IPU's vs. Hong Kong

[Yahzi]

Okay then, what do you call a person who says either:
"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?

Insane. Or rational. Depending on how absurd you want to get at stretching the meanings of "believe" and "know."

I think a Deist is a Theist without any other qualification: in other words, Theism is the base category, and Deists are those that fit into the base category but no other. So it's natural to confuse the two, since both are identical (except one has subcategories).

In the same sense that different descriptions of clouds, or evolution(!), exist does not disprove the existence of clouds or evolution (no matter how much Creationists like to argue that it does), the fast that different descriptions of gods exist does not disprove the existence of gods.

This is very confused. Nobody argues against this statement, because it isn't relevant or even particularly meaningful.

Contradictory descriptions of clouds serve to disprove descriptions of clouds. If all your descriptions of clouds contradict each other, then what that tells you is you don't have a very good description of clouds. Now, when you define clouds to be "water suspended in air," suddenly all the contradictions vanish: regardless of shape, all clouds fit that description. What that tells you is that you now have a useful description.

The fact that contradictory (not just different, but mutually exclusive) descriptions of god are presented tells us we don't have a good description of god. The problem is that there is no definition of god which does not contradict the evidence. While this does not prove that god does not exist, it does make it irrational to continue to believe in god and the evidence at the same time. (Many religious people solve this condrum by simply denying reality.)

If you think you have a basic description of god, then post it. But be forewarned: no matter what it is, somebody somewhere disagrees. And there is no empirical test you can apply to show that they are wrong. That is sort of the point: because there is nothing there at all, people tend to be unable to agree on what imaginary construct is there. While this is not proof against god, it is a significant difficulty that theism must overcome.

 

[Beleth]

[P]eople tend to be unable to agree on what imaginary construct is there. While this is not proof against god, it is a significant difficulty that theism must overcome.

So we are in agreement, then.

Thank goodness. For most of the time I spent reading your post, I thought you were trying to refute me!

 

[Fade]

So we are in agreement, then.

Thank goodness. For most of the time I spent reading your post, I thought you were trying to refute me!

I didn't think it was possible to roll my eyes that much. Selective reading is a skill that I think I need to acquire. With it, everyone says exactly what I want them to say.

 

[Beleth]

And that's three. Three utterly useless, meritless posts by Fade.

Welcome to ignore, Fade.

 

[Dancing David]

If you think you have a basic description of god.

God is a subset of spiritual experiences which are a subset of human experiences which are a subset of reality(a rather limited subset of reality)

So if each human is different than there is good reason to suspect that each experienec will be different.

Still not saying that you will bump into Jumbo,baby and spirit.

 

[Fade]

And that's three. Three utterly useless, meritless posts by Fade.

Welcome to ignore, Fade.

This is priceless in it's irony.

 

[Beleth]

Let me go into more detail regarding my quasi-snide reply to Yahzi's last post.

My whole reason for bringing up the cloud analogy was to show that the idea that differing descriptions of an entity do not disprove the existence of that entity. Yahzi attempted to refute my analogy. Whether he succeeded or not is immaterial, as he twice conceded my conclusion. And when I saw that, I didn't see any further need to argue.

Now, when you define clouds to be "water suspended in air," suddenly all the contradictions vanish: regardless of shape, all clouds fit that description. What that tells you is that you now have a useful description.

The problem is that when you get to this basic a level of description, you start including a lot of other things in your description too. Surely both steam and humidity can be defined as "water suspended in air" yet neither of them are clouds.

You can start to add more and more qualifiers to the definition: that they have to be a certain height above the ground, or a certain size, or have certain visual features, or whatnot. And eventually you will have a page-long definition, full of "or"s.

Just Like God. You can either have a short description, like "a consciousness higher than ours", that can include a lot of stuff you didn't want to include, or you can have a laundry list full of old-men-with-beards and immortal-coyotes and eight-armed-dancing-women, all connected to each other with the word "or".

But this is not my point. My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.

Yes, it is "a significant difficulty that theists must overcome". Yes, they do. I am not disputing that. I am just saying that the fact that there are different descriptions of God does not in itself prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yahzi agreed with me on this, so I saw no further need to belabor the point. Now, of course, I do see the need to belabor the point, which is what I have done here.

 

[SFB]

But this is not my point. My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.

To me, it supports the view that human nature is to blame for religions, (G)god(s), and all the ridiculous tales generated on religions' behalf.

 

[Yahzi]

Beleth

My whole reason for bringing up the cloud analogy was to show that the idea that differing descriptions of an entity do not disprove the existence of that entity. Yahzi attempted to refute my analogy.

Yahzi did not try to refute your analogy. Yahzi tried to show that your analogy did not apply, because nobody ever claimed that different descriptions of God disproved the existance of God. Even the people who brought up the extant wildly varying descriptions of God did not intend it to stand as disproof of God. They meant it to prove another point, which you probably are unaware of, because you stopped reading my post.

