Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh it absolutely is as you have defined it as we have zero information to base a definition on and cannot have any as you have described it.

Would you entertain the notion that one of my toenails travelled in time and created the universe? Is it provably wrong by your standards?

Explain to me how I've defined it in such a way that it is equivalent to your big toe travelling in time to create the universe.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Explain to me how I've defined it in such a way that it is equivalent to your big toe travelling in time to create the universe.

My big toe travelling in time to create the universe is just something I made up and is one of an infinite number of possible explanations for how the universe came to be. There is no evidence to support it and yet I claim you can't prove it didn't happen.

Your 'God' just something you made up and is one of an infinite number of possible explanations for how the universe came to be. There is no evidence to support it and yet you claim I can't prove it didn't happen.

In the absence of any possible evidence both claims are equally likely.

Disagree?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My big toe travelling in time to create the universe is just something I made up and is one of an infinite number of possible explanations for how the universe came to be. There is no evidence to support it and yet I claim you can't prove it didn't happen.

Your 'God' just something you made up and is one of an infinite number of possible explanations for how the universe came to be. There is no evidence to support it and yet you claim I can't prove it didn't happen.

In the absence of any possible evidence both claims are equally likely.

Disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

We have tons of experience with big toes, none of which seem to spontaneously disconnect from feet and travel back in time. We also have a logical paradox with time travel. There is the further paradox that an existing thing cannot, even with time travel, reach an origin point to create the universe. There is the final issue that your big toe is made of matter and so cannot serve as this type of god and, in fact, cannot create matter since it already exists. There are several arguments against the big toe scenario, but not with the god scenario. Sure we can argue, analogously, that we have plenty of experience with gods that clearly don't exist, but that refers only to the mythological gods and not to philosophical gods of this variety.

First issue first. I am not proposing this god as something that anyone should believe in. This is all an argument against us saying that we know that no gods exist.

Second issue, I could just as easily draw another analogy for comparison. I have no evidence that my neighbor is having an affair. Is it therefore the case that if I say my neighbor is having an affair is exactly equivalent to saying that my big toe broke off, traveled in time, and created the universe? Neither has evidence to support it, but one is certainly very possible and the other is preposterous. I can't say that I know my neighbor is having an affair because I have no evidence; so, if I am right, my belief is not justified. That doesn't mean that it doesn't describe the truth, though.

I think there are two ways to attack this type of god. One is your basic approach, but all that amounts to is that we can say that no one can claim knowledge of this god. At best, one could say they believe such a god exists, just as another can say that she believes mind is the ultimate substance, and another matter or the apeiron or whatever.

I think the other way to attack it would be to point out the interaction problem with substance dualism.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm not saying that we should call 'we don't know' God. I'm saying that we can't call "we don't know" not-God [full stop]. That's pretty much it.

Absolutely disagree here. God has all the air of a positive proposition. And I don't like to play bait and switch. In fact I don't like any of those kind of games.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

but that refers only to the mythological gods and not to philosophical gods of this variety.

Yeah and we have loads of experience that refers to normal big toes but not to time travelling, universe creating big toes. You see my big toe is 'special' just like your God.

And none of your 'experience' can prove it isn't.

Yes its a preposterous idea. So is your God.

 

[annnnoid]

….I wonder how many times the exact same questions will have to be answered?

What many of these arguments boil down to is this peculiar assumption that we can say anything about anything with equal veracity (if you can say God created the universe then I can say a maggot on my dog’s urethra achieved enlightenment by way of a archetypal divinity meme named Jesus Buddha and regurgitated reality within a bottle of Kraft peanut butter). How anyone comes to this conclusion I do not know (I could speculate, but it wouldn’t sound very complimentary), but it is one of the basic tenets in the anti-God dialectic (as is obvious here).

The response is very simple. We either have conceptual rules or we don’t (Wasp has demonstrated these with truly glacial patience…not too many people seem to grok either the effort or the understanding). In other words, human truth, of some variety, exists (that may, by definition, be a ‘slight’ leap of faith…but imo the evidence does implicate exactly that). We use it to decide what is right or wrong, valid or questionable, sensible or nonsensical (it is also the foundation of all science). We didn’t create these rules (as Mr. Fincher accurately points out)…we merely attempt to adjudicate their existence and apply them.

Wasp has painstakingly explained the conceptual rules by which ‘big toes’ cannot represent divine creators. They are the exact same conceptual rules that preclude a physicist from inserting the word ‘dog’ for electron, or a mother from assuming it is rational to hit her kid over the head with a frying pan.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah and we have loads of experience that refers to normal big toes but not to time travelling, universe creating big toes. You see my big toe is 'special' just like your God.

And none of your 'experience' can prove it isn't.

Yes its a preposterous idea. So is your God.

First, it's not my god. Second, what is special about it? What I said is that we hit a brick wall with our knowledge about what the fundamental substance is. We have three monist options and one additional option if we use substance dualism as our origin point. There is no way to decide for sure amongst these options. One approach is to say that we shouldn't bother discussing which is or could be correct (I favor that approach actually, much like what Belz was trying to get across); the other approach people take is to believe in one or the other of those options. Two of them (possibly three depending on how one thinks of neutral monism) use a god. One clearly doesn't.

There is a wide gulf between toe that travels back in time to create the universe with all the paradoxes that creates and 'let's choose one of these options where no one can be certain.' If you want to have your toe be special and play the role of god, then you've simply added characteristics onto it that are not necessary and easily argued against.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Absolutely disagree here. God has all the air of a positive proposition. And I don't like to play bait and switch. In fact I don't like any of those kind of games.

I don't understand your point then. Are you saying that it is impossible to argue against the statement that no gods possibly exist because we are required to argue for a god?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Wasp has painstakingly explained the conceptual rules by which ‘big toes’ cannot represent divine creators. They are the exact same conceptual rules that preclude a physicist from inserting the word ‘dog’ for electron, or a mother from assuming it is rational to hit her kid over the head with a frying pan.

Well no he hasn't and no they aren't.

We know what an electron is and we can define it and show how it is different to a dog.

Once we enter the realm of the supernatural 'you can't prove it wasn't so' pulling things out of our backside land then all bets are off. There is nothing that defines this 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' God because if there was we could prove it doesn't exist. And if nothing defines it, then it might as well be a mystical toenail or the echo of a panda's fart in a vacuum or anything else I can think of because all of those are equally likely.

Now if the argument is that we know what toenails are and they don't create universes then I'm fine with that, as long as we also accept that we know what Gods are and they don't exist.

If you want to start saying you can think up a special god then great, I can think up a special toenail too.

The only reason you think there is a difference is because you think gods are a special case and they aren't.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't understand your point then. Are you saying that it is impossible to argue against the statement that no gods possibly exist because we are required to argue for a god?

No, not necessarily 'argue' for. But you should be required to show something. "We don't know", by definition is not anything. It can't be God. Hence the disagreement with this:

I'm saying that we can't call "we don't know" not-God [full stop]​

Calling "we don't know" God, falls into the not-even-wrong category. And it is utterly ridiculous, when this is waved at an atheist as if it meant anything.

Not having a clue, is not having a clue. Making the statement "God exists" says something else. You cannot have both at the same time.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We know what an electron is and we can define it and show how it is different to a dog.

We know what an electron does. We do not know what it is.

Once we enter the realm of the supernatural 'you can't prove it wasn't so' pulling things out of our backside land then all bets are off. There is nothing that defines this 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' God because if there was we could prove it doesn't exist. And if nothing defines it, then it might as well be a mystical toenail or the echo of a panda's fart in a vacuum or anything else I can think of because all of those are equally likely.

Now if the argument is that we know what toenails are and they don't create universes then I'm fine with that, as long as we also accept that we know what Gods are and they don't exist.

If you want to start saying you can think up a special god then great, I can think up a special toenail too.

The only reason you think there is a difference is because you think gods are a special case and they aren't.

First, this isn't an issue of the supernatural vs the natural. It is an issue that we don't really know what the natural is except in terms of us being able to describe what it does.

The supernatural only comes into it to discuss one type of god. And that god is defined, has been defined several times in this thread. It made and holds together the world. It's actions are what we describe as the laws of physics. It is made of a different substance which we can label spiritual and it interacts with the 'material universe' through magic because we cannot talk about mechanism of interaction between two incommensurate substances.

It's not a special god. It's one that has been proposed for millenia; and it has limited characteristics.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Wasp has painstakingly explained the conceptual rules by which ‘big toes’ cannot represent divine creators. They are the exact same conceptual rules that preclude a physicist from inserting the word ‘dog’ for electron, or a mother from assuming it is rational to hit her kid over the head with a frying pan.

Our Father, who art in heaven
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.​

Conceptual rules.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

We know what an electron does. We do not know what it is.

We can define it ostensibly. We could define "God" ostensibly too. If we did that, then most importantly there would however not be any kind of uncertainty. "God" would exist by definition. There are a bunch of other implications too, though.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, not necessarily 'argue' for. But you should be required to show something. "We don't know", by definition is not anything. It can't be God. Hence the disagreement with this:

I'm saying that we can't call "we don't know" not-God [full stop]​

Calling "we don't know" God, falls into the not-even-wrong category. And it is utterly ridiculous, when this is waved at an atheist as if it meant anything.

Not having a clue, is not having a clue. Making the statement "God exists" says something else. You cannot have both at the same time.

Ah, OK, yes with that I agree fully. That is why I tried to make the distinction -- I agree that it is silly to call "I don't know" god. In fact that is what I stated plainly beforehand I thought.


Do you think I am saying that god exists? I have no idea why anyone would think that based on what I have said. The only thing I have argued is that we can't say successfully that we know that gods don't exist. I think we can say, quite successfully, that we know that certain types of gods don't exist, but I don't think we can say that all gods don't exist [full stop].


Let me see if I can lay this out in precise fashion.....

We know, for absolute certain, only a very few things. One thing that we know for certain is that something that thinks exists. So, existence is a given for all the rest that follows. Existence = some kind of substance. It is possible that there is one substance and also possible that there are multiple substances.

When we speak of two or more substances, though, we run into a serious problem because what defines a substance is that things of that type (made of that substance) can interact with one another. Science basically boils down to examining how things interact with the interactions carried out by mechanisms that we can identify or infer. By definition a second substance could not interact through a mechanism because if it could we would know that it was not actually a second substance but some unknown form of the first substance.

Since we know that some things exist, let's start with a simple example. Rocks exist. But there is no rock particle that is responsible for rockiness. Rocks are made of atoms, made of quarks, etc.

Whatever the most fundamental level is we cannot get to -- I still think the easiest argument is the language one. We define things and concepts in terms of other things and concepts. When we get to the most fundamental level (let's say whatever is responsible for vibrating strings and space-time), there is nothing against which we can compare and contrast it because it is, literally, everything.

Three different substances have been proposed as the ultimate substance historically (actually four, so I'll throw that in as well) -- matter, mind, and neutral (with the apeiron thrown in as a bonus). Matter has been viewed as water, as air, as fire, as atoms, etc.

Whatever the ultimate substance is the world is going to look exactly the same to us, and we will always be left with the same philosophical issues (do humans have free will?, etc.) with no solution being different depending on which substance.

Since we can't know what the ultimate substance is, we can't know what the ultimate substance isn't. It could be any of the three, or four options. It is also logically possible, supposedly, that substance dualism is correct (I have my doubts about the logical possibility, though). I suppose there might be other options here, but I haven't heard any; these seem to be the simplest possibilities that we have to deal with and simplest is preferable.

So, it is supposedly logically possible that god exists since god can be defined as the mind of idealism, some form of the mental bits of neutral monism, or as being the second substance in substance dualism. There is no way to prove that any of these possibilities is correct; it is impossible to prove the existence of god. No one can claim, through this sort of analysis, to claim to know that god exists. Likewise we cannot claim to know that god's don't exist.


My own personal take on this is basically Belz's: we should stop where we have knowledge -- at 'what things do'. I cannot, therefore, tell a theist that it is impossible for god to exist because I cannot rule out the possibility of idealism. I think we can make an excellent argument against the supernatural and substance dualism, however; I don't see a way for anyone to support rationally that view of existence.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We can define it ostensibly. We could define "God" ostensibly too. If we did that, then most importantly there would however not be any kind of uncertainty. "God" would exist by definition. There are a bunch of other implications too, though.

Yes.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Ah, OK, yes with that I agree fully. That is why I tried to make the distinction -- I agree that it is silly to call "I don't know" god. In fact that is what I stated plainly beforehand I thought.


Do you think I am saying that god exists? I have no idea why anyone would think that based on what I have said. The only thing I have argued is that we can't say successfully that we know that gods don't exist. I think we can say, quite successfully, that we know that certain types of gods don't exist, but I don't think we can say that all gods don't exist [full stop].


Let me see if I can lay this out in precise fashion.....

We know, for absolute certain, only a very few things. One thing that we know for certain is that something that thinks exists. So, existence is a given for all the rest that follows. Existence = some kind of substance. It is possible that there is one substance and also possible that there are multiple substances.

When we speak of two or more substances, though, we run into a serious problem because what defines a substance is that things of that type (made of that substance) can interact with one another. Science basically boils down to examining how things interact with the interactions carried out by mechanisms that we can identify or infer. By definition a second substance could not interact through a mechanism because if it could we would know that it was not actually a second substance but some unknown form of the first substance.

Since we know that some things exist, let's start with a simple example. Rocks exist. But there is no rock particle that is responsible for rockiness. Rocks are made of atoms, made of quarks, etc.

Whatever the most fundamental level is we cannot get to -- I still think the easiest argument is the language one. We define things and concepts in terms of other things and concepts. When we get to the most fundamental level (let's say whatever is responsible for vibrating strings and space-time), there is nothing against which we can compare and contrast it because it is, literally, everything.

Three different substances have been proposed as the ultimate substance historically (actually four, so I'll throw that in as well) -- matter, mind, and neutral (with the apeiron thrown in as a bonus). Matter has been viewed as water, as air, as fire, as atoms, etc.

Whatever the ultimate substance is the world is going to look exactly the same to us, and we will always be left with the same philosophical issues (do humans have free will?, etc.) with no solution being different depending on which substance.

Since we can't know what the ultimate substance is, we can't know what the ultimate substance isn't. It could be any of the three, or four options. It is also logically possible, supposedly, that substance dualism is correct (I have my doubts about the logical possibility, though). I suppose there might be other options here, but I haven't heard any; these seem to be the simplest possibilities that we have to deal with and simplest is preferable.

So, it is supposedly logically possible that god exists since god can be defined as the mind of idealism, some form of the mental bits of neutral monism, or as being the second substance in substance dualism. There is no way to prove that any of these possibilities is correct; it is impossible to prove the existence of god. No one can claim, through this sort of analysis, to claim to know that god exists. Likewise we cannot claim to know that god's don't exist.


My own personal take on this is basically Belz's: we should stop where we have knowledge -- at 'what things do'. I cannot, therefore, tell a theist that it is impossible for god to exist because I cannot rule out the possibility of idealism. I think we can make an excellent argument against the supernatural and substance dualism, however; I don't see a way for anyone to support rationally that view of existence.

I think the bit in bold is where I lose your argument.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for or why we have moved the discussion from a god to a fundamental substance?

Are you saying that god is this substance or that god is an entity made of this substance?

In any case I'm not sure why you introduce 4 possibilities and exclude everything else. Effectively the argument seems to be that everything might be as we know it or there might be a magical 'other' stuff that we don't yet know about. I'm not sure how we could tell there are 3 options for this magical other if we literally know nothing about it.

The argument is still collapsing down into 'you can't prove not magic' but the only reason we have to prove 'not magic' is because someone invented this idea as some philosophical get out of jail card for God. They just made it up. And there is no reason to believe that something you or anyone else just made up is any different to the other infinite number of things that people can just make up.

And its not what people (other than a select few navel gazing philosophers trying to argue a point) mean when they talk about God anyway.

 

[tsig]

We know what an electron does. We do not know what it is.




First, this isn't an issue of the supernatural vs the natural. It is an issue that we don't really know what the natural is except in terms of us being able to describe what it does. The supernatural only comes into it to discuss one type of god. And that god is defined, has been defined several times in this thread. It made and holds together the world. It's actions are what we describe as the laws of physics. It is made of a different substance which we can label spiritual and it interacts with the 'material universe' through magic because we cannot talk about mechanism of interaction between two incommensurate substances.

It's not a special god. It's one that has been proposed for millenia; and it has limited characteristics.

An electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle. It can be either free (not attached to any atom), or bound to the nucleus of an atom. Electrons in atoms exist in spherical shells of various radii, representing energy levels. The larger the spherical shell, the higher the energy contained in the electron.

In electrical conductors, current flow results from the movement of electrons from atom to atom individually, and from negative to positive


http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/electron


You seem to be demanding that humans must become gods in order to eliminate the idea of gods.

Your god is alternatively hidden beyond the scene and manifesting thru the laws of physics or interfering with the world thru magic.

 

[tsig]

Well no he hasn't and no they aren't.

We know what an electron is and we can define it and show how it is different to a dog.

Once we enter the realm of the supernatural 'you can't prove it wasn't so' pulling things out of our backside land then all bets are off. There is nothing that defines this 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' God because if there was we could prove it doesn't exist. And if nothing defines it, then it might as well be a mystical toenail or the echo of a panda's fart in a vacuum or anything else I can think of because all of those are equally likely.

Now if the argument is that we know what toenails are and they don't create universes then I'm fine with that, as long as we also accept that we know what Gods are and they don't exist.

If you want to start saying you can think up a special god then great, I can think up a special toenail too.

The only reason you think there is a difference is because you think gods are a special case and they aren't.

He keeps telling us it isn't special pleading because, well, his god is special.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think the bit in bold is where I lose your argument.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for or why we have moved the discussion from a god to a fundamental substance?

I'm not arguing for anything. I am arguing against Piggy's claim to know that no gods exist. I don't think we can say that.

Are you saying that god is this substance or that god is an entity made of this substance?

We could conceptualize it either way. God could be what has been called spiritual substance or made of spiritual substance. In idealism god is mind.

In any case I'm not sure why you introduce 4 possibilities and exclude everything else. Effectively the argument seems to be that everything might be as we know it or there might be a magical 'other' stuff that we don't yet know about. I'm not sure how we could tell there are 3 options for this magical other if we literally know nothing about it.

I don't know of any other possibilities. If you have other possibilities that do not devolve down to one of those four I would love to hear about them. These are simply the traditional options.

And, no, it is not stuff as we know and then magical stuff. The argument is that all we can do is describe what we see in the world. We don't know what it really is, though. It could be that the rock over there that we describe as being composed of atoms, etc. is ultimately composed of 'the unlimited' or thoughts in the mind of god or something really weird; there is simply no way for us to know. All we can do is describe what we see -- it is the way that it is for us. No matter what ontology is correct, it will always just be a rock to us.

As to your question about how we can know there are three options -- we can't, but it comes out of thinking about the issue. We know that thinking occurs, so mind has been proposed as the primary substance for centuries. We see stuff all around us, so we propose that matter is the primary substance. Some folks try to combine them and we end up with neutral monism. Basically it is all based on knowledge/experience. Personally I prefer "I don't know".

The argument is still collapsing down into 'you can't prove not magic' but the only reason we have to prove 'not magic' is because someone invented this idea as some philosophical get out of jail card for God. They just made it up. And there is no reason to believe that something you or anyone else just made up is any different to the other infinite number of things that people can just make up.

And its not what people (other than a select few navel gazing philosophers trying to argue a point) mean when they talk about God anyway.

No, that is definitely not the argument in sum. One part of it is 'you can't prove not magic' traditionally. But I thought I made it clear that I think there might be a way to disprove magic. I've tried to argue it before but that attempt broke down into a form of name-calling when the other person kept insisting that I was using magic pejoratively in some sort of emotional appeal.

I disagree that someone made up magic as a get out of jail free card, though. Magical thinking seems to be an integral part of who we are and how we think. A big part of critical thinking is the attempt to remove all forms of magical thinking.

Again, I didn't make up this caretaker god. It's a traditional type of god that other people have argued for in the past.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

An electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle. It can be either free (not attached to any atom), or bound to the nucleus of an atom. Electrons in atoms exist in spherical shells of various radii, representing energy levels. The larger the spherical shell, the higher the energy contained in the electron.

In electrical conductors, current flow results from the movement of electrons from atom to atom individually, and from negative to positive


http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/electron

I know what the definition of an electron is. It tells me what it does.

You seem to be demanding that humans must become gods in order to eliminate the idea of gods.

Your god is alternatively hidden beyond the scene and manifesting thru the laws of physics or interfering with the world thru magic.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying that we can't say that no gods exist [full stop]. It's really no more complicated than that. I am disagreeing with Piggy.

This type of god is not alternatively hidden beyond the scene and manifesting through the laws of physics. It is hidden in the same sense that all issues of ontology are hidden and its actions are what we call the laws of physics. And, yes, by the definitions given it must act by means of magic. That is where we should attack the argument.

How many times do I have to repeat -- this is not my god.