now, if you
> wish to believe in a god with no physical presence
Consciousness or mind which encapsulates what God is, cannot have a physical
presence as consciousness is not physical.
or effect on the universe
The effect may be argued to be everywhere and everything.
> (that we can see today, at least) we might ask why, but we certainly could
not
> disprove your belief. However, if someone who believes in this sort of
god
> wishes me to either worship it, or to modify my behavior based on its
existence,
No you don't have to.
> then you had better demonstrate to me that this god either wishes to be
worshipped
> or cares what I do - and by doing so you violate the premise that the god
has
> no observable effect on the world.
Worshipping a God?? Dear me! Have I remotely suggested that you worship a
"God". . .*anywhere*??
>
> My wife is a weak deist. It makes her feel good. There is no discernable
difference
> between her behavior and mine.
Good, nor should it. And tell her not to allow herself to be bullied by you
into becoming an atheist! :-D
Ian
SneakyPete
[snip]
>
> Well, that is wrong on at least two levels:
> 1.) Show me any definition of God from any religion that can
> "easily be falsified".
from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Supreme Being, Pure Act, First Cause of all, provident conserver and
governor of the Universe; the Absolute - infinite, eternal, immutable,
intelligent, omniscient, all-powerful, and free; the Creator, to whom
creatures owe homage, respect, and obedience; the Sovereign Good, diffusive
of all goodness, towards which everything tends as to its ultimate final
cause; the supernatural source of revelation; the Godhead composed of three
Divine Persons in one divine nature - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Simple falsification:
Omniscient and omnipotent: if god knows what his future decisions and
actions are, they are determined and he cannot change them. If he cannot
change them, He is not omnipotent.
> 2.) How many times does someone have to tell you the same
> thing before it sinks in? I HAVE NO definition of God that I
> am proposing, vague or otherwise. That is your strawman.
>
[snip]
You have defined god as unknown. This is a rejection of many current
theisms.
Andrew
Put some thought down in a newsgroup and its amazing just how many
directions it takes.
Nick Lilavois
>"Nick Lilavois" <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote in message
>news:5dp05usdof2e1ua7u...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
>>
>> Well, that is wrong on at least two levels:
>> 1.) Show me any definition of God from any religion that can
>> "easily be falsified".
>
>from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
>The Supreme Being, Pure Act, First Cause of all, provident conserver and
>governor of the Universe; the Absolute - infinite, eternal, immutable,
>intelligent, omniscient, all-powerful, and free; the Creator, to whom
>creatures owe homage, respect, and obedience; the Sovereign Good, diffusive
>of all goodness, towards which everything tends as to its ultimate final
>cause; the supernatural source of revelation; the Godhead composed of three
>Divine Persons in one divine nature - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
>
>Simple falsification:
>Omniscient and omnipotent: if god knows what his future decisions and
>actions are, they are determined and he cannot change them. If he cannot
>change them, He is not omnipotent.
Wrong. If the God knows what his future decisions are, it
also knows why it made them. Your situation is made invalid
by the simple fact that it would never want to change it's
own decisions- if it did, it would not be all-perfect.
Basically, the situation you described indicates *why* those
properties are interdependent, it does not negate the
concept.
>
>> 2.) How many times does someone have to tell you the same
>> thing before it sinks in? I HAVE NO definition of God that I
>> am proposing, vague or otherwise. That is your strawman.
>>
>[snip]
>
>You have defined god as unknown.
At least you used the word "unknown" this time instead of
"unknowable". I will count that as progress.
> This is a rejection of many current theisms.
What color is Bob's new car?
Besides, yes, there are many theistic beliefs that I reject,
by my often repeated criteria. There are many I may reject
just because I think they are icky. That has nothing to do
with my point- the unknown is the unknown. Projecting a
"void of the gaps" is no more rational than projecting a
"god of the gaps". And, just for you, attempting to assign
percentages or probabilities to anything that cannot be
measured is not mathematically valid.
