"We're all searching for answers"

Post Reply New Topic

Without parroting anything: If people have to either accept or disprove any claim that is both unprovable and un-disprovable, you have to accept that the Alpha Centauri system is populated by fire-breathing green vampire armadillos with mind control powers who live on a planet that is made of caramel nougat.

You don't get to say "that's utter nonsense" or "I highly doubt that", or even "well, that's great, but I personally don't believe that". You first have to disprove my outlandish claim, and thereby prove the validity of your skepticism. Is that really how it works?

Ok... Hypothetical;

I make the assertion; our universe is a computer program, and we are all NPCs in an MMO for aliens from another universe.

You disagree, taking the negative assertion that I am wrong. Now please prove it. No no, don't ask me for any evidence...you just said the negative proposition has the burden of proof. So please prove it wrong. Nananana LA LA LA LAA I cannot hear you...stop asking me for evidence or proof, you have to prove me wrong first!! ! You can't prove me wrong? Then we obviously live in a computer program, and are just interactive programs for bored aliens to enjoy. Praise Alkzzzytkz!! Yeah!

Really? No...

Asking someone to prove you wrong before agreeing to provide evidence of your proposal is not rational. If we accepted this to be true, anyone could propose anything, and it would be accepted until proof it did not exist could be generated. This would be a highly erratic and very incorrect understanding of the universe we live in, and I'm very thankful most people understand this, even if you don't.

Personally, I reject the question "Is there a god" as undefined. That question cannot be answered, as there is no agreed definition of the word "god". It's silly to think anyone can answer a question that isn't defined, because all that happens when people answer this question is demonstrating that they do not know what "god" is. So are obviously answering a question they don't understand, and are incapable of being correct. (No matter how it is answered)

Before we can even begin to answer "Is there a god", we must ask "What is a god" and establish a concrete definition. But since there must be "a god" for us to base this definition on, of which we can observe and understand, we cannot create a definition for "a god".

Thus, cannot answer either question, as both are undefined.

And imo, making the whole issue rather silly, if it were not so terribly tragic.

to me it seems that denieing god is like denieing a forest because you see only trees.

Forest is a fairly logically defined word. It is a large area covered in trees. While it is possible to see trees and not cognitively process that they cover a large area, to deny a forest would be to cognitively process the area... One must acknowledge something cognitively to deny it, so to deny it they would have to see more than just the trees...

God is not defined logically. It has a different meaning for every person. It on all levels fails to correlate to forests or trees.

Faith chooses you.

God is beyond limitation. Maimonides would explain that one cannot discuss God in terms of positive attributes. On the other hand, one can describe what God is not. For example we should not say that "God is wise"; but we can say that "God is not ignorant". We should not say"God is One," but we can state that "there is no multiplicity in God's being." In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not; rather than by describing what God "is".

God is not real.

Does that work to your criteria?

I'm kidding. But in seriousness, defining something in the negative doesn't actually define anything. This is a failure of logic, doing so is equitable to discussing nonsense.

*denying
I look outside and I see three trees. Is that a forest? If I see a hundred trees, is that a forest? If I see a few thousand trees, yes, that would probably count as a forest. But just three is inconclusive.

3 is fairly conclusive. That is not a forest.

The word you might struggle with in the definition of Forest is Large. It is the only word that can be a variable, as you demonstrate above. However, close examination of the definition of the word Large might clear up your confusion.

Adj. 1. large - above average in size or number or quantity or magnitude or extent

So, to expand on the definition of forest would be.

An area, covered in trees, which is larger than the average area, also covered in trees.

We can continue to expand on this definition if you require. But we still won’t make any progress in the discussion, because no matter what we discuss about areas, size, scope, trees, areas, numbers etc. we will at no time make any useful or relevant progress in correlating any of it to a definition of the word god, or of the dismissal of an undefined word. They do not correlate....

I will respond to NS because there are a few people here more-or-less discussing the same thing.

I don't think that explains a great deal, I would just use a simple parsimony test to get rid of this as an idea and I would contend that that satisfies my own burden on this matter.



If an atheist mentioned that he was ignorant of the arguments in favor of God but still remained an atheist rather than an agnostic, I would contend that he was not particularly rational at all. I for one, remain agnostic on all issues that I have not studied or I side with a consensus view. I have not studied evolution in great detail, I am however prepared to accept that it is rational to accept the scientific consensus on the matter; please note that does not entail that I ought to also accept the presumption of naturalism, that is something I have studied and dispute it.



That is generally how consensus based peer-review works, in science it is called falsificationism and it is probably the best you are going to get without generating a system of creating a positive and broad epistemic warrant. If you wish to contend that falsificaitonsim is not a particularly good standard, then please take that up with Karl Popper. Since the demolition of verificaitionism, the idea of the self-evident positive claim, made through pure induction has been discarded within philosophy.



Nonsense, individual conceptions of God exists and they are required to be logically coherent. If they are not, they can be considered disproven. Like a polythestic universe, there can not be two maximally great beings, because one could wish for elephants to be red and the other grey, both would be maximally great and contradiction would ensue. As a result, the idea of two maximally great beings is considered disproved within philosophy. Just about any conception of God can be logically tested so basically I think you are ignoring a profound amount of literature on the subject in order to assert the position you are putting forward.



Within Christian theism, God is usually taken to be a maximally great being. That definition is certainly open to further interpretation but is generally considered useful by both atheists and theists who are philosophically and theologically trained.

I don't see how verificationism / empiricism could be demolished This is why I don't have a high regard for philosophy, aside from the natural philosophy that gave rise to science (Aristotle came up with empiricism and the idea of falsifiability long before Karl Popper btw).

Philosophy has little impact on the advancement of human knowledge and didn't create the computer that I'm using to type this post. It also didn't increase our life expectancy from 30 to nearly 80 years. Wherever I look, I see an astonishing amount of evidence that science and empiricism are working.



Most polytheistic pantheons have a supreme god, who is usually credited with the creation of the world/universe. Other than the Slavic Czernobog/Belobog duality, I don't know of any polytheistic belief system that proposes two equally powerful gods.

It's essentially the same in the Judeo-Christian belief system. Does it really matter if the less powerful supernatural beings are called angels or lesser gods? Besides, what do you make of verses like "let us make humans in our image", "you shall have no other gods before me" and "they worshipped all the host of heaven"?

Judaism was never a real monotheism, even after the Yahweists killed all worshippers of Asherah and Baal. And Christians added their own demigod to the Judaic pantheon, who couldn't be more different from his father. Anyway, Yahweh remains the highest god, akin to Zeus, Ra and Odin. I see a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but this isn't one of them.

A thought experiment based on magical beings disproves those beings? Once you propose beings of that sort you are proposing a certain order. That order can come with any number of arbitrary rules to balance the existence of the beings. It's through the looking glass time. The only thing they've established is that such thinkers have a minimal imagination.

You could have 140 "maximally powerful" dieties (ominipotent?) who abide by an acausal gentleman's agreement that has simply always been in force. They could break it and do what they please but they choose not to. Presumably a "maximally great" being has freedom of choice.

So the acausal beings remain within their acausal domains drinking acausal whiskey and dreaming of acausal bow legged women.

Last edited by simon_says on 13 Feb 2012, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly what do you mean by maximally great? How do you define greatness? How do you compare them? Say is the Earth greater than the number 7632904? Without a rigorous definition it is not even clear if 'maximally great being' is logically possible or not.

I wasn't entirely clear. If I'm at the edge of the forest, looking out, I may only see three trees. There might be more, but without knowledge of how many trees there are I'm unable to tell whether it is a forest or not.



No, that just makes the problem worse. There is no definition of a "large" number of trees, and no "average" either. If I plant a bigger forest somewhere else, does the one I'm looking at stop being a forest because it is now "below average"? If I cut down every tree except one, is that a forest?

I'm afraid "forest" is an arbitrary definition. It is a forest chiefly because we say it is a forest.

This links back to evidence of God, which is similarly arbitrary because the definition is so vague. God has no set form, location, size, nature or sandwich preference. Therefore, evidence is useless - like the forest, we classify things arbitrarily, and this is why the religious can see God in everything and the non-religious do not.

I am ignoring the rest of your replies to my quotes, they either are false, or illogical, else don't even address what you're replying to. Mostly the latter, often all of the above. You're quite good at ignoring pretty much anything and everything unfavorable to your position, and skilled in forming phrases that almost seem to address what you are replying to, but really are something entirely different. I have better things to do than correct every flaw in what you say, especially when you do it on such a grand, massive scale.

Individual concepts of god may exist, but they are not required to be logically coherent. Individual concepts are not required to be anything. I would contend that a single "maximally powerful great being" could only exist in a vacuum, devoid of any other being with even infinitesimal degree of power, else a contradiction would ensue. This contradiction could only be resolved by the condition that no being other than the "maximally powerful great being" had any power of its own, and any perceived power from any other being was incorrect. This would mean you are acting, behaving, thinking and existing in accordance to the will of that being at all times, essentially you are a function of that being. This would then mean then that maximally powerful great being was simply everything. We have a word for that, it's called the universe. Any definition given including "maximally powerful" is simply referring to the universe or it is an illogical construct.

But none of that is even relevant, and is simply a red herring. I am beginning to see just how skilled a Sophist you really are. If you ask the question "Is there a god?" I cannot answer this question, because your individual concept of "god" is not knowable to me. Similarly, if I ask you if you believe in god, you cannot answer that question, as you do not know my individual concept of god. Answering the question demonstrates that you do not know what "god" is, and simply don't understand, and are incapable of being correct. To discuss a thing, we must on some level agree to what it is on some basic level, at the least. There is no agreement on the definition of the word "god", it is an unfathomable question. To think you know even what the word means is the height of arrogance.

To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.
- Benjamin Disraeli
We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge
of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know.
- Albert Einstein
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
- Socrates

Do not presume you know the answer to the question "what is god".

I am ignoring a profound amount of literature, yes. Being human, and aged 29, with a fair degree of interest in literature, I can read and can acknowledge only a fraction of the literature generated in human history. This is likely true for everyone here, there is simply a profound amount of literature...your accusation is rather meaningless.



If it is, it is logically incoherent...even if one wanted to accept it as a concept, it would still clash with all the other religious concepts of Christianity anyway...I really think you are being naive to think that anyone considers that the definition of "god" and that alone. I don't even think I know what you mean by "maximally great". Do you really simply mean "the largest being that exists?" That strikes me as rather trivial and unimportant. I don't think being the biggest is what people define as god. I know size matters and all...

So you agree that we cannot answer the question?



There is a definition for a large number of trees. It's pretty clear. But I wasn't talking about a large number of trees. I was talking about an area covered in trees. The "area covered in trees" was what was large. The area.

Similarly, a bigger or smaller forest is irrelevant, we are discussing areas covered in trees, their size, and if that qualifies them to be a forest. A bigger or smaller forest has obviously already been qualified as a forest. If you cut down all the trees but one, then no, it is not a forest. One tree does no a forest make.

Forest is well defined. It is not particularly arbitrary, any more so than any other definition. An individual may lack the knowledge to label an area covered in trees as a forest, or not a forest. Things are improperly labeled all the time.

But to the point, you compare god to the forest. And say we cannot see him for the trees.

...

...

...

What trees?????