You can start to add more and more qualifiers to the definition: that they have to be a certain height above the ground, or a certain size, or have certain visual features, or whatnot. And eventually you will have a page-long definition, full of "or"s..

Do people have page-long definitions in their heads? No, they don't. Yet do they ever confuse clouds with humidity or steam? No, they don't. Why do you suppose this is? (FYI: steam is invisible.)

The short answer is because people function more like neural nets than Von Nueman machines. But it doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant. The point is that people do construct usefull descriptions, and descriptions that are mutually exclusive are not considered useful.

My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.

Nobody ever said it did. You win: the argument you are refuting stands as utterly refuted. If you would like to refute a few more arguments that no one is advancing, please start a thread called "Me talking to myself," so I know not to waste time reading it.


What contradictory definitions of God disprove is each individual definition of God. Not the existance of some undefined God, but each particular description. But why am I repeating myself? I am sure you already stopped reading....

 

[Yahzi]

So if each human is different than there is good reason to suspect that each experienec will be different.

This is disproved by the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.

 

[Dancing David]

This is disproved by the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.

I am a firm believer in the Yahzi Baseball Test (TM), but I don't see how it applies.

each of us is different and has unique memories. So if spiritual processes arise as a result of the invokation/evokation of the subconsious then each experience would vary by the contentys of the subconsious.


Have you thought about an informercial, have the people sitting by the pool: "I used the Yahzi Bat(TM) for one week and my irrational thinking just went away....."

 

[Beleth]

Yahzi did not try to refute your analogy. Yahzi tried to show that your analogy did not apply, because nobody ever claimed that different descriptions of God disproved the existance of God.

Fade did. Perhaps you have him on ignore too. I can't say I blame you. In any case, you can see Fade's use of this as disproof by scrolling up and looking at one of Dancing David's posts - the one that starts with "Jumpin horny toads Fade".

But why am I repeating myself? I am sure you already stopped reading....

You are incorrect, sir.

Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.

And neither is experiencing God confused with eating ice cream or playing piano. I am not sure where you think these straw men are getting you.

 

[Yahzi]

Fade did. Perhaps you have him on ignore too. I can't say I blame you. In any case, you can see Fade's use of this as disproof by scrolling up and looking at one of Dancing David's posts - the one that starts with "Jumpin horny toads Fade".

I re-read that post. I stand by my assertion. Fade was not attempting to disprove the existance of god. Fade was asserting that the abscence of repeatable evidence is an indication that the phenomona you are experiencing is merely an artifact of your measurement technique. This is perfectly valid and reasonable.

My bat/ice cream analogy is not a strawman. Every person who gets hit in the head with a bat describes the experience in some way that is compatible with all other bat-hitting descriptions. However a definition is expressed, the fact remains that we can all agree on what getting hit by a bat means.

What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts.

 

[Fade]

What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts.

You need to give me lessons in how to phrase things in such a way that everyone understands them. I tend to speak to people as if I were speaking to myself. I suppose I just assume they know what I'm getting on about.

Suppose it's my fault Beleth wasn't parsing me at all.

 

[Aoidoi]

Beleth, just want to say you do bring up some interesting points. I am more or less an atheist and tend to disagree with your conclusions, but I do appreciate you asking the questions.

Not sure why you got such a rough reaction, I hardly think someone being polite and making interesting arguments deserves to be labeled a troll.

I do especially find the definition of God as a subset of human experience to be interesting. I've been bouncing around the idea that "god" is merely a name for personal ideas and motivations (rather than an actual extant being). Haven't got a solid concept, but it's interesting to think about.

btw, I've got no problem with deists, as there's an implicit statement that since God is unknowable there's no set doctrine that is The One True Path.

(oh, and in this forum every thread is required to define agnostic and atheist at least once )

 

[Beleth]

Thanks, Aoidoi.

People always react harshly at first when their core beliefs are questioned. They an either learn from those reactions, or keep their minds closed. I see a lot of equating of "theist" with "idiot" here, and if that's one of one's core beliefs, then yeah, someone like me is going to get harsh reactions.

There are a lot of theist idiots, to be sure. What some people can't understand is when someone actually has considered all the evidence (or lack thereof) and still comes to a conclusion where there's a place for God - in other words, that there are some theist non-idiots.

 

[Aoidoi]

Oh, I've met some very intelligent theists. People who have thought and considered and have come to the conclusion that God exists. I don't agree with them, but other than the occassional prodding (mostly for conversational fun) I generally don't try to change their minds. I have come to a set of conclusions on how to live my life, but they're subject to change. They have different conclusions and seem to do quite well living their lives within their framework. I might think they're wrong, in a couple cases I wonder if they're deluded or need to seek some professional help, but I don't get upset about them having different opinions.

Everybody has to chose how they want to live, and I don't want to ruin life for other people. Some people seem unable to live without something that an omnipotent creator brings them (whether it be purpose, or moral guidance, or whatever). So long as their choices make them happy and are not destructive I won't interfere.

I won't argue that their god is just a kind of IPU (wrenching back on topic...). They are coming from the argument with a different perspective and I sincerely doubt anyone will be convinced by what amounts to a clever debate tactic. If someone flat out insists that God exists or that Hong Kong doesn't I might probe a bit to see why they have that belief and if it's something that could potentially be changed by discussion, but I'm not going to accuse them of idiocy for disagreeing with me.

The God I don't believe in knows that I make enough mistakes to never be entirely certain of anything.

Anyway, guess that rambled a bit. To pull it a bit more on topic, I have to go with the demonstrability and mundanity of HK as breaking the analogy. The issue with the IPU is merely an example of how if God is unknowable (and it says so in the Bible) then accepting him leaves the door open to an infinite number of non-provable beings.

I take Deism as a bit of a special case since there seems pretty clearly to have been a beginning of the universe, and speculation on the cause is hardly likely to lead to crusades or inquisitions.

 

[Beleth]

What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts.

And yet we know when someone is describing a god, or an encounter with a god.

Maybe "work of art" is a better analogy than "cloud" is. One could describe a painting, or a symphony, or a sculpture, and say that they are all works of art. Yet the words one uses to describe "a painting" are mutually exclusive from the words one uses to describe "a symphony". That doesn't mean that works of art can be logically concluded to be nothing more than measurement artifacts.


But you know what? This is a total sidetrack to my premise anyway. I'm not arguing that an interfering God exists...

 

[Yahzi]

Aoidoi

If someone flat out insists that God exists or that Hong Kong doesn't I might probe a bit to see why they have that belief and if it's something that could potentially be changed by discussion, but I'm not going to accuse them of idiocy for disagreeing with me.

You won't call someone an idiot for not believing that Hong Kong exists?

Then what you are really saying is that you won't call anyone an idiot.

I suppose if we go further down this path of non-absolutness, you wouldn't call someone who thought that Jews should be burned in ovens an idiot.

If you can't accuse people of idiocy over something as obvious as the empirical existance of a city, then how are you going to object when they start rounding up people and putting them in ovens based on the existance of a world-wide conspiracy by aliens from Satan?

But, like Socrates, you are free to espouse any nonsense you want, secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will prevent the Nazis from taking over.

Beleth

What some people can't understand is when someone actually has considered all the evidence (or lack thereof) and still comes to a conclusion where there's a place for God - in other words, that there are some theist non-idiots

If you replace the rather broad "idiot" with "rational," then I disagree. Yes, it is possible to be a theist without being an complete idiot; but no, it is not possible to consider all the evidence and still rationally conclude the existance of god.

And yet we know when someone is describing a god, or an encounter with a god.

No, we don't. Consider that aboriginal descriptions of encounters with gods were taken by early Christians as encounters with demons. Your liberal faith might define "anything" as god, but lots of faiths have actual defintions of god (omnimax, created the world, elephant trunks, twin brother of destruction, etc.) which are simply incompatible.

One could describe a painting, or a symphony, or a sculpture, and say that they are all works of art.

You still don't get it. The description of various works of art are not mutually contradictory and exclusive. The descriptions of god are. While it is true that you can define a category of gods, all of whom share certain characteristics, it is not the case that you can actually instantiate each of those objects, because instantiating any particular one means that the others cannot be instantiated.

The descriptive category is a group of mutually exclusive objects. Only one of them can correspond to actually reality. This is unlike any of the other descriptions you have suggested, and indeed unlike almost all ordinary descriptions of ordinary objects.

I'm not arguing that an interfering God exists

Then you have no argument at all. I leave you with a quote from a notorious theiving coyote dog:

"If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from it's non-existance, then that thing does not exist. We call this Reason." - Yahzi

 

[Beleth]

Yahzi, you are looking at this from a decidedly Christian, the-only-God-is-Yahweh point of view. There are many faiths that are less restrictive in their mutual-exclusion viewpoint. What is a demon, anyway, but a different type of god?

"it is not possible to consider all the evidence and still rationally conclude the existance of god."

*sigh* Repeat after me:
After considering all the evidence, it is just as rational to conclude the existence of a God as it is to conclude the non-existence of a God.

That's because there is no evidence either way, unless you believe the existence of Anything At All is evidence.


The descriptions of a painting are mutually exclusive with the descriptions of a symphony.


I find I can not take the arguments of someone who quotes himself seriously. Especially when the quote is just flat out nonsense. That's not even remotely what we call Reason. It's not even what we call common sense.