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.
Indeed! I just think it is foolish to limit the concept to a few extant belief systems about something so universal to existence.
If it's any consolation, I only use its limited meaning when there's a wide audience reading it that is bound to understand it in the narrower sense. Like CD for example.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
actonbell
Quote:
The choices we make that are based on other people's opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
That's the very way language works. We agree on a meaning for a word so that when we use it we can be understood. You can insist on trying to redefine a word but you risk being misunderstood. I'd rather be understood than try to redefine language in this case.
When a person bases their beliefs on another person's scrutiny of one in specific and then the choice becomes influenced by those who may or may not know what the heck they are talking about. (peer pressure and a desire to be apart of the group)
Words: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God, before that were the Neandertals and they drew pretty pictures on cave walls. That was their way to communicate. Then the human spark and words. After that, the world was flat.
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable is a philosophy / literary book by the epistemologist Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The core theme of the book is that the impact of rare events is huge and highly underrated. We are not aware of it, which increases their effect much. Our mind and thinking habits are poorly equipped to handle rare events. The book relates the various cognitive and psychological reasons of this, from multiple perspectives. The book is written in a literary style, which covers a wide variety of subjects desides, relating to knowledge, aesthetics, and living life.
Certainly limiting ones choices, by way of basing them on the group is a choice that can be made, but where is the challenge in that? Evel Knievel would never had made that first daring jump had he stayed within the connotations of the norm in motorcycle operations. He would have been just another dude on a motorcycle.
PS: He believed.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 12-19-2010 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: ps & spelling
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Limiting the definition of a universal to the preferences of a single world view is not useful when there is no conceivable way to establish ANY of the preferences about the universal scientifically. Whatever is only BELIEVED ABOUT the universal should not be determinant. It is too subjective. Atheists believe nothing or an inscrutable "we don't know" constitutes this universal . . . and consequently pretend it doesn't even exist . . . because they don't like the religious versions of beliefs about it. They also insist on imposing this nothing or "we don't know" derived non-existence on everybody else as the default. This neither enhances communication nor increases understanding. It denies reality.
I agree with you.
The first day of philosophy class, the teacher pointed to a desk and asked the class, what is that? I answered, it is whatever you want it to be.
So many times we limit ourselves when in essences we can abound by so much more, it baffles the mind.
Ohhh no. How inaccurate! There is no "having your cake and eating it" allowed, Rifle. You can dismiss all the absurd and incoherent "beliefs about" the universal Source/God that is responsible for our reality. But you don't get to say it is non-existent just because you believe (or have established scientifically) that the "beliefs about" it are ridiculous. Our beliefs about reality do not determine what reality actually is and the falsity of those beliefs cannot be used to deny the existence of the underlying reality.
Isn't this just another version of the argument that "unicorns exist, we just don't know if they are magical or have horns?"
To which the obvious response is, "if it isn't magical and doesn't have a horn, it's a horse, not a unicorn."
No . . . it is not the same. You do not have the equivalent "horse" to point to . . . just "we don't know" which is hardly probative.
There are certain intrinsic qualities that we ascribe to a being we call a "God."
Those attributes necessarily must exist in a "God", or the being is not a "God" at all, (much as a hornless unicorn is not a unicorn, it is just a horse.)
For example, because I don't have those qualities, one couldn't point at me as an example of a "God". I don't meet the minimal criteria.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and eternal, I would suggest, make up the minimal criteria that is commonly understood as "God". That is what atheist don't believe exist.
If you want to describe "God" as an ordinary human being in his early 40's, who is neither omnipotence, omniscience, and eternal, then yes that being exists, but that is not what the debate is about. Atheist don't deny the existence of that being.
The Black Swan is indigenous to Australia. Before Australia was discovered they only knew of swans that were White. Black Swan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just because I haven't seen a unicorn, does not mean there is not one out there, somewhere. What it means is we just haven't seen one yet.
That's fine and well, but it misses the point.
Is it proper to say, "well of course there are unicorns! They just may not have a horn and may not be magical."
I think not, because that would just be a horse. The common definition of a unicorn requires it to be magical and requires it to have a horn. If it doesn't have those attributes, it's not a unicorn at all.
The same is true of the definition of God. There are certain attributes that are implied when we talk about God. Otherwise, I would be able to prove God exist simply by saying that I am God, and God just doesn't happen to be omnipotent, omniscient, or eternal.
There are certain intrinsic qualities that we ascribe to a being we call a "God."
Those attributes necessarily must exist in a "God", or the being is not a "God" at all, (much as a hornless unicorn is not a unicorn, it is just a horse.)
For example, because I don't have those qualities, one couldn't point at me as an example of a "God". I don't meet the minimal criteria.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and eternal, I would suggest, make up the minimal criteria that is commonly understood as "God". That is what atheist don't believe exist.
We disagree about the minimal scientific criteria necessary to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of God. The Omni's could never be scientifically established . . . so they could be criteria but not minimal. Such criteria beyond the capabilities of science to validate can never be the minimal criteria. They belong to the "beliefs about" category. But what we have already established scientifically are more than sufficient to ascribe to God. Creator and sustainer of all that exists, life, consciousness, intelligence,etc. You just prefer the term Nature or natural, demand it be the default and allow the rest to be inscrutable. Go . . . up a rope.
We disagree about the minimal scientific criteria necessary to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of God. The Omni's could never be scientifically established . . . so they could be criteria but not minimal. Such criteria beyond the capabilities of science to validate can never be the minimal criteria. They belong to the "beliefs about" category. But what we have already established scientifically are more than sufficient to ascribe to God. Creator and sustainer of all that exists, life, consciousness, intelligence,etc. You just prefer the term Nature or natural, demand it be the default and allow the rest to be inscrutable. Go . . . up a rope.
No one disagree there is a thing we commonly call nature.
If that's all you are arguing for, and if that's all you are claiming that exist, we can stop and agree right here.
If nature is your definition of God, there are no atheist.
But that's not what the atheist are denying.
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.
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.
I just think it is foolish to limit the concept to a few extant belief systems about something so universal to existence.
