Theist challange: provide a rational definition of god
Offline 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
- Login to post comments
i'll take all 3, for 500 Alex
What Would Kharn Do?
Yup! You're definitely done.
Einstein's "God letter":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
As I said, and so did Einstein (above), he was a closet Atheist, foo!
DING DING DING! You just hit the Daily Double!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24668015/
A letter by Albert Einstein, written in German, was sold to someone with "a passion for theoretical physics."
The Associated Press
LONDON - A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.
-----------
No. That settles it.
Einstein was definitely a closet Atheist, as I said,AND
see post above for link to translation of Einstein's actual "God letter."
Enjoy!
Neither science nor philosophy has taken noumena seriously since Kant. Don't be a Kant.
Awesome. Still no closer to a definition.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh, we're there. This was Hume's argument years ago, that religious discussions are non-factual wordplay. The more modern "empty name" concept is considered more advanced, but functionally equivalent. It's the second part, where a really solid definition falls apart: that's what I'm trying to work on. Thus far, we have basically nothing. God = universe isn't really an answer, as far as I'm concerned, because that's like deciding that your picket fence is God.
Yeah, no kidding. I don't really have a problem with the phenomenologists, but Derrida can just get you down. But the noumenon concept has been flushed repeatedly at this point, because it eats its own tail. We just Kant go down that road.
Serioulsly, how many Kant puns can I get through?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Good point. And I agree, we really don't have anything. I've even given myself a couple of days, and all I keep doing is running through variants of modern apologetics' claims to 'proofs' of a monotheistic god. All of which, as we know, were steamrolled by Kant. Among others.
Derrida is entertaining, though. So there is that.
And I Kant see an end to the puns. It's just too easy, with a homophone like 'Kant'.
I just felt a lovely breeze of ... yes, I think it was honesty.
I"d like to second the above. Internet forums are like turbo-charged bull sessions. This one runs through the history of philosophy, so it's not an uninteresting session, but let's not forget the humour here.
For anyone who's wondering, the humour is the ever-diminishing possibility of getting a definition for a god that could be turned into a hypothesis. I'm not saying I'm surprised, but it is pretty entertaining.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hey, I learned quite a while ago that Internet arguments are essentially absurdist comedy, and to take them seriously is to be bothered by something that really has no connection to reality. It can be fun, and most of the time it's ridiculous, but I've not taken it seriously for quite some time.
As to a coherent definition- Oddly enough, I think Kevin got closest. Well, besides Eloise, but that was pretty much a given.
Both (love is about sexual attraction).
And causation has been rather firmly established.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
hehe I can't resist
You fail with your own link
Anywho, I don't usually like the arguments from authority game, but I do like pwning treat2 whenever the chance arises.
Dammit, don't feed the treat!
Yet we still feed the Paisley?
Good point.
Everyone does not profess to be agnostic (i.e. without knowledge) of God. You are simply making a generalization based on your own experience. You are without knowledge. Therefore, you conclude that everyone else is without knowledge. (It's somewhat like saying that since I am tone deaf everyone else must also be tone deaf.)
By the way, I was using the term in relation to gnosticism (the view that God can be known). Someone who subscribes to gnosticism can say that he is agnostic even though he truly believes that knowledge of God is possible and indeeds strives for it. Of course, knowledge here refers to mystical union with the divine.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Scientific evidence?
1) quantum physics
2) Parapsychology
Also, keep in mind that I do not subscribe to scientism. I do not believe that science is the only avenue to knowledge. That's your dogma, not mine.
What evidence do you have for parallel universes?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What other "avenues" do you use?
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
I provided the mininum requirements. You have failed to explain why it is incoherent.
I agree that God as such is unfalsifiable. But this seems like a ridiculous demand to me. It's tantamount to saying that absolute truth must be falsifiable. It's a contradiction in terms. It presupposes God's nonexistence by insisting that God must be falsifiable. I guess this is what separates believers from unbelievers. To the believer, it's not possible that God does not exist. To the unbeliever, it's not possible that God does exist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It's appears to be wishful-thinking based on a faith-commitment to materialism. You want to have the power to "predict and control." That's the lure.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I didn't say that it was. But to craft a hypothesis requires some evidence. Did you create the quantum mind theory out of thin air? (By the way, there really are quantum mind theories).
I said INTERPRETATION, not model. And it as valid as any other interpretation. In fact, it is the most parsimonious interpretation.
No interpretation does!
It explains the collaspe of the wave function.
That's right. An interpretation isn't a model. So why are you making this ridiculous argument?
But the fact is that quantum mind hypotheses (that are testable) have been postulated by eminent physicists. So, I guess it's not so silly!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You are.
Quantum theory is assumed to be correct until falsified. To my knowledge, it has not been falsified. I believe that is how science works.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You don't know what the term means? Do you need me to also define the term "is" for you?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Below is a link to a translation of Einstein's "God letter" it was a private letter written only ONE YEAR BEFORE HE DIED.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Read it and weep, foo.
You said "consciousness", and I'm conscious, so that would mean that I meet the minimum requirements, and by your minimum requirements, I'm a god. So maybe you want to include a few more things.
Right. As such, God is also unknowable. Thus, agnosticism is not a distinction, because everyone is. Weak atheism is waiting for evidence that can never come. Ever.
Right, we're back to empty names again. "Absolute truth" has no referent. It doesn't play out any better than the noumenon.
This isn't even about possible existence. It's about knowledge. What we know about God is pure fantasy. That's what I'm saying. If we can't know anything about God, we're making it up.
Is there a God out there? No way to know. But that means anything we say about that creature does not necessarily reference that creature, except maybe by accident, and the odds are so strongly against us as to be overwhelming.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well, all worldviews posses a sort of object at the center of it, you masturbatory relationship towards science, is one such "object". You profess science to be only conveyor of truth, as science as the truth the way and the life, this i what can be easily gathered from your blog. You claim it as poetic conveyor of reality, you hold science as not only the purveyor of the workings of the natural world, but as the poetics of existence as well, as poetic truth too: "Reality waxes poetic about the vastness her bounds".
Where you hold science as that object, I as a christian hold Jesus Christ. I am not a devotee of scientism as you, I don't extend science beyond it's limit, make claims of it, that it would not hold of itself, such as your faith position here: "Science obsoleted all other epistemologies"..
Unlike you science for me, only informs my worldview, a means to understand certain truths, but not all forms of truth, it's not all encompassing as your make it out to be, science has very little to do with what I perceive to be moral or not. Or why I perceive liberation, love, justice, and hope as the highest of human ideals.
Your own beliefs, I find to be far more sillier, and repulsive than mine, in fact most of the world would. But you can have your delusions, your imagenary beliefs in the poetic nature of the cosmos, because it gives you the warm and fuzzies.
don't worry it wasn't intentional, I'm guessing the spell checker must have done it.
Um treat2, if you have a link for that meeting, I would love to see it. Got linkage?
Seriously, it is unlikely that that meeting took place as Einstein did not advance the big bang as a theory. In fact, at the point in time when it would have happened, Einstein was still advocating for a static universe.
What did happen and is documented history is that Einstein came up with general relativity which pretty much required a dynamic universe. Since there was no reason to assume an expanding universe in 1918 and not data on a contracting universe (since it isn't doing that), Einstein added the cosmological constant to his math to make it fit with then current observations.
Then in 1931 Georges Lemaître published what would become the seminal paper on big bang cosmology. BTW: Georges Lemaître is the catholic priest in my current avatar.
Shortly thereafter, the pope decided that this was wonderful because not only has science “proved” special creation but the specific guy was one of his own. At that point, Lemaître was able to gain a special audience with the pope to tell him to basically cut out his enthusiasm over the matter as it was still possible that future work would tell a sufficiently different story as to embarrass the church for going wild over what essentially has not been done.
=
Don't Hume mean that road leads nowhere?
"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
Quantum mechanics is a statistical descriptive model. It isn't evidence for anything, except that our measurements of quantum events are statistical. The fact that you use it to support your own brand of woo notwithstanding, it is not evidence for universal consciousness.
As for parapsychology: all you have is very minor correlations. As you pointed out concerning the chemicals associated with feelings of love, correlation is not evidence of causation.
And I can can that you believe there are other avenues for knowledge. That's obvious by your confusion concerning scientific materialism, and the fact that you can't tell propositions from evidence. Your epistemic sloppiness is written all over your posts.
"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
Excuse me, can we borrow your Paisley, please ? Ours left the placebo thread in the middle of getting his butt kicked. We'd like him to come back and say uncle.
Yeah, I know. My argument is that all people are, because gods are unknowable. Professing to not know something unknowable is redundant.
Yeah, the mystical union with the divine. More empty names.
(1) "god" has no referent, or
(2) the definition of "god" is internally inconsistent.
It doesn't really matter if you use the word to mean "doesn't know" or "can't know", because I'm demonstrating both cases. If you had maybe a definition that would serve as a counter-example, that would be great.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Damn! I really did leave out the "of". I reckon I'll have to fix that.
I profess experience and rationality to be the only conveyor of truth. I profess is science is the only conveyor of objective knowledge. I don't seek "truth."
