Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Ichneumonwasp]

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?

Yes, I'm sure that is what he would complain of, but I think he is wrong. I have offered two arguments against him -- one is that we cannot say that we are certain that gods don't exist. The other counters his contention that all such attempts to show that gods might exist amount to de-defining god. The history of ideas shows otherwise. Within Christianity, for instance, there was an almost immediate attempt to define God in just such ways -- look at the history of medieval thought about God. The same is true in Judaism -- look at Philo's writings. The same is true in Greek thought -- Plato. Those moves were not attempts to de-define god. They were legitimate attempts to explore being and what it means. That theists today might use those earlier thinkers to find a hiding place for god is another point altogether.

 

[punshhh]

No, you haven't defined anything rationally as I've pointed out to you specifically several times.



Please provide evidence that they are any of these. Without any rational basis or proposal for the mechanisms by which this god concept could have the attributes of creator or even existence, then it's simply nonsensical.

How do you think things like quarks or dark matter are thought to exist in the first place? Certainly not by some mystic sitting in a cave somewhere, dreaming his drug-addled dreams or believing that seizing brain activity is really a doorway into a fundamental truth of... life, reality, humanity, whatever... fill in the blank with the meme du jour.

I am not posting to say there is a god, rather to say that Piggy can't say there isn't one.

Piggy's entire argument is relating to mythological gods and all he says about unknown gods is if they can't be defined they don't exist.

This is wrong as they may exist regardless of what humans care to say.

Also I have provided a definition of an unknown god.

 

[punshhh]

Then appearances have fooled you. Why would I try to provoke a reaction. I think Piggy is wrong about what he said. I've offered arguments against it.

Well I thought there might be an opportunity to discuss some philosophy here .

I might have known the atheists were not going to debate their heart felt beliefs.

 

[tsig]

Then appearances have fooled you. Why would I try to provoke a reaction. I think Piggy is wrong about what he said. I've offered arguments against it.

He was probably just playing the Devils Advocate with you.

 

[punshhh]

I don't assume that anything doesn't exist. The arguments that you have presented here have already been refuted, by many people here as well as others. They are neither original nor particularly profound.

Again, I see no reason to re-examine certain concepts when you have not presented any good reason to do so. I've heard them before; they haven't grown fresher with time. All you have repeatedly done is redefine a deity so that it continually falls outside of our own experience and perceptions. This is fine, since something that doesn't exist obviously does fit those categories.

What you have failed to do is explain why defining this imaginary creature has any meaning or importance. After all your arguments, I find no worth in them other than as a grade school level philosophical hypothesis, and I haven't been in grade school in many years.

Bye.

I see you don't see the point in providing an argument that gods don't exist, because someone somewhere else has already.

Anyway you agree with me here "I don't assume that anything doesn't exist", fine.

 

[tsig]

What am I arguing that I don't believe? Can you tell me what I am arguing?

Quite honestly I can't believe some of the reaction I am hearing here? What is it that you think I am arguing?

When you say you're being the Devils Advocate the implication is that you don't believe the argument you're making.

If you don't know what you're arguing then it's no wonder the rest of us are confused.

 

[tsig]

Yes, I'm sure that is what he would complain of, but I think he is wrong. I have offered two arguments against him -- one is that we cannot say that we are certain that gods don't exist. The other counters his contention that all such attempts to show that gods might exist amount to de-defining god. The history of ideas shows otherwise. Within Christianity, for instance, there was an almost immediate attempt to define God in just such ways -- look at the history of medieval thought about God. The same is true in Judaism -- look at Philo's writings. The same is true in Greek thought -- Plato. Those moves were not attempts to de-define god. They were legitimate attempts to explore being and what it means. That theists today might use those earlier thinkers to find a hiding place for god is another point altogether.

Which remains your assertion. You try to prove this assertion by referring to a 'fundamental substance' underlying all matter yet you can't prove there is such a thing nor any need for it other than in your own mind.

I look at a rock and see a rock you apparently see a mystery.

 

[tsig]

At what point does the advocacy cease and the real Ichneumonwasp pupate?

What am I arguing that I don't believe? Can you tell me what I am arguing?

Quite honestly I can't believe some of the reaction I am hearing here? What is it that you think I am arguing?

You seem to have missed this post.

 

[punshhh]

EXACTLY.....this perfectly defines all the NEO-THEOLOGIANS' efforts. Whether it is ID or Fine-Tuning or Mellowed-Down-YHWH or New Age Religions and so and so forth.

The God Of Hindsight combined with the God Of Gaps.....The incredibly shrinking and mercurial NEO-GOD.

As usual you put a strong case for refuting the god of religion. I'm inclined to agree with you, but you appear to be confusing what I'm saying about hypothetical gods with the god of religion.

I am not discussing the god of religion(the mythological gods). I am proposing a hypothetical god the non-existence of which cannot be proven. Wether it is a God of hindsight or of the gaps is irrelevant to my point.

If it can occupy a gap(any gap) it cannot be proven to not exist, end of story.

And we all know there gaps including the one our entire known universe inhabits.

 

[tsig]

Well I thought there might be an opportunity to discuss some philosophy here .

I might have known the atheists were not going to debate their heart felt beliefs.

Shame about those mean, shifty atheists who won't play nice and agree that gibberish is wisdom.

Philosophy is all talk no walk.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which remains your assertion. You try to prove this assertion by referring to a 'fundamental substance' underlying all matter yet you can't prove there is such a thing nor any need for it other than in your own mind.

I look at a rock and see a rock you apparently see a mystery.

What you seem to be saying is that rocks have a primary attribute of rockiness. You deny that there is something more fundamental to what you see when you see a rock? There are no atoms there? No electrons and protons?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You seem to have missed this post.

I didn't miss it. I didn't think it was worth responding to, but since you want to press the point, what advocacy? What argument do you think I am making?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

When you say you're being the Devils Advocate the implication is that you don't believe the argument you're making.

If you don't know what you're arguing then it's no wonder the rest of us are confused.

No, devil's advocate means that I take up a position contrary to the one proposed. I have specifically stated that I agree with Piggy on almost every point he made, but if we are to discuss this I have to take up a contrary position. I think he goes too far in his statements and offered counter-arguments. Last time I checked that is how this process goes.

Apparently the arguments don't matter though. Why are you turning this personal? What difference do my beliefs make? If I actually believe there is a twelve horned snugglefuss farting out waves of reality, what possible difference does that make to the arguments offered?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I see you don't see the point in providing an argument that gods don't exist, because someone somewhere else has already.

Anyway you agree with me here "I don't assume that anything doesn't exist", fine.

That doesn't mean I see any value in arguing for a deity that can't ever be shown to exist. Be it the Biblical God or not, you show a strong desire in arguing for this entity, and I question your motives for doing so.

 

[Belz...]

No, devil's advocate means that I take up a position contrary to the one proposed.

No:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument.

Another problem with your definitions, maybe ?

 

[Daald]

Man the argument just keeps going in circles.

Didn't we establish that there are 2 kinds of know?

1. Knows everything there is and ever was. (Impossible for us at least)
2. Knows what humanity has learned so far. (Where humans sit).

By the first definition of know of course we don't know if there is a god. By that definition we can't be sure of anything outside our knowledge bubble.
By the second definition we can say that we know certain things but they have the unsaid "within our knowledge boundary".

So when it is said there is no god, the second definition is used because that is the useful one.

The counter argument seems to be that if we have a knowledge bubble we can't know everything (first definition).

The problem is that the second definition is being used.

The other problem is that the god concepts being offered are being placed outside the knowledge bubble. The problem here is that you can no longer label this thing a god. The god concept exists within our knowledge bubble and it has been found lacking there. When you place god outside our knowledge bubble you commit an error when you continue to refer to this entity as god. You are basically bringing baggage along. As a matter of fact you can take "god" and replace the term with "anything" and the arguments would not change. Once you do that though I think the problems become obvious.

 

[dafydd]

Or to bring in infinity again, it cannot be applied to the infinity of differing kinds of gods which humanity has not come across.

What infinity of differing kinds of gods?. You are just making up nonsense yet again.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate



Another problem with your definitions, maybe ?

Right. Does not necessarily agree with. I do not necessarily agree that gods are possible; I don't know for sure the answer to that issue. I think it is wrong, but I don't know forsure. I am playing with the ideas to see where they go. I have specifically said that I think there is an argument against a god that depends on substance dualism. I'm not entirely certain about other concepts here. The only way to test it out is to argue it.

Why is this such an issue?

 

[the PC apeman]

Why is this such an issue?

Because there is a surprising pervasive dislike on this board of any intellectual exercise that has even a tint of philosophy. I'm not immune to this either. I have my own prejudices about the metaphysics branch of philosophy. But at least I'm conversant enough with neutral, basic terminology like 'substance' to have an informed opinion on the matter. If it is any consolation for you, Ichneumonwasp, I understand your position. I think it's pretty straight forward and non-threatening to most here if they understood it. You have my condolences.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because there is a surprising pervasive dislike on this board of any intellectual exercise that has even a tint of philosophy. I'm not immune to this either. I have my own prejudices about the metaphysics branch of philosophy. But at least I'm conversant enough with neutral, basic terminology like 'substance' to have an informed opinion on the matter. If it is any consolation for you, Ichneumonwasp, I understand your position. I think it's pretty straight forward and non-threatening to most here if they understood it. You have my condolences.

Thanks for that. I definitely appreciate it.