Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[laca]

Whoops I should have put eternity*


* Where I write eternity*, I am not saying an absolute eternity in the terms of an infinite period of time. It has more of a theological meaning, ie outside or beyond time. Rather like "the perfect day", which is an eternal day.

If you're not talking about eternity, why write "eternity"? Why not use words in their established meaning? Is that too hard for an eminent mystic like yourself?

 

[punshhh]

You understand that there is a huge distance between a creator and manipulator right? You can't entangle the concepts. If your answer is yes I can because logic doesn't work, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not want to entangle these two concepts.

I think we are in agreement on the use of manipulator. When it comes to creator, I don't recognise a creator as an entity creating something out of nothing. To me it is a nonsense, for there to be a nothing there can be no God, otherwise it is a something and to create something out of something is manipulation.

So far your god is just an intelligent alien. So where did your god come from?

Yes it is an intelligent alien and it came from a line of intelligent aliens emerging from a kind of transcendent fractal of regression.
By the way I see no distinction between this alien and a god/God.

All I am seeing so far is you redefining existing concepts and giving god labels to them.

This may be the case, as I am unfamiliar with the language as used here. Note I have defined god as I am using it here.

Willing them into existence and calling it a day.

I regard them as concepts only, physical existence is another matter.

Again, if you say logic doesn't apply we really have nothing to talk about. You are basically accepting things of faith.

I am not saying logic does not apply, I am presenting an alternative view on the issue designed specifically to avoid the absolutes embedded in the apologetic arguments you linked to. Such as infinity, creator, first cause etc.

 

[punshhh]

If you're not talking about eternity, why write "eternity"? Why not use words in their established meaning? Is that too hard for an eminent mystic like yourself?

It appears I have used it in its correct meaning care of Wiki.

 

[punshhh]

There are many infinite sets that exist. Or are you saying the set of all integers is not real?

Infinity in mathematics is an abstract concept, it does not exist in physical form as far as I know.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes I read you answer in the long post and the others, fine that all makes sense. My point is that if there is a god out there or not, human mythology, thought, discussions even the sum total of human knowledge cannot address it as it is not aware of what it is attempting to address.

Absolutely agree.

Either it exists or it does not exist, we don't know and to claim one way or the other is delusional, or to place human thought on a pedestal of importance.

Unfortunately as humans we are confined to human thought, human logic in whichever exaxt form. As such human thought and logic will also have to serve as a measuring stick for what is real or not. And as you already said ... see above.

Sorry, no way for you to get around that.

 

[punshhh]

"Choosing?" That is new.

Perhaps choosing is an aspect of intelligence resulting in a creation(I am going to use manipulation from now on rather than creation).

But this all traces back to the question how you define intelligence. I mean, originally it was about more complexity than two chemicals and complexity not found "anywhere else in its local environment".

It is difficult to pin down in terms of its simplest form. As I am considering entities probably more intelligent than humans I would suggest the use of the words "advanced intelligence"

Going by that, which of the entities that you enumerate here would now pass muster as intelligent? According to the poster PDoug (sp.) it is indeed so that bacteria, viruses and so on are intelligent -- IIRC. I think we can safely forget that. Dogs, maybe. Humans definitely. But that is not the right 'kind' of intelligence. Too contingent upon a functioning body. After all, we don't think of dead people as intelligent any more. Galaxies, stars, universes. Hrmph.

For the small entities I would think the ability to choose would be the dividing line, as for planets stars, galaxies etc who knows, I would not rule it out. They have played their part in manipulating humanity's emergence. The planet earth manipulated us into existence, the sun manipulated the earth into existence, the galaxy likewise etc etc.

I am rather interested in Gods and similar entities. Especially in what it means to define God as an intelligent creator.

An entity which chose to manipulate perhaps.

 

[punshhh]

Unfortunately as humans we are confined to human thought, human logic in whichever exaxt form. As such human thought and logic will also have to serve as a measuring stick for what is real or not. And as you already said ... see above.

This position is the logical limit or boundary of what humanity can address(correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me that hard atheists are stating that there is nothing beyond this boundary. Or that it is entirely pointless to speculate other than for the purposes of fiction.

Sorry, no way for you to get around that.

I would disagree, remember I stated that I am aware that I am in physical contact with reality, through having a physical body. I am intimately acquainted with the nature of existence as are all humans.

I know this nature, I can know nothing else and yet I cannot know what it is that I know.

I am staring the unknown in the face.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This position is the logical limit or boundary of what humanity can address(correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me that hard atheists are stating that there is nothing beyond this boundary. Or that it is entirely pointless to speculate other than for the purposes of fiction.

The underlined part is exactly what is wrong. What is beyond is 'irrelevant'. Any meaningful discussion would have to take place on this side of the boundary, within the confines of human thought, logic et al.

The unknown is the unknown. And that is it. A God on the other hand is a positive claim. "I believe in God" even more so.

 

[laca]

It appears I have used it in its correct meaning care of Wiki.

Well, one of its meanings, I'll grant you that.

OK, so timelessness. This should be fun. How does something act/create/think/change in a "place" without time?

 

[laca]

Infinity in mathematics is an abstract concept, it does not exist in physical form as far as I know.

A concept doesn't have to exist in physical form in order to be applied in reality. This has been explained to you countless times. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Try getting anywhere in analysis without running into the concept. Try getting any engineering work done without analysis. Q.E.D.

 

[punshhh]

The underlined part is exactly what is wrong. What is beyond is 'irrelevant'. Any meaningful discussion would have to take place on this side of the boundary(B), within the confines of human thought, logic et al.

Yes within the human mind, of course.

However I and all humans are in possession of a physical body. This physical body is acquainted with reality through being a part of it(the physical universe).

This leaves open the possibility that I am acquainted with something beyond the above boundary(which I will call (B)). While my mind is unaware of this acquaintance/interaction.

The unknown is the unknown. And that is it. A God on the other hand is a positive claim. "I believe in God" even more so.

Yes I fully accept that we cannot know of real Gods if they exist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes within the human mind, of course.

However I and all humans are in possession of a physical body. This physical body is acquainted with reality through being a part of it(the physical universe).

This leaves open the possibility that I am acquainted with something beyond the above boundary(which I will call (B)). While my mind is unaware of this acquaintance/interaction.

No, I wouldn't say so. Above I said that as "humans we are confined to human thought, human logic in whichever exaxt form". What you bring up here is of course already included in that.

Yes I fully accept that we cannot know of real Gods if they exist.

Depending on definition, "God" is true, false or meaningless. A maybe is not on the menu (at least not if you ask me). If, for example, you place God ultimately behind mystical experiences, then what is to argue? "God" is ostesibly defined, and true.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

For the small entities I would think the ability to choose would be the dividing line, as for planets stars, galaxies etc who knows, I would not rule it out. They have played their part in manipulating humanity's emergence. The planet earth manipulated us into existence, the sun manipulated the earth into existence, the galaxy likewise etc etc.

Most of that is only good for flowery language. Ordinarily we do not think of plantes or so as intelligent.

 

[Piggy]

Yes I read you answer in the long post and the others, fine that all makes sense. My point is that if there is a god out there or not, human mythology, thought, discussions even the sum total of human knowledge cannot address it as it is not aware of what it is attempting to address.

Either it exists or it does not exist, we don't know and to claim one way or the other is delusional, or to place human thought on a pedestal of importance.

But that is not any kind of "point" at all.

Your first paragraph is just a re-statement of the incorrect claim that God is immune from investigation because it might be incomprehensible in its totality. The problem with that is simply that we don't need to comprehend God in its totality in order to tell if it's there or not.

Nobody on the Titanic needed to be able to recite the dimensions of the iceburg to know that their boat had hit one.

The second paragraph is just a re-statement of the incorrect claim that our limited knowledge makes God immune from refutation.

Look, either we're talking about something or we're talking about nothing.

If you're talking about something no one has ever imagined, then you're talking about nothing, because you have no idea what it is and neither do I.

But if you're talking about God, then you're talking about something, because people have believed in gods for a long time.

So we do know something about what God is, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. And if we know something about God, then God is refutable, even if we don't know everything.

The problem is, God has failed, so people wanting to cling to the idea (for whatever reason) always end up trying to de-define God... at which point we're back to talking about nothing.

 

[Piggy]

The unknown is the unknown. And that is it. A God on the other hand is a positive claim. "I believe in God" even more so.

Exactly. A God which is utterly unknowable cannot be a God. It can only be an I-don't-know. And anything which is utterly unknowable can't have a claim to reality, or to existence.

 

[punshhh]

Exactly. A God which is utterly unknowable cannot be a God. It can only be an I-don't-know. And anything which is utterly unknowable can't have a claim to reality, or to existence.

Yes, from the view point of a human. However something not currently known may well exist regardless.

You are conflating what humanity knows to exist(a) with what actually exists(b). Are these two categories the same?

 

[punshhh]

Your first paragraph is just a re-statement of the incorrect claim that God is immune from investigation because it might be incomprehensible in its totality. The problem with that is simply that we don't need to comprehend God in its totality in order to tell if it's there or not.

No it is not necessary to comprehend the totality of God, only to recognise it.

The second paragraph is just a re-statement of the incorrect claim that our limited knowledge makes God immune from refutation.

No only that we don't know and to assume that we can somehow know is an unsupported claim.

Look, either we're talking about something or we're talking about nothing.

I have defined the god I am referring to, ie an intelligent creator/manipulator, resulting in the known universe.

If you're talking about something no one has ever imagined, then you're talking about nothing, because you have no idea what it is and neither do I.

I am talking about things unknown, or can they not exist?

But if you're talking about God, then you're talking about something, because people have believed in gods for a long time.

So we do know something about what God is, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. And if we know something about God, then God is refutable, even if we don't know everything.

The problem is, God has failed, so people wanting to cling to the idea (for whatever reason) always end up trying to de-define God... at which point we're back to talking about nothing.

Yes I agree with regard to the mythological God. I am talking about a god that may actually exist.

 

[Susheel]

Yes, from the view point of a human. However something not currently known may well exist regardless.

You are conflating what humanity knows to exist(a) with what actually exists(b). Are these two categories the same?

In response to your first paragraph it should not then be of any concern whatsoever for us humans (you act as if being "human" is a bad thing). A pink polka dotted flying unicorn may exist under my bed, but it does not affect me or any one or anything else in any way whatsoever, and so is of no concern to me.

However, in this case what you say "actually exists" seems to be in your own mind. This does not affect the physical plain of our existence in any way, not does it affect the psychological plain of any one else but you in any way.

You may go on to conflate a lack of interest in understanding an unknown totally imaginary entity with say unknown subatomic particles that define our physical existence...the old "They laughed at Einstein" cliche...but that is not what is happening here.

 

[punshhh]

No, I wouldn't say so. Above I said that as "humans we are confined to human thought, human logic in whichever exaxt form". What you bring up here is of course already included in that.



Depending on definition, "God" is true, false or meaningless. A maybe is not on the menu (at least not if you ask me). If, for example, you place God ultimately behind mystical experiences, then what is to argue? "God" is ostesibly defined, and true.

I am aware of/acquainted with my physical body without using my mind, I can feel it.

I regard the mind as a separate thinking entity to the brain. The brain is involved in feeling the body, not the mind.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am aware of/acquainted with my physical body without using my mind, I can feel it.

It was still included already.