Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[TheGoldcountry]

OK, but that doesn't answer my question. First, if I'm a hypocrite then I'm a hypocrite which is quite different from you saying that I think my beliefs should be held in higher regard.

What makes you think that I think the choice between god and not-god is equal? I didn't say the choices were equal. I said we have to make a choice.

No. We don't have to make a choice. I don't choose to believe that Zeus is fictional. I don't choose to believe that God is fictional. They both are, and I feel zero desire to consider the possibility without more evidence than thought experiments that I tired of when I was an adolescent.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

So you don't consider that all beliefs are equally valid?

No. I believe that there is probably other sentient life somewhere in the universe. Some believe that some of them have actually visited us and performed experiments on us. Both of those claims have no tangible evidence to support them, but do you personally view them as equally possible?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No. We don't have to make a choice. I don't choose to believe that Zeus is fictional. I don't choose to believe that God is fictional. They both are, and I feel zero desire to consider the possibility without more evidence than thought experiments that I tired of when I was an adolescent.

I already addressed this issue as others have many times in this thread and elsewhere. Of course Zeus is fictional. So is Yahweh. There is no sense in discussing mythological gods.

I don't ask you to consider that a Deistic god exists or for you to think that it is likely. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. The issues here have to do with the way things are being stated.

 

[Piggy]

What Venn diagram?

I told you. This is a hyperdimensional being that acts intentionally.

I KNOW!

I know you've told me that.

What you haven't done is to tell me what this being is!

All you've said so far is that something might have created a universe which appears to have no gods in it.

But that's obviously true... this universe, which appears to have no gods in it, was created by something.

But then you want to go and call that thing a "god".

Well, if you do that, then you're going to have to tell me why this thing deserves to be called a god and not something else, like a p-brane, that's not a god.

And then you'll be left to explain how this thing can be said to be "real" or to "exist" without stipulating the condition that "real" must be indistinguishable from "not real" and that "exists" must be indistinguishable from "doesn't exist".

But first, you have to tell me what you're talking about. You can't be talking about Yahweh, for example.

So my thought experiment is simply to draw the Venn diagram for me. One circle is our world with this thing, and another is our world without it. If there is any space outside of their intersection (which there must be if you're not talking about nothing) then describe to me what occupies that space.

If you have no idea, then you're also talking about nothing.

ETA: Acting intentionally doesn't cut it, as we can see by the "grad student god" example upthread.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I already addressed this issue as others have many times in this thread and elsewhere. Of course Zeus is fictional. So is Yahweh. There is no sense in discussing mythological gods.

I don't ask you to consider that a Deistic god exists or for you to think that it is likely. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. The issues here have to do with the way things are being stated.

Mea culpa. I realize that I'm restating arguments that have already been trod over repeatedly. I apologize. I realize that you are simply arguing for the right of people to state their beliefs. I agree with this, but if they choose to air their views on a public forum such as this, they must be willing to encounter arguments. I have my own beliefs, and if I chose to share them here, I would do so with the expectation of resistance.

 

[Piggy]

I see the Venn diagram bit now. OK, for purposes of this discussion, let's say that without this god there would be utter chaos; it would be a universe of pure energy with no actual particles. With this god we see the universe we see today.

Doesn't work.

Universes with and without water, in the non-overlapping space is H2O.

Universes with and without Santa Claus, in the space is an immortal man who lives at the North Pole and brings toys to kids at Christmas.

You've already stipulated that the universe appears to have no god in it. So the universe itself is the same either way. The only difference is whether this supposed god is real or not. If it's real, it's the only thing in the non-overlapping space.

So if that's the case, tell me what's in that space.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mea culpa. I realize that I'm restating arguments that have already been trod over repeatedly. I apologize. I realize that you are simply arguing for the right of people to state their beliefs. I agree with this, but if they choose to air their views on a public forum such as this, they must be willing to encounter arguments. I have my own beliefs, and if I chose to share them here, I would do so with the expectation of resistance.

I agree with that completely. Sometimes I stick my nose into arguments where I should probably keep quiet. Mostly it's to see how far I can get with them, though.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I agree with that completely. Sometimes I stick my nose into arguments where I should probably keep quiet. Mostly it's to see how far I can get with them, though.

Don't keep quiet. People like you are the reason I frequent this forum. I don't argue with people just for the sake of argument. I come here for rational discussion, which posters like you provide.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Doesn't work.

Universes with and without water, in the non-overlapping space is H2O.

Universes with and without Santa Claus, in the space is an immortal man who lives at the North Pole and brings toys to kids at Christmas.

You've already stipulated that the universe appears to have no god in it. So the universe itself is the same either way. The only difference is whether this supposed god is real or not. If it's real, it's the only thing in the non-overlapping space.

So if that's the case, tell me what's in that space.

I don't understand. What is left in the non-overlapping bit is the god and anything organized. We have two universes -- one has an organizing principle (which happens to be our god) allowing for the formation of matter and development of new types of beings and the other consists of unorganized energy with no god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't keep quiet. People like you are the reason I frequent this forum. I don't argue with people just for the sake of argument. I come here for rational discussion, which posters like you provide.

Thanks and same to you. Actually that's why I do this every year or so with Piggy. I really like arguing this stuff with him and we don't have anything else to argue about generally. We really don't have this to argue about either but I chose to argue the god might exist side a few years ago when he brought up this topic so why stop now?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I don't understand. What is left in the non-overlapping bit is the god and anything organized. We have two universes -- one has an organizing principle (which happens to be our god) allowing for the formation of matter and development of new types of beings and the other consists of unorganized energy with no god.

Now here you go, after I apologized for judging you, you are now defining a being that you already said you don't believe exists. How do you define something that you admittedly state is outside of our universe? That statement alone contradicts itself.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Thanks and same to you. Actually that's why I do this every year or so with Piggy. I really like arguing this stuff with him and we don't have anything else to argue about generally. We really don't have this to argue about either but I chose to argue the god might exist side a few years ago when he brought up this topic so why stop now?

Don't stop, just don't hold your breath waiting for me to agree with you.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Now here you go, after I apologized for judging you, you are now defining a being that you already said you don't believe exists. How do you define something that you admittedly state is outside of our universe? That statement alone contradicts itself.

I'm playing devil's advocate.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I'm playing devil's advocate.

So am I. I think we should end our little side discussion and listen to Piggy. He states my viewpoint better than me.

 

[Piggy]

I don't understand. What is left in the non-overlapping bit is the god

YES!

Yes.

This is what I've been saying.

So tell me, what is it, this thing in the non-overlapping bit?

Tell me what it is, please, and then explain why it deserves to be called a god, and not something else like a p-brain or a vacuum fluctuation or a pine tree or whatever.

Thanks.

 

[Piggy]

Actually that's why I do this every year or so with Piggy. I really like arguing this stuff with him and we don't have anything else to argue about generally. We really don't have this to argue about either but I chose to argue the god might exist side a few years ago when he brought up this topic so why stop now?

And I do learn a lot from it, I have to say.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

YES!

Yes.

This is what I've been saying.

So tell me, what is it, this thing in the non-overlapping bit?

Tell me what it is, please, and then explain why it deserves to be called a god, and not something else like a p-brain or a vacuum fluctuation or a pine tree or whatever.

Thanks.

What is left in the non-overlapping bit is god and everything organized, not just god.

I already told you why this is a god; it acts intentionally. It has intelligence and creates the universe. It is eternal. That is the sort of being that FattyCatty was talking about.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What is left in the non-overlapping bit is god and everything organized, not just god.

I already told you why this is a god; it acts intentionally. It has intelligence and creates the universe. It is eternal. That is the sort of being that FattyCatty was talking about.

If "He" (or She) has intelligence, they're doing a crappy job. I still see no reason for us to worship or even consider this entity.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And I do learn a lot from it, I have to say.

Likewise. Can't think of a better way to hone skills and see what works.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If "He" (or She) has intelligence, they're doing a crappy job. I still see no reason for us to worship or even consider this entity.

If we have to add 'worthy of worship' to the definition, it's pretty clear this deity is not a god. I brought that issue up earlier in the thread and Piggy didn't seem to think it was really necessary. Personally I'm on the side that thinks 'worthy of worship' should be part of the definition of god; and that would preclude a deistic god from consideration.