ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th March 2020, 03:11 PM   #1201
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Really? I am flabbergasted.

You haven't heard of all the bloodshed caused in the name of religion for example?.
Yeah, I think LarryS hasn't got that right. There have been plenty of arguments put against religion in this thread, but they are somewhat of a thread drift.

Remember, the OP DID start this thread in order to counter one particular atheist argument that he has no answer for - the "invisible dragon in the garage" analogy. In his own words

"Every time I dare to post in this section, others immediately try to change the topic of the particular thread to "invisible dragons in the garage" regardless of the actual topic nor what I have posted.

I thought that I would create this thread so all of those arguments can be dealt with once and for all.


It seems he was annoyed that each time he would try to argue his "god/s might exist" shtick, someone would counter it with the "dragon analogy". He thinks this is a change of topic, when it is in fact, a perfectly acceptable refutation of his claims. Perfectly acceptable to everyone but him.

What he has done here is to put the analogy in its own box, so to speak, in an attempt to prevent its use against his shtick. By placing it here, he created a place to debate the analogy, thereby giving him somewhere to point to ("the dragon in my garage" thread is thataway ----->") in order to dismiss the argument. This feeble, transparent and obvious attempt at handwaving has fooled no-one.

NOTE: My apologies if you already knew this, but I feel its necessary to restate this after so many posts, at least for the lurkers, and those who are late to the discussion and may not realise what it is all about.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2020, 04:21 PM   #1202
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Maybe so but you can be sure that some nit-picker will accuse me of doing so if I don't include that rider.
Look at that! A nit-picker!
Pot – Kettle – Black!
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's no wonder you don't want my answer. You wouldn't like to have it pointed out that there is no such thing as "more possible". There is only "possible" or "impossible".
Oh no! I’ve been completely ridiculed and destroyed by a single word pedantic lesson from a person who’s first language isn’t Anglish (spelling mistake for you to use as grounds for nit-pick).
My post was in reference to your repeated “God is possible” claim. I will slightly reword the question for your benefit. I’m sure others knew what I meant . . .

Is an omnipresent god in my garage any more likely (probable) to be “is possible” than an omnipresent dragon in my garage?

Amazingly you have answered the question, so thanks for that!
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 27th March 2020 at 04:26 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2020, 04:36 PM   #1203
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Cloaked alien space ships would have served the illustration about ad-hoc revisions and falsifiability equally well. The difference is that they seem more plausible than invisible dragons in the garage.
So what? Cloaked alien space ships may also seem more plausible to non-god believers than a god inside or outside the Universe.

The question is however (ignoring the analogy) . . .

Is the existence a god any more plausible than the existence of a dragon?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 27th March 2020 at 05:15 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:49 PM   #1204
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,034
JoeMorgue, if you are still out there, my apologies for the delay. Wanted to give this some thought, then had Apocalypse stuff to deal with.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If something is "intangible" in literally every single way then it doesn't exist.

God isn't "intangible." He doesn't exist.
That was not the dichotomy presented. I noted that the Dragon handles tangibility neatly. That does not mean a theorized god is intangible. 'Whereabouts unknown' and 'not detectable from this particular rock' are obvious alternatives to 'intangible', which no one was claiming.

Quote:
This isn't a holograph that you can see but not touch or the wind that you can feel but not see or etc, etc, and so forth.

It's something you can't see, hear, touch, taste, feel, detect, measure, gauge, and has no effects.

This isn't an unknown variable where we still have to fill in the blanks. This is a unknown made up of nothing but unknown variables.

God isn't an equation where it's there's a variable of X we have to account for. He's an equation where both sides are equal and both sides are nothing but undefined variables.

That's why the dragon in my garage IS the same thing as God.
Across the known universe are planets, in galaxies we have not yet peered into. They are, for all intents and purposes, intangible and undetectable. Yet we try our best to extend our sight, and proceed assuming that the planets are in fact there, though we cannot detect them. If I were to insist that one of those planets was in fact in my garage, but was invisible...would you concede the rhetorical analogy? I don't think you would. I think you'd find it to be a strawman.

Keeping in mind that I am not advocating this: if a god is theorized as being of an unknown/incomprehensible nature and locale, but not likely hanging around this particular rock in this particular galaxy, that is not an assertion of intangibility. He might be entirely tangible, with a feathered headdress and everything. The point is that only you are claiming 'intangibility', as it makes for an easier argument. Unknown =/= intangible.

Quote:
Look at it this way. Let's alter the scenario.

Same setup. I tell you that a fire breathing dragon live in my garage. But this time when we walk out to my garage and I open the door the second the door opens we still don't see a dragon but we wear a deafening roar. The interior of my garage is absolutely scorched and burning. My poor Dodge has been crushed by some huge weight. Clawed, three finger footprints the size of a serving platter have been tracked all over the dusty garage floor. A plume of fire appears out of thin air and moves about. And when all the ruckus knocks over a bag of potting soil sitting on a shelf and causes a big cloud of dust to launch into the air we clearly see the outline of a winged creature.

Okay at this point we can both agree that something is going on in my garage and what we are seeing is at least consistent with "Invisible Dragon." "A dragon lives in my garage and the dragon is invisible" might not be fact or even theory depending on how technical and pedantic one wants to get, but it's at the very least well within the realm of viable hypothesis.

Believers/apologist think that's where the God discussion is. That there's all these unexplained things that God is a viable hypothesis to. They are wrong. And no this is not an invitation to have every sad piece of "Well can your precious science explain..." vomited at me. I have all of them pretty much memorized already.
Whoa whoa whoa. God of the Gaps is a whole nuther animal, and one not presented here. You cant just keep making up random arguments that no one else is presenting. The thread here is not some meta 'Is there a God' question. It is a fairly simple 'Does this analogy work against this premise' question.

It does not matter how you feel about the premise itself. We could be talking about why ghosts wear clothes, and if they were ghost clothes. The point of the OP question is how the analogy stands to a given premise. Then when the rubber hits the road in actual argumentation, that particular nuance has been sussed out.

Quote:
This is not a case of looking into a garage, seeing a bunch of stuff that needs explaining, and coming to the conclusion that a dragon in your garage explains everything. Even if that was 100% across the board wrong and everything was caused by something other than a dragon, it's at least an intellectually honest and defensible position.

No, this is a case of looking into a garage, seeing no reason why the existence of a dragon would even occur to you, and not only still looking for it but demanding that everyone else keep looking for it as well and pitching hissy fits whenever anyone says "There is no dragon in this garage."
No. Just no. No one here is pitching a hissy fit because their beliefs are being challenged. Well, maybe you. Others are expressing frustration at not being heard, or met with handwaving and strawmen and changing the subject and projection and all that.

And more importantly, no one is demanding that you do anything. No one demands that anything be looked for, or accepted, or anything else. Some guys post ideas. Others then respond. This gives all food for thought. I personally like to hear other POVs, even if I have no intention of even considering changing my position. It just helps to know where someone's head is at, in agreement or not. You don't. You seek out these threads and finding them, scream that no one will shut up about the subject.

Consider Jabba's horrific threads (horrific in premise, despite the pearls that came out in spite of the OP). You were one of the top posters. Hundreds and hundreds of comments, for years. No one drug you there or bugged you to argue. You sought it out, and relished in it for ******* years. It is beyond ludicrous to frame this as others who won't stop arguing about the topic; even here, you are the top poster.

You are the primary Pitcher of Hissy Fits on the subject. Own it. Stop trying to pawn it off on others.

Quote:
This is what you and Psion and practically all other religious believers/apologists just don't get. It's not a matter of I'm not satisfied with answers to the God question. I'm not satisfied with why the question is even being asked.

Because that's the elephant in the room here.
Agreed. You are satisfied with your understanding of the subject, and it is entirely resolved to your satisfaction. Great. Swellsies. But you might notice that across the globe and throughout time, others have come to different conclusions. Your satisfaction means little to anyone else. In fact, it is arrogance in the extreme to even be impatient with the questions of others, solely because you find the issue personally resolved.

Consider a teacher. Even a kindergarten teacher has resolved the alphabet to her satisfaction. But she still takes joy in helping others find their way. That's what a lot of threads like this are about. I believe that's why many posters engage here. JayUtah, for example, has some wonderful posts on the subject, even though he has surely resolved his thoughts on the matters years ago.

So if you are so offended that someone might want to discuss things like this once in a blue moon...why seek them out?

Quote:
If someone actually, in real life, took you out to a perfectly normal garage that obviously didn't have a dragon in it and tried to to start a "civil debate" about the existence of a dragon in it your response would not be the cheerfully sit there and actually debate it with him. Your response would vary somewhere between assuming he had an ulterior motive for even asking or thinking he lost his goddamn mind.
Agreed. Well, depending on my mood. I have a sister-in-law that is into ghost-hunting and tarot cards and stuff. She'll talk it if you like, and drop it if you want. Same here. The threads are for talking about it if you like. You are so offended by it? Drop it, and seek another thread.

No one is forcing you to hang out in this hypothetical garage. You do not need to be here at all. Think of the garage as a place for dragon hunters to shoot the ****. You are not being drug kicking and screaming into the dragon hunt.

Quote:
And if he keep making you try to prove to him a dragon didn't exist to his satisfaction... well that wouldn't be very civil of him would it? How long could he insist you "have a civil debate about the possibility of a dragon in my garage" before you got a little snippy with him?

Now are you getting it?
You hit it on the head. If he banged on my door demanding I come out and argue about the dragon, damn straight I would join you in getting a little snippy.

But if you knowingly and willfully go to his garage, you have no right to be impatient or dickish. You sought him out.

Quote:
The garage is the whole of reality, the dragon is God, and you're the guy calling me rude (or forceful or whatever I don't care) because I won't keep having this discussion "civilly" with you.
Absolutely not. You're being called an insufferable douche because you willingly choose to be an insufferable douche. The argument here is the applicability of a particular analogy to a given premise, not whether or not you accept the premise. It should be purely an exploration of the power of the analogy. Whether the premise is real is unrelated to the examination of applicability to the argument.

But why, then? you scream. Because t is good to probe your use of common analogies, and test them for soundness, instead of mindlessly relying on cheap straw that sounds good.

Quote:
You're kind of right. Because it's already uncivil that I'm even being asked to have it. (And no anyone in the peanut gallery that isn't an invitation for any "WeLL jUSt don'T reAD tHE thREAd!" comments).
Yeah, you don't want to deal with that, do you? Two extra points for the Spongebob meme lettering, too. Shows clearly how you are not at all strawmanning.

Quote:
This isn't even a matter of I have the moral high ground until the day I can say "God doesn't exist" without knowing for a metaphysical certainty someone is going to pitch the fit that Psion did. This isn't even a matter of I have the moral high ground until the day I can say "God doesn't exist" without even the possibility of someone pitching the fit that Psion did.

This is a matter of I have the moral high ground until the day I would never even have to say "God doesn't exist" anymore then "There's no dragon in my garage" in any real context of my day to day life because the question and the topic would never even come up because nobody would be making excuses to keep bringing it up. Or they would actually have a valid and logical reason for doing so. We are nowhere near either of those points. So again, I'm not entertaining the constant "Okay atheist let's stop and acknowledge your big mean poopie headiness" because as the existence of this very topic already puts that needle on the side of the scale.
Not clear on why you are wrestling so hard with this. There are, for instance, Bigfoot threads on this forum. Not being interested in Bigfoot, I don't go there. Maybe pop in once a year, see nothing is going on of note, then leave. No one ever chased me down to argue about Bigfoot in my garage. Or his garage. Or his granny's carport. And my blood pressure never approaches cardiac event levels as a result.

You are in a perfectly analogous situation. No one, anywhere, is shoving this down your throat. Yet you seem to think you are justified in spitting bile at others, when you sought the discussion out under your own power.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with them. It is 100% about you, and how you choose to treat other forum members. Own that ****.

Quote:
Now I have said some harsh things. Thermal, Psion, anyone else listening. Here are your pearls. If you need to clutch them please do so. Clutch them as hard as you can. Clutch them until they turn into diamonds. Then use the diamonds to buy a bridge and use the bridge to get over it.

Because we're in a callout thread about just one single example of a thousand years of being asked to prove there's isn't a dragon in garage that obviously doesn't have a dragon.
No we are not. We are in a thread about a commonly employed analogy that arguably does not always hold water. Your personal satisfaction with the matter is of no consequence, and certainly does not justify being a flaming jerkoff. Because thi thread is not titled 'Is JoeMorgue Happy with what Someone Else Thinks, or Shall He Call Their Mothers Whores?' Jesus, dude, the world does not revolve around you.

Although I do like the pearls and bridge thing.

Quote:
Given that, I'm comfortable with how civil I'm being.
Yeah, I get that. Just promise me you never get into teaching. For that matter, please avoid any situations where someone might disagree with you on any subject ever.

Quote:
I am more than happy to do so.... if you show the slightest hint that you understand what "gloves" you have on.
Oh, I know what gloves I have on, how many ounces they are, what kind of wraps underneath and the rest.

To refresh your memory: I came to the thread to discuss an analogy which some of us feel does not apply to all concepts of god, but gets carelessly flung around anyway. Christ almighty, atheists...even the hard-line anti-theists...could discuss that dispassionately in the abstract.

The gloves I put on were after ignoring pot-shots having nothing to do with the discussion. The word 'god' is breathed, and the Religion of No Religion Zealots ride forth, cursing all who dare to speak their heresy. So my gloves come out, defensively. Yeah, I know exactly what gloves I have on.

Quote:
Again I will not remain argumentatively civil forever against proud wrongness, fauxed obtuseness, and people parading tired old cliches debunked a thousand times. Sad little "Okay but if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkey" style religious apologetics are rude by their very nature of being asked at this point.
And now it's science deniers? Where? You are quite literally battling voices in your head now. We have quite a few admitted science fans here, and not a single science denier. That is straw, baby. And you know it.

Quote:
This is why I will not be addressing the rest of your post. It's been done. Aquinas came up with 5 different variations on the stupid "Okay it's turtles all the way down so let's just stop at one turtle and call it God" nonsense a long time ago and it's been discussed. I will not discuss it again.
No, you will not be addressing my post because it is not hitting your talking points. I'm asking you (assuming this is anything like a discussion) if the conditions before the BB were a unique speculation. I think they were. But you handwave similar god speculation as 'special pleading'.

I am not arguing for a god as creator. I am arguing that the particular arguments presented are irrational. Ironic, that.

Quote:
Put away "Baby's First Book of Religious Apologetics" and stop reading it to me. No, the prime mover / first cause / watchmaker God doesn't make sense.
To you. You are not the be-all and end-all of discussion. I am reminded of pearls and bridges.

Quote:
No evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics. Yes, science has found transitional fossils. No, Darwin didn't convert on his death bed. No, Hitler wasn't an atheist. No, the world is not "so finely tuned" as to need a creator. No, evolution is not "just a theory." Yes, "Half an eye" is actually pretty useful. No, God is not hidden in "everything science can't explain." I'm not getting drawn into debates that were already old and cliche when I was born.
Christ. Yet again, you are not faced with science deniers or god-of=the=gaps arguers here. That you think you are is freaking Quixotic.

And Jesus, Mary and Joseph...no one is dragging you into anything. You seek it out and complain for hundreds of posts. Stop putting the responsibility on everyone else for your free-will actions. Own. This. ****.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Thank you.

I can't wait to hear all the well thought out, clearly stated rebuttals from the believers/apologists... I can't even finish that sentence without laughing.
While I'm sure you don't agree with a word I've posted here, they are thought out and clearly rebutted.

And I did not snip out or avoid a single word.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM   #1205
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Just where do you get these beliefs from arth?
From my own experience as a Christian and regularly attending church, and from my knowledge of other Christians of various denominations. I assure you, punishment was not even remotely in my mind when I did things that I believed were good. None of the people I knew at the time talked about punishment for not doing good, nor did any of the sermons I listened to touch on it in any way that I recall. Furthermore, I worked for some time in the company of representatives of a number of different religious charities, none of whom gave me the impression that the charitable work they did was done for fear of punishment.

My impression is that punishment is a central focus and primary motivator pretty much only in hardcore Calvinism. You know, the Fred Phelps type. Maybe some of the Lutheran and perhaps some of the Catholic groups that split off after Vatican 2. So yes, such groups definitely exist, but I believe they are a minority.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
On the one hand we have the clergy, promising salvation and rescue from damnation if you do as they say. Sure the damnation part may not be stressed quite so vigorously by some these days, but the salvation angle is just as strong as ever.

On the other hand we have arth saying the believers are not really motivated by these promises and threats, because well ........ feelings.
For a start, I prefaced my statement with I believe... for a reason. Secondly, experience and not feelings. And, you know, actually having civil conversations with religious people.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The goodies I am talking about are after death goodies. You know: Nice harp and grovelling for eternity. Who could resist.
Right. You know no Christian denomination takes this imagery seriously, yeah? But I get that it makes it really easy to make fun of peoples' beliefs, so the temptation is strong.

Actually I don't know the origin of the harp thing. Anyone happen to know who came up with that idea?
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:35 PM   #1206
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,981
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
From my own experience as a Christian and regularly attending church, and from my knowledge of other Christians of various denominations. I assure you, punishment was not even remotely in my mind when I did things that I believed were good. None of the people I knew at the time talked about punishment for not doing good, nor did any of the sermons I listened to touch on it in any way that I recall. Furthermore, I worked for some time in the company of representatives of a number of different religious charities, none of whom gave me the impression that the charitable work they did was done for fear of punishment.

My impression is that punishment is a central focus and primary motivator pretty much only in hardcore Calvinism. You know, the Fred Phelps type. Maybe some of the Lutheran and perhaps some of the Catholic groups that split off after Vatican 2. So yes, such groups definitely exist, but I believe they are a minority.

For a start, I prefaced my statement with I believe... for a reason. Secondly, experience and not feelings. And, you know, actually having civil conversations with religious people.

Right. You know no Christian denomination takes this imagery seriously, yeah? But I get that it makes it really easy to make fun of peoples' beliefs, so the temptation is strong.

Actually I don't know the origin of the harp thing. Anyone happen to know who came up with that idea?

Well that's what it comes down to doesn't it. What you felt and what you felt others around you felt regardless of the clear message of salvation preached. I did say the punishment angle was not so prevalent today but you harp on it.

On the subject of harps you are not much of a biblical scholar are you. Refer to the following:

29 Verses About Harp from 8 Books:

Genesis 4:21
And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

.........

Corinthians-1 14:7
And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:45 PM   #1207
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well that's what it comes down to doesn't it. What you felt and what you felt others around you felt regardless of the clear message of salvation preached. I did say the punishment angle was not so prevalent today but you harp on it.
I don't harp on it, you're the one who brought it up. I merely brought a counterpoint. That's what we do. We discuss subjects.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
On the subject of harps you are not much of a biblical scholar are you. Refer to the following:

29 Verses About Harp from 8 Books:

Genesis 4:21
And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

.........

Corinthians-1 14:7
And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?


I'm not asking who invented the harp. And I'm not asking for mentions of musical instruments in the Bible. I'm asking who came up with the image that people in heaven sit on clouds, wear white dresses, and play harps.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:13 PM   #1208
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,346
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
So what? Cloaked alien space ships may also seem more plausible to non-god believers than a god inside or outside the Universe.
Since a god cannot exist by definition, it is not a matter of 'seem'. If cloaked alien space ships are at all possible (and I think we can all agree that they are) then it is infinitely more plausible than a god. It's just simple logic, and applies whether you are a believer or not.

When a believer says their god has supernatural powers, they mean it is a fictional character. If they say God answers their prayers, they mean He doesn't. If they insist that He created the Universe and everything in it, they mean He didn't. If they say believing in Jesus will give them everlasting life, they mean it won't. In short, they believe in a fantasy - and they know it. They just prefer to believe in that fantasy rather than deal with reality.

Quote:
The question is however (ignoring the analogy) . . .

Is the existence a god any more plausible than the existence of a dragon?
So long as they don't have supernatural powers or violate the laws of physics in some other way, dragons could theoretically exist. That makes them like cloaked Alien spaceships - extremely unlikely, but possible. In the future, as our ability to genetically modify organisms improves, there may even come a time when they are a reality - which would make them more likely than cloaked alien space ships.

But whatever level of technology we (or aliens) achieve, Gods will be forever stuck at 'impossible' - because we define them to be so. Even the theists themselves do it, by describing their God as supernatural - ie. impossible.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:24 AM   #1209
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But whatever level of technology we (or aliens) achieve, Gods will be forever stuck at 'impossible' - because we define them to be so. Even the theists themselves do it, by describing their God as supernatural - ie. impossible.
"Supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible". It just means incompatible with the laws of nature/physics as we understand them.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:45 AM   #1210
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"Supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible". It just means incompatible with the laws of nature/physics as we understand them.
No. "Supernatural" is impossible according to the laws of nature/physics as we know and understand them.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; Today at 01:04 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:06 AM   #1211
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
No. "Supernatural" is impossible according to the laws of nature/physics as we know and understand them.
And how is that different to what I said, Bill?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:14 AM   #1212
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"Supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible". It just means incompatible with the laws of nature/physics as we understand them.
In other words, impossible, as we understand it.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:23 AM   #1213
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
And how is that different to what I said, Bill?
Well Willie . . .

You said "Supernatural doesn't necessarily mean impossible".

I (effectively) said supernatural does necessarily mean impossible.

Why do you think we said the same thing?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:28 AM   #1214
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In other words, impossible, as we understand it.
But apparently not impossible as we don't understand it

Waits for "Exactly!" response . . .
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; Today at 01:31 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:51 AM   #1215
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why do you think we said the same thing?
Well, Hillary . . . .

You bolded the "is" part. But once you added "according to the laws of nature/physics as we know and understand them" you rendered the distinction between "impossible" and "incompatible" trivial.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:14 AM   #1216
RedStapler
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"with the laws of nature/physics as we understand them.
Oh, a rephrase of "There could be a god just because we did not look for one in these galaxies 1 million ly away"

The special pleading never ends..
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:25 AM   #1217
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,789
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Oh, a rephrase of "There could be a god just because we did not look for one in these galaxies 1 million ly away"

The special pleading never ends..

That is not special pleading, that is the god in the gaps of our knowledge. Which is OK, but unlikely.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:42 AM   #1218
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,438
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
That is not special pleading, that is the god in the gaps of our knowledge. Which is OK, but unlikely.

And yet again it ends up being a god unlike any the religions claim exists!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:53 AM   #1219
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,753
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That was not the dichotomy presented. I noted that the Dragon handles tangibility neatly. That does not mean a theorized god is intangible. 'Whereabouts unknown' and 'not detectable from this particular rock' are obvious alternatives to 'intangible', which no one was claiming.
Again I'm well aware of what the God you keep sideways arguing for isn't, I'm just totally lost on what it is

I know all the qualities you keep arguing we don't know God does have. Indeed you seem to only be concerned with arguing about a God that has no qualities/features to argue about at all.

Outside of creating a God that nobody believes in, you've created an argumentative God that doesn't do anything, that is functionally the same as no God.

Answer one, simple question with a direct, simple answer.

We have two universes/realities/whatever. One has a God in it. One doesn't not.

What is the difference between these universes? The answer can't be "nothing." The answer can't be "I don't know but here's some gaps where a difference might be." The answer can't be to ask that you ask me to define the God so you can tell me what the differences would be.

This is a question you can't answer with "Well we don't know if God has quality X" or any variation thereoff as a way of getting out of putting up an actual claims that can be proved or disproved (or indeed even supported or unsupported.)

Again the parallels are accurate and are being made clearly. You are showing me two garages and going "Maybe there's a dragon in one but not the other, but somehow my answer to why is 'the dragon is completely intangible and you have no way of knowing if the dragon is there or not, so you can't say definitely that there isn't no dragon."

You (seem to) think the fact that the dragon is God and the garage is "the universe" makes a difference. It doesn't not.

Again it's frustrating how much you are saying you aren't just doing bog standard, by the books "God of the Gaps" while doing just that.

I don't have to open the second drawer of the toolbox in my garage to say that no dragon lives in it. I don't have to look behind every galaxy and every atom in the universe to say that God isn't behind any of them.


Quote:
Across the known universe are planets, in galaxies we have not yet peered into. They are, for all intents and purposes, intangible and undetectable.
The difference between "Not yet studied" and "defined as unknowable" has been clearly explained. Do not keep obtusing (I've been forced to create a verb form of 'obtuse') them for argumentative purpose.

Stop equating an ongoing special pleading God with things yet to be discovered. It is dishonest.

The difference, I'll explain again so you can in a few pages yet again pretend I haven't explained it, is that when scientist look for something they are actually trying to find it instead of trying to find new excuses why they haven't found it.

When scientist, for instance, theorize the existence of Dark Matter or "God Particle" or whatnot they aren't saying "Here's a handy, undetectable (and we can redefine it over and over so it stays undetectable" thing we can plug every unanswered question into forever. But that is exactly what believers/apologists do with God.

