God is Real!

BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
God is Real!

 My name is Badway and I believe in God, Elohim, Allah or whatever you wish to refer to the higher Deity. I understand how easy it is to be atheist or even agnostic , especially in this day and time however, the evidence of Gods' existence is too overwhelming to push under the rug of disbelief. I'm not here to make enemies nor convert for as a believer in God I also believe in freewill for He Himself is the Author of it. The Bible is merely a book not in so much as a book of laws but a handbook on how to live and treat each other and nature itself. The book is an inspirational work of literary art written by various authors to report their divine relationship with their creator. The Bible does not conflict with the theory of evolution nor contradicts it but does emphasize our development as we understand it. Many of the stories in this book are parables and allegories meant to relate our minds to our experiences and learn the message that is to be gained from it. Many of these stories are not meant to be taken as fact which is usually the main reason "Christians" and non theists supporters debate almost ironically religiously. The belief in God is not religion nor the acceptance of Christ as their Lord and savior but yet man has made a religion of it. The Messiah preached against religion so The Christ and atheists are in agreement. In other words religion is wrong whether it be Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccan, or Voodoo too name a few. I know many atheist will contend such facts as Zoroastorism being a precursor to Christianity and that some of it's precepts may have come from that including Islam as well. The Bible speaks of God's nemesis the devil as being the father of lies which stands to reason that all of our alleged knowledge of particular subjects may have been authored by the evil one himself. It is okay to question, I do it all the time, however it is not okay to deny your God or His love excuse me unlimited love for each and every one of you. I will respect all of you who wish to correspond with me but let it be known I am no expert on God's holy word or any other subject, I am a believer because of things in my life that have transpired and luck nor coincidence can justify it. Bless you all and good luck to all of you. Sincerely yours Badway...it's kind of funny though when you think about the word atheist..break it down and you have A Theist..I'd like to think that's a practical joke planted by your pick..either God or Devil but it's ironic no matter how you look at it..maybe more appropo would be non-theist...take care hope to hear from you...

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"If we

edejardin wrote:
"If we described anything else in terms of what it is not, people would ask, "Ok, but what is it?"" Right, but my point here is that while it's technically accurate to say, "God does not exist," since we can only predicate properties of God analogously (leaving aside arguendo the whole issue of whether existence is an attribute), it's misleading to those who don't understand the distinctions that obtain among univocality, equivocality and analogy. However, I didn't in any sense claim that we can only speak negatively about God: as I said, we could roughly describe or define God as the purely actual ground of being. I introduced apophaticity to clarify the context in which the term 'existence' could be predicated of God.

Now it looks like you're saying we have to agree with the theists because they don't know how to think critically.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
God is real

 Wow...I am impressed. A debate within a debate among intelligent people that appear to be alot more knowledgeable of things than I. 

All I clearly wanted to say is I believe in God and He is real if only to me on this site. I am writing my reasons and going to post them under a different forum. Thanks to each and every one of you for responding with such vigor. I hope that we may continue to seek dialogue for to do that wihout listening leaves monologue and that is not good for either side. 

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: Well then

BADWAY wrote:

 Well then buhbye Thomathy, I am tired of responding to a person who reedits his work to fit his argument or fail to "comprehend" anything I write unless I have to spell it out. Am I the most prolific writer, the answer is no! But I do believe my literal skills as far as poetry or lyrical songwriting or even telling a story in a descriptive manner would leave you in the proverbial intergalactic space dust from which you were derived. Chew on that 

Wow, EVERYONE BOW TO BADWAY, because he sees himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread, he will magically escape death.

Get a clue, neither you or I will be remembered 50 billion years from now. The Pope wont, Obama won't, and neither will your adversaries or my adversaries. Unless humans do something stupid to wipe out life on this planet, and unless a meteor or comet hit us, cockroaches from an evolutionary standpoint will MOST LIKELY OUTLAST OUR SPECIES.

I have never, nor will ever claim to be anything special, but neither or you.

Super hero worship is a mundane bane on the human existence. Quite ordinary and useless, like nipples on men.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:as I said,

edejardin wrote:
as I said, we could roughly describe or define God as the purely actual ground of being. I introduced apophaticity to clarify the context in which the term 'existence' could be predicated of God.

I have no idea what "purely actual ground of being" means. Also, why would existence (in whatever way you mean the term) be predicated of "God"?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"The claim

edejardin wrote:
"The claim "God exists" has no ontological reach."

Huh? First, it's important to keep in mind the precise formulation of my point, which concerned the ontological reach of the proposition (claim), "God exists." If we think about God as classical theists for centuries have, then God is the purely actual ground of all being, i.e. God is broader conceptually than the broadest concept we have, viz. 'existence.'

I've always felt the ontological argument for god is weak, at best. It relies on conflation (or at least confusion) between conception and existence. Simply because you can conceive of something greater than the universe does not mean that something exists.

Quote:

"The very concept of god is epistemically unsound."

Do you have an actual argument for this claim? (N.B. What you wrote after it does not constitute an argument. I mean one of those pesky thingies with, like, premises and conclusions and stuff.)

I imagine with a little effort I could work one up. However, as I have little time right now (I'm at work), here's a link that summarizes the argument.

Quote:

"Natural theology itself has not presented an epistemology distinct from that of science, and uses outmoded arguments such as "teleology" and variations on the cosmological argument, both of which deviate from the very epistemology to which it claims to adhere. Natural theology is essentially one long argument from ignorance, spiced liberally with awe and incredulity."

Again, Huh? First, it's not at all contradictory for X to be both outmoded and true, so I'm not sure what logical contribution you intended this display of chronological snobbery to make. That aside, I have a conceptual correction and a factual correction to make. Let's start with the conceptual correction. Arguments for God's existence in natural theology are generally categorized as 'metaphysical arguments.' Now, metaphysical arguments by their nature posses properties of both inductive and deductive arguments. Inductively, because they use empirically supported premises, e.g. "Some things change" or "The universe began to exist." Deductively, because they reason in a deductive manner from the conceptual content of these empirical premises to their conclusions. So, it is decidedly not the case that natural theology approaches its questions with the same epistemology as science does. Indeed, it is this 'philo 101' error on your part that informs the factual correction I can now make, for it is only by misconceiving the nature of metaphysical arguments, and construing them as 'scientific' arguments, that one could possibly conclude that "natural theology is essentially one long argument from ignorance, spiced liberally with awe and incredulity."

What you have described is the same fundamental metaphysics used to derive the epistemology of science: observation, inductive proposition, deductive reasoning. The difference is, science uses deduction to make predictions, which are testable; natural theology does not. The end result is, though both are predicated on the same observation, the knowledge gained from science is tested against reality, while natural theology... is not.

The epistemology of natural theology lacks the rigor of science. And if it has an argument that is not simply an argument from ignorance and incredulity (as are both the teleological and cosmological arguments), I have yet to hear them. Oh, except the one you did bring up: the ontological argument, which is based on the false proposition that conception is related to existence.

Quote:

"So far, I have yet to see a definition or description of god that is both complete and coherent."

Perhaps that's because there is no such thing as a complete and coherent description of anything.

Do you have a *complete* and coherent description of 'matter' or 'time'? (You don't have to answer that, since we both know that you don't.) So, perhaps your standards are just a wee bit too high here. (Incidentally, this is a *common* error those new to philosophy make, to wit setting the bar too high for philosophical arguments. I usually explain it to beginners with a question: Can you provide an argument for your most deeply held political positions -- some of which you'd most likely be willing to give your life to uphold -- that's stronger than, say, the much maligned Kalam cosmological argument? Chew that for a bit, and you'll see that it's not even close: the Kalam argument wins by a huge margin.

Kalam is just an argument from ignorance. We don't know, we have no current explanation, so there is evidence for god. That is fallacious on so many levels (starting with the non-sequitur of god, which is then presented as one-half of a false dichotomy), it's not defensible.

You are correct there are many political positions I hold that have little logic behind them. I'm not willing to die for many of them, though. Nor am I willing to kill for them.

Quote:

"Until you can present a coherent, clear set of propositions, you have no ontology."

Now is where we get to that point I asked you to remember earlier, i.e. concerning the ontological reach of the concept of God. Here's a nice way to think about it: I can more clearly define *this* Abyssinian cat than I can 'Abyssinian cat.' And, I can more clearly define 'Abyssinian cat' than I can 'cat.' We could go on: I can more clearly define 'cat' than I can 'felidae,' and I can more clearly define 'felidae' than I can 'animal.' We could go on further: I can more clearly define 'animal' than I can 'living thing,' and I can more clearly define 'living thing' than I can 'thing.' So, what's the lesson? Clearly, the broader the ontological reach of the concept, the less we can say about it. Now, 'god' is conceptually broader than 'existence' itself, and some philosophers argue that we can only provide an ostensive definition of existence (e.g. a sweep of the hand, as if to say "All this&quotEye-wink; so, I'll tell you what: you provide me with the best definition of existence you can, and I'll provide you with the classical conception of god. You'll see that my definition is quite clear and coherent, especially when considered alongside your concept of existence, which is narrower in scope and hence more easily defined with clarity. (Again, remember how important it is to understand that how high or low the bar is to be set is largely determined by what else is in the neighborhood, whether in terms of concepts or arguments.)

