-
Looking at the topics we have today. Topics which are a mixture of people doing or saying things in the world and we all go.
"Hey! did that person really say or do that?"
I found the trans gender toilet remark really unbelievable and ask myself how did we ever get to this crazy stage in reality.
No one in their right or otherwise mind would believe that God allowed the 9/11 because of trans-gender issues.
Is there a mind-set going on to control and change the way people think about God and life in general.
Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?
I cannot speak for God but I can speak for the teachings in the bible.
It made no sense for someone to say something like that about God. Do you believe as I do, that this really damages relationships between Atheists, Christians and the rest of the world. How does one make a judgment on these things be you a theist or atheist?
It worries me sometimes that people become so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly use.
Is this a planned and tweaked way of reporting only things that cause an even wider rift between Christians and Atheists?
Is it planned in the great scheme of things. Do you ever question the things that are published? How will it affect the future of mankind and religion?
-
Wow Sass
How hypocritical is that?
Do you ever stop to consider the damage your rants do to Christianity?
-
The OP is a bit rich considering the things Sass claims for her version of god!
-
I am going to mentally separate the post from (some of) the poster. It was a great post.
-
Wow Sass
How hypocritical is that?
Do you ever stop to consider the damage your rants do to Christianity?
No rant at all... in fact I was speaking out for those who the claims were aimed at.
At you stupid or did you not actually read the post?
-
No rant at all... in fact I was speaking out for those who the claims were aimed at.
At you stupid or did you not actually read the post?
Sassy's answer to anyone who questions or contradicts absolutely anything she says!
-
Sassy,
Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?
Sadly Sasperilla that's exactly the kind of thing that some clerics in particular do think - remember the bishop of Carlisle's comments about gay marriage causing flooding for example? - and I have no reason to think them to be insincere when they make these ludicrous pronouncements.
If I was a theist of some description and a cleric of my faith came out with something like that I'd despair I think at the disrepute he'd bring on my religion.
-
People who think like that are desperately sad!
-
Poor show the atheists are desperate, and yet they can still not come up with an intelligent reply.
Atheist drivel at it's best and still yet it's worse.
My post was clear.... Seems the atheist cannot take the heat... Get out of the Kitchen till you can.
-
Sassy,
Poor show the atheists are desperate, and yet they can still not come up with an intelligent reply.
Which bit didn't you understand?
-
Sassy,
Which bit didn't you understand?
It wasn't about understanding, it was the irrelevant part, that is all parts of what the atheists replied was and is irrelevant...
Getting difficult for an 18 year old, is it?
-
Sassy,
It wasn't about understanding, it was the irrelevant part, that is all parts of what the atheists replied was and is irrelevant...
Getting difficult for an 18 year old, is it?
You're remarkably fond of accusing others of ignorance yet seem unable to grasp that for the most part those people are capable of asking questions that you lack the intelligence or will to answer. Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?
You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.
-
No one in their right or otherwise mind would believe that God allowed the 9/11 because of trans-gender issues.
Agreed
Is there a mind-set going on to control and change the way people think about God and life in general.
Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?
I think some people do believe it - if that is what you are asking.
-
How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?
Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning.
-
How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?
I think the argument as you describe is an over simplification. People have a belief in God, the Bible seems to support that and add meaning and more detail to that belief, so with further reading becomes seen as more and more accurate and to have more and more meaning. I don't think people believe in because of the Bible but the Bible reinforces and develops and existing belief. Its not really about reasoning but belief.
You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.
There is a fair amount of lack of in depth understanding of Christianity displayed by people who argue against Sassy on theological grounds I would say. I would admit to being largely ignorant of the finer points of theology and the Bible, but since I have no belief in the God its about why would I have such deep understanding? The accusations of ignorance are over done though and tend to be fired at anyone and everyone even when, like me, posters aren't arguing about the theology at all.
-
Maeght,
I think the argument as you describe is an over simplification. People have a belief in God, the Bible seems to support that and add meaning and more detail to that belief, so with further reading becomes seen as more and more accurate and to have more and more meaning. I don't think people believe in because of the Bible but the Bible reinforces and develops and existing belief. Its not really about reasoning but belief.
It may be an oversimplification for some, but not for Sassy. I've asked her several times to explain why anyone should think her assertions about "God" to be true and she only responds with ever-longer chunks of the Bible. When I ask about her circular reasoning she accuses me of ignorance. It's a bit like watching a chap shaking his bow and arrow at the nuclear bomber overhead and shouting, "I've got you just where I want you now".
There is a fair amount of lack of in depth understanding of Christianity displayed by people who argue against Sassy on theological grounds I would say. I would admit to being largely ignorant of the finer points of theology and the Bible, but since I have no belief in the God its about why would I have such deep understanding? The accusations of ignorance are over done though and tend to be fired at anyone and everyone even when, like me, posters aren't arguing about the theology at all.
Quite so - see above. The basic logic should come before the theology, but instead Sassy insists only on telling us how much of the Bible she's memorised.
-
It may be an oversimplification for some, but not for Sassy. I've asked her several times to explain why anyone should think her assertions about "God" to be true and she only responds with ever-longer chunks of the Bible.
Of course, because she sees it as supporting her belief.
When I ask about her circular reasoning she accuses me of ignorance.
Of the deeper meaning and significance of what she has posted ... which is possibly fair enough.
It's a bit like watching a chap shaking his bow and arrow at the nuclear bomber overhead and shouting, "I've got you just where I want you now".
Never like analogies because they are never accurate.
Quite so - see above. The basic logic should come before the theology, but instead Sassy insists only on telling us how much of the Bible she's memorised.
Not logic - belief.
-
Maeght,
Of course, because she sees it as supporting her belief.
But only in the sense that "Philosopher's Stone" supports a belief that Harry Potter is real
Of the deeper meaning and significance of what she has posted ... which is possibly fair enough.
No, because that's not the question she's been asked. She may well find "deeper significance" in a book, but what she's been asked is why anyone should accept her personal faith belief as an objective truth. Just quoting from the book doesn't do that.
Never like analogies because they are never accurate.
But they are illustrative sometimes.
Not logic - belief.
No, logic. The alternative is to go nuclear - any claimed truth is as valid as any other - which doesn't help much.
-
But only in the sense that "Philosopher's Stone" supports a belief that Harry Potter is real
If someone had a strong belief that Harry Potter was real then of course they would quote sections of the books which seemed to support that. So?
No, because that's not the question she's been asked. She may well find "deeper significance" in a book, but what she's been asked is why anyone should accept her personal faith belief as an objective truth. Just quoting from the book doesn't do that.
If she thinks the Bible shows deep meaning then it will make sense to her to post it. the problem is that other people reading it don't share her belief so don't see any great meaning in it - something she doesn't seem to grasp. To her it is obvious from what the Bible says so uses it as evidence. What other argument for belief would you expect?
But they are illustrative sometimes.
But often not.
No, logic. The alternative is to go nuclear - any claimed truth is as valid as any other - which doesn't help much.
Its about beliefs which are supported by Biblical texts in the eye of the believer. This seems logical to the believer but not to a non-believer. I'm just not sure what alternative answer you are expecting.
-
If I might interject, I agree with Maeght that there isn't much use in engaging with people who just say 'Faith' or 'True for me' BUT that's rarely the whole position, and people also use or attempt to use logical arguments with that as well. Now if we want to to the only way to take part in a meaningful discussion is that people accept every axiom and definition up front, or that we just accept there is no common ground possible then not only is is this forum's goose a bit well done but so is every discussion.
-
Maeght,
If someone had a strong belief that Harry Potter was real then of course they would quote sections of the books which seemed to support that. So?
So nothing if they want to keep that as a private belief. It's no-one's business but her own. What we're discussing here is why anyone else should agree with them though - why in other words it's an objective as well as a subjective belief - because often people who hold these private beliefs arrogate to themselves special rights and privileges in the public square on the back of them.
If she thinks the Bible shows deep meaning then it will make sense to her to post it. the problem is that other people reading it don't share her belief so don't see any great meaning in it - something she doesn't seem to grasp. To her it is obvious from what the Bible says so uses it as evidence. What other argument for belief would you expect?
An argument that isn't circular: "The Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so". Circular reasoning is always wrong, which is why I asked Sassy whether she has anything else in the locker.
She hasn't.
But often not.
But in this case it is.
Its about beliefs which are supported by Biblical texts in the eye of the believer. his seems logical to the believer but not to a non-believer. I'm just not sure what alternative answer you are expecting?
"It" may be so far as personal faith beliefs are concerned, but the bar is set much higher for truth claims to be accepted as objective truths for the rest of us. The answer I'd expect to support a claim of objective truth is therefore something more than a circular argument. What that argument might look like isn't my problem - it's a burden of proof issue for the proponent.
-
NS,
If I might interject, I agree with Maeght that there isn't much use in engaging with people who just say 'Faith' or 'True for me' BUT that's rarely the whole position, and people also use or attempt to use logical arguments with that as well. Now if we want to to the only way to take part in a meaningful discussion is that people accept every axiom and definition up front, or that we just accept there is no common ground possible then not only is is this forum's goose a bit well done but so is every discussion.
I have no issue with people who say "true for me" because that's their "faith". What this is about though is those who claim "true for you too" on the same basis - and then make certain demands accordingly. And when they do that, if not for engaging with them at some level at least what else can we say - fuck off?
At least perhaps if one such person realises that she has no claim to special treatment for her beliefs then that's one "fuck off" needed fewer, which I think is a good thing.
-
It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion. 'True for me' is a claim that there is no possibility of anything in common challenging that. 'True for everybody' is merely a large egoed TfM
-
Sassy, as I've said, sees deep meaning and significance and 'truth' in the Bible and presents this as evidence as she thinks it is obviously that and should be obvious to everyone else that her truth is correct. She thinks those who don't see it are intentionally ignoring it or just don't get the obvious. We're not really discussing why anyone else should agree with her but why Sassy's only answer to your question is to quote the Bible. I totally agree re the special rights etc Of course circular arguments are wrong but I don't think she is making the argument you state. I don't think she is saying God exists because the Bible says so but that she believes in God and that the has added to her beliefs and deeper understanding and thinks this should be obvious to others. She just can't get her head around people genuinely not having a belief in God.
But in this case it is.
If you say so.
"It" may be so far as personal faith beliefs are concerned, but the bar is set much higher for truth claims to be accepted as objective truths for the rest of us. The answer I'd expect to support a claim of objective truth is therefore something more than a circular argument. What that argument might look like isn't my problem - it's a burden of proof issue for the proponent.
Never gonna happen.
-
It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion.
Yep.
-
NS,
It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion. 'True for me' is a claim that there is no possibility of anything in common challenging that. 'True for everybody' is merely a large egoed TfM
But it is about special treatment when the Sassys of this world expect their personal faith belief in "God" to be treated differently from anyone else's persona faith belief in anything else - pixies included. No-one is challenging "true for me" claims, least of all me. I'm entirely indifferent to such beliefs. I merely look askance when someone overreaches as Sassy does into "true for you too" assertions and expects me to treat those assertions accordingly.
And that's what the discussion is (or was) about.
-
Maeght,
Sassy, as I've said, sees deep meaning and significance and 'truth' in the Bible and presents this as evidence as she thinks it is obviously that and should be obvious to everyone else that her truth is correct. She thinks those who don't see it are intentionally ignoring it or just don't get the obvious. We're not really discussing why anyone else should agree with her but why Sassy's only answer to your question is to quote the Bible. I totally agree re the special rights etc Of course circular arguments are wrong but I don't think she is making the argument you state. I don't think she is saying God exists because the Bible says so but that she believes in God and that the has added to her beliefs and deeper understanding and thinks this should be obvious to others. She just can't get her head around people genuinely not having a belief in God.
