Are YOU an atheist?

[SHAFT]

Just curious how many atheists we have here. I am. Don't be shy kids, raise your hands if this applies to you.

[Clove]

Just curious how many atheists we have here. I am. Don't be shy kids, raise your hands if this applies to you.I believe God but I don't believe in YOU :D

[BriarFox]

Atheist. :cheers:

[Mtenda]

Agnostic

[Numbers]

I am.

[ElanthianSiren]

Agnostic

same

[SHAFT]

I believe God but I don't believe in YOU :D

That's ok. At least I clearly exist

[g++]

I think its extremely unlikely god exists. Being an atheist isnt my ball of wax for the same reason being christian isnt. You are pretending to know something you dont.

[bookanon]

god?

[SHAFT]

I think its extremely unlikely god exists. Being an atheist isnt my ball of wax for the same reason being christian isnt. You are pretending to know something you dont.

I wouldn't call it pretending. I'm going off of physical evidence. There isn't any. I guess you could say I believe in science. The discovery of dinosaurs proved that the Bible is FOS. Am I saying that everything in the Bible is false? No. But saying that Jesus turned water into wine or that he walked on water is rediculous. I'm sure there was a guy named Jesus Christ and he probably was a great guy, but he wasn't the son of God and he didn't perform miracles.

[Jorddyn]

I think there's something more than what we can see. I fully admit that I have no proof of this, but c'mon. We keep finding new stuff we couldn't see before all the time.

[Clove]

That's ok. At least I clearly existProve it.

[CrystalTears]

I'm sure there was a guy named Jesus Christ and he probably was a great guy, but he wasn't the son of God and he didn't perform miracles.Were you there? :tongue:

[SHAFT]

Prove it.

ok.

[Clove]

I wouldn't call it pretending. I'm going off of physical evidence.Why would there be? Why would there necessarily be evidence of something that by definition would exist apart from the Universe? That's like saying I didn't prepare last night's dinner because there's no physical evidence in my stomach of my involvement.

[SHAFT]

Were you there? :tongue:

That is a question that can be applied to any statement made about the Bible.

If religion helps people sleep at night and get up in the morning, then believe what you have to believe. I'd rather believe in myself and those around me than the supposed Big Guy in the Sky. I'd rather there be a Santa Claus than a God anyway. At least Santa would bring presents.

[SHAFT]

Why would there be? Why would there necessarily be evidence of something that by definition would exist apart from the Universe? That's like saying I didn't prepare last night's dinner because there's no physical evidence in my stomach of my involvement.

Prove there is a God and I'll start carrying a Bible everywhere. One more thing. How many gods are there? Which religion is right? They're just multpile forms of control, to keep people in check. Also they're a crutch.

[Sean]

I trend more towards Agnostic.

[Clove]

Prove there is a God and I'll start carrying a Bible everywhere. One more thing. How many gods are there? Which religion is right? They're just multpile forms of control, to keep people in check. Also they're a crutch.Prove that your lightbulb will light before you turn the switch. You take a variety of things you can't directly (or practically) prove on faith all the time and for that matter many of the proof's you hold inviolate come via authority without either experience or understanding on your own part.

The bottom line is; nobody has proof for or against and whichever you choose to believe in no way makes you more (or less) intelligent.

But you didn't answer my question: Why should evidence exist at all?

[Parkbandit]

<<

[Mtenda]

The discovery of dinosaurs proved that the Bible is FOS.

Not necessarily. Did you ever consider that maybe evolution and some greater power coexisted? You can't prove anything either way. It's all theory. Science may have a little more in the way of evidence to support it's theory. But it's theory nonetheless.

By the way. I totally agree with what g++++++++ said. It find it highly unlikely there is a God. At least in the way it is portrayed in religion. But I am open to the fact that I could be wrong or that there could be something completely different than any of us can come up with.

[Paradii]

I just got off the phone with God. He says hi.

[Asha]

god?

lol
And yeah, athiest over here.

[Mtenda]

I just got off the phone with God. He says hi.

http://uk.gizmodo.com/Test-Makeup-01cell-phone-72.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

I call God whatever science is incapable of explaining at the moment.

When we can bring people back from the dead, explain what lies at the end of the universe, and when time started, God will then be whatever other questions we can't answer. And there will always be something that can't be answered. This infinite open doors-opening-more-doors nature of the universe is what I denote as a "God" essence.

God to me, physically, would be ... a perfect circle: Where pi has been calculated down to the last digit to make Him/Her/It/They (God) into a shape.

God is just a word, though. If evolution had it that our speech sounded more like different pitches of a bird warble, or a chainsaw, then that word/grunt/squeal/song/etc. would be this perpetual infinity of the world that I just happen to spell with three letters and pronounce a certain way.

Shit, I don't fucking know.

[Mtenda]

Shit, I don't fucking know.

ClydeR will lead you to Truth my son.

[Vesi]

I used to be an atheist. Having my daughter was the most spiritual thing that ever happened to me. I feel love that strong doesn't end with death. I would classify myself as agnostic.

[Stanley Burrell]

ClydeR will lead you to Truth my son.

Heh. I think I'd rather burn in the Tenth Circle.

I mean, I will anyway: I'm Jewish Oh snap!

[g++]

I wouldn't call it pretending. I'm going off of physical evidence. There isn't any. I guess you could say I believe in science. The discovery of dinosaurs proved that the Bible is FOS. Am I saying that everything in the Bible is false? No. But saying that Jesus turned water into wine or that he walked on water is rediculous. I'm sure there was a guy named Jesus Christ and he probably was a great guy, but he wasn't the son of God and he didn't perform miracles.

Atheists have the same amount of proof that Jesus was not the son of god as Christians do that he was. Its a pointless argument and its more logical to just say you dont know then too take either position. Religion is one of those talking points where people just refuse to take the middle ground and I really dont see why. If someone asked you where Mulberry street was and you did not know you would just say you dont know but if someone asks you if god exists everyone grabs a gun and starts shouting.

[SHAFT]

Forgive me, I'm a child of divorce. Just how I feel about it.

[SHAFT]

Prove that your lightbulb will light before you turn the switch. You take a variety of things you can't directly (or practically) prove on faith all the time and for that matter many of the proof's you hold inviolate come via authority without either experience or understanding on your own part.

The bottom line is; nobody has proof for or against and whichever you choose to believe in no way makes you more (or less) intelligent.

But you didn't answer my question: Why should evidence exist at all?

In order for me to believe I need evidence. If God came before me and said "Hey Steve, I'm God. Here's my nametag, it says God, look", I might become a follower.

Religion seems childish to me like believing in Santa Claus. Why have blind faith in something that has never been proven?

God has never done anything for me so I see no reason to believe. I also know I'll never be shown proof. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. That's how I feel.

Yes, I know that my lightbulb will turn on when I flip the switch. If it doesn't there is a reason for the lack of electricity, which can be fixed.

[Ashliana]

I'm an agnostic. I don't believe any other choice can be justified by logic.

Can you add a poll?

[SHAFT]

I'm an agnostic. I don't believe any other choice can be justified by logic.

Can you add a poll?

Sure.

[g++]

In order for me to believe I need evidence. If God came before me and said "Hey Steve, I'm God. Here's my nametag, it says God, look", I might become a follower.

Religion seems childish to me like believeing in Santa Claus. Why have blind faith in something that has never been proven?

God has never done anything for me so I see no reason to believe. I also know I'll never be shown proof. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. That's how I feel.

Yes, I know that my lightbulb will turn on when I flip the switch. If it doesn't there is a reason for the lack of electricity, which can be fixed.

Atheism is not the absense of faith in god thats more like agnostic, its the belief that there is no god. Your arguing more from the stand point of a person who simply is unconvinced that there is a god. You do not have to accept the complete opposite conclusion when you find a theory lacking.

[Clove]

Yes, I know that my lightbulb will turn on when I flip the switch. If it doesn't there is a reason for the lack of electricity, which can be fixed.No. You don't know that it will turn on. You take it on faith that the bulb isn't burnt out, or won't burn out when you turn the switch. You take it on faith that service hasn't been interrupted or the wiring is good. You assume it. You expect it. You rely on it. You don't know it. Whether or not there is a reason why it's failed really isn't the question at all.

Can you prove men walked on the moon? How much of what you're told by friends and family do you believe, without requiring proof (or without the possibility of proving)? How has the existence of atoms been proven to you?

You take a good deal (very likely most) of your information on faith and go about much of your life believing in conditions and outcomes you will never prove.

[Ashliana]

For most people, for some bizzare reason, agnostic vs atheist is too vague to understand.. kind of like virtually no one understands the difference between sentience and sapience.

It's unfortunate, but a lot of people that should be identifying as agnostic identify as "atheist."

[Clove]

Hey Sybil, STFU the grownups are talking.

[SHAFT]

poll is up

[SHAFT]

No. You don't know that it will turn on. You take it on faith that the bulb isn't burnt out, or won't burn out when you turn the switch. You take it on faith that service hasn't been interrupted or the wiring is good. You assume it. You expect it. You rely on it. You don't know it. Whether or not there is a reason why it's failed really isn't the question at all.

Can you prove men walked on the moon? How much of what you're told by friends and family do you believe, without requiring proof (or without the possibility of proving)? How has the existence of atoms been proven to you?

You take a good deal (very likely most) of your information on faith and go about much of your life believing in conditions and outcomes you will never prove.

I've been to the moon. I win

[Ashliana]

Hey Sybil, STFU the grownups are talking.

Did I just hear an annoying whining sound in the air? Hm.. Sounded like a rat being stepped on. That would explain the smell.

[CrystalTears]

I've been to the moon. I win
:rofl: Okayy

[Clove]

Fly me to the moon...

[g++]

Fly me to the moon...

That immediately sent an imagine of a Big Daddy rail gunning me with a little sister on his back blasting into my brain.

[SHAFT]

Also, back to the lightbulb thing, the light switches in my home consistently work. Therefore I have faith in them. They've proven themselves to me.

God, not so much. No faith for me

[Stanley Burrell]

Fly me to the moon...

lawl

[Beguiler]

::whine:: my daddy is/was a preacher. It's a faith thing. I know, it's not popular in this thread, but you asked!

Missouri Synod Lutheran, or MISERY Synod to those of us who are in the know...

[SHAFT]

Did I just hear an annoying whining sound in the air? Hm.. Sounded like a rat being stepped on. That would explain the smell.

I know in the last 15 minutes you got a third red square. Thats harsh.

[Ignot]

I put non-religious because I don't practice anything but I was raised Jewish. :shrug:

[Some Rogue]

Where's the It's none of your fucking business so please stfu choice?

[Valthissa]

I'm your basic Deist (usually accused of Fideism)

I have little interest in organized religion

C/Valth

[SHAFT]

Where's the It's none of your fucking business so please stfu choice?

Don't participate

[Vesi]

You left this off your poll:

http://www.subgenius.com/

[SHAFT]

You left this off your poll:

http://www.subgenius.com/

Yup, Scientology too

[Clove]

Also, back to the lightbulb thing, the light switches in my home consistently work. Therefore I have faith in them. They've proven themselves to me.

God, not so much. No faith for meIt hasn't proven anything to you, other than it often works. I'm sure hundreds of lightbulbs have failed you at various unexpected times in your life; yet you assume they will always work.

[SHAFT]

Hey Clove, you win

[Clove]

Just sayin'. Not knowin' doesn't bear a relationship to not believing. It takes as much faith to believe that there is no such thing as god as it does to believe in such a thing; because it isn't known.

[Cephalopod]

There is no option for Pastafarian / FSM. I'm pretty sure that's like 34/128ths of the PC right there.

[droit]

Atheists have the same amount of proof that Jesus was not the son of god as Christians do that he was. Its a pointless argument and its more logical to just say you dont know then too take either position.

That's not how it works, though. When someone asks for proof that God exists, you can't just say, "Prove that he doesn't." The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim (i.e. that God exists), not the person who is being convinced.

Say I claimed that there are pink unicorns that live on the dark side of the moon and that whenever we send probes or satellites over there to look for them, the unicorns hide. It wouldn't be your responsibility to prove that these unicorns don't exist, it would be my responsibility to prove that they do.

Ergo, God is a pink unicorn living on the dark side of the moon.

[Sean]

It hasn't proven anything to you, other than it often works. I'm sure hundreds of lightbulbs have failed you at various unexpected times in your life; yet you assume they will always work.

Who assumes light bulbs will always work? Thats like assuming you're going to live forever.

I understand where you're going with this that even if you don't believe in god but hold science above all else it still requires faith. I just think lightbulbs and light switches are silly analogies.

[TheSmooth1]

The Christian God is, at best, an evil self-contradictory bastard.

The whole "I'm omnipotent and omniscient but don't help anyone or anything but I still love everyone and everything" is pretty lame. It's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or malicious. And if it's any of those, it obviously isn't God.

[LMingrone]

The Christian God is, at best, an evil self-contradictory bastard.

The whole "I'm omnipotent and omniscient but don't help anyone or anything but I still love everyone and everything" is pretty lame. It's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or malicious. And if it's any of those, it obviously isn't God.

^This. Only applied to all the major "gods", not just christian ones.

I don't know whether to consider myself atheist or agnostic. On one hand, I can't believe there's something watching over everyone and controlling everything.

But who's to say god can't be defined by just being the General Theory (by that I mean a Law that explains EVERYTHING. Don't know the real term off the top of my head).

On the other hand, I'll never discredit anything until proven math explains it. And even then, maybe math is a joke and everything is wrong.

I can't believe I used to be an Altar boy. I blame it on my parents.

[mgoddess]

I hover between "Other" and "Agnostic"... I believe in Something, but sometimes I don't know what that Something is.

[Clove]

Who assumes light bulbs will always work? Thats like assuming you're going to live forever.

I understand where you're going with this that even if you don't believe in god but hold science above all else it still requires faith. I just think lightbulbs and light switches are silly analogies.Oh yeah? How many times have you turned on a light, had the bulb burnt out and had a surprised reaction? Intellectually you're aware of the potential each time you flip the switch but emotionally you believe everything is going to happen as expected. I don't really give a crap what anyone believes in; just don't try to sell me that you have to have everything proven to you. And don't try to sell me that an Athiest is any more rational than a Diest or Dualist or Panthiest. It takes as much faith to believe god doesn't exist as it does to believe god does exist. It can't be proven one way or another. If you don't know if god exists- your agnostic.

[Ravenstorm]

It takes as much faith to believe god doesn't exist as it does to believe god does exist. It can't be proven one way or another.

Reference Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and most recently the FSM. All have equal validity to your (general your) deity of choice. Believe what you want if it makes you feel good but inventing some metaphysical construct is not the same as not believing in the mythological claims of said believers.

[Mathari]

The Christian God is, at best, an evil self-contradictory bastard.

The whole "I'm omnipotent and omniscient but don't help anyone or anything but I still love everyone and everything" is pretty lame. It's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or malicious. And if it's any of those, it obviously isn't God.
This might seem right at first, but it's likely that it's not. At least, it's likely that there's no logical ("self-contradictory") problem here. Philosophers used to think there was such a logical issue (see, e.g., J. L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" (1955)), but that idea was apparently refuted (see, e.g., Alvin Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil" (1974) or his "The Free Will Defense" (1965)). It was taken to be refuted to such an extent that philosophers now write things like, "It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument [from evil] . . . is bankrupt" (William Alston, a Christian philosopher, 1991), and, "The problem is not that some proposition about pain and pleasure can be shown to be both true and logically inconsistent with theism. Rather, the problem is evidential" (Paul Draper, a non-theist, 1989). Maybe you meant to be talking about the evidential (i.e., probabilistic) problem of evil, but in that case, "self-contradictory" is probably not the right language.

[Merala]

I'd rather spend my life believing in God, and never knowing there isn't, than spending my whole life not believing and finding out there is.