"Existence" isn't as hard as you might think. It is the physical scope of temporal interaction. Or, stated slightly differently: it is the property of being a part of the causal chain.

Quote:

"You've given a logical construction, but glossed over any evidence with "obviously." In fact, there is nothing presented that counts as evidence for god."

Really? Remember how evidence is to be understood: "If we take a proposition P as evidence E for conclusion C, then P counts as E for C just in case C is more plausibly true if P obtains then it is if not-P obtains." Now, here's an exercise: Can you think of a possible world close to ours in modal space with properties such that it is less likely, given a comparison of its properties with the actual world's properties, that god exists? Seems pretty easy to me. But, if you can do so, then it follows, given my analysis of what it means for P to count as evidence for C, that we do have evidence for God's existence. So, would you claim that there is no such possible world (i.e. in which it would be less likely than it is in the actual world, given its properties, that god exists)?

The probability of the existence of god appears to approach 0 in this universe; so, no, I actually have a hard time picturing a world in which god is less probable. It's much easier to picture a world in which god is more probable.

You've established no baseline for plausibility. You've also not presented a single property (or proposition) in this world which presents god as more plausible than not-god.

That's what I mean when I say you've presented no evidence. You have a purely-logical construct, but no propositions. You seem to assume there is some P in this universe, but have not presented one.

 

Sorry about cutting this short-- I'll try to get back to it later, but real work beckons. However, I am really enjoying this conversation. There are very few who come here that are interesting, and from whom one might learn new things. I especially want to discuss the appearance of platonic idealism in your brief descriptions of god.

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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Brian37 wrote:

Quite ordinary and useless, like nipples on men.

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

 

....So begins the enthralling debate about nipples.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
god is make believe

God is make believe and you know it.

Dan Brown wrote a fairly entertaining book called The Da Vinci Code. It had many real places and took place in a time that was very much like the time we live in. Yet despite all of its reality, it's a work of fiction. Same as your bible. Despite naming a few real places and events, it's a work of fiction.

I understand that it's comforting to wrap yourself in things you know are not real because it seems like so many others believe and you can better fit in with them. It's not easy being a realist but it's honest.

As I understand it the label atheist came from theists in an attempt to label those that did not believe in their make believe bull shit. Many of us want nothing to do with that label. A fairly bright individual or two has compared a label for non theists as making as much sense as having a label for people that don't believe in astrology or big foot...

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
edejardin

edejardin wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
Fundamentalist Christians have defined their god in such a way that probable perception is entailed, so the lack of perception entails that there is no god as they have defined the term.

I'm not one for defending fundamentalists, but this doesn't follow. You seem to have confused an undercutting defeater for a rebutting defeater (a mistake you didn't make in the comment I quoted first above).

 

I do not know what you mean by that. You are right that the conclusion does not follow — I was thinking about what I would say there and what I would say afterward, which threw me off a bit, causing me to forgot the word "probably" in the conclusion. Is that what you are talking about?

 

edejardin wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
The most common argument, though perhaps not phrased this way, is that conscious-origination and nonconscious-origination can both be construed to equally entail the perceptions, which means that the perceptions count as evidence for a god no more than they count for evidence against gods, which entails that, all else being equal, we are not justified in straying from agnosticism.

Given the metaphysical nature of the arguments from natural theology, I don't agree with this (see my last post in response to NigelTheBold). That is, you seem to be saying that metaphysical arguments and scientific arguments are in competition with one another, and that at best, they equally explain the data. However, the arguments are simply different in kind, such that good metaphysical arguments in no way contradict nor compete with scientific explanations.

 

I have a hard time understanding how you could read my argument as saying such a thing. Science is irrelevant to the point that I was making. I meant that both systems of metaphysics can be thought of in such a way that they would both lead to all of our perceptions, and they would lead to them equally well, so the balance of evidence does not tip in favor of either system and, as a consequence, one may not justly stray from agnosticism. (I am assuming here that noncognitivism does not hold water. I assume this only to be charitable.)

 

edejardin wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
(If you're not aware, most atheists are actually "negative atheists" who embrace agnosticism.)

Well, yes and no. In my experience, most atheists start off a discussion claiming to be negative atheists, but you can usually tell after a few exchanges that they're in fact positive atheists, at least with respect to Christianity (as they understand it, of course). But, that aside, I have some problems with negative atheism. Personally, I think the whole concept is a conceptual muddle, but I won't get into that unless you ask.

 

On the one hand, I want to know how that could be argued. On the other hand, the odds do not seem very good that such an argument would be enlightening or entertaining. Feel free to surprise me, I guess.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


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

edejardin wrote:
Now is where we get to that point I asked you to remember earlier, i.e. concerning the ontological reach of the concept of God. Here's a nice way to think about it: I can more clearly define *this* Abyssinian cat than I can 'Abyssinian cat.' And, I can more clearly define 'Abyssinian cat' than I can 'cat.' We could go on: I can more clearly define 'cat' than I can 'felidae,' and I can more clearly define 'felidae' than I can 'animal.' We could go on further: I can more clearly define 'animal' than I can 'living thing,' and I can more clearly define 'living thing' than I can 'thing.' So, what's the lesson? Clearly, the broader the ontological reach of the concept, the less we can say about it.

I just realized the flaw here. You give concepts (Abyssinian cat, cat, and so on) the same ontological weight as a specific, existing cat. This is quite obviously a fallacy (that of composition). One cat exists; the group "Abyssinian cats" does not exist, at least not in the same way. It is a convenient grouping we use to categorize individual cats with a specific allele distribution.

This whole argument underscores the fallacies intrinsic to most compositions of the ontological argument: they give equal ontological weight to that which we conceive (Abyssinian cats) to that which is (Seamus, the cat).

Certain concepts exist as ontological tools, such as species names or even common names such as "cat." However, these are concepts, and do not exist outside our own mental processes. They have no ontological weight outside our mind.

This is, however, an excellent argument for the concept of god.

 

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


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"I've always felt the

"I've always felt the ontological argument for god is weak, at best."

I wasn't referring to the ontological argument(s), but to how broad the concept of God is in classical theism. In other words, even if God did not exist it's still the case that the scope of the *concept* of God is greater than that of the *concept* of existence.

"The difference is, science uses deduction to make predictions, which are testable; natural theology does not."

Right, but there's a reason scientific conclusions must be tested, while the conclusions of natural theology are not, viz. scientific conclusions concern contingent phenomena, while the conclusions of natural theology concern what follows about the nature of reality given the conceptual commitments we must make to explain those contingent phenomena. They may make use of the same fundamental tools (induction, deduction, observation, etc.), but it no more follows that the methodological structure that results from the use of those tools is the same than it follows that if two contractors use the same tools and materials to construct a home they'll end up with the same physical structure.

"And if it has an argument that is not simply an argument from ignorance and incredulity (as are both the teleological and cosmological arguments), I have yet to hear them."

Most variations of the teleological and cosmological arguments are not arguments from ignorance or incredulity. Again, you could only reach this conclusion if you're still taking science and natural theology to be doing the same thing, which, as I've repeatedly emphasized, they're not.

"Kalam is just an argument from ignorance. We don't know, we have no current explanation, so there is evidence for god."

First, the conclusion of the Kalam argument proper isn't that god exists, but that the universe has a cause. God comes in after the argument by way of a conceptual analysis of what a cause of the universe could be. (I should add that Daniel Dennett has said that he can find nothing wrong with the logic of the Kalam argument, so he doesn't see all the fallacies you apparently do; his only problem with it is that it rests on plausible premises concerning issues he thinks we have no reasons to test our intuitions of plausibility). Second, it is not in any way an argument from ignorance, but an argument from what the best evidence currently tells us about the universe. Third, it is not itself an 'explanation' that is in competition with other scientific explanations, but again is a metaphysical argument. This distinction is *vital* if you are ever to understand what educated theists are saying when they discuss arguments for god's existence.

""Existence" isn't as hard as you might think. It is the physical scope of temporal interaction. Or, stated slightly differently: it is the property of being a part of the causal chain."

Where do mathematical objects, propositions, relationships, etc. fit in here? Many very secular mathematicians will tell you that they are engaged in a process of discovering mathematical objects, not in inventing them, and many very secular philosophers argue that propositions and the like do in fact exist. However, neither mathematical objects nor propositions, etc. can exist given your conception of existence, so I don't think it's comprehensive enough.

"The probability of the existence of god appears to approach 0 in this universe; so, no, I actually have a hard time picturing a world in which god is less probable."

Let's take an extreme example first to clarify things. (Also, remember that possible worlds analyses are concerned with logical possibility first, and not with physical or technological possibility.) Compare the actual world A with a possible world W in which no sentient, rational being ever conceived of a god, much less believed in one. Imagine that in W no being ever experiences happiness, hope, love, joy, etc. Further imagine that every being in W is in constant pain that only varies in its intensity. Imagine that there is no natural law and thus no order in W, and that these beings survive purely by chance. Imagine that these beings have no moral sense. Now, in which world would we say it's more likely that the omnipotent, omniscient and loving God of classical theism exists, A or W?

"You've also not presented a single property (or proposition) in this world which presents god as more plausible than not-god."

This is purposeful I've found that you have to do a lot of epistemological ground clearing -- which I'm in the process of doing now -- before you can have a meaningful discussion about the evidence for God's existence; otherwise, we'll wind up talking right past one another.

Edejardin


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote:after all isn't

BADWAY wrote:
after all isn't that what were doing here on Earth fighting for happiness, and peace of mind.

Humanity exists to procreate and die, just like every other living organism. What we do between attempting to procreate and die is think shit up and generally try to enjoy ourselves.

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"I do not know what you mean

"I do not know what you mean by that. You are right that the conclusion does not follow — I was thinking about what I would say there and what I would say afterward, which threw me off a bit, causing me to forgot the word "probably" in the conclusion. Is that what you are talking about?"

Undercutting defeaters remove our grounds for holding a belief (i.e. show it's not justified), whereas rebutting defeaters show the belief to be false (i.e. concern its veracity). It seems to me that far too many people confuse the two. After all, I could have no good grounds for the belief that P and it could still be the case that P. So, merely by showing that one's belief is not justified (you haven't seen a god you would expect to see), you haven't done any work towards showing that it is false (such a god doesn't exist), and it is this that you were implying. Note that if you speak about the probability that such a God exists you're still talking about the veracity of the belief, while your concern was with its justification. This is a rather subtle distinction, but it's extremely important if you want to think clearly about these issues.

"Science is irrelevant to the point that I was making. I meant that both systems of metaphysics can be thought of in such a way that they would both lead to all of our perceptions, and they would lead to them equally well, so the balance of evidence does not tip in favor of either system and, as a consequence, one may not justly stray from agnosticism."

Sorry if I misunderstood you. However, you've of course summed up the entire debate here: Is it the case that both (of course, there are more than two, but that's besides the point) metaphysical constructs do an equally good job? That aside, though, I don't think agnosticism about metaphysical issues is in fact possible. We can't avoid metaphysical commitments -- indeed, all attempts to avoid them ineluctably make them!

"On the one hand, I want to know how that could be argued. On the other hand, the odds do not seem very good that such an argument would be enlightening or entertaining. Feel free to surprise me, I guess."

First, I take negative atheism to be the lack of theistic belief. Second, I take negative atheism to be a sufficient condition of atheism, such that it's accurate to call a negative atheist an atheist. Now, my first argument is something of an ordinary language argument. Does it make sense to say, "Atheism is true (or false, probable, likely, more plausible than theism, etc.)?" It seems to me that it clearly does. Now, if you agree that negative atheism is the lack of theistic belief, and if you agree that it's sensible to speak about the truth value, the probability or the plausibility of atheism, then you're going to face a problem: how can your lack of belief in anything be true, (more or less) probable, or (more or less) plausible? It may be true, probable or plausible *that* you lack belief, but you cannot meaningfully say that your lack of belief itself is true, probable or plausible. Negative atheism (understood as I defined it) concerns a description of one's psychology, i.e. if you search all of S's beliefs, you will find no theistic beliefs, and it makes no sense to say that a description of your psychology is true, probable or plausible (though, again, it may be true, probable or plausible *that* it's an accurate description of your psychology).

Second, I'd argue that negative atheism -- even if it can get past my first argument -- suffers the death of a thousand qualifications. S lacks theistic belief, but so does his chair, his Bonsai tree and his cat. So too does his newborn son and the feral child living in the woods behind his house. The insular tribe in which the feral child was born, but from which he was abandoned, has never been exposed to theistic belief, though it is quite intellectually sophisticated. Can we meaningfully predicate negative atheism of everything from the chair to the tribe members? What elements must be satisfied before S can meaningfully be said to be a negative atheist? We could go on. If the Pope were to go into a coma or to lose his memory, could we meaningfully speak about his atheism? Are you upset that newborns aren't included in surveys and polls that attempt to determine the relative percentages of theists and atheists? It seems to me that when you press atheists on the precise meaning of negative atheism, and on what elements it requires, you end up with something much closer to positive atheism than expected.

Edejardin


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote:Why do I refuse

BADWAY wrote:

Why do I refuse to Believe as opposed to Why I choose not too/ the latter is far more to easy to answer because to not not believe is a lazy attitude because you don't want to find out for your self you want us to do it for you...And God helps those who help themselves....and even some who don't...

Now this is just some silly shit. The emperor has no new robe. He's naked as a jay bird! god is make believe and you know it. Why do you feel a need to persuade others to believe in what we all know is make believe?

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"You give concepts

"You give concepts (Abyssinian cat, cat, and so on) the same ontological weight as a specific, existing cat. This is quite obviously a fallacy (that of composition). One cat exists; the group "Abyssinian cats" does not exist"

No, I was not doing that at all. Again, I was referring to the concepts, to the descriptions, alone. If you prefer, take Hamlet. I can say more about Hamlet than I can about homo sapiens, and more about homo sapiens than I can about Hominoidea, and so on. My only point concerned the nature of descriptions. We can be more precise and clear the less narrow the concept we're discussing (e.g. we can say more about Hominoidea than we can about living thing). But if this is true, then it follows that you shouldn't expect as precise a description of 'God' as you should of 'Southern White-cheeked Gibbon,' or even of 'existence' itself. I was trying to put the relative vagueness of conceptions of God in context, and demonstrate that this is not at all a defect, but rather is precisely what we should expect given the nature of the concept(and again, I'm referring to the concept alone here).

Edejardin


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote:If we went back

BADWAY wrote:

If we went back far in time....where we regressed to the beginning of civilization, man, apes, amphibians, fish, amoebas, Earth, stars one by one dissapearing until there was nothing. Absolutely nothing before the first star, planet or even atom ever existed my question would be ....How did the first molecule begin? Nothing just happens with out something to set it in play. What's the law...pardon my bastardization of this principle but..... when an object at rests stays at rest unless something moves it, and an object in motion stays in motion til something stops it...albeit, friction, gravity, whatever. Something had to occur for the first molecules to begat the universe as we know it..er think we know it...If you could answer that question you would be the world's richest man or at least smartest.

 

So... what created your god? What created your gods, god? Science is only able to examine and provide proofs up to a point. After that they make stuff up based on the knowledge they have, factual information that can be weighed, judged, evaluated. They don't make up stuff based on fantasies of what they'd like to think happened. Damn, that would sure make things much easier.

You're obviously intelligent enough to weave all that theistic drivel into meaning. Why can't you spend a little time reading and learning real science? Shame on you for missing your potential.

 

BADWAY wrote:

Scripture explains this but keep in mind the men who were writing these books didn't have the words to accurately depict things they witnessed or heard. So it is understandable for one to say the Book of Genesis is vague well duh ! We didn't have Steven Hawking there to witness the event as it unfolded or Carl Sagan but even these men have contended intelligent design as well as many present day scientists. They won't go on record as denying a creator though they may deny the religion involving that being.

And why the hell didn't your god, who is all powerful and all knowing, not bless his creation with giving the most important information for their existence to someone able to understand it and explain it to others? Your god had to give that information to ignorant, illiterate savages? Seriously?

 

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Subdi visions

 No wonder you chose sub d visions as your moniker for obviously you are too short sighted.

Again we are discussing essentially faith against those who have none. Nothing created God, the scripture says I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the last. He, who Is has always been and the logical, reasoning ,scientific mind just can't fathom that concept. But something had to jump start everything else. A molecule didn't just pop up in the vacuum of space to multiply and become so on and so on. So something not only had to bring the first molecule into being but also be able to protect it from being absorbed into nonthingness. One may contend that at that time the Dimensions of space as we know it may have been so much considerably smaller then that the vacuum and gravitational forces that abound were so insignificant that the molecule may have had a fighting chance....Still leaves the question...Who or what created the first molecule and leaving it up to cosmic chance is more of a comical delusion of grandeur than conceiving a Higher Authority than us and we with our little brains couldn't even begin to dissect a billionth of an ounce of God's power.    

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 Lord, I'm know I am not

 Lord, I'm know I am not worthy of your Love or even a spot in Heaven but please...ooh pretty please with angel food cake on top let me be there the day that all Atheists and agnostics say together in one loud voice....What The...........!

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
magic...

BADWAY wrote:
something had to jump start everything else. A molecule didn't just pop up in the vacuum of space to multiply and become so on and so on. So something not only had to bring the first molecule into being but also be able to protect it from being absorbed into nonthingness. 

 

So make believe is the answer?

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
What is make believe about a

What is make believe about a Power higher than ourselves? To question it, would tend to lead one to think they have an answer to support their opposing view. No one on this site has done so other than speaking in scientific theoretical rhetoric. If P+C=E and Y not B-R divided by X=z.....come on guys ..everyone of you is fishing for a scientific explanation that can not prove the non existence of God. Scientists will not tell you that there is no God but will say merely there is some form of intelligent design to the universe which suggests that a chaotic universe doesn't exist no mater how volatile the expanse of space is with it's novas' and black holes. There is a magnificent purposeful design to space, the universes which there in are contained and the worlds within those universes, and so on until we get to the  tiniest of cells. You look at a cell reproduction and go on about nuclei, and flagellum and ion's, protons, neutrons and we could debate this for eons but the fact is until Science can define the origin of the first molecule no one either in theory or in scientific semantics can prove that God by any other name is non existent!