Thanks for visiting Paperdove. I really need to post more. In case you were wondering, "Reality used to be a friend of mine" was a hip-hop song by PM Dawn. There were references there specifically for my friends, whom I figured were the only ones to ever drop by.
Did it not? What other epistemology provides objective knowledge about the working of reality? I know of no other.
Fair enough. Although I believe science is able to inform those beliefs, and perhaps explain why they are rational, that is a legitimate position. I would quibble about the use of "forms of truth," as I believe "truth" is often subjective, and not truth at all, but a label we place on things we wish to place outside the bounds of discussion. But otherwise, I can't find much fault at all with that position.
As someone who believes science is the only path to objective knowledge of reality, I would have to agree with your moral conclusions. The reason is simple: we are inherently subjective creatures. We do irrational things simply for the sake of enjoyment. Our concepts of "right" and "wrong" may have some rational foundation, but they are often subjective. That is why two people might have differing opinions on whether an action is or is not moral.
What is repulsive about the desire to know the fundamental nature of the universe? What is silly about the wish to discern fantasy from reality? If you'd've stopped at "sillier," I might agree. But "repulsive?" Why? Because I reject the fantasy of god? Because I prefer the rational and observable reality, as cold as it might be, over the comforting lies that are often used to control others?
What I find repulsive is that anyone would need an excuse to be good.
Drat! I honestly thought it was funny. It still is funny. I hope you keep doing it.
"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
That's why I was asking you. And evidently you don't know. You are simply making a naked assertion and asking us to take it on faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Flinging ad hominem attacks is a tactic employed by those who have no counterargument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No it isn't. And we have already discussed this. I have experienced pure awareness. Evidently, you have not. Also, qualifying it with "of" does not really change anything.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
If you think you're going to come here and bully me around, then you're sorely mistaken. Either you understand the term "awareness" or you don't. If you don't, then I will ask you to humbly bow out because you clearly do not have the intellectual capacity to debate me or anyone else. It's that simple.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Alright. So you are unable to provide a coherent referent for "awareness." That's okay. As HisWillness has pointed out, each of us experiences awareness.
How is that applicable to both an attribute and definition of god? As awareness is inherently subjective, it still provides no logical framework for your definition of god. You have failed the initial challange: provide a set of minimal attributes for god, and from those, build a rational, coherent definition.
"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
Spinoza was a pantheist. Why? Because he held that the physical and mental are one and the same. Philosophically, this is known as dual-aspect monism or neutral monism (it is not compatible with atheistic materialism). Theologically, this is known as pantheism. Albert Einstein publicly professed to believe in the God of Spinoza.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Philosophical theology is alive and well. Just because you are ignorant of this does not change the fact.
I provided the minimum requirements for a God-concept. I have yet to see you provide any rationale for why it is incoherent. Thus far, the only objection is: "But I don't undestand what the term "awareness" means."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, love is not simply about sexual attraction. I think you're conflating lust with love. And certainly, the love that a mother has for her child is not sexual.
No, it has not be firmly established. Correlation is not causation.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Subjective experiences. This probably explains why I am the only one here able to understand the meaning of the term "awareness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
As has been pointed out, "awareness" is insufficient as a minimum requirement for a god-concept.
Our objection isn't that we don't know what awareness means. What we are objecting to is that you think it means something other than it does. You have a habit of embuing common words with "spirituality," and expecting us to go along with it as if you mean what we do. This has led to both confusion (which I believe is intentional on your part, as you a duplicitous, underhanded, intellectually-dishonest, and you probably cheat on your taxes) and an inability to reach common understanding (which is also mostly likely intentional on your part, as you like to punch babies, sodomize puppies, and masturbate to pictures of Guantanomo detainees).
It is your sophistry and equivocation which makes us suspicious of your use of words. For instance, I believe you are going to suggest that "awareness" implies a god-concept, without bothering to note that it makes your whole argument circular.
This is what I mean by "incoherent."
"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
Ah! So you are narcissistic as well. I suspected as much.
As has been pointed out several times, "subjective" experience is no avenue to knowledge of the nature of reality. Otherwise, you'd have to believe in UFOs, bigfoot, mothman, and the ravings of every delusional paranoid on the planet.
Do you believe in UFOs, bigfoot, and mothman?
"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
But you failed to acknowledge that your own link (as Captain Pineapple has pointed out) explicitly states that Einstein "often spoke of a spiritual force at work in the universe." Just FYI. "Spiritual force" is a euphemism for "God"or the "will of God."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You are simply being evasive because you don't have a real counterargument. I have already responded to this objection. This is what brought up the whole talk about the noumenal world. Remember "ultimate reality?"
