Most irritating theological argument ever

[Bearguin]

The one that got me was the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument.

My wife and I attended an Alpha course (we got halfway through before we stopped going as the discussion leader was a twit).

First night, this was the argument presented. After that, things went downhill pretty quickly.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?

No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.

Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

Scientific hypotheses are based upon (usually) multiple observations and are rigorously tested.
Metaphysical hypotheses are based upon emotion and are rigorously denied testing of any sort.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

Repeatable proof of god(s).


Psydox

So are you now going to take away my inherent capacity, my instinctual desire to be good because I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false.

There is no magical moral sense implanted within people. A conscious is a learned not an innate response.

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate.

Wrong.
A: Why do you beat your kids?
B: Because I love them.

There are as many reasons people do bad actions as there are people. You need to consider that an action viewed by one group is considered 'bad', but when viewed by another group is considered moral.

Ossai
[If I could type correctly, I'd be dangerous!]

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.

Non-sequitur.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Scientific hypotheses are based upon (usually) multiple observations and are rigorously tested.
Metaphysical hypotheses are based upon emotion and are rigorously denied testing of any sort.

Hey, were you born without a brain, or are you just pretending to be stupid in order to elicit a response?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeatable proof of god(s).

Ignores my question. I repeat. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?

See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is a definition, though I am sure you would not find it complete. If there is a different word you would prefer to use, by all means let me know. I think the purpose of words is to facilitate communication. If the word supernatural is not doing that then let's use another.

SUPERNATURAL
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I am not interested in dictionary definitions. I want to know what you mean by the word.

Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
- supernatural noun
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&r-&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-lE/ adverb
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun

Well, by this definition I suppose the point can be made that it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce any observable phenomenon.

Why?

Do you think it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a God?

Nothing is known for certain in this world apart from analytical truths.

How is the concept of God different from the concept of angels? Of Leprechauns? Etc.

I don't know. What are angels and Leprechauns?

Do you think that God exerts any influence on the natural world today? Why?/Why not?

All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.

If it is impossible to know then how is God's existence functionally different than God's nonexistence?

If "God" exists no meaning can be attached to the scenario of a Godless Universe.

Snip the meaningless rantiong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.

Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that conciousness is a natural phenomenon that science can not yet explain completely.

Science cannot in principle explain consciousness. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Snip meaningless drivel.

 

[Yahzi]

Resorting to insults again I see. {sighs} Shameful

I have Ian on ignore (has it been a year already?), so I only see his insults to me when you quote them.

 

[Yahzi]

There is no magical moral sense implanted within people. A conscious is a learned not an innate response.

Would you characterize language as a learned rather than innate response? And yet there are areas of the brain specifically involved in language: without those areas, you cannot learn language (as demonstrated by both brain defects and animals). Furthermore, people raised in groups without langauge will begin developing one. From this we conclude that people are not born with langauge, but is certainly more than just a learned ability.

Exactly the same is true of morality. There is a magical ability for language implanted within people, and there is an ability for morality.

 

[uruk]

Interesting Ian wrote:
All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.

Please present an analytical truth which supports this statement.

And remember just because you say so doesn't mean it is so.

Calling someone a "tithead" does not disprove their argument or support yours.

Calling someone's belief or statement silly does not disprove their argument or support yours.

Avoiding answering questions does not disprove their arguments
or support yours.

languange is a poor way of expressing ideas and information (but it's the only method we have at the moment). It's prone to misinterpretation. So when using words, it's good idea to use some common reference so that we may (more or less) agree on the meaning of the words we choose to use. I believe there is a source called a dictionary. You should try to use it sometime. That may reduce the number of misinterpretations and help to get your ideas through our thick heads.

You can use all the analytical arguments and reasoning you want,
but in order to be tooken seriously or to prove your point, you must back up those arguments with some form of verification so that we and others can come to the same conclusions as you.

Other wise your ideas are just fantasy based on nothing at all.

 

[hypnotoad]

I am not interested in dictionary definitions. I want to know what you mean by the word.

Supernatural is an adjective used to describe things that do not exist in the natural universe yet still exist. A supernatural phenomenon is one that possesses some attribute unexplainable by science. Not unexplained, mind you, but unexplainable.
Some supernatural phenomenon are claimed by their proponents to be able to affect the natural universe without existing within it (certain Gods for example). It is these that I argue against.

Supernatural phenomenon that do not interact with the natural universe may or may not exist. I can't support a claim about them and neither can anyone else.

I want to know what you mean by the word.

Why?

By the first definition it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce observable phenomena unless the supernatural is claimed to be partially of or relating to an existence within the natural universe. It would not have to produce observable phenomena.
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil



The second definition is so vague it could be applied to a magician's slight-of-hand. People say something is supernatural when they usually mean appears supernatural. I don't think this definition applies to the discussion.
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Nothing is known for certain in this world apart from analytical truths.

Nothing is known for certain. Analytical truths are an artifact of language.

I don't know. What are angels and Leprechauns?

Angels and Leprechauns may or may not exist. There is no evidence that they exist. They are not known to have any properties. Nothing about them can ever be known.

All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.

That is an unsupported claim. Feel free to support it. I am listening.

If "God" exists no meaning can be attached to the scenario of a Godless Universe.

Can you give any ways my life would be affected were I to believe that "God" exists? Does your claim have any predictive value? Does it have any ramifications?

Science cannot in principle explain consciousness. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Are you saying that science will never explain conciousness or that science cannot explain conciousness? Science has made great strides in understanding conciousness. I believe that science will some day be able to explain how conciousness is created by the brain. I don't claim to be able to prove that though.

If science were to create artificial conciousness and were able to explain it would that be enough?
What effect would that have on your belief system? (Theoretically.)

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.

Non-sequitur.

Not at all. Adversely affect the matter that the brain is composed of and the mind is likewise affected. Remove the matter and remove the mind.

Hey, were you born without a brain, or are you just pretending to be stupid in order to elicit a response?

Wow, and insult from Ian. I…I feel so validated.

Ignores my question. I repeat. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

Not really, just over generalizing. Well, it would really depend upon which god(s) I was supposed 'relinquish my atheism' for. Cessation of all suffering would be a very good start.


Yahzi

Furthermore, people raised in groups without langauge will begin developing one. From this we conclude that people are not born with langauge, but is certainly more than just a learned ability.

Rudimentary communication is not language (at least language where more than physical representation is produced - rock, water, pain, etc)

Exactly the same is true of morality. There is a magical ability for language implanted within people, and there is an ability for morality.

No magic involved at all. People evolved from social animals. Morality (actually ethics) strengthens the social bond and enhances the survivability of the group as a whole, therefore it would be logical that the tendency would evolve and be passed on.

Ossai

 

[Roadtoad]

You know, I actually was enjoying this discussion, until Ian hit us with his "tithead" remark.

 

[Yahweh]

Science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

Two words: Cognitive neuroscience.

One more word: Connectivism.

Do those words have any significance?

 

[Yahzi]

Rudimentary communication is not language (at least language where more than physical representation is produced - rock, water, pain, etc)

I agree. What's your point?

No magic involved at all. People evolved from social animals. Morality (actually ethics) strengthens the social bond and enhances the survivability of the group as a whole, therefore it would be logical that the tendency would evolve and be passed on.

Um. Magic was your adjective. What you've said here is exactly my position. Yes, we have evolved special ability (a tendency) to moral behaviour.

You do realize we are in complete agreement, right?

 

[Yahweh]

Wow! Someone got it!

As for the origin of the universe, my mind is still open. He isn't a member of the sex police or the genocide police, but there may be an intelligence behind our existence.

I don't think so, but I can't absolutely prove it.

Which line is the most hilarious? Please tell me so I can repeat it all over.

I cant believe I missed this one...

From Fundies Say the Dardest Things:

"I tend to look on Catholicism as a bastardization of Christianity."
- Master Blaster

 

[Ossai]

Yahzi

You do realize we are in complete agreement, right?

I was using the term magic in the supernatural sense. I think you were using it in the not yet known sense. Resulted in a bit of confusion.

Ossai

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

No, not no meaning, rather no purpose.

You assert that life has "no purpose" unless you believe in God. I'm going to ask you to try and back this statement up, since you haven't attempted to thus far.

I believe in a "god", you could say; yet this concept of "god" is fairly only a quasi-philisophical construct designed to explain the notion of "First Cause" that by no means bestows "meaning" or "purpose" to my life or anyone else's, since this "god" logically cares (if he/she/it is even capable of "caring") neither about me nor anyone else, ultimately.

Yet, my life does have a purpose - or, rather, a multitude of purposes (purpii?). To please women is my primary one at the moment... My presence is needed and wanted in various places.

I fail to see how "believing in God (in the theistic sense)" would give anybody's life "purpose".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Two words: Cognitive neuroscience.

One more word: Connectivism.

Do those words have any significance?

I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

Why not?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Most irritating theological argument ever

You assert that life has "no purpose" unless you believe in God.

Did I? Well it depends on what you mean by God.

I'm going to ask you to try and back this statement up, since you haven't attempted to thus far.

I was saying this is what people meant rather than there being no meaning. I would regard modern western atheism as stipulating there is no purpose to our lives and the Universe. If you disagree then fine. Let me know what the purpose of our lives are though will you?

I believe in a "god", you could say; yet this concept of "god" is fairly only a quasi-philisophical construct designed to explain the notion of "First Cause" that by no means bestows "meaning" or "purpose" to my life or anyone else's, since this "god" logically cares (if he/she/it is even capable of "caring") neither about me nor anyone else, ultimately.

Yet, my life does have a purpose - or, rather, a multitude of purposes (purpii?). To please women is my primary one at the moment... My presence is needed and wanted in various places.

I don't think you understand what the word "purpose" means.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You know, I actually was enjoying this discussion, until Ian hit us with his "tithead" remark.

It's only a very mild insulting term (at least where I live). A bit like saying don't be daft or stupid etc.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian

Non-sequitur.

Not at all. Adversely affect the matter that the brain is composed of and the mind is likewise affected. Remove the matter and remove the mind.

[/quote]

Yes, but I remind you that you originally said that consciousness is not supernatural. So are you willing to agree that God's consciousness is also not supernatural? Or is God's consciousness a special case? If so then why?