Again this distinction is clear. It has been made clear multiple times. Do not keep pretending otherwise for argumentative purposes.

Quote:
Yet we try our best to extend our sight, and proceed assuming that the planets are in fact there, though we cannot detect them.
And see this is what I'm talking about.

"We cannot detect them." No. Stop lying. We can detect them (or predict them if you want to keep being pedantic.) Because in reality if there's no reason to look for something you don't look for it. If we didn't think we could detect them, we wouldn't look for them. Even if the point is hypothetical and far in the future we don't start looking for things we've already defined as being unfindable.

Sure we might not prove/disprove dark matter or the petulant subatomic particle in our lifetimes, or the lifetime of our children, or our children's children's children's children's children or the lifetime of our species. But that is clearly different from "We can never find this thing because we define it as something inherently impossible to detect, but let's keep looking." This difference is clear, I do not believe you do not understand what it the difference is and believe you are equating them intentionally for argumentative purposes.

We don't predict things, define them as things that can never be detected, and then spend the rest of eternity looking for them, and redefining them so they stay undetectable.

When Alexis Bouvard working in 1821 used mathematical calculations to predict a planet existed beyond the orbit of Uranus due to irregularities in orbits and was able to make fair guesses at it's mass and orbit, calculations later confirmed when planet was observed via telescope at the Berlin Observatory in 1846, that was not "Neptune of the Gaps."

When Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 theorized a new subatomic particle based on theories of Beta Decay and 1965 a subatomic particle was discovered with the exact properties he predicted, that was not a "Neutrino of the Gaps."

In the early days of chemistry when the Periodic Table of Elements was being developed and Mendeleev and Meyer and Laviosier used it to predict elements that hadn't yet be discovered via trends in characteristics made clear by the table, for instance when Mendeleev stated in 1871 that there must be an dull grey, metallic element an element with an atomic weight of around 68, a density of about 5.9, a low melting point, an oxide density of about 5.5, and that wouldn't react with air because his predicted model said there had to be one and, low and behold, in 1875 an element with exactly those characteristics was discovered it was that was not "Gallium of the Gaps." There is no "Unobtanium" on the Periodic Table and there never will be.

In none of those cases did we start looking for the thing in question before we have clear reason to look for it and clear ways to determine whether or not we found it.

There is no planet, no subatomic particle, no element that is defined as "this thing we don't know about yet and the only thing we know about it that we don't know about it." When science or indeed any rational process predicts something and suggests we go look for it it gives qualities to look for so we can tell if the thing in question has actually been found or not.

Mendeleev did not go "I think there's a new element out there, I won't tell you anything about it but let me know if you think you found it and I'll tell you if you're wrong or not and you can never stop looking for it or say it isn't there."

Do not continue to purposely for the reasons of argumentatives to intentionally equate "Currently Unknown" with "Defined (and redefined) as forever inherently unknowable." The distinction clear, it is valid, it has been explained to you. Do not suffer amnesia in your next post, or your next 10 posts, or the next thread, or the next 10 threads about God and expect me to explain civilly again.

Quote:
If I were to insist that one of those planets was in fact in my garage, but was invisible...would you concede the rhetorical analogy? I don't think you would. I think you'd find it to be a strawman.
I have laid you why your interpretation of how science approaches "unknowns" is flawed. That answers this question.

Quote:
Keeping in mind that I am not advocating this: if a god is theorized as being of an unknown/incomprehensible nature and locale, but not likely hanging around this particular rock in this particular galaxy, that is not an assertion of intangibility. He might be entirely tangible, with a feathered headdress and everything. The point is that only you are claiming 'intangibility', as it makes for an easier argument. Unknown =/= intangible.
Again, my previous breakdown of how you are dishonestly using unknown vs unknowable answers this.

Quote:
Whoa whoa whoa. God of the Gaps is a whole nuther animal, and one not presented here.
God of the Gaps is literally all you are doing. I couldn't write a textbook example of God of the Gaps better. I do not how to even argue against "I'm not using a God of the Gaps argument, I'm just arguing that God might be in the gaps of things we don't yet know" answer.

You just said "I'm not saying 2+2=4, I'm just saying 2+2 does equal 4."

Quote:
You cant just keep making up random arguments that no one else is presenting.
I wouldn't have to if people were making arguments instead of vague, passive "I'm not arguing this..." while never getting around to what they are arguing. I made this clear in my first paragraph. I no longer care to hear about what qualities the God you are either arguing for or apologyzing for doesn't have.

Quote:
The thread here is not some meta 'Is there a God' question. It is a fairly simple 'Does this analogy work against this premise' question.
And it does. 100%. Perfectly. The longer the debate goes on with it's hair splits and semantics and pedantics the stronger the analogy becomes.

You're still wanting to have a "civil debate" about the existence of a dragon in a garage in which we have no reason to even consider the question of a dragon.

The shoe not only fits, it's vacuum formed to your foot at this point. The shoe fits and it's one of those weird five toed shoes.

Quote:
It does not matter how you feel about the premise itself. We could be talking about why ghosts wear clothes, and if they were ghost clothes.
"We could be talking about..."

Yeah but we aren't. That's the point.

Quote:
The point of the OP question is how the analogy stands to a given premise. Then when the rubber hits the road in actual argumentation, that particular nuance has been sussed out.
Yes and, by some shocking coincidence, the already established God believers/apologists are the only ones that have a problem with it.

Again I'm comfortable in stating that the analogy is not only stronger then ever but at this point has almost reached a meta stage of constantly being self-evident, having functionally achieved a level of "I deny that we demand the God question be discussed differently then other topics and here's a 35 page list of excuses why...."

Quote:
No. Just no. No one here is pitching a hissy fit because their beliefs are being challenged. Well, maybe you. Others are expressing frustration at not being heard, or met with handwaving and strawmen and changing the subject and projection and all that.
Again I'm not the one who has an issue with simply stating "God doesn't exist." The entire debate started because Psion took extreme umbridge at someone saying that and demanded it be phrased "I believe God doesn't exist."

I have rejected that and clearly laid out why. I will not repeat my arguments for you to get amnesia over again.

Quote:
And more importantly, no one is demanding that you do anything. No one demands that anything be looked for, or accepted, or anything else.
I will not entertain any "Well if you don't like it just don't post" comments. The continued insistence that the existence of a God is a valid question has far reaching consequences, consequences I will not ignore it.

Quote:
Agreed. You are satisfied with your understanding of the subject, and it is entirely resolved to your satisfaction. Great. Swellsies. But you might notice that across the globe and throughout time, others have come to different conclusions.
I will not entertain bland "Well, shrug, some people feel differently" truism excuses. I already explained why. I will not repeat myself for your amnesia.

Quote:
Consider a teacher. Even a kindergarten teacher has resolved the alphabet to her satisfaction. But she still takes joy in helping others find their way. That's what a lot of threads like this are about. I believe that's why many posters engage here. JayUtah, for example, has some wonderful posts on the subject, even though he has surely resolved his thoughts on the matters years ago.
If that Kindergarten teach was still trying to explain to little Timmy that there wasn't a magical undetectable letter between D and E that she can't prove doesn't exist after... let's just round it off and say about 15 hundred years at this point, then sure.

Quote:
So if you are so offended that someone might want to discuss things like this once in a blue moon...why seek them out?
Because this kind of God debate is the reason we still have Gods that tell people to bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings or oppose teaching evolution in schools or knock on my door at 7:30 on a Sunday morning to save my soul. It gives it validity. You cannot separate the two.

We wouldn't have that God if you and yours weren't so determined to keep "some God" on the table.

Again I will not justify my participation in this thread to you or anyone else. So I will not be addressing the multiple other times you made the same point.

Quote:
Not clear on why you are wrestling so hard with this. There are, for instance, Bigfoot threads on this forum. Not being interested in Bigfoot, I don't go there. Maybe pop in once a year, see nothing is going on of note, then leave. No one ever chased me down to argue about Bigfoot in my garage.
Do your elected leaders pray to Bigfoot for guidance? Do they not bother to fight climate change because Bigfoot is going rapture them to heaven anyday now anyway? Do they demand that "Bigfoot created the world" be taught as an equal theory to evolution in schools? Was my father disowned and kick out of his house because Bigfoot doesn't like gay people?

And no I do not want to hear "Not all Bigfoots, let's talk about this hypothetical Bigfoot that nobody believes in..."

Do not sit there and pretend to be ignorant of why the God discussion matters.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.