Theist Challenge met: I conceive of something that doesn't exist

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Theist Challenge met: I conceive of something that doesn't exist

Upon editing a show today I stumbled across a funny short segment.  I'm digging through almost 60 hours of unedited content, and working on having around 100 hours of fresh content available by years end.  Subscribers, please stick with us as I work to bring you tons of new material. 

Here is the short clip... meet the Furger Argorock...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/Furger-Argorock.mp3


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I love

Jormungander wrote:

I love C.S. Lewis/that caller's logic. If that is true then all the horrors that H. P. Lovecraft conceived of are real. If I have this argument right then anything that we can conceive of exists. H. P. Lovecraft conceived of beings such a Cthulu, Yog Soggoth and Dagon. Therefor these world-ending and mankind destroying beings exist.

"The thing can not be described - there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy."

"I shall never sleep calmly again when I think of the horrors that lurk ceaselessly behind life in time and in space."

It seems in these quotes that Lovecraft has conceived of some screwed up stuff. Thankfully the 'if you can conceive of it, then it is real' argument is indefensible, so we are all safe from Lovecraft's fictional beings. So I guess that leaves us with God and Cthulu both being conceivable, but still imaginary.

Except the logic isn't 'if you can conceive of it, then it is real'. While, if you can conceive of it, then it exists - if only conceptually, that doesn't make it 'real', and nobody (except perhaps the caller) would say it does. The point is: If you can conceive of it, and convey your conception to someone else, your conception has some basis in your experience, ie: a basis in something that exists. C'thulu, Yog Soggoth, Dagon, Azathoth, all of them have their basings in things that exist, be it only the fear of madness and the unknown. Lovecraft's conceptions were rooted in his experiences. His creations were outgrowths of the things had seen, heard, felt, and known.

Now, Kevin can toss around all of the completely newly-minted words he likes, but even those don't actually demonstrate conception of things that don't exist. All they demonstrate is that if such things can be conceived, then communicating those new concepts is impossible without using things that exist as a common reference. Which isn't to say it can be shown that he hasn't conceived of something with no basis in existence, just that that is where the attempt to demonstrate conception of things with no basis in existence breaks down: There's no way to communicate such a conception short of direct telepathy. And I don't think Kevin's got that one down yet. :/

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:That's a fair

Eloise wrote:

That's a fair criticism, the similarity doesn't bear out as strongly in the creatures description as it does in the comparative myth of visitation/inauguration from a fantastic realm to the pure mother/honourable father of a legendary hero.

 

...

All good, BMcD, cause I was meaning, sorry if I confused you, that horse - specifically in the western conception of unicorn, is the part symbolising 'herald'. Not to be confused with the idea that a unicorn or a messenger symbol is always a horse. The Greeks and Romans tended to prefer the idea of an oracle but other cultures employ an altogether different form of chimeric beastie up to and including human chimera such as angels.

Regarding the discoveries of actual beasties on which the unicorn is suggested to be possibly based, I concede without hesitation that their images (and possibly also reputations) probably have played a part in the formation of these legends.

Well, see, that goes back to my earlier question: I haven't come across unicorns filling that role in western mythology. If your reference for unicorns filling that role comes from the qilin, then we're back to the 'not actually a unicorn' problem, and so the similarity between unicorns and qilin in their roles breaks down, because you're using the same creature for both sides of the equation. It's not so much the question of 'does a messenger always have to be a horse', but rather 'unicorns as heralds/messengers isn't a concept that comes up at all'.

In fact, horses themselves are almost never messengers per se, but rather symbols of valor and potency. Pegasus bear Bellerophon/Perseus into battle, Sleipnir carries Odin, and so forth. Usually, messengers and heralds involve direct representations of flight, of travel not bound to the limitations of 'mortal' modes of transit. They're usually birds... and often, ravens, probably because of the raven's observed cleverness. Hugin and Munnin, for example, or the ravens of Morrigan, or the raven and dove from the Noah stories. Flight has that touch of 'otherness' that a supernatural messenger would carry, after all, and while a case can be made that both Pegasus and Sleipnir do fly, the horse doesn't seem to have been a symbol that conjured ideas of 'super-fast messenger' in the minds of even the most dedicated horse cultures. After all, to them, the speed of a horse was a normal, known, and familiar quantity.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
But the symbol is a message,

But the symbol is a message, and only because of "real" things. A unicorn means something unique to each of us, just as Brian's symbolic invention. I see a picture of mixing separate things,  that are real.

I'm confused again ! Are we just nit picking ? I mean the symbol must represent mixes of the existing in order to create a message, what ever it is, and so anything imagined has the energy of consciousness, which is real. If you can imagine it , it is real. Not that the mix of what you imagine exists as what most call a material object or even a measureable energy force. This is a bit like where Energy / Matter / Consciousness , gets blurry .....   QM !    


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:That goes back to

BMcD wrote:

That goes back to my earlier question: I haven't come across unicorns filling that role in western mythology. If your reference for unicorns filling that role comes from the qilin, then we're back to the 'not actually a unicorn' problem, and so the similarity between unicorns and qilin in their roles breaks down, because you're using the same creature for both sides of the equation. It's not so much the question of 'does a messenger always have to be a horse', but rather 'unicorns as heralds/messengers isn't a concept that comes up at all'.

Oh dear, I've really gotten myself into it now, haven't I.  Would you mind BMac, if I just admit defeat here and retract my assertion that unicorns and angels are equal symbols. I'll state a couple of reasons.

For one, I probably did speak out of turn there because it was based on my own personal private study, not done in any professional capacity, and two I didn't intend it to go as far as to be questioned in a way that would take us this far off topic. For those reasons I concede I should not have asserted it at all and I apologise.

If it is, yet, to your interest the general idea of horses/unicorns and angels as comparative symbols is not really original to me, I was introduced to it by a Rosicrucian scholar and you'll find it outlined in essays and works by Charles Williams (another inkling), Rudolf Steiner and Max Hiendel.

Also if you'd like me to, I will write an essay, which will be long and could take a few days, on the evolution of the angelic symbol to unicorns and post it in a new thread for you. You can then pick apart the reasoning at your leisure. Nordmann you'd be welcome to join in. Smiling Sound OK?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now, Kevin can toss

Quote:

Now, Kevin can toss around all of the completely newly-minted words he likes, but even those don't actually demonstrate conception of things that don't exist. All they demonstrate is that if such things can be conceived, then communicating those new concepts is impossible without using things that exist as a common reference. Which isn't to say it can be shown that he hasn't conceived of something with no basis in existence, just that that is where the attempt to demonstrate conception of things with no basis in existence breaks down: There's no way to communicate such a conception short of direct telepathy. And I don't think Kevin's got that one down yet. :/

Nonsense.

