|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2004 : 03:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You tilt at windmills of your own creation.
I ask you the same question I have asked Dave, if one were to take all religions and religious beliefs out of the collection of evidence, where would your god concept come from?
|
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 04:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You tilt at windmills of your own creation.
I ask you the same question I have asked Dave, if one were to take all religions and religious beliefs out of the collection of evidence, where would your god concept come from?
Inference driven by the question: How is it that there is something rather than nothing? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 07:27:03 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
I don't think our positions are far apart, just a small distance mainly in how we define and conceive of what a god is.
Perhaps. If I may, you appear to want to stop thinking about "god concepts" at the edges of what wide-spread religions think of them. I, on the other hand, reject those concepts as being pathetic "gods," and instead allow my imagination to run free as best it can to conceive of a truly "all-powerful" being. I know I fail, but my god concept could kick the Christian God's butt all over the universe.quote:
I ask you then, if one were to take all religions and religious beliefs out of the collection of evidence, where would your god concept come from?
Why should we entertain such a question? You're a practical gal, you're grounded in science. Eliminating consideration of the fact that religion and religious beliefs exist should be anathema to you.quote:
We have quantum ideas and cosmology ideas from observations of physical evidence. Some of the ideas are stretching the possible meaning of the evidence to the max, but the ideas are still grounded in some thread of evidence. From what thread of evidence does your god concept come?
Please, stop. Next thing, you'll be saying that reading works of fiction or watching films which aren't documentaries is a complete waste of time, as such things aren't necessarily grounded in any thread of evidence, ignoring the entertainment value and/or philosophical points entirely.
Thinking about god is just like thinking about what might have happend "before" the Big Bang, or like thinking about the possibility that there are an infinite number of universes out there. Real scientists think about this stuff all the time. The latter, in quantum physics, is even known as the "Many Worlds Interpretation." It can't be tested, there's no physical evidence for it, yet physicists have deemed the concept important enough that it's got a name.
And because it can't be tested, because as far as I can tell, we'll never get evidence of another universe, I reject the MWI as actually existing. Perhaps if I had to deal with the math, I'd think of this differently, but thems the facts. For all practical purposes, I reject god concepts for the same reasons.
But for entertainment and/or metaphysical purposes, a "real" god may very well be beyond my imaginative capabilities, and thus cannot be definitively disproven by any means. Gods might live "beyond the universe," and thus, as you agree, be beyond scientific reach. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 08:32:52 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist, the reason why I asked, is that if you think its possible for such a god to exist, and if that god does in fact exist, then nothing is impossible.
I have responded to your post at the bottom of page 3 I think 2 times now. However, I will do so again:
quote:
Then again, those who maintain that "everything should remain in the realm of possible" must accept that it is "possible" that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes: a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah, a world in which mosquitos cannot be transformed into rhinos by praying to Ba'al, a world in which sunflowers cannot walk over to the cat dish and slurp up the milk when they're thirsty, a world in which turtles cannot levitate and penguins cannot recite E. E. Cummins, a world in which fig rees cannot be cursed to death and pigs cannot be infested with demons, i.e., an ordered system in which a seemingly unending list of conjectures are impossible.
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
I can not say that these things are impossible.
However, I can dismiss these claims as being unreasonable and having evidence against them. Now let me make this clear. There is a difference between dismissing a claim and saying its impossible. There is also a difference between reaching a conclusion on a claim and saying its impossible. I can reach a very strong conclusion and still say that it is possible. Facts change. Evidence changes. When these change, your conclusions must change. By assigning these not being in the realm of possibility, you assert that the evidence will not change, that the facts will not change. You can not know this unless you know the future.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/27/2004 08:33:22 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 11:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
ConsequentAtheist, the reason why I asked, is that if you think its possible for such a god to exist, and if that god does in fact exist, then nothing is impossible.
That is obviously inaccurate: if an "all powerful god somewhere in this universe" "does in fact exist" any number of things are impossible, including the nonexistence of Deity and the existence of a more powerful Deity.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I have responded to your post at the bottom of page 3 I think 2 times now. However, I will do so again: quote:
Then again, those who maintain that "everything should remain in the realm of possible" must accept that it is "possible" that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes: a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah, a world in which mosquitos cannot be transformed into rhinos by praying to Ba'al, a world in which sunflowers cannot walk over to the cat dish and slurp up the milk when they're thirsty, a world in which turtles cannot levitate and penguins cannot recite E. E. Cummins, a world in which fig rees cannot be cursed to death and pigs cannot be infested with demons, i.e., an ordered system in which a seemingly unending list of conjectures are impossible.
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
I can not say that these things are impossible. However, I can dismiss these claims ...
No, Ricky, you have neither answered my question two times before nor have you answered it here. Please answer the question asked rather than the one imagined. Permit me to ask it one last time:- Do you maintain that all things are possible?
- Do you agree that "it is possible that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes"?
I've offered to end the conversation a couple of times now but, for whatever reason, you seem resistant to doing so. I make the same offer once again. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 08/27/2004 11:57:16 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 12:47:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've offered to end the conversation a couple of times now but, for whatever reason, you seem resistant to doing so. I make the same offer once again.
I continue doing so and will continue to do so until we reach an agreement (or you leave). I have great intrest in discussing things which people don't agree on and look at it as almost a sport.
1.) Do you maintain that all things are possible?
You keep asking this, but it is not as black and white as you want it to be. If A is true and A does not allow B to be true, then B is false. However, this is built upon A being true. So if A is true, then B is not possible, and thus not everything is possible. However, A does not have to be true, which puts B in the realm of possibility.
2.) Do you agree that "it is possible that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes"?
Yes, as said before, if there are two contradictory statements, then one is impossible. However, you will never know the absolute truth between the two statements because things change, science changes, data changes. Nothing can be known with a 100% certainty.
I would like to point out that I have been answering you, but you have not been replying to my post, how science being dynamic makes it unreasonable to assert anything is impossible. I would like to see a response to why this is wrong, especially with my pervious post. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 13:44:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
2.) Do you agree that "it is possible that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes"?
Yes, ...
Thank you. So you were wrong to insist that all things are possible. Likewise, you were wrong to insist that nothing is impossible. Would you further agree that "it is possible that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes" only if there is no Supernatural? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 14:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Was that a deliberate misquote?
No, it was not.
May I assume that you acknowledge being wrong in asserting that nothing is impossible?
May I assume that you acknowledge being wrong in asserting that all things are possible?
Are you now saying that you do not agree that "it is possible that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes"? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 14:39:31 [Permalink]
|
I don't think your understanding what I am saying.
quote:
May I assume that you acknowledge being wrong in asserting that nothing is impossible?
May I assume that you acknowledge being wrong in asserting that all things are possible?
No, I did not, and you may not.
You seem to read 1 word into my response, and then quote that, and it seems to be without reading the entire response.
Let me try to rephrase:
In this universe, some things negate other things. If one makes a claim "The Earth is 6,000 years old" and one "The Earth is 4 billion years old" certainly one of them is true, and one is false. To investigate the claims, you must go to the evidence. Often, evidence changes, and to say you know which is true and which is false with 100% certainty is saying that you know the evidence will not change, that you know the future. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 15:47:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Everything is not possible, but we can't find out what these things are with 100% certainty. This makes everything into the realm of possibility, while saying that everything is not possible. Weird, I know, but I think it works.
I'll leave you thinking that. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 04:10:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
You also seem to not want to support your own position, that you can claim 100% when you know that you don't know everthing.
Please quote me holding such a position. You don't know your own position, much less mine, but that is poor justification for simply fabricating one. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