So far as I can tell, she's precisely saying that God exists for me too because the Bible says so. At least that's the answer she gives whenever I ask her to support the claim.
If you say so.
I do.
Never gonna happen.
Probably not, but they should be given the opportunity to try at least shouldn't they rather than dismiss then out of hand?
-
So far as I can tell, she's precisely saying that God exists for me too because the Bible says so. At least that's the answer she gives whenever I ask her to support the claim.
I think I covered my view on this in the last post.
I do.
Obviously.
Probably not, but they should be given the opportunity to try at least shouldn't they rather than dismiss then out of hand?
Dismiss out of hand? Odd phrase to use. It's about accepting that they aren't going to come up with what you would consider a logical argument in response to being asked for one on a discussion thread when they view this as an attack on their faith.
-
NS,
But it is about special treatment when the Sassys of this world expect their personal faith belief in "God" to be treated differently from anyone else's persona faith belief in anything else - pixies included. No-one is challenging "true for me" claims, least of all me. I'm entirely indifferent to such beliefs. I merely look askance when someone overreaches as Sassy does into "true for you too" assertions and expects me to treat those assertions accordingly.
And that what the discussion is (or was) about.
We all work on true for me unless we work on agreed axioms. True for me is attempt to dress up 'I think' with a spunk collar of no point in discussing this reasonably.
-
Maeght,
I think I covered my view on this in the last post.
I merely tell you how she replies whenever I ask her for an argument for a "true for you too" God that isn't circular - ie, with more circularity.
Dismiss out of hand? Odd phrase to use. It's about accepting that they aren't going to come up with what you would consider a logical argument in response to being asked for one on a discussion thread when they view this as an attack on their faith.
It's not about "what I would consider" a logical argument. Logic has to a significant extent been codified, and either a poster's attempts to argue are fallacious or they're not when benchmarked against that model. If someone views enquiry and challenge as an attack on her faith that's as may be, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not their beliefs should be afforded privileged treatment over different faith beliefs of others. As Stephen Fry famously commented, the correct answer when someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is, "so fucking what?" (Christopher Hitchens's more polite reply was I think, "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument").
-
NS,
We all work on true for me unless we work on agreed axioms.
But we do - or at least most of us do - work on agreed axioms for most purposes. Models using reason and evidence for example can through intersubjective experience be shown to be a better way to design aeroplanes and medicines than just guessing. It's a tough furrow to plough to junk that for just one aspect of human experience.
True for me is attempt to dress up 'I think' with a spunk collar of no point in discussing this reasonably.
Well yes, but in that case what response is left but for "well fuck off then" when some try it to support their "true for you too" claims?
-
NS,
I have no issue with people who say "true for me" because that's their "faith". What this is about though is those who claim "true for you too" on the same basis - and then make certain demands accordingly. And when they do that, if not for engaging with them at some level at least what else can we say - fuck off?
At least perhaps if one such person realises that she has no claim to special treatment for her beliefs then that's one "fuck off" needed fewer, which I think is a good thing.
If there is a God then of course he may be true for everybody.
-
NS,
But we do - or at least most of us do - work on agreed axioms for most purposes. Models using reason and evidence for example can through intersubjective experience be shown to be a better way to design aeroplanes and medicines than just guessing. It's a tough furrow to plough to junk that for just one aspect of human experience.
And in this discussion, so what? That's the consequence of accepting axioms. It would be useful if you didn't try and argue against a strawman here.
Well yes, but in that case what response is left but for "well fuck off then" when some try it to support their "true for you too" claims?
This reads like a non sequitur. I was making a point about what I see as being the problem with 'True for me' as having any worth other than an attempt to shut down discussion, why switch that to 'True for you'?
-
NS,
And in this discussion, so what? That's the consequence of accepting axioms.
In this context of this discussion, so everything. The exchange I was having with Sassy concerned whether or not she had an argument for "God" that wasn't circular, the axiom being that circular reasoning is not a path to objective truths.
It would be useful if you didn't try and argue against a strawman here.
I wasn't.
This reads like a non sequitur. I was making a point about what I see as being the problem with 'True for me' as having any worth other than an attempt to shut down discussion, why switch that to 'True for you'?
Because that's exactly what Sassy is attempting. She seems to think that a "true for me" truth must also be a "true for you truth" on the same basis that she accepts it to be true for her - faith and poor thinking.
-
Sassy,
You're remarkably fond of accusing others of ignorance
IGNORANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE BY ATHEISTS.
That I am correct in, hence the fact we have to keep reminding you that you are wrong and lack knowledge.
yet seem unable to grasp that for the most part those people are capable of asking questions that you lack the intelligence or will to answer.
Neither, we as Christians, are fed up of people making uninformed suggestions or even allegations because you lack the basic information you don't need to be a Christian to know.
Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?
Have never said that... never suggested that, never tried to prove that.
You see your ignorance is sublime when it comes to even the factual evidence of posts because YOU NEVER LEARN, and have no knowledge of the basic bible truths and Christianity.
Also as an atheist you have never learned anything for yourself, but adopted and displayed the things you have read written by others. 'Circular reason' cannot and does not apply to God. Hence the ignorance clearly displayed in that God gives everyone including you a way to know him. If you choose not to obey and follow that way to find out. Then the onus for failure is clearly on your part, and your part alone.
You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.
As you can see, NOT AVOIDED ANYTHING FACED AND HIT IT STRAIGHT ON. You ignorance and lack of knowledge is an actual fact because you have never read what God wrote or even tried the ways he has taught. That clearly leaves me the person being slandered by an uneducated little boy who is a teenager and really riled now. Because you are not a truth seeker and you haven't the ability it appears to know what the truth is. Failings because you believe being ignorant is okay when it comes to God and the bible.
In truth your posts make what you spout as being ridiculous.
-
Agreed
I think some people do believe it - if that is what you are asking.
This Christian does not believe the 9/11 happened because trans gender people share bathrooms with the same sex or opposite sex.
I think Christ made it clear when he said:-
13 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
It is clear people do not die for someone else being worse sinners or because they were worse sinners.
In fact we are all responsible for our own sin. We cannot blame others for what we ourselves do.
So I do not believe the 9/11 was down to the using of a toilet facilities.
I truly believe God is a God of love and forgiveness. I cried the day as the 9/11 took place. At first I thought it a film as I walked in and saw it unfolding on tv. As I watched the second plane hit the towers I realised it was real.
I cried because I felt for everyone on those planes and their families and the sheer disbelief we call ourselves civil and people are throwing away lives as if they mean nothing.
God sent his Son to save our lives. Why would he take our lives because of a toilet incident?
We cannot fall from truth because our care and the love and well-being of each other should be our main priority in life.
We get caught up in all those things that don't matter. We should concentrate on that which does matter. Loving our neighbours as ourselves and caring for them.
-
Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning.
Explain the average intelligence and stupidity which caused men to fly planes full of people into buildings?
When has intelligence, being a teenager or reasoning had anything to do with the way you or suicide terrorist live your lives?
You see Leonard, that sentence does not give any weight or even any velocity or value to an argument of belief in God.
Describe who is God and bring proof of argument that he does not exist or that circular reasoning can actually define belief in God. YOU know it cannot. You have adopted other mens teachings but the lack of evidence you have depends entirely on your own ability to choose what you believe. And choose is exactly what you did. It had nothing to do with reasoning because given the evidence of those high profile evangelist who perform miracle healings... then Christ words have more evidence to support them than your own personal choice to disbelieve.
http://www1.cbn.com/miraculously-healed-while-reading-bible
http://www1.cbn.com/video/medically-confirmed-miracle
You see this is evidence that God answers prayers... No circular reasoning, medical evidence and medical facts.
My own sister diagnosed with breast cancer. A slow cancer and was preparing for surgery and treatment.
Medical evidence... but like the man in the second video her mass disappeared.
So before you want to suggest that the beliefs of a Christian are based on 'circular reasoning' and "Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning." you might like to acknowledge and admit, at least our God gives results.
Your own belief is chosen and has less evidence of truth than the beliefs you criticize of Christians.
You have far less to support your choice of belief. And in the face of the above evidence you did choose it.
-
Sassy,
Me:
Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?
You:
Have never said that... never suggested that, never tried to prove that.
I've said it several times, and you've never answered it.
You see your ignorance is sublime when it comes to even the factual evidence of posts because YOU NEVER LEARN, and have no knowledge of the basic bible truths and Christianity.
Also as an atheist you have never learned anything for yourself, but adopted and displayed the things you have read written by others. 'Circular reason' cannot and does not apply to God. Hence the ignorance clearly displayed in that God gives everyone including you a way to know him. If you choose not to obey and follow that way to find out. Then the onus for failure is clearly on your part, and your part alone.
Leaving aside your rambling incoherence and insult, it's simple enough. You think not only that there is a "God", but that this god is an objective truth for me too if I did but know it. I ask you why you think this, and you quote bits from a book you think to be "holy" and therefore accurate.
I explain to you that this is circular reasoning ("the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"), that circular reasoning is always a wrong argument, and that you'd need something else therefore if you want to demonstrate a god that's true for me too.
You can't escape that. If you want your opinion on the objective existence of god to be taken seriously, then finally you need to support it with an argument that isn't hopeless: establish God without reference to a book saying so, or establish that the book is accurate without reference to God making it so. If you can do neither one of these, then you have no argument.
-
This Christian does not believe the 9/11 happened because trans gender people share bathrooms with the same sex or opposite sex.
I didn't say that you did, but am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't.
-
Sass, if you don't understand any part of Blue's post, why not just say so and I'm sure Blue will clarify it for you.
I too would be interested to know how or if you could supply some evidence that confirms that your god idea has something to do with reality?
If you do decide to give an answer to Blue perhaps it might have a bit more merit if you were to answer the things he is asking of you, rather than quoting reams and reams of biblical script, which in itself it's fine for you but none of it's relevant to the question that Blue is asking of you.
I just wondered if it's ever occured to you that if you could provide some indisputable evidence that this he she or it thing you refer to as god does really exist, at a stroke no more atheists, think of all those brownie points you would be gaining Sass if you converted all of those terrible atheists?
ippy
-
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm
-
Explain the average intelligence and stupidity which caused men to fly planes full of people into buildings?
When has intelligence, being a teenager or reasoning had anything to do with the way you or suicide terrorist live your lives?
You see Leonard, that sentence does not give any weight or even any velocity or value to an argument of belief in God.
Leonard wasn't referring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".
-
Leonard wasn't refrring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".
Which is a totally unreasoned statement!
-
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm
Yet another nut job Brownie, I despair as much about this kind of thinking as much as the despair about 9/11 suicide nutty thinking.
At least this woman hasn't killed anybody.
ippy
-
Leonard wasn't referring to that though, he was referring to the point about the circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so".
The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.
-
The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.
Agreed. If it really exists why doesn't it appear in a way which is irrefutable?
-
Agreed. If it really exists why doesn't it appear in a way which is irrefutable?
Probably because he wants to sit back and laugh at infinite conceit of those who claim to "know" him.
-
Probably because he wants to sit back and laugh at infinite conceit of those who claim to "know" him.
Maybe!
-
The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people.
I think some people are wired to believe and what they read, hear, experience or are told 'makes sense' due to that and formalises the theology. I don't think many people form a belief just based on what they read or are told but what they believe develops due to this.
