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.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 17th November 2018, 08:46 AM   #1881
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,216
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you are referring to the belief that you can communicate with God that is different to saying that God is "visible".
No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.
__________________
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 17th November 2018, 08:46 AM   #1882
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Roll your eyes all you want. Your argument is literally "When logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence don't give me the answer I want I get just make up a whole new method to get the answer I want because of philosophy."

No. You don't. If you aren't using logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence you aren't getting an answer in any meaningful sense of the term, you're just making stuff up.
Have you ever considered that just as there is a limit to human mobility, there might be a limit to logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence and if so, you simply admit that?
If knowledge has a limit, you then answer when you hit the limit: I don't know.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 08:48 AM   #1883
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Or to all as God is unobservable. There is at least one version of God, where God is unobservable. No effect of prayers, no miracles and no access through divine guidance.
And this version of god is a garage dragon, and therefore does not exist.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 08:50 AM   #1884
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.
Yes, but that is not all gods, so while science is able to deal with most gods, there might be some, which science can't deal with.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 08:54 AM   #1885
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
And this version of god is a garage dragon, and therefore does not exist.
You are not good at logic.
Something unobservable is not logically equivalent with non-existence. And yes, just as per definition unobservable is non-existence, Nonpareil is non-existence. I have just defined it so. So you don't exist, because the words say so. Period.
That is your problem. You don't understand how words work.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 08:57 AM   #1886
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
The first reason is this: There are more than six billion people who believe in (some form of) God.
Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Even if it wasn't, popularity is not a valid defense against the accusation of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. If you want people to stop accusing you of it, you have to come up with a logical defense.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
No, this isn’t some appeal to popularity.
That's exactly what it is. Just as your special pleading is special pleading despite you trying to say that it isn't.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But because these people believe this God thingie, therefore the existence of this God is of overwhelming importance to these folks.
Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This is simply: one’s interest, one’s predilection, that’s all.
Also not a defense.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Please don’t get defensive
I'm not getting defensive. I'm being blunt. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But what if Carl Sagan were to say, “This dragon appears to me in visions. It tells me things my subconscious couldn’t possibly have supplied me with. It helps me in ways my subconscious couldn’t possibly have done. And here are the specific ways -- albeit ways not immediately testable or ascertainable -- whole myriad ways in which the dragon does affect the entire universe.” Or something like that. After all, he must have some reason for thinking this is a dragon, mustn't he?
The point of the garage dragon example is sailing far above your head.

Again, if there are any ways to detect the dragon at all, it is not a garage dragon. Garage dragons are defined as undetectable. If it is merely hard to detect, it is not a garage dragon.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
If, on the other hand, I continue to find Carl Sagan generally sane, if I continue to find him scrupulously honest, and if I can find no explanation at all for this dragon-delusion of his, then the only logically and rationally sound position for me, in respect of this dragon, would be soft a-dragonism.
Flat special pleading. Again.

It doesn't matter if you find him "scrupulously honest". If he can't back up his position, it is discarded. Doing anything else is special pleading.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Seriously, Nonpareil: I don’t see how one can be a hard a-dragonist. Soft a-dragonist, yes, absolutely. But not hard a-dragonist.
Because garage dragons are defined as non-existent, and there is no evidence for the existence of dragons that can be detected.

It's the same way that I can be a hard a-Santa-ist. You simply insert special pleading, then try to claim that it isn't special pleading because it just matters so much to everyone oh please give it a chance.

That isn't how logic or rationality works.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Incidentally: Far as I could see, Carl Sagan does not really push for hard atheism per se.
I didn't say he did. I said that garage dragons are defined as non-existent.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth

Last edited by Nonpareil; 17th November 2018 at 09:00 AM.
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 08:59 AM   #1887
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
You are not good at logic.
Oh, the irony.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Something unobservable is not logically equivalent with non-existence.
Yes, it is.

If it isn't, then you must be able to supply a way in which the universe is different because this unobservable thing exists - in which case it is no longer unobservable.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And yes, just as per definition unobservable is non-existence, Nonpareil is non-existence. I have just defined it so. So you don't exist, because the words say so. Period.
That is your problem. You don't understand how words work.
Really, Tommy? You're going to accuse other people of not understanding how words work?
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 09:04 AM   #1888
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Oh, the irony.



Yes, it is.

If it isn't, then you must be able to supply a way in which the universe is different because this unobservable thing exists - in which case it is no longer unobservable.



Really, Tommy? You're going to accuse other people of not understanding how words work?
That words mean something doesn't mean that they are true. If that was so, you don't exist, would be true.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 09:15 AM   #1889
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,542
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No! A force/entity/being/object/process/thing, which caused the universe, but is outside the universe, is not a question for science, because science can't answer that.
What’s the point of postulating something that 1)we have no evidence for, 2)doesn’t give an answer to any question and 3)we have no hope of ever confirming?

I believe the answer is, no matter the verbiage: mental masturbation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 17th November 2018, 09:29 AM   #1890
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
That words mean something doesn't mean that they are true. If that was so, you don't exist, would be true.
Except that, as I have already explained, you cannot change the definitions to suit you, as you are trying to do to make some strange point that only makes sense within your own head.

I say again: if "unobservable" is not equivalent to "nonexistent", then you must show how. If you cannot do that, then you must concede that they are equivalent.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 09:34 AM   #1891
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Except that, as I have already explained, you cannot change the definitions to suit you, as you are trying to do to make some strange point that only makes sense within your own head.

I say again: if "unobservable" is not equivalent to "nonexistent", then you must show how. If you cannot do that, then you must concede that they are equivalent.
And: if "unobservable" is equivalent to "nonexistent", you must show so. The logic works both ways, and you don't use logic, you use definitions.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 09:40 AM   #1892
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And: if "unobservable" is equivalent to "nonexistent", you must show so. The logic works both ways, and you don't use logic, you use definitions.
I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 09:47 AM   #1893
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.
Yup, he did. I actually learned something from it.
The Sparrow 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 17th November 2018, 09:48 AM   #1894
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.
That something is semantically meaningful or meaningless, say nothing about existence outside brains.

As for detachable, a creator god might not be detachable of she doesn't intervene after she caused the universe.
Whether that is meaningful or meaningless to you, doesn't decide if there is such a god.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 09:52 AM   #1895
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
That something is semantically meaningful or meaningless, say nothing about existence outside brains.

As for detachable, a creator god might not be detachable of she doesn't intervene after she caused the universe.
Whether that is meaningful or meaningless to you, doesn't decide if there is such a god.
Gibberish.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 10:07 AM   #1896
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,587
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.
If that doesn't mean that the Christian God is visible then what does it mean?
__________________
"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 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
Old 17th November 2018, 11:12 AM   #1897
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,555
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Gibberish.
Let me show you something.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post12506031

I am sometimes dense and I will admit it. JayUtah answered with more than gibberish and I got it and admitted it.
So try to answer with more than gibberish.

How does how language as language work, tell us anything about whether there are gods or not? Answer that with more than gibberish.

How do we know if there is something outside reality? Answer that with more than gibberish.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen 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 17th November 2018, 11:28 AM   #1898
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Let me show you something.
I'm aware of your discussions elsewhere.

I cannot explain things to you any more plainly than they have already been explained, and I cannot answer whatever it is that you are trying to say because it is gibberish. Whatever you are trying to say is getting completely lost in nonsense sentences that fail to parse.

If you want a more detailed response, find a way to better communicate your ideas. As things stand, you are entirely failing to do so.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
How does how language as language work, tell us anything about whether there are gods or not? Answer that with more than gibberish.
It doesn't, which is why your obsession with it is so baffling. It is simply important to have clearly defined terms before any logic can be performed. Logic is built on definitions.

The term "garage dragon" is defined in such a way that any entity which it describes does not exist, because "undetectable" is equivalent to "nonexistent". I have explained why multiple times.

Because of this, any god that behaves as a garage dragon does - that is, which is entirely undetectable - we know to be nonexistent.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
How do we know if there is something outside reality? Answer that with more than gibberish.
There is nothing "outside reality". Reality is the set of all detectable entities. If an entity is entirely "outside reality", it is therefore undetectable, and does not exist. There is no difference between it and an entirely imaginary entity.

None of this is particularly complex or difficult. Please read my posts before responding.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 11:51 AM   #1899
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Nonpareil, hang on, hang on. Are you not saying, then, that Carl Sagan's dragon invalidates soft atheism? What on earth are we arguing about, then?

I was under the impression -- and I may have been mistaken in so inferring -- that you were arguing against soft atheism. If that is not the case, then I don't see we have anything to argue about.

I enjoyed reading Carl Sagan's essay, thanks to your link, and was gratified to find him clearly taking, in his own words, the soft atheist's position.
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 11:59 AM   #1900
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Nonpareil, hang on, hang on. Are you not saying, then, that Carl Sagan's dragon invalidates soft atheism? What on earth are we arguing about, then?
I make no claims about what Carl Sagan thought about soft versus hard atheism. I am not Carl Sagan. The dragon in the garage is only relevant in that it establishes that undetectable entities do not exist, and thusly that god claims must make some sort of falsifiable assertion in order to have any hope of being true at all.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I was under the impression -- and I may have been mistaken in so inferring -- that you were arguing against soft atheism.
I am not so much arguing against soft atheism as I am arguing in favor of hard atheism. I am also pointing out the egregious abuses of fallacies such as special pleading and appeal to popularity in your own defense of soft atheism.

I don't care if someone chooses to be a soft atheist. I do care if someone tries to justify that position, or to argue against hard atheism, using fallacious reasoning.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 12:10 PM   #1901
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Ah, okay. But, in as much as you are arguing for hard atheism, you do agree, don't you, that Sagan's own words, that I quoted from the article you linked, are a ringing endorsement for soft atheism?

(Not that Carl Sagan's support for soft atheism necessarily makes it 'right', of course.)
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 12:10 PM   #1902
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Nonpareil, hang on, hang on. Are you not saying, then, that Carl Sagan's dragon invalidates soft atheism? What on earth are we arguing about, then?

I was under the impression -- and I may have been mistaken in so inferring -- that you were arguing against soft atheism. If that is not the case, then I don't see we have anything to argue about.

I enjoyed reading Carl Sagan's essay, thanks to your link, and was gratified to find him clearly taking, in his own words, the soft atheist's position.
Carl Sagan is not taking a stance on hard vs soft atheism. The entire point of the essay is that the distinction is meaningless special pleading.

It's rejecting the hard vs soft atheism distinction, not taking a side in it.

Yet again for the 50th billionth time if we're in a room with no chair we don't demand the people who think there's no chair in the room and the people who know there is no chair in the room form separate teams. "There's no chair in the room" is where the discussion, hair splitting, excuse making, pleas for "Okay but whatabout..." and everything else that could possibly move the needle back toward the "Okay but maybe there is chair..." side comes to a complete and total stop.

The last 10 pages of this thread have just been people going "Nuh-uh... it's different because of *mumble* special pleading *mumble mumble."

There's no difference between that Soft Adragonist and a Hard Adragonist and trying to argue it even a little bit, to say nothing of digging your hills in and fighting for it like your life depended on it, is utterly absurd and is the point that just keeps going over everybody's head.

There's no difference on a logical, argumentative, scientific, or any other distinction that actually matters between a a completely undetectable dragon we've defined as never being able to know if it exists or not and no dragon at all.

A collection of excuses whey you can't "technically speaking..." disprove it doesn't matter. They don't change anything. They don't matter. And no no wishy-washy "Everybody gets to be right" nonsense about how it matters to some people, it doesn't matter.

If you walk into a room and there's no chair nobody expects you to set down and think of every possible excuse (up to and including just totally rewriting the language and full-scale base level reality denial) as to why there could be a chair in there before the statement "There is no chair in the room" becomes complete and acceptable.

This doesn't even raise to the level of mental masturbation. This is lying awake at night fantasizing about mental masturbation. This is the "Letters to Penthouse" of mental masturbation at this point.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 17th November 2018 at 12:12 PM.
JoeMorgue 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 17th November 2018, 12:24 PM   #1903
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,216
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If that doesn't mean that the Christian God is visible then what does it mean?


You said “It doesn't rule out a God can choose to be unobservable (except to a select few)”. I asked which god this was as it doesn’t match with the definition of the many of the gods people claim exists. Which god has the properties you stated?
__________________
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 17th November 2018, 12:26 PM   #1904
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
And, Nonpareil: About what you say re. my alleged special pleading and alleged appeal to popularity, I believe you are mistaken, but I will readily accept it if you can show how this is so. I am happy to learn from my mistakes, if mistakes they really are!

Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?

I'm guessing you saw me menion 6 billion people, and immediately rushed to the "popularity fallacy" conclusion, without clearly grasping my actual argument. That is why I ask you to take this trouble.

If you're right, then I'll have learnt something, and I'll readily accept it with my thanks.
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 12:26 PM   #1905
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
There is nothing "outside reality". Reality is the set of all detectable entities. If an entity is entirely "outside reality", it is therefore undetectable, and does not exist. There is no difference between it and an entirely imaginary entity.

None of this is particularly complex or difficult. Please read my posts before responding.
This is like when you were a kid trying to find the biggest number and you go back and forth until one kid to "Infinity" and somebody would throw out "Infinity +1."

It's like demanding a cartographer show you what's north of the North Pole. It doesn't make you sound deepity and clever, it just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

//And before any pedantic taintknuckle puts fingers to keyboard yes I know the difference between the mathematical concepts of countable and non-countable infinities and various mathematical levels of infinity.//
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 17th November 2018, 12:28 PM   #1906
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You said “It doesn't rule out a God can choose to be unobservable (except to a select few)”. I asked which god this was as it doesn’t match with the definition of the many of the gods people claim exists. Which god has the properties you stated?
A made up (well even more made up it, it's a made up concept of a God not even a normal, everyday made up God) God who exists only in pedantic apologetics.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 17th November 2018, 12:29 PM   #1907
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 17th November 2018, 12:39 PM   #1908
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Joe, have you read Carl Sagan's own words, that I quoted, about the whole point of the Dragon thought-experiment?

Sure, it is an argument for atheism, first and foremost.

But beyond simply atheism, do you not recognize that those words exactly spell out the soft atheist's position?

PS Pardon me, I'm away from my office, driving, and it's kind of inconvenient to do quotes from my phone, else I'd have quoted those words to you again. Would you look up those words of CS's, from my long post addressed to Nonpareil today, and see if you don't find them exactly the same as the soft atheist's position?
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 12:44 PM   #1909
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Ah, okay. But, in as much as you are arguing for hard atheism, you do agree, don't you, that Sagan's own words, that I quoted from the article you linked, are a ringing endorsement for soft atheism?
As I said, I don't particularly care to interpret Sagan's stance on it, as it is irrelevant to the discussion. You are ignoring the central point of the analogy - the question of what it means to say that a garage dragon exists - in favor of clutching at what you see as third-party validation of your position.

I do not care to try to interpret Sagan's position on hard versus soft atheism. Whatever his opinion, it is irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?
This has been done. You simply ignore it by saying "nuh-uh, I'm not committing that fallacy because I say I'm not".

You commit special pleading when you try to give gods special consideration in matters of logic. You attempt to defend this by saying "but it's really important to a lot of people!", but this is entirely irrelevant. It's just an appeal to popularity.

This cannot get any simpler or more clear-cut. You are arguing fallaciously. Beyond that, you are making textbook examples of these fallacies. Saying "you're just failing to grasp my argument" is incorrect; the argument has been grasped and it has failed to stand up under scrutiny.

There is nothing more to do but to reiterate.

God claims fall into one of two categories. The first category, that of those that make falsifiable claims, is dismissed due to lack of evidence. The second category, those that do not make falsifiable claims, is dismissed because the gods it contains are garage dragons, and therefore do not exist by definition.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 12:46 PM   #1910
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
That image, Joe, as it appears on my phone, I didn't quite get the point of it. Would you explain?

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but perhaps you're crowing because Nonpareil seems to have found fallacies in my post, something like that?

I don't mind in the least. I don't see this in terms of a contest. I'm truly happy to learn, more bang for my buck that way.

That said, I believe Nonpareil is mistaken about my alleged fallacies. Let's see if he can spell them out.
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 12:47 PM   #1911
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,382
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No! A force/entity/being/object/process/thing, which caused the universe, but is outside the universe, is not a question for science, because science can't answer that.
Classic god of the gaps.

Such a god that is outside of the universe is irrelevant, even if it started the process. What is the point of asserting, "but you haven't ruled out an irrelevant god?"
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 17th November 2018 at 12:49 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 17th November 2018, 12:52 PM   #1912
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,131
It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement with Hawking. His position is that there is no room for any actions by a god within the workings of the known universe. Those who continue to disagree are reduced to "but maybe outside of the universe...." which has no relevance to the op.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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
Old 17th November 2018, 12:54 PM   #1913
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not? Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 12:58 PM   #1914
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I enjoyed reading Carl Sagan's essay, thanks to your link, and was gratified to find him clearly taking, in his own words, the soft atheist's position.
I don't think he saw a difference between hard and soft atheism.

This:

Quote:
Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.
"Hard atheists" are like that, too. Or should be, if they wish to honestly call themselves skeptics. Denial in the face of strong evidence is anti-skeptical.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 17th November 2018, 01:00 PM   #1915
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not?
Because Sagan is not here, and even if he were, it wouldn't change the argument in hand. I would say the same things to him that I would to you.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?
Of course they are. But the bit that you are hanging on to is irrelevant to the question of garage dragons as it is used in this thread.

"The Dragon In My Garage" is divided into two halves. The first half, the one that I quoted directly to you, is the part that is relevant to the concept of garage dragons as it is used today. The second half is where he begins to consider cases where evidence does exist, and is irrelevant, as, in this case, the entity no longer meets the definition of "garage dragon" as it is used here.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 01:13 PM   #1916
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
And, Nonpareil, in that last post of yours about my alleged fallacies, I note with amusement your unprovoked belligerence, and your imputing all kinds of motivations on to me, when I am clearly asking you to spell out why and how the fallacy.

But I also note that you did not, like I requested, provide the definition of those fallacies, and then show how what I said agrees with those. Would you do that, please?

You are under no compulsion, of course. That was just a request. If you don't do this, then, after I get back to my office, I'll myself post those definitions, and describe, by referencing my own earlier post, why I think you're wrong.

But I think it will be easier, and take less time, if you did as I requested. Provided you want to engage with this at all, that is. Would you?
Chanakya 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 17th November 2018, 01:18 PM   #1917
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Joe, have you read Carl Sagan's own words, that I quoted, about the whole point of the Dragon thought-experiment?
Yes. I've read it. I've read the whole book.

I'm not going down another sub-argument rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That image, Joe, as it appears on my phone, I didn't quite get the point of it. Would you explain?
It means exactly what it shows. That I'm not jumping through hoops.

Listen I've entertained this debate this far and I will continue to entertain as long as anyone else wants to, but the one thing I will not tolerate is faux-obtuseness.

Quote:
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but perhaps you're crowing because Nonpareil seems to have found fallacies in my post, something like that?
Yes and me, Nonpareil, and several others have spelled out why we think you are making fallacies arguments to any reasonable degree of clarity.

You are not obligated to agree with us, but do not sit there and pretend like we have spelled out our arguments. Do not presume to ask for them to be spoon fed to you again as a stalling tactic.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not? Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?
No this is a stall and a hijack. We used Sagan's metaphor as a visual aid, it is not an invention for you to hijack the discussion into yet another sub-argument.

You're newish here so I'll spell this out for you once. Many people are very, very good at recognizing stalling tactics, least of all in a discussion which is nothing but "Okay you've argued me into a corner, let me hair split it into two more corners I'm now going to make you argue me into" over and over is the whole thing we're arguing against.

And this point this argument is turning into "I now demand a step by step dissection of why exactly you think I'm being too pedantic and picky" which I think is rapidly starting to prove my point.

Originally Posted by Steve View Post
It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement with Hawking. His position is that there is no room for any actions by a god within the workings of the known universe. Those who continue to disagree are reduced to "but maybe outside of the universe...." which has no relevance to the op.
It's rapidly getting amazing how many discussion are turning into basically arguing one side into an inescapable corner within a page or two and then spending 500 pages explaining to them why they can't just go :

"Sure we could figure things out and learn more and more about how the universe operates... but what if the universe really runs on random dream logic with no cause and effect?"

"Sure these scientist are discovering more and more about how the universe operates... but that only under the assumption that reality is real."

"Sure these scientist are able to make more and more accurate predictions based on centuries of accumulated knowledge... but what if God makes things happen differently with magic when we aren't looking?"
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 17th November 2018 at 01:29 PM.
JoeMorgue 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 17th November 2018, 01:24 PM   #1918
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
And, Nonpareil, in that last post of yours about my alleged fallacies, I note with amusement your unprovoked belligerence, and your imputing all kinds of motivations on to me, when I am clearly asking you to spell out why and how the fallacy.
I am not being belligerent. Again, I am being blunt. If you cannot tell the difference, you are going to have trouble here.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But I also note that you did not, like I requested, provide the definition of those fallacies, and then show how what I said agrees with those. Would you do that, please?
No.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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 17th November 2018, 01:34 PM   #1919
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
I am not being belligerent. Again, I am being blunt. If you cannot tell the difference, you are going to have trouble here.



No.
I don't think he or she is arguing that deities are more likely to exist or be true because of their popularity, but rather just that skeptics "should" take care to have a detailed response to claims of them, since amajority of the population believes in them, if we wish to engage in persuasive communication with believers.

Re: philosophical, ontological, non-theistic "god ideas" and other forms of alleged "hair splitting", I think that's close to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 17th November 2018, 01:37 PM   #1920
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I don't think he or she is arguing that deities are more likely to exist or be true because of their popularity, but rather just that skeptics "should" take care to have a detailed response to claims of them, since amajority of the population believes in them, if we wish to engage in persuasive communication with believers.
I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the underlying logic so that we have to have "more" of a justification in order to dismiss the idea. It's a complaint about rhetoric rather than logic, but Chanakya seems to conflate the two.

Gods don't get special consideration in logic no matter how many people believe in them, or how important it is to those believers.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil 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
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 10:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.