Kosh

First, by your definition of "god", I can imagine
a being like this existing. It's a big big
universe, and we only have experience with this
little teeny tiny planet.

However, if we did encounter a being like this,
it would mean that we'd have to seriously examine
those "natural laws". Our "laws" have been proven
wrong before, simply because they were formed
without a thorough understanding. Who was it that
said that any technology of sufficient complexity
appears as magic? Magic is simply a termed used
for something you can't explain.

It could be that there are forces/powers in the
universe that we are not cognizant of. Maybe we
could manipulate them, maybe not. Maybe some other
species could.

BUT....... that doesn't make them "GOD" (by
my definition). Now we'll switch to a proper
definition. I don't like yours, Polycarp. It's
too small. The Judeo-Christian "god" is that of
an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being who
by itself was responsible for creating the entire
universe, man, etc. This is no where near the
limited definition that you listed in your attempt
(IMHO) to trick with logic.

It is this latter definition of God which I and
other "atheists" have a problem with. Especially
when this god shows so many human characteristics
projected on him by a tribe of primitive sheep
herders.

If a being of your definition is mis-interpreted
by primitives as "god" (such as was the case
with my namesake (Kosh - the Vorlons) in Babylon
5)then that is another matter. But it doesn't make
them a god. Just something mis-labeled and beyond comprehension
of the primitives.

CX

Now we are getting somewhere. If we added that this god in addition to the qualities and attributes you list above is presently excercising those capabilities and/or intervening in human affairs (which is to say excluding the Deist conception of god) then I would have to tentatively say, no, such a god is not present in the universe.

Secondly, you state in another post that I am inaccurately portraying many of the freethinkers here. I am doing no such thing. I am pointing out that very often the word atheist is used incorrectly. Not all freethinkers are atheists. Some atheists are also antitheists with respect to certain definitions of god. Some atheists are antitheistic with respect to all gods. The point is atheism itself entails only a lack of belief in god or gods. I'm not commenting on anyone here with respect to that definition of atheism.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: Actually, I think that is a pretty good definition. However, you'd have to show that both such a being exists and that he has those powers. And it would have to be a undeniably clear demonstration -- something on the order of limbs regrowing, not temporary cures of arthritis. So, yes, I think the universe is devoid of gods, for I certainly don't see clear violations of natural laws, much less a being that causes them.

OK. Since you are claiming that an occurence of a "miracle" would justify a belief in the existence of a god, then I would counter by saying that by rejecting all alleged miracles of the past you are making an extraordinary claim. Specifically, you are claiming that every alleged miracle was either intentionally fabricated (by dishonest people) or mistakenly believed to be a miracle (gullibility, lack of data, etc). I certainly acknowledge many instances of these pseudo-miracles, but to say that you know ALL of them to be false seems like an extraordinary claim. How would you know the level of honesty of thousands of people who've lived over the last several thousand years? How would you claim to know what experiences millions of people have had over the same amount of time? These again seem to be extraordinary claims on your part.

Peace,

Polycarp

Kosh

I think you are confused about logic.

Family Man

I'm sorry, Polycarp, but what is so extraordinary in rejecting alleged miracles (for which there is no proof) in an age where charlatans make millions making "psychic readings" over the phone at $2.99 a pop? Human credulity being what it is, critical thought demands skepticism over unproven claims.

For example, when Julius Caesar defeated Pompeii in Greece, it was reported that

So, first question: Do you think these miracles happened?

If not, how do you disprove them?

If so, how do you prove them?

Are you seriously going to accept Julius Caesar as a god as the basis of these "miracles"?

And why are you wasting bandwidth demanding I do what you certainly can't either?

In short, you offered to provide "clear and convincing evidence" for the supernatural. You instead quibbled. If the supernatural existed, it shouldn't be hard to find such evidence. For example, assume that the laws of gravity exists and worked just like we're used to. But what if, on occasion, when human life was in danger, the laws were suspended. Say that a bus flying over a cliff floated down gently instead crashing full force. That certainly would be clear and convincing evidence. But we never see anything that clear, do we?

No, Polycarp. Shifting the burden by making a quite ordinary position "extraordinary" isn't going to cut it.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: I think you are confused about logic.

Please elaborate. I'm only a lowly, fundamentalistic Christian.

Polycarp

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Polycarp:
What if "god" were to be defined as "a being of supernatural power capable of performing acts in clear violation of natural laws"? Would this definition be narrow enough for you to make a claim as to its truth value?

I'd love to see replies from other skeptics on this question, too. Do you believe the universe to be void of all gods meeting the above criteria given in the preceding paragraph?

Yes, subject to new evidence. There is currently no evidence that such beings exist.

Although I think that definition you propose is poor; no offense, because "supernatural," as the previous poster pointed out, tends to be hard to define. I tend to view all aspects of the "supernatural" as some variation of the problem of consciousness. Therefore, I define naturalism as "the belief that consciousness of any kind does not interfere with the operation of reality outside the body" which would make "supernaturalism" the belief that somewhere, somehow, consciousness(es) are operating on reality outside of their own bodies. I'll probably have to tinker with the wording if we ever discover aliens....

That's really what we're talking about here. Rejection of gods is part of a larger commitment to rejection of the supernatural.

Michael

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: I'm sorry, Polycarp, but what is so extraordinary in rejecting alleged miracles (for which there is no proof) in an age where charlatans make millions making "psychic readings" over the phone at $2.99 a pop? Human credulity being what it is, critical thought demands skepticism over unproven claims.

Bad argument. Many false miracle claims do not prove that ALL miracle claims are false.

Quote:

For example, when Julius Caesar defeated Pompeii in Greece, it was reported that (snip alleged miracle story) So, first question: Do you think these miracles happened? If not, how do you disprove them? If so, how do you prove them? Are you seriously going to accept Julius Caesar as a god as the basis of these "miracles"?

All red herrings. We have a “red herring alert” in effect until 10PM Central time for the following counties…

I think you have our roles confused. You see, you’re the one who claimed that all miracle stories were false. I’m simply pointing out that I think to do such a thing is an extraordinary claim.

Quote:

And why are you wasting bandwidth demanding I do what you certainly can't either? In short, you offered to provide "clear and convincing evidence" for the supernatural. You instead quibbled. If the supernatural existed, it shouldn't be hard to find such evidence. For example, assume that the laws of gravity exists and worked just like we're used to. But what if, on occasion, when human life was in danger, the laws were suspended. Say that a bus flying over a cliff floated down gently instead crashing full force. That certainly would be clear and convincing evidence. But we never see anything that clear, do we?

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression… This wasn’t going to be a discussion where I prove the existence of miracles. It’s a discussion where I try to demonstrate that the claim “All miracle stories of all time are bogus” is an extraordinary claim IF you also consider the claim “god exists” to be “extraordinary”. If you can show me where I said I would show “clear and convincing evidence for the supernatural” I would gladly retract the statement. I don’t think you’ll find it. But as long as you brought it up… It wouldn’t matter if I told you of a miracle, you wouldn’t believe me. If it’s of any interest, I have heard hundreds of miracle claims. Of the claims I’ve heard or been involved with, I’m only convinced of one actual miracle, which involved a person I knew very well.

Have you read David Hume’s classic, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”? If so, then you’ll know this story. Would the testimony of the great skeptic, David Hume, provide evidence of a real miracle? Or would you actually need to witness the miracle yourself? Despite his insistence on the impossibility of miracles, he so much as admits to knowing of miracle claims that seem to meet his criteria for believing in them (sufficient number of witnesses, witnesses of good character and education, act performed in a public setting, etc). He tells this story in section X, part 2 describing miracles alleged to have occurred in the recent past with which he is familiar:

Notice how Hume refutes the alleged miracle: he dismisses it by saying it didn’t happen because miracles are impossible. Very poor argumentation. I think you would respond in the same way. If you saw something (i.e. the gravity-defying bus) allegedly miraculous you would find some other non-miraculous explanation, or be content to leave it unexplained. I doubt it would lead you to a belief in a god. Imagine gravity-defying buses becoming a regular occurrence. Should people still continue to use this as a foundation for a belief in god? I think this might be why god doesn’t do the “magician routine” for the crowds on a daily basis.

Peace,

Polycarp

Kosh

Your arguments are invalid.

Photocrat

It's easy enough to define. Let S be the set of "snarflats." For any element 'x' let x belong to the set S if it is a cm^3 of food that was "snarfed" by a human being and then flattened [or at least partially masticated]. Oh, wait... wrong claim ;]

Since this is a positive claim, what empirical evidence of that do you offer? :] You grabbed that burden, not me. I'll offer a couple tidbits, anyhow--Lourdes [http://www.lourdes-france.com/] and the historical evidence, especially when I use Lourdes so as not to throw out supernatural things a priori :] Yes, I know there's room for debate there [e.g. you won't buy this] but it is evidence.