Theist challange: provide a rational definition of god

nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Theist challange: provide a rational definition of god

In a recent topic, HisWillness floated the idea that, as there is no rational, coherent definition of god, any discussion of god is inherently ridiculous. I think it's rather like debating whether Batman could defeat Superman, myself.

In that thread, I asked a rhetorical question: what is the minimum requirements for a god? Before you can define god, you'll need some rubric by which to judge whether your definition is of god or not. For instance, is it necessary that god created the universe? Is it necessary that god intended to create humans? And so on.

Here's your challange, theists and atheists alike: provide the minimum requirements for god, and present a coherent, rational definition of god that covers the minimum requirements.

After, we'll discuss who would be better against a zombie dragon attack, Wonder Woman or Jar Jar Binks.

{{MOD EDIT:  Moved to AvT -HD}}

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Not sure how any of this

Not sure how any of this actually helps us find a decent minimum requirement for something to be defined as a god.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:
That's the minimum requirement.

That would make me a god, as I have consciousness. Nigel means what are the minimum requirements before something can be defined as a god.

Raised Brow

That consciousnesss constitutes or is a fundamental aspect of ultimate reality. This is the minimum requirement for a God-concept.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you know what,

iwbiek wrote:

you know what, fuck it, i have no grass to cut tonight and the house is clean for once, so i did a little googling, just for kicks.  here's one of the first things i found, from this article:

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm wrote:

Einstein certainly held, as his constant appeal to God showed, that without God nothing can be known, but what did he really mean by his appeal to Spinoza? Once in answer to the question "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

I commend you on your diligent research.

"I'm not an atheist." That settles it. Einstein was not an atheist. However, Einstein appears to be wavering or backpedaling when he says "and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" (emphasis mine). I THINK that maybe we can call him a pantheist based on his statement: "I believe in the God of Spinoza." The God of Spinoza is clearly a pantheistic one. Also, that Einstein extolls the virtues of Buddhism also lends support to the idea that Einstein embraced some form of pantheism. Moreover, it would appear to me that Einstein objection to quantum theory was not based on scientific grounds but religious ones (the God of Spinoza is a completely deterministic one and quantum theory is incompatible with determinism).1

1 "Eintein and God" by Thomas Torrance"

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Moreover,

Paisley wrote:

Moreover, it would appear to me that Einstein objection to quantum theory was not based on scientific grounds but religious ones (the God of Spinoza is a completely deterministic one and quantum theory is incompatible with determinism).1

1 "Eintein and God" by Thomas Torrance"

As has been pointed out many times, there are successful deterministic quantum models. So, no, quantum theory is not incompatible with determinism. Until we know more about the nature of the quantum realm, we can make no definitive statement concerning whether or not the quantum realm is deterministic.

And in any case, none of this gets us any closer to either the bare minimum requirements for a god, or a definition of god. So far, Eloise is the only person to present something that might be coherent and rational.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I guess

nigelTheBold wrote:
I guess I'll tip my hand on this.

Attributes of god:

* Able to influence reality (and is thus observable, at least in principle)

* Sentient

* Omniscient

* Omnipresent

It's "God" not "god." And this is not a trivial point. There's a difference in meaning between the two terms (at least potentially).

And the only attribute that a God-concept requires is "sentience" (I'm okay with omnipresence). This should not be miscontrued to imply that this is the only attribute I ascribe to God.

nigelTheBold wrote:
I'm not going for the other omnis, because I don't think they are necessary for god. Omnipotence is good, certainly, but it's also a copout. All it means is, "able to do anything," which leads to such great stoner conundrums as, "Can god make a Dallas Cowgirl so heavy that he can't lift her?" And omnibenevolence? What the hell is that, really?

It's not a copout. Omnipotence simply means "all powerful." It does not necessarily mean the ability to do anything.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Given those basic attributes, here is my proposed coherent definition of god:

The universal quantum mind.

Hey! Stop snickering. Hear me out.

I'm only snickering because you have stolen my idea (i.e. the universal quantum mind). At any rate, I'm happy to see that my work here has not been for nought.

nigelTheBold wrote:
The universe may be considered as a vast quantum computer. Given that we ourselves have emergent intelligence (I guess), the universal quantum computer may also have emergent intelligence. The only two questions left are, can this emergent intelligence influence other quantum events? Can these influenced quantum events propogate to the extent of influencing non-quantum processes such as evolution?

On this view, the "universal quantum mind" is both determined by is determining all quantum processes. IOW, causality and the will of the universal quantum mind are one and the same.

nigelTheBold wrote:
I reckon it's not much of a god if you have to speculate on its efficacy on non-quantum processes. It's also entirely speculative, relying on our ignorance of the underlying principles of QM, and so is just another form of quantum woo. But, we do have a rudimentary understanding of quantum computing, and viewing the universe as a quantum computer isn't entirely unrealistic. Still, though, everything else is a chain of wild speculation, rather than just wide-eyed speculation.

You have just provided evidence and argued for a God-concept. Therefore, you cannot honestly argue that there is no evidence for God. To continue to do so at this point would be disingenuous.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'm

Paisley wrote:

I'm only snickering because you have stolen my idea (i.e. the universal quantum mind). At any rate, I'm happy to see that my work here has not been for nought.

I heard the idea long before you joined up here. I first read about it in Seth Lloyd's "Programming the Universe," which is a very good read. Of course, he pretty much says that the universe couldn't be conscious. His arguments against an intelligent universe are pretty convincing.

Quote:

You have just provided evidence and argued for a God-concept. Therefore, you cannot honestly argue that there is no evidence for God. To continue to do so at this point would be disingenuous.

I have provided no evidence whatsoever. I presented some outlandish speculation, presenting what I consider the one potentially-coherent description of god. The fact that you consider anything I said "evidence" is kinda disconcerting.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:It's not

nigelTheBold wrote:
It's not so much the universe that is god, it is the sentience of the universe that is god. It's not the collective processes of the universe; it is a specific process that provides a distinct self-awareness. Just as the mind is not the entirety of the brain, the sentience of the universe is not the totality of the universe.

All mass/energy reduces to quantum mechanical processes. Besides the quantum computer model you are alluding to here is based on information theory which explains all the collective processes of the universe in terms of information processing. Isn't information processing what a computer does?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: PS:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

PS: iwbiek, just ignore treat2 as best you can. The plan is to watch him die the agonizing death of attention starvation and drift off to elsewhere on the internets.

oh, i'm done.  he said i wasn't worth debating but here he goes debating me anyway.  and he's got theists trying to back him up now.  i've noticed even mentioning the name einstein draws theists like sharks to a trail of blood.

anyway, haven't you heard?  apparently i'm menopausal, so i can't help but lash out occassionally.

which shows yet again how full of shit treat is.  it has nothing to do with me being menopausal.  fact is, i just had a hysterectomy.  and it's really......HARD!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Agnosticism, to me, is simply a binary state.  Either I have knowledge of god or I don't.  If I don't, I'm agnostic, regardless of whether I could come to have knowledge in the future.

Okay. Then this definition of agnosticism is not necessarily incompatible with theism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:That

Paisley wrote:

That consciousnesss constitutes or is a fundamental aspect of ultimate reality. This is the minimum requirement for a God-concept.


A "God-concept"? I'm pretty comfortable with your god being a concept, but "ultimate reality" (=set of all noumena?) has been a failed idea for quite some time now. Kant was defeated six ways from Sunday on that point.



But let's start with that: reality has, at its basis, consciousness. So ... how has that helped to describe a god?



 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Hambydammit

Paisley wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
Agnosticism, to me, is simply a binary state.  Either I have knowledge of god or I don't.  If I don't, I'm agnostic, regardless of whether I could come to have knowledge in the future.

Okay. Then this definition of agnosticism is not necessarily incompatible with theism.


The reason I present for that is that there's no way of knowing anything about a god. Gods are unknowable, and thus everyone is agnostic.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:If someone

HisWillness wrote:
If someone is going to say "No gods exist", then they better be sure that they know what doesn't exist.

Agreed. This is why it is important for militant atheists to be theologically literate. Unfortunatley, most are not. This is why individuals like Sam Harris can hold a prominent position in the so-called "new atheist" movement, even though he clearly has expressed belief in pantheism. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:A Pantheist

treat2 wrote:
A Pantheist would say nature is my God.

Unfortunately, there are individuals who are promoting atheistic materialism under the guise of pantheism.  This obviously leads to confusion.

treat2 wrote:
A Pantheist would no worship their god any more than a physicist would worship f=ma.

In his book entitled "The God Theory," physicist Bernard Haish employed the equation "f=ma" to argue for a pantheistic God. (His pantheism is influenced by Jewish Kabbalah. It is in no way compatible with atheistic or scientific materialism). 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Yup. Friggin

treat2 wrote:
Yup. Friggin silly. And if you try reading Pantheist-speak, without previously devoting an extensive amount of time to their own version of English, it is a virtual certainty that what you think the clearly said, is not what they really said. In doing so, Einstein was able to have a career, lest he be accused of being an Atheist, as Spinoza was, and paid for it by having been exiled for his Pantheism.esla Roadste picture

Has Richard Dawkins' atheism precluded him from having a career?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:In fact,

treat2 wrote:
In fact, Budhism is perhaps an ecellent example to make my point, as they have no belief in god(s) HOWEVER , they do maintain the beliefs of a RELIGION.

This simply is not true. Buddhist cosmology actually comprises a hierarchy of gods and goddesses.

Quote:
A Brahmā in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are multiple in Buddhist cosmology

(source: Wikipedia: Brahma (Buddhism))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)

But more to the point. The "Dharmakaya" (the universal mind or consciousness) is the God-concept in Buddhism. And the Buddha's identification with the eternal Dharmakaya is reminiscent of Christ's identification with God.

Quote:
Buddha explains that he has always and will always exist to lead beings to their salvation. This eternal aspect of Buddha is the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya may be considered the most sublime or truest reality in the Universe corresponding closely to the post-Vedic conception of Brahman and that of the Father in the ChristianTrinity.

(source: Wikipedia: Dharmakaya)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakaya

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:So there's

crazymonkie wrote:
So there's not really any way to equivocate about this: Love IS a chemical reaction. That it gets APPLIED to other things: social levels, poetic terms, etc, is a side issue.

Just curious. What's the chemical formula for love?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I had a feeling that nobody

I had a feeling that nobody would be able to find a coherent definition for a god, but I didn't expect the failure to be so spectacular.

If it's the case that "God" is not referential (or is an "empty name" to use the jargon) then we can say that God exists like Pegasus exists (i.e. in fiction). At least, unless we can find some coherent definition that avoids "God" being an empty name.

Thus far, either

1) God is an empty name, or

2) God refers to something incoherent

In both cases, we have an unverifiable (unfalsifiable) entity. Agnosticism is a given for everyone, and those who would wait for evidence can stop waiting.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Moreover, it would appear to me that Einstein objection to quantum theory was not based on scientific grounds but religious ones (the God of Spinoza is a completely deterministic one and quantum theory is incompatible with determinism).1

1 "Eintein and God" by Thomas Torrance"

As has been pointed out many times, there are successful deterministic quantum models. So, no, quantum theory is not incompatible with determinism. Until we know more about the nature of the quantum realm, we can make no definitive statement concerning whether or not the quantum realm is deterministic.

Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

nigelTheBold wrote:
And in any case, none of this gets us any closer to either the bare minimum requirements for a god, or a definition of god. So far, Eloise is the only person to present something that might be coherent and rational.

Evidently, you haven't read my initial post in this thread.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Please cite the

Quote:
Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

Uh. Please cite the 'successful' non-deterministic quantum models?

 

Paisley, there are no comprehensive contemporary models for quantum phenomena. There are several interpretations for various effects that have been observed (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, that one with the name I can't remember that Nigel and Will kept pointing-out), but no unifying theory that explains everything.

(And no, 'My magical deity did it!' does not count as a valid theory)

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:(And no,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

(And no, 'My magical deity did it!' does not count as a valid theory)



"Theory"! You go too far, sir! We don't even have a legitimate hypothesis yet.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
So there's not really any way to equivocate about this: Love IS a chemical reaction. That it gets APPLIED to other things: social levels, poetic terms, etc, is a side issue.

Just curious. What's the chemical formula for love?

1 moment... flippin through my database now for the ingredients to esctasy pills...

 

or wait... was that for lust? urgh... >.<

 

Maybe it was morphine with a dash of coke... yes, that sounds more like love!

What Would Kharn Do?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Just curious. What's

Quote:
Just curious. What's the chemical formula for love?

Dopamine and oxytocin, mostly.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I'm only snickering because you have stolen my idea (i.e. the universal quantum mind). At any rate, I'm happy to see that my work here has not been for nought.

I heard the idea long before you joined up here. I first read about it in Seth Lloyd's "Programming the Universe," which is a very good read. Of course, he pretty much says that the universe couldn't be conscious. His arguments against an intelligent universe are pretty convincing.

If the universe is defined as a computer and information processing is what it does, then it logically follows that there is either no intelligence in the universe or the universe is intelligent. Why? Because all intentional acts are ultimately determined by the universal computer and its information processing.

Determinism (materialistic or otherwise) ultimately implies pantheism.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You have just provided evidence and argued for a God-concept. Therefore, you cannot honestly argue that there is no evidence for God. To continue to do so at this point would be disingenuous.

I have provided no evidence whatsoever. I presented some outlandish speculation, presenting what I consider the one potentially-coherent description of god. The fact that you consider anything I said "evidence" is kinda disconcerting.

Okay. Then you're disingenuous and a liar. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Okay. Then you're

Quote:
Okay. Then you're disingenuous and a liar.

That's rich, coming from the dude who's been copy-pasting his arguments from Answers in Genesis.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Quote:
Just curious. What's the chemical formula for love?

Dopamine and oxytocin, mostly.

Thanks. But is that love or lust?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

Uh. Please cite the 'successful' non-deterministic quantum models?

 

Paisley, there are no comprehensive contemporary models for quantum phenomena. There are several interpretations for various effects that have been observed (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, that one with the name I can't remember that Nigel and Will kept pointing-out), but no unifying theory that explains everything.

(And no, 'My magical deity did it!' does not count as a valid theory)

The Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) upholds quantum indeterminism. And it is true that the many worlds interpetation is a deterministic one. But what scientific evidence do you have for parallel worlds?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Moreover, it would appear to me that Einstein objection to quantum theory was not based on scientific grounds but religious ones (the God of Spinoza is a completely deterministic one and quantum theory is incompatible with determinism).1

1 "Eintein and God" by Thomas Torrance"

As has been pointed out many times, there are successful deterministic quantum models. So, no, quantum theory is not incompatible with determinism. Until we know more about the nature of the quantum realm, we can make no definitive statement concerning whether or not the quantum realm is deterministic.

Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

*sigh*

Causal dynamical triangulations. It's at least as successful as any other current model. I'm not saying it's the correct model; but nobody can say what the correct model is.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
And in any case, none of this gets us any closer to either the bare minimum requirements for a god, or a definition of god. So far, Eloise is the only person to present something that might be coherent and rational.

Evidently, you haven't read my initial post in this thread.

Evidently, you didn't present a coherent or complete description of god.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You have just provided evidence and argued for a God-concept. Therefore, you cannot honestly argue that there is no evidence for God. To continue to do so at this point would be disingenuous.

I have provided no evidence whatsoever. I presented some outlandish speculation, presenting what I consider the one potentially-coherent description of god. The fact that you consider anything I said "evidence" is kinda disconcerting.

Okay. Then you're disingenuous and a liar. 

Bwah? Where the fuck did I lie? I presented an hypothetical solution to the question I posed. Never once did I present "evidence." You are the one who claimed I presented evidence. The fact that you seem to mistake propositions for evidence does not make me a liar. It makes you a credulous fool, but most certainly does not make me a liar.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The Copenhagen

Paisley wrote:

The Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) upholds quantum indeterminism. And it is true that the many worlds interpetation is a deterministic one. But what scientific evidence do you have for parallel worlds?

What scientific evidence do you have for a universal consciousness?

As you have established, your criteria for "evidence" is, "Any assertion that supports my position." Please, we're asking for scientific evidence.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That consciousnesss constitutes or is a fundamental aspect of ultimate reality. This is the minimum requirement for a God-concept.

A "God-concept"? I'm pretty comfortable with your god being a concept, but "ultimate reality" (=set of all noumena?) has been a failed idea for quite some time now. Kant was defeated six ways from Sunday on that point.

I never said that God was a concept. God is not a concept anymore than consciousness is. However, we employ concepts to verbally communicate. Hopefully, you can appreciate that fact. If not, then this discussion will be nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Also, this discussion is not about whether we can engage in metaphysics or not (besides every materialist does engage in metaphysics by simply assuming his position). It's about the minimum requirements for a God-concept. This necessarily implies that we will be talking about ultimate reality (or, if you like, the noumenal world). If science has taught us anything is that the phenomenal world is not what it appears to be.

HisWillness wrote:
But let's start with that: reality has, at its basis, consciousness. So ... how has that helped to describe a god?

That's pantheism. And it forms the basis for religious mysticism in all its many forms (e.g. Jewish Kabbalah, Christian mysticism, Sufism (Islam), Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, New Age spiritual practices, etc.). 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Thanks. But is that

Quote:
Thanks. But is that love or lust?

Love. Dopamine is a reward chemical, oxytocin an 'attachment' chemical (for lack of a better word). Sildenafil is what you need if you just want a raging boner.

 

Quote:
The Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) upholds quantum indeterminism. And it is true that the many worlds interpetation is a deterministic one. But what scientific evidence do you have for parallel worlds?

Uh. 'The standard interpretation'? I'm not into physics, but I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Anyway, I'm not interested in semantic-based arguments:

The Copenhagen interpretation is not a 'model'. It is a hypothesis (just like Many Worlds and the Triangulation thingy that math people know about), and only pertains to certain observations of quantum phenomena. 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
negligible wrote:Evidently,

negligible wrote:

Evidently, you didn't present a coherent or complete description of god.

Well, when you're a dewey eyed devoutiee of scientism any description outside of a science text book is going to be incoherent to you, the incoherence is just your perception, not what it actually is. 

This is your retardation not mine.

But I'll provide a definition for you via  courtesy of humanist psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, in fact I'll provide you a summary of his ideas done so by an atheist over at Vanguard:

 

"Human beings, lacking the power to act at the behest of instincts alone while possessing the capacity for self-consciousness, reason and imagination, require a frame of orientation, a world-view and object of deviation in order to survive and unfold their potentialities.

Without a structured and coherent map of our natural and social world, human beings, according to Fromm, would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently, because there would be no framework for orienting oneself, of finding a fixed point that allows one to organize all the impressions that impinge on the individual.

....Religion is one of those maps or frames of orientation created by humans, and despite its several weakness, fulfils its psychological function.

[...] we lack total instinctive determination of our behaviour, and we have a complex brain that permits us to think of many directions we can take.

Consequently, we require an object of devotion a focal point for the convergence of all our strivings and the fulcrum of our emotional and rational values." http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12132&Itemid=0

God is one such object of devotion, the centering point of a worldview. But I have an assumption this is where the retardation factor kicks in, and you toss up your arms and claim incoherency, even though other atheist, such as the one at vanguard could understand it.

 

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:
Okay. Then you're disingenuous and a liar. 

Bwah? Where the fuck did I lie? I presented an hypothetical solution to the question I posed. Never once did I present "evidence." You are the one who claimed I presented evidence. The fact that you seem to mistake propositions for evidence does not make me a liar. It makes you a credulous fool, but most certainly does not make me a liar.

To form some kind of hypothesis requires some kind of evidence. Or did you just manufacture your universal quantum mind theory out of thin air? Besides, CCC is just as valid of intepretation of QM as any other interpretation. So, don't say there isn't any evidence. There most certainly is.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Thanks. But is that love or lust?

Love. Dopamine is a reward chemical, oxytocin an 'attachment' chemical (for lack of a better word). Sildenafil is what you need if you just want a raging boner.

Are you talking about sexual attraction or love? (I seriously doubt that most people think of love simply in sexual terms, even romantic love.) Besides all you have is correlation, not identification.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) upholds quantum indeterminism. And it is true that the many worlds interpetation is a deterministic one. But what scientific evidence do you have for parallel worlds?

Uh. 'The standard interpretation'? I'm not into physics, but I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Anyway, I'm not interested in semantic-based arguments:

No, I didn't make it up. But since you're not interested, I won't bother.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
The Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) upholds quantum indeterminism. And it is true that the many worlds interpetation is a deterministic one. But what scientific evidence do you have for parallel worlds?

Uh. 'The standard interpretation'? I'm not into physics, but I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Anyway, I'm not interested in semantic-based arguments:

The Copenhagen interpretation is not a 'model'. It is a hypothesis (just like Many Worlds and the Triangulation thingy that math people know about), and only pertains to certain observations of quantum phenomena. 

In Paisley's defence, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the "standard interpretation." It's not really even a model, or an hypothesis. Back in the early days of QM, there was a raging debate about whether our description of QM was accurate, since it was statistical in nature, and not representable by a nice, neat, non-statistical formula. Some folks advocated "hidden variables," the idea that we were missing something fundamental about QM (the statistical nature of QM was epistemic); and another group advocated the "Copenhagen interpretation," in which QM was fundamentally (ontologically) statistical.

For a while, the Copenhagen interpretation was considered the only viable interpretation. This has to do with Bell's Theorem, which states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

He ran some experiments that seemed to support this theorem. Until recently, it has held true. Over the last decade or so, a bunch of young theoretical physicists like Joy Christian have developed models which do in fact reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, and do so in ways that are deterministic. In the case of Joy Christian, his model predicts the outcome of Bell's experiments, basically negating Bell's Theorem, as the exact same evidence that supports Bell's Theorem also supports Christian's model. This doesn't mean there are hidden variables, of course; it just means that physical theories of local hidden variables can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Recently, there's been a renewal in interest in local hidden variables, in part because of these recent successes; but also because the Copenhagen Interpretation hasn't gotten us very far. You'd figure that in 60 years we'd be much farther along than we are in our understanding of QM. So a lot of the current brains in theoretical physics are questioning the Copenhagen Interpretation. Since abandoning the Copenhagen Interpretation, there've been some very promising models developed, such as CDT (which I mentioned above), quantum loop gravity, and so on.

It's all very exciting.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:
Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

*sigh*

Causal dynamical triangulations. It's at least as successful as any other current model. I'm not saying it's the correct model; but nobody can say what the correct model is.

If it hasn't proven to be correct, then I guess it really isn't that successful. Besides, you have failed to provide me with anything that suggests that CDT has render quantum indeterminism or superposition obsolete. (I have already read the SA article.)

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Evidently, you haven't read my initial post in this thread.

Evidently, you didn't present a coherent or complete description of god.

You said that you wanted the minimum requirements. And I have provided it. Consciousness (eternal) is the only requirement for a God-concept. In fact, this is the basis for many (if not most) of the world's mystical traditions. How is it not coherent?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:To form some

Paisley wrote:

To form some kind of hypothesis requires some kind of evidence. Or did you just manufacture your universal quantum mind theory out of thin air? Besides, CCC is just as valid of intepretation of QM as any other interpretation. So, don't say there isn't any evidence. There most certainly is.

An hypothesis is not evidence. That's ludicrous. So, no, there isn't any evidence. And CCC isn't not just as valid as any other model. First, it doesn't make testable predictions. Second, it doesn't explain much of anything. Third, there's not even any math to back it up. So, no, Paisley, it's not "just as valid of interpretation" as any other interpretation. And an interpretation isn't a model anyway.

I didn't present the universal quantum mind as an hypothesis. I presented it as a hypothetical solution to the silly question posed in the OP. There is a difference. An hypothesis is a falsifiable proposition that purports to explain data. An hypothetical solution is the colloquial term for "something made up on the spot to think about."

As I explained in my posts, my proposition was based on a proposal by Seth Lloyd, who suggested we can view the universe as a quantum computer. Each quantum event is a discrete calculation. I took that one step farther (as I have done in the past for the purpose of discussion) as submitted the idea that this quantum computer is conscious. I do not claim it is an original idea; nor did I submit that it was supported by evidence in any fashion.

As per usual, you are fractally wrong. So fuck you gently with a chainsaw.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You said that

Paisley wrote:

You said that you wanted the minimum requirements. And I have provided it. Consciousness (eternal) is the only requirement for a God-concept. In fact, this is the basis for many (if not most) of the world's mystical traditions. How is it not coherent?

Define "consciousness."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:
Please cite the SUCCESSFUL deterministic quantum models.

*sigh*

Causal dynamical triangulations. It's at least as successful as any other current model. I'm not saying it's the correct model; but nobody can say what the correct model is.

If it hasn't proven to be correct, then I guess it really isn't that successful. Besides, you have failed to provide me with anything that suggests that CDT has render quantum indeterminism or superposition obsolete.

And you call me disingenuous.

No model of QM has proven to be correct. So then none of them are successful. CDT is as successful (if not more) than the current leader in QM: string theory. It is successful in that the math successfully predicts 4 dimensions (3 of space, one of time). No other model has done so. It also successfully predicts quantum uncertainty, and does so by predicting a universe that is convoluted at the planck scale. It as deterministic a pachinko game.

My assertion isn't that CDT is the correct model. My assertion is that nobody knows what the correct model is. My assertion is that you are an idiot for asserting that there is no deterministic model of QM, when there most certainly is.

And all of this is way off topic.

Quote:

(I have already read the SA article.)

Good for you.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

negligible wrote:

Evidently, you didn't present a coherent or complete description of god.

Well, when you're a dewey eyed devoutiee of scientism any description outside of a science text book is going to be incoherent to you, the incoherence is just your perception, not what it actually is. 

This is your retardation not mine.

Ha ha. You called me "negligible."

Quote:

But I'll provide a definition for you via  courtesy of humanist psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, in fact I'll provide you a summary of his ideas done so by an atheist over at Vanguard:

 

"Human beings, lacking the power to act at the behest of instincts alone while possessing the capacity for self-consciousness, reason and imagination, require a frame of orientation, a world-view and object of deviation in order to survive and unfold their potentialities.

Without a structured and coherent map of our natural and social world, human beings, according to Fromm, would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently, because there would be no framework for orienting oneself, of finding a fixed point that allows one to organize all the impressions that impinge on the individual.

....Religion is one of those maps or frames of orientation created by humans, and despite its several weakness, fulfils its psychological function.

[...] we lack total instinctive determination of our behaviour, and we have a complex brain that permits us to think of many directions we can take.

Consequently, we require an object of devotion a focal point for the convergence of all our strivings and the fulcrum of our emotional and rational values." http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12132&Itemid=0

God is one such object of devotion, the centering point of a worldview. But I have an assumption this is where the retardation factor kicks in, and you toss up your arms and claim incoherency, even though other atheist, such as the one at vanguard could understand it.

So god is a psychological crutch? A figment of our imagination that we accept because it makes us feel good?

That's not a bad definition of god, I reckon.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

You said that you wanted the minimum requirements. And I have provided it. Consciousness (eternal) is the only requirement for a God-concept. In fact, this is the basis for many (if not most) of the world's mystical traditions. How is it not coherent?

Define "consciousness."

I have already defined consciousness in another thread as awareness. We both know that. And it cannot be defined in more simpler terms.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have already

Paisley wrote:

I have already defined consciousness in another thread as awareness. We both know that. And it cannot be defined in more simpler terms.

Right. And so you don't have a coherent definition of "consciousness," which was your problem in the other thread.

So you don't have a coherent definition of god.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

You said that you wanted the minimum requirements. And I have provided it. Consciousness (eternal) is the only requirement for a God-concept. In fact, this is the basis for many (if not most) of the world's mystical traditions. How is it not coherent?

Define "consciousness."

I have already defined consciousness in another thread as awareness. We both know that. And it cannot be defined in more simpler terms.

Can you define awareness?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I have already defined consciousness in another thread as awareness. We both know that. And it cannot be defined in more simpler terms.

Right. And so you don't have a coherent definition of "consciousness," which was your problem in the other thread.

So you don't have a coherent definition of god.

Why isn't it coherent? What aspect of "awareness" do you not understand?

This is exactly the same tactic that eliminative materialists employ. They argue: "There is no meaningful definition of consciousness (or awareness). Therefore, consciousness does not exist." And you're calling me the irrational one?!

If you cannot grasp the most basic of terms, then how will it be possible to discuss any other attributes?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Oh dear.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Oh dear. Paisley's arrived.

Now the real crazy begins.

 

PS: iwbiek, just ignore treat2 as best you can. The plan is to watch him die the agonizing death of attention starvation and drift off to elsewhere on the internets.

Borg Ship 732 to Borg Queen assimilation of treat2 failed!

Reboot your pee brain!


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:
That's the minimum requirement.

That would make me a god, as I have consciousness. Nigel means what are the minimum requirements before something can be defined as a god.

Raised Brow

That consciousnesss constitutes or is a fundamental aspect of ultimate reality. This is the minimum requirement for a God-concept.

The Pantheist god is not a consciousnesss deity, or otherwise consciousnesss of anything.

Try again!


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
So there's not really any way to equivocate about this: Love IS a chemical reaction. That it gets APPLIED to other things: social levels, poetic terms, etc, is a side issue.

Just curious. What's the chemical formula for love?

How the fuck would I know that? I'm not a science guy, but I have enough sense to realize that emotions are properties of physical brains. Which means that love is a chemical reaction (coming from the brain, as all emotions do.)

You obviously didn't watch the video.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

you know what, fuck it, i have no grass to cut tonight and the house is clean for once, so i did a little googling, just for kicks.  here's one of the first things i found, from this article:

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm wrote:

Einstein certainly held, as his constant appeal to God showed, that without God nothing can be known, but what did he really mean by his appeal to Spinoza? Once in answer to the question "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

I commend you on your diligent research.

"I'm not an atheist." That settles it. Einstein was not an atheist. However, Einstein appears to be wavering or backpedaling when he says "and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" (emphasis mine). I THINK that maybe we can call him a pantheist based on his statement: "I believe in the God of Spinoza." The God of Spinoza is clearly a pantheistic one. Also, that Einstein extolls the virtues of Buddhism also lends support to the idea that Einstein embraced some form of pantheism. Moreover, it would appear to me that Einstein objection to quantum theory was not based on scientific grounds but religious ones (the God of Spinoza is a completely deterministic one and quantum theory is incompatible with determinism).1

1 "Eintein and God" by Thomas Torrance"

I've never failed to enlighten an educated person.
However, I can not enlighten
fools such as yourself.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I had a

HisWillness wrote:

I had a feeling that nobody would be able to find a coherent definition for a god, but I didn't expect the failure to be so spectacular.

If it's the case that "God" is not referential (or is an "empty name" to use the jargon) then we can say that God exists like Pegasus exists (i.e. in fiction). At least, unless we can find some coherent definition that avoids "God" being an empty name.

Thus far, either

1) God is an empty name, or

2) God refers to something incoherent

In both cases, we have an unverifiable (unfalsifiable) entity. Agnosticism is a given for everyone, and those who would wait for evidence can stop waiting.

I'd go with (1) myself. We can sort of come up with a coherent definition- but the meanings seem to be so different as to be utterly meaningless.

I think we're drifting into Hume's Fork territory here, though. I mean, we're not over the line, but we're pretty close.

Also, this:

Quote:
"ultimate reality" (=set of all noumena?)

.... I think, just gave me a little aneurism. I've got to lay off the Heidegger and Derrida.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Why isn't it

Paisley wrote:
Why isn't it coherent? What aspect of "awareness" do you not understand?

You said that the minimum requirement for a god was consciousness. Which, no, you can't define by another word and think you're done with it, especially if the term requires a referent to make sense. "Awareness" can't be in a void. It is always awareness of something. Meaning, when you say "The minimum requirement for a god is consciousness," you must A) Define consciousness, with more than one word, making sure it's not circular (which was another issue on the other thread) and B) Expand the definition for a god beyond the minimum requirements. What other properties does it have? Are these necessary or contingent? Is it a coherent definition?

If you can do that.... well, if ANY of us could do that... We'd be wasting our time writing here when we could be world-famous philosophers dismantling Husserl or something.

Quote:
This is exactly the same tactic that eliminative materialists employ.

Awww, this old classic again? Once again: Most of us aren't eliminative materialists- we see evidence of emergent properties in physical objects, and we are, moreover, not classical materialists as your strawman requires. Hell, nobody's been a classical materialist for almost 300 years now; it pretty much died out before too far into the 19th century.

Quote:
They argue: "There is no meaningful definition of consciousness (or awareness). Therefore, consciousness does not exist."

No, there are quite a few meaningful definitions of consciousness and awareness. It's just that you consistently fail to present a coherent definition of these two terms.

Quote:
If you cannot grasp the most basic of terms, then how will it be possible to discuss any other attributes?

Everyone here can grasp the terms just fine. It's a problem of definition. The problem stems entirely from your willful obfuscation and blatant abuse of terminology for your own purposes. You can't even use jargon right.

I'll ask just once- because it seems like a rite of passage around here to do it- Give me a coherent definition of "consciousness" that does NOT employ the term "awareness." There are enough synonyms in the English language to do this. Oh, and it has to be a MULTI-WORD DEFINITION. Not just a synonym for "Awareness."

If you cannot do this, I will assume you are either utterly full of shit, or simply totally ignorant of how philosophy, or even just philosophical bullshitting sessions like this, work.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.