Writing = telepathy. When you read the word 'Shootle', and that it is 'Gratooshed of Spittacles', your mind is going to put an image in your head (whether you'll admit it or not). If you read 'Jabberwocky', even though much of the language is nonsense, the narrative is quite easy to follow. By simply saying the word to you I've communicated the idea; what you make of it isn't going to be the same as what I make of it, because the word 'Shootle' and it's descriptors are nonsensical - but claiming it's 'impossible to communicate' is a joke.

 

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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Are you

Nordmann wrote:

Are you saying that you have found evidence to support a view that the western idea of a unicorn includes the notion that the horse part symbolises a messenger? Where did you find it? I studied mythology as part of my classics course some years ago and have never heard of this. We learnt then that the unicorn has a long pedigree in western myth, and in fact has its roots in various separate cycles. Its symbolism has indeed developed through its usage by various cultures but at no point has it ever symbolised "herald", at least to my knowledge. Instead of just chucking out this statement and expecting us all to accept it as true, even when it flies in the face of accepted wisdom on the matter, can you not justify it?

I've been saying that I never intended to justify it on this thread. I think if you look again at the way I presented it originally you'll see that I really wasn't trying to make a material point in the present discussion with it. I only meant it as a little aside curiosity, and I cannot admit enough that it was a poorly chosen one, I should have picked something less contentious. However, it's too late now it's posted and you wanted to know why I believe it. The problem with that is that it would take a long post examining numerous parallel myths to establish it, and even then, I'm not confident that you would be interested enough in the methods of comparative theology to actually read it; as opposed to proofread it. Sticking out tongue

 

 

Nordmann wrote:

My description of god as belonging to myth is not "special pleading" either.

Okay, I am definitely not saying that a description of God belonging to myth is any kind of special pleading, of itself. I hope that's clear between us.  God belonging to myth is not special pleading.

Myth having no capacity to meaningfully refer to the real world because it is fiction, while it is widely accepted and assumed that works of fiction can and do refer meaningfully to the real world - is special pleading.

And to say that the only reference myth can possibly have to the real world is the illustration of a gap in scientific knowledge between temporally spaced civilisations is the same kind of special pleading.  It's like saying that Star Trek could never have been an artistic platform of philosophical and political commentary because the writers didn't know that warp drive can't exist. The gap doesn't explain what the artist was talking about, and it most certainly doesn't provide any substantiation that they were not talking about anything meaningful.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Proof-reading is identifying

Proof-reading is identifying and correcting the mistakes an author did not intend to write. Questioning apparently unsubstantiable assertions is quite a different exercise. For one thing, if it is required a lot in response to an author's output and results in retractions, further material that requires interrogation and evasive answers, then it calls into question the author's intentions themselves, and rarely in a manner that supports the author's integrity.

And can you point out any statement by anybody in this particular discussion who made the claim that myth has no capacity to meaningfully refer to the real world, let alone that it cannot but that popular fiction can? The issue was not that myth fails to correspond with reality but that its distortions of reality once served a useful purpose for people ignorant of basic scientific principles and that this purpose, if continually asserted by some people after that ignorance has been generally dispelled in society, suggests that something quite other than searching for truth lies at the root of their insistence on perpetuating it. If, as you claim, myth served another purpose I would be glad to discuss that assertion, as long as we agree at the outset that its role in establishing cultural identity, communal bonding and philosophical starting points from which discussion could eventually lead to more correct analysis of reality were never its purpose but a product of its presence. Other intellectual and social processes in any case achieved these things better, and many of these - such as formal education for example - had practically no other significant purpose.

Myths, and especially widely accepted myths that formed the basis of organised religion, were a stepping stone in intellectual development. As their relevance in that respect has declined, the defence used to perpetuate their acceptance as current and valid has of necessity retreated into obfuscation, empty assertion and other anti-intellectual arguments.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Proof-reading

Nordmann wrote:

Proof-reading is identifying and correcting the mistakes an author did not intend to write. Questioning apparently unsubstantiable assertions is quite a different exercise. For one thing, if it is required a lot in response to an author's output and results in retractions, further material that requires interrogation and evasive answers, then it calls into question the author's intentions themselves, and rarely in a manner that supports the author's integrity.

You confuse casting spurious aspersions on a persons character with valid logical questioning, Nordmann. I'm not saying that you haven't asked any pertinent questions of me, but that you have only done so is not a completely honest appraisal of your contribution to this discussion now, is it.

 

Nordmann wrote:

And can you point out any statement by anybody in this particular discussion who made the claim that myth has no capacity to meaningfully refer to the real world, let alone that it cannot but that popular fiction can?

You're arguing unfairly Nordmann, I'm addressing a generally held and basic assumption that because myth is fiction it is 'only' fiction, and thus epistemologically bankrupt. Surely, you cannot say that you haven't addressed general assumptions before. I don't see how it is antagonistic to presume that atheists in general disbelieve mythology corresponds meaningfully to reality. I can only assume that you want to find contention where it doesn't exist for some reason.

Nordmann wrote:

The issue was not that myth fails to correspond with reality but that its distortions of reality once served a useful purpose for people ignorant of basic scientific principles and that this purpose, if continually asserted by some people after that ignorance has been generally dispelled in society, suggests that something quite other than searching for truth lies at the root of their insistence on perpetuating it.

If you have any inclination to believe that we may agree on something, you might be able to see that we agree on this.

Nordmann wrote:

If, as you claim, myth served another purpose I would be glad to discuss that assertion, as long as we agree at the outset that its role in establishing cultural identity, communal bonding and philosophical starting points from which discussion could eventually lead to more correct analysis of reality were never its purpose but a product of its presence.

I'm not entirely sure I can adhere to that agreement. I do believe that it is a natural process of human evolution that sketchily defined and sensed ideals are projected into culture through symbolic imagery and that symbolic imagery makes a genuine material contribution to the eventual actualisation of that ideal into formal culture.

Nordmann wrote:

Other intellectual and social processes in any case achieved these things better, and many of these - such as formal education for example - had practically no other significant purpose.

I would suggest that those other intellectual and social processes were introduced into culture symbolically and through artistic platform at their conception to be processed into the logically explicit form in which they now exist.

Nordmann wrote:

Myths, and especially widely accepted myths that formed the basis of organised religion, were a stepping stone in intellectual development. As their relevance in that respect has declined, the defence used to perpetuate their acceptance as current and valid has of necessity retreated into obfuscation, empty assertion and other anti-intellectual arguments.

I sure hope you aren't levelling that charge at me. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Nonsense.

Writing = telepathy. When you read the word 'Shootle', and that it is 'Gratooshed of Spittacles', your mind is going to put an image in your head (whether you'll admit it or not). If you read 'Jabberwocky', even though much of the language is nonsense, the narrative is quite easy to follow. By simply saying the word to you I've communicated the idea; what you make of it isn't going to be the same as what I make of it, because the word 'Shootle' and it's descriptors are nonsensical - but claiming it's 'impossible to communicate' is a joke.

But then you've not communicated the idea, just the label for the idea. Jabberwocky is indeed partially nonsense,  but the nonsense is surrounded with referents that let us catch a hint of the concepts. If the image that forms in my mind isn't the one in yours, you haven't communicated the concept, because the concept in my mind (which will be based on my own experiences, which are things that exist) isn't the one in yours.

It's like speaking to someone in a language they don't understand: you can throw the words at them all day long, but until you are transmitting to them an idea which they are understanding as the same idea you're intending to convey, you're not communicating. You're just making noise.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Oh dear, I've

Eloise wrote:

Oh dear, I've really gotten myself into it now, haven't I.  Would you mind BMac, if I just admit defeat here and retract my assertion that unicorns and angels are equal symbols.

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to make a big deal about it, though obviously I failed in not doing so (oops), I was just curious, and well, my curiosity gets the best of me... a lot. Smiling I'll look into those essays, though, thanks!

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
We unavoidably and

We unavoidably and inescapably live as the Karma of myth !       < ----- SEE  

                                   WE are Magic !!!!!!!    

                     What isn't magical this ignorant day ! ?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Eloise wrote:Oh

BMcD wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Oh dear, I've really gotten myself into it now, haven't I.  Would you mind BMac, if I just admit defeat here and retract my assertion that unicorns and angels are equal symbols.

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to make a big deal about it, though obviously I failed in not doing so (oops), I was just curious, and well, my curiosity gets the best of me... a lot. Smiling I'll look into those essays, though, thanks!

I must apologise again, BMcD because I didn't mean for you to get the impression that I haven't appreciated your genuine interest in what I proposed. I would like to answer your questions and I have begun to several times, then thought better of making this thread into an esoteric study group and stopped. 

Anyhow, the offer stands for me to write it out for you, and perhaps I could post it in Rook's mythicist section where I think it would belong, he might even want to critique the historicity for me, which could be fun and enlightening.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Eloise, but who here

Yes, Eloise, but who here made the claim that myth is only fiction and therefore epistemologically bankrupt? And who ever has? Epistomology, as you know yourself I'm sure, is a suitably vague if grandiose way of saying that something contributes or has contributed to knowledge, but without really saying how.

 

You compound this omission of exact meaning in what you say by then levelling a charge against atheists in general, saying that they are more likely to dismiss myth as irrelevant as to see any merit in it. Only a very foolish person would claim that myth did not play a role in advancing knowledge since it was, for a long time, the repository for many of the more abstract but necessary concepts required to make sense of one's surroundings. In as far as anything common can be attributed to atheists except disbelief in deity I would say from my own experience that the opposite is true. Atheists, who can roughly also be grouped as likely to include a fair number who are sceptical about unfounded assertions, generally also therefore have quite a knowledge and intellectual appreciation of mythology and are in no way dismissive of its impact. Just look at Rook's disseminations on this site, or indeed the reasoned arguments presented by many others as to why they abandoned blind belief in favour of rationality. One cannot deconstruct delusion without first acknowledging its source and assessing it in terms of its historical impact and its current power to delude. This in itself acknowledges mythology's epistomological role, but should not be confused with any subsequent evaluation by the atheist of the quality or antiquity of the knowledge referred to.

 

Your suggestion that other forms of intellectual and socially evolutionary processes originated in more symbolic cultural forms before evolving into what you call a logically explicit form is too vague also to stand unsupported. While it could well be true of, say, medical understanding and application, it falls short as a generalisation when applied to political expression. But that is almost a whole other topic - and overlaps with mythology without really contributing to the discussion in hand.

 

I am sorry to hear that you think I am interested in casting aspersions on your character. I am not. I am casting huge aspersions on your stated assertions - and rightly so, in my book. They deserve it, and all the more so since they are expressed with some rather big words which, to many people unfortunately, are enough in themselves to convince them that the person is making something more than mere assertion. When you do so, I acknowledge it.

 

And no, I do not believe that you posit anti-intellectual arguments. But your views succour those who do, and who do not have the vocabulary (or intelligence) to rise much above gainsay. If anything, I am valiantly attempting to sve you from inadvertently becoming their spokesperson! Gallant man that I am

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Just a thoughtIs life not an

Just a thought

Is life not an obsession?

Who would dare claim life a gift?

Who would need to prove?

Unless LIFE was a bitch

What non sense this god of love is

God is hate too

Confusion is our problem

Born to ask while never before asking

What answer to the question of why would satisfy? 

How does one find peace?

Is peace possible?

-------------------------------------------

I say these words because I AM GOD , and then I asked WHY , and began to laugh !


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Yes, Eloise,

Nordmann wrote:

Yes, Eloise, but who here made the claim that myth is only fiction and therefore epistemologically bankrupt? And who ever has? Epistomology, as you know yourself I'm sure, is a suitably vague if grandiose way of saying that something contributes or has contributed to knowledge, but without really saying how.

Yes, but I hope you'll understand that the reasons I am not elaborating on the 'hows' of epistemic value in myth/legend is plain and simply it's too long and involved and not the subject of this thread.  My point here was to show that conceivability to possibility gives credence to the essential point that they (myths) do have value which is not readily recognised.

Nordmann wrote:

You compound this omission of exact meaning in what you say by then levelling a charge against atheists in general, saying that they are more likely to dismiss myth as irrelevant as to see any merit in it. Only a very foolish person would claim that myth did not play a role in advancing knowledge since it was, for a long time, the repository for many of the more abstract but necessary concepts required to make sense of one's surroundings. In as far as anything common can be attributed to atheists except disbelief in deity I would say from my own experience that the opposite is true. Atheists, who can roughly also be grouped as likely to include a fair number who are sceptical about unfounded assertions, generally also therefore have quite a knowledge and intellectual appreciation of mythology and are in no way dismissive of its impact. Just look at Rook's disseminations on this site, or indeed the reasoned arguments presented by many others as to why they abandoned blind belief in favour of rationality. One cannot deconstruct delusion without first acknowledging its source and assessing it in terms of its historical impact and its current power to delude. This in itself acknowledges mythology's epistomological role, but should not be confused with any subsequent evaluation by the atheist of the quality or antiquity of the knowledge referred to.

 

Ok, I stand corrected. I'm still hesitant to believe that the average secular person is able to see far beyond attributing myth purely to ignorance and delusion, but I accept that it can't always be the case and I apologise for any prejudice I might have just demonstrated by that comment.

