Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

Any god(X) which might actually exist, would be likely to have existed before humans. Therefore any gods spoken of by humans are human stories. They may have some resemblance to X or they may not, as they are expressions of the human mind rather than X.

You are referring the gods in these stories, not X.

Perhaps you can tell me now why X doesn't exist?

Perhaps you can tell me why you have to call this thing "X" instead of telling me that there is such a thing and describing it.

 

[Piggy]

I will repeat again, when it comes to the deistic god it is not the case that we are left with "you could never have heard of it" because the path to the deistic god goes through an examination of being. We are talking about the possibility of such a god existing are we not?

We would be, if "such a god" meant anything under these circumstances.

But it doesn't.

It's like I said, I can look at the hoofmarks in the mud behind my house, and I can say "Maybe a unicorn made these marks and then ran off and I'll never see it", but that doesn't make unicorns more likely.

Similarly, whatever you mean by "god", claiming that it created the universe and then disappeared doesn't make it any more likely.

The deistic fallacy is to look at the claim "God might have created the universe and then declined to interfere with it" as if it were some sort of description of a god, which it clearly is not.

We know that it's not, because we can imagine all sorts of things that could have done exactly this, and they don't all have to be gods.

So if you want to claim that "God made the universe and then stopped interfering" rather than "something made the universe and then stopped interfering", you have to tell me what exactly it is about the something that would distinguish it as a god from all the other possibilities that are not gods.

If you find a defensible god through the "examination of being" then let's hear what it is.

 

[Piggy]

Second issue, when it comes to what you refer to as the grad student god, my impression was that you were referring to a deist god with that example. If you mean a caretaker god, then that's fine too. But the issue we are discussing is whether such a god could exist not whether someone would pray to it to save their child. There is no telling what a person might do with an underlying god belief. And we know that people have and do worship a deist type god.

You're right, we're discussing whether any god could exist, the kind that people pray to for deliverance, or the kind that people feel an ineffable love for without being able to describe it.

No argument from me.

And I don't put the grad student god anywhere in the range between the two, because I don't think anyone believes in such a thing and considers it god. (Which is why it's important when a definition of god describes such a thing.)

Like I've said, the point is that there's the older concept of god, which is disprovable and false, and then there's the (relatively) recent concept of god, which is non-disprovable but nonsensical, and all gods exist somewhere along that continuum.

If you think there's another pole at work, I'd like to know what it is.

But in any case, the problem with the deistic approach is that it fails to describe what it is that is supposed to have done the creating. No small detail, that.

 

[Piggy]

You have to change your perspective. That all we can see is the laws of physics doesn't mean that a god that creates the universe and controls the laws of physics is the same as not-god. The alternative to the theist believing in such a god is non-existence, no universe, not physics without a god controlling it. What's left over in your Venn diagram from the theist's perspective is everything because they approach the issue from an entirely different perspective from you.

"Perspective" is not an accurate term here, I don't think.

You and I can look at a thing from different perspectives, depending on where we're standing.

But if I simply declare that nothing you see is really there, and something you would see if it were there (but it's not) actually is there, well, we have a problem.

Yes, people who believe in gods can describe those gods. That's what's in the non-overlapping space for them.

So why isn't there anything in that space for you, and yet you're still arguing that side?

I've been saying this over and over, in every way I know how....

If there's something in that non-overlapping space -- the space between what the world is with the god, and what the world is without the god -- then to be real, to exist, it must in some way, shape, or form be disprovable, even if such proof isn't yet attainable.

And if a theist says that without god there is no universe, well, either they're identical or the universe is in god. Fine.

In the first case, god vanishes. In the second, we're back to the question, look at the universe, see any gods?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We would be, if "such a god" meant anything under these circumstances.

But it doesn't.

It's like I said, I can look at the hoofmarks in the mud behind my house, and I can say "Maybe a unicorn made these marks and then ran off and I'll never see it", but that doesn't make unicorns more likely.

Similarly, whatever you mean by "god", claiming that it created the universe and then disappeared doesn't make it any more likely.

The deistic fallacy is to look at the claim "God might have created the universe and then declined to interfere with it" as if it were some sort of description of a god, which it clearly is not.

We know that it's not, because we can imagine all sorts of things that could have done exactly this, and they don't all have to be gods.

So if you want to claim that "God made the universe and then stopped interfering" rather than "something made the universe and then stopped interfering", you have to tell me what exactly it is about the something that would distinguish it as a god from all the other possibilities that are not gods.

If you find a defensible god through the "examination of being" then let's hear what it is.

Wait a second. You said that you know that no gods exist, not that gods must perform some sort of function in the world to be called gods. We've been over this -- the de-definition notion that you mentioned earlier is not correct historically. Deistic and other types of gods have been discussed by thinkers for centuries, millenia before scientific progress made enough strides to create a need for de-definition. We all know that theists today de-define to protect god notions, but the terms of the debate were set in the past.

There is no deist-god fallacy. That there are other possible explanations for the universe doesn't matter when we discuss whether or not a god might exist. All I can do is stare at you dumbfounded if you want to tell me that a deist god isn't a god. Frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what you could mean by that. People have defined god as the creator of the universe -- and by that they mean the universe in its original meaning not creator of a local universe within a larger multiverse. They say that god is responsible for being because god is being itself.

The thing that distinguishes god from not god is that in one scenario things exist and in the other nothing exists. That is the theist perspective.

You're right, we're discussing whether any god could exist, the kind that people pray to for deliverance, or the kind that people feel an ineffable love for without being able to describe it.

No argument from me.

And I don't put the grad student god anywhere in the range between the two, because I don't think anyone believes in such a thing and considers it god. (Which is why it's important when a definition of god describes such a thing.)

Like I've said, the point is that there's the older concept of god, which is disprovable and false, and then there's the (relatively) recent concept of god, which is non-disprovable but nonsensical, and all gods exist somewhere along that continuum.

If you think there's another pole at work, I'd like to know what it is.

But in any case, the problem with the deistic approach is that it fails to describe what it is that is supposed to have done the creating. No small detail, that.

You've now, as far as I can see, simply stated that for a given definition of god no gods exist. Well, that's trivially true. If you want to limit the definition of god to Zeus, Coyote, and Angra Mainyu clones then gods don't exist (most likely). No one generally argues that point because it doesn't tell us much. What we do argue is that gods don't exist covers all definitions of god.

I don't accept your de-definition argument. I do not accept the argument that there is this relatively recent concept of god that is non-disprovable unless you agree to move 'relatively recent' back 2500 years or so. Those concepts were not historically part of an attempt to de-define god to make gods safe from examination. Saying that's what happened is simply wrong historically. There have always been numerous conceptions of what god is. The non-disprovable type of god is not new. Its conception depended on a certain level of sophisticated thought, or so it seems, but those ideas could have originated before writing existed. There is no way for us to access that sort of information.

That type of god is not nonsensical. I have to disagree with you again. It is conceptualized as the ground of being, as intelligent, as providing intent to the universe itself. It has been conceptualized as holding the universe together among many other characteristics. That folks cannot completely describe being itself should come as no shock to anyone; that limitation of our language and thinking abilities does not make this kind of god nonsensical. We have the same problem without even thinking of there being a god when it comes to understanding fundamentals.

"Perspective" is not an accurate term here, I don't think.

You and I can look at a thing from different perspectives, depending on where we're standing.

But if I simply declare that nothing you see is really there, and something you would see if it were there (but it's not) actually is there, well, we have a problem.

Yes, people who believe in gods can describe those gods. That's what's in the non-overlapping space for them.

So why isn't there anything in that space for you, and yet you're still arguing that side?

I've been saying this over and over, in every way I know how....

If there's something in that non-overlapping space -- the space between what the world is with the god, and what the world is without the god -- then to be real, to exist, it must in some way, shape, or form be disprovable, even if such proof isn't yet attainable.

