Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 08-12-2002, 01:59 PM

Dr S!

Well let us take another look see at the distinctions:

a. blind person= objective expectations are limited
b. seeing person= objective expections are unlimited

aa. blind person= subjective expectations are without verification

bb. seeing person= subjective expectations are without verification

Taste, color, feelings of a God (sentience), all of which are appercieved thru one's consciousness cannot be objectively deduced as to their real meaning (their nature). You and I, though we can see, do not know the essence of red's existence, nor do we know the essence of our own apperception. In otherwords, consciousness has not been explained with absolute objective certainty.

On the other hand, if in this sense we are both blind and there is no objective certainty, what is your point about the nature of a thing, in this case, redness? Since we are both blind, what is the distinction? And if any distinction is found one's mind (their consciousness)how do we verify it thru objectivity?

My question returns to expectation levels and criteria.

Malcolm_MacDohmnall · 08-12-2002, 03:04 PM

ReasonableDoubt

Quote:

What, in your opinion, is required of a claim to warrant agnosticism?

First I would say the lack of absolute definition of what a God might be. I could hardly reject a concept without fully understanding the definition. Whereas one might define a God as omnipotent another might define God as omnipresent. Yet anther might define God as a collective consciousness of sentient jelly beans. I would certainly be able to assign reasonable doubt to specific concepts when accurately described. As to the concept of God in General I would find it impossible to reject all possibilities wholeheartedly.

One definition as reasonable is the Holistic concept of "All" being God. The physicists Gott and Li-Xin Li suggest that the Universe may have created itself by way of a curvature in time produced by an inflationary period at the beginning of the Universe. It works well with the string-field theory so I have reasonable doubt to not assert it is not possible. Of course this is where a definition of God would be "that which created us" much like in a Deist construct. God would be the Universe. It certainly influences my life.

I believe if the calculations are correct it could be true. Yet the anthropocentric versions of God are easier to dismiss for lack of supporting testable and predictable evidence.

To reject the concept as impossible I have to reject the basis for the scientific process which always assigns a possibility of error. To not assign this possibility of error I myself would be in the same boat as one who relied on blind faith.

And again the first error is to assert one understands all definitions and can refute them absolutely.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Malcolm_MacDohmnall ]

Dr S · 08-12-2002, 03:44 PM

Oh Walrus, Walrus, Walrus�
This is just what I'm talking about. If anyone gave you this reply to the existential question "is there milk in the fridge" you would find yourself suddenly remembering a forgotten appointment and leaving post haste.

Yet you feel fine giving it about god.

(W)Taste, color, feelings of a God (sentience), all of which are appercieved thru one's consciousness cannot be objectively deduced as to their real meaning (their nature).
(S) And yet you insist that you can perceive him.

(W)In otherwords, consciousness has not been explained with absolute objective certainty.
(S) Nor does it need to be unless the "bar is raised" to impossibly high levels. I didn't raise it higher than a quart container of milk. The piddling amount of objective certainty you need to understand that a container of milk exists should do just fine for god. No need to dust off our copies of Kant, I'm not asking that much.

(W)On the other hand, if in this sense we are both blind and there is no objective certainty, what is your point about the nature of a thing, in this case, redness?
(S) The point is that existential claims can never be subjective, they can only be objective.
If I claim that "my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world" that is a subjective claim. It is a statement of my feelings and not hard facts. However if I change that to "my wife is," that becomes an existential claim. Whether she is or is not is an independent fact and my feelings and emotions have no bearing on it at all.

(W)Since we are both blind, what is the distinction? And if any distinction is found one's mind (their consciousness)how do we verify it thru objectivity?
(S) Distinctions that are only found in a persons mind are subjective and as such have no bearing on reality (which is why, despite how much I Believe!!!! people just don't mistake me for Pierce Brosnan). If we cannot objectively verify a claim then we are obliged by honesty not to make that claim.

(W) My question returns to expectation levels and criteria.
(S) My expectation level and criteria are again quite low. I expect people, myself included, not to lie. If you don't have objective proof of something's existence then you should not claim that such a thing exists, because you have no way of knowing that it does.
If you feel that it's real, if you want it to be real with all your heart, if it seems so real in your imagination it doesn't matter in the least.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dr S ]

Jayhawker Soule · 08-12-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm_MacDohmnall:

[Having asked: "What, in your opinion, is required of a claim to warrant agnosticism?" - RD]

First I would say the lack of absolute definition of what a God might be. ... One definition as reasonable is the Holistic concept of "All" being God. ... Of course this is where a definition of God would be "that which created us" much like in a Deist construct.

While you make an interesting observation, I do not understand how this constitutes an answer to my question - perhaps due to unclarity on my part. Given your most recent comment, permit me to ask it this way: "What, in your opinion, is required of a definition of God to warrant agnosticism?

Also, do you see any distinction between

God = that [process] which created us, and
God = that [deity] which intended to create us?

Thanks.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Malcolm_MacDohmnall · 08-12-2002, 04:53 PM

ReasonableDoubt

Quote:

Also, do you see any distinction between

God = that [process] which created us, and
God = that [deity] which intended to create us?

That would be subject to the assertion of the belief holder to what defines the construct of God.

As for myself I feel there would be little distinction as I feel they would demand the same observance of the Laws of Nature. I myself would not feel a God would create us for worship and would most likely as not would have created tools for observance of natural interactions. If such a God did indeed create us special beyond the natural environment he/she placed us here not for ego but for experience. The deity God would have also created the laws of nature and as such those would be the guidelines for purpose. If the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate then the plan of a "Deity" is for all parts to expand too. Knowledge on the natural laws would create the fastest rate of expansion. Sustainability would be a factor too. If indeed it was a conscious God rather than solely a process God. If it was a process God then the purpose would be expansion through understanding the natural laws.

seanie · 08-13-2002, 12:03 AM

Dr S

Quote:

But if I ask you if there is milk in the fridge and you don't look. If you pull out a 2000 year old book about milk. If you claim that you know that there is milk because of the meaning milk has given to your life. If you claim that people cannot prove that there is no milk just because they can't perceive it. If you claim that milk exists on the dairy (spiritual) realm and so we shouldn't expect to see it even though you know it was real. If you told me that the only possible reason I had to think that the refrigerator was empty was that I was predisposed to disbelieve that there was milk in it�.

I shall treasure your quote for many years to come.

WJ · 08-13-2002, 05:15 AM

Seanie/Dr!

Don't you see (ha) that you guys are loosing it? Seanie's quote from you [Dr.]is all about deduction and the apriori, not experience.After reading your post, Dr., it's the same ol hootinanyhorseshit. I shall use this same logic with you later in the fopregoing.

This how short sighted, pardon the pun, your former argument is:

a. If you and I both posess consciousness, but objectively its natue cannot be proven, then you are a liar if you try to convince me thru materialism/objectivism that you know it exists.

Now, let me demonstrate your approach of deducing the truth. I shall claim that, cosmologically, God (though I do not know its essence), is the a necessary Being. He is the first causal agent. Further, he may be just as illusionary or mysterious as our understanding of free-will because the nature of our apperception cannot be proven objectively.

Prove me a liar!

Theli · 08-13-2002, 05:40 AM

WJ...

Quote:

It is paradoxical because how can you debate a some thing that doesn't exist(?).

Correction: We discuss the existence of something we doesn't believe exist. Our position/agenda is not more questionable than your own.
You might find that our discussions differs from those of christian boards.

Quote:

You shouldn't want to debate God because your own use of logic would be compromised by the apparent inconsistency in your methods from which you use in determining all that can be known about [your and] God's existence.

Now you are being bigoted again.
First you are telling us what we should and should not do, then you claim that we must know excacly everything to draw conclutions. Both of these claims are part of a christian bigotry that we see often on this board.

Quote:

Make sense?

Not really...

Quote:

If you believe whatchamacallit's don't exist, why bother to ponder it?

Well, I find that discussing about god's existence is a good springboard towards other philosophical and scientific discussions.
The 2 big questions here is:
1. Why are you here? What is your agenda?
2. You seem very concerned (borderline upset) that we discuss about your god's existence. Does it bother you?

Quote:

No, I'm saying in a country that placed a high value in a God, from both a pragmatic and religious sense, where individual's feel oppressed by this basic value, trust or ideal (which many atheists believe) should get the hell out of the country.

And here comes the largest bigotry of them all.
"If you are not of the same kind as the majority, then leave!".
I don't know wich country you are from, but it seems to me that is has laws such as Freedom of religion wich you clearly don't like.
If you want to play fascist, then that's fine. But I don't think that kind of crap belongs on this board.

Quote:

Relocate to a godless country where you would seemingly feel more comfortable.

Yes, why not round all people up that doesn't fit into your "frames" and relocate them.
You should have to hear about their bitching "I have freedom of religion" crap, it's your country!

I think you're on something here, WJ.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

tommyc · 08-13-2002, 06:40 AM

Hi WJ

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
[QB]Sean, hi!

These questions were directed to Seanie yesterday, but I�d like to make a few comments before moving onto some of your more recent posts.

Quote:

1. Ok, you enjoy arguing for the sake of same. Why god? Can't you pick a topic that is consistent with your atheism? You were doing good until that one

I mean, is your intent based upon political activism? And if so, what is the ultimate goal per item 3 ?

Ummm, I can see a pretty big contradiction your suggesting here. You are saying that the existence (or rather the debate of the existence) of God, is not consistent with atheism? The whole point of atheism is that it denies the existence of God. If there were never any religions, then the term wouldn�t even exist! In today�s society (especially the US) that viewpoint is constantly challenged, so I think to be consistent with this stance, debating the existence of God is pretty much the whole point of (strong) atheism. (At least until such time as your viewpoint is accepted as being perfectly reasonable by society, or at least is not treated with widespread hostility).

Quote:

2. Your answer strikes me as a bit odd, if not paradoxical. Perhaps answering the most basic question of 'why debate God at all' will uncover the fact that you must care about the topic of existence, otherwise, as we agreed, you would feel compelled to discuss whatchamacallit's instead.

What is wrong with caring about the topic of existence of God? I find the whole area fascinating. I believe you are also presenting a very loaded question here. Now, I may be stepping way off the mark, but when I hear theists talk about some hidden agenda for atheists debating God, it is as if they are suggesting that we secretly know it�s all true, and have to constantly debate to set our minds at rest and to convince ourselves we are not living a lie. (which funnily enough is how atheists see the Christian psychology on the subject, so maybe I�m being a hypocrite here).

Quote:

3. Now, that is a consistent response, yet contradictory in light of this specific discussion per item 1.

I won�t comment on this question as it's more directly aimed at Seanie.

Sorry if I�m backtracking here, Ill try to catch up later.

seanie · 08-13-2002, 06:55 AM

I hadn't actually noticed a question directed to me and I certainly couldn't see how WJ's comments related to what I had posted.

08-12-2002, 03:44 PM	#53
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	Oh Walrus, Walrus, Walrus� This is just what I'm talking about. If anyone gave you this reply to the existential question "is there milk in the fridge" you would find yourself suddenly remembering a forgotten appointment and leaving post haste. Yet you feel fine giving it about god. (W)Taste, color, feelings of a God (sentience), all of which are appercieved thru one's consciousness cannot be objectively deduced as to their real meaning (their nature). (S) And yet you insist that you can perceive him. (W)In otherwords, consciousness has not been explained with absolute objective certainty. (S) Nor does it need to be unless the "bar is raised" to impossibly high levels. I didn't raise it higher than a quart container of milk. The piddling amount of objective certainty you need to understand that a container of milk exists should do just fine for god. No need to dust off our copies of Kant, I'm not asking that much. (W)On the other hand, if in this sense we are both blind and there is no objective certainty, what is your point about the nature of a thing, in this case, redness? (S) The point is that existential claims can never be subjective, they can only be objective. If I claim that "my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world" that is a subjective claim. It is a statement of my feelings and not hard facts. However if I change that to "my wife is," that becomes an existential claim. Whether she is or is not is an independent fact and my feelings and emotions have no bearing on it at all. (W)Since we are both blind, what is the distinction? And if any distinction is found one's mind (their consciousness)how do we verify it thru objectivity? (S) Distinctions that are only found in a persons mind are subjective and as such have no bearing on reality (which is why, despite how much I Believe!!!! people just don't mistake me for Pierce Brosnan). If we cannot objectively verify a claim then we are obliged by honesty not to make that claim. (W) My question returns to expectation levels and criteria. (S) My expectation level and criteria are again quite low. I expect people, myself included, not to lie. If you don't have objective proof of something's existence then you should not claim that such a thing exists, because you have no way of knowing that it does. If you feel that it's real, if you want it to be real with all your heart, if it seems so real in your imagination it doesn't matter in the least. [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dr S ]</p>

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

08-12-2002, 01:59 PM	#51
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Dr S! Well let us take another look see at the distinctions: a. blind person= objective expectations are limited b. seeing person= objective expections are unlimited aa. blind person= subjective expectations are without verification bb. seeing person= subjective expectations are without verification Taste, color, feelings of a God (sentience), all of which are appercieved thru one's consciousness cannot be objectively deduced as to their real meaning (their nature). You and I, though we can see, do not know the essence of red's existence, nor do we know the essence of our own apperception. In otherwords, consciousness has not been explained with absolute objective certainty. On the other hand, if in this sense we are both blind and there is no objective certainty, what is your point about the nature of a thing, in this case, redness? Since we are both blind, what is the distinction? And if any distinction is found one's mind (their consciousness)how do we verify it thru objectivity? My question returns to expectation levels and criteria.

08-13-2002, 05:15 AM	#57
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Seanie/Dr! Don't you see (ha) that you guys are loosing it? Seanie's quote from you [Dr.]is all about deduction and the apriori, not experience.After reading your post, Dr., it's the same ol hootinanyhorseshit. I shall use this same logic with you later in the fopregoing. This how short sighted, pardon the pun, your former argument is: a. If you and I both posess consciousness, but objectively its natue cannot be proven, then you are a liar if you try to convince me thru materialism/objectivism that you know it exists. Now, let me demonstrate your approach of deducing the truth. I shall claim that, cosmologically, God (though I do not know its essence), is the a necessary Being. He is the first causal agent. Further, he may be just as illusionary or mysterious as our understanding of free-will because the nature of our apperception cannot be proven objectively. Prove me a liar!

08-13-2002, 06:55 AM	#60
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I hadn't actually noticed a question directed to me and I certainly couldn't see how WJ's comments related to what I had posted.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.