 

Nordmann wrote:

Your suggestion that other forms of intellectual and socially evolutionary processes originated in more symbolic cultural forms before evolving into what you call a logically explicit form is too vague also to stand unsupported. While it could well be true of, say, medical understanding and application, it falls short as a generalisation when applied to political expression. But that is almost a whole other topic - and overlaps with mythology without really contributing to the discussion in hand.

Just on that, as I was looking over my last post just now I noticed that I failed to finish making the point I had intended with this sentence:

"I do believe that it is a natural process of human evolution that sketchily defined and sensed ideals are projected into culture through symbolic imagery and that symbolic imagery makes a genuine material contribution to the eventual actualisation of that ideal into formal culture."

Naturally I meant for that to relate back to the quoted text and I forgot to do that. So for clarity the above should be followed by : hence I mean that I cannot promise to uphold that agreement because I believe that the actualisation of an envisioned ideal was the intended purpose and role of symbolic imagery.

Aside from that, as I said earlier, I would welcome your comments on my beliefs regarding how myth and legend does and moreover can potentially still contribute to human knowledge, but I think it belongs to another discussion and another time when I am not posting here distractedly.

Nordmann wrote:

I am sorry to hear that you think I am interested in casting aspersions on your character. I am not. I am casting huge aspersions on your stated assertions - and rightly so, in my book. They deserve it, and all the more so since they are expressed with some rather big words which, to many people unfortunately, are enough in themselves to convince them that the person is making something more than mere assertion. When you do so, I acknowledge it.

 

And no, I do not believe that you posit anti-intellectual arguments. But your views succour those who do, and who do not have the vocabulary (or intelligence) to rise much above gainsay. If anything, I am valiantly attempting to sve you from inadvertently becoming their spokesperson! Gallant man that I am

nuff said. Thanks.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Aside from that, as I

Quote:

Aside from that, as I said earlier, I would welcome your comments on my beliefs regarding how myth and legend does and moreover can potentially still contribute to human knowledge, but I think it belongs to another discussion and another time when I am not posting here distractedly.

 

I too would welcome that thread - though you might be surprised to learn that I agree with your point completely and it might make for a rather less robust discussion than you had anticipated, though one can never be sure around here.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I found some horses !

I found some horses !   WITH music     

IRON BUTTERFLY THEME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qkcwBsKizU

       Eloise    

   This is symbolic ....

i kissed a girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ZEE9jpIic

Then flip the coin, better yet , watch it spin ..... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SDVQ0D95Ac&NR=1

                            Be a Healer

 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Eloise wrote:In

shikko wrote:

Eloise wrote:

In defense of C.S. Lewis (cause I like him and his stories) and 'conceivability to possibility' in the argument from reason; the Furger Argorock is a conception of existing things -toothlessness, flying, sharks, camel fur, appetites, rejuvenation methods.. these all exist. I would contend that this is the key point of the original arguments, that conception of things that have no existing referent isn't something we humans do, the caller was using it in ignorance, but in a curious coincidence I was just yesterday discussing something really similar to this question of conceivability here.

I will be the first to admit that I am not much of a philosopher, so forgive me if this question has an immediate answer which has not occurred to me:

Shikko I apologise much for not noticing this before now, I was distracted. But what a great question.

Shikko wrote:

What of the case where we can conceive of a thing which is impossible?  E.g., we can consider the idea for an equation to "square the circle", even though it has been proven to be impossible (i.e., it has been proven that no such solution can exist). 

The thing is that we are not conceiving of it. I mean, can you conceive of how a square can be circled - without invoking the math here, without even saying 'because we know pi is irrational we can't define the lengths of the sides' etc. - consider a circle that is, in the same, a square?

It's just invoking cognitive dissonance, a thought void. So what we are conceiving of in squaring the circle is a raw computational 'power' capable of bridging the void between two starkly dual concepts. Ancient geometers supposed such a mental attribute could put one on par with God and this is how squaring the circle came to be synonymous with cracking Gods code. At least that's how I see it.

 

Shikko wrote:

In this case, we have an existing referent (squares, circles, equations, etc.) for a process which has been proven to be impossible.  We can envision paradoxes and contradictions, even though the things which lead to them cannot exist, but we can consider for a moment that they do.  Does this qualify as envisioning something with no existing referent?

It seems to qualify, I agree. A paradox appears to qualify as conceiving something that cannot refer to anything but it's always possible that we are merely conceiving of the limits of existence since we do not, wherever we declare paradox or impossibility, have conceptions to speak of that go beyond those limits.

I'll disagree with you a bit and say things that lead to paradoxes do always appear to have existence, though; in the case of squaring the circle, for example, a circle is a closed finitely divisible space, it is intuitively given that it is possible to divide it into finite pieces. The only way to do this is by a transcendent number but dividing finitely by transcendent numbers isn't heuristically conceivable so we don't really have a conception of what, realistically, is no less than a given. Instead we have a thought void in which we suppose a conception must necessarily exist if the geometry of space which we see empirically is as real as it looks. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Shikko I

Eloise wrote:

Shikko I apologise much for not noticing this before now, I was distracted. But what a great question.

No worries!  I appreciate you taking the time after all.

Eloise wrote:

Shikko wrote:

What of the case where we can conceive of a thing which is impossible?  E.g., we can consider the idea for an equation to "square the circle", even though it has been proven to be impossible (i.e., it has been proven that no such solution can exist). 

The thing is that we are not conceiving of it. I mean, can you conceive of how a square can be circled - without invoking the math here, without even saying 'because we know pi is irrational we can't define the lengths of the sides' etc. - consider a circle that is, in the same, a square?

It's just invoking cognitive dissonance, a thought void. So what we are conceiving of in squaring the circle is a raw computational 'power' capable of bridging the void between two starkly dual concepts. Ancient geometers supposed such a mental attribute could put one on par with God and this is how squaring the circle came to be synonymous with cracking Gods code. At least that's how I see it.

I think I need to do a better job of explaining: we can conceive of an equation that has been proven non-existent.  Yes, we may not be able to imagine the terms individually, but we can think of something along the lines of "f(x) = (pi/r^-2)- ..." which will return a value for x, even though we know this equation cannot acutally exist.

Is the devil in the details?  Does this mean that since the construction cannot be envisaged in specific detail mean it doesn't meet the criteria?  We can think of the things separately, but the sum is lesser than the whole, given that the whole cannot possibly exist.

Quote:

Shikko wrote:

In this case, we have an existing referent (squares, circles, equations, etc.) for a process which has been proven to be impossible.  We can envision paradoxes and contradictions, even though the things which lead to them cannot exist, but we can consider for a moment that they do.  Does this qualify as envisioning something with no existing referent?

It seems to qualify, I agree. A paradox appears to qualify as conceiving something that cannot refer to anything but it's always possible that we are merely conceiving of the limits of existence since we do not, wherever we declare paradox or impossibility, have conceptions to speak of that go beyond those limits.

Surely something that is beyond "the limits of existence" cannot exist in the known universe, by definition, no?  So by declaring that we lack the language to describe that something since it is outside the bounds of the universe, is to necessarily admit that the something cannot exist in the universe.  Did I err somewhere in that?

Thanks much for your input.

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:I think I need

shikko wrote:

I think I need to do a better job of explaining: we can conceive of an equation that has been proven non-existent.  Yes, we may not be able to imagine the terms individually, but we can think of something along the lines of "f(x) = (pi/r^-2)- ..." which will return a value for x, even though we know this equation cannot acutally exist.

Is the devil in the details?  Does this mean that since the construction cannot be envisaged in specific detail mean it doesn't meet the criteria?  We can think of the things separately, but the sum is lesser than the whole, given that the whole cannot possibly exist.

I think in this case, Shikko, that you've answered yourself: Even if the final completed construction cannot exist, it remains rooted in things that, in our experiences, do exist.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:I think I need

shikko wrote:

I think I need to do a better job of explaining: we can conceive of an equation that has been proven non-existent.  Yes, we may not be able to imagine the terms individually, but we can think of something along the lines of "f(x) = (pi/r^-2)- ..." which will return a value for x, even though we know this equation cannot acutally exist.

A minor nitpick here, that I wasn't going to post in full.. but on second thought it probably should be made clear at this point- the equation you've written there would return a value for f(x) rather than x, they aren't the same thing, conventionally f(x)=y where x is the variable which you plug a value into to return the different values of y. also specifically that equation which you've written is a function of r so it would be f(r) anyway.

But going on with that line of thought, an equation for squaring the circle would look something like this:

pi(r^2) = s^2

solve for s

sqrt(pi(r^2)) = r*sqrt(pi) = s

Thus a unit circle has an equal area to a square with sqrt(pi) sides, but because pi is transcendent there's no telling what value those sides would have. The square could not technically exist, but you could draw some arbitrarily close approximation using a rational number close to root(pi)

The value of root(pi) isn't non-existent, per se. Pi is transcendental which basically means there is no final decimal number to it, without a final number one can't calculate a square root. Basically what it means is that you could start drawing a side of a circle/square to about a length 1.77 but you couldn't finish it to the satisfaction of the equation because the transcendence of pi requires you to continue drawing the line at ever decreasing intervals forever. So the value of root pi exists, but you cannot, even given an infinite amount of time to do so, pin it down to a discrete value.

 

Shikko wrote:

Is the devil in the details?  Does this mean that since the construction cannot be envisaged in specific detail mean it doesn't meet the criteria?  We can think of the things separately, but the sum is lesser than the whole, given that the whole cannot possibly exist.

The conundrum is that the pi ratio is introduced geometrically to define a closed space. Pi* any line equals a perfect circle which surrounds the line completely, passing through its end points. You cannot accurately draw this circle in the sense that at the end of your drawing you must continue approaching the limit at the join forever. In this sense it is impossible for a perfect circle area to be closed in a finite time. It's almost as though a circle cannot exist, we cannot know a circle since by it's definition it is a closed space with a perimeter given by a ratio of pi to it's width/height and no such space can ever be closed.

So it's not that we cannot perceive of it in any specific detail, we can conceive of the detail quite well, it's that this detail mocks the empirical basis which we have used to achieve our understanding of it. This is what makes it a paradox rather than a conception of something which doesn't exist. What we have is a group of conceptions of things that exist which don't fit together perfectly in the abstract. From it we can suppose that one (or more) of our explanations is missing some key fact about the real universe, but it doesn't affect that the individual conceptions in the main are extrapolated from existing artefacts.

 

 

Shikko wrote:

Surely something that is beyond "the limits of existence" cannot exist in the known universe, by definition, no?  So by declaring that we lack the language to describe that something since it is outside the bounds of the universe, is to necessarily admit that the something cannot exist in the universe.  Did I err somewhere in that?

Thanks much for your input.

 

No it's not necessary to presume that if formal conceptions fail to mesh neatly that there must be nothing where the disaccord is found, we just might suppose that where our best instruments of logic encounter a contradiction that we have reached a limit of existence, even though it's not a completely sound conclusion. 

If we don't suppose a limit then we should rightly backtrack and assess the veracity of the instruments at that boundary and we might then discover that there is no contradiction where other instruments are used. 

However, in any case said instruments are conceptions of existing things, even if they are found to have been imprecise ones in light of review.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Just a

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Just a thought

Is life not an obsession?

Who would dare claim life a gift?

Who would need to prove?

Unless LIFE was a bitch

What non sense this god of love is

God is hate too

Confusion is our problem

Born to ask while never before asking

What answer to the question of why would satisfy? 

How does one find peace?

Is peace possible?

-------------------------------------------

I say these words because I AM GOD , and then I asked WHY , and began to laugh !

Very poetic iGod, I like it Smiling

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks so much

Thanks so much ronin-dog

     I hate it !  Life hurts alot, as you know .... 

     I want what the kids want !  WE could party and make fun all our goal .... that I will labor for .... working for fun  ....  

 


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
the Ontological argument

This is an example of an ontological argument for the existence of God, I don't know if CS Lewis ever made one up himself, but I've read several and my bet would be that his went a lot like the ones I have read by people like Descartes and Anslem.  Basically the Ontological argument is subtly very difficult to attack and yet intuitively you can feel that it's wrong.  the person presenting it in that sound clip botched it and made a very good straw man for you, no offense, he was wrong and you showed him the error very clearly.  But that's not the ontological argument.  the ontological argument is:

  1. God is that entity than which nothing can be greater.
  2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
  3. God exists in one's mind but not in reality.
  4. The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind.
  5. If God existed in reality, it would be a greater thing than God's existence in the mind.
  6. The final step to God's existence is that God in reality must exist.

This isn't anslem's argument exactly, and yes it was copy and pasted from Wikipedia.  Basically it's a little bit harder to show the error because it defines god in such a way that the argument proves its conclusion by definitional fiat.  God is the entity than which nothing can be greater.  Thus because we can concieve of God in the mind God must exist in real life because that's how he's defined.  Kant showed I think very well, though, that existence is not a property and this is where the argument really falls down.  It's not a property that can be switched on and off by reasoning.  Basically we can't really formulate arguments that show that something does or does not exist by toggling the existence property the way this argument does.  Existence is a state and there's no way to toggle a state in an argument.  The only way to make god exist of he doesn't would be to create him in reality.

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I have a huge quibble with

I have a huge quibble with point 4, since it allows every version of the concept that people have conceived (which I would suggest is phenomenally greater than the hundreds, if not thousands, which have received names and been broadcast in the past.)

 

What the ontological argument suggests to be purporting to me therefore is that all gods must exist. Or, if it denies one it must deny them all.

 

But you are right to shoot it down anyway on what constitutes existence. If we allow that anything exists just because we conceive it in our minds then we have at the very least yet another bad Schwarzenigger-type movie in the offing ...

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote: I have a

Nordmann wrote:

 

I have a huge quibble with point 4, since it allows every version of the concept that people have conceived (which I would suggest is phenomenally greater than the hundreds, if not thousands, which have received names and been broadcast in the past.)

 

What the ontological argument suggests to be purporting to me therefore is that all gods must exist. Or, if it denies one it must deny them all.

 

But you are right to shoot it down anyway on what constitutes existence. If we allow that anything exists just because we conceive it in our minds then we have at the very least yet another bad Schwarzenigger-type movie in the offing ...

And I hadn't even thought of that problem with point 4.  But I also have a problem with the assumption that something we can concieve of is essentially equal with something that exists.   Concieving of the greatest being in the world one that nothing better than it could exist doesn't necessarily mean that it must exist, because either your conception of it already is the greatest it can be, or your conception of it can't be equal to it.  If the entity were to exist it would be greater than your conception of it because it exists, but if it doesn't exist your conception of it already does.  It doesn't say that god had to be real just that nothing could be greater.  The conclusion from here assumes that god can exist, maybe god can't exist, then the argument fails.  The conception is the greatest thing there could be.  It would be more useful as proof if someone could actually prove that god can exist, but it would still fail because existence isn't a property that can be toggled on or off.

 

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
DeathMunkyGod wrote:The

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The concept of God exists in human understanding.

and

Quote:

The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind.

See, here's the simplest problem here: The concept of 'God' doesn't really exist in human understanding. The concept of 'God' partially exists in human awareness, but the concept itself is not understood.

Understanding the concept would necessitate being more complex than the concept, since our own complexity would include all of the complexity of the concept.

In turn, since 'God' is supposed to be the creator of the universe, God's complexity (having conceived of the universe) must be greater than the universe's.

The universe contains humanity. Thus, the universe's complexity exceeds humanity's, as humanity's complexity is part of the complexity of the universe.

Which leaves us with:

Human Complexity > God's Complexity > Universe's Complexity > Human Complexity.

Not possible.

Ergo, we cannot conceive of God. We can merely label really big swatches of 'WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?!?!?!?' as 'God'.

Which is consistent with experience: as science advances, God recedes.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Because our math and

Because our math and philosophical model of "why" is incomplete, and may always be, we have the word called "g-o-d", of many definitions.  So now what ?  Well when they asked a buddha what about god? , he laughed and said,  the question was basically pointless, so let's focus on improving the now, this moment we are in ... after all, what could not be g-o-d? 

I always liked that bit of folklore .... 

 


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
*starts designing a Furger Argorock plushie...*

Okay, the short version refuting Lewis' position: By definition god must be perfect, so if we can't conceive of anything more perfect then he must exist. Also by definition, a perfect being can do anything, but something that is perfectly good is incapable of doing evil, therefore god can either do everything OR is perfectly good, but not both. By the law of contradiction both can't be true, but by Lewis' assertation both have to be true, and so Lewis' argument must be false. QED.

As for something of which the human mind can conceive but doesn't exist: negative numbers. Have you ever held less than zero of something? What does it look like if you are holding only two pennies in your hand and someone takes three pennies out of that hand?

I still like the Furger Argorock argument better.

(Note: I didn't read the whole thread before I posted this - a bit hippocritical considering my epic-tome-sized Letter to a Christian Father thread, but I did it anyways >:D )

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider wrote:Okay,

Mazid the Raider wrote:

Okay, the short version refuting Lewis' position: By definition god must be perfect, so if we can't conceive of anything more perfect then he must exist. Also by definition, a perfect being can do anything, but something that is perfectly good is incapable of doing evil, therefore god can either do everything OR is perfectly good, but not both. By the law of contradiction both can't be true, but by Lewis' assertation both have to be true, and so Lewis' argument must be false. QED.

Nope. Sorry, got a hole to poke in this one: If you're incapable of choosing to do evil, you're not 'good', you simply don't have the choice. What makes good 'good' is the decision to not do evil. Ergo, a perfectly good being must have the capacity to do evil, but the moral strength to choose not to every time.

 

Quote:

As for something of which the human mind can conceive but doesn't exist: negative numbers. Have you ever held less than zero of something? What does it look like if you are holding only two pennies in your hand and someone takes three pennies out of that hand?

Except that negative numbers are an abstraction based on existing experience: subtraction/removal. If I can have 3 things, and take away 1, I have 2. So, what was the change in the amount? 1 less. Expressed only mathematically, -1. Thus, the negative number still falls under the category of 'based in existence'.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider wrote:As

Mazid the Raider wrote:

 What does it look like if you are holding only two pennies in your hand and someone takes three pennies out of that hand?

Pretty grim usually, it's called debt.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Not quite...

Good point, BMcD. I originally wrote out something a little better than that, but I Firefox crashed and I lost everything and didn't really want to bother redoing it all.

But if negative numbers are too concrete for you two, perhaps the square root of -1 is better? All the same, negative numbers have no meaning outside the human mind - differences in quantities in physical substances, particularly chemiosmotic pressures (and the like), obviously have real impact, but once again the concept of less than nothing seems to be an artifact of the human mind.

Eloise - no, not taking two pennies and saying that you owe another, physically removing three of something when there are only two to remove without adding more pennies to the system or jotting down an IOU.

All the same, does anyone here really take that arguments seriously? By definition a god can do anything of which we can conceive, but as BMcD points out he wouldn't do evil; but could he create a burrito so big that even he couldn't eat it all? I know it's a flippant argument, but trying to define a god into existence leaves open gaping holes in the logic, through which it would be irresponsible and absurd not to drive home the obvious.

An important flaw is that if a god exists than he does do evil: if he has the attributes often attributed to such higher beings than he knows everything in all the history of eternity, created everything that exists and ever will, and obviously designed everything to happen exactly the way it does and has and will. Illusion of self-determination or no, god must have planned it all out from the get-go. The problem is that this means that not only did he plan the whole Garden of Eden thing, but he designed the whole set-up to go horribly... not wrong, because it worked perfectly, only horribly - so that all of mankind fell from grace because the serpent tricked some people into eating some fruit. Oh, but wait! The devil tricked them, not god! Oh, but wait; god created the devil too, and designed him to stage a coup and fail and be forced from heaven and be the scape-goat for all eternity. Therefore every bad thing from one end of eternity to the absolute other end that happens to anyone ever - including all the suffering in hell for which, if there was such thing as a god, I would have been created for the express purpose of experiencing forever - is directly attributable to god. Therefore god is not perfectly good, and so of course fails to meet the definition required to define him into existence.

Does that settle a little better?

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider wrote:Good

Mazid the Raider wrote:

Good point, BMcD. I originally wrote out something a little better than that, but I Firefox crashed and I lost everything and didn't really want to bother redoing it all.

No worries. Smiling

Quote:
But if negative numbers are too concrete for you two, perhaps the square root of -1 is better? All the same, negative numbers have no meaning outside the human mind - differences in quantities in physical substances, particularly chemiosmotic pressures (and the like), obviously have real impact, but once again the concept of less than nothing seems to be an artifact of the human mind.

Ah, but still, imaginary numbers still have their roots in actual things, or at least, in experienced things, ie: in quantities. It's a matter of abstraction. '2' is an abstraction. '2' doesn't exist on its own, it's really a descriptor of 'how many?' But once we're capable of working on an abstract level, we can deal with '2' without worrying about '2 what?'. Similarly, the concept of 'square root' is based on the concept of the 'square' (mathematical, not geometrical, obviously). 'Square Root' is simply a shorthand for 'quantity for which X is the square'. While we are combining a number of abstractions (quantity as independent from physical objects, negative numbers, and square/square root), the process is all rooted in something experienced: I have two thumbs, for example.

The idea isn't that we can't conceive of anything that doesn't actually exist, it's that we cannot conceive of something that isn't rooted in things that exist. Everything we think of is, really, something we've made out of the things we encounter around us.

Quote:

All the same, does anyone here really take that arguments seriously? By definition a god can do anything of which we can conceive, but as BMcD points out he wouldn't do evil; but could he create a burrito so big that even he couldn't eat it all? I know it's a flippant argument, but trying to define a god into existence leaves open gaping holes in the logic, through which it would be irresponsible and absurd not to drive home the obvious.

Actually, there's a whole 'nother thread on the 'rock so big he can't lift it' question. Over there, I basically said that yes, God could, but in order to do so, he'd have to make the rock, and then limit himself to being unable to lift it. In this case, he could make the burrito, but he'd have to then make himself unable to eat it all. In doing so, he'd be ceding his omnipotence, and would be unable to regain it, ever, because by having the option of regaining the omnipotence in the future, he retains the capability of lifting the rock or eating the burrito, he's simply not exercizing it.

So, as I said there, he could... but in order to do so, he'd have to stop being God. Just like evil, to be what God is claimed to be, he'd have to have the capacity, but never exercise it.

Quote:

An important flaw is that if a god exists than he does do evil: if he has the attributes often attributed to such higher beings than he knows everything in all the history of eternity, created everything that exists and ever will, and obviously designed everything to happen exactly the way it does and has and will. Illusion of self-determination or no, god must have planned it all out from the get-go. The problem is that this means that not only did he plan the whole Garden of Eden thing, but he designed the whole set-up to go horribly... not wrong, because it worked perfectly, only horribly - so that all of mankind fell from grace because the serpent tricked some people into eating some fruit. Oh, but wait! The devil tricked them, not god! Oh, but wait; god created the devil too, and designed him to stage a coup and fail and be forced from heaven and be the scape-goat for all eternity. Therefore every bad thing from one end of eternity to the absolute other end that happens to anyone ever - including all the suffering in hell for which, if there was such thing as a god, I would have been created for the express purpose of experiencing forever - is directly attributable to god. Therefore god is not perfectly good, and so of course fails to meet the definition required to define him into existence.

Does that settle a little better?

Actually, it gets better than that. If you doublecheck the bible, Satan is never shown to do anything that's not God's Will. The only time we see his motives at all is Job, and in that instance, he quite clearly goes to God, as a good Prosecutor is supposed to do, and asks permission to put Job on trial.

Nor, in fact, is Satan, or even Sammael (NOT the hellhound from the first Hellboy movie...), the seraph often considered to hold the position of 'Satan' (it's a job title, btw, not a name) among those who Fall as recounted in the Book of Enoch. The rebellion is lead by Azazel (yes, from the Denzel Washington movie), and creates the Nephilim (yes, from the second Prophecy movie), but neither 'Satan', nor Sammael, are listed.

So really, there's nothing at all to suggest that Genesis doesn't unfold exactly the way God wants it to. But... are you ready for the kick in the pants? "Good", from the theological position, is defined by God. God will always do Good, because Good is whatever God says it is.

Sadism... now, that's another thing entirely... and I'd have to say that the God of the Genesis account is one major sadist. Probably also a drunk and a wife-batterer. And a pedophile. I mean, not for nothing, but Adam and Eve were what? 1, maybe 2 DAYS old when he tells 'em to 'be fruitful and multiply'?

Sick fucker.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Actually, it gets

BMcD wrote:
Actually, it gets better than that. If you doublecheck the bible, Satan is never shown to do anything that's not God's Will.

That's exactly my point - if there is a god then EVERYthing is going EXACTLY according to plan by definition - and that plan includes every evil thing which ever happened, all caused directly by god.

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider wrote:BMcD

Mazid the Raider wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Actually, it gets better than that. If you doublecheck the bible, Satan is never shown to do anything that's not God's Will.

That's exactly my point - if there is a god then EVERYthing is going EXACTLY according to plan by definition - and that plan includes every evil thing which ever happened, all caused directly by god.

Right! But they're not evil, they're good, because God said so. Like I said, he's one sick bastard.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Elvithrarr
Elvithrarr's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-08-24
User is offlineOffline
I can conceive an all power

I can conceive an all power full being completely dedicated to me that would appear before me in a flash of light in a physical form holding in one hand a key that would grant me all the power I desired and in the other a pizza shaped like an object with no shape... He would make sure I got the key and stand before me until I took it making sure I could see him and trying to give me said key.  I can also conceive of child in Florida who is born normal size but after delivery grows until he is the size of an elephant and he turns the sky into a green and red checker boarded patten then draws a smiley face on the moon....
 

I can also imagine a sudden flash of light across the entire planet that is destined to happen at 12am tonight that causes people to become enlightened and do away with religion.
 

I can imagine contradicting things..... what happens with that? does the universe disappear? luckily my mind imagined my mind causing stopping my mind from destroying the universe...

 

 

If peoples minds had this kind of power, stray thoughts would have destroyed us long ago. It may be true that we are likely to imagine things that are actually part of our world or could exist or just have characteristics of existence, but the human mind is capable of creating concepts beyond reality.
 

 


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
LMFAO! To be fair i don't

LMFAO! To be fair i don't think he knew what the word conceive means. one of my favorite conceptions are the Aliens from the Alien movie.

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Upon editing a

Sapient wrote:

Upon editing a show today I stumbled across a funny short segment.  I'm digging through almost 60 hours of unedited content, and working on having around 100 hours of fresh content available by years end.  Subscribers, please stick with us as I work to bring you tons of new material. 

Here is the short clip... meet the Furger Argorock...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/Furger-Argorock.mp3

 

Furger-Argorock's?  I'm not sure they exist.  Can you get me some evidence?

 

Because as far as I know, they became extinct during the Great Mitigation of 2052. It hasn't happened yet in our time, but because I can conceive of it, it is true.

 

Gee! This is fun!  Now I can see why the religious love this stuff. They can say whatever they want, intone it in a deep voice and threaten bad things for not believing it and laugh all the way to the bank.

The guys who first came up with Hinduism or Xianity must have been secretely laughing their asses off!

 

"Um,  yeah... (snicker)... and, ah, then he made 5 thousand fish and 2000 loaves of bread appear and fed.. no wait, he only had FIVE loaves and TWO fish! (snicker)... hehehee... then he walked across water and stuff (tee hee hee).  Oh, and did I tell you his mother was a virgin! Ahhh, think about it! And his father was a enuch!  No, wait, no, no, that's crazy - just the virgin part is true. Really, you can trust me... (snicker).... Oh, and you'll burn in Hell if you don't believe me! (snerkle!!!)"

 

Obvioulsy, the Hindu guy had a better imagination, more gullible crowd or was more convincing  - are all three: A Trinity of sorts....

 

 

 

 

BTW, eloise, it seems you are arguing for two possible outcomes but not picking one, but leaving yourself open:

 

1. That the term "god" (in the Ont. Argument) means something (Perfection, etc. - that is, something we can conceive of even if it doesn't exist) - that is, the term is "meaningful".  This Necessarily means it is derivative.

2. That the term "god" is not derivative (like vampires, etc) which Necessarily means it is meaningless.  Then, the term "god" is just a meaningless guttural noise that has the appearance of meaning only because we can conceive of a collection of non sequiturs, or unrelated items (perfection, existence, etc.) and create a Set (and call it "god&quotEye-wink.

 

It seems that, while you have a lot of philosophical background to think through this, your preconceptions require you to spin this argument so fast that you are creating enough centrifugal force to send you reeling out of the argument and off drifting in space, IMO.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Anonymous BRO (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Argorock

I think the point is missed entirely.  You drew upon experiences which already exists and simply gave it a name.  You previously knew of Sharks, flying objects and different sounds and letters to be blended together give this thing a name(furger-Argorok) There is nothing new here. 

If you could conceive of something outside existence you would be able to describe it.

Man cannot create ANYTHING not even a new thought.  He had to experience something.  Think of a new color without using existing colors....if you can.

All these things already exists.  All these things have been experienced. 

 

Reason is born of experience.

 

Therefore, if man cannot create ideas or reason outside of our experiences then where did the idea of GOD come from???

 

ANSWER: By logic we had to have experienced him.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This is just a bullshit

This is just a bullshit game. We know of consciousness, power and knowledge. We know of the concept of infinity through mathematics. So we just combine consciousness with infinite power and knowledge to get the god concept.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 G 'A W E' D we are ....

 G 'A W E' D  we are ....


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There is nothing new

Quote:
There is nothing new here.
 

What about the name?

Quote:
Therefore, if man cannot create ideas or reason outside of our experiences then where did the idea of GOD come from??? ANSWER: By logic we had to have experienced him.

Wow.......you should get some kind of award for this.

God has emotions. He creates things. He does things. He talks. He moves. In fact, he even has a body just like ours. I think the Furger Agorock is a more creative idea. Would you like to point out one characteristic that God possesses that could not have been created by man?    

 

 

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


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
0_0

This really had me stumped for awhile but I think I have two arguments that beat this. The first being that I just conceived of something that does not exist, I'd tell you what it is but unfortunately english, or any other language for that matter, does not have the neccessary vocabulary to describe it. This being bacause it does not exist and therefore why would any language be able to describe it. I know kind of weak.

 

My second argument is that C.S. Lewis' argument is moot in that God is always described with things that do exist and therefore is just a complilation of these things.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous BRO wrote:I think

Anonymous BRO wrote:
I think the point is missed entirely.  You drew upon experiences which already exists and simply gave it a name.  You previously knew of Sharks, flying objects and different sounds and letters to be blended together give this thing a name(furger-Argorok) There is nothing new here.

Therefore, if man cannot create ideas or reason outside of our experiences then where did the idea of GOD come from???

ANSWER: By logic we had to have experienced him.

Show me a single god which is any different.  Every single one I can think of is drawn from things people have experienced.  Monkeys, snakes, elephants, octopi, people in clouds with large hammers or bolts of lightning being thrown like javelins, beings which appear human when they want to but are different at other times with emotions, rage, love, jealousy, who create things similarly to how mankind creates things.  By logic, god (any god) is man-made.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:I'd tell you

Stosis wrote:
I'd tell you what it is but unfortunately english, or any other language for that matter, does not have the neccessary vocabulary to describe it.
  

Yes, but are you just stating this or are you really unable to describe something that you are thinking of? It seems to me that if you can already conceive of it, then it's ludicrous to state that you can't describe it. How would you have conceived of it then?

Stosis wrote:
My second argument is that C.S. Lewis' argument is moot in that God is always described with things that do exist and therefore is just a complilation of these things.

Haha, if you can't imagine God, except with things that do exist, then you can't conceive of him, invalidating the original argument. If you follow the theist's own flawed logic, then we have just proven that God does not exist. 

 

 

 

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Blood is

Eloise wrote:

Blood is nutritious

 

...I can't believe I missed this.

 

Eloise: Blood is not nutritious. In fact, consuming (I believe?) roughly a pint of blood is lethally toxic to a human being.

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


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Yes but

MattShizzle wrote:

Hey is there someone on here with artistic ability that can put up a picture of a furgo-argorock?

 

How I wish I'd only seen your post sooner. D: Nonetheless:

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Omg, that picture is

 Omg, that picture is fucking amazing! You just made the Furger Argorock my second favorite imaginary being. (the first is still FSM) 

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Great picture.

Great picture.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:How I wish

draggycat wrote:
How I wish I'd only seen your post sooner. D: Nonetheless:
Totally cool.

Makes me want a Furger Argorock plushie even more. Laughing out loud

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray