sirmonty:I don't think physics or any science can "prove" the existence of "God" as God is essentially ineffable and theories and whatnot are wholly dependent on language. Human beings cannot describe the essence of God, and therefore all descriptions will be ultimately false. I see God as transcending even existence.
I see God as transcending even existence.
Which is just a fancy way of saying that god doesn't exist.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I don't think physics or any science can "prove" the existence of "God" as God is essentially ineffable and theories and whatnot are wholly dependent on language. Human beings cannot describe the essence of God, and therefore all descriptions will be ultimately false. I see God as transcending even existence. Which is just a fancy way of saying that god doesn't exist.
No it is more like a fancy way of saying that God is beyond existing/non-existing. He transcends our conceptualizations of it.
IOW: it's just a fancy way of saying god doesn't exist. Couching it in pseudo-philosophical terms in order to obfuscate that is intellectually dishonest.
Knight_of_BAAWA: James Redford:Don't be so surprised that science (specifically, the known laws of physics) proves the existence of God Knight_of_BAAWA:But it doesn't. Please stop trying to co-opt observational science with some silly myth. James Redford:As proved above You didn't prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth. James Redford:And again, the field of science is an invention of Christianity. So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren't doing science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
James Redford:Don't be so surprised that science (specifically, the known laws of physics) proves the existence of God
Knight_of_BAAWA:But it doesn't. Please stop trying to co-opt observational science with some silly myth.
James Redford:As proved above
You didn't prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth.
James Redford:And again, the field of science is an invention of Christianity.
So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren't doing science?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wait, so does this also mean Joseph Smith lied to all of us?(Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum!)
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
"Transcendence" isn't a pseudo-philosophical term, sorry buddy.
It is when you wish to annihilate ontology, buddy.
I'd say trying to study the existence of something that supposedly transcends existence is rather pointless. Which leads us back to my original post concerning ineffability.
The idea that an ineffable and transcendent "being" is somehow limited or confined to our preconceived notions concerning the essence of existence/non-existence seems rather silly to me.
To think that God and God's nature can be defined, summed up, conceptualized, and debated with words....
Negative theology is nothing new.
Donny with an A:It's simply impossible to physically prove the existence of something which is alleged to not be bound by physical law and to not have physical existence. The most that one would be able to do would be to demonstrate that physics cannot account for everything that is observed, and that something outside of our current understanding of physics would be necessary to complete a full explanation. If you can show me a single paper which correctly demonstrates with physics that a non-physical entity exists, and that this non-physical entity necessarily has certain concrete characteristics which match those hypothesized by theistic accounts, I will literally eat a hat, take pictures of it, and post them online. To trot out one of my favorite phrases ever: It stands to reason that it cannot be done! It would be like using math to prove that a particular kind of non-formalizable entity existed. It just doesn't make sense. To say that God's existence can be demonstrated through the laws of physics is to commit a category error; according to theistic accounts, God is not a physical entity and is not bound by physical laws. Unless you're pulling a Spinoza, this is nonsense.
It's simply impossible to physically prove the existence of something which is alleged to not be bound by physical law and to not have physical existence. The most that one would be able to do would be to demonstrate that physics cannot account for everything that is observed, and that something outside of our current understanding of physics would be necessary to complete a full explanation. If you can show me a single paper which correctly demonstrates with physics that a non-physical entity exists, and that this non-physical entity necessarily has certain concrete characteristics which match those hypothesized by theistic accounts, I will literally eat a hat, take pictures of it, and post them online. To trot out one of my favorite phrases ever: It stands to reason that it cannot be done! It would be like using math to prove that a particular kind of non-formalizable entity existed. It just doesn't make sense. To say that God's existence can be demonstrated through the laws of physics is to commit a category error; according to theistic accounts, God is not a physical entity and is not bound by physical laws. Unless you're pulling a Spinoza, this is nonsense.
Donny, you apparently haven't been paying close attention to what's been written in this thread--or even to popular science magazines, books or television shows--since then you should know that your above contention is false. By simply not being so bigotedly closed-mined and taking the time to read over what's already been written you could have saved yourself from making such ignorant statements.
It's long been known that no laws of physics can apply to a singularity. The reason is because physical values are at infinity in a singularity, and it is not possible to add or subtract from infinity, hence making any laws of physics impossible to be applied to a singularity.
And yet the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity) prove that singularities do exist. That is, the laws of physics prove that something exists to which no laws of physics can apply.
This is a fact that has been widely disseminated in popular science books, magazines, and television shows, in addition to the physics textbooks and journal literature, so there's no excuse for your ignorance on this matter.
Prof. Stephen Hawking, in his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), pg. 179, wrote: "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."
Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pg. 113, in reference to the Big Bang singularity:
"" This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. ""
For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:
John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000) http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm
For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:
Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's Assertions, February 20, 2007 http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-see.html
For the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that singularities exist according to the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity), see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.
For the proof according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) that the Omega Point (i.e., the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God) exists, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics website.) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists.
Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)
"Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics http://theophysics.host56.com
sirmonty:I'd say trying to study the existence of something that supposedly transcends existence is rather pointless.
Right, because you can't study the existence of something which doesn't exist UNLESS you clearly state that you're doing it from the concept of "realm of fiction".
Negative theology is just a cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the fact that god is an incoherent concept.
Knight_of_BAAWA: James Redford:Don't be so surprised that science (specifically, the known laws of physics) proves the existence of God Knight_of_BAAWA:But it doesn't. Please stop trying to co-opt observational science with some silly myth. James Redford:As proved above You didn't prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth.
Actually, Prof. Frank J. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point Theory which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [pg. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).
Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt ).
Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (pg. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).
Knight_of_BAAWA: James Redford:And again, the field of science is an invention of Christianity. So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren't doing science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mathematics is not empirical science. The Scientific Revolution, the foundation and origin of the modern discipline of science, is dated as having occured with the publication of Catholic Church cleric Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in 1543. As well, the university system, which helped make the Scientific Revolution possible, is another invention of Christianity. For the history on the foregoing, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005).
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I'd say trying to study the existence of something that supposedly transcends existence is rather pointless. Right, because you can't study the existence of something which doesn't exist UNLESS you clearly state that you're doing it from the concept of "realm of fiction". Negative theology is just a cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the fact that god is an incoherent concept.
Well that sort of arrogantly assumes that all things are indeed knowable and comprehendible to us, including the essence of "what it is to exist."
Basically, words, thought, language, etc can only describe the explicate order of things. Since God is not an explicate thing, but indeed the Implicate Order of all things, confining "what He is" to human thought or words is essentially futile. To say that God exists or does not exist is equally trying to quantify the unquantifiable to mental positions.
God is an "incoherent concept" because he transcends our conception of Him. I don't really know how "cowardly" pointing that out is but w/e.
James Redford:Actually, Prof. Frank J. Tipler
is irrelevant.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren't doing science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
James Redford:Mathematics is not empirical science.
Yet they clearly had the concept of basic machines.
You fail at history.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Right, because you can't study the existence of something which doesn't exist UNLESS you clearly state that you're doing it from the concept of "realm of fiction". Negative theology is just a cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the fact that god is an incoherent concept.
sirmonty:Well that sort of arrogantly assumes that all things are indeed knowable and comprehendible to us
That's not arrogant; that's proper.
sirmonty:Basically, words, thought, language, etc can only describe the explicate order of things. Since God is not an explicate thing, but indeed the Implicate Order of all things
Meaningless gimblebabble.
When will you theists learn that you can't try to bluff your way out?
First: singularities in physics are hypothetical scenarios which result from following theories to their logical conclusions. This does not mean that they are proven to exist (though perhaps it's true that what does exist could not have properties inconsistent with those of the postulated singularity). It means that they follow from specific ways of modeling existence.
Second: If singularities do literally exist, they are still physically extant. Some physical laws cannot be applied to them (seemingly because of the incompleteness of our current scientific understanding of the universe), but that's not the same as saying that they don't exist in a physical sense. A complete account of the laws of physics would ostensibly allow us to describe the behavior of singularities. The same would not be true of the theistic God.
Third: The only features of singularities which we can coherently postulate are those which follow from the models which entail them. Given that the God of theological accounts has properties like "omniscience," "omnipotence," and "omnibenevolence," and given that such properties could not be modelled given our current understanding of physics, it simply cannot be the case that we can demonstrate the inherence of these properties in anything (never mind a non-physically-extant entity like God). Accordingly, we cannot demonstrate the existence of the theistic God.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA: James Redford:Don't be so surprised that science (specifically, the known laws of physics) proves the existence of God Knight_of_BAAWA:But it doesn't. Please stop trying to co-opt observational science with some silly myth. James Redford:As proved above You didn't prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth. James Redford:Actually, Prof. Frank J. Tipler is irrelevant.
In this conversation's context, it's not that it's irrelevant, rather it's that the facts disprove your false claims. You falsely asserted that the Omega Point Theory is an attempt to justify a belief, when actually it's a result that ran contrary to its supporters' belief-systems, Prof. Frank J. Tipler's as well as mine. I myself was a resolute atheist before I had to acknowledge, if I wanted to be logical, that rationality requires that one believe that the Omega Point exists according to the known laws of physics.
Knight_of_BAAWA: James Redford:And again, the field of science is an invention of Christianity. Knight_of_BAAWA:So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren't doing science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! James Redford:Mathematics is not empirical science. Yet they clearly had the concept of basic machines. You fail at history.
Many cultures before the Scientific Revolution had invented machines. But it was Christianity which gave to the world science as a systematic discipline. For the history on the that, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005).
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I'd say trying to study the existence of something that supposedly transcends existence is rather pointless. Knight_of_BAAWA:Right, because you can't study the existence of something which doesn't exist UNLESS you clearly state that you're doing it from the concept of "realm of fiction". Negative theology is just a cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the fact that god is an incoherent concept. sirmonty:Well that sort of arrogantly assumes that all things are indeed knowable and comprehendible to us That's not arrogant; that's proper.
No, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that we know the essence of what it is to exist and that we can convey that essence through thoughts and words. We only know our conception of what it is. I feel it is rather pointless to debate someone's preconceived notions of something that supposedly transcends our preconceived notions of things.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:Basically, words, thought, language, etc can only describe the explicate order of things. Since God is not an explicate thing, but indeed the Implicate Order of all things Meaningless gimblebabble. When will you theists learn that you can't try to bluff your way out?
I wasn't aware that I was really a theist. I feel both theism and atheism suggest attachments to mental positions concerning God. Since I feel that wordsand thought cannot capture reality (they can only point), it is rather pointless to debate the existence/non-existence of what is called God.
What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly?
Knight_of_BAAWA:You didn't prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth.
Knight_of_BAAWA:is irrelevant.
James Redford:In this conversation's context, it's not that it's irrelevant
Yeah, it actually is. You've nothing but your desire to co-opt science.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yet they clearly had the concept of basic machines. You fail at history.
James Redford:Many cultures before the Scientific Revolution had invented machines.
And yet the Greeks wrote about them, described them, and understood their workings. Christianity did NOT give us science as a systematic discipline; it was merely rediscovered as one after centuries of rebuilding.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's not arrogant; that's proper.
sirmonty:No, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that we know the essence of what it is to exist and that we can convey that essence through thoughts and words.
No it isn't; it's proper. It's intellectually cowardly to hide behind some idiotic dual-or-multi-realmist garbage attempt at ontology. The mind-bogglingly-dumb "Pythagorean Hangover" (as one of my friends calls it) has hamstrung philosophy for millenia.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Meaningless gimblebabble. When will you theists learn that you can't try to bluff your way out?
sirmonty:I wasn't aware that I was really a theist.
I'm sure you would like people to believe that.
sirmonty: I feel both theism and atheism suggest attachments to mental positions concerning God.
You're incorrect.
sirmonty:Since I feel that wordsand thought cannot capture reality (they can only point), it is rather pointless to debate the existence/non-existence of what is called God.
Ah, so you're a mystic. Ok. No problem. You want reality to be malleable and respond to your wishes. Gotcha.
sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly?
From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I'd say trying to study the existence of something that supposedly transcends existence is rather pointless. Knight_of_BAAWA:Right, because you can't study the existence of something which doesn't exist UNLESS you clearly state that you're doing it from the concept of "realm of fiction". Negative theology is just a cowardly way to avoid having to deal with the fact that god is an incoherent concept. sirmonty:Well that sort of arrogantly assumes that all things are indeed knowable and comprehendible to us Knight_of_BAAWA:That's not arrogant; that's proper. sirmonty:No, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that we know the essence of what it is to exist and that we can convey that essence through thoughts and words. No it isn't; it's proper. It's intellectually cowardly to hide behind some idiotic dual-or-multi-realmist garbage attempt at ontology. The mind-bogglingly-dumb "Pythagorean Hangover" (as one of my friends calls it) has hamstrung philosophy for millenia.
It is pretty close minded to think that our descriptions of reality are in fact reality.
I see nothing intellectually cowardly about transcendence.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:Basically, words, thought, language, etc can only describe the explicate order of things. Since God is not an explicate thing, but indeed the Implicate Order of all things Knight_of_BAAWA:Meaningless gimblebabble. When will you theists learn that you can't try to bluff your way out? sirmonty:I wasn't aware that I was really a theist. I'm sure you would like people to believe that.
I'm sure I don't really care whether people believe that or not about me. In fact, if you wish to think of me or consider me a theist then that is your prerogative.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty: I feel both theism and atheism suggest attachments to mental positions concerning God. You're incorrect.
Gee you sure convinced me there.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:Since I feel that wordsand thought cannot capture reality (they can only point), it is rather pointless to debate the existence/non-existence of what is called God. Ah, so you're a mystic. Ok. No problem. You want reality to be malleable and respond to your wishes. Gotcha.
No I don't want or believe any such thing. You sure are great at assuming and jumping to conclusions, it seems.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly? From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm.
What?
Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out?
Knight_of_BAAWA:No it isn't; it's proper. It's intellectually cowardly to hide behind some idiotic dual-or-multi-realmist garbage attempt at ontology. The mind-bogglingly-dumb "Pythagorean Hangover" (as one of my friends calls it) has hamstrung philosophy for millenia.
sirmonty:It is pretty close minded to think that our descriptions of reality are in fact reality.
And it's pretty closed-minded to think that cyanide is a poison and that 2 + 2 = 4. What is your point?
sirmonty:I see nothing intellectually cowardly about transcendence.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. In the way you wish it to be used, it's just code for "I am makiing this up as I go along".
Knight_of_BAAWA:You're incorrect.
sirmonty:Gee you sure convinced me there.
Just as you convinced me with your "I feel".
Knight_of_BAAWA:Ah, so you're a mystic. Ok. No problem. You want reality to be malleable and respond to your wishes. Gotcha.
sirmonty:No I don't want or believe any such thing.
Your words betray you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm.
sirmonty:What? Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out?
Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
Donny with an A:First: singularities in physics are hypothetical scenarios which result from following theories to their logical conclusions. This does not mean that they are proven to exist (though perhaps it's true that what does exist could not have properties inconsistent with those of the postulated singularity). It means that they follow from specific ways of modeling existence. Second: If singularities do literally exist, they are still physically extant. Some physical laws cannot be applied to them (seemingly because of the incompleteness of our current scientific understanding of the universe), but that's not the same as saying that they don't exist in a physical sense. A complete account of the laws of physics would ostensibly allow us to describe the behavior of singularities. The same would not be true of the theistic God. Third: The only features of singularities which we can coherently postulate are those which follow from the models which entail them. Given that the God of theological accounts has properties like "omniscience," "omnipotence," and "omnibenevolence," and given that such properties could not be modelled given our current understanding of physics, it simply cannot be the case that we can demonstrate the inherence of these properties in anything (never mind a non-physically-extant entity like God). Accordingly, we cannot demonstrate the existence of the theistic God.
Actually, singularities have been proven to exist in the strong sense of proof according to the known laws of physics (in this case, general relativity). That is, the proofs of this are theorems, i.e., apodictically true if the known laws of physics are true, specifically, general relativity. And these physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date, so there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. For the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that singularities exist according to the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity), see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.
Regarding your second claim, Donny, attempting to carry on this conversation with you is akin to having a conversation with a schizophrenic person: you ignore what I said and come out with something nihil ad rem and logically fallacious.
I already explained the reason no physics whatsoever can apply to a singularity in a way that even you should be able to understand. The reason is because physical values are at infinity in a singularity, and it is not possible to add or subtract from infinity, hence making any physics whatsoever impossible to be applied to a singularity. It's not a limitation merely on current physics, it's a limitation on any form of physics whatsoever.
As well, you're advancing a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. Of course if God exists then that means God physically exists. That's what it means to exist. Anything that has effects on reality is physical and is real. Singularities are physical and real: they physically exist and they have effects on reality, it's just that no physics whatsoever can apply to a singularity itself. That is, the laws of physics prove that something exists to which no form of physics whatsoever can apply.
Moreover, according to the known laws of physics, God is existence itself, i.e., the totality of existence: God is all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. Below is the biblical teachings on this matter:
- We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6). - We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46. - We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28. - God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24. - We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25. - We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28. - God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6. - God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12. - We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21. - Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8. - The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3. - God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, althought He refers to Himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that He used to refer to Himself.)
Ah hah. So you are pulling a Spinoza. You cad! Are you suggesting then that the laws of physics prove that "all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist" exists? Or are you actually trying to say that physics proves the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being that created the universe and mankind in His image, spoke to Abraham and Moses, and sent his only son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind? Because if the former is what you're trying to prove, then I am in total agreement: By the laws of physics, existence exists. If the latter, then: Bullshit.
(And no, physical existence need not be synonymous with existence. If the physical universe exists in the context of some other plane of existence, as is hypothesized by some theists, then it would be coherent to speak of an entity existing in some sense "outside" of our physical universe, with the capacity to affect our physical existence in a non-law-bound manner. It's sort of like the Flatland thought experiment.)
Great thread! I'm subscribing.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
That is, the laws of physics prove that something exists to which no form of physics whatsoever can apply.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
More than that even. The Greeks were pretty advanced technologically.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Many cultures before the Scientific Revolution had invented machines. But it was Christianity which gave to the world science as a systematic discipline.
Erm, no. The Greeks were thoroughly systematic, even if wrong on some things.
Jon Irenicus: Yet they clearly had the concept of basic machines. More than that even. The Greeks were pretty advanced technologically.
Yes, they even supposedly created the first mechanical analog computer, the Antikythera mechanism.
Ah hah. So you are pulling a Spinoza. You cad!
Nothing like philosopher jokes. And anachronistic words.
Ok hang on ...isn't saying that "God is the son of man" just another way of saying that "man invented God" ????
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:That's not arrogant; that's proper. sirmonty:No, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that we know the essence of what it is to exist and that we can convey that essence through thoughts and words. Knight_of_BAAWA:No it isn't; it's proper. It's intellectually cowardly to hide behind some idiotic dual-or-multi-realmist garbage attempt at ontology. The mind-bogglingly-dumb "Pythagorean Hangover" (as one of my friends calls it) has hamstrung philosophy for millenia. sirmonty:It is pretty close minded to think that our descriptions of reality are in fact reality. And it's pretty closed-minded to think that cyanide is a poison and that 2 + 2 = 4. What is your point?
No, it is pretty close minded to think that our description of cyanide is actually cyanide.
There is quite clearly a framework in which those two statements make sense. What framework bounds God supposedly?
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I see nothing intellectually cowardly about transcendence. Sounds like a personal problem to me. In the way you wish it to be used, it's just code for "I am makiing this up as I go along".
No not really. It isn't as though what I have been saying hasn't been said by various thinkers from all walks of life for a millennia. I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of transcendence.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty: I feel both theism and atheism suggest attachments to mental positions concerning God. Knight_of_BAAWA:You're incorrect. sirmonty:Gee you sure convinced me there. Just as you convinced me with your "I feel".
Well good thing I wasn't trying to convince you of anything and just stating my view on the matter.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:Since I feel that wordsand thought cannot capture reality (they can only point), it is rather pointless to debate the existence/non-existence of what is called God. Knight_of_BAAWA:Ah, so you're a mystic. Ok. No problem. You want reality to be malleable and respond to your wishes. Gotcha. sirmonty:No I don't want or believe any such thing. Your words betray you.
No sorry.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly? Knight_of_BAAWA: From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm. sirmonty:What? Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out? Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
A description of a tree is not the tree. I never said they cannot describe reality, I said they cannot capture reality. They certainly serve their purpose within various frameworks of knowledge and implied understanding, but God has no such framework.
Jon Irenicus: Ah hah. So you are pulling a Spinoza. You cad! Nothing like philosopher jokes. And anachronistic words.
But he is pulling a Spinoza! This is...like...the definition of pulling a Spinoza!
Knight_of_BAAWA:And it's pretty closed-minded to think that cyanide is a poison and that 2 + 2 = 4. What is your point?
sirmonty:No, it is pretty close minded to think that our description of cyanide is actually cyanide.
djhgl;akjsd g;jasas.,gl i4356t drsf.n,e;9075.ls gh;lkjdfr;rlkgjh45
Was that gibberish? If so, then you've refuted yourself.
sirmonty:There is quite clearly a framework in which those two statements make sense. What framework bounds God supposedly?
The framework of fiction.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Sounds like a personal problem to me. In the way you wish it to be used, it's just code for "I am makiing this up as I go along".
sirmonty:No not really. It isn't as though what I have been saying hasn't been said by various thinkers from all walks of life for a millennia. I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of transcendence.
Arguments from antiquity and numbers. Wow--2 fallacies for the price of 1. Transcendence is just a version of the age-old "I am making this up as I go along" under different names, whether it was Plato and his Forms, Hegel and his Geist, Kant and his Noumena, or the Supernatural. It's all the same--only the names have changed.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.
sirmonty:A description of a tree is not the tree.
No one ever said it was. Please don't strawman.
sirmonty:I never said they cannot describe reality
Looks that way to me.
Now then, "god" certainly can be studied if one remembers to stick to the realm of fiction, as it were. That is: we know it's just fantasy. Made-up. Not real. It's the same as how we "study" unicorns, vampires, elves, and the like. We have those fictional frameworks to help. If you wish to actually say that we can't study god because we have no framework, then either you do not believe that there are books of fiction, or you're saying god does exist, but we can't describe god at all because you just want to have some mystery and forever block something off from humans without any reason at all to do so other than your own hatred of thinking. Which is it?
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:It is pretty close minded to think that our descriptions of reality are in fact reality. Knight_of_BAAWA:And it's pretty closed-minded to think that cyanide is a poison and that 2 + 2 = 4. What is your point? sirmonty:No, it is pretty close minded to think that our description of cyanide is actually cyanide. djhgl;akjsd g;jasas.,gl i4356t drsf.n,e;9075.ls gh;lkjdfr;rlkgjh45 Was that gibberish? If so, then you've refuted yourself.
Of course it was gibberish and that has hardly refuted anything. It refutes an argument about as much as just saying "No you are wrong" does, which is to say not at all.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:There is quite clearly a framework in which those two statements make sense. What framework bounds God supposedly? The framework of fiction.
Sorry you don't get to determine something is fiction by merely saying so, which is really all you have done here.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I see nothing intellectually cowardly about transcendence. Knight_of_BAAWA:Sounds like a personal problem to me. In the way you wish it to be used, it's just code for "I am makiing this up as I go along". sirmonty:No not really. It isn't as though what I have been saying hasn't been said by various thinkers from all walks of life for a millennia. I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of transcendence. Arguments from antiquity and numbers. Wow--2 fallacies for the price of 1. Transcendence is just a version of the age-old "I am making this up as I go along" under different names, whether it was Plato and his Forms, Hegel and his Geist, Kant and his Noumena, or the Supernatural. It's all the same--only the names have changed.
No fallacy, just pointing out that it isn't something I'm just making up, it is not some made up concept or idea that I just came up with, it has been around for a very long time. This fact in of itself doesn't confirm it as correct, but it shows that I am not "just making this up as I go along" or anything of the sort.
And you sure refuted thousands of years of philosophical thought with that sentence. You seriously can't be that full of yourself that you think that just because you say that "oh they were making it up as they go along" that it makes it so.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly? Knight_of_BAAWA: From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm. sirmonty:What? Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out? Knight_of_BAAWA:Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite. sirmonty:A description of a tree is not the tree. No one ever said it was. Please don't strawman.
You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I never said they cannot describe reality Looks that way to me.
Then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then, "god" certainly can be studied if one remembers to stick to the realm of fiction, as it were. That is: we know it's just fantasy. Made-up. Not real. It's the same as how we "study" unicorns, vampires, elves, and the like. We have those fictional frameworks to help. If you wish to actually say that we can't study god because we have no framework, then either you do not believe that there are books of fiction, or you're saying god does exist, but we can't describe god at all because you just want to have some mystery and forever block something off from humans without any reason at all to do so other than your own hatred of thinking. Which is it?
Then you are studying an image of your own creation in thought, which leads me back to atheism/theism being attachments to your own mental positions and nothing more.
I don't deny works of fiction, and I don't hate thinking so stop being absurd. I simply do not see thought, words, etc as being able to completely capture reality and particularly not the transcendent whole of reality. This isn't that hard to grasp.
Knight_of_BAAWA:jhgl;akjsd g;jasas.,gl i4356t drsf.n,e;9075.ls gh;lkjdfr;rlkgjh45 Was that gibberish? If so, then you've refuted yourself.
sirmonty:Of course it was gibberish
Oh you're just being closed-minded.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The framework of fiction.
sirmonty:Sorry you don't get to determine something is fiction by merely saying so, which is really all you have done here.
Nope. If you believe I have, then you can be the first person in history to show that there is a god. Please do so. Now.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Arguments from antiquity and numbers. Wow--2 fallacies for the price of 1. Transcendence is just a version of the age-old "I am making this up as I go along" under different names, whether it was Plato and his Forms, Hegel and his Geist, Kant and his Noumena, or the Supernatural. It's all the same--only the names have changed.
sirmonty:No fallacy
Yeah, it was.
sirmonty:just pointing out that it isn't something I'm just making up
Are you deliberately being obtuse? I didn't say you made up the concept of transcendence. I said that it is code for "I'm making this up as I go along". How in the world could you possibly create such a strawman from what I wrote? Are you deliberately trying to hamstring yourself? Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid and dishonest?
sirmonty:And you sure refuted thousands of years of philosophical thought with that sentence.
Argument from antiquity fallacy. Please stop using fallacious arguments. Thank you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No one ever said it was. Please don't strawman.
sirmonty:You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions.
Yes, and how does that mean that the description is the thing qua physical, which is what you're implying. Please do learn English.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Looks that way to me.
sirmonty:Then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Or perhaps you should start being honest, as you clearly have stated above that you don't believe words can describe reality. Should you wish to lie and say that you didn't say that, I will refer you to:
for the evidence that you do not believe that words can describe reality.
sirmonty:Then you are studying an image of your own creation in thought, which leads me back to atheism/theism being attachments to your own mental positions and nothing more.
Which it isn't. Of course, if you would like to demonstrate the veracity of your claim....but wait. That would mean you'd have to admit that your words would accurately capture reality. And that would mean you'd have to be a hypocrite. Oh darn. You've painted yourself into a corner.
sirmonty:I don't deny works of fiction
Then you admit that we can describe god in the framework of fiction. Thank you for at least being that honest.
sirmonty: and I don't hate thinking so stop being absurd.
Now that's a laugh.
sirmonty:I simply do not see thought, words, etc as being able to completely capture reality and particularly not the transcendent whole of reality. This isn't that hard to grasp.
Silly mystic.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:It is pretty close minded to think that our descriptions of reality are in fact reality. Knight_of_BAAWA:And it's pretty closed-minded to think that cyanide is a poison and that 2 + 2 = 4. What is your point? sirmonty:No, it is pretty close minded to think that our description of cyanide is actually cyanide. Knight_of_BAAWA:jhgl;akjsd g;jasas.,gl i4356t drsf.n,e;9075.ls gh;lkjdfr;rlkgjh45 Was that gibberish? If so, then you've refuted yourself. sirmonty:Of course it was gibberish Oh you're just being closed-minded.
Not at all.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:There is quite clearly a framework in which those two statements make sense. What framework bounds God supposedly? Knight_of_BAAWA:The framework of fiction. sirmonty:Sorry you don't get to determine something is fiction by merely saying so, which is really all you have done here. Nope. If you believe I have, then you can be the first person in history to show that there is a god. Please do so. Now.
Well since it was never my intention to try and show you there is a God and my whole point has been that it is impossible to speak of what God is, then that would be pretty silly of me to attempt to do so. You made the claim that "God is fiction" without doing anything to back it up.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I see nothing intellectually cowardly about transcendence. Knight_of_BAAWA:Sounds like a personal problem to me. In the way you wish it to be used, it's just code for "I am makiing this up as I go along". sirmonty:No not really. It isn't as though what I have been saying hasn't been said by various thinkers from all walks of life for a millennia. I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of transcendence. Knight_of_BAAWA:Arguments from antiquity and numbers. Wow--2 fallacies for the price of 1. Transcendence is just a version of the age-old "I am making this up as I go along" under different names, whether it was Plato and his Forms, Hegel and his Geist, Kant and his Noumena, or the Supernatural. It's all the same--only the names have changed. sirmonty:No fallacy Yeah, it was.
No sorry it wasn't. Never did I say "Because this is an old concept, it is true." You need to learn how to read, seriously.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:just pointing out that it isn't something I'm just making up Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Are you deliberately reading things incorrectly?
Knight_of_BAAWA: I didn't say you made up the concept of transcendence. I said that it is code for "I'm making this up as I go along". Yeah and you have done absolutely nothing to back this claim up. Knight_of_BAAWA: How in the world could you possibly create such a strawman from what I wrote? Are you deliberately trying to hamstring yourself? Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid and dishonest? Are you deliberately making statements as fact and not even bothering to back them up with any sort of logical argument or reasoning? Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:And you sure refuted thousands of years of philosophical thought with that sentence. Argument from antiquity fallacy. Please stop using fallacious arguments. Thank you. *sigh* You have done nothing to back up your claims thus far. I don't know where you learned logic but just saying "Oh that's wrong" doesn't cut it. Never have I said that these arguments are right because they are old. I was just pointing out that you saying they are wrong, does nothing to demonstrate them as such. Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly? Knight_of_BAAWA: From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm. sirmonty:What? Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out? Knight_of_BAAWA:Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite. sirmonty:A description of a tree is not the tree. Knight_of_BAAWA:No one ever said it was. Please don't strawman. sirmonty:You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions. Yes, and how does that mean that the description is the thing qua physical, which is what you're implying. Please do learn English. If everything is capable of being described by words, I invite you to go and describe the color blue to a person who is blind. Or perhaps go and try to describe the nature of qualia to someone. Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I never said they cannot describe reality Knight_of_BAAWA:Looks that way to me. sirmonty:Then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Or perhaps you should start being honest, as you clearly have stated above that you don't believe words can describe reality. Should you wish to lie and say that you didn't say that, I will refer you to: No, I don't believe words can describe reality totally. Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions. for the evidence that you do not believe that words can describe reality. Words can describe certain aspects of reality, but not reality in toto Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then, "god" certainly can be studied if one remembers to stick to the realm of fiction, as it were. That is: we know it's just fantasy. Made-up. Not real. It's the same as how we "study" unicorns, vampires, elves, and the like. We have those fictional frameworks to help. If you wish to actually say that we can't study god because we have no framework, then either you do not believe that there are books of fiction, or you're saying god does exist, but we can't describe god at all because you just want to have some mystery and forever block something off from humans without any reason at all to do so other than your own hatred of thinking. Which is it? sirmonty:Then you are studying an image of your own creation in thought, which leads me back to atheism/theism being attachments to your own mental positions and nothing more. Which it isn't. Of course, if you would like to demonstrate the veracity of your claim....but wait. That would mean you'd have to admit that your words would accurately capture reality. And that would mean you'd have to be a hypocrite. Oh darn. You've painted yourself into a corner.
I didn't say you made up the concept of transcendence. I said that it is code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Yeah and you have done absolutely nothing to back this claim up.
Knight_of_BAAWA: How in the world could you possibly create such a strawman from what I wrote? Are you deliberately trying to hamstring yourself? Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look stupid and dishonest?
Are you deliberately making statements as fact and not even bothering to back them up with any sort of logical argument or reasoning?
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:And you sure refuted thousands of years of philosophical thought with that sentence. Argument from antiquity fallacy. Please stop using fallacious arguments. Thank you.
*sigh* You have done nothing to back up your claims thus far. I don't know where you learned logic but just saying "Oh that's wrong" doesn't cut it.
Never have I said that these arguments are right because they are old. I was just pointing out that you saying they are wrong, does nothing to demonstrate them as such.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:What "way" am I trying to bluff out of, exactly? Knight_of_BAAWA: From having to acknowledge that there is but one realm. sirmonty:What? Pray-tell, what is this "one realm" exactly, since you seem to have existence and the nature of reality all figured out? Knight_of_BAAWA:Why should I, since you clearly don't believe that words can accurately describe reality? If I were to do as you ask, you would necessarily have to admit that words do in fact do such. And I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite. sirmonty:A description of a tree is not the tree. Knight_of_BAAWA:No one ever said it was. Please don't strawman. sirmonty:You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions. Yes, and how does that mean that the description is the thing qua physical, which is what you're implying. Please do learn English.
If everything is capable of being described by words, I invite you to go and describe the color blue to a person who is blind. Or perhaps go and try to describe the nature of qualia to someone.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I never said they cannot describe reality Knight_of_BAAWA:Looks that way to me. sirmonty:Then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Or perhaps you should start being honest, as you clearly have stated above that you don't believe words can describe reality. Should you wish to lie and say that you didn't say that, I will refer you to:
No, I don't believe words can describe reality totally.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:You have implied that the nature of God (and everything for that matter) can be captured with words and descriptions. for the evidence that you do not believe that words can describe reality.
Words can describe certain aspects of reality, but not reality in toto
Wait so you don't have to demonstrate the veracity of your claims but I have to mine?....Hmm....
Atheism and theism reject or accept an idea or image in thought of God. Ideas and thoughts are mental positions. To reject this idea (atheism) you must first accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I don't deny works of fiction Then you admit that we can describe god in the framework of fiction. Thank you for at least being that honest.
Yeah I suppose we can in the same way that we can describe a tree within the framework of fiction as well. I don't see what the point of this is at all, as it says nothing of "God" de facto.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty: and I don't hate thinking so stop being absurd. Now that's a laugh.
For more, see: your reasoning.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:I simply do not see thought, words, etc as being able to completely capture reality and particularly not the transcendent whole of reality. This isn't that hard to grasp. Silly mystic.
Silly Ad Hominem.
Please feel free to show how dualistic symbolic human language can describe all things and experiences and the totality of reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Oh you're just being closed-minded.
sirmonty:Not at all.
Sure you are. You must be open to it being intelligible.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nope. If you believe I have, then you can be the first person in history to show that there is a god. Please do so. Now.
sirmonty:Well since it was never my intention to try and show you there is a God and my whole point has been that it is impossible to speak of what God is, then that would be pretty silly of me to attempt to do so.
Then you admit that you lied about what I was doing. Thank you.
sirmonty:You made the claim that "God is fiction" without doing anything to back it up.
No, I didn't. And you just admitted that I didn't. So please: start being honest.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, it was.
sirmonty:No sorry it wasn't. Never did I say "Because this is an old concept, it is true."
That was the entire reason you wrote what you did. You simply stated it in a passive-aggressive manner. So please: start being honest.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Are you deliberately being obtuse?
sirmonty:Are you deliberately reading things incorrectly?
You clearly are, which is why I asked the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I didn't say you made up the concept of transcendence. I said that it is code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
sirmonty:Yeah and you have done absolutely nothing to back this claim up.
Except I have. So please: start being honest.
sirmonty:Are you deliberately making statements as fact and not even bothering to back them up with any sort of logical argument or reasoning?
That's actually what you're doing. You have refused to back your claim about words not being descriptive of reality (yeah, you claimed that. Don't lie and say you didn't). You have refused to back your claim about god being some transcendent idea which can't be explained. So please: stop projecting your behavior onto me.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Argument from antiquity fallacy. Please stop using fallacious arguments. Thank you.
sirmonty:*sigh* You have done nothing to back up your claims thus far.
Such projection. I don't know where you learned logic but just saying "Oh, words don't decribe reality accurately" and "god is transcendent and can't be explained " don't cut it.
sirmonty:Never have I said that these arguments are right because they are old.
That was the reason behind your passive-aggressive mention of it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, and how does that mean that the description is the thing qua physical, which is what you're implying. Please do learn English.
sirmonty:If everything is capable of being described by words, I invite you to go and describe the color blue to a person who is blind.
Sure. Not a problem at all. It's called "wavelengths". Whether or not they understand it isn't the issue; that it can be described is. And since it can be described, you're simply straining to cover your religious agnostic theism. Silly mystic.
sirmonty:Or perhaps go and try to describe the nature of qualia to someone.
No problem there either: it's what we feel both in a base-sensal mode and the mental feelings that induces when we sense things.
Hit me with something more difficult.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Or perhaps you should start being honest, as you clearly have stated above that you don't believe words can describe reality. Should you wish to lie and say that you didn't say that, I will refer you to:
sirmonty:No, I don't believe words can describe reality totally.
You said they cannot descibe reality. See below.
sirmonty:Words can describe certain aspects of reality, but not reality in toto
Then you have lied. Not my problem that you can't keep your story straight.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Which it isn't. Of course, if you would like to demonstrate the veracity of your claim....but wait. That would mean you'd have to admit that your words would accurately capture reality. And that would mean you'd have to be a hypocrite. Oh darn. You've painted yourself into a corner.
sirmonty:Wait so you don't have to demonstrate the veracity of your claims
I never said I didn't have to. Please STOP LYING.
sirmonty:but I have to mine?
Of course. But in doing so, you will refute yourself. It's so beautiful to watch people attempt to justify self-refuting garbage.
sirmonty:Atheism and theism reject or accept an idea or image in thought of God.
Not necessarily. Atheism is simply not having the belief that there is a god. Only if you wish to incredibly narrowly define atheism solely and only as the rejection of the idea of god can you claim that. But since atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god, and that applies to things so capable of belief which haven't even heard of god, you're clearly wrong.
QED
sirmonty: Ideas and thoughts are mental positions. To reject this idea (atheism) you must first accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition.
No you don't. See theological noncognitivism! Read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, which I consider to be the premier explication of theological noncognitivism.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you admit that we can describe god in the framework of fiction. Thank you for at least being that honest.
sirmonty:Yeah I suppose we can in the same way that we can describe a tree within the framework of fiction as well. I don't see what the point of this is at all, as it says nothing of "God" de facto.
The point is that you're wrong when you say that there is no framework in which to describe god.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Silly mystic.
sirmonty:Silly Ad Hominem.
Except it's not. It's a conclusion.
Please feel free to show how you can communicate with me and not believe that the words are capturing reality. Silly self-refuting mystic.
I really do not see how positing God exists in some otherworldly realm solves any problems. It certainly does not prove God's existence, it only tries to extricate him from being subject to the laws of logic, if such a thing even makes sense. Why should I believe though, that this being exists, that its existence cannot be described let alone proven, any more than I should believe in the possibility of square circles? If anything its positive resignation to the fact that there is no logical argument in favour of a god.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Sure you are. You must be open to it being intelligible.
It is only intelligible because we have a point of reference to infer meaning from.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you admit that you lied about what I was doing. Thank you.
What? No.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, I didn't. And you just admitted that I didn't. So please: start being honest.
Umm you quite clearly said that God is within the framework of fiction.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That was the entire reason you wrote what you did. You simply stated it in a passive-aggressive manner. So please: start being honest.
Not at all. The reason I wrote that is because you didn't do anything at all to address these things.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You clearly are, which is why I asked the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Except I have. So please: start being honest.
No you haven't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That's actually what you're doing. You have refused to back your claim about words not being descriptive of reality (yeah, you claimed that. Don't lie and say you didn't). You have refused to back your claim about god being some transcendent idea which can't be explained. So please: stop projecting your behavior onto me.
1) I said they cannot capture reality, and they cannot describe reality in toto. Quit building strawmen.
2) You need to demonstrate what you mean by the word "God" (you know, the thing you are rejecting and saying doesn't exist) before anything.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Such projection. I don't know where you learned logic but just saying "Oh, words don't decribe reality accurately" and "god is transcendent and can't be explained " don't cut it.
Good thing I never said the first, and the second is certainly implied as if god is taken as the creator or source of all being he would transcend being and explanation. This is hardly a unique view.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That was the reason behind your passive-aggressive mention of it.
Because you fail at backing up anything you have said or refuting anything with substantial reasoning.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Sure. Not a problem at all. It's called "wavelengths". Whether or not they understand it isn't the issue; that it can be described is. And since it can be described, you're simply straining to cover your religious agnostic theism. Silly mystic.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No problem there either: it's what we feel both in a base-sensal mode and the mental feelings that induces when we sense things. Hit me with something more difficult.
It is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of sight to a person who has never seen before, or to describe the nature of smell to someone who has no olfactory glands, etc. In the same manner, it is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of God (whatever image of view you may have of what that means) to someone who has never experienced or related to God.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You said they cannot descibe reality. See below.
No. I said they cannot describe it in total. Difference.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you have lied. Not my problem that you can't keep your story straight.
No, Everything and God are all inclusive words (i.e. reality in toto).
Knight_of_BAAWA: I never said I didn't have to. Please STOP LYING.
Then what has stopped you from doing so thus far?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Of course. But in doing so, you will refute yourself. It's so beautiful to watch people attempt to justify self-refuting garbage.
Not at all "self-refuting garbage" but w/e.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not necessarily. Atheism is simply not having the belief that there is a god. Only if you wish to incredibly narrowly define atheism solely and only as the rejection of the idea of god can you claim that. But since atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god, and that applies to things so capable of belief which haven't even heard of god, you're clearly wrong.
No atheism is the affirmation that there is no God or the rejection of theism. In both cases you must hold "God exists" as a meaningful proposition.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No you don't. See theological noncognitivism! Read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, which I consider to be the premier explication of theological noncognitivism.
Perhaps you should read a more about theological noncognitivism as it is exactly what I am talking about. What do you mean by this word "God" that supposedly doesn't exist? See Theodore Drange and Ignosticism.
Knight_of_BAAWA: The point is that you're wrong when you say that there is no framework in which to describe god.
No meaningful framework. Or it is at least as meaningful as discussing the Lord of the Rings as a framework for reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Except it's not. It's a conclusion. Please feel free to show how you can communicate with me and not believe that the words are capturing reality. Silly self-refuting mystic.
As I have already said communication relies on a framework or referential point to infer meaning. I have never said we cannot communicate, and you have yet to show how language can capture reality (or at least an objective reality) as it is.
sirmonty:It is only intelligible because we have a point of reference to infer meaning from.
You're being closed-minded.
sirmonty:What? No.
Then you contradict yourself.
sirmonty:Umm you quite clearly said that God is within the framework of fiction.
Yes. And I've also said that no one in history has shown that there is a god (fact). And I said that we can put god in the realm of fiction and actually describe it. You said that I never backed my claim. I did. STOP LYING.
Yeah, it was. It certainly couldn't have been that I didn't address those things, because I did address them.
sirmonty:No sorry.
Then you contradict yourself. Please quit while you're behind.
sirmonty:1) I said they cannot capture reality, and they cannot describe reality in toto.
Ok, then you admit that what I have written about your stance is what you say. No strawman. Perfect.
sirmonty:2) You need to demonstrate what you mean by the word "God"
No I don't. I'm not the one claiming it exists in reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Such projection. I don't know where you learned logic but just saying "Oh, words don't decribe reality accurately" and "god is transcendent and can't be explained " don't cut it.
sirmonty:Good thing I never said the first
Yes, you did.
sirmonty: and the second is certainly implied as if god is taken as the creator or source of all being he would transcend being and explanation.
And yet that's just garbage ontology, as I have repeatedly stated.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That was the reason behind your passive-aggressive mention of it.
sirmonty:Because you fail at backing up anything you have said or refuting anything with substantial reasoning.
Lying won't help you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Sure. Not a problem at all. It's called "wavelengths". Whether or not they understand it isn't the issue; that it can be described is. And since it can be described, you're simply straining to cover your religious agnostic theism. Silly mystic.
sirmonty:Understanding is central to purpose.
sirmonty:You could present a question and I could respond with "askdalsvnalwhejamvnasj" and say "see, I described it." It is incoherent and pointless.
sirmonty:It is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of sight to a person who has never seen before
So what? Crap apologetics will get you nowhere.
sirmonty:or to describe the nature of smell to someone who has no olfactory glands, etc. In the same manner, it is incoherent and meaningless to describe the nature of God (whatever image of view you may have of what that means) to someone who has never experienced or related to God.
It is fallacious to presume that there is a god when that is to be demonstrated.
sirmonty:No.
Yes, you did. Stop lying.
sirmonty:No, Everything and God are all inclusive words (i.e. reality in toto).
And you said words can't describe reality.
sirmonty:Then what has stopped you from doing so thus far?
Nice lie. You have now capitulated.
sirmonty:Not at all "self-refuting garbage" but w/e.
Yeah, it is.
sirmonty:No atheism is the affirmation that there is no God or the rejection of theism.
No, atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god.
a-: privative prefix meaning "lacking or without"
theos: god/s
-ism: belief.
atheism: lacking or without the belief that there is a god or gods.
Don't tell an atheist what atheism is, bucko.
sirmonty:Perhaps you should read a more about theological noncognitivism
Yes, perhaps you should, since I have just schooled you on it.
sirmonty:No meaningful framework. Or it is at least as meaningful as discussing the Lord of the Rings as a framework for reality.
You simply said framework. No goalpost-shifting.
sirmonty:As I have already said communication relies on a framework or referential point to infer meaning. I have never said we cannot communicate, and you have yet to show how language can capture reality (or at least an objective reality) as it is.
jhl;kajh l;kmng al;skjgdna slk;gn ad;ksdfjk hs;dkjhy 7lwm,ndf./ sd
Knight_of_BAAWA:You're being closed-minded.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you contradict yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes. And I've also said that no one in history has shown that there is a god (fact). And I said that we can put god in the realm of fiction and actually describe it. You said that I never backed my claim. I did. STOP LYING.
You still are assuming all things can be held in thought.
To "show" that there is a God, one would have to first define God.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yeah, it was. It certainly couldn't have been that I didn't address those things, because I did address them.
Hardly. Simply stating they were "making it up as they went along" hardly counts as addressing those things.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you contradict yourself. Please quit while you're behind.
I haven't contradicted myself at all. I have contradicted what you are proposing I have said, which isn't actually what I have said.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ok, then you admit that what I have written about your stance is what you say. No strawman. Perfect.
No. Describing aspects of reality and describing reality in total are two different things.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No I don't. I'm not the one claiming it exists in reality.
You are claiming it does not exist. What is this God that isn't existent to you?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, you did .
I said in total. Very important words that you keep choosing to ignore.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet that's just garbage ontology, as I have repeatedly stated.
Ok now show, not just merely state, show how it is such.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Lying won't help you.
Continually making empty statements won't help you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Not in this case. You simply wanted it described. No goalpost-shifting is allowed.
If there is no understanding the description is empty and meaningless. I assumed you would understand that. Perhaps I assumed too much.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ah, now you're understanding why that whole "transcendent" garbage is just that....garbage. It is incoherent, pointless, vague, inchoate, and ontologically specious at best.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Thank you for refuting yourself. You see, you believe that atheism is wrong because it's just a position based on a mental attitude (if you lie and say otherwise, I'll quote you and show everyone your lie). Yet because you wish to have god as transcendent (as others do), that in no way means that atheism is wrong. Only someone using a flagrant non sequitur would state otherwise.
Knight_of_BAAWA: So what? Crap apologetics will get you nowhere.
VNKDLKASRNVKDLKJR
There I just explained how I am the universe. I'm sorry if you don't understand it and that above description is incoherent to you but it has meaning.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It is fallacious to presume that there is a god when that is to be demonstrated.
It is fallacious to presume that everything can be demonstrated with language.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, you did. Stop lying.
Describing aspects of reality =/= describing the totality of reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And you said words can't describe reality.
Actually, you first said I said that, when I actually said words cannot capture reality, and then I went on to say that words can describe aspects of reality, but not reality in toto. If you cannot understand the difference between this then there is nothing more that can be said here and this discussion is futile.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Nice lie. You have now capitulated.
You must have been using invisible font then because the totality of your argument thus far has been just unsubstantiated statements.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, it is.
No.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god. a-: privative prefix meaning "lacking or without" theos: god/s -ism: belief. atheism: lacking or without the belief that there is a god or gods. Don't tell an atheist what atheism is, bucko.
You must first have a concept of what is meant by "God" to deny it's existence.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, perhaps you should, since I have just schooled you on it.
No you haven't, you simply mentioned some book about it. I could mention several books that deal with that topic that have pretty much said exactly what I have been saying. Language, Truth, and Logic by Alfred Jules Ayer is a good one, as are pieces written on the subject by Theodore Drange.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You simply said framework. No goalpost-shifting.
I acknowledged anything can be within a fictional framework, I rejected that such a framework brings anything meaningful to the table.
Knight_of_BAAWA: jhl;kajh l;kmng al;skjgdna slk;gn ad;ksdfjk hs;dkjhy 7lwm,ndf./ sd Silly mystic.
vadknvailnekfanlvnakdnvlkadef
See that is where I just refuted your above statement.