-
I think some people are wired to believe and what they read, hear, experience or are told 'makes sense' due to that and formalises the theology. I don't think many people form a belief just based on what they read or are told but what they believe develops due to this.
"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.
The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.
-
"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.
The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.
To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?
Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid. Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.
-
Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
If you're partial to non-answers with no supporting evidence, no fixed definition and an infinite regress of further questions, sure.
-
To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?
Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid. Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.
In which Trollboy fails to notice that:
1. "Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway" works just as well for Thor and lightning respectively.
2. "If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain" leads immediately to the response, "If one does not self formulate a Daddy god hypothesis in one's thinking of why Trollboy's god rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain".
3. Applying an argument from ignorance, calling the result "God" and worshipping it would still be logically broken and would still tell you nothing whatever about which god it was in any case wot did it.
Ladeeez an' Gennelemen - the Trollboy hattrick!
-
If you're partial to non-answers with no supporting evidence, no fixed definition and an infinite regress of further questions, sure.
Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.
-
Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.
In which Trollboy fires his cap guns both barrels directly at something no-one has said, conflating yet again "but it isn't God" with "there's no reason to think it was (a) god". Exhausted after his efforts, he's relieved that Mummy has called him in for his tea and some warm milk, doubtless fortifying him for another long day tomorrow heroically tearing apart the small army of straw men he's spent so much time knocking up on the kitchen table.
Sweet eh?
-
Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.
What evidence? None has ever been produced here that shows that God, any God, (or Goddess for that matter), thine or mine, is anything more than a matter of faith - I cannot prove or offer any testable evidence that my deities exist any more than you and/or the rest of the Christians here can for the existence of yours/theirs.
-
In which Trollboy fails to notice that:
1. "Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway" works just as well for Thor and lightning respectively.
2. "If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain" leads immediately to the response, "If one does not self formulate a Daddy god hypothesis in one's thinking of why Trollboy's god rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain".
3. Applying an argument from ignorance, calling the result "God" and worshipping it would still be logically broken and would still tell you nothing whatever about which god it was in any case wot did it.
Ladeeez an' Gennelemen - the Trollboy hattrick!
Non sequitur to Len's ludicrous claim that people only think about God because they've been told or read about him.
Also non sequitur reply to what I am saying which is that the healthy brain contemplates origin theories such as God, Spontaneous creation etc.
Finally You get round the problem of Gods being different by making them the same. The trouble for you is, if you are making them all the same then the actual name is irrelevant. Another Smurfian pisstake exposed by the Good Guys.
-
Non sequitur to Len's ludicrous claim that people only think about God because they've been told or read about him.
In which Trollboy shows yet again that he has no idea what non sequitur means as he's commenting on a response to his post, not to Len's.
Also non sequitur reply to what I am saying which is that the healthy brain contemplates origin theories such as God, Spontaneous creation etc.
In which Trollboy further demonstrates that he has no idea what non sequitur means because "God is one of the obvious options" is precisely not a sign of a "functioning brain" if by "functioning" he means, "having even a basic understanding of logic and reason".
Finally You get round the problem of Gods being different by making them the same. The trouble for you is, if you are making them all the same then there actual name is irrelevant. Another Smurfian pisstake exposed by the Good Guys.
In which Trollboy just makes up the idea that all gods are the claimed to be same, apparently oblivious to the notion that someone who hypothesises his god's dad is as free to ascribe whatever varied and different characteristics he likes to that god as Trollboy is to his.
-
What evidence? None has ever been produced here that shows that God, any God, (or Goddess for that matter), thine or mine, is anything more than a matter of faith - I cannot prove or offer any testable evidence that my deities exist any more than you and/or the rest of the Christians here can for the existence of yours/theirs.
But how do you know of them and why have you adopted them?
I don't think I have ever said that God was scientifically falsifiable.
-
I don't think I have ever said that God was scientifically falsifiable.
In which Trollboy fails to notice that "God" isn't scientifically anything - other that is than not even wrong. Sadly as he'll never even propose a method to use instead of the scientific one to investigate his assertions, then un-argued, un-defined and un-evidenced guesses they must remain.
-
In which Trollboy shows yet again that he has no idea what non sequitur means as he's commenting on a response to his post, not to Len's.
In which Trollboy further demonstrates that he has no idea what non sequitur means because "God is one of the obvious options" is precisely not a sign of a "functioning brain" if by "functioning" he means, "having even a basic understanding of logic and reason".
In which Trollboy just makes up the idea that all gods are the claimed to be same, apparently oblivious to the notion that someone who hypothesises his god's dad is as free to ascribe whatever varied and different characteristics he likes to that god as Trollboy is to his.
Hillside......if one is talking about why there is anything and not nothing and one does not know the answer then a God must take it's place as one of the alternatives. It would be illogical not to and unreasonable.
That's why Dawkins et al cannot finally dismiss the possibility of God (and not your understanding of possible which encompasses Leprechauns etc and is in fact argumentum ad ridiculum).
Also, what is logical about something popping up from nothing since it is in fact not observed in nature? That it is taken more seriously than a cause for the universe is more Goddodging than anything that can be fobbed off onto us spiv like as logic and reason.
-
Non answer?
Yes, that's what I said.
Even if it were
It is. No 'if' about it. For an explanation to be worthy of the name it actually has to explain stuff in reality, from thing to be explained to explanation with all the links of the chain in between intact. If it doesn't do that it's white noise, gap-plugging Polyfilla - a pseudo-explanation, not an actual explanation.
it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.
Given the number of times that the burden of proof, the necessity of clear definition etc. have had to be explained to you by so many different posters over such an extended period of time I can only assume that, as with Hope, you're literally incapable of being able to take these points on board.
-
Hillside......if one is talking about why there is anything and not nothing and one does not know the answer then a God must take it's place as one of the alternatives. It would be illogical not to and unreasonable.
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the negative proof fallacy requires that any conjecture could be possible, but not that it need trouble a "functioning brain" as the white noise of "God" offers nothing with which such a brain could engage.
That's why Dawkins et al cannot finally dismiss the possibility of God (and not your understanding of possible which encompasses Leprechauns etc and is in fact argumentum ad ridiculum).
In which Trollboy attempts yet another argumentum ad consequentiam, failing to notice that Dawkins considers leprechauns as precisely as (im)probable as "God", and for exactly the same reason
Also, what is logical about something popping up from nothing since it is in fact not observed in nature? That it is taken more seriously than a cause for the universe is more Goddodging than anything that can be fobbed off onto us spiv like as logic and reason.
In which Trollboy attempts another argument from personal incredulity based for good measure on a false premise, all the while failing to realise that you still cannot "dodge" something you've been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.
Possibly Trollboy should revisit the thread he's just run away from after his latest howler where Some has kindly provided a link to a primer on basic logic that he'd do well to try at least to understand so as to help at least minimise further embarrassment.
-
Yes, that's what I said.
It is. No 'if' about it.
Given the number of times that the burden of proof, the necessity of clear definition etc. have had to be explained to you by so many different posters over such an extended period of time I can only assume that, as with Hope, you're literally incapable of being able to take these points on board.
If you are saying there is no scientific question of falsifying God then I agree with you.
If you are saying then that therefore we know it isn't God then you are guilty of argumentum ad consequentium.
If you say you are arguing against God from science rather than philosophy then you don't have a grasp on what you are doing.
.........and neither does Hillside.
-
Sassy,
Me:
No, I am not reading your crap.
I am better educated than you and when it comes to Christ and God, had more life experience and know the bible that I have forgotten more than you will ever learn.
My post clear and I have forgotten more than you will ever know about God and the bible.
You lost, you can never win, because greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world.
Now be a good boy and leave the adults to discuss the real topics about Christianity.
I personally find you boring as you have no real education about these matters.
Never mind you may mature one day.
-
In which Trollboy attempts yet another argumentum ad consequentiam, failing to notice that Dawkins considers leprechauns as precisely as (im)probable as "God", and for exactly the same reason
That just makes Dawkins as foolish as you then with your argument ad ridiculum....
-
No, I am not reading your crap.
I'm like that with your crap.
I am better educated than you
Cunningly concealed, I must say.
-
If you are saying there is no scientific question of falsifying God then I agree with you.
In which Trollboy fails to notice yet again that science is as indifferent to the claim "God" as it is to the claim "leprechaun", and for exactly the same reason.
If you are saying then that therefore we know it isn't God then you are guilty of argumentum ad consequentium.
In which the only guilt on display is Trollboy being guilty of yet another straw man (and of poor spelling).
If you say you are arguing against God from science rather than philosophy then you don't have a grasp on what you are doing.
.........and neither does Hillside.
In which Trollboy throws in a further straw man, also apparently oblivious to the notion that "philosophy" doesn't help him in any case any more than science does.
And in which Trollboy continues to offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions from guessing.
-
I didn't say that you did, but am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't.
It is worrying people can think that way... :( :o
-
The method thing - that's to say, the absence of one - is the killer, isn't it? It's the one that's guaranteed to get Hopeless slinking off the forum faster than if you point out to him that he's just deployed yet another logical fallacy.
-
That just makes Dawkins as foolish as you then with your argument ad ridiculum....
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that, epistemically, "God" as a conjecture precisely is as ridiculous as "leprechauns" as a conjecture.
-
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm
So it appears another wasted thread because the woman clearly did NOT say that nor meant that. :o >:(
-
"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.
The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.
You said 'The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people'. Clearly to believe in a specific god or God comes from what you hear, read etc but my point was that the reason why there is a tendency for belief is due to how the brain is wired to respond to information etc. Different people can hear, read the same info as a believer and not believe so there must be another reason underlying the process.
-
The method thing - that's to say, the absence of one - is the killer, isn't it? It's the one that's guaranteed to get Hopeless slinking off the forum faster than if you point out to him that he's just deployed yet another logical fallacy.
It's the killer for you since you mean by method, the scientific method and that is both limited and does not establish the philosophy implicit in your objections to God.
Hillside has said science is indifferent to God and yet here you are trying to resurrect it.
Both Religion and science though are instrumental and for God you are the instrument. I see no personal experimentation in the field of religion from you guys and so ,for me you are just chucking the word method around shamanically.
-
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that, epistemically, "God" as a conjecture precisely is as ridiculous as "leprechauns" as a conjecture.
.....And your warrant for that statement is?
-
It's the killer for you since you mean by method, the scientific method and that is both limited and does not establish the philosophy implicit in your objections to God.
Any method will do that's capable of differentiating actuality from making shit up. Or, more politely, pious guesswork.
-
Any method will do that's capable of differentiating actuality from making shit up. Or, more politely, pious guesswork.
Well then we can look forward to you submitting the methodology for what you believe......or are you just making shit up................(Yes)
-
.....And your warrant for that statement is?
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the category "conjectures believed to be true as items of personal faith but about which the proponents can offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions of objective truth from nonsense" can be populated with "God" and "leprechauns" alike.
-
Well then we can look forward to you submitting the methodology for what you believe......or are you just making shit up................(Yes)
In which Trollboy demonstrates that he still hasn't grasped the concept of burden of proof.
-
Sassy,
My post clear and I have forgotten more than you will ever know about God and the bible.
Nope. You may well know lots about what the Bible has to say about "God" but you offer nothing to suggest that God is isn't a fiction, and nor will you until you finally manage to find a way out of your circular thinking of "the Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so".
Good luck with it though.
-
Sassy,
Nope. You may well know lots about what the Bible has to say about "God" but you offer nothing to suggest that God is isn't a fiction, and nor will you until you finally manage to find a way out of your circular thinking of "the Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so".
Good luck with it though.
Rotating in ever decreasing circles at ever increasing speeds until vanishing up the anal orifice in a shower of orange pips!
-
One of the interesting things about some theists is that they assume a kind of binary set-up. That is, if you are not satisfied with arguments for theism, you have to suggest your own version of reality. But this is not correct. Apart from reversing the burden of proof, it also suggests that arguments for theism are only deficient, if other arguments for another type of reality are presented. Not so.
Take the beginning of the universe. If X says he is not satisfied with the idea that God did it, X is not obliged to suggest another idea. He could say, I don't know, and this doesn't disqualify him from pointing to the deficiencies of the creationist version.
But this black and white thinking is quite common on the internet - you can't criticize me, unless you have an alternative theory. Of course, it's a familiar way of avoiding the gaps in one's own arguments.
-
To be fair, I think some people see their god as so intertwined with their perception of reality that without that they cannot conceive of another person having any perception of reality without something more than a I Don't Know. It makes no sense to them.
-
Take the beginning of the universe. If X says he is not satisfied with the idea that God did it, X is not obliged to suggest another idea. He could say, I don't know, and this doesn't disqualify him from pointing to the deficiencies of the creationist version.
I never fail to be surprised as well as disappointed how phobic some people can be to the concept of: "I don't know - there's isn't enough hard data yet to be able to form an opinion."
Seems reasonable enough to me (as well as honest) but it's kryptonite to some theists.
-
I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.
In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.
-
I never fail to be surprised as well as disappointed how phobic some people can be to the concept of: "I don't know - there's isn't enough hard data yet to be able to form an opinion."
Seems reasonable enough to me (as well as honest) but it's kryptonite to some theists.
Yes. Do you think there's a word for this position - you can't criticize my position, unless you outline your own? It sounds a bit like tu quoque, but I wonder if there's another term.
-
I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.
In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.
Yes, that always strikes me with the flakey five and other arguments. I can't believe that anyone has ever exclaimed 'eureka' on hearing these arguments, and become a theist. That seems a gut thing, as you say, and then the arguments are after the fact. And probably some people have no idea why they are religious at all, and don't have arguments for it.
-
As an additional point, when I realised I didn't believe in the god that I was told about as a child, I didn't work it out rationally to start with. I just thought I don't believe in this thing. I then worked out why but that first few months on it, part of my struggle to why was I could have even conceive of what it was I was stating. Not that life without a god belief was hard, that I could not understand what it had ever meant z
-
I know the whole methodology thing is seen as being about the supernatural claims, but it also relates to having rational argument, and hence the presuppositionalist argument that circularly places god in the very idea of argument. At base it's desperate and as noted circular, but it underlines that they can see no other view than their god. It isn't argument, it cannot be, as it cannot conceive of any other position, hence the rest o us are not wrong, we are lying.
-
I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.
In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.
Absolutely. It's about belief not knowledge. I don't tend to question their beliefs but do question the arguments some theists put forward to support their beliefs and point out that they aren't actually proof of God at all.
I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.
-
As an additional point, when I realised I didn't believe in the god that I was told about as a child, I didn't work it out rationally to start with. I just thought I don't believe in this thing. I then worked out why but that first few months on it, part of my struggle to why was I could have even conceive of what it was I was stating. Not that life without a god belief was hard, that I could not understand what it had ever meant z
Well, how many theists can tell you what it means? It all becomes very vague and fuzzy, being loved, being created, being forgiven, and so on. But that doesn't get you very far, although I suppose it appeals emotionally. I've been through twists and turns in my own thinking, but thinking actually didn't come first, it's more unconscious. I think for me, it's a lot to do with response to symbols, but I realized a few years ago that I get a response to many religious symbols around the world, and of course, to art which isn't religious at all.
-
I know the whole methodology thing is seen as being about the supernatural claims, but it also relates to having rational argument, and hence the presuppositionalist argument that circularly places god in the very idea of argument. At base it's desperate and as noted circular, but it underlines that they can see no other view than their god. It isn't argument, it cannot be, as it cannot conceive of any other position, hence the rest o us are not wrong, we are lying.
This is a bit like basic belief as put forward by Plantinga. It seemed like a way of avoiding arguments, since you could just say that religious belief is a kind of foundation, and need not be rationally justified. It's a bit desperate really. It became a big thing in reformed epistemology.
But as I said earlier, I don't see religion in terms of belief, but in terms of response to symbols. But this is not true for everyone.
-
I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.
Being a non-believer who was once a believer - true of several posters here - makes all the difference, I think. If you're a non-believer who has never believed - true of others, myself included - then yes, it's incredibly difficult and could even be impossible really to understand faith. You may get intellectual purchase on it, but that's about it.
-
Well, how many theists can tell you what it means? It all becomes very vague and fuzzy, being loved, being created, being forgiven, and so on. But that doesn't get you very far, although I suppose it appeals emotionally. I've been through twists and turns in my own thinking, but thinking actually didn't come first, it's more unconscious. I think for me, it's a lot to do with response to symbols, but I realized a few years ago that I get a response to many religious symbols around the world, and of course, to art which isn't religious at all.
And while the unexamined life is apparently not worth living, a statement I have never felt comfortable with, I am unsure what examination means, or indeed if we are capable of it. There is a reason why the worst might be full of passionate intensity, but maybe lacking all conviction is not that different in terms of how you get there.
-
Absolutely. It's about belief not knowledge. I don't tend to question their beliefs but do question the arguments some theists put forward to support their beliefs and point out that they aren't actually proof of God at all.
I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.
I'm skeptical that it's about belief actually. If you are a church-goer, you are soaked in symbols and rituals, and they provide an experiential narrative. OK, you can say that you believe in X, but I think that's a cover story.
-
Maeght,
I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.
I agree, but I still think that you can say to a theist something like, "look, in other areas of your life you apply some basic tests of reason and evidence to weigh up the likely veracity or otherwise of the claim that's put to you. That's why for example you won't accept my offer to sell you a flight on my tame dragon. You must therefore accept that other people will apply exactly the same tests to your claims about "God" when you want them to accept your claims as true for them too, regardless of how convinced you are that your opinion on the matter is the correct one."
-
And while the unexamined life is apparently not worth living, a statement I have never felt comfortable with, I am unsure what examination means, or indeed if we are capable of it. There is a reason why the worst might be full of passionate intensity, but maybe lacking all conviction is not that different in terms of how you get there.
That reminds me of a key idea in psychotherapy, that some people can't think about their feelings. This can get you in hot water of course, but if you transfer it to religion, there is something similar going on at times. Or there is a split between thinking, emotion, and symbols. Simone Weil used to freak out if she recited the Lord's Prayer in Greek, I'm not sure what is going on here.
-
This is a bit like basic belief as put forward by Plantinga. It seemed like a way of avoiding arguments, since you could just say that religious belief is a kind of foundation, and need not be rationally justified. It's a bit desperate really. It became a big thing in reformed epistemology.
But as I said earlier, I don't see religion in terms of belief, but in terms of response to symbols. But this is not true for everyone.
Iirc, Jack Knave is a Jungian, and certainly that sort of approach, not necessarily with the idea of collective, but at least a common type of consciousness. That some of choose different archetypes, or rather see different archetypes makes it impossible to see the others. In order to see other's beliefs, we can have no beliefs of our own.
-
I'm skeptical that it's about belief actually. If you are a church-goer, you are soaked in symbols and rituals, and they provide an experiential narrative. OK, you can say that you believe in X, but I think that's a cover story.
Yep, that makes sense. Belief itself is a rationalisation, a structuring of emotional reaction so that we try to avoid the confusion of contradictions. Maybe because we are legion, as dear Walt declared, we create these little shared legions, demons in their own way, that haunt us.
-
Iirc, Jack Knave is a Jungian, and certainly that sort of approach, not necessarily with the idea of collective, but at least a common type of consciousness. That some of choose different archetypes, or rather see different archetypes makes it impossible to see the others. In order to see other's beliefs, we can have no beliefs of our own.
Well, if you go down the Jung road, religion is non-rational, or trans-rational, as some people say. I think it's OK to say 'these symbols are valuable to me', but as with other stuff, you can't then say, 'they are valuable to everyone'. And if you don't find them valuable, I will kill you.
-
To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?
Obviously they were written by men trying to find an explanation for everything. Who first told them? We can't ever know, since writing hadn't been invented then.
Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
Yes, that is why so many fall for it. But it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that it's all guesswork.
If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid.
That is a sign of you inability to think very far. The honest and most sensible answer is to admit to not knowing. Inventing answers is a childish game.
Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.
I don't believe in magic.
-
You said 'The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people'. Clearly to believe in a specific god or God comes from what you hear, read etc but my point was that the reason why there is a tendency for belief is due to how the brain is wired to respond to information etc. Different people can hear, read the same info as a believer and not believe so there must be another reason underlying the process.
It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.
-
Well, if you go down the Jung road, religion is non-rational, or trans-rational, as some people say. I think it's OK to say 'these symbols are valuable to me', but as with other stuff, you can't then say, 'they are valuable to everyone'. And if you don't find them valuable, I will kill you.
And yet those death are symbols too, both by those who kill and those who die. Am reminded of St Stephano Rotundo
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Stefano_al_Monte_Celio
Note to others, wigginhall and I are not doing argument here, just sparking discussion and thoughts for each other (just worried that it might freak some people out)
-
It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.
honesty is about the person. If someone thinks something it is more honest to say what they think whatever that is.
-
It is nothing more than a desire for answers. That is why it is more honest to admit that we don't know.
Yes I'd agree, but the believer things they do know (well many do).
-
Dear Sane,
Note to others, wigginhall and I are not doing argument here, just sparking discussion and thoughts for each other (just worried that it might freak some people out)
Refreshing old son, like a cool shower on a hot sunny day, Sane and Wigginhall, refreshes the parts other Posters cannot reach. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
As it should be.
-
Yes I'd agree, but the believer things they do know (well many do).
Yes, Faith is a funny thing that seems to completely eclipse the ability to question.
-
honesty is about the person. If someone thinks something it is more honest to say what they think whatever that is.
As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.
-
As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.
Agreed.
-
As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.
Yep, no problem with that.
-
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the category "conjectures believed to be true as items of personal faith but about which the proponents can offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions of objective truth from nonsense" can be populated with "God" and "leprechauns" alike.
You've omitted that my post is in response to your claim of equality in ridiculousness and you mentioned precision.
What is your warrant in making statements like that and then tarting up what you said by your above statements.
How can you possible say God and leprechauns are equally ridiculous? Please justify rather than merely asserting.
-
Dear Sane,
Refreshing old son, like a cool shower on a hot sunny day, Sane and Wigginhall, refreshes the parts other Posters cannot reach. ;)
Gonnagle.
Agree about Nearly Sane who is an utter gem.........Wigginhall is OK I suppose.
-
Agree about Nearly Sane who is an utter gem.........Wigginhall is OK I suppose.
is there a Spoonerism here I am missing? ;)
-
As long as they admit that is faith rather than fact.
But if they believe it is fact, surely the honest thing is to say that? I don't get what your idea of more honest is?
-
I don't believe in magic.
Which is inconvenient since a universe which is eternal and uncreated or a universe that spontaneously creates it's self both need a bit of pixie dust if you think about it.
-
Yes, Faith is a funny thing that seems to completely eclipse the ability to question.
That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.
-
You've omitted that my post is in response to your claim of equality in ridiculousness and you mentioned precision.
What is your warrant in making statements like that and then tarting up what you said by your above statements.
How can you possible say God and leprechauns are equally ridiculous? Please justify rather than merely asserting.
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths for the same reason that Arsenal and Spurs are each precisely football teams, even though there are significant differences between them - colour of shirts etc. Bluehillside has now concluded that Trollboy is pathologically incapable ever of grasping that category error does not require the objects to be identical in every respect but only in respect of the issue relevant to the point being made (no method of any kind to get you from the subjective to the objective for "God" and "leprechauns" equally for example) and as there's no point even attempting to educate the ineducable I'll leave him to his trolling.
-
That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.
In which bluehillside notes wistfully that the Russian spring of an interesting exchange of ideas was nice while it lasted, albeit that the crushing fist of nihilism has now returned to squash all the flowers.
-
But if they believe it is fact, surely the honest thing is to say that? I don't get what your idea of more honest is?
Surely facts defines things that nobody can disagree with. Love and hate are facts ... there is evidence for both of them that nobody can deny. No gods come into this category ... they are simply beliefs.
-
That's bollocks. You are one of the biggest dogmatists on the forum.
So admitting that I don't know what caused the universe is dogmatic, is it? :)
-
Surely facts defines things that nobody can disagree with. Love and hate are facts ... there is evidence for both of them that nobody can deny. No gods come into this category ... they are simply beliefs.
And if people are wrong about facts, their statement about what they think they know is still honest. You are confusing wrong with lying
-
Which is inconvenient since a universe which is eternal and uncreated or a universe that spontaneously creates it's self both need a bit of pixie dust if you think about it.
It is clear that you haven't thought about it enough. The universe was caused by something (created is quite the wrong word), and if we ever find what caused it, I'm sure it won't be magic.
Magic is for magicians and children.
-
It is clear that you haven't thought about it enough. The universe was caused by something (created is quite the wrong word), and if we ever find what caused it, I'm sure it won't be magic.
Magic is for magicians and children.
Causation is an assumption not a fact, or are you being less than honest?
-
And if people are wrong about facts, their statement about what they think they know is still honest. You are confusing wrong with lying
I don't think anybody but a fool lies about such things. As I said, facts are obvious truths to everybody ... beliefs are "truths" for only some.
-
Causation is an assumption not a fact, or are you being less than honest?
No, the universe was caused by something ... that is a fact not an assumption.
-
No, the universe was caused by something ... that is a fact not an assumption.
The whole idea of cause and effect is an assumption. It is what we appear to observe but is not objectively true. Why are you being less than honest?
-
I don't think anybody but a fool lies about such things. As I said, facts are obvious truths to everybody ... beliefs are "truths" for only some.
argumentum ad populum fallacy
-
The whole idea of cause and effect is an assumption. It is what we appear to observe but is not objectively true.
Why not?
Why are you being less than honest?
I don't think I am. What am I being dishonest about?
-
argumentum ad populum fallacy
That can only apply to beliefs. I am talking about facts. :)
Are we going to dance all night?
-
LIke Father William, I am old and need my sleep to function.
See you tomorrow. :)
-
Sleep well
-
Why not?
Because we don't have a method for establishing objective, as opposed to inter subjective.
I don't think I am. What am I being dishonest about?
. You aren't but your position is that those making statements that cannot be backed up objectively are being less than honest
You cannot back up your statement about objectivity will then by your position make you less than honest.
-
That can only apply to beliefs. I am talking about facts. :)
Are we going to dance all night?
Happily dance all night with you, Len, a two step?
The point about the ad populum is that you cannot establish truth by numbers of believers. This applies whether the belief is a fact or not. Your assertion was an appeal to numbers nothing more so the fallacy applies
-
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths
Hillside merely asserted once again............Your never going to explain why are you?.......let alone give any warrant for it.
-
So admitting that I don't know what caused the universe is dogmatic, is it? :)
Really?, I thought it was more that you didn't know but knew or believed it wasn't God.
-
Because we don't have a method for establishing objective, as opposed to inter subjective.
I don't understand what you mean by these terms. It seems that you are saying that objective existence can't exist, because whatever method you use to establish it is merely everybody's opinion.
You aren't but your position is that those making statements that cannot be backed up objectively are being less than honest
You cannot back up your statement about objectivity will then by your position make you less than honest.
How do you propose to back up anything "objectively" except by taking everybody's opinion that it is correct?
-
Happily dance all night with you, Len, a two step?
The point about the ad populum is that you cannot establish truth by numbers of believers. This applies whether the belief is a fact or not. Your assertion was an appeal to numbers nothing more so the fallacy applies
And you can only establish 'truth' by accepting everybody's opinion that your method for doing so is correct.
-
I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief.
But is it not also possible that those most eager to dispute Kalam also do so....from.....their atheism?
-
Really?, I thought it was more that you didn't know but knew or believed it wasn't God.
Explain to me what you think "God" is and I will defend my position.
-
Len
Having followed your dialogue with Nearly Sane I would hazard that you would like to declare a belief that theists were deliberately making it all up, polity though demands from you that you moderate that to only guessing.
I think Sane points out to you that there is a possibility that theists see their encounter with God as genuine.
Now, what looks like defensiveness on your part is a claim by you to the facts, that weak minded or uneducated people cannot bring themselves to accept.
IMHO that is a comforting belief for you which stops you from considering the next step which is if these people believe on the strength of what they describe as an encounter then maybe they might genuinely hold that rather than by guessing that rational formulas such as Kalam are the correct answer.
Secondly the only ''facts'' you are allowed must be scientific and therefore cannot actually back up or dispute Kalam or any opposition to Kalam although I believe some cosmologists are trying to find some equivalent of the fossil record to knock down God.
-
But is it not also possible that those most eager to dispute Kalam also do so....from.....their atheism?
No - they do so because the Kalam is fallacious.
-
Explain to me what you think "God" is and I will defend my position.
That suggests a) that there is a definition or definitions you are prepared to accept b)You might have decided from the get go to dismiss any definition of God.
-
No - they do so because the Kalam is fallacious.
By all means demonstrate Gordon rather than just say there are are alternative arguments.
-
By all means demonstrate Gordon rather than just say there are are alternative arguments.
A straw man to start the day, Vlad, since I haven't claimed any alternative arguments.
We've addressed tha KCA regularly here, since Alien regularly advanced it, where it is beloved of the odious WLC. There are several objections to it but since it is an example of begging the question then it can simply be dismissed as fallacious nonsense.
-
A straw man to start the day, Vlad, since I haven't claimed any alternative arguments.
We've addressed tha KCA regularly here, since Alien regularly advanced it, where it is beloved of the odious WLC. There are several objections to it but since it is an example of begging the question then it can simply be dismissed as fallacious nonsense.
That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.
I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.
-
But is it not also possible that those most eager to dispute Kalam also do so....from.....their atheism?
Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. The people most likely to dispute an argument (other than contrarians) are those who disagree with the conc!usions is surely a truism. Since I think that no one actually believes in their god because of arguments like the Kalam, I find it only of intellectual interest to dispute it. I also don't think anyone is an atheist because the Kalam is a crap argument.
-
And you can only establish 'truth' by accepting everybody's opinion that your method for doing so is correct.
What does that mean? Has there ever been anytime when everyone has agreed on a method for finding truth? And even were there to be such a time how do we avoid the possibility of everyone being wrong?
-
I don't understand what you mean by these terms. It seems that you are saying that objective existence can't exist, because whatever method you use to establish it is merely everybody's opinion.
No, I am saying that because you get inter subjective agreement you cannot claim that that is objectively true. I am not sure why you added existence in here.
How do you propose to back up anything "objectively" except by taking everybody's opinion that it is correct?
I'm not proposing to at all. You are. And whether 1, 100, 1000 or everybody agrees, that's merely the ad populum writ large.
-
That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.
I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.
Vlad
Begging the question is an established fallacy, where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises - I'm sure you'll see this for yourself if you look at it closely enough.
The KCA just isn't worth spending much time on!
-
That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.
I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.
OK, it's always good for a laugh... The KCA.
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
http://tinyurl.com/242h4wm
Item (4) is either an assumption or a definition. If it is a definition, this is not an argument for any god of any religion that I'm aware of (including your own idea of god as something you have experienced). If it's an assumption, then it is indeed a case of begging the question.
In addition, the first two premises are both questionable.
-
No, I am saying that because you get inter subjective agreement you cannot claim that that is objectively true.
Being intersubjectively testable is as close to objectivity as we can get.
"I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested."
-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery
I'm not proposing to at all. You are. And whether 1, 100, 1000 or everybody agrees, that's merely the ad populum writ large.
Except that gets you nowhere. If everybody experiences the "objective" world, then even if it isn't real, it might as well be. We are all forced to live by the rules of the "objective" world, whether be believe it to be real or not. I might be a "brain-in-a-vat" but that is a dead end position.
Having said all that, winding back through this conversation, I have to agree that the idea that the universe was caused by something is an assumption, not a fact.
-
Being intersubjectively testable is as close to objectivity as we can get.
"I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested."
-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Except that gets you nowhere. If everybody experiences the "objective" world, then even if it isn't real, it might as well be. We are all forced to live by the rules of the "objective" world, whether be believe it to be real or not. I might be a "brain-in-a-vat" but that is a dead end position.
Having said all that, winding back through this conversation, I have to agree that the idea that the universe was caused by something is an assumption, not a fact.
I don't disagree with much of this but it does not mean that if everyone agreed on something then it would be close to being objective. It"s the point of having a methodology that works.
I also think you have to be careful with Popper's use of objective here. It's an internal objectivity based on the assumption of the scientific method. It isn't an external objectivity absenting that method. Leonard's statements about non naturalistic claims are by definition external to a naturalistic method.
-
That we've addressed it regularly is mentioned I take it you are not going to demonstrate how it begs the question or pointing out which argument for why there is anything is not fallacious.
I tried looking for reasons why the KCA was a fallacy but the top answer was from the a-unicornist who is one of your motley crew.......though at least it wasn't the most inappropriately named Rational Wiki.
Make a list of the things you believe don't begin to exist.
-
OK, it's always good for a laugh... The KCA.
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
http://tinyurl.com/242h4wm
Item (4) is either an assumption or a definition. If it is a definition, this is not an argument for any god of any religion that I'm aware of (including your own idea of god as something you have experienced). If it's an assumption, then it is indeed a case of begging the question.
In addition, the first two premises are both questionable.
Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.
I take it you are not against THAT argument?
If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.
-
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths...
Hillside merely asserted once again............Your never going to explain why are you?.......let alone give any warrant for it.
In which Trollboy (who incidentally will always vanish when asked for a method to distinguish his assertions about "God" from just guessing) thinks it reasonable to edit out the part of a post with the answer, and then to complain that he hasn't had the answer.
Utterly fucking shameful.
Here it is again before Trollboy took his scissors to it:
In which Trollboy fails to grasp that his "God" and my "leprechauns" are precisely as ridiculous as each other as conjectures about objective truths for the same reason that Arsenal and Spurs are each precisely football teams, even though there are significant differences between them - colour of shirts etc. Bluehillside has now concluded that Trollboy is pathologically incapable ever of grasping that category error does not require the objects to be identical in every respect but only in respect of the issue relevant to the point being made (no method of any kind to get you from the subjective to the objective for "God" and "leprechauns" equally for example) and as there's no point even attempting to educate the ineducable I'll leave him to his trolling.
-
Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.
I take it you are not against THAT argument?
If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.
As you would have seen, if you'd been paying attention, I said that both of the first two premises are questionable - we cannot state either with certainty.
The terms are a bit vague and need better defining, but I see no reason to suppose, if the universe does have a cause, that it is either supernatural or non-physical.
-
Your formula here seems to be a Kalam cosmological argument for God
rather than a Kalam cosmological argument which I thought had been summarised by items 1 to 3.
I take it you are not against THAT argument?
If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.
God isn't a possible option up until the point you can demonstrate in some way that a god is possible.
-
If you state the universe has a cause then God is of course a possibility, the other being some unconscious, supernatural, non physical thing.
In which Trollboy fails to grasp again that:
1. "God" cannot be an answer any more that "uh776y078o7t" can be until he's able to tell us finally what he means by the term (and for that matter what on earth he means by "supernatural").
2. That deciding that "the universe" must have had a beginning and therefore a cause is unknowable, and moreover that deciding too that "God" (whatever he means by it) did not have a beginning and a cause is both arbitrary and special pleading.
3. That even if the argument wasn't hopeless, it would tell him nothing whatever about which god did it - ie, it's deism at best.
Apart from that though...
-
That suggests a) that there is a definition or definitions you are prepared to accept b)You might have decided from the get go to dismiss any definition of God.
Go and boil your head. You are a dismal waste of space and time.
-
What does that mean? Has there ever been anytime when everyone has agreed on a method for finding truth? And even were there to be such a time how do we avoid the possibility of everyone being wrong?
So there is no such thing as an objective truth.
-
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Why God with a capital G - suggesting the God as per the Christian Bible? No reason to assume that.
The only thing this argument achieves is to define God as the cause of the universe and nothing more. It says nothing about the likelyhood of the non-material entity which features in the Christian Bible existing.
-
Len
Having followed your dialogue with Nearly Sane I would hazard that you would like to declare a belief that theists were deliberately making it all up, polity though demands from you that you moderate that to only guessing.
The originators of all god beliefs either thought their "god" was putting such thoughts into their heads, or was communicating directly with them.
If they were all in agreement about the "god" and its message, I might consider it a possibility. Sadly, such is not the case.
-
So there is no such thing as an objective truth.
again no, we just don't have a method for determining such a thing
-
NS,
again no, we just don't have a method for determining such a thing
In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.
-
As you would have seen, if you'd been paying attention, I said that both of the first two premises are questionable - we cannot state either with certainty.
The terms are a bit vague and need better defining, but I see no reason to suppose, if the universe does have a cause, that it is either supernatural or non-physical.
I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe......At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.
If the universe has a physical and natural cause then surely that suggests that the physical and natural are uncaused.
-
NS,
In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.
Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while. Leonard James had been taking the opinion that those who could not show that their beliefs were objective were being less than honest, and also took the position that it is unanimity, something that I am unsure ever exists, was useful in determining what was objective.
In the context of that discussion the strict epistemic sense is relevant, as this is not about a method but merely an ad populum.
-
I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe......At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.
If the universe has a physical and natural cause then surely that suggests that the physical and natural are uncaused.
No the first falls down because of the problem of induction.
-
In which Trollboy (who incidentally will always vanish when asked for a method to distinguish his assertions about "God" from just guessing)
Since there is no method of distinguishing whether a deeply held view or even conviction on anything from guessing. One could be forgiven for just ignoring demands to come up with one.
I have said in the past that there may not be a method that establishes the truth of a statement but examination of your demand shows it to be different from that.
You have made a category error in your terms since you can assert a guess. So the demand to distinguish between an assertion and a guess is meaningless.
Your response that I have not answered you so you are not going to answer me but only I am the fucking disgrace because I don't answer is completely illogical.
If neither you nor I answer ones questions then either we are both a fucking disgrace or neither of us are...........in that context of course.
-
No the first falls down because of the problem of induction.
Can you expand on that, please?
-
The originators of all god beliefs either thought their "god" was putting such thoughts into their heads, or was communicating directly with them.
If they were all in agreement about the "god" and its message, I might consider it a possibility. Sadly, such is not the case.
But that suggests you will only accept something and refute something if somebody has done so before. How can you then discover something, for yourself?
-
NS,
Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while. Leonard James had been taking the opinion that those who could not show that their beliefs were objective were being less than honest, and also took the position that it is unanimity, something that I am unsure ever exists, was useful in determining what was objective.
In the context of that discussion the strict epistemic sense is relevant, as this is not about a method but merely an ad populum.
As I understood it Len was commenting on the inability of the religious to show their beliefs in deities to be objective in the sense that, say, the speed of light in a vacuum is objectively known. As Some noted, none of this does away from the brain in a vat issue but pragmatically there's clearly a difference between the subjective and the objective. The dishonesty Len sees derives from conflating the two in respect only of "God" - "my subjective opinion on the matter is objectively true for you too" - as they would not for any other conjecture that lacked a method to go from the subjective to the objective.
As for the ad populum, I'm not sure that Len was saying "it's true because everyone thinks so" so much as alluding to the pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm, but no doubt he'll tell us after his post prandial snooze.
-
Perhaps you need to read the bit of thread I was dealing with and stepping away from Vlad for a while.
Yes....I am not the only shining beacon in the firmament........Nearly Sane sparkles too.
-
NS,
As I understood it Len was commenting on the inability of the religious to show their beliefs in deities to be objective in the sense that, say, the speed of light in a vacuum is objectively known. As Some noted, none of this does away from the brain in a vat issue but pragmatically there's clearly a difference between the subjective and the objective. The dishonesty Len sees derives from conflating the two in respect only of "God" - "my subjective opinion on the matter is objectively true for you too" - as they would not for any other conjecture that lacked a method to go from the subjective to the objective.
As for the ad populum, I'm not sure that Len was saying "it's true because everyone thinks so" so much as alluding to the pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm, but no doubt he'll tell us after his post prandial snooze.
Remember that Leonard used the examples of love and hate as facts, that does not equate to a method, and it implies that if everyone believed in a god that too would be a fact, god would be objective because if that belief. That is clearly an ad pop.
I get bored by the double standards applied to those who agree on a subject being less stringent than to those who people disagree with. If anything causes the problems on your is it worth it thread, it's that.
-
I tend to agree and you are right to state that the first two premises are uncertain....But, only if you are prepared to go beyond the observed universe...
It's not actually important to the argument but no, we don't actually need to do that. Quantum mechanics certainly predicts that some events have no specific cause. It provides a statistical framework but events such as one particular radioactive atom decaying at a particular time have no cause.
Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.
...At which point one does not have the luxury of claiming that the scientific method is good for all things.
Which matters not a jot. The point is that we have no reason to believe any story that goes beyond the evidence, whether it involves a god, many gods, bands of magic fairies, universe creating spotty teenagers or none of the above, it's all just guessing.
As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.
-
NS,
In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.
In what way then is morality 'real'?
-
It's not actually important to the argument but no, we don't actually need to do that. Quantum mechanics certainly predicts that some events have no specific cause. It provides a statistical framework but events such as one particular radioactive atom decaying at a particular time have no cause.
Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.
Which matters not a jot. The point is that we have no reason to believe any story that goes beyond the evidence, whether it involves a god, many gods, bands of magic fairies, universe creating spotty teenagers or none of the above, it's all just guessing.
As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.
What is the difference between no cause and no specific cause?
-
Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best. It's the argument used for once the earth being flat, or indeed the argument that Leonard uses for free will - and surely you don't give it any credence in that?
-
In what way then is morality 'real'?
Surely the first question then is what do we mean by real?
-
As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.
reason to believe eh,..........reeaaassssonnnn to beeelliiiiieeeeeve?
That's a funny phrase isn't it. Shouldn't it be reason to know?
Are you saying then atheists do not believe anything that they don't know?
-
NS,
Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best. It's the argument used for once the earth being flat, or indeed the argument that Leonard uses for free will - and surely you don't give it any credence in that?
No. The pragmatic intersubjective experience of the speed of light in a vacuum gives us a working objective determination of the speed of light in a vacuum using the tools of reason and evidence. We can use those same tools and apply them to other questions - what shape wings create most lift for example - and test the results. There's a qualitative difference between that and, say, causal narratives about Thor causing thunder and lightning that make a sort of explanatory sense but that offer nothing to test.
Of course you could say that the tools of reason and evidence are themselves just the fruits of a different causal explanatory narrative but either we divide the lived experience into "'planes will lift me off the ground but chanting and burning sage leaves will not" or we don't. And if we do, then we label the explanations "objective" and "subjective" with no need for an appeal to absolutes. That you and I may just be bits of junk code in a celestial kid's computer game does not in other words invalidate trying to categorise and make sense of the world "we" appear to inhabit.
If we don't do that though and instead go nuclear as Trollboy attempted in his recent effort, then all bets are off and any truth is as valid as any other - including it seems those that contradict each other.
-
Dearie me, bluehillside, experience is not methodology and you seem to have ignored the question of Leonard using the argument about unanimity to cover free will and then gone off on your obsession with Vlad. Why?
-
What is the difference between no cause and no specific cause?
In the example I gave, there is a cause for radioactive atoms to decay but not for a specific atom to decay at a specific time.
reason to believe eh,..........reeaaassssonnnn to beeelliiiiieeeeeve?
That's a funny phrase isn't it. Shouldn't it be reason to know?
Are you saying then atheists do not believe anything that they don't know?
No and no.
-
As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.
I think that is really important to state as I don't think many of the believers on here understand that. The arguments most atheists put forward on here are counter arguments to the points being made by believers in my view. God could exist and could have created the Universe and could answer prayers and so on but there is no reason to believe any of that - it is purely down to a state of belief or no belief.
-
In the example I gave, there is a cause for radioactive atoms to decay but not for a specific atom to decay at a specific time.
No and no.
Your first point. Perhaps you can tell me then how you can extrapolate that to explain the coming into being of the universe.....
Secondly then if belief is different from knowledge then it is established by reason alone? In which case there would be plenty of reason to believe in a God of a certain type as there are reasons not to believe. Since this is not knowledge some commitment to any belief has to be made.
-
I think that is really important to state as I don't think many of the believers on here understand that. The arguments most atheists put forward on here are counter arguments to the points being made by believers in my view. God could exist and could have created the Universe and could answer prayers and so on but there is no reason to believe any of that - it is purely down to a state of belief or no belief.
While I agree that it isn't necessarily understood by some theists, I've seen it stated multiple times, and ignored and misrepresented continually.
-
I'm sorry guys, I should never have posted in this thread. My personal conclusion about the universe and its cause is too simple for such complex arguments.
-
I'm sorry guys, I should never have posted in this thread. My personal conclusion about the universe and its cause is too simple for such complex arguments.
Don't be sorry Len, sail majestically, get sunk majestically, salvage whatever you can majestically......
-
Dear Leonard,
I rather like Vlads reply, me, I say, post and be damned ;)
Gonnagle.
-
NS,
Dearie me, bluehillside, experience is not methodology and you seem to have ignored the question of Leonard using the argument about unanimity to cover free will and then gone off on your obsession with Vlad. Why?
You're conflating "experience" with the methodology of reason and evidence. It's all "experience", but within it "we" develop and codify methods to help sort the probably true from the probably not true. And when the things we call "true" satisfy the tools of reason and evidence, then we ascribe to them the working term "objective", and when they do not we ascribe to them the working term "subjective". As we can't step outside our experience we can't decide on what's ultimately objective/subjective, but for pragmatic, working purposes the terms are useful and functional.
Using that paradigm, conjectures like "God" do not satisfy the tools of reason and evidence, so the claims made for them are subjective. Conjectures like paracetamol curing a headache though are testable using the tools of reason and evidence, so they're objective.
-
This is bizarre, I am the one saying that experience and method are different, and yet I am the one conflating them? How does that work? You are the one saying there is something that is an experience paradigm which is not somehow an ad pop, and yet again ignoring the points I was actually making as regards Leonard's position to continue your proxy war against Vlad.
The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.
-
NS,
No. The pragmatic intersubjective experience of the speed of light in a vacuum gives us a working objective determination of the speed of light in a vacuum using the tools of reason and evidence. We can use those same tools and apply them to other questions - what shape wings create most lift for example - and test the results. There's a qualitative difference between that and, say, causal narratives about Thor causing thunder and lightning that make a sort of explanatory sense but that offer nothing to test.
Of course you could say that the tools of reason and evidence are themselves just the fruits of a different causal explanatory narrative but either we divide the lived experience into "'planes will lift me off the ground but chanting and burning sage leaves will not" or we don't. And if we do, then we label the explanations "objective" and "subjective" with no need for an appeal to absolutes. That you and I may just be bits of junk code in a celestial kid's computer game does not in other words invalidate trying to categorise and make sense of the world "we" appear to inhabit.
If we don't do that though and instead go nuclear as Trollboy attempted in his recent effort, then all bets are off and any truth is as valid as any other - including it seems those that contradict each other.
Arr the devil does exist, poor old N S.
I'm now going to extrasubject myself to taking the dog for a walk in the pursuance of intercaninal advancement but of course on a small scale.
ippy
-
Your first point. Perhaps you can tell me then how you can extrapolate that to explain the coming into being of the universe.....
For example:-
Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
I should emphasise that I'm not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it has the advantage of being an extrapolation from current theories and serves as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.
Secondly then if belief is different from knowledge then it is established by reason alone? In which case there would be plenty of reason to believe in a God of a certain type as there are reasons not to believe.
Knowledge is actually rather tricky to define and I have made no claim to it. What reasons are there to believe in "a God of a certain type"?
Since this is not knowledge some commitment to any belief has to be made.
No, this is where you continually misunderstand. There are endless stories that we could make up about (for example) the origin or cause of the universe. I don't have to make a choice to disbelieve in every one. That would be impossible anyway, as I couldn't possibly think of them all.
Some of those stories would involve something that somebody might think is a god of some sort (some would involve other fantastical beings or ideas) but why should I take those any more seriously than any other story?
We need reasons to take stories seriously.
-
NS,
This is bizarre, I am the one saying that experience and method are different, and yet I am the one conflating them? How does that work? You are the one saying there is something that is an experience paradigm which is not somehow an ad pop, and yet again ignoring the points I was actually making as regards Leonard's position to continue your proxy war against Vlad.
The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.
If I've misunderstood you then I apologise, but it's not deliberately done. All I'm saying is that methodologies function within the lived experience, and that using them provides solutions we label "true" and discarding them provides conjectures we label "no reason to think is true". Gravity for example is in the first category, "God" in the second. None of these things though require absolutes to be functionally useful.
An ad pop is qualitatively different from a method-based approach because everyone believing in Thor for example still doesn't make Thor a method-apt proposition - there's nothing to test. The only "objective" thing you can say about them is that lots of people believed in them, but that's it.
-
NS,
If I've misunderstood you then I apologise, but it's not deliberately done. All I'm saying is that methodologies function within the lived experience, and that using them provides solutions we label "true" and discarding them provides conjectures we label "no reason to think is true". Gravity for example is in the first category, "God" in the second. None of these things though require absolutes to be functionally useful.
An ad pop is qualitatively different from a method-based approach because everyone believing in Thor for example still doesn't make Thor a method-apt proposition - there's nothing to test. The only "objective" thing you can say about them is that lots of people believed in them, but that's it.
And none of that is in opposition to anything I posted. I challenged Leonard on his ad pop, it's a clear ad pop as it has no mention of method. That we have spent thus amount of time with you creating the strawman is, IMO, because you and others follow the idea if someone argues against an atheist then they are somehow supporting a theist approach.
I don't need to point out the issues with Vlad's arguments as there are enough people doing that on the thread. That I don't indulge in the argument with him does not jean as you seen to have been propagating here that I agree with him.
-
For example:-
Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
I should emphasise that I'm not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it has the advantage of being an extrapolation from current theories and serves as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.
Knowledge is actually rather tricky to define and I have made no claim to it. What reasons are there to believe in "a God of a certain type"?
No, this is where you continually misunderstand. There are endless stories that we could make up about (for example) the origin or cause of the universe. I don't have to make a choice to disbelieve in every one. That would be impossible anyway, as I couldn't possibly think of them all.
Some of those stories would involve something that somebody might think is a god of some sort (some would involve other fantastical beings or ideas) but why should I take those any more seriously than any other story?
We need reasons to take stories seriously.
But is the quantum vacuum from whence a thing can pop up spontaneously natural and physical?
And/or is the rule governing this....the reason natural and physical?
And is there any reason to suppose that the quantum vacuum from which the universe sprang isn't an aspect of an intelligence (before and up to a God) given governance is an aspect of consciousness.
-
NS,
And none of that is in opposition to anything I posted. I challenged Leonard on his ad pop, it's a clear ad pop as it has no mention of method. That we have spent thus amount of time with you creating the strawman is, IMO, because you and others follow the idea if someone argues against an atheist then they are somehow supporting a theist approach.
Actually if there is a bias a play it's not that one at all, but rather that Len is such a lovely chap that I feel quite protective about him. I'd argue the disagreement was more a relevant nuance than a straw man, but it's not interesting enough for either of us to revisit I'm sure.
I don't need to point out the issues with Vlad's arguments as there are enough people doing that on the thread. That I don't indulge in the argument with him does not jean as you seen to have been propagating here that I agree with him.
I don't for one moment think that you agree wth him and nor have I propagated that - frankly I'd be a bit alarmed if you did given the collapse of reasoning it would entail.
-
The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.
Well that makes the overall picture as meself as the straw meister and Hillside moving in both straw and Turds.
He must be planning to build something in the traditional style.
-
Don't be sorry Len, sail majestically, get sunk majestically, salvage whatever you can majestically......
Oddly enough, I don't feel that I have been 'sunk' at all. Everything I have said makes sense to me, and I suppose that is all any of us can say. Getting others to see our own "sense" is neither easy nor important. Life is for living and enjoying, and not worrying too much about hiccups along the way. :)
-
But is the quantum vacuum from whence a thing can pop up spontaneously natural and physical?
And/or is the rule governing this....the reason natural and physical?
As I said, I am not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it is a hypothesis based entirely on physics, so yes.
And is there any reason to suppose that the quantum vacuum from which the universe sprang isn't an aspect of an intelligence (before and up to a God) given governance is an aspect of consciousness.
The point is that there is no reason to suppose that any god is involved - once we depart from the physics and what might be extrapolated from it, we are guessing.
All the evidence we have is that consciousness can evolve in an environment that has some regularity, not the other way around. Calling physical laws "governance" is just playing word games.
-
The point is that there is no reason to suppose that any god is involved - once we depart from the physics and what might be extrapolated from it, we are guessing.
All the evidence we have is that consciousness can evolve in an environment that has some regularity, not the other way around. Calling physical laws "governance" is just playing word games.
So you are saying that as far as the origin of a universe. quantum events can be extrapolated to explain the universe....without having to say how.......in other words your hypothesis even though apparently backed up by physics...is just guessing.
But......according to you............ it is impossible to extrapolate consciousness in the any way without an appeal to what we observe.
In terms of Governance one might ask why there was a physical law governing a universe which didn't exist?
Finally of course a physicists nothing is of course a something...from which something else can pop out.
Saying there is no reason to evoke a God is merely asserted.
What is your warrant for it?
The following still remain the distilled reasonable alternatives.
Created, appeared spontaneously from a literal nothing, or the universe is an unconscious eternal thing.
Of these, if any could be dropped it is the latter since the universe apparently has a beginning.
Finally are you happy that the theory you put forward is true? and if so why?
-
So you are saying that as far as the origin of a universe. quantum events can be extrapolated to explain the universe....without having to say how.......in other words your hypothesis even though apparently backed up by physics...is just guessing.
If you recall (and you don't seem to be paying attention at all, so why would you?), the hypothesis was put forward as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.
But......according to you............ it is impossible to extrapolate consciousness in the any way without an appeal to what we observe.
The point is that there is no theory of consciousness that can be extrapolated to one that exists independently of a physical universe. You don't have a starting point.
In terms of Governance one might ask why there was a physical law governing a universe which didn't exist?
In terms of reality, we simply don't know why it would be subject to laws. If we speculate about a god, we would be just as much in the dark about why there is such a being. It's a guess that has no basis and doesn't actually explain anything.
Saying there is no reason to evoke a God is merely asserted.
What is your warrant for it?
No, it's not an assertion. You have totally failed to provide a rational reason for any god - so have your fellow theists.
The following still remain the distilled reasonable alternatives.
Created, appeared spontaneously from a literal nothing, or the universe is an unconscious eternal thing.
This doesn't really make much sense. There is much that is unknown about the ultimate nature of reality and you seem to have totally failed to grasp much of what is known and can be intelligently speculated about.
You have yet to give even the hint of a scintilla of a reason to think that reality is based on a single, omnipotent, consciousness that somehow is just there.
Of these, if any could be dropped it is the latter since the universe apparently has a beginning.
The region of space-time that we inhabit might be bounded in the past time-like direction. That isn't the quite the same thing.
Finally are you happy that the theory you put forward is true? and if so why?
FFS PAY ATTENTION! As I have said several times, no. It's an example of a hypothesis that shows how the universe might not need a specific cause. It isn't even the only one I presented. I gave another from relativity (and again above).
This was all about the problems with the KCA, if you recall, and the reasons it isn't sound.
-
If you recall (and you don't seem to be paying attention at all, so why would you?), the hypothesis was put forward as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.
The point is that there is no theory of consciousness that can be extrapolated to one that exists independently of a physical universe.
But isn't that just physicalism and a narrow physicalism at that (see Tegmark)
You still haven't shown warrant for why God can be dismissed as a cause since I have given reason to which you have merely responded by saying we don't know but we know it isn't God.
Even if we remove God from the equation arbitrarily, That leaves either spontaneous appearance of a universe from a literal nothing or an eternal universe with the problem of all we have to observe having come into existence.
Or an unconscious non physical entity represented as inexorable rule for a universe.
I'm sorry You still haven't made your choice to rule out an intelligent creator anything but arbitrary and since we know that virtual universes can be created even by us that makes that arbitrary exclusion perverse.
-
The region of space-time that we inhabit might be bounded in the past time-like direction. That isn't the quite the same thing.
eh?
-
But isn't that just physicalism and a narrow physicalism at that (see Tegmark)
No, it's an observation. The only examples of consciousness we have are associated with complex organic structures. What has Tegmark got to do with it?
You still haven't shown warrant for why God can be dismissed as a cause since I have given reason to which you have merely responded by saying we don't know but we know it isn't God.
PAY ATTENTION: I DID NOT SAY I WAS DISMISSING GOD.
I'm saying that god is no more than a guess (not even a hypothesis based on theories we have evidence for). It has no more value as an idea than any other baseless guess.
Even if we remove God from the equation arbitrarily, That leaves either spontaneous appearance of a universe from a literal nothing or an eternal universe with the problem of all we have to observe having come into existence.
Or an unconscious non physical entity represented as inexorable rule for a universe.
