Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 06, 2018, 07:57:25 AM
-
In my view yes.
It is a literary movement, it is organised, it is public, it has been identified as a stealth religion, it has beliefs and practices beyond atheism, It has founders etc.
-
I think most of what is called New Atheism, at least on the surface, is antitheist in nature. I am just an atheist.
-
I think most of what is called New Atheism, at least on the surface, is antitheist in nature. I am just an atheist.
Indeed. There is one self described uncultured boor and ignoramus on here who is unable to distinguish between new atheism and atheism. At least if the way the poster condemns all atheists equally is taken into consideration.
-
Indeed. There is one self described uncultured boor and ignoramus on here who is unable to distinguish between new atheism and atheism. At least if the way the poster condemns all atheists equally is taken into consideration.
A lot of what might be described as New Atheism though is simply, people being openly atheist. In some cultures that's important, for example, in the US where despite the constitution there is a cultural bias against atheism, or worse in states where it is actively repressed. That I might campaign for Raif Badawi's freedom, doesn't make me a New Atheist. As ever, I find simplistic labels tell me very little about people.
-
Is there such a thing as New Atheism?
Depends what you mean by 'thing', I guess. AFAIK it's a label that's been applied to the views expressed by some authors (notably the 'four horsemen': Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens). I'm not aware that it is anything more than that.
-
In my view yes.
It is a literary movement, it is organised, it is public, it has been identified as a stealth religion, it has beliefs and practices beyond atheism, It has founders etc.
It is a label.
A label is a thing
Yet, the number of people who self describe using that label is not large.
Can you give any examples?
I know it's a blow for you that the number of self proclaiming 'New Athiests' on this forum can be counted on the fingers of one foot.
All of those long hours put in to carefully craft your witticisms, gone to waste!
-
In my view yes.
It is a literary movement
You mean several people have written books in which they claim there is no god? Several people have written books about car mechanics. Is that a literary movement?
it is organised,
Really?
it has been identified as a stealth religion
Not legitimately.
it has beliefs and practices beyond atheism, It has founders etc.
Who are the founders? What are the beliefs and practices?
"New atheist" is a label people have applied to certain atheists* who have been prepared to air their views publicly. I don't think there's anything more to it than that.
*I don't really like the term "antitheist" it superficially implies they are against God whereas they are actually against theism or religion.
-
In my view yes.
It is a literary movement, it is organised, it is public, it has been identified as a stealth religion, it has beliefs and practices beyond atheism, It has founders etc.
You sound paranoid.
-
It is a literary movement,
Can we call a series of posts by Vlad a bowel movement?
-
I am indebted to Stranger who wished to point out that New Atheism was different from atheist and gave two links to definitions, one an informative Wikipedia entry which can leave one in no doubt that it definitely is 'a thing'.
Since though it doesn't seem to be the thing to own up to belonging to and to prevent wrangling over whether one is an atheist, a new atheist, a 'you ain't seen me, right' atheist, an apatheist, a 'go on then, try to land a label on me' atheist......Let's look at a set of beliefs which are recogniseably collective and see which contributors can sign up to.
We should also proceed in the knowledge that groups of people collectively believing/behaving in the same way don't always get to choose what they are known as....Shakers, Quakers, Christians, New Atheists etc. and proceed with the maxim that if it walks like a Duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.
So friends, how many of these can you sign up to?
The "God Hypothesis" is a valid scientific hypothesis,since it claims effects in the physical universe.
Like any other hypothesis it can be tested and falsified.
God is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested by standard methods of science.
The hypothesis fails any such tests.
Naturalism is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, the most distant galaxies, the origin of life, the existence of different species, and the inner workings of the brain and consciousness.
Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.
Religious or supernatural claims (such as the virgin birth of Jesus and the afterlife) are scientific claims in nature.
God is a Failed Hypothesis
A God of the three omnis, cannot logically exist.
Science and religion are in conflict,
It is completely unrealistic to claim that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values.
A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without.
Science and thereby currently unknown objective facts may instruct human morality in a globally comparable way.
There are objective states of well-being.
Religion has a biased and privileged position in society.
The influence of religion in the public sphere must be challenged and reduced.
Source Wikipedia.
-
It is a label.
A label is a thing
Yet, the number of people who self describe using that label is not large.
Can you give any examples?
I know it's a blow for you that the number of self proclaiming 'New Athiests' on this forum can be counted on the fingers of one foot.
All of those long hours put in to carefully craft your witticisms, gone to waste!
Yes some labels are completely misplaced eg ''antitheist comedian''.
Is it really a problem of self identification? After all look at that ghastly ''shall we call ourselves 'the Brights''' business. Isn't it just the character flaw where you don't want the others to put a handle on you?
That you and your fellows do not want a name or be named seems almost superstitious.
Or perhaps Seb, the truth is that now New Atheism is a toxic brand.
-
Yes some labels are completely misplaced eg ''antitheist comedian''.
Is it really a problem of self identification? After all look at that ghastly ''shall we call ourselves 'the Brights''' business. Isn't it just the character flaw where you don't want the others to put a handle on you?
That you and your fellows do not want a name or be named seems almost superstitious.
Or perhaps Seb, the truth is that now New Atheism is a toxic brand.
Do you mind if someone puts an incorrect label on you?
The only person that I can see attempting to place the New Atheist label on people is yourself.
Is it because you perceive it to be toxic?
Maybe it is because you have a character flaw?
-
Do you mind if someone puts an incorrect label on you?
The only person that I can see attempting to place the New Atheist label on people is yourself.
Is it because you perceive it to be toxic?
Maybe it is because you have a character flaw?
For better or worse, people who collectively make a song and dance or are behaviourally and ideologically distinct are named. I didn't come up with the description (apparently it was someone who identifies as an agnostic). I wasn't the first or only person who talked of them as a stealth religion( That was an atheist).
In any case, what is the problem with the term New Atheist? What is it about it that leaves you apparently unreasonably exercised?
Finally, did you take my survey of beliefs which have been associated with New Atheism?
How many did you agree with?
-
Do you mind if someone puts an incorrect label on you?
The only person that I can see attempting to place the New Atheist label on people is yourself.
Is it because you perceive it to be toxic?
Maybe it is because you have a character flaw?
You are on your own Vlad No one but you has ever referred to anyone as a New Atheist, Never have , Never will.
There are no New atheists Vlad, There are no theists Vlad
There is nothing beyond the forum Vlad
There is only the forum Vlad...……….
-
You are on your own Vlad No one but you has ever referred to anyone as a New Atheist, Never have , Never will.
There are no New atheists Vlad, There are no theists Vlad
There is nothing beyond the forum Vlad
There is only the forum Vlad...……….
Persecution complex as well?
Maybe you need to take another 'indefinite' leave of absence,
-
Persecution complex as well?
Maybe you need to take another 'indefinite' leave of absence,
Your refusal and the refusal of other atheists to take part in a survey of specific beliefs noted as concomitant to atheist writing is a act against knowledge and understanding.
What is it you are all afraid off?
-
Your refusal and the refusal of other atheists to take part in a survey of specific beliefs noted as concomitant to atheist writing is a act against knowledge and understanding.
What is it you are all afraid off?
I think it's probably lack of interest, rather than fear. I read through it and decided that I couldn't sign up to any of them without further qualification or clarification, with the possible exception of "A God of the three omnis, cannot logically exist." but even that sounds like it's saying the idea is inherently inconsistent (which may be what Stenger meant, I don't know, I haven't read his book) but it's more likely that it means that the idea is inconsistent with the world we observe - which I agree with.
So there you go, one out of 16. Doesn't look like I'll get my New Atheist badge... :'(
It should also be pointed out that all these points are just what you've taken from the wiki page about New Atheism and most of them are from Dawkins and Stenger (according to said page). So this is your take on somebody else's take on what a couple of authors have said...
-
I think it's probably lack of interest, rather than fear. I read through it and decided that I couldn't sign up to any of them without further qualification or clarification, with the possible exception of "A God of the three omnis, cannot logically exist." but even that sounds like it's saying the idea is inherently inconsistent (which may be what Stenger meant, I don't know, I haven't read his book) but it's more likely that it means that the idea is inconsistent with the world we observe - which I agree with.
So there you go, one out of 16. Doesn't look like I'll get my New Atheist badge... :'(
It should also be pointed out that all these points are just what you've taken from the wiki page about New Atheism and most of them are from Dawkins and Stenger (according to said page). So this is your take on somebody else's take on what a couple of authors have said...
1: Yes I acknowledged it as a list taken from Wikipedia. That was necessary to avoid the "oh, this is just Vlad" effect.
2: Thank you for actually responding and saying why you could sign up to one but that you prefer to remain agnostic about the rest.
3: With the exception of yourself, the lack of interest seems to be in relinquishing the role of interrogator to take the role of interegatee.
-
1: Yes I acknowledged it as a list taken from Wikipedia. That was necessary to avoid the "oh, this is just Vlad" effect.
Yes, so it's your selection from wiki's selection, of the points made by (mainly two) of the so-called "New Atheist" authors. It's not exactly definitive.
2: Thank you for actually responding and saying why you could sign up to one but that you prefer to remain agnostic about the rest.
I don't think agnostic is the right word. I think many are too vague. For example "The "God Hypothesis" is a valid scientific hypothesis" - what god hypothesis? On the one hand, the hypothesis that a god created the universe about 6000 years ago is making a scientific claim, one which has clearly been falsified. At the other extreme, a deist type god hypothesis clearly makes no testable claims at all.
-
Your refusal and the refusal of other atheists
Where have I stated that I am am atheist?
Are you labelling me Vlad?
Show your working.....
-
Where have I stated that I am am atheist?
Are you labelling me Vlad?
Show your working.....
If I am wrong in referring to you as an atheist then you have my sincere apology.
-
Yes, so it's your selection from wiki's selection, of the points made by (mainly two) of the so-called "New Atheist" authors. It's not exactly definitive.
I don't think agnostic is the right word. I think many are too vague. For example "The "God Hypothesis" is a valid scientific hypothesis" - what god hypothesis? On the one hand, the hypothesis that a god created the universe about 6000 years ago is making a scientific claim, one which has clearly been falsified. At the other extreme, a deist type god hypothesis clearly makes no testable claims at all.
All fair points
What about religion and science being in conflict? Given what you have said about the age of the earth episode, do you now think you could sign up to that idea, or does the statement still seem vague.
-
What about religion and science being in conflict? Given what you have said about the age of the earth episode, do you now think you could sign up to that idea, or does the statement still seem vague.
It still needs qualification because it depends on what religion you are talking about. The same examples apply: literal creationist religions are in conflict but not deism.
-
It still needs qualification because it depends on what religion you are talking about. The same examples apply: literal creationist religions are in conflict but not deism.
Yes, I see.
-
The "God Hypothesis" is a valid scientific hypothesis,since it claims effects in the physical universe.
Like any other hypothesis it can be tested and falsified.
God is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested by standard methods of science.
The hypothesis fails any such tests.
The problem is the claim that there is only one god hypothesis. The most general version "God created the Universe" cannot be falsified. It makes no predictions. The god hypothesis subscribed to by fundamentalist Christians can be falsified and has been - there was no global flood that wiped out all but eight people, for example.
Naturalism is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, the most distant galaxies, the origin of life, the existence of different species, and the inner workings of the brain and consciousness.
Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.
Yep. I can subscribe to that one.
Religious or supernatural claims (such as the virgin birth of Jesus and the afterlife) are scientific claims in nature.
Some are, some aren't.
God is a Failed Hypothesis
See above. There is not just one god hypothesis. However, all the ones that are falsifiable probably haver been falsified.
A God of the three omnis, cannot logically exist.
Can omniscient god predict everything that omnipotent god can do? No, otherwise omnipotent god can't change its mind.
Science and religion are in conflict,
Yes.
It is completely unrealistic to claim that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values.
This is manifestly true.
A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without.
I can't answer that because I only have experience of the one I live in.
Science and thereby currently unknown objective facts may instruct human morality in a globally comparable way.
There are objective states of well-being.
A tentative "yes in principle" to both of those.
Religion has a biased and privileged position in society.
Manifestly true.
The influence of religion in the public sphere must be challenged and reduced.
Yes.
-
The problem is the claim that there is only one god hypothesis. The most general version "God created the Universe" cannot be falsified. It makes no predictions. The god hypothesis subscribed to by fundamentalist Christians can be falsified and has been - there was no global flood that wiped out all but eight people, for example.
Yep. I can subscribe to that one.
Some are, some aren't.
See above. There is not just one god hypothesis. However, all the ones that are falsifiable probably haver been falsified.
Can omniscient god predict everything that omnipotent god can do? No, otherwise omnipotent god can't change its mind.
Yes.This is manifestly true.
I can't answer that because I only have experience of the one I live in. A tentative "yes in principle" to both of those.
Manifestly true.
Yes.
Thanks for that and with most boxes ticked or half ticked, you are eligible for the New Atheist club Horseman number 2986704.
Some interesting ideas I am unfamiliar with.
I'd be interested in your take as to how knowing everything prevents you from changing your mind about say, how you act.
-
Some interesting ideas I am unfamiliar with.
I'd be interested in your take as to how knowing everything prevents you from changing your mind about say, how you act.
Let's say I am omnipotent and omniscient. Being omniscient, I know I'm going to have pizza for tea tonight. However, being omnipotent, I could change my mind and decide to go out for a curry instead. But if I have a curry, it would mean I wasn't omniscient because I predicted I would have pizza.
It's logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent.
-
Let's say I am omnipotent and omniscient. Being omniscient, I know I'm going to have pizza for tea tonight. However, being omnipotent, I could change my mind and decide to go out for a curry instead. But if I have a curry, it would mean I wasn't omniscient because I predicted I would have pizza.
It's logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent.
Seems sound but you know me Jeremy....why have you introduced prediction here when prediction is not the same as knowledge?
-
Seems sound but you know me Jeremy....why have you introduced prediction here when prediction is not the same as knowledge?
Surely knowing what is going to happen in the future counts as knowledge.
-
Surely knowing what is going to happen in the future counts as knowledge.
Sounds more like prediction than knowledge......if you put it like that.
What if all futures were your past? You would be on safer ground "knowing the future" then.
-
Sounds more like prediction than knowledge......if you put it like that.
What if all futures were your past? You would be on safer ground "knowing the future" then.
Prediction that is 100% accurate 100% of the time = really, really lucky?
-
Sounds more like prediction than knowledge......if you put it like that.
