Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

A reason that gods could possibly exist? Yes. Haven't you been keeping up? What is your refutation?

Last I recall, I was waiting for you to explain how the grad-student god could actually be a god even if beings didn't die in his universe.

I've been reading the posts, but so far no one has introduced any argument that gets out of the triple-bind.

Either you can make false statements, or de-define the terms, or you can change the definition to mean something it never meant.

What's the argument that doesn't make one of those mistakes?

 

[Piggy]

That denies the history of philosophy and theology. God has been defined in numerous ways historically including the deistic god and the caretaker god not to mention the god that is beyond any human comprehension from the middle ages. This isn't a new creation.


ETA; You can pretend that none of that ever occurred, but the historical record is very clear about it.

You gotta get a little more granular than that.

This trajectory has been for claims -- all of them now -- being debunked or falling from favor for other reasons, and as a result God becomes de-defined.

When we see that pattern, we recognize it to be the failure of the idea, but for some reason, some folks make an exception and claim it's valid in God's case.

But there's no justification for that.

The removal of God to elsewhere is an abandonment of the concept.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Last I recall, I was waiting for you to explain how the grad-student god could actually be a god even if beings didn't die in his universe.

I've been reading the posts, but so far no one has introduced any argument that gets out of the triple-bind.

Either you can make false statements, or de-define the terms, or you can change the definition to mean something it never meant.

What's the argument that doesn't make one of those mistakes?

How does 'beings dying in his universe' have anything to do with it? You specifically denied that 'worthy of worship' was even necessary for the definition of god earlier in this very thread when I suggested that it should be a part of the definition. How does death even enter into this? You specifically said that all sorts of gods had been defined -- trickster gods, etc. so that god worthy of worship couldn't be part of the definition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You gotta get a little more granular than that.

This trajectory has been for claims -- all of them now -- being debunked or falling from favor for other reasons, and as a result God becomes de-defined.

When we see that pattern, we recognize it to be the failure of the idea, but for some reason, some folks make an exception and claim it's valid in God's case.

But there's no justification for that.

The removal of God to elsewhere is an abandonment of the concept.

That people redefine what they mean by god is also beside the point. Please try again. The issue is whether or not any type of god can be defended is it not? Whether or not no gods possibly exist?


If we want to deny changes over time why don't we go back to animism, debunk that, and be done with it?

 

[Piggy]

How does 'beings dying in his universe' have anything to do with it? You specifically denied that 'worthy of worship' was even necessary for the definition of god earlier in this very thread when I suggested that it should be a part of the definition. How does death even enter into this? You specifically said that all sorts of gods had been defined -- trickster gods, etc. so that god worthy of worship couldn't be part of the definition.

No one believes, or ever believed, in the grad student god.

No one says prayers to such a thing. Or feels its presence. Or believes it waits to meet us beyond death. Or thinks it sends hurricanes to punish wayward peoples.

But when pressed to say why your intelligent creator -- who is undetectable by the creatures -- qualified as a god, you said he was immortal.

But if beings in his hyperworld don't die, that doesn't change the situation.

He's still not a god because no one ever believed in such a thing or thought it was a god. People don't sacrifice to it, ask it to save an alcoholic son, pray that it delivers them from the torture chamber, or take solice in it as they die.

It's an interesting scenario, but it doesn't make gods real.

 

[Piggy]

That people redefine what they mean by god is also beside the point. Please try again. The issue is whether or not any type of god can be defended is it not? Whether or not no gods possibly exist?


If we want to deny changes over time why don't we go back to animism, debunk that, and be done with it?

It's not irrelevant.

Changes can work within a theory -- like the evolution of evolutionary theory since Darwin -- as long as the necessary planks of the theory don't fail.

On the other hand, if the changes knock out the planks, the theory is dead.

All the planks have been knocked out from under god theory.

All of them.

At this point, the only gods anyone can defend -- without simply contradicting observed fact -- are ones which have none of the qualities or behaviors that made gods distinguishable from not-gods.

That's precisely what everyone here is defending, if they're making a defense.

So it makes every bit of difference what those changes have been.

In this case, what's being defended is an I-don't-know-what living in I-can't-say-where doing I-can't-imagine-which.

That's not a god. That's not anything.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No one believes, or ever believed, in the grad student god.

I think the Deist founders of our nation might disagree with you. Aside from the grad student part. But since I wasn't arguing a grad student god I'm not sure why you bring this up.

No one says prayers to such a thing. Or feels its presence. Or believes it waits to meet us beyond death. Or thinks it sends hurricanes to punish wayward peoples.

Wait. I'm the one who said that 'worthy to worship' should be part of the definition of god. You said that it shouldn't.

But when pressed to say why your intelligent creator -- who is undetectable by the creatures -- qualified as a god, you said he was immortal.

I have no idea what you are talking about because I said nothing of the kind. I said he qualified as a god because he caused creation and because he created and controlled what we see as the laws of physics.

But if beings in his hyperworld don't die, that doesn't change the situation.

He's still not a god because no one ever believed in such a thing or thought it was a god. People don't sacrifice to it, ask it to save an alcoholic son, pray that it delivers them from the torture chamber, or take solice in it as they die.

It's an interesting scenario, but it doesn't make gods real.

I'm sorry, but the historical record proves that you are simply wrong. Yes, people don't sacrifice to it or pray to it to save an alcoholic son, but people, actual people who lived, called this sort of creature "God", sometimes "Providence".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not irrelevant.

Changes can work within a theory -- like the evolution of evolutionary theory since Darwin -- as long as the necessary planks of the theory don't fail.

On the other hand, if the changes knock out the planks, the theory is dead.

All the planks have been knocked out from under god theory.

All of them.

At this point, the only gods anyone can defend -- without simply contradicting observed fact -- are ones which have none of the qualities or behaviors that made gods distinguishable from not-gods.

That's precisely what everyone here is defending, if they're making a defense.

So it makes every bit of difference what those changes have been.

In this case, what's being defended is an I-don't-know-what living in I-can't-say-where doing I-can't-imagine-which.

That's not a god. That's not anything.

That is simply wrong, again. Theists think of God as the creator of all that is. There is a clear difference in their mind between god and not-god. Some think that god performs all actions in the universe. There is a clear difference between god and not-god.

You are completely misrepresenting what I have presented. I know that isn't you. Please take a step back and look at what has actually been argued.


ETA: Besides, Piggy, what you are arguing is that, for a given definition of God, god(s) don't exist. Do you really want to make such a weak argument? Anyone can say that for a given definition of god that god doesn't exist if you want to stack the deck. The reason arguments arise is because your presentation does not cover all definitions of god, even those in the distant past.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some here seem somehow threatened by this obvious fact (I’m not suggesting you are one of them). Why might be an interesting question for another thread....perhaps not unlike why so many skeptics are so determined to insist that the historical Jesus is a lie despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (but lets not start that one again).

Trust me. The comparison and the intense feeling of deja vu has not escaped my notice.

 

[annnnoid]

Sure we can.

Just like we can know it's not a pine tree.

Words have meaning, you know.

What you're doing is emptying your word of meaning, then making the obvious claim that it's now not inconsistent with anything you care to dream up.

All I-don't-know gods are Humpty-Dumpty gods by definition.

That's because the idea of god, like the idea of anything else that's not nothing, originated with a notion of something.

In the ancient worldview, gods had a place. They had qualities and actions.

So the I-don't-know gods -- whether you're talking about "the unknowable" or a deistic god or an ineffable god or a hyperdimensional god -- cannot be anything besides a radical re-definition of the term to mean something it could not have meant.

It's like I said before, you can't simply declare that, actually, phlogiston didn't have any of the qualities everyone said it did, but in fact it's something we simply can't know, and by that maneuver salvage the claim that phlogiston is real.

It's the same for anything else, including gods.

A Humpty-Dumpy god is no god at all. It's like me saying I've got a pet bird, as long as you don't mind that it's got no feathers, beak, wings, feet, or body.

I-don't-know gods are mere Humpty-Dumptyisms, by definition, and so have nothing to do with an actual discussion about whether gods are real or not.

I’ll respond to the rest of your points a bit later. One point that you base your conclusions on is this assumption that the idea of ‘God’ is a function of familiar anachronistic behavioral patterns that can all be fairly easily debunked.

Consider the following statement:

‘God has all our dreams in mind.’

This was written by the same eight year old boy who wrote the following:

‘Destruction is finding being in matter.’

The boy who wrote these two statements (and numerous others) is alive right now. The first statement can be regarded as theologically very advanced. The second is philosophically and psychologically very advanced (especially for an eight year old boy). This does not establish the veracity of either meaning, it merely suggests that the fact that an eight year old could arrive at such observations is significant.

You can obviously question the historical psychology of religion…and in various ways your conclusions will be accurate. But for every case you present, I can present a contrary case…right up till today, when new perspectives on God and spirituality are being explored that in no way shape or form could be confined within the interpretations that lead to your summary dismissals of the issues.

The two statements I’ve presented above are examples.

 

[Piggy]

Wait. I'm the one who said that 'worthy to worship' should be part of the definition of god. You said that it shouldn't.

That's a different question.

Whether or not it's a dealbreaker for a god, the fact is, nobody worships the kind of thing you're (almost) talking about.

Essential quality or no, those who do worship God don't worship a thing in another dimension who has nothing to do with them.

 

[Piggy]

I think the Deist founders of our nation might disagree with you.

We've already discussed the deistic fallacy.

It's another version of the de-definition fallacy.

 

[Piggy]

I said he qualified as a god because he caused creation and because he created and controlled what we see as the laws of physics.

First 2 don't matter because we don't need a god to account for creation, so it is therefore not a distinguishing quality.

As to the last point, what do you mean that it "controls" the laws of physics?

 

[Piggy]

I'm sorry, but the historical record proves that you are simply wrong. Yes, people don't sacrifice to it or pray to it to save an alcoholic son, but people, actual people who lived, called this sort of creature "God", sometimes "Providence".

But that's not at all inconsistent with what I'm saying.

Indeed, actual people who actually lived participated in the process of de-defining god. How could it be otherwise?

The people who put the "God" label on a non-thing are the ones who have attempted to solve the demise of god theory by turning God into nothing and asserting that it is real anyway.

The human mind can do that, no problem.

But it is still, without doubt, an error and a fallacy.

 

[Piggy]

That is simply wrong, again. Theists think of God as the creator of all that is. There is a clear difference in their mind between god and not-god. Some think that god performs all actions in the universe. There is a clear difference between god and not-god.

You are completely misrepresenting what I have presented. I know that isn't you. Please take a step back and look at what has actually been argued.


ETA: Besides, Piggy, what you are arguing is that, for a given definition of God, god(s) don't exist. Do you really want to make such a weak argument? Anyone can say that for a given definition of god that god doesn't exist if you want to stack the deck. The reason arguments arise is because your presentation does not cover all definitions of god, even those in the distant past.

The thing is, I am arguing against what's been argued.

The problem is, you're expecting me to move forward on those terms, and I'm pointing out that the terms are flawed, and so it's impossible to move forward on them.

If there is a clear difference in the deist mind between god-creator-of-all-there-is and not-god, then what is it?

You haven't been able to say what the difference is for the god in your thought experiment in any way that doesn't end up with god and not-god being indistinguishable.

If you believe in god, you either believe in something that's distinguishable from nothing (in which case we can look and see if it's there) or you've talked yourself into believing in a non-thing that vanishes when you examine it.

Ditto if you believe in phlogiston or a flat earth... or it would be if any proponents of phlogiston or flat earth had the stones to make the kind of obviously nonsensical arguments that the "you can't deny the possibility of god" crowd are willing to trot out and expect to be taken seriously.

My "given definition of god" is this: A definition that's consistent with what the term has always meant to those who seriously propose its existence -- not its lack of disprovability, but its actual existence -- and which does not require that "god" be indistinguishable from "not-god" and that "real" be indistinguishable from "not real" and that "exists" be indistinguishable from "doesn't exist".

Is that too much to ask?

I don't think so.

From where I sit, such a definition is impossible.

You haven't offered one, and neither has anyone on this board.

So what's next... the argument that someone might someday think one up?

 

[Piggy]

I’ll respond to the rest of your points a bit later. One point that you base your conclusions on is this assumption that the idea of ‘God’ is a function of familiar anachronistic behavioral patterns that can all be fairly easily debunked.

Consider the following statement:

‘God has all our dreams in mind.’

This was written by the same eight year old boy who wrote the following:

‘Destruction is finding being in matter.’

The boy who wrote these two statements (and numerous others) is alive right now. The first statement can be regarded as theologically very advanced. The second is philosophically and psychologically very advanced (especially for an eight year old boy). This does not establish the veracity of either meaning, it merely suggests that the fact that an eight year old could arrive at such observations is significant.

You can obviously question the historical psychology of religion…and in various ways your conclusions will be accurate. But for every case you present, I can present a contrary case…right up till today, when new perspectives on God and spirituality are being explored that in no way shape or form could be confined within the interpretations that lead to your summary dismissals of the issues.

The two statements I’ve presented above are examples.

Examples of what?

 

[annnnoid]

Examples of what?

Spiritual perspectives that you have yet to reconcile.

Y’know Piggy I have some respect for you because of your well thought out positions on a number of things (the historical Jesus issue, computationalism etc.) but you might want to consider that you may not entirely know what it is that people actually do worship. Having some familiarity with the issue, I can assure you that that is in fact the case (at least, based on your conclusions so far). And since you are basing many of your arguments and conclusions on what you think you do know, you may reasonably conclude that many of your arguments and conclusions are mistaken. Sorry to be so blunt.

…but that is beside the point. What is actually more central is a massive and fundamental error that you, and just about all, skeptics consistently make. I quoted Scot Attran before (from the Beyond Belief conference), I’ll do so again:

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist.

Life is not rational or evidence based. People come to conclusions that are not only valid and legitimate, but entirely credible based on nothing more than their own personal epistemology. Not rational, not evidence based, just ‘this is who I am and this is what I know is right’. In other words, a personal conclusion does, in fact, take priority over a scientific conclusion.

I can legitimately conclude that that eight year old boy knows what he is talking about. That he is legitimately capable of knowing things about which science has not the slightest inkling. I can say this because I know there is an epistemology fundamental to human nature that achieves knowledge of a variety that science has no ability to adjudicate…and I can say this because there is simply a very great deal about the universe and human beings that science simply has yet to resolve.

To summarize….the epistemology of human nature is not rational or evidence based. Thus, imposing a rational, evidence-based epistemology on human activity and then insisting that any deviation can be regarded as evidence of error is itself a fundamentally flawed process.

 

[Complexity]

This thread demonstrates why I avoid having any interactions with people who have religious beliefs.

The religious apologists are thinking and arguing very badly. I hate this sort of pseudophilosophical slop.

 

[annnnoid]

This thread demonstrates why I avoid having any interactions with people who have religious beliefs.

The religious apologists are thinking and arguing very badly. I hate this sort of pseudophilosophical slop.

We’ll happily encourage you to continue avoiding us then Plex. By the way, I hate to break it to you, but it can be quite successfully argued that you do, in fact, have religious beliefs…but it would require entire pools full of pseudophilosophical slop to make the case and you’d be long gone by then. I’d hate to waste all that effort.

…but if it makes you feel any better, a well-known mystic once received a message directly from a very well known (dead) religious figure (mystically of course) to the effect that …’ all religions lead to God ‘. That would include yours.

Halleluiah…you’re saved Plex.

Sweet dreams!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

First 2 don't matter because we don't need a god to account for creation, so it is therefore not a distinguishing quality.

As to the last point, what do you mean that it "controls" the laws of physics?

Sure it is from a theist's perspective. All we can do is look at what occurs in the world and describe it. We can't tell its ultimate meaning, its ultimate origin. The most parsimonious explanation is always that it's just one substance, one thing behind it all. But that is not the only explanation. You asked for what difference this god makes vs no god. And the answer from a theist's perspective and for sake of argument is that there is no universe or a chaotic universe without god and an ordered one with god.

As to "it controls the laws of physics", its actions are what we describe as the laws of physics.

You may say we don't need a god to explain any of this, but how do you know this? We argue it on the basis of parsimony, and I think that is a very strong argument. But it doesn't tell me that a god is not possible. Since we can't access basic ontology there is no way to prove things one way or the other.