This is the religionist propoganda that suggests that if we posit a 'god' then all the hard problems of existence just disappear.
It's bullshit.
The existence of a god is exactly as puzzling as the existence of a universe. In terms of the fundamental puzzle of why things exist and are the way they are, a god explains nothing, it just moves the problem.
eh?
See:-
Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.
Time isn't the immutable, Newtonian background to everything, it is part of the space-time manifold. The time dimension may come to an abrupt end at a singularity (or something similar) in the past direction but that would just be the shape of space-time.
If time did start at the big bang, then a preceding cause would be impossible (there being no such time as "before" for it to happen at). If time didn't start at the big bang, then that wouldn't have been the start of the universe.
That's why this is another example of an uncaused universe. This one based on general relativity, rather than quantum mechanics. The truth of the matter is not known but the existence of these possibilities demonstrate that the KCA is not a sound argument.
-
Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best.
No, because there is a qualitative difference between our experience of the unavoidable 'objective' world and all the other stuff that goes on in our minds. We can all tell the difference and that world clearly contains things that are true for everyone.
At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.
The systematic study of this 'reality' has given us science and technology. Technology that works for everyone. You don't have to understand or even 'believe in' relativity and quantum mechanics to use a GPS device but it only works because those two theories are very good descriptions of this unavoidable 'objective reality'.
These are not just ideas that most people believe. In fact, in the latter case, most people don't even understand them.
-
This is the religionist propoganda that suggests that if we posit a 'god' then all the hard problems of existence just disappear.
I'm not getting you....are you saying that it is reasonable to propose God as the cause of the universe or not. I think you must be since you are not going along with my schema in which God has been removed as a possibility.
Secondly, It sounds as if you don't want the hard problems of existence to go away...I take it we are still on the question of why there is anything anyway..........will a solution to this put you out of a job?
As a theist I would say that there is still scope for the greatest of wonder for that which we don't know about the universe. However it has to be said that for a universe that is eternal or a universe that pops out of a literal nothing God is not necessarily ruled out.......since there remains the question of why something and not nothing.
Finally I'd like to reiterate Nearly sane's point that religion is more often than not not held purely on the basis of a cosmological formulation........and that it is reasonable to propose a God and with new theories of multiverse which allow for simulated universes it is extra perverse to dispute their reasonableness.
In view of what you say about time Smolin would dispute with you about the nature of time and philosophically an eternal God or cause would not necessarily be bound time itself....again you are choosing to judge these matters strictly by what is observed but relaxing that strictness when discussing extrapolated quantum vacuums etc.
-
At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.
I'm tempted to advise you then to talk about this basic stuff and beyond that shut up and let the knowledgeable and interested parties discuss the interesting stuff.
-
I'm not getting you....are you saying that it is reasonable to propose God as the cause of the universe or not. I think you must be since you are not going along with my schema in which God has been removed as a possibility.
It would help if you could be arsed to actually read my posts.
Yes, it is possible that the universe was created by some sort of 'god', just as it is possible that none of this is real and I am a Boltzmann brain that spontaneously arose out of infinite random chaos a nanosecond ago, complete with memories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain ). Or it may, as I've pointed out before, that the universe was created by a spotty teenager in another universe. There are a vast number of possibilities (guesses we could make that aren't impossible). The point about the god one, is why would we take it seriously?
As a theist I would say that there is still scope for the greatest of wonder for that which we don't know about the universe. However it has to be said that for a universe that is eternal or a universe that pops out of a literal nothing God is not necessarily ruled out.......since there remains the question of why something and not nothing.
As I said, it can't be ruled out but it doesn't address the problem of why something and not nothing or something entirely different. It's just that the 'something' that exists for no apparent reason would then be god, rather than the universe.
....and that it is reasonable to propose a God and with new theories of multiverse which allow for simulated universes it is extra perverse to dispute their reasonableness.
No idea what this has to do with it. Why is it reasonable to propose a god? How is it different to any other baseless guess?
-
It would help if you could be arsed to actually read my posts.
Yes, it is possible that the universe was created by some sort of 'god', just as it is possible that none of this is real and I am a Boltzmann brain that spontaneously arose out of infinite random chaos a nanosecond ago, complete with memories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain ). Or it may, as I've pointed out before, that the universe was created by a spotty teenager in another universe. There are a vast number of possibilities (guesses we could make that aren't impossible). The point about the god one, is why would we take it seriously?
As I said, it can't be ruled out but it doesn't address the problem of why something and not nothing or something entirely different. It's just that the 'something' that exists for no apparent reason would then be god, rather than the universe.
No idea what this has to do with it. Why is it reasonable to propose a god? How is it different to any other baseless guess?
We are nearly in agreement but everything you say about possibilities is against your summary statement that it is a baseless guess.
Also We have to acknowledge that God is not a scientific answer but then your judging the cause by the effect.....and only the scientific effect of a reason that is not witnessed or indeed witnessable by science.
In short your argument that it is a baseless suggestion brings your approach well within being nothing but a bit of Scientism.
-
No, because there is a qualitative difference between our experience of the unavoidable 'objective' world and all the other stuff that goes on in our minds. We can all tell the difference and that world clearly contains things that are true for everyone.
At a basic level, if you live in a village by a lake, nobody argues about where the lake is (it's the big watery thing over there!). If someone decides to believe it's actually dry land and tries to walk across it, they get very wet. It's a 'reality' that is unavoidable.
The systematic study of this 'reality' has given us science and technology. Technology that works for everyone. You don't have to understand or even 'believe in' relativity and quantum mechanics to use a GPS device but it only works because those two theories are very good descriptions of this unavoidable 'objective reality'.
These are not just ideas that most people believe. In fact, in the latter case, most people don't even understand them.
Again as with blue hillside, you are conflating the methodology with the experience. That science works us correct and not something I am denying. Indeed the idea that that usmy position is the same straw that bluehillside was using. You make the practical assumption that we deal with a reality and you use science to confirm the details.
However, the issue I was pointing out is that Leonard was using the idea of facts being established simply by people agreeing. There us no method there in that and it is the ad pop fallacy. When blue hillside uses experience without the methodology then it is simply the pop again. Further the methodology is specifically excluded in Leonard's position as he is applying to such 'facts' as gods.
-
NS,
Again as with blue hillside, you are conflating the methodology with the experience. That science works us correct and not something I am denying. Indeed the idea that that usmy position is the same straw that bluehillside was using. You make the practical assumption that we deal with a reality and you use science to confirm the details.
Again you misrepresent me and I think Some too. All I've said (consistently in fact) is that inasmuch as we treat the lived experience as our model for the way the world appears to be, then probabilistic truths arrived at with reason and logic (germs causing disease for example) are to be preferred over probabilistic non-truths ("God" for example) because the former provide functional solutions whereas the latter are just guesses. None of that though makes an appeal to an objective reality, any more than a goldfish in a bowl has a reality outside his environment.
However, the issue I was pointing out is that Leonard was using the idea of facts being established simply by people agreeing. There us no method there in that and it is the ad pop fallacy. When blue hillside uses experience without the methodology then it is simply the pop again. Further the methodology is specifically excluded in Leonard's position as he is applying to such 'facts' as gods.
And again, no. Here’s what Len actually said that caused you to accuse him of an ad pop (Reply 124):
“I don't think anybody but a fool lies about such things. As I said, facts are obvious truths to everybody ... beliefs are "truths" for only some.”
I’d change the “to” to “for”, but the sense he intended I think is that a fact – like gravity – remains a fact regardless of whether or not someone believes it to be the case, whereas a belief in this context is an opinion that’s not veridical with inter-subjective experience.
And that’s not an ad pop at all.
-
It is in the context of the conversation, in that Leonard was questioning the honesty of people stating what they believed to be true because they were questioning 'facts'.
-
All I've said (consistently in fact) is that inasmuch as we treat the lived experience as our model for the way the world appears to be
I'm trying to square how life as lived by most squares with what is called ''the life scientific''.... a kind of alternative geeky and privileged existence enjoyed by well, er, scientists.
Isn't their position a kind of priestly class and the rest of us have a kind of ''folk science''.
This would point at the rest of us being told what to think and loving it because ''we don't have to''.
-
We are nearly in agreement but everything you say about possibilities is against your summary statement that it is a baseless guess.
It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...
-
Some,
It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...
And nor can an orbiting teapot just beyond the range of our telescopes. Seems chummy has joined Hope's negative proof fallacy club.
-
It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...
Again you suggest it as a possibility so the question for you is, what is the BASIS of that possibility?...................
The basis is that multiverse theory provides for simulated universe.
You are confusing answers with suggestions I feel.
-
NS,
It is in the context of the conversation, in that Leonard was questioning the honesty of people stating what they believed to be true because they were questioning 'facts'.
I don't read Len's posts as implying that facts are facts because lots of people think them to be facts, and he said expressly that only fools (rather than the mendacious) tells lies about facts so I still don't see an ad pop. Either way though this is getting a bit sterile for me at least now so I'll leave Len to address it or not as he wishes from now on.
-
Some,
And nor can an orbiting teapot just beyond the range of our telescopes. Seems chummy has joined Hope's negative proof fallacy club.
You've lost your credibility through your cavalier attitude to category.
First it was Leprechauns and God. Now it is teacups and the reason why there is anything and not nothing.
Now if you take the Russellian view of these questions i.e. that we must ignore them that's perfectly fine and so you are bound to shut up and talk about mundane matters leaving the interesting stuff to knowledgeable and /or interested posters.
When you committed to argumentum ad ridiculum you really committed.
-
It's a baseless guess until you (or any other theist) can up with some basis for making it, other that "it can't be ruled out". The universe being manufactured by factory staffed by invisible pixies can't be ruled out...
Yes we know that in multiverse theories a simulated universe is possible.
However if they are invisible how do we know they are pixies?
And how can we tell you made a valid argument rather than an argumentum ad ridiculum?.
-
Yes we know that in multiverse theories a simulated universe is possible.
You keep wittering on about multiverses and simulated universes as if they have some relevance. Is there a point struggling to get out...?
However if they are invisible how do we know they are pixies?
By using a baseless guess that cannot be ruled out.
And how can we tell you made a valid argument rather than an argumentum ad ridiculum?.
It's actually a reductio ad absurdum argument against the your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
-
You keep wittering on about multiverses and simulated universes as if they have some relevance. Is there a point struggling to get out...?
It should be as plain as the nose on your face since we are talking about whether it is reasonable to propose a creator and the provision of simulated universe i.e. created universe with a creator to create them is OBVIOUSLY relevant.
-
You've lost your credibility through your cavalier attitude to category.
First it was Leprechauns and God. Now it is teacups and the reason why there is anything and not nothing.
Now if you take the Russellian view of these questions i.e. that we must ignore them that's perfectly fine and so you are bound to shut up and talk about mundane matters leaving the interesting stuff to knowledgeable and /or interested posters.
When you committed to argumentum ad ridiculum you really committed.
If anyone here really wants to feed the house troll please feel free, but for me his unremittingly dishonest idiocy (see above) is making me a bit queasy so I'll leave others to it if that's ok.
-
If anyone here really wants to feed the house troll please feel free, but for me his unremittingly dishonest idiocy (see above) is making me a bit queasy so I'll leave others to it if that's ok.
Don't let the door get your tush on the way out.
-
It should be as plain as the nose on your face since we are talking about whether it is reasonable to propose a creator and the provision of simulated universe i.e. created universe with a creator to create them is OBVIOUSLY relevant.
We were talking about a god, Vlad, not some team of scientists that may be running simulations.