Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 03-31-2007, 05:16 AM

So, you believe that there is some evidence for the existence of a “demiourgos” of enormous power and intelligence, and some, if not total benevolence which renders your conception of God, that being of a maximally great ultimate reality?

Given that nature's contrivances are imperfect, however, that omnipotence could altogether dispense with contrivances, and that organisms are principally contrived for the mere persistence of the individual or species, the evidence not only fails to point to a being of unlimited power, intelligence, and benevolence, it is actually incompatible with it.

If God contains no internal diversity and is identical with the whole of reality, is all there is, then there is nothing outside God that could serve as an object of its knowledge. And if it is devoid of internal diversity, there can be no self-knowledge either, for self-knowledge involves an internal differentiation between the self as knower and the self as known. Nor can God be a causal agent. If God is maximally perfect, it must be unlimited. But it is limited if something exists outside it. God must therefore be all there is.

If God is identical with the whole of reality, though, and contains no plurality, then reality as a whole is an undifferentiated unity. The space-time world with its distinctions between times, places, and events is consequently unreal. Real causal relations are relations between two real things. So God is neither the cause of the space-time world as a whole or of the events in it, and cannot be the space-time world's creator or its ruler and this would include creator of and ruler over reality as we see it. It follows from these considerations that God is neither an omniscient mind nor an omnipotent and active will. It cannot be a maximally perfect person, therefore, and so cannot be God.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

?

Infants don't know how to not trust their mothers, they have no choice in the matter.
Its true they have no choice, my bad, however if the mother/infant relationship is not intact the effects will manifest mistrust,will exclude a fundamental trust-some infant actually die, they turn the aggression remaining after the withdrawal of love against themselves and die; in some cases the aggressive drive turns them into imbeciles, in other cases they become dissipated youngsters filled with hatred.

Kids grow no matter what. Sure, they may thrive more in a loving, sensitive and stable environment but it generally doesn't make that much difference. If it did, there'd be a lot less kids in the world. A whole lot less.
Studies have shown the importance of the early child/mother relationship in determining a child trust toward the world, a trust

What romance novel did you climb out of?

All you need is food and water and a lack of disease and injury. Good mental stimulation is nice. Someone to love is great, though obviously its fairly rare in practice.

A decent human life? You did escape from a romance novel, for young girls and women, 12 to 17.
Trust is the indispensible precondition of all human life, without trust there can be no common human life, no frienship, or marriage, no buisness life, no politics, or culture. There must be trust in the peoople who I have to deal with , in conditions in which I work, in things on which I rely.

Really? You obviously haven't lived much. This is perhaps the silliest statement I've ever heard. Sure, it is very, very nice, but I assure you most people get by without it.

First you need to define what you mean by love.

But for me it is. I know when I love someone and I know, by their behavior when someone loves me.

You have no idea how objective pain can be. Try 12,000 volts. That is very objective.
How much does pain weigh? What are the dimensions of pain,its height, width, depth? What is the tensile strength of pain? What color is pain?

Again, it matters what you mean by right and wrong.
Right is what is appropriate, what is the good.

For me, right and wrong are very objectively verified. What I don't like hurts me, what I do like makes me feel good. Its direct empirical evidence. As objective as you can get.
You are not objectifing right in your example. What are the measurements of what is right? How much does it weigh? Can you tell me the texture of right? Is it spongy, hard, soft?

Mostly, yes. I don't know I would go as far as saying the only true knowledge is that gained explicitly and solely by strict application of the scientific method, I feel you can relax a bit on the scientific method a tad on many issues, but its certainly the gold standard. You want me to know something, you had best be able to demonstrate it.

Empirical demonstration is appropriate for that which is empirically demonstrable, is that a tautology, however there is a vast amount of phenomena that exists that is not subjected, non empirical, to the so called gold standard.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weltall

Right, but the point is that in your worldview there is a mechanism for this to occur and in mine there isn't.
But the world is the same either way-gravity is intact-

Actually, I just have no reason to believe he exists since I've yet to be presented with any evidence to that effect.
Empirical evidence?

Given that you've employed a double negative, they amount to the same thing. Yes, if you want to convince us that a world with your god is better than one without, you're going to have to pony up some evidence.
A justification that my trust in reality is not blind, a ultimate meaning to life, a foundation for action.
God Himself appearing in front of me and having a little chat with me would work. I can brew some nice tea and we can sit down and discuss my questions like civilized folk (I hope He prefers Green, Jasmine or Earl Grey as that's all I've got in stock at the moment) . Failing that, ziffel's sixteen digit number would be good. Here's the gist of it: ziffel has a sixteen digit number written on a pad in front of his computer. All your god has to do is tell you what that number is and you'll get at least two converts (ziffel and myself). So, there's two examples. Ok, I've got a third involving a tropical island and Sakamoto Maaya but I won't go there. Feel free to discuss either of the first two I presented.

Bertrand Russel said that if he met God after he died he would ask God "why didn't you give us more evidence"
God is not in the world like a mountain or a paper clip, God is not there to be objectivied, to be empirically discovered.

Weltall · 03-31-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by decalog10

Nietzsche was a Nihilist and I dont think he flirted with Nihilism, I think he embraced it.

I think you've never actually read his work (or at least, not very carefully). He saw Nihilism as an inevitable result of certain social changes that were occurring in Europe (mainly the 'death of God') but he didn't like the thought. That was part of why he was writing in the first place, trying to provide a framework or at least the beginnings of one to stave off nihilism.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Well, then, if you can't explain how reality is not reliable, there's no further point in discussion. You are just wanting to push your silly imaginary routine and hoping you can talk yourself into it by talking others into it.

All you are saying is there's no guaranties in life. That is not at all the same as saying reality is untrustworthy or unreliable. You want a nurse/mommy/bodyguard/daddy to make it all nice-nice all the time. As Mama Soprano said, "What make you think you're so fucking special?" Life is a gamble. That's how it comes. Take it or leave it. But no, you have to have your invisible, imaginary friend to protect you. I feel sorry for you, that moment when you realize your friend is imaginary and utterly incapable of protecting you, is going to be extra painful.

Well I did explain it, read the post and also read about all my posts.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

This sounds just like the creationists' argument about micro and macro evolution, they accept micro-evolution, because they have to, its been unequivocally demonstrated. But they object to macro-evolution, it just can't happen. They feel safe in this because of the time scales involved. For now.

You accept micro-reality, because we repeatedly demonstrate it and living without it would be impossible, you even admit that. But macro-reality, oooh, that's too scary, it can't exist.

Get over it, macro-reality is just a lot of little micro-realities added up.

But I think you need to go farther. You want both an iron guaranty of success and no pain and definitely no death.

No, reality exists, there is not guarantee of success, there is no life without pain, without death.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

If you accept the uncertainty of life, and "the atheist" accepts the same, then what's the big deal?

I mean, if the basis for your "trust" is an imaginary friend, then how is that more "justified" than that of the foundation-less atheist?

The Big Deal is that the atheist position is one of blind trust, if I could say "blind faith" and not get shot, and a person who believes in God has a reasonable trust, a justifiable faith in his trust in reality. I just want to make a point.
The basis for the believers trust is something real, not imaginary.

Weltall · 03-31-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by decalog10

Bertrand Russel said that if he met God after he died he would ask God "why didn't you give us more evidence"
God is not in the world like a mountain or a paper clip, God is not there to be objectivied, to be empirically discovered.

Notice that this in no way answers any of the points that I raised. You wanted to discuss rational criteria for belief, I gave you some examples of what would work for me. I did not ask for you to quote someone else and brush my questions off with this 'god is unknowable' crap.

Quote:

The Big Deal is that the atheist position is one of blind trust, if I could say "blind faith" and not get shot, and a person who believes in God has a reasonable trust, a justifiable faith in his trust in reality. I just want to make a point.
The basis for the believers trust is something real, not imaginary.

So... you say that god can't be empirically discovered and yet you're NOT engaging in blind trust that he exists? Wow.

Please, explain how you're so damn certain he exists if you can't verify it empirically. As I said (and you ignored), this is the EoG forum. You're going to have to provide some evidence if you want us to take you seriously. 'God exists but I can't prove it' will get you laughed out of here so fast you'll think you're in a time warp.

decalog10 · 03-31-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perahelion

Why doesn't he appear then, I'll answer that if you like, because he's not real, he's a figment of your imagination, a concoction of your psyche because you can't face that fact that when you die that is the end of you, kaput, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, to quote a well used phrase.

Where was god before you were born, do you remember him?

You won't remember him after your're dead either believe me.

Your making alot of your points from the work of Freud and Feuerback, both had insights but one can argue against them, we can do that if you like.
That death is the end of everything is an assumption, you dont know, although you seem convinced somehow that you do know.
I think it would be helpful for you and a few others on this site who seem to be under the spell of "Scientism" to read Immanuel Kants "Critique of Pure Reason". Kant will wake you out of your dogmatism, you will learn the limits of Reason and Empiricism.

RAFH · 03-31-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by decalog10

The day my best friend got hit by a MAC truck.

Did your friend walk in front of a MAC truck? Did you expect somehow it would either magically stop or pass through him or he through it? Was your imaginary friend supposed to stand in front of your friend and like superman, stop the truck?

Perhaps the MAC truck appeared out of nowhere, speeding down on your friend? Or perhaps your friend was magically transported to a spot in front of the speeding MAC truck?

Your response doesn't respond to the question. Its obviously a contrived retort. You don't even have a friend that was hit by a MAC truck, and yet you complain atheists don't have a justification for accepting reality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2007, 05:16 AM	#101
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	So, you believe that there is some evidence for the existence of a “demiourgos” of enormous power and intelligence, and some, if not total benevolence which renders your conception of God, that being of a maximally great ultimate reality? Given that nature's contrivances are imperfect, however, that omnipotence could altogether dispense with contrivances, and that organisms are principally contrived for the mere persistence of the individual or species, the evidence not only fails to point to a being of unlimited power, intelligence, and benevolence, it is actually incompatible with it. If God contains no internal diversity and is identical with the whole of reality, is all there is, then there is nothing outside God that could serve as an object of its knowledge. And if it is devoid of internal diversity, there can be no self-knowledge either, for self-knowledge involves an internal differentiation between the self as knower and the self as known. Nor can God be a causal agent. If God is maximally perfect, it must be unlimited. But it is limited if something exists outside it. God must therefore be all there is. If God is identical with the whole of reality, though, and contains no plurality, then reality as a whole is an undifferentiated unity. The space-time world with its distinctions between times, places, and events is consequently unreal. Real causal relations are relations between two real things. So God is neither the cause of the space-time world as a whole or of the events in it, and cannot be the space-time world's creator or its ruler and this would include creator of and ruler over reality as we see it. It follows from these considerations that God is neither an omniscient mind nor an omnipotent and active will. It cannot be a maximally perfect person, therefore, and so cannot be God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.