rainbow walking

Clutch: Don't be surprised if it turns out the reply is something like, "It depends what you mean by nothing!"


rw: Ha! I was just going to ask HB what "nothing" is or isn't and where he imagines it came from?

rainbow walking

Hi Haverbob,
Basically you're just trying to make a point that no one has a valid reason for their position on "God". Whether you've actually made that point remains to be seen.

I'm just curious as to why you choose "God" as your position? And, what follows for you from that choice?

I can see you've no intention of attempting a definition of this "God" so I'm curious as to how you came to choose something that must be incoherent, (as all indefinable things must be), to you? Why prefer incoherence to rational speculation or simply "not yet known"? If you're locked into incoherence...how do you imagine anything coherent can come from such a position? I can tell you that not many folks are willing to say maybe an incoherent "something" that you arbitrarily call a "God" exists. Why should they?

The point clutch is making with his reference to an incoherent jumble of words is that it isn't as rational to ascribe the existence of existence to something from incoherence, as it is to simply say "Don't know".

But when an atheist argues against the existence of a specifically defined "God" that's a totally different rabbit being pulled from a well worn hat.

Until you breath some fire into this dragon and define the "God" you have chosen as a likely candidate for the existence of existence...no one is going to agree with you or even be able to logically dis-agree.

haverbob

First of all, I never called it the likely candidate. Perhaps I called it the preferable candidate (for me). Second, you may be missing the point that I intended with this thread. I am merely putting the same critical eye to atheism that is applied to theism and it appears as though atheistic conjecture doesn't hold up very well either

rainbow walking

rw: What conjecture are you referring to? An atheist is not obligated to define a god for you so that he can then critically examine the definition. Your personal preference of choice remains nothing more than that if you refuse to define that preference, so how can you accuse anyone of conjecture when you leave them no other alternative but to conjecture what ever it is you have personally preferred? Where's the beef?

The atheists conjecture on the existence of existence is also based on previous findings and science that has been imminently more successful in allowing man to further conjecture about such issues as these. Accepting a conjecture based on incoherence ends all further conjecture or scientific investigation and leaves one with nothing but incoherence rather than conjecture as a possible answer. You appear to be assigning some kind of definition to this god on the basis of it being responsible for the existence of existence, so you're basically arguing some kind of cosmological first cause...and trying to evade the responsibility of defining this causitive agent. If any one is guilty here of anything it's you...argument from incoherence.

So you are now faced with a conundrum of your own creation. Why is an atheist obligated to say that perhaps existence exists because some incoherent godlike indefinable concept might exist and be the causitive agent? You are trying to enter the game with your own loaded dice and accusing the atheist of prejudice for not playing with your dice.

rainbow walking

I'm not satisfied with the previous answer I gave. I think you deserve an even more cogent response.

Let's look at your comparison of conjectures (as you call them) from a "yours" and "ours" perspective. With ours being represented as atheistic based on natural explanations.

We base our worldview, in relation to this question you've brought to the board, on applied science. Our position is one af a naturalistic epistemology. Scientific inquiry has determined that our world is a material world and that all matter is endowed with specific properties, many of which we've discovered and classified.

Now you come along and ask the question, "Well, how did matter get endowed with these specific proerties? Who did the endowing?" You further declare that you believe that an incomprehensible, indefinable entity you arbitrarily call a "God" did it.

We respond that we have no answer to that specific question at this time, and you say "Ah ha! See, my position is equal to yours because I have an answer that, even though it isn't comprehensible, is an answer."

But consider this, had it not been for our epistemology, you'd have no basis to even ask your question. You'd have no knowledge of matter, energy or properties with which to form a question at all. You are forced to borrow from our epistemology to frame your challenge. And, even worse, appealing to an incomprehensible indefinable entity leaves you with no way to form your own epistemology...period. So everything you use to claim equality or superiority has to be stolen or borrowed from an epistemology based on naturalistic methodologies.

Therefore, you are certainly free to choose to believe anything you like, but please don't allow yourself to jump to the conclusion that your beliefs are equal to or superior to our own just because our epistemological methodology is incomplete. There is just no comparison. If and or when we do discover how matter is so endowed the discovery will be reduced to comprehensible explanatory terms that you can critically examine anytime you like...quite unlike your reference to this incomprehensible indefinable god you've appealed to as a gap filler. You're absolutely depending on us to supply you the gaps to caulk with this irrational belief you've elected to embrace.

haverbob

Wow. Two posts in a row. Thank you.

I assume you really don't want me to answer that.
A very weird book called "Awareness". I was a Catholic, then an Atheist, and then after this book, I gained some brand new viewpoints about alot of things. I guess "Theist" would be fair to call me. That's general enough.
I was referring to the conjecture you mentioned next.
It definetly ends scientific investigation. If you noticed, I've stayed very general with this God description stuff because I believe that. In fact, that was the Aquinus story that I mentioned where he refused to describe or speak about God ever again, so if I "wanted" to be a good little Christian, I still could. The best that I will say is that for the purpose of this argument, I'm am representing God as a timeless entity that is capable of creation and love. Taken, with only that description in mind, what is so incoherent or impossible about that?

your second post:

Okay, well then neither am I. So we agree.
Well there maybe a few scientifically oriented people that might disagree. I've run in to a few with this thread. Apparently things in outer space actually "do" appear out of thin air. Talk to the people that posted that suggestion. I don't know enough about that.
Yes you are correct. I would have no questions whatsoever. Too long for me to go in to what I REALLY meant by that. Just a quick answer.
Yes, when I speak with YOU, I am forced to.
Thank you.
I'll agree with that. When someone compares 2 unexplainable concepts, there can certaily be no comparison.
Based on your conditions, then I would say that it will never be done. If it's found, I think it's gonna' be pretty hard to put in to words. When you get there, then the next question is who endowed the endower which goes on and on and on.....
Not quite. I'm just identifying the gaps, you can caulk them with whatever you want or feel like. In fact, I think you already have, just in your OWN way.

Jack Kamm

I read the first page of this thread, but didn't read all of the second page. So this might have already been said, but if it has been, I'll just say it again anyways.

You're bringing up two different issues here. One is gods and one is the origin of the universe. The claim that gods exist is an extraordinary claim, and can be rejected on the grounds that there is no evidence to support this claim, just as the claim that the ghost of Elvis lives in my bathroom can be rejected because of the lack of evidence. (There are other reasons why I don't believe in god, but this seems to be the argument you're addressing)

Then you bring up the origins of the universe, and argue that the existence of gods is the best explanation, or at least equally good as the other explanations, and should thus be reconsidered.

First, you say the universe either has a beginning or does not have a beginning. I'll accept that. Then you go on to say that both explanations are equally extraordinary. OK, I'll accept that also.

Then you say that if the universe had a beginning, it needs a cause. This part is not true. First of all, what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole; just because events within the universe require a cause does not mean the universe itself needs a cause. Secondly, every single event we observe around us does not involve a beginning; it only involves changes in the states of things. An event that involves the beginning of matter and energy would be a different kind of event, and just because one kind of event requires a cause, does not mean that the other kind of event also requires one. Third, the claim that all events mankind has observed require a cause is also not true; there are physical phenomena for which scientists can find no cause, such as radioactive decay of uranium atoms. Fourth, this would require a linear view of time; from what I understand (I'm not a physicist), according to most Big Bang models, there was no time before the universe; so, there was no time at which the universe did not exist. There was no time before the universe for there to *be* a cause.

Even if the universe *does* have a cause, why would god be the best explanation? For example, one theory has our fourdimensional spacetime continuum arising from a quantum fluctuation in a larger "multiverse." Why would this not be as good an explanation as god?

In conclusion, the problem of the origins of the universe doesn't make the existence of a god any more likely. Besides, god usually ends up being defined so vaguely that it doesn't mean anything...one can just point at anything and say, "goddidit!"

rainbow walking

haverbob: It definetly ends scientific investigation. If you noticed, I've stayed very general with this God description stuff because I believe that. In fact, that was the Aquinus story that I mentioned where he refused to describe or speak about God ever again, so if I "wanted" to be a good little Christian, I still could.


rw: Ah…so you are an adherent to the Christian version, yet trying to argue the god of the philosophers.

haverbob: The best that I will say is that for the purpose of this argument, I'm am representing God as a timeless entity that is capable of creation and love. Taken, with only that description in mind, what is so incoherent or impossible about that?

rw: Oh, I think you can do better than that. This book, you claim changed your perspective, did it offer an argument or description similar to the one you’ve just given?

haverbob

No, I am not adherent to the Christian misinrepretation although I would say that I am adherent to the words of Jesus and I am not adherent to the misinterpretation of his words. People really do not understand what Jesus was REALLY trying to say and do. In fact, an atheist would have an easier time understanding an alternative interpretation for Jesus's words than would alot of theists. This is why Jesus had no problems with the sinners. His biggest problem was with the supposed saints.
Oh, I think not. It would be foolish for me to think that I can do better than that. Just as foolish as you explaining the exact nature or essence of the origin of everything according to science. Before you tell me science can, just remember my example of what science does when it finds the ultimate endower, it looks for the endower of the ultimate endower as so on, so on....

.No. Sorry to disappoint you. In fact, if it did, surely I would not have believed it, just like you don't believe explanations. When all falsehoods are removed then perhaps God can be experienced, but NEVER explained. About the only thing he says is that when you live moment to moment in the present moment, that's where God can be found (but not explained). I merely gave as general attributes that I could for the purpose of discussion. Timeless, creation and love. Creation is easy, but explain to me what timeless is and what love is. So I really didn't give a description, I merely threw in a fews words for the sake of the argument. Words, however, will always be false to a varying degree in the face of reality.

haverbob

Your's was longer than rainbow's. I'm at work, I'll see if I can get to a response tonight.