Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[tsig]

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?

Of course, but there's no 'fundamental substance' there.

 

[The Norseman]

By introducing infinity here you are introducing are far more tricky form of argument.
There would be an infinity of Gods emanating from your toenail and an infinity of your toenails emanating from these Gods ad-infinitum

We should stick to the argument we have and keep it simple and perhaps come back to this later.

You have demonstrated that you lack knowledge about infinity so please don't bother.

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.

You and everyone else apparently, cannot come up with a rational, sensible reason for one to exist in the first place.

Again, you say these things as if it were something profound.

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

Also I have provided a definition of an unknown god.

Not a coherent one, no.

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.

So far, humanity has found that the universe works on rational, predictable rules (for lack of a better term). Even things that are perceived as irrational, ultimately are either discovered to be rational or still fit within a rational, comprehensible structure. So far, there has been no reason to suppose otherwise when new concepts or things are posited or discovered.

So far, no one has yet been able to put forth a rational, comprehensible definition of a god-concept that is explorable. It's always the same excuses that you use.

You can't just dream up a god and then say, "yes, this is possible" when there is no mechanism to support the existence of such a being and merely because you dreamt up some attributes that conveniently lie outside of current scientific inquiry.

 

[dafydd]

Punshhh,why do there have to be an infinite amount of different gods? There is no need for such a silly hypothesis. Are there an infinite amount of different leprechauns?

 

[tsig]

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?

Then you're not really arguing from a devils' advocate position.

This is important because you use your da position to shield your arguments from criticism.

 

[tsig]

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?

Generally the da is arguing a position s/he doesn't believe in so at some time you need to shed the false colors and take your stand.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

…and this contempt for philosophy is ironic given that the default dialectic or paradigm (of those to whom philosophy is anathema) is always ‘science’ (whatever that is [because without philosophy, it {science} doesn’t exist]) which is the one area of human endeavor where philosophy has found its most successful application.

I think a great deal of this aversion is a consequence of the indeterminate nature of metaphysics. Science is about ‘things’ that apparently exist. Metaphysics seems to be about things that don’t (thinking, understanding, being) and is therefore automatically associated with all those other words that JREFers typically consign to the sewer…spirituality, the supernatural, god, etc. Rejecting philosophy makes it much easier to dismiss anything that philosophy in any way pertains to. Unfortunately the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Throw out philosophy, and you throw out science as well….not to mention the very reasoning that allows you to conclude that anything at all should be thrown out.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Except you don't. Which is why philosophy and philosophers are not helpful, because they use words to argue nonsense positions that fly in the face of objective reality and invent meaningless concepts which they like to think are deeply meaningful.

 

[the PC apeman]

... philosophy and philosophers are not helpful, because they use words to argue nonsense positions that fly in the face of objective reality and invent meaningless concepts which they like to think are deeply meaningful.

Psst. What you are saying here is an example of doing philosophy. Really bad self-defeating philosophy but philosophy none the less.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Then you're not really arguing from a devils' advocate position.

This is important because you use your da position to shield your arguments from criticism.

How am I using my position to shield the argument from criticism? The argument is clearly stated out there for anyone to deal with.

And I am arguing a devil's advocate position. I don't know what the answers here are. I assumed a position opposed to Piggy's to see where the argument leads. If that isn't devil's advocate I don't know what is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Generally the da is arguing a position s/he doesn't believe in so at some time you need to shed the false colors and take your stand.

What false colors? I have to know if it is possible or not possible for gods to exist before I can argue any of this? How does that work?

 

[tsig]

Psst. What you are saying here is an example of doing philosophy. Really bad self-defeating philosophy but philosophy none the less.

Psst. What you are saying here is an example of an insult. Really bad self-defeating insult but insult none the less.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course, but there's no 'fundamental substance' there.

Are atoms more fundamental than rocks? Are atoms things? Do atoms exist?

 

[tsig]

What false colors? I have to know if it is possible or not possible for gods to exist before I can argue any of this? How does that work?

Gee, Wasp, I was just taking the devils advocate position here, I really didn't mean any of it, see how that works?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Gee, Wasp, I was just taking the devils advocate position here, I really didn't mean any of it, see how that works?

That's not in any way what I said. First, you are not referring here to my argument but to my underlying beliefs. What possible difference does it make what my underlying belief about gods is regarding the argument made? That was what you just said -- that I was protecting the argument. I want you to explain to me how I have protected the argument in this way. What I said was that I don't know if god's are impossible but that I assumed the opposite position in order to argue the point.

I have made my position clear. You can read this thread if you want to know what it is.

 

[the PC apeman]

Psst. What you are saying here is an example of doing philosophy. Really bad self-defeating philosophy but philosophy none the less.

Psst. What you are saying here is an example of an insult. Really bad self-defeating insult but insult none the less.

Should I be insulted by this?

 

[tsig]

That's not in any way what I said. First, you are not referring here to my argument but to my underlying beliefs. What possible difference does it make what my underlying belief about gods is regarding the argument made? That was what you just said -- that I was protecting the argument. I want you to explain to me how I have protected the argument in this way. What I said was that I don't know if god's are impossible but that I assumed the opposite position in order to argue the point.

I have made my position clear. You can read this thread if you want to know what it is.

If I understand your position it's that god is possible because everything is composed of fundamental substance.

 

[tsig]

Should I be insulted by this?

Regardless, it'll be philosophy.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Nice summary.

All I'm saying is that an atheist cannot say gods outside the knowledge bubble don't exist.

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.

I am happy to re-label this god (X), I think we have already discussed X.

It is not necessary to go round the mulberry bush again. Perhaps we should examine the definition of X, as this appears to be the direction we are going.

Where do mythical gods(gods within the knowledge bubble) intersect with X(which is outside the knowledge bubble)?

I am saying that we can speculate that X = the precursor to the known universe on two counts.

1,the force or energy which drives or manifests 2.

2,the precursor to the form the known universe takes, ie the laws of physics/nature.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If I understand your position it's that god is possible because everything is composed of fundamental substance.

No.

 

[Daald]

Nice summary.

All I'm saying is that an atheist cannot say gods outside the knowledge bubble don't exist.

I think this was admitted to a while back and that the second definition is being used. You are objecting based on the first definition and the wires are getting crossed.

I am happy to re-label this god (X), I think we have already discussed X.

It is not necessary to go round the mulberry bush again. Perhaps we should examine the definition of X, as this appears to be the direction we are going.

Where do mythical gods(gods within the knowledge bubble) intersect with X(which is outside the knowledge bubble)?

I am saying that we can speculate that X = the precursor to the known universe on two counts.

1,the force or energy which drives or manifests 2.

2,the precursor to the form the known universe takes, ie the laws of physics/nature.

No I mean don't name it X. Just name it anything and see what it does to your argument.

For example:
X is the precursor to our universe.
Anything is the precursor to our universe.

Where do mythical gods intersect with X?
Where do mythical gods intersect with anything?

God/X/Anything really stands for absolutely anything. So when you prove anything you have really proved nothing