“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#140 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat: If the position is that something *possibly* exists, then it is ALSO *possible* that it DOESN'T.
IMpossible is the only absolute here.
Well, it's YOUR position that this "god" concept is "possible".

I'm still waiting on some kind of evidence that this is so before I make such a leap of faith.

I don't see how you can make such a claim without first clearly defining what the set of properties are which describe this vague notion you call "god".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#141 Oct 5, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Before even attempting to answer the question of the existence of a deity, it is important to clarify which of the many definitions is being used.
The first issue is the meaning of the term 'exist'. As silly as this appears, it is a fairly deep question that is never seriously discussed in this context as far as I can see. How do you show something exists? How can you be sure something does not exist? What requirements are there to even begin to address the question?
As an example: does it make sense to say that something exists that does not interact with *anything* else in any way? Since it does not interact, there is absolutely no way to detect it, no way to see 'influences' of it. How do you deal with someone making the claim such a thing exists?
Next, most deities are thought to be supernatural. What, exactly does this mean? To be 'above' or 'transcend' the natural, yes, but what does *that* mean? Would a multi-verse obeying physical laws be supernatural? It would certainly fit the definition if we limit 'natural' to being inside our universe. And yet, it seems to me that a multiverse would *not* be considered supernatural by most people. Why not? How does the basic definition need to be changed?
For that matter, how do we define the 'natural'? I know as a scientist, we tend to define anything to be natural if it interacts in a detectable way with things we have previously seen to be natural (recursive definition). But then we run up against the definition of 'exist' above. Does it even make sense to talk about a 'supernatural' if the 'natural' includes anything that interacts with the natural?
Then we get to the properties of any proposed deity. many (not all) are supposed to be supernatural beings that cause our universe to exist. They are supposed to have intelligence. So a question immediately arises: would a race of intelligent beings that lives in the multiverse and has learned how to make universes be considered deities? What if they make these universes through the physical laws of the multiverse? What if they don't have absolute control over the properties of the universes made? What if some universes are made by team work? How about some designing some of the laws and others designing other laws for the universe in question?
It seem to me that before the question of whether God exists is asked, we need to clarify *exactly* what it is we are asking. And I have never seen enough details in the conception of a deity to allow the question to even be attempted, let alone answered (unless the answer is a clear NO: the greek pantheon does not exist, for example).
Thanks for your post Poly. The way I've treated the "supernatural" with fundies is by hypothetically treating it as natural but simply not detected yet. Therefore since they (claim to) have "evidence" I ask them what it is and how we can tell. For it seems to me that the multiverse (for example), if it exists, is a *natural* phenomena. And (a) God would be the same. Or anything else we happen to discover beyond the boundaries of our universe (if we ever do). So at this point fundies often start using "supernatural" as a reason why science can't detect it. So we can then point out that basically it's another way of saying that they don't have any scientific evidence, they just can't admit it to us mean old evo's, thus exposing their position as a non-falsifiable philosophical one, such as Last Thurdayism or We're All Trapped In The Matrixism.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#142 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I disagree. Call it semantics if you like, but it's a habit from dealing with fundies for so long. After all they argue that science needs "proof" and that evolution is "only" a theory, and not a "law". Then we have to provide them with precise dictionary definitions and take the time to explain in detail what exactly these words mean in a scientific context. Then they accuse us of talking semantics.
You should have noted that my previous reply included a reword to address your point, repeated here --

"Any evidence that any cogent definition of the concept "god" is even remotely possible"?

And, let me underscore the word EVIDENCE in this sentence.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Skip failed because he made exactly the same mistake.
You really are obsessed with him.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't claim that there ARE, I said that it's POSSIBLE (remember I just explained above, "possible" is still open to falsification) because it's not been falsified. Those properties may or may not exist. They may or may not be possible. They may be possible but maybe still don't exist anyway. There may or may not be a God. Who knows? Who cares? As it's a non-falsifiable concept there's no way to tell.
You are still talking about "it" like there is actually some substantive definition available.

To claim that there is a possibility of existence of this vague nothingness you have to make a leap of logic that I am not willing to make.

And, to answer one of your questions that you posed here more directly -- YOU obviously care as you are determined to insist that god's existence is possible without first defining the concept clear enough to make such a claim.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you're Skippy, because he DOES know. Because he has divine knowledge of every concept there is, falsifiable or non-falsifiable, and if it's possible or not. Because he IS God. Universal boundaries and scientific limitations be dammed. And he KNOWS that God does not exist. He said so.
And Skeptic promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
You obsession with Skeptic borders on a fundamentalist mentality and makes continued conversation with you extremely draining.

You have declared by fiat that "god" is possible, so you're in no position to talk here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#143 Oct 5, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's YOUR position that this "god" concept is "possible".
Oh, the concept is not only possible, it exists. That's how we're having this discussion. Whether a God exists though is another matter.
Hedonist wrote:
I'm still waiting on some kind of evidence that this is so before I make such a leap of faith.
The evidence is in the posts that have failed to falsify it. If it's been falsified, then go ahead and call it impossible (keep in mind that very rarely, falsified concepts MIGHT still come back). If it's not been demonstrated IMpossible, then the ONLY other alternative is that it is POSSIBLE.

So there's no problem. If you disagree with me then go ahead and claim it's impossible. Take Skippy's position.
Hedonist wrote:
I don't see how you can make such a claim without first clearly defining what the set of properties are which describe this vague notion you call "god".
I don't see how the positive claim for its existence can be made either. But I don't automatically rule it out based purely because there is no evidence. That makes bacteria impossible in 1500. That African wildebeest impossible in 1800. Dark matter and dark energy impossible in 1900. Aliens impossible in 2001. Multiverse impossible in 2012. And I don't rule it out due to a philosophical inclination towards atheism either. I just let the scientific method take care of it. And it does that by throwing it in the non-falsifiable box along with "We're all trapped in the Matrix" and "Last Thursdayism". And there it always stays, because nobody on the planet, not even Skeptic, has given a good enough reason to take it out of there.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#144 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the concept is not only possible, it exists....
Does it? The word "god" exists, true enough. But does it have any real meaning?

Yes, as Nuggies has regurgitated ad nauseam, there is the dictionary definition of "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship", but let's please not go there.

There's also the other dictionary definitions: "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe".

So are you saying that you believe that a entity who is "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" could possible exist?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#145 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...
So there's no problem. If you disagree with me then go ahead and claim it's impossible....
I would love to make a determination of whether it's possible or impossible as soon as you define what you're talking about in clear enough terms that such a determination can be made.

Until then, there is absolutely no reason I should accept your claim that something you can't even define must be considered possible, just because you say so.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#146 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...
The evidence is in the posts that have failed to falsify it. If it's been falsified, then go ahead and call it impossible (keep in mind that very rarely, falsified concepts MIGHT still come back). If it's not been demonstrated IMpossible, then the ONLY other alternative is that it is POSSIBLE.
....
This sounds way too much like "well you can't prove he doesn't exist, so the only other alternative is that he is real."

You're still asking me to prove a negative.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147 Oct 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...If it's not been demonstrated IMpossible, then the ONLY other alternative is that it is POSSIBLE.
...
How would you "demonstrate" that omnipotence is impossible? Oh, and if you can't, then the only other alternative is that it is possible.

And yet, an omnipotent entity still could never make an object so big that even he couldn't move it. So omnipotence is paradoxically impossible.

Go figure, right?

So, can an entity possibly exist who can, in your determination, be labeled "god" and who does not possess the attribute of omnipotence?

If so, what is the complete set of properties you would ascribe to such a being?
Henry

Bad Frankenhausen, Germany

#148 Oct 7, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it? The word "god" exists, true enough. But does it have any real meaning?
Yes, as Nuggies has regurgitated ad nauseam, there is the dictionary definition of "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship", but let's please not go there.
There's also the other dictionary definitions: "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe".
So are you saying that you believe that a entity who is "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" could possible exist?
Of course the spaghettimonster has never ever existed,so is god never existed!
redneck

Myrtle Creek, OR

#149 Oct 7, 2012
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the spaghettimonster has never ever existed,so is god never existed!
I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you can not prove otherwise.My life has changed because of Him.Be more respectful.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150 Oct 7, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's YOUR position that this "god" concept is "possible".
I'm still waiting on some kind of evidence that this is so before I make such a leap of faith.
I don't see how you can make such a claim without first clearly defining what the set of properties are which describe this vague notion you call "god".
Finally Hedonist, you see what the Dude is all about. Making the claim that "god is possible". Without providing a shred of evidence.

It's been more than a year, I would not waste your time with the illogical Dude anymore, he has no evidence and his ego won't let him admit his faulty thinking.

I mean after all, he is an agnostic, its an inherently faulty way of thinking while trying to feel morally superior.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151 Oct 7, 2012
Science isn't the only tool for falsifiying. There's logic. But the Dude is too dumb and arrogant to understand this point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#152 Oct 8, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it? The word "god" exists, true enough. But does it have any real meaning?
Yes, as Nuggies has regurgitated ad nauseam, there is the dictionary definition of "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship", but let's please not go there.
There's also the other dictionary definitions: "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe".
So are you saying that you believe that a entity who is "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" could possible exist?
Do you note you're trying to narrow down the concept in order so it falls more in line with traditional creationism so you can say "God is false! Yay!" So why are you trying to drag me, a non-fundie down the creationist garden path? The concept is not well defined and hence non-falsifiable. If not falsifiable then it's not scientific. Isn't that enough?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#153 Oct 8, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to make a determination of whether it's possible or impossible as soon as you define what you're talking about in clear enough terms that such a determination can be made.
Until then, there is absolutely no reason I should accept your claim that something you can't even define must be considered possible, just because you say so.
It's not my say so, it's whether you say it's impossible. So say it. Make Skippy's argument.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154 Oct 8, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
This sounds way too much like "well you can't prove he doesn't exist, so the only other alternative is that he is real."
You're still asking me to prove a negative.
No I'm not. UNLESS you're making the *positive* assertion that it is "impossible". In which case yes, I am. And it's what I've been asking of Skippy for all these months. Because he claims to have proven a negative.

And no, I have NOT made the claim that "the only other alternative is that he is real."

Not once.

Ever.

At all.

Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#156 Oct 8, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you "demonstrate" that omnipotence
Whoa thar bub. Who said omnipotence? You did.

Behe thinks God is dead. Ain't very impressive for an omnipotent entity. But hey, he might be right.
Hedonist wrote:
is impossible? Oh, and if you can't, then the only other alternative is that it is possible.
And yet, an omnipotent entity still could never make an object so big that even he couldn't move it. So omnipotence is paradoxically impossible.
Go figure, right?
Exactly. You're attempting to lead me into paradoxes which may not even apply to said being. It could easily be finite, non-omnipotent and non-paradoxical. We just don't know anything about it yet.
Hedonist wrote:
So, can an entity possibly exist who can, in your determination, be labeled "god" and who does not possess the attribute of omnipotence?
Why not? The term is most associated with the enigmatic creator of our universe, whatever that may be. Hence why there are different philosophical/theological views on it. Take things like Spinoza's God or deism (which can often be rather nuanced and vary wildly from individual to individual).
Hedonist wrote:
If so, what is the complete set of properties you would ascribe to such a being?
Beats me. Not too sure how many different ways you want me to say the same things though.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#157 Oct 8, 2012
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the spaghettimonster has never ever existed,so is god never existed!
BLASPHEMER!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#158 Oct 8, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally Hedonist, you see what the Dude is all about. Making the claim that "god is possible". Without providing a shred of evidence.
Wasn't the point though, was it Skip?
-Skeptic- wrote:
It's been more than a year, I would not waste your time with the illogical Dude anymore, he has no evidence and his ego won't let him admit his faulty thinking.
Leave the irony meters alone, bub.
-Skeptic- wrote:
I mean after all, he is an agnostic, its an inherently faulty way of thinking while trying to feel morally superior.
That is your claim, but if my thinking is faulty then surely the mighty intellect of Skeptic can (for once) address my arguments instead of popping up every now and then just to spew out more ad-homs?

Still waiting for that apology Skippy.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#159 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not my say so, it's whether you say it's impossible. So say it. Make Skippy's argument.
...
No I'm not. UNLESS you're making the *positive* assertion that it is "impossible". In which case yes, I am. And it's what I've been asking of Skippy for all these months. Because he claims to have proven a negative.
And no, I have NOT made the claim that "the only other alternative is that he is real."
Not once.
Ever.
At all.
Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.
I reject your claim that any entity which could be labeled "god" could possibly exist until you provide evidence that such an entity is at all possible.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#160 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you note you're trying to narrow down the concept in order so it falls more in line with traditional creationism so you can say "God is false! Yay!" So why are you trying to drag me, a non-fundie down the creationist garden path? The concept is not well defined and hence non-falsifiable. If not falsifiable then it's not scientific. Isn't that enough?
Why do you insist that this conceptual word that has absolutely no meaning must still be defining any entity that is at all possible? If it's meaningless then consideration of existence is absurd. Isn't that enough?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 230,938
Evidence for God! 2 hr Uncle Sam 43
Heaven 2 hr susanblange 42
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 11 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 13 hr tha Professor 76
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 13 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 15 hr _Bad Company 1,103

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE