God's purpose

Russel's Teapot, is in what way relevant to the thread subject 'gods purpose'? It isn't but be that as it may, the subject of BoP and my answer to that is already in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11385817&postcount=1953
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11386045&postcount=1957

Bertrand Russell's is specifically speaking about those who say 'prove to me the Christian God gods don't exist which I find to be as absurd as saying 'prove to me that they do'.

Those are atheist/theist based arguments to do with the dysfunction of that interactive dynamic.

You are welcome to them. They are not my 'cup of tea'. I consider it unreasonable stupidity.

Since it has been established that this thread is specifically focused on the abrahamic idea of god, which I find boring and unchallenging, I will leave it to those who find the subject - for whatever reasons - invigorating
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Russel's Teapot, is in what way relevant to the thread subject 'gods purpose'?
Click to expand...

Allow me to explain. I'll need to back up a bit to the chain of discussion that prompted me to suggest it:

Emily's Cat said:
Navigator said:
Emily's Cat said:
Navigator said:
Emily's Cat said:
Navigator said:
Jodie - did you read what I said about it being possible that we are indeed born with this inherent understanding of good and evil ?
Click to expand...
You saying it doesn't make it true though.


Here: Did you read what I said about it being possible for gravity to spontaneously quit working?
Click to expand...
Well I am not saying it is true. If it were true I would not have to say it was possible.

It might be the case that for some it is so and for others it is not...a genetic thing. You either have it or you don't.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then. In the interest of semantic arguments ad nauseum...

You saying it's possible doesn't actually make it possible.
Click to expand...

No I am not. I am saying that anything which is true is fact and thus there is no need to say it is possible.

I am saying it is possible not claiming it is true/fact.
Click to expand...

And I invite you to evaluate Russell's Teapot.
Click to expand...

That highlighted line by you was the instigator of my eventual recommendation to check out the teapot. You've set up a scenario wherein it is impossible for anyone to prove that it is false, therefore you wish us to accept it as a possibility. You're relying on a lack of proof of absence to lend credence to a suggestion of presence.

You are relying on scientifically unfalsifiable claims as evidence of plausibility.

I countered, called out in pink. I can make a similar claim: It's possible that gravity will spontaneously quit working.

My ability to make and defend this claim, is based on the fact that you cannot prove that it's not possible. By all logic, by everything we know, by every ounce of common sense, we know that it's not possible for gravity to spontaneously quit working - we *know* this. But you can't prove that it's impossible. Therefore, you have to admit that it's possible, don't you?

That's the fallacy implied by Russel's Teapot.

In addition, you frequently conflate "possible" and "plausible". Sure, technically, it might be "possible" that we are born with a genetically coded understanding of right and wrong. *Technically*. Unfortunately, you seem to take that teensy weensy possibility (because nobody can prove that it's impossible) and conflate that with plausibility. You want us to accept it as a reasonable explanation.

The problem is that there is a lot of research about cognitive development, specifically the development of empathy. There's been a lot of research into the consequences and effects of inhibited or absent empathy. There's been a lot of philosophical discussion over the eons about the nature of good and evil, from whence they arise, etc. And there's been plenty of observation that what constitutes good or evil varies significantly from one culture to another, as well as from one time to another. All of those things indicate that it's exceedingly implausible that we are born with any innate understanding of right and wrong.

So implausible, in fact, as to make the possibility negligible. We have sufficient supporting evidence to the contrary that we can reject the hypothesis of it being possible.
 
Jodie said:
Yeah, I'm a theist of sorts, I guess. I do think we are created beings but I seriously doubt that the purpose that we attribute to that creation is what religions assume it is , or whether it has any purpose at all to begin with, or if a sentient source of creation does exists.

If you look at the whole of reality, including what can't be seen such as the cause for gravity, as an example, all of this good/evil stuff doesn't make any sense. It's just a matter of recycling matter over and over again to create new forms, kind of like a kaleidoscope.
Click to expand...

A theist of sorts ....... huuummm.

Well if you think the creator is some sort of being, working outside the world that we know as natural, then I would say you are a theist, period.

If on the other hand you think the creator, and her realm, will ultimately be understood by us, and fit into our understanding of the natural world, then I would not call you a theist.

Were do you fit?
 
I think whatever driving force is responsible for everything is embedded within everything, and like an artist who paints, the painting kind of evolves as it goes along without a plan. I'm not certain if I believe that creative driving force is sentient or if it derives meaning through IT's creation. I'm undecided about what I believe about it's origins or true nature. I hope we are evolving towards some kind of clarity on the matter. I compare it to the ancient humans that didn't recognize the color blue until recent history, relatively speaking, in the last 3-4000 years. I'm hoping whatever IT is has always been right there in front of us and that we had to develop the capacity to recognize IT, assuming there is an IT there in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests

IMO , I think it will be more of a recognition or transition psychologically, something that we recognize within ourselves that will be transformative and enable humans, as a society, to progress and not destroy ourselves, maybe, I'm just guessing really. I don't get the concept in Christianity for needing a savour, if anythiing, it makes more sense if it's up to us to save ourselves from oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
I think whatever driving force is responsible for everything is embedded within everything, and like an artist who paints, the painting kind of evolves as it goes along without a plan. I'm not certain if I believe that creative driving force is sentient or if it derives meaning through IT's creation. I'm undecided about what I believe about it's origins or true nature. I hope we are evolving towards some kind of clarity on the matter. I compare it to the ancient humans that didn't recognize the color blue until recent history, relatively speaking, in the last 3-4000 years. I'm hoping whatever IT is has always been right there in front of us and that we had to develop the capacity to recognize IT, assuming there is an IT there in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests

IMO , I think it will be more of a recognition or transition psychologically, something that we recognize within ourselves that will be transformative and enable humans, as a society, to progress and not destroy ourselves, maybe, I'm just guessing really. I don't get the concept in Christianity for needing a savour, if anythiing, it makes more sense if it's up to us to save ourselves from oblivion.
Click to expand...

You'd probably enjoy some Spinoza with a dash of Lovelock, the latter of whom has a valid hand or two, just not a full deck. Maybe some Teilhard de Chardin after dinner.

It would be greatly objected to by those involved in complexity research, but in some sense perhaps the emergence of intelligence, using greater and greater aggregations of points and networks, still ongoing, is indicative, if not of plan or direction, of a certain naturally ordered denouement.
 
Jodie said:
I think whatever driving force is responsible for everything is embedded within everything, and like an artist who paints, the painting kind of evolves as it goes along without a plan. I'm not certain if I believe that creative driving force is sentient or if it derives meaning through IT's creation. I'm undecided about what I believe about it's origins or true nature. I hope we are evolving towards some kind of clarity on the matter. I compare it to the ancient humans that didn't recognize the color blue until recent history, relatively speaking, in the last 3-4000 years. I'm hoping whatever IT is has always been right there in front of us and that we had to develop the capacity to recognize IT, assuming there is an IT there in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-couldn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-research-suggests

IMO , I think it will be more of a recognition or transition psychologically, something that we recognize within ourselves that will be transformative and enable humans, as a society, to progress and not destroy ourselves, maybe, I'm just guessing really. I don't get the concept in Christianity for needing a savour, if anythiing, it makes more sense if it's up to us to save ourselves from oblivion.
Click to expand...

Sorry you've lost me here. I don't know if many artists would paint this way and the rest of what you wrote seems to build on this premiss.
 
A work in progress then? I think God isn't some separate thing that is outside of our existence.

I think the creator/creation is everything we see and also things we can't see, like what causes gravity.

I don't think of this creator/creation, whatever you want to call it, as a godlike person, it just is.

If the creator is indeed everything then it's been here all along and we were too blind to see it.

I'm hoping one day we evolve where it will be easily recognizable rather than theorizing about the possibility, or creating religions that fall short in describing what the creator is.

I used the example of ancient people that didn't recognize the color blue as an analogy. No humans saw the color until recently.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
A work in progress then? I think God isn't some separate thing that is outside of our existence.

I think the creator/creation is everything we see and also things we can't see, like what causes gravity.

I don't think of this creator/creation, whatever you want to call it, as a godlike person, it just is.

If the creator is indeed everything then it's been here all along and we were too blind to see it.

I'm hoping one day we evolve where it will be easily recognizable rather than theorizing about the possibility, or creating religions that fall short in describing what the creator is.

I used the example of ancient people that didn't recognize the color blue as an analogy. No humans saw the color until recently.
Click to expand...

Can't see it myself but if you are comfortable with it OK. At least you are not doing any harm to others in support of your belief. Somewhat difficult to squeeze some idea of purpose into this scenario though.:)
 
I know, I don't think there is a purpose other than just existing. It makes the debate about good and evil pointless.
 
Last edited:
It would seem we have run out of theists to spar with on this thread. Even Navigator has departed our shores it seems.

My fellow atheists would seem to have done a good job and sent the theists on their way - apart from logger who was suspended.

Can anyone tell me how to find out how long a poster has been suspended for?
 
Thor 2 said:
It would seem we have run out of theists to spar with on this thread. Even Navigator has departed our shores it seems.

My fellow atheists would seem to have done a good job and sent the theists on their way - apart from logger who was suspended.

Can anyone tell me how to find out how long a poster has been suspended for?
Click to expand...
I believe he had a two month suspension, IIRC.
 
Thor 2 said:
It would seem we have run out of theists to spar with on this thread. Even Navigator has departed our shores it seems.

My fellow atheists would seem to have done a good job and sent the theists on their way - apart from logger who was suspended.

Can anyone tell me how to find out how long a poster has been suspended for?
Click to expand...
I think Navigator is far from done on this forum. I'm sure she will start even more threads and hijack other threads to push her "GOD is consciousness" and "Our purpose is to be spurious superior non-evil agnostics and spread our goodness to infinity and beyond" pet fantasy ideas.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
I think Navigator is far from done on this forum. I'm sure she will start even more threads and hijack other threads to push her "GOD is consciousness" and "Our purpose is to be spurious superior non-evil agnostics and spread our goodness to infinity and beyond" pet fantasy ideas.
Click to expand...

The ideas may or may not change a bit, incidentally, unlike a couple other posters. The methods and quality of logic employed seem unlikely to change much, though. Among other examples, a fair while ago, Navigator was talking glowingly about how great a particular quite implausible possibility was because it would mean that a more specific and therefore even less plausible form of it was also possible. It would be nice if, in Navigator's next iteration of presented ideas, Navigator at least didn't continue to forward such banalities as he did both back then and in each of these recent threads that I've actually seen. It is, after all, rather sad to see potentially interesting mental exercises and topics being spoiled by the sloppy, derision-inducing presentation and arguments of the presenter.
 
RogueKitten said:
I don't believe there is evidence to the claim that humans didn't recognize the color blue outside of ancient Greeks not having a specific word for it, to our understanding.
Click to expand...

Evidently there was, they tested one group of primitive tribes people in the article with a blue block mixed in with the green blocks and asked them to find the block that was different. They couldn't find it.
 
Jodie said:
Evidently there was, they tested one group of primitive tribes people in the article with a blue block mixed in with the green blocks and asked them to find the block that was different. They couldn't find it.
Click to expand...

Okay, I read up on this more. Seems to be more a case of "didn't have a distinct word for it" rather than "couldn't see it". In regards to the Himba, they were slower at picking it out than we might expect, and also quicker at picking out a slightly different shade of green. But they're *capable* of seeing the color.

Hypothesis: The Himba live in Namibia. If there are a lot of naturally occurring greens, but very few naturally occurring blues... then they are exposed to many more variations of green than blue. Being able to distinguish shades of green would help them survive (this shade of green on those two very similar plants is good to eat, this other shade kills you dead ferinstance). Being able to distinguish blues from greens has no practical value since there really aren't any out there. So... no word for blue and no experience with identifying and categorizing that shade.

My spouse can tell the difference between all kinds of colors that are pretty much the same to me. If they're right next to each other, I can tell that they're different, but if they're separated at all, they're all the same. He's an artist and has spent his whole life knee-deep in colors. Of course, he can also tell you make, model, and year for just about any car on the road with barely a glance, where I'm lucky if I can identify a coupe from a sedan. It's exposure and practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom