Do you know everything about the universe?

[Piggy]

Oh, it would seem that it's YOU, not I who have a definition of God in mind.

Yes, it would seem that way. And the fact that you believe any and every thing could be God, and/or that you believe you can make meaningful statements or provide proofs regarding the potential existence of God, without addressing any of the qualities of God, is a fatal flaw that scuttles any argument you may present.

There is no meaningful way to answer any questions regarding an entity's potential reality absent the presentation of any qualities which adhere to it.

You can keep asserting this over and over and over again and it doesn't change anything.

You're right. Nothing has changed. You're still talking nonsense.

 

[politas]

Bullcrud.

I can talk about objects of a class very easily.

I can talk about circles without telling you their radius. I need not precisely define something to talk about it. In fact my argument is STRONGER for not narrowing it down. It can be used for many things, not just "God." A more generic proof is superior to a specific one. It's more useful.

Only if you define the characteristics of the class.

As long as you refuse to define "god" at all in your argument, then your argument is just plain pointless.

See, part of the problem is that every single actual definition of "god" that I've come across is either logically inconsistent, or irrelevant.

 

[Piggy]

Yes it does. I'm tired of you asserting things. Start backing up your assertions or I'll start throwing them in the bit bucket where they belong.

Please do. If you believe that drkitten didn't demonstrate that your unsupported assertion is incorrect, and if you believe you can define God as a cube of carbon, and that I'm free to define God as Eric Clapton, then we can't have a conversation.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Yes, it would seem that way. And the fact that you believe any and every thing could be God, and/or that you believe you can make meaningful statements or provide proofs regarding the potential existence of God, without addressing any of the qualities of God, is a fatal flaw that scuttles any argument you may present.

Another unfounded assertion -> bit bucket

There is no meaningful way to answer any questions regarding an entity's potential reality absent the presentation of any qualities which adhere to it.

Achem... It's a refutation of the strong atheist position. The strong atheist position would be the one doing the defining.

Rather than say it can't be done, why not refute where the error was in the proof? Afterall if it can't be done, then it wasn't done. This should be esay for you.

You're right. Nothing has changed. You're still talking nonsense.

bit bucket

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

every single actual definition of "god" that I've come across is either logically inconsistent, or irrelevant.

Which is why, I suspect, HA is attempting to avoid defining God, even though in doing so he has rendered his "proof" meaningless.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Only if you define the characteristics of the class.

As long as you refuse to define "god" at all in your argument, then your argument is just plain pointless.

See, part of the problem is that every single actual definition of "god" that I've come across is either logically inconsistent, or irrelevant.

The class in mind is possible objects which are not sets. I've stated this a number of times. It's a large class to be sure.

I have no intention of defining God. It's not relavent to the refuting of the strong atheist position.

An irrelevant god that exists must still be precluded by a strong atheist's position.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

It's a refutation of the strong atheist position. The strong atheist position would be the one doing the defining.

Rather than say it can't be done, why not refute where the error was in the proof? Afterall if it can't be done, then it wasn't done. This should be esay for you.

Why bother? You've ignored the ones that have already been presented, except for going through the show of rewording one statement without changing its meaning.

I've already presented the strong atheist position. GOD (the uber-concept) is so incoherent that no meaningful statements can adhere to it. Sub-theories must either be contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or redundant, on the grounds that God either does not interact with our universe (empty) or interacts in ways consistent with natural law (redundant) or interacts in ways not consistent with natural law (contrary to fact).

 

[HeavyAaron]

Please do. If you believe that drkitten didn't demonstrate that your unsupported assertion is incorrect, and if you believe you can define God as a cube of carbon, and that I'm free to define God as Eric Clapton, then we can't have a conversation.

You clearly don't know what an assertion is, do you? You keep making them. You keep stating that my conclusion is an assertion (right or wrong a conclustion is not an assertion.)

You don't have to keep talking. But yes, terms can be defined in any way whatsoever, as long as the meaning is clear. This can't be news to you.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Why bother? You've ignored the ones that have already been presented, except for going through the show of rewording one statement without changing its meaning.

It very much changed the meaning. That you don't see that isn't my problem.

I've already presented the strong atheist position. GOD (the uber-concept) is so incoherent that no meaningful statements can adhere to it.

Assertion -> bit bucket

Sub-theories must either be contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or redundant, on the grounds that God either does not interact with our universe (empty) or interacts in ways consistent with natural law (redundant) or interacts in ways not consistent with natural law (contrary to fact).

Assertion -> bit bucket.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Which is why, I suspect, HA is attempting to avoid defining God, even though in doing so he has rendered his "proof" meaningless.

You need not "suspect" anything. I've told you my motivation, several times. The more generic the proof the better.

I've also given you my favorite definition of God. Use that if you must. But it's certainly not required.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

I have no intention of defining God. It's not relavent to the refuting of the strong atheist position.

An irrelevant god that exists must still be precluded by a strong atheist's position.

In what way can an irrelevant God be said to exist?

An irrelevant (ineffable, transcendent, deistic) God, like an undefined God, is an I-don't-know-what living in I-don't-know-where. It is the same type of thing as an undetectable dog, or a thrak (which I will not tell you what it is).

Claims that these things are "real" or that they "exist" are absurd, in that they require us to re-define "real" and "exist" in ways which are indistinguishable from "unreal" and "not exist". If we adopt that approach (allowing things to be indistinguishable from their opposites or negations) then all sense goes out the window. Therefore, even if you choose to indulge a belief in such things, it is unreasonable to demand that others share your view.

Which means the claim for the potential reality or existence of an irrelevant God fails.

 

[Piggy]

But yes, terms can be defined in any way whatsoever, as long as the meaning is clear. This can't be news to you.

In reality, where I live, terms cannot be defined in any way whatsoever.

It's like Abe Lincoln said: How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

[Piggy]

I've also given you my favorite definition of God. Use that if you must.

Do you really want me to shred the ontological definition for you? I can, of course. No big deal. That old thing's been debunked for centuries.

 

[HeavyAaron]

In what way can an irrelevant God be said to exist?

In the same way that a lot of your assertions do.

An irrelevant (ineffable, transcendent, deistic) God, like an undefined God, is an I-don't-know-what living in I-don't-know-where. It is the same type of thing as an undetectable dog, or a thrak (which I will not tell you what it is).

Claims that these things are "real" or that they "exist" are absurd, in that they require us to re-define "real" and "exist" in ways which are indistinguishable from "unreal" and "not exist". If we adopt that approach (allowing things to be indistinguishable from their opposites or negations) then all sense goes out the window. Therefore, even if you choose to indulge a belief in such things, it is unreasonable to demand that others share your view.

I haven't stated a belief of anything. That's your imagination run wild.

There are plenty of existant things that are completely irrelavent; how about everything outside of the observable universe? Yet they exist just the same. Existance and relavence are not contingent upon one another.

Which means the claim for the potential reality or existence of an irrelevant God fails.

Well at least it wasn't an assertion without reasons for a change.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Do you really want me to shred the ontological definition for you? I can, of course. No big deal. That old thing's been debunked for centuries.

Debunk a definition? No, I think not. You probably meant the proof, not the definition.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

In reality, where I live, terms cannot be defined in any way whatsoever.

It's like Abe Lincoln said: How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Did you completely just ignore the "as long as the meaning is clear" part?

So, you're saying that words have to mean what they mean, and that their meanings aren't whatever we choose them to be?

Aaron

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you know everything about the universe?

Yes or No?

And what does your answer say about god(s), paranormal, supernatural, etc, existing?

Do you know what an appeal to ignorance is?

 

[Piggy]

You clearly don't know what an assertion is, do you? You keep making them. You keep stating that my conclusion is an assertion (right or wrong a conclustion is not an assertion.)

It very much changed the meaning. That you don't see that isn't my problem.

All right, let's have a look at this, then.

Here's your original statement:

Now, to show that X does not exist is to show that X is not in the set S. The only means to do that is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X.

Here's drkitten's reply:

The assertion that "the only means to do that is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X" is demonstably untrue.

There are many other ways that we can demonstrate that X does not exist.

* For example, we can show that the existence of X is incompatible with another object whose existence we can demonstrate. For example, if I can demonstrate the existence of a king of England in 1500, that disproves the existence of an English republic at that time. The cobweb across the door proves that no one has walked through the door today.

* We can demonstrate that the existence of X is logically possible, but contingent on another object whose nonexistence can be demonstrated. For example, Mozart never had any children, therefore he never had any grandchildren. To win Randi's million, one would first need to pass the preliminary -- but no one has passed the preliminary.

* We can demonstrate that all objects outside of a given set S' cannot be X (without knowing them) and then enumerate the elements of S'. For example, I have no red-headed nieces -- and it doesn't matter whether or not there are Vulcans orbiting a distant star that I don't know about, since none of them are my nieces.

Oher methods will no doubt occur to you.

Here, drkitten provides 3 concrete examples of ways in which it is possible to show that X is not in S without examining every element in S.

Here is how you "corrected" your original statement:

"The only means to do that for a arbitrary object X is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X".

All you are doing here is repeating your previous claim, adding "for an arbitrary object X", which was already implicit in your original statement. The meaning has not changed one iota.

drkitten has shown, conclusively, with concrete examples, that there are indeed objects which can be proven not to exist in set S (all the stuff in the universe) without examining every element of the set. Because this is true, you cannot claim that every element of set S must be examined for any arbitrary object, because the set of arbitrary objects includes those which drkitten mentioned in the examples.

If you are defining "an arbitrary object X" to mean "an undefined object", then you don't understand what an arbitrary object is, or you're attempting to make statements about undefined entities, which is nonsense.

Now, shall I debunk the ontological argument for you?

 

[HeavyAaron]

All right, let's have a look at this, then.

Here's your original statement:



Here's drkitten's reply:



Here, drkitten provides 3 concrete examples of ways in which it is possible to show that X is not in S without examining every element in S.

Here is how you "corrected" your original statement:




All you are doing here is repeating your previous claim, adding "for an arbitrary object X", which was already implicit in your original statement. The meaning has not changed one iota.

drkitten has shown, conclusively, with concrete examples, that there are indeed objects which can be proven not to exist in set S (all the stuff in the universe) without examining every element of the set. Because this is true, you cannot claim that every element of set S must be examined for any arbitrary object, because the set of arbitrary objects includes those which drkitten mentioned in the examples.

The examples he gave were not for arbitrary values of X, but for specific ones defined in such a way as to provide additional information. It was a good refute. He was right. The modification changes that. Just ask him.

If you are defining "an arbitrary object X" to mean "an undefined object", then you don't understand what an arbitrary object is, or you're attempting to make statements about undefined entities, which is nonsense.

I'm not. I'm using it in context of elements and sets.

Now, shall I debunk the ontological argument for you?

Why?

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

I haven't stated a belief of anything. That's your imagination run wild.

The word "if" is meaningful here. But let me rephrase. Regardless of whether anyone chooses to indulge a belief in such things, it is unreasonable to claim that anyone else must confer potential reality upon them.

There are plenty of existant things that are completely irrelavent; how about everything outside of the observable universe? Yet they exist just the same. Existance and relavence are not contingent upon one another.

Good point.

But let's examine the difference between a transcendent/ineffable/deistic God and, say, branes in p-brane theory, and to the "7-bolt".

Branes are proposed as a result of verified models of reality. Also, it is possible to propose ways of testing for branes. Therefore, their potential reality (though not their actual existence) must be conceded.

The 7-bolt is a hypothetical piece of space junk. It's just a bolt with a number on it which begins with the digit 7. It may or not be in orbit around the earth, but we know that there is space junk in orbit, and we know that bolts go up on spacecraft, and we know that some parts like bolts have numbers on them. So again, the potential reality (though not the actual existence) of the 7-bolt must be conceded.

What's more, even if we invented a machine that vaporized all the space junk, so that we could never know if the 7-bolt existed, we would still have to concede that it's possible that it might have been real -- even if I just invented the notion out of whole cloth... because I could be coincidentally right.

But a transcendent God is different.

A transcendent God is not required, and does not arise from, any verified model of reality. What's more, a wholly undefined reality must be dreamed up (unlike the mathematically precise spaces where p-branes exist) to accomodate them. Moreover, the transcendent God has no qualities which link it to anything known.

For that reason, unlike p-branes and the 7-bolt, the transcendent (irrelevant) God is a non-thing in a non-space at a non-time. And no one is obliged to grant potential reality to a non-entity like that.