And if a theist says that without god there is no universe, well, either they're identical or the universe is in god. Fine.

In the first case, god vanishes. In the second, we're back to the question, look at the universe, see any gods?

OK, maybe this gets to the meat of the matter.

Perspective, whatever. I needed a placeholder word there.

If you say that in the non-overlapping space there must be something left over that is disprovable, then you have stacked the deck. For something to be disprovable it must be a part of the universe and it must be material. You've defined god out of existence. You've stated, in essence, gods don't exist within materialism. We already knew that.

You could have just said 'materialism' and be done with it. There are other potential monisms, however, that do include god.

As to why I argue it? I've already answered that several times -- I'm not sure that you are right. I think that you probably overstepped the bounds in the statement that you made that you know that no gods exist. I don't think that is the kind of thing that anyone could know.

 

[Limbo]

As to why I argue it? I've already answered that several times -- I'm not sure that you are right. I think that you probably overstepped the bounds in the statement that you made that you know that no gods exist. I don't think that is the kind of thing that anyone could know.

On the other hand, knowing that a god exists is the sort of thing someone could know, from personal experience.

 

[laca]

On the other hand, knowing that a god exists is the sort of thing someone could know, from personal experience.

No. You're equating knowing with believing. They do not mean the same thing.

 

[punshhh]

No. You're equating knowing with believing. They do not mean the same thing.

No it is not necessary to hold a belief in something which you can see existing before your eyes.
During an epiphany a person experiences a profound revelation of divinity revealed from the core of their being. It is more real than ordinary reality.

After such an experience a belief in God is not necessary as the person knows God.

 

[punshhh]

Perhaps you can tell me why you have to call this thing "X" instead of telling me that there is such a thing and describing it.

The X represents a potential thing in the set of things outside the knowledge bubble of humanity.

If we have another venn diagram where there are two circles, one(a) with every bit of human knowledge and thought and anything a human has imagined.
The second circle(b) is everything that exists.

Circle (a) is inside circle (b), there is no part of (a) which can be outside (b) because if something is in (a) it exists.

However there is a part of (b) which does not overlap (a), how can we possibly know what is in it.

There must be a non overlapping bit because (a) gets larger over time with new discoveries and ideas and fills a new bit of (b) which was previously non overlapping.

If there is a no overlapping bit of (b), whatever is in it is represented by X and we have no way of knowing what X is, how many X's there are and if any of them resemble God/god.

 

[laca]

The X represents a potential thing in the set of things outside the knowledge bubble of humanity.

If we have another venn diagram where there are two circles, one(a) with every bit of human knowledge and thought and anything a human has imagined.
The second circle(b) is everything that exists.

OK...

Circle (a) is inside circle (b), there is no part of (a) which can be outside (b) because if something is in (a) it exists.

Fail. You just asserted that anything any human ever imagined existed or exists... That's just plain stupid.

However there is a part of (b) which does not overlap (a), how can we possibly know what is in it.

There must be a non overlapping bit because (a) gets larger over time with new discoveries and ideas and fills a new bit of (b) which was previously non overlapping.

Again, (a) contains a lot of stuff that's not real. So the growth of (a) does not necessarily fill a new bit of (b). Fail again.

Conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about. Stop it.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I haven't kept track of this thread, so before I have to comb through 30 pages I think I'll just ask:

Is Nicole Friedman still here, and does she feel welcome?

 

[laca]

I haven't kept track of this thread, so before I have to comb through 30 pages I think I'll just ask:

Is Nicole Friedman still here, and does she feel welcome?

No and no.

 

[Limbo]

No. You're equating knowing with believing. They do not mean the same thing.

No, you're just assuming that I'm equating knowing with believing. You don't know what I may or may not know.

I'm a Christian mystic. I've been having mystical experiences all my life. I'm also familiar with comparative mysticism, comparative religion, Jungian psychology and parapsychology. All these combine to give me a pretty good idea of what I know and what I've experienced and how these experiences are described in other mystical traditions and mythologies. There is nothing abnormal about my experiences. Most people living or dead have had mystical experiences of one kind or another, and to some degree or another. It's part of being human, and pursuing our mystical potential is our birthright.

 

[tsig]

No, you're just assuming that I'm equating knowing with believing. You don't know what I may or may not know.

I'm a Christian mystic. I've been having mystical experiences all my life. I'm also familiar with comparative mysticism, comparative religion, Jungian psychology and parapsychology. All these combine to give me a pretty good idea of what I know and what I've experienced and how these experiences are described in other mystical traditions and mythologies. There is nothing abnormal about my experiences. Most people living or dead have had mystical experiences of one kind of another. It's part of being human, and pursuing our mystical potential is our birthright.

Why so have I, that's why I'm qualified to say that all mysticism is strictly in your head.

 

[tsig]

No, you're just assuming that I'm equating knowing with believing. You don't know what I may or may not know.

I'm a Christian mystic. I've been having mystical experiences all my life. I'm also familiar with comparative mysticism, comparative religion, Jungian psychology and parapsychology. All these combine to give me a pretty good idea of what I know and what I've experienced and how these experiences are described in other mystical traditions and mythologies. There is nothing abnormal about my experiences. Most people living or dead have had mystical experiences of one kind or another, and to some degree. It's part of being human, and pursuing our mystical potential is our birthright.

Contradiction in terms, the mystic experience leads one beyond the sectarian terms of division and into the true light of union where we see that the fundamental substance is one,

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

On the other hand, knowing that a god exists is the sort of thing someone could know, from personal experience.

No, I'm afraid not. Personal experience must be interpreted within a context; and we know that our senses are prone to error. You can no more know that gods exist than you can know that gods don't exist.

 

[zooterkin]

No it is not necessary to hold a belief in something which you can see existing before your eyes.
During an epiphany a person experiences a profound revelation of divinity revealed from the core of their being. It is more real than ordinary reality.

After such an experience a belief in God is not necessary as the person knows God.

Or you could do some research into how the brain works.

 

[Limbo]

No, I'm afraid not. Personal experience must be interpreted within a context; and we know that our senses are prone to error. You can no more know that gods exist than you can know that gods don't exist.

Shakespeare would probably disagree.

From Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with the Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these God-images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - Gods - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance. Veridical psychic experiences.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Piggy,

I've been thinking about this, and what I've concluded is that the Venn diagram argument is wrong.

The reason it is wrong, I think, points to why we continue having discussions between theists and atheists and also why they never get anywhere.

You assume your conclusion with this argument. And before I move any further, this issue of assuming one's conclusion is symmetrical with the argument on both sides. I had a sense of this throughout but couldn't see it because I'm not a theist and don't think the way they do.

The condition of the laws of physics existing without god already assumes the function of god, which is creation. One stance posits that the laws of physics look like they do with no need for a god. That's fine if we assume from the outset that intention is not part of the fabric of the cosmos. But that is one game; and that game has no room for god. If thought through there is simply no possibility for a god in that scenario.

Contrast this with idealism which begins with a god, or Mind. Idealism assumes Mind (a traditional philosophical conception of god) and everything follows. The laws of physics exist only as thoughts in the mind of god, so no god means no laws of physics. Substance dualism simply moves the issue back a step and separates Mind from matter, but the thinking is the same -- no Mind and no matter, no laws of physics.

There are two separate games, and they are not symmetrical -- in one we see the laws of physics without god but there is no room for god. In the other we see the laws of physics only with god and there is no room for the laws of physics without god. You cannot subtract one from the other because they begin with entirely different assumptions.

I think there are plenty of arguments against theism, but I'm afraid that I don't think the Venn diagram helps.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Shakespeare would probably disagree.

From Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with the Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these God-images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - Gods - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance. Veridical psychic experiences.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.

Depends entirely on how one defines god. As a fabulator, and as you have laid out, Shakespeare did not necessarily think of god in the same way that we have been discussing in this thread.

Discussing god from a story perspective makes much more sense than the way that we generally do it here.