Nick Lilavois
Who said it can't interact? Perhaps it had only one point of
interaction- creation. Perhaps it had and has a multitude of
interactions- that we cannot yet perceive, yet still affect
us.
Nick Lilavois
>Nick Lilavois <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>:> Sure, we can't *disprove* god- but there are also an
>:>infinite number of other things we can't disprove that we don't give
>:>any benefit of the doubt to whatsoever.
>
>: No benefit of the doubt to whatsoever? Not even aliens from
>: Vega? Where is Vega anyway- is that a star or a
>: constellation? Are you *sure* there is no life on the
>: planets that orbit it/in it/near it? Not even the
>: *slightest*? No benefit of the doubt to whatsoever?
>
>: That's what I am talking about- you provide some logical
>: discourse, but it all winds up to your statements of belief,
>: making your logic no different from that of an "open minded
>: theist"- just your beliefs are different. You are two sides
>: of the same coin.
>
>: I, however, just admit that whatever is unknown is unknown,
>: period. This fact does not occupy any time or space in my
>: brain, the awesomeness of it does not drive me to insanity.
>: It is a simple fact.
>
>You can define words however you feel like so long as you
>don't switch definitions in midstream, or try to apply
>what you concluded using one definition to a situation that
>uses a different one. If you don't adhere to that, you are
>guilty of a false equivocation fallacy.
That's true- good thing I did not do that.
>When you try to
>convince atheists they shouldn't deny god,
I wasn't doing that either. I'm saying you cannot deny the
*possibility* of god, nor can you assign any probability to
the concept. My point is that one cannot draw conclusions
from unknowns.
>but you have to
>use a totally different definition for "god" than they do in
>order to do so, you are being deliberately deceptive.
Good thing I did not do that either. Not only did I not
provide a definition of God, you did not provide a
definition of God either. Is your assertion that either of
us did a deliberate deception on your part?
Since you can't wrap your mind around "unknown" and leave it
at that, then narrow it. Pick a definition of God. Or better
yet, pick two- one you give a very low probability (don't
just make something up, but something people actually
believe) and one that you give a higher probability. Tell me
the basis you have for determining those probabilities.
I hope I am not just driving you nuts- I hope that this
conversation, along with all philosophical discourse, aids
in perceiving things differently than you have before. Most
american atheists, like most american theists, grew up in a
culture with exposure to only one religion- Christianity.
They then simply accept or reject that one notion, still
believing that one notion is all there is. My point is that
there is far more to philosophy than our culture shows us.
Another point is that in these newsgroups, atheists show an
unbelievable amount of arrogance- that their beliefs are
somehow more logical and tied to science than any other,
when that is just not the case. What it all boils down to,
is the unknown is unknown- any statements about it are
simply belief.
Steve Mading
: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>Nick Lilavois <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
If something has an effect on us in any way, then it is theoretically
detectable even if we haven't managed to detect it yet. Detectability
and relevance go hand in hand. Whatever it is that makes it relevant
will also make it detectable in theory. That's why I suspect that
anyone proposing the existance of something that they think is
relevant, yet they claim is also not detectable, is feeding me a line
of bull. It's a cop-out to get around the fact that they believe in
something they have no reason to believe in.
Steve Mading
: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
So? Denial doesn't require belief. This is the point you
never seem to get every time you resurface in this newsgroup.
:>but you have to
:>use a totally different definition for "god" than they do in
:>order to do so, you are being deliberately deceptive.
: Good thing I did not do that either. Not only did I not
: provide a definition of God, you did not provide a
: definition of God either. Is your assertion that either of
: us did a deliberate deception on your part?
: Since you can't wrap your mind around "unknown" and leave it
I understand it perfectly well. But unlike you I understand
that when something is unknown you *don't* give it any benefit
of the doubt just because it's unknown. There are an infinite
number of things that one could invent off the top of one's head
that could theoretically exist because one can't really prove for
sure they don't. Giving them any benefit of the doubt, even just a
fractional little bit of belief, results in an infinite amount of
belief if you are consistant and treat all such issues that way.
I just treat the question of gods the same way I treat every other
unevidnced claim. I don't have space in my mind for an infinite
amount of belief, so I'm being honest with myself and treating all
such questions the same way, INCLUDING god, and not giving them
any belief.
I used to be just like you. I was a militant agnostic who thought
atheists were just as belief-ridden as theists, and I came into
this group rip-roaring about how full of themselves they were, and
all that same claptrap you're putting out now. It took several
months, but I eventually had to stop and admit that my view of
atheists was completely wrong, and they really *weren't* lying when
they said they don't see atheism as having to be a belief but
rather the reasonable neutral default. I thought they were just
making that shit up, a sort of smokescreen for their real beliefs.
It took a long time to see that, no, they were genuine about that,
and it turns out I was the same as them, but was using the wrong
label for it, and I was attributing a belief to them that they
really honestly don't have.
I used to think that sitting in the middle is the zero point,
between belief one way and belief the opposite way. Sort of like
a number-line with both positive and negative directions shown.
This model is flawed. When it comes to believing or not in
questions of whether things exist or not, the model that better
fits is to put zero all the way at one end, and 100% all the way
at the other, with no negative numbers showing at all. The entire
spectrum of belief is contained all within the positive numbers from
0 to 100%. The atheist is the one with no belief. The "maybe it is,
maybe it isn't" 50/50 fence-sitter has more belief than the atheist.
To try to couch denial of X as a belief in the opposite of X is a
misuse of language. It is possible to utter such a phrase, but it
doesn't really map to any meaning in the real world.
: at that, then narrow it. Pick a definition of God. Or better
: yet, pick two- one you give a very low probability (don't
: just make something up, but something people actually
: believe) and one that you give a higher probability. Tell me
: the basis you have for determining those probabilities.
: I hope I am not just driving you nuts- I hope that this
: conversation, along with all philosophical discourse, aids
: in perceiving things differently than you have before. Most
: american atheists, like most american theists, grew up in a
: culture with exposure to only one religion- Christianity.
I grew up as a Bahii, which exposes one to a lot of the major
world religions in a neutral way, with the attitude that there's
a grain of truth to all of them since the Bahiis believe they all
were handed to us from the same god - and the differences are merely
differences in how this god had to couch things for us mere mortals
living in different times and cultures. My exposure to multiple
religions is what led me to reject them all as bunk, since the only
things I saw as being the same between them are those things that
any ordinary mortal man could figure out with common sense, and those
things that differ between them are the things that an ordinary
mortal man could never figure out at the time. The simplest explanation
for this phenomenon is that the contents of these religions *was*
made up by normal mortals and the reason they differ on the metaphysical
stuff is because that's where the mere mortals were just guessing,
and lying.
Nick Lilavois
>Nick Lilavois <no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> wrote:
>: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
>:>If something has no interaction with our universe, and never can,
>:>then it is the same thing as it not existing, as far as we'll
>:>ever know.
>
>: Who said it can't interact? Perhaps it had only one point of
>: interaction- creation. Perhaps it had and has a multitude of
>: interactions- that we cannot yet perceive, yet still affect
>: us.
>
>If something has an effect on us in any way, then it is theoretically
>detectable even if we haven't managed to detect it yet.
OK.
>Detectability and relevance go hand in hand.
I disagree. Let's say you go on a job interview. Without
your knowledge, a friend of yours has put in a good word for
you, and because of it you got the job. He placed one phone
call, nothing got recorded, nothing on the books, but if he
had not done it, you would still be unemployed.
The only way for you to detect it is if he tells you, yet
his actions were certainly relevant. There are many
difficult to detect occurrences that have a huge impact on
our lives. Butterflies wings make hurricanes, you know.
>Whatever it is that makes it relevant
>will also make it detectable in theory.
There is not the cause and effect relationship there that
you think there is, but I would agree with your first
statement in this post that anything that can alter the
physical world would be detectable in the physical world, in
theory. The capabilities of modern science, however, do not
necessarily meet that level of perception.
For another example, take diseases. With our modern
technology, we understand diseases and how they occur. We
can perceive microorganisms and viruses, and we understand
them and how they attack the body. If you travel back to an
earlier time, and try to explain that one becomes ill
because hungry little critters have entered your body, they
would say you are nuts. Why? because what you describe is
beyond their perception. Their current level of science
can't see these little critters, nor could they even
understand the concept- it is nothing like anything they
would understand.
What would you say to explain to those people that even
though they can't detect these little creatures, they are
still relevant to them? I would really like to know- because
I could use it now. ;-)
> That's why I suspect that
>anyone proposing the existance of something that they think is
>relevant, yet they claim is also not detectable, is feeding me a line
>of bull. It's a cop-out to get around the fact that they believe in
>something they have no reason to believe in.
Well, I guess I don't have to address the conclusion since I
addressed the points that lead up to it.
SneakyPete
Before objective evidence for god can be discussed, an
objective definition must be presented.
> >If god is unable to affect the
> > world in any objective fashion, I fail to see it's relevance.
>
> For some the whole world is hypothesised to be simple an effect of God.
:-D
> I think you're thinking of deism, or a "God of the gaps" version of
theism.
> >
could be.
> > > If you think
> > > otherwise show us your mathematical equations demonstrating the low
> > > probability. Hell, you haven't even a clue what God means! LOL
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > You're right, I haven't a clue what god means to you.
>
> Well, lets just suppose that at a minimum that God stands for the idea
that
> there is an all pervading awareness associated with reality as a whole.
Ok,
> tell me how you have calculated the probability. What exact percentage
> chance of God existing are you proposing anyway? 0.1%? 0.000001%?
> 00000000000000000000000000000001%?
>
> Ian
>
OK. God is defined as an all pervading awareness. Kinda of like
the Gaia concept proposed by James Lovelock who wrote:
in relation to the definition of Gaia we find the following:
"The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from
oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity
capable of maintaining the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall needs and
endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent
parts...[Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth's
biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a
feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical
environment for life on this planet."
So expand that same reasoning to the entire universe and
call it god. OK, but I don't think that's what the bible describes
(assuming you have a christian bent) and I am unaware of any
objective evidence that might lead one to believe this entity
has any awareness.
SneakyPete
> "SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Besides, yes, there are many theistic beliefs that I reject,
> by my often repeated criteria. There are many I may reject
> just because I think they are icky. That has nothing to do
> with my point- the unknown is the unknown.
It has to do with your self proclaimed agnosticism.
At one point in this thread you asked if I knew what
theism meant. I'll now ask if you understand the definition
of atheism. Your statement above describes theisms you
reject. Relative to these theisms, by your rejection, you
are an atheist, not an agnostic.
>Projecting a
> "void of the gaps" is no more rational than projecting a
> "god of the gaps". And, just for you, attempting to assign
> percentages or probabilities to anything that cannot be
> measured is not mathematically valid.
>
But it is logically valid in the same way the existence
of hobbits is highly improbable.
After re-reading some of this thread, this conversation,
I'm sorry to say, has at times degenerated into some pettiness
on both sides that neither of us should be pleased with.
When I have read your posts in the past, I have often found
them to be well thought out, and I often agree with them.
I may well have been doing some projecting in that for
many years I made arguments similar to the ones you've
made here, and for me, in time I came to the realization
that I was making justifications to accommodate the beliefs
of the people around me and being intellectually dishonest
with myself. Now when someone asks what my religion
is I can honestly say that I am an atheist.
This works for me now. will my perspective change?
What doesn't?
I will be away on business for the next week so for
the time being I will recuse myself from the conversation.
Scott Davidson
did not arrive at my other newserver.
of your 3 criteria
>
> should be fulfilled in many cases even if the
> proposed construct
> > is consistent with known physical laws.
>
> Construct?
>
Your X -
> There is nothing impossible about
> a purple
> > cow, but I would like to see one before believing in it.
>
> Huh?? I can't understand how what you say has anything to do with what I
> said. You wouldn't expect to see a purple cow in the normal course of
> events, and the existence of such a creature would not be consistent with
> what we know about nature! :-o
> >
One could certainly imagine a mutation that would create
a purple cow. There are no laws of physics or biology
forbidding it. My point was that we need lots of evidence to accept
even things that don't violate physical laws, if they are
peculiar. So your criteria might apply even if known
physical laws do not appear to be violated.
> > > We should either demand that the person
> > >who is asserting the existence of "X" to
> > >
> > >a) directly point at "X"
> >
> > In some cases it might be impossible to directly point at X, and not just
> when X
> > is a god. (Christians might say that pointing to Jesus would be pointing
> at God,
> > actually.) Uncertainty states that it is impossible to "point at" certain
> particles,
> > unless you mean point at in a very peculiar way.
>
> That's why I've added point b! ;-)
> >
> > You seem to respond to this point below, but not the others.
>
> What others?
points b and c.
> > >
> > >b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
> > >generating successful predictions
> >
> > Including the impact of X on things that can be pointed to, such as cloud
> chambers.
> > For instance, let us take the Biblical god.
>
> Forget about God. The whole point of my post was to drive home the point
> that God is a putative existent which is *not* covered by a, b or c.
>
> Let's forget for a moment that Moses was
> > able to point to him, and instead take the more recent view that this God
> has no physical
> > presence, or is all over the universe, or whatever. The Biblical god has
> had specific
> > physical impact on the world, according to the Bible. (Causing a flood,
> and, most importantly,
> > inspiring the writing of a Holy Book.) Is it too much to ask that we can
> point to these
> > effects of god?
>
> I have no interest in discussing the biblical God. You're talking to the
> wrong person.
> >
> > To broaden the argument a bit, we can say that any god either has an
> observable impact on
> > the world or it does not.
>
> The distinction between theism and deism?
>
Precisely.
> An observable impact can include not only miracles, but, perhaps,
> > inspired and correct prophecy.
>
> Or an observable impact could also include a Universe described by the total
> theory of everything (TOE) :-)
>
> Snip stuff about biblical God
>
> >
> > If a god does impact the world, then his effects can be "pointed to".
>
> Yes. Well in a sense. For many theists the whole world/Universe is simply
> a manifestation of Gods ongoing activity. Thus his effects are
> everywhere and everything and one does not need to point :-) You have in
> mind here a "God of the gaps" concept of God which I personally agree is a
> silly one.
>
> snip consequent irrelevancy
> > >
> > >c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of
> > >"X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that
> > >galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though
> > >there is no evidence for such galaxies).
> > >
> > Certainly, though inductive logic is a slippery beast indeed.
>
> We must pre-suppose it though in order to function in our second by second
> existence. For example how do I know when I will my arm to move in a
> particular way it will do so? We must pre-suppose the correctness of
> induction otherwise we would be moribund.
>
> All the "proofs" of
> > the existence of god are dubious. (Or at least not universally accepted.)
>
> So are all the proofs of atheism :-)
>
I wasn't aware that there were any. I quite agree that proving the
nonexistence of a slippery god is a tough task indeed.
> I'd say that
> > proofs of the nonexistence of any god are equally dubious, since they
> would all impose
> > a definition of a god as a premise.
>
> Hmmmm, but what about trying to prove that our lives and the Universe are
> ultimately gratuitous and without ultimate purpose or a teleological
> destiny?
> >
Equally futile. We can imagine even more purposes than gods.
(All gods imply a purpose, and there can be purposes without
gods. Maybe we're all pieces of a really big simulation
of a universe for some immensely powerful grad student's
dissertation. Maybe our purpose is for him to get his PhD.
Disproving this is a bit tough - as is disproving any of a number
of other odd ideas we could come up with.
Many things, which we call processes, for example, are not physically
existent.
> Now, if you
> > wish to believe in a god with no physical presence
>
> Consciousness or mind which encapsulates what God is, cannot have a physical
> presence as consciousness is not physical.
>
> or effect on the universe
>
> The effect may be argued to be everywhere and everything.
>
> > (that we can see today, at least) we might ask why, but we certainly could
> not
> > disprove your belief. However, if someone who believes in this sort of
> god
> > wishes me to either worship it, or to modify my behavior based on its
> existence,
>
> No you don't have to.
>
Cool. Point for you.
> > then you had better demonstrate to me that this god either wishes to be
> worshipped
> > or cares what I do - and by doing so you violate the premise that the god
> has
> > no observable effect on the world.
>
> Worshipping a God?? Dear me! Have I remotely suggested that you worship a
> "God". . .*anywhere*??
> >
> > My wife is a weak deist. It makes her feel good. There is no discernable
> difference
> > between her behavior and mine.
>
> Good, nor should it. And tell her not to allow herself to be bullied by you
> into becoming an atheist! :-D
>
God is certainly contained in our consciousness, since god is a concept
and the concept certainly exists. Going from this to a god who
created the universe (and I'm not sure you even believe that) is a bit
of a stretch.
We can certainly demonstrate the existence of the god concept.
Demonstrating anything beyond that is hard. (except by definition - that is
some people define the universe as god, and since the universe
exists god does also).
I'd be interesting in knowing why you believe in the semi-existence of this
god concept, but it matters not, since the right to believe what one wishes
is one I'd go to the mat for.
Scott #1045
> Ian
Steve Mading
: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>:>If something has no interaction with our universe, and never can,
:>:>then it is the same thing as it not existing, as far as we'll
:>:>ever know.
:>
:>: Who said it can't interact? Perhaps it had only one point of
:>: interaction- creation. Perhaps it had and has a multitude of
:>: interactions- that we cannot yet perceive, yet still affect
:>: us.
:>
:>If something has an effect on us in any way, then it is theoretically
:>detectable even if we haven't managed to detect it yet.
: OK.
:>Detectability and relevance go hand in hand.
: I disagree. Let's say you go on a job interview. Without
: your knowledge, a friend of yours has put in a good word for
: you, and because of it you got the job. He placed one phone
: call, nothing got recorded, nothing on the books, but if he
: had not done it, you would still be unemployed.
: The only way for you to detect it is if he tells you, yet
: his actions were certainly relevant. There are many
: difficult to detect occurrences that have a huge impact on
: our lives. Butterflies wings make hurricanes, you know.
You take a situation with *diffucult* detectability, and try
to couch it as if it had *no* detectability. The fact
that something affects your experiences in some way *is*
the evidence that makes a thing theoretically detectable.
In order for something to be truly 100% undetectable, it has
to leave behind no evidence, which is the same thing as saying
it has no effect you can experience.
In your phone call example, the effect was that it got you the
job when otherwise you wouldn't have got it. This is the
incongruous fact that amounts to evidence. You might not realize
it, but the evidence is there if you happen to stumble across it.
(In this case, if you step back and analyse your job qualifications
and realize you shouldn't have gotten the job on that alone.)
:>Whatever it is that makes it relevant
:>will also make it detectable in theory.
: There is not the cause and effect relationship there that
: you think there is,
I'm not trying to describe a cause and effect situation
of A -> B. I'm describing an identity property of A == B.
Detectability IS WHEN the experiences you have get altered in
some way by the thing in question. If what you can experience
cannot get affected by the thing in question, in other words
if it is not relevant to the world you can experience, then
the thing in question isn't detectable. The converse is true
also. They are the *same thing*. If it can affect the five
senses in some way, then it is relevant. Otherwise it isn't.
(Note, I'm talking about "can effect", which is different than
"has affected". I'm talking not about whether something has
been detected, but about if it is even possible to detect it
at all under the right conditions. In your phone example,
the phone call could have been heard had I been in the room
at the time it was made, but I wasn't, so the phone call was
detectable, but not detected. The difference is important.)
When someone starts talking of a god that is more than just
undetectED SO FAR by me, but goes so far as to say that the
god he's proposing is also undetectABLE at all by me, then
he's describing a god that has no relevance of any kind to
the universe that I can experiencelive, although he probably
doesn't realize this.
: but I would agree with your first
: statement in this post that anything that can alter the
: physical world would be detectable in the physical world, in
: theory. The capabilities of modern science, however, do not
: necessarily meet that level of perception.
Doesn't matter. I'm talking about those idiots who propose
totaly undetectable gods and then go on to try to get me
to believe in them - as if it is even possible for it to
matter if such a god exists or not.
Now, gods that have not yet been detected, but could be,
that's another matter.
[snip]
Nick Lilavois
Nope- I did nothing of the kind. Not only that, I made
specific statements that show that I did not do that- I
agreed with your premise in the first sentence, I made it
clear we were talking about "difficult to detect
occurrences" in the job interview, and I even stated further
down that "anything that can alter the physical world would
be detectable in the physical world, in theory."
With everything I wrote stating my position so clearly I am
***clueless*** how you could possibly come to the conclusion
you just did.
> The fact
>that something affects your experiences in some way *is*
>the evidence that makes a thing theoretically detectable.
Duh.
>In order for something to be truly 100% undetectable, it has
>to leave behind no evidence, which is the same thing as saying
>it has no effect you can experience.
Duh.
Please, try responding to what I actually write, not what
you believe I might write.
>In your phone call example, the effect was that it got you the
>job when otherwise you wouldn't have got it. This is the
>incongruous fact that amounts to evidence. You might not realize
>it, but the evidence is there if you happen to stumble across it.
>(In this case, if you step back and analyse your job qualifications
>and realize you shouldn't have gotten the job on that alone.)
DUH.
Did you even read my post?
I don't know If I still want to bother with this...
>:>Whatever it is that makes it relevant
>:>will also make it detectable in theory.
>
>: There is not the cause and effect relationship there that
>: you think there is,
>
>I'm not trying to describe a cause and effect situation
>of A -> B. I'm describing an identity property of A == B.
You are attempting to equate delectability with relevance,
as if only the very noticeable actions have impact on our
lives. Even beyond a debate on theology that is not a valid
statement, for the reasons I described. Subtle occurrences
can have a huge impact, and spectacles can be insignificant.
>Detectability IS WHEN the experiences you have get altered in
>some way by the thing in question. If what you can experience
>cannot get affected by the thing in question, in other words
>if it is not relevant to the world you can experience, then
>the thing in question isn't detectable. The converse is true
>also. They are the *same thing*. If it can affect the five
>senses in some way, then it is relevant. Otherwise it isn't.
>(Note, I'm talking about "can effect", which is different than
>"has affected". I'm talking not about whether something has
>been detected, but about if it is even possible to detect it
>at all under the right conditions. In your phone example,
>the phone call could have been heard had I been in the room
>at the time it was made, but I wasn't, so the phone call was
>detectable, but not detected. The difference is important.)
Not important to this conversation, however.
>When someone starts talking of a god that is more than just
>undetectED SO FAR by me, but goes so far as to say that the
>god he's proposing is also undetectABLE at all by me, then
>he's describing a god that has no relevance of any kind to
>the universe that I can experiencelive, although he probably
>doesn't realize this.
Good thing I did not do that then.
I'm just not getting you- do you read posts you respond to
at all? Do you just make up strawmen about undetectability
and argue against those instead? How about this- I will give
you the benefit of the doubt. I will pretend you had a bad
day, and just posted a sloppy one.
Go back to my post before this one, read it, and post again.
We can both pretend that this last post of yours never
happened, OK?
>
>: but I would agree with your first
>: statement in this post that anything that can alter the
>: physical world would be detectable in the physical world, in
>: theory. The capabilities of modern science, however, do not
>: necessarily meet that level of perception.
>
>Doesn't matter. I'm talking about those idiots who propose
>totaly undetectable gods and then go on to try to get me
>to believe in them - as if it is even possible for it to
>matter if such a god exists or not.
Those idiots are called strawmen. They have not made any
posts on this thread.
>Now, gods that have not yet been detected, but could be,
>that's another matter.
Those are the only God concepts that I have ever heard of.
Steve Mading
: Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>You take a situation with *diffucult* detectability, and try
:>to couch it as if it had *no* detectability.
: Nope- I did nothing of the kind. Not only that, I made
: specific statements that show that I did not do that- I
: agreed with your premise in the first sentence, I made it
: clear we were talking about "difficult to detect
: occurrences" in the job interview, and I even stated further
: down that "anything that can alter the physical world would
: be detectable in the physical world, in theory."
: With everything I wrote stating my position so clearly
: I am
: ***clueless*** how you could possibly come to the conclusion
: you just did.
[snip]
Because *I* already *was* talking about undetectable rather than
merely undetected, and your phone example was in RESPONSE to that,
as if you somehow thought it matched up and was relevant in some
way. I know damn well you've been talking about undetectED, not
undetectABLE - but *I* was not, in the point I had been in the middle
of making, thus your example didn't fit it, and that's what I said.
The point I was in the middle of making is this:
Given that:
1 - It makes no sense to speak of something undetectable
"existing" in any way that matters to our universe. (This is the point
I was in the middle of when you brought up your exmaple that didnt'
fit. But I wasn't DONE yet.)
2 - If something has not yet been detected, we cannot tell yet
whether it fits into the "undetected because it is undetectable"
category, or into the "undetected, but yet still detectable."
(Exception: If the definition of the thing is self-contradictory
we can logically conclude it can't possibly exist and is thus
undetectable.)
3 - The "undetected because it is undetectABLE" category is an
infinitely large set. The "undetected, yet detectable" category
is not - it is finite. Thus any randomly selected idea for a thing
is much more likely to fall into the "undetectable" set than the
"undetected, yet detectable" set, because it is a ratio of infinity
to a fixed number.
conclusion - If something has not yet been detected, it makes
no sense to assume it is of the "undetected yet detectable" category
until more evidence (or at least SOME evidence of some sort) arrives.
Without knowing anything else about it, you can assume that it is more
likely to be undetectable at all than to be undetected yet detectable.
That's why it's very sane, and rational, to hypothetically assume
non-existance until proven otherwise. And, that's why atheism
and agnosticism are compatable. I consider myself both.
PMD
<no-emai...@newsgroup-only.com> was seen to type in talk.atheism:
And perhaps it didn't. Can you post anything to show us which is true?
Or shall I just ignore your appeal to ignorance?
--
>> PMD aa#167
--
He that cannot reason is a fool; he that will not is a bigot;
He that dare not is a slave. - Sir William Drummond c.1770-1828
:Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:27
:"ALL OF A SUDDEN and BY CHANCE, a great being that
always was suddenly decided it was dark" - Genesis
(inspired by the humour of Ankhor 26/8/01)
:God is a solipsist.
Nick Lilavois
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:34:14 GMT, Nick Lilavois
>>Who said it can't interact? Perhaps it had only one point of
>>interaction- creation. Perhaps it had and has a multitude of
>>interactions- that we cannot yet perceive, yet still affect
>>us.
>
>And perhaps it didn't. Can you post anything to show us which is true?
>Or shall I just ignore your appeal to ignorance?
PMD, learn how to follow a thread. This is not an atheist vs
theist debate, it's an atheist vs agnostic debate- and one
that was over a while ago. No one was showing anything to be
"true", nor was anyone using an appeal to ignorance.
Learn how to read.