Mageth

wild ox:

I never mentioned "lack of evidence." I'm saying that granting the logical possibility of a non-physical god is not granting very much. To me, it's a mental exercise, as such an entity would have to exhibit physical attributes (and thus not be "non-physical) to interact with me.

I would argue with WJ that the "essences" he's describing, if they exist, would exist as part of the physical universe, unless you want to claim an emotion leaves your brain, exits the universe, comes back in the universe, and enters someone else's brain.

Philosoft

Sorry, until you demonstrate that you actually have a concept of a non-physical entity, you will make no more headway with me.

Hans

wild ox

I don't think you intended what this statement implies. It implies that only things that can be disproved with scientific certianty are not possible. But reality does not agree. Either things exist or can be made to exist or they don't or can't. If they don't or can't then they are not possible regardless of what science may or may not have to say about them.

First I'll address the new term; "arguably possible." The term "arguably" implies that the possibilty can be argued when in fact all that has been established is that the possibility can not be disproved.

Therefore I would change your last statement to read:

While it is not known if the existence of non-physical concepts[entities] independent of the mind is possible we can only say that it may or may not be possible.

And if I restructure the sentence to be more readable with the changes, it reads:

The existance of non-physical entities independent of the mind may or may not be possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see where you have shown anything other than the statement immediately above.

WJ

Ox!

I agree. Why? Because it logically follows if creation is unknown (infinite regress of darwinism and explaination for the big bang) as there must have been the 'first one' somehow, then human consciousness has no explaination other than it just is. And if that's the case why does consciousness create wonder?

In otherwords, human the evolution/creation (whichever the case) of higher forms of consciousness (the ability to compute the laws of gravity when it is not required in dodging falling objects, not to mention sentience, feeling,love, wonderment) has an interesting irony from the way in which we think we know it works; meta-physical. (Beyond the explaination of electrical impulses.)

Is that better?

Walrus

wild ox

Philosoft,

Excellent observation! Let me clarify the issue.
__________________________________________________ “When we discuss gods, are we discussing something? If not, we're discussing nothing, we're just acting like we're discussing something. Square-circles are nothing but we can have a discussion as if they were something. Here, let me rewrite your passage above in a (probably futile) attempt to show you why your logic is useless:

You may be able to prove that square-circleness or circle-squareness is not possible for physical entities.

But, how could you prove that they are not possible for non-physical entities that cannot be defined or completely understood, such as square-circles, which, as I demonstrated, cannot be disproved?
__________________________________________________

We do not know if “God” exists or not, but the concept of “God” does exist. It exists in many people’s minds. But it cannot be scientifically defined.

My argument cannot be applied to square-circleness because it is not a “CONCEPT”. We are only discussing CONCEPTS. CONCEPTS can ALWAYS be thought. That is what makes them concepts. Maybe I should have used other words. But, as I stated before. Square-circleness is not thinkable. Thus it is different from “thinkable concepts such as “God” or “evil” or “humor”.

“Thinkable,” non-physical concepts, independent form the mind, are arguably possible. Therefore, atheists should not demand scientific or logical proof from Christians for their belief in God to be justified.

wild ox

Hans,

We are entering a semantics debate. But, as you seem more intellectually honest than most, I will further endeavor.

__________________________________________________ "And if I restructure the sentence to be more readable with the changes, it reads:

The existance of non-physical entities independent of the mind may or may not be possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see where you have shown anything other than the statement immediately above."
__________________________________________________

You are right! But I replaced the phrase "may or may not be possible" with the phrase "arguably possible"

Thanks.

wild ox

Koyaanisqatsi ,

Thanks for joining the discussion.

You said, “No one is concerned with whether or not people can self-justify belief.”

I am making the point that atheists should be OK with the idea that believing in God is justifiable, period.

The concept of God can be justifiably believed in by anyone because there is no way to disprove it.

By the way, belief is not at all irrelevant to anyone!!! Beliefs are how we make decisions that affect others and ourselves!

I am not claiming that God exists. I am only claiming that in light of the fact that no one can disprove His existence, then personal experience is enough to justify the belief! That is all I am saying.

Hans

wild ox

And they are not the same, as I argued. What "argument" would you make that it is infact possible?

Answer: That it may or may not be possible because science and logic can not disprove it.

It may be semantics but the implication is important if you want your arguments to be considered. All you have shown is that you don't know if it is possible, but yet labeled it as "arguably so."

Vorkosigan

“Thinkable,” non-physical concepts, independent form the mind, are arguably possible. Therefore, atheists should not demand scientific or logical proof from Christians for their belief in God to be justified.

Oh, yes we should. Christian beliefs have social consequences, from running orphanages to slaughtering enemies. Although there is a laudable charitable impulse in Christianity, most of its social consequences are pernicious, since religion is largely about power and control.

Your argument would seem to suggest that the subjective personal experience of Christians is argument enough for massive social policy changes. That is nonsense. This is especially true since other religions are making similar claims. How do I chose between Christian claims and those of Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, etc, if I can't use logic and evidence? Many Christians argue that gays should be locked up. Which subjective experiences should I go with, Christians who claim homosexuality is OK with god, or Christians who claim gays are evil? Do I go with those Christians like Christian Reconstructionists who claim that blacks are inferior, slavery ought to be reinstituted and adulterers killed as the Bible says, or those Christians who place love at the center of their beliefs, like Quakers? When Christians make wacky claims about the world, like saying evolution is wrong, or Washington and Lincoln were Christians, can I argue with them using evidence and logic? Where is the line drawn?

Additionally, Christians ARE making statements about the nature of reality. These range from "there is a god of the universe; the Canaanite Sky God Ya" to "the universe is an artifact" and so on. Empirical claims require empirical proof. Period.

Of course, there is the problem of the Bible. On what grounds do I accept any of its claims? To be a Christian is to have some relationship with the tribal histories of the Jewish people, as well as the NT writings. Can I study these using logic and evidence, or do I just pick one of the 10,000 sects of Christianity, and follow its prescription?

Further, Christians throughout the centuries have disagreed with you. They believe that logic and evidence support the existence of their deity. What would you say to Aquinas or Pascal or William Craig?

Finally, I suggest you delve into the ideas of <a href="http://www.bayesian.org/" target="_blank">Rev. Thomas Bayes</a> about logic before you decide that logic should be inflexible. There are many kinds of logics, and not all of them fit your description.

Vorkosigan

Philosoft

Ox,

If you actually have a concept of God, you should be able to tell me how I can have that concept as well. As I have shown, it is possible to say or write something about a non-concept. Simply because we can talk about the word'God' does not mean that the word'God' represents a concept.