Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Complexity]

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!

One down, many to go.

 

[Resume]

…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.

More mystics!? Geez, they're a dime a dozen around here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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?

god-creator-of-all-there-is creates the universe. Not god means no universe.

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.

I've repeated it not once but several times. We can envision it several ways. God creates universe. Not god = no universe. God orders universe. Not god = universe with no order. We can follow this any way you want to do so.

You can't argue from basic ontology. You can only argue from what you see in the universe because that is our perspective. There is no way to get from here to there so there is no way for you to show that the origin is not due to a god or some other organizing force.

The best argument against a god is to rely on monism -- one substance. Most of these versions of god rely on dualism.

However, you can also not eliminate the possibility that everything results from thoughts in the mind of god. If you've got a way to do it, then please demonstrate.

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.

Entirely true for things as we treat them within the universe. But you can't treat the concept of god in the same way because it is not 'in the universe' and so cannot be examined the same as the flat earth or phlogiston.

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".

I'm afraid I missed the actual definition in all that. What is the definition? That real be distinquishable from not-real, etc. That is what you asked for earlier with your Venn diagram. I gave you an example. Please explain how a universe created and maintained by god is not distinguishable from a non-existent universe.

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?

Of course it's not too much to ask. I think you need to take a step back when an answer is given, though, because I think there are some sort of biases in your vision.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Based on what? Keep in mind that we are, in part, talking about the definition of God provided by monks in the middle ages. Some thought that God could not be approached or defined in any positive way and that the only potential definition of god was to provide an outline through what he was not. In the age of Enlightenment there were many who thought of god as wholly other in a different sort of way -- hence the birth of the deistic god.

If we want to take the long approach, the origin of god was in animism, as I already mentioned. Various alterations occurred in conceptions until we arrived at monotheism. If we want to stick with earlier conceptions of god why are we even dealing with monotheism? Why not just debunk animism?

The fact that conceptions of god have changed over times is not a fallacy. There are many people alive today who view god as the deist god. There are people who genuinely believe in a caretaker god. There are people who think Jesus really lived and died and was resurrected and now reigns in heaven. All of these beliefs fit into different conceptions of what god is to different people. You do not get to pick and choose what the proper approach to viewing god is and call all the rest of the views fallacies.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We've already discussed the deistic fallacy.

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

How is someone's different definition of god a fallacy? Explain that first before we move forward. Who are you to decide what is the right and wrong view of god? Animists, I'm sure, would find this new fangled belief in many gods who sit in heaven just as strong a fallacy as you seem to find deism for some reason. Not to mention those wacky monotheists and their ridiculous idea that there is only one god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

You can't have it both ways. Either worthy of worship is part of the definition -- that someone worships it and that they should -- or not. You can't say -- no one worships such a god unless you are ready to show me that Deists never went to churches, that Universalist Unitarians never attend church, that Buddhists don't worship, etc.

 

[Leumas]

Precisely the opposite.

The more we discover, the more apparent it becomes that this isn't the only universe.

Just as it turned out we were wrong to think this is the only planet, then the only galaxy, our specialness is once again kicked into the dust.
In this mind-blowingly enormous universe of ours, there are certain zones -- like the surface of the clot of supernova effluvient we're on -- where the mix of elements and the amount of energy is sufficiently balanced to create an area of intense complexity.

That's all life is... just one particular type of intense complexity.

In other universes, there won't be any such zones. In still others, there will be more or fewer.

For us to look around and say, "Hey, this place is fine-tuned for us!" is ridiculous. First, it is overwhelmingly hostile to us on the whole, and second (as has been pointed out) we're only here to ask because ours is the kind of universe where this type of complexity can happen.

EXACTLY.....my sentiments exactly.....

By the way...... regarding expanding distances.

Imagine our CORNER of the Hyperverse is a balloon and expanding. As far as we can discern it is expanding and our limited minds think that the balloon is THE universe.

But what contains the balloon..... where is the universe expanding into.... is there space that it expands into.... what is beyond the boundary of the balloon.....

What contains our expanding universe is the HYPERVERSE and thus the universe we are limited to discerning is only a balloon in a room in the most meaningless nook of the REAL UNIVERSE.

It all is a matter of where we limit your limited mind and thoughts..... I elect to think of INFINITY as EVERYTHING not just our corner of things.

A while back people used to believe that earth was surrounded by a dome with little prick holes in it and some lamps rotating around it. We discovered the solar system....then the galaxy then the trillions of galaxies.... and we call that the universe. What if our collections of galaxies is a small little part of a HYPER GALAXY just like our stellar collection is just one of many in a galaxy. What if our Hyper Galaxy is one of trillion Hyper Galaxies. Which are in themselves just a small collection in ....... keep going.
Years ago we could not see beyond 10⁹ light years.... we thought that was the age of the universe and it fitted into a mathematical model......now we can see 15x10⁹ light years away and are discovering that at that distance there are hundreds of FULLY FORMED galaxies.... but still think that 15x10⁹ years is the age of the universe because the newly contorted mathematical formula says so..... what hubris.

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.

Exactly again..... This is what I call The God Of Hindsight.....mercurially ever redefining god until he now ends up meaning NOTHING.

Usurpation Of Science By The God Of Hindsight

Most of us are familiar with the expression “God Of The Gaps”. This is when theists attempt to use god as an explanation for any gaps in our scientific knowledge.

But I have been recently thinking about and postulating a new term….The God Of Hindsight.

This is when theists USURP and hijack scientific knowledge to bolster their deity and try to show that this knowledge was in fact in their scriptures all along.

I am sure you know of many examples…. Big Bang was mentioned in Genesis…. Fine Tuning…. Derivations of the Speed of Light from some asinine contortion and warping of verses in the scriptures… the Laminin molecule looking like a cross…. the list is long.

It is amazing to me the shamelessness and audacity of these people…. For millennia they kill and muzzle science and scientists and then when the genie is out of the bottle they now want to command it to serve them. For years they killed people for saying that the earth is not flat and now they shamelessly claim that on balance the scriptures PROVE that the earth is a globe.

They use the knowledge that we would never have acquired had they had their way, and which they tried to block in the name of their gods, to turn the whole thing on its head and assert that this knowledge proves their myth in any case. What infuriating insolence and impudence!!

Now that science can work things out DESPITE the centuries of thwarting and impeding by the religious institutions (not to mention extirpations) they claim that the knowledge we are discerning is a revelation from their god after all. HOW DARE THEY!

What vile affront to the memory of all the scientists who were burnt on the stake and all the scientists who were nipped in the bud. I can almost hear their screeches of agony crying out for us to SCREAM as loud as we can against this

USURPATION by the God Of Hindsight​

 

[annnnoid]

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.

What if the only place you can ‘see’ it (in other words, have any variety of experience of the meaning of the meaning of God) is through the mystery of subjective human identity (which, not surprisingly, is exactly where the vast majority of ‘religious’ people claim to experience their understanding of whatever God means to them). You (and, presumably, the vast majority of skeptics) would conclude that this does not constitute credible evidence of God. You flatly reject the possibility that the epistemology of human nature can reach legitimate conclusions exclusive of scientific verification. This despite the fact that it is only through human nature that actual truth can be experienced (something to do with this inconvenient word ‘honesty’).

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 --

I’ve just given you one. The eight year old who wrote those words is, by now, known to hundreds of thousands of people around the world who SERIOUSLY PROPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. It is entirely likely that to many of them what he wrote actually describes a God condition. So what test do you propose would be adequate to conclusively adjudicate the veracity of this situation? I’ll wait.

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?

Why don’t you actually provide some indication of what you would regard as evidence, given how much we still do not know about either human consciousness or the universe we live in. Naturally I will expect the usual ‘god of the gaps’ lament. How original. The problem is, the gaps are monumental. The human brain is regarded as the most complex ‘thing’ in the entire universe. Consciousness is regarded as a genuine mystery (by Dennet, among others…and given the raging battles that have been fought at JREF over the issue, it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion). There are significant issues about the fundamental nature of the universe and life itself that have yet to be resolved…and yet we continue to get these assurances that we quite obviously know enough about everything to definitively conclude that something as monumentally fundamental, profound, and incomprehensible as God does not exist. What a load of unqualified BS! As Wasp says, the best we can rationally conclude is that we simply do not know. Fundamental ontology is a mystery. Anyone who insists otherwise (outside of religion) is an idiot.

…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. My example above demonstrates this quite clearly. As Wasp said:

You do not get to pick and choose what the proper approach to viewing god is and call all the rest of the views fallacies.

You still haven’t understood what Atran was pointing out either, which is significantly more fundamental. NOMA wasn’t just a naïve academic game. It was a response to a fundamental reality. 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.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Nonsense, I have defined god and if you look back to the origins of the mythological god its definition is essentially the same as my definition.

ie the physical aspect(materialism), it caused or was the precursor to the known world or universe.

In the subjective aspect(idealism), it chose(with intention) what the known world or known universe is and does.

All god concepts are in essence intelligent manipulators of the stuff of existence.

Please provide proof that there aren't any of these?

 

[punshhh]

…the point ‘you guys’ are trying to make, if it is not obvious, is that some skeptics simply cannot stomach any inference, suggestion, or implication that there could be any possibility of anything remotely related to ‘God’. Thus, your very clear arguments are a threat of some kind. Simply put, it must be possible to establish that God does not exist. End of argument. Anything less is inadmissible for the uber skeptic. That this is metaphysically inconsistent is merely inconvenient…there must be something wrong with philosophy.

In other words…you may be practicing quite acceptable and elementary philosophy, but you are blatantly betraying the skeptic cause. Shame on you.

Yes it appears so.

We are only discussing some basic philosophical ideas and they are floundering, as they can't prove a negative. All I am doing is pointing this out.

 

[punshhh]

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?

Pardon me



You should abandon the commonly understood mythological God. This God was always described by laymen who had no theological/mystical training.

All the main religions originated from the groups of followers who gathered around mystics. Within these groups and the religions which followed there was always an initiate group or school in which more intellectual philosophical discussions of God were carried out.

Even primitive shaman had a more sophisticated understanding than the modern mythological God used by you guys and laymen.

 

[Leumas]

Pardon me



You should abandon the commonly understood mythological God. This God was always described by laymen who had no theological/mystical training.

All the main religions originated from the groups of followers who gathered around mystics. Within these groups and the religions which followed there was always an initiate group or school in which more intellectual philosophical discussions of God were carried out.

Even primitive shaman had a more sophisticated understanding than the modern mythological God used by you guys and laymen.

So this god is not able to make himself known to EVERYONE....he only is known by a few INITIATED people?

Some of these INITIATED people are the very same ones that go around cutting throats of chickens and sprinkling urine and spittle on sick people to cure them.

Some of these initiated people are also the ones that go around raping little children and abusing their positions of ELITISM.


Some of these initiated people wrote WORTHLESS and MEANINGLESS loads of horrendously bigoted and heinous books that contradict all known science.

Some other of these initiated call themselves EXPERTS in contriving mental gymnastics in casuistry for the moronic books written by the other initiated people.

Some more of these initiated cannot commune with this ELITIST and EXCLUSIVE god except by ingesting drugs or starving themselves or to trance themselves. In other words they cannot see this god except by inducing a HALLUCINATION (i.e. brain malfunction) by one method or another.

Well.... I am so glad to be a layman.... I am also glad that scientists were not subscribed into this delusional elite class of dupes.

The mystics can keep deluding themselves if they wish….but they should be thankful for the lay people who are able to see the world for the way it is and thus invent devices to enable those deluded mystics to continue surviving DESPITE their inability to effect any real influence on the human situation except to make it worse.

 

[dafydd]

Pardon me



You should abandon the commonly understood mythological God. This God was always described by laymen who had no theological/mystical training.

All the main religions originated from the groups of followers who gathered around mystics. Within these groups and the religions which followed there was always an initiate group or school in which more intellectual philosophical discussions of God were carried out.

Even primitive shaman had a more sophisticated understanding than the modern mythological God used by you guys and laymen.

And you are an expert? I don't think so. After all you are the man who coined the phrase 'beyond the event horizon of the formless.'

 

[dafydd]

Nonsense, I have defined god and if you look back to the origins of the mythological god its definition is essentially the same as my definition.

ie the physical aspect(materialism), it caused or was the precursor to the known world or universe.

In the subjective aspect(idealism), it chose(with intention) what the known world or known universe is and does.

All god concepts are in essence intelligent manipulators of the stuff of existence.

Please provide proof that there aren't any of these?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on believers to provide evidence. You have failed to do that. If I claim that pink unicorns exist then I have to provide the proof. Why cannot you understand this simple concept?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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). .

Since both statements are meaningless bottom-waffle then if they are considered theologically or philosphically advanced it reflects badly on theology and philosophy.

 

[dafydd]

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.’

.

Both statements are gibberish. It seems to be easy to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[tsig]

More mystics!? Geez, they're a dime a dozen around here.

Before I can agree to that we have to see what dime means, 10 pennies or a single coin, do you mean dozen as a unit or are we talking 12 individuals, then we have to ask ourselves a dozen of what?

With my long mystical training and extensive study I can say with all humility but at the same time with sublime authority, conscious of the my last dip into the transcendent realm where you can hear the celestial bells ring, that you are a poopy-head.

 

[Leumas]

Before I can agree to that we have to see what dime means, 10 pennies or a single coin, do you mean dozen as a unit or are we talking 12 individuals, then we have to ask ourselves a dozen of what?

With my long mystical training and extensive study I can say with all humility but at the same time with sublime authority, conscious of the my last dip into the transcendent realm where you can hear the celestial bells ring, that you are a poopy-head.

I am sure you trained with the wrong shamans

 

[dafydd]

Even primitive shaman

Sham being the operative word.

 

[annnnoid]

Since both statements are meaningless bottom-waffle then if they are considered theologically or philosphically advanced it reflects badly on theology and philosophy.

Both statements are gibberish. It seems to be easy to pull the wool over your eyes.

Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.