What if all futures were your past? You would be on safer ground "knowing the future" then.
If you know everything, that must include (for example) the winners of the 2019 FA Cup, otherwise, you don't know everything, only things that have already happened.
-
If you know everything, that must include (for example) the winners of the 2019 FA Cup, otherwise, you don't know everything, only things that have already happened.
Arguably, things that have already happened are everything. Things that have yet to happen don't exist yet.
This should be in the "Omnis" thread.
-
If you know everything, that must include (for example) the winners of the 2019 FA Cup, otherwise, you don't know everything, only things that have already happened.
I think that's reasonable, however there is a laddie floating about the forum who is usually quick to point out at moments like this that there is no such thing as ''now''.....does that change things I wonder?
I also take it from what you say that you are not counting a fourth omni.....omnipresence. Would I be right in that?
-
Arguably, things that have already happened are everything. Things that have yet to happen don't exist yet.
This should be in the "Omnis" thread.
Yes that also sounds reasonable.
-
Arguably, things that have already happened are everything. Things that have yet to happen don't exist yet.
This should be in the "Omnis" thread.
Nonsense. If I ask you “do you know who is going to win the FA Cup in 2019” and you say “I don’t know” then you clearly do not know everything.
-
Nonsense. If I ask you “do you know who is going to win the FA Cup in 2019” and you say “I don’t know” then you clearly do not know everything.
I wrote "arguably" deliberately, because I don't necessarily agree (but I don't necessarily disagree either).
-
Nonsense. If I ask you “do you know who is going to win the FA Cup in 2019” and you say “I don’t know” then you clearly do not know everything.
But Steve has raised a good point. If the future does not exist.How can we have knowledge of it.
Hence my distinction between prediction and knowledge.
So logic about this depend on your premise about time.
-
But Steve has raised a good point. If the future does not exist.How can we have knowledge of it.
We can't have knowledge of it, but we are talking about an omniscient god.
Is it your belief that the Christian god cannot predict the future? Where does that leave all the books about prophets in the Bible?
-
Prediction and knowing are two different things. Based on past experience, I can predict pretty confidently that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I won't know it will until it does. God, if God exists, could predict much more accurately than me, and much further ahead, because of God's absolute knowledge of the present and past.
-
because of God's absolute knowledge of the present and past.
So why would he not have absolute knowledge of the future? It seems to me Christians haven't really thought out what the omni's really mean.
-
We can't have knowledge of it, but we are talking about an omniscient god.
I'm glad you noticed
Is it your belief that the Christian god cannot predict the future?
It is my belief that
1: It is God who decides if there is a future
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.
3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.
4: It might seem that God has at least suggested a bit of a future. Due to omnipresence he would be in any future.
Where does that leave all the books about prophets in the Bible?
1:If God is omnipresent then he can divulge knowledge to those to whom he wishes.
-
So why would he not have absolute knowledge of the future? It seems to me Christians haven't really thought out what the omni's really mean.
They are part of the philosophical treatment of God.
There is the difference between a theology embarked on from a base of religious experience and conviction and philosophy.
In your model Jeremy, Christians propose a God of the Omnis and weary old philosophers have had to come in and put them straight.
I don't think Christians started with a God of the omnis, they might have considered them in the height of the scholastic period but even Anselm talks about God being 'the most' rather than ''the omni'' and Aquinus abruptly finishes his philosophical take on God and returns to his religious life.
The atheist demolition of the God of the omnis is therefore IMHO a strawman argument.
-
I think the omnis come from ancient Greek philosophy, rather than the Bible. Greek philosophy had a big influence on the development of Christian theology, not all of it good.
-
Yes I think a more pertinent question than 'Do Christians understand the Omnis?' is 'Do new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists understand the beliefs they have actually been observed coming out with?'
-
Yes I think a more pertinent question than 'Do Christians understand the Omnis?' is 'Do new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists understand the beliefs they have actually been observed coming out with?'
No idea: why don't you find a new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheist/atheist and ask them?
-
No idea: why don't you find a new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheist/atheist and ask them?
The cheeky wee atheist labeller dodging around trying to avoid getting one hisself is easy to spot Gordon. He's the one doing the dodging...
-
No idea: why don't you find a new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheist/atheist and ask them?
Catch us if you ca-a-an, catch us if you ca-a-an.
Ha Ha Ha.
-
I don't think Christians started with a God of the omnis, they might have considered them in the height of the scholastic period but even Anselm talks about God being 'the most' rather than ''the omni'' and Aquinus abruptly finishes his philosophical take on God and returns to his religious life.
The atheist demolition of the God of the omnis is therefore IMHO a strawman argument.
Unless you are saying that no groups of Christians believe in the god of the omnis (good luck with that (https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/ztm24qt/revision/3)), and that it was made up by atheists, it can't be a straw man.
-
The cheeky wee atheist labeller dodging around trying to avoid getting one hisself is easy to spot Gordon. He's the one doing the dodging...
So do you know of someone who is a new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheist/atheist - and a dodger too you say?
-
...'Do new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists understand the beliefs they have actually been observed coming out with?'
Who can say? You seem to have joined a bunch of terms together to describe some vague group or groups of people and then asked if they understand some unspecified beliefs.
I think you need to be more specific...
-
Unless you are saying that no groups of Christians believe in the god of the omnis (good luck with that (https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/ztm24qt/revision/3)), and that it was made up by atheists, it can't be a straw man.
I think that the importance to which Christians place the philosophical notions of ''the omnis'' is exaggerated by the New atheists. They are as Gerald Priestland would say, saddling Christians with a God they don't subscribe to anyway. So as far as that is true, New atheists are making a strawman argument.
As Steve has pointed out these ideas are more greek philosophy.
-
Who can say? You seem to have joined a bunch of terms together to describe some vague group or groups of people and then asked if they understand some unspecified beliefs.
I think you need to be more specific...
I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.
The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.
-
I think that the importance to which Christians place the philosophical notions of ''the omnis'' is exaggerated by the New atheists.
What are you basing this view on?
They are as Gerald Priestland would say, saddling Christians with a God they don't subscribe to anyway. So as far as that is true, New atheists are making a strawman argument.
So is it about importance or belief - do make up your mind. If (some) Christians believe in a god of the omnis, they aren't being saddled with it, are they? As I said, unless you want to claim that there aren't significant groups of Christians who believe in a god of the omnis, then it isn't a straw man.
As Steve has pointed out these ideas are more greek philosophy.
It's origin really doesn't matter to the point.
-
I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.
I still don't know who they are.
The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.
I still don't know what beliefs you are referring to.
-
I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.
The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.
This is the category of 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'?
I suggested you find a member of this category of yours and ask them: how is that going?
-
What are you basing this view on?
In all my years I never heard a sermon or theological debate internal to the church that was in anyway similar to the frequent discussion by atheists on the issue of the omnis. Not being able to lift a stone you created has nowhere near the import to Christians as it has for atheists for whom it is one of the Knockdown arguments
So is it about importance or belief - do make up your mind. If (some) Christians believe in a god of the omnis, they aren't being saddled with it, are they? As I said, unless you want to claim that there aren't significant groups of Christians who believe in a god of the omnis, then it isn't a straw man.
How a christian understands the term, the Omnis is different from what atheist think a christian understands the term Omni......so yes it is a strawman argument.
-
This is the category of 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'?
I suggested you find a member of this category of yours and ask them: how is that going?
I'm sorry I'm involved with serious enquirers and haven't got time for your wee capers.
-
In all my years I never heard a sermon or theological debate internal to the church that was in anyway similar to the frequent discussion by atheists on the issue of the omnis. Not being able to lift a stone you created has nowhere near the import to Christians as it has for atheists for whom it is one of the Knockdown arguments
So Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems with their beliefs... no shit. Who are these atheists who think the thing about stones is a "Knockdown" argument?
How a christian understands the term, the Omnis is different from what atheist think a christian understands the term Omni......so yes it is a strawman argument.
Which Christian and which atheist? The problem here is that Christians don't all think the same thing and atheists have even less in common. In my experience are are Christians who have a very literal view of the omnis.
You can't level an accusation of straw man at people if the actual beliefs in question are genuinely held be some of those criticised, rather than made up by their critics.
-
So Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems with their beliefs... no shit.
I think it's more Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems of a God as proposed by greek philosophy
In my experience are are Christians who have a very literal view of the omnis.
I could be cute here and throw the ''who are these people'' schtick back at you.
You can't level an accusation of straw man at people if the actual beliefs in question are genuinely held be some of those criticised, rather than made up by their critics.
To quote that great atheist commentator Gordon.....Who are these people?
-
To quote that great atheist commentator Gordon.....Who are these people?
So I did: and you haven't yet told us who these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' are and what it is they believe, in which context you mentioned them (whoever they are).
I realise I'm being optimistic here, but have you actually asked any of these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' about their beliefs yet?
-
So I did: and you haven't yet told us who these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' are and what it is they believe, in which context you mentioned them (whoever they are).
I realise I'm being optimistic here, but have you actually asked any of these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' about their beliefs yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism
-
I think it's more Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems of a God as proposed by greek philosophy
Vlad, are you seriously trying to claim that the omni characteristics of god are not subscribed to by some groups of Christians?
Characteristics of God (https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/ztm24qt/revision/3)
Attributes of God in Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity)
Seriously?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism
Don't see that this links deals with all the other attributes you mentioned in your 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' category.
I guess this is yet another example of a routine Vlad strategy - 1) you fly a kite, 2) if anyone asks to inspect the kite you indulge in evasive waffle.
-
Don't see that this links deals with all the other attributes you mentioned in your 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' category.
I guess this is yet another example of a routine Vlad strategy - 1) you fly a kite, 2) if anyone asks to inspect the kite you indulge in evasive waffle.
It isn't evasive waffle it is a list of New atheist who can also be described as modern, contemporary, bright, militant, campaigning, public antitheist or atheist.
The question is therefore whether you like the label to which the obvious response is.....tough.
-
It isn't evasive waffle it is a list of New atheist who can also be described as modern, contemporary, bright, militant, campaigning, public antitheist or atheist.
Who is described as such by whom (apart from you)?
The question is therefore whether you like the label to which the obvious response is.....tough.
You've forgotten to tell us who conforms to this label: until such times as you can justify said label it is, as I said, evasive waffle which troubles me not.
-
Who is described as such by whom (apart from you)?
You've forgotten to tell us who conforms to this label: until such times as you can justify said label it is, as I said, evasive waffle which troubles me not.
It's in the link Gordon, i'm sure you'll find it eventually.
-
It's in the link Gordon, i'm sure you'll find it eventually.
The link mentions 'new',Vlad, and not 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'.
Maybe your enthusiasm for kite-flying is getting the better of you.
-
The link mentions 'new',Vlad, and not 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'.
Yes, I should have said that those without the wit to make the link between new/modern/contempory or the link between the new atheists and atheists who were described as brights, militant, campaigning, antitheist or public...………...should concentrate on the 'New' part.
-
They are part of the philosophical treatment of God.
There is the difference between a theology embarked on from a base of religious experience and conviction and philosophy.
In your model Jeremy, Christians propose a God of the Omnis and weary old philosophers have had to come in and put them straight.
I don't think Christians started with a God of the omnis, they might have considered them in the height of the scholastic period but even Anselm talks about God being 'the most' rather than ''the omni'' and Aquinus abruptly finishes his philosophical take on God and returns to his religious life.
The atheist demolition of the God of the omnis is therefore IMHO a strawman argument.
Glad you think that. But it does lead me to ask why you were so vociferously arguing against my definition of omniscient if you don’t think the Christian god is necessarily omniscient.
When I was a Christian, it seemed obvious to me that God could be neither omniscient nor omnipotent based only on my observations of the World and what was in the Bible. The whole story of the Fall makes no sense unless you assume that God did not know whether the humans would choose to eat the forbidden fruit or not.
-
I'm sorry I'm involved with serious enquirers and haven't got time for your wee capers.
That’s a clear lie. You spend a lot of time here so you clear do have time for our wee capers.
-
Glad you think that. But it does lead me to ask why you were so vociferously arguing against my definition of omniscient if you don’t think the Christian god is necessarily omniscient.
When I was a Christian, it seemed obvious to me that God could be neither omniscient nor omnipotent based only on my observations of the World and what was in the Bible. The whole story of the Fall makes no sense unless you assume that God did not know whether the humans would choose to eat the forbidden fruit or not.
I don't see how you cannot see the objections to your definitions.
I do not see how the story of the fall makes no sense with God's omniscience.
-
That’s a clear lie. You spend a lot of time here so you clear do have time for our wee capers.
The only capers I was referring to were Gordon's.
-
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/images/products/extra_large/11079/916601.jpg
-
I don't see how you cannot see the objections to your definitions.
I do not see how the story of the fall makes no sense with God's omniscience.
There are a lot of things you don't see. Your generally coherent posts on Brexit make me think the cause is wilful blindness.
-
There are a lot of things you don't see. Your generally coherent posts on Brexit make me think the cause is wilful blindness.
That doesn't explain how God not being omniscient is essential for the fall though does it.
-
I think the trouble here is thinking that these great, wonderful, throbbing Greek concepts.......The omnis are somehow simple and straightforward.
Steve shows us by presenting an alternative theory of time has shown that not to be the case.
Your idea that God does not know the future.....you have in the past apparently equated prediction with knowledge. Are you saying that God did not predict the fall or that he predicted either fall or stand?
And of course why can he have not foreseen or be omniscient and know the fall was going to happen and went ahead anyway?
-
That doesn't explain how God not being omniscient is essential for the fall though does it.
A god that knows everything knows how humans would react to the idea of forbidden fruit.
-
I think the trouble here is thinking that these great, wonderful, throbbing Greek concepts.......The omnis are somehow simple and straightforward.
They are simple and straight forward. The only reason to claim they are not is if you want to claim the properties for your god but not deal with the logical contradictions that ensue.
Your idea that God does not know the future.....you have in the past apparently equated prediction with knowledge. Are you saying that God did not predict the fall or that he predicted either fall or stand?
A god that knows everything knows the future by definition. The future is definitely part of everything.
And of course why can he have not foreseen or be omniscient and know the fall was going to happen and went ahead anyway?
He could have, but the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.
-
They are simple and straight forward. The only reason to claim they are not is if you want to claim the properties for your god but not deal with the logical contradictions that ensue. A god that knows everything knows the future by definition. The future is definitely part of everything.He could have, but the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.
Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".
Eternal torture?How does that work? God subcontracting punishment to Satan and his little wizards? Biblical literalism does not support that since they themselves will have to contend with Hell.
Or is the so called torture via "dying in your own sin?' Or is it being separated from God and realising that isn't a good thing after all? Or is it being with God forever......when that is the last thing you want?
What I don't think it is is torture......the divine equivalent of pulling fingernails out or stubbing ciggies out on someone's skin.
-
the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.
But that's just part of the story, the alienation of man by his own doing from God.....but that isn't the end because there is the restoration offered in Jesus.
So final alienation is due to initial alienation and elected continued alienation.
-
Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".
If the future doesn't exist, it means omniscience is impossible. It's literally impossible to know everything because the future is part of everything.
Eternal torture?How does that work? God subcontracting punishment to Satan and his little wizards? Biblical literalism does not support that since they themselves will have to contend with Hell.
Ask a Christian. I'm not the one who believes it.
Or is the so called torture via "dying in your own sin?' Or is it being separated from God and realising that isn't a good thing after all? Or is it being with God forever......when that is the last thing you want?
Again, you are asking me to defend a Christian idea. No thanks.
-
But that's just part of the story, the alienation of man by his own doing from God
Who put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in easy reach of humans? Who made the rule that eating the fruit meant everybody had to die? Who made humans that were likely to break the rule?
-
If the future doesn't exist, it means omniscience is impossible. It's literally impossible to know everything because the future is part of everything.Ask a Christian. I'm not the one who believes it.Again, you are asking me to defend a Christian idea. No thanks.
If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists.
There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?
-
If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists.
There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?
The future is not made up as we go along. The future is determined by physical law. If God is omniscient, he should know the future.
-
The future is not made up as we go along. The future is determined by physical law. If God is omniscient, he should know the future.
We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.
What does Popper tell us.
Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.
There may be overarching physical laws
A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.
Physical laws are dependent on God not God dependent on physical laws.
Physical laws are not logical laws since some, most or all have emerged after Big Bang.
-
There is no evidence of the future....
There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.
There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.
We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.
Drivel. Humans not yet knowing the relevant laws does not imply that no laws are applicable. There are several hypotheses.
What does Popper tell us.
Is relevant to an omniscient god, in what way?
Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.
There may be overarching physical laws
A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.
Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.
In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.
In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?
-
We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.
What does Popper tell us.
Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.
There may be overarching physical laws
A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.
Physical laws are dependent on God not God dependent on physical laws.
Physical laws are not logical laws since some, most or all have emerged after Big Bang.
You’re only making it worse for yourself.
Omniscient God would know knows the exact state of the Universe just after the Big Bang. Omniscient God created the laws of physics and there for knows exactly how the Universe would evolve given any initial state. Therefore omniscient God knows exactly how the Universe will evolve from now on. I.e. omniscient God knows the future.
-
You’re only making it worse for yourself.
Omniscient God would know knows the exact state of the Universe just after the Big Bang. Omniscient God created the laws of physics and there for knows exactly how the Universe would evolve given any initial state. Therefore omniscient God knows exactly how the Universe will evolve from now on. I.e. omniscient God knows the future.
Your model sounds like perfect prediction equated with knowledge. His knowledge in that scheme would be a kind of 'told you so I knew this would happen'. That is certainly one model which kind of locates God at some sort of beginning.
Another is that he knows because he is there at every moment (omnipresence).
-
Your model sounds like perfect prediction equated with knowledge. His knowledge in that scheme would be a kind of 'told you so I knew this would happen'. That is certainly one model which kind of locates God at some sort of beginning.
Another is that he knows because he is there at every moment (omnipresence).
So you agree that omniscient God would know the exact state of the Universe as it is right now and would also have perfect knowledge of the laws of the Universe and omnipotent God could therefore predict the exact consequences of the current state and the laws. So omniscient omnipotent God knows the future.
But if he knows the future, all of his own actions in there Universe are baked in. So either he can't change his mind about his actions, or he can't predict the future. Either way, he is either not omnipotent or not omniscient.
Why are Christians so attached to the omni- labels? Even to the point where they'd rather redefine them than admit their god logically cannot be all of them.
-
There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.
I don't believe I have referred to universally applicable moment in time or absolute pasts and future. You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory
There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.
That sounds like it makes omnipresence easier if you only have to be in all places rather than all places at all times.
Drivel. Humans not yet knowing the relevant laws does not imply that no laws are applicable. There are several hypotheses.
Didn't I mention their might be overarching rules? Yes, I believe I did
Is relevant to an omniscient god, in what way?
It is relevant to the future since Popper reminds us that there is no ultimate guarantee that what has been observed will be again.
-
So you agree that omniscient God would know the exact state of the Universe as it is right now and would also have perfect knowledge of the laws of the Universe and omnipotent God could therefore predict the exact consequences of the current state and the laws. So omniscient omnipotent God knows the future.
But if he knows the future, all of his own actions in there Universe are baked in.
How do you mean '' baked in? ''
We certainly cannot dispute your model for a certain kind of predetermined universe. But is the universe like that.
Secondly, Your model has nothing in it that actually precludes an omnipresent God...unless you insist on God entering the picture after the big bang.
Thirdly Stranger has helpfully provided a model of a universe where there is only really place....this might mean that talk of a beginning is wrong...and your model is a God starting the ball rolling type of God.
In fact those are our basic options The universe just appeared or it had no beginning.
-
You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory
No he's not, or at least, no relativity is not. Time exists, it is just that your view of it changes based on your frame of reference.
An analogous situation is that we could both be at a football match and I could say "the Arsenal goal is on the left and the Man U goal is on the right" and you could say "the Arsenal goal is on the right and the Man U goal is on the left". We can both be right, but it doesn't mean that the football pitch between them is an illusion, only that we are on opposite sides of the stadium.
-
How do you mean '' baked in? ''
Please don't feign inability to understand English.
We certainly cannot dispute your model for a certain kind of predetermined universe. But is the universe like that.
As far as we know - the equations we have that describe the laws of physics are deterministic.
Secondly, Your model has nothing in it that actually precludes an omnipresent God...unless you insist on God entering the picture after the big bang.
No it doesn't. Your point?
Thirdly Stranger has helpfully provided a model of a universe where there is only really place....
No he hasn't. That's merely your (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding.
-
Please don't feign inability to understand English.
As far as we know - the equations we have that describe the laws of physics are deterministic.
No it doesn't. Your point?
No he hasn't. That's merely your (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding.
Why use ''baked in'' which is open to a lot of interpretation rather than the term ''a fully determined universe in which there is no apparent randomness or emergence''.
Secondly, If God is going to bake something in, why not himself, his character and his attributes as well as order etc.
Does Stranger propose that there is only place with time as illusiory?.....Let's review what he has said.
There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.
There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.
-
I don't believe I have referred to universally applicable moment in time or absolute pasts and future.
In a discussion of an omniscient god, you referred to there being no evidence for the future. This makes no sense unless you can define "the future" in some universally applicable way.
You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory
What gives you that idea?
That sounds like it makes omnipresence easier if you only have to be in all places rather than all places at all times.
Glaring non-sequitur; and what the fuck has being easier got to do with anything?
It is relevant to the future since Popper reminds us that there is no ultimate guarantee that what has been observed will be again.
Which doesn't answer my question as to how it is relevant to an omniscient god.
You've then totally ignored my main points:
Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.
In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.
In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?
And FFS take more care with your quote tags - there's a great 'preview' option that allow you to check if you've got it wrong before you even post... ::)
-
In a discussion of an omniscient god, you referred to there being no evidence for the future. This makes no sense unless you can define "the future" in some universally applicable way.
Point 1 has a timeline, Point 2 has a timeline, point 10 to the power 1708 has a timeline. All timelines have a past, present and future and that is where the universality lies. None of these points has any evidence for a future.
Can you point to evidence now of what happens tomorrow.....any tomorrow anywhere?
Glaring non-sequitur; and what the fuck has being easier got to do with anything?
OK I was being a little bit flip on that one.
You've then totally ignored my main points:
Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.
In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.
In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?
And FFS take more care with your quote tags - there's a great 'preview' option that allow you to check if you've got it wrong before you even post... ::)
Why should an omnipotent God not do what she likes? With the exception of course of making a stone it can't move.
Why are you allowed to use the word future and yet no one else is Stranger? what do you mean by it?
God is not dependent on Laws, it's the other way round. We already mentioned overarching laws which might allow things that look like violations.
-
Why use ''baked in'' which is open to a lot of interpretation
No it isn't.
rather than the term ''a fully determined universe in which there is no apparent randomness or emergence''.
Because it is about God's own actions being baked in.
Does Stranger propose that there is only place with time as illusiory?.....Let's review what he has said.
At no point in that post does The Stranger say time is illusory.
-
No it isn't.
Then if it is not open to interpretation it has a single interpretation which you are Obviously capable of providing.
-
Point 1 has a timeline, Point 2 has a timeline, point 10 to the power 1708 has a timeline. All timelines have a past, present and future and that is where the universality lies. None of these points has any evidence for a future.
Can you point to evidence now of what happens tomorrow.....any tomorrow anywhere?
We are talking about a future from the point of view of an omni god here, in what way do individual perceptions of past, present and future have any bearing?
As for evidence of the future goes, yes, (for example) there is very good evidence that the next perihelion of Halley's Comet will be on 28th July 2061, from the point of view of humans on Earth.
Why should an omnipotent God not do what she likes? With the exception of course of making a stone it can't move.
No idea. Relevance, and why the restriction?
Why are you allowed to use the word future and yet no one else is Stranger? what do you mean by it?
Note that I started the section with "Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present...". More generally, you seem to be confusing individual observers in space-time with your supposed omni god.
God is not dependent on Laws, it's the other way round.
I explicitly said that: "...the future either depends on laws that [god] has established and fully understands...".
We already mentioned overarching laws which might allow things that look like violations.
And so...?
-
We are talking about a future from the point of view of an omni god here, in what way do individual perceptions of past, present and future have any bearing?
So I take it you share my reservations about God ever making a prediction as opposed to knowledge through being everywhere at any point.
As for evidence of the future goes, yes, (for example) there is very good evidence that the next perihelion of Halley's Comet will be on 28th July 2061, from the point of view of humans on Earth.
And when was, or where can this event be, observed?
Note that I started the section with "Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present...". More generally, you seem to be confusing individual observers in space-time with your supposed omni god.
Hardly since I am not the one claiming God makes prediction or needs to. I am the one who has repeatedly referred to God as being Omnipresent. If you think that is confusing individual observers in space time with God then you are obviously mistaken.
-
And of course if God is omnipresent theories of time only apply to us who live in the universe.
-
And of course if God is omnipresent theories of time only apply to us who live in the universe.
Hardly since I am not the one claiming God makes prediction or needs to. I am the one who has repeatedly referred to God as being Omnipresent. If you think that is confusing individual observers in space time with God then you are obviously mistaken.
Actually you are the one who was trying to avoid the contradictions of omniscience and omnipotence by suggesting that the future doesn't exist from the point of view of a god. As is often the case, you seem to have lost track of your own argument...
-
Actually you are the one who was trying to avoid the contradictions of omniscience and omnipotence by suggesting that the future doesn't exist from the point of view of a god. As is often the case, you seem to have lost track of your own argument...
I have just said that God isn't subject to theories of time due to omnipresence and the future not existing is one theory and support for that theory is that you cannot show me any actual measurement or observations from our NEXT encounter with Halley's Comet.
I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything which places God at the beginning of time and you for some reason best known to your self are Wittering about both there being no absolute future while later mentioning the future several times. What future is that for goodness sake?
Do you know what 'Baked in' means in the context of the Omni's argument?
-
I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything which places God at the beginning of time and you for some reason best known to your self are Wittering about both there being no absolute future while later mentioning the future several times. What future is that for goodness sake?
Do you not grasp the idea of different arguments based on different premises?
If you accept what we know from the evidence we have, if god is omnipresent, it must also exist at all times, which nullifies any argument about the future not existing from its point of view.
If, on the other hand, you ignore what current science tells us about time and assume there is some concept of a future that doesn't exist even from a god's point of view (as you and Steve have), you get right back to what I said at the end of post #86 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755078#msg755078).
-
Then if it is not open to interpretation it has a single interpretation which you are Obviously capable of providing.
And so are you because it is a well known idiom.
-
Do you not grasp the idea of different arguments based on different premises?
If you accept what we know from the evidence we have, if god is omnipresent, it must also exist at all times, which nullifies any argument about the future not existing from its point of view.
If, on the other hand, you ignore what current science tells us about time and assume there is some concept of a future that doesn't exist even from a god's point of view (as you and Steve have), you get right back to what I said at the end of post #86 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755078#msg755078).
This post seems to have been written in ignorance of reply#41 and reply#83
Here are the salient points:
It is my belief that
1: It is God who decides if there is a future
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.
3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.
4: It might seem that God has at least suggested a bit of a future. Due to omnipresence he would be in any future.
and
There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?
-
I'm afraid Jeremy has God making perfect prediction rather than actual knowledge of everything
There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.
-
And so are you because it is a well known idiom.
I had to look it up and was greeted with references to cooking, Bake Off and computer science so it seems like you might have a classic case of what you do for a living being the be all and end all of life for everyone.....and even it's use doesn't seem to transfer to the God I worship which brings me back to my beef about people like yersel' saddling religion with God's you've concocted yersels'
-
There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.
I'm afraid your limited thinking can't see the subtleties of the difference.
-
There’s not really any substantive difference except in Vlad-land.
Really? Thesaurus time for you Jezzer
prediction
[prɪˈdɪkʃ(ə)n]
NOUN
a thing predicted; a forecast.
"a prediction that economic growth would resume"
synonyms
forecast · prophecy · divination · prognosis · prognostication · augury · bet · projection · conjecture · guess · vaticination · prognostic · auspication
-
I had to look it up
Yeah, that’s a lie.
the God I worship'
It never ceases to amaze me how happy Christians are to tell me what the God they worship is not. However it’s harder to elicit an explanation of what the god they worship is than it is to nail a bland mange to the wall.
-
Really? Thesaurus time for you Jezzer
prediction
[prɪˈdɪkʃ(ə)n]
NOUN
a thing predicted; a forecast.
"a prediction that economic growth would resume"
synonyms
forecast · prophecy · divination · prognosis · prognostication · augury · bet · projection · conjecture · guess · vaticination · prognostic · auspication
That’s human definitions. However, we are talking about a being that has perfect knowledge of the World and the laws that govern it (omniscience) and a perfect ability to calculate the evolution of the said World given the said laws (omnipotence).
If you want to claim God is only as good at predicting the future as a weather forecaster, I’m fine with that. However, you then need to drop the omniscience or the omnipotence claims.
-
That’s human definitions. However, we are talking about a being that has perfect knowledge of the World and the laws that govern it (omniscience) and a perfect ability to calculate the evolution of the said World given the said laws (omnipotence).
If you want to claim God is only as good at predicting the future as a weather forecaster, I’m fine with that. However, you then need to drop the omniscience or the omnipotence claims.
Jeremy it was you who for some reason introduced the idea of prediction a word you claim is virtually synonymous with knowledge....and it ain't.
I'm good with omniscience, less good with the omnipotence bit because of the stone that cannot be lifted business and little else I have to say, I'm Perfectly Good with the idea that the omnis are more of philosophical interest and Anselm kind of has it when he refers to God as the the greatest or most or highest.
A philosopher might be all at sea with God's omnibenevolence not because God isn't but it's hard to agree what that might even look like.
.
With regard to the physical Universe though there are fewer if any objections to the 3 Omnis of God.
-
This post seems to have been written in ignorance of reply#41 and reply#83
No my points stand despite all that waffle.
-
No my points stand despite all that waffle.
Not your point of trying to hold me to commitment to a no future model.
Your points about time might be right but are IMV non sequitur to the discussion.
As for God keeping himself in the dark why should he be doing that....he might be keeping us in the dark about the future...but why keep himself in the dark?
He would know about something that seemed random because he is present where everyone of these occurences takes place and because he is present he knows....so that could explain why terms like omnipresence and omniscience could crop up in discussions like these.
I think you are falling into Jeremy's error of confusing prediction with knowledge.
-
Not your point of trying to hold me to commitment to a no future model.
I wasn't trying to hold you to any model, I was pointing out that whether you think the future exists or not doesn't really make much difference.
Your points about time might be right but are IMV non sequitur to the discussion.
You really should learn what non sequitur means.
As for God keeping himself in the dark why should he be doing that....he might be keeping us in the dark about the future...but why keep himself in the dark.
Fuck knows - I was just running through the logical possibilities.
He would know about something that seemed random because he is present where everyone of these occurences takes place and because he is present he knows....so that could explain why terms like omnipresence and omniscience could crop up in discussions like these.
Again, I was just going through the possibilities; if the future doesn't exist, an omnipotent god could (I assume) arrange for some things to happen randomly in such a way that even it couldn't know the outcome. That does seem to contradict omniscience, however.
I think you are falling into Jeremy's error of confusing prediction with knowledge.
Perfect prediction of the future is knowledge of the future.
-
I wasn't trying to hold you to any model, I was pointing out that whether you think the future exists or not doesn't really make much difference.
You really should learn what non sequitur means.
Fuck knows - I was just running through the logical possibilities.
Again, I was just going through the possibilities; if the future doesn't exist, an omnipotent god could (I assume) arrange for some things to happen randomly in such a way that even it couldn't know the outcome. That does seem to contradict omniscience, however.
Perfect prediction of the future is knowledge of the future.
Like your Lord and Master Lawrence Krauss, you are changing definitions to suit.
Perfect prediction is an act on a timeline about something in the future. It is not knowledge. Since God has knowledge he does not even need prediction. Is omnipredictive one of the omnis? No it never makes the cut.
Game over as you and Jeremy have exposed the atheist conceit.
-
Like your Lord and Master Lawrence Krauss...
- yawn -
...you are changing definitions to suit.
Perfect prediction is an act on a timeline about something in the future. It is not knowledge.
Nonsense. Propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge) is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.
QED.
Game over as you and Jeremy have exposed the atheist conceit.
- yawn -
-
- yawn -
Nonsense. Propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge) is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.
QED.
- yawn -
You've palpably changed the definition of prediction. We needn't go into your straw clutching with the definition of knowledge.
I doubt if a Christian shares your definition of omniscience where knowledge equals prediction anyway so that rather underlines that an atheist conception of the 3 Omnis is not the Christian conception....in fact it ignores several fundemental Christian beliefs....and therefore we can conclude a massive straw man argument on the part of atheists in the form of the 3 Omnis.
Bad luck sir.
-
You've palpably changed the definition of prediction.
Utter drivel. What do you think I've changed about it?
We needn't go into your straw clutching with the definition of knowledge.
I note that you have made no attempt to point out why you think I'm wrong... ::)
I doubt if a Christian shares your definition of omniscience where knowledge equals prediction anyway so that rather underlines that an atheist conception of the 3 Omnis is not the Christian conception...
I was only responding to you (and Steve) claiming that the future doesn't exist and its relevance to omniscience. My argument is merely that it doesn't make much difference. I was not putting forward an atheist view of omniscience, just going through the possibilities.
in fact it ignores several fundemental Christian beliefs....and therefore we can conclude a massive straw man argument on the part of atheists in the form of the 3 Omnis.
More drivel. Unless you are saying that no Christians at all take a literal view of the omnis (which would be very silly), then the problems pointed out cannot be straw man arguments.
Bad luck sir.
* yawn *
-
More drivel. Unless you are saying that no Christians at all take a literal view of the omnis (which would be very silly), then the problems pointed out cannot be straw man arguments.
But it seems what you mean by Omniscience is omniprediction.
-
But it seems what you mean by Omniscience is omniprediction.
Oh FFS Vlad, how many more times do I need to say that I'm just going through the possibilities? Omniscience (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omniscience) just means the state of knowing everything.
If you try to avoid some of the contradictions involved in combining that with omnipotence by saying the future doesn't exist, then it doesn't really make much difference because you end up with perfect prediction, which is perfect knowledge of the future, for the reasons I have pointed out.
I don't think that that is what most Christians mean by omniscience, I've just been addressing a particular scenario the you and Steve brought up. It wasn't my idea that the future doesn't exist...
-
Oh FFS Vlad, how many more times do I need to say that I'm just going through the possibilities? Omniscience (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omniscience) just means the state of knowing everything.
If you try to avoid some of the contradictions involved in combining that with omnipotence by saying the future doesn't exist, then it doesn't really make much difference because you end up with perfect prediction, which is perfect knowledge of the future, for the reasons I have pointed out.
I don't think that that is what most Christians mean by omniscience, I've just been addressing a particular scenario the you and Steve brought up. It wasn't my idea that the future doesn't exist...
Well I am a Christian and when some atheists who start going on about the 3 omnis that is an issue of their own devising. It is apparent when Christians hear atheist banging on about it they meet it with an eh. Atheists are then wont to go on about how Christians don't understand it and you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.
I guess what I'm saying is the atheist arguments over omni don't really stand up to close scrutiny.
A return to the drawing board is needed and the arguments need to be thought through since the model of God used is not accurately Christianand definitions are waffty.
-
...you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.
Since all I have done is point out the logical consequences of a view about time and omniscience that you and Steve brought up, I can't have demonstrated anything of the sort.
Well I am a Christian and when some atheists who start going on about the 3 omnis that is an issue of their own devising. It is apparent when Christians hear atheist banging on about it they meet it with an eh. Atheists are then wont to go on about how Christians don't understand it and you have demonstrated that actually it's some atheists who don't understand terms like omniscience and omnipresence.
I guess what I'm saying is the atheist arguments over omni don't really stand up to close scrutiny.
A return to the drawing board is needed and the arguments need to be thought through since the model of God used is not accurately Christianand definitions are waffty.
Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.
Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.
As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.
-
Jeremy it was you who for some reason introduced the idea of prediction a word you claim is virtually synonymous with knowledge....and it ain't.
No it was you who decided that knowledge of the future doesn’t count as knowledge. Anyway, we have now established that an omniscient omnipotent god would have knowledge of the future and that leads to logical contradictions and therefore an omniscient omnipotent god cannot exist.
I'm good with omniscience,
No you aren’t. You’re refusing to accept that knowledge of the future is knowledge.
A philosopher might be all at sea with God's omnibenevolence not because God isn't but it's hard to agree what that might even look like.
Adding omnibernevolence to. The mix makes it even worse for you. We observe that there is suffering in the World. An omnibenevolent god with any power to act would not allow that to happen.
With regard to the physical Universe though there are fewer if any objections to the 3 Omnis of God.
Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.
-
No it was you who decided that knowledge of the future doesn’t count as knowledge. Anyway, we have now established that an omniscient omnipotent god would have knowledge of the future and that leads to logical contradictions and therefore an omniscient omnipotent god cannot exist.
No you aren’t. You’re refusing to accept that knowledge of the future is knowledge.
Adding omnibernevolence to. The mix makes it even worse for you. We observe that there is suffering in the World. An omnibenevolent god with any power to act would not allow that to happen.
Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.
But you weren't talking about knowledge of the future but prediction of the future which is an act of forecast on a timeline prior to the event.
With God death and suffering are not the end. We will be raised to freedom from death.
Also is all suffering all bad?......I think not.
So there it is Jeremy I disagree with you. at the end it will be clear that God is love.
In fact omnibenevolent is likely to be an atheist concocted word forged for the construction of its Straw man god.
The Christian take is that God is love.
-
Maybe it is time for all God of the Omnis discussions to go onto the God of the omnis thread.
Maybe we could tackle another article of new atheist faith. Religion strays onto sciences turf?
-
Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.
I hope it isn't based on anything dependent on the confusion between prediction and knowledge?
-
I hope it isn't based on anything dependent on the confusion between prediction and knowledge?
You seem to be the only one who is confused. Perfect prediction is knowledge as I outlined in #118 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755225#msg755225). Knowledge as true, justified belief is the classical philosophical definition. You often witter on about phiosophy but you don't seem to know anything much about it...
-
You seem to be the only one who is confused. Perfect prediction is knowledge as I outlined in #118 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755225#msg755225). Knowledge as true, justified belief is the classical philosophical definition. You often witter on about phiosophy but you don't seem to know anything much about it...
Perfect prediction....please reference the definition of that.
Prediction is not synonymous with knowledge.
-
Perfect prediction....please reference the definition of that.
This isn't difficult, Vlad, If you have the means to predict something with absolute certainty, then you know what is going to happen.
Prediction is not synonymous with knowledge.
I didn't say it was.
-
This isn't difficult, Vlad, If you have the means to predict something with absolute certainty, then you know what is going to happen.
I didn't say it was.
With God, God is there at all events and there is no necessity for prediction which is an act committed on a timeline prior to the event.
He knows it because he is there. Prediction I would say is never going to yield perfect knowledge although that bit is my POV..
Also prediction is based on expertise. The most perfect prediction can only be made by the most perfect knowledge of the event and that would be gained only by actual presence and if you are actually there claiming to be. Perfect predictor because you are there when it's happening is laughable. You can try that one for yourself.
However there is still the problem that definitionally zprediction is an act on a timeline etc.
So there seems no rescue for your incorrect definitions.
Sorry old bean.
-
With God, God is there at all events and there is no necessity for prediction which is an act committed on a timeline prior to the event.
He knows it because he is there.
I think I've suggested before that you keep notes. You seem to have forgotten that it's Steve H and yourself who were arguing that omniscience doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist, for example: #32 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754581#msg754581) or #79 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) where you said, "Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."
Prediction I would say is never going to yield perfect knowledge although that bit is my POV..
Also prediction is based on expertise. The most perfect prediction can only be made by the most perfect knowledge of the event and that would be gained only by actual presence.
I refer you back to my previous comments:-
Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.
In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.
In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?
So there seems no rescue for your incorrect definitions.
Sorry old bean.
* yawn *
-
I think I've suggested before that you keep notes. You seem to have forgotten that it's Steve H and yourself who were arguing that omniscience doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist, for example: #32 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754581#msg754581) or #79 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) where you said, "Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."
I refer you back to my previous comments:-
* yawn *
This sounds like you still have a commitment to confuse knowledge with prediction.
I am not committed to a situation of no future although as you know there are theories of time where this is the case not specific to any theology.
As far as I can see so far atheist objections are to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously rather than true omnipotence being logically impossible.
And the objection to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously is due so far to confusing prediction with knowledge, the ignorance of omnipresence, an unverifiable definition of benevolence which ignores Christian definitions of God and Christian beliefs on our ultimate fate.
-
This sounds like you still have a commitment to confuse knowledge with prediction.
You're the only one who's confused about it. You have yet to even try to refute what I said. If you can explain why knowing that something is going to happen because you have an ability to make 100% accurate predictions, is somehow not knowing it, go right ahead. You seem to think knowledge depends on how it is obtained.
As far as I can see so far atheist objections are to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously rather than true omnipotence being logically impossible.
I think there are both.
And the objection to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously is due so far to confusing prediction with knowledge...
Drivel. The situation only arises if you take the view of time that the future doesn't exist. Otherwise, omniscience just includes knowing the future directly.
...the ignorance of omnipresence, an unverifiable definition of benevolence which ignores Christian definitions of God and Christian beliefs on our ultimate fate.
As I said previously (#124):-
Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.
Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.
As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.
-
You're the only one who's confused about it. You have yet to even try to refute what I said. If you can explain why knowing that something is going to happen because you have an ability to make 100% accurate predictions, is somehow not knowing it, go right ahead. You seem to think knowledge depends on how it is obtained.
I think there are both.
Drivel. The situation only arises if you take the view of time that the future doesn't exist. Otherwise, omniscience just includes knowing the future directly.
As I said previously (#124):-
Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.
Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.
As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.
Yet again commitment to confusing prediction with knowledge and ignorance of omnipresence leading to the forging of a deistic type god denied omnipresence by being restricted to timelines apparently at the beginning where the perfect prediction is made.
-
Yet again commitment to confusing prediction with knowledge and ignorance of omnipresence leading to the forging of a deistic type god denied omnipresence by being restricted to timelines apparently at the beginning where the perfect prediction is made.
Any time you want to address what I actually said, let me know... ::)
-
Any time you want to address what I actually said, let me know... ::)
Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.
Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?
-
Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.
Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.
Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?
Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.
-
But you weren't talking about knowledge of the future but prediction of the future which is an act of forecast on a timeline prior to the event.
For an omniscient omnipotent god there is no meaningful distinction between knowledge of the future and perfect prediction of the future.
at the end it will be clear that God is love.
God is a human emotion? That's nonsense.
The Christian take is that God is love
This isn't the Christian topic. Have you got a more general less bullshitty definition?