International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

psionl0 23rd January 2020 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963556)
You wish to use a meaning for the word god that is unlike any god of any religion I have ever heard of, so why do you use the word "god" to describe your idea?

That is so ignorant. The Torah, Bible and Quran all describe a creator God with minimally the properties I described.

Darat 23rd January 2020 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963567)
That is so ignorant. The Torah, Bible and Quran all describe a creator God with minimally the properties I described.

Actually they don't.

psionl0 23rd January 2020 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963585)
Actually they don't.

Which qualities don't they possess?

catsmate 23rd January 2020 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12960756)
He does make the odd appearance. Usually in the psychotic episodes of schizophrenics. Demons, on the other hand, are everywhere (if you follow the teachings of the Pentecostals).

There's one tapping me on the shoulder atm. He's small, orange, clawed and mewing for chin scratcting.

Darat 23rd January 2020 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963593)
Which qualities don't they possess?

For Judaism creating the universe, their God merely shapes what is already there, the only ex nihilo creation is light.

ETA: of course not all the various denominations of Judaism hold that view. All I am demonstrating is that you are repeatedly using a definition not used by the religious for their god.

And of course it doesn't help with the myriad of non creator gods that people have and do believe in.

Are you happy saying those noncreator gods don't exist?

Darat 23rd January 2020 05:13 AM

I really don't know why you want to call your personal beliefs god, it makes discussion harder when we've got to remember you are not using the label god the same as the religious believers do.

For clarity can we call your god pgod?

Dave Rogers 23rd January 2020 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963664)
I really don't know why you want to call your personal beliefs god, it makes discussion harder when we've got to remember you are not using the label god the same as the religious believers do.

For clarity can we call your god pgod?

Don't you mean p-god? Then His son would be p-Jesus, and after resurrection he would become p-zombie Jesus.

Dave

Darat 23rd January 2020 05:43 AM

:)

JoeMorgue 23rd January 2020 06:19 AM

"You can't prove there isn't a God! You have to acknowledge the possibility and you can't use definite, declarative statements!"
"I can't prove there isn't a dragon in my garage either, but nobody pitches a fit if say that isn't a dragon in my garage."
"That's different."
"Why?"
*Beat, full fringe reset* "You can't prove there isn't a God!"

JoeMorgue 23rd January 2020 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963354)
Claiming that the probability of the existence of a god is of the same order as "quantum tunneling" of large objects (ie virtually impossible) is no less silly than asserting that it is impossible.

You're (deliberately and dishonestly) missing the point.

You really think you've got us trapped in some "gotcha" with the whole "technically you can't prove to full metaphysical 100% certainty there is no God" thing.

You can't disprove anything to that standard. By your arguments you should be running into discussions screamin' and holler' whenever anyone says anything definitive.

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow." You run in screaming "You can't be sure of that!"

"The Battle of Hastings was in 1066." You run in screaming "NOOOO! You have to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong!"

"Water is wet." You run in screaming "Ahhh.... excuse you. I think you mean you believe water is wet but aren't certain."

But you aren't. Nobody is. Because that would be insane. And so is this.

It's not a matter of God being "technically unproven" and we're not dutifully acknowledging it. It's a matter of God being way, way, way below the threshold of bringing the technical sliver of possibility up.

That is the point that YOU... JUST... KEEP... FAILING... TO... GET with the dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot and all the other metaphors.

When something is completely evidence-less and someone goes "That thing does not exist" nobody freaks out unless it's God. God has his own standards where you have to grovel before his concept until such time as you completely disprove him which is... stupid.

You are, as is obvious now, going to do a full fringe reset back to "But God is different" and act as you've supported that statement with literally anything that isn't special pleading at best, literally just "Because I say so" at worst.

That really is the problem with God discussion. The believers/apologist go into the discussion with the mentality that we've all already agree that discussions about God operate under completely different rules and the believers/apologist get... like legit angry anytime anyone dares to discuss their precious God as if his existence was just another opinion to be discussed like we discuss everything. "How dare you expect me to actually support God with evidence" is the undertone to all of this.

At this point I'm talking at you more then I trying to maintain the illusion that I'm talking with you, because you're just gonna stamp your feet, cross your arms, and huff "But you can't say for certain!" or "God is different because I say so!" or some other special pleading variation on it back at me because you are literally incapable of moving intellectually beyond that in this one discussion.

JoeMorgue 23rd January 2020 07:01 AM

Someone, I believe it was arthwollipot, mentioned the argumentative rule of thumb "Occam's Razor" a page or so back.

Occam's Razor is the argumentative standard that when given two possible choice that, all other factors being equal, that the one which has fewer assumed or undefined variables is more likely to be the correct one, a concept sometimes (rather over simplified in my opinion) to "The simpler answer is usually the correct one."

There's actually a concept, half serious and half joke, that takes Occam's Razor one step further. It's called Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and it states that "That which cannot be settled by experimentation is not worth debating."

psionIO has presented us, ostensibly, with the old chestnut of "The Vaguely Vague God of Vague Vagueness doing Vague Things Vaguely." It's a well worn tactic, an attempt to clumsily shoehorn the "God" concept into apologetics by removing literally all defining characteristic from God to the point that when you say God you are saying nothing, and then dropping the Mic as if you accomplished something when nobody can come up with a counter-argument to... nothing.

So I shall now use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword to cut through this crap.

How would a universe with God in it be functionally different from a universe without?

If you present a difference, then that difference is evidence, and must be defended and you can no longer hid behind vagueness.

God does X. Show X. God is the cause of X. Show the evidence. God explains X. Defend that position.

If you cannot show a difference, if you fall back on vague mumblings about distinctions with difference and technicalities, then there is no difference and the topic is not worth discussing. And no that doesn't mean you get to go "Okay but I'm still gonna harp on my meaningless technical difference and you can shut up then."

You cannot dart back and forth between the two any longer, no more "God might exist and it is vitally important that that possibility be acknowledged" and "God exists? I never said that. Who said God exist? What is God? What God? Who said God? God the nothing nothing with no characteristics? How on Earth can I show that it exists?"

Steve 23rd January 2020 08:40 AM

The title of this thread includes the word Religion. To me that implies religions existing in the world today. In the context of the thread there is no purpose to introducing a god that no religions believe in. Religions uniformly believe in a god that meddles in the affairs of humans.

So, psionl0, your particular god that you cannot define and does nothing has no relevance. Do you have anything to offer pertinent to the actual gods and beliefs of religions?

JoeMorgue 23rd January 2020 08:51 AM

It won't happen.

I can't remember the last time God was actually positively defended, on this board, or in general discourse.

It's always this, playing wack-a-mole with a shape-shifting argumentative God made of whatever special pleadings it needs to be excused away at whatever moment, one that nobody actually believes in and exists only in arguments and philosophy, one that is functionally identical to "No God" except for it existing on some technical level. It's the Spherical Cow in a friction-less vacuum of theology. It's much more a defense of belief then of God.

This is why apologetics bother me more then just being wrong. Wrong people eventually give up.

psionl0 23rd January 2020 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963660)
For Judaism creating the universe, their God merely shapes what is already there, the only ex nihilo creation is light.

I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find anywhere in any of the texts I listed that God "shaped" an existing universe.

Some bible translations use the term "the heavens" and others "the universe". Regardless Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The Torah is similar (not surprisingly since the first 5 books in both are the same).

The Quran doesn't begin with creation "week" but you don't have to look very hard to find references to "Allah" creating the universe. For example, in [51:47] it says, "We constructed the universe with power, and We are expanding it.".

psionl0 23rd January 2020 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12963719)
You really think you've got us trapped in some "gotcha" with the whole "technically you can't prove to full metaphysical 100% certainty there is no God" thing.

:dig:

JoeMorgue 23rd January 2020 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963912)
:dig:

Dude read the room. I'm not the one in the hole.

Minoosh 23rd January 2020 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12962240)
Plus of course nearly everyone who claims to believe in a god, all the Christians, all the Muslims, all the Hindus, all the Sikh claim to believe in a god that is active in our world* and can be seen to be active, and those gods account for the gods the vast majority of actual believers in the world claim to believe in.


*there may be some esoteric sects that don't but I don't know of any.

I'm far from expert, but I think there is a strand of mysticism in many faiths that sort of transcends the rulebook sort of God and stresses individual experience of a deity, but those experiences won't be very compelling evidence to an independent observer and could be chalked up to self-hypnosis, wishful thinking, epilepsy, drugs, etc. Still, if someone cites personal experiences, while you can offer different explanations you can't really argue about what they experienced. Or what they think they experienced, which amounts to the same thing. To them, it may be compelling evidence indeed.

ynot 23rd January 2020 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12964017)
I'm far from expert, but I think there is a strand of mysticism in many faiths that sort of transcends the rulebook sort of God and stresses individual experience of a deity, but those experiences won't be very compelling evidence to an independent observer and could be chalked up to self-hypnosis, wishful thinking, epilepsy, drugs, etc. Still, if someone cites personal experiences, while you can offer different explanations you can't really argue about what they experienced. Or what they think they experienced, which amounts to the same thing. To them, it may be compelling evidence indeed.

Understatement of the century.

They tried hiding their imaginary god(s) at the top of mountains, then in outer space (sky), then outside of the Universe and time; now they try hiding their imaginary god(s) in vagueness (what's next?).

Thinks . . . Where will Santa live if the North Pole completely melts?

Steve 23rd January 2020 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963910)
I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find anywhere in any of the texts I listed that God "shaped" an existing universe.

Some bible translations use the term "the heavens" and others "the universe". Regardless Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The Torah is similar (not surprisingly since the first 5 books in both are the same).

The Quran doesn't begin with creation "week" but you don't have to look very hard to find references to "Allah" creating the universe. For example, in [51:47] it says, "We constructed the universe with power, and We are expanding it.".

Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".

Steve 23rd January 2020 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12964099)
Understatement of the century.

They tried hiding their imaginary god(s) at the top of mountains, then in outer space (sky), then outside of the Universe and time; now they try hiding their imaginary god(s) in vagueness (what's next?).

Thinks . . . Where will Santa live if the North Pole completely melts?

Santa's Ark. Hey, it apparently worked once before.

ynot 23rd January 2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12964122)
Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".

Seems theists have “horse before cart” god beliefs. They believe in their god(s) because they believe in their books, rather than they believe in their books because they believe in their god(s).

ynot 23rd January 2020 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12964124)
Santa's Ark. Hey, it apparently worked once before.

Obvious solution! (silly me)

Thor 2 23rd January 2020 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12963845)
The title of this thread includes the word Religion. To me that implies religions existing in the world today. In the context of the thread there is no purpose to introducing a god that no religions believe in. Religions uniformly believe in a god that meddles in the affairs of humans.

So, psionl0, your particular god that you cannot define and does nothing has no relevance. Do you have anything to offer pertinent to the actual gods and beliefs of religions?


Good point Steve! :)

psionl0 23rd January 2020 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12964122)
Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".

LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.

Steve 23rd January 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964695)
LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.

I owe you an apology here. I actually thought it was a post by Darat that I quoted and responded to. I guess I was just not paying attention. My mistake and my sincere apology.

Darat 23rd January 2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964695)
LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.

You cant correct something by being incorrect yourself..

psionl0 23rd January 2020 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12964753)
You cant correct something by being incorrect yourself..

Give it up. I proved that you are wrong about what was written in these religious texts.

psionl0 23rd January 2020 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12964733)
I owe you an apology here. I actually thought it was a post by Darat that I quoted and responded to. I guess I was just not paying attention. My mistake and my sincere apology.

Thanks. I hope that unlike Darat, you don't think that I am inventing a new god that nobody has ever invented before.

Minoosh 24th January 2020 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12961294)
I could say that IF x > 0 THEN sqrt(x) is a real number.

Would you argue that I am using an ontological argument for the positiveness of x?

The positiveness? Or the realness? Not that this has anything to do with God though to the Pythagoreans maybe it did. They apparently did not approve of irrational numbers. Though 2,000+ years ago I can't even grasp how anyone knew what an irrational number was. Even though I've seen a simple proof that the square root of any number not a perfect square is irrational. But it doesn't make sense to me. How can 2 identical numbers with infinite digits multiply to equal 2.0000...? Hmm. I've been raked over the coals for such questions before since I've been licensed to teach algebra to 14-year-olds therefore I'm asking stupid questions.

Sometimes I think I see the hand of God in mathematics. The elegance of it all. That's kind of a squishy statement and I can't really elaborate. Pi, e, a few other things remind me of all I don't know.is

I do get why people call this special pleading, though in the case of the existence of nonexistence of God maybe special pleading is allowable [ETA: because the existence of nonexistence of God may be the ultimate special case]. I think I understand your arguments but I'm not sure I do. [ETA2: Just as I think I understand what Joe, Darat et al. are saying. But I probably come down on your side, if only for the notion of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving a negative.]

psionl0 24th January 2020 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12964899)
I do get why people call this special pleading, though in the case of the existence of nonexistence of God maybe special pleading is allowable. I think I understand your arguments but I'm not sure I do.

Special pleading is when you insist that you or your statements don't have to comply with the rules you set for others. Merely saying "one of these things is not like the others" doesn't automatically make it special pleading (otherwise we would call it special pleading if you don't insist that chimpanzees have to go to school until adulthood).

We have one poster arguing that questions about god(s) are like searching a confined space for a being he says he has made up.

OTOH I am saying that there are a couple of fundamental issues that can't be answered:
* Was the universe created or has it always existed?
* If it was created, was it due to some eternal natural law or was an intelligent being involved?

Now you tell me which one of those positions is "special pleading".

Darat 24th January 2020 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964766)
Give it up. I proved that you are wrong about what was written in these religious texts.

That you don't understand how most religions determine their beliefs isn't my issue.

Darat 24th January 2020 02:52 AM

Took me a while to find my copy as it is an actual paper book and I had to update my software to deal with such an old file format....

From

COMMENTARY ON THE TORAH WITH A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION RICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN

Quote:

... snip..
1:2. the earth had been. Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that this verse does not mean “the earth was shapeless and formless”—referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that “the earth had been shapeless and formless”—that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed. And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.


psionl0 24th January 2020 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12964915)
That you don't understand how most religions determine their beliefs isn't my issue.

If that wasn't such a lame effort I would have said it was worthy of a Dunning-Kruger award. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12964929)
COMMENTARY ON THE TORAH WITH A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION RICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN

All that proves is how easy it is to twist the text of religious writings. One would think that "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165) could not mean anything other than that they didn't exist prior to God creating them (what else could "shapeless and formless” mean?) but people who fancy themselves as Supreme Court judges can clearly find a way.

Darat 24th January 2020 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964939)
If that wasn't such a lame effort I would have said it was worthy of a Dunning-Kruger award. :rolleyes:


All that proves is how easy it is to twist the text of religious writings. One would think that "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165) could not mean anything other than that they didn't exist prior to God creating them (what else could "shapeless and formless” mean?) but people who fancy themselves as Supreme Court judges can clearly find a way.

All it shows is that my comment to you was correct, and you were unaware of how even the "Abrahamic" religions differ in how they describe their gods.

Again I have no problem with you having your own definition for god apart from it causing avoidable ambiguity and confusion.

The god (your point about not knowing if it exists) is not a god any of the religions I know about claims exists.

psionl0 24th January 2020 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12964959)
All it shows is that my comment to you was correct, and you were unaware of how even the "Abrahamic" religions differ in how they describe their gods.

The concept of an "Abrahamic" god who's powers are so limited that he can't create a universe is unique to you and whatever author you can dredge up to support your unique POV.

The vast majority of believers do not subscribe to that POV. They believe (and they are told by their ministers) that God is all powerful.

Darat 24th January 2020 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964965)
The concept of an "Abrahamic" god who's powers are so limited that he can't create a universe is unique to you and whatever author you can dredge up to support your unique POV.



The vast majority of believers do not subscribe to that POV. They believe (and they are told by their ministers) that God is all powerful.

:D

psionl0 24th January 2020 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960196)
I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.

Your agenda became clear very quickly. No matter what god I described and no matter what characteristics I listed, you would say "nobody believes in that god".

Unfortunately, you became so emotionally invested in this dishonest strategy that you had to dig your heels in and say that Christians don't believe that God created the universe.

Darat 24th January 2020 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964981)
Your agenda became clear very quickly. No matter what god I described and no matter what characteristics I listed, you would say "nobody believes in that god".

Unfortunately, you became so emotionally invested in this dishonest strategy that you had to dig your heels in and say that Christians don't believe that God created the universe.

Why are you now lying?

psionl0 24th January 2020 04:28 AM

:D

Darat 24th January 2020 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12964989)
:D

Lying is funny for you?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.