 

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"I've always

edejardin wrote:
"I've always felt the ontological argument for god is weak, at best."

I wasn't referring to the ontological argument(s), but to how broad the concept of God is in classical theism. In other words, even if God did not exist it's still the case that the scope of the *concept* of God is greater than that of the *concept* of existence.

Oh! My bad. Sorry -- it looked very much like the ontological argument, when in fact it is only 1/2 of the classical composition. I jumped to conclusions.

In that case: I am willing to follow where you lead on this one. I'm still a bit troubled by the admittance of an unsupported into an ontology (as ontologies are, by definition, sets of models and data that represent a reality), but I'd like to see where you go with this.

Quote:
"The difference is, science uses deduction to make predictions, which are testable; natural theology does not."

Right, but there's a reason scientific conclusions must be tested, while the conclusions of natural theology are not, viz. scientific conclusions concern contingent phenomena, while the conclusions of natural theology concern what follows about the nature of reality given the conceptual commitments we must make to explain those contingent phenomena.

Which seems to beg the question. If you must assume the conclusions you wish to prove, natural philosophy seems to be an exercise in wish-fulfillment. And, without a method of testing those conceptual commitments, there is no way to assign any probability of truth at all.

The reason the scientific method includes testing of deductive conclusions is because it's necessary the test conclusions against reality. Otherwise, you have a very high probability of simply being wrong.

So again, from an epistemological standpoint, it seems there is nothing to validate the propositions.

Quote:

""Existence" isn't as hard as you might think. It is the physical scope of temporal interaction. Or, stated slightly differently: it is the property of being a part of the causal chain."

Where do mathematical objects, propositions, relationships, etc. fit in here? Many very secular mathematicians will tell you that they are engaged in a process of discovering mathematical objects, not in inventing them, and many very secular philosophers argue that propositions and the like do in fact exist. However, neither mathematical objects nor propositions, etc. can exist given your conception of existence, so I don't think it's comprehensive enough.

Relationships such as mathematics do not exist per se. We have discovered relationships between objects and properties of objects, but the objects exist. The relationships of objects fall within the physical scope of temporal interaction. Mathematics is nothing more and nothing less than the abstracted model of the patterns exhibited by these relationships and interactions. "Mathematics" does not exist as an independent entity. That's like saying that "Abyssinian cat" exists as an entity independent of the collection of actual cats we place in that group.

So, I maintain my definition is sufficient.

I provided a definition of existence -- I believe you owe me a definition of god. Smiling

Quote:

"The probability of the existence of god appears to approach 0 in this universe; so, no, I actually have a hard time picturing a world in which god is less probable."

Let's take an extreme example first to clarify things. (Also, remember that possible worlds analyses are concerned with logical possibility first, and not with physical or technological possibility.) Compare the actual world A with a possible world W in which no sentient, rational being ever conceived of a god, much less believed in one. Imagine that in W no being ever experiences happiness, hope, love, joy, etc. Further imagine that every being in W is in constant pain that only varies in its intensity. Imagine that there is no natural law and thus no order in W, and that these beings survive purely by chance. Imagine that these beings have no moral sense. Now, in which world would we say it's more likely that the omnipotent, omniscient and loving God of classical theism exists, A or W? "You've also not presented a single property (or proposition) in this world which presents god as more plausible than not-god." This is purposeful I've found that you have to do a lot of epistemological ground clearing -- which I'm in the process of doing now -- before you can have a meaningful discussion about the evidence for God's existence; otherwise, we'll wind up talking right past one another.

Okay. This is going to take some going-over, and (again) I'm at work. Gah. Not enough time....

I'll get back to this one.

 

And-- thanks again. This is fun.

"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


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Nigel the bald...just kidding

 Existence is the state of being. If it is there, then it exists..by what state of being is this, then, we are debating...the physical state that we can touch, taste, feel, hear, what? The metaphysical or supernatural state, that which transcends known physical laws? Because it is unknown does not mean that it does not exist. The New world did not exist in the minds of those prior to the explorers who sat sail to discover themselves the boundaries of their known existence but upon seeing new land it opened a flood gate of new possibilities...no not all explorers didn't think there wasn't a new world but it was because they were willing to think beyond the current accepted views held by many of the old world that they were willing to say There just might be and there was but only because they were open to new ideas that conflicted with their archaic form of logic and reasoning...much as today among the atheists and agnostics do because the concept of a metaphysical being overwhelms their current state of archaic thinking and logic.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it..does it make a sound....just because you don't hear the crackling of the tree as it falls does not dispute that sound is there whether you are or not...but do you really know because your not there to prove it and you can't be not there to disprove it..thus a paradox...

God is a metaphysical being and because He is, He works out of an entirely different set of physical laws that the human mind can't truly understand. If you can't understand it how then can you logically debate something your rational mind can't possibly fathom. 

Ponder the ant. If your lazy like I am man it would suck to be an ant...arguably the hardest working entity on Earth. Imagine, your constantly working,foraging whatever, you finally get back to your crib albeit an over crowded crib and your lucky to slip in a little shut eye then BAM some little punk kid just kicked a big ol whole in your house...#%%^&^*%$..come on boys lets go and you got to go right back to work rebuilding your home ...man that would suck...I'd hate to be an ant but I sure as Hell respect the little annoying %^$%&&[email protected]! Now, the ant doesn't get to go wander off and say screw this crap I'm going to go build my own little pad and live happily ever after. Why not?  Because the ant knows his place, his responsibility to the colony, and the queen. The ant has a purpose. We , I contend are the only creatures that don't abide by a certain set of predetermined natural set of laws so we become independent thinkers with individual ideas and perceptions. That no other animal possesses this trait, clearly shows why we are independent of primitive apes. Because of our ability to comprehend, understand, rationalize, etc. An ape can learn to do things but it can't understand why it jumps through a hoop or smoke a cigarette because apes, monkees, chimpanzees are masters of mimickry but that doesn't constitute that we descended from them because they can ride a bicycle...a dog can be trained to do the same thing does that mean we may have descended from dogs too...NO, but me do think that Bob and Brian are a couple of dobermans..grrrrr..seriously though. Tell me descendants of Cornelius...do you you have the occasional urge to take your caca and sling it...sorry bad example me do think some of you would actually do that just for fun and to annoy people. Mainly me, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say. If not then %*%^$% flabber flickle!!!!

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Even if God was real, I

  Even if God was real, I still have no use for him and he is certainly no friend of mine.

I mean really ....worship Jesus or he'll burn you alive ? ( Luke 19:27 )  Wow, how could you not love a God like that ? 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
God is real

 First of all cute picture i kind of liked the old lady with a gun..less threatening...haha

Luke 19:27 just so you know doesn't say you will burn in Hell but nice try satan at trying to confuse the uninitiated.

The scripture is part of a parable and the scripture within the context of the parable says "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me"

If your going to quote scripture why not explain for the audience what the context is in which the scripture is used and properly discern the text and put in to perspective what it means. Failure to do so reinstates the atheist attempt to confound lazily to support there contriteness towards God. 

This is a concept that reinforces the fact you are atheist because you alone are afraid to believe in punishment for disobedience to God.

You don't want to believe there is retribution for your sins...but my friend this is only if you deny the Messiah. Jesus said also I came not to (judge,condemn, destroy) the world but to save it. 

Maybe you should reread John 3:16 for assurance of how easy it is to be saved!

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


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

BADWAY wrote:

Existence is the state of being. If it is there, then it exists..by what state of being is this, then, we are debating...the physical state that we can touch, taste, feel, hear, what? The metaphysical or supernatural state, that which transcends known physical laws? Because it is unknown does not mean that it does not exist.

Hey, BADWAY. Glad you're joining in the fray here.

Of course, lots of things exist that are unknown. For instance, there are planets and suns that we know nothing about -- even the fact that they exist. This is an ontological issue: the actual existence or non-existence of these entities is unknown to us. One could even say the same about god. Ontologically, god may or may not exist.

Then there is the epistemic question: how do we know what we know? And even more important, what can we legitimately claim to know?

The question of god is one such epistemic issue. How can we claim to know whether god exists or not?

Ontologically, we can make claims about god only if we have epistemic reasons. If we can't know about god, how can we claim he exists? This is no different than me saying there is a planet orbiting Betelgeuse, and it is populated with intelligent slugs. What are my epistemic reasons for making an ontologic claim?

Honestly, when discussing god, it's all about epistemology. We make ontologic claims ('god exists,' or 'god does not exist') but honestly, what it comes down to is, "How do we know?" And that is epistemic in nature. That's really what this debate is about. edejardin and I are dancing around epistemology, though there are ontologic claims here and there. (Basically, if you can show logically that something *must* exist, it leaves the realm of epistemology, and enters the realm of ontology.) I'm attempting to narrow the epsitemologic field, while he is attempting to expand it.

When you say, "Because it is unknown does not mean that it does not exist," you are essentially saying, "That which is unknown is open for imagination." And that's true. However, just because you can imagine it, or even feel that it is real, does not make it real. There are certain standards by which we judge things as true or not true. The standard you hold determines how likely that which you believe is actually (ontologically) true. If you say, "I feel god, therefore god exists," your standards are fairly low, and the ontological likelihood of your assumption is really pretty low.

Quote:

God is a metaphysical being and because He is, He works out of an entirely different set of physical laws that the human mind can't truly understand. If you can't understand it how then can you logically debate something your rational mind can't possibly fathom. 

And this is the quandary you find yourself in. You are asserting a metaphysical being exists; you must therefore answer the question, "How do I know?" Without an acceptable answer to that question, your knowledge itself becomes suspect. (Note: I haven't read either of your "Why I believe in god" threads. I intend to, when I have time. I'm really interested, because I kinda like you so far.)

This doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it. It simply means you shouldn't expect anyone else to accept your reasons.

Quote:

Ponder the ant. If your lazy like I am man it would suck to be an ant...arguably the hardest working entity on Earth. Imagine, your constantly working,foraging whatever, you finally get back to your crib albeit an over crowded crib and your lucky to slip in a little shut eye then BAM some little punk kid just kicked a big ol whole in your house...#%%^&^*%$..come on boys lets go and you got to go right back to work rebuilding your home ...man that would suck...I'd hate to be an ant but I sure as Hell respect the little annoying %^$%&&[email protected]! Now, the ant doesn't get to go wander off and say screw this crap I'm going to go build my own little pad and live happily ever after. Why not?  Because the ant knows his place, his responsibility to the colony, and the queen. The ant has a purpose. We , I contend are the only creatures that don't abide by a certain set of predetermined natural set of laws so we become independent thinkers with individual ideas and perceptions. That no other animal possesses this trait, clearly shows why we are independent of primitive apes. Because of our ability to comprehend, understand, rationalize, etc. An ape can learn to do things but it can't understand why it jumps through a hoop or smoke a cigarette because apes, monkees, chimpanzees are masters of mimickry but that doesn't constitute that we descended from them because they can ride a bicycle...a dog can be trained to do the same thing does that mean we may have descended from dogs too...NO, but me do think that Bob and Brian are a couple of dobermans..grrrrr..seriously though. Tell me descendants of Cornelius...do you you have the occasional urge to take your caca and sling it...sorry bad example me do think some of you would actually do that just for fun and to annoy people. Mainly me, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say. If not then %*%^$% flabber flickle!!!!

There are others that get to choose. Dolphins seem intelligent. Dogs, even, to a certain extent. The major difference between us and the other "intelligent" animals is our ability to think about patterns, and abstract from those patterns.

As far as the rest: dude, we're all trying to build our "happily ever after." We're all in this together, you and me and everyone else. The only thing I care about (other than hanging out with intelligent people and having my 'happily ever after') is that we all act that way -- like we're all in this together.

"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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: First of all

BADWAY wrote:

 First of all cute picture i kind of liked the old lady with a gun..less threatening...haha

Luke 19:27 just so you know doesn't say you will burn in Hell but nice try satan at trying to confuse the uninitiated.

The scripture is part of a parable and the scripture within the context of the parable says "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me"

If your going to quote scripture why not explain for the audience what the context is in which the scripture is used and properly discern the text and put in to perspective what it means. Failure to do so reinstates the atheist attempt to confound lazily to support there contriteness towards God. 

This is a concept that reinforces the fact you are atheist because you alone are afraid to believe in punishment for disobedience to God.

You don't want to believe there is retribution for your sins...but my friend this is only if you deny the Messiah. Jesus said also I came not to (judge,condemn, destroy) the world but to save it. 

Maybe you should reread John 3:16 for assurance of how easy it is to be saved!

  Thank you for your response BADWAY. First time I've ever been called "satan" though, heh,heh.  

  I'm afraid it's too late for me to go back and fall upon the assurance of John 3:16 though.  I'm one of those accidental atheists...a former Christian who examined his religion too closely and quite unintentionally lost his faith.  I'll spare you the background as to why my faith crumbled, this is your thread and I don't want to steal your autobiographical thunder, so to speak. 

    It's too late for me...I'm an apostate and my status is best described by Hebrews 6: 4-6.  Biblically speaking, I'm a goner.     Wait a minute, do I smell boiling sulfer ?  

   Whatever...

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Hate to break it to you but

Hate to break it to you but your god isn't real. The only real ones are the ones I believe.

 

HAIL THOR.


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
First of all

 I got some good news for you...it's never too late...proof is that when the messiah was on the cross with criminals on either side. Remember, That was mocked and refused to accept while the other said Master I believe. Then Jesus "then surely this day you'll see paradise." It is never late ..and the thing is God expects you to question Him. Why wouldn't you...He is intriging. Talk about selling one self short....

If you ask God and say Lord I know I lost my way....but in the time I was desolate in spirit I came to you again and humbly ask for Your forgiveness Lord and restore unto me what I thought I have lost in the name of my precious Lord and Savior Jesus ...Amen

I suspect you have nothing to worry about..only if as I have stated earlier with Sapient that it is truly in your heart to seek salvation then one can receive it ...selah

and maybe you left something in the kitchen better check....you not boiling eggs are you rotten ones at that...haha

God bless you and I pray He restores your soul..and salvation

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
hate to break it to you too

 I beleive if you don't believe in the God as we are relating at this moment then that classifies you as an atheist technically speaking....a rose by any other name....

Say hi to thor for me!

Great your a polytheist....me I'm more of a polyeurythane kind of girl /guy ya heard....

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: God bless you

BADWAY wrote:

 God bless you and I pray He restores your soul..and salvation

   Thank you BW.  Although I feel my days as a believer are permanently behind me I always appreciate gestures of kindness....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: I got some

BADWAY wrote:

 I got some good news for you...it's never too late...proof is that when the messiah was on the cross with criminals on either side. Remember, That was mocked and refused to accept while the other said Master I believe. Then Jesus "then surely this day you'll see paradise." It is never late ..and the thing is God expects you to question Him. Why wouldn't you...He is intriging. Talk about selling one self short....

If you ask God and say Lord I know I lost my way....but in the time I was desolate in spirit I came to you again and humbly ask for Your forgiveness Lord and restore unto me what I thought I have lost in the name of my precious Lord and Savior Jesus ...Amen

I suspect you have nothing to worry about..only if as I have stated earlier with Sapient that it is truly in your heart to seek salvation then one can receive it ...selah

and maybe you left something in the kitchen better check....you not boiling eggs are you rotten ones at that...haha

God bless you and I pray He restores your soul..and salvation

Lovely story - shame it;s not biblical...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: I beleive if

BADWAY wrote:

 I beleive if you don't believe in the God as we are relating at this moment then that classifies you as an atheist technically speaking....a rose by any other name....

Say hi to thor for me!

Great your a polytheist....me I'm more of a polyeurythane kind of girl /guy ya heard....

 

a polytheist can't by definition be an atheist. by any other name even.

 

your god pretty much sucks. he can't even kill frost giants.


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Nigel the bald...just kidding

 I was wondering when you were gonna get back to me dog...I felt like a bride left at the altar and you ran off with edejardin...hehe

I just want to point out and as you read my other posts to catch up maybe I won't sound to redundant.

When your are quoting me as saying Because you don't see therefore it doesn't exist or Because it is unknown doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it  doesn't have to require imagination. If that helps you to put a face with something so you can relate to it fine..the truly faithful need not that support or validation to justify their belief in something that is true even if at risk is currently unavailable in proper description or translation to showcase their proof of the unknown. Examine the tree in the forest theory I described and you may understand my point clearer....true we could imagine that a sound was made if a tree fell in the forest and by what we know about sound so forth we would agree that it does make a sound even if no one is there to hear it....but no one can say absolutely without a shadow of doubt that is true because you both can't be here or there to prove it which creates a paradox of sorts. So one can only assume based on his current understanding of the forces at work as it relates to sound that he is safe in his assumption. But one must be careful since neither one can be proven absolute that a sound can occur if no one hears it so it leaves open the window of possibility. I know scientist would consider this a bs argument but none the less if it can't be proven and cannot be proven then both sides of the table must agree that both is plausible and unplausible. But not impossible.  I've been on this site all day so forgive me if I'm rambling on....I'll think more clearly tommorrow and probably dismiss this as being written half asleep...haha ...goodnight both Theists and non may you all have a good night sleep and pleasant dreams and may no harm come to any one here and abroad.....Thank you for your time this is indeed fun for me. But then again I am not your typical Christian...

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote:I was wondering

BADWAY wrote:

I was wondering when you were gonna get back to me dog...I felt like a bride left at the altar and you ran off with edejardin...hehe

BW,

Not much time tonight to respond to the whole post, but: I'd never leave you at the alter. And that's a promise. (I don't make promises lightly.)

EDIT: In fact, I think this is my first promise ever on this website.

"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


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Which seems to beg the

"Which seems to beg the question. If you must assume the conclusions you wish to prove, natural philosophy seems to be an exercise in wish-fulfillment. And, without a method of testing those conceptual commitments, there is no way to assign any probability of truth at all."

Arguments in natural theology are no more question begging than the arguments in, say, mathematics (that is, the valid arguments in natural theology and mathematics, of course). Here's a quick example: One famous argument begins with the observation that some things change. It then goes on to analyze the concept of change, and makes a number of important distinctions and conceptual analyses. From there, it takes these distinctions and analyses and rigorously draws out their logical implications, the result being the necessity of positing a sustaining cause with attributes we would all uncontroversially ascribe to God. So, this argument -- which we can take as a sort of paradigm case -- begins with an observation, analyzes the conceptual content we need to use to make sense of that observation, and proceeds to draw out the logical implications of those conceptual structures. While such arguments can of course be question begging, they're no more *inherently* question begging than any valid deductive argument is.

As far as probability goes, it's simply not an issue here. As with mathematical arguments, these types of metaphysical arguments in natural theology either work or they don't. (Incidentally, it's been argued that it is literally meaningless to ask about the probability that God exists. One of God's properties, if he exists, is that he exists necessarily. That is, God either exists in all possible worlds, or he exists in no possible world. And, since this is part of the very definition of God, it makes as much sense to talk about the probability that God exists as it does to ask about the probability that a triangle has three sides. Note, this is not to say that God does in fact exist, but that if he exists, he exists necessarily.)

"The reason the scientific method includes testing of deductive conclusions is because it's necessary the test conclusions against reality. Otherwise, you have a very high probability of simply being wrong."

I don't think this is true at all (at least not in all cases, though I do concede, of course, the necessity of testing properly scientific conclusions). For example, I can construct an a priori argument that concludes that squared circles don't exist, and I don't need to test this conclusion to be justified in holding it. Similarly, I can construct an argument demonstrating that there is necessarily something with pages in it on my computer desk (There is a book on my desk, all books(\/df) have at least one page, so there is something with at least one page on my desk), and I wouldn't have to test the conclusion to be certain of its truth. Note, like arguments in natural theology, it relies (at least in part) on premises derived a posteriori, but leads (if valid) to a necessarily true conclusion. (These are simplistic examples, of course, so don't get caught up in these particular arguments themselves, but rather focus on the point I'm driving at, to wit we can come to know things about the world without satisfying science's 'testability' criterion. Indeed, to claim otherwise would be self refuting, since we cannot test the proposition that 'the testability criterion is necessary if a conclusion is to be justified.')

"The relationships of objects fall within the physical scope of temporal interaction. Mathematics is nothing more and nothing less than the abstracted model of the patterns exhibited by these relationships and interactions. "Mathematics" does not exist as an independent entity...So, I maintain my definition is sufficient."

I disagree. For example, what is the physical analog of imaginary numbers, or of the Mandelbrot set?

"I provided a definition of existence -- I believe you owe me a definition of god."

Well, there are still serious problems with your definition, aside from the ones I've already raised (e.g. the term 'physical' is notoriously tricky to get a handle on; your definition would seem to preclude virtual particles on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, since they arise uncaused for a fleeting moment and then 'dissolve' back again into the quantum vacuum; etc.) but let's go with your definition for the time being, so I can proceed to make my point. You said that existence is "the physical scope of temporal interaction." I think you'd agree that this is an extremely vague definition, and I think you'd also agree that this isn't in any sense a fault; rather, it's vagueness is entailed by the very nature of the exercise, i.e. of trying to work out a concept broad enough to comprise all of reality. Now, as I said, the concept of God has been understood by classical theists for centuries to be even broader still, since God is understood as the sustaining cause of all that exists. Hence, we should *expect* the definition of God to be even more encompassing, and thus even more vague, than "the physical scope of temporal interaction." So, we could (tentatively) go with something like this: God is the purely actual ground of the physical scope of temporal interaction, i.e. the purely actual ground of being. ("Purely actual" is a technical term that roughly means, if I may simplify it for the sake of brevity, "lacking all potentiality." Unfortunately, "potentiality" is another technical term that means, again simplifying for the sake of brevity, "the capacity an entity has that, given its nature, can be actualized, whether it ever is actualized or not.") As the ground of being, God can be thought of as standing in a relationship to existence -- the physical scope of temporal interaction -- that is (very roughly) analogous to the relationship that obtains between an orchestra and the music it's playing: the orchestra's playing is the sustaining cause of the music. As long as the orchestra plays, the music exists; if the orchestra stops, the music stops. Similarly, everything that exists does so only because God grounds it at every moment as a sustaining cause. (N.B. I'm here *explaining* various parts of the definition, not *arguing* for them, so it's no objection to say that I'm merely asserting such and such. However, the various elements of my definition -- excepting my incorporation of Nigel's conception of existence, of course -- are in fact all *conclusions* of rigorously formulated arguments, all of which rest, at least in part, on simple empirical premises, and which rely not a whit on revelation. This is not to say that revelation plays no role in Christian epistemology; of course it does. But nothing I've said in these many posts on this thread is derived in any sense from revelation.)

I would just like to reiterate my main point apropos of the definition of God: If you expect the definition of God to be clearer than a good definition of existence, then you're setting the bar far too high because (1) you've failed to think through the nature of definitions as we move from specific tokens to ever broader and more encompassing types, and (2) you've not understood what classical theists mean when they say, "God," viz. insofar as it's a concept that is even more expansive than "existence" itself. In short, think about how many unanswerable questions arise from the sorts of vague definitions we're capable of giving of "existence," and then realize that, given (1) and (2), we should not consider it a defect if the definition of God is even vaguer than the definition of "existence" and raises even more difficult questions.

Edejardin


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

 

Must....resist...the...cute..ness...  dammit... does this mean i'm gay now?

 

btw..

ClockCat wrote:

Wall of text crits you for 9999.

I lol'd so hard at this!! (:

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Okay, not much time

Okay, not much time (again!), but I'd like to reply to this, briefly.

edejardin wrote:
Similarly, I can construct an argument demonstrating that there is necessarily something with pages in it on my computer desk (There is a book on my desk, all books(\/df) have at least one page, so there is something with at least one page on my desk), and I wouldn't have to test the conclusion to be certain of its truth.

To construct this argument, you must relate assumptions or propositions of the argument with physical things. Otherwise, your argument becomes pure assertion.

Quote:
Note, like arguments in natural theology, it relies (at least in part) on premises derived a posteriori, but leads (if valid) to a necessarily true conclusion. (These are simplistic examples, of course, so don't get caught up in these particular arguments themselves, but rather focus on the point I'm driving at, to wit we can come to know things about the world without satisfying science's 'testability' criterion. Indeed, to claim otherwise would be self refuting, since we cannot test the proposition that 'the testability criterion is necessary if a conclusion is to be justified.')

Sorry; I got caught up in the heat of the moment, in the last section.

Aha! Here you conflate the purely epistemic debate ('the testability criterion is necessary if a conclusion is to be justified') with the ontological ('god exists'). In spite of this conflation, the testability criterion has itself been tested. Every scientific advance, based on the testability criterion, proves its worth. Every time naturalistic theology gives us a watchmaker, or a Kalam cosmological argument, or other construct that is shown to be hollow, the testability criterion is proven out. The very effectiveness of the scientific method proves it out.

Naturalistic theology has given us, what, exactly? How has it proven out its epistemology?

edejardin wrote:
" I would just like to reiterate my main point apropos of the definition of God: If you expect the definition of God to be clearer than a good definition of existence, then you're setting the bar far too high because (1) you've failed to think through the nature of definitions as we move from specific tokens to ever broader and more encompassing types, and (2) you've not understood what classical theists mean when they say, "God," viz. insofar as it's a concept that is even more expansive than "existence" itself. In short, think about how many unanswerable questions arise from the sorts of vague definitions we're capable of giving of "existence," and then realize that, given (1) and (2), we should not consider it a defect if the definition of God is even vaguer than the definition of "existence" and raises even more difficult questions.

There are certain attributes of your examples that are consistent. For instance, in each example as you move from the specific to the general, each general category references that which we've actually experienced. That is, as you move from Seamus to Abyssinian to cat, each level references something specific and actualized at the lowest layer; and it is only this lower layer we can experience, that is real. There is a subtlety that you are glossing over here, though. If all cats were Abyssinian, then we would have no need for the label "Abyssinian cat." Further, if you were to propose a label above "cat" that did not define an attribute not already inherent in "cat," that label would be redundant, and have no ontological reach beyond "cat." Suppose further that this label did include attributes beyond that which defines a "cat," (say, 'has four or six legs.') Yet there is nothing in the universe that fits the definition with six legs. Ontologically, that label is equivalent to "cat," even with the extraneous attributes that are never actualized.

We can conclude that each categorical expansion has a limit. For the cats, it went from specific cat, to type of cat, to all cats, to mammals, to animals, to life in general... and then were, exactly? The outer category would be simply "life." You could go on to object, I suppose, but it would be difficult to expand the categories so that "life" included, say, suns but not planets. Recognizing where the conceptual categories end seems to be ontologically significant, no?

It occurs to me that the concept of "god" is over-reaching in an attempt to broaden a category that is already well-defined at its outer limits.

As for 2):

Absolutely. I've never understood what classical theists mean when they say, "God." And I submit, neither do classical theists. They have taken existence and appended something that neither exists, nor enhances or contributes to the understanding of existence. (In fact, I would argue the very concept of god detracts from our understanding of existence; if you read my rant about the epistemic failure of the god concept, you'll have an idea what I mean.)

You have said that god is that which sustains reality (or existence). But you have not established that the universe requires sustaining, any more than a galaxy requires a spindle. You have provided a poorly-defined solution to an as-yet non-existent problem. This appears to me to be neither ontologically nor epistemically sound.

Also, as with Kalam, you present a non sequitur, followed by a false dichotomy. First, the non sequitur is that the universe needs sustaining. The false dichotomy is that between "nothing" and "god." What about quantum foam? Or the tension of universal expansion? Or any other number of naturalistic (or even supernatural, but non-theistic) explanations?

And again, all this simply underscores both the ontological and epistemic failures of the god concept.

"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


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: your god

Ciarin wrote:

 your god pretty much sucks. he can't even kill frost giants.


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin

 Tell me Ciarin which has more fatty tissue ...that which is in your chest or that which is in your head?

As far as sucking goes ,I'm considering the source....you probably get passed around more times than a grease monkeys allen wrench at a biker rally!

Sorry I don't think your a whore....I just thought my prejudicial attempt at humor was as about as funny as yours if not just as lame!

Maybe we should just have a forum slinging insults since that seems to be the only course of action some feel they can take since they can't seem to be able to intellectually participate in this discussion!

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote: Tell me

BADWAY wrote:

 Tell me Ciarin which has more fatty tissue ...that which is in your chest or that which is in your head?

Tell me, badway, which is more of my concern, your feeble attempts at insulting me, or the entertainment I get from watching you embarass yourself on an atheist site.

 

LOL

 

Quote:

As far as sucking goes ,I'm considering the source....you probably get passed around more times than a grease monkeys allen wrench at a biker rally!

 

The source would be your bible. If you happen to look inside you'll find your god is less than worthy of anything more than disdain.

 

Also it's hard to get passed around anything when you spend your days playing World of Warcraft. But thanks for the compliment.

 

Quote:

Sorry I don't think your a whore....I just thought my prejudicial attempt at humor was as about as funny as yours if not just as lame!

 

I don't think you're sorry.

 

Quote:

Maybe we should just have a forum slinging insults since that seems to be the only course of action some feel they can take since they can't seem to be able to intellectually participate in this discussion!

 

Well if you feel slinging insults is the only course you can take, that's your deal. Leave me out of it.

 

 

Also, your god sucks.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"Which seems

edejardin wrote:
"Which seems to beg the question. If you must assume the conclusions you wish to prove, natural philosophy seems to be an exercise in wish-fulfillment. And, without a method of testing those conceptual commitments, there is no way to assign any probability of truth at all."

Arguments in natural theology are no more question begging than the arguments in, say, mathematics (that is, the valid arguments in natural theology and mathematics, of course). Here's a quick example: One famous argument begins with the observation that some things change. It then goes on to analyze the concept of change, and makes a number of important distinctions and conceptual analyses. From there, it takes these distinctions and analyses and rigorously draws out their logical implications, the result being the necessity of positing a sustaining cause with attributes we would all uncontroversially ascribe to God. So, this argument -- which we can take as a sort of paradigm case -- begins with an observation, analyzes the conceptual content we need to use to make sense of that observation, and proceeds to draw out the logical implications of those conceptual structures.

Is there a name for this paradigm case? I'd not seen this before, that I recall. It sounds interesting.

Pure deductive logic is a poor epistemic model. Take a look at Zeno's paradox. Here's a purely-deductive formulation that almost hit upon the calculus. If the question wasn't posed in such an intentionally-paradoxical manner, it's possible we'd have had a tremendously powerful mathematical tool a couple of thousand (or maybe at least hundreds)  of years before we did.

To me, though, the lesson of Zeno's paradox is, "Philosophers may ask interesting questions, but their answers usually suck." Of course, that's just my general disdain of philosophy shining through.

For some reason, I really find philosophical discussions interesting. Going up against people who know more about it than I do (like you) usually results in an education on my part; so if I'm a bit antagonistic (an often outright wrong), I'm really doing so only because I'm testing my own understanding of philosophy in an attempt to figure out where I'm wrong, or more ignorant than I knew. I make this disclaimer because I can sometimes be an arrogant ass, even when I don't intend to be.

Quote:
For example, what is the physical analog of imaginary numbers, or of the Mandelbrot set?

Math is a language, a system of symbolic representation. It is elegant and powerful. Like any sufficiently-powerful language, it is able to express concepts and things that have no actual physical manifestation. The Mandelbrot set does not exist. The concept of the Mandelbrot set exists within the minds of mathematicians and interested lay people. But, as Goedel proved, any sufficiently powerful language can be used to express paradoxes. It seems a natural corollary would be that any sufficiently powerful language can express concepts that have no natural analog. (This assumes there are no contradictions in natural reality, of course.)

As for complex numbers, there might be an argument for a kind of second-order existence of an analog, in that complex numbers are useful in expressing relationships between sinusoidals. I'm not up to making that argument, as it's been far too long since I took diff-eq and magnetism, and I'm not sure that's a meaningful addition to the concept of "existence."

 

As a side note -- what are you using to compose your posts? When I click on "quote," they all show up as a long block of text, rather than as paragraphs. It makes it a little more difficult to reply to you. Also, when quoting others, you can use quote blocks, like this: (quote)This is a quote(/quote). Only, replace the parenthesis with '[' and ']'. Just thought you might like to know.

"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


GypsyWytch
GypsyWytch's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Naughty theist!

BADWAY wrote:

 Tell me Ciarin which has more fatty tissue ...that which is in your chest or that which is in your head?

As far as sucking goes ,I'm considering the source....you probably get passed around more times than a grease monkeys allen wrench at a biker rally!

Sorry I don't think your a whore....I just thought my prejudicial attempt at humor was as about as funny as yours if not just as lame!

Maybe we should just have a forum slinging insults since that seems to be the only course of action some feel they can take since they can't seem to be able to intellectually participate in this discussion!

You're not acting very Christ-like.

Liberate your mind. Fuck religion.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GypsyWytch wrote:BADWAY

GypsyWytch wrote:

BADWAY wrote:

 Tell me Ciarin which has more fatty tissue ...that which is in your chest or that which is in your head?

As far as sucking goes ,I'm considering the source....you probably get passed around more times than a grease monkeys allen wrench at a biker rally!

Sorry I don't think your a whore....I just thought my prejudicial attempt at humor was as about as funny as yours if not just as lame!

Maybe we should just have a forum slinging insults since that seems to be the only course of action some feel they can take since they can't seem to be able to intellectually participate in this discussion!

You're not acting very Christ-like.

He'll just ask for and receive his God's forgiveness and promise not to do it again (until he wants to).

Lather, rinse, repeat.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"To construct this argument,

"To construct this argument, you must relate assumptions or propositions of the argument with physical things."

That's not the point. The point is that I can reach the conclusion -- a conclusion I can be certain is true -- without testing it. Again, I'm only trying to show that 'testability' isn't a necessary criterion of knowledge. I can demonstrate this rather easily in another way. Take the proposition (1) "Testability is a necessary criterion of knowledge." Here's the question: Is (1) testable? Clearly it isn't. But if (1) isn't testable, it can't be known to be true (per its own criterion). Hence, (1) cannot withstand the logical onslaught of its own criterion, and when this obtains, we say the proposition (or the argument, or whatever) is self refuting.

"Aha! Here you conflate the purely epistemic debate ('the testability criterion is necessary if a conclusion is to be justified') with the ontological ('god exists')."

No, I was discussing whether the conclusions of all arguments, such as those presented in natural theology, need to satisfy the testability criterion, and proceeded to present two (intentionally) simple examples -- one of what can be known not to exist independently of any test, and one of what can be known about what in fact exists independently of any test -- to make this point clear. Both *conclusions* -- "no squared circles exist," and "there is something with at least one page in it on my computer desk" -- can be known with certainly without satisfying the testability criterion.

"the testability criterion has itself been tested. Every scientific advance, based on the testability criterion, proves its worth."

This is *not* the same as testing the testability criterion. Note, the criterion is expressed above in (1). Now, you can indeed test, say, whether neutrino decoupling obtained in the early universe (e.g. if we're ever able to develop a neutrino detector capable of detecting the cosmic neutrino background that should remain today as an artifact of the early decoupling), just as you can test any other properly scientific conclusion, but you cannot test (1) itself. The two are simply not the same. Think about it: can you devise a test for (1)?

"Naturalistic theology has given us, what, exactly? How has it proven out its epistemology?"

Let me approach this obliquely. Take any observation, say of the form P causes Q. Now, can you even begin to make sense of this without a host of concepts, e.g. causation, relationship, temporality, entailment, etc.? I submit that it's obvious that you cannot. And, isn't it the case that these concepts can be interpreted in very different ways, and explain equally well the same empirical data? I submit that this is indeed the case (as philosophers of science have known for quite some time: see 'underdetermination'). But if the two preceding notions are correct, then we cannot even begin to make sense of the very observations science itself relies upon without presupposing the reliability of the very epistemology you're questioning.

"We can conclude that each categorical expansion has a limit."

I agree.

"The outer category would be simply "life." You could go on to object, I suppose, but it would be difficult to expand the categories so that "life" included, say, suns but not planets. Recognizing where the conceptual categories end seems to be ontologically significant, no?"

Here's a simple way to grasp what I was getting at. Take my development from this specific cat to thing (or object, or whatever), and place them in the appropriate circles of a Venn diagram. Isn't it obviously the case that "living thing" will fit perfectly well as a concentric circle in the larger category "thing"? And isn't it obviously the case that we will be able to trace from there a series of concentric circles back to "this specific cat"? Your problem here is that you're confusing what would surely be an circle within "thing" -- say, "inanimate things" -- that would *not* overlap, within the broadest circle, "thing," with "living thing."If you can visualize this, you'll see that the objection you've raised disappears.

"It occurs to me that the concept of "god" is over-reaching in an attempt to broaden a category that is already well-defined at its outer limits."

I fail to see how this is an objection to my point, since *every* category from "this X" to "thing" is well defined to its outer limits -- indeed, is better defined in this way as we move from the more specific to the more general.

"As for 2):
Absolutely. I've never understood what classical theists mean when they say, "God." And I submit, neither do classical theists. They have taken existence and appended something that neither exists, nor enhances or contributes to the understanding of existence."

Is it honestly that you've never understood what they mean, or that you never found the definition clear enough? If the latter, then *that touches on the point of my entire argument concerning this issue*, i.e. when you understand that definitions become more vague as we move from the specific to the general, and when you understand that 'God' is as general as you can get, then you should expect such definitions to be a bit unclear -- in fact, you should expect them to be even more unclear than the undeniably hazy definitions of "existence." That is, if you're demanding as precise a definition of "God" as you would of "this Abyssinian cat," then you simply don't understand the issue.

I would also add that God *does* contribute to our understanding of existence. If you're familiar with contemporary philosophy, and with the problems surrounding issues of causation, induction, dispositions, etc., then you know what a mess we're in. However, if you return to a classical conception of God, and to the metaphysical conceptions on which it rests, you'll see that it clears up quite a few of these problems quite satisfactorily (a *huge* topic I can't get into right now).

"You have said that god is that which sustains reality (or existence). But you have not established that the universe requires sustaining, any more than a galaxy requires a spindle. You have provided a poorly-defined solution to an as-yet non-existent problem. This appears to me to be neither ontologically nor epistemically sound."

I preempted this objection by saying, quite clearly, that I was providing an *explanation,* a clarification, of the various elements of my definition of God; I was quite clear that I wasn't providing an *argument* for any of this, so your objection amounts to this: But you didn't do what you said you weren't doing. Well, yeah.

"Also, as with Kalam, you present a non sequitur, followed by a false dichotomy. First, the non sequitur is that the universe needs sustaining. The false dichotomy is that between "nothing" and "god." What about quantum foam? Or the tension of universal expansion? Or any other number of naturalistic (or even supernatural, but non-theistic) explanations?
And again, all this simply underscores both the ontological and epistemic failures of the god concept."

No, it underscores the elementary point that explanations should not be mistaken for arguments, and thus expected to satisfy requirements they were never intended to satisfy!

Edejardin


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Is there a name for this

"Is there a name for this paradigm case? I'd not seen this before, that I recall. It sounds interesting."

Absolutely, and I'm sure you have heard of it: it's Aquinas's First Way. As I've been emphasizing, the arguments for God's existence are almost inevitably poorly understood by most atheists. (I blame the internet.) Even atheists with strong philosophical backgrounds often have never been exposed to rigorous and accurate developments of these arguments, and so they dismiss caricatures of them. I'd recommend a recently published, popular level book by professor Ed Feser titled "The Last Superstition" to anyone interested in getting into these arguments in a serious way. Feser demonstrates that the New Atheists have never been exposed to serious philosophical arguments for God (yes, even Harris and Dennet, who are both trained in philosophy), and proceeds to develop a number of arguments for God's existence from the metaphysical ground floor up.

"Pure deductive logic is a poor epistemic model."

That depends on what you're trying to find out. Do you want to know what water is composed of? Well, yeah, pure deduction won't get you very far. But do you want to understand, in a deep sense, what "composition" means, and what it entails? Here, you can't get anywhere without deduction. You have to be sure you fit the tools to the job: you can't cut down a tree with an Allen wrench, but it doesn't follow that the Allen wrench is without use. In its proper context, it's quite useful.

"To me, though, the lesson of Zeno's paradox is, "Philosophers may ask interesting questions, but their answers usually suck." Of course, that's just my general disdain of philosophy shining through."

Again, it depends. I'd agree that philosophers who do science from their armchairs are horrible, but I'd also say that scientists make a fine mess of things when they delve into philosophy. But I'd also say that the line between questions/answers isn't as clear as you suppose here. Good questions, by their very nature, presuppose good answers, and good answers always raise new questions. Further, as any scientist will tell you, the most difficult job is coming up with the right question. And since, as you admit, philosophers come up with good questions, philosophy can't be half as bad as you suppose. Eye-wink

"I make this disclaimer because I can sometimes be an arrogant ass, even when I don't intend to be."

Yeah, I've been accused of arrogance too, but I can't see why...Seriously, you don't strike me as arrogant at all, just as someone deeply interested in these issues who's not afraid to mix it up and provide vigorous arguments to support his positions.

"Like any sufficiently-powerful language, it is able to express concepts and things that have no actual physical manifestation. The Mandelbrot set does not exist. The concept of the Mandelbrot set exists within the minds of mathematicians and interested lay people."

Well, Mandelbrot himself would disagree with you, but that doesn't count for much here. In what sense do concepts exist in the minds of people? And do you identify minds with brains (in any of the various ways this can be done)?

"It seems a natural corollary would be that any sufficiently powerful language can express concepts that have no natural analog."

I agree. The question is whether some of those concepts exist. Another question is why, if it is the case that mathematics is as you say, we have made so many discoveries about the real world in the mathematical realm that have been since corroborated with real world discoveries. It seems to me that there's something deeper going on here than you suggest, and it implies the real existence of mathematical objects (as mathematicians such as Mandelbrot and Penrose -- and countless others -- have argued).

"Also, when quoting others, you can use quote blocks, like this: (quote)This is a quote(/quote). Only, replace the parenthesis with '[' and ']'. Just thought you might like to know."

Thanks!

Edejardin


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
BADWAY wrote:I asked is it

BADWAY wrote:
I asked is it possible for life on other planets,then you say "No. It's possible of course" which is it bro your more confusing than an hermorpadite on the dating game for ambiguous heterosexuals!!!
[Emphasis mine.]Had BADWAY once been a cross-dresser?  Is BADWAY still?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but I remember in our conversation being confused by the statement I've quoted above.  It's not clever of witty.  I was mostly confused because hermaphrodites, or more 'properly' intersexed people, are not necessarily not heterosexual.  These are merely people who have atypical physical features and are, at appearance, not easily categorized into the (arguably) narrow classification of male and female.  I'm not entirely sure what 'ambiguous heterosexuals' are and thus don't know what would be confusing about intersexed people on a dating game with them.  Perhaps I'm just not in the know.  I just want to note that I find the whole comment itself strange ...not something that's odd for BADWAY's writing.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I was mostly

 

Quote:
I was mostly confused because hermaphrodites

....That word has actually always confused me. I've been under the impression that it simply describes any organism that reproduces asexually (amoebas, bacteria, certain plants, etc)... but I've also been told that it specifically refers to people who have both male and female reproductive organs. 

What does it mean, exactly?

 

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


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'd go with the

Well, I'd go with the former, Kevin and keep intersexed for referring to the not-(necessarily)-sexually-dimorphic humans out there.  It's a bit of a mistake to say that a human has both male and female reproductive organs.  Usually what it really is, is that intersexed people have not fully formed (or have malformed) organs of one (traditional) sex or the other, the type of which, and depending on the larger picture, affect their appearance as one or the other (traditional) sexes, but has nothing to do (obviously) with their gender.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


bluescat48
bluescat48's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
  For a myth to exist it

 

 

For a myth to exist it must entirely be fabricated or be without truth. However the Bible clearly outlines actual places, peoples, battles and various other events that have transpired.

 

So does the Illiad & Gone with the Wind. So I can assume by your definition That these books are not mythological? Just because some part of a story is real doesn't make the whole story real.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's not rational by any means Badway

 

But if I ever get a chance I'm going to sneak up on your god and detonate myself.

 


BADWAY
Theist
BADWAY's picture
Posts: 142
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
extreme atheist

 You would have a better chance at sneaking up on your own shadow or reflection in the mirror...but good luck with that!

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY