Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[The Norseman]

….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.

You had just passionately argued for the illogicality of human thought and how science (and by implication, logic) must take a hands-off approach.

What it comes down to, very simply, is that the existence of ‘it’ does not occur in a way that is amenable to either your adjudication or that of science. Why, exactly, should it?
…all of this is, in fact, tangential to what Wasp was saying. You still haven’t understood that. There is no consistent understanding or definition of God. You need one so you can have something to argue against. There isn’t one, especially not in any sense that your arguments can challenge. Human beings are NOT rational or evidence based. Entirely legitimate realities are known about which science has nothing to say and can have nothing to say (what was the line in Contact..."...do you love your father...?....prove it!.."...a trivial thing that...love...).
As Noam Chomsky said: " Our understanding of human affairs is thin and likely to remain so." There are significant reasons for this. Continually trying to fit a round human into a square science will not change this fact.

Now you want to claim that the example of the time-traveling toenail is illogical? Well, duh. That's what we've been saying. It's you who has been arguing that a god-concept shoudn't be dismissed based on logic, because humans aren't logical, so therefore, illogical beings like gods could exist; no, that illogical beings like gods do exist.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

There is? What wide gulf is that? You mean because we have a fundamental knowledge of what a toenail is, yet no one has yet been able -- despite thousands of years of trying by perhaps millions of people -- to come up with a fundamental knowledge of their god that is similar?

 

[The Norseman]

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.

Let me reiterate that you have stated that you are essentially playing devil's advocate in this thread, yes?

We can say that no gods exist [full stop] in the same way we can say that humans flying like Superman do not exist [full stop].

We can say that just because a person dreams something or imagines something, does not lend credence to its existence. That's why I keep harping on the fact that things like string theory exist in someone's imagination but do not exist in reality until demonstrated otherwise. It's the same pattern that has been occurring ever since the scientific method started being used to obtain results regarding reality and the universe around us and in us.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is? What wide gulf is that? You mean because we have a fundamental knowledge of what a toenail is, yet no one has yet been able -- despite thousands of years of trying by perhaps millions of people -- to come up with a fundamental knowledge of their god that is similar?

We are discussing primary substance here. Primary substance has limited characteristics. The ones that have been traditionally proposed amount to matter, mind, neutral, the unlimited, god. That sort of thing.

A toenail travelling back in time has all sorts of characteristics that are completely unnecessary. They are added on and so easily disproved. There is a reason that we use parsimony when constructing and evaluating arguments.

 

[The Norseman]

We are discussing primary substance here. Primary substance has limited characteristics. The ones that have been traditionally proposed amount to matter, mind, neutral, the unlimited, god. That sort of thing.

A toenail travelling back in time has all sorts of characteristics that are completely unnecessary. They are added on and so easily disproved. There is a reason that we use parsimony when constructing and evaluating arguments.

What is the primary substance of those things you list? Nice try to slip that one in there, but what is the primary substance of god that distinguishes it from the primary substance of everything else?

As Piggy has said, one either defines god as something that already exists or god is defined as a negative (unlimited, undefinable, etc.) which, as you probably well know, says nothing as to what it actually is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let me reiterate that you have stated that you are essentially playing devil's advocate in this thread, yes?

We can say that no gods exist [full stop] in the same way we can say that humans flying like Superman do not exist [full stop].

We can say that just because a person dreams something or imagines something, does not lend credence to its existence. That's why I keep harping on the fact that things like string theory exist in someone's imagination but do not exist in reality until demonstrated otherwise. It's the same pattern that has been occurring ever since the scientific method started being used to obtain results regarding reality and the universe around us and in us.

I don't think that those two statements are equivalent, though. But let's examine them and see.


I think we can very easily say that Zeus doesn't exist or that Yahweh doesn't exist just as we can say that humans don't fly like Superman. Both are inventions of the human mind. That issue has never been in doubt throughout this thread.

The issue that is in doubt concerns primary substance(s).

I don't know how anyone could prove that we are not thoughts in the mind of god. Do you have a way to do so because I would be quite interested in hearing it?

Idealists are fond of pointing out that when it comes to knowledge, the base knowledge that we have is mental -- that thinking exists. They then try to show that thinking is primary and so the most likely substance underlying existence is mind. How do you disprove that?

If you wish to argue that spirit can't be a primary substance or likely isn't a primary substance because it is just an invention of humans, then that's fine too. I think it probably needs more examination.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What is the primary substance of those things you list? Nice try to slip that one in there, but what is the primary substance of god that distinguishes it from the primary substance of everything else?

As Piggy has said, one either defines god as something that already exists or god is defined as a negative (unlimited, undefinable, etc.) which, as you probably well know, says nothing as to what it actually is.

The way I defined it earlier is 'spirit'.


ETA:

And, yes, I am playing devil's advocate.



I use the word spirit above, but I think it would be difficult to conceptualize what that really means because, after all, it's really just a placeholder word that theists use. I think the easiest way to talk about this would be to examine it like the old mind-body problem. Make god be 'mind' and the universe be 'body'.

 

[Complexity]

And, yes, I am playing devil's advocate.

I find discussions like this one to be of no value.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Oh, maybe I have misread your statement. And I probably don't disagree with what you said.

Do you think I am saying that god exists?

No, absolutely not.

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].

I just don't get it.

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;

Mhhhmm, I understand most of that. However, I think that making a claim for materialism or idealism is making a superficially positive claim too. Neutral monism might be doing that as well, but not necessarily so.

And the problem that you think that exists, i.e. that there is no way to prove any of these possibilities correct, exists only because we are not making a claim. Materialism is true if what exactly? Idealism is true if what exactly? And how exactly do we tell these apart? The sad answer is that, if you just scratch a little below the surface, there is no answer to any of these questions. You cannot define idealism so well as to successfully delineate it from materialism, and vice versa.

And semantic/conceptual problems (if that is the right word) are a total different thing than epistemological problems. If you cannot successfully define materialism, you can also not be right about materialism being true. [ETA]We can however reject it, on a semantic level. Same with idealism. Which in turn may lead to a neutral monism that is based on a rejection of materialism/idealism/what-have-you.[/ETA]

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.

No, we cannot claim uncertainty. I can define God in such a way that it can not not exist. And utter piece of cake. I can even make it a trinity, if you wish, or use male/female pronouns. Not a problem.The only possible move to counter that is to reject my would-be definition. I mean, the only possible move in order to keep the contention intact that Gods are impossible to prove either way.

I think this is quite an important point. How exactly would you seek to keep your stance as agnostic atheist in tact, when you are faced with a definition of God that cannot fail to exist? (And just leave aside the utterly silly, i.e. God is my car, or something like that.)


An 'uncertainty' that is caused by semantics is a totally different thing than a real epistemological problem.

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 care first and foremost for what I believe. Whether I can or cannot tell other people that their God is impossible ... *shrug*

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We are discussing primary substance here. Primary substance has limited characteristics. The ones that have been traditionally proposed amount to matter, mind, neutral, the unlimited, god. That sort of thing.

A toenail travelling back in time has all sorts of characteristics that are completely unnecessary. They are added on and so easily disproved. There is a reason that we use parsimony when constructing and evaluating arguments.

Well you seem to be the one discussing primary substances, I'm still not sure how they relate to 'God' and they sound an awful lot like philosophical nonsense to me.

While a time travelling toenail may have completely unnecessary characteristics the fundamental issue was around the idea that 'you can't prove it wasn't it' and unnecessary doesn't mean not true or provably false.

You have not disproved that my special time travelling toenail did not create the universe. You cannot disprove my special time travelling toenail did not create the universe. Yet you dismiss it as false.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I think we can very easily say that Zeus doesn't exist or that Yahweh doesn't exist just as we can say that humans don't fly like Superman. Both are inventions of the human mind. That issue has never been in doubt throughout this thread.

The issue that is in doubt concerns primary substance(s).

I don't know how anyone could prove that we are not thoughts in the mind of god. Do you have a way to do so because I would be quite interested in hearing it?

Idealists are fond of pointing out that when it comes to knowledge, the base knowledge that we have is mental -- that thinking exists. They then try to show that thinking is primary and so the most likely substance underlying existence is mind. How do you disprove that?

If you wish to argue that spirit can't be a primary substance or likely isn't a primary substance because it is just an invention of humans, then that's fine too. I think it probably needs more examination.

All god concepts are inventions of human minds. Including non-god unprovable we don't know gods.

I think your primary substance argument is a shift of the goalposts in some respects as this 'primary substance' (whatever it is) is not a god.

I'm not sure how we can get to the idea that thinking is prime. Things existed before anyone or anything was around to think about them and thoughts occur in physical brains which evolved from lesser life forms which did not think.

The universe existed before minds existed. All being thoughts in the mind of God is a lovely little meaningless word salad which I'm sure philosophers find deep and meaningful. It's as useful as the time-travelling toenail.

I have to say that arguments like this are why I find philosophy so unhelpful in examining reality.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mhhhmm, I understand most of that. However, I think that making a claim for materialism or idealism is making a superficially positive claim too. Neutral monism might be doing that as well, but not necessarily so.

And the problem that you think that exists, i.e. that there is no way to prove any of these possibilities correct, exists only because we are not making a claim. Materialism is true if what exactly? Idealism is true if what exactly? And how exactly do we tell these apart? The sad answer is that, if you just scratch a little below the surface, there is no answer to any of these questions. You cannot define idealism so well as to successfully delineate it from materialism, and vice versa.

And semantic/conceptual problems (if that is the right word) are a total different thing than epistemological problems. If you cannot successfully define materialism, you can also not be right about materialism being true. [ETA]We can however reject it, on a semantic level. Same with idealism. Which in turn may lead to a neutral monism that is based on a rejection of materialism/idealism/what-have-you.[/ETA]

Yes, making a claim for materialism or idealism or god is making a positive claim about ontology. We can do it, but we cannot claim to know that we are correct in that claim.

No, we cannot claim uncertainty. I can define God in such a way that it can not not exist. And utter piece of cake. I can even make it a trinity, if you wish, or use male/female pronouns. Not a problem.The only possible move to counter that is to reject my would-be definition. I mean, the only possible move in order to keep the contention intact that Gods are impossible to prove either way.

I think this is quite an important point. How exactly would you seek to keep your stance as agnostic atheist in tact, when you are faced with a definition of God that cannot fail to exist? (And just leave aside the utterly silly, i.e. God is my car, or something like that.)


An 'uncertainty' that is caused by semantics is a totally different thing than a real epistemological problem.

Yes. And that definition would almost certainly give you a useless god. That is why what I have argued is that we not argue 'no gods exist [full stop]' but instead gods either don't exist, are evil or are irrelevant/inconsequential. I simply think that is more appropriate.

I care first and foremost for what I believe. Whether I can or cannot tell other people that their God is impossible ... *shrug*

Again, I agree. But I like to argue with Piggy, in particular, about this topic because it's fun and I always learn something new.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

All god concepts are inventions of human minds. Including non-god unprovable we don't know gods.

I think your primary substance argument is a shift of the goalposts in some respects as this 'primary substance' (whatever it is) is not a god.

How could we prove that, though? I don't see how that is provable.

Idealists would say that all matter concepts are inventions of a mind also.

I'm not sure how we can get to the idea that thinking is prime. Things existed before anyone or anything was around to think about them and thoughts occur in physical brains which evolved from lesser life forms which did not think.

The universe existed before minds existed. All being thoughts in the mind of God is a lovely little meaningless word salad which I'm sure philosophers find deep and meaningful. It's as useful as the time-travelling toenail.

I have to say that arguments like this are why I find philosophy so unhelpful in examining reality.

It is an argument from knowledge. The only knowledge of which we are certain is that thinking exists. So something that thinks exists. We can be sure of that. Idealists make a leap, then, and say that it is more parsimonious to stick with thought as primary and not the material world which they argue is simply the way we view thoughts in the mind of god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well you seem to be the one discussing primary substances, I'm still not sure how they relate to 'God' and they sound an awful lot like philosophical nonsense to me.

While a time travelling toenail may have completely unnecessary characteristics the fundamental issue was around the idea that 'you can't prove it wasn't it' and unnecessary doesn't mean not true or provably false.

You have not disproved that my special time travelling toenail did not create the universe. You cannot disprove my special time travelling toenail did not create the universe. Yet you dismiss it as false.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that your time traveling toenail was necessarily false, only that there were strong arguments against it, so I have no reason to believe that it is true. My point was that the absence of evidence was not sufficient to prove that a proposition like this is false.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I find discussions like this one to be of no value.

That's fine too. I'm interested to see where it leads and mostly in the process.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How could we prove that, though? I don't see how that is provable.

Idealists would say that all matter concepts are inventions of a mind also.

It is an argument from knowledge. The only knowledge of which we are certain is that thinking exists. So something that thinks exists. We can be sure of that. Idealists make a leap, then, and say that it is more parsimonious to stick with thought as primary and not the material world which they argue is simply the way we view thoughts in the mind of god.

Well, we could prove it if we could come up with an agreeable definition of God. Whatever you want to call the fundamental substance it doesn't work for me as God.

Does the substance have intelligence? intent? Is it an entity or is it just some magical 'other'. It just seems like an exercise in semantics to me and I see no reason to give it any thought unless someone can propose something that we can look into.

Rocks exist even if we aren't around to think about them. If we are seriously at the level where we need to accept that rocks might not really exist so that we can shoehorn in a not-really-God-at-all-god then I'm out.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that your time traveling toenail was necessarily false, only that there were strong arguments against it, so I have no reason to believe that it is true. My point was that the absence of evidence was not sufficient to prove that a proposition like this is false.

Well there are strong arguments against God concepts too. But when you can simply change the definition of what a God is to overcome them and shoehorn in an 'unprovably false God-concept' then I can do the same with my time-travelling toe-nail.

 

[Belz...]

Substance has been defined and used for centuries. It refers to existence.

And existence is defined as doing something. We're running around in circles because you seem to 1) want things to be defined by what they are, not what they do and 2) want to redefine 'substance' to mean something else.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Strawman. He said "toenail".

 

[Belz...]

And, yes, I am playing devil's advocate.

Sounds more like "god's advocate" to me.

I prefer being reality's advocate. It provides more constructive discussions.

 

[Belz...]

The only knowledge of which we are certain is that thinking exists.

I'm having a real hard time with this statement. How are we certain ? Thinking could be a pre-programmed illusion. No, the only thing we know for certain is that something exists.

Idealists make a leap, then, and say that it is more parsimonious to stick with thought as primary and not the material world which they argue is simply the way we view thoughts in the mind of god.

I argue that the metaphysics is irrelevant. We should study what things do.