• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

tsig said:
On some forums phrases like that will get you lots of pats on the back and a reputation for wisdom and profundity, here it just looks like you're in a hole and digging with all your might.
Click to expand...

The words Icke and David come to mind. They'd lap it up over there.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Oh please, don't. Complexity by his own admission suffers from Asperger's IIRC. It would be a little sad if that drove people off.
Click to expand...


I have Asperger's. I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

He was treated much more patiently and tactfully than he deserved by a great many of us. He's the one who stomped off in a huff.
 
tsig said:
Do you want to pick up the torch and lead us out of the darkness of ignorance in search of the 'ultimate substance'?
Click to expand...

I might have missed something. Isn't it just the "god of the gaps" argument taken to its logical conclusion?

That somewhere, we can't know where,
there is a being, we can't know who,
that does something, we can't know what,
that is fundamentally important to reality as we know it, we can't know how.

In other words, a divine power that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever be able to disprove?
 
the PC apeman said:
I hope the frustration of this thread passes and you will continue to post at JREF. It's tough having to live in the closet here (having to mask simple philosophical concepts to make them more palatable). Most people here would be fine with what you are saying if they could just get past some of their knee-jerk ick factor.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
Do you want to pick up the torch and lead us out of the darkness of ignorance in search of the 'ultimate substance'?
Click to expand...

the PC apeman said:
I have some masochistic tendencies, but hell no.
Click to expand...

You don't mind making statements that imply that you have some deep insight into philosophical concepts that would be unpalatable here but you categorically refuse to discuss those concepts.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Oh please, don't. Complexity by his own admission suffers from Asperger's IIRC. It would be a little sad if that drove people off.
Click to expand...

Poor Complexity, you're willing to throw him under the bus?

What if he decided to never post here again because of your post ?
 
Complexity said:
I have Asperger's. I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

He was treated much more patiently and tactfully than he deserved by a great many of us. He's the one who stomped off in a huff.
Click to expand...

He played the drama queen flounce card and has gotten his ruffle of applause now all that remains to see is if he can stick it.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I might have missed something. Isn't it just the "god of the gaps" argument taken to its logical conclusion?

That somewhere, we can't know where,
there is a being, we can't know who,
that does something, we can't know what,
that is fundamentally important to reality as we know it, we can't know how.

In other words, a divine power that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever be able to disprove?
Click to expand...



Well said.... :clap:
 
tsig said:
Poor Complexity, you're willing to throw him under the bus?

What if he decided to never post here again because of your post ?
Click to expand...

Somehow I can't see that happening. Complexity doesn't storm off in a huff just because people disagree with him, unlike some others. He says what he wants, and doesn't care if others like it or not.

I can't believe some people get so bent out of shape just because other posters don't treat their ideas with the gravitas they imagine they deserve. Why let others have that kind of control over you?

I also don't think it's about winning or losing. Unless there's some trophy ceremony of which I'm unaware.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I might have missed something. Isn't it just the "god of the gaps" argument taken to its logical conclusion?

That somewhere, we can't know where,
there is a being, we can't know who,
that does something, we can't know what,
that is fundamentally important to reality as we know it, we can't know how.

In other words, a divine power that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever be able to disprove?
Click to expand...

Yes. It appears the Wasp would rather quit the board than admit it and PC apeman won't touch it.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
I might have missed something. Isn't it just the "god of the gaps" argument taken to its logical conclusion?

That somewhere, we can't know where,
there is a being, we can't know who,
that does something, we can't know what,
that is fundamentally important to reality as we know it, we can't know how.

In other words, a divine power that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever be able to disprove?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. I think the objection to infinite regress is the same as the objection to the explanation that the world sits on a turtle, which sits on a turtle, on a turtle, on a turtle, on a turtle … and when someone asks how many turtles there are … the answer must be “it is turtles all the way down”. Heck, someone can use the same principle in claiming that god created the universe, as the first mover, created the big bang. And when someone tries to explain that such answer doesn’t really satisfy (e.g., R. Dawkins among others use this objection), because the next question is the obvious “who created that god?”… “Well, another god of course!”

Is there any reason to take infinite regress as a good explanation in general? For instance, we could consider the homunculus argument to be a fallacy when explaining vision (there’s a thinker inside my head, and inside that thinker there’s a thinker inside the thinkers head … all the way down). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
 
tsig said:
Poor Complexity, you're willing to throw him under the bus?

What if he decided to never post here again because of your post ?
Click to expand...

Well that would be unfortunate, to say the least. However I don't see how Complexity's post could be considered "over the line" or sufficient to drive someone away from this forum completely. If Wasp truly leaves, it's his decision which is exaggerated.
 
Belz... said:
Sorry, you have to reach 5,000 posts before you're told about that, and donate 10,000$ to the JREF to become operational skeptic level 1.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'll always be an OS0 and will always have to buy the dough nuts.

There's got to be a way out of this chicken outfit!
 
Belz... said:
Well that would be unfortunate, to say the least. However I don't see how Complexity's post could be considered "over the line" or sufficient to drive someone away from this forum completely. If Wasp truly leaves, it's his decision which is exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Yes, no one is responsible for another's actions, to try and make them so is manipulation. If you want to leave this or any other internet venue it's only necessary to not post, posting your intention to not post implies that you want people to beg you to post which is what happened.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I might have missed something. Isn't it just the "god of the gaps" argument taken to its logical conclusion?

That somewhere, we can't know where,
there is a being, we can't know who,
that does something, we can't know what,
that is fundamentally important to reality as we know it, we can't know how.

In other words, a divine power that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever be able to disprove?
Click to expand...

Yes this deity has been around long before the "god of the gaps" was ever thought of and Piggy can't say it doesn't exist without placing the human intellect on a pedestal.

It may exist regardless, indeed if it does exist it was playing ping pong long before humans crept out of the slime.
 
Last edited:
lupus_in_fabula said:
I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. I think the objection to infinite regress is the same as the objection to the explanation that the world sits on a turtle, which sits on a turtle, on a turtle, on a turtle, on a turtle … and when someone asks how many turtles there are … the answer must be “it is turtles all the way down”. Heck, someone can use the same principle in claiming that god created the universe, as the first mover, created the big bang. And when someone tries to explain that such answer doesn’t really satisfy (e.g., R. Dawkins among others use this objection), because the next question is the obvious “who created that god?”… “Well, another god of course!”

Is there any reason to take infinite regress as a good explanation in general? For instance, we could consider the homunculus argument to be a fallacy when explaining vision (there’s a thinker inside my head, and inside that thinker there’s a thinker inside the thinkers head … all the way down). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
Click to expand...

The infinite regress is an impenetrable barrier between science and the mystery of existence.

I really was surprised when I came to this forum and discovered that no one was taking it into consideration in these theological debates. Or when it was suggested, that it had any relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom