Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Complexity]

The condition of the laws of physics existing without god already assumes the function of god, which is creation.

And you pulled this out of where?

No, no, and no.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And you pulled this out of where?

No, no, and no.

That would be the entire history of religious discussion. Are you suggesting that theists do not consider god as the creator? I think you need to take a step back and look at what I wrote without preconceptions about what you think I mean.

How many times do I have to tell you guys that I am not arguing for the existence of god. I am arguing with Piggy's statement.

 

[punshhh]

OK...



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



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.

I suggest you have another think about that, are you saying that the contents of thoughts don't exist?

For example does the Mona Lisa exist or not?

 

[Limbo]

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.

What makes it more than mere story are the verifiable psychic experiences that can be granted by the well lets call them god-images.

 

[tsig]

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.

The world is as we see it no god(s) needs to be added.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What makes it more than mere story are the verifiable psychic experiences that can be granted by the well lets call them god-images.

Sorry, but there's a huge assumption in there -- that the psychic experiences refer to something other than the same story making tendencies of our brains, that there is another reality, a world behind this world. I don't make that assumption. I do not believe that this it is true.

 

[Limbo]

Sorry, but there's a huge assumption in there -- that the psychic experiences refer to something other than the same story making tendencies of our brains, that there is another reality, a world behind this world. I don't make that assumption. I do not believe that this it is true.

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

 

[Complexity]

That would be the entire history of religious discussion. Are you suggesting that theists do not consider god as the creator? I think you need to take a step back and look at what I wrote without preconceptions about what you think I mean.

How many times do I have to tell you guys that I am not arguing for the existence of god. I am arguing with Piggy's statement.

You aren't doing this very well.

The sentence I quoted wasn't qualified - it was stated as fact.

Are you still playing "Devil's Advocate"?

I stand with Piggy, and if you weren't unnecessarily prolonging this tortuous discussion, I might be inclined to explain why.

As it is, the last thing I want is induce more posts like the ones in this thread.

 

[tsig]

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

You might want to watch the overuse of the first person singular.

 

[punshhh]

Fair enough..we can drop this. Just keep in mind that the decision that there is no god is always tentative to new evidence just like every other claim. Even the strongest atheist admits this but when dealing with theists it's best to not make this distinction because it just confuses the matter.



That is fine, but remember that X can be X and it's exact logical opposite ~X.

That can't be. It's like proving that 2+2=4 and 2+2= ~4. It is an error and that is what makes the argument fail. That is why I say that when you prove anything you prove nothing. You are attempting to prove anything. It doesn't work. You need another form of argument. That argument will take the form of a formal scientific proof with logic and evidence but at that point our bubble would have touched X and included it.

Are you just saying that there are things we don't know? If so then it has been admitted. Are you saying that God/X is hiding there? If so then again it has been admitted as a possibility but a useless one and not meeting the definition of god as is commonly accepted by most believers.

So what exactly are we still talking about?

We were, or I was at least, talking about Piggy's statement. It seems now that Piggy has mellowed his tone, indeed he says now that there must be a creator of some sort.

Going back to X and notX, I don't think we can presume to define or limit what is outside the knowledge bubble even by exercising logic. As it may not be limited in the way we are limited. This is why I say X could be anything atall, including something which defies logic, which is inconceivable, or something else entirely.

 

[Dani]

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

Is it possible to test those visions somehow?

 

[Daald]

We were, or I was at least, talking about Piggy's statement. It seems now that Piggy has mellowed his tone, indeed he says now that there must be a creator of some sort.

Remember those two definitions I listed. He is firmly on number 2. His tone hasn't mellowed he has clarified. If God is anything and something did create the universe then God created the universe. Again the term god is being used so generically that you can place it everywhere. He is arguing that is stupid and a de-definition of God.

Going back to X and notX, I don't think we can presume to define or limit what is outside the knowledge bubble even by exercising logic. As it may not be limited in the way we are limited. This is why I say X could be anything atall, including something which defies logic, which is inconceivable, or something else entirely.

Drawing conclusions from ignorance though is silly, which is my point.

Take the knowledge bubble of a child. Is he justified to believe that 2+2=anything just because it is outside his knowledge? To me it seems like you are claiming that he is justified. Eventually that child will learn that the answer is 4. If other children claim that the answer is unknowable or that the answer is god or that the answer is metaphysical and outside our reality and that the answer is only reachable through mediation or revelation are being silly. There is an answer and we can take logical concrete steps to arrive to the answer. In the meanwhile not every crackpot idea should be accepted.

 

[Resume]

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

All you have to do to change the world is demonstrate this ability.

Do you want to change the world?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's cool. I can totally understand that. I decided to go one step further and I tested it myself. I chose a path of meditation, and thanks to Divine Grace I got verifiable results. For example vivid visions of the future that come true minutes later. Dreams that come true. That sort of thing. After years of it, you just sort of get used to it.

To add to all of the above replies, consider me from Missouri.

Claims of a world behind this world are extraordinary claims. Support for such a claim requires extraordinary evidence. Hearsay evidence is a dime a dozen. A clear demonstration of your ability could supply extraordinary evidence if well controlled.


ETA: Or did you mean that it's evidence for you and that's good enough for you?

 

[dafydd]

I suggest you have another think about that, are you saying that the contents of thoughts don't exist?

For example does the Mona Lisa exist or not?

A painting of her exists but she is brown bread. I would have thought that even the meanest intelligence would know that.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

All you have to do to change the world is demonstrate this ability.

Do you want to change the world?

I already know Limbo's answer:

"The world is not ready, and would not let me show you. Even if I could, the negativity of your skeptical minds would blind you."

Translation: I can only turn invisible when no one is watching me.

 

[tsig]

Is it possible to test those visions somehow?

Some see visions with their eyes wide open and others see visions with their eyes closed and these are dangerous men for they will walk into walls and break their noses.

 

[laca]

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

Wrong. Personal experience is highly unreliable. You need to rule out mundane explanations. Which you clearly have not done.

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.

How nice. Now, what exactly constitutes knowledge in all that babble?

 

[laca]

Shakespeare would probably disagree.

Shakespeare? Really? That must be the most lame appeal to authority I've ever seen.

 

[laca]

I suggest you have another think about that, are you saying that the contents of thoughts don't exist?

I'm saying you have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. You defined two sets and asserted that one is a subset of the other. The first set included "everything a human has imagined". The second set was "everything that exists". You therefore said that everything a human has imagined exists. Not only the idea of it exists, but it exists. You want to backtrack?