Now, if you say that the term "consciousness" or "awareness" is meaningless, then you are either playing stupid or you actually are. Either way, we can't continue this debate. How can you have an intelligent debate with an individual who is incapable of understanding the most basic of terms? Answer: You can't.
It's a nonsequitur. I didn't say unverifiable. I said unfalsifiable. There's a difference between the two.
Absolute truth is not a meaningless term. Are you saying that there is not a set of all truth relations, even if we cannot know all of them? And if you are, then you are resigning to complete skepticism and therefore implying that all epistemic methods (including the scientific method) is ultimately futile.
We can know things about God. It's called religious experiences.
I said that universal consciousness was the minimum requirement for a God-concept. And since we are all sentient beings, then it logically follows that the concept of consciousness is not a meaningless term. The reason why the term "consciousness" or "awareness" has currency in the English language is because the vast majority of English-speaking people have experienced their own subjectivity first-hand and are able to associate the term with the experience. If you're not, then you simply lack the intellectual tools to continue this debate or any other debate.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yeah, it's actually a misnomer because QM is not really describing a mechanical process. And it is this very point that is rendering materialism obsolete.
It certainly isn't evidence that supports materialism. And Nobel laureates in physics have used it as evidence to give us the CCC interpretation of QM. Evidence (even scientific evidence) is subject to interpretation. For some unknown reason, you are incapable of grasping this simple concept.
By the way, it would appear that you really do understand what "consciousness" means.
True, but since you use correlations to argue that the mind and the brain are identical, I figure I should be accorded the same luxury.
Newsflash: Knowledge is traditionally defined as justified belief. That's introductory epistemology 101. And what constitutes justification is subject to interpretation.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Your argument: "The placebo effect is not based on the power of faith, but on the power of belief."
If you characterize this as "kicking my butt," then you're clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yeah, I remember "ultimate reality". Did you only get up to the 18th century in philosophy class or something? Do we really need a rehash of why the phenomenal won out over the noumenal? (Except apparently in theology, which I suppose doesn't surprise me.)
Amazing. I didn't say consciousness or awareness are meaningless. I said that if that's your minimum description for a god, then I'm a god. So if you have some more things to attach to a god, that would be great.
All you need to do do verify the statement "God is knowable" and falsify my "God is unknowable" is clarify what it is we'd be knowing.
I know you have a lot of writing to do, so you don't necessarily read what I write, but I didn't say that "absolute truth" was meaningless, I said it was an empty name (i.e. it has no referent). Accuse me of whatever you want. Still no help on the defining a god front.
So I guess we can just throw epistemology out the window. No problem. I'll be honest, big guy, I'm not seeing a compelling shot at defining a god even vaguely. Your god is conscious. Great, but so are we, so what else do we need for this thing?
Yeah, I'm really under-qualified. Fascinating. Anyway, what's "universal consciousness"? Is that your god? Or does your god have a hat, too? I bet it's a terrific hat. I'm thinking a giant green, red, and yellow sombrero. For sure.
I just had a revelation, and it's that your god wears a giant multi-coloured sombrero. It's ... really awesome.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Your dishonesty is breathtaking, but I'm kinda getting used to it.
My argument goes like this : Pailsey is not qualified to interpret medical data, but he did it anyway. Not even papal infallibilty stretches that far.
Also, Paisley's personal definition of the placebo-effect doesn't match the one used by the entire medical world. I left the medical dictionary definition for you in the thread. Guess what ? No "heal", no "cure", no "faith", no "belief". Damn those doctors with their medschools, their experience, and their continued life-long studying ! Grrr !
Now guess what your next post in the placebo thread is going to be ?
I'll give you a hint : It ryhmes with "I snooze"
(er...btw, what does kicking your butt have to do with "grandeur" ?)
I guess you have a coherent referent considering the fact (as you have stated in the foregoing) that each of us experiences awareness. So why do you continue to play stupid by asking me to define the term "awareness?" Either you can make the association between the term and your own first-person perspective of subjective experience or you forfeit the right to a thoughtful response. I will not waste my precious time by pandering to your stupidity.
Well, if God is not conscious, then I guess you really don't have a God! I know that simplicity is a difficult concept for you to grasp. But I would ask you to muster up a little more energy and attempt to make an honest effort. Moreover, since you yourself identified "sentience" as one of the attributes of God, then this leads me to believe that you are simply being disingenuous by posing this question.
Once again, if you cannot make the logical association between the term "awareness" and your own subjective experience, then you are not intellectually equipped to engage in this debate or any other debate.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Oh........that explains it.......
Anybody can look it up words in a dictionary, and everyone has there own interpretation of what awareness means in this context. The issue is explaining how we understand these terms to each other so we can determine where we disagree.
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