U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How plausible is this theory (explain)?
You've convinced me, where do I join your cult? 0 0%
Nope, totally don't buy it. 10 83.33%
Sorta of, but I believe X instead... 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2014, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 6,083,775 times
Reputation: 981

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
This makes no sense.

What specifically about what Mordant said are you reading to be a 'hypothesis'?
I stand corrected. I should have said "theory"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2014, 02:08 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I don't know what your definition of faith is but mine is belief without requiring evidence (beyond perhaps personal subjective experience and/or personal need -- but these are not valid and admissible as evidence).
They can be to the person experiencing them, mordant. It is undeniable that "admissible evidence" for others refers to second-hand replicable evidence.
Quote:
An atheist requires evidence to believe, and, lacking evidence, does not believe. It is the antithesis of faith.
Of course not a single thing anyone knows (regardless of their belief position -- atheist or theist) is 100% ironclad certain. It is in fact true that I cannot disprove god anymore than a theist can prove god; after all, gods as generally posited are not falsifiable. This is where theists get hung up on thinking atheism is faith -- because theists use faith to make up for lack of proof so that they might believe.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, an atheist does not need to support belief and so does not need faith. Further, the LACK of evidence supports our UNbelief. Unbelief is a rational position where valid evidence is lacking.
Not quite so clear and clean, mordant. You are accepting an unknown Source (NOT Creator) of our existing reality on faith that it is irrelevant and "we don't need to know." Ironically that flies in the face of our very unique ability "TO KNOW." It is true that our unique ability MAY just be accidental and without purpose . . . but it does take some faith to believe it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 02:23 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They can be to the person experiencing them, mordant. It is undeniable that "admissible evidence" for others refers to second-hand replicable evidence. Not quite so clear and clean, mordant. You are accepting an unknown Source (NOT Creator) of our existing reality on faith that it is irrelevant and "we don't need to know." Ironically that flies in the face of our very unique ability "TO KNOW." It is true that our unique ability MAY just be accidental and without purpose . . . but it does take some faith to believe it.
You have said this a couple of times and I have to quibble a bit. The fact that something exists does not imply it has a source, only that it exists. It seems to me that source implies, if not a creator, then something causally prior. Clearly you don't really believe this, because then it would be right back to "Turtles all the way down". Reality could very well have no source, and just be. In fact if you are going to avoid "Turtles" and you define reality as everything that is, it appears to me that reality itself cannot have a source, but must just be.

In light of that, the fact of reality implies nothing about a source, creator, or deity. It is entirely possible, in fact maybe even logically unavoidable, that it just is. Now this does not in any way rule out the idea that reality itself is your deity or source, but the existence of reality says nothing except that reality exists...

Anyway, carry on...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,867 posts, read 3,792,425 times
Reputation: 4602
I'm still unclear what 'theory' or 'cult' the OP is asking us to vote on. I still have no idea what we are supposed to be voting for.

Even more perplexing is why the OP has voted 'Nope, totally don't buy' in his own poll.

Perhaps the OP or someone else would like to enlighten me or am I missing something?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 03:10 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They can be to the person experiencing them, mordant. It is undeniable that "admissible evidence" for others refers to second-hand replicable evidence. Not quite so clear and clean, mordant. You are accepting an unknown Source (NOT Creator) of our existing reality on faith that it is irrelevant and "we don't need to know." Ironically that flies in the face of our very unique ability "TO KNOW." It is true that our unique ability MAY just be accidental and without purpose . . . but it does take some faith to believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
You have said this a couple of times and I have to quibble a bit. The fact that something exists does not imply it has a source, only that it exists. It seems to me that source implies, if not a creator, then something causally prior.
No it does NOT . . . it simply implies "it just is" . . . but WHAT "it just is" . . . is God. Its status alone establishes it as God for believers like me.
Quote:
Clearly you don't really believe this, because then it would be right back to "Turtles all the way down". Reality could very well have no source, and just be. In fact if you are going to avoid "Turtles" and you define reality as everything that is, it appears to me that reality itself cannot have a source, but must just be.
You are correct about the silly infinite regression of cause . . . but reality IS God for believers like me. I have no idea WHAT reality is for you since reality seems sufficient for you as an identifier.
Quote:
In light of that, the fact of reality implies nothing about a source, creator, or deity. It is entirely possible, in fact maybe even logically unavoidable, that it just is. Now this does not in any way rule out the idea that reality itself is your deity or source, but the existence of reality says nothing except that reality exists...
Anyway, carry on...
-NoCapo
We obviously have different ideas about what a Source is. You seem stuck in a causal paradigm . . . I am not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 03:44 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No it does NOT . . . it simply implies "it just is" . . . but WHAT "it just is" . . . is God. Its status alone establishes it as God for believers like me. You are correct about the silly infinite regression of cause . . . but reality IS God for believers like me. I have no idea WHAT reality is for you since reality seems sufficient for you as an identifier.
Not arguing about this. I understand your idea that the word god simply means reality. It is how you get there that I am taking issue with. If anything take this not as a argument about your content, but pointing out a flaw in your presentation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
We obviously have different ideas about what a Source is. You seem stuck in a causal paradigm . . . I am not.
The reason I have am pointing out the causal paradigm is your use of the word source. You have already redefined god in a way that is, at the very least, a stretch of common usage, why are you doing the same to "source"?

The word source implies beginning, cause, origin, authorship. To say that reality existing implies a source is to imply that reality requires a beginning, cause, orgin, or author. But then you move the goal posts and say that reality is the source. The source of what, reality? That makes no sense logically. I am not arguning with your conclusions, but your method of getting there is just nonsensical...

Let me see if I can lay it out step by step:

  • Reality exists.
  • The existence of reality implies a source, a beginning or origin of reality
  • This origin or source is "God"
So far so good. However this idea implies that God is separate from reality, that God creates or authors reality. So now we say becasue reality exists, God must exist. But then the existence of God implies that it has a creator, we'll call it God'. So now we get to a turtles situation...


  • Reality exists.
  • The existence of reality implies a source, a beginning or origin of reality
  • This origin or source is God
  • God exists.
  • The existence of God implies a source, a beginning or origin of reality
  • This origin or source is God'
  • God' exists.
  • The existence of God' implies a source, a beginning or origin of reality
  • This origin or source is God'' ad infinitum...
We can shortcut the process if we claim that God is reality itself, instead of some outside entity, resulting in the following:


  • Reality exists.
  • The existence of reality implies a source, a beginning or origin of reality
  • This origin or source of reality is God which is reality itself.
But this makes the whole proof useless. You have defined a thing as proof of itself, which is in fact the postulate we began with. In addition you have had to abuse the word "source" as the word itself implies that there are two distinct things involved, the cause and the effect, the author and the work, the before and the after, the location from which something comes.

Logically, you would be better served to just say, "Reality exists and I call it God", instead of using the Source argument...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 04:07 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Not arguing about this. I understand your idea that the word god simply means reality. It is how you get there that I am taking issue with. If anything take this not as a argument about your content, but pointing out a flaw in your presentation...
The reason I have am pointing out the causal paradigm is your use of the word source. You have already redefined god in a way that is, at the very least, a stretch of common usage, why are you doing the same to "source"?
The word source implies beginning, cause, origin, authorship.To say that reality existing implies a source is to imply that reality requires a beginning, cause, orgin, or author. But then you move the goal posts and say that reality is the source. The source of what, reality? That makes no sense logically. I am not arguning with your conclusions, but your method of getting there is just nonsensical...
We disagree about Source. If I point to some created thing . . . it has a cause. Everything we know that is created has a cause. But a cause itself is not necessarily a created thing . . . it can just be . . . and it would be inexorably linked to (be part of) that which EXISTS . . . a Source . . . in this case reality or God.
Quote:
Logically, you would be better served to just say, "Reality exists and I call it God", instead of using the Source argument...
-NoCapo
I have no objection to your suggestion . . . I just disagree about the use of Source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 04:20 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,501 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
We disagree about Source. If I point to some created thing . . . it has a cause.
This is where you break down. You are pointing to reality and assuming it is a created thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Everything we know that is created has a cause. But a cause itself is not necessarily a created thing . . . it can just be . . . and it would be inexorably linked to (be part of) that which EXISTS . . . a Source . . . in this case reality or God.
And here you assert that reality is not a created thing, in direct opposition to your first assumption. If reality is not created, the its existence does not imply a source. If however reality requires a source, then so does God, which you have defined as reality.

So to put it back in bullet argument form:

  • Reality is a created thing
  • This implies that it must have a source
  • This source is God
If we continue:
  • God does not require a source
  • Therefore God cannot be a created thing
  • Thus God cannot be reality, and must be a separate thing
So you can postulate a Pantheist reality/God but it is illogical to begin your argument by assuming one thing and concluding it with another. In fact, generally speaking, this is known as "Proof By Contradiction", and would be used to prove the opposite of the assertion! You have in fact given a nice proof why, if reality = God, it cannot be a created thing with a source...


This is my point about why you shouldn't try to use that as "proof". If you do not ignore logic, you have disproved what you set out to assert!



-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 6,083,775 times
Reputation: 981
Our Jewish friends may correct me,..

There is an idea, that before creation ( any that is, or was created) there was only "The Creator"
Therefore, to create, The Creator had to withdraw from that which was no longer The Creator, in order to provide "room" for the created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 07:10 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
This is where you break down. You are pointing to reality and assuming it is a created thing.
And here you assert that reality is not a created thing, in direct opposition to your first assumption. If reality is not created, the its existence does not imply a source. If however reality requires a source, then so does God, which you have defined as reality.
The Source does NOT need to be a created thing. It just doesn't. However . . . you have convinced me that the term Source invokes a causal paradigm automatically in too many people to be useful. I have explained to Box that my concern is probably better expressed as desiring a status for reality and my preference is that status is as God. You and Box and others clearly consider the status of reality irrelevant and see the term reality (whatever it is) as sufficient for your purposes. I once held that view myself . . . but now consider it completely untenable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top