But seriously, I think I would be so lonely without my belief in God. However, I believe God gave us free will to choose and I don't have a right to judge. Therefore, believe as you will.

I've dated agnostics, and wiccans. Been friends with all religions. Personally it makes no difference to me.

[Danical]

And don't try to sell me that an Athiest is any more rational than a Diest or Dualist or Panthiest. It takes as much faith to believe god doesn't exist as it does to believe god does exist. It can't be proven one way or another. If you don't know if god exists- your agnostic.

In super simple terms, you have massive epistemological problems when you start throwing around belief (of the Justified True variety). Needless to say, the whole light bulb anecdote is directly from Hume and he would say all you have is "constant conjunction," which really boils down to probability.

If that's the route you take, then is God more or less probable when factoring hundreds of thousands of events in the live of a person? In that vein, people try to argue the levels of rationality based on the probability of God's existence given worldly events, even if trivial. Some people seem to think it takes one (i.e., miracle) to prove the existence of a deity. Personally, I'm very strongly agnostic but I absolutely leave open the possibility that there is a God purely because I haven't exhausted all the disconfirming possibilities; no one can. Jumping to atheism is hasty conclusion. Frankly, I don't give a shit if there is or isn't one because I'm more concerned with Ethics.

I think if you lead a "good life," which is wildly nebulous, then you don't have to accept a deity "into your heart" for salvation; I like to think a deity would recognize the merits of your life.

[TheSmooth1]

I'd rather spend my life believing in God, and never knowing there isn't, than spending my whole life not believing and finding out there is.


Scare tactics are very effective. Believe or you'll die/go crazy/go blind/go to hell!

[Kranar]

It takes as much faith to believe god doesn't exist as it does to believe god does exist. It can't be proven one way or another.


What's relevant is explanatory power.

What does belief in a God allow one to reason about that can be used to predict future events, that not believing in a God can not?

Nothing.

The relevance of knowledge is that it enables us to do things, reason about things, and explain things that we otherwise would be unable to do. Belief in a God provides no such explanatory power.

It's, as people seem to be describing here, an opiate people choose to buy into for comfort reasons. A member of the family dies, so it's comforting to believe that they are still with us, looking down from the heavens, or some other similar story. And heck, such a belief may be of social value, it's likely not a coincidence that pretty much every single culture around the globe has independently come up with some story involving God and what happens when we die. It may prevent people from becoming overly depressed and thinking that life has no meaning or who knows what...

But such value does not make it true.

[Dwarven Empath]

Northern Baptist.

Someone give me an AMEN!

[Merala]

I don't believe in hell. At least not in the fiery 7 circles kind.

[Mathari]

you have massive epistemological problems when you start throwing around belief (of the Justified True variety).
What're you, a philosopher? ;)

[Danical]

What're you, a philosopher? ;)

Analytic Philosophy was one of my undergrads.

[Mathari]

What's relevant is explanatory power.

What does belief in a God allow one to reason about that can be used to predict future events, that not believing in a God can not?

Nothing.
It's not obvious that "explanatory power" is equivalent to (or requires) "allowing one to . . . predict future events." Suppose I ask why the Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers. One explanation is that the Callatians thought that eating the dead was a way of keeping them "alive," in that they would become one with and live through those who ate them. That explanation has explanatory power. I don't know that it allows me to predict any future events, though.

Maybe it allows me to predict that people with the same views as the Callatians will eat their dead? Perhaps, but then it's not at all clear why an explanation that appeals to God can't ground predictions just as well. Suppose I ask why the world appears so orderly, and someone says, "Well, God designed it that way." This explanation, if true, appears to provide me with some grounds for believing that God likes order, and so for predicting that the world will remain orderly.

Now, I agree that there might be other, non-theistic explanations that might also explain order. But then there might also be other explanations that explain why the Callatians ate their dead (e.g., they thought humans tasted good). The question then becomes, "What provides the best explanation?" So it's not a question of no explanatory power, it's a question of most explanatory power. But maybe that's just what you meant?

[Mathari]

Analytic Philosophy was one of my undergrads.
Sweet. Figured it had to be something like that, with the mention of epistemology and justified true belief.

[Kranar]

I don't know that it allows me to predict any future events, though.


That's true. Explanatory power should allow one to reason about an issue that one could otherwise not reason about.

Predicting future events is how explanatory power is measured in a scientific context, ie. being able to repeat a formal experiment and measuring the same results. However, as you point out, not all fields of study require being able to predict future events.

My point still holds though. Belief in God does not provide any sort of explanatory power. One is free to believe in it because it provides comfort, because it has cultural value, because one was raised from a young age to see the world in a certain way, one is getting married or in a relationship where their partner's religion requires conversion... these are all common reasons why people may believe in a religion.

[Celephais]

I call God whatever science is incapable of explaining at the moment.
+1

I believe the gangly giant Howard said it best:


The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the relevation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

[Deathravin]

Religion seems childish to me like believing in Santa Claus. Why have blind faith in something that has never been proven?

proof is the antithesis of faith.
belief is the antithesis of fact.

Everything has rules. Religion is no different. Religion is simply the act of believing something that cannot be proven; a major rule of that is religion is that one must give themselves over to 'belief' and 'faith'.

"Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.", if you were to prove God exists, He wouldn't. That's the cornerstone of all major religion. It is unprovable, and requires faith and belief.


There is research into a certain type of seizure that occurs in a specific part of the temporal lobe. People who are afflicted with this seizure in this specific part of the brain get sort of a super religious experience. They feel like they speak directly to God.

If there is a part of the brain, that when messed with, can cause super-religious feelings. That part of the brain must have evolved to actually make human beings believe in the unknowable.

To what end? Well, I dunno about you, but the thought of non-existence scares the hell out of me. It's not too far of a stretch to think once the humans evolved to be aware of the inevitability of death, there needed to be something in the brain to prevent us from going crazy.


If you have no belief in religion: If there is a part of the brain for religious thoughts and feelings, it is unnatural to not believe in some form of religion.

If you have a belief in religion: Perhaps that part of the brain didn't simply evolve, but your creator placed it there so you would have a tendency to seek Him out.

[Apathy]

Atheism is soooo eighteenth century.

[Back]

The universe, and everything in it, is too amazing to believe it all just happened spontaneously. Human intelligence is far too fucked up and brilliant to believe it is simply a natural occurrence.

Something big is behind it all but we will never know what its all about in our lifetimes.

[Merala]

Like I said, I would feel so lonely without my faith. I couldn't imagine being without it. It's such a part of me, it's impossible for me to imagine how someone functions with out it.

Am I religious? Absolutely not. Am I spiritual? Definitely. Church is fine for some, but it's no place for me. I keep an open communication with God all day every day, and talk to him when I have anything to say, or some spare time. That's all the communion I need.

[Apotheosis]

yeah.. went through most of my life without any spirituality/religion.... when i was in Highschool, I studied sociology, which lead me to study different cultures + religions while in college..

So, after studying nordic, celtic, native american, greek/roman mythology, as well as faith systems such as Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism.. well.. I find Christianity & Judiasm the most compelling, with Buddhism coming in a close second..


I think it's ignorant to outright deny the existence of a God and other forms of existence that we cannot perceive through our own limited senses.


Clearly, Christianity has had a bigger impact on Western Culture than any other faith or belief system in the world..... that doesn't necessarily "prove" anything except that it held a position of dominance as a result of 300 - 500 years of constant persecution/martyrdom in the Roman Empire.

Beyond that, it's a pretty radical ethical system, somewhat in line with Buddhism.. although Buddhism denies the existence of an afterlife/soul.. etc...

[Apotheosis]

The Christian God is, at best, an evil self-contradictory bastard.

The whole "I'm omnipotent and omniscient but don't help anyone or anything but I still love everyone and everything" is pretty lame. It's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or malicious. And if it's any of those, it obviously isn't God.



? ? clearly you have at the best a confused understanding of the Christian God and the idea behind the whole "faith" or whatever you want to call it... ? ?

[Danical]

? ? clearly you have at the best a confused understanding of the Christian God and the idea behind the whole "faith" or whatever you want to call it... ? ?

What he's referring to is the "Problem of Evil," which Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all wrestled with, to no avail.

Faith is a real bitch when it comes to discourse and rigorous argumentation just can't support said faith which is heinously circular if you shoehorn it into any argument; it's best just to leave the rabid naysayers (which, again, I believe is a hasty conclusion) be.

:shrug:

[Solkern]

Err I'm either Agnostic Theist
or just a Theist
I believe in a greater power, but I follow no religion.

[Apotheosis]

What he's referring to is the "Problem of Evil," which Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all wrestled with, to no avail.

Faith is a real bitch when it comes to discourse and rigorous argumentation just can't support said faith which is heinously circular if you shoehorn it into any argument; it's best just to leave the rabid naysayers (which, again, I believe is a hasty conclusion) be.

:shrug:

:yeahthat:

the argument for existence is always circular, continuing to prove that we still have the choice to believe or disbelieve.

[Valthissa]

a discussion of the related question 'does the universe have a purpose?' can be found here:

http://www.templeton.org/purpose/

variations on this question have been a recurring topic at our Friday evening parties for many years. Our conclusion seems to be that people have entrenched positions on both sides of the question without any rational support for either proposition.

C/Valth

[ElanthianSiren]

If people want to believe their deity is a shiny bauble living at the bottom of the ocean, I don't care. Too many wars are fought anyway IMO over whose god is "right".

I can't, however, justify something that was created by man, essentially, as being divine (that's the whole proof thing); until there is an actual text written by god, I have no faith in the ability of organized religion to report things unbiasedly without regard for their own ends.

There are too many religious documents that point to worldly concerns more than spiritual ones when examined in historical context. As an inidividual, I prefer not to have to unravel mistelling after mistelling and mistranslation then examine it in historical context to find the bullshit and discount it. I used to have energy for that when I was younger, but I'm old and toothless now, so agnosticism it is.

[Clove]

Reference Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and most recently the FSM. All have equal validity to your (general your) deity of choice. Believe what you want if it makes you feel good but inventing some metaphysical construct is not the same as not believing in the mythological claims of said believers.It's not the same thing at all. Not believing an individual or groups definition of god (and all the religion that goes with it) is not the same as denying that god(s) exist.

A group of physicists may believe that they've found proof of a planet outside our solar system. I may not accept their belief or proof about that planet's existence while still believing in the possibility of planets outside our solar system.

To believe that something that cannot be proven absolutely doesn't exist takes as much faith as it does to believe that something that cannot be proven absolutely exists. You may not like what that implies but it is what it is.

Agnosticism FTW!

[Apotheosis]

It's not the same thing at all. Not believing an individual or groups definition of god (and all the religion that goes with it) is not the same as denying that god(s) exist.

A group of physicists may believe that they've found proof of a planet outside our solar system. I may not accept their beliefs or proof that that planet exists while still believing in the possibility of planets existing outside our solar system.

To believe that something that cannot be proven cannot exist takes as much faith as it does to believe that something that cannot be proven absolutely exists. You may not like what that implies but it is what it is.


so like.. if I took my watch apart.. and like put it in a bag, and started shook it for 60 billion years... would all those random parts re-assemble to form the watch?

[Deathravin]

so like.. if I took my watch apart.. and like put it in a bag, and started shook it for 60 billion years... would all those random parts re-assemble to form the watch?

Let's not go there. ID is just the latest way to discuss religion.

If you took trillions of trillions of trillions of watches apart, put them in an enormous bag, shook them for 1 trillion years, you would search through it and find a lot of melted metal, a sperm whale (oh no, not again!), and a pot of daisies.

[Clove]

so like.. if I took my watch apart.. and like put it in a bag, and started shook it for 60 billion years... would all those random parts re-assemble to form the watch?In an infinite universe anything is possible, though ridiculously unlikely since the parts themselves would probably return to entropy after say the first century of continuous shaking.

However, if an infinite number of Apotheosis' shook an infinite number of bags of watch parts over an infinite length of time, yes one of those bags would turn out a watch before the parts turned to dust.

[Deathravin]

In an infinite universe anything is possible, though ridiculously unlikely since the parts themselves would probably return to entropy after say the first century of continuous shaking.

However, if an infinite number of Apotheosis' shook an infinite number of bags of watch parts over an infinite length of time, yes one of those bags would turn out a watch before the parts turned to dust.

He's just trying to goad you into an Intelligent design fight.

[Clove]

He's just trying to goad you into an Intelligent design fight.Yeah well, like I said not believing in any set of peoples' theories about god(s) is not the same as not believing in the possibility.

[BigWorm]

One way to think about faith is to liken it to the concept of romantic love. Just as it is impossible to prove that your lover is the perfect match for you and is thus worthy of your devotion, it is impossible to provide evidence to justify the commitment required by religious faith. Faith, by definition, precludes proof because if you can prove something exists, you don't believe it, you know it. For example, it requires no faith to believe that my desk exists because I can see and touch it.

The whole point of why the faith-relationship between you and God is significant is precisely because of the lack of proof of God's existence.

P.S. This is blatantly stolen from the work of Søren Kierkegaard (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/)

[Apotheosis]

Let's not go there. ID is just the latest way to discuss religion.

If you took trillions of trillions of trillions of watches apart, put them in an enormous bag, shook them for 1 trillion years, you would search through it and find a lot of melted metal, a sperm whale (oh no, not again!), and a pot of daisies.

that just made me rofl.... CLEARLY the answer and the question are mutually exclusive!!

BWAHAHAHA

[Apotheosis]

He's just trying to goad you into an Intelligent design fight.

not really.. but my response to that would be.. how do you know the universe is not finite?

[ViridianAsp]

I'm a Christian, sorta. I tend to look at things differently in Christianity, than my fellow bible thumpers, hence I don't attend church all that often. My fiance is an atheist, he says I'm just an atheist in denial.

[Clove]

not really.. but my response to that would be.. how do you know the universe is not finite?I said "In an infinite universe..." not "the universe is infinite therefore..." the difference is subtle.

I can't prove the universe is infinite or finite any more than I can prove the existence or non-existence of god(s).

Your next move is "if the universe is infinite how can anything create it" for which I don't have an answer, other than "infinite in any way significant to us" or "infinite by our understanding" etc. It's still possible that god(s) exist outside our comprehension; god(s) that could have created our infinite universe and all that it contains. We just can't prove it, or comprehend it.

[Apotheosis]

I said "In an infinite universe..." not "the universe is infinite therefore..." the difference is subtle.

I can't prove the universe is infinite or finite any more than I can prove the existence or non-existence of god(s).

Your next move is "if the universe is infinite how can anything create it" for which I don't have an answer, other than "infinite in any way significant to us" or "infinite by our understanding" etc. It's still possible that god(s) exist outside our comprehension; god(s) that could have created our infinite universe and all that it contains. We just can't prove it, or comprehend it.

and i would agree with this except that.. the implication of more than one god would contradict itself.. i'll insert omnipotent in the equation because, having more than one omnipotent force would contradict itself..

it's a chicken vs. egg argument, which came first the idea or the creation?

[Clove]

and i would agree with this except that.. the implication of more than one god would contradict itself.. i'll insert omnipotent in the equation because, having more than one omnipotent force would contradict itself.Not at all. Multiple omnipotent gods (where omnipotent means "all-powerful concerning our universe") merely means they could nullify each other when acting on our universe. I wouldn't suppose that they are all-powerful (or equal) in whatever inconceivable place they exist in (apart from our world).

You're beginning the C.S. Lewis proof that there must be one God above all others, but that's a theology argument that only applies AFTER you concede the possibility of god(s) in the first place.

Separate arguments.

[Apotheosis]

Not at all. Multiple omnipotent gods (where omnipotent means "all-powerful concerning our universe") merely means they could nullify each other when acting on our universe. I wouldn't suppose that they are all-powerful (or equal) in whatever inconceivable place they exist in (apart from our world).

You're beginning the C.S. Lewis proof that there must be one God above all others, but that's a theology argument that only applies AFTER you concede the possibility of god(s) in the first place.

Separate arguments.

It's kinda funny.. i've barely read C.S. Lewis.... I didn't realize his thinking / ideology has influenced mine... and i don't mean this is a sarcastic way.



so.. in an infinite universe: it's entirely possible conclude that there are god(s) with a probability of the event being 1

since an infinite set of circumstances conclude the events that something will happen/exist, it nullifies something not happening/existing...

(that thinking could be a bit of a stretch)



furthermore in a finite universe.... well the structure implies hierarchy and order, something even early civilizations understood... order, hierarchy, structure all imply planned thinking... henceforth the root of intelligent design, I suppose, but to be fair, I haven't studied "intelligent design as currently proposed".

(once again, a bit of a stretch, but I'm trying here)

[Clove]

It's kinda funny.. i've barely read C.S. Lewis.... I didn't realize his thinking / ideology has influenced mine... and i don't mean this is a sarcastic way.

so.. in an infinite universe: it's entirely possible conclude that there are god(s) with a probability of the event being 1Not quite. In an infinite universe all things are possible (with varying degrees of probability). I am not using that to argue the existence of god(s)/creator(s), I am using that to say that it's possible to reconstitute a watch from parts using random action :).

No, if there are god(s)/creator(s) they must necessarily exist outside our universe (finite or infinite). Since (if we are saying they created our world) they would by definition need to be apart from our world, and therefore we cannot use our understanding of the world or the dynamics and laws of our world to define or explain them.

In the end, whether or not you want to believe in god(s) or their possibility depends on whether you believe that there is "more" outside the universe that we can perceive, understand or explain; or not. Either way you're exercising faith if you're going to absolutely put your vote on one or the other. Otherwise, you're agnostic.

[Apotheosis]

that makes more sense Clove.

[Kranar]

Either way you're exercising faith if you're going to absolutely put your vote on one or the other. Otherwise, you're agnostic.


This is one of the most absurd arguments ever put forward in defense of the possibility of God.

I mean, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns, the existence of a tea pot orbiting Saturn or some other planet, the existence of the toothfairy... I guess you're an agnostic about the toothfairy, or agnostic about tea pots orbiting other planets...

All such line of thinking accomplishes is a discouragement of rational and critical thought. It also shows complete ignorance of the importance of learning and of knowledge.

People are not agnostic of things that can not be proven, like the tooth fairy, they are skeptical. Skepticism means that until a sufficient body of evidence has been amassed that makes a certain proposition reliable, that the proposition should be ignored.

Atheism is simply a skeptical stance towards religion. It is the stance that belief in a God is not a reliable enough proposition that it should be taken into consideration when making a decision, or when reasoning.

The reality is that even religious people are skeptical about all other religions but their own. Atheists just take that skepticism one step further. So is a Christian agnostic about Islam? Are Hindu's agnostic about Christianity? And yet... a Christian can not prove that Islam is false, so according to this absurd logic Christians are agnostic with respect to Islam!

[Kranar]

I should clarify... there are legitimate grounds for being an agnostic. I am against the the idea that one must accept being agnostic simply because one can not prove or disprove the existence of God.

For example, many people genuinely do not know whether they believe in a God. They may have struggled with the question, at times believing, and at times not believing, and have decided that for them, the best stance to take is a neutral point.

For others, the issue may simply not be relevant. That person may think... So what if a God exists? God does not play a role in my life and is inconsequential to me, and I have no interest in determining the truth or falsehood of its existence. That too, is an agnostic.

There are, of course, many other grounds for being an agnostic as well... but think of how absurd it is to put forth the notion that one must consider themselves agnostic because they can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God.

I mean it's so absurd that even Christians may as well be considered agnostic since they too can not prove Christianity. They only believe it to be true as a result of faith, they can not prove it to be true, and they also can not prove it to be false either. So Christians... are agnostic too.

No rational minded person ever thinks to themselves that when presented with the proposition that X exists, especially if X is some supernatural entity like God, tooth fairy, leprechauns etc... that the optimal stance to take is that it may or may not exist, can't prove it either way so they are an X-agnostic.

Usually one says "Prove that X exists before I believe it." as opposed to "Oh, well he just told me X exists and framed X in such a way that it's impossible to prove it or disprove it. I guess I gotta just throw my hands up in the air and accept the possibility."

You also have to love the mysticism about an infinite universe and infinite possibilities, once again an effort to muddle and obfuscate the issue so much that it's almost not even a rational discussion anymore because you know... anything regardless of how outrageous, is possible in an infinite universe so we should just accept any proposition thrown at us. The word infinite is to discussions of theism, as Hitler is to discussions of morality. Once it's introduced it's just downhill from there with respect to a coherent argument.

There's no such thing as infinite possibilities... that notion in and of itself is a logical contradiction. Even if the universe is infinite in size. Size/volume has no bearing on the probability of mystical or supernatural phenomenon. Size and matter are both just types of physical properties amongst many other physical properties, and even if both happen to be infinite, and it is known that matter is not infinite... how does that have anything to do with everything being possible?

[Kranar]

the argument for existence is always circular, continuing to prove that we still have the choice to believe or disbelieve.


In logic, an argument that is circular is a formal fallacy referred to as begging the question. It is not logically sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[Clove]

This is one of the most absurd arguments ever put forward in defense of the possibility of God.

I mean, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns, the existence of a tea pot orbiting Saturn or some other planet, the existence of the toothfairy... I guess you're an agnostic about the toothfairy, or agnostic about tea pots orbiting other planets...I'm sorry you think it's absurd, however it isn't any more rational to believe in one thing or another when it cannot be proved either way. To say otherwise is an illusion. You don't HAVE to believe that a teapot is orbiting Saturn but without the possibility of proving it- all you have is a hypothesis.

As for an infinite vs. finite universe and limitless possibilities etc., etc., etc. I don't disagree with you on any particular point, but you're trifling by making me specify every dimension when I say "infinite universe".

Frankly, if you think we know enough about how the universe works to reasonably deny the possible existence of god, or god-like entities that may have influenced events thousands, millions, or billions of years before any of us were here, or may even continue to today- well I'd say you have a VASTLY overrated opinion of present human knowledge.

I feel very confident stating that even today we don't have a wisp of an inkling of what comprises our universe or how it all works. But some of us just KNOW that god exists (and even what she's like etc.) and some of us just KNOW that god does not exist. Just like we once just KNEW the earth was flat. Or KNEW that balances of humors dictated human health and behavior. Or KNEW gods and goddesses lived on Mt. Olympus.

I'm not demanding anyone be atheist, theist or agnostic and I'm not saying that anyone with any particular belief doesn't have very good reasons for what they believe. I am saying that an atheist is every bit as much a true-believer as anyone else who puts their chips down on an answer about something for which there isn't (at present) an answer. The only one who ISN'T exercising faith is the one willing to say "I can't say." If saying you're putting your faith on god not existing is distasteful to you, well there's your alternative.

[Kranar]

I feel very confident stating that even today we don't have a wisp of an inkling of what comprises our universe or how it all works.


This is absolutely true, however, just as you mention that we thought the Earth was flat and now know that to be false, it is also possible to say that we may not know how something works, but we know how it doesn't work.

The reason I object to your defense of agnosticism, despite not objecting to agnosticism in general, is because the reason by which human beings have come to advance their knowledge of the universe is contrary to your argument.

Science and reason do not advance by throwing ones hands up in the air and saying... well science has time and time again changed, one day it's this, the next it's that, so may as well just be agnostic about it. I mean... we thought the Earth was flat but now know it's a sphere, and maybe it's not a sphere but down the road it turns out it's a horse, and maybe even further down the road it won't be a horse but a broomstick, so I will just be agnostic about the shape of the Earth and submit I can not prove or disprove what it is.

We advance, and gain knowledge precisely by taking a position on an issue, and subjecting that position to critical inquiry, in science this is done through experiment, in logic it's done through argument. While it IS true that our current knowledge is incomplete, if that body of knowledge is supported by all of the currently available evidence, then until some piece of evidence comes along that invalidates it, it should be given precedence over all other theories. Knowing that our knowledge is incomplete doesn't mean that our knowledge is worthless and thus all other possible ideas are of equal credibility.

It may turn out that gravity does not always attract, yes, science could be wrong about that and someone could attempt to devise an experiment to demonstrate this. But until an experiment demonstrates this, then a rational person should neither make a decision that conflicts with all the available evidence, nor should a rational person just throw their hands up in the air and say well because we humans know so little about how the universe works, and because science is one of those things that's constantly changing, I may as well just be agnostic about gravity. I mean just because all the available information suggests that gravity is an attractive force, I can not prove that gravity doesn't sometimes repel, so I'll be agnostic about how gravity works.

Same applies to religion. Yes, a God could exist, even the most militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, the authot of the God Delusion, submits that God could exist... but that's not the core of the issue here.

The core of the issue is, given all of the available information and evidence to us human beings, is the rational position to take one that believes in the existence of God, or is the rational position to take one that is skeptical of God's existence.

I submit, what may be the rational position to take at this point in time could change in the future, absolutely, but given all available information I find no rational grounds to believe in the existence of God, and so I must remain skeptical.

[Stretch]

If God exists, he must not be just.

A just God would not let Tyler Perry continue to inflict society with terrible movies and television.

[Kranar]

A lot of the confusion about this argument stems from the difference between knowing something in science, and knowing something in religion.

When someone says they know something in a religious context, they mean they know it with absolute certainty. In Christianity it is acceptable, for example, to claim you know the existence of God with absolute certainty even if it doesn't make sense. I remember hearing the statement that debating the existence of God is the work of the devil, for the devil has had millennia to prepare for the debate.

When a scientist says they know something, they mean that given all available information, they have a lot of confidence to assume a proposition. For example, referring to my previous post, I know that gravity does not repel two objects. That doesn't mean with absolute 100% unquestioning religious certainty, gravity won't repel two objects, just that there is more than enough evidence to suggest that it won't repel two objects and that if one is to convince me that it can, then the burden is on them to demonstrate this through an experiment. Ie. I am skeptical that gravity repels.

What am I supposed to go around saying? Anytime it comes up should I say... No, I don't know that gravity doesn't repel, I am only 99.9% certain it does but I can not prove it because science does not deal with absolutes so for all I know tomorrow gravity may repel objects from one another, thus I am a gravitational agnostic. Of course we don't say this, because scientifically when someone says they know something, it is implicit that the knowledge is not absolute, but that it is the best conclusion available and one that has a lot of explanatory power or other useful purpose.

Same thing goes for being an atheist. I maintain that God doesn't exist, not in the religious absolute certainty sense of the word, but in sense that I am skeptical of his existence based on all available knowledge. If one wishes to demonstrate its existence, then by all means do so, but until it has been demonstrated, then I can not make decisions about my life or use the knowledge of God's existence in any meaningful way.

[Clove]

Same thing goes for being an atheist. I maintain that God doesn't exist, not in the religious absolute certainty sense of the word, but in sense that I am skeptical of his existence based on all available knowledge. If one wishes to demonstrate its existence, then by all means do so, but until it has been demonstrated, then I can not make decisions about my life or use the knowledge of God's existence in any meaningful way.I could agree with you if you stated it thus:

"I am skeptical of his existence based on my present knowledge, experience and understanding." I'm sure there is a good deal of available knowledge on the subject that you have no interest in exploring, anymore than a Christian is interested in exploring available knowledge that disputes the existence of a great flood etc.

[Kranar]

I'm sure there is a good deal of available knowledge on the subject that you have no interest in exploring, anymore than a Christian is interested in exploring available knowledge that disputes the existence of a great flood etc.

Quite the opposite. I used to be incredibly religious... but then I did something really crazy, I studied other religions, not just the main religions of today but ancient religions, tribal religions, Asian religions and then slowly I came to a very uncomfortable realization. It was an uncomfortable feeling at the time but now I consider it to be very enlightening and almost somewhat inspiring.

A lot of the world religions are based on the same mythos... a virgin birth, a resurrection, the importance of the winter solstice (which for Christianity is when Christmas is celebrated) and the list goes on and on...

It's like all of the world religions had borrowed ideas from one another and added their own twist to it. Of course, if you were only exposed to Judaism and Christianity, you'd never have known that prior to Christianity many other religions had so called messiahs born of a virgin after the occurrence of the winter solstice (which gives the appearance of the sun being born anew), who were crucified and then resurrected 3 days later.

I think religion should be taught to children, but that many religions should be taught, the big three as well as ancient and the not so well known religions. There is value in studying religion, in understanding it; it is a very important cultural institution and also important to understanding the human condition. I think most people who do come to learn a variety of religions are more likely to reject religion than accept it so it's unlikely parents will accept this idea, but at some point in ones life, I think opening up your world view to how others think or may have thought almost allows you to then look back on yourself from another perspective and adopt new ways of thinking and seeing the world. When that happens... you find a new kind of meaning in life that transcends religion and obsoletes it, while still having some sense of appreciation for it.

There is a negative connotation associated with being an atheist, one built up over thousands of years and quite possibly why a lot people who don't believe in religion prefer to be agnostic or non-religious as opposed to atheist. But it need not be that way. Even though we know so little about the universe, there is both beauty and inspiration in the little we do know about how nature operates, and humbleness about what we don't. We get to see but of a glimpse of this universe, and in a sense it's because our experience is finite and so minuscule that one should be inspired to make the most of it, to not take any instant for granted, and to know that however big ones dreams or ambitions are, there's something vastly greater waiting just around the corner to surprise.

[Clove]

Quite the opposite. I used to be incredibly religious... but then I did something really crazy, I studied other religions, not just the main religions of today but ancient religions, tribal religions, Asian religions and then slowly I came to a very uncomfortable realization. It was an uncomfortable feeling at the time but now I consider it to be very enlightening and almost somewhat inspiring.Yes but you don't really believe you've explored all the available knowledge on the existence of god do you? You've examined enough to convince yourself of your belief. There's nothing wrong with skepticism on the subject and neither is there anything wrong with people believing in a god(s). But they are expressions of faith none-the-less.

I was raised Catholic and as a young adult became involved with various interdenominational Christian churches; however even during my Catholic upbringing I was encouraged to question and explore especially religion. I've studied different religions of the world and have had the privilege of participating with religious ceremonies of several faiths. I also see the connections you do- they aren't subtle, but I came to different conclusions than you. Despite our different interpretations of the same information, considering the subject, I don't think either conclusion is any more rational, clever, or ignorant; they are simply our beliefs.

[diethx]

If God exists, he must not be just.

A just God would not let Tyler Perry continue to inflict society with terrible movies and television.

Fucking seriously, and stupid TBS perpetuating this vicious cycle of garbage.

[Apotheosis]

A lot of the world religions are based on the same mythos... a virgin birth, a resurrection, the importance of the winter solstice (which for Christianity is when Christmas is celebrated) and the list goes on and on...

It's like all of the world religions had borrowed ideas from one another and added their own twist to it. Of course, if you were only exposed to Judaism and Christianity, you'd never have known that prior to Christianity many other religions had so called messiahs born of a virgin after the occurrence of the winter solstice (which gives the appearance of the sun being born anew), who were crucified and then resurrected 3 days later.


Aside from the fact that there a neutral, historical accounts of a person named "Jesus", some significant theological differences exist in the early fertility mythos, assyrian/babylonian mythos that some people propose is where "Christianity" got its roots.

In fact, they spent 300 - 500 years getting killed because the "pagan" priests + emperors did not like the "influence" that existed....


plus, I'd like to hear someone refute "Jesus, Lunatic, Liar or teller of Truth"

[joehollywood]

I voted for "other" because there wasn't an option for...

I like biscuits

[Apotheosis]

I voted for "other" because there wasn't an option for...

I like biscuits

And what about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster?

[Danical]

Same applies to religion. Yes, a God could exist, even the most militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, the authot of the God Delusion, submits that God could exist... but that's not the core of the issue here.

You hit on a major point. It's described in detail in the first chapter (i think) of the God Delusion. Basically, assuming God's existence or non-existence is a 50/50 crap shoot is faulty reasoning.

Dawkins actually says in the God Delusion that he is, "very low probability but short of zero; def acto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

[Apotheosis]

You hit on a major point. It's described in detail in the first chapter (i think) of the God Delusion. Basically, assuming God's existence or non-existence is a 50/50 crap shoot is faulty reasoning.

Dawkins actually says in the God Delusion that he is, "very low probability but short of zero; def acto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."



I don't get it? why isn't the probability 50/50?

there are only two options:

a god exists

or

a god doesn't exist



or to water it down further

either

a superior being(s) exist

or

a superior being(s) don't exist

??

from a standard statistical standpoint, it's like flipping a coin.

[Mathari]

You hit on a major point. It's described in detail in the first chapter (i think) of the God Delusion. Basically, assuming God's existence or non-existence is a 50/50 crap shoot is faulty reasoning.

Dawkins actually says in the God Delusion that he is, "very low probability but short of zero; def acto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
On the opposing side, of course, Richard Swinburne (a philosopher at Oxford and an expert in confirmation theory) argues (in his The Existence of God) that "the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does so better than any other explanation which can be put forward," and even argues in his The Resurrection of God Incarnate that the probability that Jesus was God incarnate who rose from the dead is somewhere around .97 (i.e., 97%) on our evidence (or the evidence presented in the book, anyway). This is not to say that I endorse those arguments--I'm less up to snuff on confirmation theory and Bayesianism than I could be--but it is to say they're out there and not just insane.

[Kranar]

from a standard statistical standpoint, it's like flipping a coin.


No, this isn't the case at all. How is this in any way shape or form a standard statistical standpoint anyways?

There are only two options:

Either the next card in the deck is the ace of spades

or

The next card in the deck isn't the ace of spades...

So I thus conclude from a standard statistical standpoint that the chance that the next card dealt is the ace of spaces is 50/50, just like flipping a coin.

Either tomorrow Godzilla will rise from the ocean and wipe out humanity, or tomorrow Godzilla won't rise from the ocean... there... 50/50, flip a coin.

The real standard statistical standpoint is that a probability is a real number between 0 and 1 that measures the amount of knowledge one has about a hypothesis. The further away from the value 0.5, the more absolute ones knowledge is. That is, a value of 0 or 1 represents absolute knowledge, and a value of 0.5 represents no knowledge.

It's not like, well there are only two choices so God is a 50/50 proposition. You have to evaluate how likely each of those choices are, once all available knowledge/information has been taken into consideration.

[Danical]

I didn't get to study but a bit of the contemporary Christian Apologists so for me to make any kind of argument against it would be me being a raging asshole.

However, I'm pretty skeptical about his assertion that, "God's existence is a metaphysical necessity." That sounds like crazy talk to me.

[Danical]

No, this isn't the case at all. How is this in any way shape or form a standard statistical standpoint anyways?

There are only two options:

Either the next card in the deck is the ace of spades

or

The next card in the deck isn't the ace of spades...

So I thus conclude from a standard statistical standpoint that the chance that the next card dealt is the ace of spaces is 50/50, just like flipping a coin.

Either tomorrow Godzilla will rise from the ocean and wipe out humanity, or tomorrow Godzilla won't rise from the ocean... there... 50/50, flip a coin.

The real standard statistical standpoint is that a probability is a real number between 0 and 1 that measures the amount of knowledge one has about a hypothesis. The further away from the value 0.5, the more absolute ones knowledge is. That is, a value of 0 or 1 represents absolute knowledge, and a value of 0.5 represents no knowledge.

It's not like, well there are only two choices so God is a 50/50 proposition. You have to evaluate how likely each of those choices are, once all available knowledge/information has been taken into consideration.

And to paraphrase Dawkins, we gather mounting evidence for the non-existence of God on a daily basis but will never, ever, gather any confirming evidence.

From this he, and many others, launch into the whole more or less rational person given evidence of God, etc, etc.

[Back]

No, this isn't the case at all. How is this in any way shape or form a standard statistical standpoint anyways?

At 0:50...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjOqaD5tWB0

[SHAFT]

And what about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster?

i believe in that one

[BigWorm]

I don't get it? why isn't the probability 50/50?

there are only two options:

a god exists

or

a god doesn't exist



or to water it down further

either

a superior being(s) exist

or

a superior being(s) don't exist

??

from a standard statistical standpoint, it's like flipping a coin.

lol. you forgot italics.

[Mathari]

I didn't get to study but a bit of the contemporary Christian Apologists so for me to make any kind of argument against it would be me being a raging asshole.
I don't know enough about it to really make an argument for it at this time, myself. Props to you for acknowledging a bit of ignorance (in the non-derogatory sense), though, rather than trying to BS around it like many might've.


However, I'm pretty skeptical about his assertion that, "God's existence is a metaphysical necessity." That sounds like crazy talk to me.
Are you referring to Swinburne here? It's not clear to me. In any case, the claim that "God's existence is a metaphysical necessity" typically just means that God exists in every possible world. Swinburne has this occasional tendency to redefine words away from their typical meanings, though, and I think "metaphysical necessity" is one instance where he does this. His notion of metaphysical necessity in one of his books, anyway, is definitely non-standard and pretty complicated. Roughly, for him, the existence of some entity X is a metaphysical necessity if (and only if?) the existence of X is everlasting and either (i) the existence of X is uncaused, or (ii) the existence of X is caused, but the cause of the existence of X is an entity E whose (backwardly) everlasting existence with certain properties P is itself uncaused, where E's properties P entail E's causing X. :)

Basically, "the existence of God is a metaphysical necessity" = "God exists everlastingly, and is Himself uncaused or is caused by some entity whose everlasting existence (with certain properties which entail that entity's causing God) is itself uncaused." Of course, Swinburne does not think the latter disjunct is true of God (the Father). He includes this disjunct because he later begins talking about the Trinity, and wants to allow that there is some sense in which God the Son is caused by God the Father and yet still exists with metaphysical necessity.

Anyway, thinking that God exists everlastingly and uncausedly is a fairly standard view; doesn't seem all that crazy. This notion of metaphysical necessity, if that's the one that Swinburne is working with, is also weaker than the standard notion (it apparently doesn't entail that God exists in every possible world, for example).

[Kranar]

Anyway, thinking that God exists everlastingly and uncausedly is a fairly standard view; doesn't seem all that crazy.


It really is funny... because the same people who argue that the universe, in all it's complexity must have been the result of a creator, inherently implies that the creator is more complex than the creation...

And yet following this logic, if the creator is more complex than the creation, then the creator too much have been created, and the creator's creator must have been created as well.

But of course, there's no reason to believe that just because something is complex, that it must be because of a creator or some vague, greater power. Quite the contrary, for people who deal at a professional or academic level with complex systems, one finds that the most incredibly complex systems are the result of very simple causes.

This is what makes evolution such a beautiful and powerful theory.

[kookiegod]

Strange topic....and what a long strange trip its been.

I used to identify myself as an atheist...i really didnt believe, the only time i went into a church was weddings, funerals, or when I was in the Army, a respite on Sunday during Basic Training.

20 years passes...

Had some issues, lost my parents, other family, loved ones, and was looking for some answers to life.

Ended up in a church parking lot near the gym and wandered in, sweaty, tired, and met a few people, who after I chatted a few minutes, accepted me. Been learning a bit of the Christian dogma.

Do I believe it all? Hardly.

Do I want to believe it? I really don't know.

All I am doing is trying to give it a fair opportunity, and if nothing else, I met some new, great people, and at least expanded my horizons.

~Paul

[Danical]

Sounds like Swinburne is recompiling Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover," which is a supremely weak argument.

He'd have to do a epic shit-ton of legwork to make plausible.

At any rate, I think this thread as been sufficiently derailed.

[Clove]

plus, I'd like to hear someone refute "Jesus, Lunatic, Liar or teller of Truth"Well since it's been derailed anyway. Jesus may have been insane. He did teach one irrefutable lesson to the world though: Never fuck with the clergy's livelihood.

[Mathari]

It really is funny... because the same people who argue that the universe, in all it's complexity must have been the result of a creator, inherently implies that the creator is more complex than the creation...

And yet following this logic, if the creator is more complex than the creation, then the creator too much have been created, and the creator's creator must have been created as well.
Ah, the Dawkins maneuver. I'm not sure what grounds the principle that, if the universe is complex and the result of a creation, then the Creator is more complex than the creation. It doesn't strike me as just plain obvious, anyway, but maybe that's a deficiency on my part. I did want to ask, though: why doesn't your claim that "one finds that the most incredibly complex systems are the result of very simple causes" falsify this principle? Apparently the causes of complex systems need not be more complex than those systems. So why must the Creator of a complex system be more complex? Does it have something to do with the Creator's having a mind or something? (I'm genuinely curious here, not asking to refute.)

In any case, I'll let Plantinga (one of the philosophers I mentioned earlier) respond to the Dawkins thing:

[S]uppose we return to Dawkins' argument for the claim that theism is monumentally improbable. As you recall, the reason Dawkins gives is that God would have to be enormously complex, and hence enormously improbable ("God, or any intelligent, decision-making calculating agent, is complex, which is another way of saying improbable"). What can be said for this argument?

Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like . . . So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex. But second, suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge? Of course we aren't given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.
[Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html]

Incidentally, theists aren't the only philosophers who think Dawkins' argumentation is bad. Thomas Nagel give essentially the same reply to Dawkins' argument, and Nagel is not religious:


Nagel is not impressed by Dawkins’ “attempts at philosophy.” One of Dawkins’ pet arguments against God as an explanation of design in the world is that it leads to an infinite regress: “A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right.” As Nagel points out, this argument would only have force if theists conceived of God as a complicated brain rather than as an incorporeal being.
[Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=506]

[g++]

That's not how it works, though. When someone asks for proof that God exists, you can't just say, "Prove that he doesn't." The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim (i.e. that God exists), not the person who is being convinced.

Say I claimed that there are pink unicorns that live on the dark side of the moon and that whenever we send probes or satellites over there to look for them, the unicorns hide. It wouldn't be your responsibility to prove that these unicorns don't exist, it would be my responsibility to prove that they do.

Ergo, God is a pink unicorn living on the dark side of the moon.


Right

Religious people make a claim -- there is a god....I dont see any proof

Atheists people make a claim -- there is no god...I dont see any proof

I am agnostic.

Its pretty simple.

[Danical]

I never understood why Dawkins would ever venture into the realm of Metaphysical Arguments. Bad move. He should have stuck to probability given worldly outcomes.

What I dislike most about Plantinga has nothing to do with him or his arguments, but how his fanboys rabidly assent to the false dilemma that is his critiques. That is to say, My Lord and Savior Plantinga critiqued/refuted The Deceitful Dawkins, therefore OMG (literally)!

He never proved God exists but refuted an argument for God's non-probabilistic existence and they jump to the conclusion that God must exist.

At least that's what it was like at my University when I went to one of his speeches.

[Deathravin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4iIo1tUtW0

"It proves you exist, and therefor you don't"

[Mathari]

He never proved God exists but refuted an argument for God's non-probabilistic existence and they jump to the conclusion that God must exist.
Yeah, Plantinga's major work involves attempting to show that belief in God is (or can be) rational, justified, warranted, etc., not that it is true that God exists. He does have a version of the modal ontological argument that has "God exists" as its conclusion, but he still doesn't claim that it's a knockdown argument.

And yes, Plantinga does have crazy fanboys.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4iIo1tUtW0

"It proves you exist, and therefor you don't"
LOL, good stuff.

[Faent]

It is not difficult to take Dawkins down. He's a far cry from appearing to be intellectually irresponsible. Of course, by and large I feel the same way about most of Plantinga's theistic stuff.

However, to his credit, Plantinga has shown *some* things. For example, and this is a point Mathari alludes to, Plantinga has shown that if a certain kind of god exists, then belief in that kind of god is probably justified or warranted (and vice versa). As such, one cannot argue that belief in such a god is unjustified or unwarranted without arguing that such a god does not exist. In other words, one's arguments will have to be directed to the non-existence of such a being rather than towards the irrationality of belief in such a being. This is a minor victory, I suppose.

[Mathari]

So are you/were you a philosopher too, or is everyone here just well-read?

[Faent]

Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like . . . So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.

While Mathari is right to note that there is no obvious a priori reason for supposing that the cause of x is itself more complex than x, one still has to have good reason to believe that god is simple. One cannot simply claim that distinctions which are found to apply everywhere do not apply to god. The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity is bizarre, and is no doubt NOT a deliverance of the sensus divinitatus, if there is such a faculty.


More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

This is a non sequitur. Plantinga has no good reason for believing that something which is spirit or immaterial does not have parts. Of course, Plantinga could *define* the term "spirit" or "immaterial" to mean "not composed of parts", but that would be to stipulate his conclusion rather than to argue for it. And, as far as I know, there is no good reason to endorse such a definition. This is just bluster.


So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex. But second, suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge?

This is also embarrasing. Here Plantinga attributes a *reason* for believing that complexity entails improbability to Dawkins that is, most likely, just a straw man. One might well think that complexity just entails improbability. End of story. At any rate, the issues hardly turns upon whether a material being that knows a great deal would be complex. No doubt Plantinga has in part confused himself because he is assuming that the only things that can be complex are material things.


Of course we aren't given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

Sure, Plantinga. But you made all this up. Epic fail.


So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable.

In so far as Plantinga is making a point, it's a fair one. But it's not really relevant. Plantinga's strategy here, a strategy he employs regularly (and with increasing regularity), is to bully people who aren't philosophically minded into misconstruing objections. Alternatively, his strategy can be described as trying to fool the layman into thinking that a better argument for a conclusion exists than in fact exists (something one would see if one weren't a layman).

Distinguish the epistemic possibility that god exists from the metaphysical possibility that god exists. Correspondingly, distinguish the subjective probability that god exists from the objective probability that god exists. If god exists, then it follows that the objective probability that god exists is one. Since god is defined to be a necessary being, it follows that it's metaphysically impossible that god does not exist. All of this is perfectly compatible with it being epistemically possible that god does not exist, as well as it being subjectively improbable that god does not exist. Dawkin's claim here is best construed as a claim about what's epistemically possible, i.e., that, given that god must be complex, it's subjectively improbable that god exists.


So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true.

First, Plantinga's implication that Dawkins argued from materialism is bullshit (as noted above). More rhetorical bluster here. If Dawkins is arguing that god's existence is objectively improbable, then yes, Dawkins owes us an argument that god doesn't exist. But Dawkins does not necessarily owe us that argument if he is arguing that god's existence is subjectively improbable (depending upon how his argument goes). However, has Plantinga has shown (and I think convincingly), most arguments for the conclusion that god's existence is subjectively improbable require a sub-argument that shows that god's existence is objectively improbable (i.e., that god doesn't exist). See my post above for this.

[droit]

Man, I love it when PC threads get deep. Please go on.

[Faent]

So are you/were you a philosopher too, or is everyone here just well-read?

Well, let's just say I've read some of this. As it turns out, when I spotted this thread coincidentally happened to be listening to Terry Gross interviewing Dawkins on NPR (March 28, 2007). Link here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=9180871&m=9180876

[Mathari]

While Mathari is right to note that there is no obvious a priori reason for supposing that the cause of x is itself more complex than x, one still has to have good reason to believe that god is simple.
I'm not sure that this is right. Plantinga's point might just be a dialectical one, along the following lines. Theists who appeal to God as an explanation of the complex universe say (things like) the following things: "This complexity has to be explained by something. That something is God. Furthermore, God is simple." Now, Dawkins is trying to present an argument to the effect that the existence of God is monumentally improbable. But the crucial premise for this argument is that God is complex. The theist might thus simply respond to his argument as follows: "Well, I agree; if God is complex, as you state in your premise, then His existence is improbable. But so what? Again, our God -- the one we actually believe in and posit as an explanation of the universe -- is simple, not complex. So, you haven't done anything at all to show that our God's existence is improbable."

In other words, for Dawkins to show that the God believed in by theists is improbable via his argument, he first has to give reason for thinking that God is complex. (As I've noted, it may be that he relies on the principle that, for all x and all y, if x is complex, and y is an explanatory cause of x, then y is complex (to an even greater degree than x). But, as I mentioned, this principle is not intuitively obvious, so far as I (and perhaps Plantinga) can discern.) That seems a perfectly legitimate dialectical point.

Incidentally, Plantinga himself doesn't think God is simple. (See his, "Does God Have a Nature?")


This is a non sequitur. Plantinga has no good reason for believing that something which is spirit or immaterial does not have parts.
I'm not sure how you know this fact about Plantinga's reasons. He may have a good reason, but simply not mention it in the book review. But that's a minor point.

What's perhaps more important is this. First, it is rather traditional to think that spirits do not have parts. Descartes held this view, Aquinas held this view (he took the soul to be the "form" of man, and all forms are indivisible), Augustine apparently held this view, etc. So Plantinga may still be making a "dialectical" point about the traditional theistic view of God, as above. The traditional theistic God is not complex, according to Dawkins' definition. And second, the view is at least somewhat intuitive: spirits are immaterial things, immaterial things are not spatial things, and (one might think, somewhat plausibly) only spatial things are divisible into parts. Peter van Inwagen, in his metaphysics text Material Beings, even says flat-out that the relation called 'parthood' is restricted to "the set of material objects [and things like electrons, etc., if they are not material objects]," and claims that he simply cannot understand 'part of' as applying to anything else.

But again, I take this to largely be a dialectical point, given that Plantinga allows the assumption that God is complex.


This is also embarrasing. Here Plantinga attributes a *reason* for believing that complexity entails improbability to Dawkins that is, most likely, just a straw man.
Most likely? Why think that? Perhaps it is possible that this is a straw man, but I don't see why that is "most likely."

In any case, Dawkins' argument does indeed seem to assume, so far as I am aware, that the reasons for thinking that the existence of the complex universe is improbable will just apply straightforwardly to a complex God. Plantinga just seems to be pointing out, again, that this isn't obvious; it requires argument that Dawkins does not provide. What's more, there seems to be reason (I think Plantinga is suggesting, with his reference to materialism) for doubting that the reasons for thinking a complex material universe to be improbable just apply straightforwardly to immaterial entities. For example, one of the apparent reasons for thinking that the complex universe's existence is improbable is that the universe is composed largely of merely material things that we know to be arranged the way they are as the mere result of laws and initial conditions, both of which (as far as we can tell) could easily have been different and would have made for vastly different universes if so. The "immaterial world," though, is not composed of merely material things; nor do we know whether or not things in the immaterial world are arranged as they are as the result of laws and initial conditions. Nor do we know whether things in the immaterial world could have been different, or what effects such differences would have had. Nor do we know whether or not all immaterial things are, or subsist, in minds with conscious abilities. So we appear to have much less of a reason to think that complexity alone in the case of immaterial things entails improbability. We have reasons for thinking that the current complex arrangement of material things is, given the nature of material things and the known dependence of their arrangement on laws and initial conditions that could have varied, "chancey," and we don't appear to have those reasons for immaterial things. That seems to be why Plantinga mentions materialism and elementary particle physics, and so on.


No doubt Plantinga has in part confused himself because he is assuming that the only things that can be complex are material things.
As I mentioned, Plantinga actually does not think that God is simple, at least in the way that this is traditionally understood. Either way, the above reconstruction of his thought seems to suggest that he's at least less obviously confused than you take him to be. I wouldn't say there "no doubt" that he's confused, at least.


In so far as Plantinga is making a point, it's a fair one. But it's not really relevant. Plantinga's strategy here, a strategy he employs regularly (and with increasing regularity), is to bully people who aren't philosophically minded into misconstruing objections. Alternatively, his strategy can be described as trying to fool the layman into thinking that a better argument for a conclusion exists than in fact exists (something one would see if one weren't a layman).
First, I think this is uncharitable. Second, I think some of what I said above suggests why the things that he says in the passage you quote (about theists thinking that God is a necessary being) are not irrelevant; they at least constitute a dialectical point about the thesis that Dawkins is attacking. Third, Plantinga offers arguments for thinking that God is a necessary being (see his modal ontological argument). If these arguments succeed, then God, whether complex or not, exists necessarily. This isn't true of the material world. From this it would follow (1) that God's existence is not improbable and (2) that the material world's existence is less probable (objectively speaking) than God's existence. Dawkins does not address Plantinga's argument at all, however, and merely dismisses all versions of the ontological argument very briefly.

As for the bullying, the following isn't to excuse it, but: tu quoque (to Dawkins, not to you).


Distinguish the epistemic possibility that god exists from the metaphysical possibility that god exists. Correspondingly, distinguish the subjective probability that god exists from the objective probability that god exists. If god exists, then it follows that the objective probability that god exists is one. Since god is defined to be a necessary being, it follows that it's metaphysically impossible that god does not exist. All of this is perfectly compatible with it being epistemically possible that god does not exist, as well as it being subjectively improbable that god does not exist. Dawkin's claim here is best construed as a claim about what's epistemically possible, i.e., that, given that god must be complex, it's subjectively improbable that god exists.
Some of what I've said above addresses the subjective probability issue. But I actually think the issues have to do with objective probability, anyway. The claim by theists who appeal to God as a designer seems to be that, given the nature of matter and its arrangement, it is objectively improbable that the complex universe is arranged as it actually is by mere chance. There are just so many ways it easily could have been otherwise. But there is no argument offered by Dawkins to support an analogous claim about the objective probability of God's existence, other than his claim about God's metaphysical complexity. At this point, though, the above concerns just apply all over again: there's been no argument that the nature of immaterial things are such that their arrangements are improbable, or could have been otherwise; there's no obvious entailment from complexity to improbability; there are additional facts about material things that make their current arrangement objectively improbable that are not (or at least have not been shown to be) facts about immaterial things; there are arguments that immaterial things are necessarily such as they are (e.g., the modal ontological argument), and Dawkins hasn't addressed those, etc.

I believe this is why Plantinga ultimately closes this section with: "Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument."

[Mathari]

Also, I should say that I won't be able to post like I just did with any regularity. I'll likely have to be much more brief/quick in later responses.

[Clove]

Also, I should say that I won't be able to post like I just did with any regularity. I'll likely have to be much more brief/quick in later responses.Praise god.

Personally I think both sides rely on axiomotic arguments.

[BigWorm]

Praise god.

Personally I think both sides rely on axiomotic arguments.

This presupposes the existence of axioms...

[Mathari]

Praise god.
So you're convinced?!

[Clove]

So you're convinced?!Not at first, but you convinced me!
This presupposes the existence of axioms...I'd say the probability of that is between 0 and 1.

[Faent]

But so what? Again, our God -- the one we actually believe in and posit as an explanation of the universe -- is simple, not complex. So, you haven't done anything at all to show that our God's existence is improbable.

We'll get the Extended, Extended Aquinas Calvin Model and the Extended, Extended, Extended Aquinas Calvin Model every time it looks like there's a premise that makes trouble for theistic belief. So if it turned out that a complexity premise makes trouble, then the EEEEEEACM will have it that certain theists are provided with the warranted belief that a SIMPLE GOD exists. But at some point, this strategy does become laughable.

Fortunately Plantinga does not adopt that strategy here. Instead, he wastes time talking about something he takes to be false. This is rhetoric, not philosophy.


Second, I think some of what I said above suggests why the things that he says in the passage you quote (about theists thinking that God is a necessary being) are not irrelevant; they at least constitute a dialectical point about the thesis that Dawkins is attacking.

This is only the case if you want to maintain that god provides you with a warranted belief in those things. See the EEEEEEEEEACM.


Third, Plantinga offers arguments for thinking that God is a necessary being (see his modal ontological argument).

First, Plantinga intially failed to recognize how dialectically pathetic this argument was. He thought it showed how acceptance of the conclusion could be "rational" (since the premises could be rationally accepted and entailed the conclusion). But this line of reasoning is bogus for various reasons.

Second, there is no sense in which this argument has any dialectical force. It is epistemically circular. (And the only people it has a chance of persuading are people who confuse epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.)

Finally, it is not an argument for the conclusion that god is a necessary being. It is an argument for the conclusion that god---a necessary being--- exists.


If these arguments succeed, then God, whether complex or not, exists necessarily.

This depends upon what you mean by "succeed". Maybe you think that sound epistemically circular arguments "succeed" in virtue of their soundness despite their obvious bad-making features. If the argument is sound it follows by definition of soundness that the premise "it is possible that god exists" is true. This immediately entails that god exists. Of course, if it's possible that god does not exist, then it immediately follows that god does not exist. I'm not sure why this argument is being mentioned here. You could have just said: If god exists, whether complex or not, then she exists necessarily (by definition).



This isn't true of the material world. From this it would follow (1) that God's existence is not improbable and (2) that the material world's existence is less probable (objectively speaking) than God's existence.

Um, yes. Given that god exists necessarily (AND given the assumption that matter exists contingently) it follows that it's less probable that matter exists than that god exists. I suppose we can make S5 part of the deliverance of the EEEEEEEEEEEACM now.


Dawkins does not address Plantinga's argument at all, however, and merely dismisses all versions of the ontological argument very briefly.

Plantinga doesn't rely upon his modal ontological argument for anything. He now recognizes that this argument is 100% dialectically useless. Dawkins is under no obligation to address it.


there's been no argument that the nature of immaterial things are such that their arrangements are improbable or could have been otherwise

Well, most grant that immaterial things can be contingent existents. That is, it's possible (though unlikely) that angels exist. The question is whether god's "arrangement" is improbable---not whether the arrangement of immaterial things is improbable.


there's no obvious entailment from complexity to improbability

Yes, but still, this isn't that bad an argument. Most think that complexity does imply improbability. That's why most think simplicity is a virtue of a theory. If you think complexity in the material world implies improbability, the burden of proof falls on you to show that complexity in the immaterial world does not.


there are arguments that immaterial things are necessarily such as they are (e.g., the modal ontological argument), and Dawkins hasn't addressed those, etc

Again, I think you've misunderstood this argument. It's for the conclusion that god, a necessary being, exists. It is not an argument for the conclusion that immaterial things are necessarily such as they are, whatever that means. Presumably Plantinga would deny that latter claim. Demons, for example, do not exist in all possible worlds, and demons are immaterial.

[Clove]

Demons, for example, do not exist in all possible worlds, and demons are immaterial.Says YOU!

[Kranar]

You'll have to excuse me if I'm wrong here... this is why I abandoned philosophy in favor of math and science because sometimes the arguments become based on such thin semantics I begin to question whether philosophers are debating with the intent of actually accomplishing a goal that serves some purpose, or just arguing to be 'right' and publish academic papers in the process.

Not that science and math are immune from this fault, but science and math have more objective means of testing validity that at some point a scientist or mathematician can make their argument, and if people don't want to believe it or accept it but it is experimental validity, the scientist can effectively say screw you to the non-believers, and continue benefiting from their knowledge without having to win a debate or an argument or care about having a cult following. This may explain why scientists and engineers tend to be bigger loners...

Anyhow... it seems like the argument being made here, and once again I could be way wrong, is that God exists because God is supreme, so by virtue of its supremacy, God necessarily exists because otherwise God wouldn't be supreme, which is a contradiction.

In other words, you're sneaking in the fact that God exists into the premise of the argument (his supremacy), as opposed to the conclusion. You're effectively begging the question here, a circular argument.

Not to mention, this argument is void of any meaning about what God is. For all you know, what you may have defined as being the so called supreme being that necessarily exists, is simply the universe itself. The argument doesn't say that this supreme being is conscious or that it's a spirit, it doesn't say that this being exists independently of the universe or has communicated with humans. All it says is that this being is omniscient, meaning it knows everything about the universe, and surely all information about the universe is contained within the universe... and that this being is omnipotent, meaning it's capable of performing any possible action within the universe... which also applies to the universe, since the universe is the entity carrying out the actions within it.

In other words... this argument hasn't solved any problem whatsoever. It's just playing with semantics.

[Tisket]

Y'all have missed the most baffling issue in this entire thread: why does Clove have a stray "n" in his sig?

Get your priorities straight.

[Clove]

Y'all have missed the most baffling issue in this entire thread: why does Clove have a stray "n" in his sig?

Get your priorities straight.That's a "pi" symbol and it is deliberate.

[Mathari]

We'll get the Extended, Extended Aquinas Calvin Model and the Extended, Extended, Extended Aquinas Calvin Model every time it looks like there's a premise that makes trouble for theistic belief. So if it turned out that a complexity premise makes trouble, then the EEEEEEACM will have it that certain theists are provided with the warranted belief that a SIMPLE GOD exists. But at some point, this strategy does become laughable.

Fortunately Plantinga does not adopt that strategy here. Instead, he wastes time talking about something he takes to be false. This is rhetoric, not philosophy.
The strategy I presented Plantinga as adopting does not rely on the claim that theistic believers are justified (warranted, etc.) in believing that God is simple, or that a simple God exists. Rather, the idea is just that Plantinga is pointing out, first, that Dawkins' argument for the claim that God's existence is improbable crucially relies on the premise that God is complex. That being so, it (by itself) doesn't show that the existence of a simple God is improbable. Again, this is just a dialectical point. It's a point that can be made whether the belief that God is simple (or that a simple God exists) is justified/warranted or not.

Of course, the dialectical deficiency is easily overcome by an argument for the claim that God is complex; but then Dawkins' argument for that claim seems to rely on the claim that the Creator of X is at least as complex as X, which doesn't seem obvious.


This is only the case if you want to maintain that god provides you with a warranted belief in those things. See the EEEEEEEEEACM.
No; again, the merely dialectical point can be made without this being the case.


[Regarding Plantinga's modal ontological argument:] Finally, it is not an argument for the conclusion that god is a necessary being. It is an argument for the conclusion that god---a necessary being--- exists.
This is exactly right; thanks. One tends to overlook such distinctions at 3 in the morning. :)

In any case, the argument is an argument that a certain kind of necessary being exists, namely a maximally great necessary being. Call that being "God." The point I was making (i.e., that Dawkins does not address this argument and that it is relevant to his argument) still seems to stand. For Dawkins' argument is that God's existence is improbable. But if the modal ontological argument is sound, then God's existence is not at all improbable. The modal ontological argument can serve as a defeater for the inference from "God is extremely complex" to "God's existence is improbable" (assuming for the moment that a maximally great being, called "God," is extremely complex).


Maybe you think that sound epistemically circular arguments "succeed" in virtue of their soundness despite their obvious bad-making features.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I do think that some forms of epistemic circularity are benign (see Bergmann or van Cleve or Sosa here), and do not obviously have "bad-making features" (except, perhaps, for their being such that they likely would not persuade a skeptic). This is not to say that I think the modal ontological argument is benignly circular; it may be malignantly so.


I'm not sure why this argument is being mentioned here. You could have just said: If god exists, whether complex or not, then she exists necessarily (by definition).
The argument is being mentioned here because it can apparently serve as a defeater for a crucial inference in Dawkins' argument, as above. The argument provides support (if it provides any support at all for its conclusion) for the claim that you mention: that if God (possibly) exists, whether complex or not, then He exists necessarily.


Um, yes. Given that god exists necessarily (AND given the assumption that matter exists contingently) it follows that it's less probable that matter exists than that god exists. I suppose we can make S5 part of the deliverance of the EEEEEEEEEEEACM now.
I take it that this is sarcasm (why?), but still I'll note that nothing I've said depends on the claim that S5 is a deliverance of the sensus divinitatis or the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. Is this a bit of the "bullying" of which you accused Plantinga?


Well, most grant that immaterial things can be contingent existents. That is, it's possible (though unlikely) that angels exist. The question is whether god's "arrangement" is improbable---not whether the arrangement of immaterial things is improbable.
This is also exactly right; thanks again. I realized this as I went to sleep, but didn't care to fix it. In any case, it's a minor point; just substitute "an immaterial thing, namely, God" for "immaterial things" in the relevant places.


Most think that complexity does imply improbability. That's why most think simplicity is a virtue of a theory. If you think complexity in the material world implies improbability, the burden of proof falls on you to show that complexity in the immaterial world does not.
It's true that most people think that simplicity is a virtue of a theory in the sense that the simpler theory is more epistemically probable. I don't know that most people think that a simpler theory is more objectively probable, though (maybe they do; I'm honestly not sure--many might suspend judgment). And again, for the reasons I mentioned, the arguments here appear to be about objective probability, not epistemic probability.

In any case, I gave what I thought were Plantinga's (suggested) reasons for thinking that the material world's complexity suggests that its existence as it is is improbable -- i.e., things are as they are because billions upon billions of elementary material particles are arranged this way in accordance with laws and initial conditions, all of which apparently easily could have been just slightly different in various ways and would've thereby resulted in various vastly different universes. There are billions upon billions of ways, in other words, in which material things could easily have been arranged otherwise. This is a claim about the objective probability of things being arranged this way, since this arrangement is a member of a large set of objectively possible outcomes. But this reasoning does not appear to apply to the (alleged) immaterial being called "God," because it doesn't appear that (or at least we have no argument for the claim that) God's being arranged as He is -- again, this is assuming that He has parts -- is just one possible Godly arrangement (out of a vastly larger set) that easily could have been otherwise. So, that's one point. One might also think that certain theistic arguments constitute additional reasons for thinking that God, in particular, could not have been otherwise (at least with respect to his essential properties).


Again, I think you've misunderstood this argument. It's for the conclusion that god, a necessary being, exists. It is not an argument for the conclusion that immaterial things are necessarily such as they are, whatever that means. Presumably Plantinga would deny that latter claim. Demons, for example, do not exist in all possible worlds, and demons are immaterial.
Again, this is all right. It's not that I misunderstood the argument, though; just that I misstated it. See above for clarification.

[Mathari]

Y'all have missed the most baffling issue in this entire thread: why does Clove have a stray "n" in his sig?

Get your priorities straight.
I did find this mysterious. Thanks for raising this important issue!

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/Christianity-Atheism.jpg

*the person who posted this message is not against Christianity or any other religion, just thought this was funny

[Clove]

I did find this mysterious. Thanks for raising this important issue!Its mystery is only exceeded by its power.

[Cephalopod]

Its mystery is only exceeded by its power.

Used properly, it could banish you to Hoboken, New Jersey. Much like God.

[DCSL]

I was in Hoboken, NJ for a few months. Escaping it was like unto clawing my way from the depths of hell. But I managed.

[Clove]

"I got myself out of Beirut once, I think I can get out of New Jersey."

"Yeah, well don't be so sure. Others have tried and failed."
But come on, isn't there anyone here that recognizes the significance of Pi!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

But come on, isn't there anyone here that recognizes the significance of Pi!

Pi day is also Steak and Blowjob day?

[Clove]

Pi day is also Steak and Blowjob day?My name's Nannerpuss, Naaaaaannerpuss. And guess what? I like penguins!

[diethx]

Its mystery is only exceeded by its power.

Annnnnnnnnnnnd theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen?


http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/Christianity-Atheism.jpg

*the person who posted this message is not against Christianity or any other religion, just thought this was funny

LOL

[Cephalopod]

I haven't been reading it, but this thread looks very interesting.

http://i39.tinypic.com/1zqc7ra.jpg

Philosoraptor approves.

[Faent]

The strategy I presented Plantinga as adopting does not rely on the claim that theistic believers are justified (warranted, etc.) in believing that God is simple, or that a simple God exists. Rather, the idea is just that Plantinga is pointing out, first, that Dawkins' argument for the claim that God's existence is improbable crucially relies on the premise that God is complex. That being so, it (by itself) doesn't show that the existence of a simple God is improbable. Again, this is just a dialectical point. It's a point that can be made whether the belief that God is simple (or that a simple God exists) is justified/warranted or not. Of course, the dialectical deficiency is easily overcome by an argument for the claim that God is complex; but then Dawkins' argument for that claim seems to rely on the claim that the Creator of X is at least as complex as X, which doesn't seem obvious.

A few points. First, Dawkins does have an argument for god's complexity. You may think that argument isn't very good, but Plantinga ought to respond to this argument directly. Second, it's annoying when Plantinga makes a dialectical point that depends upon a proposition he regards as being necessarily false. This is just dishonest rhetoric. If Plantinga wanted to rest any weight on that point, he'd have to defend the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (a move which would, frankly, be absurd). Suppose an atheist argues that unless god is a cockroach, the existence of god is highly improbable. Only a ridiculous theist would respond that this doesn't show that the existence of god is improbable, since it leaves open the possibility that god is a highly probable cockroach.


In any case, the argument is an argument that a certain kind of necessary being exists, namely a maximally great necessary being. Call that being "God." The point I was making (i.e., that Dawkins does not address this argument and that it is relevant to his argument) still seems to stand. For Dawkins' argument is that God's existence is improbable. But if the modal ontological argument is sound, then God's existence is not at all improbable.

This is an overly complicated way of putting a simple point: if a necessary being X exists, then the existence of X is highly (indeed maximally) probable. You don't need to bring in the MOA to make this point.


The modal ontological argument can serve as a defeater for the inference from "God is extremely complex" to "God's existence is improbable" (assuming for the moment that a maximally great being, called "God," is extremely complex).

It seems to me that you might be thinking this: If god is extremely complex and exists, well, then the probability of their being an extremely complex entity is 1. (Actually, that would follow only if it were an essential property of god that she be extremely complex. But let's assume that for now.) That's fine, but I don't see how endorsing that fails to defeat the inference from complexity to improbability any more than the following proposition would defeat it: let f(M) be fusion of an extremely complicated arrangement of matter. IF f(M) is necessary, THEN the probability of their being an extremely complex entity is 1. I grant this conditional too. But I don't see it defeating any inferences from complexity to improbability. To get defeat, you have to motivate the antecedent (in this case, that f(M) is necessary---in the analogous case, that god is possible). But maybe I haven't understood your reasoning.


This is a bit of a tangent, but I do think that some forms of epistemic circularity are benign (see Bergmann or van Cleve or Sosa here), and do not obviously have "bad-making features" (except, perhaps, for their being such that they likely would not persuade a skeptic). This is not to say that I think the modal ontological argument is benignly circular; it may be malignantly so.

Hmm. I think those arguments are all highly dubious. They depend on, for one, on implausible and possibly question-begging assumptions about lack of transmission failure. Thus epistemically circular inductive track record arguments are simply asserted by Bergmann to be such that they transmit justification from their premises to their conclusions. This is unacceptable. But I see you've been doing your homework. Nice. =)


The argument is being mentioned here because it can apparently serve as a defeater for a crucial inference in Dawkins' argument, as above. The argument provides support (if it provides any support at all for its conclusion) for the claim that you mention: that if God (possibly) exists, whether complex or not, then He exists necessarily.

Well, yes, but that just follows immediately from a single premise and the characteristic axiom of S5. I'm not sure I'd call this so much an "argument" as an "obvious consequence". Plantinga used to pretend (more charitably: falsely believe) that it isn't just an "obvious consequence" of endorsing the possibility claim and S5. He seemed to think that the possibility premise enjoyed independent intuitive support of its own. But this is absurd. One has little idea what the man on the clapham omnibus is asserting when he grants that it's possible that a being exemplify maximal greatness. I think the most plausible claim is that he's talking about epistemic possibility. There is zero reason to suppose that he means "metaphysical possibility" in the philosopher's sense.


I take it that this is sarcasm (why?), but still I'll note that nothing I've said depends on the claim that S5 is a deliverance of the sensus divinitatis or the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. Is this a bit of the "bullying" of which you accused Plantinga?

Well, part of the problem was that I couldn't tell what use you were trying to put the MOA to. But perhaps.


But this reasoning does not appear to apply to the (alleged) immaterial being called "God," because it doesn't appear that (or at least we have no argument for the claim that) God's being arranged as He is -- again, this is assuming that He has parts -- is just one possible Godly arrangement (out of a vastly larger set) that easily could have been otherwise. So, that's one point. One might also think that certain theistic arguments constitute additional reasons for thinking that God, in particular, could not have been otherwise (at least with respect to his essential properties).

(I assume that by "we have" you mean "Dawkins didn't give an argument for...") Here's one reason for thinking that god would have to be complex. First, in any possible world w god knows every true proposition in w. Assume that the arrangement of matter is contingent. Then there are continuum many true propositions in some world w* that are false in w. Thus god's mental state in w is radically different from his mental state in w*. This radical difference in mental states cannot be explained without appeal to differing complex arrangements of spirit juice. You may not like this argument, but it is an argument, and if I recall properly, it's in the vicinity of an argument you mentioned Dawkins as having offered.

[SHAFT]

Look at the Christians coming out in numbers with 23 represenitives.

But the non-believers are winning at the moment with 33. Yes I am combining the Agnostics and Atheists as one because they are very similar in the end.

[Clove]

Don't we have any Buddhists or Hindus here?

[DCSL]

Look at the Christians coming out in numbers with 23 represenitives.

But the non-believers are winning at the moment with 33. Yes I am combining the Agnostics and Atheists as one because they are very similar in the end.

Fuck that! I'm a militant agnostic. I don't know and you don't either!

/Nietzsche satire.

[CrystalTears]

Yes I am combining the Agnostics and Atheists as one because they are very similar in the end.Not really, but we already know how Atheists hate that.

[Clove]

(I assume that by "we have" you mean "Dawkins didn't give an argument for...") Here's one reason for thinking that god would have to be complex. First, in any possible world w god knows every true proposition in w. Assume that the arrangement of matter is contingent. Then there are continuum many true propositions in some world w* that are false in w. Thus god's mental state in w is radically different from his mental state in w*. This radical difference in mental states cannot be explained without appeal to differing complex arrangements of spirit juice. You may not like this argument, but it is an argument, and if I recall properly, it's in the vicinity of an argument you mentioned Dawkins as having offered.I was wondering when we'd get around to propositional calculus.

Is it necessary to assume the existence of god(s) that created the entire universe? Or just our piece of it?

Why should spiritual beings be highly improbable? What are we up to for number of dimensions necessary to express all matter and energy? 6? 9?

I imagine if an entity existed n-dimensions above ours. Its 4 dimensional expression could conceivably be spread across galaxies (check out your shadow on a sunny afternoon). Wouldn't it then be (practically) possible for it to be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent?

[ElanthianSiren]

But the non-believers are winning at the moment with 33. Yes I am combining the Agnostics and Atheists as one because they are very similar in the end.

You'd have a better shot combining non religious with atheist imo.

The poll should have included science as a religion just to piss more people off.

[CrystalTears]

You'd have a better shot combining non religious with agnostic imo. Fixed.

[ElanthianSiren]

Fixed.

Yeah I thought about them both; really it's a grey area since irrelious people can both be agnostic or aethists. At least, I've met both. I'm non religious because I'm agnostic, and I know someone who is non religious because she's an atheist.

[Clove]

Non-religious people can also be people who believe in god(s) but not religion.

[CrystalTears]

Non-religious people can also be people who believe in god(s) but not religion.
You're going to cause their heads to explode.

[Mathari]

It seems to me that you might be thinking this: If god is extremely complex and exists, well, then the probability of their being an extremely complex entity is 1. (Actually, that would follow only if it were an essential property of god that she be extremely complex. But let's assume that for now.) That's fine, but I don't see how endorsing that fails to defeat the inference from complexity to improbability any more than the following proposition would defeat it: let f(M) be fusion of an extremely complicated arrangement of matter. IF f(M) is necessary, THEN the probability of their being an extremely complex entity is 1. I grant this conditional too. But I don't see it defeating any inferences from complexity to improbability. To get defeat, you have to motivate the antecedent (in this case, that f(M) is necessary---in the analogous case, that god is possible). But maybe I haven't understood your reasoning.
Here's, roughly, what I'm thinking. Suppose that you have independent reasons for thinking that extreme complexity entails improbability. So, you're justified (assume) in believing that if X is extremely complex, then X is improbable. Now suppose that you accept Dawkins' argument for the claim that God is extremely complex, and so come to (justifiably) believe that God is complex. Your total evidence now justifies the inference (perhaps on certain assumptions about your seeing the evidential connections) to the conclusion that God (God's existence) is improbable. But now suppose you add to your evidence set the (justified) premise that maximally great beings are extremely complex. Next, you add to your evidence set the modal ontological argument (MOA), believing its premise(s) with justification and likewise its conclusion. This allows you to justifiably infer that a maximally great being exists necessarily. From this, you can justifiably infer that a maximally great being's existence is not improbable. But now your evidence set justifies: a maximally great being's existence is not improbable and a maximally great being is extremely complex. This justifies: it is not the case that, for all x, if x is extremely complex, then x is improbable. This is just the negation of the premise employed in your initial argument that God's existence is improbable. So now your inference to that conclusion from the premise that God is extremely complex is (at least partially, and perhaps only potentially, depending on the strength of your various items of evidence) defeated by your additional evidence. The ability of the premise to justify the conclusion for you is undercut. You have, basically, a rebutting defeater for the principle itself, and so an undercutting defeater for the premise's support for the conclusion.

Maybe this was how you were understanding me. You seem perhaps just to be pointing out that one needs justification for believing that a maximally great being is complex and possibly exists. That's right. I don't take Plantinga to be providing any such justification in his review, though he does attempt to provide it elsewhere (at least, he did at one point in time). (Incidentally, he may just think that the claim that a maximally great being exists necessarily is entailed by the belief that God exists, which is itself basically justified via the operation of the sensus divinitatis.)


Hmm. I think those arguments are all highly dubious. They depend on, for one, on implausible and possibly question-begging assumptions about lack of transmission failure. Thus epistemically circular inductive track record arguments are simply asserted by Bergmann to be such that they transmit justification from their premises to their conclusions. This is unacceptable. But I see you've been doing your homework. Nice. =)
We disagree here, I think, but thanks. :)


Plantinga used to pretend (more charitably: falsely believe) that it isn't just an "obvious consequence" of endorsing the possibility claim and S5. He seemed to think that the possibility premise enjoyed independent intuitive support of its own. But this is absurd. One has little idea what the man on the clapham omnibus is asserting when he grants that it's possible that a being exemplify maximal greatness.
I also disagree with you that it's absurd to think that the possibility claim enjoys intuitive support. I grant your claim about the man on the omnibus, but don't see that it's a counterexample to the claim that the premise enjoys intuitive support for me. I consider the claim that possibly, a maximally great being exists, I understand the constituent concepts of that proposition, I detect no contradiction, and it seems to me that it is possible that such a being exist. Now, that says nothing about the premise's intuitively plausibility for you; you might not find it plausible. But that's consistent with what I just said.

Perhaps we just differ on the evidential role or status of "intuitions" (I don't really like that word), though. Incidentally, are you a justification-skeptic? I take it that you're not, but it'd be nice to know for the sake of continued discussion.


(I assume that by "we have" you mean "Dawkins didn't give an argument for...")
Yes.


Here's one reason for thinking that god would have to be complex. First, in any possible world w god knows every true proposition in w. Assume that the arrangement of matter is contingent. Then there are continuum many true propositions in some world w* that are false in w. Thus god's mental state in w is radically different from his mental state in w*. This radical difference in mental states cannot be explained without appeal to differing complex arrangements of spirit juice. You may not like this argument, but it is an argument, and if I recall properly, it's in the vicinity of an argument you mentioned Dawkins as having offered.
Nice. This is what I was thinking of, yes, but I don't think that Dawkins offers it (I think Plantinga suggests it on his own).

[Faent]

I was wondering when we'd get around to propositional calculus. Is it necessary to assume the existence of god(s) that created the entire universe? Or just our piece of it?

Well, it's classical theism under discussion, and according to classical theism, nothing contingent is independent of god.


Why should spiritual beings be highly improbable? What are we up to for number of dimensions necessary to express all matter and energy? 6? 9?

I know of no good reason for believing that spiritual beings are highly metaphysically improbable. I won't weigh in on the speculative science.


I imagine if an entity existed n-dimensions above ours. Its 4 dimensional expression could conceivably be spread across galaxies (check out your shadow on a sunny afternoon). Wouldn't it then be (practically) possible for it to be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent?

I'm not sure what the argument here is. I wouldn't count as being omnipresent if my shadow is spread across the entire universe (which it doesn't). But I'm assuming you're only talking about shadows metaphorically. So I'd need to know what it would mean for an "lower dimensional expression of oneself to be spread across the universe".

I'm also not sure that classical theists are committed to the omnipresence of god. The standard omni-attributes include omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Many, if not most theists (incoherently I think) assume that god is not located in time. So even if god is simultaneously located everywhere in space, god is not located (on what I take to be the classical conception) in any region of spacetime. On this view, I think theists should definitely move god out of space as well. If they didn't want to, I'm not sure I could keep track of what's going on.

[SHAFT]

Not really, but we already know how Atheists hate that.

To me they're similar because neither believes in "a God".

[CrystalTears]

To me they're similar because neither believes in "a God".
Obviously you haven't been reading your own thread, so I'm not going to go over that again.

[DCSL]

The fact that atheists "know" there is no god while agnostics don't believe either way for whatever reason, negates the comparison. Atheists hold a belief which some of them are very.. hm.. aggressive about. I get similar hassle from atheists about religion and gods as I do from my Christian friends, a comparison which makes them both react in exactly the same way. XD

[Clove]

I'm not sure what the argument here is. I wouldn't count as being omnipresent if my shadow is spread across the entire universe (which it doesn't). But I'm assuming you're only talking about shadows metaphorically. So I'd need to know what it would mean for an "lower dimensional expression of oneself to be spread across the universe". A shadow is an example of a 3 dimensional object expressed in 2 dimensional space and due to the distortions of translation can take up vast areas of the lower dimension. If you're not married to god(s) creating the entire universe it isn't difficult to imagine n-dimensional spiritual beings with potential presence to be both omnipotent and omniscient and or omnipresent.



I'm also not sure that classical theists are committed to the omnipresence of god. The standard omni-attributes include omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Many, if not most theists (incoherently I think) assume that god is not located in time. So even if god is simultaneously located everywhere in space, god is not located (on what I take to be the classical conception) in any region of spacetime. On this view, I think theists should definitely move god out of space as well. If they didn't want to, I'm not sure I could keep track of what's going on.I think you're overgeneralizing theists' models however omnibenevolence certainly isn't a standard cross-culturally. As for located in space and time? I would say many theists would state that god(s) are not contrained by space-time which isn't quite the same.

[SHAFT]

Can we stop this thread please? Someone lock this down? You guys have turned this into something else. A creature that has no meaning or purpose and appears as though will not die. Just fucking stop

[Kranar]

(I assume that by "we have" you mean "Dawkins didn't give an argument for...") Here's one reason for thinking that god would have to be complex. First, in any possible world w god knows every true proposition in w.


This is actually a really good point. Once again, no relevance whatsoever to anything outside of pure philosophical ramblings, but rambling can be fun so what the heck...

It's true, one could argue that God does not have to be as complex as the universe just because God created it, but... if God is omniscient, then it follows that he MUST be at least as complex as the universe itself.

This follows from exactly what you quote... if God knows everything about the universe, then that knowledge constitutes a part of God's complexity, and since that knowledge is about the universe as a whole, then the complexity of that knowledge is equal to the complexity of the universe, thus God is at least as complex as the universe.

And so when people argue that the universe must have a creator because of its design, and complexity, and non-randomness, then they must also accept that an omniscient God also had a creator too.

[Faent]

Here's, roughly, what I'm thinking. Suppose that you have independent reasons for thinking that extreme complexity entails improbability. So, you're justified (assume) in believing that if X is extremely complex, then X is improbable. Now suppose that you accept Dawkins' argument for the claim that God is extremely complex, and so come to (justifiably) believe that God is complex. Your total evidence now justifies the inference (perhaps on certain assumptions about your seeing the evidential connections) to the conclusion that God (God's existence) is improbable. But now suppose you add to your evidence set the (justified) premise that maximally great beings are extremely complex.

At this point, you can infer that maximally great beings are highly improbable.


Next, you add to your evidence set the modal ontological argument (MOA), believing its premise(s) with justification and likewise its conclusion.

Now you can infer that maximally great beings are as highly probable as possible. This puts one in a pickle. Something has to go.

It is not at all clear to me that at this point, as you claim, you can infer that a maximally great being’s existence is not improbable. Whether or not you can, I suppose, depends upon which conclusion you have more justification for.


I also disagree with you that it's absurd to think that the possibility claim enjoys intuitive support. I grant your claim about the man on the omnibus, but don't see that it's a counterexample to the claim that the premise enjoys intuitive support for me. I consider the claim that possibly, a maximally great being exists, I understand the constituent concepts of that proposition, I detect no contradiction, and it seems to me that it is possible that such a being exist. Now, that says nothing about the premise's intuitively plausibility for you; you might not find it plausible. But that's consistent with what I just said.

It may be that the premise enjoys intuitive support for you. But I’m a bit concerned about that claim for a few reasons. First, I think people need to be careful about what they claim they have intuitive support for. There are intuitions and there are intuitions. The validity of modus ponens enjoys serious intuitive support. Contrast that with the proposition that there are rocks. I don’t think the last claim enjoys any kind of (direct) intuitive support, although I think many would say it does.

Now of course, modal intuitions are different and, if they are supported at all, enjoy (direct) intuitive support. And we have a modal intuition under discussion. But note that the content of that intuition is somewhat complex. The property of being maximally great is a highly technical property. It is manifestly not the property any ordinary person would have in mind if you asked them “to consider the property of being maximally great”. I suspect almost nobody in the boards who has been following this thread has any idea what the property we’re talking about is.

So I’d have this further worry. You claim to be having an intuition that’s highly complex. Not only does the content of the proposition you’re claiming to intuit (if you’re adequately intuiting it) include a a full understanding of the property in question but it also includes a full understanding of the notion of metaphysical possibility in question. I very much doubt this intuition, in part because of its complexity, comes with any of the accoutrements of standard examples of rational intuitions, namely, insight into the truth of the proposition in question.

Furthermore, I think that if you are in fact intuiting it, your intuiting it is tantamount to intuiting that god possibly exists. And that, I’d say, is tantamount to intuiting that god necessarily exists. So I’m inclined to say that if you’re really intuiting this proposition with understanding, I think you’re also claiming to be intuiting god’s existence. (I won’t define this “tantamount” relation.) If you haven’t intuited the proposition with full understanding, then you aren’t claiming to be intuiting god’s existence, but your intuition is incredibly weak.

Consider, for example, the intuition that the Naive Comprehension Axiom is true. I’m not sure I want to say that this intuition ever conferred significant justification on that proposition for anyone. I’d take the kind of justification it conferred to be insanely weak (to the point of not rendering the proposition that the NCA is true warrantedly assertible).


Perhaps we just differ on the evidential role or status of "intuitions" (I don't really like that word), though. Incidentally, are you a justification-skeptic? I take it that you're not, but it'd be nice to know for the sake of continued discussion.

No. But I suspect that people play too fast and loose with intuitions. At any rate, I take the justification they provided to be easily defeated. And in this case, I think it’s epistemically irresponsible to rely upon an intuition that god exists, or an intuition that it’s possible that god exists, or an intuition that it’s possibly that a maximally great being exists, in order to try and get justification for the conclusion that god exists. There are simply too many rebutting and undercutting defeaters out there for intelligent people to rely upon intuitively conferred justification here.


(Incidentally, he may just think that the claim that a maximally great being exists necessarily is entailed by the belief that God exists, which is itself basically justified via the operation of the sensus divinitatis.)

I’ve moved this quotation down since I think it’s better responded to here. It may be the case that the sensus divinitatis confers basic justification on the belief that god exists (if god exists), but it SURELY DOESN’T confer undefeasible justification upon that belief. So reflective theists will hit a wall here when they start to acquire defeaters.

[SHAFT]

My God what have I started? I apologize to all.

[Mathari]

I think we now agree about all of the relevant details of the parts of the Dawkins-Plantinga issue that've been mentioned here, so I won't say a whole lot. Just a few comments.


At this point, you can infer that maximally great beings are highly improbable . . . Now you can infer that maximally great beings are as highly probable as possible. This puts one in a pickle. Something has to go . . . It is not at all clear to me that at this point, as you claim, you can infer that a maximally great being’s existence is not improbable. Whether or not you can, I suppose, depends upon which conclusion you have more justification for.
I agree with all of this, except for the "as you claim" part. :) When I claimed that the defeater obtained, I made that claim with the following caveat: "perhaps only potentially, depending on the strength of your various items of evidence." I was gesturing at the same thing you're gesturing at in your last quoted sentence, so we agree.


There are intuitions and there are intuitions. The validity of modus ponens enjoys serious intuitive support. Contrast that with the proposition that there are rocks. I don’t think the last claim enjoys any kind of (direct) intuitive support, although I think many would say it does.
Agreed again. The claim that there are rocks enjoys no direct intuitive support.


But note that the content of that intuition is somewhat complex. The property of being maximally great is a highly technical property. It is manifestly not the property any ordinary person would have in mind if you asked them “to consider the property of being maximally great”. I suspect almost nobody in the boards who has been following this thread has any idea what the property we’re talking about is.
That all seems correct, too.


[insert stuff about Mathari's intuitions]
I'll admit that my intuition regarding the modal premise is weak, has to do with an extremely complex proposition, and provides much, much less justificatory support than does, say, the intuition that modus ponens is a valid form of inference. About the rest, I don't have much to say, except the following: (1) I think the intuition regarding the NCA conferred stronger justification than you think it did, but still agree in principle that there are weak intuitions and that people are often too "fast and loose" with them; (2) I agree that the justification provided by intuition is, sometimes quite easily, defeasible.


It may be the case that the sensus divinitatis confers basic justification on the belief that god exists (if god exists), but it SURELY DOESN’T confer undefeasible justification upon that belief. So reflective theists will hit a wall here when they start to acquire defeaters.
I agree with this as well. The next question is whether the theist has defeater-defeaters.

I never thought I would be using or seeing some of the terminology that's been used in this discussion on the PC, but I've enjoyed it. :)

[DCSL]

My God what have I started? I apologize to all.

Don't apologize. If I weren't interested in the discussion, I wouldn't be reading it. It's certainly something I never thought to see on the PC but it's not unwelcome.

[Faent]

I never thought I would be using or seeing some of the terminology that's been used in this discussion on the PC, but I've enjoyed it. :)

Yes, we rocked the house out.

[Clove]

Yes, we rocked the house out.Philosophy 101 used to be required undergrad study...

[Tsa`ah]

Aside from the fact that there a neutral, historical accounts of a person named "Jesus", some significant theological differences exist in the early fertility mythos, assyrian/babylonian mythos that some people propose is where "Christianity" got its roots.

In fact, they spent 300 - 500 years getting killed because the "pagan" priests + emperors did not like the "influence" that existed....


plus, I'd like to hear someone refute "Jesus, Lunatic, Liar or teller of Truth"

Meh ...

The name "Jesus" didn't exist in the era it has relevance to. So historical accounts of someone with that name call into question the historian's(s') credibility. The argument that the name Yahshua was in fact the name of Jesus also places credibility under the microscope since such a name would have resulted in the death of at least three people before any historic impact could be made. Likely the name was Barabus ... but in this discussion, as with any other, it could have been Steve.


It really is funny... because the same people who argue that the universe, in all it's complexity must have been the result of a creator, inherently implies that the creator is more complex than the creation...

And yet following this logic, if the creator is more complex than the creation, then the creator too much have been created, and the creator's creator must have been created as well.

But of course, there's no reason to believe that just because something is complex, that it must be because of a creator or some vague, greater power. Quite the contrary, for people who deal at a professional or academic level with complex systems, one finds that the most incredibly complex systems are the result of very simple causes.

This is what makes evolution such a beautiful and powerful theory.

Which is why I take a more orthodox approach in my opinion of God. The Cabalist notion on God and creation is easier to swallow ... even if I'm still chewing on it.

In the end I'd have to place myself in the agnostic category since it's not a total lack of "faith" or "belief" on my part, just a complete lack of faith that anyone has it right.

[DCSL]

I have nothing to add, not being as deeply versed as some of our posters, but damn, this is great. I really like this thread now.

[Back]

In the end I'd have to place myself in the agnostic category since it's not a total lack of "faith" or "belief" on my part, just a complete lack of faith that anyone has it right.

Thats why I voted agnostic.

[Mathari]

Those of you (if any) who were interested in the exchange between Faent and myself may also be interested in the following account of an exchange that occurred between philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett at this past weekend's central meeting of the American Philosophical Association:

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/02/an-opinionated.html

[DCSL]

Those of you (if any) who were interested in the exchange between Faent and myself may also be interested in the following account of an exchange that occurred between philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett at this past weekend's central meeting of the American Philosophical Association:

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/02/an-opinionated.html

Very interesting. I will be reading it during class when I should be taking notes. Thank you!

[Clove]

Very interesting. I will be reading it during class when I should be taking notes. Thank you!...
Philosophy 101 used to be required undergrad study...

[diethx]

It still is, sorta. Most core programs give you a choice between philosophy and a few other classes. I took public speaking instead. I can't remember the other choices though.

[Mathari]

I haven't finished reading it myself yet, but so far there are moments where the comments are unfortunately one-sided. Be forewarned of that. And a lot of it is more about the style of the performers rather than the arguments, too.

Edited to add: I should have also mentioned that this is on a blog hosted largely by Christian philosophers.

[DCSL]

...

Heh! I already have an undergraduate degree and I don't think I took one. If I took one, it was nowhere near deep enough to follow the above conversation without the precious nearness of Google for certain terms and quoted arguments flung back and forth. I recall Logic and Ethics classes, but... no. I think they gave us a range of elective, non-major "soft intellectual" (my chem major friend's phrase) courses to choose from to fulfill the requirements and I picked something else.

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/goQ1uU6jOjskv2tnKM79JDfGo1_500.jpg

[Faent]

Those of you (if any) who were interested in the exchange between Faent and myself may also be interested in the following account of an exchange that occurred between philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett at this past weekend's central meeting of the American Philosophical Association:

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/02/an-opinionated.html

Alright. Moon's friend's account is utter bullshit. It's kind of sad that the liveblogging failed as much as it did. I'll fix matters later, but for now, I'm happy to grant that Plantinga came off looking much better than Dennett. (I'll also add that everyone expected this. Nobody attending the Plantinga-Dennett "debate" hoped to learn anything philosophically interesting (except perhaps Plantinga and Dennett)).

The "debate" was (and was supposed to be) pure entertainment. And that's all it was. Unfortunately the sparks didn't fly as much as everyone hoped they would. So there was a lot of disappointment. But the sad kid who tried to liveblog the debate is so clueless (although I appreciate the attempt) that his account can't be trusted.

I'll fix matters tomorrow.

[diethx]

Who is Brian Litrell? It sounds kinda familiar, sorta kinda.

[Solkern]

How I see it is this

You can believe a god exist and there is a god, and you're fine
You can believe god doesn't exist, and he doesn't and you're fine
You can believe god doesn't exist and he does exist, and you're fucked.

[Keller]

How I see it is this

You can believe a god exist and there is a god, and you're fine
You can believe god doesn't exist, and he doesn't and you're fine
You can believe god doesn't exist and he does exist, and you're fucked.

How about you (the royal you) not be an asshole (my religion) and not worry about whether something exists that will grant you salvation based on whether or not you believe in it.

If it turns out to be true that you are saved based on blind belief and not based on anything else, fuck that thing. It's not worth my eternal companionship to be with such an egotistical fuck.

[Back]

How about a little levity Mr. Grumpypants.

[Mathari]

Alright. Moon's friend's account is utter bullshit. It's kind of sad that the liveblogging failed as much as it did.
This is what I began to fear as I kept reading, as should be somewhat obvious from the sequence of my posts (first I post the link; then I post again to warn about bias; then I edit that comment to add another indication of potential bias, etc.). I should've read through it all first before posting, but I trusted the blog's credibility. It's unfortunate that the account was both so one-sided and so largely uninformative.

In any case, thanks for your alternative account.

[Keller]

How about a little levity Mr. Grumpypants.

I'm not grumpy. I just shudder to think that people subscribe to a religious belief due to the "what if I was wrong" theory.

Just don't be an asshole. If there is a god that decides that you, having not been an asshole, do not deserve salvation because you didn't expressly believe/worship/suck-his-epiphany, then I don't think that's anyone you want to spend eternity with.

[Mathari]

Oh, also: I'm pretty sure Brian Litrell was one of the Backstreet Boys.

[Back]

I'm not grumpy. I just shudder to think that people subscribe to a religious belief due to the "what if I was wrong" theory.

Just don't be an asshole. If there is a god that decides that you, having not been an asshole, do not deserve salvation because you didn't expressly believe/worship/suck-his-epiphany, then I don't think that's anyone you want to spend eternity with.

Solkern pulled out the oldest joke in the book.

Just saying.

[Tsa`ah]

Solkern pulled out the oldest joke in the book.

Just saying.

It's also extremely annoying, not to mention bathed in ignorance.

That's what I find so irritating about "that" brand of Christianity ... salvation through belief.

If you believe God is the father/mother of all creation ... including mankind ... how fucking hypocritical and irrational is it to believe that your creator intentionally made large swaths of non-believers that are just going to go right to "Christian" hell because they didn't believe in, let alone heard of in some instances, this "Loving" god?

I find it wholly detestable that some child molesting, goat fucking, slack jaw is going to make it into "heaven" because he believes and each time he molests a child or fucks some unwilling farm animal ... he's forgiven simply because he asks to be. To put the cherry on top of it all ... he can do it all over again because he has faith and because he asks for forgiveness.

[Faent]

Actually, Moon's friend's account isn't too awful once you get past the incredible naivety and bizarre sense of melodrama. The best part comes at 3:52. He seemed to expect this to be some kind of cataclysmic event---a clash of the titans. It wasn't that, and nobody expected it to be. This seriously tainted his perspective. The comments on the thread clear some of this up, so I won't remark much here. Suffice to say Dennett did not address any of the tired old arguments Plantinga offered. As a result, Plantinga's remark at 4:02 got many laughs. Of course, Plantinga didn't give his arguments any serious defense, either. But P. won by default, since for the most part, Dennett just continued to reiterate what an "entirely gratuitous fantasy" belief in god is. Over and over and over. It was funny, but not philosophical.

[Tsa`ah]

Are YOU an atheist? 02-24-2009 12:11 PM You're just generally detestable.

Little douche nozzle just couldn't keep off of my leg ...

[diethx]

Little douche nozzle just couldn't keep off of my leg ...

Oh shut the fuck up with that and get some new material already.

[Tsa`ah]

Are YOU an atheist? 02-24-2009 12:49 PM And you're the fucked up example of those we detest who profess MY religion is right while YOUR religion is wrong and stupid. Fuck off. -CT

Oh wow toots .... trying to start another line?

Go back and re-read ... I noted "that" brand of Christianity. Not Christianity as a whole ... fucking retard.

And nowhere did I state that Judaism is right or wrong, let alone Christianity. I simply referred to a singular, and I dare say, secular aspect of the theology.

So do me a favor, since you're completely incapable of understanding what I post without your fucked up twist (stemming from an inability to read) ... get off of your fucking horse and put some reading glasses on.

Also .... get off of my fucking leg you rancid thunder cunt.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh shut the fuck up with that and get some new material already.

No ... no ... and make me, but not until you stop derailing the topic.

[CrystalTears]

Oh wow toots .... trying to start another line?

Go back and re-read ... I noted "that" brand of Christianity. Not Christianity as a whole ... fucking retard.

And nowhere did I state that Judaism is right or wrong, let alone Christianity. I simply referred to a singular, and I dare say, secular aspect of the theology.

So do me a favor, since you're completely incapable of understanding what I post without your fucked up twist (stemming from an inability to read) ... get off of your fucking horse and put some reading glasses on.

Also .... get off of my fucking leg you rancid thunder cunt.
I really don't give a rat's ass what "brand" you were referring to, you self-righteous fucking asshole. I find it completely egotistical to proclaim that ANY part or type of a religion is wrong, since no one can say anyone has it right.

So fuck you, let them believe what they want, since it has no effect on your life whatsoever. I'm betting that the majority of them are not as much of a fucktard as you are and living quite happily in the long run.

And as diethx said, find new fucking material. Go google for it for all I care. It's the only thing you're good at.

[diethx]

Yes, because you posting your rep and whining about people humping your leg (which no one fucking does to people they don't like. They aren't humping your leg. They don't fucking like you. If they're doing anything with your leg, they're pissing on it. STFU ALREADY YOU FUCKING DOWNS BABY) isn't derailing the topic.

[Asha]

STFU ALREADY YOU FUCKING DOWNS BABY.

I lolled then felt bad but after a few seconds was okay with it.
In fact, I lolled again and felt nothing.
<3

[Tsa`ah]

This would be fun, but it's like poking at a retard in a cage ... there's just not an ounce of challenge in it.


I really don't give a rat's ass what "brand" you were referring to, you self-righteous fucking asshole. I find it completely egotistical to proclaim that ANY part or type of a religion is wrong, since no one can say anyone has it right.

You have a pretty bad habit of selective reading as it is ... do you really want to make that hole of ignorance any deeper?

Where did I say any part of any religion was "wrong" ... I said I found it detestable, irritating, irrational and hypocritical. "Wrong" was never written nor implied. That's where you fail, and typically so.

I also believe I stated "In the end I'd have to place myself in the agnostic category since it's not a total lack of "faith" or "belief" on my part, just a complete lack of faith that anyone has it right." in an earlier post ... but you didn't care to release the fury of her highness ... the twat waffle ... did you?


So fuck you, let them believe what they want, since it has no effect on your life whatsoever. I'm betting that the majority of them are not as much of a fucktard as you are and living quite happily in the long run.

This is a thread that has evolved into debate and opinion, if you can't hang, just do as you always do ... hump my leg like the rest of the rep train that can't seem to get me more than one red bar ... at this point in the game I expect nothing less. After all, monkey see monkey do.


And as diethx said, find new fucking material. Go google for it for all I care. It's the only thing you're good at.

Dare I point out the irony of your statement? Dare I?

I do.

Wow ... you're hanging off my nuts now using someone else's tired insult.


Yes, because you posting your rep and whining about people humping your leg (which no one fucking does to people they don't like. They aren't humping your leg. They don't fucking like you. If they're doing anything with your leg, they're pissing on it. STFU ALREADY YOU FUCKING DOWNS BABY) isn't derailing the topic.

Yet here you are on it! You ran in right on the heels of someone else just for a chance to do it. No one is whining about rep except you ... well I am over the fact that you guys have failed at every attempt to establish that no one likes me on an internet message board.

The rep box is nothing more than an alternative means of response. Since I can't hit the reply button to a rep message, I'll respond to it where relevant.

Do you honestly think I care what a bunch of whiny ass emo kids/adults think of me on this forum? It would be different if any of your lot were capable of a debate, yet you run in, jump on my leg, fling the insults in rep (mostly) and then act as if I've started something.

I'll REACT when I feel like it ... though it's mostly laughing that you insist that I put soooo much stock in what you have to say.

[diethx]

I'm not humping your leg. I'm shoving my foot in your ass. :)

[Tsa`ah]

Well it seems your foot doesn't reach ... so take care your crotch doesn't chafe (any more than it already is).

[diethx]

It reaches, you just can't feel it because your gaping, dripping chasm of an asshole has been stretched so wide by repeated penetration of your own head that my teeny tiny foot passes through without touching anything.

[Tsa`ah]

And here you are ... still humping away. I'm not so worried about your crotch chafing as I am with the calluses developing on my leg.

[Asha]

I'm laughing but it's a laugh of guilt for laughing.

[CrystalTears]

Forget it. Tsh`it has Mabus and It disease where he's the victim and everyone else is always wrong.

Thanks Google for coming in and saving the thread once again with your knowledge on life!

[diethx]

And here you are ... still humping away. I'm not so worried about your crotch chafing as I am with the calluses developing on my leg.

So how does it smell up inside your colon? I can't imagine it smells good, so why do you insist on keeping your head jammed up your ass so often? Maybe you think like a cat... if we can't see your face, we don't know you're there and we can't make you feel like the idiot you are. Shitty defense mechanism, if you ask me.

[Tsa`ah]

All I'm getting from you is "humpity hump hump".

You can't back up your bullshit bitch fest so it's back to the same.

Humpity hump hump, humpity hump hump ... look at CT and or dtx go.

You guys are going to need some lotion at some point ... but hey .... I'll give you two douchebags the last hum... I mean word, after that ... maybe the thread will return to normal.

[Clove]

All I hear from Tsa'ah is blah blah blah blah Google blah blah blah Wiki blah blah blah quit humping my leg blah blah blah

[Faent]

I really don't give a rat's ass what "brand" you were referring to, you self-righteous fucking asshole. I find it completely egotistical to proclaim that ANY part or type of a religion is wrong, since no one can say anyone has it right.

Suppose according to religion R: p. According to religion R*: not-p. Would you think it egotistical to assert that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong)?

[Clove]

Suppose according to religion R: p. According to religion R*: not-p. Would you think it egotistical to assert that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong)?Only if p can be known. And seriously if I see anymore propositional calculus my eyes are going to start twitching- mercy for the love of god (or not-god)!

[Tea & Strumpets]

How about you (the royal you) not be an asshole (my religion) and not worry about whether something exists that will grant you salvation based on whether or not you believe in it.

If it turns out to be true that you are saved based on blind belief and not based on anything else, fuck that thing. It's not worth my eternal companionship to be with such an egotistical fuck.

I don't really think that's what it boils down to, but it's a difficult subject to discuss since what it really boils down to is opinion and personal perspective.




I find it wholly detestable that some child molesting, goat fucking, slack jaw is going to make it into "heaven" because he believes and each time he molests a child or fucks some unwilling farm animal ... he's forgiven simply because he asks to be. To put the cherry on top of it all ... he can do it all over again because he has faith and because he asks for forgiveness.

I don't even see how you could use that kind of example, or even believe that kind of idiocy. I don't think the doctrine that you are referring to is teaching "do whatever you want, just pray "sorry" afterwards and you are cool".

P.S. -- I saw in the movie the Godfather that Italian Catholics kill people why they are having their nephew baptized.

P.S.S. -- Jewish people sacrifice a cow after they molest kids and screw donkeys.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I don't really think that's what it boils down to, but it's a difficult subject to discuss since what it really boils down to is opinion and personal perspective.



Doh, I used a "boils down" analogy twice in one sentence. How embarrassing.

[Stanley Burrell]

P.S. -- I saw in the movie the Godfather that Italian Catholics kill people why they are having their nephew baptized.

That wasn't because of them being Italian, Catholic or in the mafia. It was because a lot of people needed to die or else the movie would have sucked ass.


P.S.S. -- Jewish people sacrifice a cow after they molest kids and screw donkeys.

Don't you ever fucking talk negatively about Jew cow-sacrificing. We turn that shit into delicious corned beef sammiches on rye with deli mustard (after the donkey mollesting ceremony.)

[diethx]

Fuck deli mustard. Russian dressing all the way.

[Stanley Burrell]

Russian dressing with turkey on rye = yes/nomnomnom/edible. Maybe some black cherry soda and an appetizer of half sour pickles with coleslaw.

[diethx]

You are insane. SOUR pickles, not half sour. Russian dressing on super lean corned beef on seedless rye.

[Stanley Burrell]

You are insane. SOUR pickles, not half sour. Russian dressing on super lean corned beef on seedless rye.

ACK!

Three-quarters sour nomnomnomnomnomnomnomnom.

[Clove]

P.S. -- I saw in the movie the Godfather that Italian Catholics kill people why they are having their nephew baptized.

P.S.S. -- Jewish people sacrifice a cow after they molest kids and screw donkeys.I so want to rep you (in a strictly heterosexual way).

[diethx]

ACK!

Three-quarters sour nomnomnomnomnomnomnomnom.

Boooooooo. Have a celery soda in the ASS sir, in the ASS.

[Stanley Burrell]

Boooooooo. Have a celery soda in the ASS sir, in the ASS.

MAYBE I FUCKING WILL.

Edited to add: Seriously though, celery soda is some nasty shit and belongs in my butt as such.

[Faent]

Only if p can be known.

Why in the name of god is that relevant? Do you think both p and not-p can be true at the same time?

[Mathari]

Why in the name of god is that relevant? Do you think both p and not-p can be true at the same time?
LOL, I almost responded in a nearly identical way but decided just to say nothing.

Edited to now say something:


Only if p can be known.
You do realize that, given Faent's description of the case, the proposition that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong) must be true? I know you said you didn't want to see any more symbolization (or something near to that), but just to be very (perhaps overly) explicit:

1. Start by assuming that it's not the case that (either R is wrong or R* is wrong).
2. If it's not the case that R is wrong, then p. (From the description of the case)
3. If it's not the case that R* is wrong, then not-p. (Ditto)
4. If it is not the case that (either R is wrong or R* is wrong), then it's not the case that R is wrong and it's not the case that R* is wrong. (This is just an application of one half of DeMorgan's Law)
5. So, it's not the case that R is wrong and it's not the case that R* is wrong. (From 1, 4)
6. But then, it's not the case that R is wrong. (From 5)
7. So, p. (From 2, 6)
8. But also, it's not the case that R* is wrong. (From 5)
9. So, not-p. (From 3, 8)
10. Therefore, p and not-p. (From 7, 9)
11. But it is not the case that (p and not-p). [I could've stopped at line 10, strictly speaking, but I figured this line was worth stating as well. This is a necessary truth; there is no case where p is both true and false at the same time.]
12. So, either R is wrong or R* is wrong. (Reductio, 1-11)

[Tisket]

Jesus wept.

[Mathari]

Jesus wept.
:(

[Tisket]

Pretty mild considering what I was going to post then discarded. This is me being kind and gentle!

[Mathari]

Oh, then :heart:

[Tea & Strumpets]

Oh, then :heart:

I just negative repped the ever living shit out of your math jargon post.

[Mathari]

I just negative repped the ever living shit out of your math jargon post.
I can take it; they sentenced Socrates to death.

It really wasn't all that complicated, though. :shrug: Just making the obvious obvious-er.

[Tisket]

I've only neg repped Faent in this thread. Only because I find him/her unbearably pretentious

[Mathari]

For anyone (no one?) interested, the audio of the Plantinga-Dennett exchange is now available for download here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WN2X9G6W

[SHAFT]

I am so fucking awesome