No longer lurking (believe, service, verse, exist)
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.
If the word "god" is not defined, or can mean anything people choose to make it mean, then the term "god" in actuality has no meaning. Then, all we have is an empty set of letters that don't symbolize any concept. When you have no concept, the question of whether its undeniable makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
You have to define your concept before you can even begin to make a case of the undeniability of the existence of a real something to which your concept is referring. And the moment you define your concept, you are simultaneously making statements about beliefs about god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Wrong. We have met the minimum requirements to qualify IT as God (whatever IT is). You just prefer not to acknowledge IT.
You haven't met the minimum requirements to qualify IT as God. What is the IT you are talking about? How can I acknowledge or deny something that hasn't been even conceptually identified and is only spoken about by using words with no defined meaning (i.e., IT and God). "It" is an indefinite antecedent here. We can't talk about something existing if we don't know what something we are talking about.
And the minute you identify what the heck you mean by "god", is when you will simultaneously be asserting properties/attributes of that something you are talking about. You can't tell us what you are talking about without at least partially telling us what it is and thereby assert your beliefs about that something.
[i] You haven't met the minimum requirements to qualify IT as God. What is the IT you are talking about? How can I acknowledge or deny something that hasn't been even conceptually identified and is only spoken about by using words with no defined meaning (i.e., IT and God). "It" is an indefinite antecedent here. We can't talk about something existing if we don't know what something we are talking about.
Sorry Hueff . . . if the reason we and everything exist and the organizing principle it embodies as reflected in the laws that govern ALL interactions and processes from the cosmic to the atomic is insufficently God to you . . . your distaste from your previous gullibility is definitely distorting your willingness to acknowledge reality . . . hence your solipsistic nonsense.
Quote:
And the minute you identify what the heck you mean by "god", is when you will simultaneously be asserting properties/attributes of that something you are talking about. You can't tell us what you are talking about without at least partially telling us what it is and thereby assert your beliefs about that something.
No one is disputing that once mere beliefs are factored in there is plenty of room for error and con jobs as you were subject to. I am simply asking you to acknowledge what we DO KNOW about our reality and the status of that existentially, period. Ducking and hiding behind our ignorance and crying "God of the Gaps" serves no useful purpose.
This is where YOU are wrong. We already HAD a word for it all, "God." It is you who have created a new word ("Nature") to avoid the persecution and entanglements with the moronic religious autocrats persecuting the early scientists. You may want to ignore history when proclaiming a word "new" . . . but that does not make it go away. That the religious morons created their own new word ("supernatural") to counter your potential intrusion into their ancient ignorance . . . does not in any way justify your mislabeling God as the "new" word.
"God" was not the old word for laws of nature, certainly not universally so. By some, "God" was thought to be what created nature and the laws governing it. Creator vs. created. The laws of nature were first discovered and named by scientists.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-09-2012 at 03:44 PM..
Sorry Hueff . . . if the reason we and everything exist...
I don't believe there is a reason for our existence. I believe there are antecedants, but no reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
and the organizing principle it embodies as reflected in the laws that govern ALL interactions and processes from the cosmic to the atomic is insufficently God to you . . .
I do believe in the existence of the laws of nature that govern all interactions and processes from the cosmic to the atomic, but I see no reason to call it "god".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
your distaste from your previous gullibility is definitely distorting your willingness to acknowledge reality . . .
Oh, I am acknowledging reality just fine. However, I do have a reluctance to call things god when it is logically unnecessary, and you have yet to give me a reason to do so. You flatter yourself that it is not reason that leads me to reject your hypothesis but some sort of psychic disturbance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
hence your solipsistic nonsense.
Oh, contrare. Methodological solipsism is one of the most sensible approaches to take as it properly identifies the assumptions
in the other approaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am simply asking you to acknowledge what we DO KNOW about our reality and the status of that existentially, period.
I have acknowledged that I believe in the existence of the laws of nature that govern all interactions and processes from the cosmic to the atomic, but I see no reason to call it "god".
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-09-2012 at 03:31 PM..
Labeling me with those frauds is just an attempt to imply guilt by association. Shame on you. "Nature" (and its adjective "natural") is science's "Nyah, nyah,nyah nyah, nyah!!" artificial creation to separate their investigations from the moronic religious autocrats who persecuted the early scientists. It has NO OTHER justification for its existence. Because you assume there is no God, Arequipa. It remains an assumption in abreaction to religious tyranny . . . NOT a fact. Brute facts ARE assumptions.
"Philosophical fiddling" . . . as you call it . . . is the essential ingredient missing in ALL the atheist rationales. The issue is left unresolved at a shallow level of understanding of our physical (appearing) reality . . . despite some feeble nod toward the possibility we are all just "minds in a vat." That is what is pathetic.
Stop pretending you aren't willfully remaining "ignorant of what you are ignorant about" in defense of your preferred shallow understanding of reality.
As usual, you turn the whole argument on its head, use creationists- type arguments and then accuse me of being rude when I point it out and basically thumb your nose at a logical and evidential position you can't otherwise refute.
I don't care what you believe about God or about the case for atheism. You can think whatever you like. I'm just stating (really for others) why there is no rational, logical or evidential reason to buy into any of your claims and assertions.
And we have gone over this so many times before that I have to reiterate that I am not going to waste any more time on it.
P.s I can leave it to Hueff, who is going along precisely the same logical route and is, I predict, going to find himself dealing with the same illogical claims based on your Faith - based assumption (as Capo is about to find out with Tigetmax on that debate) that a god exists. I will leave him to try to explain to you that this is not logic and for you to tell him that you have proof - you had an Experience.
I have already been through all of that with him as well in many threads, perhaps you did not recognize it was me. I even started a thread a long time ago responding directly to his "synthesis". http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...synthesis.html
AREQUIPA, It was actually after a thread started by you, after you had taken a break from posting for a while, in which you appeared to be slightly influenced by Mystic's synthesis, that I realized I needed to take on Mystic more directly to show the flaws in his thinking so that people like you would be able to more easily see the problems with his thinking.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-10-2012 at 05:48 AM..
And the minute you identify what the heck you mean by "god", is when you will simultaneously be asserting properties/attributes of that something you are talking about. You can't tell us what you are talking about without at least partially telling us what it is and thereby assert your beliefs about that something.
But of course anyone even slightly acquainted with the history of religion knows that this is a bad idea. There's a pile of dead gods on the trash pile of history which had concrete claims made about them. Unfortunately, those claims were wrong - it turns out personal subjective revelation isn't such a great way to figure out facts about the world.
So modern religions have evolved to avoid making this mistake. They make their gods mysterious, vague and shy about interacting with us mortals. That way there's no possible way for them to be disproved. The believer can always hide behind "it's supernatural, that's different" or whatever the popular excuse is this year.
The strange thing is, though, that even though these gods are allegedly vague and mysterious, they also (in the believer's mind) have very specific traits and properties. These believers are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this subject - depending on what they need their god to do or be, it's either a mystery or has very specific plans, goals and desires for people.
A good example is Mystic's different approach here versus the Christianity forum. Here his god is the laws of nature, but over there he sure talks a lot about Jesus...
I have already been through all of that with him as well in many threads, perhaps you did not recognize it was me. I even started a thread a long time ago responding directly to his "synthesis". http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...synthesis.html
AREQUIPA, It was actually after a thread started by you, after you had taken a break from posting for a while, in which you appeared to be slightly influenced by Mystic's synthesis, that I realized I needed to take on Mystic more directly to show the flaws in his thinking so that people like you would be able to more easily see the problems with his thinking.
Ta. I had a look and I now recall the exchange. I think we saw Mystic's synthesis in the same way - ingenious, speculative and making some unjustified assumptions - e.g, that a difference in the quality of human consciousness from that of animals (as different as that of higher animals from fish -so what?) is evidence of a difference in origin. It's the old problem of trying to make philosophy do the work of science, which it never can.
Thus the superior validity of science and the data it validates -all of which supports materialistic naturalism - has to be attacked with the misguided, false and illogical Gap for God fallacy 'if it can't explain the origins' (actually it has an explanation, which Mystic rejects with an impatient handwave and contemptuous raspberry) 'then Goddunnt must be taken as fact'.
This is not new and, as I hinted, is what the theism/atheism argument comes down to in the end - why should we believe what science says? There are good reasons why we should and perhaps you can get Mystic to understand them. I certainly couldn't.
Even then, the best we have is that - in the absence of any reliable evidence for materialistic naturalism, Goddunnit is as valid an explanation. Some theists who haven't gone down the misuse of science to prove God route will settle for that and persuade themselves their 'belief' is as valid as the atheist 'belief'. Or they will argue that talking to themselves is talking to God, so there's direct proof.
As usual, you turn the whole argument on its head, use creationists- type arguments and then accuse me of being rude when I point it out and basically thumb your nose at a logical and evidential position you can't otherwise refute.
I don't care what you believe about God or about the case for atheism. You can think whatever you like. I'm just stating (really for others) why there is no rational, logical or evidential reason to buy into any of your claims and assertions.
And we have gone over this so many times before that I have to reiterate that I am not going to waste any more time on it.
P.s I can leave it to Hueff, who is going along precisely the same logical route and is, I predict, going to find himself dealing with the same illogical claims based on your Faith - based assumption (as Capo is about to find out with Tigetmax on that debate) that a god exists. I will leave him to try to explain to you that this is not logic and for you to tell him that you have proof - you had an Experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
I have already been through all of that with him as well in many threads, perhaps you did not recognize it was me. I even started a thread a long time ago responding directly to his "synthesis". http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...synthesis.html
AREQUIPA, It was actually after a thread started by you, after you had taken a break from posting for a while, in which you appeared to be slightly influenced by Mystic's synthesis, that I realized I needed to take on Mystic more directly to show the flaws in his thinking so that people like you would be able to more easily see the problems with his thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
But of course anyone even slightly acquainted with the history of religion knows that this is a bad idea. There's a pile of dead gods on the trash pile of history which had concrete claims made about them. Unfortunately, those claims were wrong - it turns out personal subjective revelation isn't such a great way to figure out facts about the world.
So modern religions have evolved to avoid making this mistake. They make their gods mysterious, vague and shy about interacting with us mortals. That way there's no possible way for them to be disproved. The believer can always hide behind "it's supernatural, that's different" or whatever the popular excuse is this year.
The strange thing is, though, that even though these gods are allegedly vague and mysterious, they also (in the believer's mind) have very specific traits and properties. These believers are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this subject - depending on what they need their god to do or be, it's either a mystery or has very specific plans, goals and desires for people.
A good example is Mystic's different approach here versus the Christianity forum. Here his god is the laws of nature, but over there he sure talks a lot about Jesus...
You atheists have never grasped the difference between existential questions (essentially scientific) and beliefs about what exists. Science can answer the former but not the latter. Beliefs about what exists vary all over the cosmos and have been and are subject to all the foibles and fallibility of human beings. NONE of that (past or present) has any impact on the existential question! When I discuss my beliefs ABOUT the God I know exists . . . they are a different kind of discussion. Learning to parse these issues would be a useful intellectual skill.
Ta. I had a look and I now recall the exchange. I think we saw Mystic's synthesis in the same way - ingenious, speculative and making some unjustified assumptions - e.g, that a difference in the quality of human consciousness from that of animals (as different as that of higher animals from fish -so what?) is evidence of a difference in origin. It's the old problem of trying to make philosophy do the work of science, which it never can.
Thus the superior validity of science and the data it validates -all of which supports materialistic naturalism - has to be attacked with the misguided, false and illogical Gap for God fallacy 'if it can't explain the origins' (actually it has an explanation, which Mystic rejects with an impatient handwave and contemptuous raspberry) 'then Goddunnt must be taken as fact'.
This is not new and, as I hinted, is what the theism/atheism argument comes down to in the end - why should we believe what science says? There are good reasons why we should and perhaps you can get Mystic to understand them. I certainly couldn't.
Even then, the best we have is that - in the absence of any reliable evidence for materialistic naturalism, Goddunnit is as valid an explanation. Some theists who haven't gone down the misuse of science to prove God route will settle for that and persuade themselves their 'belief' is as valid as the atheist 'belief'. Or they will argue that talking to themselves is talking to God, so there's direct proof.
Oh please . . . stop all this self-congratulatory crap! "God did it" is NOT an explanation . . . BUT neither is "Nature did it!" Take the time to learn what you do not know before pretending you have a clue about the real issues involved in these questions. BTW, you might want too stop using the word "logic" when dealing with these issues. It just makes you look more ignorant than you probably are. Logic has NOTHING to do with factual or existential issues, period.
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.
