• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

Last of the Fraggles said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think that the easiest way to speak about this is limit it to the things we know. We know mind and matter. Yes, this god as it was defined, has intelligence and intent. It is a mind that created the universe and holds it together; its functions are the laws of physics. So, it decides how the world unfolds.



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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I mentioned that earlier. We have very strong arguments against all the mythological gods. They are all human stories and are not easy to support. I agree that it is not fair for the goalposts to shift; but we are stuck with a variety of different god concepts and have to take them on one at a time. I haven't shifted the goalposts with this god as far as I know, aside from stating it more clearly since I hadn't really decided on a form to argue initially.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't about what I want. For us to talk about 'things' doing anything, they have to exist, they have to be based in substance.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because in the doubting, something occurs. It doesn't matter if it is pre-programmed or not. It still occurs.



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

As I have said repeatedly, I don't disagree with you.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is where I disagree. You can't do it. I mean sure, you can claim that the ultimate substance is mind, but you mustn't ever forget that mind then has to take on a meaning that is totally different than what is meant on an everyday basis. You cannot for example just conflate mind and contents of mind, i.e. memories and thought, and you cannot refer on the processing power granted by the brain. You'd have to look at mind after you have substracted those. Similar with materialism and matter, only that it gets ever and ever more inclusive; energy is ok too, abstracts are no problem either, and so on and so forth. And whatever remains of mind after you have performed the necessary cuts can easily be incorportated into materialism/physicalism.



Ichneumonwasp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Useless Gods are still Gods. And so are evil Gods. Antarctica may be a pretty useless patch of land, but it is still land. It may also be pretty hostile, but that does not make its existence somehow uncertain.

I just don't see how you would square this off. On one hand hold an agnostic negative position, i.e. 'I don't believe there is land at the south pole, but I am not certain', but on the other hand to point out that it is useless and hostile. At least, that is the way it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth said:
And that is where I disagree. You can't do it. I mean sure, you can claim that the ultimate substance is mind, but you mustn't ever forget that mind then has to take on a meaning that is totally different than what is meant on an everyday basis. You cannot for example just conflate mind and contents of mind, i.e. memories and thought, and you cannot refer on the processing power granted by the brain. You'd have to look at mind after you have substracted those. Similar with materialism and matter, only that it gets ever and ever more inclusive; energy is ok too, abstracts are no problem either, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...


I don't see how we disagree. I used this very argument against annnoid earlier in this very thread.





Useless Gods are still Gods. And so are evil Gods. Antarctica may be a pretty useless patch of land, but it is still land. It may also be pretty hostile, but that does not make its existence somehow uncertain.

I just don't see how you would square this off. On one hand hold an agnostic negative position, i.e. 'I don't believe there is land at the south pole, but I am not certain', but on the other hand to point out that it is useless and hostile. At least, that is the way it seems to me.
Click to expand...


When it comes to gods, we are speaking of different beings that are either non-existent, evil, or or inconsequential. It isn't the same being.

The deist and caretaker gods are inconsequential. The all-knowing, all powerful god in a world of evil is evil. Zeus and Coyote and Yahweh are strories.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think that the easiest way to speak about this is limit it to the things we know. We know mind and matter. Yes, this god as it was defined, has intelligence and intent. It is a mind that created the universe and holds it together; its functions are the laws of physics. So, it decides how the world unfolds.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by mind as some 'other' to matter. Minds are things that arise from matter in human brains. They don't exist as some separate thing.

We know matter.

If you want to propose some other substance that is unprovable but possibly exists then even if I give it the time of day (and i don't see why I should yet) then how do we get from there to this substance having intelligence and intent and it determining the laws of physics?

I'm struggling with how this is different to a time travelling universe creating toe-nail...
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I don't know what you mean by mind as some 'other' to matter. Minds are things that arise from matter in human brains. They don't exist as some separate thing.

We know matter.

If you want to propose some other substance that is unprovable but possibly exists then even if I give it the time of day (and i don't see why I should yet) then how do we get from there to this substance having intelligence and intent and it determining the laws of physics?

I'm struggling with how this is different to a time travelling universe creating toe-nail...
Click to expand...


Not according to idealists. If we go back to the cogito what we know is thought. Thought implies a thinker and so implies mind. According to idealists matter is just a consequence of thought, so they don't see science as an examination of matter but of how thought works.

There is no need to propose an entirely different type of substance. I wouldn't know where to begin to define it anyway.

If we start with thought, implying mind, it isn't much of a leap to a great mind that creates everything.
 
tsig said:
How is what it does different than what it is?
Click to expand...

That definition tells me things about properties of an electron and how it interacts with things in the world. But according to string theory there is something even more fundamental -- vibrating strings of energy. We can't point to an electron, then, and see it as what it *is* most fundamentally, just as there is no rock particle that imputes rockiness. Rather, there are more fundamental 'things' that make a rock act as it does.
 
Belz... said:
Sounds more like "god's advocate" to me.

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


^ This.

Absolutely.

I think most conventional philosophy is done by those who aren't up to doing science.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
I don't see how we disagree. I used this very argument against annnoid earlier in this very thread.
Click to expand...

Hrmph. Then I just don't understand where the issue is.

Ichneumonwasp said:
When it comes to gods, we are speaking of different beings that are either non-existent, evil, or or inconsequential. It isn't the same being.

The deist and caretaker gods are inconsequential. The all-knowing, all powerful god in a world of evil is evil. Zeus and Coyote and Yahweh are strories.
Click to expand...

It was about existence. And what if we have a definition by which, even though it may be inconsequential, God can not not exist. I am pretty sure Piggy might complain about de-defining.

To-mah-to, to-mae-to?
 
Complexity said:
I prefer discussions in which people mean what they say and argue for positions in which they believe.
Click to expand...

I generally prefer that as well, though I hardly think that in this case his behavior rises to anywhere close to the level of troll.
 
The Norseman said:
I generally prefer that as well, though I hardly think that in this case his behavior rises to anywhere close to the level of troll.
Click to expand...


He appears to be putting forth views that he doesn't believe in in hopes of provoking a response.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom