There's no such thing as god

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 8)

Showing posts 141 - 160 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
Science isn't the only tool for falsifiying. There's logic. But the Dude is too dumb and arrogant to understand this point.
Ah, but "logic" is more akin to math or philosophy. Like math it often relies on axioms, and the outcome can vary dependent upon the axioms. For example, a mathematical model of a 2-dimensional universe can be "logical". And you can throw all the numbers you like at it and it'll still work (as long as you don't suck at math). But it doesn't have any bearing on our reality. Same if we take the philosophical approach, as philosophical arguments for and against (insert whatever you like here) will usually claim to be "logical". Except that neither side in a philosophical argument can really prove their opinions are the "right" ones. And those arguments don't necessarily fall because of the opposing philosophical position, but often because they break their own rules (such as the creationist "everything must have a cause" argument).

So if you're gonna give me some math, then gimme some math. Otherwise if you're gonna take the philosophy route, then I remind you that philosophy is to science as what ornithology is to birds. In other words, outside one's own personal subjectivity, philosophy is bollox.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then you reject the multiverse and aliens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It's not necessarily meaningless, just not well defined. Which throws it into the non-falsifiable category. Isn't *that* enough?

And "absurd" is a more subjective term here. For example, I think the chances of me being an assassin robot in disguise from the future is even more absurd than the possibility of some alien entity somehow creating the universe. Yet the time-travelling robot is the more scientific claim.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Not trying to "lead" you anywhere necessarily.

You asked for demonstrable evidence and I ask how you demonstrate that impossible paradoxes are impossible (you just didn't like my example, but then you also didn't like 4-sided triangles or any other example of impossibilities as it puts you too much on the spot).

According to your logic, if I can't demonstrate they're impossible, then they must be considered possible. That's your entire argument, right?

And I'm still waiting on a set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, you claim such an entity is possible.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
Oct 8, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Beats me. Not too sure how many different ways you want me to say the same things though.
The very idea that there is no agreed to definition of the term "god", that each person is free to make up whatever they wish about their version of "god" and change it on a whim, would be further evidence that the concept itself is meaningless.

But this isn't about everybody else's definition, it's about YOURS. As you say, the term varies from individual to individual. So, what are the set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, YOU CLAIM such an entity is possible.

And I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, so much as think about your claim. We far too often give "possible existence" a 'wink and a nod' as it were when the word "god" is invoked, without really thinking about how meaningless the word is.

We don't do that for other absurd claims, well at least normally we don't ... How about faeries -- are you agnostic about faeries at the bottom of your garden or are you an afaeriest? Shall I go through a long list of absurd things and see which you're agnostic about?

Every "god" yet invented has been absurdly ridiculous. Doesn't mean that all possible definition will always be for all times, but it does provide a solid foundation that to assume otherwise without evidence is not sound logic.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Oct 8, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... vary wildly from individual to individual
...
You know you keep asking for evidence that "god" is impossible ... well, here's your evidence, and by your own words.

If I accept your assertion that the definition of the word "god" will "vary wildly from individual to individual", which I do most whole-heartedly accept, then you are in fact saying that there is no definable meaning for the word. Further, if the word "god" does not in actuality signify any specific concept, then it is meaningless. Meaningless concepts cannot be said to possibly exist.

Thank you for so clearly providing evidence that "god" is a meaningless concept.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Oct 9, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
Not trying to "lead" you anywhere necessarily.
You asked for demonstrable evidence and I ask how you demonstrate that impossible paradoxes are impossible (you just didn't like my example, but then you also didn't like 4-sided triangles or any other example of impossibilities as it puts you too much on the spot).
Except it doesn't. It does not have to conform to creationist cliches. You would like it to so you can say "Ha look! It's impossible!"
Hedonist wrote:
According to your logic, if I can't demonstrate they're impossible, then they must be considered possible. That's your entire argument, right?
And I'm still waiting on a set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, you claim such an entity is possible.
Well other than some kind of intelligence and ability to create universes I don't actually claim any properties.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Oct 9, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
The very idea that there is no agreed to definition of the term "god", that each person is free to make up whatever they wish about their version of "god" and change it on a whim, would be further evidence that the concept itself is meaningless.
But this isn't about everybody else's definition, it's about YOURS. As you say, the term varies from individual to individual. So, what are the set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, YOU CLAIM such an entity is possible.
How about some new undiscovered animal deep in the African bush? Or the deep ocean? Other than not violating physics or nested hierarchies I have no idea what properties it may have. Those properties may even be bizarre and unexpected. The Skippy approach is say it's impossible because there is no evidence yet. I can't define anything about it other than the most rudimentary properties. But I reckon it's possible.
Hedonist wrote:
And I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, so much as think about your claim. We far too often give "possible existence" a 'wink and a nod' as it were when the word "god" is invoked, without really thinking about how meaningless the word is.
Actually I have thought about how meaningless it is. That's the reason WHY it's in the non-falsifiable box. If it's in there then it's not relevant to our current scientific knowledge. It may or may not become relevant at a later date. At least falsified concepts have meaning.
Hedonist wrote:
We don't do that for other absurd claims, well at least normally we don't ... How about faeries -- are you agnostic about faeries at the bottom of your garden or are you an afaeriest? Shall I go through a long list of absurd things and see which you're agnostic about?
Many things may well be absurd, or at least SEEM to be. Fairies I have no problem with. I'm not agnostic about them, not due to the simple lack of evidence but also because of the evidence AGAINST them. Placing them in our back garden makes them observable, yet not a shred of evidence. They're also a violation of nested hierarchies. They aren't particularly a violation of physics though, unless one attempts to cram a human-level intelligence into such a tiny brain maybe. Without the wings then in that case they MAY be possible, but if there's no way to falsify them they can just be thrown into the non-falsifiable box. If they got wings then into the falsified box.

The perceived absurdity (even if correct) has no bearing on whether something should be placed in the falsified, non-falsifiable, or falsifiable boxes.

Hey, platypi are absurd, but they exist.(shrug)
Hedonist wrote:
Every "god" yet invented has been absurdly ridiculous. Doesn't mean that all possible definition will always be for all times, but it does provide a solid foundation that to assume otherwise without evidence is not sound logic.
And no assumption is made. For saying something may POSSIBLY exist is NOT assuming either that it does or it doesn't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Oct 9, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You know you keep asking for evidence that "god" is impossible ... well, here's your evidence, and by your own words.
If I accept your assertion that the definition of the word "god" will "vary wildly from individual to individual", which I do most whole-heartedly accept, then you are in fact saying that there is no definable meaning for the word. Further, if the word "god" does not in actuality signify any specific concept, then it is meaningless. Meaningless concepts cannot be said to possibly exist.
Thank you for so clearly providing evidence that "god" is a meaningless concept.
And people's baseless opinions have no bearing on what IS. A god MAY exist or it may not. The concept IS currently meaningless BECAUSE it's in the non-falsifiable box. But that alone does not make something "impossible".

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Oct 9, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except it doesn't. It does not have to conform to creationist cliches. You would like it to so you can say "Ha look! It's impossible!"
No, what I would like is for someone, anyone, to actually show any kind of evidence that an such an entity could POSSIBLY exist.

The very sentence "god is possible" is meaningless until you define what you mean by "god".

But again, what you are trying real hard to not say is that, once you actually define the term, any and every definition results in an impossibility.

.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well other than some kind of intelligence and ability to create universes I don't actually claim any properties.
And then you go off on a "creationist cliche". Are you really going to go with the "uncaused caused" property? Really?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Oct 9, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept IS currently meaningless ... But that alone does not make something "impossible".
Yes, it does.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Oct 9, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
....And no assumption is made. For saying something may POSSIBLY exist is NOT assuming either that it does or it doesn't.
But you're not saying SOMETHING may possibly exist. You're saying a meaningless concept may possibly exist.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Oct 9, 2012
 
Meaningless, synonyms: absurd, blank, empty, nonsensical, nothing, vacant, etc.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Oct 9, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is quite easy to simply have a lack of belief in God.
Skippy on the other hand is the atheist of your dreams - the atheist who positively asserts, and believes, that no God exists.
The person you describe would be more appropriately defined as a non believer, and not as an atheist. He may also lack theism, and that would make him atheist too.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#175
Oct 9, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly why does god get special treatment over pink fluffy unicorns?
<quoted text>
Not in my world. She has just turned one, she has curls, she toddles and fluffy pink unicorns rule, because she says so. So there!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Oct 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you reject the multiverse and aliens.
So quick to state what others think, so solow to provide any f*cking evidence of what you think.

Since: Mar 11

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Oct 12, 2012
 
Ok you got a good point. Pink fluffy unicorns trump Jesus any day.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Not in my world. She has just turned one, she has curls, she toddles and fluffy pink unicorns rule, because she says so. So there!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Oct 14, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ok you got a good point. Pink fluffy unicorns trump Jesus any day.
<quoted text>
unicorns ftw.
LCN Llin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Aug 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
So quick to state what others think, so solow to provide any f*cking evidence of what you think.
"...so solow.."
Bwahahahahahahahah :-)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Aug 3, 2013
 
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so solow.."
Bwahahahahahahahah :-)
so the spelling mistake was the only error in my argument, thanks creationist troll!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141 - 160 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••